Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16705 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Dec 31, 2008 9:05 pm) 1)If this was a UAW worker, they could take a coffee-break until more lugnuts were available. 2)In a LEAN company, this worker would be trained and expected to find somthing else to do which is productive. (Grab a mop, grease somthing, shovel snow...whatever needs to be done) Case 2, how naive! Do you really think that a UAW worker would break their STUPID work rules to do something different? Perhaps it is too taxing to train the lug nut guy to sweep or grease something. It might endanger the worker, their needs to be an EXPERT greaser who won't hurt himself with that grease gun! The lug nut guy should take a coffee break! |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 31, 2008 11:25 pm) Thank MNF |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 31, 2008 7:19 am) I try to gather the news from the two extremes of Fox and CNN, throw in some CNBC and C-Span and make a decision based on that and other sources that may come along, such as your's and other's links. Keeping in mind that Bush was addressing the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD). Of course he was going to say what they wanted to hear. Politicians do that. It buys votes. http://www.hud.gov/news/speeches/presremarks.cfm If he was addressing a UAW meeting, I suspect he would have talked about the glory of organized labor, even though they typically endorse democrats. Politicians do that. It buys votes. I agree that his intentions were well meaning. Some of his reasoning was good. But I would like to believe that he expected the monies to help with the down payments to folks that could actually pay back the loans. It doesn't take away from the fact that this home ownership thing was started by Jimmy Carter, accelerated by Clinton, and during his first and second term Bush was concerned that the lending practices were overwhelming the system. I agree that de regulation open too many doors. Banks were free to make loans to anybody with a pulse, because they could sell those loans to Freddie or Fannie if or when they didn't work out. I don't remember his name, but the head of either Freddie or Fannie admitted at a Senate or House hearing ( is that vague enough) that he got additional compensation for the amount of the loans they accumulated. He also reluctantly admitted that he was on the board that arrived at his compensation. There is plenty of blame to go around. I repeat: Obama needs to understand the whole picture and not blame the Bush administration for all the problems. Even though Bush recognized the problem, he accomplished nothing to fix it. So there is a lot of blame there. Unless he may have tried but congress wouldn't go along. That we will likely never know.  Different subject addressed to another poster : The landslide loss of congressional seats by the dems in the mid 90 had a lot to do with the 1994 Gun Control (10 year ban) passed by congress just prior to the election. Everyone that belonged to the NRA, or any other gun friendly group, received mail naming names of the Congress and Senate members that had voted for the Ban. There were enough pissed off gun owners that swung the outcome vote to the republicans. In 2004, when the Ban was due to "Sun Set", Bush told congress that if they voted to continue it, he would sign it into law. They apparently decided to let it sunset.  Kip
|
|
|
History does have a habit of repeating itself. "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero - 55 BC" "Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter Administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Bottom line . . we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember. Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. HEY, PRETTY EFFICIENT, HUH? AND NOW IT'S 2008, 31 YEARS LATER, AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY 'WHAT WAS I THINKING?' Ah yes, good ole bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the Banking system over to them? God Help us."
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jan 01, 2009 6:10 am) |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 01, 2009 6:26 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Jan 01, 2009 6:10 am) Probably all union jobs paying top dollar. My question is how many spend their day surfing the web, with nothing else to do. Where were these 116,000 people we are paying $24 billion per year when oil prices shot through the roof? Did they spend any time investigating Soros and his hedge funds that were involved in much of the oil speculation. Or is that some other union agency that investigates currency and commodity speculation. Sadly we have all the ingredients in this new administration and Congress to expand the Federal government by a very large number. How many new agencies will it take to over see the spending of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.... |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 01, 2009 12:09 am) To compete is one thing. The legacy is a burden on the big three, which is beyond anything the competition has. Its been my experience that assets would have to be sold off, and more than likely have been sold off. Does GM own EDS any longer? Then in the end the trustee would have to go along with dumping the entire liquidation onto the taxpayers. You also have to be aware they would assure 100% of those on a pension and 50% to 75% of others whom are vested but yet not retired. I don't see this any different that LTV steel conglomerate. My question would be if that would effect the profitable GM overseas? Would they be burdened by the legacy? Would they be allowed to sell, lets say each plant as a stand alone and or each division, parts without the legacy tied to those parts? Then we would be fools not to ignore any medical benefits they don't honor would increase the social services costs to taxpayers. Further evidence suggests: But puzzlement is giving way to concern, as the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp has warned that Delphi is some $3.5b in the hole on its pension obligations. And no wonder, considering GM saddled it with pension obligations from several closed and sold factories as a spin-off goodbye present in 1999, a move pension experts call "legal." As in there ought to be a law against it. Meanwhile, hundreds of the non-Delphi retirees have received letters from the supplier saying their pensions are at risk, thanks to Delphi's bankruptcy. Delphi is supposed to transfer $1.5b in (hourly retiree) obligations back to moneybags GM, but mysteriously that hasn't happened yet, prompting the PBGC's concern with the situation. Though Delphi's bosses swear up and down that they're committed to honoring pension obligations, if the transfer doesn't happen by September 30 when new PBGC rules go into effect, Delphi will likely find itself in pension default. Which means hundreds of workers who never even worked for Delphi would be at the mercy of the PBGC. And those same new rules mean the PBGC will likely not honor most planned payment step-ups and early retirement benefits. "I don't want a handout," says one retiree. "I want General Motors to pay my pensions like they told me they were going to do." then there is Pension plans in America no longer represent commitments that financially troubled companies will honor. Neither bankruptcy courts, nor Washington, nor unions have the clout to make them do so. The disposition of these plans is instead left to serve the needs of big investors. Often these investors are a failing company’s best hope of restructuring after bankruptcy. Investors want a lean investment unburdened with financial promises to employees no longer on the payroll. Despite laws passed to discourage the termination of plans, the courts allow it, caving in to the forces garnered to reinvigorate a failing company. Unions are often compelled to choose between the financial welfare of retirees and jobs for active workers. Pension Dumping explains in shocking detail how terminating the pension plan became a knee-jerk strategy for bankrupt companies that hope to attract big investors to help them reorganize. Hawthorne traces the dynamics and the players involved as a pension is targeted for termination: the bankruptcy court and the hierarchy of power that dictates whose interests will prevail the choices forced on unions the burden placed on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation the risks investors take and the returns they look for the companies’ efforts to salvage what they can as they restructure, as well as the backlash they risk by breaking pension promises more fear mongering The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. steps in to take over failed pension plans. After studying updated pension information for the auto makers in recent weeks, the agency has grown increasingly concerned that it might have to cover billions of dollars in pensions if one or more of the car companies should file for bankruptcy-court protection. The agency's letters were sent as the auto makers scramble to assemble blueprints for congressional leaders demanding viable business plans in exchange for a $25 billion bailout. Generally, the auto companies have positioned themselves as well-prepared to continue paying pensions for several years to come. When GM last gave a year-end update on its pension funds, the funds covered more than 400,000 retirees and were overfunded by $18.8 billion. But earlier this month, GM said its plan for hourly workers was underfunded by $500 million because of restructuring expenses. Its plan for salaried employees remains overfunded by at least $500 million. The PBGC, which insures the retirement savings of almost 44 million Americans, ended last year with a $14 billion deficit. That shortfall narrowed to about $11 billion as of late September. Were GM to place its pension burden on PBGC, it would more than double the agency's current shortfall. —Matthew Dolan contributed to this article
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Dec 31, 2008 9:05 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 31, 2008 11:25 pm) Quality problems have been creeping up at Toyota... Who learned what from whom? The golf course is gaining traction - Carpocalypse Now (Jalopnik). Note the snide comment - "they teach leadership courses there." The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, is trying to blame the UAW for all of Detroit's woes, including CAFE, shareholders getting wiped out, debt holders getting a haircut, Daimler's dumping of Chrysler and if you look close enough, the War of 1812 is probably buried in there somewhere too. link. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
