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)
16663 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 9:32 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
lotsa stuff for me to respond to. yes the transplants have done well. they are non-union thanks to our labor laws which make it extremely difficult to organize workers. (The passage of EFCA should help there; interesting that every transplant has unionized workers in their home countires but choses to adopt the anti-union legacy here) thus their benefit costs have been lower (supplement unemployment, health care, defined benefit plans (pension) legal services, etc) transplants also don't have the enormous legacy costs for past retirees (almost 500,000 at GM alone) that are going to be transferred to the VEBAS. plus they received rather hefty state taxpayer subsidies to locate where they did. again let's not forget that labor costs are about 10% of the product. yes the domestic auto industry also made some bad decisions but they are doing better. let's also not forget that while the uaw has a say in terms and conditions of employment they have no say in certain management perogatives. walter reuther asked the big 3 to make a small car in the 50's. he was told in no uncertain terms that he had crossed the line and had better shape up. now i guess you could argue that the uaw should have (given up) bargained away the difference in benefit costs before now. easier said than done - particularly now. lets not forget that the uaw constitution (not any law), says the membership must ratify its contracts. Plus let's not forget that most of these benefits were negotiated during periods when the auto industry was doing quite well. why or how does the uaw say we will reduce benefits to the level of transplants while the employers are paying the salaried employees and managers rather well and making handsome profits. ok someone also suggested that when the choice is bankruptcy, why not negotiate away vested benefits (lifetime health care for past retirees). good point! indeed most employers would like to have the ability to bargain about past retirees -hell their gone, can't strike, don't vote for union leadership or ratify contracts piss on the old farts, times are tough indeed that was the big 3 did to their salaried retirees. also think of the temptations at the bargaining table--you want a wage increase for active employes and voting members, how about trading that for reduced retiree benefits? the retirees can't do anything about it let me assure you that such propositions has been put on the bargaining table. but the uaw has a proud history and culture. retirees are special --very special. yes bankruptcy kills everything and could be worse-but even making a proposal to negotiate away a vested retirement benefit (that was promised to someone after working for 30 years in a factory) would enrage and insult any uaw negotiating committee. if you don't understand the difference between negotiating it away and losing it in bankruptcy--the only analogy i can give you is that of choosing between surrender and being run over by a tank. there are some things you just have to do--bring on you tank. i still can't seem to reach some people that how the uaw spends its dues money (43 year old black lake education center) is an internal matter not really fairly before the federal government or the taxpayers. yes in congressional hearings, the uaw supported the big 3 requests for bridge loans to keep the plants open. these loan checks or wire transfers were reportedly made out to GM and Chrysler. the uaw has not received any money directly from the us treasury. ok the big three gets the loan money and start paying creditors,; employees are creditors in that sense-so at the second level, workers benefit from the loans, ok the workers who are uaw members pay dues of 2 hours pay per month to the UAW - so at the thrid level the uaw benefits from the loans, so the uaw gets the dues money and spends some of it to maintain the black lake education center which has been used almost exclusively by uaw members for 40 years. we now have traced the loan through four distinct levels of transfer. IF the loaning entity, the government (or the taxpayers) have the right to question the appropriateness of the expendiiture through 4 levels of disbursement-----then look out. where do we draw the line--fifth level, sixth level. we now have a new form of GENERAL government supervision of all economic decision making called big big brother personified. if however ron gettlfinger had spoken up in the congressional hearing and said --the uaw needs help too, we are an integral part of this industry and we have lost two thirds of our membership. we have trouble making payroll and paying expenses--could we have a couple of million dollars loaned to us by the taxpayers so we can continue to service our members and administer the contractrs and participate in the needed restructuring of the auto industry. if he had made that request and if our republican senators would have said sure--we have always believed that workers are entitled to a voice in their affairs and theat union are partners in the economy---how many million would you like? or if president bush had told treasury to call up the uaw and ask them how much they would like (by the way i assume you all know that the UAW was stonewalled (not invited) to loan discussions with the big 3 and treasury.) had this occured --then by all means --jump in-- tell the uaw that the black lake center is too lavish to maintain (dig up walter reuther reuther's ashes and dump the center), that the golf course should be sold first at whatever price you can get. but gettelfinger didn't ask for any money for the uaw and neither bush nor the southern repukes offered to give a dime directly to the uaw. case closed!!! so i say again--if the uaw wants to spend its membership dues on education and recreational activities for its members and as long as such expenditures are not illegal--it is none of the government's business and indeed none of the taxpayers' business. if uaw finances get desperate enough, something will have to be done at the black lake center--but that is for the uaw and something called the "unfree market forces" to decide.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 04, 2009 9:48 pm) the international is the parent part of the UAW-- headquartered at solidarity house in detroit--it has responsibility for all uaw membership (there's one canadian local- since the CAW divorce--so that;s why its still an "international union). the uaw holds convention every three years to elect officers and set policy (like financing the uaw black lake education center from interest on the strike fund) the uaw has a well deserved reputation for being a clean, democratic union. any member can appeal almost any union decision to an outside Public Review Board composed of non-uaw professors and clergy. Uaw salaries for staff are not lavish. I am not aware that any union officer in its 75 year history has ever been indicted let alone convicted of corruption , fraud or self dealing. delegates to the uaw conventions are elected by uaw members at the local union level.l The locals are separate legal entities - usually connected to a single facility--thus local xyz may be located across the street from a big 3 dallas car plant. labor agreements are negotiated jointly by the international officers and staff and the involved local or if it is a mulitplant contract-- locals. negotiated contracts must be ratified by the membership
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 11:28 am) There is no meaningful difference between "give me money" and "give them money so they can give it to me".
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 11:28 am) Again that shows how ignorant UAW leadership is. I had worked nearly 20 years as a Teamster when the Pension Trust Board of Directors announced that they could no longer fund health care benefits for retirees. They had determined that it would bankrupt the fund at a future date and felt insuring our pension payments into the future was more beneficial than possible failure of the pension fund. I can see from your willingness to bankrupt the system that ideals are more important than fiscal responsibility. At the time the Teamsters dropped retiree health care coverage they also raised the retirement age from 45 to 57. Promises that are open ended are many times hard to keep. When GM goes bankrupt you all are going to wish you had not killed the golden goose. Some people are just hard to reason with. Why do you feel that the Republicans should be pro UAW? Name me a time the UAW did not support the Democrat no matter how horrible he or she happened to be? Republicans believe healthy businesses are good for the country. Democrats are the elitist controlled by the ultra rich.
|
|
|
The transplants do have an advantage . . . they built all their plants far from big U.S. cities and the problems that some feel . . . go with it. None of the plants are in the north near big cities. There are all in right to work states ,weather you like the UAW or not is not the issue they don't want a union so they needed that extra thing ( right to work state ) in their favor. Most of the GOP senators and congress people that did not want to help the U.S. automakers where from . . . guess where . . . the states that have transplant factories. Transplants health care cost are lower ,yes they are under the same health plan more or less as U.S. car companies but the transplants have a much younger work force and they use more temporary workers in their factories. I think most forgien cars on the road in U.S. are not from these transplant factories but still come from overseas. The Japanese are a very "protective society" that should allow American and European car companies to build cars there,I know one of you gave reasons why this is so but you must admit the Japanese are protective ,otherwise the Europeans and Americans would build cars there ,forget the cost of land in Japan and that it is a small market ,etc. Lets be fair Japan let other car companies make cars in Japan like your companies make worldwide. No strings attached. As I said Americans keep buying the Japanese cars and never care about these issues.
|
|
|
Replying to: okal (Jan 05, 2009 2:09 pm) There is no more money available from Washington... all of our unborn grandchildren have already been put on notice that they owe taxes for the EXISTING "bailouts". I like my diesel German automobile that gets 700 miles per tank of fuel. I would LOVE to be able to purchse a Dodge Dakota pickup truck with a small detroit-diesel engine. They build them in Brazil... why cant I buy one at my local Dodge dealer??? Because the UNION contracts will not allow it!! Let the big3 file for chapter11 and burn those union contracts. This is the ONLY long-term solution. Offer cars people want or close the doors.
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Jan 05, 2009 1:40 pm) ok the power companies, the local city and state, the auto parts suppliers --indeed probably have of the businesses in an auto town are creditors of the big 3. they get paid thru some of the loan proceeds. they in turn pay bills to their creditors and so on an so on. it almost like saying to the bar, party store, or even the golf course across the street from an auto plant. ok we are loaning some money to GM and the employees are going to spend it here.otherwise you will go out of business too. therefore the we the goverment get to tell you how to spend your income and how you should be running your business.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Oct 18, 2007 7:23 pm)
|
|
| I was just Laid off from a contract company ( gm ) that provides technical assistance to dealers. None of my friends even believe that people are laid off / or fired for medical costs, opinions, bathroom breaks, 20 or 30 seconds too long at lunch, illness, accident, fmla, family death's but these are occurring under direct supervision of general motors. Interesting the employer expects 10 minutes a day and sacrificing lunch and for unpaid mandatory training. Big business must be regulated and middle class maintained in this country. If you can make widgets in this country please, do just because you can have children beaten in other countries and make them for 1/2 dont make things any better. I'm not interested in being paid 2.00 per hour just to maintain a global correct pay scale. | |
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 05, 2009 2:07 pm) under a defined contribution plan--the way the world is going now-- the understanding is that the employer contributes a fixed amount per hour worked by the employee and the trustees then do the best they can with that. even the retirees are supposed to know that. if investment incomes soars or health care costs go down--hell their benefits could increase!! those employers and unions accepted that risk and should have explained it to their employees/members. sometimes when the trust funds shrink because wall streets investments go sour or health care costs continue to rise at 20% a year under our stupid health care system (33% of you health care dollars go to insurance companies which generate forms, denials and paper rather than health care). the UAW and the big 3 went a different direction. The UAW wanted to be able to tell its retirees"ok work 30-35 years and here's what you get":: thus under a defined benefit pension plan however, the employer says when you retiree you will get X dollars per month and we will start putting in annual contributions which an actuary tells us should be sufficient with trust fund earnings to pay that amount. these plans are rapidly disappearing and our kids are being told that a 401(k) will provide them with money in their retirement. look out kids--there's not single 401(k) intact in the south after katrina since these funds are really savings plans that can be drawn in the event of a financial emergency. you think things are tough now, wait one more generation and see if you can find an adult able to retire on a pension or an adequate 401(k). but i digress: on health care, the Big 3 promised (under contract) "when you retire you will get x level of health care benefits. Gm choose not to state a term so the law would probably imply the term is for your status as a retiree - life. now when GM made this promise health care costs where rather cheap and they anticipated that no country in its right mind would ever let health care costs spiral so out of control that we pay almost 14% of our total GNP for it.(the rest of the worlds national health care system provide better health care outcomes for all citizens at less than half that) How did GM not understand that people of average intelligence could fall for the "socialized medicine" lie? So GM also choose not to fund its contractual promise for retiree health over the working life of that worker but to defer costs to pay as you go status when that worker retired. Fine if you are making money and the workforce is expanding and the health care costs are somewhat stable. GM chose that risk and also strangely lobbied against national health care in line with corporate america's desire for national health care system based almost entirely on employer fiat. in any event, a worker who started at GM in 1970 and retired in 2005, had a contractual promise for lifetime health benefits- but not backed by either an independent trust fund or a taft hartley trust fund. GM then has to pay for past retirement health care out of current earnings --thus we come up with the crazy number of $70 dollars per hour for a current hourly GM employee. (the ratio of retirees to active workers is about 3-1). The UAW is not trying to bankrupt GM - how does that benefit either its retirees, its working members or its very existence as a union? But if your proposal is to ask the UAW to agree to terminate health care for retirees who were promised those benefits throughout their working lives, I hope the UAW continues to say no!. bring on the tank!
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
