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
|
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!
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 3:42 pm) The difference being that the GM employees are not contractually obligated to spend that money at the bar, party store, or golf course, nor did those businesses lobby Congress for their patrons to get free money.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 05, 2009 4:13 pm) 
|
|
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
