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)
16701 messages, Last post on Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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) 
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Jan 05, 2009 5:04 pm) so if the GM employee has a contractual or legal obligation to pay someone else and GM gets a loan from the government-- the taxpayer oversight obligation or right to impose conditions attaches to anyone in this second or third level of the disbursement chain. If the GM employee owes local property taxes, state income taxes, has a mortgage obligation, a credit card obligation, etc--oversight of that creditor also attaches through the original loan to the employer. where is this taking us?? i think we are back to case closed! if i understand your argument it was wrong, or a political mistake anyway, for the uaw to sit at the table with the big three employers supporting the employers' loans requests. if UAW president gettlefinger had stayed home, you would now say it's perfectly ok with you for the uaw to continue its 40 year history of maintaining the uaw black lake education center for use by its own members--but since he supported the loan request--the taxpayers have a right to tell the uaw to close the center.. have i got that right?. you haven't argued it -but i assume you agree that it is uaw wages and benefits that brought about this bridge loan request from the big 3 employers. that seems to be the common refrain from the right and from the southern republicans. the fact that most observers say the problem is the credit crunch and the near depression we are in and that since at least 2006 the uaw has been negotiating major contract concessions with the BIg three is a fact that is just ignored. another little factoid that does not register anywhere is that almost every other country is similarly making bridge loans to their domestic auto industries. moreover none of these other loans were conditioned on the hourly workers jumping on the bangladesh wage and benefits express --only the good old usa. add to this the fact that hourly labor costs are about 10% of product cost. wall street, aig, lehman brother, bear stearns etc --where the taxpayers simply spent or gave the money reportedly have about a 60% employment cost factor. do you see any web blogs or fox news specials or rush/hannity rants on the need to condition these bequests to having wall street brokers and insurance executives also getting on the bangladesh train?. indeed some would even suggest that these six and seven figure white collar types have a greater responsibility for their current situation that the guy installing the transmission on you cadillac. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 5:46 pm) Yep, got it in one. i assume you agree that it is uaw wages and benefits that brought about this bridge loan request from the big 3 employers. No, that is the result of management being consistently stupid for several decades in a row. The UAW is at fault only so far as agreeing to the absurd promises management made over the years, and leaving the long-term prospects of the membership in the clumsy hands of that management.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 5:46 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 4:23 pm) That is what most Americans believe according to surveys. Explain the UAW motives this Summer when they went on strike against GM for no real good reason. Where do you propose that GM will get the money to keep funding health care. While I put the major blame on the Management of GM for their sheer stupidity signing onto such an agreement. The UAW needs to give a little also. The concessions so far are pathetic and mostly aimed at the new workers. What did a 20 year member lose over the last 10 years on any contract? It is probably all a moot point for me. As far as I am concerned the 2005 GMC PU I bought that was UAW built will be my last. It was the 5th GM truck since 1988. The rest built in Canada and Mexico were better built. Much of my dislike for the UAW is based on the poor build quality of that last truck. I believe that UAW workers are over paid for the skill level they displayed in building my PU truck. If you think that Socialized Medicine is so great, you need to move across the border and let US know what you think of the Canadian plan. Most people I talk to from there think it is very poor. I would rather continue to pay my own supplemental at Kaiser, thank you very much. 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). Don't blame the consumer. It was the UAW that agreed to that stupid plan along with GM. What happens when it is 4-1 or 5-1? Then it will be $100 or more per hour. Though I think GM will be history long before that happens.
|
|
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
