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: dieselone (Jan 06, 2009 7:54 am) My question is would be, if the UAW members were asked to pay 50% of their income in taxes as is the case in Canada would they be so gungho for government sponsored health care? As you have pointed out. IT IS NOT FREE except for those that are on welfare and not contributing to the country. The high paid UAW workers would be some of the hardest hit in any kind of redistribution of wealth, as proposed by our new President. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jan 06, 2009 4:29 am) On health, 47 million Americans have no health insurance Another 25 million are underinsured. (PBS) In UAW news (you know - the topic in here), GM starts seeking concessions from UAW, bondholders (Motor Authority) Up to 31,000 jobs will go, reduce wages to levels competitive with non-union foreign carmakers by 2009, and require the UAW to accept stock in the place of half the cash payments made to its health care trust fund by 2010 are among the concessions sought. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jan 06, 2009 4:29 am) Don't get me wrong - I would not care at all if those guys are slim or fat, lazy or most dedicated, if they made product that I want at price I can accept without coercion from the government or union mob. But if you think it's appropriate to coerce me into "supporting" them, I take a closer look at what I would be supporting, and I say, thanks, but no thanks. Just as an example, if somebody thinks it was an acceptable behavior to vandalize somebody else's property just because they didn't like that choice, I would rather have my hand severed than give them a penny of my money. I would rather my money go to Mexico, Germany, Japan, or China, just for the principle.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 06, 2009 7:55 am) I know trying to change your open mind is probably a wast of time--am i am about ready to quit trying to bother you with facts but in the faint hope that something sticks, here it goes. The public rate at the golf course is $95 ( uaw members get 20% off, and i as a uaw retiree get a 30% discount). that is a lot of money, but when my brothers and friends come up we sometimes play there since it is the best course within about 100 miles and probably one of the best in the entire state. i pay the discount but have to pick up my republican brother's full $95 rate. I have never seen these rates waived except for charity events or special fundraiser tournaments of which the center has many. ( i would be glad provide you with testimonial letters from these charities thanking the uaw golf club) if you do some web research on the black lake golf course you will find similar golf magazine opinions calling the course spectacular and the price as "well worth it". The UAW Black Lake Course advertizes golf packages heavily for public use and tries to attract the golfing elite over from the west side of the state (harbor springs, petoskey, traverse city) and south of here (gaylord) were most of the premier courses operate. these cities are big tourist meccas with lotsa republican high rollers. it is starting to work but the course only opened in 2000. northern michigan is a big resort area, heavily forested with hundreds of lakes. cheboygan county has more miles of waterfront land than any county in michigan. this is beautiful hemingway country but please don't spread it around. 3 of michigan's largest inland lakes(mullet, burt and black lake itself) are close by. mackinac island (big tourist mecca) is about 30 miles away. in short there are thousands of summer homes, cottages and visitors to the area and large numbers of retirees have settled here (after 5 feet of snow so far this year, some of us are having second thoughts) i suspect that the $95 public rate generates a modest "profit" for course operations and that the uaw wants to encourage even more full rate golf to break even. . i am told that most golf courses are losing money. things have been pretty bad in michigan for a couple years with high gas prices cutting down on vacation travel and the once again proven failure of trickle down economics. the big bucks in golf courses are in resale to developers or in developing homesites around the fairways. but there are no condos or homesites at the black lake golf course. i suppose the uaw could get rid of the "overpaid" local operating engineers who maintain the course and the club house attendants and restaurant employes and bring in some walmart level employees or foreign workers under temp visas. or the uaw could end the discounts for its cheap retirees and its "overpaid" members. see i know how to let the free market work too. i say all this because you apparently believe that there are no real "public golfers" up here but only lobbyists or uaw fatcats. How does the fact that 9000 black lake golfers didn't get the UAW discount lead you to conclude that they must all be lobbyists or uaw -corrupted politicians? are you beginning to see the absurdity of your attitude? the uaw doesn't manage any pension plans. to the best of my knowledge there were almost no taft hartley trust funds in the uaw system. almost all uaw pension funds are managed by independent bank trustees who make all the investment decisions without any input from the uaw. some of the right wing blogs have questioned an expense at the center listing a 5-6 million dollar contribution to a pension plan as a center expense. there are about 145 employees at the center. sometimes employers (here the uaw is an employer) decide to fund their pension plans at something other than ERISA minimum requirements. Indeed the law and common sense encourage (but do not require) that pension plans be fully funded (at full funding annual ERISA premiums used to pay the cost of PBGC insurance in the event of pension termination--are reduced). i do not know why the UAW used its members' dues money to fully fund the pension plans at its Black Lake Center--but i fail to see anything evil or sinister here. i'm sorry but i did worship walter reuther. think of all the great ones whose inspired purpose was to advance the cause of the little guy but whose lives were ended too soon. (mlk, the kennedys, reuther etc) there's a story about one of the right wing senator's questioning walter during the kefauver oversight hearings. like you this poor republican saw a report and made a wrong analysis more consistent with his firm opinion. you can look up the exact words in the congressional record but the senator said something like :' i see that one of our audits have discovered that the UAW spent almost half a million dollars on ammunition last year . i suppose your going to tell us that this is for self protection or recreational use but i don't thin your members dues money should be spent on ammunition and i'm sure the rest of america agree with me' reuther responded "ammuntion is the title of a booklet we publish every month that is sent to locals and members. it contains information, facts or "ammunition" to be used by local leadership to rebut the misrepresentations and half-truths put out by the right wing press and their friends in congress. I'm sure our next edition of "ammunition" will be used to recount this exchange and rebut your already written report on the 'findings' of uaw corruption you claim to have exposed.' the hearing room burst into applause and laughter! it is easy to get discouraged looking over these exchanges of entries from seemingly intelligent people who are like this republican senator have firm preconceived opinions and whose close minds don't wish to be cluttered with facts. i should stop wasting my time and just laugh.
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 7:57 pm) They laugh because they are ignorant of the fact that Americans, because they pay more, subsidize the research and development of new drugs. The profit margins aren't high enough in places like Canada to support this research and development. Regarding the success of the Canadian system in satisfying that nation's citizens - You apparently missed the court case launched in Quebec by disgruntled citizens who wanted the opportunity to purchase private insurance, which had been banned under the then-current Canadian system. Guess what - they won. The Canadian Supreme Court agreed with their position. Someone must have been dissatisfied with the care provided by the national Canadian system if they wanted the opportunity to purchase private insurance, and were willing to go to court to gain that opportunity. lumoy: yes canadians wait for elective surgery--but everyone has coverage and the overall quality of care--in terms of life expectancy, favorable medical outcomes, etc exceeds the usa by a wide margin. Life expectancy is driven by cultural factors, habits and genetics, not by whether the health care system has been nationalized. Note that the highest life expectancy is enjoyed by the citizens Andorra, a small nation in Europe with a homogenous population. It is followed by Japan, Macau, San Marino and Singapore. Considering how well Asian nations perform, I would suggest that, if you want to boost life expectancy, have large numbers of relatively wealthy Asians immigrate to your country, and make sure that they bring their dietary and exercise habits with them. The U.S. is also penalized because it has large numbers of immigrants from Mexico and Central America. I doubt that these people are immigrating to Canada in large numbers (given the distances involved). They pull down the aggregate expected life span within the U.S. Anecdotal evidence - when we visted the southwestern U.S. this summer, and Texas last year, both my wife and I were struck by how heavy many of the Native Americans and Hispanics were. This has to pull down life expectancy for the U.S. But our anecdotal experience is buttressed by a real statistic - adults in the United States have one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Nearly one-third of U.S. adults 20 years and older are obese, while about two-thirds are overweight. Seems the problem stems from less a lack of nationalized health care and more with too many trips to the all-you-can-eat buffet. The U.S. has the resources that allow people to get fat and lazy. We have the luxury of choosing a bad lifestyle as opposed to having one imposed on us by hard times. Eating too much, smoking, consuming too much alcohol and watching television instead of working hard are activities that cost money and can occur in an affluent nation (even though, paradoxically, the citizens WITHIN the U.S. who engage in these activities to the point that it hurts their health tend to be in the lower income brackets). Also note that the surivival rates for cancer diagnosis in the U.S. are the best in the world, which completely knocks out your claim that the medical outcomes in Canada exceed those in the U.S. by a "wide margin." lumoy: canada spend 7 % of their gnp on a better health care system which provides universal coverage we spend 14-16% of our GNP on an inferior patchwork system with high copays and gaps with 46 million americans (mostly children) falling not between the cracks --but into the chasm No, most children are covered by state-sponsored plans. Healthy adults in their 20s and 30s are less likely to have insurance. lumoy: but let's put this into perspective for this debate: the same care made in canada by the same company costs $1800 less to build because they have national health care. No doubt that is true when we compare the UAW's gold-plated plan to the Canadian nationalized plan. But let's compare benefits, too. I doubt that the Canadian plan is more generous. Let's compare what it costs to provide health care in Canada to the plans offered by the transplants in the U.S. THAT is a more relevant comparison. Incidentally, if nationalized health care is so great, why hasn't the UAW, which you apparently have represented at the bargaining table, offered to shift retired members over to the U.S.'s nationalized health care plan for the elderly - Medicare? It would save the auto companies a ton of money, and allow the UAW to put its money where its mouth is by taking advantage of a nationalized health care system - which, after all, it has advocated. But the UAW won't do this, because the benefits under Medicare aren't nearly as generous as those under the current company plan. Which is why the current company plan costs so much. This, of course, makes the UAW's call for nationalized health care more than a little disingenous. No national plan will provide the level of coverage provided by the current plan enjoyed by UAW members (nor do the socialized plans in other countries provide the level of benefits enjoyed by UAW members). lumoy: i win! Not among those of us who have actually studied this issue. 
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 6:39 am) not a single person has jumped on my offer. i don't understand--given the large numbers who share the view that the uaw should be forced to stop wasting its dues money on its members. Let's leave the red herrings in the water where they belong. Just because people question the need for an organization begging for a public bailout to maintain a rather lavish golf resort, does not mean that said people want to buy and run this golf course. Incidentally, you apparently haven't been paying too much attention to the national economy. Real estate - ESPECIALLY in Michigan - is declining in value, and likely to continue doing so for years. I doubt that this property is a good buy at even 50 percent of its taxable value. The demand for brand-new condos and other amenities on this property would probably be as strong as the demand for many of GM's brand new vehicles. In other words, we would have to be prepared to give them away... Fortunately, most of us understand finance and the likelihood of a venture's success better than GM management and the UAW (neither one has had a great track record lately), so we'll pass... |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 06, 2009 10:18 am) The uaw did support the Big 3 three employer's request for a bridge loan for GM, Chrysler and possibly Ford to keep their plants open and avoid a catastrophic bankruptcy. The UAW did not ask for any money from congress to maintain its own operations. yes the uaw benefits if the Big 3 stay alive--but so does about a 25% of the employers and communities in the country. is that the nexus for taxpayer control? should congress then have the right to impose conditions on any entity or community that benefits because these plants are staying open? why, why is this so hard to grasp? |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 1:12 pm) Not responding specifically to your golfcourse issue. But here's what I do grasp. I and many U.S. taxpayers do not want to be involved with the "Auto Family" finances. We DON'T want to be involved. We WISH you well, and HOPE you made good choices over the years. But what the execs, the suppliers, the UAW, GMAC ... have done and are doing is YOUR FAMILY business. Figure it out amongst yourselves instead of bringing your family issues out on the street. Figure out how to divide up your budget. The auto industry has so much coming in and needs to figure out how not to spend more. Everyone else is having to do the SAME in their family/house and company. I want the "Auto Family" to stop being children and act like adults. Stop begging for a bigger allowance. Help yourselves. Live within your means! Figure it out, and stop bothering the rest of us!! 
|
|
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
