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: 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!! 
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 1:12 pm) 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. GM will survive even if it declares bankruptcy. A reborn GM, sized to serve about 12-15 percent of the market with two divisions - Chevrolet and Cadillac - and a competitive cost structure will survive and even thrive. The union, however, may not survive. Therefore, this bailout is designed to keep the union alive as a viable entity (and lots of the dealers, too - as GM would probably love to shed a fair amount of them in a bankruptcy proceeding) more than it is designed to save the companies themselves. What GM needs is a thorough restructuring - and that includes labor costs. Chrysler is too far gone at this point - it will likely be broken up, and the viable parts - Jeep, the minivans, the Dodge Ram - sold to another company. If GM declares bankruptcy, in the end, the UAW will most likely have to accept wages and benefits comparable to what workers at the transplant operations receive. Ford will then demand a similar wage package. Once this happens, UAW members may wonder just why they are paying those union dues, while workers in the transplant factories will have no desire to be represented by the UAW. The UAW will basically be toast. So, the union wants GM and Chrysler to receive this money because it likely cannot survive without a GM and Chrysler artificially propped up by the federal government. lumoy: yes the uaw benefits if the Big 3 stay alive--but so does about a 25% of the employers and communities in the country. Please - 25 percent of the employers and communities in this country do not depend on GM, Ford and Chrysler. Someone has been reading too much union propaganda. Toyota is currently taking steps to ensure the stability of key suppliers, even if GM files for bankruptcy. So it's not as though the entire supplier base will collapse if GM files for bankruptcy. Of course, Toyota won't do anything to help the UAW, which is the real problem here.
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 1:12 pm) Now back to D3. They say "give us money". Our taxpayer money custodians (Congress) ask what for and show me how and when you're going to repay it. D3 mumbles something about selling their jets and selling fuel efficient cars. Numbers don't add up. THEN we come to to conclusion - OK let's see what else you can do to pay us back. Ahhhhh, labor cost - just like the lifestyle adjustments you'd need to make to get that mortgage. It was D3 who opened that door. They wanted the money and UAW supported the request. Once you want the money, the grantor can and actually has the duty keep asking what for and what are the guarantees. It's their due diligence to go as deep as necessary. It may hurt your feelings to hear UAW is too costly. It might not even be true (I think it is), but it was D3 who asked me Mr. Taxpayer for the money, so now they will get earful of inquiries/complaints/suggestions from custodians of my money - and I fully expect those custodians to do their job, just as a loan officer would be expected to do theirs. Why is THAT so hard to grasp? |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 9:17 am) According to Laborpains.org: The difference between the UAW’s LM-2 and the Tax Tribunal filings amount to more than $21 million dollars, which would translate to around $770,000 in property taxes the UAW isn’t paying to Waverly Township each year, if you accept their LM-2 appraisal (the township’s treasurer advised me that the rate is around 3.6%). That's quite a difference. It should be remembered that these taxes are used for local schools and the like, so the UAW doesn't appear to be a very good neighbor in Cheboygan County, does it? But, according to Chet Zarko of Zarko Research and Consulting there is even more hanky panky at the resort than a mere evasion of local property taxes. It seems that there is a very large discrepancy in the reported costs of employee wages and the pension funding at the education center connected with the golf resort project. It's that the pension fund expenses appear to be really out-of-line with overall wages. So far out of line that you have to wonder exactly who is doing the work to get pension fund contributions. There's a key piece of context here - the $5.91 million in pension fund contributions compares $3.25 million in wages. Normally, you'd expect the wages to be much higher than the pension contribution - 10 times or perhaps as little as 5-6 times. But not the other direction. And of the 3.25 million, 2.6 million is "general labor" - there is no way the room custodians and general labor are getting that gold-plated of a pension deal. The other half million is "administrative" wages - but even the hotel administrators are unlikely to be able to get away with such a self-dealing (unless they are something more than that to the union leadership). So how does the UAW justify this "out-of-line" accounting with the educational center pension funds? Where and to whom is all this benefit money going, anyway? It appears that there is a lot of shaky record keeping and shadowy operations connected with this Black Hills luxury golf club owned by the UAW. And, again, all the money tied up in this property is the money taken from the pockets of the hard working rank-and-file members of the American auto industry, the same industry in such dire straights this year. http://www.thenextright.com/warner-todd-huston/uaw-floating-phantom-employees-an- d-avoiding-property-taxes-at-luxury-golf-course
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 06, 2009 10:06 am) here' s some stuff i grabbed from wikipedia to re-respond and rebut to your points: According to a Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health for 2002–2003, undertaken by Statistics Canada and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 87% of Canadians are somewhat or very satisfied with their overall healthcare services. Indeed, overall, the quality of life in Canada is excellent. Canadian cities surveyed all ranked within the top 20 in Mercer Human Resource Consulting's 2004 overall quality of life survey. Mercer's survey looked at 39 criteria, including social, political, economic, environmental, and health factors. The evaluation of "health" was based on factors such as personal safety, as well as the quality and availability of hospital and medical care, and medical supplies. Nonetheless, disparities exist in terms of the regional quality of care in Canada. Canada's rural and remote northern communities do not have the same level and quality of healthcare as do its southern cities. And throughout Canada, concerns regarding the level of government funding and the quality of healthcare services have led to a public debate on the healthcare system as a whole. Government and private health and public policy analysts have compared the health care systems of Canada and the United States.[1][2][3][4] The U.S. spends much more on health care than Canada, both on a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5]In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678.[5] The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, almost 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 44.7% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).[6] Studies have come to different conclusions about the result of this disparity in spending. A 2007 review of all studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the US in a Canadian peer-reviewed medical journal found that "health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."[7] Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., but there is debate about the underlying causes of these differences. One commonly cited comparison, the World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", published in 2000, which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations.. The average life expectancy for Canada was rated 12th at 72.0 years compared with 24th for the U.S. at 70.0 years.[ the comparative health care issue is really a big side track to my principal point (the uaw should not have to sell its black lake center because it supported the big 3 requests for bridge loans). i started down that road simply to point our how our obsolete health care system has put domestic mfgrs at a comparative disadvantage to foreign mfrs--using the now well documented fact that a same car built in windsor ontario car costs $1800 more to build than the same car built across the river in michigan by the same company--thanks to the difference in health care costs. the health care debate is really over, the current system with 12-20% increases in cost per year cannot be maintained corporate america has finally seen the light. there is going to be a major change-the only question is how much the insurance carriers, drug companies, and doctors can get away with. but this is really a different matter than the auto industry bridge loans. much of the public or at least most on this blog seems to think the current bridge loan issue is related not to the worldwide credit crunch which has forced almost every country to make similar loans to their auto industries but to the uaw. of course they have no explanation for why canada, japan and the european countries are making similar loans with no pre-conditions imposed on the workers. i have also tried to point out the apparent hypocisy in not attaching simlar conditions to employees of wall street, bear stearns, aig, fannie mae, etc for their much much larger grants of taxpayer money. no one has even responded to that point yet. but since i live up here i just blew my stack when fox noise and others said the uaw should sell its "posh, lavish" golf resort for uaw bigwigs at black lake. this is a strange county. we have no apparent problem with the fact that the top 1% have upwards of 50% of the country's national wealth and at least since 1980 that the top 5% should get tax breaks in hope that it would trickle down to the rest of us. yet let a factory rat making $28-30 an hour having access with is family to a summer retreat and family education center with a golf course paid their own dues--and the right wing goes nuts. i have for example tried to point out that the uaw is not asking the federal government to bail out its operations and help the uaw's poor financial health but no one seems to understand the distinction. the uaw benefits from the loan--along with 25% of the country--so the taxpayers should have the right to impose conditions on what the uaw should do with its dues money. even my suggestion that the alternative to the uaw black lake center could be more strike authorizations or more newly hired organizers doesn't seem help them understand their conceptual quamire.. i have come to the conclusion that most people don't want to have their pre-conceived opinions cluttered by facts. i have pointed out that the uaw black lake family education center has been around for 40 years to provide education/training/recreation to members and families. it is rustic but not lavish. it has been an asset to the community and the membership --and most important of all -- that it is up to the membership and not the taxpayers as to whether to keep it. i had hoped that just one person would acknowledge that their concern that taxpayer funds were being used to provide a posh resort for uaw executives had been cleared up and that the right wing blogs and fox noise were wrong and evil for this disinformation campaign. my favorite was the blog that announced the uaw big shots were celebrating the bridge loan grants at their plush black lake resort over the holidays. (we have had 5 feet of snow, it was -5 on new year's and the center has been closed, as usual, for the winter) i have put out dozens of messages, thousands of words and hundreds of facts about the center and the uaw
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 05, 2009 7:33 pm) the B3 asked for the money to hopefully get through their low sales/liquidity problems until the vehicle market picks up. |
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 06, 2009 1:59 pm) Great post. You've nailed my views perfectly. I'm not anti-union or anti-D3 - just anti-bailout. |
|
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
