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)
16660 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 6:10 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 7:56 am) I am finally beginning to understand that YOU do not believe in personal responsibility for yourself or others. That you believe you are entitled to be taken care of from the time you were born until you are buried. We are just diametrically opposed in our philosophy of what America is and what our Constitution guarantees. I am a firm believer in you do not work, if you are able, you do not eat. As far as GM and that stupid health care clause you are living under. If there is NO money you are on your own. It is not the responsibility of the rest of US tax payers to guarantee your gold plated health care plan for life. In fact I would love for you to be under the Canadian plan. My cousins moved from Toronto and live now in Branson. They were so happy when they became US citizens. They were not getting good health care for my nearly blind cousin in Canada. The are now under her husband's plan he has working in Branson. She is finally getting the laser eye surgery she has needed for years. So you know where you can put the Canadian Health care plan. I don't want any part of it. Just as you believe I am following the dictates of the Conservative Right. I believe you are following the message of the Socialist left. So we will probably never see things on the same level. I think Putin has ideas to get his regime going again. Maybe you can sign up.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: manegi (Jan 05, 2009 9:59 pm) if i remember correctly the total market is 3.4 million and dropping annually.
|
|
|
Replying to: dieselone (Jan 06, 2009 7:58 am) I see your comment went right over the heads of many here. It was a good speech and had lots of good advice for tough times. What I am seeing with the UAW is a big let down for many slightly skilled workers. When a forklift operator makes $118k per year and loses his job, that is going to be a reality check. No company in their right mind is going to pay a fork lift operator that kind of money. The individual had a base pay of $87k per year. That is so far above the average in this country that it should have never happened. But GM and their buddy, buddy contracts with the UAW did exactly that. I know people at district level at HP that do not make $118k per year. And they work 60-80 hours per week with NO OT. Just part of the salary. They have 100s of employees under their supervision.
|
|
|
Replying to: dino001 (Jan 06, 2009 2:15 pm) i agree with you: i said much earlier in this long list of exchanges that the taxpayers and congress have an absolute right to ask how is this going to be repaid and to ask the uaw in particular what are you doing to help restructure the industry in the long term. i have detailed what the uaw has been doing to restructure the industry in many prior exchanges which you may not have read. the 2007 contracts which already provided for new hires at $14-15 an hour with greatly reduced benefits and the huge legacy costs to be transferred to UAW Vebas are being re-opened and renegotiated as we speak. the job banks are gone! my quarrel has been with those who accept fox noise broadcasts that the loan money is being used to finance a plush uaw resort for uaw big shots. it is not. i have tried to argue that this is a membership education facilty for uaw members and families finaced by interest from the uaw strike fund. i have tried to argue that public demands that the uaw sell the center are not the public's business. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 06, 2009 2:41 pm) For me the real issue is how much more that CAW member pays in Canadian taxes, compared to his UAW brother in Michigan or Indiana. Don't forget the imports building cars here in the USA are paying at least part of the health care premiums. And why don't you hold the UAW responsible for your health care after retirement. They made the deal to carry forward the cost and tack it on the future workers shoulders.
|
|
|
Replying to: bpeebles (Jan 05, 2009 2:50 pm) Wrong, wrong WRONG!!!!! YOU can't buy one because that engine probably does not meet US Emissions standards. If it did, it could easily be built HERE!!! I doubt the UAW would say no to work. I fit does meet our standards, more than likely the management doesn't believe it will sell well here. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 06, 2009 2:51 pm) BREAKING: GM-UAW Talks Accelerate (KXYZ) More details in this story: GM and UAW begin negotiations tonite (Autonews) "The UAW was singled out for more concessions than any of the other stakeholders, including bondholders, dealers, suppliers or others, Gettelfinger said. The union is willing to help, he said. But the process is being slowed by confusing loan language and the absence of a federal point person or car czar to clarify questions, he said. The so-called term sheet of the loan calls on the UAW to agree to competitive compensation with the Japanese transplants and more flexible work rules. What's more, it requires new multi-billion dollar trusts created by the UAW for retiree health care to be half paid with automaker stock instead of cash."
|
|
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
