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: 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."
|
|
|
"The UAW contracts place the Big Three in a competitive vice, says Logan Robinson, a professor of law at the University of Detroit Mercy and former legal executive at Chrysler and parts suppliers Delphi, ITT Automotive and Metaldyne. He cites the fact that all three of these OEMs are struggling in their home US market while generally doing just fine in regions across the globe where the UAW contracts are not in force. “How can we explain that whenever GM, Ford and Chrysler leave our shores, they compete well in foreign markets as varied as Europe, South America and China? What makes them viable competitors as soon as they cross the border?” Robinson asks in a recent Wall Street Journal column." Supply Chain News: Is the UAW Really at the Root of US Automakers Woes? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 06, 2009 2:36 pm) ok on the difference between the uaw's book value for the center of 33 million and the agreed upon (waverly township in 2007) taxable value of 12.6 million - a mobster scandal you say. perhaps you do not know the difference between the concepts of book value and market value for tax purposes. the two value often are different. the book value on you home is different than its market value. that difference does not make you a criminal or a mobster. i will try a last time again: the black lake property was acquired in the 60's and building began in 1967 with the center opening in 1970. construction improvements and additions continued through the years with 6 million of so being put into the golf course in 1998-99. course opened in 2000. all of these costs amounted to what the uaw has spent--that $33 million figure represents book value. you have a book value on your property too-- land costs plus improvement costs. market value is not the same as book value- buildings and equipment depreciate over 40 years and lose their initial cost value. worse-- the real estate market fluctuates. demand goes down when trickle down vodoo economics is proven wrong for the upteenth time. money and credit get scarce during big recessions and a buyers market develops. property values and prices have been declining rapidly in michigan for some years with many properties, are now worth but 50% of the purchase prices that existed before the great decider rose in the pumpkin patch.. in 2007 the township assessment for the center was $13.7 million -that is what the township assessor claimed the uaw center was worth on the open market--assuming someone could be found to buy it. The UAW said that sounds too high for the market right now and appealed to the state tax tribunal- where the uaw has consistently won prior assessment disputes. the township and the uaw then agreed to use a $12.3 million value for the center's 2007 tax assessment. perhaps, like our local drain commissioner, you believe it is wrong for the uaw to appeal its assessment. however even if you believe that the uaw, unlike any other property owner in our county, should not have the legal right to question a tax assessment. However, there is nothing corrupt or evil or illegal here and i think you should now admit that.
|
|
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
