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)
16735 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 5:49 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 6:16 pm) That is what I have been saying all along... the UAW has forgotten why they were created and are now more like self-serving moneygrubbers who will destroy the USAs auto-industry. People are purchasing NON union-made cars *because* the UAW has forced the automakers to cheepen their products in order to pay for the outrageous UAW contracts. I fear that the UAW will discover too late what they have done and there may be no turning back at that point. If they were smart, the UAW would volintaraly move to help the automakers survive by offering up SIGNIFICANT changes in the contracts. Making all the pay-scales the same as NONunion autoworkers would be a great start. (...but a very small start compared to what NEEDS to happen) |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 6:16 pm) i could look it up but i seem to recall that the average ceo in the 50-60's made something like 60 times the average pay of the employees of the company but that this ratio has now jumped to sometime like 350 times. don't hold me to those precise mumbers but you see my point. sorry i just don't hate or despise tthe idea of a factory rat making $28-29 an hour whether at toyota or GM. interesting you would prefer that the uaw sell out its retirees rather than new hires. however the retirees where not only uaw members for their working lives but also the recipients of a written contractual promise repeated restated over their working lives, that they would have health care during their retirement. understand also that most retirees may not have many options and may even have a hard time getting a decent job nowadays. the new hire has not been promised anything or paid any dues. indeed he or she has a choice on whether to take the $15 a hour job or not. somehow i have the feeling that if the uaw had agreed to cancel health insurance for its hundreds of thousands of big3 retirees in exchange for keeping new hires at $28 an hour with full benefits--you would be among the first to condemn the UAW for selling out its retirees. I think the UAW did all it could to protect its retirees by assuming the risk of managing the VEBAS and still give the big3 relief..if the vebas can't keep up with annual 15-20% health care costs then those trustees will have to do what the teamsters trustees did to you -- start eliminating health care coverage. for some strange reason you thought this was just peachy when it happened to you, but i suspect that most UAW retirees may be unhappy with the UAW if their health care is reduced or lost under the UAW VEBAS. the big 3 employers called the 2007 transformational. they will have these huge legacy costs off their books and a new workforce would be slowly added at half the wages and benefits. i would like to bet that 99% of you who were critical of the bridge loans and incorrectly blamed the uaw for the international credit crunch which triggered the problem, where not aware of the health care concessions negotiated in 2006 and the somewhat major changes in the 2007 master agreements But i forgive you. you approach the issue with the firm opinion that the uaw was the prime reason that the bridge loans were needed and despite claims of having an open mind--don't wish to have it cluttered with facts which are not consistent with that firm opinion. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 7:40 pm) You keep saying that long enough and you will believe it is true. I was VERY upset when the Teamsters dropped health care for the retirees. I was even more upset that they changed the retirement age from 45 to 57. I was just about ready to retire and get out of the Arctic cold. When it was finally presented to the rank and file, it made sense to keep the retirement solvent rather than take a chance on depleting the fund. At the time we were shelling out more to the retirees than was coming in from the members and the investments. We also had a cash out clause and a couple large bargaining units closed up shop when the price of oil fell. Those guys all cashed out depleting the fund even more. That option was also done away with. Thankfully today the fund gains each year instead of losing ground. It should be able to keep paying us our pension for however long we are here. somehow i have the feeling that if the uaw had agreed to cancel health insurance for its hundreds of thousands of big3 retirees in exchange for keeping new hires at $28 an hour with full benefits--you would be among the first to condemn the UAW for selling out its retirees. I believe a Union should be for all members not just the elite few. I have no problem with a pay scale with increases over time. I see no reason to pay a line worker new or 30 years seniority $28+ per hour. The job in reality just does not warrant that kind of pay. If the person has a specialty that is different. Some one that slaps doors on all day long can be trained in a matter of weeks just does not deserve $28 per hour. Now if the company wants to give bonuses when they make a big profit. I think that is a wonderful idea. That is an incentive to make the cars better. Paying two people doing the same job at two different wage scales is asking for one to be disgruntled. If I am working along side some old dude making $15 per hour doing the same job I am why should I work as fast as he does? Again we are not talking about machinist, millwrights, electricians etc. We are talking simple tasks that you can train a person to do in a very short period of time. This new hire not only is paid half what the lazy old fart next to him gets. He has no pension, mediocre health care. I would be ashamed to say I was part of the UAW. And yes if the rank and file voted to throw the retirees under the bus I would scream about that. I am looking for equal concessions. That is what Unions are for to keep everyone on the same level. |
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Jan 08, 2009 7:28 pm) but i am somewhat befuddled by the argument that we pay twice as much per citizen as canada on healthcare ( now about $8,000 versus about 4,000 for them) because they have fewer MRI machines. for a nation of 32 million or so, they would have to buy a lot of MRI machines to spend something like 130 trillion (if i have my zeros) on MRI machines to catch up to our costs. (let's buy stock in that company). seriously the suggestion is that the lack of adequate numbers of MRI machines (fewer per citizen than the usa) explains both the twice as high us costs and the "substandard" canadian healthcare. which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care. if healthcare is substandard in canada, then one would expect that it would not only be reflected in widespread dissatisfaction in such surveys but also comparative data on various health care indicators which are not as subjective. data on such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care outcome factors are used by the world health organization in its rankings of health care systems. when you look at the WHO rankings they show that the us is ranked 37th and canada is at 30 with cuba, japan and the ec countries which have national health care all ranked ahead of the usa. moreover again all these other national health insurance countries ranked higher than the usa spend roughly half per citizen that the usa spends those fearing that they are about to be infected with socialism because our current health care system is about to collapse or be ended in congress (take your pick) , still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008.. the bush administration's partial solution, as you may recall, was a medical ira--you would set aside a certain percentage of your disposable income in a trust fund to be used to pay your medical bills when you retired. Unfortunately not too many walmart employes or unemployed people ( or even GM salaried employees) have benefited from trickle down economics and thus have not been able to set up such iras with their excess income. just to get back on point - in requesting thier 17 billion dollar bridge loan, all the big 3 claimed. along with bush, even darth vader cheney. treasury, SEC,. those involved in the wall street, AIG, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns and numerous other "economists" involved in the prior trillion dollar round of grants -- that the auto industry problems were mainly attributable to a drying up of credit which had in turn been triggered by underegulated and somewhat greedy or risky trading in housing related mortgages. the other industrialized countries making such loans to their auto industries also appear to be in agreement with this analysis and none of them are specifically conditioning loans on the backs of the factory rats in their countries. however, it appears to me that the bulk of the comments here are to the effect that all of these "experts" are wrong and that despite the facts of uaw concessions since 2006 and the fact that wage rate in toyota and GM plants are almost equivalent, the real problem is the UAW contracts -- even though hourly costs are less than 10% of the cost of production. from there the argument goes, that despite the fact that no mention was made of reducing incomes for the wall street types (where labor costs are about 60% of total costs and some are paid slightly higher than $28 an hour), the auto loans should be conditioned upon the UAW's agreement to jump on the bangladesh wage spiral downward train. anyone have any reputable authority (other than anecdotal stories about joe the 150k hilo driver) for that conclusion?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 9:19 pm) uaw retirees are not the elite few. GM alone has more than 400,000 . i beleive current hourly GM employment is under 100,000. the uaw big three retirees incurred some court approved cutbacks in 2006. they are also taking some risks that the VEBAS, supposedly be funded at about 50 cents on the dollar ( assuming ultimate rejection of the administration's demand that more stock be substituted for hard cash) survive through their retirement. many think that this is impossible if health care costs continue to rise as they have for the last 20-25 years. but this is a risk the uaw was courageously willing to take on its own shoulders. again those faced with taking big 3 factory jobs at $15 an hour with greatly reduced benefits have a choice to either accept that offer or apply to wall street where i hear the the taxpayers are not as concerned about subsidizing wages and benefits which are slightly higher.
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:29 pm) They would have to add over 900 MRI machines to have the same coverage we have in the USA. That would cost them less than $3 billion. Should be a slam dunk for a country as rich in oil and other natural resources as Canada. Of course each of those is in a hospital or large clinic so add a few more billion to the price tag. You should be able to see the dilemma they face with their LONNNNG waiting lists for just about every procedure. which according to the last survey shows 87% of canadians as satisfied or very satisfied with their health care. You managed to spin that little tidbit also. It said 87% satisfied or SOMEWHAT satisfied. In other words it will have to do because we got no other choice and I don't want to pay any more taxes to those schmucks running the health care. such things as life expectancy and other favorable health care You keep repeating the same things over and over. Life expectancy has little to do with health care and a lot to do with life style. They do not live in the fast lane and suffer from obesity from eating too much processed food. That also brings up an issue that has gotten a lot of press with the UK and their health care. They are refusing treatment to smokers and people that are obese. Do you know any UAW retirees that fit those parameters? They are OUT in the cold. Sorry no can treat you till you lose 100 lbs of Ugly fat. still have not explained how we can continue to handle both a 15-20% annual increase in health care premiums coupled with a 1-2 million annual increase in the number of those (mostly children) without any insurance coverage (estimated to be 45, 999,998 at the end of 2008.. Well if our new President does what he says it may go a long way to fixing the waste in Medicare. The 1000s of Medicare patients receiving treatments that are not needed and getting kick backs. I posted a very recent article on just how it is done. We are wasting billions every year on Medicare, medicaid, section 8 and SS fraud. We get those holes plugged up it should be enough to offer a low cost plan for all those children. I am totally against any free plan. That breeds corruption. Medicare Fraud I have never blamed the housing bubble on the UAW or GM or Ford. They are victims of the financial mess that was a combination of greed and stupidity. Mostly by our Congress and past Presidents. There are Congress men in the banking committee that should go to jail. Same with any financial executive that pushed sub prime loans. They have destroyed our economy for probably another decade or more. Left our grandchildren to pay the price. That is where the low wages will come about. If we go into a depression, guys like Wagoner will be lucky to get $28 per hour. Many more fat cats will be jumping in front of trains or out or windows. It is going to get ugly. Most Americans do not know how to live way below their income. It is something not taught in school. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:54 pm) You really know nothing about human nature. We had a guy working in our bargaining unit for a Long time that did absolutely nothing. He was at top pay. New guys would see that and think they could get away with the same crap. He is making as much as I am. Why should I bust my butt? He finally got transferred as we had no management with the brains to document his incompetence and fire him. You cannot have two people doing the same thing for different wage scales. Now if the new guy can work up to $28 an hour after 2-3 years they have some incentive to do a good job. If they will never achieve the same wage and benefits of the older workers. You are in trouble. If GM thinks they can buy out all the old guys with a package the UAW may survive. We had a 6 years progression and that caused a lot of dissension in the ranks. The primary goal of a Union is to treat all members equally. The UAW is failing miserably. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:54 pm) I do understand your frustration as I went through it 20 years ago. I was prepared to take over my own health care when I retired for the two years until Medicare kicked in. I was not expecting Uncle Sam to take $96 per month for Medicare I had paid for. But I get by quite well. The real key is shopping all the HMO options. CA has a lot. I would rather live in another state because of the high taxes here on income even pensions. However I found Kaiser to be the most bang for the buck. My wife has had it for 30 years and is pleased. It is quite reasonable compared to all the others I looked into. Unfortunately it is only offered in a few states. Same Kaiser that built cars through the 1950s. I am sure they were UAW built. |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 7:32 am) That site is incorrect. Defense and security spending account for 29.2 percent of total discretionary federal spending. By far the largest portion of federal spending goes to Social Security and Medicare, which together account for 43.5 percent of total discretionary federal spending. If you are upset about federal spending, then you will need to address spending on Social Security and Medicare. I agree with the 29.2% number, but I believe the spending for the Iraqi war is off-the -books, so to speak. It does not count as part of the defense appropriations. |
|
|
People keep coming back to the Chrysler loan guarantees of 1980(?). But, there are significant differences, in my mind, between then and now. According to an old Time article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947356,00.html) Chrysler was given a $1.2 bil loan guarantee. It had 1978 sales of $13.6 bil, lost $204 mil that same year, and had a book value of around $800 mil. So, theoretically at least, if Chrysler had defaulted on the loan guarantees, the govt could have liquidated Chrysler and come out with most of the money it had guaranteed. The current bailouts to GM and Chrysler are nowhere near as good for the loan guarantor (the taxpayers). GM is receiving several (many?) times it's book value, as is Chrysler. Should the companies fail to make it and are liquidated, the taxpayers will be lucky to get back 10 cents on the dollar. That's just one of the things that makes this such a bad deal compared to 1980. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
