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)
16733 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 9:47 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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. |
|
|
Reports: GM, Chrysler bailout deals bar strikes Friday January 9, 7:13 am ET Reports: General Motors, Chrysler federal bailout loans in default if union strikes The Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News report Friday that the default is part of the deal GM signed with the Bush administration last month to get $13.4 billion in loans. The Detroit News reports Chrysler's loan deal has a similar provision. The United Auto Workers isn't a party to the deal and hasn't threatened a strike. The Free Press says if GM defaults on its loans, the U.S. Treasury Department could demand remand repayment and force GM into bankruptcy. The UAW and the automakers have a Feb. 17 deadline for concessions to lower labor costs. Better stay on the line boys and girls! Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 09, 2009 4:47 am) If the UAW is not a party to the bailout, we should not give the money to GM. They cannot avoid bankruptcy unless all parties work together. It would not surprise me to see the UAW strike if they thought they could hold Congress and the taxpayers hostage. They went on strike earlier this year against the plants building lambda and Malibu vehicles. Just happened to be the only vehicles GM was having much success with. The UAW is not interested in the health of GM, the economy or the Domestic auto industry. They have proven that time and again. It is time someone held the UAW's feet to the fire. I can see a NO strike clause as imperative to getting GM back on stable ground. |
|
I believe the Nays have it.. 
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 08, 2009 6:10 pm) The simplest and least expensive way to pay for health-care is for the customer to pay the service provider directly. As soon as you involve filling out forms, submitting bills, negotiating charges, justifying, and processing checks, you run up costs. Figure out how much work it is for a single visit. Now multiply that by the billions of medical charges the 300 million in the U.S. submit each year. That's all waste. It is waste because the pushing of bills (papers) is of no value to the patient, and the hospital or doctor does not benefit. The only people who benefit are the workers at the insurance companies, and the clerks in the government who have a job pushing papers. If my company had the option, I'd say give me the $ you're paying for my healthcare in my paycheck, and I'll take care of it from there.
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 11:24 am) medicare is "socialized medicine". taxpayer funded, single payer system with an age 65 requirement--just get rid of the age 65 condtion. And I still haven't received a response to my question as to why, if nationalized care is the answer, the UAW hasn't agreed to move retired blue-collar workers to Medicare, and save the companies money. I'll tell you why - the benefits aren't as generous as those provided under the current UAW plan. That is why GM is paying so much for health care. The benefits enjoyed by both current workers and retirees are far more lavish than those enjoyed by Medicare recipients, as well as those enjoyed by the people who rely on the Canadian national plan. lumoy: i realize that to many the uninsured and underinsured (majority of them are children) are invisible or nearly so, but to some of us, they human beings--indeed, we are paying for national health care now for every human being in iraq. You keep repeating that the majority of uninsured or underinsured are children, and this is false. Here are the facts, straight from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The uninsured are more likely to be young...21% of the uninsured are below age 18 and 63% are under age 34. Young adults age 18-34 are disproportionately uninsured relative to their representation in the overall population, while older adults are slightly under-represented relative to the overall population. Here's more: Although children and the elderly have the highest likelihood of being below 200% of poverty, government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP for children and Medicare for the elderly result in those groups having the lowest uninsured rates. (emphasis added) As I said before, the uninsured are more likely to be young, relatively healthy adults. lumoy: why should such a fundamental issue (which about 70% of consider to be a basic right) be subject to the whims of the bargaining table or worse the whims of an employer whose is structurally and understandably committed to capitalism--not providing health care. again case closed Except that, in the early 1990s, UAW and other unions were lukewarm to Hillary Clinton's proposal to nationalized health care coverage...they knew that it would result in a reduction in benefits. So, once again, the UAW's call for nationalized health care is more than a little disingenuous, in view of their behavior on this very subject. |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 09, 2009 7:28 am) Health care costs alone – for that matter, total labor costs – don’t explain General Motor’s U.S. market share falling from 41 percent in 1985 to just over 25 percent today. Decisions about products, marketing and advertising strategies, and many other factors – including bad U.S. trade policy – have something to do with that, too." 2005 remarks by Gettelfinger In other UAW news, "Another supplier throws in the towel. A Fulton County manufacturing plant that builds plastic interiors for U.S. automakers is permanently closing. All 100 employees at Johnson Control Injection Molding, formerly Plastech will be out of a job in March. ...a number of the layoffs involved union jobs, specifically UAW jobs." Fulton County manufacturing plant closing (WTVG)
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 9:29 pm) And if private insurance coverage were so bad, one must ask why surveys regularly show that over 80 percent of Americans with such coverage are completely satisfied with it. lumoy: 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. A smokescreen. GM was losing billions before 2008. It was not a healthy company even prior to the current economic downturn. GM was headed for bankruptcy even before this current mess. The collapse of the credit bubble only made the inevitable happen sooner. And a fair amount of the problem with today's auto market is that manufacturers artificially inflated sales by giving credit to buyers who had no business buying a brand-new vehicle. They did this to keep the lines running. Which two companies were the primary culprits in this? GM and Chrysler...so their claims that they are merely victims of a bursting housing/credit bubble are nonsense. If anything, THEY helped create the bubble in the first place by giving credit to anyone with a pulse (and remember that GMAC also made mortgage loans). |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 08, 2009 6:10 pm) The Toyota/Honda philosophy is to ask whether the step or process ADDS VALUE to the final product, and, if so, can it be done more efficiently.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
