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)
16715 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 7:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 09, 2009 7:28 am) That is an excellent point. Mr Lumpy avoids or skirts that issue when I bring it up. The Democrats had two years to implement a comprehensive health care plan. They got nowhere and the public was tired of a do nothing Congress and overwhelmingly elected Republicans to take their places in 1994. And another thing the UAW loves to rag on is NAFTA. Well it was that same do nothing Democrat Congress that pushed NAFTA through and Bill Clinton signed it December 1993. More than a full year before the Republicans gained control of Congress. If UAW members would get out of the Midwest and look around the country they would see just how LUCKY they are. They need to come out to CA where the cost of living makes Michigan look 3rd world. They would see people at a much higher skill level making about a 3rd less than they are. Instead of counting their blessings they strike for no good reason the company that is giving them a higher standard of living than most professionals in the the USA. I cannot see a reason in the World how a lug nut assembler makes more money than 99% of the college educated school teachers in the USA. I don't know of any school district that pays a thirty year tenured school teacher $100k per year. And they work many hours past the normal school day. So the OT argument does not hold water.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 09, 2009 7:51 am) Again you have hit it on the head. I remember a big flap during the primaries when Hillary proposed a mandatory US health care system. If you did not pay the premiums it would be garnished from your wages. That got the press going. Probably one of the nails in her coffin. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". I can hear lumpy and the UAW leaders screaming over that if it was implemented. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 08, 2009 7:40 pm) GM CEO salary ~$2 million (no OT no bonus no beni's) GM hourly worker at $30/hour ~$60,000 (no OT no bonus no beni's) 33:1 ratio GM CEO with bonus's/OT ~15 mllion GM hourly with OT/Bonus's ~80,000 187:1 ratio |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 09, 2009 7:28 am) 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. i believe the UAW retirees do go on medicare at 65. Where do you see elsewhere? The insurance pays for is to increase the beni's OVER what they get for medicare. At least that is what I thought happened. Something called medigap? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 09, 2009 8:05 am) I don't care how much UAW members make...if the company can afford to pay them those wages. If GM can charge enough for Chevys, Buicks, Cadillacs, etc. to pay the UAW members $400,000 a year, with six weeks vacation, and have them carried to and from the factory parking lot in sedan chairs borne by Playboy bunnies, then that is fine with me. But if said company is going broke (which GM was even before the current bursting of the credit/housing bubble), and begging the government for money, then it's fair to ask whether the company can afford this level of generosity. For the record, I think that the federal government should have told GM and the UAW that everyone from the CEO to the janitor will accept the wages and benefits comparable to what Toyota pays for the same positions, and that all GM factories will immediately adopt the same work rules that Toyota and Honda use in their transplant factories. Ironically, that wouldn't hurt the wages of UAW members - Toyota workers make about the same amount of money. It would have exposed the disparity in work rules and health care coverage, which is why the UAW would oppose it. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 08, 2009 9:19 pm) |
|
|
Finally catching up here..."The government severely limits malpractice lawsuits"... It is easy to say that, but if it happens to you you won't feel that way...I realize, as an attorney, that I am biased, but tort reform is the equivalent to disarming David and giving the slingshot to Goliath... Say you limit medmal to $100K or $250K...that sounds like a lot of money, but, over a potental lifetime, it isn't...let's say that you go in for an appendectomy but the Doc negligently removes your left leg or your right arm...your life is radically altered forever, possibly needing assistance or a wheelchair...you really think that the interest on $250K would assist in your living expenses for the next 25 years, always remembering that it was a Doctor's negligence that put you in this condition???...now, if you are trying to stop awards of $50 million or more, I see your point...but most "tort reform" wants to limit awards to $250K or less, and, for the damage stupid medics can do to a person, $250K is a drop in the bucket...plus, maybe we could change the laws so that if an award for medmal exceeds a certain level, then the Doc's license is revoked, in all states, so he can never practice and make that mistake again... Let's really go off the wall...you are 27 years old, blind in one eye and going in for surgery...the Doc accidentally operates on the wrong eye, and screws up and you are now totally blind...is $100K enough???...let's not be absurd...$250K enough???...let's not be ridiculous...is a $million enough???...is $5 million enough???...how would you like to spend the next 50-plus years without vision, and you want to limit the medmal payout???...if it was your daughter, would YOU think $250K is EXCESSIVE, like tort reform advocates say it is??? Everybody wants to limit the payout caused by bad doctors, but nobody EVER thinks about stopping the Doc from ever doing it again...leva the payout limits alone and get rid of Docs who have more than one medmal payout...maybe THAT will cause medmal rates to go down, along with the cost of defensive medicine...enough points on your driver's license and it is revoked...why not the same on medmal Docs licenses??? Those who scream for tort reform the loudest often have no idea of the real consequences of what they are asking for... FWIW...in GA, 85% of all medmal suits are found IN FAVOR of the Doc, meaning that very little medmal is actually medmal, but more like "bad outcome", meaning the Doc made no mistakes, but the patient did not like the outcome...kinda like Phyllis Diller suing a facial plastic surgeon because her facelift did not make her look like Britney Spears or Christie Brinkley... Staying on topic, as I never wander, I also note that there are probably UAW members, and spouses of UAW members that may have had their opinions on tort reform, and this is a response to them, and a criticism of the stupid restrictive work rules that will cause GM and Ford to file Chapter 11... |
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 09, 2009 9:37 am) At least all of y'all have learned to briefly mention the UAW in passing as you gripe about everything else under the sun.  (and welcome back to the fray, Bob) Lauer Interviews GM's CEO, UAW President "Gettelfinger said he was not willing to reopen agreements he signed with GM in 2007." |
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 09, 2009 9:37 am) Want to punish companies - fine, make them pay those miltimilion dollar as donations to charities (say family makes determination which ones). Reduce legal fees to be collected on those, too. Enough incentive for the companies to "do good" and prevent lawyers from chasing ambulances without real cause.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Jan 09, 2009 9:37 am) Let's really go off the wall...you are 27 years old, blind in one eye and going in for surgery...the Doc accidentally operates on the wrong eye, and screws up and you are now totally blind...is $100K enough???...let's not be absurd...$250K enough???...let's not be ridiculous...is a $million enough???...is $5 million enough???...how would you like to spend the next 50-plus years without vision, and you want to limit the medmal payout???...if it was your daughter, would YOU think $250K is EXCESSIVE, like tort reform advocates say it is??? I see why medical is so expensive in this country now. There is never enough. |
|
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
