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)
15589 messages, Last post on Jul 01, 2009 at 7:44 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 12, 2009 8:24 pm) Agreed. This is fundamental. Simplistically, why is this?: Market Share is low because vehicles are not competitive. Vehicles are not competitive because quality and content are not competitive. Quality and content are not there because they cost more. Costs were reduced because company has very high costs. Company has very high costs because of restrictive, expensive contracts. Company has restrictive, expensive contracts because without them company would have lost $billions in very long term strikes, might have gone bankrupt. Company had risk of very expensive long term strikes because of power of UAW. Company has UAW because they are laying over a barrel and union has too much control. See?
|
|
Management blames UAW, UAW blames management. This practice keeps going on with neither parties admitting that they both are ruining GM at the same time...
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Jan 13, 2009 12:25 am) Could you back up your statement "Management blames UAW" with anything in the last, oh say, 5 years or even longer? I do remember the management issuing statements that they lost xx amounts of dollars during the last strike but nothing that says they blame the UAW for all their problems.
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 13, 2009 4:55 am) Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 13, 2009 4:55 am) I keep hearing legacy costs are killing us from GM management. That sounds like they are blaming the UAW. Those are some of the costs negotiated by the UAW with strikes. Wagoner has been careful to word his statements so that he does not offend the UAW. If not for the Union votes there would be NO bailout. Congress is not giving GM money because they like the company. It is pandering to the working class voters. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 13, 2009 6:22 am)
|
|
| I keep hearing "UAW demands the unreaasonable", "legacy costs", "Bailout proposal almost rejected because UAW refuse to accept the new wage policy", etc.. No, both parties are being smart not to directly blame each other, but even kids can see through those words. | |
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 13, 2009 5:30 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jan 13, 2009 8:48 am) |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 13, 2009 7:10 am) The worse thing is that it is affecting the U.S. taxpayer! Why should the U.S. taxpayer have to fund an agreement between GM and its workers, when they made an agreement they can't afford to give (the company); or afford to accept (taking too much for GM to be viable)? To me the common sense solution that almost every other business would have to do is: 1) reduce the pay and benefits of retirees or active personnel to what the company can afford, or 2) the company goes bankrupt and possibly all workers and retirees lose everything. All of the problems GM and all the parties can be fixed by rewriting the paper contracts they have. They need to live within their income. It's not the taxpayers problem to guarantee the excessive promises that were made between GM and its workers (past and present).
|
|
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
