Has anyone else wondered.....

[HoustonFarrier]

WHY the only car companies in the US who are needing/asking for a handout are the American ones? Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, et all are doing just fine. What's the difference???? (Unions). Why don't the Big 3 go to the UAW for a loan....the UAW has cash and assets of $35B.

Just makes ya say hmmmmmmmmmm.........

And, for the record, bankruptcy does not necessarily mean end of existance. Chap 11 provides companies the ability to re-organize without creditors wiping them out.

Steve

[lovesfortune]

I think it's lame that GM spent over $20,000 just to fly on the private jet to Washington to ask for a handout. If he makes 16 million a year, any reason why he cant fund his own jet if he doesn't want to fly first class on a commerical airline?

Just sounds like AIG over and over again.

[HoustonFarrier]

It's not just them...their wives get use of the jets too.....while they are laying off workers and closing plants....

Steve

[Horserider]

Hmm let's think. Foreign auto companies make cars with better gas mileage for less money. They don't have to pay their workers as much and they work more hours than our's so they can sell the cars for less money. And that's what it's all about in this bad financial times.

[HoustonFarrier]

plus.....the average factory worker makes $75 an hour...average for all other workers is $25 an hour. Japaneses plants average $45 an hour.

Steve

[Tatesgram]

I'm no fan of unions, but everything can't be blamed on the union workers. A few years back a steel company here in Alabama went out of business. Everyone was hollering that the union workers refused to take a pay cut to save the company, :mad:. Now these dastardly no-gooders made around 35-40,000 a year. The bosses however, that had just received some very generous bonuses (while the company is going broke) were taking home six figures. This was a company that instead of putting profits back into the company and updating the equipment, treated upper management like royalty and gave big fat bonuses to these decision makers.

The union workers refused to take pay cuts. Yes, it meant that they were out of jobs, but I would have done the same thing. The bonuses had been posted in a company report.

When you are hired at a company that says up front, you will be given x and you will be given y and when you retire you'll get x and y and z if you work here 30 years, shouldn't you? On the other hand, if the company comes to you and says, we're going down the tubes and we're asking you to work with us, the first thing we're doing is cutting out corporate bonuses laying off extra bosses, and cutting the remainders pay by 5% or 10% and to save this company we're asking all of the workers to take the same cuts...most, not all will be willing to work with the company. And then you have the union bigwigs that will fight the company tooth and nail, and take payoffs behind the backs of the working man. It is a pickle.

Didn't mean to go on and on, but unions are like big corporations, He!!, they are big corporations, the difference is, the union workers are the ones paying the salaries of the ones...uh...taking advantage of them.

[menagerie]

This is how I feel about ALL bailouts.... :puke::puke::puke::puke:

[WashingtonBay]

The only trouble with comparing the costs of management with the costs of labor are the sheer numbers.

For starters, like anything else, corporations have to compete for the top people. No one good takes on the responsibility of a major corporation without making very very good money.

And taking a percentage off the big executive's pay saves you a million or two. It's a drop in the bucket, though perhaps a valuable symbolic gesture. A percentage of the company's total employee pay and benefit package can mean many many millions.

[Cat]

Wow, the lack of knowledge of what is going on in the car business is shocking. And to blame it on the unions is just ignorant. Toyota and Honda are just fine??? Hell no - they are hurting too - ALL automarkets are down 15-40%. They were able to float it out a bit longer than GM (and Ford) because GM doted on us Americans and our love of the SUV and the big Trucks and their product mix was heavily in that market. Once those high gas prices hit, we bailed out of those gas guzzlers so GM and Ford were the first to hurt and the foreign automakers with the cars with good gas mileage got a temporary boost in sales. GM and Ford's problem is they did not switch over their product mix fast enough. They were gradually doing it with the increased prices, but did not do it fast enough.

$75 an hour per factory worker? Please tell me where you got those stats. The last reports I saw on auto factory workers put them right at $15-25 an hour depending on their time of service. Now I can tell you that unions are annoying as hell when you want to promote one employee who has done an excellent job but instead you have top give it to the slacker just because their senority date is older. That sucks. But that is also a different discussion/rant I guess.

And quite honestly the fear of bancrupcy isn't in what it is going to do to GM and Ford. Its the negative impact its going to have on the Tier I, Tier II and Tier III suppliers that will cause a ripple effect through our already fragile economy. GM and Ford would probably bounce out of a bancrupcy pretty easily. But all of those suppliers they owe money to will not be paid for goods and services already supplied. The effects will hit the metal industry, the plastic industry, the rubber industry and all the sub-industries within those. Think of all the different materials that go into a car. Most of the components in the cars are created at other companies and then sold and assembled together at GM or Ford or Toyota. I don't think people realize how much stuff is created by different companies - the mirrors, the seats, the consoles, the gauges, all those different items are made by different companies that are NOT GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. In fact the same supplier will actually sell to GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, BMW, etc. Howevever they will all be hit big and many will not make it if GM and Ford go bankrupt and they don't have to pay their bills.

Now going to ask for money by flying in your own jet was plain dumb. I'll give you that one.

[Tiz]

A former auto industry supervisor was on Fox and Friends this am. She said that workers would clock in, and then go to the corner bar, or fishing for the day. She said she actually called the bar to find people. One example she gave was a man who earned a disciplinary, unpaid 30 day layoff for this behavior. After he came back to work he thanked her for the vacation. As it turns out, he went to the union about the layoff, who then got his 30 days turned into a paid leave.
Workers who get laid off get 95% of their former pay for "years". UAW workers wages are $78 per hour compared to $35 for Honda.
These companies have agreed to union contracts that they simply can not afford, and that is why they are going bankrupt. Government money will only disappear into the same black hole that company money has gone.
WB, you said "good" people require millions in compensation. From the Big Three to GE, to American Airlines, to Lehman and AIG, and on and on, I don't see any value for those millions. I can't understand why shareholders aren't screaming, and demanding their heads on a pike.

[HoustonFarrier]

Wow, the lack of knowledge of what is going on in the car business is shocking.
I used to WORK in that business...I know a thing or two about it. I was a sub-contractor working at the Romeo Engine Plant and the Van Dyke Tranny Plant.

$75 an hour per factory worker? Please tell me where you got those stats.
From the UAW Local 229 web page:

"While GM has not said it will push to eliminate the Jobs Bank when its contract with the UAW expires, it is no secret that company executives think the program is a drain on its ever-tightening financial resources. With average wages for a factory worker adding up to about $65,000 a year, or $1,250 a week, GM is spending $9.4 million each week to pay the salaries for its idled workers in the Jobs Bank, not including their health care and pension costs." When you factor in ALL the compensation, it averages out to about $75.00 an hour.

Steve

[Cat]

A sub-contractor? Wow - impressive. And how long ago was this? Yes, I'm sure you are the forum expert on this subject. :rolleyes:

All compensation is $75 per hour - that is a little different than actually being paid $75 an hour which is what you first claimed. Make sure you are comparing apples to apples when comparing to other industries and companies.

And yes, I'm sure the current union contract has had some impact on it - which is why GM was negotiating down what they pay members and is down to $14 per hour for incoming employees. However, it is not the biggest issue by far in this current crisis - unless you are just listening to the media. ;)

[HoustonFarrier]

A sub-contractor? Wow - impressive. And how long ago was this? Yes, I'm sure you are the forum expert on this subject.
I never claimed to be an expert...just recounting personal experiences in the industry....not just reading websites.

All compensation is $75 per hour - that is a little different than actually being paid $75 an hour which is what you first claimed
Whether it's paid in cash, or other types of compensation....it's money in spent by the company on workers...what difference does it make?? If I'm getting money put into a pension plan FOR me to use when I retire, then that's compensation I'm being paid.

And yes, I'm sure the current union contract has had some impact on it -
Thought you said it didn't??? And to blame it on the unions is just ignorantWhich one is it?? And, for the record, I did not BLAME it on the unions, but EVERYONE pretty much agrees, the union is a BIG part of the Big3 Automakers financial problems.

It's funny how some folks, when they can't have in intelligent debate with someone of a differing opinion, resort to name calling and innuendo A sub-contractor? Wow - impressive.....bravo, job well done...you TOO must be very proud of yourself. How about a few name callings in a different language too ;)
Steve

[Tatesgram]

The only trouble with comparing the costs of management with the costs of labor are the sheer numbers.

For starters, like anything else, corporations have to compete for the top people. No one good takes on the responsibility of a major corporation without making very very good money.

And taking a percentage off the big executive's pay saves you a million or two. It's a drop in the bucket, though perhaps a valuable symbolic gesture. A percentage of the company's total employee pay and benefit package can mean many many millions.

I'm not disagreeing with this. But why is it that the ones that sweep the floor or clean the restrooms are the first to go? I have a problem with the people making all the financial and production decisions continuing to receive bonuses while the average worker, that makes no decisions, is fired or laid off. Yes, I know, usually the top people have contracts that protect them and guarantee thier salary or at least a buy out of their contract if things get bad. But isn't that the same thing as the promises made to the laborer or machine operator? When you're hired and the company tells you all the benefits to working for them, shouldn't they have to honor those promises?

[HoustonFarrier]

I'm not disagreeing with this. But why is it that the ones that sweep the floor or clean the restrooms are the first to go? I have a problem with the people making all the financial and production decisions continuing to receive bonuses while the average worker, that makes no decisions, is fired or laid off. Yes, I know, usually the top people have contracts that protect them and guarantee thier salary or at least a buy out of their contract if things get bad. But isn't that the same thing as the promises made to the laborer or machine operator? When you're hired and the company tells you all the benefits to working for them, shouldn't they have to honor those promises?

If you look at "most"(not ALL) contracts/hire letters.....you work "at the will of the company". It's just that. It may not be 'fair', but when a company REALLY is in dire straits, what is better....going under and EVERYONE losing their jobs, or letting go those with little "bottom line" impact. it's a cruel world, and you, as an individual, have to be able to cope with it. That is why I am always preaching to whoever will listen, live within your means, because you never know when you won't have a job! Been there, done that ! LOL

Steve

[Tatesgram]

A former auto industry supervisor was on Fox and Friends this am. She said that workers would clock in, and then go to the corner bar, or fishing for the day. She said she actually called the bar to find people. One example she gave was a man who earned a disciplinary, unpaid 30 day layoff for this behavior. After he came back to work he thanked her for the vacation. As it turns out, he went to the union about the layoff, who then got his 30 days turned into a paid leave.


Where was the company supervisors? If this behavior was actually taking place, supervisors had to be aware if not involved.

The union could not get his job back or get the money for him without the company agreeing to it.

Don't be fooled that the unions can wave a magic wand and preform miracles. It's still a good ole boy network and a lot of the "company" people and union officials are in bed together.

Unless the UAW is a lot different than USWA that is...

One more thing, when the union negotiates a better package for their workers, company people benefit from the deal. In a lot of instances, the supervisors, clerks and other office employees will get the same package.

[Tatesgram]

If you look at "most"(not ALL) contracts/hire letters.....you work "at the will of the company". It's just that. It may not be 'fair', but when a company REALLY is in dire straits, what is better....going under and EVERYONE losing their jobs, or letting go those with little "bottom line" impact. it's a cruel world, and you, as an individual, have to be able to cope with it. That is why I am always preaching to whoever will listen, live within your means, because you never know when you won't have a job! Been there, done that ! LOL

Steve

I agree. In part. I've also seen companies that will wipe out everyone with any type of "management" title and replace them with younger less experienced people at lower wages. Cuts cost in a hurry.

To me, it's like the AIG thing. It's these top people that put the companies in the situations they are in, maybe they should learn to live within their (the companies) means :rolleyes:

[HoustonFarrier]

I agree. In part. I've also seen companies that will wipe out everyone with any type of "management" title and replace them with younger less experienced people at lower wages. Cuts cost in a hurry.

To me, it's like the AIG thing. It's these top people that put the companies in the situations they are in, maybe they should learn to live within their (the companies) means :rolleyes:

You're singing to the choir there ! I agree....but what we are seeing now, is the really ugly side of a free market society.....when the ship starts sinking, it's everyone for themselves.

It's funny, if these comapnies would take a page from baseball...when a team is in the hole, and really sucks, who gets fired???? The manager/GM....that's how it should work!

Steve

[twofingers]

It's all crap, just paying back the contributers. Don"t you find it interesting that the gov. can come up with billions for their cronies but somehow cannot fund health care - which they say they want to provide?. and what's with these freaking unions who can give millions to politicians but can not help members with health care or mortgage difficulties? And if everything prior was a bubble - houses over priced, oil inflated. non-existent credit being given out and now everything is readjusting- well you can roll over and play dead. Don't worry Auntie pelosie and uncle barry will take of you.

[WashingtonBay]

I'm not disagreeing with this. But why is it that the ones that sweep the floor or clean the restrooms are the first to go? I have a problem with the people making all the financial and production decisions continuing to receive bonuses while the average worker, that makes no decisions, is fired or laid off. Yes, I know, usually the top people have contracts that protect them and guarantee thier salary or at least a buy out of their contract if things get bad. But isn't that the same thing as the promises made to the laborer or machine operator? When you're hired and the company tells you all the benefits to working for them, shouldn't they have to honor those promises?

I bet if you find businesses with an invested and interested owner running the company, you'll also find an owner who is the first to cut his own pay to keep his employees paid and the business running.

Steve's example of baseball is a good one. A single owner who cares most about the team, not the management.

These CEOs at AIG or Ford are essentially hired guns, with no particular loyalty to the company, they're working for themselves.

If Henry Ford was still alive, I suspect he'd not be planning expensive retreats for the management to plan their compensation in the event the company goes under.

Likewise, I think if Microsoft were in trouble, you'd not see Bill Gates taking what he can, while he can.

I don't like unions. And I do think we are long from the day when unions were needed to prevent actual abuse and dangerous working environment for employees. Nowadays, their version of a dangerous work environment is carpal tunnel syndrome for spoiled secretaries on Mahogany row, and the union has outlived it's usefulness.

But the behavior of today's 'top executives' in these hard times is oft-times abysmal as well. Like the unions, these companies have outlived the founders who actually loved them, and it shows.

I wouldn't bail any of them out. If I were king, I'd be looking to help out the upstart who wants to replace them.

[cheval]

Compensation whether it's salary, OT, sick pay, retirement or vacation leave is still money the companies pay out. I was a Teamster with UPS for about 2 years then switched to a management position and had to leave the Union. That's when they had a strike (we had UPS people flying a few of the planes). The Union wiped them out with the contract - made me wish I was union member again!

[Tatesgram]

I bet if you find businesses with an invested and interested owner running the company, you'll also find an owner who is the first to cut his own pay to keep his employees paid and the business running.

Steve's example of baseball is a good one. A single owner who cares most about the team, not the management.


WB, you've just described the company I work for :). If the company makes money, the boss shares the bounty. If the company starts losing, well, we all take the hit, starting at the top. There have been 3 different presidents and just as many CFO's since I've been here. We've had extremely good years and then years like this year. Actually, the first eight months of this year were very profitable. We started seeing a slow down in September. No one has lost their job or been laid off. I am very blessed to work for him.

My boss also thinks more of the people that have worked their way up the ladder, taken advantage of classes offered to improve themselves. They will go far in the company and be assured of advancement.