"We die."
COLUMBUS, Ohio _ Even as Detroit's Big Three teeter on collapse, United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger said Saturday that workers will not make any more concessions and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy.
``The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,'' Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labour costs now make up eight per cent to 10 per cent of the cost of a vehicle.
``We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that,'' he said.
Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control _ the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.
``We're here not because of what the auto industry has done,'' he said. ``We're here because of what has happened to the economy.''
Gettelfinger also called on Congress to act quickly on a bailout plan for the auto industry, saying action is necessary before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.
He said if one automaker were to file for bankruptcy, the others may follow. He said the automakers would find it difficult to restructure under bankruptcy laws and instead could end up out of business. ``Would you buy a car from a bankrupt automaker?'' he asked.
The Center for Automotive Research, which receives funding from the auto industry, has warned that the collapse of the Big Three could set off a catastrophic chain reaction in the economy, eliminating up to three million jobs and more than $150 billion in tax revenue over the next three years.
Gettelfinger called on Congress to act quickly to provide loans to help the automakers until the economy improves and the automakers can move ahead with their plans to become more competitive.
``We cannot afford to allow to see this industry collapse. There is a real concern that could happen.''
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are seeking $25 billion from the government to get them through the economic crisis and the worst sales slump in more than 25 years. GM appears to be in the worst shape, warning that it can't borrow from normal sources.
The country's largest automaker said it had $16.2 billion in cash at the end of September, raising the possibility that GM will fall below the minimum of $11 billion to $14 billion needed for day-to-day operations by the end of the year.
Democrats in the lame-duck Congress are pressing for a bailout of Detroit's Big Three with money from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package. But President George W. Bush and many Republicans have come out against the idea, arguing that the financial rescue package was not intended for such uses, and that a bailout would reward poor management and lead other industries to demand government handouts.
*Brilliant!
Post Title: FV-QR
Posted by: axe at 8:46 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Preppy » |
| But President George W. Bush and many Republicans have come out against the idea, arguing that the financial rescue package was not intended for such uses, and that a bailout would reward poor management and lead other industries to demand government handouts. |
And yet that is what the bail out has done for the financial sector (as well as rewarding questionable practices)...
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Double-V)
Posted by: DasRaven at 9:43 AM 11/17/2008
"We die."
...
Post Title: FV-QR
Posted by: Turbiodiesel! at 9:49 AM 11/17/2008
If I ate steak my whole life and then someone told me that the steak was no longer existant, but there was still bread...you better believe I'd start eating the bread vs nothing at all. 
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (RollingInDubs)
Posted by: atomicalex at 9:59 AM 11/17/2008
What a concept.
This is the first time financial sector managerment has admitted that there was a problem. Gettelfinger and Co did so last year. Who stepped up to the plate first?
I'm not a huge UAW fan, and I don't like their attitudes. However, they took a big hit last year that no one in the financial sector seems particularly interested in doing. If the banking industry was doing the same thing, I might have less sympathy for the Big 3. But they're not, and I don't.
Hey Mr Obama - it's time to redistribute some wealth. 
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (Turbiodiesel!)
Posted by: auditt2t at 10:00 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by auditt2t » |
| Man must be an idiot... If Detroit's 3 fails, UAW won't matter. |
Reminds me of a story on the news 2 years ago.
Maple Leaf foods tells union that if they strike they'll be forced to close the plant down.
Union rolls their eyes, calls a strike.
Picketers continue marching and waving signs days later as liquidators pull equipment from the factory and load it into trucks. You'd think at some point they would realize their was no bluff and that they should be marching their asses down to the unemployment office.
Modified by Kessler at 4:10 PM 11-17-2008
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (auditt2t)
Posted by: tre393vo at 10:07 AM 11/17/2008
You can lead a horse to water...you just can't convince it that it's thirsty.
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (tre393vo)
Posted by: BMW Killa at 10:12 AM 11/17/2008
UAW needs to die. They are dragging GM down and there's nothing anybody can do to get rid of UAW. Hopefully bankruptcy will help.
Modified by BMW Killa at 10:13 AM 11-17-2008
Post Title:
Posted by: StormChaser at 10:18 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by BMW Killa » |
| im a supporter of the bailout after restructuring....So we should let gm file for bankruptcy, trim the unions, then get the $. UAW needs to die. They are dragging GM down and there's nothing anybody can do to get rid of UAW. Hopefully bankruptcy will help.
|
I hope they dissolve the UAW if a bailout occurs.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (atomicalex)
Posted by: 3 Money Pits at 10:26 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by atomicalex » |
| Hey Mr Obama - it's time to redistribute some wealth. |
If you want some wealth redistributed, go buy a f-ing GM car.
It isn't the job of the government to take money from the hands of taxpayers and give it to private industry. Period.
Post Title: Re: (StormChaser)
Posted by: SAPJetta at 10:39 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by StormChaser » |
| The more I read about the UAW, the more I'm for GM and the otehr domestic manufactuerers delaring bankrupsy so they can simly kill their deals with the UAW, restructure, and move on to a beter way. When they DO restructure...NO union contracts of ANY kind. Im sure if all the UAW people lost their job then were offered new jobs but not with a UAW contract...they'd jump at it...or iof they don't...well, maybe it's darwin calling. |
x2
The UAW can go take a flying leap. If the workers still want jobs when everything is said and done, they'll take the job. Otherwise, they can go find something else or some other union to hop on board with and leech the life out of another industry.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (3 Money Pits)
Posted by: DUTCHMANia at 10:42 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by 3 Money Pits » |
If you want some wealth redistributed, go buy a f-ing GM car. It isn't the job of the government to take money from the hands of taxpayers and give it to private industry. Period. |
i find your username very funny in these threads 
Post Title: Re: (SAPJetta)
Posted by: auditt2t at 10:50 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by SAPJetta » |
x2 The UAW can go take a flying leap. If the workers still want jobs when everything is said and done, they'll take the job. Otherwise, they can go find something else or some other union to hop on board with and leech the life out of another industry. |
x3
Post Title: FV-QR
Posted by: Big Morgan at 10:56 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Big Morgan » |
| The days of $30/hr jobs without any education are coming to a close. |
I don't think so.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: .:RyouExperienced at 11:03 AM 11/17/2008
That's a lot of money/jobs 
..
| Quote, originally posted by Preppy » |
The Center for Automotive Research, which receives funding from the auto industry, has warned that the collapse of the Big Three could set off a catastrophic chain reaction in the economy, eliminating up to three million jobs and more than $150 billion in tax revenue over the next three years. |
| Quote, originally posted by SlowMotion » |
I don't think so. |
Slowly but surely. The auto manufacturing industry is just the next one to go.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (atomicalex)
Posted by: Spa_driver at 11:05 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by atomicalex » |
| It was announced this morning in the WSJ that Goldman executives will forgo bonuses this year due to their crappy performance and inability to manage their assets. What a concept. This is the first time financial sector managerment has admitted that there was a problem. Gettelfinger and Co did so last year. Who stepped up to the plate first? I'm not a huge UAW fan, and I don't like their attitudes. However, they took a big hit last year that no one in the financial sector seems particularly interested in doing. If the banking industry was doing the same thing, I might have less sympathy for the Big 3. But they're not, and I don't. Hey Mr Obama - it's time to redistribute some wealth. |
So Goldman execs made $67 million each last year while shafting America and this year are going to only accept $600K, and that's a good thing? America gets an A+ for brainwashing. 
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (axe)
Posted by: FastGTi at 11:06 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by axe » |
|
| Quote, originally posted by DasRaven » |
"We're locked into the economy's gravitational pull! What do we do?
|
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Spa_driver)
Posted by: MEIN_VW at 11:11 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Spa_driver » |
So Goldman execs made $67 million each last year while shafting America and this year are going to only accept $600K, and that's a good thing? America gets an A+ for brainwashing. |
Brainwashing how? That executives that run the company get paid more than the folks on the assembly line? I'm all for reeling-in excessive executive pay packages. But I completely disagree with the notion that assembly line UAW workers deserve their high hourly wages because their jobs require physical labor.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: Big Morgan at 11:15 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by MEIN_VW » |
| But I completely disagree with the notion that assembly line UAW workers deserve their high hourly wages because their jobs require physical labor. |
What's an average wage for construction work? Depending on location $10-$15/hr starting?
I've never personally known a line worker but I've known a number of construction guys and I can guarantee building houses is a more physical job, and for less pay, than assembling cars.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: classicjetta at 11:19 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by MEIN_VW » |
Brainwashing how? That executives that run the company get paid more than the folks on the assembly line? I'm all for reeling-in excessive executive pay packages. But I completely disagree with the notion that assembly line UAW workers deserve their high hourly wages because their jobs require physical labor. |
Brainwashing in that Goldman's execs are somehow doing a good thing. We should be building a big prison in Manahatten to house all the Wall Street execs who tried to bring America down because of their own sick morals.
As far as the UAW goes it is corrupt and needs to start over with some new blood. The Big 3? Everybody I know who owns a domestic says it runs great and I usually see them buy a second one. And don't forget Japan, Germany, etc., have nationalized healthcare systems so their manufactuers don't have our large anchor that is the retirees.
Modified by Spa_driver at 2:54 PM 11-17-2008
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Spa_driver)
Posted by: Big Morgan at 11:33 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Spa_driver » |
Brainwashing in that Goldman's execs are somehow doing a good thing. We should be building a big prison in Manahatten to house all the Wall Street execs who tried to bring America down because of their own sick morals. |
Only if you also lock up everyone who fudged their mortgage app. to get a house they should have known they couldn't afford.
And lock up the mortgage officers who looked the other way on fudged apps.
And the middle managers who told the mortgage officers to go for quantity over quality of loans.
And the execs of the mortgage companies far from Wall Street who should have known all this was happening.
And so on, and so on, from the bottom to the top.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Big Morgan)
Posted by: MEIN_VW at 11:42 AM 11/17/2008
American consumers are in debt to the the tune of $14 Trillion - that's equal to the US GDP for crying out loud. And that debt increased by $8 Trillion in the last 10 years alone.
And it's that debt load that is now causing consumers to drastically reduce their spending and homes and cars are at the top of that list. The bottom line is that even if GM were to totally transform itself overnight, consumers are unable or unwilling to purchase their products in the volumes that GM needs to survive.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Big Morgan)
Posted by: eddiek at 11:48 AM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Big Morgan » |
What's an average wage for construction work? Depending on location $10-$15/hr starting? I've never personally known a line worker but I've known a number of construction guys and I can guarantee building houses is a more physical job, and for less pay, than assembling cars. |
On top of that, depending on what type of construction job (Plumber, Electrician, drywall&tapping, HVAC) still requires 2-4 years apprenticeship. Anyone can go on a line at with minimal amount of training.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Big Morgan)
Posted by: JediGTI at 11:56 AM 11/17/2008
Toyota and Honda are not union from what I know and therefore make more money per vehicle, right?
Can't sell cars that make money, need to pay the UAW guys no matter what-and that's our problem?
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: Tristan at 12:03 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Preppy » |
| ...noting the labour costs now make up eight per cent to 10 per cent of the cost of a vehicle. |
I'd like to know his definition of labour costs. Surely he's talking about the wages directly associated with vehicle assembly. For GM, pension and healthcare costs alone are more than $3000 per vehicle.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: DUTCHMANia at 12:12 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by MEIN_VW » |
| . The bottom line is that even if GM were to totally transform itself overnight, consumers are unable or unwilling to purchase their products in the volumes that GM needs to survive. |
| Quote, originally posted by Kessler » |
| Reminds me of a story on the news 2 years ago. Maple Leaf foods tells union that if they strike they'll be forced to close the plant down. Union rolls their eyes, calls a strike. Picketers continue marching and waving signs days later as liquidators pull equipment from the factory and load it into trucks. |
Better one...
Machinists Union: "Give us what we want!"
Eastern Air Lines: "No. Can't afford it."
MU: Strike!
EAL: <struggles bravely, tries to keep going>
MU: Strike!
EAL: ...
MU: "WE WON!"
EAL: O RLY?
MU: Wait.... oh ****...
Personally, I prefer this one:
Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization: "Give us what we want or we'll shut down all air transportation!"
Reagan Administration: "Try me."
PATCO: Strike!
RA: F. U. BANNED FOR LIFE!
Ex-PATCO members: "Would you like fries with that?" "Paper or plastic?" "Brother, can you spare a dime?"
Post Title:
Posted by: kraut_pauer79 at 12:31 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Tristan » |
| Up untill this morning I've been of the opinion that something should be done to help out GM and Ford. This morning however there was an article in the Economist (which is my main go to for economic related information) about how the big three should not be bailed out. In that article one of the big points was that chapter 11 is the option that is best suited for a company in their shoes. Now this non-sense from the UAW...I'm now convinced that GM and Ford need chapter 11. Without some major restructuring and a break with past union agreaments I'm not sure they can be profitable. |
I agree in principle, but the problem is that almost nobody would buy a car from a bankrupt company. It's different with the airlines. Once you arrive at your destination, you are done with your purchase and the solvency of the company doesn't matter. (as far as the purchase is concerned)
Houses are the biggest investment a 'normal' family ever makes, cars are the second biggest purchase. Once your house is a year old, you call one of a thousand people for service on the furnace or plumbing, but a car? Cars need warranties and service. You need dealerships, trained techs and a warranty that lasts for more than 12 months. If you don't have those things, they have that at the Honda dealer down the street and most will spend their money there.
THAT'S GM's problem with Chapter 11.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Tristan)
Posted by: FastGTi at 1:35 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Tristan » |
| Up untill this morning I've been of the opinion that something should be done to help out GM and Ford. This morning however there was an article in the Economist (which is my main go to for economic related information) about how the big three should not be bailed out. In that article one of the big points was that chapter 11 is the option that is best suited for a company in their shoes. Now this non-sense from the UAW...I'm now convinced that GM and Ford need chapter 11. Without some major restructuring and a break with past union agreaments I'm not sure they can be profitable. |
Not that I disagree with your sentiments, but bear in mind The Economist is based in the UK...
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: randy at 1:42 PM 11/17/2008
Do debate his position, then when the economy was good, why didn't we all go out and buy GM products?
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (randy)
Posted by: VWturbonium at 2:06 PM 11/17/2008
It's not like they are just peddling crap these days either, wether you like Ford and GM or not, they are producing competitive products now, the problem is that now was their planned "rebound" phase, and they had the ill-fortune of it landing right smack dab in the middle of a recession. From what I've read they have done a very good job at cutting costs, now they need to figure out how to fight the plague that is the UAW.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: TigerinColorado at 3:53 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Preppy » |
| BY MARK WILLIAMS AP 528 words 15 November 2008 15:43 The Canadian Press English (c) 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. COLUMBUS, Ohio _ Even as Detroit's Big Three teeter on collapse, United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger said Saturday that workers will not make any more concessions and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy. ``The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,'' Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labour costs now make up eight per cent to 10 per cent of the cost of a vehicle. ``We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that,'' he said. |
Gee wiz, only 8-10%! 
How high was it?! 
Either way the Golden Goose is sick and Getafinger just want more Golden Eggs!
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (randy)
Posted by: Spa_driver at 7:15 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by randy » |
| Wow. And I thought the reason I didn't buy GM cars wasn't because of the economy, but because THE CARS AREN'T THAT GOOD. Do debate his position, then when the economy was good, why didn't we all go out and buy GM products? |
It's all in the marketing. If you believe the current marketing from Toyota, "All I do to my Toyota is just change the oil!". Now any non-moran knows that all cars need some level of maintenance....
Or then ther's Kia's, "Buy a Kia and everything's covered for 100K!". Everybody I have known with Kia's have huge repair bills NOT covered by their warranty after only 50K miles.
Detroit needs to have something like, "Drive our car for 30 days and if you think it's not as good as a Japanese or German car we'll give you your money back!".
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: lojasmo at 7:16 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Preppy » |
| noting the labour costs now make up eight per cent to 10 per cent of the cost of a vehicle. ``We're here not because of what the auto industry has done,'' he said. ``We're here because of what has happened to the economy.'' |
Well, while he might be right that pure labor (wages) is 8-10% of a car's cost he's not factoring in the benefits. Those include pensions, health benefits and the other list of stuff they get. I just love how they (not just the union, but anybody who's trying to spin a story) take a great liberty with numbers.
As far a the comment about the economy, it just shows how narrow viewed his perception of the "big picture" is. As much as I would like for the US automakers to succeed (and trust me I own enough stock on them), I can't see the current business model working.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Big Morgan)
Posted by: VWjet at 8:30 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Big Morgan » |
| Only if you also lock up everyone who fudged their mortgage app. to get a house they should have known they couldn't afford. |
And likewise, we should lock up the consumer who bought gas guzzling SUVs and trucks when gas was cheap.
Sure, hindsight is 20/20. 
Post Title: FV-QR
Posted by: Big Morgan at 8:32 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by MoMoney » |
| If GM goes bankrupt, doesnt the contracts with the UAW all get canceled? What exactly does he plan on doing then? |
True, but what is he supposed to say? Is he supposed to discuss huge concessions and anger/freak out all of the people that he represents?
So, he comes off looking like a jerk, a jerk that can play politics.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (DasRaven)
Posted by: umeng2002 at 8:57 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by DasRaven » |
"We're locked into the economy's gravitational pull! What do we do?
|
He he... Last Starfighter
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (FastGTi)
Posted by: Tristan at 9:06 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by FastGTi » |
Not that I disagree with your sentiments, but bear in mind The Economist is based in the UK... |
I know, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a very intellectually honest publication who tends to be right on the money.
My feeling is this: GM and Ford should do whatever they need to do to not only survive but return to profitability and the US gov should help. From there is becomes a question of what's the harder battle; restoring consumer confidence after filling chapter 11 or dealing with a bloodthirsty union that will bleed you dry given the chance. The way I see it, over time consumer confidence can/will be restored if the product is good and the company is making steps towards financial help, but the ONLY way to get rid of the unions is to kill them now with chapter 11.
Post Title: FV-QR
Posted by: Big Morgan at 9:08 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Tristan » |
I know, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a very intellectually honest publication who tends to be right on the money. My feeling is this: GM and Ford should do whatever they need to do to not only survive but return to profitability and the US gov should help. From there is becomes a question of what's the harder battle; restoring consumer confidence after filling chapter 11 or dealing with a bloodthirsty union that will bleed you dry given the chance. The way I see it, over time consumer confidence can/will be restored if the product is good and the company is making steps towards financial help, but the ONLY way to get rid of the unions is to kill them now with chapter 11. |
Yeah, Chrysler already almost went bankrupt back in '79. The convertible Sebring can be their soliloquy.
Unless you can get an out-of-this-world deal, however, our best advice would be to skip the disappointing Sebring altogether and visit almost any other dealership
http://www.caranddriver.com/re...eview
edit: link
Modified by koston. at 8:26 PM 11-17-2008
Post Title:
Posted by: jonkarter at 10:28 PM 11/17/2008
| Quote, originally posted by hoodwinkvr6 » |
| a little off topic... can someone answer me this? so both GM and Chrysler build more and more vehicles in mexico.. why are these cars prices going up year after year?? the labor has to be 1/3-1/4 of what the uaw gets right? hell, even 1/5th maybe.... are they off-setting the costs?? (steel. parts. ects) wtf?? |
Oh wait, you mean it isn't just labor cost that is hurting the company? 
The thing that no one (well, except for a few) here knows is that for a plant to operate in say Mexico, the plant needs to leverage their local supply base. If that supply base is more expensive or the transportation costs are greater to get a product from elsewhere to the plant, then guess what happens to cost.
Labor is one component, but the supplied parts are another massive component to vehicle cost. Further, construction costs may (and I only use the words "may") be higher in countries outside of the US. So there may be further savings, or further costs. It depends. Think about setting up shop in rural China. How are you going to get contractors and all of their equipment there?
In short, direct labor costs are only one component, yet everyone just wants to attack the UAW as the enemy because they represent the most vivid picture.
Oh well, everyone will ignore this post and return to UAW bashing.
Modified by 3WheelGTi at 7:16 AM 11-18-2008
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Preppy)
Posted by: Electron Man at 7:19 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote » |
| We can give $700B to the financial sector for their piss-poor management and can't spare a meesly $25B. |
Apples / Oranges comparison
The financial sector isn't a poor example of a sustainable business model like the Big 3 are (pension and healthcare legacy costs have sunk them). Financial sector will recover...can't say the same for the Big 3.
Modified by Electron Man at 7:25 AM 11-18-2008
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Electron Man)
Posted by: VWjet at 7:41 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Electron Man » |
| Financial sector will recover...can't say the same for the Big 3. |
I'm waiting for the financial market to recover, THEN the autos will follow (loans for the companys and loans for the consumer). Tick Tock!
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Electron Man)
Posted by: xdre at 8:58 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Electron Man » |
| The financial sector isn't a poor example of a sustainable business model |
My irony meter just exploded.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (Electron Man)
Posted by: uncleho at 9:52 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Electron Man » |
| UAW = their own worst enemy Apples / Oranges comparison The financial sector isn't a poor example of a sustainable business model like the Big 3 are (pension and healthcare legacy costs have sunk them). Financial sector will recover...can't say the same for the Big 3.
|
Wait a minute. They are arguably ~1/3rd of the reason for this meltdown and you think that model is sustainable? Helping cause the global economy to tank isn't unsustainable?
Common*, man!
*
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (JediGTI)
Posted by: WhistlerYOW at 9:59 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by JediGTI » |
| Aren't the unions the reason why GM is burning so much money? Toyota and Honda are not union from what I know and therefore make more money per vehicle, right? Can't sell cars that make money, need to pay the UAW guys no matter what-and that's our problem? |
Legacy costs... retiree health benefits... Toyota and Honda haven't even been in the US long enough to be paying for retirees.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (hoodwinkvr6)
Posted by: uncleho at 10:02 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by hoodwinkvr6 » |
| a little off topic... can someone answer me this? so both GM and Chrysler build more and more vehicles in mexico.. why are these cars prices going up year after year?? the labor has to be 1/3-1/4 of what the uaw gets right? hell, even 1/5th maybe.... are they off-setting the costs?? (steel. parts. ects) wtf?? |
Everything (healthcare, steel, fuel, plastic, competition, safety content, retirees, etc.) is going up, so the savings in labor from Mexico becomes a short term answer essentially. You look at ANY car today and compare to its prior generations and the SIZE, PERFORMANCE, SAFETY, CONTENT, TECHNOLOGY, etc. should be a good clue as to why it isn't cheaper.
People too often mistakenly try to compare furniture or something as simple (seriously, though) as a PC or flatscreen to a car and wonder why it cannot be lower or even hold pricing year after year (seeing as how it is made in China). The Car literally includes all of those things AND MORE... and a car needs to undergo testing/validation like no other product save an airplane (i.e. You wouldn't expect your PC or lounge or flatscreen to go all weather and through pot holes and what not and expect it to survive long. You WOULD, however, your car... even when you forget to change the oil and headlight fluid.
FYI, the rate at the plant I am at is considered "high" at ~$20/day. Day... not hour. The northern plants (nearer border) are lower.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (uncleho)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 11:07 AM 11/18/2008
I am not a big fan of unions myself, but I do think they have some merits. The pendulum has swung too far to the unions. I'm sorry, but a non educated line assembly job is not worth $29 an hour. Pensions are a thing of the past. Unions do protect workers from being taken advantage of by their employers, but how far should it go? In the foreign brand's plants, the workers continually vote down the union...imagine that. I would like to see the car manufactures return plants to the USA, not Mexico and Canada. If the Unions would learn to take fair pay, we could keep the manufacturing jobs in the states.
As much as I would love to see GM burn, I also don't want to see their demise. If they could turn the company around and actually produce cars that Americans want, they might return to #1 again. If they do take the loans, there should be a complete remake of how GM and the other domestics do business. The old way doesn't work, including the way UAW operates now.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (LANZADJUST)
Posted by: badb5 at 11:21 AM 11/18/2008
This was an eye opener:
The average hourly wage for a GM emplyee when you factor in benefits is $78 per hour.
The average non-union Toyota employee at a U.S. plant is $48.
A compelling case for them to go chap 11 to renegotiate benefits IMO.
I don't want to see GM go under, they make great products, hopefully they'll work all this out.
Modified by badb5 at 9:26 AM 11-18-2008
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (LANZADJUST)
Posted by: uncleho at 11:29 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by LANZADJUST » |
| If I remember correctly, when in the late 70's, when Chrysler was going down and the Gov't stepped in, it went a little differently. Lee Iaccoca said to the unions "I have 200,000 jobs @ $10 an hour. I don't have any jobs that pay $20 an hour." I am not a big fan of unions myself, but I do think they have some merits. The pendulum has swung too far to the unions. I'm sorry, but a non educated line assembly job is not worth $29 an hour. Pensions are a thing of the past. Unions do protect workers from being taken advantage of by their employers, but how far should it go? In the foreign brand's plants, the workers continually vote down the union...imagine that. I would like to see the car manufactures return plants to the USA, not Mexico and Canada. If the Unions would learn to take fair pay, we could keep the manufacturing jobs in the states. As much as I would love to see GM burn, I also don't want to see their demise. If they could turn the company around and actually produce cars that Americans want, they might return to #1 again. If they do take the loans, there should be a complete remake of how GM and the other domestics do business. The old way doesn't work, including the way UAW operates now. |
Boy I hope thesteve doesn't read that one. I hate Walmart, but I don't care to see them "burn". That would be a bit rash, if not counterproductive.
Regarding "FAIR"... while I PERSONALLY see the crass excesses of some union policies (heck, many of their member see it and are loathe to think about it), I don't know what fair means. It should be decided based on market, but I like the idea of some balance from government or union. In a perfect company, you wouldn't need unions, because people trusted each other and shared the same goal, which supports their community... but obviously, that is a tough find in America these days... obviously.
People suggest the workers of transplants vote NO all the time and that is true. The one MAIN thing people FAIL to realize in this scenario is something pretty basic/factual/simple:
>One of the reasons (and I'm sure some see there is no need now for unions where they work) is that the union places help to MAINTAIN A HIGHER WAGE STANDARD, which the transplant reap automatically since that pressure (it is no different than any other "market pressure") surrounds them... keeps them in line with some semblence of what you deem fair. If the pressure from the historically more wealthy MFG states did not exist, minimum wage would be "fair" and even at that... it is not quite "free market", because in Mexico... $4-20/DAY is "fair".
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (LANZADJUST)
Posted by: MEIN_VW at 11:29 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by LANZADJUST » |
| I would like to see the car manufactures return plants to the USA, not Mexico and Canada. |
I agree with that, especially the part about Canada - ironic as that's where I live. I just don't see a valid reason for Detroit to be making cars in Canada anymore. The healthcare costs are lower, but the cost savings are not as good as they were when the Canadian Dollar was worth $0.60 US. It's currently about $0.80 US but for most of the past 18 months it's been about par with the US Dollar. The CAW has refused over and over again to reduce wages and accept a 2-tier wage system that UAW agreed to. With the lower wages that will come into effect for the UAW in 2009 or 2010, the cost advantage of making cars in Canada will decline even more. Especially when you have excess plant capacity and whole lot of unemployed auto workers in the US.
Shutting down the Canadian operations and moving the manufacturing back to the US would be a great move - especially from a marketing perspective. Here's what GM should do:
You need to tug the Patriotic heart strings - DO NOT underestimate the maketing potential of Patriotism in the US! - a big TV and print campaign with the American flag waving in the background announcing that GM is going to close down production in Canada. Get the word out that they're bringing production back to America and putting American workers back to work - and putting America itself back to work in the process.
GM better pay me a consulting fee if they use that idea
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: uncleho at 11:35 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by MEIN_VW » |
I agree with that, especially the part about Canada - ironic as that's where I live. I just don't see a valid reason for Detroit to be making cars in Canada anymore. The healthcare costs are lower, but the cost savings are not as good as they were when the Canadian Dollar was worth $0.60 US. It's currently about $0.80 US but for most of the past 18 months it's been about par with the US Dollar. The CAW has refused over and over again to reduce wages and accept a 2-tier wage system that UAW agreed to. With the lower wages that will come into effect for the UAW in 2009 or 2010, the cost advantage of making cars in Canada will decline even more. Especially when you have excess plant capacity and whole lot of unemployed auto workers in the US. Shutting down the Canadian operations and moving the manufacturing back to the US would be a great move - especially from a marketing perspective. Here's what GM should do: You need to tug the Patriotic heart strings - DO NOT underestimate the maketing potential of Patriotism in the US! - a big TV and print campaign with the American flag waving in the background announcing that GM is going to close down production in Canada. Get the word out that they're bringing production back to America and putting American workers back to work - and putting America itself back to work in the process. GM better pay me a consulting fee if they use that idea |
Bad, idea, bro.
The domestics still sell well in RED states. It is the BLUE areas they need to rebuild and those areas are pretty much DIVERSE in ethnicity (i.e. You cannot make an Asian buy domestic. It is against the laws of Buddha, Tao, Confucious, Jackie Chan). There is no nationalism when you have a melting pot the likes that few other metropolises around the world have. I don't have stats, but I dare say our major western/eastern coast metropolis (even inner ones like Chicago, etc.) are very ethnically diverse, which means they hold no American belief of nationalism that many WASP do.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (DasRaven)
Posted by: jeff1234 at 11:36 AM 11/18/2008
"Now hold on just one minute..."
*FART*
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 11:46 AM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by LANZADJUST » |
| In the foreign brand's plants, the workers continually vote down the union...imagine that. |
It's not quite the way you make it sound.
I used to work in a non-union facility. It still is non-union, because when the union came in to organize, the owners sat down with the workers and laid out several facts: average pay and benefits were better than the union would guarantee them, work schedules were far more flexible than the union would allow, and the existing building (15min bus from most staff) was expensive to maintain, but justified by the excellent workforce.
Three different unions have tried to organize that shop and each time they were voted down for the simple reason that the union could not prevent the company from moving the shop about 50 miles away. While this would have not affected the white collar staff much, it would have screwed the plant staff hard.
The same thing goes on at non-union automotive plants. The UAW is present in all of them. Union-friendly workers do not usually last long at the plants, but they are there. When the organizing noise gets loud enough, the tranpslants raise wages and benefits, make work rule changes, etc. Right now, it's estimated that a Toyota Georgetown worker is paid on par with a UAW worker of similar seniority and under the old contract. Benefits have been creeping up, too. At the same time, there is very little to prevent Toyota or BMW from pulling out of US manufacturing, and the workers know it. They know they have a good deal just the way things are, and know better than to risk it by inviting the lampreys into the shop.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (atomicalex)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 12:05 PM 11/18/2008
The Big 3 got focused on the huge profits on pickups and tarted-up pickup-based SUV's that everything else got ignored. Why develop small cars with good fuel economy with a $2,000 profit margin when you can sell Escalades and Denali's with a $10,000 - $20,000 profit margin?
Nobody wanted to develop fuel efficient cars back when gas was cheap becuase there wasn't enough demand for them. The problem is that when the price of gas goes up - and it did - you have nothing to offer. Remember that it takes 3-5 years to get a new model to market. Waiting for a crisis before you commit to building a fuel efficent car is like waiting for the ship to start sinking before building yourself a life raft.
So no, I don't think Detroit deserves a bailout. I do however think it's better for the economy to have their workers employed and being paid by the company rather than loosing their jobs and getting paid by the taxpayer. I think that the economic impact is just too great at a time when the US is already in for a very long recession. The problem is that Detroit cannot turn itself around in a few months. It will take years and the more I think about that, the more I begin to think that a bailout may not be able to help Detroit.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 12:12 PM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by LANZADJUST » |
| Scary though isn't it. What industry is gonna be reaching out to the govt next? |
I think the US as a nation should just file for Chapter 11, reorganize and restructure everything and try to get a fresh start
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 12:19 PM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by LANZADJUST » |
| Hate to say it, the U.S. gov't is already bankrupt. If all the loans we have made from other nations were called in, the U.S. would be beyond broke. |
I just get this mental image of a Chinese repo company putting up a notice of eviction sign on US soil. "You no pay, you no stay!"*
*I apologize for the stereotype connotations of this.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: uncleho at 12:26 PM 11/18/2008
"You money... no good! I can has own you!"
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 12:27 PM 11/18/2008
The reality is, the UAW would likely make concessions rather then go to bankruptcy court, and these comments are really a bargaining tactic against the Big 3, but these are different circumstances, the UAW and Big 3 need to find public support for the bailout from the politicians and taxpayers. These comments are detrimental, they are not just dealing with the Big 3 at this point but also public opinion.
The real problem comes down the road, the initial $25 billion isn't going to be enough even if they do get it, especially with the VEBA costs fast approaching. A second bailout package is going to be a lot harder to convince people on. GM for its part does understand this (they are even putting out propaganda youtube videos), it would do the UAW some good to join in this effort to rally public support.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (DoctorNo)
Posted by: LANZADJUST at 1:13 PM 11/18/2008
I try to empathize with any opinion/POV in order to understand if there are other variables or beliefs or counterarguments worthy of thought, but this on has me at a lost.
The only thing I can think of is what you allude to about playing politics, but like you say... they aren't negotiating with GM, but rather a population with their OWN issues let alone the UAW's.
I have known many UAW members over the years and the one thing that strikes me as funny is (and you've heard this a million times from me, but it is true) that a good majority DO NOT LIKE OR APPROVE of what their leadership pushes. Por ejemplo:
1) Many I spoke to were quite quick to say they are perfectly happy to pay a deductable instead of getting it all "free" as they've historically done. This was a couple years ago BEFORE the last contract.
2) Many absolutley HATED the fact that leadership often bailed out the BAD APPLES, when in any other business, those cancers of work would be long gone. It did NOTHING for the morale of the majority who were GOOD to GREAT workers.
3) Many thought and hated the job classifications which were clearly archaic in these times of FAST REACTION. This was mainly the operator class who had to wait for just the right skilled trades to show up only to be told it was someone else's job.
Given all of these beliefs I thought, "Wow. They CAN help change this around. They ARE flexible and willing to compromise." While the contract was good, it was only short term in some respects. I was somewhat disappointed (but more in the leadership of the company as the big decision of product laid with them), but then I thought about the society and how it plays out the SAME WAY.
We all have our bitches and gripes... what we know are inefficient or plain stupid... we, as a society, know DAMN well our problems... YET... we (like these members)... practically IGNORE the issues or at least ignore any personal attempts to AFFECT CHANGE. We vote. The UAW vote. We bitch amongst ourselves and what it play out on TV. That's about it! 
We as a society are little different than the UAW. GM is just a smaller version of our society... from grunts who care or not care to leaders who care or not care and grunts who have vision or not to leaders who have vision or not.
Modified by uncleho at 1:03 PM 11-18-2008
Post Title: Re:
Posted by: mx5er at 3:36 PM 11/18/2008
With the rate they're goin' there won't be a new host to latch onto.
Post Title: Re: Re: (mx5er)
Posted by: Murderface at 4:06 PM 11/18/2008
Conditions aren't bad either. It's not very dangerous either unless you're an idiot.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (uncleho)
Posted by: DoctorNo at 5:41 PM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by uncleho » |
| No doubt. I try to empathize with any opinion/POV in order to understand if there are other variables or beliefs or counterarguments worthy of thought, but this on has me at a lost. The only thing I can think of is what you allude to about playing politics, but like you say... they aren't negotiating with GM, but rather a population with their OWN issues let alone the UAW's. I have known many UAW members over the years and the one thing that strikes me as funny is (and you've heard this a million times from me, but it is true) that a good majority DO NOT LIKE OR APPROVE of what their leadership pushes. Por ejemplo: Given all of these beliefs I thought, "Wow. They CAN help change this around. They ARE flexible and willing to compromise." While the contract was good, it was only short term in some respects. I was somewhat disappointed (but more in the leadership of the company as the big decision of product laid with them), but then I thought about the society and how it plays out the SAME WAY. We all have our bitches and gripes... what we know are inefficient or plain stupid... we, as a society, know DAMN well our problems... YET... we (like these members)... practically IGNORE the issues or at least ignore any personal attempts to AFFECT CHANGE. We vote. The UAW vote. We bitch amongst ourselves and what it play out on TV. That's about it! We as a society are little different than the UAW. GM is just a smaller version of our society... from grunts who care or not care to leaders who care or not care and grunts who have vision or not to leaders who have vision or not.
|
You bring up good points. From my personal perspective, there are a lot of good things that the UAW does, there are a lot of bad decisions management made that aren't the fault of labor, and there are a lot of good people that don't deserve to lose their jobs. But as Clint Eastwood once said "deserve got nothing to do with it".
At this point, all sides need to be pragmatic. There is a lot of blame to be go around at the moment, but it doesn't matter who is at blame relative to the task at hand. The Big 3 needs to shrink to a size that is efficient, where operating costs aren't negative, to the point where the majority of UAW worker's jobs are saved at the sacrifice of losing a good portion (better to lose a limb). In the case of GM, of the 21 North American plants, 3 are closing, but an estimated 5 more need to close to match demand. There needs to be a cost effective method to do this, and the UAW has to make it a priority to shed these jobs rather then protect them. UAW leadership needs to understand that cutting these jobs in a cost-effective manner is crucial for their own survival, at the very least from the UAW's perspective, they can't allow Big 3 to fold before VEBA is set up.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (MEIN_VW)
Posted by: Bah Humbug at 6:12 PM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by MEIN_VW » |
| I think the US as a nation should just file for Chapter 11, reorganize and restructure everything and try to get a fresh start |
There was a BBC economy podcast sometime last week discussing something to that effect: the only reason there is no structure for when a country becomes insolvent is because no developed nations have been insolvent, or nearly so, until quite recently. Expect such a framework to appear sometime in the relatively near future, as Iceland and perhaps others will need one.
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (Big Morgan)
Posted by: Bah Humbug at 6:24 PM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Big Morgan » |
| I think you missed the point - that everyone created this credit crisis and blaming it on "Wall Street suits" is an oversimplification and a cop-out. |
That pissed me off when CNN said it too.
I have low-five-figures in student loans, and whatever I've put on my credit card since I paid it off last week, which occurs every other week, at least. I maxed out my 401(k) in early October. I have had jack all to do with this meltdown.
I do have to blame Wall Street more than Main Street for this. The Wall Street people are (supposedly) educated and intelligent about money: it's their freaking job!. Main Street people, however much they "should have" known better, are not so focused on financial issues, and it's not their job to be. Further, people who were enabled to buy far more house than they could afford are still left holding the bag, and many have been foreclosed on, and I'm sure that's not pleasant. Wall Streeters, on the other hand, made fat sacks of cash over the past decade or so while doing this, and when it came time to pay dem Rattenfänger they persuaded Uncle Sam to pick up the tab while keeping their ill-gotten gains. If I had my way there would be no taxpayer dollars at stake until all who profited from this had emptied their accounts and tag-saled all their belongings, at least until they were firmly middle-class. They have not demonstrated they are worth any better than that.
Post Title: Re: UAW chief Gettelfinger rules out more concessions to Big Three automakers (DoctorNo)
Posted by: uncleho at 7:41 PM 11/18/2008
Actually a better word is just SACREFICING. Since there are no sales right now, the best thing to do is just shorten work weeks to less than 5 days (sans pay) and those on cancelled projects should be merged with those projects still high priority and help split the work in order to quicken their pace when this downturn hopefully turns around. I know it isn't as easy as saying that, but when times are like this... people need to get over the calamity, figure the work out, and just get 'er done.
I have been ready for GM to do that and I wish our CEO would have asked everyone to do so... prior to begging for money. I'm no genius, but anyone with half a clue about cars and America can guess that the outcome of such begging is less than palatable to congress and the American public in general.
Modified by uncleho at 5:43 PM 11-18-2008
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (SlowMotion)
Posted by: Ark6 at 9:11 PM 11/18/2008
| Quote, originally posted by SlowMotion » |
I don't think so. |
| Quote, originally posted by Bah Humbug » |
| Further, people who were enabled to buy far more house than they could afford are still left holding the bag, and many have been foreclosed on, and I'm sure that's not pleasant. |
Ignorance is no excuse - they may have been "enabled" to buy more house (and car, and plasma TV, etc) than they could afford but they still bought more than they could afford.
Greed is universal, its not confined to Wall Street.
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (Big Morgan)
Posted by: Bah Humbug at 6:24 AM 11/19/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Big Morgan » |
| Ignorance is no excuse - they may have been "enabled" to buy more house (and car, and plasma TV, etc) than they could afford but they still bought more than they could afford. Greed is universal, its not confined to Wall Street. |
Take two people. One person's job is finance and risk analysis. The other person's job is, oh, being a chauffeur, to stay on topic. All talk of excuses aside, who should be more knowledgeable about how much home someone can afford? Think hard, it's an SAT-style question.
If you dare to say they should be equal, you're proving my other point, that the "financial industry" brings nothing to the table, because apparently everyone else in the economy should be able to do their job, too, so what are they paid so much for?
Post Title: Re: FV-QR (Bah Humbug)
Posted by: VWjet at 6:44 AM 11/19/2008
| Quote, originally posted by Bah Humbug » |
| If you dare to say they should be equal, you're proving my other point, that the "financial industry" brings nothing to the table, because apparently everyone else in the economy should be able to do their job, too, so what are they paid so much for? |
Agreed, one type of greed is done without full disclosure of the outcome, the other is done "knowing it all" and that is what makes the latter so much worse and shameful.
 |