Jump to content
IGNORED

UAW wants to share benefits of "amazing turnaround"


John Ranalletta

Recommended Posts

John Ranalletta

Good question.

 

They would have taken a front row seat with first claims on assets and they would have been made whole. That's the law, at least until the law was subverted for political purposes.

 

Kinda' like home mortgages. Why bother writing and signing them if they aren't to be enforced?

Link to comment

Well, if the automakers give in to demands, we will have another bailout of the big 3, unsustainable labor costs were a part of the reason they were in trouble.

 

 

Link to comment

John-

 

I suggest you read "Overhaul" by Steve Rattner, who now is in a bit of legal trouble as you likely know. He was the chief architect of the auto bailout. In it you will see the concessions bondholders willingly made so as to avoid the vulturesque "front row" sale of assets. Read that and get back to us about the poor stiffed bondholders.

 

-MKL

Link to comment

Before the UAW gets a (larger) share, how about making whole the U.S. Treasury which was tapped to make this experiment in socialism work? In cash, not in-kind, like when you could tell someone worked for the government because they drove a Chrysler K car.

Link to comment
Well, if the automakers give in to demands, we will have another bailout of the big 3, unsustainable labor costs were a part of the reason they were in trouble.

 

Or bailout the Big 2 anyway, Ford didn't get any TARP money or go bankrupt, they were clever enough to get a new leader from outside the auto industry who shook things up before the real downturn. I was reading about his first meeting with his heads, he went round the table asking how things were and all of them said "fine". He then wanted to know how, if everything was fine, the forecast was for a $17bn loss in the following year. They found some problems to deal with...
Link to comment

And that is the valuable story that can be gleaned from this whole episode. Ford confronted their problems, made good choices and ended up a smarter, healthier company because of it.

 

That is the real tragedy of this whole bailout business. Those who were artificially propped up never got the chance to find out that they might have weathered the storm and succeeded in the face of adversity. Nothing valuable was learned from the experience.

Link to comment
DavidEBSmith

Ford was in better shape to start with, the projections were that GM wouldn't have survived without help. GM would have died, that would have taken down their suppliers, which would have taken Ford down. We'd have no domestic auto industry and we'd be driving around in accelerating Toyotas and Tata Sumos. But we certainly wouldn't have the UAW to worry about.

 

Destroying a huge chunk of America's economy just so we can see if a corporation has some old-fashioned gumption sounds like an idea straight out of a bad novel. Oh, wait . . .

Link to comment
That is the real tragedy of this whole bailout business. Those who were artificially propped up never got the chance to find out that they might have weathered the storm and succeeded in the face of adversity. Nothing valuable was learned from the experience.

 

Completely, utterly, and totally absurd. Again, Rattner's book is useful here. There is nobody in or outside of the industry who would say GM had a remote chance of surviving without intervention, and as David pointed out, Ford was on the front lines actually supporting the intervention because if GM went down, most of Ford's suppliers would have too. Then you would "learn" something - about unemployment en masse, and the burden that would place on that danged socialist safety net.

 

What's upsetting about this is that had there been no intervention, the same people who now bitch about it would be screaming about the loss of jobs and devastation on our manufacturing sector. You get the sense that either there is some blind devotion to ideology no matter the real costs, or that no matter what this administration does, they're wrong.

 

-MKL

Link to comment

Nice of youse boys to want to deny the WORKERS what they gave up to make the corporate staff and share holders more wealthy.

Mr Blue collar suffers from the poor decisions that direct the company and you are worried about the investors. How about no returns on investments until management gets it right? That's the test of your investment, it's gamble you made trusting in their product. It's not the workers fault they are give a poor product to produce, they just do the work.

How many of you work for a pittance?

Link to comment
Nice of youse boys to want to deny the WORKERS what they gave up to make the corporate staff and share holders more wealthy.

Mr Blue collar suffers from the poor decisions that direct the company and you are worried about the investors. How about no returns on investments until management gets it right? That's the test of your investment, it's gamble you made trusting in their product. It's not the workers fault they are give a poor product to produce, they just do the work.

+1

Link to comment
Nice of youse boys to want to deny the WORKERS what they gave up to make the corporate staff and share holders more wealthy.

Mr Blue collar suffers from the poor decisions that direct the company and you are worried about the investors. How about no returns on investments until management gets it right? That's the test of your investment, it's gamble you made trusting in their product. It's not the workers fault they are give a poor product to produce, they just do the work.

How many of you work for a pittance?

While I understand what you are saying and to an extent agree it's not as one sided as that. There's no question that in the auto industry the 'workers' contributed to the problems, they did shoddy work and they tried to take advantage of every 'out' they could. Management and design certainly didn't help with their short-sightedness and inability to produce appropriate and well implemented products. The workers seem to have contributed very little to improving the product, it could easily be apparent to an assembler that the way a thing was designed was going to fail, the guys in the ivory tower don't always consider the everyday mis-function of things. And then of course management doesn't listen anyway.

 

What needs to happen is to make everybody involved a true stakeholder and stop talking and acting out "management and workers", they are all employees and can and must contribute. I've always liked the idea of profit sharing, an equal share for all not based on salary is best for motivation. Some employees will probably also negotiate individual performance based compensation but that shouldn't come from the profit sharing pool. The scheme only works if everybody both can contribute and feels that they can contribute, which takes a commitment from both 'workers' and 'management' to learn more about the product.

 

Link to comment

So true Bob. Anyone who solely blames either the UAW or management without acklowedging the other is, to put it mildly, misinformed. There is a great deal of blame to go around here. Hopefully neither the often shortsighted UAW nor the incompetent, arrogant management culture return to their old ways.

 

-MKL

 

PS - Hey Bob, when you ask why workers didn't contribute ideas a'la the Japanese, consider in some plants that management and workers were totally isolated - segregated bathrooms, lunchrooms, and all. At GM HQ top brass had their own private parking garage with an elevator that took them straight to the top floors so they wouldn't have to comingle with anyone else on the way in or out. Is it any surprise an insular culture like this was doomed to fail?

Link to comment
John Ranalletta

-1

 

Without private investors including most of our pension funds there are no workers unless every one works for uncle. I guess that's where we're headed anyway to the delight of some here.

Link to comment

+2

 

Love it when some here blame the workers for shoddy work, as if they have first hand knowledge of these occurances. And where are the facts?? Just throw out blanket unstantiated talking points like Glenn Beck...

 

I have never worked the line, but can tell you that I've got a truck with a lot of miles on it, no issues, and can tell you I bought American for a reason.

 

It will always be Mgmt VS Workers unless the workers have a vested stake, and Mgmt will never let it happen..

 

MB>

Link to comment
+2

 

Love it when some here blame the workers for shoddy work, as if they have first hand knowledge of these occurances.

MB>

When my Chrysler was new a screw backed out of the gas tank somewhere causing the Check Engine light to come on, apparently it just hadn't been tightened, not a big deal but shoddy. You have to be deaf not to have heard a hundred of these stories.

 

And I just remembered (unfortunately) my Ford E150 van, what a POS that was!

Link to comment

Like the legendary Harley "marking their territory" stories, these old stories have very little relation to modern American car quality. I admit I was so disgusted with my American cars I swore them off years ago. You should hear what my family went through with our Fords. I have been driving foreign for 13 years now, but for the first time I feel I can look at them again. The quality ratings are excellent, customer satisfaction dramatically up, and you know who got the biggest recall last year for stickin' pedals....

 

That said Detroit is not out of the woods yet. Let us look on - and hope - that this 9th life they're on is not squandered like all the previous ones were. They are facing a skeptical public with little patience for more excuses, especially those of us who are happy on the other side of the fence and don't need to make any. Bring us back to you with quality product, innovative technology (Volt!) and good service and we will come...

 

-MKL

Link to comment

Don't want to reprint all of Killers response above, I hate all those silly reprints.

Management/Worker co-operation is altruistic at best. As mentioned, management doesn't listen to the worker, much. The Japanese industry if I've understood what I've read is not quite the work place it once was. Hire to retire job security is not there anymore and management seeks it's own council.

As far as investors supplying the pensions, yes if a company is run in a manner that foremost makes a product that is desired and produced by interested parties.

That's what investment should be, not ringing every dollar one can out of an enterprise before such actions cause it's demise.

 

In respect to acknowledging workers for efforts, as a worker bee I was given incentive awards with some regularity. As a supervisor those I put in for said awards were often turned down or the monetary level reduced by upper management because they were cheap bastids who were only interested in saving money out that fund so they could acknowledge themselves...pissed me off!

Link to comment

I've got a truck with a lot of miles on it, no issues, and can tell you I bought American for a reason.

 

MB>

But I dont see a H-D below, only German and Japanese. Just a joke my friend. :wave:

 

 

74 R90S

98 K1200RS

03 1150RT

04 DRZ400

 

?????

 

Link to comment
+2

 

Love it when some here blame the workers for shoddy work, as if they have first hand knowledge of these occurances. And where are the facts?? Just throw out blanket unstantiated talking points like Glenn Beck...

 

I have never worked the line, but can tell you that I've got a truck with a lot of miles on it, no issues, and can tell you I bought American for a reason.

 

It will always be Mgmt VS Workers unless the workers have a vested stake, and Mgmt will never let it happen..

 

MB>

 

 

Can you say RED HANDED??

 

 

 

Link to comment

Mmmm.. some workers smokin' a doobie, eh? What do you think management is ingesting to have made the decisions they made? Must be a helluva lot stronger, don't you think?

 

-MKL

Link to comment
Mmmm.. some workers smokin' a doobie, eh? What do you think management is ingesting to have made the decisions they made? Must be a helluva lot stronger, don't you think?

 

-MKL

 

If Big Bro woulda never have gotten involved in the car bidness 40 years ago they would have never made so many dumb decisions. They had to become politicians just to run the companies. Not to mention pension plans from hell.

 

Then again, who knows.

 

What the big three build best are big vehicles and trucks.

 

Big Bro spends all it's time tryin to get everyone to drive smaller vehicles. Somethin had to give.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Here's one for the record books: The impossibly stupid decisions of Detroit's management are the result of government intervention? 40 years ago? Please enlighten us as to exactly what specific involvement you're referring to, and exactly how that involvement lead to said decisions.

 

-MKL

Link to comment
Here's one for the record books: The impossibly stupid decisions of Detroit's management are the result of government intervention? 40 years ago? Please enlighten us as to exactly what specific involvement you're referring to, and exactly how that involvement lead to said decisions.

 

-MKL

 

Please save the belittling comments for someone else...

 

 

 

From WIKI

 

CAFE STANDARDS (1975) sorry 36 years ago.

 

"Automakers have said that small, fuel-efficient vehicles cost the auto industry billions of dollars. They cost almost as much to design and market but cannot be sold for as much as larger vehicles such as SUVs"

 

From the WSJ

 

executives from General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota went to Capitol Hill today to sing their song of woe about CAFE fuel-effiency standards. They were joined by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who argued that auto makers’ union workers would bear the heavy cost — maybe $100 billion — of implementing higher fuel standards.

 

 

One for the records.....

 

 

 

Do you feel enlightened?

 

 

Link to comment

Ahhh.... So because Detroit could not design and build small cars due to some of the industrialized world's most lax fuel economy standards, that's government's fault?

 

I guess that explains how the Japanese and Koreans design and build small cars - right here no less - at a substantial profit.

 

If both Detroit and foreigners operate under the same exact laws, and in fact both use American workers, yet only Detroit isn't profitable - then it follows logically that neither the laws or the workers are at fault for the lack of profitability, doesn't it?

 

I don't mean to be belittling, but honestly it's kind of tiring when the one and only bogeyman people seem to have is the government. Certainly government isn't the answer to much, but there's a limit - and giving Detroit's inept management a free pass is surely over that limit. When are people responsible for their own destinies and work without blaming Uncle Sam? Isn't blaming blindly just as stupid as looking blindly to Uncle for help? Seems so to me....

 

-MKL

Link to comment

On the one hand, government requires automakers to meet fuel economy standards (which would be fairly easy to do by making smaller, lighter vehicles) and on the other, the automakers have to also meet vehicle safety standards (which would be fairly easy to do my making larger, heavier vehicles).

 

Neither example allows them to necessarily build vehicles that the public wants to purchase.

Link to comment

The US auto industry showed no imagination or invention in designing and producing small vehicles preferring to whine that nobody wanted them. The Japanese and Germans (in my opinion particularly Honda and VW) made beautiful small cars which were quite popular.

Link to comment
The US auto industry showed no imagination or invention in designing and producing small vehicles preferring to whine that nobody wanted them. The Japanese and Germans (in my opinion particularly Honda and VW) made beautiful small cars which were quite popular.

 

No doubt, but that is not what made them money, so why should they even bother.....or be made to bother. They had their market and were making money in that market.

 

They were forced by Big Bro to do something they weren't qualified to do.

 

What gives the government the right to force us to buy vehicles that are less safe.

 

Drop the CAFE Standards tomorrow.....or keep bailin em out.

 

 

 

..and for the record only the big three have been able to mass produce a pickup that can tow 10,000 lbs.

 

 

Link to comment
On the one hand, government requires automakers to meet fuel economy standards (which would be fairly easy to do by making smaller, lighter vehicles) and on the other, the automakers have to also meet vehicle safety standards (which would be fairly easy to do my making larger, heavier vehicles).

 

Neither example allows them to necessarily build vehicles that the public wants to purchase.

 

 

I think I read somewhere that the CAFE Standards can be held responsible for somethin like 1500 deaths(US) in 1993 alone?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Ahhh.... So because Detroit could not design and build small cars due to some of the industrialized world's most lax fuel economy standards, that's government's fault?

 

I guess that explains how the Japanese and Koreans design and build small cars - right here no less - at a substantial profit.

 

If both Detroit and foreigners operate under the same exact laws, and in fact both use American workers, yet only Detroit isn't profitable - then it follows logically that neither the laws or the workers are at fault for the lack of profitability, doesn't it?

 

I don't mean to be belittling, but honestly it's kind of tiring when the one and only bogeyman people seem to have is the government. Certainly government isn't the answer to much, but there's a limit - and giving Detroit's inept management a free pass is surely over that limit. When are people responsible for their own destinies and work without blaming Uncle Sam? Isn't blaming blindly just as stupid as looking blindly to Uncle for help? Seems so to me....

 

-MKL

 

 

You ask me to back up my statement.

 

Mine statement was factual.

 

This statement of yours is either the craw fish dance or bad spin?

 

:rofl:

Link to comment

Whip, the sole fact you produced was the year CAFE started. The rest is totally devoid of anything remotely resembling fact, logic, or reason.

 

The statement of mine took yours and subjected it to logic, and the results are pretty obvious.

 

-MKL

Link to comment
Whip, the sole fact you produced was the year CAFE started. The rest is totally devoid of anything remotely resembling fact, logic, or reason.

 

The statement of mine took yours and subjected it to logic, and the results are pretty obvious.

 

-MKL

 

Wrong again...

 

WSJ

 

March 14, 2007

 

From the WSJ

 

executives from General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota went to Capitol Hill today to sing their song of woe about CAFE fuel-effiency standards. They were joined by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who argued that auto makers’ union workers would bear the heavy cost — maybe $100 billion — of implementing higher fuel standards.

 

 

 

Stop digging

 

 

 

Your results are only obvious to Prius drivers.

 

:rofl::rofl:

 

 

I really mean that in the funniest way, please don't take offense. I know your a good guy, I am having fun with this subject. It is very near and dear to me. I LOVE Detroit.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
[From the WSJ

 

executives from General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota went to Capitol Hill today to sing their song of woe about CAFE fuel-effiency standards. They were joined by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who argued that auto makers’ union workers would bear the heavy cost — maybe $100 billion — of implementing higher fuel standards.

Quoting the very people that screwed up doesn't make much of a case.

 

I'd rather have CAFE than a Detroit auto industry. They made no effort to build safe small cars, it can be done as the Euros have shown.

Link to comment
[From the WSJ

 

executives from General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota went to Capitol Hill today to sing their song of woe about CAFE fuel-effiency standards. They were joined by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who argued that auto makers’ union workers would bear the heavy cost — maybe $100 billion — of implementing higher fuel standards.

Quoting the very people that screwed up doesn't make much of a case.

 

I'd rather have CAFE than a Detroit auto industry. They made no effort to build safe small cars, it can be done as the Euros have shown.

 

 

 

The 1965 Mustang

 

Corvair

 

1967 Camaro

 

 

 

They didn't start making junk till they put 4 cylinder POS engines in those cars....and why did they do that????

 

 

Link to comment
They didn't start making junk till they put 4 cylinder POS engines in those cars....and why did they do that????

 

Because they couldn't be bothered to build a platform suited to a 4 cyclinder engine. End of story!

 

And when they did try to build a small car they built the Pinto instead of the Golf! Good grief, they're lucky to have lasted this long.

Link to comment
They didn't start making junk till they put 4 cylinder POS engines in those cars....and why did they do that????

 

Because they couldn't be bothered to build a platform suited to a 4 cyclinder engine. End of story!

 

And when they did try to build a small car they built the Pinto instead of the Golf! Good grief, they're lucky to have lasted this long.

 

 

LOL

 

 

All my neighbors had Pintos and Mavericks.

 

BTW...in the first 4 months the Pinto sold over 100,000 units and I think it had a Euro motor.

 

 

Link to comment
All my neighbors had Pintos and Mavericks.

 

BTW...in the first 4 months the Pinto sold over 100,000 units and I think it had a Euro motor.

 

Which only goes to show that the American people were ready for and willing to buy a small car. If they had built a Golf just imagine where they would be today.
Link to comment
All my neighbors had Pintos and Mavericks.

 

BTW...in the first 4 months the Pinto sold over 100,000 units and I think it had a Euro motor.

 

Which only goes to show that the American people were ready for and willing to buy a small car. If they had built a Golf just imagine where they would be today.

 

 

If you say so.

 

The golf/rabbit didn't come around till later. VW was still tryin to sell the bug and what a fine machine that was in 1939.

 

LOL

 

 

 

 

Then the CAFE standards came into play in 1975 and it was just a matter of time before they needed a bail out.

 

 

Without the CAFE Standards more people would be alive today and more people would have jobs.

 

It really is too bad we let that camel put his big ass nose under the tent.

 

1150619516_TGjX3-L.jpg

 

Link to comment

The WSJ story is replicated almost yearly. The manufacturers were supposed to go bankrupt and thousands of workers fired when:

 

1) Seatbelts were mandated

2) Airbags were mandated

3) stability control was mandated

 

 

and on, and on. Same old song and dance. CAFE standards are NOTHING compared to standards much of the rest of the industrialized world. Hard to believe, especially in the wake of world events in the past 10 years - remember those?? - that any person would advocate LOWER fuel economy standards.

 

-MKL

Link to comment
The WSJ story is replicated almost yearly. The manufacturers were supposed to go bankrupt and thousands of workers fired when:

 

1) Seatbelts were mandated

2) Airbags were mandated

3) stability control was mandated

 

 

and on, and on. Same old song and dance. CAFE standards are NOTHING compared to standards much of the rest of the industrialized world. Hard to believe, especially in the wake of world events in the past 10 years - remember those?? - that any person would advocate LOWER fuel economy standards.

 

-MKL

 

 

 

By the looks of things we shoulda listened to em.

 

They were right and we bailed em out just like we did in for Chrysler in the 70's......we have found the enemy it is the us/voters.

 

 

...and to beat the horse some more....why does Big Bro get to regulate the fuel economy of what I wish to purchase?

 

 

:dopeslap:

Link to comment
...and to beat the horse some more....why does Big Bro get to regulate the fuel economy of what I wish to purchase?

 

For starters, you can buy whatever you want, so long as your or the manufacturer are willing to pay for the penalties.

 

Beyond that, the reasons why "Big Bro" (not a terribly apt description for this activity, I don't think), it's all pretty much there in black and white:

 

Section 8.

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to . . . provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States . . .

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states . . .

 

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Link to comment

Counselor

 

 

I accept your conclusion after reading what my man Scalia has said on the subject.

 

It does not change my belief that it is wrong for Big Bro to get involved in such things and in this case has destroy another industry. It was a knee jerk reaction in 1975 and should be repealed.

 

I am now willing to accept the notion that we are all doomed. I will begin selling everything and move into my grandmothers abandoned house......prolly in the basement.

 

 

BTW...I think this is a perfect example of BIG BRO at work by making the folks conform and punishing those that don't.

 

:cry:

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...