How many will be employed at a more realistic wage with a new automaker once the Big 3 go under?
One million is the example Aceman. Out of that, 75% ARE RETIRED..BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WORKING AGAIN! So..that leaves 250.000. Perhaps 25% are nearing retirement, and wouldn't get a job anyway because of that. that leaves around 181.000. Who could probably retrain and find work..IF THERE IS ANY. If they seek work in the area where they live, they are SOL...there is no work, because the area depends on the Auto Industry. So then you would get a mass exodus from the area coparable to the evacuationof new Orleans during the hurricane Katrina. That would leave up to 150.000 homes empty, which are unsaleable...because there is no work!! So they can't leave, because they wouldn't have any money to buy somewhere else...And anyway, if they DID manage to leave the area in such vast numbers...what would happen to all the shops, cinemas, bowling alleys..etc etc that depend upon their money? Schools? Local administrations? THAT is the problem which goes FAR beyond your perception of the problem being overpaid UAW workers, even though they are overpayed in many cases. Your thinking stops at the front door, my friend.. Nick
Texas. La, Miss, NM, Okla lost that many jobs back in the 80s when the oil bust came Nick. (Would the last one out of Houston please turn out the lights?) We survived. I personally loaded up my family and moved to Tennessee for a few years during that time. Tens of thousands did the same--maybe many more thousands--relocated and started over elsewhere. Not a death knell by any means.
Remember when Ma Bell and Union oil were forced to split up because they were to big? Why is it now that companies are to big to fail but not big enough to be split up? Why can't GM just split up and sell off a brand and its lines and its asset to make smaller companies? Then it can shed the union fat and start back as a solvent company. If the UAW still wants to work on the supply side they can and they can run those companies into the ground too and those companies can do the same shedding. The costs of the unions is not a new thing.
IP: Logged
10:07 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
One million is the example Aceman. Out of that, 75% ARE RETIRED..BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WORKING AGAIN! So..that leaves 250.000. Perhaps 25% are nearing retirement, and wouldn't get a job anyway because of that. that leaves around 181.000. Who could probably retrain and find work..IF THERE IS ANY. If they seek work in the area where they live, they are SOL...there is no work, because the area depends on the Auto Industry. So then you would get a mass exodus from the area coparable to the evacuationof new Orleans during the hurricane Katrina. That would leave up to 150.000 homes empty, which are unsaleable...because there is no work!! So they can't leave, because they wouldn't have any money to buy somewhere else...And anyway, if they DID manage to leave the area in such vast numbers...what would happen to all the shops, cinemas, bowling alleys..etc etc that depend upon their money? Schools? Local administrations? THAT is the problem which goes FAR beyond your perception of the problem being overpaid UAW workers, even though they are overpayed in many cases. Your thinking stops at the front door, my friend.. Nick
well - how it should work: "that is not my problem."
so - why doesn't it work like that? because corporations are allowed to grow to sizes which affect national security & welfare.
this is the 2nd example in just as many months to why this should not be allowed to happen. corporations holding the nation hostage for money. pay us or we go under. and we will take many others with us. bwahahahaha.
not sure how to make scenario impossible in the future - but - somehow a way must be found.
Remember when Ma Bell and Union oil were forced to split up because they were to big? Why is it now that companies are to big to fail but not big enough to be split up? Why can't GM just split up and sell off a brand and its lines and its asset to make smaller companies? Then it can shed the union fat and start back as a solvent company. If the UAW still wants to work on the supply side they can and they can run those companies into the ground too and those companies can do the same shedding. The costs of the unions is not a new thing.
They can, and may do just that, but not under current labor contracts. The other side of that, is that no one wants those not-as-profitable car lines. The import companies would rather just wait & take that market share with their own brands, and not have to worry about UAW related stuff.
I again say--what will happen is, that congress will allow GM/Ford/Chrysler to go into Ch11 and restructure top to bottom. The companies will again become solvent and not nearly as many workers will lose their jobs. Granted the workers and management won't be making what they currently are, but this is the best possible scenario at this late stage of the game.
Originally posted by aceman: Cite? WTF? A pattern maker or a moldmaker doesn't stand on an assembly line doing the same repetitive task that it takes about a week to master.
Apples = Oranges
DUH!
what? they dont all put lugnutz on? I thought cars were made of lugnutz....and someone swept up afterwards
IP: Logged
10:45 AM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
Putting a lug nut on with a machine takes about a week to master. UNSKILLED
Putting a windshield in takes about a week to master. UNSKILLED
Putting an armrest on takes about a week to master. UNSKILLED
Bolting in a bucket seat takes about a week to master. UNSKILLED
Making the same repetitive weld. Near UNSKILLED
----
Designing a mold that is different and must meet different standards for each application or project. SKILLED. At the very least, SEMI-SKILLED
All union jobs, but why should an assembly line worker bolting in an armrest be paid the same as a skilled craftsman? And how is this not Apples = Oranges?
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 11-18-2008).]
Anyway, I'd still like to see some authoritative cites for this $71+ wage/benefit figure.
JazzMan
quote
The new contract covers 2007-2011, and allows GM to cut up to 30,000 US jobs and close 12 plants. UAW members cost GM about $71 an hour, including $31 for wages and $22 for health insurance (for active and retired members); GM says that health care added $1,900 to the cost of every North American car sold in 2006.
Semi-skilled? It took many, many years for my very talented father to master his trade craft. 99% of the people who tried didn't even succeed at that. He was in a union that protected him from predatory and abusive management, yet you portray all unions as basically groups of unskilled thugs holding their companies hostage. My father was 100 times the man you will ever be, especially since you choose to hide behind the American flag while you snipe at the very people who helped to create and build this great nation, people like my father. You are a coward in a US service uniform, wrapping yourself in the flag in an attempt to make people think you embody the ideals of being American while you seek to undercut those ideals at every turn.
But that's the Aceman we all know, isn't it? All you ever were, all you ever will be, is nothing, no matter what costume you wear. A mere speck of dust on the bottom of the boot heel of history.
JazzMan
What would it take for you go away again?
IP: Logged
11:06 AM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by JazzMan: ............... Let's ask this another way, then.
1. What do you think is a fair wage for a line worker?
2. Do you think that line workers should be provided health insurance as a benefit?
3. If the line worker is to pay toward their health insurance (if provided), what do you think is a fair percentage of net pay to contribute?
4. Should any kind of retirement benefit be provided?
5. If so, how much is fair?
6. If not, what percentage of net (or gross) pay is fair and reasonable for the worker to save for retirement?
7. Should line workers's pay increase over time as their experience grows and they learn more tasks?
8. If so, should that pay increase be in excess of inflation, i.e., the worker's real income actually increases over time?
9. If workers aren't paid enough to put away for retirement or unexpected health crisis, what should happen to the worker? Should taxpayers pick up the tab for indigent health care and homeless shelters?
A serious attempt to answer these questions would earn some of my respect.
JazzMan
and, keep in mind that they can afford a $10 million/year salary. thats $5,000/hr BTW - $5,000 / hr
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 11-18-2008).]
IP: Logged
11:41 AM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by aceman: Nope! I don't like the tone of your post. So, therefore, I will not respond to your posts. (Sound familiar, Mr. Stick up my ass?)
As for earning your respect? Why do I need that? Why would I want that? Fck off!
And finally, everyone....Please note who went on a personally attack. I was not me!
oh, was someone mean to you?
IP: Logged
11:44 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
If we raised pay to employees so much we can't afford it what choice is there? Something has to crash and burn sad as it is. Either that or every other countty has to raise their pay and benefits to equal ours, which of those is doable? Just like other things that should have gone under, the Gov will try and bail them out, and my guess is we will keep doing that until the entire country goes broke together, which to me worst case scenario. (Excluding violence.)
Maybe it is like a comedian snorting coke before going out on stage each night, makes you look good for that night, but eventually you'll be found face down dead in your hotel room.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-18-2008).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Cats out of the bag, can't put it back in.
If we raised pay to employees so much we can't afford it what choice is there? Something has to crash and burn sad as it is. Either that or every other countty has to raise their pay and benefits to equal ours, which of those is doable? Just like other things that should have gone under, the Gv will try and bail them out, and my guess is we will keep doing that until the entire goes broke together, which to me worst case scenario. (Excluding violence.)
well - it is not just labor costs - we must also compete against nations with no EPA - no OSHA - no Disability. But - I am sure that will QUICKLY change. The little asian grunions will also get sick of being beast of burden, just as we did early last century. wont take long.
IP: Logged
11:49 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37877 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
If the big three go under, not only will we lose about a quarter million jobs immediately the fallout of suppliers, could be 2 million. At least thats what CBS news this morning.
See we are not just talking about the autoworkers, we are talking about,
The suppliers, The sandwich shop makers, The advertising budjets for these companies amout to millions a year, The tax dollars lost, This will snowball, Someone figure that out. The amount of tax dollars lost alone could be billions in just the first month.
Is it going to hurt the economy?
Is it going to hurt the economy ? What is the economy ?
quote
Dictionary.com e⋅con⋅o⋅my    /ɪˈkɒnəmi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-kon-uh-mee] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -mies, adjective, adverb –noun 1. thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumption of money, materials, etc. 2. an act or means of thrifty saving; a saving: He achieved a small economy by walking to work instead of taking a bus. 3. the management of the resources of a community, country, etc., esp. with a view to its productivity. 4. the prosperity or earnings of a place: Further inflation would endanger the national economy seriously. 5. the disposition or regulation of the parts or functions of any organic whole; an organized system or method. 6. the efficient, sparing, or concise use of something: an economy of effort; an economy of movement.
The economy has already been misused. It is time to pay the Piper. Life has never been fair. Those that expect it to be are gonna be disappointed. Who bailed out the typewriter manufacturer industry ? The street lamp lighters ? The telegraph workers ? People have been foreclosed on for years. Who helped...bailed them out ?
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: The current GM employees? Where are they going to find jobs in this economy that come close to their current pay scale? Without that how do they pay their mortgages?
I am without a job. My industry is hard hit. Where am I gonna find a job which pays me what I made ? How am I gonna afford my mortgage ? Whose problem is it ?
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: I see if they lose their jobs, and retirement (That is no where near that pay), 1 million more foreclosures. Ya see the problem?
Yeah, I do. For mortgage holders. Maybe they will bail out Big Auto.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: The reality is, that the market share currently held by the Big Insolvent 3 will be absorbed by other auto makers, so many of the current employees will be able to find work with Honda, Nissan etc, since current production rates at those plants is not enough to make up for the shortfall in supply when the Big Insolvent 3 goes away.
Ding ding ding...we have a winner.
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish: That would leave up to 150.000 homes empty, which are unsaleable...because there is no work!!
Ding ding ding, housing prices would fall.
quote
Originally posted by fierofetish: And anyway, if they DID manage to leave the area in such vast numbers...what would happen to all the shops, cinemas, bowling alleys..etc etc that depend upon their money?
No body owes nobody nothing. Those shops, cinemas, bowling alleys took money which was there. I suspect prices will drop there also.
Maybe not so funny, this 25 billion, is a LOAN!. This is exactly half the amount that Obama wants to give to the UN global help the poor fund, and that is GIVE not loan. Over half the voters in the US did not seem to mind that.
What I see in Washington is just a bunch of political posturing around this issue. Opposition for the sake of opposition and another group that wants to wait and have the Obama take credit for the save. Makes me sick.
The US auto industry made the cars and trucks big with big engines why? because that is what Americans want to drive. Comfortable, smooth a lot of power and safe for our families. I think even with the high gas prices of last year nobody really wanted to drive a gay little Al Gore mobile. I saw this very issue disgust on a news show last week whilst stuck in a hotel due to the flood here. The greenie guys are pushing the carbon tax hot and heavy to FORCE us into econo boxes because they know we will not do it any other way. Why? because we don't want to drive or buy them given a choice. "They" all know it, but lets blame the US auto industries for making the wrong choice based on what we wanted to buy.
News flash: GM is not alone as a corporation on the brink of failure. Housing, credit, gloom and doom mongers and high gas prices did an extreme amount of damage to our economy.
The Feds have not been able to make ends meet for decades, no body is crying for the federal benefits and pensions to evaporate, which of course includes the military.
Our small amount of US owned manufacturing we have left absolutely needs to be protected
well - it is not just labor costs - we must also compete against nations with no EPA - no OSHA - no Disability. But - I am sure that will QUICKLY change. The little asian grunions will also get sick of being beast of burden, just as we did early last century. wont take long.
You really have no clue what your talking about. You do know that the asian companies build the majority of their American fleet in America under American laws. Japan has laws similar. So does South Korea. And Germany. The Japanese have auto-worker unions. But theirs are set up differently and don't have the ability to use threats to get outrageous pay for line workers. Before you say your are so sure about something try actually having some facts.
IP: Logged
11:57 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37877 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Red88FF: The Feds have not been able to make ends meet for decades, no body is crying for the federal benefits and pensions to evaporate, which of course includes the military.
I am, except for the military. They signed their life on the line and many paid with their lives. They did not get collective bargaining. They did not get to choose where they lived. They got nothing to choose except a desire to serve America.
IP: Logged
12:01 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Phranc: You really have no clue what your talking about. You do know that the asian companies build the majority of their American fleet in America under American laws. Japan has laws similar. So does South Korea. And Germany. The Japanese have auto-worker unions. But theirs are set up differently and don't have the ability to use threats to get outrageous pay for line workers. Before you say your are so sure about something try actually having some facts.
really? they dont just assemble them here - they actually build the parts here? and - yes - Japan did learn alot from our troubles, and did ALOT to avoid them - and they too are crying from the newfound competition. and, of course Germany (and other European) carmakers have environmental issues. and, yet - they thrive - with higher costs - and higher priced products. hmpf, imagine that?
really? they dont just assemble them here - they actually build the parts here? and - yes - Japan did learn alot from our troubles, and did ALOT to avoid them - and they too are crying from the newfound competition. and, of course Germany (and other European) carmakers have environmental issues. and, yet - they thrive - with higher costs - and higher priced products. hmpf, imagine that?
Yeah you haven't a clue.
Do American companies "build" parts here or in Mexico and Canada? You were wrong before and you are still clueless. Why don't you go back to being sure that economics isn't real and all made up and that any house wife can run a global conglomerate.
I am, except for the military. They signed their life on the line and many paid with their lives. They did not get collective bargaining. They did not get to choose where they lived. They got nothing to choose except a desire to serve America.
Just an analogy.
I do not have any figures but I bet only a small fraction of the military ever comes close to combat or want to. The majority joins for a pay check, training, and the good benefits.
I remember in the Gulf war the press interviewing soldiers that were complaining that they only joined so they could go to college and never thought they would go to war. I was howling! not that this really fits this discussion, but funny anyways
IP: Logged
12:10 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Phranc: Yeah you haven't a clue.
Do American companies "build" parts here or in Mexico and Canada? You were wrong before and you are still clueless. Why don't you go back to being sure that economics isn't real and all made up and that any house wife can run a global conglomerate.
right - because they dont have the EPA concerns. and - yes - economics IS made up. how could it not be? money is made up. and - not any housewife - a good housewife. sorry you dont know the difference - but there is.
right - because they dont have the EPA concerns. and - yes - economics IS made up. how could it not be? money is made up. and - not any housewife - a good housewife. sorry you dont know the difference - but there is.
Oh a good house wife........
Yup clueless.
IP: Logged
12:39 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 37877 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Red88FF: Maybe not so funny, this 25 billion, is a LOAN!.
A loan ? Fill out an application. You got a co-signer ? Do you have any collateral ? What is the loan for ? What plan will it achieve ? Will you have the means to pay it back ?
http://buffalo.bizjournals....07/01/29/daily3.html Lots of references to it, all over reputable websites, but I don't expect you will accept any of them unless it is a check stub, verified and notarized by a known liberal entity. Your mind is--always has been--made up that no one gets paid too much except upper echelon personell, so I won't waste either of our time trying.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-18-2008).]
IP: Logged
02:07 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
1. What do you think is a fair wage for a line worker?
2. Do you think that line workers should be provided health insurance as a benefit?
3. If the line worker is to pay toward their health insurance (if provided), what do you think is a fair percentage of net pay to contribute?
4. Should any kind of retirement benefit be provided?
5. If so, how much is fair?
6. If not, what percentage of net (or gross) pay is fair and reasonable for the worker to save for retirement?
7. Should line workers's pay increase over time as their experience grows and they learn more tasks?
8. If so, should that pay increase be in excess of inflation, i.e., the worker's real income actually increases over time?
9. If workers aren't paid enough to put away for retirement or unexpected health crisis, what should happen to the worker? Should taxpayers pick up the tab for indigent health care and homeless shelters?
JazzMan
I'll take a stab.
1.) Whatever the market deems an acceptable rate, same way non-union jobs are priced. The company advertises the need for workers, and if the rate they offer is too low, no one applies.
2.) Up to the company. And again, some potential employees may decide not to apply if they don't get health insurance. You also have to remember that many companies are struggling with health insurance costs, and are dropping it, or are resorting to having the employees shoulder more of the cost. I know my premiums will be going up again in January, and I'm not alone. The old days of the company paying 100% or close to it are rapidly coming to an end.
3.) Again, depends on the employer, and it also depends on the health plan offered. My company offers different plans, and as you go up in terms of benefits, the corresponding premiums go up. The basic plan is free for just me, but the copays, deductibles, etc are high. To move to a better plan for just me costs more, but the coverage is better. It then costs more to add my wife and kids. I don't expect my employer to pay 100% of the cost for top of the line coverage for me and my family.
4.) Again, benefits are up to the employer. And again, a good benefits package can draw a better quality of applicants. Many companies offer a 401k match (mine does), and also some form of profit sharing (mine does it if has been a good year). The days of the traditional pension are coming to an end, as companies and govts that used to promise them are finding they can't make good on the promises.
5.) Depends on a lot of factors
6.) Up to the worker. Many people these days don't save anything, they'd rather have the new car, the fancy TV, and the expensive vacation.
7.) Yes, as the worker becomes more valuable they should be compensated at a better rate. If not, they can always take their abilities elsewhere, if their skills are in demand. If the skills aren't in demand, perhaps the worker isn't as valuable as he/she thought.
8.) Ideally, but a lot of that depends on the company's financial situation. Giving out raises regardless of profitability isn't wise.
9.) No Seems to me you feel that a business exists to make life better for workers, which is not the case. A business exists to make a profit, not to make my life better or your life better.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-18-2008).]
Aside from the "threat" comment, one of the big differences between the other industrialized nations and America is that in those countries health insurance is mandatory for all citizens and managed by the government, so individual companies don't have to try and figure out how to offer (or not) it to their employees. The whole health care issue is removed from the employment picture, freeing up the companies to have more options on labor policies. Because the per-capita cost for health care in the other modern nations is a fraction of ours they're more competitive.
By the way, thought of any answers to the questions I posted? Did you even bother to read them? Just curious...
JazzMan
I ignore most of your posts. When you aren't flat out lying or calling people cowards most of your post are just stupid or hemorrhaging with hypocrisy.
IP: Logged
02:41 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
1.) Whatever the market deems an acceptable rate, same way non-union jobs are priced. The company advertises the need for workers, and if the rate they offer is too low, no one applies.
2.) Up to the company. And again, some potential employees may decide not to apply if they don't get health insurance. You also have to remember that many companies are struggling with health insurance costs, and are dropping it, or are resorting to having the employees shoulder more of the cost. I know my premiums will be going up again in January, and I'm not alone. The old days of the company paying 100% or close to it are rapidly coming to an end.
3.) Again, depends on the employer, and it also depends on the health plan offered. My company offers different plans, and as you go up in terms of benefits, the corresponding premiums go up. The basic plan is free for just me, but the copays, deductibles, etc are high. To move to a better plan for just me costs more, but the coverage is better. It then costs more to add my wife and kids. I don't expect my employer to pay 100% of the cost for top of the line coverage for me and my family.
4.) Again, benefits are up to the employer. And again, a good benefits package can draw a better quality of applicants. Many companies offer a 401k match (mine does), and also some form of profit sharing (mine does it if has been a good year). The days of the traditional pension are coming to an end, as companies and govts that used to promise them are finding they can't make good on the promises.
5.) Depends on a lot of factors
6.) Up to the worker. Many people these days don't save anything, they'd rather have the new car, the fancy TV, and the expensive vacation.
7.) Yes, as the worker becomes more valuable they should be compensated at a better rate. If not, they can always take their abilities elsewhere, if their skills are in demand. If the skills aren't in demand, perhaps the worker isn't as valuable as he/she thought.
8.) Ideally, but a lot of that depends on the company's financial situation. Giving out raises regardless of profitability isn't wise.
9.) No Seems to me you feel that a business exists to make life better for workers, which is not the case. A business exists to make a profit, not to make my life better or your life better.
see - a nice perfectly acceptable answer.
see what the answer is? whatever anyone can get away with. we already know business owner's will pay as little as possible to the workers - otherwise unions would not have formed in the first place. just as it is OK for Rick Wagoner to walk up to GM and demand $5,000/hr - it is just as OK for the janitor to walk up and demand $50/hr. just as outragous.
you can gripe & cry about being jealous of people who do so little and recieve so much - but - sorry - life aint fair. nothing magic going on - just building cars. dont like it? start your own car building business. show em how smart you are.
