OT: Hey political dudes... Car Bailout?

Voted Worlds #1 Most Loonatic Fanbase

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Tito » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:07 am

Rick wrote:As far as unions go, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've been in the Transport Workers Union for 25 years, and in '02 or '03 we signed a concessions package that resulted in an over 30% pay and benefits decrease. The very day after we signed that, the big wigs at AMR corp awarded themselves millions in bonuses, bankruptcy proof retirements and other golden parachute accouterments. One of the bargaining chips used by upper management to secure our deal was that it was a shared sacrifice by all departments including management. Since that day, we've not seen one raise or reestablishment of anything we conceded to. They've instituted raises for themselves and millions in bonuses every year since.

I'd beg to say that the union, at least in this instance, is not the bad guy.


That is why my dad quit American Airlines at that time. He wasn't going to work for that.
User avatar
Tito
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Chicago, Il

Postby RossValoryRocks » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:18 am

Rick wrote:As far as unions go, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've been in the Transport Workers Union for 25 years, and in '02 or '03 we signed a concessions package that resulted in an over 30% pay and benefits decrease. The very day after we signed that, the big wigs at AMR corp awarded themselves millions in bonuses, bankruptcy proof retirements and other golden parachute accouterments. One of the bargaining chips used by upper management to secure our deal was that it was a shared sacrifice by all departments including management. Since that day, we've not seen one raise or reestablishment of anything we conceded to. They've instituted raises for themselves and millions in bonuses every year since.

I'd beg to say that the union, at least in this instance, is not the bad guy.


I beg to differ Rick...the cost per hour for a GM/Ford/Chrysler employee (on average) is $78 when all the medical and retirement costs are included, for Totota at it's plants here in the states it is $37/hour. SURE the jobs working for GM/Ford/Chrysler are better paying, but it means either the Big up the costs of the cars or they sell them for nothing.

The UAW contracts are KILLING the Big 3...and the UAW President sat there yesterday at the hearings and said "We won't give anything back." They have THOUSANDS of people who go to "work" everyday with full wages and benefits that sit in a room and doing NOTHING unless someone on the line is out sick or on vacation.

There is a saying, "Ford is a health care company that happens to make cars", because their costs associated with their contract with the UAW is so ridiculous.

I say go bankrupt, force out the UAW and let some other unions in to represent the workers.

I agree though, fat cats getting fatter when the average worker is struggling is criminal, but in the case of the Big 3, the fat cats at the union are screwing the average worker as much, if not MORE than the guys at the top of the companies.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Saint John » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:21 am

stevew2 wrote:Why should we give money to a company that produces beige Malibus. Only a fucken moran would by such a car. i l Know only of one.
:lol: :shock: :twisted:
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Barb » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:26 am

I could not agree more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opini ... .html?_r=2

Op-Ed Contributor
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby Tito » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:54 am

Just throwing this out there:

http://gmfactsandfiction.com/
User avatar
Tito
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Chicago, Il

Postby stevew2 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:02 am

Nobody wants to buy there there overpriced shitty cars Tito.There trucks are good.they need to discountinue the Malibu.There is none on my street that own that clunker
User avatar
stevew2
MP3
 
Posts: 13073
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby Tito » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:04 am

stevew2 wrote:Nobody wants to buy there there overpriced shitty cars Tito.There trucks are good.they need to discountinue the Malibu.There is none on my street that own that clunker



http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/ca ... et-Malibu/
User avatar
Tito
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Chicago, Il

Postby stevew2 » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:07 am

I wont pay 27,000 for that heap, notice they compare it to Honda. What year is yours, a 1985
User avatar
stevew2
MP3
 
Posts: 13073
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby Ehwmatt » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:14 am

The way they are tossing money around at everything, I say go ahead and bail them out. What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander. I don't agree with it, but it's the direction we're taking. And honestly, we probably need the big 3... people don't think of the impact it could have on the economy in "forgotten" ways. Imagine the hit advertising revenues for professional sports would take if the big 3 went belly-up. Goodbye lucrative/entertaining pro sports. And that would hurt more people than you know.

BUT, nothing changes the fact that these executives are complete fuckheads. Spending $20k flying on the private jet to go beg for money? Are you fucking kidding me? It would have been a very nice gesture indeed to find the most fuel efficient car they could and make the DRIVE down to D.C. Fuckin morons. No wonder.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Gin and Tonic Sky » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:26 am

People who want to bail out detroit ought to take a lesson from what happened with the British Car Industry, specifically the ROver corporation.

For decades the Rover corp was the British car, every one had one, and they were the best thing to buy in Britian. Like the US auto industry Rover started losing traction in the 80's and 90's and hit hard times. The town of Loughborough and really the whole region around the S.E of Birmingham depended on Rover, and it was a British Icon, it regulariy got stacks of government bailout cash. Bailout after bailout, the company kept falling on its face, until the final attempt failed about 4 years ago and the Chinese bought the company for about the equivalent of 3 dollars. That whole region is a little bit worse off economically now. If Rover had failed and been allowed to fail in the 1990's you would have had five years of pain and then people might have gotten their act togetehr and the company would came back stronger, but now theres no chance.

Govt bailouts only make things worse. doesnt matter where you try it. ... US , Britian, Mars,,,
Matt
User avatar
Gin and Tonic Sky
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:46 am
Location: in a purple and gold haze

Postby Don » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:19 am

The Big 3 have until Dec 02 to come up with a plan or no money is coming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7740670.stm
Don
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 24896
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm

Postby geforcefla » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:16 am

The core problem is with managment bonuses, UAW contracts, and R@D. If there isnt a turn around via bridge loan, restructuring, etc. expect a devastating ripple effect that will be immediatlly felt at the local joe level. The auto industry provides millions and millions of jobs, those jobs are not only directly big 3 related, but even at the local level provide jobs and income to everyday people that need their job now!! Dispite what is presented as a "bailout" is actually, keeping it simple, a loan that is to be paid back. If you think about all the dollars the auto industry provides this country at every level, nothing good can come from the failure of the big 3. Uaw has already said they will not give up any of their contract conditions. How can the big three compete with building a car for 78 dollars an hour, when Hyundai,Toyota,Honda, Bmw, Mercedes, go to Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennesee, Indiana and build their vehicles for 40 dollars an hour. Theres no way that can continue. So many things need to be righted, but if the big 3 go down ...you and I will be directlly effected right away , effected in our pocketbooks!
geforcefla
Radio Waves
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:44 pm
Location: Emerald coast of Florida

Postby Don » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:40 am

geforcefla wrote:The core problem is with managment bonuses, UAW contracts, and R@D. If there isnt a turn around via bridge loan, restructuring, etc. expect a devastating ripple effect that will be immediatlly felt at the local joe level. The auto industry provides millions and millions of jobs, those jobs are not only directly big 3 related, but even at the local level provide jobs and income to everyday people that need their job now!! Dispite what is presented as a "bailout" is actually, keeping it simple, a loan that is to be paid back. If you think about all the dollars the auto industry provides this country at every level, nothing good can come from the failure of the big 3. Uaw has already said they will not give up any of their contract conditions. How can the big three compete with building a car for 78 dollars an hour, when Hyundai,Toyota,Honda, Bmw, Mercedes, go to Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennesee, Indiana and build their vehicles for 40 dollars an hour. Theres no way that can continue. So many things need to be righted, but if the big 3 go down ...you and I will be directlly effected right away , effected in our pocketbooks!


Isn't there 25 billion already in the pipe via Bridge loan. The money they asked Congress for is an additional 25 Billion.
Don
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 24896
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm

Postby geforcefla » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:48 am

Yes....that is or was tied to R&D directly, hybrids, alternative fuels, etc. THe additional is wanted for operations and keeping things going. I dont hink it should be open the pockets, but have some teeth to it, no bonuses, no uaw extras, etc. Either way have some accountability to it, at least more than they do for the 700 they gave to wall street.
geforcefla
Radio Waves
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:44 pm
Location: Emerald coast of Florida

Postby strangegrey » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:58 am

Well, I made the mistake of listening to Limbaugh for about 20 minutes just now and I turned him off in disgust.
Rush is bitching about the conditions that the democrats are attaching to the bailouts...most specifically with the auto industry. He's double frustrated that Obama has echoed this statement.

His contention is that the left is trying to limit the 'freedoms of industry' that the american auto manufacturers have a right to....by forcing the american auto industry to meet specific benchmarks before getting bailout money.


Does any one else here miss the logic that Rush is missing? If I loan a business money, I'm going to want to have assurance that my loan will be paid back in a timely fashion with interest. To that effect, if the business does not present a viable action plan as to how it expects to do that...it's not a worthy business to loan money to.

So to righties like Rush, free handouts are ok, so long as they're from the left?

I'm sorry...I'm having a big problem with the right's bucking against the left's conditionality of bailout money. I see NOTHING wrong with congress forcing the Big 3 to play ball if they want taxpayers dollars.


Rush seems to think that the idea that people no longer want SUVs is a lie, fabricated by the left....and that the american car companies are fine making SUVs. Yet the Big 3 have all collapsed under the lack of sales over the past 3-4 months....where's the logic?


Sorry....this is starting to piss me off. I am normally a right leaning idealist....but if the Big 3's going to get any of this fucking money that we pay in taxes....they'd better fucking show damn well they're a good investment....
Image
User avatar
strangegrey
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:31 am
Location: Tortuga

Previous

Return to Journey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests