Big Three Auto CEOs Flew Private Jets

[Humpty]

Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.

 

"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

 

"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."

 

He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."

CNN Article

[1984]

great article. the ignorant unwashed masses complain about the "overpaid, lazy union workers"yet these kings of commerce live like royalty and extol the virtues of fiscal frugality. unbelievable. another example was the latest fiasco of the AIG "conference" which cost about 400 grand.....

[Anthony A]

The whole GM, Ford, and Chrysler culture needs to die and IT WILL. Even if these clowns get their bail outs they are still dead. The bail outs will be a temporary fix and they will run these companies into the ground.

 

The people running the companies are incompetent. The workers working for them are over paid, lazy, and suffer from a severe case of thinking they are entitled to a job. This whole thing is long over do and much deserved. If ever there were a company deserving of dying it's the big three and it's going to happen probably sooner but if not it will later that is for sure.

 

If they manage to survive until Obama gets in office he will probably bale their pathetic asses out but it will be a short term fix and they will die eventually. I am looking forward to the disaster Obama will create with his policies. I have done very well shorting the US during this much deserved financial disaster and look forward to doing even better. If there is one thing you can count on it's the US government making a mess of things. It's money in the bank.

[Anthony A]

great article. the ignorant unwashed masses complain about the "overpaid, lazy union workers"yet these kings of commerce live like royalty and extol the virtues of fiscal frugality. unbelievable. another example was the latest fiasco of the AIG "conference" which cost about 400 grand.....

 

"the ignorant unwashed masses complain about the overpaid, lazy union workers" because it's true. They may not fully understand the excesses of the executives but that doesn't mean they are wrong about the work force. Any auto industry expert you read about or hear speak will tell you the unions at the big three are a big problem and have to change in order for the big three to remain viable.

 

This week the heads of the big three were in Washington crying for another handout. They were not alone because the head of the union was there with them crying just as loud. He is doing this while the union refuses to give in on any meaningful concessions.

[1984]

"the ignorant unwashed masses complain about the overpaid, lazy union workers" because it's true. They may not fully understand the excesses of the executives but that doesn't mean they are wrong about the work force. Any auto industry expert you read about or hear speak will tell you the unions at the big three are a big problem and have to change in order for the big three to remain viable.

 

This week the heads of the big three were in Washington crying for another handout. They were not alone because the head of the union was there with them crying just as loud. He is doing this while the union refuses to give in on any meaningful concessions.

 

 

Completely inaccurate. Unionization and low productivity have NOTHING in common. People are lazy the world over, union or not. The unions just protect the working people from the exploitation of their employers. Most people have ZERO knowledge of unions, labour, history, or business and the various business models. And experts are bought and paid for by the groups that fund them (think jim stanford on the left, fraser institute on the right). I think the fact that people want to make enough money to buy a nice home, car, and send their kids to nice schools and work in a safe and harassment free environment is much more palatable then someone needing to attend vacations, meetings, etc. on a private jet drinking 400 dollar drinks at resorts and lavishing themselves in excess.

 

If you notice, the asian automakers pay very near the same as the big three, as well as benefits....a direct reflection that the going rate for labor is established. the dying of the big three has more to do with business model then anything else. and here in canada, it has a LOT to do with NAFTA and WTO decisions which destroyed the autopact which provided that for every vehicle sold in canada, one had to be built here. industry was doing fine till that went and started the slow decline.

 

And dont forget that chrsyler nearly died two decades ago and with government help, rebounded and made a LOT of money for everyone involved.

 

Or you could keep watching FAUX news and reading the national post (for pidgeons)

 

As for the crisis, its not bad for everyone. With mortgage rates at rock bottom and houses going up for sale and prices dropping, its been great picking up houses at a bargain and renting them out. I for one am loving the current state of affairs, but that is just from a personal perspective.

[rridgely]

There is a reason though that the Japanese automakers are putting their plants in non-union areas. While I don't think they are the only or main cause they have had some impact on these automakers going under.

 

I and none of the rest of my immediate friends/family are really hurting right now either, but if things get much worse then everyone will be. I cant wait for my taxes to go sky high, but at least everything will be FREE!

[Anthony A]

Completely inaccurate. Unionization and low productivity have NOTHING in common. People are lazy the world over, union or not. The unions just protect the working people from the exploitation of their employers. Most people have ZERO knowledge of unions, labour, history, or business and the various business models. And experts are bought and paid for by the groups that fund them (think jim stanford on the left, fraser institute on the right). I think the fact that people want to make enough money to buy a nice home, car, and send their kids to nice schools and work in a safe and harassment free environment is much more palatable then someone needing to attend vacations, meetings, etc. on a private jet drinking 400 dollar drinks at resorts and lavishing themselves in excess.

 

If you notice, the asian automakers pay very near the same as the big three, as well as benefits....a direct reflection that the going rate for labor is established. the dying of the big three has more to do with business model then anything else. and here in canada, it has a LOT to do with NAFTA and WTO decisions which destroyed the autopact which provided that for every vehicle sold in canada, one had to be built here. industry was doing fine till that went and started the slow decline.

 

And dont forget that chrsyler nearly died two decades ago and with government help, rebounded and made a LOT of money for everyone involved.

 

Or you could keep watching FAUX news and reading the national post (for pidgeons)

 

As for the crisis, its not bad for everyone. With mortgage rates at rock bottom and houses going up for sale and prices dropping, its been great picking up houses at a bargain and renting them out. I for one am loving the current state of affairs, but that is just from a personal perspective.

 

 

I did not say I was anti union. I am not a fan of the UAW or CAW and my remarks were directed at them. They have made it impossible to make the changes that are needed for the big three to survive. There is nothing wrong with workers wanting good wages and all the other things you listed. There is something wrong with them expecting me to pay for it with government hand outs. It's not my obligation to keep them. If they are not willing to compromise and make the changes necessary than they should not be bailed out on my dime.

 

Your comparison of the Asian car companies is just plain ignorance sorry to say. If you followed any of the news this week you would see many articles about the cuts they are making to their work forces to adapt to the slow down that the big three simply cannot make because of the unions. The unions are inflexible, selfish, and have the big three screwed to a wall. This is on top of the bad business model you refer to and I agree with you about. It's not just wages, which are comparable, it's the whole work culture that differs. There is no comparison between the unionized big three and the Asians. The big three could never do some of the things the Asians do. The unions would go nuts and walk out in a second. The whole set up of the big three, that includes the unions, management, and the business model is a joke and it's time for them to die. They are dinosaurs and the meteor is coming.

 

 

As for Chrysler and their near death experience two decades ago you refer to. Look where they are now back begging for more. I can't believe you thought that would be an intelligent example to use. You make my case for me with it.

 

I don't read the National Post or "Faux" news. I am on line probably a min of 6 hours a day most of it though on very respectable financial sites, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Market Watch, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, MSN , and several others. Don't make assumptions. There is not much that happens in the world of finance that I miss.

[1984]

I did not say I was anti union. I am not a fan of the UAW or CAW and my remarks were directed at them. They have made it impossible to make the changes that are needed for the big three to survive. There is nothing wrong with workers wanting good wages and all the other things you listed. There is something wrong with them expecting me to pay for it with government hand outs. It's not my obligation to keep them. If they are not willing to compromise and make the changes necessary than they should not be bailed out on my dime.

 

Your comparison of the Asian car companies is just plain ignorance sorry to say. If you followed any of the news this week you would see many articles about the cuts they are making to their work forces to adapt to the slow down that the big three simply cannot make because of the unions. The unions are inflexible, selfish, and have the big three screwed to a wall. This is on top of the bad business model you refer to and I agree with you about. It's not just wages, which are comparable, it's the whole work culture that differs. There is no comparison between the unionized big three and the Asians. The big three could never do some of the things the Asians do. The unions would go nuts and walk out in a second. The whole set up of the big three, that includes the unions, management, and the business model is a joke and it's time for them to die. They are dinosaurs and the meteor is coming.

 

 

As for Chrysler and their near death experience two decades ago you refer to. Look where they are now back begging for more. I can't believe you thought that would be an intelligent example to use. You make my case for me with it.

 

I don't read the National Post or "Faux" news. I am on line probably a min of 6 hours a day most of it though on very respectable financial sites, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Market Watch, Reuters, Yahoo Finance, MSN , and several others. Don't make assumptions. There is not much that happens in the world of finance that I miss.

 

 

Completely wrong again. Many of the asian plants are also unionized-just not in north america. as for the flexibility of the workers at the big three, have you read their contracts? i have. BIG take backs at the UAW with 50 percent drops in new starts wages, which is now a two tiered pay structure. The auto federation in japan represents over 700,000 unionized autoworkers. and yet the makers are still profitable and progressive.

 

Interestingly, it wasn't the union representatives, or their "lazy workers" that showed up in private jets for government hand outs. it was those running the companies. the same ones that made the decisions that are tanking their businesses. the workers have very little say in how the company is run. those decisions are made by the executives and such.

 

and if you follow the news, you will see that the asian automakers are actually SUPPORTING the bailouts due to the impact that it will have on their businesses when there are problems with the parts plants. Keep in mind that a large proportion of korean automakers are also unionized. And this goes as well for germans and italians.

 

If you understand the reasons why one plant can become unionized and another is not it helps. Plant A is unionized. The workers, through their union, provide demands for increased wages at the open period of the contract. Lets say they make 20 bucks and hour. They as for a three year contract with 1 buck each year. The company comes back with 50 cents, they settle on 75 each year you get the picture. The plant B down the road sees this. So what do they do? Well they hear the rumblings from staff that "hey those guys make a couple bucks more then us for the same work". So plant B offers a raise, sometimes as good, but usually just a little lower. This keeps their costs down a touch, gives the workers a raise, enough to keep them from wanting a union. And so the union plant has helped raise the wages in the non union plant. I've seen it in hospitality, aerospace, auto, building manufacturing, etc. This is a simplified example, but gives people the gist of it.

 

And as for chrysler, companies have ups and downs. Chrysler got some intervention and made a lot of people money. People counted Apple out at one time and look at it now. nothing is forever, but sometimes government intervention is a good thing. Im not saying i agree with a bailout for the industry, but when the Canadian government agrees to remove pro canadian trade barriers that then kill one of the most important industries in the country, it should have some responsibility to help after the fact.

 

I can tell you that i have been on both sides of the bargaining table, and know intrinsically what goes on behind closed doors with both unions and managers. Most of the managers are in no different position then the general workforce, and many wish they had more protection as well.

 

Look what happened in the states for example with recent announcement that DHL is pulling out most of its operations in the states. The company was highly profitable when it was Airborne Express. The the german post office (the company that owns 100% of DHL worldwide) bought it, ran it into the ground, and now 10000 jobs lost. At that was totally about their business model. UPS is expanding and growing. How is that DHL can have 300000 employees worldwide, with such a network, purchase a profitable company, and then have it die? I can't answer that, but i do know that they had a mix of union and non union workers, and it died nonetheless. Oh, and UPS is almost fully unionized with 250000 employees in the US alone, and is highly profitable. FED EX is almost exclusively non union and is profitable. (though they nearly died out years ago too). It comes down to business models and practices more then worker output.

 

I find that most people that dislike unions are usually from a silver spoon upbringing where they have been taught the other side of the coin, or they simply don't understand the way that unions operate. The most exposure that people get to them is when a strike occurs that slows their drive to work or school and annoys them, thus giving them a bad impression.

 

I think if you see the big three left to die, you would see a LOT of workers out of work, which would strain the economy, and since they wouldn't be pumping those high earner dollars (about 35 bucks an hour in canada) into taxes, and the general economy, you would see a breakdown of services and spending. Also, I believe the current figures are that there are 6 or 7 spin off jobs from every auto manufacturer job. Thats a lot of jobs. And don't believe that any of the foreign automakers will create new jobs here. They are liking it the way it is now, creating work in their countries, selling to us. Then again mcdonalds is always hiring so im sure the numbers will still look good on paper.

 

Oh, and personally, I could care less if the big three died as a result of their mismanagement. I do care that no automakers will create jobs in the gap.. I buy toyota anyways. For the product, because its quality. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Anthony A]

Completely wrong again. Many of the asian plants are also unionized-just not in north america. as for the flexibility of the workers at the big three, have you read their contracts? i have. BIG take backs at the UAW with 50 percent drops in new starts wages, which is now a two tiered pay structure. The auto federation in japan represents over 700,000 unionized autoworkers. and yet the makers are still profitable and progressive.

 

 

Well we are talking about North America not Asia or Europe or where ever. The UAW or CAW doesn't run the unions of those companies in Asia and Europe. Do you now how many jobs the big three have sent over sees? Lots. One of the major reasons is to get away from the unions here. They are doing this while Asian and European car manufacturers are building many new factories here. This alone should tell you something. My friends Pontiac Sunfire was built in Mexico but sold here in Canada

 

The Toyota and Honda Plants here in Ontario have had several votes on joining the union and it fails every time. Why do you think that is? The people I know that work at Toyota want no part of the unions and have said if the unions get in it will be the beginning of the end for the plant.

No they have not been threatened by management or subject to scare tactics. They just see the reality of the situation and the unions would be bad

news for them.

 

 

Interestingly, it wasn't the union representatives, or their "lazy workers" that showed up in private jets for government hand outs. it was those running the companies. the same ones that made the decisions that are tanking their businesses. the workers have very little say in how the company is run. those decisions are made by the executives and such.

 

Have I given you the impression that I think the executives at the big three are anything other than useless? I have said several times the whole situation with the big three is a joke not just the unions.

 

and if you follow the news, you will see that the asian automakers are actually SUPPORTING the bailouts due to the impact that it will have on their businesses when there are problems with the parts plants. Keep in mind that a large proportion of korean automakers are also unionized. And this goes as well for germans and italians.

 

Don't confuse supporting the bail out with supporting the big three having unions. The Asian auto makers know we are in a serious slow down that will probably be made worse in the short term from the big three going under. That is where there support starts and ends. If you think other wise you are sadly mistaken. The Asians do want to see their bottom lines hit in the short term. They also know they will survive and gain even more market share from the big three failing.

 

Also do you really believe they would go on TV and actually root for a big three failure? Come on.

 

Again, I never said I was anti union just anti UAW/CAW. If the Asians and Europeans have a viable and healthy business with unions great!! It proves it can be done and makes the situation here all the more ridiculous since the UAW/CAW have a model of success to emulate and don't.

 

If you understand the reasons why one plant can become unionized and another is not it helps. Plant A is unionized. The workers, through their union, provide demands for increased wages at the open period of the contract. Lets say they make 20 bucks and hour. They as for a three year contract with 1 buck each year. The company comes back with 50 cents, they settle on 75 each year you get the picture. The plant B down the road sees this. So what do they do? Well they hear the rumblings from staff that "hey those guys make a couple bucks more then us for the same work". So plant B offers a raise, sometimes as good, but usually just a little lower. This keeps their costs down a touch, gives the workers a raise, enough to keep them from wanting a union. And so the union plant has helped raise the wages in the non union plant. I've seen it in hospitality, aerospace, auto, building manufacturing, etc. This is a simplified example, but gives people the gist of it.

 

Agreed. Many if not all non unionized plants have the unions to thank for some of the wages and benefits they receive. Wages are a small part of the problem though.

 

I have gone through the hiring process of two car companies. Toyota in Cambridge, Ontario and Ford in Oakville, Onartio. Completely different culture. I couldn't believe they were both car companies they were so different. Everything from the ground up. Took close to a year to complete the Toyota process and at the end was offered a 3 month contract which is how they hire new employees. You are on 3 month contracts indefinitely until they offer a full time position to you. I was already working some where else by the time I was offered this contract so I turned it down. As for Ford, mommy or daddy, or brother or sister didn't work there so the process didn't get far. Toyota didn't want to know who you knew. It didn't matter to them. They had a very in depth process. The HR rep running the thing said they process something like 100,000 resumes and applications for every one person they hire. If daddy works at Ford you are in. You see the fruits of that process. Retards working there that think they are entitled to a job.

 

And as for chrysler, companies have ups and downs. Chrysler got some intervention and made a lot of people money. People counted Apple out at one time and look at it now. nothing is forever, but sometimes government intervention is a good thing. Im not saying i agree with a bailout for the industry, but when the Canadian government agrees to remove pro canadian trade barriers that then kill one of the most important industries in the country, it should have some responsibility to help after the fact.

 

Yes companies have ups and downs. The big three are almost always in some sort of trouble. They have been losing market share for decades so this is no short term issue. The ups and downs happen and the strong well run survive and the weak incompetent die. It's economic Darwinism as it should be. Bailing out loser companies like the big three is not the answer as Chrysler coming back for more goes to show. Mercedes couldn't even make a go with them.

 

It will be painful for the economy to let them die but these things are. It's painful to fix screw ups in every walk of life. In the end you are better off.

 

I can tell you that i have been on both sides of the bargaining table, and know intrinsically what goes on behind closed doors with both unions and managers. Most of the managers are in no different position then the general workforce, and many wish they had more protection as well.

 

OK.

 

Look what happened in the states for example with recent announcement that DHL is pulling out most of its operations in the states. The company was highly profitable when it was Airborne Express. The the german post office (the company that owns 100% of DHL worldwide) bought it, ran it into the ground, and now 10000 jobs lost. At that was totally about their business model. UPS is expanding and growing. How is that DHL can have 300000 employees worldwide, with such a network, purchase a profitable company, and then have it die? I can't answer that, but i do know that they had a mix of union and non union workers, and it died nonetheless. Oh, and UPS is almost fully unionized with 250000 employees in the US alone, and is highly profitable. FED EX is almost exclusively non union and is profitable. (though they nearly died out years ago too). It comes down to business models and practices more then worker output.

 

Again I never said I was anti union or that a business can't be well run and unionized. You can't paint all unions with the same brush and I don't.

 

 

I find that most people that dislike unions are usually from a silver spoon upbringing where they have been taught the other side of the coin, or they simply don't understand the way that unions operate. The most exposure that people get to them is when a strike occurs that slows their drive to work or school and annoys them, thus giving them a bad impression.

 

I don't dislike unions 1984.

 

I think if you see the big three left to die, you would see a LOT of workers out of work, which would strain the economy, and since they wouldn't be pumping those high earner dollars (about 35 bucks an hour in canada) into taxes, and the general economy, you would see a breakdown of services and spending. Also, I believe the current figures are that there are 6 or 7 spin off jobs from every auto manufacturer job. Thats a lot of jobs. And don't believe that any of the foreign automakers will create new jobs here. They are liking it the way it is now, creating work in their countries, selling to us. Then again mcdonalds is always hiring so im sure the numbers will still look good on paper.

 

No pain no gain. It's a mess and it will not be pain free to clean up. Too bad. Life is tough. We wouldn't want the poor $35 an hour cry babys to have start over like millions of others have had to do.

 

You need to look at all the jobs and factories that the Asians and Europeans are bringing here to North America. Toyota just opened a brand new factory here in Woodstrock Ontario. There are several huge factories being built right now in the southern states. While this is going on the big three build over seas.

 

Oh, and personally, I could care less if the big three died as a result of their mismanagement. I do care that no automakers will create jobs in the gap.. I buy toyota anyways. For the product, because its quality. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I care that they keep asking for handouts and refuse to change there losing ways because they know they will get bailed out. We encourage them to be screw ups because we don't let them suffer the consequences. It needs to stop.

 

I also don't buy cars from the big three simple because every one I have owned has been a big POSIMO

[YoKenny]

Well we are talking about North America not Asia or Europe or where ever. The UAW or CAW doesn't run the unions of those companies in Asia and Europe. Do you now how many jobs the big three have sent over sees? Lots. One of the major reasons is to get away from the unions here. They are doing this while Asian and European car manufacturers are building many new factories here. This alone should tell you something. My friends Pontiac Sunfire was built in Mexico but sold here in Canada

 

The Toyota and Honda Plants here in Ontario have had several votes on joining the union and it fails every time. Why do you think that is? The people I know that work at Toyota want no part of the unions and have said if the unions get in it will be the beginning of the end for the plant.

No they have not been threatened by management or subject to scare tactics. They just see the reality of the situation and the unions would be bad

news for them.

I think that inexpensive real estate and probably government subsidies also helped.

 

I have gone through the hiring process of two car companies. Toyota in Cambridge, Ontario and Ford in Oakville, Onartio. Completely different culture. I couldn't believe they were both car companies they were so different. Everything from the ground up. Took close to a year to complete the Toyota process and at the end was offered a 3 month contract which is how they hire new employees. You are on 3 month contracts indefinitely until they offer a full time position to you. I was already working some where else by the time I was offered this contract so I turned it down. As for Ford, mommy or daddy, or brother or sister didn't work there so the process didn't get far. Toyota didn't want to know who you knew. It didn't matter to them. They had a very in depth process. The HR rep running the thing said they process something like 100,000 resumes and applications for every one person they hire. If daddy works at Ford you are in. You see the fruits of that process. Retards working there that think they are entitled to a job.

Just before I left IBM in '98 and they had gone through the hard times of the early '90s they implemented the 3 month contract hiring and it worked well for them I believe.

 

One of the reasons I chose IBM to work for was that they did not have a union because of all the bad experiences I had when working at Summer jobs that had a union.

 

At one job I was assembling brass pressure gages where I had to put the connection block and the pressure tube into a jig then solder the two items together and it was mind numbing boring so I got an extra jig and loaded that up while the other was heating over a gas heater to reduce boredom. I was producing twice as many that way and the shop steward cam over and took away the extra jig and said that I was not doing th job properly and the other guys could not keep up.

 

I thought that I could do something in my spare time so I got a broom and swept up the many brass shavings and litter that was left over from the milling process. That caused another furor as I was taking a job from another guy that seemed to me had a job of walking around with a broom just to talk to people to keep them from getting himself bored.

 

You need to look at all the jobs and factories that the Asians and Europeans are bringing here to North America. Toyota just opened a brand new factory here in Woodstrock Ontario. There are several huge factories being built right now in the southern states. While this is going on the big three build over sees.

 

I care that they keep asking for handouts and refuse to change there losing ways because they know they will get bailed out. We encourage them to be screw ups because we don't let them suffer the consequences. It needs to stop.

 

I also don't buy cars from the big three simple because every one I have owned has been a big POSIMO

My last car was a '95 VW Golf and it never caused me a bit of problem unlike the '65 Ford that I purchased when I graduated university in '67.

 

I purchased it because my '80s Rabbit diesel's body was rusting out after 300 miles but the little engine was still running great.

[1984]

I dont think the fact that you know somebody has any bearing on hiring at the big three anymore (at least not officially, but then its unofficial at most companies isnt it?). There was a ruling that was brought down that struck a clause from the labour agreement at CN many many years ago that used to state that preferential hiring would go to the "sons and daughters of current employees". This was struck down on the premise that it violated the human rights code, as a large majority of the workers were 2nd, third generation canadians (read white) and that made for a biased selection process for non white applicants. I know that it still goes on of course, but if you think that it doesnt go on at toyota, or whereever you are dreaming. Masonry is never dead.lol....

 

I'm not saying that there are not lazy union workers. Yokenny, you make a great point, and that example you gave is an excellent one of the wrong kind of thinking that takes place on SOME shop floors. There are definately people out there that are like that, and it should not be condoned. But from my experience, there are people that will not do something because "its not their job" in non union shops too. I've seen it in both. But thats just one negative example of some idiot that probably doesnt see the light in regards to if his company is not prosperous, neither is he.

 

Anthony, i dont believe that toyota threatens their workers to keep a union out. In exact contrast they treat them WELL to keep the union out. Providing dignity, fair wages, safe conditions, etc. so that the union wont get a foothold. keep in mind that whenever there has been a vote there, approximately 40% of the workers voted YES for a union, which is indicative of there being unsatisfaction. just not 50 % plus 1. and it works flipside at the big three. there are definately people, a lot of people that do not like the union for various reasons. But if the big three and their unions go belly up, i would bet dollars to donuts that the asian manufacturers that have SO FEW jobs here in comparison will start to slide wages and working conditions.

 

I have read a few human rights complaints by workers at toyota and honda and there are some pretty shady things going on there too.

 

And don't take me as a ccpa or rabble junkie here either (not saying you are). As a flip side to the overpriced executives, any idea what the wages and fringe benefits are for a caw rep? Would kind of make you want to puke. but remember that the caw (as do all unions in canada nowadays) represent workers from pretty near every industry including transportation (CN has 5 unions, does very well), hospitality, manufacturing of every kind, health, etc....not just auto, so they shouldn't all be painted with the same brush..........i mean there are 250000 canadian auto workers in canada.......

 

Just a last point of notice. Many years ago I had occasion to attend an autoworkers summit and meet with workers from the various companies. The one thing that stuck out in my mind was the HUGE number of people missing fingers. No joke. So many of them had lost digits on the job years back before stricter safety measures were introduced. Just a point of interest.

[Anthony A]

Here is a good article on why the big three are a disaster and some possible outcomes for them. Was surprised to see that when you factor in benefits with wages that GM spends $71 an hour to Toyota's $47 for hourly compensation. This along with many other things is pointed out in the write up.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

[1984]

Here is a good article on why the big three are a disaster and some possible outcomes for them. Was surprised to see that when you factor in benefits with wages that GM spends $71 an hour to Toyota's $47 for hourly compensation. This along with many other things is pointed out in the write up.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/Business

 

 

It's actually flawed accounting. If you see that it uses the term "legacy" in it when showing the difference in costs, it shows that the costs include pensions to retirees-something that Toyota doesn't have factored into it's costs as of yet as it doesn't have the lengthy history -read retirees and associated costs- that the big three have. The Toyota workers will retire too, and thus the costs will increase to the same measurable level. Apples and oranges at this point. The piper will come a calling for Toyota and others.

 

It's amazing the cost analysis that can be done on the various industries and the wide differences in numbers too. Much like governments balancing budgets, it depends what you do and don't factor into the costs. I can remember doing benefits cost analysis' for several companies years ago and it's amazing the gap that can be seen between the benefits actual costs depending on how you figure the deductions, carriers, tax benefits, etc.

 

Another point of interest. UPS workers wages are near DOUBLE that of DHL in the US. All unionized with Teamsters. Yet DHL is having its death throws while UPS flourishes? It comes down to the business practices and product. UPS delivers. As does Toyota. Toyota makes a quality product that outshines most if not all other ones. The big three didn't see the writing on the wall and kept making big, ugly gas guzzling machines that don't last. Toyota pushed business models that work. The big three didn't.

 

Interesting thing, half these vehicles are bastardized anyways with parts made here, there, everywhere....all over. But that was a good article you posted.

[Anthony A]

It's actually flawed accounting. If you see that it uses the term "legacy" in it when showing the difference in costs, it shows that the costs include pensions to retirees-something that Toyota doesn't have factored into it's costs as of yet as it doesn't have the lengthy history -read retirees and associated costs- that the big three have. The Toyota workers will retire too, and thus the costs will increase to the same measurable level. Apples and oranges at this point. The piper will come a calling for Toyota and others.

 

It's amazing the cost analysis that can be done on the various industries and the wide differences in numbers too. Much like governments balancing budgets, it depends what you do and don't factor into the costs. I can remember doing benefits cost analysis' for several companies years ago and it's amazing the gap that can be seen between the benefits actual costs depending on how you figure the deductions, carriers, tax benefits, etc.

 

Another point of interest. UPS workers wages are near DOUBLE that of DHL in the US. All unionized with Teamsters. Yet DHL is having its death throws while UPS flourishes? It comes down to the business practices and product. UPS delivers. As does Toyota. Toyota makes a quality product that outshines most if not all other ones. The big three didn't see the writing on the wall and kept making big, ugly gas guzzling machines that don't last. Toyota pushed business models that work. The big three didn't.

 

Interesting thing, half these vehicles are bastardized anyways with parts made here, there, everywhere....all over. But that was a good article you posted.

 

I wouldn't call the accounting flawed. They are real costs that are a major drag on the American car companies. I don't know if the Asians retirement benefits are as generous as the big three. They might not end up with the huge legacy costs. Either way I don't see the Asians getting themselves into the mess the Americans did any time soon.

[1984]

I wouldn't call the accounting flawed. They are real costs that are a major drag on the American car companies. I don't know if the Asians retirement benefits are as generous as the big three. They might not end up with the huge legacy costs. Either way I don't see the Asians getting themselves into the mess the Americans did any time soon.

 

Keep in mind that the costs in canada at the big three are also much lower dollar per dollar as they do not pay the high health care premiums that they do in the states. at one time the cost advantage was about 12 per hour. not sure what it is now.

 

And "might not" is a big gamble. Only 25 years or so will tell if that is true or not.

[Anthony A]

Keep in mind that the costs in canada at the big three are also much lower dollar per dollar as they do not pay the high health care premiums that they do in the states. at one time the cost advantage was about 12 per hour. not sure what it is now.

 

Even with not having the health care premiums in Canada the big three are still in trouble here while Toyota is opening a new plant.

 

We could debate this till hell freezes over bottom line the big three are finished and it's their own fault. When I say "their own" I mean the union, the management, the designers, engineers, etc, the whole organization and I don't think they should be bailed out and rewarded for stupidity and greed with tax payers money. We will never see the money back and they will be back for more.

[1984]

Even with not having the health care premiums in Canada the big three are still in trouble here while Toyota is opening a new plant.

 

We could debate this till hell freezes over bottom line the big three are finished and it's their own fault. When I say "their own" I mean the union, the management, the designers, engineers, etc, the whole organization and I don't think they should be bailed out and rewarded for stupidity and greed with tax payers money. We will never see the money back and they will be back for more.

 

 

Well that's true. But it's really no different then lots of other big industries with their hands out. Like forestry for instance. Or farming. It's tough to hear the mantra of free trade and free markets, see the companies in the good years raking it in, pocketing millions and billions and squandering it, then when things get tight coming open handed to the government.

 

I would bet that in number of years, as technology increases, and eventually the need and want for oil disappears, the oil companies will be coming open handed about their dying industries. THAT will fun to watch when they've been price fixing and gouging for so long.

 

As for the auto industry, I could personally care less if the big three themselves saw a demise- as long as a someone actually stepped in to fill the gap. Making cars offshore and shipping them in does nothing for north american economy. I think the problem that a lot have (although not the unions, they are looking out for their members, and the ceos are looking out for their personal fortunes) is the making of the cars elsewhere and the loss of jobs here in NA. If toyota created a job for each one lost (sustainably) i would be in favor of that vs. the bailout for the big three. Because there would still be jobs and no tax dollars used for private commerce.

 

Just a point. It's interesting to see that the US and Canada government seem to be able to dig up dollars for private corporations that build cars, or whatever, but cant create affordable, sustainable health care or advanced education that everyone can access. Priorities, priorities.

[1984]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...w_v1PwD950TJS00

[Anthony A]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...w_v1PwD950TJS00

No surprise to me. They are self destructive. They know the situation and still will not bend. They would rather go bankrupt. Maybe now the big three will be forced into bankruptcy and then they can break the union. GM is in critical condition and is literally days away from running out of cash. They needed the bail out badly. They could file within days.

[1984]

Quote;

 

"Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

 

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers."

 

Exactly what I said earlier here. Shows that the issue is more about the big three being around longer and having more retirees then the asian competition. 20 years from now you will see the exact same problem affecting the asian automakers as their employees retire.

 

Nothing to do with the union it seems, more to do with the "burden" of covering the cost of the pensions of the retirees. I for one think that when someone helps the company make billions upon billions during the thirty or so years they work for the company should be taken care of in their golden years. Remember, that all a pension is is deferred wages. The toyota, honda, etc workers will be looking for their comeupance once they have put in their time in the plants and are ready to retire.

[Anthony A]

Quote;

 

"Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

 

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers."

 

Exactly what I said earlier here. Shows that the issue is more about the big three being around longer and having more retirees then the asian competition. 20 years from now you will see the exact same problem affecting the asian automakers as their employees retire.

 

Nothing to do with the union it seems, more to do with the "burden" of covering the cost of the pensions of the retirees. I for one think that when someone helps the company make billions upon billions during the thirty or so years they work for the company should be taken care of in their golden years. Remember, that all a pension is is deferred wages. The toyota, honda, etc workers will be looking for their comeupance once they have put in their time in the plants and are ready to retire.

 

You refuse to admit the unions are a big part of the problem. You think like they do. It will get the big three no where but bankrupt or on welfare assistance from the government. The unions refusal to bend makes it crystal clear to me the big three are doomed even with a bail out. Just a matter of time now and much deserved and long over due and it will happen.

 

There is far more than legacy costs separating the Asians from the big three. The whole work environment and ethic is different. This is a direct result of the unions going over board. How you can continue to argue for something that has so clearly and total failed is beyond me. Next you will be arguing 1 + 1 = 3. Thats UAW/CAW logic and it's asinine.

 

As for being entitled to being taken care of in your golden years. Thats not my responsibility. If the company and unions created a system that can't meet it's obligation then that's their problem. The system clearly doesn't work and I and you and everybody else shouldn't be on the hook to pay these clowns. It's wrong and it's evil. I seriously doubt the Asian car companies will create a pension plan that will drive them into the ground. They have more sens than that. The Asians have been operating over in their home countries for decades why do they not have the problems there that the big three have here? The answer is obvious.

 

The US Senate impressed me last night. They voted it down and should have. There is no doubt Obama the retard will open every body's wallet and write blank checks for any body that needs one when he takes office for his disastrous one term. If the big three survive until then they will get some sort of welfare like the losers they are but they are going to be back for more and this game of feed the losers will continue until they die their much deserved deaths. The sooner that death happens the better.

[1984]

I believe in a society that takes care of each other. And you obviously have no clue as to how the economics in the auto industry have worked. If the costs of company A are X more then company B, and they make the same amount of money (actually company B pays MORE) and the costs associated are because of legacy costs (as mentioned by the article, and if you were to take the time to properly research it you would see that this is true) then you would see that there is an inevitable cost that will be coming to company B. The ONLY reason that they are not in the same distress as company A AT THIS TIME is because they do not have the same history (ie. length of time in the industry which creates legacy costs) with its associated costs. This is true for any company/industry. The common mantra of the right wing regonomics will not change this. Have you ever been in an auto plant? Seen how they operate? Their production lines are very very very similar.

 

The asians have made some great decisions. More compact cars, etc. But they have benefited by several things that are not of their own making. Parts plants that already had a large portion of set up costs completed because of the big threes current occupation of the market helped the asians enter the market cheaper. The protectionist laws that were/are in place in the orient that protect their markets from imports while the NA market has increasingly opened and failed to protect the NA residents hindered the big three.

 

And don't forget that these are LOANS not hand outs. Chrysler paid them all back in the past. With interest. And they would/will again. Isn't that what government is supposed to do? Help the economy, etc. in times of distress? 3 million direct and spin off jobs from the auto industry are at stake. That's a lot of people in trouble. But then mcdonalds is always hiring i guess. The costs associated with doling out EI, social assistance, the hit to the markets as spending is damaged, the loss of pension plans, etc. from the death of shares, etc. would be a big hit. But then some sheeple want to do away with any and all collaborative social programs like health care, EI, canada pension plan, etc.

 

Anyone that has taken even rudimentary political science or labour history courses would see all this. But then it's easier to get information from google, and emotional rather then intellectual based politics are more fun.

 

Here is a great article by Time that outlines both parties efforts to fix the problem:

 

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...1864085,00.html

[Anthony A]

I believe in a society that takes care of each other. And you obviously have no clue as to how the economics in the auto industry have worked. If the costs of company A are X more then company B, and they make the same amount of money (actually company B pays MORE) and the costs associated are because of legacy costs (as mentioned by the article, and if you were to take the time to properly research it you would see that this is true) then you would see that there is an inevitable cost that will be coming to company B. The ONLY reason that they are not in the same distress as company A AT THIS TIME is because they do not have the same history (ie. length of time in the industry which creates legacy costs) with its associated costs. This is true for any company/industry. The common mantra of the right wing regonomics will not change this. Have you ever been in an auto plant? Seen how they operate? Their production lines are very very very similar.

 

BS. The Asians have been operating in their home countries for decades and do not have the issues the big three do here. Thats because they are responsible and don't make compensation packages that will bankrupt them. You are the one with no clue on how the economics work. You WILL NOT SEE the Asians in the same boat in the future becasue they do not have a pension plan that is as generous and irresponsible as the big three. Also they are healthy growing businesses and can afford to meet their pension liabilities which the big three are not.

 

You can pay your employees what you want but if you can't afford it that's your problem not societies. 1984 if you make stupid decisions and spent far more than you could afford would you expect your neighbor to foot the bill because you "believe in a society that takes care of each other" Taken care of each other doesn't mean encouraging stupidity. The big three's problems are self made and they have resisted change for years so now it's time to pay the piper. It's called consequences. You know those negative results that come from having your head up your ass.

 

The asians have made some great decisions. More compact cars, etc. But they have benefited by several things that are not of their own making. Parts plants that already had a large portion of set up costs completed because of the big threes current occupation of the market helped the asians enter the market cheaper. The protectionist laws that were/are in place in the orient that protect their markets from imports while the NA market has increasingly opened and failed to protect the NA residents hindered the big three.

 

Give me a break. Any advantage the Asians had with the parts supplies already being in place is long gone. It might have helped them when they first started up here but it's a non issue now and you know it. The Asians not opening their markets as fully as we do is not what is causing the big three's problems. People right here in NA don't want to buy the big three's cars. The reasons for that are obvious.

 

 

And don't forget that these are LOANS not hand outs. Chrysler paid them all back in the past. With interest. And they would/will again. Isn't that what government is supposed to do? Help the economy, etc. in times of distress? 3 million direct and spin off jobs from the auto industry are at stake. That's a lot of people in trouble. But then mcdonalds is always hiring i guess. The costs associated with doling out EI, social assistance, the hit to the markets as spending is damaged, the loss of pension plans, etc. from the death of shares, etc. would be a big hit. But then some sheeple want to do away with any and all collaborative social programs like health care, EI, canada pension plan, etc.

 

They are hand outs and won't be repaid if the company ends up bankrupt after receiving the bail outs. Also there are millions of people losing jobs everyday. Many different businesses that could use a handout won't get one. So why should a poorly run disaster area of a company like GM get one? Why finance failure. It's evil. These companies have no reason to change their ways as long as they get bailed out.

 

Anyone that has taken even rudimentary political science or labour history courses would see all this. But then it's easier to get information from google, and emotional rather then intellectual based politics are more fun.

 

That comment makes me laugh. Most of the the experts agree with my view not yours. They live in the real world not the sheltered world of a class room where every thing just falls into place neatly on a piece of paper. In the real world it all comes down to the bottom line. The big three are finding that out.

 

The Democrats are in favor of the bail out simply because their states have the big three plants in them and they are bowing to the voter's to keep their jobs. If you stand back and take a big picture look letting the big three fail and restructure under bankruptcy is the best long term solution. It will definitely cause some shorter term pain but so does chemo.

 

I like your world you want. In that world I could start a business. Pay my workers wages and benefits I can't afford and than cry to the tax payer to pay my bills for me. When they give me the hand out I can continue being an idiot and make even dumber decisions because I know you will be there for me.

[1984]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your response. It's very typical of spoon fed right wing economics that are continuously fed to people over the media yet leave us in the kinds of mess that the economy is in today. It's too bad that so many believe it. It is kind of like the little critters that chase each other off of a cliff never wondering why, just knowing that it is a good idea to do.

 

Your argument could also be applied to the stock market. Let it crash. Let everyone loose everything. Let all pensions go in the toilet, all peoples savings become worth nothing. Let the pensioners that are out there go get jobs to support themselves. Why should the workers that are with the companies now make money that is just paid out to dividends and stock increases for people that aren't even working? If the pensioners are too lazy or old to work then they can either eat dog food or go hungry. It might be tough love, but why should they not work? Personally, wouldn't affect me. My job probably if anything would become more secure. Why should i pay into Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, etc. when I will never be unemployed and don't need that pension plan?

 

Obviously that's not the right kind of thinking in a modern society. Having been in both the classroom and the "real world" (and at work I can tell you that the whitewashed sanitized view the media gives of how bad it is out there is NOTHING like what is really going on out there and most people will never see how bad it is for some) I have formed the opinion that I would rather see a cooperative society then a "every man for himself" kind of one.

 

Interesting your comment on the democrats. What rubbish. The white house ( a republican white house that is already on the way out and is not making a decision for ideological reasons) agreed to the bailout with the democrats. The decision was made with compromise on both sides and made in good faith. It was the ideological opposition of the republican senate (as evidenced even by their spokesperson who admitted it was about getting all parties in caucus on side) that killed the package. They attempted to use the issue in a partisan way to attack organized labour and this is the ONLY reason why there is an issue with the package. The union and company already had agreed to make changes to their working relationship. Major concessions have been made to their working collective agreements over the past year and a half already. The major about face by the white house after the death of the deal is almost deafeningly loud in this respect. Now the white house is saying it will save the industry. Why? Because it is so very important to the economy. Interesting that the republican president and the incoming democrat president BOTH see eye to eye on this issue. The importance of the industry is huge. Once again, personal bias and emotion has entered the discussion rather then thought.

 

It makes me laugh that the same arguments were being used 25 years ago with chrysler as you make now. 25 years of jobs, work etc. And the same kind of arguments have been made about unions for a century. Ever look at the profits of CN (railway represented in a large part by CAW unionized members)? HUGE. Very profitable company with the SAME union. So why are they profitable? Smart practices? No competition? Can't be that, their competition (CP railway) is also represented by the CAW. hmmm.

 

And remember that someone paid for your education growing up, the roads you walked on growing up, everything you did or had was paid for indirectly by someone elses labour. And you took those handouts and now pay taxes so that others can benefit. None of us are self sufficient. And to be clear, if the big three were non unionized I would have the same opinion. As they are so very important to the economy. Interesting that the japanese auto makers are also cutting production soon isn't it? Seems they are also affected by the current economy though to a lesser extent.

 

Seems others want hand outs too. And the US government will be responding. Hmmmm.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail

[Anthony A]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your response. It's very typical of spoon fed right wing economics that are continuously fed to people over the media yet leave us in the kinds of mess that the economy is in today. It's too bad that so many believe it. It is kind of like the little critters that chase each other off of a cliff never wondering why, just knowing that it is a good idea to do.

 

Your argument could also be applied to the stock market. Let it crash. Let everyone loose everything. Let all pensions go in the toilet, all peoples savings become worth nothing. Let the pensioners that are out there go get jobs to support themselves. Why should the workers that are with the companies now make money that is just paid out to dividends and stock increases for people that aren't even working? If the pensioners are too lazy or old to work then they can either eat dog food or go hungry. It might be tough love, but why should they not work? Personally, wouldn't affect me. My job probably if anything would become more secure. Why should i pay into Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, etc. when I will never be unemployed and don't need that pension plan?

 

Obviously that's not the right kind of thinking in a modern society. Having been in both the classroom and the "real world" (and at work I can tell you that the whitewashed sanitized view the media gives of how bad it is out there is NOTHING like what is really going on out there and most people will never see how bad it is for some) I have formed the opinion that I would rather see a cooperative society then a "every man for himself" kind of one.

 

Interesting your comment on the democrats. What rubbish. The white house ( a republican white house that is already on the way out and is not making a decision for ideological reasons) agreed to the bailout with the democrats. The decision was made with compromise on both sides and made in good faith. It was the ideological opposition of the republican senate (as evidenced even by their spokesperson who admitted it was about getting all parties in caucus on side) that killed the package. They attempted to use the issue in a partisan way to attack organized labour and this is the ONLY reason why there is an issue with the package. The union and company already had agreed to make changes to their working relationship. Major concessions have been made to their working collective agreements over the past year and a half already. The major about face by the white house after the death of the deal is almost deafeningly loud in this respect. Now the white house is saying it will save the industry. Why? Because it is so very important to the economy. Interesting that the republican president and the incoming democrat president BOTH see eye to eye on this issue. The importance of the industry is huge. Once again, personal bias and emotion has entered the discussion rather then thought.

 

It makes me laugh that the same arguments were being used 25 years ago with chrysler as you make now. 25 years of jobs, work etc. And the same kind of arguments have been made about unions for a century. Ever look at the profits of CN (railway represented in a large part by CAW unionized members)? HUGE. Very profitable company with the SAME union. So why are they profitable? Smart practices? No competition? Can't be that, their competition (CP railway) is also represented by the CAW. hmmm.

 

And remember that someone paid for your education growing up, the roads you walked on growing up, everything you did or had was paid for indirectly by someone elses labour. And you took those handouts and now pay taxes so that others can benefit. None of us are self sufficient. And to be clear, if the big three were non unionized I would have the same opinion. As they are so very important to the economy. Interesting that the japanese auto makers are also cutting production soon isn't it? Seems they are also affected by the current economy though to a lesser extent.

 

Seems others want hand outs too. And the US government will be responding. Hmmmm.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail

 

You are going way off on a tangent and making some ridiculous assumptions about me and my beliefs. That says more about you than me.

 

Your point if you have one is not clear any more. You seem to think you are in debate class. I have grown up and left school and now live in the real world. Sum it up for me 1984. Are you seriously saying that you approve of the big three's way of doing business? Are you saying they are a success? Are you saying the Asian car makers success is an illusion? Tells us what your text books recommend to make the big three successful. Tells us what you would do? Could it be possible that you already think they are a success and the "spoon fed right wing economics that are continuously fed to people over the media" are just lying to us. The big three are really glowing success stories and an example for all to follow?

 

As for your comments about the markets and letting them crash. You, me, the government, Jesus Christ, Axle Rose, or Kermit the frog, don't "let" the market do anything. It will do what's right and has since it was created. Excesses get purged and that's an economic fact. The crash is not the problem. The bubble was the problem and the crash is the solution. It's creative destruction. It can't be stopped as you are seeing now. All attempts have failed simply because the markets should not have been where they were. Once the excesses are purged the markets will reflect that. It will stop when the fundamentals justify it. Not because some clown wants it. I side stepped this crash and the 2000 tech bubble crash. It wasn't luck it was living in reality. It was seeing obvious excesses and realizing it was unsustainable. I can assure you I am not "the little critters that chase each other off of a cliff never wondering why, just knowing that it is a good idea to do." I am as far from the herd as is possible. I am the walking talking example of a contrarian. I don't just talk it I put my money where my mouth is and that's why I'm not one of the millions losing there shirts right now. I didn't follow any body of any cliff.

 

Final point. You can debate me until the end of time. It's all irrelevant. What will happen will happen. Bad companies go under and good ones survive. The markets will crash when there are excesses and you can't do a thing about it. The big three can't side step economic Darwinism. Their future is clear. Nothing you say will change that.