http://gamingtrend.com
July 25, 2014, 11:28:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: No Bailout for GM please. Let em die.  (Read 21881 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8723



View Profile
« Reply #120 on: November 23, 2008, 05:53:12 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on November 23, 2008, 04:22:53 PM

Quote from: Zinfan on November 22, 2008, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: cheeba on November 22, 2008, 06:55:06 AM

That ignores overtime which is a significant chunk of the UAW worker's paycheck.

What would you suggest the automakers do to reduce overtime? 

More and better robots?

Trained octopi.  4x more arms.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Zinfan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1374



View Profile
« Reply #121 on: November 23, 2008, 07:14:11 PM »

Quote from: SkyLander on November 22, 2008, 10:57:36 PM

Depending on the contract it would matter. In a good union contract if you work over 8 hours a day then you get into overtime which is time and a half. While for the majority you don't get into overtime unless you work over 40 hours a week. Which then after that you get into time and a half. I believe the 40 hours a week is a law, this changes state to state but I thought it was pretty universal for overtime.

First let me say that I do work for a union (IBEW 1245) so I have seen contracts for overtime and such not.  There are some workers who get double time for any time over 40 hours and there are lots of "perks" involved with overtime, drive in, missed meals etc.  I was just curious if the UAW had gotten a really sweet overtime deal and not just the vanilla 1.5 times base salary standard.  I guess my original point to cheeba's post would be that I don't think the overtime issue is something that is breaking the big 3 and not the japanese companies.
Logged
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: November 25, 2008, 10:22:05 PM »

I'm not sure if this relates directly to the GM bailout discussion, but I think it is related to the topic in some way.  Given the usual accusations of auto manufacturers having a "questionable" relationship with the petroleum industry, is it merely a coincidence that GM's manufacturing is SUV-heavy, GM is currently struggling due to high fuel prices and a problematic economy (hence the discussions of a bailout), gas prices have seen quite a substantial decline (regular unleaded is $1.85 at the 7-11 near my office  icon_eek), and now consumers are once again rejoicing about their ability to afford current gas prices and can return to driving gas-guzzling SUVs and fuel inefficient vehicles?

It just seems like too strong a coincidence that during GM's struggles gas prices have dropped considerably and you once again start hearing renewed interest in SUVs.  Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but it seems a bit too convenient for a struggling SUV market to get renewed interest following a dramatic decline in fuel costs.  Timing couldn't have been better.

And I really don't know how much proof there is behind relationships between automobile manufacturers and the petroleum industry, but comments made by coworkers and friends got me thinking as they're talking about being able to afford to drive their SUVs again, or once again considering buying a new SUV now that fuel costs have dropped back to an affordable level.
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: November 25, 2008, 11:06:06 PM »

$1.66 down here..

Enjoy the gas prices while they last though because you know APEC is going to cut production again soon (they cut it by 1.5 milllion barrels a day last month) until the prices start to go back up again. They say "reasonable" prices are $70-$90 per barrel but yet they had no problem over charging us near $150 not too long ago.. and will have no problem doing it again once the economy picks up. (Yet we are supposed to feel bad for them when the tides have turned and we are back to 2004 gas prices.)

Back on topic though, I hope there is no bailout for GM or any other car maker. We didn't put them in this mess so why should we be the ones to pay for it? The billions of tax dollars we're throwing out like pennies these days we're going to be paying off for the rest of our lives. (Over 10 trillion in debt now)
It's funny how the CEOs of the big three flew in on private jets to plead for tax payer money to bail them out of the mess they put themselves in. I'm glad politicians on both sides of the isle called them on that.
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #124 on: November 26, 2008, 12:29:01 AM »

Quote from: corruptrelic on November 25, 2008, 11:06:06 PM


It's funny how the CEOs of the big three flew in on private jets to plead for tax payer money to bail them out of the mess they put themselves in. I'm glad politicians on both sides of the isle called them on that.

Plu-heez.  That was a political stunt, nothing more.  If you want to look at frivolous expenditures, look at the financial sector.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: November 26, 2008, 12:38:51 PM »

If I am an auto worker I have to wonder why Wall Street gets over a trillion in bailout for a situation they most definitely created but the auto industry which employs many more people at substantially lower wages is not going to get any bailout.

Logged
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: November 26, 2008, 03:56:35 PM »

Disclaimer: The following has no basis in fact. It is just an opinion.

Wall Street's bailout was the rich helping the rich. Since people who work on wall street give a lot of contributions to the campaigns for these washington regulators, they get a bailout.

Since the Auto Industry doesn't give buttloads of money to supporting candidates running for congress / washington - or at least to the people who WON... they don't get a bailout.

At least, that's how I see it.

As long as they're eating kobe beef up there on washington and helping their 'buddies' eat kobe beef too, the rest of us can eat tripe for all they care.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #127 on: November 26, 2008, 04:33:33 PM »

Quote from: DragonFyre on November 26, 2008, 03:56:35 PM

Disclaimer: The following has no basis in fact. It is just an opinion.

Wall Street's bailout was the rich helping the rich. Since people who work on wall street give a lot of contributions to the campaigns for these washington regulators, they get a bailout.

Since the Auto Industry doesn't give buttloads of money to supporting candidates running for congress / washington - or at least to the people who WON... they don't get a bailout.

At least, that's how I see it.

As long as they're eating kobe beef up there on washington and helping their 'buddies' eat kobe beef too, the rest of us can eat tripe for all they care.

I don't think you're necessarily incorrect.  The simple equasion for Wall Street is credit > jobs.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8950


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: November 26, 2008, 05:07:25 PM »

Quote from: corruptrelic on November 25, 2008, 11:06:06 PM

Enjoy the gas prices while they last though because you know APEC is going to cut production again soon (they cut it by 1.5 milllion barrels a day last month) until the prices start to go back up again. They say "reasonable" prices are $70-$90 per barrel but yet they had no problem over charging us near $150 not too long ago.. and will have no problem doing it again once the economy picks up. (Yet we are supposed to feel bad for them when the tides have turned and we are back to 2004 gas prices.)

What does the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation have to do with gas prices?

Quote from: corruptrelic on November 25, 2008, 11:06:06 PM

Back on topic though, I hope there is no bailout for GM or any other car maker. We didn't put them in this mess so why should we be the ones to pay for it? The billions of tax dollars we're throwing out like pennies these days we're going to be paying off for the rest of our lives. (Over 10 trillion in debt now)
It's funny how the CEOs of the big three flew in on private jets to plead for tax payer money to bail them out of the mess they put themselves in. I'm glad politicians on both sides of the isle called them on that.

It's just like the bank bailouts.  We have to do it, even if we don't like it, and even if we don't like the long term consequences.  The short term consequences of not doing it are likely to be catastrophic.

gellar
Logged
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3553


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: November 26, 2008, 05:56:38 PM »

That "A" should have been an "O". (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)

Why do we "have" to bailout the auto industry with our tax dollars? I don't think we should have bailed out the banks, either. Not only are we going to be paying off this massive debt for the rest of our lives (read: tax increases) but our kids will be too. That isn't fair to them.

If we bailout the auto industry then we mine as well start bailing out other industries as well.. hell, lets throw a few billion tax dollars at Sprint since they are doing so bad right now. Or how about some of these smaller mom and pop restraunts that are struggling to keep up? A buddy of mine who owns one up in Lake City, FL asked who would be there to bail him out if he runs out of money.

GM doesn't even want to consider a chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (much like circuit city did) they just want the tax payers to bail them out when we weren't the ones who put them in the situation in the first place.

There was a long time I went unemployed, and an even longer time I worked for Florida minumum wage just to meet end's meat. I didn't take any handouts to get by and I worked hard to get what I have and where I am today.
Yet I'm taxed to high hell for other people's greed and mistakes and I'll be paying for it for the rest of my life.
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
SkyLander
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1875



View Profile
« Reply #130 on: November 26, 2008, 09:42:28 PM »

Quote from: Zinfan on November 23, 2008, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: SkyLander on November 22, 2008, 10:57:36 PM

Depending on the contract it would matter. In a good union contract if you work over 8 hours a day then you get into overtime which is time and a half. While for the majority you don't get into overtime unless you work over 40 hours a week. Which then after that you get into time and a half. I believe the 40 hours a week is a law, this changes state to state but I thought it was pretty universal for overtime.

First let me say that I do work for a union (IBEW 1245) so I have seen contracts for overtime and such not.  There are some workers who get double time for any time over 40 hours and there are lots of "perks" involved with overtime, drive in, missed meals etc.  I was just curious if the UAW had gotten a really sweet overtime deal and not just the vanilla 1.5 times base salary standard.  I guess my original point to cheeba's post would be that I don't think the overtime issue is something that is breaking the big 3 and not the japanese companies.


I work for a union also (IATSE 363) and our overtime is pretty sweet, any work after 12 pm is double time, if we have to work through lunch it's a meal penalty which is time and a half and any time after 8 hours is time and a half. So depending on the situation you can make a lot of money in a small amount of time. I'm sure the UAW tries to shove in as much perks as possible but it depends on the industry and the contracts. But in the end I think it is give and take and I don't think the overtime is killing the auto industry either.
Logged

Pretty....what do we blow up first?
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #131 on: November 27, 2008, 05:45:42 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on November 26, 2008, 12:29:01 AM

Quote from: corruptrelic on November 25, 2008, 11:06:06 PM


It's funny how the CEOs of the big three flew in on private jets to plead for tax payer money to bail them out of the mess they put themselves in. I'm glad politicians on both sides of the isle called them on that.

Plu-heez.  That was a political stunt, nothing more.  If you want to look at frivolous expenditures, look at the financial sector.

I read that the execs will take a convoy to their next hearing. No kidding. And if they are smart they'll drive Priuses.  icon_wink
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #132 on: November 27, 2008, 05:51:59 AM »

Quote from: SkyLander on November 26, 2008, 09:42:28 PM

Quote from: Zinfan on November 23, 2008, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: SkyLander on November 22, 2008, 10:57:36 PM

Depending on the contract it would matter. In a good union contract if you work over 8 hours a day then you get into overtime which is time and a half. While for the majority you don't get into overtime unless you work over 40 hours a week. Which then after that you get into time and a half. I believe the 40 hours a week is a law, this changes state to state but I thought it was pretty universal for overtime.

First let me say that I do work for a union (IBEW 1245) so I have seen contracts for overtime and such not.  There are some workers who get double time for any time over 40 hours and there are lots of "perks" involved with overtime, drive in, missed meals etc.  I was just curious if the UAW had gotten a really sweet overtime deal and not just the vanilla 1.5 times base salary standard.  I guess my original point to cheeba's post would be that I don't think the overtime issue is something that is breaking the big 3 and not the japanese companies.


I work for a union also (IATSE 363) and our overtime is pretty sweet, any work after 12 pm is double time, if we have to work through lunch it's a meal penalty which is time and a half and any time after 8 hours is time and a half. So depending on the situation you can make a lot of money in a small amount of time. I'm sure the UAW tries to shove in as much perks as possible but it depends on the industry and the contracts. But in the end I think it is give and take and I don't think the overtime is killing the auto industry either.

What do you suppose would happen if auto workers were like game developers? You work 80-100 hour weeks during crunchtime and you don't make a penny of overtime, but the bonuses and royalties will make you rich, maybe, if everything goes right and you aren't laid off before they're handed out. And nobody ever retires from a game company. Cars would cost $50 and we'd buy a new one every 3 months because it goes faster and has flashier paint. 
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Zinfan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1374



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: November 27, 2008, 06:49:36 PM »

Quote from: Ironrod on November 27, 2008, 05:51:59 AM

Quote from: SkyLander on November 26, 2008, 09:42:28 PM

Quote from: Zinfan on November 23, 2008, 07:14:11 PM

Quote from: SkyLander on November 22, 2008, 10:57:36 PM

Depending on the contract it would matter. In a good union contract if you work over 8 hours a day then you get into overtime which is time and a half. While for the majority you don't get into overtime unless you work over 40 hours a week. Which then after that you get into time and a half. I believe the 40 hours a week is a law, this changes state to state but I thought it was pretty universal for overtime.

First let me say that I do work for a union (IBEW 1245) so I have seen contracts for overtime and such not.  There are some workers who get double time for any time over 40 hours and there are lots of "perks" involved with overtime, drive in, missed meals etc.  I was just curious if the UAW had gotten a really sweet overtime deal and not just the vanilla 1.5 times base salary standard.  I guess my original point to cheeba's post would be that I don't think the overtime issue is something that is breaking the big 3 and not the japanese companies.


I work for a union also (IATSE 363) and our overtime is pretty sweet, any work after 12 pm is double time, if we have to work through lunch it's a meal penalty which is time and a half and any time after 8 hours is time and a half. So depending on the situation you can make a lot of money in a small amount of time. I'm sure the UAW tries to shove in as much perks as possible but it depends on the industry and the contracts. But in the end I think it is give and take and I don't think the overtime is killing the auto industry either.

What do you suppose would happen if auto workers were like game developers? You work 80-100 hour weeks during crunchtime and you don't make a penny of overtime, but the bonuses and royalties will make you rich, maybe, if everything goes right and you aren't laid off before they're handed out. And nobody ever retires from a game company. Cars would cost $50 and we'd buy a new one every 3 months because it goes faster and has flashier paint. 

You pretty much describe management above.  One thing the unions don't subscribe to is working hours without getting paid for them for the promise of a bonus (that may or may not happen) further down the road, the amount of said bonus up to the whims of your bosses.
Logged
Toe
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1493


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: December 11, 2008, 03:47:42 AM »

Logged
Darkstar One
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 430



View Profile
« Reply #135 on: December 11, 2008, 11:26:21 AM »

You people who just say "let them die" are out of your bloody minds.

One of the big three going bankrupt could very well be enough to throw this economy into a depression.  Or do you think the 1930's were fun times in this country?

We don't have to like it...but we HAVE to bail them out.  The consequences of not doing so would probably be total and utter disaster for our economy.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #136 on: December 11, 2008, 12:39:05 PM »

For those who are against the bailout...

I've heard some rumblings of discontent about the financial bailout, but I've heard it far louder about the auto manufacturers.  So why are you so against giving the auto industry $15 (and it'll probably end up being $50) billion dollars but you remain silent when Wall Street gets a blank check approaching $2 trillion dollars?
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: December 11, 2008, 01:29:12 PM »

Quote from: Darkstar One on December 11, 2008, 11:26:21 AM

You people who just say "let them die" are out of your bloody minds.

One of the big three going bankrupt could very well be enough to throw this economy into a depression.  Or do you think the 1930's were fun times in this country?

We don't have to like it...but we HAVE to bail them out.  The consequences of not doing so would probably be total and utter disaster for our economy.

No we dont have to do it, the companies got themselves into this mess by bad business decisions, enabling them to continue those bad business decisions is just postponing the inevitable and we will be asked to do this all over again in the future, this isnt the first time government bailed out one of the automakers.    We shouldnt be doing this bailout anymore then the one they did for wall street.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #138 on: December 11, 2008, 01:42:00 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on December 11, 2008, 01:29:12 PM

Quote from: Darkstar One on December 11, 2008, 11:26:21 AM

You people who just say "let them die" are out of your bloody minds.

One of the big three going bankrupt could very well be enough to throw this economy into a depression.  Or do you think the 1930's were fun times in this country?

We don't have to like it...but we HAVE to bail them out.  The consequences of not doing so would probably be total and utter disaster for our economy.

No we dont have to do it, the companies got themselves into this mess by bad business decisions, enabling them to continue those bad business decisions is just postponing the inevitable and we will be asked to do this all over again in the future, this isnt the first time government bailed out one of the automakers.    We shouldnt be doing this bailout anymore then the one they did for wall street.

At least you're consistent.  However, does the fact that Wall Street has received a huge amount of money change that in any way?  Or are you of the mind that two wrongs don't make a right?  How does the Government justify giving huge amounts to Wall Street and none to the auto industry?  Does the jobless report  - 573,000 new claims, the highest in 26 years was just announced - make any difference in trying to keep these companies afloat?  Even if they eventually fail, if you wait until such time that the economy could more easily absorb the huge job losses that come with the collapse of the auto industry, wouldn't that be a better option?

I might be inclined to agree with you on the "no bailout" stance if there already hadn't been one.  But now that the floodgates have already been opened, it's very difficult to justify giving to one and not to the other.  Furthermore, no one has taken into consideration the potential social impact of a "no bailout" stance.  If 2 million people are suddenly unemployed because their industry was passed over while Wall Street got their dough (and misused it), there are going to be a LOT of very angry, unemployed people out there.  I would not be surprised to see riots and home-grown terrorism stem from the collapse of the auto industry.   
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: December 11, 2008, 02:11:31 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on December 11, 2008, 01:42:00 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on December 11, 2008, 01:29:12 PM

Quote from: Darkstar One on December 11, 2008, 11:26:21 AM

You people who just say "let them die" are out of your bloody minds.

One of the big three going bankrupt could very well be enough to throw this economy into a depression.  Or do you think the 1930's were fun times in this country?

We don't have to like it...but we HAVE to bail them out.  The consequences of not doing so would probably be total and utter disaster for our economy.

No we dont have to do it, the companies got themselves into this mess by bad business decisions, enabling them to continue those bad business decisions is just postponing the inevitable and we will be asked to do this all over again in the future, this isnt the first time government bailed out one of the automakers.    We shouldnt be doing this bailout anymore then the one they did for wall street.

At least you're consistent.  However, does the fact that Wall Street has received a huge amount of money change that in any way?  Or are you of the mind that two wrongs don't make a right?  How does the Government justify giving huge amounts to Wall Street and none to the auto industry?  Does the jobless report  - 573,000 new claims, the highest in 26 years was just announced - make any difference in trying to keep these companies afloat?  Even if they eventually fail, if you wait until such time that the economy could more easily absorb the huge job losses that come with the collapse of the auto industry, wouldn't that be a better option?

I might be inclined to agree with you on the "no bailout" stance if there already hadn't been one.  But now that the floodgates have already been opened, it's very difficult to justify giving to one and not to the other.  Furthermore, no one has taken into consideration the potential social impact of a "no bailout" stance.  If 2 million people are suddenly unemployed because their industry was passed over while Wall Street got their dough (and misused it), there are going to be a LOT of very angry, unemployed people out there.  I would not be surprised to see riots and home-grown terrorism stem from the collapse of the auto industry.   


The fact that wall street got a bailout makes me even more against this, for some of the same reasons you stated that it makes it harder to not give money to the next industry that lines up saying it needs money to survive its own bad business practices.   That is why we should never have gone down this path to begin with.
Logged
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9835


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: December 11, 2008, 08:57:45 PM »

well, it looks like the bill may die in the senate.

senate republicans, and especially McConnell, are rejecting the bailout as it exists right now.  they see this as a much different beast than the bank bailout. 

Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #141 on: December 11, 2008, 09:03:26 PM »

Quote from: Caine on December 11, 2008, 08:57:45 PM

well, it looks like the bill may die in the senate.

senate republicans, and especially McConnell, are rejecting the bailout as it exists right now.  they see this as a much different beast than the bank bailout. 



Yes, the auto companies employ union workers.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: December 11, 2008, 10:31:55 PM »

i think this is the first time ive jumped in this thread, and i only read page 3 -  i have absolutely nothing substantive to say at this point but just wanted to point out...

toe - that was f%@#ing hilarious
Logged
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: December 11, 2008, 11:23:50 PM »

If there was no financial sector bailout there would be no need of an auto maker bailout because there would have been no credit around for anyone to buy cars anyway.

For those of you against the bailouts, Hoover already showed what can happen if government just sits by and do nothing.  Few, if any of us, could have experienced that time but my relatives who did were permanently scared from those days.

Do you have any doubt what was CERTAIN to happen if government hadn't intervened?  At least this gives the country and world some breathing space to try and avert disaster, in the end it may not be possible but shouldn't the chance be taken rather than just shrug our shoulders "oh well, let's have our own Depression so we can have stories to tell our grankids"?

No can know for certain what will work or what won't but should we really do nothing?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #144 on: December 12, 2008, 01:46:52 PM »

This is the Republicons attempt at union-busting.  It was most evident last night, when they wouldn't back the deal unless the UAW agreed to accept wage cuts to get in line with with workers in U.S. plants of Japanese carmakers.  It's impossible, because of past benefits earned by older workers and retirees.  The wage of a UAW worker versus a worker who has been around a while in a Toyota plant (for example) is about even.  But when you add the earned and promised benefits from retirees (and their spouses), including insurance and pensions, the average UAW worker costs more than the average Toyota worker by 50%, even though they're really making about the same amounts.

So to "get in line", the Republicons essentially wanted all UAW workers to start working for minimum wage.  That tells you something about who they really represent, and it ain't you or I.  Infuriating, absolutely infuriating.  If 2,000,000 workers are laid off due to this, I predict it's going to get bloody. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 673



View Profile
« Reply #145 on: December 12, 2008, 04:40:12 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on December 11, 2008, 12:39:05 PM

For those who are against the bailout...

I've heard some rumblings of discontent about the financial bailout, but I've heard it far louder about the auto manufacturers.  So why are you so against giving the auto industry $15 (and it'll probably end up being $50) billion dollars but you remain silent when Wall Street gets a blank check approaching $2 trillion dollars?

Because Wall Street is full of hard-working, underpaid folks, just like us?

Ale
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: December 12, 2008, 04:54:16 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on December 12, 2008, 01:46:52 PM

This is the Republicons attempt at union-busting.

I guess that's the "first principles" they want to return to.  Here's Jim DeMint on NPR explaining about how they'd like to screw autoworkers.

Quote from: DeMint
"The taxpayers should not be obligated to prop up these union bosses who have put the American car companies against the wall, with these contracts and threat of strikes over the last several decades that have essentially put them out of business."
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #147 on: December 12, 2008, 10:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on December 12, 2008, 04:54:16 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on December 12, 2008, 01:46:52 PM

This is the Republicons attempt at union-busting.

I guess that's the "first principles" they want to return to.  Here's Jim DeMint on NPR explaining about how they'd like to screw autoworkers.

Quote from: DeMint
"The taxpayers should not be obligated to prop up these union bosses who have put the American car companies against the wall, with these contracts and threat of strikes over the last several decades that have essentially put them out of business."

Yep.  It's the union's fault. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Jaddison
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1086


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: December 12, 2008, 10:11:30 PM »

wasn't it our glorious current Whitehouse occupant and his administration that were giving huge tax breaks to "small businesses" if they purchased SUVs/trucks for quite some time?  I underline small business because the rule was written so that people could claim small business for just about anything.

There are many culprits in the auto industry debacle, including the customers.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3357



View Profile WWW
« Reply #149 on: December 13, 2008, 11:22:02 PM »

The auto industry is going to be broken up under the name "restructuring" one way or another, whether in bankruptcy courts or under the supervision of a government "car czar". It is really a matter of finding the least painful, most effective way to proceed. They are not going to come out on the other side as three independent and profitable companies. More likely, you'll see the best assets reorganized into one US-owned, quasi-nationalized company, and the rest either dissolved or sold off to the competition.

The existing corporations are getting bailout money now to keep a pulse going until the next administration can take over. It is merely a welfare payment administered through private corporations.

If those corporations were dissolved and all of those idled workers were given the government's teat, how much would it cost to suckle them directly?
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
ericb
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1650



View Profile
« Reply #150 on: December 15, 2008, 12:06:24 AM »

I work for a auto part factory/foundry in a non union position.  I'm one of the tens of thousands of workers that are effected indirectly by the big three troubles.  I was laid off Friday along with 70% of the people at the plant.  We were one of the top plants in the company.  It is that bad now.  If 1-2 of the big three fails there will be a meltdown not seen in 70 years.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: December 15, 2008, 04:22:04 PM »

Quote from: Zinfan on November 22, 2008, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: cheeba on November 22, 2008, 06:55:06 AM

That ignores overtime which is a significant chunk of the UAW worker's paycheck.

What would you suggest the automakers do to reduce overtime?  Hiring more workers would be far more cost intensive since you would have to pay them the standard wage and benefits and whatever other costs (training etc.) that might entail.  I don't know what the UAW workers get for overtime but if it is time and a half then I would think that is more cost efficient than growing the size of the work force.  Of course the management could streamline production and reduce overtime that way, I'm sure they've tried that but if what you say is true then they still feel the need to provide more than 40 hrs/week for the workers.

Can you compare the overtime earned between the UAW and the non-union workers?  I'd be curious to see if one works longer hours than the other and if there is a difference in compensation for the overtime.

Turns out Cheeba was wrong about this anyway.  The figure does include overtime.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: December 15, 2008, 05:15:54 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on December 15, 2008, 04:22:04 PM

Turns out Cheeba was wrong about this anyway.  The figure does include overtime.
Actually I was talking about the $28/hr figure that you cited being wrong due to overtime. You'll note the article you cited saying it's $40/hr with overtime, $55/hr with overtime + benefits. Lot higher than that $28/hr you were citing huh? And that's about $20,000/yr more than Honda/Toyota non-unionized workers.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: December 15, 2008, 05:26:19 PM »

Yeah, right.  I think it's clear from the context of your response.

Regardless, $73/hour is a bullshit claim championed by the geniuses who would happily break the UAW despite the effect it'll have on the overall economy.  It's a pretty big shock that it's led by southern republican senators whose states have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to lure foreign automakers to their "right to work" states.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: December 15, 2008, 09:47:41 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on December 15, 2008, 05:26:19 PM

Look where I said it on OO. Note the dates. I said the same thing about the $28/hr on OO 2 days prior.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: December 17, 2008, 03:13:11 AM »

Go ahead, Brendan. Admit that I'm right. You can do it. Had you been confused about which figure I was referring to, you could have simply asked. I know such cordiality is foreign to you, but you've gotta learn sometime.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: December 17, 2008, 03:30:50 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on December 17, 2008, 03:13:11 AM

Go ahead, Brendan. Admit that I'm right. You can do it. Had you been confused about which figure I was referring to, you could have simply asked. I know such cordiality is foreign to you, but you've gotta learn sometime.

You really have no sense of irony.

You're still wrong, Cheeba - you cited an article by some economist who used the aforementioned $73 figure to assure us that Big 3 employees make huge sums more than autoworkers for foreign car companies in anti-union states, which is demonstrated to be total bullshit.  The average UAW worker employed at GM makes the same hourly wage as a non-union employee employed at Toyota.  The overall cost per employee bloats because of commitments to hundreds of thousands of retired employees. 

The apples to apples comparison, as cited in that NYT link I provided for you to read, is $55 vs $45 per hour, which includes overtime, benefits, and pensions for active workers.

Despite all of this, labor costs for the big 3 only account for around 8 percent of the purchase price, so it's not exactly what's keeping them from economic success.

It's darkly hilarious that you, a guy who purportedly makes his living off the health of the American car industry, is willing to continually misrepresent the wages paid to the people that you work alongside.  I can't figure out your angle.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 03:34:38 AM by Brendan » Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: December 17, 2008, 04:46:57 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on December 17, 2008, 03:30:50 AM

The apples to apples comparison, as cited in that NYT link I provided for you to read, is $55 vs $45 per hour, which includes overtime, benefits, and pensions for active workers.
OK. That equates to $20,000 per year more. You don't think it's a problem when your competitor pays its employees $20,000/yr less than you for the same work?
Quote
It's darkly hilarious that you, a guy who purportedly makes his living off the health of the American car industry, is willing to continually misrepresent the wages paid to the people that you work alongside.  I can't figure out your angle.
I've only argued they make much more than the Japanese counterparts. Take whatever figure you want, they still do. It's only one part of the problem but the UAW is gonna have to take a paycut.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: December 17, 2008, 02:01:10 PM »

Cheeba, the UAW has made repeated concessions already to cut costs, and has already offered new ones in the last two weeks.  The problem here is not the current cost of labor, it's that people don't want to buy most of the Big 3's cars.

Quote
Yesterday, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said that his union was ready to make new concessions despite a landmark cost-cutting labor contract signed just last year, as he urged Congress and the Bush administration to step forward with a multibillion-dollar auto industry rescue plan.

The UAW, whose membership at the Big Three Detroit car manufacturers has dropped by half in the past five years, said it would let General Motors, Ford and Chrysler delay payments owed to a massive health-care fund for retired workers and suspend a program that pays laid off workers for up to two years.

Gettelfinger made the new concessions reluctantly, complaining that the federal government was stepping in to rescue financial institutions while letting the car companies dangle near collapse. "I'm having a little problem myself understanding why there's a double standard here," he told reporters after a meeting of union leadership. "But we accept it and we'll play by those rules."
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #159 on: December 17, 2008, 02:42:07 PM »

Of course, the whole discussion about union labor costs isn't really important.  It's a conservative sidetrack designed to get people to focus narrowly on one issue.

Labor costs make up about 5-8% of the total cost of a car.  The UAW claims it's more like 2%, but I think that's misleading.  If we accept the $55 vs $45 labor costs of union versus non-union (which I believe doesn't account for bonuses from foreign automakers nor the older average senority of a domestic autoworker), that's a 18% difference in labor costs.  If we're talking about 6% labor in the total cost of a car, the higher wage accounts for 1.08% of the total cost of making an automobile. 

1.08%.  Does anyone realistically think that was the make or break point for domestic automakers?  If your margin is that thin, you would never make it - a short mechanical breakdown in the factory would kill your business. 

In other words, union costs aren't of great importance in the grand scheme of things.  The issue with domestic auto manufacturers lies elsewhere - in the poor reliability ratings of the 70s, 80s and 90s that tarnished the image of domestic automakers, in the epic financial mismanagement of the businesses, in the poor design of their products, in the inability to offer real alternatives in fuel efficiency, in the narrow-minded view that the monster SUV craze would last forever, in the inability to properly market their products and the failure to hold management accountable for poor decision making.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.228 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.087s, 2q)