does anyone have this troy clarke guys work email/phone number. Perhaps instead of calling the reps to agree with the bailout we should start calling GM to disagree with it.

erinm said:darkmeridian said:

This is basically raising our taxes so we can support a guy making $50 with better health benefits, job security, and pensions than we have. It's disgusting.

I disagree completely. The UAW workers make almost the same amount as the non-UAW workers that work for Honda and Toyota make. Very few (if any) make $50, and most start at $14-15/hour. You also forget that many of the Big 3 make their cars in other countries, so they aren't even paying American workers. I know that Toyota workers in the US make very nice wages, yet Toyota doesn't have the same problems. Toyota workers in the Georgetown, KY plant average $30/hour. UAW workers average $27/hour.

Why aren't people concerned about the huge salaries and bonuses at the top? Why do we begrudge the WORKERS their wages, but seem to think that upper management earns their millions?

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_fo...

Because Top execs salary is negligible compare to a million overpaid workers with ever increasing healthcare.

JesseLivermore said:We have to save the 3 largest U.S. auto companies, and we can.

But we need to have strict impositions on the terms and use of the money. The UAW must be reigned in so that GM, Ford and Chrysler are not saddled with much higher labor and benefit costs than their foreign competitors (who build cars in the U.S. also, even though the profits go out of this country).

The profits go to the stockholders. You can buy some Toyota stock and get your slice. It's not like the profits from a Camry built by Americans go into a fund for the Japanese Emperor's new fleet of Zeros

To me, a Japanese brand car built by Americans is better for America than an American brand car built my Mexicans.

erinm said:Pun said:erinm said:darkmeridian said:

This is basically raising our taxes so we can support a guy making $50 with better health benefits, job security, and pensions than we have. It's disgusting.

I disagree completely. The UAW workers make almost the same amount as the non-UAW workers that work for Honda and Toyota make. Very few (if any) make $50, and most start at $14-15/hour. You also forget that many of the Big 3 make their cars in other countries, so they aren't even paying American workers. I know that Toyota workers in the US make very nice wages, yet Toyota doesn't have the same problems. Toyota workers in the Georgetown, KY plant average $30/hour. UAW workers average $27/hour.

Why aren't people concerned about the huge salaries and bonuses at the top? Why do we begrudge the WORKERS their wages, but seem to think that upper management earns their millions?

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_fo...

Because Top execs salary is negligible compare to a million overpaid workers with ever increasing healthcare.

But GM/Chrysler/Ford aren't paying any more in wages than their competitors. In fact, they move their manufacturing out of the US to pay even less in wages.

Paying workers fair wages is importnat. Those workers buy houses, cars, food, clothing, send their kids to college, pay taxes, use services. Why shouldn't workers be paid a fair wage?

I think the real problem is that the goods being manufactured are of sub-standard quality. You can't blame that on the workers.

Someone with close to $80-90/hr in wages & benefit is considered fair wages?
These are unskilled workers that can be trained and recyled day and night. The union must be broken up and that is exactly what the gov't intend to do.

Employees working at McD's and Burger king have expenses too like the ones you'd listed. So what's your point?
You sound like a typical partisan democrat. This ruined economy is very simple, If you have $100 in your savings account, you can only afford to buy $100 worth of goods. US auto needs to cut down on labor and reduce the price on these cars.

mlayu said:From Cato blog I found this interesting Reuters article. Honda opens new U.S. plant as Detroit seeks bailout.


How nice of the media to ignore the absurdly huge incentive package Honda got for siting that plant:
Combined state and local direct investment to support the Honda project includes EDGE tax credits, training assistance, and real and personal property tax abatements totaling up to $41.5 million. In addition, there will be infrastructure support for water, wastewater and road improvements of approximately $44 million. To accommodate future growth in the region, the state is expediting the long- sought interchange upgrade on Interstate 74, along with water, wastewater, and other road upgrades totaling approximately $56 million.
Source: http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2006/sep/american/

This also ignores all the countless millions spent by Ohio in trying to lure the Honda plant which was lost when Indiana won the contest, the future infrastructure upgrades that must be made because of the impact of the plant, and the opportunity cost of the state and local governments that was spent on this buffalo hunt for a manufacturing complex which could have been invested in a more diversified development strategy.

But its "only" 150 million, right? Until you consider that this happens every single time a automobile manufacturer expands, and "only" 150 million is enough to bankrupt countless local governments that are spending money like its going out of style once they find out they are on the short list for site selection. Oh, and its not ONLY when they expand, automobile manufacturers routinely exploit governments for more money after they locate in order to ensure they don't shut the doors and move else where.

People falsely believe that these companies somehow operate in a free market without assistance or help by government. People are hand wringing and acting hysterical over 25 billion in loans, when the combined amount of money these companies get over the years far surpasses that - and the economic development money is in cash they don't have to pay back. Yet again this is a lesson in the stupidity of the populist mob.

erinm said:Pun said:erinm said:Pun said:erinm said:darkmeridian said:

This is basically raising our taxes so we can support a guy making $50 with better health benefits, job security, and pensions than we have. It's disgusting.

I disagree completely. The UAW workers make almost the same amount as the non-UAW workers that work for Honda and Toyota make. Very few (if any) make $50, and most start at $14-15/hour. You also forget that many of the Big 3 make their cars in other countries, so they aren't even paying American workers. I know that Toyota workers in the US make very nice wages, yet Toyota doesn't have the same problems. Toyota workers in the Georgetown, KY plant average $30/hour. UAW workers average $27/hour.

Why aren't people concerned about the huge salaries and bonuses at the top? Why do we begrudge the WORKERS their wages, but seem to think that upper management earns their millions?

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_fo...

Because Top execs salary is negligible compare to a million overpaid workers with ever increasing healthcare.

But GM/Chrysler/Ford aren't paying any more in wages than their competitors. In fact, they move their manufacturing out of the US to pay even less in wages.

Paying workers fair wages is importnat. Those workers buy houses, cars, food, clothing, send their kids to college, pay taxes, use services. Why shouldn't workers be paid a fair wage?

I think the real problem is that the goods being manufactured are of sub-standard quality. You can't blame that on the workers.

Someone with close to $80-90/hr in wages & benefit is considered fair wages?
These are unskilled workers that can be trained and recyled day and night. The union must be broken up and that is exactly what the gov't intend to do.

UAW worker do NOT make $80-90/hour in wages and benefits. The UAW worker makes as much or less than a non-UAW worker in wages and benefits. Simple googling will tell you this.

The $71-73/hour number you hear GM tout is the amount if you figure what their pension plans are currently paying out to retired workers. They considering that part of the current employee's benefits, even though the current employee sees none of it. This is GM's problem because they adopted "pay-as-you-go" pensions, rather than setting the money aside annually way back before the retired workers were retired.

Many UAW workers are skilled. They are pipefitters, electricians, millwrights...

I encourage you to do a little research before you throw out figures you know nothing about.

Did you type google.com and clicked the first few articles that came up?
PLEASE!!!!
Average salary of a GM line worker is about 125k-150k/year with benefits. This includes unneccsary overtime pay which is being over abused.

Pun said:
Average salary of a GM line worker is about 125k-150k/year with benefits.

Damn straight! You only have to *visit* the Detroit metropolitan area where these fatcat lineworkers live to see what a vibrant, prosperous place it is.

ganda said:Pun said:
Average salary of a GM line worker is about 125k-150k/year with benefits.

Damn straight! You only have to *visit* the Detroit metropolitan area where these fatcat lineworkers live to see what a vibrant, prosperous place it is.
Is it our problem if they blew the money on H and B instead of more proper investments?

isles1 said:But if it is the position of the automakers that they cannot continue to be viable WITH these contracts (although no one has said it, asking for $25B from the taxpayers sure implies it), what logical argument would the Unions have in not allowing a restructuring of those contracts in a BK proceeding? Besides, it was always my understanding that such contracts can be renegotiated, or even broken, in BK (why is this contract different from a lease agreement that the BK trustee can choose to keep or walk away from?). But like I said, even if the BK laws do not allow an outright termination or renegotiation of these specific contracts, it seems the Union would want to renegotiate if their members are faced with either accepting less money or not having a job at all.As I mentioned in this linked post above, bankruptcy laws DO allow manufacturers to terminate and renegotiate their union contracts but as a practical matter it's not so simple. You can't just fire tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of your loyal employees, greatly reduce and/or terminate various pension and retirement benefits for millions, move a lot of manufacturing offshore, cause supplier bankruptcies and do other things that GM/Ford/Chrysler would probably have to do in order become more efficient without facing tremendous public backlash, Congressional hearings about "bad faith efforts to take away jobs from hardworking Americans in exchange for cheap overseas labor to maximize corporate profits," news articles showing that these automakers are shifting responsibility for healthcare benefits on to taxpayers and, ultimately, a strike by the unions that would completely shut down the company.

This could be an extremely nasty fight with very few short term winners and fairly uncertain outcomes. Millions of people not directly affiliated with the auto industry would be hurt by the bankruptcy. I don't pretend to be an economist but in my admittedly non-expert opinion I just do not understand how we can expect our three auto makers to survive when their competition does not have to deal with much higher overhead, manufacturing and legacy costs associated with retiree benefits. At the same time, if we really do want them to undergo a restructuring in a way that will allow them to compete, we have to be aware and be comfortable with the very significant pain that such a restructuring effort would entail for just about every single one of us and the incredible risks that it would pose to the economy.

The funny thing is that on the panel GM CEO argued that they're currently burning thru $5B/month and that they expect their portion of the bailout to provide them with $10-12B. Quick math means this massive bailout will keep them burning cash for 2 extra months. Do they seriously think they can turn around, restructure, and recover from this recession by March 09?

To me it sounds like an addict who'd say anything to get you to loan them money for their next dose. "I'll use the money to clean myself up and find a job."

Throwing money at the big 3, is like giving the patient a pain killer instead of trying to cure the infection. They probably need government guaranteed access to capital, but not until they clean their house first. And if they were willing to do that on their own, they would have already. By now, there are very few people who believe the story of magically returning to profitability on antiquited business models, with poor management, and insane contractual obligations.