Auto-Workers may not get paid for not working?

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Here is a thought, how about the big wigs that got all those big bonuses in the past years give back a little and keep their industry alive?

They couldn't do that. That is their money. Its better that they take our money to bail them out.

[adymond]

[putting on flame retardant suit]

I find it funny how so many of us are embracing socialism over this economic "crisis" we are now in. We want to take from each according to their means and give to each according to their need.

Did the CEOs and other executives decide on their bonuses without having input by a board of directors and not have benchmarks that determine their bonuses? If they preform to a level that meets the requirements to get a bonus why should they not get it? Should we cap their pay so that more money can be given to the common man? Why not tell the "common man" to stand up and better their life if they want to make what that executive makes? Since when do Americans accept selective socialism? This smacks of class envy being fanned by the media by way of a financial crisis.

Sure we are in for a shit storm and it may be that we end up worse off than ever before, but if I hear another person say this is the worst it has been since the Great Depression I might smack them. What about the '70s? I wasn't alive, but I have read enough to know it sucked big time.

I guess the flaming begins.

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by adymond

[putting on flame retardant suit]

I find it funny how so many of us are embracing socialism over this economic "crisis" we are now in. We want to take from each according to their means and give to each according to their need.

Did the CEOs and other executives decide on their bonuses without having input by a board of directors and not have benchmarks that determine their bonuses? If they preform to a level that meets the requirements to get a bonus why should they not get it? Should we cap their pay so that more money can be given to the common man? Why not tell the "common man" to stand up and better their life if they want to make what that executive makes? Since when do Americans accept selective socialism? This smacks of class envy being fanned by the media by way of a financial crisis.

Sure we are in for a shit storm and it may be that we end up worse off than ever before, but if I hear another person say this is the worst it has been since the Great Depression I might smack them. What about the '70s? I wasn't alive, but I have read enough to know it sucked big time.

I guess the flaming begins.

No flames here.

By the same token why should they expect the common man to do anything other to buy their products. If businesses is slow they should tighten their belts the same way you and I have to.


When I say common man I do mean their customers. The same ones who ran out of gas waiting to get to the pumps in the 70's.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by normanvin

No flames here.

By the same token why should they expect the common man to do anything other to buy their products. If businesses is slow they should tighten their belts the same way you and I have to.


When I say common man I do mean their customers. The same ones who ran out of gas waiting to get to the pumps in the 70's.

I wasn't saying common man in relation to your posts. Just trying to use terms I have been hearing (referring to the workers). I agree they should tighten their belts. I think they should (the companies) file for bankruptcy (sp?) and going forward the bonuses as well as union entitlements should cease to exist. As long as business is proceeding as usual I will not begrudge them their bonuses. That said I can't stress enough how against them getting a dime from the government loan or not.

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by normanvin

No flames here.

By the same token why should they expect the common man to do anything other to buy their products. If businesses is slow they should tighten their belts the same way you and I have to.


When I say common man I do mean their customers. The same ones who ran out of gas waiting to get to the pumps in the 70's.

Here is the problem - you just nailed it right on the head!

If business is slow they should be ALLOWED to tighten their belts. They shouldn't be forced to pay millions a year to lazy shits that do nothing just because they are in a union. They also shouldn't be paying 30+ an hour to work in a no-skill assembly line job

Unions = Gov't regulated labor control which forces companies to not be in control of their employees. As long as Unions are around and in power like they are today then our production capacity will never increase

[MTechnik]

Originally Posted by Dredly

Unions = Gov't regulated labor control which forces companies to not be in control of their employees. As long as Unions are around and in power like they are today then our production capacity will never increase

Not all unions are bad...

But UAW and Chevy (mostly) are to blame for Chevy's mess. If Chevy didn't keep agreeing to shitty deals under the idea "we'll keep making more money than god, because people will always buy our crappy cars and trucks" then they wouldn't be in this problem.

The 'bigger problem' is that chevy has deals to keep paying into pension and benefits plans for workers that are no longer employed. There are lots of retired people that count on these benefits and pay dollars to make ends meet - it IS their retirement plan. If you go with the 'pure capitalist' view of "let the market decide" - it will, and Chevy will die, and so will the retirement plans of lots of people too old to go back to work.

Now, if the unions can come to the table with Chevy (and the other big 2) and realize that relaxing some of these stupid plans is in BOTH of their best interest...

The only other two options are:

bail out chevy with tax dollars - so that they can keep running the company into the ground, but it WILL make sure those people that DID do their part aren't screwed.

let chevy fail, but take over those GM employees' pension plans. This way the retirements are still funded, but GM itself isn't reaping the rewards of more mismanagement.

Neither prospect is pretty.

[Morel42]

They should have retrained those job-bank guys to do road work and fix the $%#% $ potholes in Detroit.


This is one of the weird areas that the Market is stuck.. Who the hell is going to start up a new company to replace the American Auto Industry?

Give me 25 million and hell I could prolly design and produce a kick ass line of cars.. Follow Henry Fords model too. make every part myself in the same factory..

Just look at the electronic/computer portion of most cars today. The RX8 computer costs 11 THOUSAND DOLLARS.. It's insanity. You can use a computer using off the shelf parts with a embedded unix O/S that is rock solid for alot of things.. Sure you would have to have some custom programming for some chips but other then that..

Hell, the sound systems in most cars today cost over 1,000 dollars and they sound horrible. You can get a better stereo/subwoofer combo from Walmart for around 300 dollars. Team up with Garmin to stick a GPS option in the line (the one that has a build in mp3 player) and the SD memory slot in the dash and make it all blend in nicely.. No Fing I-Drive from BMW with a little nob. Everything is touch screen.. No custom programming, just have to design a dash that imitates the windshield attachment.. I just saved myself 40,000 in research.

Replace the 40 miles of wiring with Cat5 cable. Copy old designs that work for the hundreds of sensors, use the simplest most elegant design you can, and be done with it..

Standardize, standardize, standardize. There is NO reason the Suspension has to be 100% custom from one car to the next.. You might have to put heavier shocks/struts/springs on a slightly heavier car for example
sure, (Look at aftermarket adjustable shocks.. They're 40 times better then stock, but only cost about 100 dollars each. I can make a Honda corner like its on rails for 1/4 the cost of a dealer upgrade for a "sport suspension" )but use the same engine design for all cars, but increase power with a turbo option, more aggressive cam's, transmission ratios, or fuel management. Use an engine that is able to produce 240 hp on the top of the line model, but retard the timings so it produces 175hp on the lower cost cars.. Same parts, same engine, same transmission, just a different set of programing. Electronic Stability Control? Who needs it? It'd rather have a QUALITY set of tires on my car with a lower center of gravity.. Keep the Anti-lock breaks, Airbags, and other such things.. But the side airbags can be options...

You would also let drivers program their own computers for the younger high tech tuner crowd. Boom.. An automatic following from the tuner's. Imagine what kind of following you'd get when you can hook up a laptop to the USB connection in your car and change settings yourself.. Of course, this would void your warranty, but you've already bought the car so go for it. But don't blame us if you blow it up.. sucker..

Then do my own financing. #$%^ the banks.. Screw their costs, screw their service fees. I'd offer 5% financing to everyone regardless of credit (except the total screw-ups of course), use a Saturn like pricing strategy, and then of course make sure you have only a few cars.. One sport coupe, one sport 4 door, and one higher line "Luxury" for the richy rich types. Keep the weight down for better gas mileage, and make damn sure it's easy to fix.

Sure, put some high quality plastic coverings and finishes on it.. But be creative with cost and material.. Avoid the Hyundai hard as a rock cheap crap, and you just designed yourself a decent car.

Ask any mechanic about the sheer idiot designs of these things and the moronic way they assemble cars.

[Dredly]

Another good article

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2134086/posts

I like this line the best:

“Is it right to tax the average worker making $28.50 to bailout workers whose labor cost is over $73 an hour?” Perry asked.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by Dredly

Here is the problem - you just nailed it right on the head!

If business is slow they should be ALLOWED to tighten their belts. They shouldn't be forced to pay millions a year to lazy shits that do nothing just because they are in a union. They also shouldn't be paying 30+ an hour to work in a no-skill assembly line job

Unions = Gov't regulated labor control which forces companies to not be in control of their employees. As long as Unions are around and in power like they are today then our production capacity will never increase

1. Unions "in power"? With less than 7% of the private-sector workforce in unions, they're hardly "in power"

2. How much YOU think an assembly worker should be paid is irrelevant-- it's only what the parties bargaining the contract think that's relevant. Unless you're some kinda dirty socialist who thinks the nation as a whole should have a say. >

3. Well, if we wanna get rid of unions or put them under the thumb of the government and/or corporations to reduce their collective bargaining power or otherwise supress them, there are plenty of precedents-- Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, PRC, USSR, modern-day Mexico or Colombia. Take yer pick.

[bloomautomatic]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

1. Unions "in power"? With less than 7% of the private-sector workforce in unions, they're hardly "in power"

2. How much YOU think an assembly worker should be paid is irrelevant-- it's only what the parties bargaining the contract think that's relevant. Unless you're some kinda dirty socialist who thinks the nation as a whole should have a say. >

3. Well, if we wanna get rid of unions or put them under the thumb of the government and/or corporations to reduce their collective bargaining power or otherwise supress them, there are plenty of precedents-- Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, PRC, USSR, modern-day Mexico or Colombia. Take yer pick.

1. Country wide, they may only have 7% of the workforce, but in this case they appear to be pretty much 100%. Based on the enforcement of this jobs bank program alone, I'd say they're pretty powerful.

2. The amount they're paid is up to agreements between labor and management, but when it is significantly higher than other assembly jobs that require similar aptitude, and the company is losing money, then I would say it's too high.

Here's a hypothetical. Let's say UPS workers get paid twice as much as FedEx workers for the same job. UPS carries on for years with inflated rates, allowing them to pay their workers this rate. If the economy slows down, and UPS gets to the verge of collapse, it wouldn't have to be a socialist to say their labor costs are too high. To me, paying their workers higher than market rate and expecting a government bail out sounds socialist. Apply the same model to raw materials. If they'd be voluntarily paying more than the market rate for steel to make the cars, would you argue that the gov't should give them a bailout so they can continue to pay that inflated price?

3. I think government intervention in private business should be kept to a minimum, on all sides.

And for the record, I was in SMWIA Local 12 for 11 years and I still work in a Union shop. Unions can be a good thing, but it seems like they're looking out for their own bank accounts as much as they are the workers'.

Vince