The Republicans, especially southern Republicans, are so intent in destroying the UAW is because all the foreign car makers have their non union plants in those southern states. Blame the UAW for the automaker's troubles.
Where's the talk of reducing the wages of everyone in the banking industry?
__________________
TheGreatRaymond@sbcglobal.net
Please indicate you are from TechIMO in subject line so you don't get deleted as spam :)
What you are referring to is a practice that began as a way to entice the United Auto Workers to accept robots on the assembly line.
See, this is why the US automakers are failing, why spend money innovating new manufacturing techniques when you're still going to have to pay the worker anyway?
You know what this reminds me of? When they went to diesel trains, the unions fought for the job of the person that shoveled the coal or whatever, the person who used to shovel coal would just sit there and twiddle his thumbs.
The engineer asked him, what are you doing here?
The response? I get paid to twiddle my thumbs.
So, if GM spent the entire bailout money to completely revolutionize their manufacturing process to significantly increase the productivity, and quality of each vehicle, they are still going to have to pay the union workers.
So now they have to pay for all of the new technology AND the workers who's job they've made obsolete.
So why bother innovating.
Hey, I don't see Toyota, Honda or BMW asking for a bailout...
I'm glad I bought a new Toyota, it may be a foreign automaker, but the car was built by american, non-union workers.
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.
The auto companies we call the Big 3 are now broke. They cannot continue to do business under current conditions.
Blame who you want - the unions for outrageous demands, or the management for not standing up to them. The end result is these US automakers are broke. Done for.
A managed bankruptcy as proposed is the best course of action. If they UAW doesn't like it, they can strike or threaten to strike like they did before. It's a free country and they can do whatever they want, just like any of us can. A job is not an entitlement. At least not yet anyway.
__________________
Obama has taken America from purported bully to notorious chump in less than a year.
GM and Chrysler are all done, at least as separate entities. Ford still has a chance, especially if GM or Chrysler go under.
The bailout is needed and needs to be structured such that the money goes towards helping the supply chain companies retool for other industry. Losing the Big 3 is one thing. Losing the entire supply chain is another. Way too many jobs and small companies lost if all 3 car companies go under. But I don't see why a company that manufactures wheel rims couldn't just as easily manufacture say, solar panels. Given the funding to retrain and retool and if the gov't adds incentives for green energy sources, it might turn some of the supply chain to other goals.
The Ford/UAW model needs to be standardized across the industry. GM and the UAW are at a standoff and that needs to end. Both sides need to look at the Ford model and accept that as the new way of doing busniess.
During the negotiations Corker tried to be as compromising as possible on the tough question of wages, benefits, and overall compensation. He asked the union to be competitive, but he never specified parity or complete equality with the foreign transplants. And Corker provided that the comp-package would be certified next year by the secretary of Labor -- an Obama selection. In addition, the Senate governing the package would be made up of 58 Democrats, rather than today's 50.
All Corker asked was a 2009 date for union pay restructuring. Sen. Corker never specified his date. He asked the UAW to name its date for a new pay package. But it had to be in 2009. In return, union members would get a lot of stock in this deal -- up to $10.5 billion of new equity as GM's heavy debt burden would be converted into common shares.
But the UAW refused to make concessions. Instead, it insisted it would only renegotiate its current contract when it ends in 2011. That was the sticking point that killed the deal.
You have to ask this question: If the Detroit carmakers are in dire straits, going broke in two weeks, right now in late 2008, how can the UAW wait until 2011 to make its concessions? The financial problem is today, not two years from today. The threat of liquidation, with perhaps a few million autoworker, supplier, and car-dealer jobs lost, is today's threat, not a 2011 threat. So what's the UAW waiting for?
In one sense, I agree. But . . . why were the union workers the only ones singled out for this scrutiny? I think the UAW President is a lousy spokesperson for his cause, and he irritates the hell out of me every time I listen to him, but he has a good point here. No other stakeholder was subjected to this 11th hour demand. And that leads me to believe that this was just more political posturing and grandstanding by Senator Corker.
Again, why would the Union not make concessions now?
I have said it many times. The Unions, as can clearly be seen here, are the reason for the poor economy as well as jobs going overseas. They have closed down many businesses before this one, and seem intent on shutting down the Big 3 now as well.
hardware
prices 
