My first two years out of college I spent in the auto motive industry for a small company in Cleveland, OH. Travelling to Michigan every week to visit places like Warren, Deerborn, Southfield, Muskegon, Traverse City, Battle Creek, Grand Haven, etc was quite an eye opener for me. We were in the engine oil testing sector and working with the OEMS (Ford, GM, Mack, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, etc) and the oil companies to get the proper engine oil specs approved. Essentially, before an oil went on the shelf (Castrol, Mobil One, Pennzoil, etc) they had to pass certain API, ATSM, etc criteria.
Working with GM and Ford was something I'll never forget. To many stories to tell here. Many extremely frustrating with both management and the unions. The inefficiencies were incredible. Painful. I recall my boss, a veteran of the auto industry for decades, saying that GM and FORD should do a nation wide campaign apologizing to the American people, owning up for the fact they they cut corners, etc, etc. Come clean and try to regain the confidence lost before it's too late and Toyota, Honda, entrench themselves into the landscape. He said they would never do it unless they were on their last leg.
Sure enough, 15 years later that ad campaign started today. 15 years later.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4B738W20081208?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
A couple of weeks back, a coworker told me about his neighbor who works for GM in Janesville, WI.
I had heard stories of ridiculously high paying union jobs, but this was a whole new realm of absurd. Along the lines of $45/hr to install tail lights (around 3-4 screws per light) in cars that come down the line once every 10-15 minutes.
I shouldn't quote the numbers, because my memory is terrible, but these are in the ballpark of the numbers he told me. After hearing that I am extremely hard pressed to not wish bankruptcy on them for agreeing to contract terms like these. I know there are thousands of workers outside of GM that would be negatively impacted if/when GM files for bankruptcy, but come on.
no more bailouts. we aren't socialists. you f up you pay the price.
Quote from: Stone Cold on December 09, 2008, 08:53:34 PM
no more bailouts. we aren't socialists. you f up you pay the price.
not yet anyway...
when obemesiah turns us into a socialist country is the day I get my one way ticket to Australia.
Quote from: Stone Cold on December 09, 2008, 08:53:34 PM
no more bailouts. we aren't socialists. you f up you pay the price.
pick your bailout - rebuild the auto industry or pay unemployment benefits?
Quote from: mviale on December 10, 2008, 12:15:15 AM
pick your bailout - rebuild the auto industry or pay unemployment benefits?
So the Auto Union wouldn't be covering their member's unemployment costs? ::)
In the AUW's contract they have an agreement that pays any employee who is laid off up to 95% of their salary, even if they aren't working. They're put in a "holding" status and collect their check...and the US Auto industry wonders why they aren't competitive...labor costs got them by the b@!!s
Just like in the banking industry, there have been excesses and abuses. Is it really worse to have workers making money or bankers inventing ways to package debt and sell it that nobody actually understood and had the net effect of freezing the banks. Anyway, as to overpaid auto workers, please check out # 7 here......
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812050400
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 09, 2008, 08:18:03 PM
A couple of weeks back, a coworker told me about his neighbor who works for GM in Janesville, WI.
I had heard stories of ridiculously high paying union jobs, but this was a whole new realm of absurd. Along the lines of $45/hr to install tail lights (around 3-4 screws per light) in cars that come down the line once every 10-15 minutes.
I shouldn't quote the numbers, because my memory is terrible, but these are in the ballpark of the numbers he told me. After hearing that I am extremely hard pressed to not wish bankruptcy on them for agreeing to contract terms like these. I know there are thousands of workers outside of GM that would be negatively impacted if/when GM files for bankruptcy, but come on.
Compare that to the non-union laborers working in the Toyota and Mercedes Benz plants down here in the South and you see nearly a 40% discrepancy in labor costs vs the big 3 union auto worker.
Quote from: muarmy81 on December 10, 2008, 06:00:08 AM
So the Auto Union wouldn't be covering their member's unemployment costs? ::)
In the AUW's contract they have an agreement that pays any employee who is laid off up to 95% of their salary, even if they aren't working. They're put in a "holding" status and collect their check...and the US Auto industry wonders why they aren't competitive...labor costs got them by the b@!!s
The problem that scares me, that nobody seems to consider here, is that the automakers are not isolated companies. I have known and worked with dozens of people, and have friends and family, who work at non-union companies that supply various parts and materials to the Big Three. A lot of them are lucky to be making half of what the GM workers make, but the sad thing is that their jobs are less safe, they are pretty dependent on the success of the US automakers, and they are now/will be relying on government unemployment if the automakers continue to be awful. That's the sad thing; you have overpaid union workers with three companies, but there's a thing called a supply chain, and it affects people who make reasonable wages at companies that are actually well run.
Quote from: chapman on December 10, 2008, 06:59:15 AM
The problem that scares me, that nobody seems to consider here, is that the automakers are not isolated companies. I have known and worked with dozens of people, and have friends and family, who work at non-union companies that supply various parts and materials to the Big Three. A lot of them are lucky to be making half of what the GM workers make, but the sad thing is that their jobs are less safe, they are pretty dependent on the success of the US automakers, and they are now/will be relying on government unemployment if the automakers continue to be awful. That's the sad thing; you have overpaid union workers with three companies, but there's a thing called a supply chain, and it affects people who make reasonable wages at companies that are actually well run.
I had a client, now defunct, which was a supplier to several auto manufacturers, at one time primarily Ford, but at other times Chrysler, VW, Pontiac, and they had a saying in regard to the impact problems at Ford had on them -- When Ford gets a cold, we get pneumonia.
This company was owned -- and abandoned after I helped it raise 2-3 million from state and local gov't -- by Cerberus, which now owns Chrysler. Coincidence? Maybe. But when your company is named after the three-headed dog which guards the gates of Hell -- maybe not.
Quote from: Stone Cold on December 09, 2008, 09:35:43 PM
when obemesiah turns us into a socialist country is the day I get my one way ticket to Australia.
U should already be down under, Stone Cold. The Bush administration nationalized the world's largest insurer, Freddie, Fannie, and Citigroup.
BTW, Australia has its own issues with protectionist and socialist policies (historically much more acute than the US, just look at their banking, telco and insurance systems). But since they were started by rejects and parolees while we were started by a cult, life there has other benefits ;)
Quote from: chapman on December 10, 2008, 06:59:15 AM
The problem that scares me, that nobody seems to consider here, is that the automakers are not isolated companies. I have known and worked with dozens of people, and have friends and family, who work at non-union companies that supply various parts and materials to the Big Three. A lot of them are lucky to be making half of what the GM workers make, but the sad thing is that their jobs are less safe, they are pretty dependent on the success of the US automakers, and they are now/will be relying on government unemployment if the automakers continue to be awful. That's the sad thing; you have overpaid union workers with three companies, but there's a thing called a supply chain, and it affects people who make reasonable wages at companies that are actually well run.
That is basically what I was getting at when I said that I know there are thousands of workers outside of GM that would be negatively impacted. That is about the only thing that keeps me from saying screw them all (automakers).
Got my career started in the automotive industry too. Sad too see them go down, but they have made some terrible decisions the past 10+ years.
On a lighter note, have you seen the attached spoof ad. Pretty d@mn funny ;D
Sure, I have a problem with these "high-paying" union jobs. But I don't see people banging down the doors for them (i.e., graduating from MU with the intent of getting one of these "cushy" jobs).
I blame the U.S. companies who lacked (lack?) the foresight of seeing changes in fuel economy and adjusting their technology accordingly. I guess the assembly line workers had a lot to do with that. ::)
Quote from: chapman on December 10, 2008, 06:59:15 AM
The problem that scares me, that nobody seems to consider here, is that the automakers are not isolated companies. I have known and worked with dozens of people, and have friends and family, who work at non-union companies that supply various parts and materials to the Big Three. A lot of them are lucky to be making half of what the GM workers make, but the sad thing is that their jobs are less safe, they are pretty dependent on the success of the US automakers, and they are now/will be relying on government unemployment if the automakers continue to be awful. That's the sad thing; you have overpaid union workers with three companies, but there's a thing called a supply chain, and it affects people who make reasonable wages at companies that are actually well run.
+1 Some of them may even be MU fans like me. I have been a Tool and Die Maker for almost 20 years. I don't work for the big 3 but the company I work for does a lot of work for the auto industry. We make all kinds of parts for many different cars, trucks and heavy equipment. The fall of the big three will put many of us out on the street looking for jobs that are not there.......
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 10, 2008, 06:53:09 PM
Sure, I have a problem with these "high-paying" union jobs. But I don't see people banging down the doors for them (i.e., graduating from MU with the intent of getting one of these "cushy" jobs).
I blame the U.S. companies who lacked (lack?) the foresight of seeing changes in fuel economy and adjusting their technology accordingly. I guess the assembly line workers had a lot to do with that. ::)
+1
but actually the US manufacturers have caught up in fuel efficiency and quality, but it took so long that a lot of people still have the perception that the big 3 still make gas guzzling pieces of crap... and that will be hard to break.
4 years ago, when I bought my last car, I really liked the Malibu Maxx. I went to the dealership and was sitting in one. In the middle of the dash, between the vents, was a Malibu decal that I assumed was the emergency blinker button. I pushed it....and it broke off and fell down inside the dashboard assembly. I drove one anyway and liked it, but could not get past the Malibu decal and ended up buying a Mazda 6. That decal is not the union's fault, either. Is an autoworker making $28 an hour and perhaps not being the most dynamic worker on the planet somehow more offensive to you than an AIG rep, having taken more money from the gov't than the auto industry is even asking for, still going off to an exclusive spa for an executive retreat or still getting his $3 million bonus this year? Look to where the real responsibility lies and quit blaming the guys trying to make an adequate living.
heheheh (oops, didnt see rocky's post on this above)!
(http://data.tumblr.com/Ahe5vVuQIhaydp6u3FQfblWJo1_400.jpg)
Quote from: muarmy81 on December 10, 2008, 06:36:12 AM
Compare that to the non-union laborers working in the Toyota and Mercedes Benz plants down here in the South and you see nearly a 40% discrepancy in labor costs vs the big 3 union auto worker.
And a better product as well. Go figure. Less wage and benefits costs and a better product. At the end of the day, 3 auto companies in the United States is TOO MANY when you consider the wage constraints here. We have one airplane manufacturer, we can survive with 2 auto manufacturers. Either that, or blow up labor contracts (which is why I would say make them go into Chapter 11) and start over. The pensions, the wages, the benefits, are destroying them and have for decades.
With Kia, Hyundai, Mazda, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Isuzu, Volkswagen, Porsche, etc all selling in the US, the competition is brutal. If the wage \ benefit costs are out of line to the degree with which they are in comparison to the competition, something has to give. So far it's been cheaper (crap) cars in order to compete on price.
It's not working.
Quote from: NYWarrior on December 10, 2008, 10:43:05 AM
U should already be down under, Stone Cold. The Bush administration nationalized the world's largest insurer, Freddie, Fannie, and Citigroup.
BTW, Australia has its own issues with protectionist and socialist policies (historically much more acute than the US, just look at their banking, telco and insurance systems). But since they were started by rejects and parolees while we were started by a cult, life there has other benefits ;)
No disagreements there. We've been running under Socialist doctrine with these bailouts for the last year. Of course, that doesn't mean any of them work (I'll wager they don't). :'(
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on December 10, 2008, 06:53:09 PM
Sure, I have a problem with these "high-paying" union jobs. But I don't see people banging down the doors for them (i.e., graduating from MU with the intent of getting one of these "cushy" jobs).
I blame the U.S. companies who lacked (lack?) the foresight of seeing changes in fuel economy and adjusting their technology accordingly. I guess the assembly line workers had a lot to do with that. ::)
Fuel economy cars are all over the place in the Big Three fleet. That's not the issue. The perception of absolute crap for decades has ruined their brands. Yes, there are more pickups and SUVs in their portfolio, but those also were the only cars the Big 3 could sell. Plenty of fuel efficient ones. Plenty of mistakes by Labor and Management. Labor has had management by the short hairs for a long long time and as a result management gave into crazy pensions, crazy wages. Did management have a choice? Maybe. But it would have meant long strikes and further damage to the Big Three.
I still come back to foreign auto makers here in the states. Reasonable wages, right to work states, quality products. Right here in the old USA. Tennessee. Lousiana. Alabama. Carolinas. It can work in the states, but both sides have to be willing to make MAJOR concessions.
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
4 years ago, when I bought my last car, I really liked the Malibu Maxx. I went to the dealership and was sitting in one. In the middle of the dash, between the vents, was a Malibu decal that I assumed was the emergency blinker button. I pushed it....and it broke off and fell down inside the dashboard assembly. I drove one anyway and liked it, but could not get past the Malibu decal and ended up buying a Mazda 6. That decal is not the union's fault, either. Is an autoworker making $28 an hour and perhaps not being the most dynamic worker on the planet somehow more offensive to you than an AIG rep, having taken more money from the gov't than the auto industry is even asking for, still going off to an exclusive spa for an executive retreat or still getting his $3 million bonus this year? Look to where the real responsibility lies and quit blaming the guys trying to make an adequate living.
Excellent points, only I would say your $28 is wrong. The average wages / benefits of a UAW worker is $73 for the Big 3 (Chrysler pay $75.86 per hour). Only $48 for Toyota. The $28 figure is not for automotive workers as the graph below indicates. (Source: AP, USA Today, and US Dept of Labor.)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SRe1OUUB32I/AAAAAAAAHq0/7DZwo3Naf-o/s400/wages.bmp)
On the AIG comparison, those are always blown out of proportion. AIG has hundreds of thousands of employees of which 99.9% of them are not making that kind of money or receiving that kind of treatment. That being said, really stupid on their part just as it's stupid for the autoexecs to be flying on private jets to meet before Congress. Perception is everything. Right now, the perception that labor costs are too high, management is incompetent are the reality, not just the perception.
That $73 dollar figure has been tossed around everywhere, but requires context. That includes pension and health care costs for retirees, divided by current employees. For current employees, UAW starts at $14, goes to $28, plus $14 per hour for bennies, plus overtime opportunities. New hires get no pension. $73 is the number when accounting for all of the retiree money. When taken current dollar to current dollar, line workers for the big 3 are getting paid roughly equal to what Toyota, Honda, et al are getting. The residual costs are what is killing the B3. UAW offered to take over the administering of retiree benefits, but needed a big pile of money to do it, per the last contract. I just read an article that called GM the world's largest pension and retiree health care provider, that just happens to make cars.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 11, 2008, 02:25:56 PM
Fuel economy cars are all over the place in the Big Three fleet. That's not the issue. The perception of absolute crap for decades has ruined their brands. Yes, there are more pickups and SUVs in their portfolio, but those also were the only cars the Big 3 could sell. Plenty of fuel efficient ones. Plenty of mistakes by Labor and Management. Labor has had management by the short hairs for a long long time and as a result management gave into crazy pensions, crazy wages. Did management have a choice? Maybe. But it would have meant long strikes and further damage to the Big Three.
I still come back to foreign auto makers here in the states. Reasonable wages, right to work states, quality products. Right here in the old USA. Tennessee. Lousiana. Alabama. Carolinas. It can work in the states, but both sides have to be willing to make MAJOR concessions.
Is it ironic that foreign autos are using more of a US style business-structure/culture than the US auto-makers are?
The good old "american way" is an honest days work for an honest days pay. Hard work pays off. Take pride in what you do. If you can do it better/cheaper/faster, then do it. etc. etc.
We invented the steam engine, the assembly line, we went to the moon first. We were masters of ingenuity and advancements.
Now we've gotten "fat and happy" and other countries have rapidly gained.
The auto industry might just be the start of it all.
The next 10-15 years is going to be a VERY interesting time in history.
Chicos, your figures a quite a bit distorted... the NY Times article (which I am only assuming that is from) uses... extreme numbers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/new-york-times-still-push_b_147569.html
if you want to see how the numbers are figured and explained.
furthermore, Ford Motor Company owns and builds both Mazda and Volvos... though they are trying to sell the latter.
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2008, 03:12:10 PM
That $73 dollar figure has been tossed around everywhere, but requires context. That includes pension and health care costs for retirees, divided by current employees. For current employees, UAW starts at $14, goes to $28, plus $14 per hour for bennies, plus overtime opportunities. New hires get no pension. $73 is the number when accounting for all of the retiree money. When taken current dollar to current dollar, line workers for the big 3 are getting paid roughly equal to what Toyota, Honda, et al are getting. The residual costs are what is killing the B3. UAW offered to take over the administering of retiree benefits, but needed a big pile of money to do it, per the last contract. I just read an article that called GM the world's largest pension and retiree health care provider, that just happens to make cars.
ok just read this as i was searching and typing my previous reply.
basically a summary of that article.
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/10/business/1210-biz-webLEONHARDT.gif)
Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2008, 03:12:10 PM
That $73 dollar figure has been tossed around everywhere, but requires context. That includes pension and health care costs for retirees, divided by current employees. For current employees, UAW starts at $14, goes to $28, plus $14 per hour for bennies, plus overtime opportunities. New hires get no pension. $73 is the number when accounting for all of the retiree money. When taken current dollar to current dollar, line workers for the big 3 are getting paid roughly equal to what Toyota, Honda, et al are getting. The residual costs are what is killing the B3. UAW offered to take over the administering of retiree benefits, but needed a big pile of money to do it, per the last contract. I just read an article that called GM the world's largest pension and retiree health care provider, that just happens to make cars.
You are correct about the $73 breakdown. But that really is the entire point. The Big 3 are saddled with those legacy burdens on retirees, pensions, healthcare benefits, etc and when you roll them all up, that's where the $73 cost comes in. It is a cost that the other auto companies do not bear to that level.
GM used to own Hughes (which owned us) and sold us for billions just to help fund their pensions. So a lot of the Finance guys here are obviously very close to it.
I don't dispute the breakdown at all, they definitely aren't making $73 in wages but when you factor in benefits, pensions, legacy items, it's a difficult situation.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 11, 2008, 03:22:18 PM
Chicos, your figures a quite a bit distorted... the NY Times article (which I am only assuming that is from) uses... extreme numbers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/new-york-times-still-push_b_147569.html
if you want to see how the numbers are figured and explained.
furthermore, Ford Motor Company owns and builds both Mazda and Volvos... though they are trying to sell the latter.
No, not from the NY Times, as I stated my sources were the US Labor department, the AP and the USA Today. I also said that my numbers aren't just wages but everything included. But on a comparison basis, the other auto manufacturers aren't carrying that albatross over their head. That is why the number is computed in that fashion. Those are liabilities that the Big Three have which others don't to that degree.
Now, on Mazda and Volvo, that isn't exactly true either. Ford owns part of Mazda and has for decades. It's a very small part. Ford owns 13% of Mazda. At one point it was about 33% but they sold off a large chunk recently to inject funds. On Volvo, well Ford owns the Volvo nameplate but not Volvo the company. That is still owned by Volvo Industries in Stockholm. The Volvo Group, which owned Volvo Trucks and Volvo Cars sold the cars division to Ford, but not the truck division. So it's not really that cut and dry to say Ford owns Volvo. And for the cars that are produced by Ford under the Volvo name, about 46% were made in Sweden. The rest throughout Europe and North America.
Many of the automotive makers own chunks of others. Ford owns Jaguar, used to own Astin Marton. Toyota is the majority owner of Daihatsu and owns part of Isuzu and Yamaha. They basically all own a piece of each other.
The fun really starts when you look into the rental fleets. Ford owns much of Hertz. Guess what Hertz buys? Fords. One of the big reason why the Big 3 have been able to put so many sales in the US on the books is through rental fleets, government fleets (police vehicles, etc).
thanks for the clarification
Much as no one wants to see the -500 point bath that's going to happen when the market opens this morning .. I'm glad the Republicans held firm on their wage demand, which was, in short, that the UAW had to agree to lower wages by the end of 2009 to match foreign automaker hourly levels.
The UAW didn't want a timetable (surprise!) but suggested 2011.
Yeah, UAW, hows about we just lower your wages to zero, right now?
Basically, the Republicans are trying to do what the Big3 could never do: turn the UAW down. Good for them.
Earth to UAW: The high labor/benefit costs are a major part of why your employers are going down the tubes, and are clearly unsustainable. You will be making less in the future, or you will have no future.
Pretty sure the above graph shows the hourly wages are quite comparable already. The legacy costs are the burden. What do do about them? They were all bargained by both parties in good faith. Have the automakers completely default on them, causing retirees to be broke overnight and adding millions to Medicare? Pawn them off on the government like AIG debt? Let KBR take them over? No easy answers. How much in subsidies did Shelby negotiate to get the auto plants built in his state? And now, no help for the domestics? Wee bit hypocritical.
Quote from: tower912 on December 12, 2008, 11:15:02 AM
Pretty sure the above graph shows the hourly wages are quite comparable already. The legacy costs are the burden. What do do about them? They were all bargained by both parties in good faith. Have the automakers completely default on them, causing retirees to be broke overnight and adding millions to Medicare? Pawn them off on the government like AIG debt? Let KBR take them over? No easy answers. How much in subsidies did Shelby negotiate to get the auto plants built in his state? And now, no help for the domestics? Wee bit hypocritical.
I don't see any other answer then they have to tell the retirees, etc that the world has changed. We can't be paying you 95% of your salary in your pension. It's a simple choice of guaranteed death for these auto companies or restructuring to a point that they can actually survive.
But even the wages aren't exactly comparable. That was the reason it failed in the Senate the other day. The UAW refused to bring wages down to the level of the foreign automakers here in the States. They wouldn't even take that cut for a temporary 2 years.
Bargaining in good faith is terrific, but if it means the company goes out of business, then everyone loses because there will be nothing left.
So contracts don't matter, loyalty doesn't matter, 30 years of service doesn't matter, planning your retirement around a pension doesn't matter. Keeping a promise is passe'. The retirees kept their end of the bargain and should now be cut loose because it is no longer convenient. Off to the retirement camps with you!!!! Your service is done, go die quietly!!! Work until you are 80! That is the only way to truly compete!!!! And do away with those archaic child labor laws!!! If we want to compete with the chinese, we have to have child sweat shops, too!
Yeah, hyperbole, over the top, I admit. I am tired of the blame being place in the wrong place. Poor management, poor planning, no long-term vision, greed and the guys actually getting their hands dirty actually making stuff pay the price. America not making anything itself is going to be as large an economic threat down the road as America being dependent on foreign energy.
Well .. as you said, that was over the top. The "guys getting their hands dirty" were also greedy, in that, they demanded (and received) wages and benefits that are, by a large margin, far better than other workers in their same industry, and far far FAR better than other workers doing similar manufacturing type work in the US.
You could reasonably say that the reason the Big3 are close to death is because with almost every single other company in the US, there's a pyramid of wealth, with a small group at the top making wages far above the US median, supported by a large group of workers in the mid to mid-lower and lower class. The Big3 .. sure, they had stock holders who (historically) made good money, and lots of upper management who did very well. But their lower stratus of workers, the worker bees, they were some of the highest paid worker bees in history, not just in wages, but in superior benefits like retiring in early 50s, when about 99% of the rest of America is working into their mid-60s.
Quote from: tower912 on December 13, 2008, 01:13:31 PM
So contracts don't matter, loyalty doesn't matter, 30 years of service doesn't matter, planning your retirement around a pension doesn't matter. Keeping a promise is passe'. The retirees kept their end of the bargain and should now be cut loose because it is no longer convenient. Off to the retirement camps with you!!!! Your service is done, go die quietly!!! Work until you are 80! That is the only way to truly compete!!!! And do away with those archaic child labor laws!!! If we want to compete with the chinese, we have to have child sweat shops, too!
Yeah, hyperbole, over the top, I admit. I am tired of the blame being place in the wrong place. Poor management, poor planning, no long-term vision, greed and the guys actually getting their hands dirty actually making stuff pay the price. America not making anything itself is going to be as large an economic threat down the road as America being dependent on foreign energy.
Contracts are renegotiated all the time in business to accept the realities of life. If a contract means certain death and will hurt both sides terminally, then yes, contracts need to be reworked. Those are the realities of the situation.
It happens in my business all the time it happens the real world all the time. They can continue to go down this path and it will mean no pensions for anyone because the companies won't exist, no more jobs, etc, or they can come to an agreement that keeps them all in business and maybe a 75% pension.
I'm trying to look at the greater good here and the realities of life.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10453229/1/opinion-a-memo-to-the-uaw-from-the-taxpayer.html
Opinion: A Memo to the UAW From the Taxpayer
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 15, 2008, 03:42:28 PM
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10453229/1/opinion-a-memo-to-the-uaw-from-the-taxpayer.html
Opinion: A Memo to the UAW From the Taxpayer
That is sweet.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 15, 2008, 03:54:34 PM
That is sweet.
He nails most of it from my point of view. As a taxpayer, if we are bailing out businesses, we have a right to look at those books and understand what these businesses are going to do to straighten themselves out. How will the become competitive. That is a legitimate question that unfortunately is not being answered.