No, I don't think you can say it is all their fault...
But then you have people come here and say that they can take NONE of the blame.
When an "employee hour" of work at a Toyota plant cost the company $47 an hour but costs $69 an hour at a GM plant, how in the hell can you not put any of the blame on the union.
Now yes, if American car makers didn't produce complete crap in the 70's and 80's maybe they woudn't be outsold by foreign cars...even though sincee 2003 American cars have been rated at equal or higher quality than most foreign cars.
Most people here still believe we make crap and they are going to buy the "better made" foreign models.
You have to take both sides into consideration.
If you are intellectually honest you can not put ALL the blame on a "poorly run company."
The fact an American plant cost $22 an hour more employee has to count for something...
Monday, December 15, 2008
UAW Was 'Solely' to Blame for Collapse of Auto Industry Bailout Negotiations, Says Sen. Coburn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Agree - Both sides need to step up and take the responsibility. When I look at arrogance/stupidity from both sides, it's really hard to support the bail-out.
Earlier 700 billions package was also a disgrace!
it's not just the wages, it's the work rules, and the fact that their factories are largely located up north, where you have an inferior class of workers who are used to being highly compensated for shoddy, inferior work, goldbricking, when they should have been conscientious and thankful for their places
in the newer, non-unionized shops down south, there is a markedly higher level of quality and better attitudes on the line, because the workers there still have a work ethic, and pride in their product
another huge problem gm in particular faces has been their traditional reliance on manufacturing and trying to market too many "platforms" across brands, essentially competing with themselves, instead of the foreigners
there are domestic models that are excellent, ie, the fusion, the malibu, that are reasonably priced and feature practical designs
I hate to be the one to inject facts into your desire to destroy the middle class, but,
Detroit's current average labor cost is about $71 per hour, compared to $47 an hour at Toyota, which has no unions. But it's misleading to suggest that Detroit autoworkers are paid $71 an hour. About $17 of that is the cost of health care insurance for retirees. - In other words, the cost of having to provide health care for the retirees has a bigger effect than the disparity in pay. If we had a healthcare system like the other industrialized countries, that cost would not be dragging the automakers down, now would it?
General Motors has 442,000 retirees in North America, four times as many current employees. Toyota has only 371 retirees in the U.S.; Honda has 2,400.
What do autoworkers really make? Detroit's hourly workers earn $28 an hour, or $57,000 a year. (Toyota workers make $25.) Benefits and payroll taxes bring the total cost per worker up to $54 an hour, versus $47 at Toyota. Under a breakthrough labor contract in 2007, new hires in non-assembly jobs will be paid only $14 an hour and will receive less generous benefits, which will narrow that remaining gap considerably.
Forbes
In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.
In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.
Aftermarket News
Realism--
People like you want to destroy the middle class by forcing us to pay higher prices for inferior products.
I'm forcing you to do what? Gee, I didn't realize that I was so powerful.
Idiotic rhetoric aside, your lack of substance again indicates that I have caused your cognitive dissonance suppression circuitry to kick in again.
And the main reason that their products might be considered "inferior" is their abysmal average MPG, which Republicans (along with a certain Dem Dingellberry) worked so hard to keep as low as possible.
Realism...I never said that is what they made per hour..but that is how much they cost the company per hour...and yes, a lot of that money is benefits and paying people that don't work there anymore...
But that is still cause of the union and it still costs the company money...
So we have really said the same thing...I just remember reading what you pasted and just gave the summary...and I guess I was off a few bucks on how high GM pays per hour...
The point is still the same...how can you realistically expect one company to compete and stay in business when they pay much more than someone else to make their product?
What does a loan do to solve this problem?
realism, why are you ALWAYS so angry?
Maybe Realism's angry because people get tired of seeing working families get the short end...and then having to listen to hand puppets chirping their bogus talking points that fault the workers for corporate stupidity. Nobody likes these corporate bailouts but the fact is now that the horse is out of the barn it doesn't make sense to force automakers into bankruptcy after handing hundreds of billions to BofA, AIG, Wells Fargo, etc. Hell, these banks didn't even ASK for the money, and once they got it they went around buying up the assets of other failing banks and forgetting that part about extending credit to small businesses. What a mess. Killing Detroit would only worsen the situation. If we pull back all the money we've handed out to banks, I will support moving Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy court...but not before.
how can you realistically expect one company to compete and stay in business when they pay much more than someone else to make their product?
Well, since labor costs only make up about 10% of the cost of a vehicle, I would expect them to either make up the savings somewhere else (increased efficiency) or, more likely, to create a product that has a demand that is high enough to justify a greater markup. If the government had done it's part to encourage higher MPG standards, the automakers would've been able to take advantage of the greater demand that we've seen over the last 2-3 years for high efficiency vehicles instead of being saddled with SUV's that nobody wants.
The profit motive that companies follow doesn't necessarily encourage long-term planning. That is where the government can have a beneficial effect, by imposing regulations that, in the short term, might seem onerous, but in the long term can help American industries compete more effectively. MPG standards are an excellent example of this principle in action.
I guess what really pisses me off is the duplicity of Republicans. Whenever someone proposes government intervention that benefits the middle class, they start screeching like a pack of baboons that government intervention is bad (two legs bad, four legs good!)
But anytime there is an opportunity to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the middle class, they are all for it. For example, insisting that Unions reduce their wages ($14/hr isn't low enough, Couburn?), while completely ignoring the salaries of management and executives.
And then you have the chorus of brainwashed Friedman acolytes like Jason, who insist that government is never the answer, always the problem. If you want to see what that ideology gets you, look up "Guilded Age" in your history books.
Seriously, I wonder what kind of economic growth we would have had in the last 50 years if we had waited for private industry to develop a interstate highway system? I wonder how viable nuclear energy would be as an alternative to oil without the government research into nuclear energy? I wonder how long we would've had to wait for private industry to create the internet? Or the aerospace technology that enables satellite communications?
"If we pull back all the money we've handed out to banks, I will support moving Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy court...but not before..."
who wanted the bank bailouts? Certainly not i....a nation does not embrace socialism, by socializing only the losses...no sense on a hundred different levels....
but it's asinine to throw money at yet another bloated, incompentently run industry, especially when, it will NOT solve the problems
if anything, all americans should join together in opposition to the bailout, simply to wrest better terms and concessions from ALL of the thieves!
but that would make too much sense...
when you have the parasites on the ropes, move in for the KILL....
the corporations, once freed, may than rebuild down south, take on workers that actually work, and our nation's industries will thrive once again
Realism--
You're for making me pay high prices for American cars. How is that for working families? You guys talk big about change, but will do anything to defend the status quo.
I, in contrast, would like to see companies become more efficient, because that benefits the consumers, i.e. the regular guy.
And you're against mandated increases in fuel economy for American cars. How is that more efficient? How does that help "working families"?
It's amazing the amount of influence that you think I possess. I can't influence your buying decisions one way or the other. I, personally, choose to purchase a vehicle that fits my personal style and has a low total cost of ownership. I would recommend you do the same. Perhaps if the government did it's job, that car might even be from an American automaker.
If companies are not willing to make business decisions that are
A. sensible
B. beneficial to their customers and the country as a whole
C. Beneficial to the company's long term health
They should be required to. Especially when the companies have such a large impact on the economy as a whole.
The advantage that Japanese automakers enjoy isn't from their lack of unions. It is from
1. Government intervention to keep the Yen artificially low, thus, in effect, creating a subsidy of several thousand dollars for each imported car
2. Japan's universal health care system takes care of retiree health care benefits, whereas the Big 3 are on the hook.
So Japan has universal health care AND their car companies are profitable? Hmm. Maybe they're onto something...
Sorry, in my comment above, it should be "1. Government intervention to keep the Yen artificially low, thus, in effect, creating a subsidy of several thousand dollars for each exported car"
From realism:
Seriously, I wonder what kind of economic growth we would have had in the last 50 years if we had waited for private industry to develop a interstate highway system? they wouldn't...that is one thing the government SHOULD spend tax money on...
I wonder how viable nuclear energy would be as an alternative to oil without the government research into nuclear energy? It seems to me like govt regulation and environmentalists stop us from increasing nuclear power...you might be right that the technology was created by the govt...but since it was most likely created by the military for war liberals couldn't be okay with that...
None of you union defenders are facing the truth - AMC! Now, if any of you knew your stuff, then why isn't AMC still here?
pcdummy, i've actually offered up the amc model as a blueprint for a post-bankruptcy alternative for chrysler
what's more, if there MUST be a "car czar", why not mitt romney?
let him build on the few skills he would actually bring to a presidential candidacy, and give him a real challenge for a change, instead of grooming yet another generation of feckless half-wits to assume power
always two steps ahead of you, pcdummy, but that's what happens to bad boys who refuse to be spanked
PCD- none of you defenders of the wealthy are mentioning there were no calls for wage restrictions on wall street and bank workers. Me thinks you are a bit insincere.
Post a Comment