US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions

Page 1 of 8  
US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions
http://www.nysun.com/article/26874
Unless the underlying problems are fixed, American automakers will
always be operating with one arm tied behind their back. Cost-cutting is simply the slow road to extinction. The 14 plant closings announced by Ford last week won't actually be implemented for several years, and the 25,000 laid-off workers will be shuffled into the "jobs bank," where they will continue to draw full pay and benefits indefinitely - because of the existing union contract.
Bankruptcy is widely seen as a way around this problem. Federal judges can abrogate contracts. But threatening an airline attendants union in such a fashion is one thing; threatening the United Auto Workers is another. A strike, or even work-to-rule, would be potentially fatal, leaving the market to the tender mercies of competitors. Fear of just such a showdown at its chief parts supplier, the bankrupt Delphi Corp., has caused GM to commit a substantial chunk of cash for Delphi's pay and benefits - even as GM itself was reporting an astonishing $.8.6 billion loss for 2005.
Miracles do happen. The no-longer-so-Big Three are starting to produce some fine products. When it was at death's door in the 1980s, Ford put everything it had behind the peanut shaped Taurus - and enjoyed a spectacular return to profitability.
Alas the profits were soon eaten up by new union contracts. Even Chrysler's bailout was only a temporary palliative; it's now part of Daimler. Unless the political will is somehow found to create policies that are "relevant" to the 21st century, the prospect is that some day the Big Six will once again become the Big Three - and headquartered somewhere else than Detroit.
Bill P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I first saw this post I was going to ignore it for a couple of reason's. One, it would undoubtedly become a heated thread as these threads tend to. Two, William Boyd imo is a friggin' troll.
Having said that, I was watching the national news tonight and saw the piece about United Airlines out of bankrauptcy after three years. The highlights were the airline is flying with a few less planes, a whole lot of lay offs, the union workers took(or was it demanded) a 30% pay cut, retired workers saw their pension's reduced 75%. Oh, the CEO recieved a 15MILLION DOLLAR BONUS, other upper managers also recieved some hefty bonus's.
As I said there are good and bad union's. ymmv
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't United owned by the Union?
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think so.... my 2 brothers are both retired from United and they bought stock for years on some kind of company contribution thing...
kind of like you buy "x" amount of stock out of your paycheck and we'll throw in "x" amount with it.. Mac https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tell this to Lee Iacocca. Unions are usually the scapegoat for bad management. Ford and GM automobiles have suffered in quality and lack of imagination. Just look at the design and quality of these cars compared to foreign counterparts, and one can see where the real problem is. If the assembly line workers don't show up to work, no cars are built. If management doesn't show up to work, everything runs fine.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Xclimation wrote:

That is true only for the very short term. A rather absurd line of logic to carry any further although I've heard it often with production line manufacturing workers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep... obviously someone who's never read 'Lord of the Flies'
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Unions aren't the cause of the demise of ANY US industries I can think of. The cause is the complete lack of protection of our markets and trade by BOTH parties of crooks in Washington. I'll admit that Unions contribute to higher auto prices in order to maintain a livable wage for American workers. Take away the Union and the US auto industry might come back, but the factories will be filled with immigrant labor. Enough of this and it won't matter whether we build cars or not because there will be no middle class to buy them. I'm not Union, nor am I from a Union family, I just miss those days when there was some stability in the workplace and we didn't have to be Union to get it. MMC

always
last
can
a
showdown
as
the
somewhere
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did I read that right? "A livable wage"???? You're joking, right? There's no such animal anymore.
Back when the monies of the US were backed by tangible material, silver and/or gold, a "livable wage" was far less than today. As a fact, a spouse didn't _have_ to work to help make ends meet . . .uh, correction, wave at each other in a semi-friendly manner. But, of course, the dollar in your pocket was really worth nearly a dollar back then also and purchased a true dollar's worth of product or service.
Then, to be more exchangeable with worthless foreign currencies, we dropped those standards, opening the way to rampant inflation, with a government, especially the spend-it-like-there's no-tomorrow liberals, printing more fiat money to cover wasteful expenditures.
So, the government is at least partly to blame for those ridiculous union wages, but it would help if everyone would demand our money to be returned to a physically supported status.
BTW, Clinton never "balanced" the budget as he, and Congress, blew monies that should have gone toward the National Debt on pet projects.
Budd

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Budd Cochran wrote:

Thats true. There never was any surplus. Clinton WH projected that based on spending and tax trends there would be a surplus over a 10 year period. Trouble is, during Clintons years spending increased at twice the projected amount...8% a year increase instead of the 4% average seen under Bush Sr (and Bush Jr.).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

monies
LOL, more horseshit. Funny how the war budget is not included here.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Look it up TBone. Budget increases were 4% under Bush Sr., 8% per year under Clinton and 4% under Bush Jr. This years increase will be about 2.5% over the prior. Add in the war budget if you want. Still, under 4. Go ahead TBone, look up the average increases especially under Clinton...I'll wait.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Play with your fuzzy math all you want Miles. The bottom line says it all.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Fuzzy math? Budget increases are not subject to your personal biased wishes. They are what they are. 8% increases per year under Clinton, 4% under Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. and this years increase is 2.5%, or 3% if you add in the war budget. That TBone, is the the bottom line despite your wishfull politically biased desires for it to be different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

all.
What was the national dept a year before Clinton left office and what is it now? http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

We're talking budget increases and you can't argue your own fuzzy math. Instead you bring up the debt. lol.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it
No, I was always talking about the dept. You were the one who tried to switch it over to budget increases. But since you mention it, funny how Clinton can raise spending 8% per year, make minimal to no cuts on important social programs, and still reverse the national dept while your God increased it by only 3% and still put us into record numbers. Another issue that you fail to mention is how many cuts to important social programs were cut by him. I did notice however that Billions have been allocated for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska by its Republican congressman and most of the people there don't even want it. Even the republicans are saying that your man has yet to veto anything. I guess that he doesn't have to as long as he keeps taking from the poor and defenseless to pay for the "right wing" pork barrel spending.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Sorry TBone, the national debt increased each year Clinton was in office. You keep buying into the projections of the time and believe there was a surplus of $'s sitting in a huge vault somewhere.

Important social programs? To whomever is on the receiving end they are always important.

Billions? You read too many leftist propaganda headlines. The Mat-Su Valley is the 2nd fastest growing area outside of Anchorage. This bridge will connect the two instead of having to drive all the way around the Cook Inlet/Knik Arm. It is not a bridge to nowhere as the propaganda tries to tell those that know nothing of the region.

You won't allow him to veto anything. You want those 'needed' social programs. If Bush vetoed anything with any social spending you and your liberal ilk cries foul every time. Your social programs are costly and are pork barrel spending. You really think Dems are low on the pork barrel spending ladder? lol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

important
LOL, Wrong. What I saw was the yearly increase go to zero by his last year in office, go look it up. Oh never mind, Ill do it for you http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Notice that the curve was beginning to reverse until Bush Jr took office. Spin all you want Miles, the numbers say it all and there is no fuzzy math on the bottom line.

issue
were
This is correct and you have more than proven to everyone in here that you really don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

the
Oh yea, astronomical growth, LOL.

There is a ferry that does this as well and it is nowhere near capacity. The bridge is not necessary and is nothing more than pork barrel spending.

as he

pork
Hahahahahaha, how am I going to stop him. He does pretty much whatever he wants regardless of public opinion.

social spending you and your

More bullshit. He is cutting away at those social programs, no veto needed, especially with the right controlling congress. You watch way to much FOX news.

Once again, you talk out of you selfish ass. Hear that Budd, the money being spent to help keep you alive is nothing more than pork barrel spending.

At least the Dems pork barrel spending helps people to live, not just make some senator look good building a bridge to nowhere.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Numbers? You showed some individuals own personal graph. Want numbers? Heres some for ya. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Look under prior years. Please show me where the debt ever stopped increasing. Wheres the surplus TBone? I made the statement that the debt INCREASED every year Clinton was in office contrary to your BS and most liberals who have no clue. My statement is CORRECT! Can you spin it to show me where it didn't increase every single year and where the surplus is?

And you have proven that you are nothing more than a socialist who thinks government is responsible and should take care of all everyone needs and problems.

Thats your opinion based on the fact you've never even been there. Whats worse is your belief that a transportation infrastruction should come last when developing a region. Thats a common method and one that causes massive problems. The valley is growing and the ferry won't handle the demands for the already planned communities.

He is? How is he cutting anything? He doesn't write spending bills. You need to go retake some government classes...probably socially funded ones for you!

Thats complete BULL. Lets have a look at who the most well known pork barrel spenders are.
Top of the list, Robert Byrd of W. Virginia. His nickname from waste watch groups such as http://cagw.org/ was King Of Pork.
Hillary Clinton for her defense of the absurd CDBG project. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin who on her own website proudly brags about how much $'s she's won for the state for various projects (none were to help anyones health or assist the poor).
TBone, Dems are full of pork barrel spending. They have been for decades. Your wishfull BS that Dems are all great is a bunch of crap. The richest pigs in congress are mostly Dems. The poorest of congress are mostly Reps. Get a clue!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.