US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions
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.
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
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..
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.
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
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.
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.).
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
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.
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
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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!
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.