Comments on: Bush’s auto plan will test Obama’s union loyalties Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: jo Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:16:06 +0000 Tell me why do we(government) have to pay for this? I don’t buy their car, I don’t buy their stock, I don’t agree with their business model– they are failing and panhandling us to bail them out. Just because they have a greedy union (that over contribute to politicians) and unqualified CEOs that we have to pay your bills for an extra couple years. Let face it the company only will survive if they file for bankrupt, have a massive laid off, renegotiate with the UAW and reform. Again our so call government is failing us– it yielding our money to large corporations without our consent. When did a capitalist society turn socialist?

By: b kass Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:27:01 +0000 It’s oh so easy for people to talk about “the 8% in unions” like they were loafers or something. I’m in a union and it’s great to have someone on your side in the workplace. Unions weren’t invented by Lenin. There was a need that unions filled and still fill. Job banks may represent another era and adjustments have to be made; but throwing people out in the street is easier to write about than it is when it’s happening to real people. If a bargain was made with workers, going back is no small thing.

By: David Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:01:26 +0000 Remember when a Chevy was a Chevy, a Buick was a Buick, etc? As Big 3 accountants weighed in more and more on product design, the product distinction slowly went away along with the customers. As the market competition exploded, where was Big 3 management? Counting their bonuses, stock options, or flying in corporate jets?
It’s unfortunate the UAW continued pushing for more benefits without increasing industry profits and shrinking market share. Bottom line is where did they [Big 3 and UAW] think they were going to end-up? We “customers” stopped buying Big 3 autos, so now as taxpayers we have to give them our money anyway with lax oversight, no thanks, nothing personal it’s just business.

By: chuck Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:39:22 +0000 For the Brit whom has not yet caught on. first the Brit cars were always notorious for falling apart and hanger queens, light years behind the auto technology.. so they only competed on image.. not quality. Second USA Autos CANNOT sell or compete in Asia and even EU due to highly protective fees, “safety requirements and import restrictions” Third Asian auto has some of the most highly organized and worker protections going.. as said, try to export a Buick to Japan or big SUV to China which applies 25% “fee” on “selected models”. Next check out quality in USA autos today, pretty much even with world, note Ford in EU competes very well.. and even bought Jag and Land Rover..and VW and BMW now own the big name high end Rolls etc. which must make the Brit a bit upset.. Even Volvo owned by Ford.. which upset many in Sweden, where if they can get them Camero, Mustang etc very valued.
USA was built by unions and to for out Swineate and House of Reprehensibly led by form CSA states to set our wages to that of Foreign firms is simply not acceptable. Do hope the citizens wake up and note how we have given away (for profits for very few at top) jobs and standard of living for most, sold out the nation and in end will end up like the “British Empire”.. aka needed help to defeat Argentina, Time to stand up for USA and make the changes needed to restore it, and note the auto industry only built the world selling SUV-Trucks that consumers demanded and congress gave nearly 100% tax breaks. all th way to gas price increases.. done by the Hedge funds and speculators, investors.. the ones now demanding union pay be based on foreign firms pay… Our call as to whom runs USA, former CSA slave states or the civilized states.. or we end up as did the Brits.. lots of noise, but not much more.. and do as uncle sugar tells it, as in support Iraq War etc.. Our choice..our pay our futures.. and all the while none demand the banks that sucked up trillions tell us what they did with the funds… and same for Wall St, not to hard to ask whom gets congress support and whom gets pillared by same.. well off or workers, wonder whom wins?

By: DanO Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:14:55 +0000 Mike H is close to my own sentiment. When direct competition entered a mature market with over 70 years of obligations built into overhead, wage and benefit parity should have been insisted upon. We have similar problems erupting in other areas of manufacture where people frequently have foregone wage increase in favor of longer sighted benefit packages. This has so broad an effect on our stability and culture behoving us all to look in retrospect.
Some of these same states that put up taxpayer cash to lure this competition have done so in the past. Textiles left the northeast for the southeast with adevastating effect on the fabric of northeastern towns and cities. Paper manufacturing held their unions hostage in the late sixties with the threat of moving to Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.
Disruption of a market by true technological advantage is too easily squashed by corporations and captive politicians. However in a true free market disruption breeds the next group of entrepeneurs. Where have you seen an entrepreneurial exploit that hasn’t been regulated to marginality lately? Can you say DERIVATIVE?
Biggest Ponzi Scheme ever!! Don’t know why no committeeman has seen fit to call a spade a spade. The root problem in the world economy is the ability to aggregate wealth and then create ruses (when is a bet insurance)to avoid transparency.
The banks and financials should have had this whole thing stuffed up their rosey red keisters by now.
If so then rescues directed toward real work and cultural stability while the trials commence for the Financially Fraudulent Frat boys would be moving.
Alas, we will be printing cash, looking for status quo,
experiencing inflation soon (maybe I get a real raise)
Sooo…Deserve it or not Detroit must be supported while policy can be formulated that levels the playing field across the entire country. Social welfare is predicated on encouraging work. Work is only attractive if it pays.
Love to all
Dan O

By: dave Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:56:54 +0000 I read lots of great viewpoints on this issue. I’d like to say this industry problem is multi-faceted. Focusing on the labor issue, foreign makers are sucessfully running their business without union labor. I see union labor as a more costly item for domestic manufacturers. I read some details here and there on union contracts and it is unimaginable that business management would agree to such costly contracts without performance clauses basically saying if we do good, you do good, if we don’t do good, you don’t do so good.
On products, the Big 3 have some problems with products, marketing and perception. Foreign makers are not plauged by poor product, vague marketing and poor industry perception. The business models used by foreign makers works! Collectively (as a team) the Big 3 must repair their customer relations, use the same advertising firms the foreign competition uses and start building better products. Not all domestic products are poor, but the perception (and history) tell a different story.
The UAW is an entity that cannot and must no longer be supported. The 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s are history and so should be the UAW.

By: Bradley Fluetsch, CFA Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:47:05 +0000 As I listen to the ad nauseum discussion of the big three auto makers it leaves me wondering do any of these “experts” know anything?

First the auto industry business model is flawed at its core and creates much of the financial problems of today. My Chevy 2500 4X4 extended cab is just fine for what I need and it is a 1991 with 170,000 miles. The auto industry concept that we need a new car every couple years is the flaw and with tighter credit standards people are going to keep what they have 7-10 years. Dramatic long-term over capacity in the auto manufacturing industry is the problem and only a dramatic long-term reduction in capacity is necessary. Compounding the problem is the foreign competition which is good and has taken a share of a shrinking market. Lastly the market is changing for the regulators and consumers and both are moving in directions away from the current transportation model. Global warming, cost of fuel, environmental degradation starting with the extraction of the resource, to its refinement and then the manufacturing process, to the carving the landscape for more pathways to drive on are all becoming controversies.

President Obama before you go tossing tax dollars at the big three, look at the future of transportation in the United States. What is our long-term transportation model? We need the President to see beyond the next election cycle because the fixes the United States needs in its transportation system that address the multitude of problems cannot be built and implemented in four years. What are the values our transportation system should be built on?

* Freedom of movement that is quick and convinient
* Safe and accountable
* Person or freight pays its own way
* Accessable to all

I am sure there are other values especially in the environmental catagories but the time has come to have that discussion and stop wasting everyones time with the big three, they are just companies not icons.

By: David Sovie Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:24:38 +0000 the great struggle between capitalism (free markets)and communism (government involved in markets)has cost so many lives in wars. how do we explain that cost to the families that have lost loved ones serving in the various militaries involved? was it all one big joke? if those in government and high business are supposed to know so much and now we know, they know so little, how will the rank & file who are now so jaundiced ever trust them?

By: Robert Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:47:47 +0000 Insofar as Union wages go, a recent group of economists said that if the UAW agreed to work for free it would not bail out GM and the others. Centering on the wage issue is somewhat of an obfuscation when management wages and benefits are not on the table as well. Frankly, the CEO and the board should resign en masse. The direction they have take the company, gas guzzlers, duplicate vehicles with different brand names helped them dig the hole they’re in now. It also should be noted that while paying these so-called outrageous wages, the WORKERS earned GM and the others billions.

By: john Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:01:32 +0000 Just how are the debt holders going to agree to swap their debt with equity. If an agreement can not be reached at the end, GM will bankrupt and UAW will lost their job and probably their retirement fund. As a bond holder myself, I am ok to lost some money just to watch GM goes bust. It is painful but my life does not depend on it. Other bond holders might have even insured their bonds. Even another group of bond holders are actually China’s car companies, they are very happy to see two or three of their major competitors go bust. So, dear UAW, go bust or lower your salary to keep your job.