Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty 6
Dude its totally because I want my car!!!
|
Agreed- at least WE get a direct benefit from something in this mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickdago
He probably dislikes the unions because lets face it this is more of a bailout for the unions then it is the BIG 3. I have not heard anyone who has not said unless the BIG 3 get their UAW contracts reworked that they will be able to survive. They can not compete with the foreign non union auto companies building cars right here in the Good Ole USA with the contracts they have got themselves shackled to. Especially when you are talking about building more and more smaller cars which have less profit built into them.
|
They're inseparably intertwined. The bailout is indeed for the Big 3 but it
is directly because of the unions. I'm not a big fan of unions but it's probably not for the reasons you think. I'm all for everyone getting a piece of the pie. When times are good and things are prosperous, I wholeheartedly believe all those involved should benefit from it including stockholders, management, and employees. The problem is how they structured it; inflated wage and benefit contracts. When times are good- and they were for a long time- that structure works well. Problem is when times are bad or not quite as good. Structured as it is in the contracts, you can't "take it back" or reduce it when things take a turn for the worse. That's the discrepancy you see between the Big 3 at $78 an hour (wages and long-term benefits) and the $40 something an hour you see at the "foreign" car plants here in the US.
There is no "adjusting" the union in bad times- that's the problem. They still demand their $78 an hour because "it's in the contract". I submit that when you're dealing in that level of corporate America, where thousands of employees are the norm, that the contracts should have been base pay + bonuses based on how the company is/was doing. When things were good for GM, the union members would have got bonuses and still made their money (probably more) but when things took a downturn, GM would have had a much easier time reconciling the problem(s).
Then there's the "grievances". What total BS. I can tell you from talking with my uncle who used to work for the railroad, that there were people out there who should never have been in control of a 100,000 ton train. Believe me or not, there was a drunk engineer that my uncle as brakeman had no choice in his mind but to "blow in". Guess what happened? My uncle was blacklisted and the union saved this guy's job by rescinding around a thousand grievances. Did they take care of their own? Yes, but at what cost? You want this guy behind the controls of a 100 ton locomotive? I don't.
Then there's how to get rid of someone who's not doing their job...
Then there's how to advance someone who actually is over someone with more seniority that isn't...
Then
Then
And we wonder why the Big 3 are in trouble.