OT UNION BUSTING

The problem with the American Auto Industry is the same as the problem with
Wall Street. Bad Management. CEO's are elected by boards of directors who
are supposed to be always working for the companies greater good. What
happened was these greedy CEO's became disenchanted with the multi million
dollar salaries they were getting and tried to line their pockets even more
by concentrating on short term profits (and the bonuses that came with them)
to the exclusion of long term stability. Now what is supposed to happen
when company boards of directors insist on placing the wrong people in
charge is they go bankrupt. In the final analysis the only difference
between the government helping and not helping is that the cost is going to
be 700 billion dollars higher than it ought to have been.

Poorly managed companies go bankrupt, well managed ones don't. Automakers
knew that their sales are cyclic and the nature of the industry is one were
diversification is important to long term stability. Interestingly it was
Ford's acquiring of Philco Electronics that kept the company afloat during
the "Japanese Invasion" of the seventies. Yet Ford failed to learn from
their own history and sold their aerospace division to a corporate raider
who formed Loral Aerospace. The assets were used to acquire Jaguar, Aston
Martin and First Interstate bank. At the time this happened the Berlin Wall
had just come down and the Soviet Empire was going bankrupt and everybody
was trying to reap the "Peace Dividend". So these assets could have been
considered under performing, much that same as Ford Motor was under
performing a decade prior. However, there has never been a time in all of
human history where there hasn't been somebody fighting somebody else
somewhere so even if there is no market for your war machines today there
will be one sometime soon. Fast Forward to today where now we are fighting
a War to two fronts and nobody is buying cars.

Another problem is the Automakers insistence on getting in bed with Big Oil.
This latest round of Oil price hikes marks the third time in my life where
I have watched gas prices double and every time this has happened the
Automakers have been caught flat footed. For Christ sakes how many times do
you have to take it up the kazoo before you learn that you need a backup
plan. To avoid this problem they should have had the alternate fuel vehicle
option (CNG since that takes the least amount of lead time to implement.)
locked and loaded just awaiting the green light to begin production. Now if
the government really wanted to help all that need be done is mandate the
availability of CNG or another alternate fuel. (It doesn't really matter
what as long as: A) It's produced domestically and: B) It's readily
available at your local gas station.) Even now with gas prices dropping it
is still a good idea to tool up for CNG because this would create a price
cap on the cost of gasoline.

Bottom line, it's not the Union's fault that the Automakers are in trouble.
They did their part by delivering an agreed upon product at an agreed upon
price. The fault lies with management whose single minded pursuit of short
term profit to the exclusion of long term stability led them to the point
where they now have neither. That said the Automakers still need to go
bankrupt, (chapter 11) because that is what is needed to shake things up
from Top to Bottom in order to make the long term lasting changes needed to
insure solvency now and into the future.

wrote:
> Scuse me, poohawk.... this is a Mustang NG.... Off the assembly line, there
> is no choosing and swapping module calibrations.... This engine gets that
> program.... period. From my standpoint, my factory scan tool will identify
> the engine/PCM and IT will decide what the programming is to be.... The
> programming that I must work with is decided by EPA guidelines...
>
> And, yes, I can see where programming a module can be so very hard on
> some... having to turn the key off at the right time and having to turn it
> back on at the right time.... Gosh, that can be tough to keep up with,
> right?
>

You should see the ECM reset procedure for Nissan LOL

--


> I have never seen a computer infected by botnet.
> How it is like? - Lemat


They sneeze bits all over teh internets. - Rev. Beergoggles

On Dec 15, 4:58 pm, "dwight" > wrote:
> > wrote in message

> > The question is not, should we loan $15,000,000,000 GM and
> > Chrysler to see them through to mid January? The question is, will
> > they EVER be able to repay the money? Assuming that the total "loan"
> > principal that the Government finally hands out comes to
> > $34,000,000,000, and assuming that GM and Chrysler sell 3,000,000
> > vehicles per year for the five years during which they are supposed to
> > pay it back, that's more than $2,000 per vehicle just to repay the
> > principle. Add in interest at 5% per annum and the numbers just get
> > worse. Add to that the $1,500 - $2,000 per vehicle UAW burden (vs.
> > the wage scales at non-UAW factories), and the $500 per vehicle legacy
> > costs burden, and you've got a $4,000- $5,000 financial burden
> > attached to every vehicle, that the competition does not have. There
> > is simply no way for this to work.
>
> If you don't mind calling up the UAW website in your browser, here are some
> startling numbers:http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php
>
> Look at "active" vs. "retired" and "surviving spouses," and you get a good
> picture of what's actually going on with the UAW contract. Problem is, you
> can't suddenly tell all of those UAW retirees that, sorry, the deal is off.
> Well, you can't do that any easier than telling Americans under the age of
> 50 that Social Security will be ended prior to their reaching retirement
> age... It could be done, but no politician wants to be the one to come out
> and say it.

You are conceding my argument, first that it is the fat UAW contracts
of the past that have led GM to its present state of collapse, and
second that there is no way for the Government ever to get this
bailout money back.

Surely the modification of those fat benefits will be a hardship for
the beneficiaries, but that is not a problem for the rest of us. The
UAW and GM negotiated their contracts at arm's length, and now we see
the results. It didn't work out as they planned. That's too bad, but
it's hardly unexpected. Just look at these figures for GM (as of
2006), from the UAW link you posted: 73,454 current workers; 269,614
retired workers; and 69,288 spouses of retired workers; total of all
three: 412,356. Anyone can see this upside-down pyramid is not
economically viable.

Later in your post you state that $125,000,000,000 would be a
bargain. (I don't know if you are aware of it, but this is the
ballpark number that industry analysts are quoting as the true price
tag to keep GM afloat.) Assuming, again, 3,000,000 vehicles sold over
the next five years, that would come to $8,000 per vehicle, exclusive
of interest. That overhead, combined with the costs of supporting the
400,000 workers and retirees, is a set of numbers which will never
work.

The unavoidable conclusion is that, once we start down the bailout
road, we will either end up writing off all the "loan" principle, or
we will be stuck permanently with a nationalized GM. The good news
with respect to the nationalization scenario is that, with Greenist
whackos like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama dictating
product choices, the entire enterprise will wind down to nothing
within about the same five years as the "loan" payback is assuming.
You don't really expect this crew to keep Uncle Sam in the business of
continuing to produce the current 50/50 mix of cars and planet-
destroying trucks and SUVs (or even the 60/40 target that GM announced
in June), do you?

The correct set of choices is, do we let GM and the UAW reap what they
have sown and take GM into Chapter 11, or do we resolve ourselves
either to a nationalized GM (eventually to be ground to dust by the
Greenist values of its federal overlords), or a taxpayer gift to a
private enterprise (and its workforce) of at least $100,000,000,000?
The correct answer is obvious to me, and apparently to you as well.
However, each of us has a different answer.

> > Specifically with respect to the UAW, I am glad they it was able to
> > win the wage and benefits and retirement packages it has achieved in a
> > free market over the years. However, I do not want one nickel of my
> > money to go to prop it up. I work forty to sixty hours per week, and
> > I do not make $71 per hour in wages and benefits.
>
> (Neither does anyone in the UAW.)

Not true. Your UAW web page states this: "In 2006 a typical UAW-
represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time
labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned
$32.32 per hour of straight-time labor." That figure does not include
the cost of benefits or overtime. It also does not define what
"typical" means. The choice of that word, as opposed to "average,"
suggests that the UAW web page is cooking the books, for obvious
reasons.

> The union wage scale is NOT that far removed from the non-union shops. That
> being said, I don't doubt that the UAW, if pressed, would vote to cut their
> own wages, rather than become unemployed. While I have the UAW page up, it
> points to a percentage of 8.4 to represent the labor cost of a typical new
> vehicle. Obviously, the vast bulk of the cost is related to non-labor
> events, from design and marketing to raw materials, "executive
> compensation," and more. I'm sure that the UAW would join in to address
> lowering the costs, so long as the other 91.6% of the costs are also put
> under the microscope.

That's fine. That's what they should do. But the process should not
involve the U.S. Government.

> The bottom and inescapable line here, and the one which even the reigning
> Republican leader has to admit, is that we simply cannot allow any one of
> the Three to go into bankruptcy. Not merely for the benefit of the lazy and
> overpaid UAW workers ("Myth No. 7," by the way), but to protect ALL of us -
> you, me, and the guy down the street. In the current economy, this would
> spell widespread disaster, the extent of which none of the experts can
> predict.
>
> A couple of years ago, perhaps, if General Motors had gone belly-up, we
> would have suffered, would have spent far more in resulting costs, but we
> would have absorbed it and moved on. To potentially double the unemployment
> rate (currently 7%?) today would be an incredible burden for this country.
> $15,000,000,000 to even $125,000,000,000 is a relatively small price to pay
> to stave off this catastrophe.

Your doubling of the unemployment rate -- by an additional 7
percentage points -- is hysterical and has no basis in fact. Detroit
has already eliminated one-third of its UAW workforce in recent years.
Did anyone notice? Another one-third would not be noticed either. A
100% elimination of GM jobs, through a Chapter 11 process, would be
highly unlikely. The truth probably lies somewhere between 50% and
100% job elimination. Tens and hundreds of billions of handouts is
too high a price to pay to save a few tens of thousands of jobs.
>
> > > The Republican party should be disbanded. Today.
>
> > Wow. Now that would be a great day for our country. I question how
> > anyone who claims ever to have been a Republican can make that
> > statement. It's like the Judas Colin Powell, saying he was throwing
> > his support behind Obama because, among other things, Obama's judicial
> > appointments were likely to be more to his liking than Senator
> > McCain's. Anyone who can make that statement was never a Republican
> > to begin with.

> Ah, yes... "Judas." The man speaks his mind, gives a cogent, reasonable
> explanation for his decision, and he's "Judas." Great.

Are you implying that Judas did not have "cogent, reasonable
explanations" for his betrayal? As I recall, he did; he wanted to
force Jesus's hand to call down a heavenly army or some such to save
himself. No, Gen. Powell is a great traitor. Furthermore, go find
the Meet the Press podcast where he presented his 15 minute
infomercial for The Chosen One -- uninterrupted of course by any cross-
examination on the part of Tom Brokaw -- and tell me this decision was
based on anything but shared skin color.

180 Out

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:33:50 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron
> wrote:
>It’s a sad story, in many ways. But it can’t really be undone at this
>point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have
>bought more of their cars.
>Millwright Ron
>www.unionmillwright.com

You see Ronnie boy, there is more to it than just "Buy American", how
about building something I want to buy, at a price I can afford. Can't
be done in this here, the unions always demand their pound of flesh.
Unions have outlived their usefulness, there are far more regulations
protecting workers now, so what does the union do? Protect the not
so competant worker...

SteveL

On Dec 17, 5:23 pm, wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:33:50 -0800 (PST), Millwright Ron
>
> > wrote:
> >It’s a sad story, in many ways. But it can’t really be undone at this
> >point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have
> >bought more of their cars.
> >Millwright Ron
> >www.unionmillwright.com
>
> You see Ronnie boy, there is more to it than just "Buy American", how
> about building something I want to buy, at a price I can afford. Can't
> be done in this here, the unions always demand their pound of flesh.
> Unions have outlived their usefulness, there are far more regulations
> protecting workers now, so what does the union do? Protect the not
> so competant worker...
>
> SteveL

A point that is passed over in the debate over wages and benefits, is
that the UAW has also imposed on its victims at GM a 5,000 page
collection of work rules to which non-UAW automakers are not subject.
These 5,000 pages are independently sufficient to guarantee the
failure of GM. But ask the UAW to throttle back to work rule parity
with the non-union shops? Not in this lifetime.

180 Out

> wrote in message
...
> You see Ronnie boy, there is more to it than just "Buy American", how
> about building something I want to buy, at a price I can afford. Can't
> be done in this here, the unions always demand their pound of flesh.
> Unions have outlived their usefulness, there are far more regulations
> protecting workers now, so what does the union do? Protect the not
> so competant worker...
>
> SteveL


5 of the top 10 selling vehicles this year are American, including the top 2
sellers (Ford F-150 at #1 and Chevy Silverado at #2). Somebody wants them.

mike

"Gene Wagenbreth" <genewxxx@isi-OS4> wrote in message
...
> According to the news the auto companies currently employ about
> 50,000 workers. They have moved most jobs to suppliers. If each
> of the 50,000 workers took a $20K pay cut, it would save a
> billion dollars a year. While this is nothing to sneeze at, it
> is small compared to the amount of money the auto makers need
> to stay in business. I assume the benefits for currently
> retired workers is a bigger problem. How do you solve that ?
> Do you let the auto makers welch on deals made 10 years ago ?
>
> G
Why not, the airlines did!