Auto Execs Fly Corporate Jets to D.C., Tin Cups in Hand

[kstar]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Really?

-->

Doesn't matter. The UAW can set whatever standards they want for wages. However, when you look at it, those wages are chump change when looking at the budgets, and the mismanagement of the product lines, over producing inventory, and what they pay for advertising that doesn't work.

Just because you personally don't like unions, doesn't mean they are to blame for anything. Your bias is showing.

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by kstar

Doesn't matter. The UAW can set whatever standards they want for wages. However, when you look at it, those wages are chump change when looking at the budgets, and the mismanagement of the product lines, over producing inventory, and what they pay for advertising that doesn't work.

Just because you personally don't like unions, doesn't mean they are to blame for anything. Your bias is showing.

I have gone as far as asking other Union members about this; including members of the AFL-CIO.
They wonder about the difference as well.
And some went as far as talking about the relationships between the car companies and the Northern and Southern Lawmakers.
All in all, all parties have to work on this matter and so far I have seen very little, if any, interest from the auto unions in doing so.
If I am wrong, please be kind enough to show us differently.

And advertising DID work. All too well. We "all" bought into the idea that we "needed" trucks/SUV's.
The Big Three, however, "forgot" that they were auto companies. The "imports" however did not.
When they started to manufacture and market truck lines in the US, they did not stop marketing their cars.

AGDEE-Good posting above^^^

Ailing GM looks to scale back generous health benefits
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...are-usat_x.htm

Another rather interesting read:
Oligopoly and the fall of the American automobile industry
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...ll_of_the.html

Auto Bailout: Seeking Signs of Sacrifice

House members push for workers to give up some pay and benefits, and ask why executives still don't seem to get the need for change
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...119_541539.htm
Includes the following:
"Besides a limit on CEO compensation, there has been a spotlight on how much the United Auto Workers and its retirees collect. Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits, vs. around $40 for workers at rival Toyota's (TM) U.S. plants. New hires for the Detroit Three make wages about equal to those new workers for the Asian companies, however. And starting in 2010, the UAW will be in charge of handling its own health-care fund, albeit after billions of dollars in contributions from the automakers."

Myths about the Big Three automakers
The Wall Street Journal and U.S. News try some mythbusting about the Detroit automakers pressuring Congress for a bailout.
The automakers have returned home in failure, by the way, after pleading for help from lawmakers. Democrats said they wanted to see more evidence the companies had a turnaround plan in place, and asked to see a proposal next month. The inability to secure aid will increase the pressure on the companies' boards, the Journal says.
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/to...utomakers.aspx

[AGDee]

I'm afraid I'm much too emotional about this topic to truly debate it in any form. So for now, other than posting Mitch Albom's thoughts, I will just say... if they do not get loans from the government and file bankruptcy, I hope everybody is braced for the fallout from it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by kstar

Your bias is showing.

I hope you realize how ironic this statement is...if so, I give you credit, it's pretty humorous.

As to the thread: Beyond being a terrible public relations decision, I don't have a problem with them flying their jets to the hearings. It just gives the members of Congress something more to rail against.

The bankruptcy option intrigues me, but I haven't studied the issue enough to really make an intelligent statement one way or another.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I hope you realize how ironic this statement is...if so, I give you credit, it's pretty humorous.

No, I totally realize that my socialist tendencies make me incredibly biased towards unions.

However, I think that for the reasons I outlined, it is a bit silly to blame the unions.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by kstar

No, I totally realize that my socialist tendencies make me incredibly biased towards unions.

However, I think that for the reasons I outlined, it is a bit silly to blame the unions.

And since the original comment was aimed at me, I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-corruption.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

And since the original comment was aimed at me, I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-corruption.

And, to be fair, I didn't read your comment as saying "it's the fault of the unions." I read it as, "A bunch of people are to blame for this, including the union heads."

[madmax]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

And since the original comment was aimed at me, I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-corruption.

Ignorant post. You started off complaining about high wages and now you are against corruption. Are high wages illegal?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by madmax

Ignorant post. You started off complaining about high wages and now you are against corruption. Are high wages illegal?

I should have said "how much the union workers cost" which is the issue I'm getting at. However, they do make an incredible salary for their skill level.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by kstar

Just because you personally don't like unions, doesn't mean they are to blame for anything. Your bias is showing.

I don't mind the unions. I would just prefer that they work with the companies (not just in this instance) while things are as bad as they are. It would be better for the employees to take a pay cut than to have the company go under completely and EVERYone get laid off.