|
Post by cambygsp on Dec 14, 2008 4:59:42 GMT -5
Unemployment takes out federal withholdong, no state.
Although it seems to be a nice benefit to get paid 80-90% of your regular salery when you are layed off, where does the money come from? There aint no money trees that i am aware of.
The cost of doing business has put American Auto Makers in a situation where they can't be competitive with the Japs.
Did you see where the City of Indianapolis just purchased a fleet of foeign vehicles over the low bid of GM vehicles?
I think what needs to happen is the Big Three needs to combine their resources. I mean hey, whats the difference between a new chevy and a new ford? The money they would save from competing with each other would help them stay afloat.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Dec 14, 2008 7:15:45 GMT -5
www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/auto-deal-talks-come-halt/No worries the Treasury will keep them afloat until Congress gets done playing the American public. The bailout will happen it's just a matter of when and where. If it doesn't I'll be really surprised. And remember "wage reduction" could soon be coming to your home or a home near yours. We have been shipping jobs out of this country so fast and paying executives hundreds of millions of dollars a year to do so. I'm afraid the auto industry is only the tip of the iceberg. We can only stave it off the inevitable for so long by borrowing seven hundred billion and now Obama is talking another trillion. Meanwhile the taxpayer is caught up arguing over the union man making 50 grand a year.
|
|
|
Post by beehunter on Dec 14, 2008 9:59:33 GMT -5
www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/auto-deal-talks-come-halt/No worries the Treasury will keep them afloat until Congress gets done playing the American public. The bailout will happen it's just a matter of when and where. If it doesn't I'll be really surprised. And remember "wage reduction" could soon be coming to your home or a home near yours. We have been shipping jobs out of this country so fast and paying executives hundreds of millions of dollars a year to do so. I'm afraid the auto industry is only the tip of the iceberg. We can only stave it off the inevitable for so long by borrowing seven hundred billion and now Obama is talking another trillion. Meanwhile the taxpayer is caught up arguing over the union man making 50 grand a year. I agree with this, where is wage reductin going to stop? Is it going to happen to teachers, nurses, mailmen/women, fedral employees and every other decent paying job you can think of? Are our children detined to basically slave labor in the next few years? I do not have the anwsers but the future of our country is bleak.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Dec 14, 2008 10:55:29 GMT -5
How about this one for a good reason for bailing out the auto company's. While I am probably incorrect. How about we need someone to continue building tanks for our military and trucks and Humvee.
Who's going to buy a new vehicle? Probably me next spring. Why because I want a vehicle that will take me from Terre Haute to Hamlin, New York and back 3 or 4 times a year. Hamlin is north and east of Rochester, New York. This is where our daughter and her family now live. And I sure as heck an not flying.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 14, 2008 18:00:13 GMT -5
I think Unions may be a good example of "too much of a good thing." No doubt we all owe unions for approving benefits across the board. In the case of the UAW, however, we see unions run amuck. Nobody turning bolts needs to make $30 per hour. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to make that much, but it's not a sustainable practice to pay workers that kind of money. ( Not to mention the health care costs) If the company can't make money, then the high pay & benefits will disappear anyway. I think it is clear that if the UAW had settled for more sensible contracts, then the big three would not have the problems they do today.
BTW, Johnc911, not everybody non-union gets weekends off. Working for four different companies, I have only had weekends off for about six months out of 15 years. I have also had to work nights most of those years.
I work for a company that needs a union, but it will never get one now. Most of the workers would probably be afraid that a union would eventually bankrupt the place.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 14, 2008 18:11:11 GMT -5
The employee's wages is not the root of all evil here. They are failing because of management salaries/bonuses, investing in other car companies that failed, corporate perks and last but not least, making vehicles that cannot compete in price, fuel efficiency and overall customer satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 14, 2008 20:28:21 GMT -5
I'll make one last post regarding this subject , as I think I've said all that can be said about it and most are probably tired of my blabbering on about it.
Regarding CEO and executive pay. Do they make too much? Yep, no doubt about it. Is it out of line with other corporations? Yes, way out of line! Big three CEO's make , on average, ten times LESS than CEO'S in the banking industry.
I quote a financial magazine "The Big Money":
"a CEO salary cut at a place like GM, which is carrying $62 billion in debt, will have almost no effect on the bottom line."
Some of the numbers:
Rick Wagoner CEO of GM in 2008 2.2 million in salary, 1.68 million in stocks = 3.88 million, way down from 2003 when he made 8.3 million total.
GM UAW members hourly pay 2007: (mind you, this does not include health, retirement, or other benefits ) $28 per hour (semi skilled avg.) X 73,454 actively working members X 40 hr. wk. X 52 wks. per year= 4,277,960,960 a year.
Let's calculate what the savings to GM would be if the members took a reasonable pay cut, say a tad over 10%, or $3 an hour, which would still leave them making a pretty respectable $25 an hour.
$3 per hour pay cut X 73,454 workers X 40 hr. wk. X 52 wks. per year = 458,352,960
That's almost a half BILLION dollars folks! And we haven't even touched current retirees or future retirees pensions, health insurance or other benefits.
Mr. prosecutor, I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by ihunt2liv on Dec 15, 2008 8:04:44 GMT -5
Wow you guys really have a grasp on this union thing. NOT !!! The idea of the UAW excepting any type of concession is ludicris. I will use the airlines as an example. The airlines threatened bankruptcy and then went to the unions and said that they would go bellyup if they didn't get concessions. What happend? The unions caved in. Hey, a job working for less is better than no job at all right? WRONG. Here come more concessions and more. You know when it stopped? When the pilots and other workers started to quit. Now the companies start to panic. It costs alot of money to train these people. Things start to level off and look pretty good. But the damage has been done. Everything those workers have fought to get is gone. They get to start all over from the bottom. It cracks me up about the people that bash a union job. They cry about thier wages, benefits, and pension. Oh, I have heard it for years and it makes me sick. You know why? Because the people that complain the most would be the first in line to fill out an application for the very job they bash. The talks didn't collapse because of the union. Congress was never going to give them a bailout anyway. Both parties knew this going into talks. What both parties also knew was that the big three was going to get cash from the finacial bailout. They knew how this was going to play out months ago. The govt. was never going to let the big 3 go under. Do you have any idea what kind of drag on the economy having this amount of people unemployed would have? They won't let it happen.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Dec 15, 2008 10:06:33 GMT -5
thats why the economy is in the shape its in. They wont concede a dime...and I get the bill.
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Dec 15, 2008 10:08:05 GMT -5
ANY company that cant stand on its own feet...deserves(needs) to go under!
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Dec 15, 2008 12:47:19 GMT -5
Oh know dave, oh know. You have all your licenses yet
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 15, 2008 14:50:14 GMT -5
The Indy Star op-ed this morning
Bankruptcy offers Big 3 the way to help themselves Posted: December 15, 2008
When the rescue package for Detroit automakers sank in the Senate last week, did it mark the imminent collapse of an industry that sustains thousands of families in Indiana? Not at all.
Let's be clear: No one, not even their toughest competitors, wants Chrysler, Ford or General Motors to fail. The consequences of such an event could be catastrophic for an American economy already staggered by recession. That fact, however, did not negate the serious flaws of the congressional rescue plan. Although $14 billion is a sizable sum even by Washington standards, it's not nearly enough to solve Detroit's problems. Some industry analysts estimate that as much as $125 billion would be needed to turn around the companies if the bankruptcy route is shunned. The set of bridge loans, which passed the House but stalled in the Senate, likely would have been a first installment in a series of handouts. General Motors alone has been burning through $2 billion a month in cash. The plan also would have deepened the federal government's intrusion into the industry, dictating production of certain models and even creating a national car czar to oversee the companies' decision-making. Is it credible that the federal government could manage the American auto business better than Detroit? In light of the Senate's decision, the Bush administration appears determined to step in with assistance, possibly tapping a portion of the $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry. Again, that may only delay the inevitable. Writing last week in the Financial Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that the companies must restructure under Chapter 11 bankruptcy provisions if they hope to regain long-term viability. The federal government can and perhaps should help with the restructuring, including guarantees on some pension liabilities. But such moves would be cheaper, and more likely to succeed, than simply handing out loans to companies already sinking under their obligations. Given Indiana's dependence on the auto industry, it's tempting to demand a quick fix, a desperate attempt to help the companies, and more important, their employees, avoid the pain of bankruptcy. It's even more critical, however, to settle on a plan that is likely to work over the long haul. Congress' proposal wasn't that plan. Given time to reorganize, under the protection of bankruptcy laws, the industry may well find the right answers on its own.
|
|