raisin27

Not really an answer to the question, as much as an explanation as to why the wages are what they are....... Auto workers have been paid higher than average wages since Henry Ford perfected the assembly line, long before there even was a union. Car builders found employee turn over to be so high they had to offer higher pay just to get people to do this type of work. I personally have witnessed in my 16 years at ford that whenever a group of new workers were hired, they had to bring on more than needed because generally about half quit before the first month. They think they are in for easy money and discover its real work for hours without stopping. In other words the wages are what the market will bear. When the unions did come in in the 40's most of what they were wanting wasnt more pay but better working conditions. I would think that in a bad economy when work is hard to get (like now) people might be willing to take less, and starting wages have dropped dramatically at the big 3. Even the transplants that pay a little less than UAW wages pay far more than what the typical wage is in their region. Maybe Toyotas method of compensation is worth examining.........they get a slightly lower per hour wage (i have read about $24 compared to $28 for a big 3 worker), but they get bonuses determined by how well the company is doing. For the last few years Toyota workers have outearned their big 3 counterparts in America.

Once again I think you missed my point entirely. Perhaps its my fault, Im not a writer. What I am trying to say is this..........If people think autoworkers are overpaid making about 55 grand a year its their right, just dont say they make 150 grand. If people think autoworkers should not get half there pay when laid off thats your right, just dont say they get full pay. Dont just assume the union is a greedy monster.........look at what they have done. I could go on and on, but basically all I ask is that people get the facts straight before forming an opinion. I guess I cant blame people as they are bombarded with half truths and wrong information in the media. I generally believed what I read too untill the news started coming out about what was happening at our plant. Through first hand knowledge I knew much of it to be totally off base. If they get so much of this wrong how can I trust anything I read? If you are bitter that someone has something you dont have then I am afraid you will always be bitter. I ran a small business for 5 years and then owned it for 8 years after that so I know of the perils of being self employed. I also know of the rewards. You just have to decide if the rewards outwiegh the perils. I took a pay cut when I came to work at ford, but for me it was worth not dealing with the pressures of running a business. An autoworker can live a comfortable life but will never be rich. The entrapenuer might go broke, but he also might be the next Bill Gates. Self employment isnt for everyone, like any profession some have the aptitude for it and some dont. This country hasnt been a true capitalist society for nearly a century. If it was GM would be the only car company in America. They would have crushed all others before the 60's I find it curious when you say we should be capitalist on one hand and on the other want to limit the type of vehicles we can drive to what you feel is "best" for us. (please note I havent endorsed either capatalism or socalism) I also find it curious that you feel it might be ok to help foriegn car bulders, but its definatly not ok to help domestic car makers. And finally you say I am only looking out for my own interest. I disagree. I want what is best for America. If I was only looking at my own interest I would want GM and Chyrsler to fail. I dont! To many families in the U.S depend on the survival. Not just people in the industry either.........people like you. When this is all said and done I think the result is going to be the demise of Chyrsler (but I hope not), Jeep will probably live on owned by someone else. GM will pull out of it a much smaller company, and Ford will remain pretty much as they are now.

I have an adgenda? What might that be? I have never publicly stated my opinion on whether the loans should pass or fail! In fact I only last week made up my mind about it and still havent told anyone. I do however get sick and tired of reading in the paper, hearing on the radio, seeing on telivision, or reading in these posts information about me that is totally false! I do not earn 150 grand a year!I am a skilled tradesman and am at the top of the union pay scale. I earn 33 dollars an hour. Do the math........how many hours would I have to work to make 150 grand! I read in another post here that we get paid 60 bucks an hour to sweep floors. Well if your sweeping floors at ford you are making somewhere between 14 and 28 dollars an hour and doing one hell of a lot more than just sweeping floors!! Forgive me if I come off a bit short, but I am fed up with hearing "I talked to a guy whose cousin knows someone at a bar that told him he gets 80 bucks an hour to play solitare at ford!" Part of the problem is the UAW, they let these rumors and stories run wild without ever disputing them. Let me ask you this.........if every GM union worker worked for free how much of a difference would it make in the 38 billon in losses? The wages are not the problem. The workers were making just as much (actually a bit more) when the big 3 were making all those record profits a few years back. Even so the UAW has agreed to take wage consessions. They just ask that they arent the only ones shouldering the burden. One other random thought that burns me.........if there is a huge wage gap between the Detroit brands and the Japanese, wht do you complain the big three pay to much and not that the Japs pay to little?

Harry, it is impossible to have any kind of a meaningfull discussion with you. You have an agenda and look only at what you feel supports your views. Just the way you chose your words shows you are more interested in advancing your ideas on others than in finding the real truth. When I brought to your attention that it was GM and not the union that started the job bank, you say it must have been to appease the union.......you dont know that to be the case (in fact it was not, its so hard to find people willing to work the assembly lines they wanted to keep the people they had when they reopened the plants) You feel unions are evil and greedy. You fail to mention the $70/ hour figure is an old one from before the union accepted VEBA. You fail to mention the union has lowered starting wages to $14 an hour. You fail to mention How many times the union has reopened a contract to help out an automaker over the last 10 years. You fail to mention the pay and benefit consessions made by the union recently even though they were not obligated to do so. Before I belonged to the union I admit I had some similar views as you do but in my 16 years as a UAW member I have found them to be quite resonable and fair in dealing with the companys even to the point of angering some of the membership.........believe it or not they side with the company more often than they dont. I admit my experience has only been at Ford where there is traditionally a good relationship with UAW, but contracts are very similar at the other companys. I am not saying the union is a perfect organazation, its not. However they certainly arent the evil monsters you make them out to be. Mr Gettelfinger made some very good points if you care to listen to them. Wouldnt you agree it only makes sense that sacrifices be shared by all involved and not just the workers on the shop floor? The bridge loan (not bailout) failed because southern republicans viewed this as a chance to weaken or break the unions. (read the memo they sent out to their members). Political payback for supporting Obama. I personally have voted Republican more often than Democratic, but I think after what I have witnessed I will never vote Republican again. They say they dont want to spend taxpayer money to help private business, but how much did they give to the forign automakers to locate in their states? They have given them land, and huge tax incentives costing the taxpayers untold dollars. Consider this fact too..........This is not just a big 3 problem. The US is the only Government not helping out their auto makers with loans and support packages.

Harry, this is exactly what I am talking about........the quoted sources in your post have several things wrong. Thats why I say dont believe everything you read. One major error is that UAW workers get 100% of thier pay when laid off.......The fact is they get state unemployment benifits like any other worker, and on top of that they get "sub pay" that brings thier pay up to 85% (not 100%) of the take home pay (not gross pay). The workers then have to pay all fed, state, and local taxes on this amount making the net pay roughly 50% of the working wages. Where does this "sub pay" come from? A Sub Fund that that is made up of both employee and company contributions. When this fund runs dry the workers no longer recieve sub pay. Not a bad deal at all for a laid off worker I admit, but certainly not as good as the article would lead you to believe. This i just an example and I wont go through every mistake the paper has made, but I bring it up to express my point.........DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ. The Wall Street Journal was the paper that said Fords Wixom plant would not close just a week or so before it did!

Harry,you wrote............. A perfect example of the union's part in the current mess: The infamous "job bank". In case any of you never heard of the job bank, here's the story: When American automakers began to try and streamline their factories and automate many previously "manned" operations in the 80s, in order to better compete with the Japanese automakers, the union, in return for the loss of some union jobs due to modernizing and streamlining operations, came up with a demand for the creation of a "job bank". What that meant in plain English is that laid-off auto workers couldn't really be laid off. They simply had to report to the "job bank" office every day and collect most of their salary for doing absolutely nothing! That's right... the automakers tried to save money by automating and streamlining operations, but because of the union demands, they wound up paying all those unnecessary workers to not work!!! I ask you to please get your facts straight and dont belive all these politions and newspapers. Just because they print something does not make it true. The "jobs bank" was started by GM, not the UAW. When GM was closing plants in Flint Mi. they did not want to lose the experienced work force they had so thet created a jobs bank. First off under the contract workers are laid off for 12 months before the company must place them in a job bank. The company can choose to place them directly if they want but are not required to do so. When my plant closed Ford put us directly into the bank so they could fill openings at other plants with lower wage new hires. The impression given by the media is that a huge percentage of workers are sitting in these banks doing nothing. This is simply not so. Here at Ford company wide there are less than 700 workers in GEN (Fords term for the job bank), and they are rapidly being placed as I speak. In fact I was just placed and started work last monday (THANK YOU!). In last years labor negotiations the companys stated they wanted the GEN below 2% of the work force. In fact it is closer to 1%. I dont mind if your of the opinion that there should not be a jobs bank, just please get it right. You seem to think the union is far more powerfull than it really is. The union cannot demand anything of the big 3 unless it is in an existing contract, just as the big 3 can demand of the uaw what is in the contract.

Dont believe everything you read in the papers or on the internet. At Ford a newly hired assembly worker starts at about $14 an hour, after achieving full pay he is up to about $28 an hour. If he passes a test and goes through a 4 year apprentiship for skilled trades he can make up to $33 an hour. GM and Chyrsler wages are very close to the same. Good middle class wages, but not the 150 grand a year that most think.

The difference in the olds/chevy case was that GM had advertised that Oldsmobiles had the Olds "Rocket V8". Some owners felt cheated when they discovered they had Chevy motors. Even though most would have never known the difference if nobody would have told them and a case could be made that they actually got a better motor when they got the Chevy.

Harry, Personally I agree that Yukons, Hummers, ect. dont make sense for the average driver. However by the same token a hybrid owner might say that my Lincoln Town car doesnt make sense for me. I like the solid construction that a body on frame car offers (especially on Michigan roads) and the smooth quiet ride. Yes I am giving up 10 mpg compared to a Focus, but for me it is worth it. For others maybe its not. Who am I to tell the Yukon driver he cant spend his money the way he likes? As long as the Yukon meets all applical standards its not for me to say you cant have one. You seem to think I am defending GM's (or Ford and Chyrsler's ). managment. Trust me I am not. I see from the inside the idotic things that they do. But in their defense they werent forcing people to buy these Monsters, GM offers a full range of cars and trucks. from fuel sipping econoboxes to the big Hummers. There is a market (although shrinking) for these trucks, and they are profitable. From a business standpoint why pull out and leave that market to someone else? Especially considering this is one thing the big 3 do better than the imports! The extreme examples you mention are a stretch, not realistic choices just as if I were to say we dont need cars at all.........public transportation and bicycles are all anyone needs. People are turning away from the big SUV's, by choice.......not mandates and when and if enough of them decide to drive something else the market will quit making them. But till then I dont think I have the right to tell someone he cant drive a Navigator because i dont like them. I think you arent taking into account that GMC is the heavy truck arm of GM. Do you want them to stop selling heavy trucks too? As to the light trucks its going to cost GM x amount of dollars to make 100 trucks whether they are 90 Chevys and 10 GMC's or whether they are 100 Chevys. I dont see the problem with offering both and I am sure there are several Pontiac and Buick dealers that would agree. A sound business plan to recovery should include fixing the things that are wrong and continuing to do what you do right.

Harry, the reason for GMC's light truck division (all GM heavy trucks are GMC) is so that all the GM dealers can sell trucks not just Chevrolet. The trucks are made on the same assembly lines and are virtually the same vehicle so there is really no added cost in having 2 lines of trucks but it does make them avalible to more customers. As to your remarks about Hummer..........your right, nobody needs a Hummer, and I certainly dont want one. However if there are enough people out there that do want one and are willing to pay the high ownership cost and put up with the hassles why shouldnt they be allowed to have one? You mentioned in another post you might like to have a new Mustang, well nobody needs a Mustang. All that wasted horsepower, the thing barely seats 4 people, and you can get much better milage from a Focus! You can get by just fine with any number of other bare bones econoboxes. But if you want a Mustang than I think you should be able to buy a Mustang. I have always thought one of the things that made America such a great place to live was that we can buy what we like, do what we want as long as we arent breaking any laws and are willing to pay the price of admission. Now I know your going to tell me why I'm wrong!...LOL

Boy are you ever right about that! The CEO's shot themselves in the foot big time. At the very least they should have "jet pooled" and all took the same jet. They have put restrictions on us like "no color copies", closing off half the bathroom stalls, lowering the thermostats, yet they fly in the corprate jet. We have complained for a few years now about our executive vice president who lives in florida and commutes at company expense to michigan several times a week. This is the kind of arrogance that must stop.

Once again.........nobody is proposing giving anything to anyone! Whats being considered are LOANS that must be repaid. Like any lending institution the borrower must convince the lender the loan is a good risk in order to get the money. In this case that must be a sound plan to return to profitabiliy. I dont think that plan can can include limiting the auto companys to only certain markets. For instance if the industry is told as you sugested in order to get this money you must only build small fuel efficient cars then you are effectivly surrendering the one market that the US auto makers beat the imports in hands down. Personally I dont ever see truck sales returning to previous levels but there will always be a market for them and the big 3 hold a tremendous edge in this segment. A realistic plan must include retaining the truck business AND improving the car business. The big three have made great strides in improving the quality of its cars. Consumers Reports says Ford is now virtually the equal of Toyota in quality, GM is close behind, and although Chyrsler does lag behind somewhat they are still ahead of several makes that people are convinced make quality vehicles. The problem is that no matter how good a Chevy might be people PERCIEVE it as inferior. Part of the plan must be some way to convince people their products are good. I agree there must be strings attached............but realistic ones that wont hurt the companys in the marketplace. Someone wth great business sense that understands the auto market should oversee the distribution of these loans and approve who gets what based on the soundness of their plan. Here in Detroit Roger Penske's name is often mentioned as being right for the job, and I would agree. Not sure if he would be interested in taking on such a venture though.

Two things come to mind when I read these posts on GM and the others. First off most of you seem to be under the impression that that the Govt. is giving the automakers billions of dollars. They arent, they are loaning them billions of dollars. This money is to be paid back over time. The other thing is I remember is when the Govt helped Chrysler in the 80's with loan guarantees, and Harley Davidson with temporary trade restrictions on imported motorcycles. It was determined that it would cost us more if Chyrsler and H-D failed than it would to help them out. The result was Chrysler turned itself around and actually repaid the loans ahead of schedule, and Harley Davidson did the same requesting that the trade restrictions be lifted well before they were to expire. Just goes to show that sometimes things do work as they are meant to. Just because you dont work for GM you think it wont affect you if they go under? Think again, even by conservitave estimates the job loss nationwide would be in the millions. I tend to look at the auto bailout the same way i look at the banking bailout.............its not really right, but we are better off with it than without it.

I must have had that on my mind too!..............Its Dave Crane, I corrected the name in the post.

Our local model club recently spent the day at Dave Cranes garage. Dave is a great guy with a huge collection of vintage drag stuff and even more fascinating stories! He was the chief starter at the Martin Mich. U.S.131 dragstrip for many years and started "collecting" when all this stuff was just considered junk. I have never seen so many early hemis in one spot! It seemes every piece has a story behind it........I could have listened for a week! I took a bunch of pics to use as reference if anyone cares to look................... http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v19/amaz...27/Club%20Trip/ Thanks, Raisin

My vote is for AMT, although that doesnt mean I dont like Revell kits. When comparing Revells newer kits with AMT's newer kits AMT wins hands down. The 60 Starliner, 62 Pontiac, 58 Chyrsler 300, 62 Thunderbird , 58 Edsel, and a few others have details far superior to the recent Revell issues like the 55 Chevy, and 49 Merc. I recently built the 62 Pontiac and I think its probably the best engeniered kit I have ever built. The AMT kits have very nicely detailed chassis, engine, and interiors that outdo Revells offerings. This doesnt mean Revell kits are bad, far from it! The Revell 32 Fords are great. and most of there other kits can be built into fine examples of what they represent. Now if you compare AMT's older kits tooled back in the 60's to the newer Revell issues then of course Revell is a better kit. Much as a 2005 Chevrolet is better equiped and higher quality than a 1960 version. AMT is often critisized for continuing to sell these old lesser sophisticated kits, but I think its great that they are still avalible to us at reasonable prices. I mean after all more choice is better isnt it? and if you dont want to build an old tool kit nobody is making you buy it. Let me make this clear before I get a million negative comments..................I LIKE REVELL KITS!, I just think AMT's (newer) kits are a bit bgetter designed. Raisin

Heres a pic of the chassis for the Starliner. This a beautifully detailed chassis straight out of the box, but I added fuel and brake lines along with a parking brake assembly made from evergeen stock and craft wire. Tires are from the AMT 58 Edsel, and the factory full wheel covers are from Modelhaus. Thanks for looking, Raisin

Thanks guys, The spark plug boots are made from insulation that I stripped off of some coimputer "eathernet" wire. Raisin

That is one cool project, very creative and well done. Raisin

Havent done a factory stock for awhile so I thought I would give it a go. Doing it as a car my dad bought new back in 60. He told me that he had bought a 59 Ford just the year before but it was a real dog. When the 352/360 package came out he traded in the 59. This is the first car I remember from my childhood. I was 4 when my dad bought the Starliner and i remember sleeping on the huge back shelf when we went on trips. Its a wonder any of us survived the 60s! Started with the motor, a 352 ci / 360 hp big block. I noticed in the pic that I forgot the oil dipstick so I added that along with raising the air cleaner about .030". I think the motor in this kit along with the one in the 62 Thunderbird are the best representations of the FE ford motor out there, very detailed and accurate. Next up, the chassis...... Thanks for looking, Raisin

Like just about anyone my age I built models as a kid but pretty much stopped when I got old enough for a real car. Never really thought much about models after that, and then about 30 years later I just happen to be walking along the toy isle in a miejers store and noticed a model of a 60 Ford Starliner. Well the 60 Starliner has always been my favorite car, but I never knew anyone else even heard of one, let alone produce a model of it! There was no way to resist buying it! I looked the kit over when I got home and noticed it was much more detailed than what I built as a kid. About a year after that I decided to build it...........it turned out awful! I bought another one, built it and it turned out much better. That was about 4 years ago and Ive been at it ever since. Raisin

I believe the car only ran one time with that paint scheme. I found this posted on a drag racing board.............. http://www.draglist.com/stories/SOD-Jan-2003/SOD-011103.htm

The Munster coach first appeared in "Rock-A-Bye Munster. The Dragula was only in one episode "Hot Rod Herman"

It was great meeting you George, glad you decided to join. Raisin

A sad day indeed, I met Bob at the KC Slammers show this year. He truly seemed to care about the hobby and the people in it. What an great man he was. My heartfelt condolenses to his family and all who knew him. Raisin