Three Stooges going back to D.C.

Pete J. · December 7, 2008

Just a couple or comments. I agree with a number of your assertions but have a bit different perspective from 49 years of driving experience.

Facts like GM and Ford are currently building the best quality cars they've ever built, in most cases tying or beating nearly any maker, including Toyota and BMW. This past year, GM and Ford took the 3 out of the 5 top spots in JD Powers quality surveys. Facts like GM was well on it's way to a turnaround until the economy melted down. Evidence? Read a ###### auto enthusiast magazine, specifically Todd Lassa from Motortrend, who vehemently acknowledges the General was turning a corner until credit became a distant memory.

Well it is about time. It has only taken them since 35 years to get there. A little slow, and this is only the first or second year. Any one can do it once or twice. I will be inclined to give them credit when they do it 10 years in a row. I have seen them turn the corner before, only to hit the wall around the corner. Kudos for getting there, but keep it up.

Facts like Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, and Hyundia are all extremely selective about where they build their factories and what the local economy will sacrifice for a piece of the pie. They build in areas where they can avoid Union interference. They build in areas where the economy hasn't matured, so that the jobs they bring can be (rightly so I believe) viewed as "good work". Yet they do not deal with Unions. Ah, there's the rub, because overseas, BMW and Mercedes are dealing with powerful unions in their home countries that are preventing and even sapping away profits just as the UAW does here. Or that Toyota employees more temporary workers in Japan who don't receive corresponding wages and benefits then they do "normal" employees.

Yep, true fact, but what has kept the Big three from following suit. They went completely out of the country rather than to more advantageous domestic location. GM is very profitable in China, but who here cares! Open a new plant in the south, close one that is unprofitable some where else. Good business. Not really a good thing locally and I would feel sorry for the workers who lost their job, but good business. Now I am not naive enough to believe it is that easy, but it can be done.

Facts like GM tried to market an electric car, but when demand wasn't there and gas prices and technology couldn't entice buyers-let alone make economic sense-at the time, they killed it - only to be hated for it years later by the same public that was uninterested before. Facts such as GM was already responding to gas prices inflating this previous year, evidence being the GMT900 hybrids that came to market earlier this year, the first of any maker to bring to market a hybrid to the most inefficient category out there.

Everyone seems to think that the extreme technology is necessary. Continuous research is needed to be competitive and it doesn't pay off for years. Rushing it to market is not a good idea. Develop it until it is ready. Heck, I don't like the hybrids that are running on the road now, but some do. All I want is a car with a reputation for durability that handles well with moderate fuel economy. The kicker here is history and the big three have a history that just doesn't measure up. Sorry.

Facts like that while gas prices were raping the American consumer, Oil company CEO's were getting record level bonuses and salaries that exceded 400 MILLION on one person, all the while the media and the government sacrificed Detroit at the alter of blame.

Don't point fingers at others and scream "They are doing it too" as a method of justifying inappropriate activity. Wrong is Wrong. Degree is relevant only for the amount of punishment that should be meted out.

Or facts like Toyota/Honda/and Nissan are at this very moment asking the Japanese government to devalue the Yen to help protect their profits from exports and transplant sales. Or that mighty BMW stated less than two weeks ago that due to the current sales environment, they can weather this economy for roughly two years before closing their doors. Or that all the mainstream European makers are currently asking the European Union for handouts to help them remain solvent through this economy. Or when VW's CEO last month publicly stated that when the time came in the US for dispersion of the promised 25 Billion to automakers, his company would hold up it's hand for a share of the US Treasury's money.

The banking crisis has caused the exposure of many a poor practice world wide, and across a lot of industries. Yes, other auto makers are on the door step asking for help and I do not deny that the US auto makers need help. I think they need help as much as the banks, but I will be damned if I will sit still for in your face arrogance by a bunch of filthy rich turkeys, even at Thanksgiving. Won't stand for it from the banks, the auto companies or anyone else. Yes, help the big three, but there had better be a come to Jesus meeting regarding exorbitant salaries and bonuses. There had better be no bonuses in any industry that takes a government handout, except to the workers who build the product. It is time to cut these arrogant idiots down to size. I'll be d***d if my tax dollars are going to go into the pocket of some filthy rich b*****d.

And what of the notion that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have brought this on themselves because of past mistakes, so lets punish them and the current management now? To that assertion, why don't we punish VW and Mitsubishi for producing arms by previous management officials that were used against the US in WW2? Or what of the time that Chrysler was under the flag of Germany, owned by Diamler (or as it was sold - a merger of equals)? Did the Germans flip that sinking ship around into a profitable entity and then set it free out of good will? Hell no, they came, they failed, they bailed. They didn't properly understand the undertaking, they misjudged the situtation, and they bungled the solutions. So do we punish the current Chrysler team for mistakes made by Diamler? Sure, mistakes have been made, even recently. But who among us is perfect, who among the competition hasn't made their own mistakes? Why the hate?

I don't think any one hates the big three. Over the last 40 years I would have loved to see the US automakers kicking the tails of the rest of the world. We did it once. We had the best engineered vehicles in the world. Automobiles have been an integral part of our culture for a long time and we love our cars, but we will not stand for stupid arrogance. Showing up in front of congress, with no plan and screaming Me too! Me too! , when you personally made more money last year than most city budgets in America is just more than I can stand. Most of us work our tails off to make ends meet and it just makes me sick to see such arrogance. A little humility at this point would be nice. Don't shove it in my face!

We as Americans, whether it be consumers, media, or government entities, have made it en vogue to self deprecate our industry, to hate everything our own companies stand for. It's shameful to be honest.

That is my opinion and I have been watching this road show for years. Economics is a passion of mine as well as cars. I am disappointed at heck that this has all come to this.

wdcav · December 7, 2008

Well it is about time. It has only taken them since 35 years to get there. A little slow, and this is only the first or second year. Any one can do it once or twice. I will be inclined to give them credit when they do it 10 years in a row. I have seen them turn the corner before, only to hit the wall around the corner. Kudos for getting there, but keep it up.

Actually, Buick and Cadillac, even Chevy and Ford, have been up there for a number of years now according to most surveys. It's public perceptions that hinder most of their progress now. Perception is a huge problem and it's going to take a lot of time to get people to actually get off their high horse and get into a dealership.

I also throw this out: What the hell makes imports any less susceptible to parts failures then domestics? I have an 88 Astro that continues to chug along with over 265,000 miles on it. My neighbor has a 1990 Accord that 3 different times now has had cylinder liners fracture. Each time costs quite a bit in repairs, but he defends that Honda as more reliable then domestic cars. I hardly consider his Honda any more of a quality product then my Astro. And this isn't bias speaking, I've worked for GM and I've worked for Honda in my life.

Yep, true fact, but what has kept the Big three from following suit. They went completely out of the country rather than to more advantageous domestic location. GM is very profitable in China, but who here cares! Open a new plant in the south, close one that is unprofitable some where else. Good business. Not really a good thing locally and I would feel sorry for the workers who lost their job, but good business. Now I am not naive enough to believe it is that easy, but it can be done.

Think about what you just said for a second. What would keep a maker from ditching one local union chapter and sending those jobs to a non union plant in the same country? The simple answer is the UAW. If any one of the makers tried this, there would be a national shutdown immediately. The Union would NOT tolerate this. It was actually easier to move jobs away then it was to break the unions. The jobs reappearing a couple states away would be a more direct slap in the face to the unions then the jobs going to Mexico or China. The unions can be a real pain in the butt and if you've ever been around them for two shakes you'd understand exactly how they can interfer. Close a plant and move it south to a non-union area and there would be hell to pay.

There would also be an immediate impact on perception all across the country from sympathetic unions. They may never buy your products again. Backlash.

Everyone seems to think that the extreme technology is necessary. Continuous research is needed to be competitive and it doesn't pay off for years. Rushing it to market is not a good idea. Develop it until it is ready. Heck, I don't like the hybrids that are running on the road now, but some do. All I want is a car with a reputation for durability that handles well with moderate fuel economy. The kicker here is history and the big three have a history that just doesn't measure up. Sorry.

You only research the technologies that people show interest in. Cadillac once offered thermal night vision but it wasn't desired by many of it's customers. The technology faded away instead of being researched further. Another example is Toyota also deployed an electric car that also failed. Public interest wasn't there because gas was 1.10/gal. Companies are out to make money off things that appeal to consumers. You yourself spoke of good business, and sinking money into something that won't be accepted is bad business. Even the Prius was a money pit when it was first deployed. Toyota waited years and two product generations for it to break even, and it may never have if gas prices hadn't become so unstable.

I agree that some tech is utter garbage. VW is deploying a system in Europe (but not in the US as VW decided that the US has too many lawsuits and too much corporate blame-think hot coffee from McDonalds) that not only alerts you to you starting to drift out of the road lines but also physically corrects the car itself without input from the driver. Personally, I don't want that anywhere near my car, seems like something could go horribly wrong. But it's out there. Also that parking system that Lexus offers, and now I believe Audi has a version of. I do not want my car to park itself, but obviously these companies did market research and found that enough people thought it competent that they did the research and deployed the technology.

Another thing is that the technologies that we see deploying right now have been in the design stage for years already. Automakers are a long design cycle industry. Recently the Wall Street Journal alluded that if Steve Jobs was put in charge of GM, we would all be driving ICars in a year or less. Like Angus Mackenzie (Editor-Motortrend) asserted, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any auto company-even profit rich Toyota- to design and tool up for a car in a year, or even two most likely. Autos are a long term strategy as it is. The model you buy today was probably in design 5 years ago. People are clamoring for the Chevy Volt, asking where it is, why it wasn't here for the high gas prices, or why it's going to be so expensive. It's completely new tech that's been in design for slightly over 2 years now. They are in fact doing as you say, getting it right and testing it before sending it out. Just takes time.

Don't point fingers at others and scream "They are doing it too" as a method of justifying inappropriate activity. Wrong is Wrong. Degree is relevant only for the amount of punishment that should be meted out.

It's all perspective. I wasn't concerned about Mulally or Wagoner making a base salary of several million dollars (and in fact Wagoner was NOT receiving bonuses) this summer when gas prices were soaring and I could barely afford to drive to work. I was much more concerned with the way Mobil gave a bonus of over 400 Million to it's outgoing CEO for robbing the American consumer and economy. I was much more upset because I had to pay 4 times what I had paid last year to tow my camper for vacation because speculators had driven prices up and CEO's were being compensated graciously because of it. Complain about what affects you most. Most companies right now are overpaying for under-performance. It's just reality.

The banking crisis has caused the exposure of many a poor practice world wide, and across a lot of industries. Yes, other auto makers are on the door step asking for help and I do not deny that the US auto makers need help. I think they need help as much as the banks, but I will be damned if I will sit still for in your face arrogance by a bunch of filthy rich turkeys, even at Thanksgiving. Won't stand for it from the banks, the auto companies or anyone else. Yes, help the big three, but there had better be a come to Jesus meeting regarding exorbitant salaries and bonuses. There had better be no bonuses in any industry that takes a government handout, except to the workers who build the product. It is time to cut these arrogant idiots down to size. I'll be d***d if my tax dollars are going to go into the pocket of some filthy rich b*****d.

Your tax dollars are already lining the pockets of filthy rich b*****ds. They are called elected officials and they are so dirty in all this that it's infuriating. And we continue to let them muck up the works. Revolution would be preferable to the continued corruption.

I don't think any one hates the big three. Over the last 40 years I would have loved to see the US automakers kicking the tails of the rest of the world. We did it once. We had the best engineered vehicles in the world. Automobiles have been an integral part of our culture for a long time and we love our cars, but we will not stand for stupid arrogance. Showing up in front of congress, with no plan and screaming Me too! Me too! , when you personally made more money last year than most city budgets in America is just more than I can stand. Most of us work our tails off to make ends meet and it just makes me sick to see such arrogance. A little humility at this point would be nice. Don't shove it in my face!

Many do in fact hate the Big 3. Recently it was stated in a public opinion poll that 54% of Americans wouldn't even consider going to a domestic dealer and checking out one of their vehicles. Go to any auto enthusiast forum and read the comments left by people that haven't even owned a domestic before. They hate because they were raised to hate by parents that drive Hondas because their 1975 Chevy was trash.

To be accurate and fair, I don't believe American cars used to be the best designed cars (best designed not meaning highest quality either) in the world. I think that title ought to go to many of the German brands. More correctly our cars are what served our market, but in no way did that make them the best. Now America does hold the collective ideals of the auto close to our shores. I live in Dayton, birthplace of the auto battery and self starter, original home to Dayton Electric Company - Delco (later Delphi). We named a city after Charles Kettering here. GM used to employ 20,000 workers here. You either worked for GM or you worked for NCR. Now both are virtually gone.

And as I said before, the Big 3 have made mistakes. The first venture to Capitol Hill obviously didn't go so well. They should have had a better idea what to say, but in fairness they didn't even know. Things are an absolute mess and it's taking time to figure out what to do and where to go. But the media perception destroyed what little they accomplished. All the media saw was private jets (jet-pooling would have helped guys).

Mistakes were made, but what competitor hasn't made mistakes? Might not be as publicized, but those mistakes are there if you scratch past the surface.

I also put this assertion out for everyone to think about: I've never met anyone that works for Citigroup or AIG. I've met thousands of auto workers.

Edited December 7, 2008 by wdcav

oversteer · December 7, 2008

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

I was a UAW member for 11 years when I worked for Freightliner, (in between layoffs), & when I was hired on, the staring wage for my job was $9.97 an hour. We got a raise after 6 months, another after 1 year, & then once a year raises averaging $.75-$1 an hour until our 5th anniversary on the job, when we finally topped out in our job classification, & got an raise averaging around $5 an hour. That was the big raise. Subsequent raises after topping out were negotiated in the contracts, & we didn't always get one. In fact our contract negotiated in 2003 had a wage freeze we agreed to so the company could recoup some of the financial ground lost when Freightliner's old CEO Jim Hebe cooked up his now infamous "buy back" scheme, where 3 years after purchasing a new Freightliner, the company would buy it back from the customer if he wanted rid of it & couldn't trade it in or sell it otherwise. We were pumping trucks out hand over fist from 1998-2001, when the bottom fell out on that little deal, the trucks started coming back in droves, as our sales plummeted, & we had massive layoffs. Right now you can drive down I-29 south east of Omaha & see just one of many fields of those Freightliners sitting there wasting away, at least 3 acres in that 1 spot. As usual the American worker had to sacrifice for the incompetency of management. BTW, Hebe is no longer the CEO of Freightliner, after that little debacle, so 1 positive did come out of it.

When I left Freightliner in 2005, my job classification wage rate was a bit over $22 an hour, & with the "big" shifft differential adjust ment of $.50 an hour added in, it was not quite $23 an hour.

We did get time & a half after 8 hours a day,, double time after 10 hours, time & a half the 1st 10 hours on Saturday, (please note, very few people worked more than 8 hours on Saturday), & double time on Sunday. Now keep the following in mind; the maximum amount of mandatory OT we could be scheduled in a month was 16 hours, so any other OT was voluntary, & the most mandatory OT we could get scheduled in a weekday was 2 hours, again the rest was voluntary. This included Sundays, which were never made mandatory, only voluntary.

Now, if it was a paid holiday & you volunteered to work, (again, this was never mandatory, & in fact only certain departments ever had voluntary OT, & very rarely were the assembly areas given a chance at voluntary OT, most of that was only available in Offline, (where the finished trucks had all their paint & mechanical "cries" worked off), or CRC, (Customer ready center, the final step towards fixing any flaws), you did get your 8 hours holiday pay & double time, which for those on top pay was around $75 an hour total. Keep in mind however, this was only one shift those days, (Sundays, holidays, & any Saturday that wasn't a mandatory OT day), with a total of 25-50 employees tops, out of a workforce of nearly 3,000.

Want to know where Freightliner's real perks went? Management. At Freightliner a truck is considered "sold" if it comes off the assembly line, missing parts, needing a complete repaint or however. For each truck rolled off the line, everyone in management, (from the plant manager down to the line supervisors), got a yearly bonus based strictly on production, whether the plant showed a profit or not. The hourly workers only got a yearly bonus if the plant showed a profit. Naturally with management's bonus structured the way it is, they are going to try & pump out as many trucks as they can, no matter how poor the quality is. Starting alary for a line supervisor was around $60,000 a year, not including bounues & such. Now keep in mind at top pay, before taxes for a 40 hour week, I made $812 a week, which is just a hair over $41,000 a year, & I couldn't expect to go much higher over the years unless the COLA jumped a great deal. Line supervisors, (the bottom rung of management), started out at 20 grand a year more than I made topped out.

Here's a true story to illustrate that, & a big reason why I left Freightliner with 11 years seniority: In late 2004, our plant got a single order of 5,000 trucks for one customer. This was the largest single order every in the company's history, not just our plant, & interspersed with the rest of the orders we had had that time, was enough to ensure 2 shifts running for at least 4 years.

Well that company got the first 300 trucks of their order, ran them for a 90 day cycle & brought them into their shops for routine maintenance. In the course of doing that maintenance, they checked the torque specs on various bolts. Not one bolt would torque to spec. They contacted us & were told that it was due to some bad torque guns & the plant was in the process of replacing those, (a complete lie, those guns had been out of spec & worn out for at least 5 years, & we had been promised new ones for that long). This company then asked why they had sent them trucks knowing of this defect & not notifying them, to which our company had no answer. This customer then proceeded to cancel the rest of their order & word got out to other customers, & more orders got canceled. I knew then it was time to move on down the line before I went through another layoff. This was in 2005, 3 years ago. My brother has 25 years in with them, & the last he told me in October, (& this hasn't changed as of 2 weeks ago), the last layoff missed him by 6 months, & they were down to 1 shift, running every other week.

Still think union greed is a major part of the problem? The majority of the other hourly people I worked with at Freightliner wanted to put out a quality product, but management was determined to rake in their bonuses by cranking out as many trucks as they could, & quality be damned. It's not just about turning a profit, it's about squeezing as much profit out that they can.

Still think

Thanks for the story it was interesting.Just to clarify I figured this thread would be a good place to pose the question of hourly wages within UAW for my own curiosity .I'm a member of a union as well;local 100 of TWU.I'm a uniformed employee for the state of NY for the last 14 years.I'm no econimist so I dont pretend to understand the intricate effects of these politics and sciences.The media in my area perpetuates a very very negative image of TWU members and sometimes our employer,this has been going on at this rate for about the last fifteen years.Being the general public is ignorant to most things the media prevails in doing its job of spreading contempt,lies,rumors,confusion,ect.The media,portrays,the people are deceived and the taxpayers/shareholders dollars are speculated.The you know what hits the fan and we start all over again.So I can understand misperceptions.

RadRidesByDan · December 7, 2008

Facts like GM tried to market an electric car, but when demand wasn't there and gas prices and technology couldn't entice buyers-let alone make economic sense-at the time, they killed it - only to be hated for it years later by the same public that was uninterested before. Facts such as GM was already responding to gas prices inflating this previous year, evidence being the GMT900 hybrids that came to market earlier this year, the first of any maker to bring to market a hybrid to the most inefficient catagory out there.

GM had the technology way back in 1982. While the existence of such a vehicle may be shocking to some, what is even more shocking is the existence of other prototypes made by General Motors that met the same demise. These vehicles included the GM Lean Machine (80 MPG) in 1982, along with a number of other fuel efficient vehicles like the GM Aero-X, the GM Aero 2000, and the finally the GM Ultralite (which had achieved 100 miles-per-gallon). While Honda was leading the world with the Civic VX in 1992 (achieving 50 miles-per-gallon) the USA- owned General Motors was producing 100 MPG vehicles behind the scenes, all the while selling 20 MPG vehicles to the public. Boy did they care for the consumers best interest. NOT AT ALL....did they share the profits? only amomg themselves, did they rub hands with the Petroleum industry? Darn right. When the price of gas was low, the biggest sellers were the trucks and the car market was taking a hit. The prices go throught the roof, hundreds of thousands of people whom had bought big vehicles couple years ago were now dumping them and buying small cars... DUH! here's a coinsidence. Now that the car market has been elevated by soring gas prices and the truck market is taking the hit....look at our gas prices now....they are back to where it was 6-7 years ago.

100 miles per gallon is not only obtainable, but it already has been obtained.

One obvious question must be asked. Why are these high gas mileage vehicles not available for sale? Why do companies like General Motors, Honda, Toyota, and Ford continue to sell 30 MPG vehicles when something so much better was made before? The answer to that question is, of course, a complex one. Market analyses, surveys, polls, government regulations, and other red tape held back efficiency. Everything was connected to the Petroleum industry, they did not want to lose thier share....and is stands the same today as we speak.

Everything stills boils down to these Arrogant money hungry Corporate dorks that dont care about a thing other than the money they could put in thier pockets....and now they are begging to keep thier lifestyle....they couldnt care about the cars and/or the consumers and workers...they never have.

I know some may think that its not all the companies faults and I respect that.....but I cant believe that a CEO of a company can get blindsided as bad as these 3 stooges and try to claim they never saw it coming..... you would have to be a complete idiot...and if thats the case...you dont belong at the top.

Edited December 7, 2008 by RadRidesByDan

oversteer · December 7, 2008

GM had the technology way back in 1982. While the existence of such a vehicle may be shocking to some, what is even more shocking is the existence of other prototypes made by General Motors that met the same demise. These vehicles included the GM Lean Machine (80 MPG) in 1982, along with a number of other fuel efficient vehicles like the GM Aero-X, the GM Aero 2000, and the finally the GM Ultralite (which had achieved 100 miles-per-gallon). While Honda was leading the world with the Civic VX in 1992 (achieving 50 miles-per-gallon) the USA- owned General Motors was producing 100 MPG vehicles behind the scenes, all the while selling 20 MPG vehicles to the public. Boy did they care for the consumers best interest. NOT AT ALL....did they share the profits? only amomg themselves, did they rub hands with the Petroleum industry? Darn right. When the price of gas was low, the biggest sellers were the trucks and the car market was taking a hit. The prices go throught the roof, hundreds of thousands of people whom had bought big vehicles couple years ago were now dumping them and buying small cars... DUH! here's a coinsidence. Now that the car market has been elevated by soring gas prices and the truck market is taking the hit....look at our gas prices now....they are back to where it was 6-7 years ago.

100 miles per gallon is not only obtainable, but it already has been obtained.

One obvious question must be asked. Why are these high gas mileage vehicles not available for sale? Why do companies like General Motors, Honda, Toyota, and Ford continue to sell 30 MPG vehicles when something so much better was made before? The answer to that question is, of course, a complex one. Market analyses, surveys, polls, government regulations, and other red tape held back efficiency. Everything was connected to the Petroleum industry, they did not want to lose thier share....and is stands the same today as we speak.

Everything stills boils down to these Arrogant money hungry Corporate dorks that dont care about a thing other than the money they could put in thier pockets....and now they are begging to keep thier lifestyle....they couldnt care about the cars and/or the consumers and workers...they never have.

Wow,I may be wrong but I imagine if we had cars that would go 100mpg that would probably put a lot of people out of work and the land that is under all the millions of gas stations would have to be liquidated(not that I have a problem with any of this).The thing that bothers me the most is the anger.People attack the CEO's the unions,the imports blame this one or that one....but unless any of us are qualified to know for sure then we're just speculating.

Pete J. · December 7, 2008

Actually, Buick and Cadillac, even Chevy and Ford, have been up there for a number of years now according to most surveys. It's public perceptions that hinder most of their progress now. Perception is a huge problem and it's going to take a lot of time to get people to actually get off their high horse and get into a dealership.

Probably true and that is the issue. Displays like the one before congress, do nothing to improve that image.

I also throw this out: What the hell makes imports any less susceptible to parts failures then domestics? I have an 88 Astro that continues to chug along with over 265,000 miles on it. My neighbor has a 1990 Accord that 3 different times now has had cylinder liners fracture. Each time costs quite a bit in repairs, but he defends that Honda as more reliable then domestic cars. I hardly consider his Honda any more of a quality product then my Astro. And this isn't bias speaking, I've worked for GM and I've worked for Honda in my life.

I think there is a difference in how the imports or domestic Japanese dealers handle the problems. I have a couple of Acuras and they have had transmission failure. Result - company replaced them, one with just over 100,000 miles. No question or argument. I can't imagine that happening at a big three dealership.

Yep, true fact, but what has kept the Big three from following suit. They went completely out of the country rather than to more advantageous domestic location. GM is very profitable in China, but who here cares! Open a new plant in the south, close one that is unprofitable some where else. Good business. Not really a good thing locally and I would feel sorry for the workers who lost their job, but good business. Now I am not naive enough to believe it is that easy, but it can be done.

Think about what you just said for a second. What would keep a maker from ditching one local union chapter and sending those jobs to a non union plant in the same country? The simple answer is the UAW. If any one of the makers tried this, there would be a national shutdown immediately. The Union would NOT tolerate this. It was actually easier to move jobs away then it was to break the unions. The jobs reappearing a couple states away would be a more direct slap in the face to the unions then the jobs going to Mexico or China. The unions can be a real pain in the butt and if you've ever been around them for two shakes you'd understand exactly how they can interfer. Close a plant and move it south to a non-union area and there would be hell to pay.

There would also be an immediate impact on perception all across the country from sympathetic unions. They may never buy your products again. Backlash.

This is true for a very entrenched union. There is no longer fair bargaining going on. Explain to me why a union should have such power? They are partners in killing this industry as much as the leadership and congress.

Everyone seems to think that the extreme technology is necessary. Continuous research is needed to be competitive and it doesn't pay off for years. Rushing it to market is not a good idea. Develop it until it is ready. Heck, I don't like the hybrids that are running on the road now, but some do. All I want is a car with a reputation for durability that handles well with moderate fuel economy. The kicker here is history and the big three have a history that just doesn't measure up. Sorry.

You only research the technologies that people show interest in. Cadillac once offered thermal night vision but it wasn't desired by many of it's customers. The technology faded away instead of being researched further. Another example is Toyota also deployed an electric car that also failed. Public interest wasn't there because gas was 1.10/gal. Companies are out to make money off things that appeal to consumers. You yourself spoke of good business, and sinking money into something that won't be accepted is bad business. Even the Prius was a money pit when it was first deployed. Toyota waited years and two product generations for it to break even, and it may never have if gas prices hadn't become so unstable.

I agree that some tech is utter garbage. VW is deploying a system in Europe (but not in the US as VW decided that the US has too many lawsuits and too much corporate blame-think hot coffee from McDonalds) that not only alerts you to you starting to drift out of the road lines but also physically corrects the car itself without input from the driver. Personally, I don't want that anywhere near my car, seems like something could go horribly wrong. But it's out there. Also that parking system that Lexus offers, and now I believe Audi has a version of. I do not want my car to park itself, but obviously these companies did market research and found that enough people thought it competent that they did the research and deployed the technology.

Another thing is that the technologies that we see deploying right now have been in the design stage for years already. Automakers are a long design cycle industry. Recently the Wall Street Journal alluded that if Steve Jobs was put in charge of GM, we would all be driving ICars in a year or less. Like Angus Mackenzie (Editor-Motortrend) asserted, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any auto company-even profit rich Toyota- to design and tool up for a car in a year, or even two most likely. Autos are a long term strategy as it is. The model you buy today was probably in design 5 years ago. People are clamoring for the Chevy Volt, asking where it is, why it wasn't here for the high gas prices, or why it's going to be so expensive. It's completely new tech that's been in design for slightly over 2 years now. They are in fact doing as you say, getting it right and testing it before sending it out. Just takes time.

Absolutely true, but most R&D goes nowhere just as a general rule. Just a fact of life. The truth is that in each failure you learn things that apply else where and in ways unexpected. Charles Kettering(incidentally my neighbor is a grandson) set up the GM Tech center and it was the hub of future automotive engineering for the world. Difference was that GM was committed to pure research. You don't find that much any more. Most auto research is aimed at meeting safety and fuel requirements and now "Green" requirements. In this respect and in a world economy perhaps a single auto maker in the US might make a little more sense. Share the research and Tech. You can bet the rest of the world does. The Japanese are all in bed with each other for the most part and the Germans swap pieces on a regular basis.

Don't point fingers at others and scream "They are doing it too" as a method of justifying inappropriate activity. Wrong is Wrong. Degree is relevant only for the amount of punishment that should be meted out.

It's all perspective. I wasn't concerned about Mulally or Wagoner making a base salary of several million dollars (and in fact Wagoner was NOT receiving bonuses) this summer when gas prices were soaring and I could barely afford to drive to work. I was much more concerned with the way Mobil gave a bonus of over 400 Million to it's outgoing CEO for robbing the American consumer and economy. I was much more upset because I had to pay 4 times what I had paid last year to tow my camper for vacation because speculators had driven prices up and CEO's were being compensated graciously because of it. Complain about what affects you most. Most companies right now are overpaying for under-performance. It's just reality.

My complaint is exorbitant amounts of money paid CEO's in general, whether it be bonus or base salary. I currently work for Sears and we paid an executive $5,000,000 just to go away. Our prior CEO lay down in bed with Eddy Lampert, sold the company down the river and walked away with $15,000,000. Now the company is sucking gas because they won't invest in infrastructure and inventory. I am just sick of the rampant raping of American companies by a class of hired guns.

The banking crisis has caused the exposure of many a poor practice world wide, and across a lot of industries. Yes, other auto makers are on the door step asking for help and I do not deny that the US auto makers need help. I think they need help as much as the banks, but I will be damned if I will sit still for in your face arrogance by a bunch of filthy rich turkeys, even at Thanksgiving. Won't stand for it from the banks, the auto companies or anyone else. Yes, help the big three, but there had better be a come to Jesus meeting regarding exorbitant salaries and bonuses. There had better be no bonuses in any industry that takes a government handout, except to the workers who build the product. It is time to cut these arrogant idiots down to size. I'll be d***d if my tax dollars are going to go into the pocket of some filthy rich b*****d.

Your tax dollars are already lining the pockets of filthy rich b*****ds. They are called elected officials and they are so dirty in all this that it's infuriating. And we continue to let them muck up the works. Revolution would be preferable to the continued corruption.

As I said, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was my congressman. As an ex-military officer, Viet Nam Vet, pilot, Californian, taxpayer and Republican, I am so hurt, insulted and ashamed of what he represented, I get sick each time I hear his name. He had the guts to got to GW and ask for a pardon last month. May he rot in some stinking jail cell for the rest of his life.

I don't think any one hates the big three. Over the last 40 years I would have loved to see the US automakers kicking the tails of the rest of the world. We did it once. We had the best engineered vehicles in the world. Automobiles have been an integral part of our culture for a long time and we love our cars, but we will not stand for stupid arrogance. Showing up in front of congress, with no plan and screaming Me too! Me too! , when you personally made more money last year than most city budgets in America is just more than I can stand. Most of us work our tails off to make ends meet and it just makes me sick to see such arrogance. A little humility at this point would be nice. Don't shove it in my face!

Many do in fact hate the Big 3. Recently it was stated in a public opinion poll that 54% of Americans wouldn't even consider going to a domestic dealer and checking out one of their vehicles. Go to any auto enthusiast forum and read the comments left by people that haven't even owned a domestic before. They hate because they were raised to hate by parents that drive Hondas because their 1975 Chevy was trash.

To be accurate and fair, I don't believe American cars used to be the best designed cars (best designed not meaning highest quality either) in the world. I think that title ought to go to many of the German brands. More correctly our cars are what served our market, but in no way did that make them the best. Now America does hold the collective ideals of the auto close to our shores. I live in Dayton, birthplace of the auto battery and self starter, original home to Dayton Electric Company - Delco (later Delphi). We named a city after Charles Kettering here. GM used to employ 20,000 workers here. You either worked for GM or you worked for NCR. Now both are virtually gone.

I would disagree but only in the context of time. Prior to WWII the engineering that came out of our auto industry lead the world. Just about every auto patent of any consequence came from the US. Not necessarily Detroit, but from the US. But that was in a time when the original founders were still in charge. Enthusiast engineers with a passion for their company and their cars. In the 50's don't forget that a lot of the innovations in aircraft came either directly or indirectly from auto sources. Most jet engine technology was developed(not invented but perfected) by subsidiaries of our auto makers. Don't shortchange them. Having said that my Dad was an Oldsmobile man. I grew up loving those old boats. Too bad, because by the time I was ready for one, the foreign invasion had started. Believe me my 1974 Porsche 911 suffered a lot of mechanical breakdowns, but I loved it because it was a spirited sports car that captured my imagination like a Corvette could not.

And as I said before, the Big 3 have made mistakes. The first venture to Capitol Hill obviously didn't go so well. They should have had a better idea what to say, but in fairness they didn't even know. Things are an absolute mess and it's taking time to figure out what to do and where to go. But the media perception destroyed what little they accomplished. All the media saw was private jets (jet-pooling would have helped guys).

I think there arrogance got the better of them. They thought that they could waltz in and demand money and congress would roll over. Dumb idea to do on national television. Hard to insult congress, but they really succeeded

Mistakes were made, but what competitor hasn't made mistakes? Might not be as publicized, but those mistakes are there if you scratch past the surface.

It is always easy to have 20/20 hindsight, but the current brand of CEO is more interested in buggering the numbers to make the stupid bonus objectives that board members set and this lead to exactly the type of problems we have in industry today. Eyes on the bucks and not the business.

Incidental, Thanks for keeping this a discussion civil. It is great to debate without hurling invectives with abandon.

As to your last comment about not meeting any one who worked at Citi - You have met them. Every time you go into a bank, you meet them. I worked as a broker for years and I know far more people who are in the financail industry than work in the auto industry. Not really supprising. Financail services of all kinds are very large.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Pete J.

Pete J. · December 7, 2008

Wow,I may be wrong but I imagine if we had cars that would go 100mpg that would probably put a lot of people out of work and the land that is under all the millions of gas stations would have to be liquidated(not that I have a problem with any of this).The thing that bothers me the most is the anger.People attack the CEO's the unions,the imports blame this one or that one....but unless any of us are qualified to know for sure then we're just speculating.

Oh it is quite true. Trouble is they only have 10 hp and would do about 30 mph. Remember the "Mobil Economy Run" of the late 50's ? Huge mileage numbers in cars that just were not practical. Some motorcycles get better than 150 mpg. Most of them are 50ccs or smaller.

RadRidesByDan · December 7, 2008

Guys want facts:

This is Exon's annual financial reports

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/...ub_sar_2007.pdf

go to page 6

over the periods of 2002 to 2006. The net Profit for 2007 was $40.6 Billion dollars which is almost 400% hike from 2002 .....and look at the regular employees at the end of each year, they dropped by 11,700 from 2002 to 2007.........there is no reason for that....NONE....except being greedy...and who pays the price...defenatly not these bigshots......we do....and thats where one day they it will come down crashing...and the key thing here its that we again are the ones that will pay for thier screw-ups....and thats the sad part.....thats what bugs the hell out of me. They get away with it and we suffer.

Here are a few links that wil be an interest to read including annual reports and salaries

GM's reports

http://www.directorship.com/gm-ceo-comp

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2534738420080426

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_infor...finhigh_01.html

Ford's reports

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=28003

http://www.ford.com/about-ford/investor-re...nancial-results

http://www.ford.com/microsites/annual-reports

Chrysler's reports

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...371/1361/update

http://audos.blogspot.com/2008/11/chrysler...ld-receive.html

AND HERE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES.....TELL ME THAT THE CEO'S DIDNT CREATE THIS MESS AND THIS CAN BE JUSTIFIED.

Chrysler Executives Could Receive Bonuses, Report Says

Nov 14, 2008 Â·

Tags: Car News, Chrysler

cars

The revelation that Chrysler is paying millions of bonuses to keep top executives at the automaker while it cuts thousands of jobs ought to really help the Detroit Three get government bailout funds that already look like they are doomed.

The lead story in Friday's edition of the Detroit Free Press says Chrysler is paying about $30 million in retention bonuses to keep top executives on the job. Chrysler owes the bonuses under its contracts with about 50 executives, based on a retention incentive plan crafted early last year by former German parent DaimlerChrysler, when it was preparing to sell Chrysler, the paper reported.

Documents obtained by the Free Press show bonuses ranged from a high of $1.89 million to $200,000. At least six Chrysler executives are due to receive bonuses of more than $1 million apiece to stay through August 2009, the two-year anniversary Cerberus Capital Management buying 80 percent of Chrysler.

The agreements called for 25 percent of the bonuses to be paid February 2008, which they were and the remainder in August 2009. It's not clear what happens to those bonuses if Chrysler, if it exists at all, is sold.

Those promised the largest retention bonuses, according to the newspaper, are: Frank Ewasyshyn, executive vice president, manufacturing, $1.89 million; Frank Klegon, executive vice president, product development, $1.8 million; Nancy Rae, Chrysler executive vice president for human resources and communications, $1.66 million; Simon Boag, president, Mopar/global service and parts, $1.65 million; Steven Landry, executive vice president, North American sales, $1.63 million; and Michael Manley, executive vice president, international sales, marketing and business development, $1.53 million.

Chrysler's current top three leaders were not included in the $30-million retention bonus plan. They presumably have separate contracts. Chrysler Chairman Bob Nardelli as well as President and Chairman Jim Press joined the company after Cerberus Capital Management took over last August.

Former Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda, now co-president and vice chairman, received a $15.7-million bonus from Daimler for helping with the sale of Chrysler to Cerberus. Reported earlier, LaSorda received a total of $20.7 million in total 2007 compensation.

The top executives of Chrysler, General Motors and Ford are scheduled to testify next week before a House committee on a proposal for $25 billion in bridge loans to keep them afloat. Executive compensation is expected to be a hot topic during those discussions.

Edited December 7, 2008 by RadRidesByDan

raisin27 · December 7, 2008

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.

Harry P. · December 7, 2008

Raisin, I can only go by what I see/hear/read. Whether GM "created" the job bank to appease the UAW or whether the UAW demanded the creation of it as payback for layoffs due to plant modernization and "flexible" production schedules is irrelevant at this point. Doesn't matter WHO "created" it, the fact is that it exists (albeit in a smaller scale than previously). And it's one of the negotiating points in the current Big Three bailout request:

From autoblog.com:

Posted Dec 1st 2008 3:01PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Filed under: Hirings/Firings/Layoffs, Chrysler, LLC., Ford, GM, Earnings/Financials, UAW/Unions

As you read this, there are about 3,000 unionized workers -- down from about 15,000 two years ago -- employed by the Detroit 3 getting paid, despite the fact that they aren't working. While it's nice for America's automakers to have access to a talent-pool of available workers, it's also a major financial drain on an industry that's already reeling from a distinct lack of profits. And with new cutbacks and layoffs being announced almost daily, these "job banks" are increasingly tough to justify, even for the UAW. It's always been a bit of a competitive disadvantage, at least on paper, as non-UAW competitors like Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai do not keep such job banks. To ease Detroit's transition from bloated, money-losing corporations to lean "right-sized" competitors, UAW Prez. Ron Gettelfinger has brought up the job banks and their possible elimination. Will this be a part of the overall plan to become competitive that the Detroit 3 bring to Congress? We'll find out soon enough.

[source: Wall Street Journal]

From truthaboutcars.com (Ed Niedermeyer):

Eligible employees can not be laid off because of new technology (robots), sourcing decisions, or company-implimented efficiency actions. There are generally three states of layoff: temporary layoffs where workers know their return date, indefinite layoffs where workers get 48 weeks of unemployment benefits and a supplemental from their employer equal to 100 percent of your salary. After 48 weeks workers are reemployed by the Job Bank, at which time they receive 95 percent of their salary. They donâ€™t get seniority, but they do continue to receive health benefits. While in protected status, employees may be assigned to training programs, certain non-traditional jobs, openings at other UAW locations (they only have to accept them if the job is within 100 miles of their home, otherwise they can stay in job banks), and other assignments â€œconsistent with the intent of the program.â€

From the Chicago Tribune:

UAW plans to change contract, drop job bank

Dow Jones Newswires

11:31 AM CST, December 3, 2008

Leaders of the United Auto Workers union are close signing off on changes to the 2007 labor contract with Detroit's three auto makers, in a move that would relax job-security provisions and push back the date on when a new healthcare trust becomes active, people familiar with the matter said.

The UAW leadership is holding an emergency meeting in Detroit Wednesday to discuss changes the union can make to help General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC remain viable. The

UAW's willingness to make a new set of concessions is seen as a critical part of Detroit's push to secure a $34 billion bailout from the government.

During its meeting Wednesday morning, UAW brass - including analysts and local leaders from across the U.S. - discussed the changes they need to make.

Two major changes being voted on include scaling back the so-called Jobs Bank that pays near-full compensation to idled workers; and a move to push back the date when a new healthcare trust, known as a VEBA, needs to be funded, people attending the meeting said.

From the Associated Press:

DETROIT (AP) â€” The United Auto Workers said Wednesday it is willing to change its contracts with U.S. automakers and accept delayed payments of billions of dollars to a union-run health care trust to do its part to help the struggling companies secure $34 billion in government loans. United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said the union will suspend the jobs bank, in which laid-off workers are paid up to 95 percent of their salaries while not working, but he did not give specifics or a timetable of when the program will end.

"We're going to sit down and work out the mechanics," Gettelfinger said at a news conference after meeting with local union officials. "We're a little unclear on some of the issues."

Members of Congress criticized the automakers last month for paying workers who are not on the job. About 3,500 auto workers across the three companies are currently in jobs bank programs.

One local union member who was in the meeting said the changes to the jobs bank would nearly eliminate the program. The member asked not to be identified because the details had not been made public.

Gettelfinger stopped short of saying the union would reopen contract talks with General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. but said it would be willing to return to the bargaining table to change some terms. Talks with GM will begin immediately, but additional bargaining officials must be elected for Ford and Chrysler, Gettelfinger said, and any modifications would still have to be ratified by local union members.

GM had been scheduled to pay more than $7.5 billion early next year to the union-administered fund which will take over retiree health care payments on Jan. 1, 2010. Ford owes $6.3 billion to its trust fund at the end of this year. Chrysler figures were unavailable.

UAW vice president representing Chrysler workers, said union members "historically do the right thing" in terms of making concessions during tough times, although the moves outlined Wednesday came to fruition following last month's congressional thrashing.

Looks like everyone is coming to realize that the Job Bank is an institution that simply can't be justified by an auto industry on the verge of collapse ... heck, even the head of the UAW now agrees.

raisin27 · December 7, 2008

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!

Raisin, I can only go by what I see/hear/read. Whether GM "created" the job bank to appease the UAW or whether the UAW demanded the creation of it as payback for layoffs due to plant modernization and "flexible" production schedules is irrelevant at this point. Doesn't matter WHO "created" it, the fact is that it exists (albeit in a smaller scale than previously). And it's one of the negotiating points in the current Big Three bailout request:

From autoblog.com:

Posted Dec 1st 2008 3:01PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Filed under: Hirings/Firings/Layoffs, Chrysler, LLC., Ford, GM, Earnings/Financials, UAW/Unions
As you read this, there are about 3,000 unionized workers -- down from about 15,000 two years ago -- employed by the Detroit 3 getting paid, despite the fact that they aren't working. While it's nice for America's automakers to have access to a talent-pool of available workers, it's also a major financial drain on an industry that's already reeling from a distinct lack of profits. And with new cutbacks and layoffs being announced almost daily, these "job banks" are increasingly tough to justify, even for the UAW. It's always been a bit of a competitive disadvantage, at least on paper, as non-UAW competitors like Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai do not keep such job banks. To ease Detroit's transition from bloated, money-losing corporations to lean "right-sized" competitors, UAW Prez. Ron Gettelfinger has brought up the job banks and their possible elimination. Will this be a part of the overall plan to become competitive that the Detroit 3 bring to Congress? We'll find out soon enough.

[source: Wall Street Journal]

From truthaboutcars.com (Ed Niedermeyer):

Eligible employees can not be laid off because of new technology (robots), sourcing decisions, or company-implimented efficiency actions. There are generally three states of layoff: temporary layoffs where workers know their return date, indefinite layoffs where workers get 48 weeks of unemployment benefits and a supplemental from their employer equal to 100 percent of your salary. After 48 weeks workers are reemployed by the Job Bank, at which time they receive 95 percent of their salary. They donâ€™t get seniority, but they do continue to receive health benefits. While in protected status, employees may be assigned to training programs, certain non-traditional jobs, openings at other UAW locations (they only have to accept them if the job is within 100 miles of their home, otherwise they can stay in job banks), and other assignments â€œconsistent with the intent of the program.â€

From the Chicago Tribune:

UAW plans to change contract, drop job bank

Dow Jones Newswires
11:31 AM CST, December 3, 2008

Leaders of the United Auto Workers union are close signing off on changes to the 2007 labor contract with Detroit's three auto makers, in a move that would relax job-security provisions and push back the date on when a new healthcare trust becomes active, people familiar with the matter said.

The UAW leadership is holding an emergency meeting in Detroit Wednesday to discuss changes the union can make to help General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC remain viable. The

UAW's willingness to make a new set of concessions is seen as a critical part of Detroit's push to secure a $34 billion bailout from the government.

During its meeting Wednesday morning, UAW brass - including analysts and local leaders from across the U.S. - discussed the changes they need to make.

Two major changes being voted on include scaling back the so-called Jobs Bank that pays near-full compensation to idled workers; and a move to push back the date when a new healthcare trust, known as a VEBA, needs to be funded, people attending the meeting said.

From the Associated Press:

DETROIT (AP) â€” The United Auto Workers said Wednesday it is willing to change its contracts with U.S. automakers and accept delayed payments of billions of dollars to a union-run health care trust to do its part to help the struggling companies secure $34 billion in government loans. United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said the union will suspend the jobs bank, in which laid-off workers are paid up to 95 percent of their salaries while not working, but he did not give specifics or a timetable of when the program will end.

"We're going to sit down and work out the mechanics," Gettelfinger said at a news conference after meeting with local union officials. "We're a little unclear on some of the issues."

Members of Congress criticized the automakers last month for paying workers who are not on the job. About 3,500 auto workers across the three companies are currently in jobs bank programs.

One local union member who was in the meeting said the changes to the jobs bank would nearly eliminate the program. The member asked not to be identified because the details had not been made public.

Gettelfinger stopped short of saying the union would reopen contract talks with General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Co. but said it would be willing to return to the bargaining table to change some terms. Talks with GM will begin immediately, but additional bargaining officials must be elected for Ford and Chrysler, Gettelfinger said, and any modifications would still have to be ratified by local union members.

GM had been scheduled to pay more than $7.5 billion early next year to the union-administered fund which will take over retiree health care payments on Jan. 1, 2010. Ford owes $6.3 billion to its trust fund at the end of this year. Chrysler figures were unavailable.
UAW vice president representing Chrysler workers, said union members "historically do the right thing" in terms of making concessions during tough times, although the moves outlined Wednesday came to fruition following last month's congressional thrashing.

Looks like everyone is coming to realize that the Job Bank is an institution that simply can't be justified by an auto industry on the verge of collapse ... heck, even the head of the UAW now agrees.

Harry P. · December 7, 2008

Mike, I won't dispute your facts. You're a union man and I'm not... all I have to go by is what I see/hear/read. And the fact is, there is almost NO information available on the Job Bank program from the "horse's mouth" (either the UAW or the Big Three). I've tried to find some information, but not much luck. Seems like they don't want to make too much information available... gee, I wonder why?

All the information that I can find, while differing on some of the finer points, seems to agree that the Job Bank pays laid-off workers almost full salary, plus benefits, for not working! That part is beyond dispute, I think... and I'm sure that even Ron Gettelfinger now realizes how unrealistic and unsustainable the program is, given the current state of the Big Three. And when the head of the UAW himself agrees that the Job Bank's day may have passed, well, that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

BTW, just to be clear... my criticism of the UAW is not a criticism of the union members. Hell, if I was a UAW member I'd take all the pay and benefits that were coming to me, too! I do NOT blame the workers, or think they're "greedy"... they're just taking what's being given to them. It's not the workers that made the demands, it's the union that did... and the automakers agreed to the demands! The guy on the line has been caught in the middle of this mess, largely through no fault of his own. But I do believe the UAW has been greedy, and that the UAW's demands over the years have been a substantial contributing factor in the automaker's current problems. Like I said, not the cause, but a big part.

wdcav · December 8, 2008

GM had the technology way back in 1982. While the existence of such a vehicle may be shocking to some, what is even more shocking is the existence of other prototypes made by General Motors that met the same demise. These vehicles included the GM Lean Machine (80 MPG) in 1982, along with a number of other fuel efficient vehicles like the GM Aero-X, the GM Aero 2000, and the finally the GM Ultralite (which had achieved 100 miles-per-gallon). While Honda was leading the world with the Civic VX in 1992 (achieving 50 miles-per-gallon) the USA- owned General Motors was producing 100 MPG vehicles behind the scenes, all the while selling 20 MPG vehicles to the public. Boy did they care for the consumers best interest. NOT AT ALL....did they share the profits? only amomg themselves, did they rub hands with the Petroleum industry? Darn right. When the price of gas was low, the biggest sellers were the trucks and the car market was taking a hit. The prices go throught the roof, hundreds of thousands of people whom had bought big vehicles couple years ago were now dumping them and buying small cars... DUH! here's a coinsidence. Now that the car market has been elevated by soring gas prices and the truck market is taking the hit....look at our gas prices now....they are back to where it was 6-7 years ago.

100 miles per gallon is not only obtainable, but it already has been obtained.

One obvious question must be asked. Why are these high gas mileage vehicles not available for sale? Why do companies like General Motors, Honda, Toyota, and Ford continue to sell 30 MPG vehicles when something so much better was made before? The answer to that question is, of course, a complex one. Market analyses, surveys, polls, government regulations, and other red tape held back efficiency. Everything was connected to the Petroleum industry, they did not want to lose thier share....and is stands the same today as we speak.

Everything stills boils down to these Arrogant money hungry Corporate dorks that dont care about a thing other than the money they could put in thier pockets....and now they are begging to keep thier lifestyle....they couldnt care about the cars and/or the consumers and workers...they never have.

I know some may think that its not all the companies faults and I respect that.....but I cant believe that a CEO of a company can get blindsided as bad as these 3 stooges and try to claim they never saw it coming..... you would have to be a complete idiot...and if thats the case...you dont belong at the top.

Absolute rubbish. Nothing but a conspiracy theory. Same general idea as the old myths that Detroit (yet oddly no other country ever seemed to have) invented an engine in the 60's that ran on nothing but water. The real question for the Detroit haters is why then didn't you buy a 100mpg car from beloved Toyota or Honda? Where were the infamously inventive Germans at with their 100mpg cars? Both the Japanese and German home markets would have benefitted more from 100mpg cars then Americans would have because of gas prices. But wait! Toyota, Honda, and GM all offered models that were capable of 40mpg on the highway!

You can throw billions of dollars at any problem and always achieve a moonshot solution. But who can then afford it? We could absolutely build a car right now that was made from carbon fiber and weighed less than a third of a current generation midsize sedan (think Camry, Accord, Malibu, Fusion, Altima, Mazda 6) from any maker. It could have all sorts of green systems on board to help it achieve high mileage figures. But it would bankrupt any company that tried to mass produce it and you certainly couldn't afford to buy it. Telsa Motors can't even make it's 100,000 dollar Telsa Roadster electric car profitable, and they have pretty much borrowed everything but the powertrain from other makers.

Of course the idea that electric cars could have been done in 1982 isn't outlandish for the simple fact that electric cars pre-date the internal combustion engine. But once again, battery technology and electric motor technology in the 80's wouldn't have allowed for cars that Americans could actually live with. You would have to so load down the vehicle with conventional battery systems that it would be inefficient and lack the range American drivers require. It would have cost 20x more at least then the standard auto. And it still comes back to there has to be a demand for the product. Gas was extremely cheap for a very long time. Makers bring product to the market that consumers demand. Look at the current events for proof. When gas was over 4/gal I heard people SCREAMING for GM to get the Volt to market. Now that gas in my town is 1.44/gal I haven't even heard the media or automotive journalists even mutter the word Volt. But it's still in the works, being tested and evaluated right now for it's 2010 release. On the flip side, Toyota is bringing a new generation Prius to market in 2010 that basically uses the same tech available in the current model. It initially will not be anything special. It will not debut with Lithium Ion batteries like the Chevy Volt. It will not debut as a plug-in hybrid like the Chevy Volt (which is essentially an electric car with an onboard charging unit). It will have a LARGER engine because that's what consumers WANTED most when asked about their Prius. But essentially it's more of the same.

Before you hate Detroit, take a look at the entire industry and notice that nobody is doing more then anyone else.

RadRidesByDan · December 8, 2008

Before you hate Detroit, take a look at the entire industry and notice that nobody is doing more then anyone else.

I never said I hated detroit.....but read this and tell me that the executives dont have a lot of balls asking for a handout after giving themselves $30,000,000 of retention bonuses to keep their @$$es safe, where each bonus never mind the salary, most people will never see in a life time. How do you see justice when a CEO says....."Oh ok, next year I'll work for a buck($1 dollar) if you give me the hand out" ....Ide work for free too if I had just handed myself a 1.9 million dollar retention bonus for 2009.

Dont make me laugh.....find me news articles that says the factory workers recieved any kind of retention bonuses that come remotely near what the lowest executive got. GOOD LUCK. I've said it all along....the company's executives got themselves in this mess and the workers are going to pay the ultimate price.

Hers the link for Chrsler