Three Stooges going back to D.C.

[Pete J.]

Well, at least we all agree - This is a fine mess! Everyone has a piece of the blame and all of us have our favorite villains. The other Peter made a good point about our politicians but I think it goes back to JFK. He was the first president that had to contend with being a actor. Every president and then senator and congressman finally got the message. Good actors get elected. There is not much emphasis place on leadership ability. That is the stupidity of the American voter. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that this applies in every representative form of government on the planet. Until we start looking at the history of our officials we are doomed to repeat this scenario ad nausium. Now we will get lucky once in a while and get a real leader, but it is unlikely.

As to just giving the big three the money and getting on with it, that is just plain wrong. If we do that, they will continue in the same path because there is no reason to do otherwise. It is time to revamp the auto industry in the US and now is as good a time as any. The next disaster could be terminal. We have people out there that are bright enough to figure this out. We need them now. I hope the new administration can find them much like Kennedy did. Take the best minds form all fields and bring them into the administration and get this right. Not business as usual. I am not hopeful of this but I can wish.

Speaking of Wishes - I wish you all a Merry Christmas. A little early, but heart felt.

[RadRidesByDan]

As to just giving the big three the money and getting on with it, that is just plain wrong. If we do that, they will continue in the same path because there is no reason to do otherwise. It is time to revamp the auto industry in the US and now is as good a time as any. The next disaster could be terminal. We have people out there that are bright enough to figure this out. We need them now. I hope the new administration can find them much like Kennedy did. Take the best minds form all fields and bring them into the administration and get this right. Not business as usual. I am not hopeful of this but I can wish.

Speaking of Wishes - I wish you all a Merry Christmas. A little early, but heart felt.

Thank You. Its time to make and example of these greedy CEO's by turfin them and ADVISE the next ones that would take over to be very careful how they manage the businesses.

[Art Anderson]

Thank You. Its time to make and example of these greedy CEO's by turfin them and ADVISE the next ones that would take over to be very careful how they manage the businesses.

I see some real potential rocks in the road in all of this: Unfortunately, while Congress, the current President, and our next one, are appearing daily to be stuck between a rock and the place where it's hard, as regards salvaging the US domestic auto industry (and the jobs that go with it), even more real, more serious problems could also be the result.

1) This "Car Czar"--now I understand that if the taxpayers are going to have to fund the rescue of the Big Three, then the concept of "He who pays the piper calls the tune", and on balance, I support that. However, if that person winds up with too much power over what gets produced, and by whom, then it's very possible that the really exciting cars (you know, Mustangs, Corvettes and the like) could readily get the ax, even if profitable, if they aren't PC in the Czar's opinion. In addition, there is a provision, requiring GM, Ford and Chrysler to "investigate" building railroad passenger/commuter cars. No, let me get this one straight in my li'l pea-pickin mind: Railroad passenger cars when there is almost NO market for them in the US anymore? Fuel efficient cars: OK, what type, what style, what features, or for that matter, will that mean no larger vehicles for those who wish to buy them? Will Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche and anyone that I have missed, be under the same restrictions?

2) While I hold no case for any of the current crop of CEO's, or for that matter, anyone in the highest level of management who is more bean-counter than a passionate maker of automobiles, I wonder if this deal won't drive away perhaps the best and brightest, from even considering taking such executive jobs as might be offered. I wonder if this isn't a problem with the other two major corporations run by the US Government, Amtrak, and USPS. One of the chronic problems with Renault was that French government and politicians managed always to interfere with the company owned by the French Government, with the result being the absolute ###### cars they used to make.

3) One of the little known problems with many industries is, it can be difficult for some companies to recruit the best and finest for top positions--just as it is in government (Richard Nixon referred to the "media anal exam", which while it affected him deeply, does have some of the same effect in private industry). With the notion arising that the CEO of a company could be beholden to a political appointee for his very job, how many truly entrepreneurial types will even consider the job?

I am reminded of the first man to be openly hired and paid, the salary of $1,000,000 a year. Any guesses who and when? No? Try one Walter Percy Chrysler, who asked for, and got, that very salary from the Board of Directors of Chalmers-Detroit, with the proviso that if he turned that company around, in the early 1920's, he got to keep the job (meaning a return to serious profitability). Chrysler did, Chalmers-Detroit did, the Board did, and the rest is history. Within a couple of years, Walter P had founded Chrysler Corporation. That's what I mean about an entrepreneur. Not some glorified bean counter, which is basically what an MBA degree means, but a true "car guy", driven to produce the best that he could produce, and let the accounting department track the progress to success. When one thinks of it, how LONG has it been since any of the Big Three have had that sort of person at the helm?

Like I said, at this juncture, the legislators and executive branch in Washington are caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place--they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Art

[Pete J.]

I am reminded of the first man to be openly hired and paid, the salary of $1,000,000 a year. Any guesses who and when? No? Try one Walter Percy Chrysler, who asked for, and got, that very salary from the Board of Directors of Chalmers-Detroit, with the proviso that if he turned that company around, in the early 1920's, he got to keep the job (meaning a return to serious profitability). Chrysler did, Chalmers-Detroit did, the Board did, and the rest is history. Within a couple of years, Walter P had founded Chrysler Corporation. That's what I mean about an entrepreneur. Not some glorified bean counter, which is basically what an MBA degree means, but a true "car guy", driven to produce the best that he could produce, and let the accounting department track the progress to success. When one thinks of it, how LONG has it been since any of the Big Three have had that sort of person at the helm?

Like I said, at this juncture, the legislators and executive branch in Washington are caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place--they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Art

My point exactly! WPC had a passion for engineering and cars. I frankly don't think anyone at the highest levels of the big three really gives a hoot about cars, just money.

[gasman]

The Bailout failed in the senate 52-35. The UAW refused too back down and the bailout failed. my guess is that Chrysler is essentially dead. GM not too far behind. Ford will be fine. but there suppliers could be in trouble.

[RyanSilva]

What happens to licenses with revell and other model kit manufactures?

[old-hermit]

Makes me want to pack it up and move somewhere else sometimes...

American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island.

All US protectorates, Keep your citizenship and don't pay federal taxes. United States Insular Areas do have representation ... Guam, Puerto Rico, et al ... all have democratically elected representatives in the United States House of Representatives, as well as their own local governments. Residents of said Insular Areas also receive the same rights and benefits as US citizens within the 50 United States, including the ability to influence U.S. politics by voting in general elections.

[Harry P.]

American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island.

All US protectorates, Keep your citizenship and don't pay federal taxes. United States Insular Areas do have representation ... Guam, Puerto Rico, et al ... all have democratically elected representatives in the United States House of Representatives, as well as their own local governments. Residents of said Insular Areas also receive the same rights and benefits as US citizens within the 50 United States, including the ability to influence U.S. politics by voting in general elections.

Some of those places are just a little too remote for me! I was thinking more like Canada...

BTW... news reports all say that basically the bailout failed because the UAW refused to make any wage/benefits concessions. The feds wanted the UAW to scale back GM's average worker's hourly cost (salary plus benefits), which is now roughly $70 per hour per employee, to match Toyota, whose workers now cost the company roughly $48/hr. The UAW refused, and I guess the feds said, well in that case, you're on your own.

[old-hermit]

Aww c'mon Harry, the Virgin Islands are just south of Florida. Rum, pot, nude beaches, satelite internet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zoom Zoom]

Some of those places are just a little too remote for me! I was thinking more like Canada...

BTW... news reports all say that basically the bailout failed because the UAW refused to make any wage/benefits concessions. The feds wanted the UAW to scale back GM's average worker's hourly cost (salary plus benefits), which is now roughly $70 per hour per employee, to match Toyota, whose workers now cost the company roughly $48/hr. The UAW refused, and I guess the feds said, well in that case, you're on your own.

Honestly I was bugged by that, but when I heard Ghettofinger describing why, I understood...the UAW employees would have been forced to match wages w/the Japanese (Ghettofinger said the Japanese actually make better wages/perks), and the UAW wanted to ensure that the pain was felt equally amongst all employees...that GM management should also agree to the same kinds of pay structure as Toyota management, and also to ensure equal/fair treatment and prices amongst suppliers. That could bite the US mfg's who are always beating up on suppliers, and those suppliers also may have UAW employees. I'm sure Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Nissan all have much better dealings with suppliers.

It's amazingly complex...I don't think we should lose the car manufacturing from US companies, but those companies must restructure to an unheard of level. Think of it this way, they have to basically out-earn Toyota for quite awhile to get back on solid ground. There are generations of buyers not trusting of American car companies. It's a vicious cycle. I'm not sure GM or Chrysler can ever dig out of the massive hole they've dug. Ford has a good chance, and a great slate of new products in the pipeline that will help them be competitive. GM and Chrysler have cut way back on R&D...at the worst time.

[Harry P.]

Aww c'mon Harry, the Virgin Islands are just south of Florida. Rum, pot, nude beaches, satelite internet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, now that you mention the perks...

[Harry P.]

It's amazingly complex...I don't think we should lose the car manufacturing from US companies, but those companies must restructure to an unheard of level.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Seems the UAW isn't ready to make any serious effort to right the ship. They're already weakened and their influence and power is diminished... they obviously don't want to make any wage concessions and be seen as "caving in" to the feds. But the feds are the ones who have the money to give them... you'd think that UAW bigwigs would be a little more willing to play ball. If the Big Three (actually only GM and Chrysler, right now) really need this money to avoid collapse, what does the UAW think will happen to all those union jobs if there's no federal help and the automakers go under???

The UAW's hardline stance makes no sense to me, given the situation.

[Art Anderson]

After following this thread, I have found that some of you folks have put up some really good information about this here. So I have changed my mine about no bailout for them. I believe it is the right thing to do, as it is not most of their fault as to what has happened.

Licensing arrangements are considered assets of the licensor (in this case, Chrysler, Ford and GM), in that they are income producing for them. Licensees (AMT, Revell, Lindberg) carry the licenses they hold as both assets (they are marketable to the model companies) as well as on the liability side of the ledger (Guarrantees plus additional royalties due).

The trademarks, copyrights and trade dress that belong to the Big Three will still belong to them in bankruptcy unless sold through the court-appointed receiver (referee in bankruptcy), at which time they would be owned by whomever bought the particular marque, or brand. The same would be true of any and all patents. In short, none of these things change due to a bankruptcy filing by a manufacturer or other type of business.

Art

[RadRidesByDan]

You (as the UAW) have got to have had the biggest brain fart to reject restructuring thier costs to build to ensure that they can get financial help to save thier careers. But I guess being at the top of the totem pole doesnt nessessarily make you the smartest. I guess you once everything is done and they have no more jobs, we'll have to buy a lot of cheese to go with the whine. Its a bloody shame you have to have people that stupid at the top and too naive to even think tht things are not going to go thier way if they dont make changes and sacrifices to help get the companies back on track.

With the amount of workers that are going to be let go....I wont be surprised to hear in the news one of these days that some one(union rep) gets killed(murdered)

Unbeleivable

Edited December 12, 2008 by RadRidesByDan

[raisin27]

Some of those places are just a little too remote for me! I was thinking more like Canada...

BTW... news reports all say that basically the bailout failed because the UAW refused to make any wage/benefits concessions. The feds wanted the UAW to scale back GM's average worker's hourly cost (salary plus benefits), which is now roughly $70 per hour per employee, to match Toyota, whose workers now cost the company roughly $48/hr. The UAW refused, and I guess the feds said, well in that case, you're on your own.

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 P.]

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.

I only posted what I heard on the news...and according to what I heard on the news, the UAW refused to give on employee costs, so the bailout didn't get the votes. Undoubtedly politics played a part in the vote... after all, politicians are the ones voting!

I agree that if line workers are expected to give back, white collar guys should also agree to the same... it's only fair. My point was this: if the automakers are in trouble to the extent we're all being led to believe and collapse is imminent, doesn't it make sense for both labor and management to make some immediate, drastic changes?

Mike, if anyone here has an "agenda" it would be you. You're a union member! Obviously you have a very biased opinion of all of this, your own self-interest is at stake! If I was in your place I'm sure I'd be supporting the union all the way, too! But I'm trying to see the issue without any bias...I don't work for the car companies, I don't have any friends or relatives who do, I don't personally know anyone who is a UAW member or pensioner... I have no particular ties or interests to either the UAW or the automakers. The UAW and the Big Three have no connection to me whatsoever, other than they want my money to help them stay in business

I'm just looking at things as rationally as I can, and as far as I can tell, the union-related costs that GM and Chrysler have incurred are a huge part of the problem. Like I said before, not the only factor, but a major contributing factor. How can you deny that, or say that it's all management's fault, and the union is an innocent bystander in all this?

Another interesting point to consider (and again, I found these numbers online, checked as many sources as I could find...I can't guarantee the accuracy), but what I found (and I think these numbers would be easy to verify):

In 2007 Toyota sold approx. 9.4 million units worldwide, and on those sales they made a profit of $17 billion.

In 2007 GM also sold approx. 9.4 million units worldwide, and on those sales they had a loss $38 billion.

I'm not an economist or a CPA, and maybe those numbers don't necessarily correlate exactly one to one, it might be a case of apples and oranges, but still... if GM sold as many cars and trucks as Toyota did, yet ended the year with a massive loss, isn't something in GM's operations drastically wrong?

It tells me that the problem GM has isn't so much that they can't sell enough cars, it tells me that something internal is out of whack. And it tells me their current business model is in serious need of revamping. And the union AND management should realize that and work together to avert the coming crisis. It's in the best interest of both of them!

And to your point about taxpayer money going to foreign makers here in the US...that's an issue I haven't been able to make up my mind on. On the one hand, you can see that the foreign plants that operate here do contribute jobs and help boost the economy, but on the other hand, the cars they produce are in direct competition with our own American makers (who can't compete cost-wise due to union/non-union issues), and that doesn't seem right. After all, how many GM, Ford or Chrysler plants are there in Japan? It's an issue I'm torn on...

[RadRidesByDan]

I agree that if line workers are expected to give back, white collar guys should also agree to the same... it's only fair. My point was this: if the automakers are in trouble to the extent we're all being led to believe and collapse is imminent, doesn't it make sense for both labor and management to make some immediate, drastic changes?

.. I have no particular ties or interests to either the UAW or the automakers. The UAW and the Big Three have no connection to me whatsoever, other than they want my money to help them stay in business

I'm just looking at things as rationally as I can, and as far as I can tell, the union-related costs that GM and Chrysler have incurred are a huge part of the problem. Like I said before, not the only factor, but a major contributing factor. How can you deny that, or say that it's all management's fault, and the union is an innocent bystander in all this?

Another interesting point to consider (and again, I found these numbers online, checked as many sources as I could find...I can't guarantee the accuracy), but what I found (and I think these numbers would be easy to verify):

In 2007 Toyota sold approx. 9.4 million units worldwide, and on those sales they made a profit of $17 billion.

In 2007 GM also sold approx. 9.4 million units worldwide, and on those sales they had a loss $38 billion.

I'm not an economist or a CPA, and maybe those numbers don't necessarily correlate exactly one to one, it might be a case of apples and oranges, but still... if GM sold as many cars and trucks as Toyota did, yet ended the year with a massive loss, isn't something in GM's operations drastically wrong?

It tells me that the problem GM has isn't so much that they can't sell enough cars, it tells me that something internal is out of whack. And it tells me their current business model is in serious need of revamping. And the union AND management should realize that and work together to avert the coming crisis. It's in the best interest of both of them!

I am not picking sides but I have to agree based on stats found about the automakes financial status and sales. But when the biggest difference between imports and good old American Iron, is the over all cost of producing the products and incentive and bonuses being thrown around left and right to the executives like it was Christmas year round....ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE THAT FAR IN THE HOLE....you have to wonder where the professional logic is. Then you have the CEO's that offer to work for an annual salary of 1$.....who cares, thier retention bonus alone for 2009 is up in the 1.8 million dollars, and then you have the UAW(which I have read in the news also) that are not willing to compromise, but want the hand out?...it makes me laugh to think that anyone can be that arrogant and think that they are not part of the problem that has put them that far down. There is absolutely no reason why the big 3 or big 2 or what ever you want to call them, why they cant build cars at a cost as effective as other manufacturers. But as long as they(CEO's, executives and UAW) have thier head stuffed up each others full moons thinking everything is going to be fine as long as we hold firm together...then they deserve to go bankrupt.

BUT!!!! if the OWNERS are smart and realise theat the people they hired are not working for the best interest of the companies.....cclose doors for a couple of weeks and then when the companies re-open under new management or name or whatever tickles thier fancy and start fresh.... because I cant see the government sit back and let the industry crash away...... I can see a new generation of businessmen bring the industry back to life at a fraction of the cost, make profits that they are supposed too .......and if that means no more of these present CEO's and executives and UAW....OH WELL. Maybe then Ill serve up the cheese, cause there will be alot of whine

Edited December 13, 2008 by RadRidesByDan

[raisin27]

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?

Edited December 13, 2008 by raisin27

[Harry P.]

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?

I think your anger is misplaced if you're talking to me. You're mixing my comments in with all the others you've read.

1. If you have read anywhere on this forum that union workers get paid 150 grand a year, I guarantee you it wasn't me who wrote that.

2. I also guarantee you it wasn't me who wrote about union workers getting $60/hr to sweep floors.

3. You are a union worker. Obviously you support the union. There's no way you can see this issue in an unbiased way, because you have a direct stake in the outcome! That's what I meant when I said you have an agenda... you obviously back the union, as would be expected. Nothing wrong with that at all, except that you have to realize that by your very status as a union member whose future depends on the outcome of this situation, you can't possibly be unbiased. It's impossible to step outside the situation and weigh the pros and cons when you're directly involved.

4. I also never "complained" that the Big Three pay too much. In all my posts I've never said that I think union workers get paid too much. I never said that UAW workers are overpaid, what I said was that the union's demands, over the years, and the cost per employee per hour, is a huge drag on GM, Ford and Chrysler. That's a fact, regardless of whether or not I personally think the workers are overpaid or not. It costs GM $70 per employee per hour (salary plus benefits). It costs Toyota $48. That's a huge disparity. Something has to change there. Are union auto workers overpaid? Depends on who you are. If you're a union worker, obviously the answer is no. If you work at Walmart, I think you'd get a different opinion. And besides, hourly wages aren't the issue. The issue is the billions GM has to pay their retired workers.

I've never really said this before, but I guess I might as well come clean as to why I am against a government bailout (loan) for the Big Three. Two basic reasons:

1. Our economic system is based on open market capitalism and competition. If a company makes a profit, they continue to operate. If they can't make a profit, for whatever reason... poor product, too much competition, can't sell enough of their product to consumers... then they go out of business, and other companies fill the void. That's how our system works. When the government starts cherry picking certain companies or industries to bail out, it's inherently unfair to all those other companies and industries who DON'T get government help. If the auto industry gets help, why not everyone else? Are the people who work for the auto makers more important, or somehow more worthy of having their jobs saved, than millions of other workers in different industries? Why should the taxpayers be paying money to support a few companies that are obviously mismanaged and inefficient? Nobody wants to see auto workers out on the street... but why do they get their jobs saved by the government... but nobody else does? How about all the people in various industries, like electronics, for instance, who've lost their job to outsourcing? Why don't their employers get any government help? Where did all the workers who used to make TVs here in America go? Where is their bailout?

2. Even more basic than that, this is the part that really burns me when I hear government loans for the automakers: I'm self employed. That means I have the "privilege" of paying both my employee taxes AND my employer taxes, because my employer is me! In essence I get taxed double compared to what an "employee" gets taxed for social security, but I won't get any more benefits. I just have to pay twice as much for mine! And "benefits"? No union for people like me. I have no benefits. No sick days, no paid vacation, no yearly raises, no pension and no medical benefits. I can't afford the insurance! If I get sick and have to go to the hospital, I'm screwed. So I have a really hard time with the concept of a person like me (and millions of others in the same situation) having my income taxed, money that I've earned taken away from me and that money going to save the jobs of people who get paid a lot more than I do, and have all the benefits and perks that I don't get!

So that's why I'm against a government (I mean, TAXPAYER) bailout of ANY private company, automakers or anyone else.

[RadRidesByDan]

I've never really said this before, but I guess I might as well come clean as to why I am against a government bailout (loan) for the Big Three. Two basic reasons:

1. Our economic system is based on open market capitalism and competition. If a company makes a profit, they continue to operate. If they can't make a profit, for whatever reason... poor product, too much competition, can't sell enough of their product to consumers... then they go out of business, and other companies fill the void. That's how our system works. When the government starts cherry picking certain companies or industries to bail out, it's inherently unfair to all those other companies and industries who DON'T get government help. If the auto industry gets help, why not everyone else? Are the people who work for the auto makers more important, or somehow more worthy of having their jobs saved, than millions of other workers in different industries? Why should the taxpayers be paying money to support a few companies that are obviously mismanaged and inefficient? Nobody wants to see auto workers out on the street... but why do they get their jobs saved by the government... but nobody else does? How about all the people in various industries, like electronics, for instance, who've lost their job to outsourcing? Why don't their employers get any government help? Where did all the workers who used to make TVs here in America go? Where is their bailout?

2. Even more basic than that, this is the part that really burns me when I hear government loans for the automakers: I'm self employed. That means I have the "privilege" of paying both my employee taxes AND my employer taxes, because my employer is me! In essence I get taxed double compared to what an "employee" gets taxed for social security, but I won't get any more benefits. I just have to pay twice as much for mine! And "benefits"? No union for people like me. I have no benefits. No sick days, no paid vacation, no yearly raises, no pension and no medical benefits. I can't afford the insurance! If I get sick and have to go to the hospital, I'm screwed. So I have a really hard time with the concept of a person like me (and millions of others in the same situation) having my income taxed, money that I've earned taken away from me and that money going to save the jobs of people who get paid a lot more than I do, and have all the benefits and perks that I don't get!

So that's why I'm against a government (I mean, TAXPAYER) bailout of ANY private company, automakers or anyone else.

WELL SAID HARRYPRI......... I being a newer kid on the block(forum) I was keeping my opinions more politically correct so that I didnt get band form the club

Those are some of the same reasons for how I feel. The companies have dug thier own graves....they can lie in them

Bear

[Harry P.]

WELL SAID HARRYPRI......... I being a newer kid on the block(forum) I was keeping my opinions more politically correct so that I didnt get band form the club

Bear

Yeah, I usually don't get that much into detail about my personal situation, but man, this whole concept of my money going to save the jobs of people who are already much better off than I am really burns me, politically correct or not. Especially when those three clowns flew to Washington in their private jets to ask the government to give them money that the government took from me and all other taxpayers, so that their little world will be saved.

If for some reason I could no longer do what I do and can no longer support myself, you know what's in my bailout package? Nothing.

Either we go with free market capitalism here, or we go with nationalized industries. You can't just pick and choose certain companies to save, while letting others die. It's simply not fair. Either ALL failing companies get government help (socialism), or NO failing companies get government help (free market capitalism).

And hey...if I get banned, at least I had the chance to speak my mind!

[raisin27]

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.

[Harry P.]

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 you are bitter that someone has something you dont have then I am afraid you will always be bitter...

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...

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 didn't say they make 150 grand. Never said it.

I'm not bitter or jealous that some people have more than I do. I could just as well have gotten a job as an auto worker if that's what I had wanted to do... nobody stopped me from doing so. I just don't think the government should be in the business of selectively helping certain industries with taxpayer dollars, but not others. Who decides which people's jobs are worth saving, and which people's jobs are not? Is an autoworker more important than a guy who used to work at a Zenith plant, back when the US actually made TVs? I don't recall any of the domestic electronics companies receiving any federal aid... their industry was all shipped overseas and their US plants left to die.

Helping foreign car builders? I said I wasn't sure about that one. And there's a BIG difference between a company that's successful and productive and thriving being given "incentives" to locate a plant here in the US and create US jobs vs. giving a poorly run, mismanaged, inefficient company money to keep on doing what they're doing without demanding massive changes from that company. Giving the Big Three money without strings attached is the equivalent of throwing money down a sewer. So you can see, the "help" given to Toyota and Honda isn't the same sort of "help" the Big Three want. Totally different situation and circumstances.

Looking out for your own interests? Of course you are! We all are, myself included. I don't want my money being given to a company that I have no connection to. Only saints act without thinking of their own best interests. Suppose a deal was struck to save the US auto makers, but the catch was they had to hire an entirely new, non-union workforce in order to lower their costs. The car industry would be saved (best for the country, right?) but people like you would be out of a job (not so good for Michael Garrett!). Would you support that plan?

To your last point: I agree, we'll have to wait and see how this all comes out. But nowhere is it written that the US auto industry must necessarily consist of three companies, GM, Ford and Chrysler. It wasn't always that way, and it doesn't need to be that way in the future. I say let the free market do its thing. If the Big Three fail, you can bet that other, new auto companies will emerge to fill the void and the demand for cars here in the US. There is nothing magical or mystical about the Big Three, and nothing about them that is inherently worth saving. They're just the 3 companies that happen to be building cars right now. There used to be many others, there can be many others in the future. If the Big Three disappear, other ones will eventually replace them (along with new jobs).

The real shame of this situation is that no matter what happens, somebody somewhere gets screwed.

[Modelmartin]

Interesting discussion going on here! I want to throw a few things into the mix here.

I have heard from a few sources that labor accounts for about 10% of the cost of a car. How can wages and benefits be such a crucial factor in the automakers survival in that case? 10% price difference won't influence me when deciding to purchase a car from one manufacturer or another and the actual difference between US and Foreign makers would be less than that 10%. Also, Foreign cars assembled overseas have higher transportation costs!

I focus on the car and its styling, comfort, performance, reliability, durability, cost to repair and maintain. In other words - product! Several people in this thread have said that some of us bash American cars and love foreign cars for unexplained reasons. The reason is we don't like the product from Detroit! They make a few decent cars but I am generally unimpressed with most offerings from them. Lately I drive Mazdas but have had Toyotas, SAABs and VWs. I was a diehard Chevy guy in my youth. My first car was a 63 Buick Riviera . I have sampled driving a few newer American cars as rentals over the years and they have left me disappointed .

American car companies also are offered big concessions for locating new plants and even for not closing old ones! Remember when GM was deciding where to locate the Saturn plant? Even Minnesota offered up hundreds of millions in tax breaks! Where did they locate? Tennessee. Gee! Lower wage, younger labor, anti-union, south! Our Pols are now trying to get Ford to not close the Ranger pick-up plant in St. Paul. It seems that argument cuts both ways. Naught!

My personal opinion is that Chrysler should go away. They are adrift with a crazy product line and being run by money people. GM needs to get its act together pronto to survive. If the Volt fails to work or sell, they are toast! Ford looks good and has the best domestic product line at the moment.

My attitude is that people need cars and someone will provide them and that someone will need people to make them, sell them, and service them. May the best manufacturer win!

I agree with Harry about private business succeding or failing on their own. I didn't get a bailout for Aardvark Models! One thing to remember, Harry, as you contemplate fleeing all of the craziness here, is that no matter where you go -there you are!!

Andy martin

[Harry P.]

Interesting discussion going on here! I want to throw a few things into the mix here.

I have heard from a few sources that labor accounts for about 10% of the cost of a car. How can wages and benefits be such a crucial factor in the automakers survival in that case? 10% price difference won't influence me when deciding to purchase a car from one manufacturer or another and the actual difference between US and Foreign makers would be less than that 10%. Also, Foreign cars assembled overseas have higher transportation costs!

One thing to remember, Harry, as you contemplate fleeing all of the craziness here, is that no matter where you go -there you are!!

Andy martin

Depends on who's numbers you want to believe. I have seen figures that state the cost per car to GM to cover wages and benefits-remember, there's more to labor cost than just the hourly salary-is in the neighborhood of $1500, whereas Toyota's costs per car are a couple hundred bucks. So going by that statistic, GM has a built in $1000 penalty per car that it has to deal with.

I've also seem many references to the cost of labor (again, wages and benefits-the total cost-has to be considered!) showing GM's cost per employee per hour at roughly $70, vs. Toyota at roughly $48. That's a huge disparity, and GM is on the short end of the stick. Something has to change there in order for GM to be able to compete with Toyota.

That's not to say that the average GM worker makes 70 bucks an hour... many of those costs to GM are the cost of benefits and pensions to the workers... but still, in the end it costs GM $70 per worker per hour, bottom line.

Now I know that you can argue the specific numbers back and forth, but no matter which side of the argument you're on, it's obvious that GM's cost for labor per car is a lot higher than Toyota's. Tough to be competitive when you have a built-in disadvantage right off the bat!

As far as fleeing the craziness... I'm starting to think there's no place to go! Maybe Sweden... my rule of thumb is, the less you hear about a country in the news, the better that country is probably run. But I don't know about those long cold winters there...