Retooling GM

John Brown wrote: According to "Chris" who works on the CTS line, the button is still there, it pauses the line and pages the area supervisor who has the authority to completely stop production. Seems plausible.

Now that makes sense.

I'm pretty sure someone needs to get caught in the machinery, but I'm not positive. It's been a while since I've seen Gung Ho.

Snowdoggie wrote:

Moparman wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: How about paying them according to the jobs they create. Or better yet, not paying them at all if they don't create any jobs. Why do they need money to lay people off?

Because they need to both reduce workforces AND need more capital.

Somehow I don't think that is the taxpayer's problem. If we had a true capitalist system, these guys should go broke and the plants should be sold to somebody who is a little bit better at managing their 'capital'.

I agree. It is not like the demand could not be filled by other companies who would need to hire workers to meet the demand. However, they would not have to hire as many workers as what were laid-off by the Detroit-Three and wouldn't be oaid UAW wages, but so be it.

Moparman wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Moparman wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: How about paying them according to the jobs they create. Or better yet, not paying them at all if they don't create any jobs. Why do they need money to lay people off?

Because they need to both reduce workforces AND need more capital.

Somehow I don't think that is the taxpayer's problem. If we had a true capitalist system, these guys should go broke and the plants should be sold to somebody who is a little bit better at managing their 'capital'.

I agree. It is not like the demand could not be filled by other companies who would need to hire workers to meet the demand. However, they would not have to hire as many workers as what were laid-off by the Detroit-Three and wouldn't be oaid UAW wages, but so be it.

The UAW is already screwed. Any bailout is going to include wage and benefit cuts. The thing that bothers me now is that the bigwigs are going to re-capitalize with taxpayer money then have more massive layoffs, just like the banks are going to recapitalize and just sit on their money and not make any loans. The guys who created the problem will all get bailed out, but the money will run out just before unemployment benefits need to get extended and it will be like "Oops, we are out of money now. No unemployment. No more health care. Go starve in the street while the 'investor class' lives off of the 'government welfare'."

The UAW is already screwed. Any bailout is going to include wage and benefit cuts. The thing that bothers me now is that the bigwigs are going to re-capitalize with taxpayer money then have more massive layoffs, just like the banks are going to recapitalize and just sit on their money and not make any loans. The guys who created the problem will all get bailed out, but the money will run out just before unemployment benefits need to get extended and it will be like "Oops, we are out of money now. No unemployment. No more health care. Go starve in the street while the 'investor class' lives off of the 'government welfare'."

I work for a very large, TARP-injected bank. I am in no wat defending it, in fact, I may get fired if my dysfunctional management discovers that I was recommending that clients move to safer investments two years ago and that derivatives (of any kind) are not appropriate for Mom and Pop.

I don't mean to hi-jack this thread to I will be brief and leave a link to my blog.

The banks are using TARP money to stay alive. There are a couple of large banks which would be dead if not for TARP. Bank lending is down, but most people do not understand why.

80% of mortgages are financed by securitizing mortgages in private label mortgage-backed securities. That market is dead as investors do not wish to risk what is left of their money investing in mortgages with no GSE backing.

This is why forcing the banks to forgive partial mortgage balances will be of limited help. In most cases it is investors who actually own mortgages via bonds. Banks are powerless to do anything.

Go to: www.mksense.blogspot.com

Wally wrote:

JoshC wrote: No offense, but I've worked around Unions in a couple of different places and not experienced what you're talking about. Through my job, I have visited a number of Union shops. In each instance, I have been confronted with the stereotype that I think many attribute to Unions, generally lazy workers with an entitlement attitude. Once was in San Francisco where we visited an airline maintenance shop. I don't think I saw anyone do anything that could remotely be described as work the entire 2 days that we were there, but I did see a lot of newspaper reading, card playing and other non work activities. Another happened at a smaller shop and wasn't quite as egregious, but disturbing none-the-less. I was in their facility to do some testing with highly specialized equipment that was borrowed from a sister company and virtually priceless. I couldn't physically carry everything myself, so I asked the resident engineer I was working with to carry some of my stuff. He was hesitant and I asked why. He said that if he carried anything more than a notepad across the shop floor, a "material handler" would file a grievance with the Union because he was taking work away from them. Being somewhat naive about Union shops, I told him to tell whomever that I insisted that he carry my specialized equipment because I honestly didn't want just anyone's hands on it, since 6 months of my work were culminating in this test and I didn't want it compromised by some "material handler". Just as he suspected, a grievance was filed, he was written up and the "material handler" got 4 hours of compensation out of it. After what I've seen, I truly wonder sometimes how any Union shop in a manufacturing environment can be profitable.

I want my union dues back, as clearly they are worthless. I've belonged to three unions and never had a job where this goes on. There are some things that I can't do at my job because they belong to another person in another union, but I rarely see someone sitting around waiting for someone else so they can do their job except in the shops where they occasionally need to wait for a helper for heavy lifting and such. I need to find out how to get my union replaced. Hopefully by either the UAW of the Major League Players Association. If I show up one or more minutes late for work I can turn around and go home, and we don't even get coffee breaks. I'm clearly being taken advantage of.

I feel the same.. the only time we have to wait to work deals with the teamsters unloading the trucks (and they work) and the electricians plugging into the main power (and they work too)

So far I have not experienced the kind of laziness you have. Now I see why your views are so negative towards unions.

Didn't Warren Buffet once say to never NEVER invest in anything you don't understand?

Obviously, Unions had their place in days of child labor and unsafe working conditions. Now that the Fed has implemented laws and guidelines that protect workers from these conditions, I no longer think collective bargaining is needed in the workplace. Don't even get me started on the card check bill. I'm just glad that SC is a right to work state.

Right to work is a good thing, as is the right to organize. It should be up to the worker. When either management or labor have too much power, it is a bad thing. A partnership works best, but greed and the hunger for power corrupts both sides.

As a small business owner I can tell you if my company ever tried to unionize, I would lock the door and go out of business. There is no way I would ever put up with a bunch of shop workers calling the shots. I pay a good wage to my employees and if they don't do whatever I tell them they would be fired. That includes my son who works for me. If I was GM I would be headed to bankruptcy just to get the chance to dump the unions. I don't even blame them for building cars in Mexico and Canada.

Toyman01 wrote: As a small business owner I can tell you if my company ever tried to unionize, I would lock the door and go out of business. There is no way I would ever put up with a bunch of shop workers calling the shots. I pay a good wage to my employees and if they don't do whatever I tell them they would be fired. That includes my son who works for me. If I was GM I would be headed to bankruptcy just to get the chance to dump the unions. I don't even blame them for building cars in Mexico and Canada.

+2546254

It sometimes comes down to a balancing act; in order to keep good employees the business owner has to be ready to make allowances. For instance, if my daughter is sick or has something going on at school etc damn right I'll take time off for that.

BUT!

The employee has to be willing to bend too. When it's time for me to work a Saturday (which I detest) I do so even if it interferes with my race schedule.

It comes down to keeping the doors open, sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Jensenman wrote: It sometimes comes down to a balancing act; in order to keep good employees the business owner has to be ready to make allowances.

Agreed. The problem comes in when the employees and the company have an adversarial (sp) relationship. GM comes to mind. The company is going down the tubes but nobody wants to back off their peice of the pie. When the pie is getting smaller, everyone has to get a smaller peice. The unions don't care. They seem to think that a sinking ship should keep them dry even though they don't want to help bail. They want to shair in the profits during the good time, but not share in the pain during the bad. That is why I don't like the unions. If GM hadn't been paying them the rediculous wages, the job bank, and better health ins than you and I will ever afford, GM might have had some money in the bank rather than 100+ million in debts. I hope GM and the union both go down in flames. Then someone like Toyota will probably buy them out, pay the workers what they are worth, and show them how to build a car right for a profit.

Toyman01 wrote: Agreed. The problem comes in when the employees and the company have an adversarial (sp) relationship. GM comes to mind. The company is going down the tubes but nobody wants to back off their peice of the pie. When the pie is getting smaller, everyone has to get a smaller peice. The unions don't care. They seem to think that a sinking ship should keep them dry even though they don't want to help bail. They want to shair in the profits during the good time, but not share in the pain during the bad.

Unions and companies having an adversarial relationship is never positive.

But what you wrote above could be said about the management as well. It's not often you hear of CEO's taking a pay cut until recently. I've heard union guys say "The management wants us to have worse insurance while they still get their million dollar bonuses!" Whether it's really true or not I don't know. There seems to be mistrust on both sides of that negotiating table.

I have heard that Ford gets along with the UAW pretty well. Check out who's surviving the current crisis. Coincidence? I doubt it.

You can bet your bottom dollar that not only are the unions not planning to back off of their demands but the poobahs who are trumpeting their 'dollar a year' salaries have quietly set up a deferred compensation plan of some sort.

Jensenman wrote: You can bet your bottom dollar that not only are the unions not planning to back off of their demands but the poobahs who are trumpeting their 'dollar a year' salaries have quietly set up a deferred compensation plan of some sort.

As much as I hate to say you're probably right, at least to some degree. Which is most of the problem. One guy won't back off because he's sure the other one has already put The Fix in. Damned shame. That might be the undoing of the company.

I guess the only people getting screwed then are the real owners. The guy who bought the stock for his retirement. GM is down over 90% for the last year. I'm glad I cashed out of all of them four years ago to invest in my self. That way when I crash the only person I can blame is myself.

Kind of makes you sick though.

Didn't GM pretty much put all their pension money in their own stock?

That would be one way to artificially inflate the stock price to ensure your stock options were worth more. Of course you wouldn't care unless your salary was tied to the stock price would you Mr Wagoneer?

Another interesting Union saga is that of the Boeing Machinists' Union. Not the most recent time they went on strike (I think earlier this year), but a few years ago when the went on strike I remember reading a feature article in Aviation Weekly with the head of the Union. I don't recall the exact quote, but paraphrasing went something like this: "We will bring this company to its knees and ultimately close it down before we allow one person to lose their job or grant any concessions." Now keep in mind that this wasn't during an economic downturn and no one was asking for concessions. The Union simply wasn't willing to take the 10+% pay increase, plus benefit increases, so they'd rather bankrupt the company. Someone please explain how 5,000+ workers in the Seattle area out of work and looking for a job would be better than one worker looking for a job? In their most recent strike, they turned down IIRC 13% pay increases and additional benefits that when totaled averaged an increase of $31k (wages and other benefits like healthcare, retirement,etc.) per worker. Turned it down? Seemed like a pretty sweet offer at the time and I don't recall hearing what they ultimately settled on.