5
   

The UAW Bailout

 
 
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:52 am
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20081116_Bloated_benefits_for_unions_are_sinking_automakers.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2133000/posts?page=8

Near future Envirowhack/demoKKKrat/USgovt car:
http://www.scootercommunity.com.au/forums/storage/84/2210/homer-car.gif

The real question is, how good does anybody feel about taking tax money from people making $20/hour to bail UAW workers making 70?

For that matter, how does Chevrolet go on making thousand dollar donations to scholarship funds (as claimed during college football games) while asking the federal government for bailouts?? They're still doing that as of last night.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 1,750 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:24 am
If the Feds fail to bailout the US auto companies, it will have a devastating ripple effect on all the subservice industries , and ultimately the entire nation.
Secondary question--what industry will support your beloved war machine if the auto companies dont make the tanks and engines. I suppose we could always subcontract that to the IOsraelis or the JApanese.


PS, Bush, in his address before the 20 nation summit, finally used the word recession and then stated that we are heading into a DEPRESSION> Howa that for someone who coulnt even agree with his economic advisors a few weeks ago.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:53 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The real question is, how good does anybody feel about taking tax money from people making $20/hour to bail UAW workers making 70?

We don't like it. But how does anybody feel about allowing the failure of a major US manufacturer which may put the final nail in the coffin of our already tattered economy.

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:10 am
I notice one guy on FR appears to have at least a meaningful partial solution:

Quote:

I am letting my Congress-critter know I will no longer buy autos from any company that receives bailout money.


Other than that, Toyota USA could probably make tanks...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:11 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
If the Feds fail to bailout the US auto companies, it will have a devastating ripple effect on all the subservice industries , and ultimately the entire nation.


Declaring chapter 11 would give them a reasonable shot at fixing their basic problems; a bailout will not.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 11:04 am
@gungasnake,
I'm thinking horse and covered wagon....
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 12:07 pm
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Japanese horses eat less, pull more, and live longer, with fewer calls from the vet.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 01:21 pm
Quote:
Declaring chapter 11 would give them a reasonable shot at fixing their basic problems; a bailout will not.


So, in your way of thinking, it would be better for GM to pass all its years of poor design and bad management onto its debtors? Chapter 11 just allows them to escape paying back their existing debts. A bailout would give them the cash to meet their financial responsibilities. Isee how the conservative mind works. "**** all you others as long as I get mine"
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 01:27 pm
@farmerman,
I believe, farmerman, that there are different types of bankruptcy filings. Chapter 11 (as I recall, but don't quote me) keeps creditors at bay but allows the company to continue operations, often with a new line of credit. Chapter 13 is a complete meltdown.
I am sure someone here could comment on that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 03:29 pm
@realjohnboy,
Having been on the creditor end of bankruptcy, its been my pleasure to have received about anywhere from .01$ per dollar up to 25 Cents on the dollar for amounts owed me. (I dont think that chapt 13 could apply to GM because its assets are way over the accounts limit for chapt 13).
I look at bankruptcy as a scam to avoid paying debts and not an honest way to settle accounts. If GM goes under, then an 11 and 7 filing would be for full liquidation and Id still be in line to press my creditor demands in courts.

In ENgineering and mining services, this is a common occurence (its a boom and bust activity) filing bankruptcy is often a way to give the creditors a major screwing.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 05:27 pm
@farmerman,
I will concede the point, farmerman. This is a not an area I know much about.
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 05:33 pm
@gungasnake,
Giant lose/lose situation. I hope the unions take the brunt of this loss. They've ruined everything in Michigan except the scenery. **** 'em.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 05:36 pm
@realjohnboy,
Then youve had only success in collecting bad debts. I, alas, have a record that is less than perfect. I always seem to take assignments from deadbeat " multi-millionaires" who act like they know what they are talking about and I wind up eating expenses and equip costs as they go chapter 11 , then 7.
I once was offered a 50 Ford "woody" station wagon for partial payment.
What the hell was I gonna do with that? I just waited 3 years for fuller payment. When I got the money it was like Christmas cause we already wrote it off as a "sucker account"
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 06:15 pm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2133229/posts

Quote:
One of the best reasons why Detroit automakers should not receive a bailout can be found in a General Motors "Jobs Bank" program that, bizarrely, pays employees not to work.

A beneficiary of that program was someone named Jerry Mellon, who worked for GM until his division merged with another in 2000 and he was no longer needed. Except for a brief period in 2001, Mellon received his full salary for not working, which reached $64,500 a year by 2006. Include benefits, and the annual cost to GM exceeds $100,000.

To earn his pay, Mellon was given the formidable task of showing up in a windowless shed, sitting at a table, and doing nothing for eight hours a day for six years, according to a profile in the Wall Street Journal. Jobs Bank employees have the option of attending classes teaching such important manufacturing skills as dealing blackjack and poker. Mellon spent part of his time reading Reader's Digest, learning how to play Trivial Pursuit, napping on a makeshift bed of chairs pushed together, or simply staring at the wall for hours at a time.

During those six years, Toyota surpassed GM as the world's largest car manufacturer, thanks to innovations like the fuel-sipping Prius. Nissan developed the GT-R, a technological marvel with a 0 to 60 time of 3.2 seconds and a lower sticker price than the Corvette ZR1. Honda kept its focus on smaller cars such as the Civic and Accord, and saw its sales continue to increase this summer while GM, Ford, and Chrysler have slid.

The United Auto Workers union and Detroit executives concocted the Jobs Bank idea in the early 1980s. Now these same economic whizzes are lobbying for handouts in the form of your tax dollars. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said in a statement last week that the Feds must "provide liquidity to auto manufacturers so they can get through the difficulties caused by an across-the-board decline in auto sales."

Not quite. Detroit's problems aren't caused by a one-time slump. They can't be fixed by another infusion of cash. One cause is that union labor and legacy costs are too high and make the so-called Big Three companies uncompetitive. Another is that their profitability is tied to large, heavy trucks and SUVs that Americans no longer want to buy, at least in such large numbers.

That's just common sense. Unfortunately, such a virtue is in short supply in Washington, D.C., where politicians are scurrying to find excuses for a handout.

President Bush has made plenty of missteps, as I wrote about last week, but at least seems somewhat skeptical this time. Democrats, on the other hand, are eager to loot taxpayers -- and reward unions and domestic automakers which made choices that benefited them handsomely in the short term, at the expense of long term competitiveness.

President-elect Barack Obama apparently agrees, saying at his first news conference that he supports "additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust" and "weather the financial crisis."

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are drafting legislation that would direct a $25 billion torrent of cash from the U.S. Treasury to bank accounts in Detroit; Pelosi said on Tuesday that a vote could happen in a lame-duck session next week. (See a related video from CBS News.)

The better solution is a simple one: Allow automakers to declare bankruptcy.

Contrary to popular belief, that will not mean the end of a company such as GM, which has indicated it may run out of cash by the end of this year. Under Chapter 11, a bankruptcy judge will weigh the different interests of GM's creditors, labor unions, shareholders, and so on, and the resulting company will emerge leaner and stronger. Many current customers of United Airlines, Texaco, Global Crossing, and Pacific Gas and Electric probably don't even know that those companies once filed for Chapter 11.

Chapter 11 also would let a judge alter gold-plated union contracts and benefits that have hamstrung the Big Three and crippled their ability to compete against Japanese and European car makers. Toyota, Honda, and other non-Big Three manufacturers that employ over 100,000 Americans, mostly in right-to-work states, have shown that they can make money building cars in the United States. The best way to keep U.S. auto workers employed in the future -- tens of thousands already have lost their jobs -- is to make it profitable to keep them on the payroll.

One explanation for Washington's haste is that while bankruptcy would alter union contracts, a bailout probably won't. The labor movement spent, according to Financial Week, a whopping $385 million to elect Obama and other Democrats last week. Nobody writes such large checks without expecting something: now it's payback time.

It's true, as bailout proponents argue, that GM employs about 263,000 people. But corporations including AT&T and IBM employ more, and by that line of argument, WalMart (2.1 million full-time employees) would always be far too big to fail. The Feds have already been profligate in doling out cash; a GM bailout would invite a long line of supplicants, with the most politically-connected companies muscling their way to the front of the queue.

If you don't like this use of your tax dollars, now's the time to phone your elected representatives. You can find contact information for your House of Representatives member on their Web site, and the Senate has a similar list. My e-mail address is below -- please let me know what you hear. Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. He previously was Wired's Washington bureau chief and a reporter for Time.com and Time magazine in Washington, D.C. He has taught journalism, public policy, and First Amendment law. He is an occasional programmer, avid analog and digital photographer, and lives in the San Francisco Bay area. His e-mail address is [email protected]
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:43 am
My comments remain. Chapt 11 "allows" a company to "emerge" leaner etc, but its done ON THE BACKS OIF CREDITORS> The dirty little secret is that the creditors take the big slam.The auto companies still get their influx of cash except its done by cancelling and /or rescheduling existing debt(that only seems fair to conservatives because it keeps the Fed govt out of it except for setting up the panel of referees)
The fact is that SOMEBODY gets screwed in a chapt 11 filing and its usually the service and parts businesses that have arisen to serve the main customer, gunga seems to feel that this is fair, but is it fair to the creditors?

In a bailout, the company is on board witn a cash infusion from another creditor(and this just happens to be the taxpayers).

In the last Chrysler "bailout" the company found its footing, turned itself around and wound up paying back the bailout with interest. PS, the alternative to FreeP is Barrons, which , this weekends issue reccomended that a 25 Billion per company be doled out with structure ties and a payback schedule.

When all ya know is what ya read from pundits of the right, then you need to explore the full spectrum of financial options gunga.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 07:14 am
@farmerman,
Not sure if the Chrysler comparison is a fair one to use at this time since the taxpayers are also bailing out Banks and other "poorly managed" companies.

There has to be severe consequences for Labor and Corporate management if they expect the taxpayers to bail them out of their failed custodianship.

Initially, all Senior management must be fired. They can then be considered for re-hire at much lower compensation. Union contracts have to be reviewed and they must be willing to give something back in the form of compensation or benefits. A new "marketing" plan has to be reviewed.

Creditors should be asked to kick in to the bailout with either reduction of debt of interest rates.

The taxpayer bailout must also be in the form of Preferred Stockholders.
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 07:35 am
One further comment about Chrysler. It is owned by a private equity firm, which is a group of rich boys throwing together discretionary funds to buy troubled firms and--the hope is--turning them around by the use of the most barbaric business practices, or selling off the parts. In this way the contributors expect to reap handsome returns. But even these hard-nosed businessmen didn't see the imminent implosion, and have been unable to find either a buyer or merger partner.

IMO, bailing out this troubled company should be a very tough sell to the taxpaying public. I am beginning to believe that bankruptcy is the best of the worst alternatives for the domestic automakers.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 07:51 am
@tycoon,
Any form of bankruptcy would send several hundred other companies, now marginally profitable, into a tailspin.
AND, there wpould be NO chance in hell of being made whole. Bankruptcy merely means that someone has to settle for partial (or no) payment as the debts get rescheduled.

The GOP congress and the Bush administration had legislated for bankruptcy to be difficult or impossible for the little guy. SO its ok to have it available only for industry?
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 08:21 am
@farmerman,
My understanding is that bankruptcy would allow the auto companies to continue operating, thus avoiding the tailspin we all fear.

Someone is going to get hurt, there is no avoiding it. Chief among them in a bankruptcy scenario would be the shareholders. Fair enough. You're right about the suppliers taking a hard hit as well. But what a bankruptcy will hopefully acheive, and why I'm leaning toward it is that it would free the automakers from their current business model.

Or, to be more forthright, it would bust the union. Right now they have the political coverage to attempt to maintain the status quo, to demand Washington come through with a huge cash infusion.

Maybe I am dealing with sour grape syndrome, but my 401K has plummeted along with my hopes of ever retiring. Why, I ask, should I be expected to shelter union employees from the realities of our economic situation. It seems only right that they may have to come out of cushy retirement and join the rest of us in pulling the wagon again.

I think the OP has a legitimate point in descibing this as a UAW bailout.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 08:50 am
@tycoon,
Excellant point about this being a UAW Bailout.

Short text from Pelosi's statement...."Pelosi said the plan would call for "immediate, targeted assistance" and must include several principles, including the restructuring of the companies "to ensure their long-term economic viability," new fuel-efficiency standards, and the development of advanced vehicles.

She said it would include "even stronger limits on executive compensation and assurances to protect the taxpayer." House aides said the legislation was still being developed and a specific funding level had not yet been reached.

Pelosi did not mention any plans for the UAW to make any concessions as part of the legislation. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger told reporters earlier Saturday the problem is not the union's contract with the auto companies."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_go_co/auto_bailout

NOWHERE is there a mention, except for compensation, about replacing management and Board members.

Do we really trust THIS Congress to be able to monitor this bailout? How successful has this Govt been regarding the first 700B bailout which has changed colors twice already?
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The UAW Bailout
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 07:12:25