I've stayed away from this topic since it first appeared here on the forum, but I gotta chime in now.  JR, there aren't many UAW workers left that are making $20 an hour.  I know a lot of people that started working for GM within the past 5 years and they make $12 an hour.  GM's health insurance benefits have been severely cut for new employees; many employees now have to pay a lot of out of pocket deductibles.  Some employees have given up their GM health insurance and have gone under their spouse's health insurance because it was better coverage.

Since I live in MI and MI is the automotive capital, I hate to see the big 3 in this kind of mess.  The potential is there for millions of people to lose their jobs....not just those that are directly employed with GM, Ford, or Chrysler but also all the other small factories that supply parts for the big 3, which will in turn trickle down to all the other jobs that aren't even tied into the auto industry.  A melt down of the auto industry is going to have severe, far reaching consequences. 

My family is worried right now about my dad's pension.  He's been retired for 15 years and will be 70 years old on his next birthday.  I know men and women in their late 70's, early 80's that are GM retirees and and they really need their monthly pension checks.  At the time my dad was hired in the shop, 401K's didn't exist.  By the time they came into existence, it was too late for my dad to invest in it for his retirement due to his having one year left to work before retirement.  401K's are ok if you're just starting out in your 20's, but for people in their 50's you'll never have enough in one to last through a retirement. 

I'm angry with the big 3 for all the jobs they sent overseas when NAFTA came into existence and also for sending so many jobs to Mexico.  Yes, these companies helped create the mess they're now in.......I don't feel sorry for them in this aspect.  But there are many, many people throughout this country that stand to lose their livelihood and their retirement funds through no fault of their own. 

You talk of retraining these workers, you're in favor of using the bailout money for that.  Ok, but once they're retrained, where are they going to get a job?  And if they do, is it going to pay enough for them to support their families and keep them in their homes?   I seriously doubt it.  And what about the older workers that are still left at the big 3?  Where are those people going to get a job?  It's supposed to be illegal for employers to age discriminate, but we all know they do it anyway no matter how they hide it. 

I know for a fact the economy here in MI is worse than it is anywhere else in the country.  We have no jobs here.  Period.  If a job does open, there are literally thousands of people applying for it.....for one job.  Every year we are churning out college graduates and high school graduates that can't find a job to support themselves, let alone support a family.  These "kids" are leaving MI in droves, going to other states trying to find any kind of a job.  This isn't news to people that live in MI because it's been happening here for the last 10 years.

The auto industry is MI's largest employer, and this factors in all the small factories/companies that make parts for the auto industry.  We need these jobs the big 3 provides!  Without them, MI will be a true ghost state. 

The auto industry is asking for a loan.  They say this money will be paid back.  What about all those millions they gave to AIG?  AIG won't be paying any of it back. 

I agree, it's a royal mess, one that shouldn't have happened.  But it did.  I fear and worry about how many more hits MI's economy can take.  My state is flat a$$ broke; we have no money to invest in new technology to bring new jobs into our state.  I worry about the "trickle down" effect, that in all likelihood will happen, on the other jobs in MI that aren't directly tied to the auto industry but will directly feel the effects if the big 3 become history.  As they say, "It ain't gonna be pretty." 

Oh, and actually ALL of the bailout money is supposed to be paid back.

It turned my stomach to hear an auto exec guy say on MSNBC "they're giving $40 billion to AIG, they can give us $25 billion" That is a SCARY attitude.

GM claims they're losing $2 billion a month. How is their share of $25 billion going to do anything more than put off the inevitable.

I understand the fears for all the individuals, but we have to be realistic and decide if the bailout will actually SAVE the companies. If it will, fine, then we'll do it and they'll pay us back. But if it's just putting off the inevitable then what's the point? Another six months before we deal with the pain?

As a taxpayer I'm tired of hearing about bailouts and until they can provide solid evidence the money will be used wisely, jobs will be saved and their future will be more secure (I know there's no guarantees) I say no way.

Unfortunately I do have family and friends that work in the industry, or did but are now retired.  My oldest brother retired out of the Navy a few years ago, came home to MI, couldn't find a job for 2 years.  He's now working for a company that makes the sun visors for GM cars.  He makes $8 an hour, no health benefits, no paid sick days, no paid vacation days.  If it wasn't for his pension he receives from the government, he wouldn't be able to support himself, let alone his 3 kids. Every 3 months he gets laid off from this place.......company says they have no work orders to fill, they'll call him and the other workers when they have more work orders.  This is a horrible way to make a living.....never knowing when you're going to be laid off, let alone when/if you're going to be called back to work. 


I don't know where the figures are coming from that you posted.....$73 an hour per worker.  Back in the 80's this would probably have been in the ballpark, but I seriously doubt it's even close to the gate today.  

Just so you don't think I'm making numbers up, I found a couple websites that discuss the issue.  This is from the Heritage Foundation.

Well I think the automakers themselves are putting the numbers out.

When you look at the above chart, assuming the numbers are accurate, or even close to accurate, how long can any of the big three stay solvent? Not very long I would think.

It's a very scary time. If any one of the three go bankrupt it could bring down the other two.

But they have to show us how they're going to fix the situation that got them here. This isn't solely about the economic downturn.

Now maybe you can tell me what you know about this fact. I've read and heard a dozen times that the UAW contract demands a certain number of man hours per car be spent. A guy from one of the manufacturers said even if they can streamline the production process and become more cost effective it doesn't matter because the UAW mandates every car involve a certain amount of man hours.

I have to admit, I'm biased against unions, I HATE THEM, but all of this stuff is being said on national television and in print by Senators and auto company execs. I can't understand how they could be making it up.

right, of course. They include tax liability on behalf of the company.

No ones saying they make $72 an hour. This is the businesses cost per employee. The employee may only see 1/4'th or 1/5'th of that. Here's a breakdown from another site.



There is a web address at the bottom.  This information comes directly from the Chrystler Media Breifing Book. 

Even here, with base wages of $29, only $18 or $20 of that may show up as Gross income on an employee check, because the company pays a share of the taxes too.

How about this stuff? True?

If it is I'm NOT begrudging these people the great bene's. If I had a chance to get em' I'd sure as hell take em'. But as a business owner this stuff is crushing in a harsh economic environment.

I still blame the companies for ever agreeing to some of this stuff. This is the type of thing that was common 50 years ago, not today.

----

UAW employees also receive the following extraordinary provisions:

* 30-and-Out contracts. UAW employees work under a 30-and-Out contract that allows them to retire with generous pension benefits after 30 years on the job, irrespective of age.

* Seven weeks' vacation. A Chrysler worker with 15 years' tenure was entitled to 34.5 paid holidays and vacation days in 2006--seven weeks in paid time off.[7] This is three weeks more paid vacation than the average private sector worker with similar tenure.

* Paid not to work. Under UAW contracts, workers whom the automakers let go when plants close are not laid off. Instead, after exhausting regular unemployment payments from the automakers and the government, they are transferred to a JOBS bank where they are paid nearly full wages to not work.

It should be interesting to see what they do. I think ultimately they'll give them some financial aid.

I'm glad we talked about it because you forced me to dig a little deeper. Now I've got five different windows open with various reports and stories on the industry. I don't like debating when I don't know where my numbers are coming from.

Jeremy Riggs wrote:

---

How about this stuff? True?

If it is I'm NOT begrudging these people the great bene's. If I had a chance to get em' I'd sure as hell take em'. But as a business owner this stuff is crushing in a harsh economic environment.

I still blame the companies for ever agreeing to some of this stuff. This is the type of thing that was common 50 years ago, not today.

----

UAW employees also receive the following extraordinary provisions:

* 30-and-Out contracts. UAW employees work under a 30-and-Out contract that allows them to retire with generous pension benefits after 30 years on the job, irrespective of age.

* Seven weeks' vacation. A Chrysler worker with 15 years' tenure was entitled to 34.5 paid holidays and vacation days in 2006--seven weeks in paid time off.[7] This is three weeks more paid vacation than the average private sector worker with similar tenure.

* Paid not to work. Under UAW contracts, workers whom the automakers let go when plants close are not laid off. Instead, after exhausting regular unemployment payments from the automakers and the government, they are transferred to a JOBS bank where they are paid nearly full wages to not work.

---

Ok let's see:

The 30 and out rule was in effect when my dad retired.  Not sure if it still exists now.  I'll find out.

My dad got 4 weeks paid vacation after 10 years of service, but it's been a while since he worked, so I don't know what GM gets now.  His paid holidays were: Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Veteran's Day, Martin Luther King's birthday (this was added just before he retired), Fourth of July.......I think that's it, but I'll double check with him. 

The Job Banks are part of receiving unemployment.  You have to sign up in the job bank before you can get unemployment.  They aren't being paid any additional money "not to work."  That statement is false.

 

Jeremy Riggs wrote:

---

Oh and by the way Ghost, what's with the "I stayed away from this topic when it first appeared on the forum" stuff?

Since when do you shy away from a debate? Surely you didn't think I figured we'd AGREE on it did you? I knew you'd be on the other side of the fence from me. That's just how we roll.

---

Yep, that's just how we roll.   

I stayed away because I temporarily lost my mind. 

 

So based on this, it appears that the talking heads are throwing out 2006 figures as current when clearly SOME concessions reduced those figures as of 2007. How much I don't know, but clearly the above changes would over time lower labor costs.

Now based on THIS information, if they can prove that a bailout will bridge the gap between now and when they can be financially viable again, I may not be opposed to the government lending them a helping hand because it's in the interest of the entire country.

Jeremy Riggs wrote:

---

 

Had the UAW made similar concessions in the early 1990s, it might have prevented the Big Three from falling into such dire economic straits. It did not, however, and the new contract is too little, too late to keep the Detroit automakers solvent.

 

---

Had the Big 3 not have outsourced so many jobs, the union would have made more concessions. 

 

Did anyone see where someone in Congress asked the big wigs at the big three automakers if they were willing to sell their private jets and return to their homes via a commerical airline? Then immediately after that when no one offered, he goes on record that no one had volunteered. Although it was typical media sensational that got to me, it is a huge point. They want to save the industry only to a point that it helps them maintain their lifestyles. I think that all three automakers need some shaking up. I hope that we don't help them out without some shift at the top.