Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

UAW vs non-UAW

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
George Orwell - 23 May 2007 13:00 GMT
Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007

..With the collapse of the DaimlerChrysler experiment, it might be
useful to stop referring to "domestic" and "foreign" auto makers. The
important distinction is between auto makers bound by UAW contracts and
those that aren't.

Chrysler's labor costs are $30 an hour higher than Toyota's, headed for
a gap of $45 by 2009. Chrysler pays the same wage to UAW janitors and
skilled craftsmen. It carries idle workers on its books when no jobs
are available. Most of all, it's on the hook for the untrammeled health-
care spending of 134,000 unionized workers, retirees and dependents --
an $18 billion liability that Toyota, Honda and Nissan don't face. This
alone adds a cost of $1,500 per car.

How it got this way is no longer interesting -- the tired debate over
which stick figure, "labor" or "management," is responsible for
Detroit's uncompetitive labor deals. Both operated under the incentives
of the Wagner Act, the 1935 labor law that entrenched the UAW as the
monopoly labor supplier to the Big Three.

Detroit draws on the same talent pool as the rest of global industry,
and must pay a competitive wage. Its executives are no more overpaid or
incompetent than anybody else's. Nor is it necessary to rub its face in
the superiority of the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. No car company
could humanly hope to compete in the basic sedan segment with a
deadweight cost disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit
would be foolish to try...
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute - 23 May 2007 15:30 GMT
> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> deadweight cost disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit
> would be foolish to try...

Should be fun to watch usenet's union baboons attempt to grunt rebuttals to
this...
David Starr - 23 May 2007 23:24 GMT
>> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007
>
>> Chrysler's labor costs are $30 an hour higher than Toyota's, headed for
>> a gap of $45 by 2009. Chrysler pays the same wage to UAW janitors and
>> skilled craftsmen. ]
BULLSHIT!  Janitors do NOT make the same as a skilled craftsman!

>It carries idle workers on its books when no jobs
>> are available. Most of all, it's on the hook for the untrammeled health-
>> care spending of 134,000 unionized workers, retirees and dependents --
>> an $18 billion liability that Toyota, Honda and Nissan don't face. This
>> alone adds a cost of $1,500 per car.

The Japs don't pay health care?  What do they do when a worker is injured or
sick?  Tell them tough sh.t, hit the street?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
duszkiew@apk.net - 23 May 2007 15:56 GMT
On May 23, 8:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007

> Chrysler's labor costs are $30 an hour higher than Toyota's, headed for
> a gap of $45 by 2009. Chrysler pays the same wage to UAW janitors and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> an $18 billion liability that Toyota, Honda and Nissan don't face. This
> alone adds a cost of $1,500 per car.

Here's what America needs to do ASAP:

1) ban the unions;

2) socialize health care

Thing is that BOTH issues cannot be put on  an agenda of  any ruling
"party" ( i.e. neither democrats nor republicans). So, sorry guys but
you are facing a tough choice: either pay that extra $ 1 ,500 and buy
a domestic car  OR buy Japanese...........hehe
DJ - 23 May 2007 16:39 GMT
> Here's what America needs to do ASAP:
>
> 1) ban the unions;
>
> 2) socialize health care

NO NO NO!!!  Government run health care means mediocore to poor health
care for everyone.  If you want costs for QUALITY health care to go
down, you need to (1) stop requiring health care providers to GIVE
services away to those who can't pay for it, and (2) start having
consumers pay for services directly to encourage "shopping around" for a
better price.
Ted Mittelstaedt - 24 May 2007 08:59 GMT
> > Here's what America needs to do ASAP:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> down, you need to (1) stop requiring health care providers to GIVE
> services away to those who can't pay for it,

Impossible, unless that is you are OK with poor people regularly dying
as a result of inadequate or nonexistent health care.

Fortunately, in the US we still care enough about our own specie to be
worried about it when one of our own suffers at the hands of incompetent
doctors.

> and (2) start having
> consumers pay for services directly to encourage "shopping around" for a
> better price.

Yes, that is fundamentally how you do it.  The big problem though is that
you
do not get enough savings from the services that people shop around for
to make that worth while.

For instance, these days when a person goes in for a yearly physical there
is
always a battery of tests the doctor wants them to take.  Now, the truth is
that the person could call in advance, get a list of the tests, then shop
them
around, and have them done BEFORE the physical, and just bring the results
with them in to the doctors appointment.  Most people don't know they can
do this, but they can.

The problem is that the savings realized on this are very small - perhaps a
few hundred dollars a year.

However if the person breaks their leg while skiing, they aren't going to
have
much of a chance to shop around for care.  Even though, if they could do
this
in theory, the savings realizable could be in the tens of thousands of
dollars.

If you really want to lower health care costs, you need to be able to setup
a system where a consumer could shop around the really high dollar expenses.
The nickle and dime expenses aren't what is driving up health care costs,
it's
the hundred thousand dollar expenses, and most of the time, it's unfeasable
to shop those around.

Ted
CCC - 23 May 2007 20:40 GMT
I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
I have always though management structure was a bigger problem than the
unions.

CCC

> On May 23, 8:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
> Header@[127.1]> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> you are facing a tough choice: either pay that extra $ 1 ,500 and buy
> a domestic car  OR buy Japanese...........hehe
duszkiew@apk.net - 23 May 2007 20:56 GMT
> I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
> a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers  will perform
different  building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe
DeserTBoB - 24 May 2007 16:07 GMT
>Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers  will perform
>different  building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>

It's the MANAGEMENT, stupid.
Fred - 28 May 2007 19:14 GMT
> >Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers  will perform
> >different  building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>
>
> It's the MANAGEMENT, stupid.

It's the health care costs.  And union contracts that pay the same wage to
janitors and skilled workers is dumb.

"Detroit draws on the same talent pool as the rest of global industry, and
must pay a competitive wage. Its executives are no more overpaid or
incompetent than anybody else's. Nor is it necessary to rub its face in
the superiority of the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. No car company could
humanly hope to compete in the basic sedan segment with a deadweight cost
disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit would be foolish to
try."  - Excerpt from Same Article
who - 28 May 2007 19:38 GMT
> > >Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers  will perform
> > >different  building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit would be foolish to
> try."  - Excerpt from Same Article

Management are responsible for the agreements causing high costs.
Joe - 29 May 2007 02:20 GMT
>> > >Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers  will perform
>> > >different  building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> to
>> janitors and skilled workers is dumb.

You need to remember here that the reason legacy costs hurt is that there's
shrinkage instead of growth.  If the company grows today, then the amount of
retiree cost per car is smaller today.  If the company shrinks, then the
cost goes up, and the company has more and more difficulty competing.  In
Ford's case, the shrinkage is getting to be pretty painful.  Even if the Big
3 stayed the same size, Toyota's growth still helps Toyota work at an
advantage.
DeserTBoB - 24 May 2007 16:06 GMT
>I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
>a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
>I have always though management structure was a bigger problem than the
>unions. <snip>

The problem has always been bad management.  Study after study has
found that labor isn't the problem, despite what all the right-handed
wing nuts on Usenet say.  The Toyota-GM Fremont, CA plant was
successful with UAW labor having the same contract as the other
plants, but GM's faulty management structure and processes were
banned.  Toyota simply refuses to stop fighting the UAW in other US
plants because they've learned from US corporate a.sholes how to be
greedy.  Since US labor laws are the weakest among all industrialized
nations, they simply take advantage of that fact.

The case that proves this is the GM Van Nuys, CA plant, now bulldozed
and a shopping center.  GM management there was among the worst, and
labor responded accordingly.  The place was a friggin' disaster for
decades.  Rather than take Fremont as a model and further cede their
failed management practices, GM simply closed and bulldozed the plant.

Case closed.  Right wing nuts defeated once again.
kmath50@gmail.com - 24 May 2007 18:09 GMT
> >I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
> >a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Case closed.  Right wing nuts defeated once again.

That's sad to hear. I had a childhood friend who's father worked at
the Van Nuys plant. I also had a 1964 Chevelle Wagon that had been
assembled there.

-KM
DeserTBoB - 25 May 2007 02:45 GMT
>That's sad to hear. I had a childhood friend who's father worked at
>the Van Nuys plant. I also had a 1964 Chevelle Wagon that had been
>assembled there. <snip>

Van Nuys was built in 1946 as part of Al Sloan's "replace transit with
cars" campaign, in which GM gobbled up and shut down transit
operations, notably electric streetcar operations, all over the US and
Canada.  At the time, GM was already getting the Key System in the Bay
Area disassembled and replaced with GM Coaches, and had their sights
on Pacific Electric in LA, and the Fremont and Van Nuys plants were
supposed to sell Chevies to all those who formerly rode street cars in
those areas.

Originally, Van Nuys was dedicated to Chevrolet production only, as
the huge neon "bow tie" sign on top of the assembly building
proclaimed.  Higher end cars, such as the Pontiacs, Buicks and
Oldsmobiles, were built at the nearby South Gate plant on a rotating
basis....one week Oldses, one week Buicks, etc.  Cadillacs still only
came from Lansing at that time.  Later, during the "Roger Rabbit" era,
the Van Nuys plant was folded into GM Canada's operations, and made
only Camaros and Firebirds starting with the "new" '79 year model.
Just before that, Van Nuys was the assembly plant for Chevy's best
seller in California, the Malibus, including the SS variants.

GM lower and middle management at Van Nuys and South Gate were some of
the worst, most incompetent anywhere in the corporation, and UAW
simply reacted as they should to protect their membership.  After many
tries at getting GM to save Van Nuys (South Gate was gone by the '70s)
by offering "collaborative" work rule deals, GM simply hosed it all
off and bulldozed the plant rather than concede any power.  The real
shame was that the plant, a state-of-the-art facility in '46, was
built to an "open" floor plan and could have assembled any number of
vehicle types.  GM simply strung the UAW along until it was ready for
the unsuccessful "new" Cramaro/Fireturd series to be built in
Youngstown using Buick V6s on a much-belated new platform.  The F car
platform that GM was cranking out until the end of the '92 run had
been around, essentially unchanged, since 1979!

The local economy after the GM closure, which nearly coincided with
the Lockheed plant closings in nearby Burbank, was decimated, as tens
of thousands of well paying jobs evaporated overnight, causing a
record tanking of the real estate market around both plants.  The San
Fernando Valley has never recovered from the loss, and all those lower
budget houses and apartments that formerly housed UAW and IAM plant
workers and their families are now chock full of illegal aliens.

Thanks, GM.  Hope you go bankrupt.
Fred - 28 May 2007 19:20 GMT
> Thanks, GM.  Hope you go bankrupt.

I'm sure GM's current UAW employees appreciate your sentiment.  Screw 'em
all, right brother?
David Starr - 23 May 2007 23:27 GMT
>On May 23, 8:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
>Header@[127.1]> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>1) ban the unions;
1a) Accept sweat shop wages and working conditions for ALL workers in the
country.

>2) socialize health care

2a) Accept tax rates of 50% or higher to pay for socialized programs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DeserTBoB - 24 May 2007 16:11 GMT
Notice that this chickenshit posts behind an anonymizer.  I suspect a
shill from the K St. gang.
Fred - 28 May 2007 19:13 GMT
> Notice that this chickenshit posts behind an anonymizer.  I suspect a
> shill from the K St. gang.

Huh?  The words weren't from the poster, it was an excerpt from a
newspaper article.
kmath50@gmail.com - 24 May 2007 17:48 GMT
On May 23, 6:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> deadweight cost disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit
> would be foolish to try...

Pretty much what I expected. Many American companies no longer provide
any health care for their retirees. This requires more to work until
65, so they can get on Medicare. Yes, there is Cobra, but most don't
have the $1000 or more a month to pay, and it is only good for 18
months.

-KM
DeserTBoB - 25 May 2007 02:49 GMT
>Pretty much what I expected. Many American companies no longer provide
>any health care for their retirees.<snip>

...unless the employee retired under a contract demanding it.
Currenlty, many unionized (and recent union buster) companies which
have reneged on their pension obligations under ERISA are being hauled
into Federal courts for ERISA violations.  With Bush Bird on the
skids, buried alive in his foolish "war for oil" backfire,  and
Congress belonging to the opposite team, this may turn out to be a
losing proposition for the corporate creeps.
Fred - 28 May 2007 19:16 GMT
>  "war for oil"

Go back to sleep.

> Congress belonging to the opposite team, this may turn out to be a
> losing proposition for the corporate creeps.

When the UAW contract is up in a few months, Cerebus could always start
liquidating if the union demands more of the same losing proposition.
Tegger - 25 May 2007 03:01 GMT
> How it got this way is no longer interesting -- the tired debate over
> which stick figure, "labor" or "management," is responsible for
> Detroit's uncompetitive labor deals.

How it got this way is _highly_ interesting, if one studies the case of
Caterpillar.

In the '80s Caterpillar's union was looking for the same sort of
baksheesh the automakers' unions got, and went on strike. Cat stared them
down and said "NO". The strike was long and difficult, but Cat won.

Today, Caterpillar is the antithesis of the automakers, competing very
handily against foreign competitors, even at home.

Signature

Tegger

Edwin Pawlowski - 25 May 2007 03:39 GMT
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message

> In the '80s Caterpillar's union was looking for the same sort of
> baksheesh the automakers' unions got, and went on strike. Cat stared them
> down and said "NO". The strike was long and difficult, but Cat won.
>
> Today, Caterpillar is the antithesis of the automakers, competing very
> handily against foreign competitors, even at home.

Back then, the union thought the only competition was with Int. Harvester in
the US.  They did not want to know that Kubota, Mitsubishi, and a bunch of
others were kicking their a.s all over the world.
DeserTBoB - 28 May 2007 02:48 GMT
>Back then, the union thought the only competition was with Int. Harvester in
>the US.  They did not want to know that Kubota, Mitsubishi, and a bunch of
>others were kicking their a.s all over the world. <snip>

In whose dreams?  Koobies and Mitsies are trash.  Post-strike Cats
aren't much better.  The way they compete against jap trash is to
engineer every nickel out of everything they make.  Look at a D-series
big bore versis the cheesy 3500 and 3600s made today.  No comparison;
the later engines were designed to eliminate ANY assembly operations
they could and still throw the piece of sh.t together.  The old
D-series engines were labor intensive, but much better engines (and
long lived) overall.  To compensate, Cat just threw a ton of turbo
boost on the new ones.  They're crap.
Fred - 28 May 2007 19:18 GMT
> >Back then, the union thought the only competition was with Int. Harvester in
> >the US.  They did not want to know that Kubota, Mitsubishi, and a bunch of
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> long lived) overall.  To compensate, Cat just threw a ton of turbo
> boost on the new ones.  They're crap.

Such crap that Caterpillar has been doing great and has rosey forecast in its
future.  Contrast to the UAW shops.
Edwin Pawlowski - 29 May 2007 02:43 GMT
>> >Back then, the union thought the only competition was with Int.
>> >Harvester in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> engineer every nickel out of everything they make.  Look at a D-series
>> big bore versis the cheesy 3500 and 3600s made today.  No comparison;

So what if they were crap, they were selling. Many of the sales were to
foreign governments that put a bid out and the low price got the sale.

My point is that we are competing on a global scale.  While the company and
union was arguing about wages here, the government of Burma or Sudan or
wherever bought the backhoe from Kubota.
Lloyd - 25 May 2007 20:49 GMT
On May 23, 8:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> a gap of $45 by 2009. Chrysler pays the same wage to UAW janitors and
> skilled craftsmen.

Not true:  http://www.uaw.org/contracts/03/dch/dch02.cfm

>It carries idle workers on its books when no jobs
> are available. Most of all, it's on the hook for the untrammeled health-
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> deadweight cost disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit
> would be foolish to try...
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.