Minor Frustrations

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
No_Such_Reality_IHB

No_Such_Reality_IHB

New member
Tonight 60 Minutes has an interview with Barack Obama on.



Unfortunately, they keep cutting to close-up which is such a close up that I can see his pores, he has the top of his head just above the headline cut-off by the screen edge and the bottom edge barely clears the top of his collar.



Ugh, it's totally distracting. Is it really that hard to frame interview shots with three or four cameras that every one is messed up?



Aid for the auto-industry, but not a blank check. Frankly, they should declare bankruptcy and re-organize so they can renegotiate the labor contracts.
 
With the Democrats in charge, the choice between making the union pay and making the taxpayer pay will go against the taxpayer every time.
 
NSR,

I agree with you. Unfortunatley I think with whomever we voted for, there was going to be a bailout. The lines between conservative and liberal are being blurred everyday by big business dipping into public funds.



oh well.

-bix



p.s. yea that camera work was crap and made me dizzy.

-bix
 
Forget the UAW, their time is done.... when foreign manufacturers are building their own plans minus UAW guess what! You get competitive products at a reasonable price while STILL perserving the company.... Funny thing that...



good luck

-bix
 
[quote author="biscuitninja" date=1226973409]Forget the UAW, their time is done.... when foreign manufacturers are building their own plans minus UAW guess what! You get competitive products at a reasonable price while STILL perserving the company.... Funny thing that...



good luck

-bix</blockquote>


When you have people like David Bonior claiming that <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=930508006">"the greatest growth we've had in this country came when the Unions were strong"</a> two things become clear: 1) the people advising Obama on his economic advisory board clearly are putting the cart (unions) before the horse (consumer demand) when it comes to what generates growth and 2) the President-elect is not going to do anything that can be seen as "anti-Union" during his time in office. If you have people fervently claiming that the mere existence of a union of workers provides economic growth, ignoring the fact that people are hired and fired as demand for what they produce increases and declines, you can be sure that any solution they offer is going to be based on their incorrect world view. You can debate whether this is intentional spin if you want but Bonior represented Michigan in Congress for 26 years and I believe that he believes it. Barack Obama, as President, isn't going to tell the unions and their members that their contracts have killed the golden goose. He's going to blame the competition for unfair labor practices and demand that Detroit build cars that match with his energy agenda in exchange for however much tax-money it takes to keep people employed.



If GM, Ford, and Chrysler were smart they would reincorporate in Nevada so they can file bankruptcy in a state where the judge is less likely to be a Democrat with familial ties to UAW members.
 
There is a grain of truth in what Bonior claims: labor unions diverted profits from management and shareholders into the hands of workers who in turn spent it. That did boost consumer spending and the economy. That is where the truth ends. Powerful unions do kill the golden goose, and with respect to the auto industry people will debate whether or not it was the unions or the failure of management to build quality vehicles that killed the industry. I think it was both, although I do not underestimate the cashflow drain of some of the parasitic contracts the UAW forced the automakers to sign.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226978378]There is a grain of truth in what Bonior claims: labor unions diverted profits from management and shareholders into the hands of workers who in turn spent it. That did boost consumer spending and the economy. That is where the truth ends. Powerful unions do kill the golden goose, and with respect to the auto industry people will debate whether or not it was the unions or the failure of management to build quality vehicles that killed the industry. I think it was both, although I do not underestimate the cashflow drain of some of the parasitic contracts the UAW forced the automakers to sign.</blockquote>
I agree that unions allowed the workers to get better wages and benefits. However, they wouldn't have had any money if other non-union people were not already demanding new cars, in turn causing the automakers to hire people to make them. The "diverted profits" existed because the economy was growing in other areas, not because the unions existed as Bonior implies. After WW2, the US was the only country with an intact manufacturing infrastructure, operating and debris-free ports, and enough domestic resources to meet worldwide demand. That, and that alone, was the reason for the growing economy that spurred the increase in hiring and the subsequent increase strength of union bargaining power and wage growth. Both Germany and Japan began competing with the US auto industry to fill world demand (and failing to adjust to that new world dynamic is what has damaged the domestic producers) caused the demand for US cars to decline but the unions had no incentive to reduce labor costs. From a union standpoint, their interests are in direct conflict with those of the employer and they are either too stubborn or too entrenched in Bonior's brand of 'logic' to adjust to adjust their interests to sacrifice power for viability.
 
and yet, as the past 15 years indicate clearly, the profits can either go to the workers and be spent/reinvested in the economy, or they can go to the top 1% of the population, and the executives of all the profitable companies. that is why there has been no wage growth for the other 99% in the past 15 years, the top guys took it all.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1226990890]and yet, as the past 15 years indicate clearly, the profits can either go to the workers and be spent/reinvested in the economy, or they can go to the top 1% of the population, and the executives of all the profitable companies. that is why there has been no wage growth for the other 99% in the past 15 years, the top guys took it all.</blockquote>


While I find the find the claims of $73/hour for line workers appalling, what is really appalling isn't the line workers wages. They are a mere $28+/- The other $50 is from years of gross mismanagement and underfunding of benefits.



If they are paying the line workers $28/hr, another $20 in benefits puts them at $48/hr which is what Toyota is paying. $20/hr in benefits is $40K a year.



Wagoner, the CEO at the helm since the 90s, pull in $1.6M in salary approximately 10X the combined wages and benefit rate of the line workers. Another $1.8M in incentive pay, (that's another 15X) and another $700K in benefits like security, insurance, etc. Oh, and about $11 Million in options pay while GM lost $39 Billion.



GM has a benefit problem that rivals the State of California's upcoming benefits problem. The company needs to be liquidated just to pay the benefits program.
 
so Wagoner takes in $15M, while the line worker takes in $150k. and who's overpaid?



Arnie is at least not taking any pay for doing a piss-poor job with CA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top