forddaughter Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../812190448/1148 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Hopefully there won't be a strike in the early spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Hopefully there won't be a strike in the early spring. A strike? Yeah, that's just what the UAW needs to win their case in the court of public opinion. That would be a surefire way of guaranteeing the D3 never see another dime of federal money ever again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Hopefully there won't be a strike in the early spring. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpc655 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Hopefully there won't be a strike in the early spring. That wouldn't be a risk in bankruptcy whoops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) why would you even imply that there could be a strike, come on now!!!! Edited December 19, 2008 by simplesituations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 A strike? Yeah, that's just what the UAW needs to win their case in the court of public opinion. That would be a surefire way of guaranteeing the D3 never see another dime of federal money ever again. Or a surefire way of converting Michigan to a right-to-work state... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Or a surefire way of converting Michigan to a right-to-work state... Or both....I'm sure it would do absolutely nothing to change public sentiment in their favor, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) why would you even imply that there could be a strike, come on now!!!! I implied nothing. But things will be ugly...bet on it. Edited December 19, 2008 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) For this deal to fly....The UAW will have to agree to some work rule changes, even under Obama, and the bond holders have to agree to accept stock in place of their bonds....neither of these are likely to happen without bankruptcy. Why wait? Bush and Co took a pass. And I never understood why every state isn't a "right to work" state. Edited December 19, 2008 by Ralph Greene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Well they don't have to take it. This is the option that Bush has given them. If they do not like it, then they can seek alternative avenues. They really aren't in any position to bargain really. I would welcome a strike actually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 For this deal to fly....The UAW will have to agree to some work rule changes, even under Obama, and the bond holders have to agree to accept stock in place of their bonds....neither of these are likely to happen without bankruptcy. I agree, except for the bankruptcy part. Obama and Co. will let the UAW off the hook with some minor concessions. Bond holders are another question. They know that neither Bush or Obama have the stomach to let the industry go down the dumper and possible risk turning the is recession into The Second Great Depression. In this "game of chicken" the bond holders have a lot of confidence ! Who owns GM Bonds ? Millionaires, who have a lot of connection in Washington and big pension funds. Those big pensions funds would suddenly be behind on their obligations. Oh what a slipper slope. Bond holder will get a pass also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Well they don't have to take it. This is the option that Bush has given them. If they do not like it, then they can seek alternative avenues. They really aren't in any position to bargain really. I would welcome a strike actually Dodge already has ...for a month....oh, thats just a closure.....strike would acheive exactly what?...."I refuse to work under this agreement at my IDLE plant??????"....i only remember strikes when the UAW had the manufacturers over a barrel and consequent leverage....not a lot of that to go around right now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bondo007 Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 (edited) Hopefully the boys won't have to give this up. http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/102352...ex.html?taf=det Edited December 20, 2008 by bondo007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DearbornDerek Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Hopefully the boys won't have to give this up. http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/102352...?taf=det Yeah, because we all know ONLY Ford workers do this...No industry/workplace has this problem but Ford...we's all jus a bunch of uneducted, drunken uaw slobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Yeah, because we all know ONLY Ford workers do this...No industry/workplace has this problem but Ford...we's all jus a bunch of uneducted, drunken uaw slobs. Yes, but those other workers arent' begging for welfare. If they were people would be critical of them also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DearbornDerek Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Yes, but those other workers arent' begging for welfare. If they were people would be critical of them also BS, people have had their nose in our business for years...For whatever their personal reasons. Also the workers are not begging...And it's only GM and Chrysler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 BS, people have had their nose in our business for years...For whatever their personal reasons.Also the workers are not begging...And it's only GM and Chrysler. Maybe those people are customers who are sick of being fleeced for the cost of labor to assemble the cars they like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Maybe those people are customers who are sick of being fleeced for the cost of labor to assemble the cars they like. and how much do you think it cost to build a car??? Fleeced in your yes means what to you? Let's talk about fleeced. Let's ask soccer ball makers in India that are forced to do this because they have to pay a debt that the family can't pay off. The problem with this is the soccer ball maker are little kids. That's fleeced. Anything that is made has a labor cost, oh the cost of building a car is 8% to 12%, depending on what kind of car and that's only a couple of grand. What do you think the cost is with foreign automakers??? It's relatively the same. And what is getting fleeced is what Madov did fleecing billions from people. That is what fleece means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdmustgt Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 You say it takes 8% of the cost of the car is labor I think it's higher than that. Lets say it is 8% only because 3/4 of the sub-assembles are made outside this country. Think what is would be if all of it was done in this country add another 5 grand or more to the price of the car. Every state should be right to work state.. I'm pissed right now unions in my state (Iowa) are trying to pass everyone pays in like a union member does. But we are not union members at all. Fee for them for thinking what is better for me.. I see it as unions sticking there hands in my pocket for something they have no right too. This law they are trying to get pass has been shot down twice now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlh225 Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 These clowns along with their Supervisors should be fired period. The UAW should not fight for them either. If the UAW did fight for them, then it is time to bust the Union for good. I believe there needs to be a Union but they cannot protect workers like those clowns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante hicks Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Yeah, every state should be right to work. That way I could enjoy all the benefits of union negotiated contracts and work rules and not have to give the union a dime. Great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 and how much do you think it cost to build a car??? Fleeced in your yes means what to you? Let's talk about fleeced. Let's ask soccer ball makers in India that are forced to do this because they have to pay a debt that the family can't pay off. The problem with this is the soccer ball maker are little kids. That's fleeced. Anything that is made has a labor cost, oh the cost of building a car is 8% to 12%, depending on what kind of car and that's only a couple of grand. What do you think the cost is with foreign automakers??? It's relatively the same. And what is getting fleeced is what Madov did fleecing billions from people. That is what fleece means. fleeced means that if the assembly jobs paid at market rate the d3 could fill those postions for 33 percent less then they pay today. There are many jobs in the assembly process that the d3 would have no problem filling for 33 percent less then is extorted from them today. Face it, the uaw is a business, their product is labor, their costs are way out of line. The UAW may be able to hold the d3, with their hard to move billion dollar plants, hostages, but they can't play the same games with taxpayers. It is time for the uaw to get their labor costs in order or move on to the history books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 fleeced means that if the assembly jobs paid at market rate the d3 could fill those postions for 33 percent less then they pay today. There are many jobs in the assembly process that the d3 would have no problem filling for 33 percent less then is extorted from them today. Face it, the uaw is a business, their product is labor, their costs are way out of line. The UAW may be able to hold the d3, with their hard to move billion dollar plants, hostages, but they can't play the same games with taxpayers. It is time for the uaw to get their labor costs in order or move on to the history books. But wages aren't even the biggest problem - it's the FORCED jobs bank and other work rules that handcuff the mfrs. Make the jobs bank optional at the company's discretion - just like every other business. If it makes sense to keep people on payroll they will. If not they won't. It shouldn't be mandatory. Give the companies flexibility to address health care costs by increasing copays or decreasing benefits as necessary. Just like every other company has been doing for decades. Give the companies the ability to lay people off as necessary. Negotiate early retirements and good severance packages to help but accept that in some cases workers have to leave the payroll. Work out a deal between Ford, GM and Chrysler so workers can transfer and retain their benefits. Allow unproductive employees to be disciplined or terminated for cause - just like every other business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 Yeah, every state should be right to work. That way I could enjoy all the benefits of union negotiated contracts and work rules and not have to give the union a dime. Great idea. You know that it's the company's choice to match or not. It's the company's choice, and the union's problem (....that they have a problem with it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.