UAW/Chryslr new PAY SCALE?

[stephenhawkings]

Ok since Chrysler is going to file, how soon, and how low do you think the UAW pay scale will fall to?

if you follow the mantra of auto workers making $75 per hour theres a long way to go, but my paycheck says I only get $28 and change.

that second tier of pay what is it $14 or $18? I can't remember but i bet that is going to be the benchmark.

[thezip]

Ok since Chrysler is going to file, how soon, and how low do you think the UAW pay scale will fall to?

if you follow the mantra of auto workers making $75 per hour theres a long way to go, but my paycheck says I only get $28 and change.

that second tier of pay what is it $14 or $18? I can't remember but i bet that is going to be the benchmark.

I may be mistaken,but the judge cannot just decide on a wage pulled from thin air.The worst he can do is take the average of UAW and the transplants so maybe 25 an hour.That is about what happened with delphi they were cut down to what other suppliers are paid for hourly wages.Are there any second tier employees at any of the Big 3 as of yet?If were an expert on the issue i wouldnt be on the line,but, again i believe that is kind of the blueprint they will follow.

[Len_A]

I may be mistaken,but the judge cannot just decide on a wage pulled from thin air.The worst he can do is take the average of UAW and the transplants so maybe 25 an hour.That is about what happened with delphi they were cut down to what other suppliers are paid for hourly wages.Are there any second tier employees at any of the Big 3 as of yet?If were an expert on the issue i wouldnt be on the line,but, again i believe that is kind of the blueprint they will follow.

Wrong. Yes he can. The judge will, at the request of management or the creditors, look at the company's financial situation, and can set the wages wherever he sees fit. This is what happened at U.S. Airways in 2004. I found that tidbit on another unions website: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/page.jsp?itemID=27353663

 

The judge imposed an emergency 21% pay cut, for four months. Management sought a six month cut.

 

The UAW's lawyers can try arguing the union's point-of-view, but management's attorneys will do the same, and the secured creditors will do the same, and the judge is going to use his best judgment (no pun intended) and apply the bankruptcy law that exists, and part of that law is that he can set new wages, cancel benefits, terminate pensions, etc. In all likelihood they'll try not to, but if the secured creditors make the case that the automotive task force was trying to steamroll them into a bad deal that disregards their absolute legal status as first-in-line-to-get-paid (which is what you have as a secured creditor), the bankruptcy judge can get real nasty.

 

This has all the potential to go south for the Chrysler employees real fast. I don't give a rats ass what the administration says about a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. That phrase has no basis in bankruptcy law that my research has found.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Len_A

[MTPwife]

From what I'm understanding that the judge will more than likely go by the contract concessions that the UAW/Chrysler just voted on. We're just gonna have to wait & see folks. No point in speculating unless ya want to have a nervous breakdown.

[fordworker]

u r all underestimating the power the president has. He will get what he wants those lawyers and hedgers dont want to screw the union now because they will get heavily regulated by new laws if they do and they dont want that.................

[Captain723]

From what I'm understanding that the judge will more than likely go by the contract concessions that the UAW/Chrysler just voted on. We're just gonna have to wait & see folks. No point in speculating unless ya want to have a nervous breakdown.

You are right...the concession by the bond holders and the UAW were already approved from the Presidents task force and a judge will take that as complete and the only thing they will be looking at is why these other bond holders didn't step up to the plate....guess what now they get fked and no stake in the company!! LOL Idiots, they will get what they deserve, but the voted on agreement will stand!!

[Captain723]

Wrong. Yes he can. The judge will, at the request of management or the creditors, look at the company's financial situation, and can set the wages wherever he sees fit. This is what happened at U.S. Airways in 2004. I found that tidbit on another unions website: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/page.jsp?itemID=27353663

 

The judge imposed an emergency 21% pay cut, for four months. Management sought a six month cut.

 

The UAW's lawyers can try arguing the union's point-of-view, but management's attorneys will do the same, and the secured creditors will do the same, and the judge is goign to use his best judgement (no pun intended) and apply the bankruptcy law that exists, and part of that law is that he can set new wages, cancel benefots, terminate pensions, etc. In all liklelyhood they'll try not to, but if the secured creditors make the case that the automotive task forse was trying to steamroll them into a bad deal that disregards their absolute leagal status as first-in-line-to-get-paid (which is what you have as a secured creditor), the bankruptcy judge can get real nasty.

 

This has all the potential to go south for the Chrysler employees real fast. I don't give a rats ass what the administration says about a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. That phrase has no basis in bankruptcy law that my research has found.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Captain723

[Captain723]

Wrong. Yes he can. The judge will, at the request of management or the creditors, look at the company's financial situation, and can set the wages wherever he sees fit. This is what happened at U.S. Airways in 2004. I found that tidbit on another unions website: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/page.jsp?itemID=27353663

 

The judge imposed an emergency 21% pay cut, for four months. Management sought a six month cut.

 

The UAW's lawyers can try arguing the union's point-of-view, but management's attorneys will do the same, and the secured creditors will do the same, and the judge is goign to use his best judgement (no pun intended) and apply the bankruptcy law that exists, and part of that law is that he can set new wages, cancel benefots, terminate pensions, etc. In all liklelyhood they'll try not to, but if the secured creditors make the case that the automotive task forse was trying to steamroll them into a bad deal that disregards their absolute leagal status as first-in-line-to-get-paid (which is what you have as a secured creditor), the bankruptcy judge can get real nasty.

 

This has all the potential to go south for the Chrysler employees real fast. I don't give a rats ass what the administration says about a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. That phrase has no basis in bankruptcy law that my research has found.

Hey dumbass, this was under QW, the worst pres ever in the US, and there was no UAW/Bond holder concessions already agreed too. So go back under the desk and pucker up A$$hole!

[Captain723]

Wrong. Yes he can. The judge will, at the request of management or the creditors, look at the company's financial situation, and can set the wages wherever he sees fit. This is what happened at U.S. Airways in 2004. I found that tidbit on another unions website: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/page.jsp?itemID=27353663

 

The judge imposed an emergency 21% pay cut, for four months. Management sought a six month cut.

 

The UAW's lawyers can try arguing the union's point-of-view, but management's attorneys will do the same, and the secured creditors will do the same, and the judge is goign to use his best judgement (no pun intended) and apply the bankruptcy law that exists, and part of that law is that he can set new wages, cancel benefots, terminate pensions, etc. In all liklelyhood they'll try not to, but if the secured creditors make the case that the automotive task forse was trying to steamroll them into a bad deal that disregards their absolute leagal status as first-in-line-to-get-paid (which is what you have as a secured creditor), the bankruptcy judge can get real nasty.

 

This has all the potential to go south for the Chrysler employees real fast. I don't give a rats ass what the administration says about a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. That phrase has no basis in bankruptcy law that my research has found.

[Die Wahrheit]

Wrong. Yes he can. The judge will, at the request of management or the creditors, look at the company's financial situation, and can set the wages wherever he sees fit. This is what happened at U.S. Airways in 2004. I found that tidbit on another unions website: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/page.jsp?itemID=27353663

 

The judge imposed an emergency 21% pay cut, for four months. Management sought a six month cut.

 

The UAW's lawyers can try arguing the union's point-of-view, but management's attorneys will do the same, and the secured creditors will do the same, and the judge is goign to use his best judgement (no pun intended) and apply the bankruptcy law that exists, and part of that law is that he can set new wages, cancel benefots, terminate pensions, etc. In all liklelyhood they'll try not to, but if the secured creditors make the case that the automotive task forse was trying to steamroll them into a bad deal that disregards their absolute leagal status as first-in-line-to-get-paid (which is what you have as a secured creditor), the bankruptcy judge can get real nasty.

 

This has all the potential to go south for the Chrysler employees real fast. I don't give a rats ass what the administration says about a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. That phrase has no basis in bankruptcy law that my research has found.

 

 

The judge will compare with transplants, no lower.

[stephenhawkings]

From what I'm understanding that the judge will more than likely go by the contract concessions that the UAW/Chrysler just voted on. We're just gonna have to wait & see folks. No point in speculating unless ya want to have a nervous breakdown.

I'd just figure you can count on it, and plan for it, so as to be prepared, and not have to have a nervous breakdown later.

 

If we are lucky wnough to get cut down to $25 per hour I'll be surprised.

my money is about $18 per hour, but hopefully I am wrong.

good news is that it might take six months to happen, longer if we are lucky!

[Len_A]

The judge will compare with transplants, no lower.

How do you figure? The judge can figure on a lot of factors. Chrysler fiscal needs, including the need to fund the defined benefit pension plan, which the transplants don't have.

[Len_A]

Hey dumbass, this was under QW, the worst pres ever in the US, and there was no UAW/Bond holder concessions already agreed too. So go back under the desk and pucker up A$hole!

 

Hey, can the hostility. The fact the GW was president has about as much to do with U.S. Airlines Chapter 11 as the Obama administration will find out they have now (and I voted for this President). Separation of powers. The only influence that the administration has in this Chrysler bankruptcy is that the U.S. Government is providing the debtor-in-possession financing, and that's it. The purpose of bankruptcy court is to protect the creditor, not employees and retirees and stockholders. It's rotten, but that's the way credit markets and credit laws work.

 

Here's a link to another post, on the small hedge funds that voted no on the debt deal - they represent teacher pensions and other retiree accounts that invested in the Chrysler debt. See; http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...showtopic=32109

Edited April 30, 2009 by Len_A

[jm2607]

Hey dumbass, this was under QW, the worst pres ever in the US, and there was no UAW/Bond holder concessions already agreed too. So go back under the desk and pucker up A$$hole!

I don't think Len A is a Ford employee.

[dark270]

Hey, can the hostility. The fact the GW was president has about as much to do with U.S. Airlines Chapter 11 as the Obama administration will find out they have now (and I voted for this President). Seperation of powers. The only influence that the administration has in this Chrysler bankruptcy is that the U.S. Government is providing the debtor-in-posssession financing, and that's it. The purpose of bankruptcy court is to protect the creditor, not employees and retirees and stockholders. It's rotten, but that's the way credit markets and credit laws work.

 

Here's a link to another post, on the small hedge funds that voted no on the debt deal - they represent teacher pensions and other retiree accounts that invested in the Chryselr debt. SeeS; http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...showtopic=32109

 

 

exactly, well said len.

 

 

still hoping for the best......

[Grey Goose]

Wrong. Yes he can. The judge will, at the request of management or the creditors, look at the company's financial situation, and can set the wages wherever he sees fit. This is what happened at U.S. Airways in 2004. I found that tidbit on another unions website: http://www.cwa-union.org/news/page.jsp?itemID=27353663

 

The judge imposed an emergency 21% pay cut, for four months. Management sought a six month cut.

 

The UAW's lawyers can try arguing the union's point-of-view, but management's attorneys will do the same, and the secured creditors will do the same, and the judge is goign to use his best judgement (no pun intended) and apply the bankruptcy law that exists, and part of that law is that he can set new wages, cancel benefots, terminate pensions, etc. In all liklelyhood they'll try not to, but if the secured creditors make the case that the automotive task forse was trying to steamroll them into a bad deal that disregards their absolute leagal status as first-in-line-to-get-paid (which is what you have as a secured creditor), the bankruptcy judge can get real nasty.

 

This has all the potential to go south for the Chrysler employees real fast. I don't give a rats ass what the administration says about a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. That phrase has no basis in bankruptcy law that my research has found.

Hey Len maybe you should do some of your "research" in a dictionary and learn how to spell before you try to pass yourself off as some kind of expert huh?

Before you try to educate me Len , maybe you should spend some time educating yourself first. Nothing worse than a "back yard expert" trying to convince us all he knows what we don't when he couldn't spell "cat" if we spotted him the "c" and the "t" to quote the old Dallas Cowboy linebacker Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson, you sanctimonious jerk.

I suggest if you don't own a dictionary, THEN USE THE FUCKING SPELL CHECKER AT THE TOP OF YOUR PAGE THANK YOU !!!!!!!

Until then please ...keep your faux "research" and advice to yourself as you waste away the hours on the red velvet recliner sitting on your front porch. :reading:

[VDTRANSMAN]

How do you figure? The judge can figure on a lot of factors. Chrysler fiscal needs, including the need to fund the defined benefit pension plan, which the transplants don't have.

 

Read the last sentence of your link.

 

As President Obama implied yesterday, it is likely that Chrysler will have to file Chapter 11 whether or not all

lenders agree to any particular proposal. Chapter 11 is often used to help implement an agreed deal and

dispose of unwanted legacy liabilities.

 

Is the contract that was ratified yesterday not an agreed deal?

 

More from other articles:

 

The UAW agreement, which would take effect May 4, meets Treasury requirements for continued loans to Chrysler Corp., and includes commitments from Fiat to manufacture a new small car in one of Chrysler's U.S. facilities and to share key technology with Chrysler.

 

Along with the Fiat deal, the UAW ratified a cost-cutting pact Wednesday night.

 

The Treasury will provide Chrysler with $4.5 billion in exit financing. The company will not now cancel any of its retiree contracts (covering some 173,000 UAW members), reduce current benefits or lay-off any workers (Obama says today's plan "saves 30,000 Chrysler jobs").

 

But I have to admit it was exciting to hear the president tell the country, "If you're going to buy a new car, buy an American car."

 

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker...s_b_193865.html

 

Some reason to have hope that someone may be looking out for the common folk in this country. ABOUT DAMN TIME!

Edited April 30, 2009 by VDTRANSMAN

[Griffin]

The company will not now cancel any of its retiree contracts (covering some 173,000 UAW members), reduce current benefits or lay-off any workers (Obama says today's plan "saves 30,000 Chrysler jobs").

 

If over the next 30-60 days the company sticks to this statement than yes maybe some good will come of this but 60 days is a long in this type of situation and things can change in a heart beat. I will remain optimistic and hope when the dust settles that the above statement was kept by the company.

[Len_A]

Hey Len maybe you should do some of your "research" in a dictionary and learn how to spell before you try to pass yourself off as some kind of expert huh?

Before you try to educate me Len , maybe you should spend some time educating yourself first. Nothing worse than a "back yard expert" trying to convince us all he knows what we don't when he couldn't spell "cat" if we spotted him the "c" and the "t" to quote the old Dallas Cowboy linebacker Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson, you sanctimonious jerk.

I suggest if you don't own a dictionary, THEN USE THE FUCKING SPELL CHECKER AT THE TOP OF YOUR PAGE THANK YOU !!!!!!!

Until then please ...keep your faux "research" and advice to yourself as you waste away the hours on the red velvet recliner sitting on your front porch. :reading:

guilty as charged on the typo/misspellings (talk about fumble fingers when typing) - and I never said I was an expert. BTW, I'm using Firefox, so I don't have the spell checker button, and Firefox's spell checker sometimes needs to be turned off and then back on to work.

 

But, like I said, guilty as charged on the misspellings.

 

As far as my "faux" research, one, I never said what I found was the last word, and two, to help everyone else out (and yourself), for Pete's sake, if you find something that says otherwise, post a link.

 

And shove the hostility. I'm not trying to jerk anyone's chain, just post shit I have subscription access to.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Len_A

[Len_A]

Read the last sentence of your link.

 

 

 

Is the contract that was ratified yesterday not an agreed deal?

 

More from other articles:

 

 

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker...s_b_193865.html

 

Some reason to have hope that someone may be looking out for the common folk in this country. ABOUT DAMN TIME!

If you're referring to the CWA article, I went back and reread the last two sentences. I'm not 100% what point you're making (I have my dense moments), because I'm not disputing what the CWA attorneys accomplished arguing the unions case in front of the bankruptcy judge. It still comes down to the judge using his or her own judgment. There's no hard-and-fast rule that they have to follow any other company as a guideline. The bankruptcy laws make the secured debt holders the first in line for any money, and then it goes to the unsecured debt holders (and I could be mistaken, but the VEBA is an unsecured debt holder ahead of the rank-and-files pay and benefits), and others from there. There has been a lot of bitching on the financial web sites that all the deal making and pressure from the auto task force was all in violation of all the bankruptcy laws, especially regarding the status of the secured debt holders (bond holders).

 

Depending on the objections of any of the secured debt holders, yesterday's ratified deal could go through, or if the secured debt holders make an argument the bankruptcy judge agrees with, he can still void it. There's the distinct possibility of a lot of stumbling blocks that make a "quick" bankruptcy all but impossible. While I'm watching this, I'm flipping between channels, and I've seen bankruptcy lawyers from Detroit area firms (firms my wife has friends working at as legal assistants) saying there's no such thing as a "quick rinse" bankruptcy. Another stumbling block already happened when four Chrysler plants went down today because suppliers cut Chrysler off as soon as the bankruptcy was filed. This is going to get ugly, in part because this country has never seen a company as complicated as today's automakers file for bankruptcy. What was the last auto company to ever file Chapter 11? Studebaker? Someone let me know, because I'm too damn tired to do anymore "faux" research( ).

 

Yea, hearing anyone say BUY AN AMERICAN CAR was a good feeling. A couple of other forums that I frequent like to throw the names of transplant manufactured cars like Camry in my face, whenever I talk up American made cars. The fact that the Big Three have shifted so much production to Mexico doesn't help, and there's always the stubborn ones out there that talk down anything made in Canada as "foreign". I can't fucking win for losing with some people.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Len_A

[Len_A]

exactly, well said len.

 

 

still hoping for the best......

Thanks. I'm hoping for the best, too. This shit scares the daylights out of me.

[Critic]

In 1954, after a dramatic and unexpected fall in sales, Studebaker merged with the Packard Motor Car Company, forming the Studebaker-Packard Corporation. The final Packard-designed cars were built by the company in Detroit in 1956, and the last Packards with Studebaker bodies were built in 1958. "Packard" was then dropped from the company's name as Studebaker rapidly diversified, buying up companies such as Schaefer, which made commercial refrigerators, STP, which made automotive oil treatments, and Paxton Products, which made automobile superchargers. Even a commercial airline, Trans International Airlines, founded by Kirk Kerkorian, came into the corporate fold in the early 'sixties.

 

By 1963, however, the company's mainstay products, automobiles and trucks, were selling very poorly. The South Bend plant was closed and cars were built solely at the satellite plant in Hamilton, Ontario until March 1966.

 

Studebaker merged with Worthington Corporation to become Studebaker-Worthington in 1967. McGraw-Edison purchased Studebaker-Worthington in 1979, eliminating the century-old Studebaker name from the corporate landscape.

[dark270]

Thanks. I'm hoping for the best, too. This shit scares the daylights out of me.

 

 

me too,that is yet another thing we agree on....

 

people dont realize that this is a very bad thing, and it will spread....

[VDTRANSMAN]

Len I didn't mean the last sentence of the entire article. I meant the last sentence of the quote I posted from this link you provided.

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...ost&id=9096

 

As President Obama implied yesterday, it is likely that Chrysler will have to file Chapter 11 whether or not all

lenders agree to any particular proposal. Chapter 11 is often used to help implement an agreed deal and

dispose of unwanted legacy liabilities.

 

The point I am trying to make is that nothing is written in stone. Just because they filed chapter 11 doesn't necessarily mean blue collar is gonna get fucked more than they already agreed to. Agreements have already been made and contracts have already been signed. I understand that can all be changed, but lets not forget that the Pres and his task force that helped forge these deals will have a heavy say on what goes on in that courtroom. Could more cuts be coming? Sure. Could the Chapter 11 filing just be used to force the rest of the debt holders on board and preemptively deal with the dealer franchises? Sure.

 

Lots of feel good talk for mainstreet by many folks in the government these days. Lets hope its not just all talk.

[Len_A]

In 1954, after a dramatic and unexpected fall in sales, Studebaker merged with the Packard Motor Car Company, forming the Studebaker-Packard Corporation. The final Packard-designed cars were built by the company in Detroit in 1956, and the last Packards with Studebaker bodies were built in 1958. "Packard" was then dropped from the company's name as Studebaker rapidly diversified, buying up companies such as Schaefer, which made commercial refrigerators, STP, which made automotive oil treatments, and Paxton Products, which made automobile superchargers. Even a commercial airline, Trans International Airlines, founded by Kirk Kerkorian, came into the corporate fold in the early 'sixties.

 

By 1963, however, the company's mainstay products, automobiles and trucks, were selling very poorly. The South Bend plant was closed and cars were built solely at the satellite plant in Hamilton, Ontario until March 1966.

 

Studebaker merged with Worthington Corporation to become Studebaker-Worthington in 1967. McGraw-Edison purchased Studebaker-Worthington in 1979, eliminating the century-old Studebaker name from the corporate landscape.

Thank you for the history lesson. I was just too damn tired to look it up.