Jump to content
  • Custom Search


JonathanDP81

UAW extends Ford, Fiat Chrysler pacts; strike possible at GM

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Basically, GM is going to rougher deal than both Ford and FCA for the union will have spent so much time and money on the strike on GM.

 

But Ford and FCA are more sensitive to a strike than GM. The fire at a F-Series supplier that hurt production for one week cost Ford $800 million, while the RAM production problems costed FCA over $1 billion (U$D).

 

UAW should drag GM to Halloween where GM will cave in big time.

Edited by AlexB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexB said:

 

But Ford and FCA are more sensitive to a strike than GM. The fire at a F-Series supplier that hurt production for one week cost Ford $800 million, while the RAM production problems costed FCA over $1 billion (U$D).

 

UAW should drag GM to Halloween where GM will cave in big time.

UAW doesn't have the money to pay its members for that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

UAW doesn't have the money to pay its members for that long.

And most of the workers cant survive on $250/wk for that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J-150 said:

And most of the workers extortionists cant survive on $250/wk for that long.

 

FTFY.

 

Sorry but I have no sympathy for folks who go on strike when they're already being compensated at or above market value and there are no safety concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

UAW doesn't have the money to pay its members for that long.

 

Sure they do. $250/week for 6 weeks, x 49K members, is less than $75mil, or 10% of the $750mil+ they have in the bank.

 

Not counting strippers and cigars, of course,,,,,

 

HRG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Sure they do. $250/week for 6 weeks, x 49K members, is less than $75mil, or 10% of the $750mil+ they have in the bank.

 

Not counting strippers and cigars, of course,,,,,

 

HRG

 

GM just shifted the entire costs of their healthcare to the UAW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good question is why GM is choosing such an adversarial path with the UAW

when clearly it has just executed a mass shift of product sourcing to Mexico.

 

I don't agree with strike action, never have.... has the Union actually fallen for a GM sucker play?

GM seems to have plenty of inventory to cover a month or so and has split production on some

Silverados coming from Mexico so it may be able to hold out longer than the Union expects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

 

A good question is why GM is choosing such an adversarial path with the UAW

 

 

Probably because as PD said earlier in this thread, GM Management is nowhere near equipped to handle this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

 

Probably because as PD said earlier in this thread, GM Management is nowhere near equipped to handle this. 

Exactly, it would have cost GM nothing to tie up negotiations for a few weeks, keep everyone at work and just slow things down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM needed to make a cut in labor cost, they just cut a weeks labor cost without having to pay anyones vacation time on the UAW's dime. IUAW needed to be relevant to it's members and find away to spend some strike fund money to continue at the higher dues rate. The longer they take to stall the inevitable the more creative the rumors sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Exactly, it would have cost GM nothing to tie up negotiations for a few weeks, keep everyone at work and just slow things down.

JP- Didn't the union call the strike?  This  is  not a lock out.  I'm sure that GM would have preferred to  continue to bargain.

 

As to the specifics, no doubt,  how do  you justify some of these crazy  salaries like Mary  B (and Hackett) are drawing.  The other side  of the coin,  if  a facility is no longer carrying its costs, never mind making a profit, how do you  keep it open?  You  can't if you want to survive.  

 

Like I  said before,  If the UAW had said, ..."oh you are good with paying virtually all of our medical plan?  how  about a  3% cost of living adjustment and how about taking a year or  two off of the new hire progression rates and also how  about converting some temps to full time status",it would  have  been a good deal all the way around.

 

Oh and I had previously mentioned how I had started a two tier wage system.  and  it was successful.  Another thing I did was hire short term employees.  Junior guys started bitching that we did not not have enough summertime vacation  slots.  "Sorry guys,we  have a business to run.  Want me to park trucks and pay a carrier to  do your work"- (overtime was  at max-and at that senior  guys with long weekends off would NOT work a call in)

 

So I pitched seasonal hires.  It  worked.  Opened up more weeks  of prime time vacation and kept the fleet utilization rate up.    And I recognize  what worked then might not  work today  with the current driver supply but it takes two sides to compromise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Executive pay packets are a contract between them and the shareholders. They deliver their KPIs, they get the pay packet. They dont and they are fired. They dont get a predetermined wage for showing up like the hourly workforce does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J-150 said:

Executive pay packets are a contract between them and the shareholders. They deliver their KPIs, they get the pay packet. They dont and they are fired. They dont get a predetermined wage for showing up like the hourly workforce does.

One of the complaints has been that executives still get a fat payday even if they drive the company right into a ditch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, grbeck said:

One of the complaints has been that executives still get a fat payday even if they drive the company right into a ditch.

 

Thats the issue for me.  I understand that compensation is market based even if it seems too high. But these golden parachutes for executives who get fired for poor performance defies logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, grbeck said:

One of the complaints has been that executives still get a fat payday even if they drive the company right into a ditch.

 

Depends on the KPI targets that are set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Thats the issue for me.  I understand that compensation is market based even if it seems too high. But these golden parachutes for executives who get fired for poor performance defies logic.

 

Also part of the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

JP- Didn't the union call the strike?  This  is  not a lock out.  I'm sure that GM would have preferred to  continue to bargain.

Bob, I don't intend taking sides with this as I think both sides were prepared for a fight. The whole tone adopted going into these "negotiations" has been adversarial and I suspect that's come about by both sides having huge perceptional differences. Someone needed to be the "adult" in these contract negotiations and take responsibility but it seems that both sides want this.

 

Quote

As to the specifics, no doubt,  how do  you justify some of these crazy  salaries like Mary  B (and Hackett) are drawing.  The other side  of the coin,  if  a facility is no longer carrying its costs, never mind making a profit, how do you  keep it open?  You  can't if you want to survive.

most of the senior staff have a modest salary with the rest tied up in as stock options that can only be exercised when the stock reaches a certain price.  

 

Quote

Like I  said before,  If the UAW had said, ..."oh you are good with paying virtually all of our medical plan?  how  about a  3% cost of living adjustment and how about taking a year or  two off of the new hire progression rates and also how  about converting some temps to full time status",it would  have  been a good deal all the way around.

 

Oh and I had previously mentioned how I had started a two tier wage system.  and  it was successful.  Another thing I did was hire short term employees.  Junior guys started bitching that we did not not have enough summertime vacation  slots.  "Sorry guys,we  have a business to run.  Want me to park trucks and pay a carrier to  do your work"- (overtime was  at max-and at that senior  guys with long weekends off would NOT work a call in)

 

So I pitched seasonal hires.  It  worked.  Opened up more weeks  of prime time vacation and kept the fleet utilization rate up.    And I recognize  what worked then might not  work today  with the current driver supply but it takes two sides to compromise.

 

But that's the thing Bob, GM is no longer happy to pay the bulk of employee health costs, they want workers to shoulder more of the cost and they only want to look at 0.5% per year. GM is not interested in any change to the two tier wage system, mostly because they have found a great work-around, temporary labor as a third tier so they hold people in limbo for years with zero chance of getting near the two tier system.

 

 

Both sides are at fault here Bob, GM for being so hard nosed and the UAW for dragging workers into a strike that they can ill afford. Neither side is acting like adults and it's the people with least power and income that are suffering  in all of this. 

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. taxpayer contributed to the impasse by bailing out GM in 2008. In the intervening decade, GM management have failed to take advantage of what they were gifted in the bailout, and from one perspective are biting the hand that fed them - the politics of the situation at the time of the bailout is that the government was taking care of the union to the detriment of debt holders of GM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

The U.S. taxpayer contributed to the impasse by bailing out GM in 2008. In the intervening decade, GM management have failed to take advantage of what they were gifted in the bailout, and from one perspective are biting the hand that fed them - the politics of the situation at the time of the bailout is that the government was taking care of the union to the detriment of debt holders of GM. 

The government sold their stock for a loss, the one thing they didn't do was have a buy back clause at IPO stock price.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

The government sold their stock for a loss, the one thing they didn't do was have a buy back clause at IPO stock price.

 

The government losing money on the sale of the stock was merely the final loss in the GM experience - the secured and non secured debt holders of GM were the ones who took the biggest loss in favor of the union, GM, and other interests. GM having its debt wiped clean was a tremendous competitive advantage that GM management have failed to fully exploit, not to mention giving GM the ability to carry forward the losses of old GM - another advantage that its management have failed to take advantage of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×