Use the Embed code vs. the URL :thumbsup

if you know, why dont you tell us what they make?

and it is not fair to say "lets compare their benefits to the top tier white collar", instead lets compare them to regular americans, mid management, office workers, bank tellars, service industry workers..
By far all these people who work in free enterprise (not unions) are getting short changed compared to these union workers.
Now you are asking those free enterprise tax payers to give the union members their tax money, thats just plain insane.. if i were them, i would tell the auto union workers to GFY:321GFY

You are correct. I misstated the facts. What I meant and should have said was, it costs over $70 per hour on average to employ a union auto worker. That includes their hourly pay, plus the benefits they?re receiving and all the other costs to the companies, including legacy costs ? retirement costs, pensions and more. Compare that to the $50 an hour companies like Honda and Nissan are paying their employees. That's a huge diffence when averaged company wide. Huge!

I still say...Stay the fuck out of my pocket! That goes for the auto industry as well as Wall Street. If they must spend 14 BILLION DOLLARS then give it to a company that will prosper. Not 3 that have shown they know dick about making a profit or a decent car for that matter. As for Wall Street...well...that ship has sailed...unfortunately.

That is spot on.

Keep in mind that these foreign car manufactures have not been in place for 100 years to accrue the liabilities(benefits) that Detroit has.

you=retard. Union workers make up LESS than 10% of the US workforce.

Wages and benefits are a very small part of the cost of a car. Funny how you aren't calling for the top magement to take a pay cut. WETF do they do? Not much since they ar running their companies into the ground.

enjoy your negative attitude in the soup lines.

it's always the union fault....it's funny how other countries with unions doesn't have these problems...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LapTCFp6ZVQ :xmas-smil16

They've already put their man Barack Obama in the office to make it happen. He was sponsored by the bankers and corporation who have foremost interest in this.

They've done their part and secured the office for him. He'll be expected to return the favor once he takes over. If he doesn't comply (I doubt he won't, he's genuinely evil) they will eliminate him like every other president or senator that was "in the way".

Its not negative its reality. Who are they going to sell cars to? If they do go under someone will buy them and manage them correctly. Jobs are going to be lost no matter what happens.

I get why people like you dont understand that. You want to keep giving money to people who have FAILED. Why? So they can fail some more?

The reason they are having the problems they are now is because of the credit freeze just like every other business. It's not because people don't want to buy the cars it's because they cant get credit to buy them. The foreign automakers are having the same problems. Ford and GM have changed their ways in the past few years. Ford has a car coming out next year that will run solely on batteries up until 45 mph I think it is. Ford said it should survive either way. GM needs help and I feel the should get the pocket change compared to what the bankers got. Things are going to be bad enough in the retail industry come the first of the year. The last thing we need is the big box stores shutting down shops and compound that with millions of auto industry jobs. If we keep bleeding jobs then the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

thank you, you are smart person, today the Swedish government gave saab 2.5 billions dollars.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...auto-deal.aspx

Craven Senators Kill the Auto Deal

OK, let me get this straight. Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, backed up by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, made it a condition of the auto companies receiving help that the United Auto Workers agree to a reduction of wages and benefits to the level of those paid by the Japanese companies that have plants in those senators’ states. Desperate for the deal, the UAW and the Democrats agreed to a phased-in reduction, but the Republicans insisted on an immediate cut. The deal broke down, and Republicans--aided by a few Red State Democrats (e.g. Baucus, Lincoln, Tester)--used a filibuster to kill the bill, which would have passed on a majority vote.

Here’s what bothers me. Japanese companies, which for years have benefited from one-way deal by which they could sell cars in the U.S. while U.S. companies were stymied in selling cars and trucks in Japan, set up non-union plants in low-wage, low-education, right-to-work states where they can pay less wages and benefits to their workers. Of course, in Japan, these same companies recognize and work with unions, but not here, where they have a chance to undercut American firms that work with unions. Corker and these other great patriots want to allow these Japanese companies to dictate the wages and benefits that American companies pay their workers. It’s despicable. Imagine, for a moment, American companies being allow to operate in this manner in Japan or South Korea. It would not happen.

Of course, this is not just about automobile companies. If you look at the history of the Great Depression, what tipped that event from a global recession to depression was precisely a series of dumb, craven--or in Keynes’ word, “feather-brained”--moves by politicians blinded by ideology or by narrow self-interest. An interest rate hike here, a balanced budget there, a spending reduction or two, and we went from ten to twenty percent unemployment. Don’t imagine for a moment that the failure to bailout the auto companies isn’t one of those feather-brained moves.

Put it this way. What we have learned from the economics of the Great Depression is that in order to end the spiral of unemployment, government has to throw money at companies and consumers. It should be trying to raise wages, not lower them. The Wall Street bailout was a fiasco, but it was probably better than nothing. And the auto bailout was considerably better thought-out. Now there is a good prospect that two of the Big Three will fail, jeopardizing, perhaps, as many as a million jobs. That’s exactly the kind of thing that Americans should not be doing. But don’t tell that to those great patriots Corker, DeMint, or Shelby. They know better.

--John B. Judis

It is clear that Tony404 does not understand inflation or where money comes from.

really to who? Are you that blind that you cant open your mind? the banks were given that money to lend so credit didnt freeze with no strings attached and they havent done that. The most vocal senators against this have foreign car company plants in their states, so maybe you think they have an agenda? uaw members dont make 70 dollars an hour.

Dick Cheney told senate republicans we dont do this bail out we will be known as the party of hoover forever. I guess Dick doesnt know about things either.

The guy flippin' burgers for barely minimum wage and working two jobs to support his family won't consider his tax dollars that will be handed to the autoworkers as "pocket change".

lets face facts the guy flipping burgers doesnt pay any real federal taxes especially if he has a family. Also 3 million people are out of work they wont be buying burgers so he will be out of work.

He doesn't pay taxes? Really?

So that 40-50% income tax that comes off his weekly paycheque is what...an admin fee? Charitable donation to a worthy cause? How about those sales taxes? Property taxes? School taxes?

As for those 3 million out-of-work people (assuming you're referring to autoworkers here)...they aren't the only ones who eat burgers I'm guessing.

When the same big 3 were posting record profits did the taxpayer receive a dividend cheque?

Why are corporate profits privatized yet their losses are socialized?

Do you know what a domino effect is? The less people there are that get paid, the less people there are spending. The auto industry isn't the only industry getting ready to hit bottom. Wait until the first of the year when the retail industry starts making their reports. There will be chains closing down right and left. Why is this? Because less people are working and more and more people are making less money. So in turn they spend less. Retail chains are giving away inventory right now. Which is the first in the rounds of deflation. Hyper-inflation follows.

The unions are a red herring in this. Don't take your eye off the ball folks.

Nobody was complaining about union wages when GM was selling a shitload of Hummers and netting 10K apiece on them.

The $70/hour figure is overblown propaganda. That number includes all retiree benefits. The reason retiree benefits are paid out of today's profits is because GM didn't set aside enough money to cover those benefits years ago when things were rosy for them.

That isn't the retirees fault and they shouldn't be punished for GM's failures today.
Pensions and retiree health care are deferred compensation. The union could have taken higher wages back in the day, but instead took lower wages along with pensions and health care.

Look at it this way. Let's say I worked for IBM for 30 years, and during that time I saved 10% of my income in a 401(k) plan. Now that I'm retired that 401(k) is worth $1 million, and it's all of my money, my nest egg.
But now, 10 years after I retire, IBM is having trouble, so they come and seize half of my 401(k) money, using the argument that I was obviously overpaid when I worked for them, and they need to recoup that now to stay in business.

Asking retirees to take pension and health care cuts now is the exact same thing. They took lower wages in exchange for those benefits. The fact that GM didn't set aside enough money in the good times to cover those benefits isn't the union's fault.


Also, FWIW, the UAW has already agreed to major concessions in the last round of contract negotiations. The new contract, which will take effect in 2010, will put GM's labor costs per car within $250 of Toyota and Honda's.
The big 3 are basically saying they need a bridge loan to get them through until the new contracts take place. Asking the union to give up even more now isn't the way to go.
They've already taken their haircut, now it's time for the bond holders to take theirs. :2 cents:

Find me a guy flipping burgers who has 40-50% of his check taken by the government in taxes and I'll give you $1000 in cash.

You can make your point without over exagerrating and making yourself look like a fucking moron.
That's what makes these discussions so idiotic is people like you with your burger flippers paying 50% in taxes and someone else with their UAW worker snoring coke off a hookers ass in the breakroom and getting paid $100 an hour for it and all of that other stupid shit.

Can't anyone have a reasonable discussion without blowing shit so far out of proportion it's like I'm on an acid trip?

The auto maker deal was a "loan" the banker deal was a "bailout."

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I'll admit my earlier point was somewhat exaggerated to a degree...if you're capable of understanding that sophomoric name-calling doesn't promote "reasonable discussion."

Because if they dont blow shit out of proportion they dont have an argument.

man some dumb fucks in this thread and i am not even a republican, just i believe in free market enterprise.

if a company offers an individual person a retirement package, and if this benefit is a direct result of said companys future earnings, then that be it and not hang this cost on the future generations by taxes or otherwise. It is completely fair to tell retirees or other beneficiaries that due to poor fiscal performance, the pay out is less and not expect the rest of the countrys taxpayers to cough up the extra expenses to line the union mans pockets with gold. it happens all the time, look at Enron, look at all the airlines which went under (also due to the unions not giving enough concessions), all those pilots and flight attendants forfeited their pensions which usually (for pilots) is a few million $.
Now should the taxpayers go in and cover all those poor people who were unfortunate to work for such companies, I THINK NOT.

Sorry but many here have very naive, schoolboy views of big business.

If you think the only reason Toyota is more successful is unions, or even efficiency, you live in dreamland. Through protectionist policies the Japanese taxpayers have been subsidizing them for years.

Renault is being tipped to buy Ford or GM should it be available for pennies. Are you kidding me?? It isn't like labor laws are weak in France. Renault by the way also owns a controlling interest in Nissan, Samsung Motors, Dacia... guess the few millions their government spent bailing them out 20 years ago wasn't so badly spent.

How about Boeing? You want to let them fail too? Without being indirectly subsidized by the government they would be toast against an EU sponsored Airbus.

Ideally it shouldn't happen but it does, much like xsells. Free market enterprise works when it is a level playing field. You can't keep repeating a doctrine (a mistake commies usually make) without looking at the real world.

Like your 3 million jobs lost figure is one of the most blow out of proportion propaganda numbers there is.

And yes Dick doesnt know shit either. And I believe your man Obama was one of the first saying to bailout the banks. That the Senate needed to work quickly and not worry about what was in the bill. And I believe he said everything would be fine and the stock market would settle down. Well he got the down part right. Woohoo! for Bush policies! How many times does he have to be wrong before you stop believing the propaganda?

The real issue of these bailouts/loans is the fact that congress does not need to approve any bills anymore for the treasury to tell the fed to print money and then hand it to who they say.

This 15 billion is a drop in the bucket and laughable that there is a "debate" on it. The debate is there to distract us from the fact the first bailout did more harm than good and we are in a spot where almost anything we do will not correct the problem.

The pensions were never tied to future company earnings. It was a deal where the employee took lower wages, in return the company invested a percentage of his pay and promised to pay him "$X" per month for life in retirement.
Nobody forced the company to make that deal. The company took it because it gave them bigger profits the day the deal was made, because the laws regarding pension contributions are very lax.
The worker shouldn't suffer for the company's mismanagement. They could have taken higher wages and invested the money themselves, but instead trusted the company to make good on their promise.
Now every right winger in the country seems to want to throw union retirees under the bus as if they never earned the money they're due.

I'll give the right wing one thing, they sure have done a hell of a job over the past 30 years in terms of union propaganda. Everyone seems convinced that union workers are lazy people who are overpaid and don't deserve what they're getting....and instead of public sentiment being "How could I get a union going where I work" the sentiment is "Fuck those lazy union fucks, I hope they lose everything".

Great job right wing spin machine. :thumbsup

thank you for this post.