Should the US govt bail out the American Auto Giants?
-
unions exploit their situation.. in construction unions can underbid a job just to get it and in return they are compensated by the association they belong to in order to make up for the false estimate.... forcing the "little" guy who can actually do the job for that price out of work.
is that moral or just good business..thats up to you but either way people are being forced out of work. why not start over and make doing business in the united states profitable again? sort of eliminates free enterprise when the govt pays for you when you make a boo boo
-
SmitEvo;246327 wrote:
Why does it need to be dealt with? Let them go bankrupt and other companies take them over and help them run profitably. Most people wouldnt even lose thier jobs...If there were no other impacts other than the company itself and those directly involved, I would say sure. However, the issue is more widespread than that. The entire country would feel the effects if the Big 3 were to fail.
-
24valvenotak;246332 wrote:
unions exploit their situation.. in construction unions can underbid a job just to get it and in return they are compensated by the association they belong to in order to make up for the false estimate.... forcing the "little" guy who can actually do the job for that price out of work.is that moral or just good business..thats up to you but either way people are being forced out of work. why not start over and make doing business in the united states profitable again? sort of eliminates free enterprise when the govt pays for you when you make a boo boo
Unions don't bid jobs... Union contractors are underbid and undercut by the "trunk slammers" who are non union every day.
-
SmitEvo;246325 wrote:
The real question is "why" are they in this situation...and dont blame the current economic conditions. This has been happening for a while.Point blame wherever you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is happening, and all the blame in the world won't change the facts.
-
MisterCMK;246330 wrote:
So only having one small part of the story makes you an expert? I never made and claims or comments regarding a union's impact on profitability of a company. I simply said that the union brings many benefits to the table for both the union worker and the company that employs the worker. Now, as a preemptive comment, I will say that the unions are primarily for the worker, not the employer. However, by playing by the union rules for things such as termination, education requirements, work days, etc, the company can remove many instances where the employee claims that they were unfairly treated or whatnot.Small part of the story...trust me, it wasnt a small case study. Why are companies in business? What is the main thing they are trying to accomplish? Do you think workers these days would be screwed if they didnt have unions backing them? All it does is create a false price floor for wages creating unnecessary costs which goes to the consumer. I wonder why we outsource labor these days...
-
MisterCMK;246333 wrote:
If there were no other impacts other than the company itself and those directly involved, I would say sure. However, the issue is more widespread than that. The entire country would feel the effects if the Big 3 were to fail.I agree we would feel an impact, but it would be better for OUR future as a country. Let the strongest survive...
-
MisterCMK;246336 wrote:
Point blame wherever you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is happening, and all the blame in the world won't change the facts.Facts are they are unprofitable...giving them money wont make them profitable and is just adding fuel to the flame. All this for a bandaid that wont fix the long term problem.
-
MisterCMK;246335 wrote:
Unions don't bid jobs... Union contractors are underbid and undercut by the "trunk slammers" who are non union every day.they dont bid because they dont have to, poor choice of wording on my part, but the fact remians that they are awarded contracts for prices that make completing the job impossible for non-union contractors(and turn a similar profit) because they are subsidized by the associations they subscribe to. the jobs which only allow unionized labor are being compensated, dont kid yourself.
there is a reason why unions are discouraged by companies and since we have laws which protect the treatment of employees they are no longer necessary. if you work hard you dont need to pay for job security.
-
SmitEvo;246340 wrote:
Facts are they are unprofitable...giving them money wont make them profitable and is just adding fuel to the flame. All this for a bandaid that wont fix the long term problem.They are not simply handing them a $50 billion check and saying enjoy. This is money that will help them restructure and change the way they operate.
-
24valvenotak;246342 wrote:
they dont bid because they dont have to, poor choice of wording on my part, but the fact remians that they are awarded contracts for prices that make completing the job impossible for non-union contractors(and turn a similar profit) because they are subsidized by the associations they subscribe to. the jobs which only allow unionized labor are being compensated, dont kid yourself.there is a reason why unions are discouraged by companies and since we have laws which protect the treatment of employees they are no longer necessary. if you work hard you dont need to pay for job security.
You don't get it. Unions do not bid jobs. Unions are not contractors. You might want to read up on unions.
-
There is enough evidence in the last 5 years to show that unions are currently causing more harm than they are helping.
There was a small beer company somewhere on the east coast that had all union employees (or most union)...the owner offered them all some chunk of the profits in exchange for them leaving the union. They all left, got better benefits, didn't have to pay union dues, and got a slight pay increase as well.
Also, like I said previously, look at the major airlines and automakers that are unionized...they are the ones that are failing. Rather than taking a paycut when times are tough, union bosses do not allow anything of the sort so they instead are just laid off. Hmm, paycut or jobloss...tough decision for your average worker yet a paycut allows you to still bring in SOME income while you job hunt.
Unions served their purpose, now they do nothing but harm the companies they are involved with.
-
My roommate works for a "contracting" company and has to deal with Union "contractors" all the time. His experiences show him that a.) Union does it "cheaper"(because its "subsidized" by the union or whatever) b.) Union does it SLOWER because they cry if they work OT, etc, etc, etc.
I know you'll pick out some technicality that I messed up above, but lets face it, I dont have "personal" experience in a union, but he does. I hear him bitch about it all the time, and he usually goes pretty indepth, but I can't remember everything off the top of my head. Also, you say there are benefits of unions(which yes, of course there are, they wouldn't have been created if this wasn't the case), but at WHAT COST? At what point do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? I'd say this is a perfect example...
The "Big 3" have had PLENTY of time to change their ways. They've been straight up ignoring the needs of customers for YEARS. Fuck em. Make them fix it themselves. It wasn't a fluke that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc started selling great.
-
MisterCMK;246344 wrote:
They are not simply handing them a $50 billion check and saying enjoy. This is money that will help them restructure and change the way they operate.I never said they would just hand them 50 billion...or the future money. What requirements do they have by the way? Since you seem to know everything, elaborate on the restructuring and how they are going to change the way they are going to operate? Tell me what the gov't is going to make them do...
-
MisterCMK;246276 wrote:
We'd be foolish not to bail out the auto giants. Do you guys have any idea how many jobs are tied to the Big 3? Just think how many people would be out of work and how much further that would push us into a recession. ** All the auto giants need is a little help through the rough times**.Will the gov bail me out in rough times?
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall
Torque is how far you take the wall with you -
The reason GM (and the big 3) are losing money hand over fist is that there is a perceived devaluation of their products due to an inferior design/build....none of which happen at the union worker level...more so it happens at the design and R&D stages.
It's already pretty well established that Toyota workers make about as much (if not more in some cases) than their UAW counterparts....so the high cost of having union employees is kind of a moot point. You might be able to say that the union workers aren't as versatile as their non-union counterparts, but that is part of the contracting process, the workers have very specific jobs that they perform and it is all spelled out under contract. If they fail to perform regularly, you have VERY easy ways of terminating their employment. To me, it doesn't seem like the UAW workers are the problem in this case...it seems like a poorly run company at the top levels of design/marketing/research and development/quality control.
-
At any rate, I am still against this...let them file Chapter 11, maybe give them a gov't backed (co-signed) loan and let them figure out their own mess. Forcing them into Chapter 11 should make them re-evaluate their business practices and force them to look at the areas that are working good for them and to sell off the less profitable sectors....it will do this at the expense of pension plans at all levels...so some peoples retirement will be gone w/o a trace, which isn't a good thing.
-
Unions=FAIL, no way around it. Like was said they served their purpose in the 50-70s, but now they are completely unreasonable. Unions are a major cause of the big 3s downfall and that isnt even a question, but a fact.
Granted GM fucked up big time back in the 80s and early 90s, even selling the shitty cars they made at a loss (early 90s W-cars, cutlass/GP/etc. were sold an average of $4500 loss) because of some very bad leadership and terrible management in those times. As a result they have never really recovered from that. Heres why. They lost so much money during that time they had to put off almost all of their maintinence and new infrastructure, in the late 90s-early 00s they were starting to come out of it, but had to spend millions of dollars building new plants and re-tooling, effectively showing a big loss yet. So in essence they were kinda staying even but never coming out of that huge loss, just in time for a dramatic cut back in sales and a rediculous increase in fuel price leading to their main product that was going to pull them out, losing money.And to you guys that think honda and toyota make such better cars, that is no longer the case. The new models are so similar in quality the deciding factor is mostly style. Also GM has more cars that get 30mpg or better than toyota there buddy. And lets not get into trucks and SUVs, Gm dominates there and every platform gets some of the best economy in its class.
I am torn on the bailout. I dont think its a good thing at all, and am against it. But, the auto industry has a hand in every aspect of production and supply in most of the world. If they go under, EVERY industry is going to go down so far most of them will fold as well. Iron, electronics, plastic, you name it, they will go bankrupt. So in that respect, do the ends justify the means?
-
tjamz;246352 wrote:
The reason GM (and the big 3) are losing money hand over fist is that there is a perceived devaluation of their products due to an inferior design/build....none of which happen at the union worker level...more so it happens at the design and R&D stages.It's already pretty well established that Toyota workers make about as much (if not more in some cases) than their UAW counterparts....so the high cost of having union employees is kind of a moot point. You might be able to say that the union workers aren't as versatile as their non-union counterparts, but that is part of the contracting process, the workers have very specific jobs that they perform and it is all spelled out under contract. If they fail to perform regularly, you have VERY easy ways of terminating their employment. To me, it doesn't seem like the UAW workers are the problem in this case...it seems like a poorly run company at the top levels of design/marketing/research and development/quality control.
Wages are a big reason...do your research. Another major problem like you said is they dont have the capital to R&D and create new products.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login