GM bankruptcy

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I don't know, but you certainly seem to be interested in it. Why don't you go and find out for yourself?

Tell me Partha. How is $55/hr a valid number and ~$80/hr isn't?

[Partha]

Maybe because, I don't know, LEGACY COSTS ARE NOT WAGES?

Hopefully when you go to the Taco Bell for work, however, they'll make an exception for you. Instead of giving you money, they can give you free tacos after you retire and call it 'wages'. Tard.

[Lurker]

Blaming the UAW is stupid. The UAW's purpose is to provide the maximum possible benefits for its members and I would say it was pretty damn successful at that - actually too successful. The whole problem is the car companies shouldn't have agreed to so many demands 30 years ago, so it's their own stupid fault.

The UAW traded lower wages for future benefits. The US auto companies were able to pad their bottom line for decades because they were paying lower wages. It's not the UAW's fault that the companies didn't prepare themselves properly. When it became obvious a few years ago that the companies were failing the UAW agreed to huge concessions.

====

Wingnut,
We already debunked the $80 number in another thread. It's a misleading number. Also, the UAW had reworked the contracts with all the US automakers, not just Ford, to bring their labor/legacy costs down. Ford didn't need loans because they were in better financial shape due to not being mismanaged as badly, not because they "saved 500 million a year" on a union contract. Where do you get this stuff?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You do realize that $55/hr include legacy costs, right?

Here you go fucktard, read this: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... YQ20090311

The legacy costs are included as part of the wage because that is what the company will be paying the worker down the road(its part of "other compensation") on top of the hourly wages (which start $28/hr and go up from there). So while you seem to think that legacy costs are not wages, the people that write those contracts clearly do.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

In retrospect I understand that you guys can't read big words... Here's some pictures to help you better understand.

http://www.heritage.org/research/econom ... chart1.gif


And, if you feel you have enough of a grasp of the english language and would like to see what is said on the page that includes these pictures, then here you go. http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm

[Lurker]

Wingnut,
We already know what the $80 number contains. We discussed it months ago in this thread. I find the third post in that thread very interesting. What changed between then and now to cause a complete 180 in your opinion? Oh yeah... the party in power at the time.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

What changed my opinion since then?

I'll admit that a lot of my opinion change has come from reading different outlets and educating myself. Also this has been completely mishandled and it seems that this end result (the government owning a car company) was the agenda all along. There is no reason that we shouldn't have just let them go into chapter 11 and restructure their business models, it would've cost us billions less for a better end result.

As Minute said back then:

I'm for bailing them out

If you weren't convinced that this is a terrible idea before, this fact alone should do the trick.

8 months is a long time, at least I was able to make some growth.

Also: party in power probably did play into it then... now I realize that they're both fiscally retarded.

[Lurker]

Your "growth" is being fed by misinformation.

Where did you get the idea that Ford was saved by making a deal with the UAW in 2009, a deal that GM couldn't get because they turned to the "nanny state". GM had already renegotiated it's UAW contract in 2007, and the UAW made even bigger concessions last month as part of the restructuring deal.

There is no reason that we shouldn't have just let them go into chapter 11 and restructure their business models, it would've cost us billions less for a better end result.

No, it wouldn't have. GM and Chyrsler wouldn't have been able to do Chapter 11 without the Govt. underwriting it. They would have been forced to liquidate, and the cost of that would have been much higher to the taxpayer.

You really need to find new sources of information. The anti-government black helicopter crowd from the 90's is back and you'd do well to avoid them.

[Lurker]

I'm for bailing them out

If you weren't convinced that this is a terrible idea before, this fact alone should do the trick.

Too funny. You are quoting Minute warning the rest of the board that the idea must suck because you support it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Wingnut,
We already know what the $80 number contains. We discussed it months ago in this thread. I find the third post in that thread very interesting. What changed between then and now to cause a complete 180 in your opinion? Oh yeah... the party in power at the time.

Yes, that was mentioned a few times in that thread. I just re-read it. And guess whose predictions came true?

[Lurker]

Links!

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Your "growth" is being fed by misinformation.

Where did you get the idea that Ford was saved by making a deal with the UAW in 2009, a deal that GM couldn't get because they turned to the "nanny state".

No where have I said that Ford was saved because of that deal. I'm saying that they were smart enough to make the move on their own. I'm saying that they were smart for not taking any government money. I'm saying they still exist as their own company because they didn't take any government money. This is simply how I see it.

Too funny. You are quoting Minute warning the rest of the board that the idea must suck because you support it.

Back then I was highly misinformed. I fell for the tricks. As I said, now I understand that they're both fiscally retarded.

If GM and Chrysler had refused bailout money and gone into chapter 11 on their own the cost to the taxpayer would've been $0.

GM still would've abolished Pontiac, probably still would've sold Hummer. Chrysler may have liquidated one of its brands (probably Jeep), but I'd imagine they would've been able to restructure Chrysler and Dodge's business models to be more competitive over time. Thats all speculative, though. Not to mention rework their contract with UAW to be more in line with what Japanese automakers in America pay, and if UAW rejects it I'm sure that there are people that would be more than willing to take those jobs.

[Lurker]

If GM and Chrysler had refused bailout money and gone into chapter 11 on their own the cost to the taxpayer would've been $0.

GM and Chrysler could not have done Chapter 11 without Government backing. They would have had to liquidate, which would have cost taxpayers billions picking up pensions and health care and unemployment and lost revenue.

No where have I said that Ford was saved because of that deal. I'm saying that they were smart enough to make the move on their own. I'm saying that they were smart for not taking any government money. I'm saying they still exist as their own company because they didn't take any government money. This is simply how I see it.

First of all, I already showed that GM renegotiated their UAW contract "on their own" years ago. And it makes no logical sense to say Ford avoided bankruptcy because they didn't take government money. They avoided bankruptcy because they didn't need government money because they hadn't been as badly mismanaged for all those decades. Your critical thinking skills are really lacking.

And did I mention that the UAW contracts had already been renegotiated? You seem to keep missing that.

[Klast Brell]

Maybe because, I don't know, LEGACY COSTS ARE NOT WAGES?

Hopefully when you go to the Taco Bell for work, however, they'll make an exception for you. Instead of giving you money, they can give you free tacos after you retire and call it 'wages'. Tard.

Add all the deferred compensation for the former CEO's and you can make bloated CEO compensation* even bigger too.Let's see Wagoner got 12 million, but GM's CEO cost was 25 million. I can do that too.

* I didn't look up the actual numbers but I know waggoner took home 12 mill one year and there was millions more in deferred compensation that was added to his retirement.

[Klast Brell]

In retrospect I understand that you guys can't read big words... Here's some pictures to help you better understand.

http://www.heritage.org/research/econom ... chart1.gif


And, if you feel you have enough of a grasp of the english language and would like to see what is said on the page that includes these pictures, then here you go. http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm

THat table needs the fist column split in two. One column for current employees, and another for retiree benefits. Combining the figures like that makes the impression that the current employees are rolling in dough and are insanely greedy. You slice in to that total and you won't just be cutting in to the greedy union laborers take home. You will be cutting in to someone's fixed income.
If it was your grandparents who's income was being slashed you probably would have a different opinion about it.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

If GM and Chrysler had refused bailout money and gone into chapter 11 on their own the cost to the taxpayer would've been $0.

GM and Chrysler could not have done Chapter 11 without Government backing. They would have had to liquidate, which would have cost taxpayers billions picking up pensions and health care and unemployment and lost revenue.

No where have I said that Ford was saved because of that deal. I'm saying that they were smart enough to make the move on their own. I'm saying that they were smart for not taking any government money. I'm saying they still exist as their own company because they didn't take any government money. This is simply how I see it.

First of all, I already showed that GM renegotiated their UAW contract "on their own" years ago. And it makes no logical sense to say Ford avoided bankruptcy because they didn't take government money. They avoided bankruptcy because they didn't need government money because they hadn't been as badly mismanaged for all those decades. Your critical thinking skills are really lacking.

And did I mention that the UAW contracts had already been renegotiated? You seem to keep missing that.

I'm not quite as daft as you are, thankfully.

GM '07: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/uaw-o05.shtml

According to Bloomberg.com, hourly pay and benefits for non-core jobs will be $28, compared with $51 for current UAW workers. GM estimates its hourly labor costs for current UAW employees at $73. Analysts say the two-tier agreement could save GM $1.2 billion a year.

Under the tentative contract, GM will establish a new category of “non-core” jobs, the full scope of which has reportedly not yet been defined. However, press reports include among these jobs certain machining operations, subassembly, inspection, some stamping functions, material handling, warehousing and truck driving. Newly hired workers at these positions will receive a base wage ranging from $14.00 to $16.23 an hour, compared to the current base wage of $28.00.

They did absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of their current workers, only new incoming workers in "non-core" positions.

Ford in '09: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... MJIzb_PlZU

Ford also is seeking to reduce its hourly employment through buyouts valued at as much as $75,000 each.

The offers include as much as $40,000 for workers who qualify for retirement and have at least 20 years of service, while those who aren’t eligible to retire can take $50,000 to quit, according to a copy of the tentative agreement obtained by Bloomberg News.

Workers taking the buyouts also would have the option of receiving a $25,000 voucher for a new car or $20,000 in cash, according to the agreement.

Instead, Ford union workers with more than 20 years will get 52 weeks at about 70 percent of their gross wages, so-called supplemental unemployment benefit, or SUB, pay -- or about double what they would receive in unemployment -- and 52 weeks more at half that rate.

Workers with more than 10 years and fewer than 20 get 39 weeks of full SUB pay and 39 weeks at half the rate. A worker with less than 10 years’ service gets 26 weeks at full supplemental pay and 26 weeks at half.

In the past, workers would get the supplemental pay for 48 weeks and then go into the jobs bank.

Ford workers under the revised terms also will work 40 hours before they are paid overtime, which would allow for four 10-hour days without overtime. Workers also will have shorter breaks.

Clearly Ford was able to address some benefits issues and get the Union to agree with it to make their overall hourly wages lower.

Chrysler and GM would've been able to go into Chapter 11 without government backing. Chapter 11 puts their debts on hold and allows them to be more competitive while reorganizing. I don't know where you're getting that they wouldn't have been able to do it without government backing.

Want more: Here's a 'What if' article in 2005 about GM going bankrupt: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 963114.htm

If it was your grandparents who's income was being slashed you probably would have a different opinion about it.

If my grandparents were still alive and still receiving an income from a job that they had held 10-20 years prior and not a 401(k) savings of money set aside strictly for retirement I'm sure I would ponder what fucked up scheme they were a part of that allowed them to get a salary for sitting at home and doing nothing.

It's not just retired people that are sitting at home and getting paid thanks to the UAW either.

[Lurker]

They did absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of their current workers, only new incoming workers in "non-core" positions.

The VEBA would have absolutely eliminated much of GM's legacy/current cost per worker. They also got further concessions from the UAW recently as part of the restructuring. I really don't know where you got the idea that Ford was able to reach deals with the UAW because they didn't need government assistance, or didn't need government assistance because they reached deals with the UAW last month (you seem to be saying both at the same time). It's just not true.

Chrysler and GM would've been able to go into Chapter 11 without government backing. Chapter 11 puts their debts on hold and allows them to be more competitive while reorganizing. I don't know where you're getting that they wouldn't have been able to do it without government backing.

Nobody but the Government could provide the DIP financing needed for Chapter 11.

I would ponder what fucked up scheme they were a part of that allowed them to get a salary for sitting at home and doing nothing.

It's called giving up current wages for future benefits. Kulaf talked about it too.

It's not just retired people that are sitting at home and getting paid thanks to the UAW either.

It wasn't the UAW that thought up the idle worker system; it was management at the auto companies. And that system is being ended.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

They did absolutely nothing to reduce the costs of their current workers, only new incoming workers in "non-core" positions.

The VEBA would have absolutely eliminated much of GM's legacy/current cost per worker. They also got further concessions from the UAW recently as part of the restructuring. I really don't know where you got the idea that Ford was able to reach deals with the UAW because they didn't need government assistance, or didn't need government assistance because they reached deals with the UAW last month (you seem to be saying both at the same time). It's just not true.

You really are quite the idiot. I don't have the idea that they were able to reach a deal because they didn't take government money or didn't need government money because they reached a deal with UAW. Ford was already in a better situation with UAW than GM or Chrysler were, paying $3 and $5 less per hour respectively.

UAW is just a minor problem on a bigger scale and Ford was doing better (in my opinion) with marketing and changing their business model for new technologies than GM or Chrysler were. Chrysler was depending on Cars, Trucks and SUV's with Hemi engines in them when people were trying to conserve more. GM wasn't offering anything anybody wanted to begin with and delaying the cars people did want endlessly.

That doesn't change the fact that I think the UAW workers are vastly overpaid and a drain on the entire auto industry, though.

I would ponder what fucked up scheme they were a part of that allowed them to get a salary for sitting at home and doing nothing.

It's called giving up current wages for future benefits. Kulaf talked about it too.

Should just pay them ~$28/hr max(not including health benefits) and allow them to pay into a 401(k) with a designated amount out of that wage and the company match that up to a predetermined limit/yr. Just seems like they have too sweet of a deal right now.

It's not just retired people that are sitting at home and getting paid thanks to the UAW either.

It wasn't the UAW that thought up the idle worker system; it was management at the auto companies. And that system is being ended.

And rightfully should be.

[Lurker]

You implied that GM and Chrysler weren't able to reach deals with the UAW which was completely false. Both GM and Chrysler renegotiated their UAW contracts in preparation for their Chapter 11 filings. Your entire premise that Ford was smart for not taking governement money and they were smart for negotiating with the UAW on their own is logically flawed. They didn't need government loans. It follows that they negotiated (after GM and Chrysler) on their own. Duh.

UAW is just a minor problem on a bigger scale

No idea what you mean here. If you mean that that UAW wasn't a major cause for the failure of GM and Chrysler then we're in agreement... and you've completely reversed your opinion in the space of a couple days.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

You implied that GM and Chrysler weren't able to reach deals with the UAW which was completely false. Both GM and Chrysler renegotiated their UAW contracts in preparation for their Chapter 11 filings. Your entire premise that Ford was smart for not taking governement money and they were smart for negotiating with the UAW on their own is logically flawed. They didn't need government loans. It follows that they negotiated (after GM and Chrysler) on their own. Duh.

UAW is just a minor problem on a bigger scale

No idea what you mean here. If you mean that that UAW wasn't a major cause for the failure of GM and Chrysler then we're in agreement... and you've completely reversed your opinion in the space of a couple days.

Not really, I've just made it my main arguing point (incorrectly, mind you)... the UAW wages are bloated and certainly didn't help, but are definitely not the main cause of the two companies downfalls. Bolded = yes. Probably first and last time.

GM and Chrysler were able to reach deals even prior to taking government money, though they weren't as substantial as Ford's deals (2007 deals GM/Chrysler saved $1 billion a year, Ford worked out saving $2 billion a year). The largest problem they have faced have been their platforms.

That being said, I won't be buying GM anytime soon unless its a Volt. Not because its "Government Motors", but because the quality just isn't there. (I'd only buy a Volt because I drive less than 30 miles a day currently, I'd use little to no gasoline... though I'd wait and find out how much it impacts other people's home electric bills before I'd purchase.)