Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Whooopeee!!!!!
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:54:13 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:38 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I think the Big Three could be competitive, which is what they're trying to do, for example, by removing the benefits part to a separate trust (I believe that's what they're calling it). The UAW and other unions would clearly need to be willing (and they seem willing) to recognize the problems and renegotiate their packages. I haven't heard anything about a willingness to give up having the big three pay wages to people who aren't working. Have you? Do you really think the UAW is going to agree to something that would close that $30 an hour wage gap? I don't think so. I have a very hard time believing that any company would pay someone not to work. It certainly can't be significant, given the other huge benefit costs, which is the major contributor to the cost of their autos/trucks. What's the percentage? I'd be interested to know. As far as giving up part of their wages, it seems to me that if one has a choice between a job that pays a bit less vs. not having a job, it's a no-brainer. Do you think that this is the time to throw an even greater number into the unemployment lines? We can do it now at a cost, or later at much greater cost. I opt for the former. Do you really believe that dumping 3-5 million jobs is a cost we can stand right now... not to mention an estimated the tax base loss of $200B or more? You might be right that the cost later will be higher, perhaps even quite a bit higher, but it seems to me we would be better able to afford it later. Jon, Dave's obsession with the people on the bottom of the pile making any money is a red herring and nothing more. Labor is not even remotely at the core of GM's problems. |