On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty. I buy what I happen to like, for various reasons. For daily
drivers, I tend to buy American built, only because they serve the purpose
well.

Plenty don't have that attitude, hence my mention.

But, I have more sympathy for Ford right now than GM, mainly because Ford
has been far more pro-active in terms of trying to fix themselves than GM
has. I still don't understand the union relationships with each
manufacturer, and I don't blame unions. They negotiated a contract and plan
their lives on it. Fine.

They're all UAW. You can google for contract details, but there won't
be much difference.

But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?

They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and
has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers,
another for those making full pay and not working.
But everything you've just said can be applied to the financial fat
cat bailout, which has already cost 10 times as much as the auto
companies are asking for, and Paulson is still spending, and I still
don't know how that will be paid back.
And even beyond that, why should I be taxed to keep 401k's plan
stuffed with inflated profits?
Every time you hear about how many 401k's are out there, in an attempt
to keep Wall Street propped up, you are hearing BS.
Investment in Wall Street by actual workers is not as widespread as
they would have you think.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees
plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?



They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and
has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers,
another for those making full pay and not working.


Know what? I think that issue ... the (up to) 95% pay to stay home due to
lack of work is what ticks off most people more than anything else.

Want to see how stupid I am about these things? I always thought that the
pay that union members received while not working due to slowdowns was
funded by the unions by the dues they collected. That wouldn't bother me
at all. But, as I now understand it, it's the company that pays, based on
a contract agreement made back in the '80s.

I guess when the economy is trucking along and GM is making money, few
concern themselves with this kind of thing. It's when things turn to crap
and GM wants the rest of us taxpayers to cough up the money, it gets some
attention.

I know, (for Harry's benefit), the union has conceded to temporarily
terminate this practice and may even consider permanently eliminating it in
future reorganization contract negotiations. But, when the 3 musketeers
first went before congress begging for money, it was in place, to the best
of my knowledge.

Eisboch

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



I know, (for Harry's benefit), the union has conceded to temporarily
terminate this practice and may even consider permanently eliminating it in
future reorganization contract negotiations. But, when the 3 musketeers
first went before congress begging for money, it was in place, to the best
of my knowledge.

I don't know that they've conceded that yet. The union pres is good
at dodging questions. Being a former member, I can tell you that UAW
is a tough, old-fashioned union. Militant, and hard as hell to back
down on anything. The devil will be in the details.
Corker is tough though, and I don't think the Reps in the Senate will
let that go. Could even filibuster.

--Vic

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I guess when the economy is trucking along and GM is making money, few
concern themselves with this kind of thing. It's when things turn to
crap and GM wants the rest of us taxpayers to cough up the money, it
gets some attention.

It's hard to defend the jobs bank, but it has to be put into
perspective. It goes back to the 1984 contract, and it wasn't one-
sided. The company got productivity and flexibility increases. The time
in the jobs bank was supposed to be for retraining and community
projects. IMO, clearly it's time to end this, but in the big picture
it's small potatoes.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-351179.htm

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:44:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

That wouldn't bother me
at all. But, as I now understand it, it's the company that pays, based on
a contract agreement made back in the '80s.

Yes. Why they would ever make an agreement like that is beyond me
but I'm sure the profits were rolling in at the time and no one wanted
to risk putting a damper on that with a strike. The short sighted
view of the auto companies is why they are in trouble now.