On Dec 12, 11:24*am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:45:04 -0500, Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

One of the first steps any company needs to insure it's long term
viability is that it's cost structure is competitive. *Since labor is
about 10% of the cost of the car, it makes sense for labor to agree to a
competitive salary to keep their jobs for the long term. *It looks to me
that the UAW and the Senate are not playing Russian Roulette, it is more
like "Chicken" in a auto, to see who will swerve.

Of course labor has to be part of any long term solution, but it's quite
interesting that Corker wanted to concentrate on labor's 10% and forget
about the other 90%. *Regardless, when this economy is in such perilous
condition, letting GM and Chrysler go out of business, is quite counter-
productive. *As I have said before, under normal circumstances, if the
economy was healthy, I would agree to let GM take it's chances with
bankruptcy.

As it stands, both GM and Chrysler, have hired Man, bankruptcy lawyers. I
don't think the next several years are going to be pretty.

The Republicans wanted the UAW to engage in substantial pay package
givebacks in either 2009 or 2010, and apparently factored in the costs s
of the total absorbed payroll, too, which includes the retirees. There's
really not much difference between the hourly rates of the current
represented employees and the exploited employees of ForeignAutoMakersSouth.

I wonder if the Repubs want the unionized workers to give up health care
benefits, too?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Man, did you get a transcript of the union rep's news conference,
cause you are chiming exactly the same sour grapes bull**** as he
threw up? Word for word... Who'd a thunk? The Unions refused any
reasonable concessions, just crying and fudging the numbers.