"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:


Knowing that 2-3 grand from each vehicle is made to pay for some
employee retirement plan is enough for me to say screw that! I would
rather if that 2-3 grand was spent in making the truck not fall apart
after 5 years.

You're opposed to employee retirement plans?

The ones GM gives up to its unions, driving the U.S. automobile industry
in the gutter - yes I am.

Other than that, I am not.

The retirement plans are the result of collective bargaining, and for the
most part represent hourly earnings the employees could have seen as gross
income in their paychecks had they so chose. GM isn't giving the employees
anything; the employees decided that they wanted a percentage of their
income going towards retirement.

Many US corporations have unfunded pension liability problems. *THAT* is
the fault of management and greedy stockholders.

If the US auto industry is in the gutter, it isn't because of its
unionized employees; it is because of bad, shortsighted management.


Auto union over compensated pensions are because of shortsighted management.
For years when Detroit was the only game for a decent vehicle, they gave the
union most of what they asked for. They were rolling in income. But since
Deming went to Japan and taught them about quality control, at least Toyota
and Honda, the pie got smaller. But the unions did not admit that. Toyota
cars are not the best as a car, but Toyota is probably the premier
manufacturing company in the world. Do not change something that is
working, unless they need to for milage, etc. That 2005 Toyota engine will
most likely bolt in to any 15 year old Toyota. Other than the electronics,
and FI, same basic engine. Cars handles like crap, but it will handle like
crap for a lot of miles.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:


Knowing that 2-3 grand from each vehicle is made to pay for some
employee retirement plan is enough for me to say screw that! I would
rather if that 2-3 grand was spent in making the truck not fall apart
after 5 years.

You're opposed to employee retirement plans?

The ones GM gives up to its unions, driving the U.S. automobile
industry
in the gutter - yes I am.

Other than that, I am not.

The retirement plans are the result of collective bargaining, and for
the
most part represent hourly earnings the employees could have seen as
gross
income in their paychecks had they so chose. GM isn't giving the
employees
anything; the employees decided that they wanted a percentage of their
income going towards retirement.

Many US corporations have unfunded pension liability problems. *THAT* is
the fault of management and greedy stockholders.

If the US auto industry is in the gutter, it isn't because of its
unionized employees; it is because of bad, shortsighted management.


Auto union over compensated pensions are because of shortsighted
management.
For years when Detroit was the only game for a decent vehicle, they gave
the
union most of what they asked for. They were rolling in income. But
since
Deming went to Japan and taught them about quality control, at least
Toyota
and Honda, the pie got smaller. But the unions did not admit that.
Toyota
cars are not the best as a car, but Toyota is probably the premier
manufacturing company in the world. Do not change something that is
working, unless they need to for milage, etc. That 2005 Toyota engine
will
most likely bolt in to any 15 year old Toyota. Other than the
electronics,
and FI, same basic engine. Cars handles like crap, but it will handle
like
crap for a lot of miles.

Steel companies, airlines, automotive are all suffering from the defined
pension plans.....which is why they will be a thing of the past in the near
future.