And what skills, pray, do you think should entitle someone to upwards of ten million a year? What benefit to society should be required for this much money? Maybe the guys who work for Doctors Without Borders, people like that, sure.
But skills at office politics and corporate infighting? Feh. Only rats win rat races.
One thing I’d liek to point out here. I think Chrysler is getting unfairly lumped in with the rest of these guys. In 98, they were bought out and basically looted by the criminaly incompetent minds at Daimler. They were marvelously profitable, and were sitting on mountains of cash reserves. They had a small car platofrm, the Neon, that was doing well, and they were raking it in on the small SUV market (Jeep) and minivans.
Daimler bought them out and paid all of the execs with any talent (Lutz, etc) to go away, and slowly replaced them with folks from the other side of the pond. Those folks (and their incompetent American lackeys) proceeded to run the company into the ground. It took a few years, but hey, it takes a while to spend all those billions in cash reserves, retool to produce ugly moronic autmobiles like the Caliber and the new Sebring, and shoehorn a hemi engine into every car in your lineup.
Unfortunately, when Cerberus took them over, they largely left all the same incompetent yahoos in charge. The plan should really be to fire the top mgmt there, but top mgmt is rather unlikely to propose that.
But what’s the alternative? Keep giving them an allowance so that they can continue to build cars that no one is buying (I’m speaking in general of the car market, as its projected to be for the next few years, not specific to their product).
Where is all the inventory going to go - they already can’t make a profit on current price, not to mentioned deeply discounted product.
I think the only real hope of an American automotive industry is a “controlled” receivership/bankruptcy - take whatever steps are necessary to make sure they emerge leaner and meaner if they can realistically survive.
Exactly. As long as we’ve spent $3bn in tax dollars over 16 years to actually create jobs, why not give 5 times that much all at once to bloated ineffectual companies so they can temporarily retain their overpaid workers and managers.
The way the Republicans are using this crisis as an excuse for union busting is disgusting.
Oh, I didn’t mean to write that corporate douchebags deserve 10 million dollars a year. Wait, I didn’t.
The UAW has had it incredibly good up until now and they didn’t even realize it. They bitched when their prescription copays went up to :: gasp :: $5! They bitched when they had to contribute a token amount of their paycheck to their health benefits, when everyone else has been doing that for years (or have no insurance at all). Plant gets shut down? There’s been the job bank where you can sit on your ass and still get paid a good chunk of your salary. Gee, what would happen if I got laid off at my job? What would my company do for me? If they’re feeling nice, perhaps two week’s severance.
Other people who do unskilled labor don’t get even half of the benefits and money that UAW workers get. That is what pisses me off. The fact that UAW doesn’t know how fucking good they have it.
Thing is, though, JM, so many of the people opposing the bailout spend the vast majority of their time ragging on unions and very little time discussing either the other problems within the auto industry, or the ways in which the industry, and America more generally, might be better served by allowing the Big 3 to go into bankruptcy.
I was listening to NPR the other evening, and they were talking with a Republican (can’t remember his name; i think he was from one of the Carolinas) who opposes the bailout. When asked why this was, he launched into an extended diatribe against unions and unionization, with basically no other explanation offered for why the bailout might be a bad idea.
Personally, i’m not a huge fan of the bailout myself. I tend to agree with the arguments that it would be better to let the companies file for bankruptcy and restructure, and use some of those government billions to help the individuals who are adversely affected by the consequences. But while it is perfectly possible to oppose the bailout for something other than political reasons, plenty of those opposing the bailout have given nothing BUT narrow, vindictive political reasons for doing so.
More generally, while i agree with some of the criticisms of unions (especially the criticisms that some union leaders are often more concerned about their own power than about their members’ long-term interests), i’m also amazed at how hostile so many Americans are to them. And in many cases, the hostility seems like little more than thinly-disguised envy or incredulity that a guy who works in a factory might actually be allowed to earn a decent wage.
It’s funny how criticisms of CEOs making tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year are often met with accusations of “envy” and “class warfare,” yet the same people who make those accusations look with apoplexy on a working man who manages, with overtime, to make 90 grand a year.
I honestly don’t know, and it seems like no one has a great answer for this. But if the Senate is going to allow the Big 3 to go under because they have an axe to grind with the UAW that’s messed up. I understand the complaints about the union and the head honchos at GM and Co., but if they fall a lot of people are going down with them. And not just people who have been making $20 an hour (is that what union workers make? doesn’t seem outrageous to me) for the last 10 years or the CEOs that have fat pockets. So I don’t know what the solution is. Reward short sighted incompetence with a bailout or let the American auto industry fold and take the economy with it?
To my mind, after the current amount of analysis, we should have bailed out no one, nor should we. Greed and mismanagement have decimated the financial sector. Greed and mismanagement have ruined the automotive sector. Until both of these things are addressed honestly, nothing will change.
Yes, the unions have their hands out. They’ve had their hand in the runination of the automotive sector. Still, the companies themselves are no slouches when it comes to shooting themselves in the foot. The fact remains that whether it’s AIG or GM these are businesses, not essential government services. Certianly, we have an obligation to help those people less fortunate and those in trouble. We’re the largest economy in the world (a bit like being the smartest kid on the short bus, but still) Instead of bailing out the companies themselves, tell the companies to file for protection under the law, get the money from their own creditors, and use this 700 billion to pay for the unemployment compensation and re-training that will be necessary. Then, increase trade tarriffs to 10-15% on all imported goods. Auto tarriffs go directly into a fund overseen by the government and managed by non-industry people to prop up the auto industry R&D. All the tarriffs go into a fund that props up our current manufacturing infrastructure.
These companies AND these unions are outmoded. They’ve not changed with the times and depend on their venerable names and past practices to save them. They will not. Let GM die. Let Chrysler die. Let AIG, Bear, AND the UAW die. If they don’t prepare for the future, why are we obligated to save their asses?
There are some solid, working companies both in the financial and auto sectors, it CAN be done. The unions though, have a rude awakening coming. If these companies fail, no one gets paid. They HAVE to work with the companies, they don’t have a choice, there is no more ground to be held. Gettelfinger and the auto-state governors can pound the desk and shout until their eyes bleed, and on some level, they’re right, financial services salaries/benefits need controls too, what we’re talking about isn’t pay, (the UAW has given wage considerations) but the benefits for retirees and the current workers. This drain and decades of sub-par products have slowly killed Detroit. There’s a reason these types of plans don’t exist anymore.
$28/hr is the figure cited (the $70/hr figure comes into play when you factor in the legacy costs at the Big Three). According to Olbermann last night, the numbers for the foreign car makers in the US come out to about the same as for the Big Three, save the legacy costs.
Some of the legacy costs could be trimmed by restructuring things like pension plans (turning them into 401Ks, for example) and healthcare provided to retirees (just making them pay a larger copay would be a big help).
The Unions have made concession after concession. They have done their bit. This is just a union busting move by the rich Senators.
Seconded. What the world needs is a VORP (Value over replacement player) rating for CEO’s, CFO’s and all the other wanna be Gordon Gecko’s of the world, so that someone can physically show me how Richard Fuld (of utter douchebagery fame) brings as much value to a company as 625 people making $60,000 a year.
And I’m sure some free market maven will come in here and point out that his compensation is dictated by the going market rate. Which-conveniently for guys like Richard Fuld- is set by guys like Richard Fuld…
All compensation is dictated by the going market rate. I do like your idea though. Not that these greedpigs will ever DO anything like that, but still, good idea.
This.
It’s not just the pay, but the work rules and benefits under the contracts that totally constrict the company from changing themselves in a dynamic sense. Things like:
[ul]
[li]Strict work rules and not being able to change processes or make things more efficient in the process[/li][li]Not being able to close down old, outdated facilities[/li][li]Job banks - I am sure you would like to be able to make 90% of your salery after being laid off[/li][li]Generous health care benefits that are much higher than the norm[/li][li]Guarenteed benefit pension plans[/li][/ul]
I think this is a case of political brinkmanship as well. The union thinks all they have to do is wait until Jan 20th, and the companies think that they have finally found a way to break the unions without filing for bankruptcy. Time will tell who’s right.
Also, I don’t buy the crap on the American car companies making product nobody wants. Its that the majority of Americans want one of two products - a cheap ass affordable product or a luxury affordable products. And both mean that, with the wage scales for suppliers, that manufacturing jobs are not going to be here, so that means foreign (primarily far east) automotive manufacturing.
Notice that people are all up in arms about the “loss of the American automotive industy.” Go talk to the people at Lear, Delphi, Goodyear, Visteon. It’s already gone people.
You can blame upper management for screwing up, and yeah, they did. They made bad products and failed to invest in key areas for a long time. However, those problems are largely fixed. Technology wise and design wise they are now competitive with foreign makers, and beat them in many areas. The problem is that once they lost market share, they were unable to do what was necessary to be profitable at a smaller size.
Part of it is the unions. The UAW essentially blocks them from reducing capacity because they have to pay those idled or laid off workers. GM, especially, needs to cut capacity significantly and they simply can’t do so. The only point of bailing out the Big 3 is to see them become profitable later. It’s not to throw 30 billion away to have them come back in 6 months for more.
It’s not difficult to see what needs to happen. Brands need to be consolidated, which means closed dealerships, and wages need to be competitive across the industry, which means the UAW giving up some benefits. If those things don’t happen, there is no point in bailing them out because they will just need money again.
54k a year is a lot of money. It’s twice the median income for high school graduates and towards the top 1/4 of median household income.
What you forget is that these things were negotiated for. They were agreed to between management and the representatives of the workers. Presumably, the union gave up something for them - they weren’t granted out of the goodness of management’s collective heart. Had these not been granted, presumably pay would have been higher.
Given that they were negotiated, blaming their existance totally on the union strikes me as more than a tad unfair. As does the expectation that all sacrifice in bad times comes from the workers.
It’s also an issue when it comes to the plans to cut back on retirees benefits. It’s the easy way out for union and management - these people don’t have any power any more, and so it is possible to bargain away the benefits they were promised in negotiations while they were employed.
You’re right, but most of these things were negotiated 50+ years ago, when the manufacturing environment was a lot different than it was today. In the post war years, companies were desparate to keep working and would give anything (especially a liabilitiy 40 years in the future) to keep people working today.
The workplace environment has changed a lot (Ask your grandparents how many people had portfolios when they started in the workplace) but typically each contract negotiation starts with the context of “what else can we add?” Once they are in a contract, these things are nearly impossible to get out. Think the analogy of a boa constrictor.
Well, 50 years later the bird has come home to roost, and the workers and the companies now have to deal with those decisions.
At the same time I’ll never defend a CEO making $20mm a year. It’s insane, ludicris, etc. Simply, there is a lot of blame to go around, and even if you have nothing to do with the automotive industry, if you’ve bought a car you can pony up for your slice as well.