No wonder U.S. cars suck - UAW reveals 'jobs' bank, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 05:48 PM by sos37

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by sos37If you call that selfish, for me to focus on what's in the best interests of my own family first rather than the guy next door, then hell yes, I'm selfish and I wouldn't have it any other way

Time was folks looked out for each other. Now it's 'me, me, me'
Which explains why your country is tanking. Used to be "Buy American", now it's "Attention Walmart shoppers."

"Buy American" does still mean something. What you have to realize is the size of the investment being made. It's not nearly the same as looking at the packaging on a pair of socks for the "Made in the USA" symbol and being willing to fork over an extra buck to support American-made products. We're talking about a huge investment of of $25,000-$30,000 for a vehicle.

No, when I invest that much money in something, you can bet I'm going to do my research first and I'm going to want to get the most for my money. You call that being selfish and part of the "me me me" era? Hah! I call it good business sense.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by sos37]

reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 06:11 PM by keeff

reply to post by sos37

THE JOB BANK

people are placed in the job bank when either a # is cut, or a plant is closed. if it is because of a shift being cut. the people with the lowest seniority (newest employees ) are laid-off first,by thier hire in dates.
when you are in the job bank, and a job becomes avaliable and it is a relocation, u can turn the relocation down 2 times. then you lose your job and benefits.

again in my earlier post it explains what you have to do while in the job bank. and no it is not sit around and play cards.

reply posted on 5-12-2008 @ 11:19 PM by Sestias

The UAW is not the reason the automakers are in trouble. Labor is only about 10% of the cost of manufacturing. It's not the reason cars are so expensive, or why the quality does not compare to foreign models--those are management decisions.

The people who make decent wages (usually about $14/hr. according to a previous post) and have decent benefits and working conditions are not the enemy.

In the 1950's and 60's union membership was much higher than it is today and unionized companies were not going broke. Their CEO's and shareholders were not so fabulously rich as they are in some modern corporations, but those years marked a period of prosperity in America. It was a time when the middle class was growing rapidly, rather than shrinking as it is now. That was in part because unions pushed up the wages of the average worker and made them able to become better consumers, which in turn kept the economy humming.

If Wal-Mart and other slave labor started organizing rather than adopting such a jealous, dog-in-the-manager attitude toward those who are just a little better off they could benefit too.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 12:08 AM by dooper

reply to post by Sestias

I remember in the 1960's as a kid, when the UAW went on strike and settled for about $12 per hour as I recollect. At the time, the average wage was less than five dollars per hour for skilled labor.

I don't want to hear it. And if you think that only ten percent of a product is labor, then you live in the jungles of Indonesia. Social Security alone is 6.67% added to hourly wage. Add benefits, which is the actual bugaboo here.

I hope that we let the auto manufacturers fail, the UAW is out of business, and then maybe we can get back to common sense business practices. Which will mean no frikking, life-sucking union.

The management have done a poor job of anticipating market requirements, and you'd think that they'd have learned the first time around in 1973. Then they sign these foolish union agreements, and find themselves uncompetitive and broke.

Too bad. Lots of folks will be hurt. But that's all short-term. The removal of the unions will be better for the US auto industry in the long term.

The unions helped run other industries out of our country. That's OK. This is the last bastion of big organized unions, and good riddance.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 01:25 AM by aava

reply to post by Sestias

Labor and legacy costs are WAY more than 10% for the big 3. Legacy costs alone (healthcare, pensions for retired workers) cost GM around $1,500 per vehicle produced. Toyota, Honda, etc are not burdened with those costs. Does THAT sound competitive? No, the big 3 are toast.

Face it, as currently structured, the automakers are doomed. With bloated(!) cost structures and overcapacity due to a precipitous drop in demand, something has to give.

[edit on 12/6/08 by aava]

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 10:27 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by dooper
The unions helped run other industries out of our country. That's OK. This is the last bastion of big organized unions, and good riddance.

Mexico pays the equivalent of $2 an hour for auto workers. You can't blame the unions for that kind of disparity. And even at that, corporations are moving those jobs to Asia. The UAW and big unions have helped to raise the bar...deservedly...for American (and Canadian) workers' wages and benefits. That rolls downhill...there's your trickle-down economics for you. Remember when you didn't have to buy the cheap Chinese-made crap at Walmart?

But, how you gonna compete with a deuce an hour, or even less??

Blame the corporations and the ongoing looting of the middle class. Hell, Unions brought blue collar into the middle class! But we've just seen what unregulated Big Finance gets you.

Be a little more generous in sharing the blame for the melt-down.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 10:34 AM by AmericanDaughter

This is a video of a new Ford plant in Brazil. One look at this and you will be able to tell why there will probably never be another one built in the USA. It will also point out why more assembly plants will go offshore. And.. Pay attention to the last few words, it says a lot!

info.detnews.com...

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 10:42 AM by OldThinker

Here IS the REASON the Big 3 are where they are....

The 7 wastes

1. Defects
2. Overproduction
3. Transportation
4. Waiting
5. Inventory
6. Motion
7. Processing

GM

Ford

Chysler

Anyone ever heard of "TPS"?? There's your answer!!!!!

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 10:52 AM by jimmyx

i have had a 97' chevy lumina, and i got 240,000 miles on it before trading it in (only for 1000 bucks i might add). i now have a 2002 dodge intrepid and i have 202,000 on it. no secret...CHANGE THE OIL EVERY 3,000 MILES!!! duh...of course regular maintainence is required, just like on foreign cars. it's not the 70's or 80's any more, because the 1984 pontiac grand prix i had was a piece of crap.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:03 AM by disgustedbyhumanity

Originally posted by aava
reply to post by Sestias

Labor and legacy costs are WAY more than 10% for the big 3. Legacy costs alone (healthcare, pensions for retired workers) cost GM around $1,500 per vehicle produced. Toyota, Honda, etc are not burdened with those costs. Does THAT sound competitive? No, the big 3 are toast.

Face it, as currently structured, the automakers are doomed. With bloated(!) cost structures and overcapacity due to a precipitous drop in demand, something has to give.

[edit on 12/6/08 by aava]

That is exactly the problem. Legacy costs. Back those out and labor costs truly is only 10%. So basically the problem with the car companies is that those who are now retired are sucking too much out of the companies. This is in the form of outrageous healthcare cost and pensions liabilities which have not earned what was anticipated, coupled with people living longer than anticipated.

So to solve the problems of the car companies, you need to solve the problem of the retirees. Do you people want the retirees to lose there pensions and their healthcare? If so, then you must realize that in the end our goverment basically guarantees their pension through the pension benefit guaranty fund (also about broke) and without healthcare they will all be on medicare instead. So either way, the taxpayers will be paying for this.

If we lend them money instead, there exist the possibility that they can save themselves, stopping an upheaval to the economy which will be much greater than any cost of a bailout and we also have the chance to get paid back that money one day.

And when it comes to wages. lets look at employees of the goverment. 90% of all federal goverment employees make more than what the starting workers in UAW make; The average federal worker also makes much more than the average worker of UAW. What has our world come to when we need unions to ensure pay parity? That is the real issue. Employers will pay the least wage they can get away with. Without intrevention they will continue to employ americans into the way of poverty.

Federal Pay Scale- note % at each pay scale

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:19 AM by Montana

The total cost of labor is approximately 8.4% according to the UAW. This includes retirement and health care. About $2400 per vehicle. This may seem like a lot, but stop a minute and think about it. These are wages paid to people who will then go out and spend the money on new cars, trucks computers, restaurants, clothes and everything else.

Without a reasonable wage what are they going to buy the things YOU produce with?

Source

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:22 AM by Jkd Up

Originally posted by sos37
Get this - this is astounding.

Apparently the UAW revelaed that is has a jobs bank that allows laid off workers to receive up to 95% of their pay after being laid off. In some cases workers are laid off for as long as a year while still receiving their pay. They are still required to go up to the plant, but apparently they are playing cards and reading the newspaper and receiving up to 95% of their original pay for doing it.

So here's the lightbulb. It's no wonder American cars suck big time. Big-three employees are required to belong to the UAW and with the jobs-bank around, there's no incentive o do a good job if they know they can get laid off and still receive 95% of their pay.

At this point, Congress should do something to help out the big three, but the UAW has got to go. There's no telling what else they've got going on that's bleeding the Big-three out of money and allowing workers to slack off. Simply unbelievable!

That's an important thing to remember; is that UAW has been a major drain on the automakers. Think of everytime you read in the newspaper that UAW was gonna strike... The automakers had to come to an agreement with them.

I'm not here to debate that unions are right or wrong... Only that wether nesicary, they are draining these companies.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:32 AM by OldThinker

More answers, if anyone is listening from the Big 3

www.amazon.com...

www.amazon.fr...

www.leanlibrary.com...

OT

PS: Legacy costs are a factor, too...to echo a prior post...

But the ROOT CAUSE (in the 5 Why tradition) is the 7 WASTES

PSS: If readers are truly seeking an answer read EXTREME TOYOTA, it just came out....

You'll notice they spend exorbinate amounts of money (loopsided really
on support offices/function for the VALUE-ADDERS...

THE ANSWER TO THIS DILEMNA IS SOVLE-ABLE!!!!

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:32 AM by defcon5

reply to post by sos37

I have news for you, half the UAW Employees who are actually on the job do nothing more then sleep, read the paper, and play cards all day. They actually have employees who are paid to sit all day just in case a piece of equipment should break down once or twice a year. They flag equipment unusable simply because someone touched it who was not a Union member, etc. When I was there, we had to call a Union Electrician to plug in or move a PC, even just a couple of feet, or they could flag it unusable and file a grievance. The UAW serves one purpose only, to create as many high paid jobs as possible, so they can collect as many Union Dues as possible. Pan Am and Eastern Airlines Unions were just about as bad, and look where it landed them.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:34 AM by Montana

Just a thought about the 'job bank'. Where I work they have a similar practice called a 'worker retention board'. This is not a contractual or negotiated requirement. The corporation has instituted this on it's own for it's own reasons. It seems they have decided it costs MORE to hire and train new employees than to pay the current skilled ones to stay attached to the jobs.

And before you ask, no, the corporation is in NO danger of going bankrupt anytime in the near future.....

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:34 AM by OldThinker

The problem is NOT....People...people!

The problem is PROCESS, within a broken SYSTEM....

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:41 AM by jibeho

reply to post by defcon5

I have heard similar stories from some acquaintances that used to work in a Ford engine plant in my area. The waste and the web of red tape is amazing. These guys won't get up off of a chair unless you give them a carrot first.

When I was in High School I worked part time as a grocery store bagger making 3.35/hr. I had to join the UFCW union and pay $50/month dues. For what? The union certainly didn't protect me from the many paper cuts I received.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by jibeho]

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 11:56 AM by FredT

This sounds alot like severance pay to me. Based on our contract if I get laid off the Hospital will have to pay me 7 months of my salary .

The jobs bank sound alot like this to me.

reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 12:07 PM by whoshotJR

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

"You've seen what the corporations do when they get their own way, blame them. The simple fact is that no company gets unionised that doesn't deserve it. Happy employees throw union organisers out."

This is not true at all. Unions are so corrupt now that they trick people all the time into voting for a union.

Examples:

You hand me a blank card and ask to sign my name because we are doing a raffle at work later. Then I find out that card was used in a cardcheck,

Unions lie about the things they can do for employee's and laws are so thick for unions that its hard for companys to even talk about what a union can or cant do.

I could go on and on. BTW you should take a look at how much top union exec's make. its more then some of the companies they represent.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^