Comments on: If The Government Gives The Auto Industry A Bailout, It Should be Accompanied By An Apology http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:29:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: jrs2cents.com » Blog Archive » Breakdown of Obama’s Speech: Lies and Deceptions http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html/comment-page-1#comment-171 jrs2cents.com » Blog Archive » Breakdown of Obama’s Speech: Lies and Deceptions Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:42:28 +0000 http://jrs2cents.com/?p=297#comment-171 [...] Once again it is not the governments job to “re-tool” any company. Get the union out of the auto industry and stop giving US automakers standards that imports do not have to meet, problem solved. I have an article on this as well. [...] [...] Once again it is not the governments job to “re-tool” any company. Get the union out of the auto industry and stop giving US automakers standards that imports do not have to meet, problem solved. I have an article on this as well. [...]

]]> By: JR Griggs http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html/comment-page-1#comment-68 JR Griggs Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:31:07 +0000 http://jrs2cents.com/?p=297#comment-68 Yeah, it's gonna be a long messy time getting things right. I know that throughout the next 4 years Bush will continue to get the blame even when Obama's policies make things worse. Funny thing is that I never heard the media in the last 8 years mention Clinton's recession that Bush inherited, but I bet we hear all about Bush's recession that Obama inherited! I just hope for America we stay strong and don't let the Democrats use this to turn us into a Socialist country. Yeah, it’s gonna be a long messy time getting things right. I know that throughout the next 4 years Bush will continue to get the blame even when Obama’s policies make things worse. Funny thing is that I never heard the media in the last 8 years mention Clinton’s recession that Bush inherited, but I bet we hear all about Bush’s recession that Obama inherited!

I just hope for America we stay strong and don’t let the Democrats use this to turn us into a Socialist country.

]]> By: @TraciKnoppe http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html/comment-page-1#comment-67 @TraciKnoppe Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:56:36 +0000 http://jrs2cents.com/?p=297#comment-67 Again, I believe the figure being toss out as to what the cost per employee, including benefits, is inaccurate. While at one time, it may have been true that it cost $70 or so per employee INCLUDING benefits, that is no longer true. For each of the last few contracts, we have lost benefits. Where it used to be we could walk into the doctor's office, hospital or pharmacy and not pay a dime out of pocket; we now pay 50% of an office visit to go to the doctor. Not a $10 or $20 co-pay, but HALF! That's a huge concession. As of today, that 80% of the pay for laid off workers you mentioned (aka: the job pay or sub-pay) is no more. It's been eliminated. Another concession. The original purpose of the union was to see that all workers received fair pay and safe working conditions. They have achieved that; but I personally believe the union has become more of a political entity (and a greedy one at that) than being all about the worker. I don't think the problem is that the workers make too much, or have to many benefits; I believe the executives dropped the ball in not making more energy efficient vehicles sooner. Of course, the economic collapse is a big contributor to all this and fuel efficient or not, the inability for consumers to get a loan for anything was the nail on the proverbial coffin. I hope a solution can be found to resurrect the auto industry and our economy. Again, I believe the figure being toss out as to what the cost per employee, including benefits, is inaccurate. While at one time, it may have been true that it cost $70 or so per employee INCLUDING benefits, that is no longer true. For each of the last few contracts, we have lost benefits. Where it used to be we could walk into the doctor’s office, hospital or pharmacy and not pay a dime out of pocket; we now pay 50% of an office visit to go to the doctor. Not a $10 or $20 co-pay, but HALF! That’s a huge concession.

As of today, that 80% of the pay for laid off workers you mentioned (aka: the job pay or sub-pay) is no more. It’s been eliminated. Another concession.

The original purpose of the union was to see that all workers received fair pay and safe working conditions. They have achieved that; but I personally believe the union has become more of a political entity (and a greedy one at that) than being all about the worker.

I don’t think the problem is that the workers make too much, or have to many benefits; I believe the executives dropped the ball in not making more energy efficient vehicles sooner.

Of course, the economic collapse is a big contributor to all this and fuel efficient or not, the inability for consumers to get a loan for anything was the nail on the proverbial coffin.

I hope a solution can be found to resurrect the auto industry and our economy.

]]> By: JR Griggs http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html/comment-page-1#comment-66 JR Griggs Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:29:30 +0000 http://jrs2cents.com/?p=297#comment-66 I believe the figure was what it costs them to employ each employee not what the employee makes. From what I have read it is all the extras that cost so much. I also heard that GM actually is paying more money to people who do not work there anymore through pensions, than they are to current employees. In another report I read, it stated that if GM wants to lay someone off to lower costs, they have to pay 80% of that persons wages until they find a new job. I worked for a company that was using union labor and what we paid each person was sometimes quite a bit more than they actually received the rest was union dues and other fees. We had a much higher profit on our jobs when we got rid of union and started paying per job to subcontractors. I believe the figure was what it costs them to employ each employee not what the employee makes. From what I have read it is all the extras that cost so much. I also heard that GM actually is paying more money to people who do not work there anymore through pensions, than they are to current employees. In another report I read, it stated that if GM wants to lay someone off to lower costs, they have to pay 80% of that persons wages until they find a new job.

I worked for a company that was using union labor and what we paid each person was sometimes quite a bit more than they actually received the rest was union dues and other fees. We had a much higher profit on our jobs when we got rid of union and started paying per job to subcontractors.

]]> By: @TraciKnoppe http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html/comment-page-1#comment-65 @TraciKnoppe Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:59:56 +0000 http://jrs2cents.com/?p=297#comment-65 Hi Josh My husband is a current Chrysler hourly employee and my dad is retired from Chrysler. The information stating that US auto-makers pay their employees $30 per hour more than foreign auto-makers is completely false; not unless the foreign companies have their employees work for free! My husband's current hourly pay is $29.10. That's it and he's at the top of the pay scale, so many workers make less than that. Any newly hired employee would only make $14 per hour. While I do not agree with a free hand-out type bail-out, I do agree that a conditional bridge loan (like Chrysler received in the early 80's when Lee Iaoccoa ran the company) would be acceptable. Under a bridge loan, the government could actually make money, as they did when Chrysler did a bridge loan previously, by accepting stock options. The Big 3 need to be held accountable and have a solid plan of action in place before they are given any money. The union is meeting today to determine what concession they can make to help. The job bank (aka: sub pay) is already gone, as is the tuition assistance and I'm sure a cut in pay and plant closings will be next. We shall find out over the next couple of days whether the Big 3 get their bridge loans or not. If not, the effects on the economy - not to mention the employees - will be devastating. Hi Josh
My husband is a current Chrysler hourly employee and my dad is retired from Chrysler. The information stating that US auto-makers pay their employees $30 per hour more than foreign auto-makers is completely false; not unless the foreign companies have their employees work for free!

My husband’s current hourly pay is $29.10. That’s it and he’s at the top of the pay scale, so many workers make less than that. Any newly hired employee would only make $14 per hour.

While I do not agree with a free hand-out type bail-out, I do agree that a conditional bridge loan (like Chrysler received in the early 80′s when Lee Iaoccoa ran the company) would be acceptable. Under a bridge loan, the government could actually make money, as they did when Chrysler did a bridge loan previously, by accepting stock options.

The Big 3 need to be held accountable and have a solid plan of action in place before they are given any money. The union is meeting today to determine what concession they can make to help. The job bank (aka: sub pay) is already gone, as is the tuition assistance and I’m sure a cut in pay and plant closings will be next.

We shall find out over the next couple of days whether the Big 3 get their bridge loans or not. If not, the effects on the economy – not to mention the employees – will be devastating.

]]> By: Cynical Synapse http://jrs2cents.com/if-the-government-gives-the-auto-industry-a-bailout-it-should-be-accompanied-by-an-apology.html/comment-page-1#comment-41 Cynical Synapse Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:02:46 +0000 http://jrs2cents.com/?p=297#comment-41 You raise some good points. Let me start by saying Chrysler is an example—39 years later—of a company that benefited from government loans. And, by the way, that's what the auto industry is asking for: bridge loans, not a bailout. Unlike Wall Street, the auto industry intends to pay the taxpayers back. While I'm not pro-union, I realize they were essential for worker safety and welfare once upon a time. Like any organization, they seek to survive. And, while times were good, everyone was happy. For the last decade or so, however, unions have been ponying up along with the auto makers. The larger issue is the so-called legacy costs—the cost of pensions and healthcare. It's easy to blame the unions or the Big 3 for this, but how much is government sponsored with the foreign auto makers? And, let's not forget the foreign auto companies started with a zero balance about 1950, but the US companies already had 2 generations under their belt. I have mixed feelings about government regulations for safety features, mpg, and such. I do believe the government has some culpability with the costs borne by auto makers, but this balances out across the playing field. Foreign manufacturers are not exempt from the standards if they sell cars in the US. So this, by itself, doesn't disadvantage the Big 3 versus Toyota, Honda, BMW, and the rest. In fact, government regulations tend to lead to innovation. For example, the government mandated front airbags, but I drive a vehicle with both front and side airbags. Neither would be there without the initial regulation. We'd better hope a government bridge loan will ensure the survival of the auto industry, which really means manufacturing in the US. Period. Otherwise, our only hope is Paulson and his ever-shifting $700 billion to fix a worthless paper sham. You raise some good points.

Let me start by saying Chrysler is an example—39 years later—of a company that benefited from government loans. And, by the way, that’s what the auto industry is asking for: bridge loans, not a bailout. Unlike Wall Street, the auto industry intends to pay the taxpayers back.

While I’m not pro-union, I realize they were essential for worker safety and welfare once upon a time. Like any organization, they seek to survive. And, while times were good, everyone was happy. For the last decade or so, however, unions have been ponying up along with the auto makers. The larger issue is the so-called legacy costs—the cost of pensions and healthcare. It’s easy to blame the unions or the Big 3 for this, but how much is government sponsored with the foreign auto makers? And, let’s not forget the foreign auto companies started with a zero balance about 1950, but the US companies already had 2 generations under their belt.

I have mixed feelings about government regulations for safety features, mpg, and such. I do believe the government has some culpability with the costs borne by auto makers, but this balances out across the playing field. Foreign manufacturers are not exempt from the standards if they sell cars in the US. So this, by itself, doesn’t disadvantage the Big 3 versus Toyota, Honda, BMW, and the rest. In fact, government regulations tend to lead to innovation. For example, the government mandated front airbags, but I drive a vehicle with both front and side airbags. Neither would be there without the initial regulation.

We’d better hope a government bridge loan will ensure the survival of the auto industry, which really means manufacturing in the US. Period. Otherwise, our only hope is Paulson and his ever-shifting $700 billion to fix a worthless paper sham.

]]>