[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Had you been paying attention, many of them are going broke, and/or they're dropping benefits to their employees, or drastically reducing them. Health care costs have risen over 10% annually for at least the last decade; compounding that annually easily equals a 150% increase in costs! Who do you think is paying for that? Oh, I forgot; it's the dwindling unions' fault!

Show me ONE post where I blamed the problem solely on the unions.

I always maintained that the unions share the same responsibility as the Bad 3 management does. Healthcare cost in the automobile industry are no different than all other issues.

The unions demanded it and blackmailed the companies into huge benefit packages that could not be maintained. Management of the Bad 3 always gave in, and made some additional mistakes that made the situation worse.

But this healthcare issue is 100% connected to the unions strong-arming the Bad 3 in times when they were making good profits, where they should have tucked the profits aside, rather than throwing them out the window into the arms of the unions.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Show me ONE post where I blamed the problem solely on the unions.

I always maintained that the unions share the same responsibility as the Bad 3 management does. Healthcare cost in the automobile industry are no different than all other issues.

The unions demanded it and blackmailed the companies into huge benefit packages that could not be maintained. Management of the Bad 3 always gave in, and made some additional mistakes that made the situation worse.

But this healthcare issue is 100% connected to the unions strong-arming the Bad 3 in times when they were making good profits, where they should have tucked the profits aside, rather than throwing them out the window into the arms of the unions.

-t

And once again, you miss the point, when you state that the unions strong-armed management. No matter how you slice the cake, it is still management's responsibility not to give in, if they feel they can't afford the demands. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp. The unions did what everybody does; they asked for raises, bonuses, and better benefits. The point you don't want to acknowledge is that management is ultimately responsible for running the company, and they screwed up. When times were good, management was getting just as fat and happy as the unions; they were doing nothing more than being short-sighted, and that is still their fault. The workers aren't supposed to dictate how the company is run, no matter how much you want to blame them.

[turtle777]

You're so cute.

So, yeah, let's call it all the management's fault. Fine.

Still, a bailout will not help. '

And I don't see how the unions can fix things here, even though they are so much more reasonable and clever than management.

-t

[OldManMac]

I didn't say they were more reasonable and clever; I simply stated the obvious; management is supposed to be in charge, no matter how much you want to deny that.

BTW, I tend to agree that a bailout will not help in the long term, but it will in the short run. The fundamentals have to change, and for that new management is needed. I'm not crazy about the bailout idea, but, if we're going to throw hundreds of billions around (without anyone being accountable for how its spent, but that's another thread), the auto companies deserve a shot at turning things around also. This country now has a socialized corporate economy, so what's a few more bucks?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Anyone remember that question from the pres. debates, something like "what parts of your platform will you have to sacrifice due to the economic crisis?"

I think it would be interesting to ask that in this thread: what concessions did the management make to contribute to saving the company(s)? what concessions did the unions make to that end?

I agree that it seems absurd to stop throwing gobs of cash around now, but really it's not. The first gobs were a mistake, and further gobs would be good money after bad. We argued the moral hazard of the first bailout, and now we're being vindicated. This industry saw taxpayers getting grifted by the financials, and now they realize if they just throw up their hands and stop trying then they'll get a hand-out. Text-book moral hazard. And the more we pay, the more companies will get in line for more hand-outs. How does that saying go... fool me you can't get fooled again.

[turtle777]

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses. The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India. Sadly, the End.

Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results: TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their bald frickin heads, and collecting bonuses... IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.

-t

[sek929]

Toyota is a brilliant vehicle manufacturer, with the lowest paid CEOs of the entire industry.

[scottiB]

Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

This is incorrect. Currently, Ford has 3 plants in Mexico that assemble cars or make engines for the U.S.:

Cuautitlán Assembly (opened in 1964) that makes F-Series trucks and the Ford Ikon (it will assemble the new Fiesta in 2010)

Chihuahua Engine (opened in 1983) that makes 2.0 and 2.3L engines

Hermosillo Stamping and Assembly (opened in 1986) that assembles the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln MKZ

While Ford has closed many North American plants in the past 10 years, none were closed because of the Mexican plants. Canadian plants (Oakville, St. Thomas, Essex) were all built before 1970.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Toyota is a brilliant vehicle manufacturer, with the lowest paid CEOs of the entire industry.

It's crazy what happens when people work for the pride of having the job, rather than because they're greedy bastards who'll bite the hand that feeds and leave its corpse to rot.

As a friend of mine says, he'd be happy to run a company into the ground for far less money than most American CEOs charge to do the same thing!

[turtle777]

"GM to Offer Two Choices: Bankruptcy or More Aid"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...ml?mod=testMod

Does this come to anybody's surprise. I said it before: GM and Chrysler are going to come back for more money again and again.

So, the government should decide now, because to keep GM, Chrysler (and probably also Ford ) alive, the government should be prepared to bail them out for at least another 2 years.

This will cost easily $ 100B, more if Ford gets involved.

Let them fail already. They are don't have a viable business.

-t