I already bought a American Car ! Why should they get my payments and my taxes too.

[jollybleek]

As I stated above in 2003 I purcased a new Poniac Vibe. Aside from a factory defect or two which the Dealership screwed up fixing three or for times.( I could have fixed it myself if not for warrenty issues.) It's been the best car I've ever had ( 245000 Miles ) and still going strong. I have no interest in paying (loaning) private companies with tax money and plan on voting against any of my represenitives that do. The State of Michigan and city of Detroit have been a study in fiscal missmanagment for decades and any " LOAN" given to the auto industrey should include a movement of production out of that area. This is just another plan to save a Blue state while producers in Red states such as Tennessee and Alabama will get the shaft. I'm not really sure of my direction of my rant at this point no one in my family is usually listening this far in, all good union men, so if any one has an opinion on this stuff i'd love to hear it.

[mkemse]

There is no reason on earth forthem to get moreo f your money, BAD Mismanagement ect ect havecuased them to be in the situation that they are
As a Taxpayer YOU nor anyone else should have have to bail them out

If you run a business and it fails is the Goverment going to bail you, or your neighbor out, NO
Let them fail

[Euryleia]

Your issues are the reasons that when I bought my new car, I chose Honda. The vehicle was built in America but has far fewer service issues and overall higher ratings in reliablity, gas mileage and safety than what the Big Three have been able to put out in their vehicles. They refused to change with the times and there is no reason why we should have to foot the bill for their shortsightedness--especially as the bailout will only prolong their death throes.

I'm having problems uploading a picture but here is a link to a great satirical ad:
You Wouldn't Buy Our Shitty Cars (http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg)

[craven]

as an outsider looking on it is interesting to see this debate, here in the UK we have no homegrown auto industry to speak of, other than a few very specialist sports car producers.

I feel that the UK motor automotive industry is perhaps the blueprint for your own, all be it far bigger sector.

In the late 70s and 80s UK car manufacturers were a very sick collection of mismanaged and underperforming companies.

complete lack of direction, no innovation or development and way too unionised, the only people the industry seemed to benefit was those actually working in it, with very little though if any given to the end users, the car purchasers.

They drove the industry to the wall, the vehicles produced were substandard, unreliable and outdated in comparison to those produced by the better managed Japanese and German automotive companies.

They were not at the time supported by the UK government, and they subsequently went the way of all dinosaurs, namely extinction.

in place we now have german, french and japanese manufacturing plants here in the uk, producing good quality vehicles that people actually want to buy.

these companies are of course feeling the effects of the credit crunch, but they are talking in terms of reduced profits, rather than an inability to continue.

this is how market forces work, had the UK auto companies been bailed out, i am sure that we would be debating whether they also should now be given yet more public funding to keep them afloat.

there comes a time when one has to address the course of the illness rather than merely study the symptoms.

throwing money at this problem will not cure it, but simply prolong the cycle of mismanagement and underperformance.

it is folly to support such outdated and poorly performing relics with public funding, our economies and systems are based upon supply and demand and the survival of the fittest, removing the need for this results in companies not having to worry about being the best at what they do.

If anyone wants to know what happens when the fear of extinction is removed from companies, then look east, the old soviet block as was kept afloat all of its ailing industries, in the short term this resulted in antiquated working practices and outmoded poorly performing products, the longer term well, there comes a time when there is simply not enough pennies left in the public purse to keep everything afloat, communism failed.

just my view of course, but i can not see any economic rational for bailing out the car makers other than to secure votes i am afraid, and this bailout will not fix the industry, the phrase applying a band aid to heal a broken limb springs to mind

[solidus]

The auto industry situation poses an interesting dilemma. From one side, bailing out these companies runs contrary to the capitalist spirit. Although the product lines from the US auto industry is improving drastically, for too long their products have been second-rate. It is a shame given that the auto industry originated in the US. Factor in poor management and over expansion, these companies were bound to fail. From this perspective, they do not deserve a bail out.

However, there is another side to this matter. There are thousands of people working for these companies that risk losing there jobs given that their company goes under. Not only will their livelihoods be destroyed, the ripple effect it would cause would be catastrophic. Entire communities would be wiped out.

What it comes down to is what you find more important to support.. "Survival of the fittest on an economic scale", or, "Survival of the individual on the personal scale". If we do end up bailing out these companies, I believe it will have very little to do with saving the companies and more to do with saving the people that they employ (excluding upper management), and the industries which depend on them.

[Thorne]

Factor in poor management and over expansion, these companies were bound to fail. From this perspective, they do not deserve a bail out.
If we do end up bailing out these companies, I believe it will have very little to do with saving the companies and more to do with saving the people that they employ (excluding upper management), and the industries which depend on them.
While it may be true that poor management has played its role here, I believe an equal amount of blame must be placed upon the unions as well. Not the membership, necessarily, but the officers who demand unreasonable pay scales, who resist manufacturing improvements, who force the auto companies to use substandard labor and equipment in order to continue operating. While they claim that much of this is to insure more people earning paychecks, in reality it is so they can have more people paying union dues. Anyone who is more interested in working than in following the unions' is tossed out without concern for whether or not they can earn a paycheck.

Let the unions give concessions to keep their members working, let them open the factories to non-union labor, let them help the companies which feed them, rather than destroy them. Only then should government help be considered.

[mkemse]

While it may be true that poor management has played its role here, I believe an equal amount of blame must be placed upon the unions as well. Not the membership, necessarily, but the officers who demand unreasonable pay scales, who resist manufacturing improvements, who force the auto companies to use substandard labor and equipment in order to continue operating. While they claim that much of this is to insure more people earning paychecks, in reality it is so they can have more people paying union dues. Anyone who is more interested in working than in following the unions' is tossed out without concern for whether or not they can earn a paycheck.

Let the unions give concessions to keep their members working, let them open the factories to non-union labor, let them help the companies which feed them, rather than destroy them. Only then should government help be considered.

I agree and I believe that part of the Bail Out is that the UAW MUST adjust their pay scale tothat of Freighn Car Makers, if they do not do so the Governement said they will recall the loan,but the pay issue is jusy 1 of a number of conditions to be met, i woul rather take a pay cutthen loose my job

[Euryleia]

Okay, I don't agree with the bailout but I also don't agree with union bashing. Why is it that the unions are being asked to make pay concessions when the bank and financial institution bailouts demanded no such concessions from their employees? Is it that the union is an easier target than CEO's?

While there is some differences in the cost of health care, where the real difference in wages is from the legacy pension payments. Considering that the US auto industry has been around for 100 years, of course there are going to be greater cost associated with retirement. Below is a list from the Auto Channel (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html) about the real payroll costs. As you can see, there isn't much difference in the current average hourly labor cost of UAW workers employed at Ford and those employed by non-U.S. based automakers with plants in the United States.

WAGES: Base hourly wages and cost of living adjustments
UAW: $29
Transplants: $26

WAGE RELATED: Paid vacation, overtime, holidays, night and weekend pay, break time
UAW: $14
Transplants: $9

BENEFITS: Healthcare, training, etc
UAW: $12
Transplants: $11

LEGACY COSTS: Pension and healthcare benefits for retirees
UAW: $16
Transplants: $3

Comparing the wages this way it looks like labor is being made the scapegoat once again.

[Thorne]

My problem is not so much with the pay and benefits that the union workers receive, though I agree with your comments about CEO's, of both the auto and banking industries. What bothers me about the union is their ability, and insistance, on resisting modernization of the auto industry, changes which would tend to lead to more reliable manufacturing capabilities and lower per-unit costs. True, the industry has managed to force some changes through, despite the unions' resistance. But it's not enough.

The problem, of course, is that much of the modernization would eliminate jobs in the factories, and that means fewer union workers and thus fewer dues payments. That's the union's real problem.

But even that is not the major complaint I have. I oppose the idea of the closed union shop, the fact that only union members may work in these factories. I think it would be better, for the automakers and for the average worker, if union membership were not mandatory. Force the unions to woo the workers to their side in some way rather than force them to join and follow some archaic union regulations.

It's been many years but I was once a worker in a union shop. Since I am the kind of person who feels that my employer deserves a full day's work for a full day's pay I was constantly at odds with the shop stewards. I was reprimanded more than once for doing more work than they thought I should have done. I was threatened for refusing to vote in union elections, although I had no idea who the people were who were being voted upon. And I was threatened again when the union voted to strike and I refused to man the picket lines, opting instead to take another job somewhere to tide me over.

These are the problems I have with the unions. It is my experience that they are only willing to protect those members who do not want to actually do any meaningful work but who still expect a paycheck. Loosen their stranglehold on industry and industry will rebound in this country.

[js207]

Okay, I don't agree with the bailout but I also don't agree with union bashing. Why is it that the unions are being asked to make pay concessions when the bank and financial institution bailouts demanded no such concessions from their employees? Is it that the union is an easier target than CEO's?

Significant concessions were demanded from the banks - and most importantly, labor costs are not a significant component of bank operations in the way they are for car manufacturers. The problem in the financial industry is not that their products are uncompetitive with more efficiently produced rivals.


While there is some differences in the cost of health care, where the real difference in wages is from the legacy pension payments. Considering that the US auto industry has been around for 100 years, of course there are going to be greater cost associated with retirement. Below is a list from the Auto Channel (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html) about the real payroll costs. As you can see, there isn't much difference in the current average hourly labor cost of UAW workers employed at Ford and those employed by non-U.S. based automakers with plants in the United States.


Looking at your comparison in relative terms:

WAGES: (more than 10% higher than non-union)
WAGE RELATED: (more than 50% higher than non-union)


Comparing the wages this way it looks like labor is being made the scapegoat once again.

There's more to it than just the directly inflated wages, like enforcing archaic working practices and bizarre demarkation rules which impede efficiency without showing up directly in hourly costs.

No, eliminating the extra cost burden imposed by the UAW wouldn't eliminate all the Big Three's problems, but it would certainly make a significant difference; even from your figures, I doubt it's possible to render them viable while this discrimination remains.

Think about it: draw up a list of the traits which distinguish the Big Three from the other car manufacturers also operating within the US which manage to avoid these problems. You can't honestly say the UAW and its effects don't form a big part of that list, can you?

[solidus]

In regards to my comment about over expansion being a cause for this situation, this also takes into account the operating costs through internal expansion. I should have been more clear about that. Unions are notorious for cuttings profits - this is a near certainty since higher wages and benefits are paid for by driving up prices or cutting profit margins. If wages exceed what is required to keep workers competent by too much, the net result is either lower profit for the company through a direct reduction in margins or through reduced volume.

Despite this reality, given the product lines that the US auto industry was rolling out all these years, even getting rid of the unions would not have guaranteed a fix. The manufacturers just fell too far behind the competition. There is discussion regarding matching the operating costs of overseas auto makers. It must be noted that a good deal of these foreign manufactures produce their American inventory in the coastal US.

Now that the product lines are increasing in quality, at this moment, a reduction in operating cost would be greatly beneficial. As such, greater cooperation between the unions and management would help greatly.. even if the terms were just temporary. We saw this in the airline industry not too long ago, and it had a significant positive impact on the health of the industry.

These auto companies have the framework to make out alive.. but they have an internal nightmare to fix. A bailout would just be a band-aid for an industry that needs stitches.. perhaps even an amputation.

I