Fiat CEO: Labor concessions or no Chrysler deal


Should this even be an issue? Do the LIBERAL MORONS that run the UAW (an extension of the Democrat party) think they have Chrysler over a barrel? Where will their unemployed members go to work? Walmart... They collect no dues from unemployed members. I can not figure out who is the biggest dumb*** here, the UAW leadership for holding tough on contract terms, or the rank and file for allowing their leadership to put them in the unemployment line.

I have heard that these Union Members get something like 4 full years of salay if they terminate...I bet unemployment isn't such a bad thing if you are going to get paid for 4 years.

(04-15-2009 05:42 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I have heard that these Union Members get something like 4 full years of salay if they terminate...I bet unemployment isn't such a bad thing if you are going to get paid for 4 years.

They do, but that is when the are terminated from a solvent employer a bankrupt Chrysler will pay no severance. Especially a Chrysler that is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

BO should fire the UAW Chief. Same as he did with GM.

In this day and age the unions exist only to sustain themselves. There is not one person who works directly for the unions who produces anything yet they take 2% of the gross of the auto industry's hourly wages.

(04-15-2009 05:47 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 05:42 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  I have heard that these Union Members get something like 4 full years of salay if they terminate...I bet unemployment isn't such a bad thing if you are going to get paid for 4 years.

They do, but that is when the are terminated from a solvent employer a bankrupt Chrysler will pay no severance. Especially a Chrysler that is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

How true, learned that from Enron.

(04-15-2009 08:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In this day and age the unions exist only to sustain themselves. There is not one person who works directly for the unions who produces anything yet they take 2% of the gross of the auto industry's hourly wages.

U.S. unions and the U.S. government have a lot in common, I think.

If you look at the historical arc, they were both born out of necessity.

The unions were needed because working conditions in American factories were detestable, the wages were unacceptable and companies didn't give a hoot. The unions instituted a necessary balance - safe working conditions and fair wages.

But once those were largely accomplished, they got greedy - it wasn't a matter of fair wages, it was a matter of "how much can we get?" And it wasn't a matter of safe working conditions, it was a matter of "how many loopholes are there in the contract?"

The U.S. government was necessary because the Brits were putting the screws to the colonists. Once the Revolution was over, the colonies could have easily disintegrated into vulnerable mini-countries or anarchy could have emerged. But we had some pretty bright guys at the helm and they cobbled together a pretty clever democracy.

But again, once accomplished, serving the country and the ideals of The Constitution became afterthoughts and the main concern went from "what's right for the country and its people" to "how do I get in power and stay in power."

So here we are in 2009 with two institutions that began as necessary and extraordinarily useful to dysfunctional and almost utterly destructive.

Pretty sad.

(04-16-2009 09:19 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 08:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In this day and age the unions exist only to sustain themselves. There is not one person who works directly for the unions who produces anything yet they take 2% of the gross of the auto industry's hourly wages.

U.S. unions and the U.S. government have a lot in common, I think.
If you look at the historical arc, they were both born out of necessity.
The unions were needed because working conditions in American factories were detestable, the wages were unacceptable and companies didn't give a hoot. The unions instituted a necessary balance - safe working conditions and fair wages.
But once those were largely accomplished, they got greedy - it wasn't a matter of fair wages, it was a matter of "how much can we get?" And it wasn't a matter of safe working conditions, it was a matter of "how many loopholes are there in the contract?"
The U.S. government was necessary because the Brits were putting the screws to the colonists. Once the Revolution was over, the colonies could have easily disintegrated into vulnerable mini-countries or anarchy could have emerged. But we had some pretty bright guys at the helm and they cobbled together a pretty clever democracy.
But again, once accomplished, serving the country and the ideals of The Constitution became afterthoughts and the main concern went from "what's right for the country and its people" to "how do I get in power and stay in power."
So here we are in 2009 with two institutions that began as necessary and extraordinarily useful to dysfunctional and almost utterly destructive.
Pretty sad.

Excellent diagnosis. So, what's the cure?

Owl:

Boy, if I had a good one, I'd be making big bucks on the pundit circuit, wouldn't I?

The core problem, I think, is trust. Let's take the union example. My father owned a small machine shop when I was a kid. He always paid his guys a little better than most of the other shops and he always told them they could work, basically, all the hours they wanted. If they committed to the hours, he'd get the work in the door. And was reasonable in terms of benefits and doing little things like giving the guys a turkey for Thanksgiving and a turkey and a ham for Christmas (as well as letting them take their choice from the hooch vendors would drop off during the season). Now, dad wasn't soft, by any means. The guy lied about his age to get INTO the Marines during the Korean War ... and went into bomb disposal. He had very exacting standards in terms of production quality and quantity. But the guys thought they were getting a fair shake and, in turn, responded with dedication.

How do we instill that sort of dynamic in the auto industry? I'm not really sure, but I do believe that is the answer - for labor in general.

As for the government, well, that's a much tougher nut to crack, I think. The public seems to want polarizing rhetoric. Just look at this board. Subjects are routinely oversimplified and most threads turn into - "all Democrats are liberal, bed-wetting, tree-hugging spend-a-holics" and "all Republicans are ultra-conservative, dim-witted, wealthy old white hacks who are in the hip pockets of big business." It's so far out of control that the only thing either party seems capable of is trying to destroy the other party.

The only cure is someone at the top who is willing to alienate BOTH parties and call them out for their moronic partisanship. However, I don't think I've seen that in my lifetime, nor do I hold out hope that I will.

(04-16-2009 09:42 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  Owl:
Boy, if I had a good one, I'd be making big bucks on the pundit circuit, wouldn't I?
The core problem, I think, is trust. Let's take the union example. My father owned a small machine shop when I was a kid. He always paid his guys a little better than most of the other shops and he always told them they could work, basically, all the hours they wanted. If they committed to the hours, he'd get the work in the door. And was reasonable in terms of benefits and doing little things like giving the guys a turkey for Thanksgiving and a turkey and a ham for Christmas (as well as letting them take their choice from the hooch vendors would drop off during the season). Now, dad wasn't soft, by any means. The guy lied about his age to get INTO the Marines during the Korean War ... and went into bomb disposal. He had very exacting standards in terms of production quality and quantity. But the guys thought they were getting a fair shake and, in turn, responded with dedication.
How do we instill that sort of dynamic in the auto industry? I'm not really sure, but I do believe that is the answer - for labor in general.
As for the government, well, that's a much tougher nut to crack, I think. The public seems to want polarizing rhetoric. Just look at this board. Subjects are routinely oversimplified and most threads turn into - "all Democrats are liberal, bed-wetting, tree-hugging spend-a-holics" and "all Republicans are ultra-conservative, dim-witted, wealthy old white hacks who are in the hip pockets of big business." It's so far out of control that the only thing either party seems capable of is trying to destroy the other party.
The only cure is someone at the top who is willing to alienate BOTH parties and call them out for their moronic partisanship. However, I don't think I've seen that in my lifetime, nor do I hold out hope that I will.

I actually thought we had a shot at it when we had Clinton in the white house and Newt on capitol hill. They really were NOT that far apart on most issues. I kept hoping that they'd get together over coffee and decide that, "Hey, if we play our cards right, we can run this country." Instead, we got partisanship and Monica Lewinsky.

I first became aware of politics in the Eisenhower years. We had a republican in the white house and two very strong democrats (LBJ and Sam Rayburn) running the senate and house, respectively. They swallowed their ideological differences (which conveniently weren't that great) and ran the country. Not perfectly, but not badly either. We've gotten away from that, but we could stand to go back to it.

Wonder if it means anything that Eisenhower and Johnson were native Texans and Rayburn got there as fast as he could (as they say on bumper stickers around here)?

(04-16-2009 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2009 09:19 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  

(04-15-2009 08:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In this day and age the unions exist only to sustain themselves. There is not one person who works directly for the unions who produces anything yet they take 2% of the gross of the auto industry's hourly wages.

U.S. unions and the U.S. government have a lot in common, I think.
If you look at the historical arc, they were both born out of necessity.
The unions were needed because working conditions in American factories were detestable, the wages were unacceptable and companies didn't give a hoot. The unions instituted a necessary balance - safe working conditions and fair wages.
But once those were largely accomplished, they got greedy - it wasn't a matter of fair wages, it was a matter of "how much can we get?" And it wasn't a matter of safe working conditions, it was a matter of "how many loopholes are there in the contract?"
The U.S. government was necessary because the Brits were putting the screws to the colonists. Once the Revolution was over, the colonies could have easily disintegrated into vulnerable mini-countries or anarchy could have emerged. But we had some pretty bright guys at the helm and they cobbled together a pretty clever democracy.
But again, once accomplished, serving the country and the ideals of The Constitution became afterthoughts and the main concern went from "what's right for the country and its people" to "how do I get in power and stay in power."
So here we are in 2009 with two institutions that began as necessary and extraordinarily useful to dysfunctional and almost utterly destructive.
Pretty sad.

Excellent diagnosis. So, what's the cure?

W/ all due respect to 1987, there's more to the diagnosis

Quote:While governments can and arguably should run deficits during times of emergency, the 23-fold increase in the national debt wasn’t the product of emergencies—it was more the result of what passes for religion in American life.

In this false “religion,” called “moral therapeutic deism,” the “central goal of life,” as sociologist Christian Smith writes, “is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”

A belief system that exalts “being happy” and “feeling good about oneself” doesn’t lend itself to sacrifice and postponement of gratification.

Mach is a perfect example of this widespread belief. His guiding principle is his own personal happiness. He's been explicit saying as such.

At any rate, if that is the core belief throughout the country, there is no action that can solve the problem. Only by changing this core belief can lasting change be enacted.

The best effort, that aligns with changing this belief, is to shrink the gov't. Cut it back by 35%. Keep a healthy defense, true justice, and infrastructure for commerce. After that, US citizens have the opportunity to make their own way.

Torch:

Excellent addition. My perspective - politiicans have been using this fact (that Americans are, at the end of the day, all about "being happy and feeling good about oneself) to fuel their own agenda. The politicians want to be in power. The public wants to be happy. So, basically, the parties are fighting each other to prove that they are the party that can make the public happy. Again, not necessarily the one that can do what's best for the country - because what's best for the country isn't always going to make the public happy.

(04-16-2009 10:02 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Mach is a perfect example of this widespread belief. His guiding principle is his own personal happiness. He's been explicit saying as such.

At any rate, if that is the core belief throughout the country, there is no action that can solve the problem. Only by changing this core belief can lasting change be enacted.

The best effort, that aligns with changing this belief, is to shrink the gov't. Cut it back by 35%. Keep a healthy defense, true justice, and infrastructure for commerce. After that, US citizens have the opportunity to make their own way.

I can't stress this enough:

http://www.orthodoxnet.com/news/WhySocia...ranny.html

Quote:The basic tenets of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents

(04-16-2009 10:14 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  Torch:

Excellent addition. My perspective - politiicans have been using this fact (that Americans are, at the end of the day, all about "being happy and feeling good about oneself) to fuel their own agenda. The politicians want to be in power. The public wants to be happy. So, basically, the parties are fighting each other to prove that they are the party that can make the public happy. Again, not necessarily the one that can do what's best for the country - because what's best for the country isn't always going to make the public happy.

Politicians tell the people what they think will make them happy to get elected, then do what they want to do.
When the people realize that they aren't happy, they vote the other guy in at the next election.
What concerns me is that tempers are already close to the boiling point for many, and this guy has three and a half more years of not delivering happiness before the next election.
That brings some pretty scary possibilities into the mix. There are nuts on both extremes.