GM Killing On-Demand Fr8 Ops?
11-22-2008, 04:16 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
Actually saw an article about a town in Ohio near a HONDA plant that does NOT want the bailout..... they town and its area are doing fine with the HONDA plant... their rationale is why should we suffer long term because the big three cant get their collective shiat together....
11-22-2008, 06:01 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Continuing The Dream
Posts: 161
As long as we're depending on the same greedy, unethical, self-serving government, management, and leadership people to fix the problem they caused, there won't be a fix. We have unions so we'll have protection. If management and the government could be trusted - TRUSTED - to do the right thing, there wouldn't be a need for unions. Our unions negotiate our benefits, including pay, health care, retirement, life-style (scheduling and hours of operation). Without a collective bargaining agreement, we'd have already lost.
11-22-2008, 06:13 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by nakazawa
As long as we're depending on the same greedy, unethical, self-serving government, management, and leadership people to fix the problem they caused, there won't be a fix. We have unions so we'll have protection. If management and the government could be trusted - TRUSTED - to do the right thing, there wouldn't be a need for unions. Our unions negotiate our benefits, including pay, health care, retirement, life-style (scheduling and hours of operation). Without a collective bargaining agreement, we'd have already lost.
Unions are great and have a place. Glad I are one. But once in a while they can be part of the problem.
11-22-2008, 06:45 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Pilot
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
What I object to is a guy at the toyota plant in TX having his taxes raised to bail out GM because the democrats owe the UAW, go figure.
*Warning Satire*
Slippery slope, bail them out and consolidate into one manufacturer CHRYFORGEM overseen by GS15's that have the built in mind set that if you don't spend your annual budget it will not be available for next year.
FEDUPS here we come, maybe I will get to bid the 74 in my standing bid and the SDF guys will get to bid the 777.
Far fetched but.......
11-22-2008, 07:15 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Brown ones
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
No I put the blame squarely on the people who caused the credit meltdown and the $140 oil that lead to this recession, thats right the UAW's party in congress. I put the blame on management at GM/Ford for agreeing to those rediculous contracts that put off funding of yesterdays obligations till tomorrow.
That does not change the fact that the workers will pay the bill. Either by being slow leaked to the finish with chapter 7. Or up front now with chapter 11. I think up front is the better option, I guess you don't.
That does not change the fact that the workers will pay the bill. Either by being slow leaked to the finish with chapter 7. Or up front now with chapter 11. I think up front is the better option, I guess you don't.
11-22-2008, 07:30 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by BrownClown
You sure do make alot of assumptions about what my belief system might be judging from your last sentence. So you think that the last 2 years of a pitiful Democratically controlled congress has caused these problems? Are you really that politically blinded? I'm an Independant with Libertarian ideals, so I can't stand either group of losers in DC. Do you really have your Republican blinders on?
Any time I lay some of the blame on the UAW you squeal something about the "workers" sorry if I misunderstood your position. Why don't you tell me who is at fault for the $2500 legacy costs per vehicle and the 75% markup in current labor costs (counting salary and workrules) than we can see where we agree. Of course then you can tell me how to fix it without hurting the "workers".
I don't have republican blinders on I left the party when W let teddie write the education bill (and than let the republicans take the blame for its failure). But the credit meltdown is directly at the hands of the Democratic party. The Oil mess is directly at the hands of the Democratic party.
11-22-2008, 08:11 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: MD11 CPT
Posts: 1,077
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Any time I lay some of the blame on the UAW you squeal something about the "workers" sorry if I misunderstood your position. Why don't you tell me who is at fault for the $2500 legacy costs per vehicle and the 75% markup in current labor costs (counting salary and workrules) than we can see where we agree. Of course then you can tell me how to fix it without hurting the "workers".
I don't have republican blinders on I left the party when W let teddie write the education bill (and than let the republicans take the blame for its failure). But the credit meltdown is directly at the hands of the Democratic party. The Oil mess is directly at the hands of the Democratic party.
I don't have republican blinders on I left the party when W let teddie write the education bill (and than let the republicans take the blame for its failure). But the credit meltdown is directly at the hands of the Democratic party. The Oil mess is directly at the hands of the Democratic party.
) that if the industry is nationalized, and in effect controlled by government that things will improve?
11-22-2008, 09:49 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Brown ones
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Any time I lay some of the blame on the UAW you squeal something about the "workers" sorry if I misunderstood your position. Why don't you tell me who is at fault for the $2500 legacy costs per vehicle and the 75% markup in current labor costs (counting salary and workrules) than we can see where we agree. Of course then you can tell me how to fix it without hurting the "workers".
I don't have republican blinders on I left the party when W let teddie write the education bill (and than let the republicans take the blame for its failure). But the credit meltdown is directly at the hands of the Democratic party. The Oil mess is directly at the hands of the Democratic party.
I don't have republican blinders on I left the party when W let teddie write the education bill (and than let the republicans take the blame for its failure). But the credit meltdown is directly at the hands of the Democratic party. The Oil mess is directly at the hands of the Democratic party.
I squeal because your argument seems one sided. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I look at the truth from ALL sides. Not Rachel Madcow or OxyRush.
Let's be fair. Simple as that.
11-22-2008, 10:09 AM
#59
Where's my Mai Tai?
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: fins to the left, fins to the right
Posts: 1,742
I want the deal UAW got for their workers. Furlough me then pay me 95 %. Where do I sign up?
"SUB stands for Supplemental Unemployment Benefits. First negotiated in 1955, this program is intended to provide a secure annual wage for auto industry workers.
Government-funded unemployment benefits typically replace only 1/3 to 1/2 of a laid-off worker’s former wages. SUB payments supplement these benefits, and are structured such that when added to government benefits, a laid-off UAW-represented worker will receive a gross income of approximately 95 percent of his or her take-home pay for a 40-hour week, less a deduction of $25 for work-related expenses not incurred."
"SUB stands for Supplemental Unemployment Benefits. First negotiated in 1955, this program is intended to provide a secure annual wage for auto industry workers.
Government-funded unemployment benefits typically replace only 1/3 to 1/2 of a laid-off worker’s former wages. SUB payments supplement these benefits, and are structured such that when added to government benefits, a laid-off UAW-represented worker will receive a gross income of approximately 95 percent of his or her take-home pay for a 40-hour week, less a deduction of $25 for work-related expenses not incurred."
11-22-2008, 10:56 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Oh, those were serious questions!
Originally Posted by BrownClown
Squeal? Alright, if that's what you perceive. I "squeal" because you STILL haven't answered my questions about your thoughts on corporate greed. I want an answer to my previous posts about if 23 to 32 million per exec is reasonable versus 1 million for Toyota. Also, please answer if you would be upset if the same were to happen to you and Fred was taking his golden parachute. During your next contract negotiations are you going to be an advocate for lower pay and benefits for you and your FedEx brothers? How is any different?
I squeal because your argument seems one sided. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I look at the truth from ALL sides. Not Rachel Madcow or OxyRush.
Let's be fair. Simple as that.
I squeal because your argument seems one sided. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I look at the truth from ALL sides. Not Rachel Madcow or OxyRush.
Let's be fair. Simple as that.
Sure I would be ****ed if Fred milked the company and I lost my pension. Of course part of the blame would have to go on ALPA for letting it happen. It wouldn't change the fact that I would have to take a big hit in order to keep my job, so yes I would advocate lower pay and benefits to keep my job. Again I would be ****ed but that and $4 bucks will get you a gallon of gas after president BO raises the gas tax.
Now answer my question, what business model will allow GM to compete with $2500 legacy costs per vehicle and 75% higher hourly employment bennies?
I'll hum the Jeopardy theme while I wait.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 11-22-2008 at 01:34 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
