Deal To Rescue U.S. Automakers Is Moving Ahead

True, Import sales are doing better than Domestic. But the Domestic producers are also saddled with healthcare and pension costs that the Import manufacturers don't have.

The hourly 'wage' of a plant worker also includes the costs of the workers who have retired, and benefits for retired workers. An hourly wage can have a rating, such as '2.3', meaning that wage supports 2.3 people, not just the one doing the work.

When Chrysler was given load guarantees in 1979, they not only paid all the only back by 1983, but also paid back more than $300 million in interest. Profit to the Government!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler#G ... guarantees

Given that one auto working job also supports about 17 in the community, I think it would be senseless to let 18 people and their families suffer. And right now, people are suffering.

It doesn't matter what the automobiles cost, given that (as you say) health care and pensions have to be factored in, but couldn't they at least assure the public of reliability? The perception (if nothing else) is that Detroit can't make good mid-range cars. And I won't buy one until they can do that. I can't be expected to buy junk,, just to support others. I have to get some bang for my buck as well. There seems to be a disconnect here that no one is willing to address.

I quite agree. I was always a GM fan, but my last 4 vehicles have been Fords. Nothing about GMs' inspired me. So much so, I nearly bought a Subaru!

GM said in a statement today that they f-ked up. They got lazy on design, slacked on mid range quality, and put more into the truck and SUVs than they did the vast portion of their fleet. But, that is also what gave the best profits.

If part of this rescue plan means they have to shut down a bunch of plants for re-tooling to push out the designs that have been on the drawing board for ages, then so be it. Ford already has some excellent mid and small cars, but they only produce them in Europe. I'd love to see a Focus XTi, or the Diesel Fiesta on sale here. Even GM's from Australia kick some butt, but when they get brought across the pond the somehow dull them down. Pontiac GTO comes to mind, which was the Holden Monero down under.

Eg: http://www.evolutionendshere.com.au/
http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/act ... hicleid=15

Saying "I'm sorry" is all the rage nowadays though. Mulroney apologized to the Japanese, and Harper apologized to the Indians, both indigenous and from India. As they say though, talk is cheap -- and an apology is certainly cheaper than restitution.

As for the proposed bailout, one of the terms is that the (former) Big Three must "negotiate" with the union(s). Now, without knowing the parameters of a negotiation of this kind, I can only speculate that it would involve a reduction of salaries and benefits to the workers, in order to "complete" with the other Big Three.

So would purchasing a "Detroit" automobile after the bailout still risk jeopardizing the 17 jobs that are realized from each assembly job? If they are indeed put in jeopardy, then what's the use of the bailout?

A favorite use of words by the federal government (as well by the Liberal government of Gordon Campbell in BC) is, to the effect that: "Our economy is well-placed to weather this current economic storm", which means what? The soup kitchen lineups are increasing, in spite of this "placement" -- which leads me to wonder, just what is an "economy" when people are being thrown out of work?

wm2135_chart1.jpg

On a car forum I participate in, some of the members actually work assembling cars. On both sides of the border. And they tell very different stories. The Canadian plants aren't saddled with the costs the US ones are, but they still have the occasional unionized employee who doesn't actually do a lick of work. I am unsure as to what the deal is, but from my understanding the union contract states that these people must be employed . .but on 'unspecified' duties.

I don't think a negotiation with the Union to eliminate all costs that don't go towards actually producing product is out of the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cHfOKoA1c



I don't think they would, as the jobs aren't in the auto industry, but in support of it. Like grocery store cashiers. If the plant left, there would be no need fr that job, as you'd have a ghost town.



They do like the sound of their own voices, don't they?

I think that is endemic to any large organization. How many shirkers are in any large office structure, for instance - which isn't necessarily unionized? I think it would be impossible to weed out this -- basically costing much more to enforce than to leave the shirkers alone.

Great chart DR C, strikes me that the unions can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, given today?s news from the U.S. it seems they have chosen to be part of the problem by continuing to resist wage concessions. Given the substantial difference between auto workers compensation (wages and benefits) there would seem to be lots of room for movement. The unions of course are saying that it is the rest of us that are not being paid enough, not them being paid too much. Your choice boys, get paid a wage closer to that of the average joe or NO wage! Just don?t expect the taxpayer making far less to subsidize you and your industry unless you all (management and workers) make substantial concessions.
I might add that the same could be said of the various other unions (mostly public sector) who are currently demanding MORE when most of us are wondering if we will have a job tomorrow, and some of us having got the answer already. ?No?