GM, Chrysler tell Romney he's wrong about Chinese jobs claim

[road kill]

The vast majority of folks I know at the autos are non-union, engineers and managers. They are quite happy to still be working.

Hey Buzz, did/do they work for Delphi?
(UAW labor)
GM's largest part supplier?

Or is anything I say automatically dismissed because I see the other side, so I must be wrong?

I am happy your friends in the auto industry have done so well.

Many of mine have lost everything.
As they did work for Delphi, were in professional positions.
The plant is gone, their jobs are gone, their pensions are all but gone.

But that's OK because DA UNION and your freinds are happy.

[youngblood]

The "non-union" people took an even BIGGER hit!!

Coincidence, eh?

I am curious as to what this big hit was... I do not know enough about the bailout's impact on non-union workers and am curious to see what you can dredge up, it a great point if there is substance to it. I would use it!
Also, in my experience (teaching unions) with Union's members and non-members get the majority of similar benefits

[Sabireley]

The vast majority of folks I know at the autos are non-union, engineers and managers. They are quite happy to still be working.

From what I understand, in the GM bailout deal the UAW negotiated having the pensions restored for Delphi union workers who had theirs liquidated (and picked up by the government Pension Guarantee Fund) during the bancruptcy. Dephi non-union employees (salaried) did not get their pensions restored. I do not know if there was any political motivation for excluding non-union employees, but it seems as though all or none would have been more fair.

[JS]

I echo Zeus’ comments. He makes valid points.

Roadkill, you make a distinction between “da union” and “da workers”. A commonly held perception is that “da union” describes a bunch of fat, cigar smoking hacks in slick suits that are raking off huge salaries and bennies at the expense of “da workers”. The overwhelming majority of folks holding this perception are totally ignorant of the inner workings of a union, have never belonged to one and have never even worked in a union shop. Their opinions are formed by second hand (and 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. hand) anecdotal evidence that unions are bad and have ruined the country. It may surprise those folks to know that every union rep from the departmental shop steward to the international president and executive board were workers who were elected by their co-workers to represent them in collective bargaining matters and rose through the ranks by elective approval of the membership. So when you refer to the union, we don’t take that as a derogatory slur ... it’s a term we use to refer to the membership as a whole.

Sorry to digress. Back to the case in point, as Zeus points out, the ownership was not given to the workers. They paid dearly with concessions to their wages and benefits. It was a negotiated deal and the workers assumed the risk of the business’ success/failure as well as the health insurance liabilities including that of a growing retiree group. IOW, they bet a bunch on their ability to pull themselves out.

Regarding those salaried workers without a union contract “getting screwed”, as Buzz points out, their jobs were saved as well and they are quite happy about that.

Just one more point off-topic:

1) if those non-union employees are unhappy with their lot they certainly have the right in this country to organize themselves. It is their choice.

2) they have been enjoying the benefits of the union’s work without the cost of dues or the work and risks involved in securing that contract. Every time the union members get a raise or other gain, the salaried, non-union folks get the same right along with them. (that may be part of the reason they have not chosen suggestion #1 above.)

Again, sorry to go off on a sidetracking rant. If we want to start a different thread on the philosophy and value of organized labor, that’s fine. My background in that field is dated (retired 16 happy years) but extensive and I am more than willing to share my feeling. But we will stick to facts.

JS

[road kill]

I echo Zeus’ comments. He makes valid points.

Roadkill, you make a distinction between “da union” and “da workers”. A commonly held perception is that “da union” describes a bunch of fat, cigar smoking hacks in slick suits that are raking off huge salaries and bennies at the expense of “da workers”. The overwhelming majority of folks holding this perception are totally ignorant of the inner workings of a union, have never belonged to one and have never even worked in a union shop. Their opinions are formed by second hand (and 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. hand) anecdotal evidence that unions are bad and have ruined the country. It may surprise those folks to know that every union rep from the departmental shop steward to the international president and executive board were workers who were elected by their co-workers to represent them in collective bargaining matters and rose through the ranks by elective approval of the membership. So when you refer to the union, we don’t take that as a derogatory slur ... it’s a term we use to refer to the membership as a whole.

Sorry to digress. Back to the case in point, as Zeus points out, the ownership was not given to the workers. They paid dearly with concessions to their wages and benefits. It was a negotiated deal and the workers assumed the risk of the business’ success/failure as well as the health insurance liabilities including that of a growing retiree group. IOW, they bet a bunch on their ability to pull themselves out.

Regarding those salaried workers without a union contract “getting screwed”, as Buzz points out, their jobs were saved as well and they are quite happy about that.

Just one more point off-topic:

1) if those non-union employees are unhappy with their lot they certainly have the right in this country to organize themselves. It is their choice.

2) they have been enjoying the benefits of the union’s work without the cost of dues or the work and risks involved in securing that contract. Every time the union members get a raise or other gain, the salaried, non-union folks get the same right along with them. (that may be part of the reason they have not chosen suggestion #1 above.)

Again, sorry to go off on a sidetracking rant. If we want to start a different thread on the philosophy and value of organized labor, that’s fine. My background in that field is dated (retired 16 happy years) but extensive and I am more than willing to share my feeling. But we will stick to facts.

JS

Swing and a miss................

[achiro]

Was anything done in the bailout to change the overall situation of GM or Chrysler? In other words in a bankruptcy they would have worked on their debt, made changes to allow for financial stability(and hopefully growth in the long term), and some other stuff that goes along with a bankruptcy. Did they do any of that or are they in the same situation as before? If they did any of that, did they do enough for long term sustainability or is it a short term gain/long term loss sort of thing?

[menmon]

Hey Buzz, did/do they work for Delphi?
(UAW labor)
GM's largest part supplier?

Or is anything I say automatically dismissed because I see the other side, so I must be wrong?

I am happy your friends in the auto industry have done so well.

Many of mine have lost everything.
As they did work for Delphi, were in professional positions.
The plant is gone, their jobs are gone, their pensions are all but gone.

But that's OK because DA UNION and your freinds are happy.

Who bought them?

[JS]

From what I understand, in the GM bailout deal the UAW negotiated having the pensions restored for Delphi union workers who had theirs liquidated (and picked up by the government Pension Guarantee Fund) during the bancruptcy. Dephi non-union employees (salaried) did not get their pensions restored. I do not know if there was any political motivation for excluding non-union employees, but it seems as though all or none would have been more fair.

And what would be the basis for this opinion??

A pension benefit under a union contract is a part of the compensation package. It is a cost to the company. Actuaries calculate that cost and it is treated in negotiations as part of the pay package. Employers are happy with providing that pension benefit in lieu of pay because they are able to retain capital providing they can show the government they will be able to meet that obligation in the future. As we know, it doesn't always work out that way.

Nevertheless, this is money the union employees have "put in the bank" for the company to cancel that benefit after the fact is the same as paying you on Friday with a bad check. Employees working without a contract have no such arrangement.

As I said in another post, "it is their choice".

JS

[menmon]

Should have paid their dues! These non-union guys want all the benefit without the sacrific. My dad a business manager of the IBEW and an International Representative in his later days with the union had a name for those types.

[twall]

I think there needs to be a distinction between the UAW owning 45% of Chrysler and the employees owning Chrysler. The UAW is much bigger than just Chrysler. Not all Chrysler employees are UAW members.

My father inlaw worked in security at a plant in Columbus that was a Delphi company when it finally closed. He retired as chief of security. I'm not sure at what point he became an exempt employee but, that is when he left the union. He was always a union supporter. For 15+ years his benefits were just as GM had promised they would be. The past few years his benefits been cut much more than union retiree benfits have been cut. Union and non-union employees/retirees are not treated the same.

Afew weeks ago they opened a casino on the ground where 'his' plant stood. He has mixed emotions about that. He remembers how the westside of Columbus was much more vibrant when the plant was open. He hates to see it gone but hopes the casino will revitalize the area.

Tom