Do you agree with the UAW?

[LSxcellent]

I thought I little vote might be nice... support your local folks, or bash the damn Unionites.

Let's here it folks!

~LSx

[Pencil.Fight]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the choices.

Are you saying that if the UAW didn't strike, GM would be outsourcing jobs to other countries?

As it stands, I don't have enough information on the contracts or working conditions at GM plants, so as I said in another post: I hope everything works out for the best for both sides, and I just want my damn camaro.

[LSxcellent]

The UAW walked out because the wanted a guarantee that G.M. wouldn't outsource car production. Essentially they wanted GM to promise them job security... that's why they walked out.

I don't know of ANYONE who has a guarantee that their company won't outsource their job... its how business works these days (for better or for worse). I think it will be a tough thing to negotiate, so I'm not holding my breath until the UAW comes back to the table... it could be a while.

~LSx

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by LSxcellent

The UAW walked out because the wanted a guarantee that G.M. wouldn't outsource car production. Essentially they wanted GM to promise them job security... that's why they walked out.~LSx

hehe, oh... I thought is was all over health care benefits. I guess they won't have to worry about that if they don't have a job.

I really don't even know why GM would even consider doing something like that. I'd have to know more b4 i cast my vote, otherwise I'd go for the 3rd option.

[Pencil.Fight]

Originally Posted by LSxcellent

The UAW walked out because the wanted a guarantee that G.M. wouldn't outsource car production. Essentially they wanted GM to promise them job security... that's why they walked out.

I don't know of ANYONE who has a guarantee that their company won't outsource their job... its how business works these days (for better or for worse). I think it will be a tough thing to negotiate, so I'm not holding my breath until the UAW comes back to the table... it could be a while.

~LSx

Yeah, I just read an article about that. Like Eisenhower, I had thought it was all about the VEBA, but they're saying this has nothing to do with that, or with salary cutbacks. The only reason they're striking is because they want guaranteed job security.

I definitely think that we should keep as many jobs as we can in America (Canada's alright), but I don't think it's fair for them to expect GM to make any kind of promise about it. I'm sure it's not unprecedented as far as Unions go, but it's things like this that give them a bad name.

They're on strike because they want GM to promise job security? Does that strike anyone else as odd? Going on strike and costing GM billions is only going to strengthen any thoughts GM had about outsourcing part of their workforce overseas.

given all of that, my vote is a mixture of all three. Stop screwing Gm, go back to work while the jobs still are in the US, and build my damn Camaro!

[unkbd]

Hard to understand when your not in the auto workers shoes. I man the picket lines this wednesday, thanks for your support.

[Mr. Wyndham]

It IS hard to understand unless your one of them...but for a moment, put yourself in their shoes.

Of some 300,000 UAW workers...there's 73,000 left....can you blame them for wanting some kind of job security? btw...I know my numbers are off...

unkbd, What is it exactly the UAW and GM can't agree on? just VEBA? or is there more?

[TAG UR IT]

This is a real touchy subject.

1. I don't want to see jobs move overseas because GM has to shell out too much money to the US workers. We don't need to lose US JOBS. That's alread happening way too much.

2. I don't want to pay $1,700 extra on my vehicle just to pay the workers either. (this is how much the cost per vehicle would rise, right?)

I'm on the fence on this one. Obviously, I don't want to shell out a lot more money than I have to. I mean...it's almost as though the workers on strike aren't forcing GM to pay...they are forcing the buyer to pay. I say this because GM won't take the full hit in their pocket. That doesn't make sense. They have to pass that down to the buyer.

I don't want to get flamed for this...but working on a line pays only so much....period. That's how it goes w/ any job. There is pretty much a cap unless you swith a line of work. I'm sure there are MANY people who would be happy making what the workers are making now. I know...quality of the workers...I know. But, people can be trained and moved into those spots who will accept the money they make and be happy with it.

I didn't go into the profession I'm in now to make $150,000 a year. That's just not feasible. If I wanted to make money like that, I would have chosen a different profession...plain and simple....and, I would have gotten a different degree in college. If the jobs taken are being paid at a particular rate and then GM wants to cut that pay rate, I'd say tough....that's what the person who took the job accepted and that's what they should stay at.

When that person retires or leaves, the next person hired in could take the "new" pay rate. But, there is no way that GM would be able to get the higher paid person out of there...their rate and job would be guaranteed.

Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone here and don't want to start an argument. I want the jobs here, but I also have so much I can afford for the Camaro I want.

73,000 workers walk in nationwide GM strike
UAW strike halts GM operations in 30 states. First round of post-strike negotiations fails to produce deal; talks set to resume Tuesday morning. By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
September 24 2007: 8:58 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The United Auto Workers union launched a nationwide strike against General Motors on Monday as 73,000 UAW members walked off the job and hit the picket lines at the nation's largest automaker.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger blasted GM management, saying that the company had not been willing to meet the union part way in negotiations.


Members of UAW Local 31 at GM's Fairfax assembly plant in Kansas City, Kan., began picketing shortly after 11 a.m. ET Monday.
The UAW union began a strike at General Motors facilities across the United States. CNN's Ali Velshi reports.
"This is nothing we wanted," he said about the strike. "No one benefits in a strike. But there comes a point where someone can push you off a cliff. That's what happened here."

Company officials did not respond to Gettelfinger's comments, other than to say they were disappointed that the first national strike against the company in more than 37 years had been called, and that they hoped that an agreement to end the walkout could be reached soon.

Talks between the two sides resumed Monday afternoon after the union's press conference and continued more than five hours through the afternoon and into the evening before recessing for the night just before 8 p.m. Monday.

The same negotiators had been at the table in a marathon session that started early Sunday and went right up to the 11 a.m. ET start of the strike on Monday.

GM spokesman Tom Wickham said talks are expected to resume Tuesday morning, although he did not have any detail on when, and would not comment on progress made in the latest negotiations.

Gettelfinger said at the midday press conference that the union is ready to discuss the company's key bargaining goal of shifting an estimated $51 billion in healthcare expenses for retirees and their family members to union-controlled trust funds. But he said that other issues had derailed hopes of an agreement.

The union president said he was looking for assurances from the company about the job security of UAW members. He said he wanted guarantees about how much GM would invest in U.S. plants and about how many new vehicles would be built in the United States.

The UAW has seen its membership at GM plummet by 70 percent since 1994, as the automaker dumped its parts unit and closed plants to try to align its production more in line with its shrinking U.S. market share.

The strike halted operations at 80 facilities, ranging from assembly lines to parts distribution centers, in 30 states coast-to-coast. It also is likely to soon stop operations at GM plants in Canada and Mexico that depend on production from U.S. facilities, as well as the plants of many GM suppliers.

Still, most GM dealers won't start to see shortages of vehicles for two-to-three weeks, even though the strike will immediately halt production of 12,200 vehicles per day or 760 vehicles per hour, said Michael Robinet, vice president of global vehicle forecasts for CSM Worldwide. GM's inventory is above those of Japanese rivals and U.S. sales have been soft in recent months following the subprime mortgage meltdown, although GM bucked the trend to post a much better than expected sales month in August.

"Even if they have too much inventory, this is not a positive for the company," said Robinet. "I think they would rather take inventory out on their terms, not someone else's terms."

Picket signs went up at plants around the country just after 11 a.m. ET, followed by a stream of union members driving out of the plants' gates.

The workers had stayed on the job for nine days past the original expiration of the contract on Sept. 14, while union and management negotiators kept talking. But late Sunday night, the union set the strike deadline for 11 a.m.

The company said it was still hopeful it could reach a quick deal with the union, despite the start of the strike.

Is this strike for real?
"We are disappointed in the UAW's decision to call a national strike," said a statement from GM. "The bargaining involved complex, difficult issues that affect the job security of our U.S. work force, and the long-term viability of the company. We are fully committed to working with the UAW to develop solutions together to address the competitive challenges facing General Motors. We will continue focusing our efforts on reaching an agreement as soon as possible."

Since the start of 2005, GM has taken a hit in its core North American auto unit, which posted nearly $13 billion in net losses in 2005 and 2006 combined. Losses continued in the first quarter of 2007 before the unit posted a narrow profit in the second quarter, but it was likely to report continued losses this year even without the costs associated with a strike.

The company has also seen its U.S sales fall along with its financial fortunes. It sold close to 1 in 3 cars purchased in the United States as recently as 1995. In the first eight months of 2007, its market share had fallen to less than 1 in 4 vehicles, or the loss of close to 10 percent of the market.

For his part, union boss Gettelfinger did not dismiss the notion that GM was in trouble. But he said there is only so much the union can do to stem losses at GM facilities.

"Obviously we're very concerned about this company," he said. "I remind everyone we've done a lot of things to help that company. But there comes a point in time we have to draw a line in the sand."

While the strike hit GM plants and facilities, it does not affect the two other automakers whose workers are represented by the UAW, Ford Motor (Charts, Fortune 500) or Chrysler LLC, which between them have more than 100,000 UAW still on the job. Members at those companies have been working under their own contract extensions as the union concentrated on reaching a deal with GM.

UAW strikers: Worried, but firm
A key to the contract talks is GM's goal of shifting an estimated $51 billion in future healthcare costs for retirees and their family members to union-controlled trust funds. GM has more than 340,000 retirees and surviving spouses receiving such benefits today.

Shifting those costs is seen as a key to GM efforts to close its cost gap with nonunion automakers, such as Toyota Motor (Charts) and Honda Motor (Charts). Ford and Chrysler combined are facing nearly $50 billion of retiree healthcare costs as well.

Gettelfinger disclosed that two years ago the union proposed setting up the kinds of trust funds, known by the accounting short-hand of VEBAs, that are now being sought by the company. Instead the company and union negotiated a less dramatic manner to limit the cost of retiree healthcare for the company. He said that if the company had taken the union's proposal at that time, it could have saved $1,000 per vehicle.

"They did raise the VEBA [in current talks] and we were more than eager to discuss it," Gettelfinger said. "Let me be very clear on this point - this strike is not about the VEBA in any way, shape or form."

Shares of Dow component GM (Charts, Fortune 500) closed down just 20 cents Monday, although that's well off of the 2.6 percent gain they were showing before the strike started.

Most analysts have said that although a long strike at General Motors would be a crippling blow for the automaker's efforts to return its North American operations to profitability, the automaker is probably in a relatively good position to weather a short strike.

Next victim of mortgage mess: Auto sales
David Healy, analyst with Burnham Securities, said he believes GM could take a strike of up to a month without a significant problem.

"It's sort of an odd thing, the first thing that happens with an automaker in case of a strike is their cash increases, as their payroll stops, and they still keep collecting cash for the cars that have been shipped," said Healy.

He believes the two sides are close enough that the strike will be a short one.

"Days, not weeks or months, that would be my guess," he said.

John Casesa, managing partner for New York auto consulting firm the Casesa Shapiro Group, also expects a short strike.

"I don't think the strike is simply for appearances. The UAW doesn't take a strike lightly," he said. "I do think there were stumbling blocks at the last minute. But given [Gettelfinger's comments about a trust fund], that's why I think they will eventually reach an agreement. This has been a topic of discussion around the union and GM for a couple of years."

Casesa said that it's possible that the strike could even make it easier for the union leadership to eventually win rank-and-file approval of any deal that is reached, which is necessary for a contract to be ratified.

"I think a short strike has the effect of sending a message to the more aggressive parts of the union that leadership is fighting for every dollar," said Casesa. "If it takes a couple of days strike to get the landmark agreement the two sides are talking about, that's a pretty small cost to pay."

Standard & Poor's, which has given junk bond status to GM's credit rating for more than two years, said it does not intend to further downgrade the company's debt unless the strike stretches on longer than what it expects to be "a brief and largely symbolic period."

But if the strike is longer than expected and causes more serious problems for GM's finances, it won't be alone in feeling the pain. In that case, the credit agency said that the ratings of certain GM suppliers would also be at risk of a downgrade.

The strike is the nation's largest since 87,000 workers at Verizon Communications (Charts, Fortune 500) walked off the job in August 2000, but that action did not shut down the company.

GM was last hit by a strike at its Flint, Mich., locals in 1998, a work stoppage by only 9,200 workers that was felt across most of GM's North American operations for 54 days since they couldn't get the parts they needed to keep making cars and trucks. The last true national strike against GM came in 1970, which lasted 69 days.

The last strike by more than 70,000 workers that shut down a company's operations was the 1997 strike by 185,000 Teamsters at United Parcel Service. (Charts, Fortune 500)

[The_Stache]

Meh, If you want job security do something no one else can do..

I have job security because I'm the best at my job ,out of 9 people. Not because I'm part of a union that will crush a companies nuts because of one issue or another.

If you need a union to ensure that you have job security, you don't deserve to have that job because its best business practice to give it to some one else.

PS - GM could and CAN find another 73k workers.. Just hit up Mexico.. offer to pay the fees for immigration and you will have Mexicans lined up to do the jobs.. and will do a better job, for less money and still be American jobs. Without the bitching.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger blasted GM management, saying that the company had not been willing to meet the union part way in negotiations.

The strike halted operations at 80 facilities, ranging from assembly lines to parts distribution centers, in 30 states coast-to-coast. It also is likely to soon stop operations at GM plants in Canada and Mexico that depend on production from U.S. facilities, as well as the plants of many GM suppliers.

Oh well... They'll be back to work soon; looks like the UAW is waiting on GM. LET'S GO, PEOPLE!!!

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

Meh, If you want job security do something no one else can do..

I have job security because I'm the best at my job ,out of 9 people. Not because I'm part of a union that will crush a companies nuts because of one issue or another.

If you need a union to ensure that you have job security, you don't deserve to have that job because its best business practice to give it to some one else.

PS - GM could and CAN find another 73k workers.. Just hit up Mexico.. offer to pay the fees for immigration and you will have Mexicans lined up to do the jobs.. and will do a better job, for less money and still be American jobs. Without the bitching.

I think you responded to yourself...sorta.

I'm reading:The UAW doesn't desen't deserve job security, because they need a Union to ensure it...

I'm also reading: Mexicans will do the job for cheaper...


Okay......How is the fact that other nations have a lower standard of living, and therefore will accept lower wages the UAW's fault? Just asking

Like I said before...Unions still have their place, in industries that aren't globally competitve: I.e. Police force, Teachers, etc...But untill the World market for labor levels out, and everybody needs to earn the same to live, most unions in the US are going to have a tough time competing...Now, once the above does happen - I am fully confident that Unions will sprout all over the place.

[unkbd]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It IS hard to understand unless your one of them...but for a moment, put yourself in their shoes.

Of some 300,000 UAW workers...there's 73,000 left....can you blame them for wanting some kind of job security? btw...I know my numbers are off...

unkbd, What is it exactly the UAW and GM can't agree on? just VEBA? or is there more?

To be perfectly honest with you, on this set of contract talks we haven't gotten much more information than the general public. I can address a few things in tags post though which might help clarify.

First, some things to keep in mind to prevent a few arguments:
1. yes times change and both company and union have to change to remain profitable.
2. The union has been more than willing to assist the company with concessions in the middle of the previous contract and at these talks.( more on this later)
3. The UAW is not interested in the demise of the auto manufacturers. The hole GM is in has been created by poor design decisions, inefficient manufacturing processes, and lack of reinvestment in the company(technology to streamline manufacturing processes)
history
In the last contract we(union members) maintained much of what we had, gained some (performance bonus in 1st year and a 3% raise in the 4th year of the 4yr contract.) lost some (retiree benefits, out sourcing some maintenance and construction jobs). There were more changes but those were the items that affected most people.
Midway through the contract a smaller version of the veba for retirees was negotiated in order to help GM. We lost the 3% raise and every quarter a portion of our COLA was taken to help fund this VEBA.
Currently
I cannot speak to the "exact" items but will italicize what we have been told, that may or may not have been in the news media.
The VEBA of course is a huge item. To this point the only thing holding that back is the percentage at which GM is going to fund the obligation they already have, which from tags article seems to have already been worked out. I assume the funding will be 65 to 70 cents on the dollar.
I fully expect a two tier wage system to be implimentedwhich will save GM huge amounts of money given the fact that (at my plant) they have not replaced a single worker for any that have retired, or taken the "buyout" that was offered last year. Those jobs were filled by "summer help". If the two tier wage system is passed, gm can replace some of those jobs at a great cost savings.
Reduction of wages which has been in the media to the tune of $5 an hour. You and I know that most people live on what they make, that being said, a reduction that large would place undue financial stress on a vast majority of the employees. Some say,"$5 phhhtt that is nothing." okay, take your pay and reduce it by 20% and you figure out how to pay your bills. Could it be done? Sure, but would you be happy about it and say okay and reduce your standard of living. How much longer would it take you to save for your new camaro if you could even afford to get it? On top of the wage reduction what they haven't told you is a loss of COLA and a health care(medical, dental, eye coverage) deductible.
The out sourcing of jobs and construction projects is another topic near and dear to my heart in particular. This means that GM would increase the number of jobs typically done by union members. Typically these jobs have been given to people not making a "living wage" which is not good for the economy in general. The out sourcing of construction projects affects me directly by reducing the amount of overtime available to me, and allows the company to reduce the number of skilled trades people that they have to keep on the payroll(electricians, millwrights, pipefitters, carpenters etc.) These are good paying jobs, all of them. My contention is that if people are not making a living wage who does GM expect to sell their vehicles to. If you're living paycheck to paycheck/working two jobs, how in the hell can you afford a new vehicle? My point is strengthened by the current Real Estate troubles the country is experiencing.

The job security issue which has been discussed in other threads, is (IMO) largely missunderstood. The UAW is not trying to hamstring GM into staying in the United States. We want assurances that important, good paying jobs will stay in the US. In other words, don't shut down operations in the United States in order to move them to another country. If you want to build cars in China, Mexico, Brazil, etc. go ahead but don't do it at the expense of the American Worker. Building vehicles in other countries only increases GMs bottom line. It doesn't benefit the consumer.....A Tahoe built in Mexico costs the same a one built in my plant. There is no discount on that vehicle even though everything associated with the production of that Mexican Tahoe with the exception of the parts is lower.

So far those are the "large" issues that I and some others I work with have deduced as being sticking points. If you have read this whole post I thank you and hope that you have come away with a better understanding of what is going on here. Unions are important. I feel that if not for union negotiated good paying jobs, the standard of living in America would not be where it is now.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by diarmadhi

GM could and CAN find another 73k workers.. Just hit up Mexico.. offer to pay the fees for immigration and you will have Mexicans lined up to do the jobs.. and will do a better job, for less money and still be American jobs. Without the bitching.

I think you took that a little too far... What makes you "think" Mexicans are better workers than Americans?

This whole thing is a double edged sword. There's nothing wrong with paying your workers good for their time and efforts. I know I wouldn't want to go to work, sweating everyday just to come home with peanuts and a cup of rice.

Big companies have a long history of stiffin' the little guy, making you work more for the same money, taking away benefits and pocketing the profits.

If you think shipping a bunch of immigrants into the U.S. and handing them jobs that once belonged to the very people that help build this country is even a valid option... man you're a piece of work.

[Dark Knight]

all this mexican talk is making me hungry

I'm pretty sure diarmadhi is just blowing off some stem when he made the mexican comment. Lord knows i don't want any of them building a car that i'm planning on owning!