Welcome to the FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
PS... hope you don't need parts for your cars... A Gm tech on another board said dealerships are having problems getting parts... The strike also affects the warehouse network.
I heard on news that they were getting 200 bucks a week plus full healthcare from union. Just what the news said and I have not verified it so don't bash me if thats not right.
No union pays full wages during a strike, I think its something like 60% of that pay, and its certainly not an average of $25 an hour, more like $18 average, TOP OUT is around $27 after 28 years of service in most UAW locales. That figure is not nearly what will be paid out, probably not even half of that, but the UAW does have deep coffers for just these situations. As for union dues, the UAW takes out a weekly chunk, not large, to pool into there. They have the money for 6 months.
So the average worker your saying gets 18 bucks an hour? I'm not stirring the pot here just asking. I know to work at toyota as a temp on production line they start you at 15-18 bucks and after 3-6 months you go full time you jump 22 an hour and they have machines do work for you, you change spots on line and they are real big on ergonomics there. My uncle has worked there on maintenance side of house and her gets 34 bucks an hour but he works tons of overtime also so at the end of the year it tends to be a balancing act of trying to stay just under a 100k. Twice a year they shut down for 2 weeks each and pay employees there standard 40 hour pay no vacation time is taken, and if maintenance volunteers to work they can get triple pay regular vacation accumulation or regular pay and triple vacation accumulation or a mixture of double both if they want. Not to mention ligitamate bonuses they get like don't miss work you get bonus. They give sick days but if you don't use them you make company more money so they give you bonuses. They have a yearly banquet where they give away cars, cash, gift cards, nice TV's. Plus their insurance and facilitys are nop notch. It remiinds me of a small military base, that is self sufficiant. Funnyiest thing said so far is that Toyota has actually had to raise prices so that big 3 can stay competitive with them which in return is giving them larger earnings. :omg:
Lemme ask you something....Does ANYONE think for one second, that if GM started paying their union employee's even HALF of what they make now, the price of a car will drop??? If you do, you're just f'ing stupid. GM will never drop the price of the car, but will easily give their upper management a bigger raise. They may slow the inflation price of these new cars, but you will never see a drop in MSRP.
Maybe not GM on specific vehicles like these that I found after a quick search:
GM has tried diffrent ways of getting sales up and cost down but now it seems that the only way would be to stop pay increases and possibly cut. Upper management defintly needs to not be getting bonuses, especially equal to or more than there outrageous salaries. If Ransom E. Olds, who started Oldsmobile, David Dunbar Buick who founded Buick, Henry M. Leland who founded Cadiallac, or Billy Durant who founded GM and started the buying process to get all the companys under one management saw what was going on with greedy bastards that run the show now, they would kill them. Literally, I'm sure.
How can you collect bonuses and give yourself raises when your company is turning a LOSS?? Im sorry, but I was under the impression that a bonus is something rewarded for doing good, and a pay raise was given when a person does an excellent job and deserves what they get paid.
Typically, when companies hit a rough spot, the execs turn down bonuses. I agree, it is odd when execs get bonuses even when the company does poorly.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
As for talent, that is rediculous. Any college educated person with a business degree can do management, and work themselves up the ladder into a board.
no, I know some people with degrees that can't tie their own shoes. Degrees are tools that, when used properly, can be very effective.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
I also don't believe that any one persons talent should be worth more value than paying a person good enough as to not live in a constant struggle. That is the moral issue here. Its all about greed, all of it. How much money can one person actually use for the intent of living even a good life and how much some of these execs are getting is two VERY different numbers. Its sickening to know that there are people still getting rich off lowering the standards of the middle class, just because of their "talent".
It's about retention. If the board believes someone is worth keeping, they will pay him more. yes, that person is greedy for threatening to leave unless he/she is paid more, but that's capitalism. I like capitalism - socialism sucks.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
One more thing, if you can find cheaper labor to do the work, why can't some of these companies find cheaper management to run the company? Does it take MORE so called talent to run the company than it does to actually operate it?
yes of course! Effective management is extremely hard and requires talent and experience.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
And if that is the case, why are the Big 3 struggling the way they are? If the talent is worth the money, why can't they find a simple solution to the strike?
You are simplifier something that is not simple.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
Why can they not find easier ways to produce cars, and keep production costs to a minimum?
I suspect they address these problems every day.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
I'll tell you why, because any moron with a business degree can run these companies, and the politics behind them.
you have a gross misunderstanding of running a businees, Wes.
Originally posted by Mogobs30th
Hell, our own president had a C average in school, and he runs the largest pool of capitalism. Its not talent, its luck and a brief understanding of what is going on. Talent is BS.
Grades do not equal talent. Talent is about applying knowledge of people, teams, business, marketing etc and effective leading companies. It's not about degrees (Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft). I used to work with hundreds of PhDs. Degrees are a tool. Some of these people just could not produce. Others used their schooling and talent to come up with great things.
I am not saying I agree with paying execs giant salaries, but that's the way the system works now. Capitalism. Retention. Greed does play a part from the execs, but they system says they can do that. If YOU were in that position, you would do the same thing.
I am not saying I agree with paying execs giant salaries, but that's the way the system works now. Capitalism. Retention. Greed does play a part from the execs, but they system says they can do that. If YOU were in that position, you would do the same thing.
It's about retention. If the board believes someone is worth keeping, they will pay him more. yes, that person is greedy for threatening to leave unless he/she is paid more, but that's capitalism. I like capitalism - socialism sucks.
These are two comments right here that only solidify my views on union labor. This is the SOLE reason why unions are still around. Businesses should assume a moral responsibility to their employees, and if they cannot do that, then they deserve to go under. Im tired of hearing how some exec gets some huge payout while his employees make $10 an hour and tries to raise a family on that. Thats the problem with capitalism, its all run on greed. **** the guy next to you, when do I get what I want....BULL****. I cannot believe that this is what this country has come to. Everyone seems to be interested in only their interests, and if it ****s someone else out of a job, or money, or a house, or a family, thats just the ****ing way it works....that is ****ing SICKENING.
Greed does play a part from the execs, but they system says they can do that. If YOU were in that position, you would do the same thing.
I assure you, I would NEVER, EVER, do that. I could never live with myself knowing that my salary is paid on the backs of cheap labor, to where I go home and enjoy a good life, some other individual can barely feed themselves and their kids. Ive been on the other side of the tracks, I know what its like to try to live on $10 an hour, live on your own, and eat. I know what its like to struggle to pay bills, to have no life outside of the four walls of an apartment, and I would never wish that upon anyone. To even say that I would do that in their shoes is a plain and outright lie. Read my post, hell, read some of the archived ones. I know im an a**hole, prick, deviant ****, but im not greedy. I try to have SOME morals in my life, and there is no place for greed in mine. I do not believe on holding anyone down when they are trying to feed a family and live a decent life, but I must be the only one here that shares that sentiment. Does anyone have a scrap of moral fiber left in them, or is it "whoever dies with the most toys wins!!"?
1995 Pontiac Firebird
2008 Chevrolet Silverado LT Crew Cab 4x4
Thats the problem with capitalism, its all run on greed.
Hey, we agree on something! :poke: That is a flaw with our economy. People have lost and continue to lose their morals. however, it is the best economic model in use to date (AFAIK). Hopefully, it can/will be improved somehow. I am not an economist, so I won't even to pretend to know how to fix it.
These are two comments right here that only solidify my views on union labor. This is the SOLE reason why unions are still around. Businesses should assume a moral responsibility to their employees, and if they cannot do that, then they deserve to go under. Im tired of hearing how some exec gets some huge payout while his employees make $10 an hour and tries to raise a family on that. Thats the problem with capitalism, its all run on greed. **** the guy next to you, when do I get what I want....BULL****. I cannot believe that this is what this country has come to. Everyone seems to be interested in only their interests, and if it ****s someone else out of a job, or money, or a house, or a family, thats just the ****ing way it works....that is ****ing SICKENING.
I assure you, I would NEVER, EVER, do that. I could never live with myself knowing that my salary is paid on the backs of cheap labor, to where I go home and enjoy a good life, some other individual can barely feed themselves and their kids. Ive been on the other side of the tracks, I know what its like to try to live on $10 an hour, live on your own, and eat. I know what its like to struggle to pay bills, to have no life outside of the four walls of an apartment, and I would never wish that upon anyone. To even say that I would do that in their shoes is a plain and outright lie. Read my post, hell, read some of the archived ones. I know im an a**hole, prick, deviant ****, but im not greedy. I try to have SOME morals in my life, and there is no place for greed in mine. I do not believe on holding anyone down when they are trying to feed a family and live a decent life, but I must be the only one here that shares that sentiment. Does anyone have a scrap of moral fiber left in them, or is it "whoever dies with the most toys wins!!"?
to quote Winston Churchill: The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery.
I'm not greedy either and many people in this world aren't. Warren Buffet, whose just a shade less rich than Bill Gates still lives in the same house he grew up in and lived on a 60k a year salary all thru his life iirc.
See, there are two things. First, you gotta understand teh significance of multiples. if 10 board members give themselves a 1 million dollar bonus, that adds up to 10 million bucks right? if GM were to instead divvy that bonus up amongst its 75,000 hourly UAW employees, they'd each get a whopping $113.33 bonus. Am I saying its right? Definately not. That money could be used elsewhere for the company's benefit. What I am saying is that its not like the million dollars they pay themselves makes much of a difference to the masses of employees. The bonus isn't making kids go hungry. I just wanted to put it in perspective, thats all.
The other thing is purely capitalistic. Not everyone can run a company (well at least...). People who can have a marketable skill. Lee Iococca for instance SHOULD be paid top dollar for managing companies. He basically invented the "pony car", he turned Chrysler around back in the 80's, and so on. He made the companies LOTS of money and should be reimbursed his worth. Its like saying NHL'ers shouldn't be paid more than the dude scanning tickets. Anyone can scan tickets. Not everyone can perform the brutal yet graceful acrobatics that they perform on the ice.
I would never wish hunger or a lack of education on anyone, but you have to view yourself as a company resource. No more than a machine. If you have several trucks that ship parts, they wouldn't be worth as much as, say, the one milling machine that precisely grinds the crankshafts. You have ONE machine that does an important job and several less expensive machines that do another equally important job. if a truck goes down, there a bunches more to replace it and it's reletively inexpensive to fix. If your crank grinding machine goes down, no cars can be made and everything grinds (or doesnt grind) to an expensive halt (especially when you consider the cars that could've been made in teh time while the machine was down... opportunity cost).
Maybe thats a bad example but i hope i get my idea across. Do i think one life is more important than another? capital No. But the economic system we have pays people based on scarce goods. A good CEO is a lot harder to find than a line worker. Same as how a Ferrari is a lot harder to find than a Corvette.
Should we all be paid the same? Nah. Cuz then, whats the incentive to work? If i can get paid the same wage as a line worker as what I'll make when i get my degree... well then why would i waste my life in college trying to learn all this crap? Why would I try to start a business and risk losing it all and working long hours when i could make an equal wage as the cleaning guy? The only real alternatives are socialism/communism. They work in theory, but a quick pondering of human nature reveals why they never worked in the first place. Someone always is gonna try to get just a little bit ahead of teh Jones'. Everyone's gonna try to cheat a little bit to get themselves ahead. Thats why the late 70's oil embargo didnt work. All the companies in OPEC cheated just a little bit, and then a bit more and more until there was no real embargo. Its called "Prisoners Dillema". google it or something.
Capitalism just harnesses the natural human instinct towards greed and channels it into a positive way. Yeah, the big wigs definately get larger checks, but everyone moves forward in the end. JFK said "a rising tide floats all boats".
Consider JD Rockefeller. Oil tycoon in the post civil war era. One of the richest men ever to live. In his day, he knew no air conditioning. He didnt have cable or internet. No cell phone, no car until he was almost dead, no practical lightbulb for most his life. No recorded music of any sort. No computer, no video games, no fast food, no electric fan, no refrigerator, primitive medication, no anesthetic for surgery, no airplane rides, no plastic of any sort. All basic things we all know, enjoy and take for granted, even by the "lower class" nowadays. And that was just 100 years ago. Is it weird to think you are in many ways "richer" than the richest man in the world 100 years ago? I promise you that noone would have gone through all the trouble to develop microchips and new pharmecuiticals and cool cell phone networks and A/C or even cars "just to give back to society". Yeah, it'd be nice if it was like that but the harsh truth is that someone took the risks and did it because they expected to get rich off of it and retire at 35, move to Monoco and sip pina colatas on the beach for the rest of thier life. and in the end, we all benefited from it. It takes a bit, but it all comes around full circle.
I guess thats my stand on the whole thing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm right, but i guess in the end its just the cynical yet, logical view i have on the world we live in.
2000 3.8L Camaro A4 Pewter Y87<br />K&N Filter, SLP Ram Air kit, Eibach Pro Kit, Flowmaster 80 series, Silverstars, NGK plugs and MSD Super Conductor Wires, Electric Water Pump
See, there are two things. First, you gotta understand teh significance of multiples. if 10 board members give themselves a 1 million dollar bonus, that adds up to 10 million bucks right? if GM were to instead divvy that bonus up amongst its 75,000 hourly UAW employees, they'd each get a whopping $113.33 bonus. Am I saying its right? Definately not. That money could be used elsewhere for the company's benefit. What I am saying is that its not like the million dollars they pay themselves makes much of a difference to the masses of employees. The bonus isn't making kids go hungry. I just wanted to put it in perspective, thats all.
Why would they have to give themselves bonuses with that 10 million? They don't have to give the MONEY to the worker outright, but why not that extra towards the retirement funds, healthcare costs, etc.? There are MANY places money can go in a company, but the one place it goes the most is the board members pockets. DEEP DEEP pockets already, just making them deeper. Those little bits of money that the company isn't hurting for could easily be used to the benefit of the employees, and can be given out of the goodness of their own hearts, or to bridge good relations to either the employees, media, union, or all of them. Instead, they want to give themselves the money, as if they needed it.....
I have no problem paying any individual what they are worth, but if that is the case, then the company should pay that individual while keeping up their moral standards to the employees that work for them. If they are going to offer Joe Wtf X amount of dollars, then make sure the company can afford X amount of dollars, and not strip it from the backs of the labor pool in the company. If they cant afford X amount of money, then that company should be doomed to fail, hence the cycle of capitalism. DO NOT take it from the labor pool. Ever hear the motto "Too many chiefs, and not enough Indians"? This is EXACTLY what is going on at GM. TOO much management over the employees they have, and they are all worth what they think they are worth. So GM forks out unreasonable amounts of money to these people that they "think" are valuable, and tries to strip it from the labor pool. Whats happening, because you have too many managers, you have too many ideas floating around, too much direction being told, and a mass confusion. I say if they are going to do layoffs, start with middle management. CONSOLIDATE your resources, because in the real world we ALL know that not every manager is a large business is needed, they can be replaced, especially in the middle levels. If GM was to consolidate resources on the managerial level, move towards LEAN MANUFACTURING, they could easily afford the retirement of the 340,000 retirees and 73,000+ employees they have now. GM's way of manufacturing is old school, its one of the major reasons why Toyota is killing them in sales. OVERHEAD IS TOO HIGH, and can be lowered in the mid management levels by consolidation.
Now, I read earlier about someone saying that Toyota takes care of their employees, matches their pay and benefits to what the Big 3 offer...there is a reason for that. Although Toyota, Mitsu, Subaru are non-union in this country, the fear of becoming union is what keeps the automotive makers competitive in wages to their employees. Without the union hanging on their every last move, my belief is that the other automakers would not offer such lavish pay and benefits. They are paying so well because they don't want union intervention. So in turn, because the Big 3 are union, Toyota and the others must follow suit and keep with what the market is going for auto workers. I have a hard time believing that the foreign automakers would allow these benefits and pay without the UAW in existence.
Lastly, I will say this because I believe it must be said, I think there is ONE flaw with the employment thru the UAW, and some unions alltogether. There are employees who think that it is nothing but a free ride for them, which inturn, makes the employer, union, themselves, and their co-workers look bad. There are a few employees that need FIRED. I do believe that if you are unproductive, cost more than you are worth, useless, careless, and hazardous, that ANY union should not intervene and allow the employer to do what is best for the company and fire that individual. I do believe in second chances, I don't think ANYONE should be fired on the spot without a history of ****ing up, but if you are a repeat offender, constantly costing the company money, there should be no one standing in the way of the employer from making a sound decision on someones employment with them. That is one thing that has always had me a little skeptical with some manufacturing unions. If you can keep the labor pool limited to useful, hard working, honest individuals, then the animosity towards unions would all but dissappear. I don't think ANYONE would have a problem with collective bargaining, or the union that represents them.
1995 Pontiac Firebird
2008 Chevrolet Silverado LT Crew Cab 4x4
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
no, I know some people with degrees that can't tie their own shoes. Degrees are tools that, when used properly, can be very effective.
Comment