Are UAW Union Bosses Abusing Their Positions for Pay?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential bailout of the U.S. auto industry, specifically the "big three" automakers, and whether such actions would be beneficial or detrimental. Participants explore various economic, social, and strategic implications of government intervention in the auto industry, including the impact on jobs, competition, and the future of the industry in a global context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that bailing out the automakers could prevent a chain reaction of job losses across related industries, while others question whether this intervention would truly lead to long-term improvements.
  • There is a suggestion that the government should facilitate a restructuring of the industry, potentially allowing only two of the three major automakers to survive, which raises concerns about the implications of such a decision.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the ability of the big three to adapt and innovate without significant changes to their business models, citing past failures to learn from competitors.
  • Others propose that the bailout could be an opportunity to transition the industry towards greener technologies, although there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of government mandates in achieving this goal.
  • Concerns are raised about the long-term viability of the automakers, with some arguing that if they continue to fail to meet market demands, they should be allowed to fail, making way for more innovative companies.
  • There is a discussion about the role of union negotiations in the context of a bailout, with some suggesting that pension and labor costs should be re-evaluated as part of any financial assistance package.
  • Participants highlight the complexity of the situation, noting that the interconnectedness of the auto industry with global supply chains could lead to unpredictable repercussions if any major player collapses.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the bailout, with no clear consensus emerging. Some advocate for intervention to preserve jobs and stabilize the economy, while others argue for a more hands-off approach, suggesting that allowing market forces to dictate outcomes may be more beneficial in the long run.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about the nature of the auto industry, the effectiveness of government intervention, and the potential consequences of allowing major companies to fail. Participants acknowledge the complexity of the issues involved, including economic, social, and political factors.

  • #331
montoyas7940 said:
I think you would find it interesting to take a walk through a Nissan dealership and look at the U.S part content stickers on most models. Many, such as the Quest, Altima, Maxima, Frontier, Titan, Armada and Pathfinder are/were over 90%. I say were because we are losing some models back to Japan.

I can't speak about Toyota, Honda, Suzuki and all the other foreign makers. Certainly they meet similar part source challenges in similar ways.

You are right. The percentage of American parts has been increasing in the Japanese vehicles. This followed a lot of complaints by the big three back in the 90's when the Japanese got their jump start here.

There are a few options for determining a car's domestic-parts content. We went with the figure that appears alongside the window sticker of new cars as a result of the American Automobile Labeling Act, enacted in 1994. The AALA mandates that virtually every new car display the percentage, by cost, of its parts that originated in the U.S. and Canada. We deemed cars with a domestic-parts content rating of 75 percent or higher eligible for the index.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&story=amMade1207&aff=chitrib

On the other hand in recent years the Big three are now using a lot of parts made in other countries.

Fewer than half of the parts on some Big Three vehicles are made in the U.S.

Looking at a Ford Fusion? It is assembled in Mexico. The Chrysler 300C is assembled in Canada, but its transmission is from Indiana; the brand's V-8 engine is made in Mexico. Engines in the Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle are from China.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/12/american.cars/
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #332
mgb_phys said:
Bailouts for banks but not car makers ?
No problem just declare your self a bank http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/25gmac.html?_r=1&em

I like the idea of allowing the UAW pension funds to become a specialized (vehicle loan) bank...chartered to ONLY make loans for Big 3 products...at a MUCH HIGHER rate of interest. Car loans of 15% plus will be normal in a few years when inflation kicks in anyway.

If they loan $15B at an average of $30K per vehicle = 500,000 new vehicles sold AND they'll achieve approximately $242M in cash flow per month moving forward...which could purchase an additional 8,000 vehicles per month or left to accumulate.

If all taxes are waived...$15B will fix the problem...as long as people make their payments and the cars last through the loan period.

Maybe (just maybe) everyone involved will realize that smaller, slightly less profitable - but more affordable vehicles will increase demand and reduce payback risk.

If the UAW pensions aren't willing to take this risk...why should banks?
 
  • #333
edward said:
After Japanese workers including auto workers retire there is no legacy system.
Well in the US, there is a legacy system, and it has already been paid for (and the money then wasted). Why should I pay for it twice?

What you are saying is all non sequitur - even foreign companies who build their cars in the US have lower costs than their American counterparts, so what happens in Japan is completely irrelevant. American car companies have wasted money that was supposed to be saved for their workers' retirement and as a result, they have had to raise the price of their cars while cutting R&D. It is a death spiral that a baliout won't fix. And bailing them out now would only encourage others to make the same mistakes and throw bad money after good.
...now let's look at the numbers.
That's also a non sequitur, but you may want to look more into what those numbers mean and how they are arrived at. A company founded on freedom would never accept such draconian price controls that risk destroying such an important industry. Whether a nationalized health care system could/would actually be cheaper (without hurting service and driving hospitals out of business) than what we have now can't be proven with numbers from other countries.
 
Last edited:
  • #334
edward said:
On the other hand in recent years the Big three are now using a lot of parts made in other countries.

Recent years?
My '95 Chrysler LeBaron came with a Mitsubishi V6.
And I didn't find out my '93 Ford Probe was a Mazda MX6 under the skin until I bought the repair manual.

If only one of the big 3 would start putting their badge on a Subaru.

http://www.drive.subaru.com/Win06/SubaruHEV/B5PTH.jpg
http://www.drive.subaru.com/Win06_HEV.htm"​

To my knowledge, I've never owned a Subaru. Though I probably would have recognized a boxer engine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #335
russ_watters said:
Well in the US, there is a legacy system, and it has already been paid for (and the money then wasted). Why should I pay for it twice

You shouldn't and neither should I and this was never a point of my posts.


What you are saying is all non sequitur - even foreign companies who build their cars in the US have lower costs than their American counterparts, so what happens in Japan is completely irrelevant

It was relevant when the Japanese companies moved here in the 90's and got a foothold by using Japanese parts and big tax incentives from states and local communities.


American car companies have wasted money that was supposed to be saved for their workers' retirement and as a result, they have had to raise the price of their cars while cutting R&D. It is a death spiral that a bailout won't fix.

You may be right on this part. Only time will tell

And bailing them out now would only encourage others to make the same mistakes and throw bad money after good.

What others? There are only three. And yet far fewer people are complaining about the $7 00 billion for the investment bankers than the $15 billion for the auto industry.

My concern has never been about the 250,000 auto assembly workers. It is about the parts and support jobs that go with the industry.

Even the Japanese are worried about the parts factories since they now use many of the same suppliers as the big three. They are also worried about the effect on their own vehicle sales if Detroit tanks making the economy even worse. Both Toyota and Honda are now in the red.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/...utomakers-not-celebrating-over-big-3-problems


That's also a non sequitur, but you may want to look more into what those numbers mean and how they are arrived at. A company founded on freedom would never accept such draconian price controls that risk destroying such an important industry. Whether a nationalized health care system could/would actually be cheaper (without hurting service and driving hospitals out of business) than what we have now can't be proven with numbers from other countries.

Again I was not comparing the good or bad aspects of either health care system. I was only mentioning that the Japanese system is more financially beneficial to the Japanese automakers than Our system is to the US automakers.

A large percentage of the Japanese vehicles sold here are still made in Japan. The health care plans offered to workers in Japanese factories in this country are Spartan at best.
 
  • #336
OmCheeto said:
Recent years?
My '95 Chrysler LeBaron came with a Mitsubishi V6.
And I didn't find out my '93 Ford Probe was a Mazda MX6 under the skin until I bought the repair manual.

If only one of the big 3 would start putting their badge on a Subaru.

http://www.drive.subaru.com/Win06/SubaruHEV/B5PTH.jpg
http://www.drive.subaru.com/Win06_HEV.htm"​

To my knowledge, I've never owned a Subaru. Though I probably would have recognized a boxer engine.

The first years of the Chrysler minivans built on the K car platform also had the Mitsubishi V6.

I love that little Subaru boxer engine. The Subs are engineered to be mechanic friendly. I once changed the oil pan gasket on one and thought it would be a nightmare. It was easily done with the engine in place. They left holes in the front cross member for every bolt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 259 ·
9
Replies
259
Views
29K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K