News Are UAW Union Bosses Abusing Their Positions for Pay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether to bail out the Big Three U.S. automakers, with arguments highlighting their failure to innovate and adapt compared to foreign competitors. Critics argue that throwing money at these companies won't solve underlying issues, suggesting instead that restructuring and universal healthcare could relieve financial burdens. There is a belief that allowing the automakers to fail could lead to a healthier market where more competitive companies emerge. The potential for a catastrophic economic collapse if all three companies fail is debated, with some asserting that the market would eventually correct itself. Ultimately, the conversation raises questions about the future of the U.S. auto industry and the role of government intervention in a capitalist economy.
  • #301
BobG said:
How are you heating the incoming air? How efficient is your heater?
With an electric car, the heater is a 100% efficient electric coil. On a car with an internal combustion engine, the car is heated with waste heat, so there is no relevant measure of efficiency. You might say, though, that a 100W fan (estimate) can give you 4 kW of heating, or a COP of 40:1 (kinda like 4,000% efficiency).
In fact, how efficient is the motor driving the car and how are you getting rid of excess heat? I really don't know how efficient the electric motors used on vehicles are, but, generally, finding a way to dispel excess heat is a bigger problem than generating it.
Getting rid of the excess heat is done with a fan and that fan doesn't use much energy. There is much more energy rejected by the fan/radiator than is input into the fan.
I think air conditioning is going to be a bigger electrical load than heating.
It's a bigger load for a gas powered car because the energy for heating is free. For an electric car, the energy for heating comes out of the battery. In general, though:

-An electric heater gives you 1 kW of heating for every 1 kW of input power.
-An electricity powered air conditioner gives you 2.3 kW of cooling for every 1 kW of input power.

Now for an air condiitoner, that's highly dependent on the conditions: run an air conditioner out of it's ideal operating range and you decrease it's efficiency substantially.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #302
There are numerous vendors who manufacture and supply parts for the big three. Will bankruptcy mean the smaller companies will be left out in the cold??
Probably one of them will need financing and will not be able to get it.
It's a long time to wait, (March 31), with no income and with fixed expenses.
Probably someone will be forgotten and you will be buying a car with no left door handles or something.
I'm not expecting very many assembly plants to re-open.
jal
 
  • #303
russ_watters said:
With an electric car, the heater is a 100% efficient electric coil. On a car with an internal combustion engine, the car is heated with waste heat, so there is no relevant measure of efficiency. You might say, though, that a 100W fan (estimate) can give you 4 kW of heating, or a COP of 40:1 (kinda like 4,000% efficiency). Getting rid of the excess heat is done with a fan and that fan doesn't use much energy. There is much more energy rejected by the fan/radiator than is input into the fan. It's a bigger load for a gas powered car because the energy for heating is free. For an electric car, the energy for heating comes out of the battery. In general, though:

-An electric heater gives you 1 kW of heating for every 1 kW of input power.
-An electricity powered air conditioner gives you 2.3 kW of cooling for every 1 kW of input power.

Now for an air condiitoner, that's highly dependent on the conditions: run an air conditioner out of it's ideal operating range and you decrease it's efficiency substantially.

if you're going to put in an air conditioner, then why bother with resistive heating? why not use a heat pump and get better than 100% efficiency for the heater, too?
 
  • #304
Proton Soup said:
if you're going to put in an air conditioner, then why bother with resistive heating? why not use a heat pump and get better than 100% efficiency for the heater, too?
For an electric car, yes, a heat pump is probably a better option. It'll raise the upfront cost, but reduce the energy cosumption considerably. When it is very cold outside (perhaps 20 F), you might get a COP of 2 - a little wamer (say, 40F) and you might get a COP of 4. But because the efficiency drops with temperature, you still need resistance heating backup.
 
  • #305
russ_watters said:
For an electric car, yes, a heat pump is probably a better option. It'll raise the upfront cost, but reduce the energy cosumption considerably. When it is very cold outside (perhaps 20 F), you might get a COP of 2 - a little wamer (say, 40F) and you might get a COP of 4. But because the efficiency drops with temperature, you still need resistance heating backup.

sure, and resistive elements are a common feature in heat pumps for homes.
 
  • #306
Heading vaguely back in the direction of the topic

Even Toyota is having a bad year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7794888.stm
The interesting part is that they are predicting losses of 150BnYen for next year, but last year made a profit of 2.2Trillion Yen. So next years loss is going to be around 3weeks of profit!
I would have thought that any company that doesn't have one month of profits in the bank deserves to be in trouble. Toyota of course do and don't seem to be in any trouble.
 
  • #307
Senator Corker's plan seemed rational to me; the only thing on the table that qualifies as such. It had a great deal of support but the wage parity issue hung it up.
* It would have required the two firms closest to bankruptcy, General Motors and Chrysler, to reduce their debt by two-thirds. Bondholders would have “plenty of incentive to make sure that the debt is reduced by two-thirds” or risk losing even more if the firms go into Chapter 11, where their bonds might be further discounted, Corker said. “We’re going to force them into bankruptcy if they don’t do this,” he said bluntly.
* He also would have required that the Voluntary Employee Benefit Association, the entity created by the car firms and the UAW to handle retiree health care benefits, accept stock in lieu of half the cash payments due. The carmakers had agreed to fund VEBA but can no longer afford to do so. “If a company goes bankrupt, these future payments are never going to happen anyway,” he said.
* Finally, Corker’s bill would have forced the UAW to lower its members’ wages to the level of employees at Honda and the other foreign-owned car manufacturers operating in the United States.
The actual amendment:
http://wdef.com/system/files/Corker+Alternative+Amendment.pdf

In the last point, wage parity, there are obviously many factors that would come into play in measuring parity; Corker recognized this and left it up to the Sec. of Labor (in the new administration) to approve a wage plan.

Edit:Sen. Corker's new conference the day after the amendment
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-13370
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #308
Even the mighty Toyota Prius has fallen victim to economic chaos and plunging gas prices: Toyota said today it was postponing its plans to build the Prius at a new factory under construction in Blue Springs, near Tupelo, Mississippi—indefinitely.

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/toyota-kills-us-built-prius-25346.html

It is a bit troubling that the government is trying to push the big three into building hybrids in the USA when Toyota has called it quits.

I smell big oil involvement on this one.

The big three shells out a lot of money for retirees and retiree health care.

I see an advantage that Toyota Nissan and Honda America may have. They haven't been here long enough to have retirees.
 
Last edited:
  • #309
edward said:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/toyota-kills-us-built-prius-25346.html

It is a bit troubling that the government is trying to push the big three into building hybrids in the USA when Toyota has called it quits.

I smell big oil involvement on this one.

The big three shells out a lot of money for retirees and retiree health care.

I see an advantage that Toyota Nissan and Honda America may have. They haven't been here long enough to have retirees.

how do they fund retirement, anyway? the old fashioned way, or through private retirement accounts.? if they'd put employees on 401K plans, they'd never have to worry about paying out benefits, and the employees wouldn't have to worry about the company borrowing (stealing) from it.
 
  • #310
  • #311
mheslep said:
?Oil companies want the government to make Detroit build hybrids?

The oil companies always want gas guzzlers. The government wants the big three to invest in hybrid technology at the same time Toyota just bailed out of building hybrids in the USA.

With the price of oil down there is no incentive to buy hybrids. The price of oil will come up when big oil wants it to come up. Admittedly big oil probably got a big surprise from the sudden economic crisis.

On the other hand they have plenty of money to weather the storm, and the last thing they want is economical automobiles.
 
Last edited:
  • #312
This isn't necessarily anything to do with Hybrids - they haven't announced opening a pickup plant instead.
It might be that they;
Don't want to lay out a lot of cash right now
Think they can get a better real estate/state subsidy deal in 6months
Think they can buy a chrysler plant for 25c in 6 months.
Are waiting to see what strings the Detroit bailout might have.
Are waiting to see what the new goverment's attitude to foreign investors might be.

Abit announced today they are getting out of the motherboard business - this doesn't mean computers are a thing of the past.
 
  • #313
Proton Soup said:
how do they fund retirement, anyway? the old fashioned way, or through private retirement accounts.? if they'd put employees on 401K plans, they'd never have to worry about paying out benefits, and the employees wouldn't have to worry about the company borrowing (stealing) from it.

The big three have switched to 401ks for new union hires. It will obviously take a number of years to completely make the switch. They still have the health care issue.

Toyota, Nissan, and Honda America use 401k's along with a spartan health care plan.

401k's have their downside. Just ask anyone who wants to retire in the near future. The 401k's lost a lot of money recently.
 
  • #314
mgb_phys said:
Heading vaguely back in the direction of the topic

Even Toyota is having a bad year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7794888.stm
The interesting part is that they are predicting losses of 150BnYen for next year, but last year made a profit of 2.2Trillion Yen. So next years loss is going to be around 3weeks of profit!
I would have thought that any company that doesn't have one month of profits in the bank deserves to be in trouble. Toyota of course do and don't seem to be in any trouble.

I find 71 staight years without a loss to be pretty incredible. That extends back to the 30's - meaning they were recording profits straight through World War II. The Japanese auto companies didn't suffer much direct damage from bombings, but the entire Japanese nation was running into some serious resource problems by the end of the war. I would have thought that would make it real hard to make a profit by the end of the war.
 
  • #315
BobG said:
I find 71 staight years without a loss to be pretty incredible. That extends back to the 30's - meaning they were recording profits straight through World War II.
It's always a bit tricky to compare, you don't really know what accounting standards applied.
Japan's oldest company went bust a few years ago, a builder - they had been in business for 1500years!

What is more interesting is their attitude - they are blaming themselves! Even though the loss is really only due to currency differences. They said they need to look at their strategy for managing money and to re-examine their line of cars. That's a slightly different attitude to spending $100K on a WSJ ad praising the managers of a bankrupt chrysler.
 
  • #316
edward said:
Toyota, Nissan, and Honda America use 401k's along with a spartan health care plan.

At Nissan we still have a pension plan in addition to a 401k plan. That will probably change very soon. Our management is using the big three predicament as an excuse to squeeze us.
I think to say the health care plan is spartan is being generous.
Honda also has a pension and 401k. I don't know about Toyota.
 
  • #317
montoyas7940 said:
At Nissan we still have a pension plan in addition to a 401k plan. That will probably change very soon. Our management is using the big three predicament as an excuse to squeeze us.
I think to say the health care plan is spartan is being generous.
Honda also has a pension and 401k. I don't know about Toyota.
Montoyas - care to comment the correctness of published salary averages? GM supposedly paid ~$69/hour including benefits versus $48/hr at Toyota including benefits. Benefits here include pension and health care costs.
http://www.manufacturing.net/News-GM-Vs-Toyota-Wages-And-Benefits.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #318
I have heard recently $52.00 an hour for production labor. That number would include all costs. That number is expected to drop to $48 in 2009 and then again to $44 in 2010.

I think the cost per hour for an employee can be misleading however. Something that matters just as much is man hours per unit.
 
  • #319
The Japanese big three also have another advantage. At their assembly and parts factories in Japan the workers have a national health care plan.
 
  • #320
edward said:
The Japanese big three also have another advantage. At their assembly and parts factories in Japan the workers have a national health care plan.

how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.
 
  • #321
montoyas7940 said:
I have heard recently $52.00 an hour for production labor. That number would include all costs. That number is expected to drop to $48 in 2009 and then again to $44 in 2010.

I think the cost per hour for an employee can be misleading however. Something that matters just as much is man hours per unit.
$52/hr what? Average of all salaries? Or is that the top end? Does that include the benefits (pension/health)?
 
  • #322
edward said:
The Japanese big three also have another advantage. At their assembly and parts factories in Japan the workers have a national health care plan.
Yes GM pays more for health costs than foreign based competitors, but the difference is more complicated than 'they have nation health care.' Japan does have a National Health Insurance system, but that is only for the unemployed or self-employed. The employers still fund the other medical system called SIS, along with premiums paid by the employees - somewhat similar to the way its done here. Japan keeps its costs down in part because the government sets the price for most everything in the medical system - that has other consequences. Most importantly they don't fund their health care through the tax system as the US unfortunately does.
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInJapan.html.
http://www.coph.ouhsc.edu/coph/HealthPolicyCenter/Pubs/1992/chpr9202j.pdf
A better comparison for auto makers to my mind is the foreign owned auto makers located here, which operate under the same US health care system but are doing relatively well.

Proton Soup said:
how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.
The US health care system is very expensive, highest in the world ($/head). Also US corporate tax rates are higher, 35% in the US to 30% in Japan, though with loop holes it can go lower in the US. Detroit can't lean on that excuse either, as again the foreign owned companies in the US have the same problem.
 
  • #323
Proton Soup said:
how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.
Didn't you know? Nationalized means free! :rolleyes:
 
  • #324
mheslep said:
$52/hr what? Average of all salaries? Or is that the top end? Does that include the benefits (pension/health)?

That would be hands on "direct labor" for a "topped out" production tech.

There are many different roles as you might imagine. In the broad classification of production tech the "topped out" pay including all direct employee costs is about $52. That would include pay and all payroll taxes paid by the company. It also includes pension, health care, vehicle purchase discount, lease vehicles, 401k match, uniforms, educational reimbursement...

All of the production techs have topped out as there have been no new hires in many years. And it is not a skills based progression. Pay is based on years of service and tops in about three years I think. Vacation continues to increase until ten years of service.

The company ended the pension for new employees about five years ago; so as time goes on that cost will decrease. It also decreased health coverage for current and future retirees.
We expect that the pension will be frozen for all hourly employees soon. It depends on what the UAW and big three do.
 
  • #325
Proton Soup said:
how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.

Big corporations have ways of avoiding taxes. :rolleyes: If it costs more why would Japan be doing it ?
 
  • #326
edward said:
If it costs more why would Japan be doing it ?
That's even funnier than your last one!
 
  • #327
russ_watters said:
Didn't you know? Nationalized means free! :rolleyes:
Yep, Michael Moore said so.
 
  • #329
russ_watters said:
That's even funnier than your last one!



Nice one liner I hope you had a good laugh, now let's look at the numbers.

USA Health care; $6,102 per ca-pita. 15.3% of GDP. Japan $2249 per ca-pita. 8.7 of GDP.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

After Japanese workers including auto workers retire there is no legacy system. At age 65 they go on the national health care system. The Japanese companies don't have retiree health care benefits hung around their neck.

Traditionally The big three have been saddled with enormous retirement health care costs. Albeit they are struggling to change that. If they do change the health care costs will be picked up by medicare and we know who pays for that.

General Motors Corp. will seek relief from its $68-billion post-retirement employee health care obligation in contract talks with the United Auto Workers union, according to an annual report filed with federal regulators.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/16/business/fi-gm16

I simply stated that the Japanese auto companies in the USA had a cost advantage by manufacturing parts in Japan for cars made in the USA.

Some how we have diverged into the good or bad of health care system scenario and that was never my intention.

I made no inference as to which health care system was better. That seemed to be your presumption, as in your post, #323,
Didn't you know? Nationalized means free!

However the Japanese have done it cheaper since the 1990's.

Having a home country health care cost savings advantage also gave the Japanese auto makers a big edge in funding global expansion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #330
edward said:
I simply stated that the Japanese auto companies in the USA had a cost advantage by manufacturing parts in Japan for cars made in the USA.

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.
 
  • #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:
  • #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:
Back
Top