It's Halftime in America... After taxpayers lose $1.3 Billion???

[MonacoMike]

[video=youtube;_PE5V4Uzobc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_PE5V4Uzobc[/video]



CNN, reports: "U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm

 

[Pack66Dad]

 

[autovette]

Does your tag line suggest that working men and women have the choice to NOT join a union? Key word being "Choice".

 

[almostenuff]

I'm in a union and without it, I would make substandard wages with unsafe working conditions...
I'm curious, why so anti-union?

 

[autovette]

So what you are saying is you are incapable of being successful or safe without a union? When I thought I was not being adequately compensated, I looked for a job that better matched what I thought I was worth. If work conditions were unsafe, I would not work there.....MY CHOICE!

 

[Dave 205]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/autos/chrysler_government_exit/index.htm[/URL]

As a taxpayer, the government blundered in that it didn't write a very good deal - it should have been paid back in full if the company survived.

As a taxpayer, the government probably still made a heck of deal. The article wanders all over various points, but consider this: If 60,000 jobs were saved at Chrysler, those jobs probably raise at least $10,000 a year in taxes. That raises $600 million a year in taxes. Considering this started in 2009, taxes for 2009, 2010, and 2011 would seem to have raised $1.8 billion, more than covering the loss.

Generally, I agree that the business cycle should have its winners and losers. But, major industries in most countries get various supports from their governments, and having the U.S. gov't lend an occasional hand seems to level the playing field. Arguably, the government's poor handling of housing, healthcare, lack of energy policy, and letting financial markets run amuck got us into the recession, and the auto companies were on the victim list of the recession.

 

[comsnark]

Oh no!- here we go!

Autovette: your presumption is that you are in a labor-demand market, and that it is actually possible to obtain a job that pays you what *you* think you are worth.

 

[autovette]

I am worth no more than an employer is willing to pay me. What I was saying was simply that if I am unhappy with my compensation, I have the option to look somewhere else. Being unde rcompensated (or substandard) is something one has the ability to address. It may not always be easy, but there are solutions to that particular problem.

Unions are a moot point if jobs are not available. As a matter of fact, Unions may one of the reasons jobs are not available in the first place.

 

[floriduramax1]

I'm in a union and without it, I would make substandard wages with unsafe working conditions...
I'm curious, why so anti-union?

Unsafe working conditions like working on assembly lines beside that "happy hour" crowd that drinks lunch at the local bar? That would give me the "warm and fuzzy"....

 

[Pseudomind]

As a taxpayer, the government blundered in that it didn't write a very good deal - it should have been paid back in full if the company survived.

As a taxpayer, the government probably still made a heck of deal. The article wanders all over various points, but consider this: If 60,000 jobs were saved at Chrysler, those jobs probably raise at least $10,000 a year in taxes. That raises $600 million a year in taxes. Considering this started in 2009, taxes for 2009, 2010, and 2011 would seem to have raised $1.8 billion, more than covering the loss.

Generally, I agree that the business cycle should have its winners and losers. But, major industries in most countries get various supports from their governments, and having the U.S. gov't lend an occasional hand seems to level the playing field. Arguably, the government's poor handling of housing, healthcare, lack of energy policy, and letting financial markets run amuck got us into the recession, and the auto companies were on the victim list of the recession.

This is just my 2 cents and I am only using your quote as a reference, nothing aimed at you.

Of course there is no mention of the union(s), UAW, etc being excluded from ODama care and the taxpayer paying for this coverage either.

At one times union were a need, until they got so greedy. Now in many cases they are just propaganda systems for in some cases a handful of workers who probably never should have been hired in the first place. I place most unions right there with POS job descriptions. I would much rather have an "right to work" environment

Now me being an IT person, I do not have the time to wait an hour for someone to come move a desk six inches so I can see a network jack, and then another hour for someone to sweep the dust out behind it before said desk can be pushed back. Again another hour wait.

As to the auto workers, I am not really enthused about the deliberate slow downs so they can work overtime...

NO in my opinion many unions have no one but themselves to blame for so much anti-union sentiment

Less gov-mint not more!

 

[Ka1oxd]

In states there is the right to work Union has no advantage. In states where employment is "At Will" is were the problem is. Do not think a union is worth while, look to China where 11year old's are working in the factories. Your Iphone is a good example. How many of those people because of working conditions jumped off the building and committed suicide in the last year?

 

[almostenuff]

So what you are saying is you are incapable of being successful or safe without a union? When I thought I was not being adequately compensated, I looked for a job that better matched what I thought I was worth. If work conditions were unsafe, I would not work there.....MY CHOICE!

Don't put words in my mouth. If you have a question-ask it. I recently retired with 30 years in the military including 8 deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan...I think I'm capable of being successful. As far as my new union job, I fly very wealthy CEOs, athletes, actors, etc. all over the world. I am appropriately compensated because of our well-earned contract. The company cannot call me at 5 am to fly after flying 12 hours the day before because of our contract. The company cannot fire me arbitrarily because of our contract. My union protects me from anti-union rhetoric and those who spew it. Unfortunately, there are those in my industry that will fly 18 hours a day for $20 an hour. Our customers pay a premium because they want the best compensated, well-rested pilots in the world. So save your union busting diatribe for someone that may be impressed with cheap labor=higher profits in the owners pocket, because our customers expect the best. And in case my message was misunderstood, I am also a business owner who uses union laborers and I'm a staunch Republican. Flame away...

 

[almostenuff]

I suppose the union does protect from other folks not having enough balls to say no, or more to the point protecting those with enough balls, from those who do not.

Scott, I believe you understand where I'm coming from. I have friends at other aviation companies who stood up and did the right thing and were fired, e.g., "I will not depart Aspen with these winds." I am protected from that. Now, do unions waste $millions protecting morons...yep and it personally sickens me. I'm not advocating hiding behind a contract to slow down the operation for financial gain, I'm talking about protections than non-unionized pilot don't necessarily have.

 

[moparlvr4406]

I'm in a union and without it, I would make substandard wages with unsafe working conditions...
I'm curious, why so anti-union?

Sorry but I would like a definition of "substandard" wages...

isn't a wage amount #1 what someone is willing to pay for a days work
#2 what someone is willing to work a day for

and as for safety...isn't that what OSHA is all about :huh:

 

[comsnark]

As a taxpayer, the government blundered in that it didn't write a very good deal - it should have been paid back in full if the company survived.

Agree

As a taxpayer, the government probably still made a heck of deal. The article wanders all over various points, but consider this: If 60,000 jobs were saved at Chrysler, those jobs probably raise at least $10,000 a year in taxes. That raises $600 million a year in taxes. Considering this started in 2009, taxes for 2009, 2010, and 2011 would seem to have raised $1.8 billion, more than covering the loss.

This is a lame argument. Those 60,000 employees would logically have found jobs in other parts of the economy. There is a strong argument to be made that if a company is not strong enough to survive an economic downturn, that is not a problem that the Federal Government should be addressing.

- - - -

Of course, compared to the *trillions* the government wastes on Nation Building, other financial bailouts, and other forms of Crony Capitalism, a mere billion or two to save the US auto industry does not seem like such a bad deal.

Do you really think your employer would allow unsafe working conditions? In this day of liability? Really???

Oversimplified. The burden of proof for "safety" falls to the injured, not the company. While there is some threat to liability suits, no company wants to "gold plate" safety and drive up costs unnecessarily.

As for wages, the employee is paid what the market allows.

Perhaps you mis-stated this? Wages are as low as the employment market will allow. If someone will work of 75% of what you earn -> you are likely out of a job. This is irregardless of the profitability of the company. If you can save money by moving your whole operation overseas for lower wages. . . that will happen regardless of union or non-union employement.

What we have here folks, is kool-aid being consumed at mass volume...................show me proof.

There are many people out there dispensing both Blue and Red kool-aid. We ain't seen nothing yet. After Citizen's United, it will be harder to track the money in the politics. . .but I don't think anyone is going to deny it.

At one times union were a need, until they got so greedy. Now in many cases they are just propaganda systems for in some cases a handful of workers who probably never should have been hired in the first place. I place most unions right there with POS job descriptions. I would much rather have an "right to work" environment

Now me being an IT person, I do not have the time to wait an hour for someone to come move a desk six inches so I can see a network jack, and then another hour for someone to sweep the dust out behind it before said desk can be pushed back. Again another hour wait.

As to the auto workers, I am not really enthused about the deliberate slow downs so they can work overtime...

NO in my opinion many unions have no one but themselves to blame for so much anti-union sentiment

Agree to a point. I agree that the desperate need for unions that we had in the early part of the 20th century has passed -> in the U.S.
I agree that unions have done much to hurt their cause.

But. . .I also think there are lots of people spreading anti-union kool aid about.

In states there is the right to work Union has no advantage. In states where employment is "At Will" is were the problem is. Do not think a union is worth while, look to China where 11year old's are working in the factories. Your Iphone is a good example. How many of those people because of working conditions jumped off the building and committed suicide in the last year?

So without a union in place, my 8 year old son is going to be shanghaied into working in a factory? Golly......

Scott: I think you need to read the post a bit closer.

Certainly, China and other developing countries are a place where unions probably should play a part. Note that in many of these countries, Unions are actually illegal. And these factories are part of the "capitalist rise" in many of these countries.


More later. Have a good day everyone!

 

[almostenuff]

However, my support for one union does not translate into a blanket support for ALL unions. There are many instances where abuses occur because of unions (look at Chicago) that are wasteful and corrupt. In all cases, the mentality that seems to be prevalent is that the union will make the company (management) pay for perceived wrongs by slowdowns, sickouts, etc. and that is unfortunate. If the employer succeeds, so will those who get a paycheck from them.......but what am I thinking? It's always US versus Management, right?

I too concede that there are plenty of abuses in the union system and I agree that unions aren't necessary in all walks of life; in fact, detrimental. However, my original post was due to the perceived generalization that ALL unions are bad and therefore, all union workers are weaklings that couldn't make it without "protection." I guess I'm not a big fan of those who stereotype... I'm off my soapbox now:grin:

 

[moparlvr4406]

BUT...but....no one ever answered my question :smt009

 

[wvsundancer]

I think everyone has their own point of view but the goverment lost 1.3 trillion because we the voters in this country voted into office people we empowered to give Chrysler 1.3 trillion. This is not a union vs non-union issue. This is an issue where we keep putting people into power from both parties who have no reason (because we do not give them one) to answer for their actions.

 

[MonacoMike]

Sorry but I would like a definition of "substandard" wages...

isn't a wage amount #1 what someone is willing to pay for a days work
#2 what someone is willing to work a day for

and as for safety...isn't that what OSHA is all about :huh:

BUT...but....no one ever answered my question :smt009

D@M#-it quit being logical!!!

 

[almostenuff]

Sorry, I thought we were done...

Sorry but I would like a definition of "substandard" wages...

isn't a wage amount #1 what someone is willing to pay for a days work
#2 what someone is willing to work a day for

And therein lies the problem. In the aviation industry, there are employers who will hire anyone with a pilots license to fly folks around for pennies on the dollar. When a substandard crew crashes, it gives the collective industry a black eye (not to say that union pilots never have accidents). So, a union contract guarantees higher wages which attracts and keeps the cream of the crop.

and as for safety...isn't that what OSHA is all about :huh:

Quite often, OSHA, the NTSB, the FAA are there AFTER the crash.

Again, my original point was to stop the stereotyping that all unions are bad and all union members are the enemy. I'd be happy to write a thesis on the pros and cons of aviation unions. However, I have to prepare for 2 weeks of training (required by the contract) and I want to do the very best that I can, so that I may continue to give our customers a premier experience.