• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Come on, man.

Republicans in disarray!

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

You cannot shame the shameless.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

T R E 4 5 O N

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

A dilettante blog from the great progressive state of West Virginia.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

A Senator Walker would also be an insult to reason, rationality, and decency.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Why did Dr. Oz lose? well, according to the exit polls, it’s because Fetterman won.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

This blog will pay for itself.

The willow is too close to the house.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / And Another Question

And Another Question

by John Cole|  December 13, 200810:22 am| 71 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Assume that the graph here is accurate, and the majority of the difference between what foreign auto companies pay for labor is the costs of retiree benefits.

The question- who does everyone think is going to pay for these retiree’s health care if the auto companies go under or the unions throw them under the bus and give up on their benefits? And you can’t just say the pensioners, because as far as they are concerned, they already DID pay for their future health care costs when they took lower wages for thirty years in exchange for benefits.

Or have we just not gotten THAT far in the discussion yet?

(Also, this graph is from Ford, which I understand is in the best shape of the Big Three. Does anyone have a similar graph for GM and Chrysler?)

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Fill Me In
Next Post: Also, I Hear He Is Muslim And Will Be Sworn In On A Quran »

Reader Interactions

71Comments

  1. 1.

    satby

    December 13, 2008 at 10:27 am

    In the Republican eyes people should never be able to retire anyway unless they worked on Wall Street. So those union slackers can just go be greeters at Walmart when they get old, like the rest of us.

  2. 2.

    Rick Taylor

    December 13, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Haven’t you heard, John? When we allow workers to invest part of their social security retirement in the stock market, the higher rate of return will. . . . oh damn.

  3. 3.

    Bob In Pacifica

    December 13, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Three million more greeters. They should all be given pompoms to shake for when the customers, whoever’s left with any money, comes through the door.

  4. 4.

    Rick Taylor

    December 13, 2008 at 10:36 am

    I can’t remember where, but I remember reading that the American auto industry has a much larger retired labor force to support, having been around longer.

  5. 5.

    SpotWeld

    December 13, 2008 at 10:44 am

    I wonder what the ratio of employees to retirees for an American auto company vs. it’s Japanese counterpart.

  6. 6.

    James

    December 13, 2008 at 10:48 am

    It is my understanding that by law companies must put aside funds for retirement in real time (or actually within 90 days). Thus, that $16 dollar "legacy cost" shouldn’t be "counted" at all as a cost because GM has already put the money aside (invested it) *while the employee was working.* In other words, it shouldn’t be a cost of doing business at all NOW if they have been complying with the law all along.

    Someone, please correct me if I have this wrong.

  7. 7.

    James

    December 13, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Also, isn’t it ODD to have US Senators negotiating wage and benefit levels with the employees of private companies? These Southern Senators were actually NEGOTIATING WAGE LEVELS with the UAW leadership in a back room while they were filibustering the bill. Is that outrageous? Unheard of? What. The. Fuck?

    Still, autoworkers remain angry with the senators who tried to negotiate wage and benefit concessions from the union, then scuttled the House-passed bill that would have granted the loans and set up a "car czar" to oversee the nearly insolvent companies and get concessions from the union and creditors. Their top targets were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who led negotiations on a compromise; and Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who has been a vocal critic of the loans.

    Angry United Auto Workers members lash out at Southern senators

    Just think about that for a minute. That kind of interference is on the level of Terry Schiavo interference. US Senators from "right to work" states with foreign auto plants trying to NEGOTIATE WAGE AND BENEFIT LEVELS with workers of private companies doing business IN OTHER STATES. That totally blows me away.

  8. 8.

    zoe kentucky

    December 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

    So much for all their Joe the Plumber rhetoric.

    The GOP isn’t against unions because unions often support dems (because dems support unions), they are opposed to the fundamental idea of workers having any power to negotiate anything in the workplace. The GOP is making it clear that they are the party of management– they don’t want to have to listen to talk of livable wages, safe working conditions, adequate benefits and so on. According to them, if you don’t like the conditions at your workplace you should work somewhere else.

    Ideally, there would be no unions because our labor laws would make them unnecessary. However, the GOP isn’t in favor of that either. Screw the working class, let’s play politics with millions of blue collar jobs to score political points among their fellow union haters. If that is all they’re going to do over the next few years we’ll see how that plays out. I think they’re misjudging the public’s sentiments about unions and middle class wages.

  9. 9.

    J. Michael Neal

    December 13, 2008 at 11:12 am

    It is my understanding that by law companies must put aside funds for retirement in real time (or actually within 90 days). Thus, that $16 dollar "legacy cost" shouldn’t be "counted" at all as a cost because GM has already put the money aside (invested it) while the employee was working. In other words, it shouldn’t be a cost of doing business at all NOW if they have been complying with the law all along.

    Ah, the joys of FAS 106. Sure, a company is supposed to recognize its pension liabilities, and fund its plan. However, there were a lot of qualifications built in that allowed them to delay recognition. They also were able to use exceedingly optimistic assumptions about returns on investments.

    All of this meant that the car companies underfunded their pension and health plans for years. They used the money to pay dividends. They are now stuck with the burden of making up all of those shortfalls. Having the money they distributed would come in mighty handy about now.

  10. 10.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    December 13, 2008 at 11:14 am

    @Rick Taylor:

    Here. Ezra linked to it in his post.

    @SpotWeld: See above linked article. Leonhardt doesn’t give a specific answer but he does note that US automakers have been in business since 1903 and that the Japanese didn’t start making cars here until the 70’s.

  11. 11.

    ATinNM

    December 13, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Here is the better analysis.

    In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.

    …

    In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.

    As usual the Automotive companies are lying and the conservatives and neo-liberals are spread ‘The Word.’

    Further,

    American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.

    The plight of the US automotive industry has more to do with management’s — the people who are responsible for a firm’s long term profitability and health, after all — stuck-in-the-mud operation. See Who Killed the Electric Car and the lengthy product cycle outlined in the The Machine That Changed the World.

  12. 12.

    The Other Steve

    December 13, 2008 at 11:32 am

    Rather than Japan, compare pay rates to Germany.

  13. 13.

    Mr Furious

    December 13, 2008 at 11:32 am

    From the original article:

    The useful thing about the compensation comparison is that it’s simple and clean. Toyota pays this much, Ford pays this much more, ergo Toyota is ahead. Leonhardt, however, runs the numbers and imagines what would happened if Ford paid exactly what Toyota paid. "Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle?" He asks. "Only about $800." And few believe that an $800 rebate on every vehicle would be enough to bring Ford or GM back into the game.

    So, if we further cut other benefits and pay and brought the number all the way from $71 down to Toyota’s $49 obligation, instead of $53, it’d be, what? An extra $930 instead of $800?

    American car companies are NOT failing simply because a comparable vehicle costs an extra $16/mo. over the course of a car loan or lease. It’s the vehicles themselves, or more likely, the reputations of the vehicles.

    If all things were equal, I’d suspect many people would happily pay a small amount extra to buy American. It’s something else.

  14. 14.

    Eunoia

    December 13, 2008 at 11:33 am

    You ask "who does everyone think is going to pay for these retiree’s health….?"

    Er, um, A.I.G ??? ;-)

  15. 15.

    ATinNM

    December 13, 2008 at 11:36 am

    @ATinNM:

    Blast.

    The paragraph starting "In addition to regular hourly pay …" should have been blockquoted.

  16. 16.

    Bill H

    December 13, 2008 at 11:38 am

    GM and Chrysler are pretty much the same, because a contract is negotiated with one automaker, and then contracts with the other two are based on that one. Which one is the negotiated one rotates.

    The problem isn’t actually wages, which goes to show you how idiotic these legislators actually are. The problem revolves around "work rules." One is that workers get paid at 95% while they are laid off, another is that automakers cannot close certain plants… There are quite a few.

    I am pro-union, in that I strongly favor collective bargaining. I am a little less certain about some of the "work rules" thing. Sure, there should be bargaining about hours, overtime rules, ergonomic issues and the like. I get a little bit less sure when it gets into things that affect the company’s ability to manage the business, like whether or not it is able to shut an unprofitable plant.

  17. 17.

    MLE

    December 13, 2008 at 11:50 am

    I’ve seen this graph before, but wondered where the Japanese numbers came from and if biases are built-in. Also from Ford? Wouldn’t an (artificially) low Japanese number apply pressure to unions?

  18. 18.

    Andy K

    December 13, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Rather than Japan, compare pay rates to Germany.

    The graph demonstrates the differences in wages and benefits of autoworkers in the US.

    IIRC, the German automakers who build cars in the States have been doing so longer than their Japanese counterparts. I think then, that those who work at a VW plant in the US probably make a bit more than those in the Japanese-owned US plants.

  19. 19.

    Deborah

    December 13, 2008 at 11:52 am

    Thanks to JM Neil for answering my question as well…Which gets to my whole hesitation here. I supported bailing out AIG, and they went to a spa. Every senior person who okayed that should have been out the next day. But we evidently don’t have any oversight in place that’s empowered to do that. Calling someone the "car czar" seems to similarly avoid any effective firing of top stupid people. How do we address all those execs saying "Sure we failed to learn from the events of the past 30, 40 years–until a year ago! We had like totally learnt our lesson and were turning around when Kazam! the economy wasn’t good." Yes, you need some people who understand how everything works and don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but where’s the part where we get rid of people making clearly will-blow-up-in-the-future plans like not funding the retirement benefits? What happened to that retooling money they got under Clinton?

  20. 20.

    Stephanie

    December 13, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Complain about the unions all you want. Management negotiated with the unions and jointly set and approved the terms of the contract. If Management can’t negotiate better terms for the company, then they should’ve been fired. Once again, Management can’t manage their way out of a paper bag over at the auto companies. Strategy, which Management sets, has been dead wrong for over 20 years; they can’t seem to direct engineering to build decent cars; they show up in Washington begging for money without a plan; and they can’t negotiate contracts with workers that keep them out of the red. Repubs blaming workers for this mess is pure politics. Let’s put the blame where it really belongs, with Management.

  21. 21.

    jon

    December 13, 2008 at 11:57 am

    I hope the next time a Republican Senator grandstands before a police or fire union, someone shoves him off the stage.

  22. 22.

    demimondian

    December 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    @Bill H: The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with "work rules". It has to do with two things, retiree health costs and underfunded pension expenses. The companies worked against "socialized medicine" for years (when they viewed adequate health care as a means to recruit workers) and chose to pay out money in dividends which should have been funding the pension plans. (And, by the by, pushed very hard to make sure that there was no oversight of their pecuniations.)

    Should the union have been more aggressive about driving the companies to fund the pension benefits? Yes. However, in the end, that’s a management decision, for which management should take responsibility.

  23. 23.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    December 13, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Someone, please correct me if I have this wrong.

    Also, healthcare costs rise like a rocket, and at the same time, retirees live longer. That plus various funding shenanigans the companies engage in creates a situation in which the scheme only works nicely when there is smooth and moderate inflation, sales growth, investment returns, retiree health, healthcare costs, retiree attrition, and so forth. As luck would have it, we aren’t having those nice things.

    Then you add some years of stiff competition on a non-level playing field, and then throw in a sudden complete collapse of sales and credit, and ……

  24. 24.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    December 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    @Bill H:

    I am pro-union, in that I strongly favor collective bargaining. I am a little less certain about some of the "work rules" thing. Sure, there should be bargaining about hours, overtime rules, ergonomic issues and the like. I get a little bit less sure when it gets into things that affect the company’s ability to manage the business, like whether or not it is able to shut an unprofitable plant.

    Interesting point. And it looks like Mickey’s goat is out of town so he has this about work rules:

    Now that everyone is criticizing work rules, it’s easy to forget that they don’t represent a perversion of the collective bargaining process–they are the intended result of that process, and were once celebrated as such.

    Read the entire piece. He isn’t defending work rules, he is simply saying it is part of the problem. I agree with his basic premise.

  25. 25.

    Fern

    December 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Looks to me like this whole mess is in large part the result of the US refusing to have single-payer public health like, you know, civilized countries. Just makes no sense from an international competitiveness point of view that employers should be expected to cover the health care costs of retirees – though in the absence of any alternative is guess there is not a lot of choice.

  26. 26.

    Doctor Science

    December 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Is my gut wrong in thinking that one reason Ford is in better shape than the other two is that Ford is run by aristocrats, not plutocrats?

    That is, there are people named Ford running Ford. They are in it for the long haul: they’re not going to leave if things go sour for a quarter. They haven’t just committed their careers, they’ve commited their family.

    I wonder if the UAW would have agreed to wage parity with Toyota, etc., if managment had agreed to structure managment’s payments like the Japanese do — i.e. with no-one making more than about 12 times what the lowest-level guys make.

  27. 27.

    wvng

    December 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    John. Senator Stanbenau had an impassioned speech during the "negotiations" where she specifically addressed the issue of gov’t $$ to pay for the pensions should the big 3 collapse. Seems to me the number was around $150b.

    The repugs don’t care. This is not about money, as others have ably noted above. It’s about busting unions.

  28. 28.

    JGabriel

    December 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    On an OT – but finance related – note, Atrios flags this from NY Daily:

    I thought this was the funniest bit about the $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

    Analyst Henry Blodget wrote on his blog Friday that some savvy investors figured Madoff was up to something because his returns were so high. "Many Wall Streeters suspected the wrong rigged game, though: they thought it was insider trading, not a Ponzi scheme," Blodget wrote. "And here’s the best part: That’s why they invested with him."

    Suddenly, not feeling so much sympathy for Madoff’s investors…

    .

  29. 29.

    Rosali

    December 13, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Who will provide for health care? Medicare.

    It looks like that’s the argument that the auto companies will make. The EEOC already put in place regulations that said that companies can change retirees’ health plans when they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. The Supreme Court gave the regulations a stamp of approval in March 2008.

    The car makers will just argue that the over65 retirees already have health care through Medicare and that the car makers should be allowed to shuffle funds to pay for other stuff. How the auto companies wrangle their way out of employee rights that have been promised and vested is a different question and this doesn’t address the future solvency of Medicare.

  30. 30.

    PeakVT

    December 13, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    IIRC, the German automakers who build cars in the States have been doing so longer than their Japanese counterparts. I think then, that those who work at a VW plant in the US probably make a bit more than those in the Japanese-owned US plants.

    Other way around. VW hasn’t had a plant here for decades and is only now planning a new one – most US-market Jettas and New Beetles are built in Mexico. Honda, on the other hand, has operated it’s Marysville plant continuously since 1982. BMW and Daimler opened their plants in 1996 and 1997 respectively.

    Is my gut wrong in thinking that one reason Ford is in better shape than the other two is that Ford is run by aristocrats, not plutocrats?

    Ford has always been bigger than Chrysler and more focused than GM, which has too many brands. But the main reason is that the Ford family took their hands off a few years ago and brought in Mulally, an outsider. In contrast, Wagoner is a lifer who has improved things, but not enough.

  31. 31.

    thefncrow

    December 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    @SpotWeld: NPR has an analysis of GM vs Toyota. One of the comparisons is of their North American workforce, including retirees, as of 2005.

    Toyota has 1,600 retirees, 21,000 production workers, and 17,000 white-collar employees. For each retiree, they have 23.75 current employees.

    GM has 460,000 retirees, 108,000 production workers, and 36,000 white collar employees. For each current employee, they have 3.19 retirees.

  32. 32.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    December 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    @Rosali:

    Who will provide for health care? Medicare.

    It seems to me a simple to solution to several challenges, including the auto maker bailout, would be to remove the words "age 65 and over" from the current Medicare law. Bingo. Instant healthcare for all.

    If any industry deserves to die it is the health insurance industry. Its executive ranks are filled with a bunch of hideous bean counting creatures who deserve nothing but our scorn. Let them eat cake.

  33. 33.

    TheHatOnMyCat

    December 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    If any industry deserves to die it is the health insurance industry.

    The Frist family is on the line and would like your phone number …..

  34. 34.

    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII

    December 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    I think they just want to see soup lines for all those who have less than they do. Grover Norquist’s dream come true.

  35. 35.

    Juan del Llano

    December 13, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    who does everyone think is going to pay for these retiree’s health care if the auto companies go under or the unions throw them under the bus and give up on their benefits?

    The same person who’s going to pay for my health care (63 years old, no insurance for the last five years)… Mr. Nobody! Welcome to the USA, UAW, where everyone is free to die on the street.

    I just checked out the Medicare situation, BTW, on behalf of my wife, who turns 65 in February. WHAT A CROCK! All you folks too young to care should be forewarned: it’s a nearly incomprehensible mess. Furthermore, one pays for the benefits, such as they are. It isn’t free. A quick look at when Medicare hospitalization benefits run out will also show you how easy it is to have insurance (even from the government) and still go completely, utterly broke from the bills. Dental? Hearing aids?? Eyeglasses??? Assisted living or nursing home care???? Not covered in the slightest.

    We haven’t really come so far in the last 1,000 years, after all. It still comes down to "stay healthy or die."

  36. 36.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    December 13, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Is my gut wrong in thinking that one reason Ford is in better shape than the other two is that Ford is run by aristocrats, not plutocrats?

    That’s an interesting thought. I don’t have a very high opinion of William Ford’s managerial abilities but if he is in it for the good of the company that’s better than just being a corporate raider.

  37. 37.

    kay

    December 13, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    I think Republicans made a political miscalculation. They had to frame this as "Detroit", to make it work, politically.

    But that simply isn’t true. I live in the rural rust belt. Our County median income is 32k. The collateral suppliers to the auto industry, the workers, don’t make 32 dollars an hour. They make 9. They make 15. They’re also (essentially) local businesses.

    That’s ignoring the small business dependent on the workers whomake 9 and 12 and 15 dollars an hour. They’re next to fail.

    My County went 65% for Bush, in 2004. We narrowed the margin considerably in 2008, but it still went McCain/Palin.

    It’s grim, and it’s not just UAW.

  38. 38.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    December 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    If any industry deserves to die it is the health insurance industry.

    I can agree with THAT. Imagine making money from watching people die.

  39. 39.

    Fr33d0m

    December 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    I vote for including executive salary in that chart.

  40. 40.

    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII

    December 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Analyst Henry Blodget wrote on his blog Friday that some savvy investors figured Madoff was up to something because his returns were so high. "Many Wall Streeters suspected the wrong rigged game, though: they thought it was insider trading, not a Ponzi scheme," Blodget wrote. "And here’s the best part: That’s why they invested with him."

    I wonder if Martha Stewart fell for this one.

  41. 41.

    wvng

    December 13, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Hey John, here’s a brief mental health break. Cat on a slide.

  42. 42.

    Mike

    December 13, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    That comparison is simple, straightforward, and dishonest as hell. "Legacy costs" are a fixed amount that have nothing to do with hourly wages. Say that as part of a recovery plan, Ford decides to concentrate only on its most profitable models, and lays off half its workers. You’d expect it to be better off, right? Nope, that "hourly cost" would double to $32: the same fixed cost divided by half as many man-hours.

    Take that item away and the comparison is $55 to $49. Not so glaring a discrepancy, is it?

  43. 43.

    Rosali

    December 13, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    I wonder if Martha Stewart fell for this one.

    Or who else invested. Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said on the air Friday that Madoff was his neighbor in Palm Beach.

    How much you want to bet that some of the (formerly) rich people fleeced in this Ponzi scheme will be filing suit arguing that there should have been more government oversight?

  44. 44.

    Church Lady

    December 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Why I do believe that the retirees health benefits would be paid the same way just about every other retiree under the sun receives their health coverage – Medicare, compliments of Uncle Sam.

  45. 45.

    emptywheel

    December 13, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    @J. Michael Neal: Actually, this is not true wrt GM.

    Unlike Exxon, they are all paid up on their pension fund.

  46. 46.

    emptywheel

    December 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    @Mr Furious: That’s not realistic, though.

    First of all, that $800 is the current number, which has been brought down of late.

    But that doesn’t account for the fact that GM has had much smaller profit margins than the Japanese for some time. That puts a premium on profitability for them, which is why they have continued to emphasize trucks, which have much bigger profit margins.

    And that’s all considering ONLY US-assembled cars, not Japanese-assembled v. American-assembled. For those cars that are assembled in Japan (like the Fit and, for another half year at least, the Prius), Japan isn’t paying a lot of the benes that they are paying for the cars they assemble in this country.

  47. 47.

    J. Michael Neal

    December 13, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    That is, there are people named Ford running Ford. They are in it for the long haul: they’re not going to leave if things go sour for a quarter. They haven’t just committed their careers, they’ve commited their family.

    There are also people named Ford running the Detroit Lions. How’s that working out?

  48. 48.

    J. Michael Neal

    December 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    @emptywheel:

    Unlike Exxon, they are all paid up on their pension fund.

    But not the health care fund, which is the specific subject of FAS 106.

    The only reason they are caught up on the pension fund is because they recently took out huge loans to fund retiree benefits in advance of transferring the programs to the UAW when the new CBA kicks in. GM is still paying out that money, it’s just that they are sending it to different creditors.

  49. 49.

    emptywheel

    December 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    @Doctor Science: Yeah, you’re wrong. First of all, some of the GM families are still closely associated with the company (Debbie Dingell, for example, comes from one of GM’s founding families).

    But the guy in charge of Ford right now–Alan Mulally–is as much a plutocrat as Wagoner, who runs GM.

    The biggest difference is that when Mulally was brought in 2 years ago, he mortgaged EVERYTHING to implement a reorganization. They have made the company more efficient globally, done a better job of getting their excellent European cars into the production line for the US, and brought up quality to match the Japanese.

    Now waht you don’t see reported in the press is that Wagoner did something similar a year ago. THe difference is twofold. 1) Wagoner didn’t make the same gutsy gamble, so he didn’t get the same credit ahead of time to complete the reorg. So they’re hit with the gas/credit crunch at a time when they’re still paying big money for the reorg. (One thing that’s hitting all these companies is the big VEBA payment to the union next year, to offload the retiree healthcare costs, and GM is paying billions to close unprofitable dealers.) and 2) Wagoner has not been as aggressive about getting Euro-designed cars (like the Opel or the Meriva) into the US pipeline.

    I will say this, though: GM is MORE competitive than Ford globally. If it can make it through this period it shoudl be able to turn around more quickly bc it has better investments in places like CHina and Brazil, where markets are (or at least were) growing quickly.

  50. 50.

    emptywheel

    December 13, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    @Rosali: Medicare won’t cover it.

    Remember that the assembly employees, most of them not being college graduates, often start at 18. So if they work for 30 years and then retire at 48, they’ve got 17 years before they’re eligible for Medicare.

  51. 51.

    Rosali

    December 13, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Agree. Which is why I was only addressing the healthcare of the over 65 retirees.

  52. 52.

    Andy K

    December 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    @PeakVT

    Thanks for the correction. Didn’t realize that the VW presence in PA had disappeared 20 years ago.

  53. 53.

    Andy K

    December 13, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    There are also people named Ford running the Detroit Lions. How’s that working out?

    If the World League ever reappeared, I’m sure the Fords would do well with a franchise in Europe. They sell a lot of cars over there- that’s why they aren’t in the same straits as GM and Chrysler are now.

  54. 54.

    Bill H

    December 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with "work rules".

    So paying workers 95% of their wages when they are not working is not a problem? That sort of thing does not contribute to an unprofitable status of your operation? Being prevented from closing a plant when it is operating at a loss or when the item it is producing is no longer required is not a problem in maintaining profitability?

    I do not think I want to hire you to run my company.

  55. 55.

    Bill H

    December 13, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Now that everyone is criticizing work rules, it’s easy to forget that they don’t represent a perversion of the collective bargaining process…

    Depends on the work rules. Those which say, "the management of the company can no longer manage the company because the union is going to manage it instead by setting work rules" are a perversion of the process. Deciding that a plant cannot be closed is a management decision, not a work rule.

  56. 56.

    J. Michael Neal

    December 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    So paying workers 95% of their wages when they are not working is not a problem? That sort of thing does not contribute to an unprofitable status of your operation? Being prevented from closing a plant when it is operating at a loss or when the item it is producing is no longer required is not a problem in maintaining profitability?

    It depends. What concessions did the UAW make in order to get these policies? You can’t look at this sort of thing in a vacuum. Without giving these policies, GM would have had to offer higher wages to secure an agreement. There’s no way to know how much.

    It’s the same thing with the retiree benefits. At the time, it looked like a good trade off.

  57. 57.

    demimondian

    December 13, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    @Bill H: Yes.

    Look, dude, I’ve been in negotiations for purchase where the acquired organization demanded staff be retained after the acquisition. It’s not necessarily an unreasonable demand, even if the acquisition target is currently operating at a loss. We were free to say "yes" or "no", or come back with another suggestion to meet the concerns (e.g. enriched severance for folks who got fired.)

    If that kind of discussion can take place between management teams, why shouldn’t a union be able to negotiate for the same terms?

  58. 58.

    Mr Furious

    December 13, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    @emptywheel: ‘Wheel, you’re missing my point. I’m saying that blaming the failure on the cost of workers is a crock of shit. What you say about profitability of models might be true, but it’s still not why they are failing. All that tells me is the SUVs are too expensive, and the other cars are priced too low.

    If the average domestic car was equal in quality, reliability, style and everything else—or at least perceived as such—they’d be competitive and profitable. I’m saying that an $800 price difference on $25,000 purchase is NOT significant cause for the failure of these companies.

  59. 59.

    Common Sense

    December 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    @Rosali:

    Exactly.

    The progression is obvious.

    Elderly people lose their employer insurance,
    They join Medicare in order to live,
    Medicare rises,
    Limbaugh has an easy target for "evidence" of the Socialist onslaught of Obama — "Look at the stratospheric cost of Medicare in this country!"

  60. 60.

    TenguPhule

    December 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Or have we just not gotten THAT far in the discussion yet?

    Silly John, the GOP knows that Blue States will pay for it and turn red in outrage over lazy former union workers sucking on the public tits.

  61. 61.

    Doctor Science

    December 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    emptywheel etc: Thanks for the correction, as you could tell I didn’t really know what had made Ford different from the other two. From a consumer POV, all I knew was that Ford has been much more likely to make cars we’ve wanted to buy.

  62. 62.

    protected static

    December 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Also, that 95% pay while out of work was the concession management made to the UAW to automate plants with robots. They figured that the increase in productivity would more than offset the cost of paying people to not work – and for a couple of decades it was.

  63. 63.

    Hyperion

    December 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    a couple of things….

    first, i posted a link to that graph in TWO previous threads! in one of those threads, i also complimented JC on reading the comments. hmm… ;=)

    second, as for what "they" are going to do with the retirees and their benefits, it’s obvious: throw them under the bus, or truck, or SUV, whatever they got.

  64. 64.

    binzerator

    December 13, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    @J. Michael Neal:

    All of this meant that the car companies underfunded their pension and health plans for years. They used the money to pay dividends.

    How does this differ from a ponzi scheme?

  65. 65.

    binzerator

    December 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    @MLE:

    I’ve seen this graph before, but wondered where the Japanese numbers came from and if biases are built-in.

    The numbers to me look too convenient. Consider them from a marketers point of view. They price an item at $1.99 because it is psychologically much lower in price than $2.00, much more than the literal single cent decrease.

    So we have Ford claiming their cost is $71 and the same Ford saying their foreign competitor is $49.

    What would the psychological impact be if the numbers were $69 and $51? The actual dollar difference is tiny, the psychological impression large. They’ve got a lot of incentive to represent those spreads the way the do, and since we have no way to verify it, it is low-risk too.

    I just know Ford fudged that number over the $70 threshold and downplayed Toyota’s below the $50 dollar threshold. It’s worth a lot more than $4 per worker for them to do so.

  66. 66.

    eric k

    December 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    The majority of the right (primarily Republicans of course, but plenty of Conservative Dems as well) are in denial that the economic policy of the last 30 years is a complete failure.

    The problem isn’t that auto-workers make too much money, the problem is that the vast majority of middle class workers make too little and can’t afford to buy cars. GM and Chrysler are in the most trouble since they were the weakest to begin with, but even Toyota is worried. Real wages have been stagnant or declining for at least 30 years. We’ve hidden the affect through looser credit and various bubbles, the latest of course being turning houses into ATMs. Sure it is easy to say people shouldn’t have spent more than they made, but the dirty secret is the economy is dependant on people consuming at the levels they have been. If the economy hadn’t been growing at the rate it did the rich would have been a lot less rich as well. Sure the Rod Dreyer’s of the world who want us lead simpler lives churning our own butter and so on would have been happy, but I doubt the vast majority of the country would have been happy with a much smaller economy.

    The argument for our vast gap between rich and poor and somewhat free market economics and so on is supposed to be that it works better in the long run. Free trade hurts some people in the short run but eventually the overall GDP grows. But the problem is in order for the GDP growth to happen people need to consume, which requires everyone, give the mega rich more money and they just save it. To way oversimplify take a population of 100, in scenario 1 their total income is 100 million, distributed as 1 million each. In scenario 2 their total income is 120 million, distributed as 100 million to 1 guy and 20 million split between the other 99. In our system scenario 2 is considered better because the GDP is higher. Sure for this year, but what happens after 10 years of this? The only way for guy 1 to make any money off his investments is for the other 99 people to buy stuff, which they increasingly can’t do.

  67. 67.

    Personal Designation

    December 14, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    I like this chart better:

  68. 68.

    Personal Designation

    December 14, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Aye carumba!

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Buck Naked Politics says:
    December 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    GOP’s Bailout "Action Alert" that Killed the Bill: Countdown Obtains the Memo…

    by Teh Nutroots | As Keith Olbermann’s blog notes, the memo—which I’ve quoted below– explains the "strategy," such as it was, behind the decision to kill the bailout bill. When even Dick Cheney is (allegedly) telling you your strategy is going t…

  2. The Mahablog » Righties in Denial says:
    December 13, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    […] Why Detroit’s costs are higher — clip & save! […]

  3. Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » You’re Either With Us Or Against Us says:
    December 13, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    […] I mentioned this in an earlier post, when I noted that the main reason the GOP appears to have spiked the auto bailout is because Sen. Corker thinks UAW workers make too much money, but this comment makes me think that we need to bring it up again to drive the point home: […]

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Qrop Non Sequitur on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (Feb 1, 2023 @ 5:14pm)
  • buggrit on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (Feb 1, 2023 @ 5:14pm)
  • Ruckus on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (Feb 1, 2023 @ 5:13pm)
  • evodevo on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (Feb 1, 2023 @ 5:13pm)
  • Kent on Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread (Feb 1, 2023 @ 5:12pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!