[sgarnett]

The Senate, UAW, et al, just gave up (ie failed) on reaching a compromise a few minutes ago.

I don't know how GM will come out after bankruptcy (they just hired the bankruptcy lawyer), but the stock market futures are looking ugly tonight. It actually held up well through some dismal recent employment numbers, but I suspect tomorrow is gonna be ugly. Rebuilding my retirement is going to mean austerity and no new cars for a very long time, and I suspect that will be true for many others. That can't be good for any automaker.

I'll admit I wasn't convinced that bridge loans to March could solve the problems for GM, so I don't claim to know what the right answer was. Nevertheless, this is going to be a big kick in the teeth for the economy.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Dec 12 2008, 04:07 AM

[00 Trans Ram]

FYI, my 401k has gone up over the past few months. But, that's only because I moved things around a year ago. Put a lot into money markets.It's in no one's best interest to have people lose their savings, even if it's their own fault.That said, now I see why GM et al are going under. They pay pensions, 401k, healthcare, andhigher wages? Sounds like I should have fed at that trough before the food ran out! But, that's unsustainable.The only time a company should do all those things is if their competition is doing it - if it's the only way to entice employees. But, the competition is NOT doing it.

[trackbird]

The only time a company should do all those things is if their competition is doing it - if it's the only way to entice employees. But, the competition is NOT doing it.

The competition was doing it, it was called Ford and Chrysler. At least the competition was doing it at the time it started being done. And, good luck getting anyone to accept "going backwards". Meaning, you generally expect to get a raise every year (or at least stay even with the cost of living). Nobody is going to accept "we're not doing that anymore". Once something becomes "the way it's always been done", it's the way everyone will expect it to be done. Nobody expects to take a job that pays you less every year to where in 30 years you can't maintain the standard of living you had when you started (as a new employee with no experience). So, once you go down that road, you are going to keep driving. There isn't a good place to turn around, so nobody did.

The foreign automakers moved here and went to some of the less affluent states (without pulling the numbers) where people were just happy to have work. So, they took jobs for less money than the Detroit guys. But there was no existing precident. You are hiring and you pay how much? Well, ok, I need work so I'll take it. That's how the foreign automakers got away with cheaper labor. If they had opened a plant in Detroit, they'd probably have had a hard time getting enough people to fill their labor needs (You want me to work for what???), but I could be wrong.

[C3SS]

And, good luck getting anyone to accept "going backwards". Meaning, you generally expect to get a raise every year (or at least stay even with the cost of living). Nobody is going to accept "we're not doing that anymore". Once something becomes "the way it's always been done", it's the way everyone will expect it to be done. Nobody expects to take a job that pays you less every year to where in 30 years you can't maintain the standard of living you had when you started (as a new employee with no experience). So, once you go down that road, you are going to keep driving. There isn't a good place to turn around, so nobody did.

Kevin - I know you're not advocating the quoted attitudes, just expressing the hurdles the Big 3 face. None of the below is aimed at you (or anyone) personally!

That said...

The pay at airlines went "backwards" back in 2001-3 at every level - flight crew, maintenance, and management. Some voluntarily, some through bankruptcy. So did software consultants from 1999-2002. Sometimes the market changes and jobs don't pay what they used to, and we're fortunate enough that we live in a country with a free market that allows us to change our individual courses if we so desire. As someone who works to earn money it is MY responsibility to be worth more to an organization (maybe not even the same one) year after year, not theirs to pay me more just because I've managed to hang around on payroll for another 365 days. It seems the US automakers are paying well over market value for their labor (when compared to competitors) and that needs to be fixed.

If they had opened a plant in Detroit, they'd probably have had a hard time getting enough people to fill their labor needs (You want me to work for what???), but I could be wrong

The only difference is the lesser paid workers will still have jobs. Ironically, in the long run they'll be paid more.

This post has been edited by C3SS: Dec 17 2008, 04:53 PM

[StanIROCZ]

And, good luck getting anyone to accept "going backwards". Meaning, you generally expect to get a raise every year (or at least stay even with the cost of living). Nobody is going to accept "we're not doing that anymore". Once something becomes "the way it's always been done", it's the way everyone will expect it to be done. Nobody expects to take a job that pays you less every year to where in 30 years you can't maintain the standard of living you had when you started (as a new employee with no experience). So, once you go down that road, you are going to keep driving. There isn't a good place to turn around, so nobody did.

Kevin - I know you're not advocating the quoted attitudes, just expressing the hurdles the Big 3 face. None of the below is aimed at you (or anyone) personally!

That said...

The pay at airlines went "backwards" back in 2001-3 at every level - flight crew, maintenance, and management. Some voluntarily, some through bankruptcy. So did software consultants from 1999-2002. Sometimes the market changes and jobs don't pay what they used to, and we're fortunate enough that we live in a country with a free market that allows us to change our individual courses if we so desire. As someone who works to earn money it is MY responsibility to be worth more to an organization (maybe not even the same one) year after year, not theirs to pay me more just because I've managed to hang around on payroll for another 365 days. It seems the US automakers are paying well over market value for their labor (when compared to competitors) and that needs to be fixed.

If they had opened a plant in Detroit, they'd probably have had a hard time getting enough people to fill their labor needs (You want me to work for what???), but I could be wrong

The only difference is the lesser paid workers will still have jobs. Ironically, in the long run they'll be paid more.

I 100% agree with what you said Cody.

To state this in another way, you are worth as much as someone is willing to pay for you. Just like your house, a used car, a share of a particular stock, baseball cards etc. I'm an engineer and if someone comes up with a machine that can do my job faster/better/cheaper than I can more than likely I will have to take a pay cut, get in the business of making that machine, or find a new profession.

What scares me is all the engineering and design that is being outsourced to India. I better pay off my debt fast.