But you see which auto workers are

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Read the following report. 8-10% of total cost doesn't seem like a huge percentage for labor costs. Maybe they can't afford the big salaries and bonuses for the top dogs? About time the wealth started being redistributed. Funny I haven't heard any outrage over the outrageous salaries the top dogs in these automobile business are paid. Just whining about how much the UAW workers are paid. It's about time the working class started standing up for the working class!!!!!

Let 'em all go bankrupt. I have no doubt the idjits in Washington are way more concerned about job losses in "developing countries" than those of American citizens.

I feel the same way I felt about the bank bail-outs. I would say no bail-outs for ANY business. I think it borders on extortion. First the banks need a bail-out, then it's the auto companies, then AmX reorganizes so they become a holding company so THEY an qualify for some of that free money. Latest I read the newspapers are to be next in line. Where does it all end?

My reason for my no bail-out opinion is, what did it accomplish for the banking industry? Nothing if we are to believe there is a credit crisis. I noticed this evening one of the local banks was advertising that they still have money available for loans. Why is it that it's the big guys that get into trouble? Let 'em suffer. Bail-outs are going to do nothing for working middle class people.

As I said in an earlier post where do you think new automobiles will fit in consumers priority list when they are trying just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads? Pretty far down I'd say. There are new layoffs announced every day, many have nothing whatsoever to do with the automotive industry.

One more thing...UAW role in the automobile woes. The public has been dreadfully misled. Most seem to think the workers make some $70 an hour when in truth they make in the neighborhood of $27.00 an hour. Not a word have I heard objecting to the executives who are paid some $6000 PLUS per hour and all kinds of perks like private jets, etc. Wouldn't one think this would have a whole lot to do with their finances? The one thing I think the union should concede is the job bank where they are paid 95%, I think it is, of their wages when they are laid off. The rest of the workforce (and my husband spent his life working as a Teamster) should have to suffer through unemployment just like the majority of other employees. I do think that employer provided benefits such as the unions have should be available to all workers. It most surely comes in handy at retirement. I think everyone should have an opportunity to retire in their older years and Social Security sure doesn't covere living expenses. I wonder if there are any MTs who have retirement benefits? Probably not. Most seem now-a-days hard pressed to even make a living.

Let the oil companies bail them out since they directly benefited from some of the bad management decisions.

Don't bail out the companies. Give the money to the workers for re-education, etc., while the auto companies restructure.

My first suggestion was a little cynical, but I'm not sure why the second hasn't occurred to anyone. ...

want to watch it tonight, it will be on at 8 p.m. In the meantime, the plans of GM and Ford are online.

I feel sorry for the Chryler guy. He seems to be the most honest and wants the least amount of money. Sen. Corker - TN told him right out he doubts Chrysler is going to make it even with the money and they should just be bought out by someone and leave the company go.

He was also tough on the UAW Gettlefinger (or whatever his name is). I don't blame him there. The guy was squirming but he kept talking about all the concessions hurting the workers; i.e., not willing to make concessions.

I happen to think that the auto industry does need a bailout. No, I don't agree with keeping the current management, and I do believe in making stipulations for how that money is spent. I know most of you will disagree with that, but here's what I'm seeing in TN.

Congressman Zach Wamp (R) from TN was on the tube last night talkiing about how he does not want to do the bailout. If that's his opinion that fine ----- However, lets look at his reason. TN has been bidding for a new Volkswagon plant which has recently come to fruition---right here in my home town by the way. He has been pushing for this for years. This is obviously a good thing for people in TN because of the jobs it would create. What I find ironic though is that he would let American companies go down the tubes and yet support a foreign auto maker. My honest opinion about guys like this, is that they want the job creation, regardless of where the real money is going (overseas) and they would like to do this in such a manner so as to cut out unions.

They keep flip-flopping. The second link is Paulson's idea. That was probably posted before but am posting again just in case.

Mr. Bush, in a televised speech before the opening of the markets, said that under other circumstances he would have let the companies fail, as punishment for their own bad business decisions. But given the economic downturn, he said the government had no choice but to step in.

�These are not ordinary circumstances, in the midst of a financial crisis and a recession allowing the US auto industry to collapse is not a responsible action,� Mr. Bush said.

Good article and the guy they interviewed, Peter DeLorenzo (?) - a guy all up on the auto biz - said neither McCain nor Obama had a clue when it came to the auto industry. The article gave a little bit of the voting records on both related to the auto industry.

Candidates Voting Record On Auto Industry-Related Issues:
Clean Energy Achievement Criteria (2007): McCain - no vote; Obama - Yes
Preventing Petroleum Export Organizations (NOPEC Act of 2007): McCain - no vote; Obama - Yes
Reduction in Dependence on Foreign Oil (2005): McCain - No, Obama - Yes
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (No) Drilling Amendment (2005): McCain - Yes, Obama - Yes

We get 28-30 MPH with it. Why they didn't brag this up, I have no idea. It has power, too. We could keep up with the V8's with no problem. Had a very large luxury Delta 98 LS and it was the best car we ever had...but the frame rotted away, so we kept the motor and put it into a Buick LeSabre.

Part of the problem is the unions. I've always been a union supporter, but they have really killed the industry in this country in the past 20 years. That's why there are no steel industries here anymore. That's why auto workers make a fantastic wage. Once they make good to fantastic wages, they won't back down.

Face it. People are greedy and this is a gigantic wake up call, but if they don't want to, or aren't willing to, take pay cuts, or pay more for their health insurance, then we're doomed to fall into a greater depression than seen in the 30s. A me-first-and-only-me economy doesn't work.

Example: Teachers in my area are screaming and going on strike because they don't want to pay more for health insurance. They pay $40 biweekly. I pay $200 a pay and before that, I paid $630 a month. I'm happy paying $200 a month. Are they? Nope. It's me-me-me. When are people going to wake up?

God bless those people who came all the way down there, slept in their trucks in stifiling weather (because the media and gawking politicians hogged all the hotels that were left) and helped string line and get our power back on. They are heros, as well as all those who donated time and goods.

On the other hand, SHAME on the people from Indiana who printed up a bunch of Katrina T-shirts and had the nerve to come down there to sell them! Those who survived Katrina need no darn T-shirt proclaiming they did!

How does your husband feel about voting out in the open; no more secret ballots? That's quite audacious!

good things to come. As Bank of America acquires Merrill-Lynch (whose CEO has the utter gall to request a $10 million bonus pay-out after the ML sell-out) they are refusing credit to Republic Windows and Doors out of Chicago after receiving $15 billion in TARP funds. The workers are fighting back to recover the pay and benefits they have already earned and their governor is backing them up. Now that's what I'm talkin' about !

I paid well above minimum wage...I guess reading my post it looks like I paid minimum. That was my mistake.

Going way down the page you will find the median pay for medical transcriptionists is approximately $15.02 per hour. This being the case, if you are one of those fortunate enough to be making $20 or more per hour, I assume you will be recommending a pay cut for yourself and all others who are making more than the median in order to bring pay more in line with other workers. Translated that means leaving more in the coffers for the big CEOs. I don't know whether some of you are BDD or what.

Healthcare workers fail to take the time with patients to discuss disease prevention and health promotion.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As it prepares to leave office, the Bush administration is moving to make it easier for U.S. farming companies to hire foreign field workers, which farmworker groups say will worsen wages and working conditions.

Farm groups said that changes to the H2A visa program, used by the agriculture industry to hire temporary farm workers, were posted on the Labor Department's Web site at midnight Tuesday but have since been taken down.

Labor Department spokesman Terry Shawn said whatever was posted wasn't the final version of the new rule, which Shawn said would be released Thursday and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18.

The Bush administration published a proposed version of the new rule last Feb. 13 and received nearly 12,000 public comments, Shawn added. The next version will be a final rule and can take effect 30 days after publication. Some of its provisions would take effect in mid-January and others later in the year, the farmworker groups said.

Farm worker advocates and the United Farm Workers union said the version that appeared on the Web site would lead to a flood of cheaper workers.

"The government has decided to offer agriculture employers really low wages, low benefits, no government oversight to bring in foreign workers on restricted visas and thereby convince them they should do this instead of hiring undocumented workers," said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farmworkers.

The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers, Goldstein said.

But Assistant Labor Secretary Leon Sequeira said Wednesday evening the agency is not dropping the obligation to obtain certification, which is required by law.

Paul Schlegel, American Farm Bureau public policy director, said many of the changes will make the program a little less burdensome for employers. He said existing laws prevent employers from hiring foreign workers if the jobs can be filled by U.S. workers.

"My members want to make sure they have a legal supply of labor," said Schlegel, who added that he had not reviewed all the proposed changes.

The rule changes are a part of a pattern of last-minute regulatory changes being rushed into effect by the Bush administration before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.

The effect is to make it harder for Obama to change course on some policies favored by Republicans and the business community.

"We are hopeful that the Obama administration would recognize the utter mistake and unfairness of this proposal," Goldstein said. Congress has a procedure for reversing the rules, he said.

Many of the last-minute changes by the Bush administration have come in the area of public lands and the environment, including easing regulations on mining waste and allowing handguns in national parks. Another pending rule would grant greater leeway to railroads to transport hazardous materials through densely populated areas.

Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers

Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America�s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.

At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they�ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country�s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive�s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker�s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent.

Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company�s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.

It�s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won�t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.

Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker�s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker�s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.

As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.

---

Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.