Criticising car corporation charity

19 comments on “Criticising car corporation charity ”

• Comments are now closed

1. justthefacts 1

   2 April 2009 at 11:54 am

   $75 an hour is not enough for an assembly line worker?

   Lets face facts, the American auto industry is in trouble for a whole raft of reasons however the major problem they face is caused by excessive and outrageous union demands.

   I hope that Ford, GM and Chrysler do go into bankruptcy, only then will the management be able to do away with the high wages and ridiculously generous pension schemes that cripple an industry already facing competition from Japan.
   • Matthew Pilott 1.1

     2 April 2009 at 12:13 pm

     “$75 an hour is not enough for an assembly line worker?”

     Depends. Is a few million each enough for several dozen upper and middle management? That’s probably $75 every three minutes.

     “Lets face facts, the American auto industry is in trouble for a whole raft of reasons however the major problem they face is caused by excessive and outrageous union demands.”

     Facts? Not your forte. The US auto-industry was doing alright, not great, but it was surviving, until demand fell through the floor due to higher fuel proces that made the Ford Exxon Valdez unsaleable, an international credit crisis centred on the US and a recessionary cycle.

     It’s not paying workers well that caused the problems.

     “I hope that Ford, GM and Chrysler do go into bankruptcy, only then will the management be able to do away with the high wages and ridiculously generous pension schemes that cripple an industry already facing competition from Japan.”

     What, the ex-“management’ of a few bankrupt companies? They’ll do heaps, sure JTF. I like your logic.

     By the way, any idea what a comparable wage for Toyota Japan or Hyundai is? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet it stacks up with the US automaker equivalent.
2. justthefacts 2

   2 April 2009 at 12:24 pm

   Pilott

   “By the way, any idea what a comparable wage for Toyota Japan or Hyundai is? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet it stacks up with the US automaker equivalent.”

   Yep, $45 an hour.

   Again you cherry pick the parts of my post that suit your argument, I did not say that union demands were the ONLY reason the automakers are in trouble, the management are also to blame for giving in to the unions and just as importantly designing cars that are inferior to their Japanese counterparts.

   The US automakers face a $2000 per unit disadvantage, this cost difference is entirely down to the difference in wages and benefits.
   The survival of the US automakers relies on getting costs down, unless they can match what the Japanese and Korean’s pay their workers then they deserve to go out of business.
   • Matthew Pilott 2.1

     2 April 2009 at 1:46 pm

     It’s not cherry-picking when I address the whole argument, JTF. You make a token point to ‘a whole raft of other issues’ which you then didn’t explain, define or address, and said that to stay in business they need to pay less.

     You need to work on your terminology, you can’t invent meanings for well-used phrases.

     If the US auto makers go out of business because they can’t make an advantage out of a highly-paid workforce, then I agree they deserve it. If they can’t adapt to the local market they only have themselves to blame.

     What, for example, do you think the assemblers of Chinese and Indian cars get paid? I’d imagine that the unit cost there is a whole lot cheaper again, yet that’s not putting the Japanese and Korean manufacturers out of business is it?

     So taking wages and salaries in isolation, and saying that it’s the main reason they’re struggling, is just plain wrong. The US still has import duties and tarriffs on vehicle imports, and there are much higher freight and other logistics costs to pay when making cars in another continent. They have advantages too. If they weren’t resolutely blind to world conditions they’d start making cars people want as well – that’s their real problem. Chrysler Crossfire says it all really.

     So if they go out of business purely because of what they pay their workers, then yes, deserved. Same with the Japanese and Korean manufacturers, in relation to other countries with even lower costs.

     A race to the bottom isn’t a solution, JTF.
     • Kelsey 2.1.1

       3 April 2009 at 12:27 pm

       The US still has import duties and tarriffs on vehicle imports, and there are much higher freight and other logistics costs to pay when making cars in another continent

       How is that relevant? Toyota make more of their cars in the US than GM do…
3. uroskin 3

   2 April 2009 at 1:20 pm

   They could remain in business if they actually made cars that people wanted to buy and drive. But then I’ve never seen any European with taste drive an American car.
4. martin english 4

   2 April 2009 at 1:25 pm

   “Privatising profit, socialising losses”

   BTW, It would be nice to know the how much of the $75 p/h (a figure which comes from the Employers, the car companies) is actually wages, and how much is pension plans, health funding etc.
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     2 April 2009 at 1:54 pm

     Yeah, those sneaky euro’s and Jap’s with their high falutin public health systems, clear cut subsidisation I tells ya! Those costs should be paid by employers!
5. Killinginthenameof 5

   2 April 2009 at 1:35 pm

   They are in trouble because they don’t make cars that people want to buy.

   And if they didn’t want to have to pay their workers 75 dollars an hour they shouldn’t have signed the contracts, they should go and get workers somewhere else.
6. Strathen 6

   2 April 2009 at 1:35 pm

   I completely agree that companies should not be getting bail outs. Although my reasons are different.
7. Mark M 7

   2 April 2009 at 2:40 pm

   Well put JTF.

   Fickle Cycles notion that paying workers more is a better option when the bloated cost structure is one of the main reasons the company is in trouble.

   If they produce cars that people want with a cost structure that matches the Japanese competition ( and Korean , Chinese and Indians when they arrive) they will have a chance.

   If they continue with a cost structure that gives workers as mutch money when they stop working they have no chance.

   Your veiw that bankruptcy is the best option seems to be a veiw held by Obama
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   2 April 2009 at 3:12 pm

   Here’s a good post

   http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/04/socialism-schmocialism.html

   It’s about what American taxpayers reckon. Short version: they want the bosses to take a fuckin haircut.
9. rave 9

   2 April 2009 at 3:27 pm

   Occupy under workers control we need a 21century electric Model A
10. tommy onions 10

    2 April 2009 at 3:33 pm

    “The US automakers face a $2000 per unit disadvantage, this cost difference is entirely down to the difference in wages and benefits.”:

    At what level of the workforce? Just the factory floor or across the board – pun intended.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      2 April 2009 at 11:52 pm

      At a guess – probably in upper management.
11. ripp0 11

    2 April 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Bankruptcy – stated by Mark M above to be PBO’s view – has distinct problems, however, in modern American business practice.

    Ironically, and sinisterly more than cynically, for the same reason that “too big to fail” found widespread public currency. Yeah, in a populace laced with fear/s public knowledge has its uses. Like it (they) pays.

    And first in modern American bankruptcy business practice..

    ps — would suggest fickle get after this for a greater international (and influential) audience
12. Tim 12

    2 April 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Thanks for cross-posting this article guys. The $75 p/h is quite an interesting figure and I agree that it is hard to have sympathy for anyone to do with such polluting corporations.
13. Pascal's bookie 13

    2 April 2009 at 9:57 pm

    The $75 p/h is quite an interesting figure

    Isn’t it? It includes the hourly wage of around 28-30 dollars, all the benefits, like overtime (not always available), health insurance, etc. So it’s arguably ok up to here, but it’s really the labour cost to the company rather than the hourly rate recieved by the employee, who is not, surprise surprise, pulling in 150k plus a year, as implied.

    Where it gets downright dishonest is that it also includes the labour costs incurred by the company in retirement benefits to former employees. Why that should be included in a supposed hourly rate for current employees is probably a political question.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/13/spencer-bachus/big-three-wages-inflated/
14. ripp0 14

    3 April 2009 at 1:42 pm

    PB,

    commend your preference to leave links ‘open’ per above.. sometimes _ short on time – I clip and go back to find ‘missing link’ when the html option has been taken.. so thanks again..

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS