Big 3 automakers should declare bankruptcy.

[AWL71 0]

Lifestyle drugs -- chiefly Viagra -- are costing General Motors $17 million dollars a year and the cost is passed along to car, truck and SUV consumers. The blue pill is covered under GM's labor agreement with United Auto Workers, as well as benefit plans for salaried employees.

GM executives estimate health care adds $1,500 to the price of each vehicle but they do not break out how much of the premium is caused by erectile dysfunction expenses. GM provides health care for 1.1 million employees, retirees and dependents and is the world's largest private purchaser of Viagra.

GM recently raised the co-pay for erectile dysfunction drugs to $18 under a new agreement with the UAW and the company has also pared benefits for salaried workers.

The automaker spends almost $5.6 billion each year on health care. While lifestyle drugs are a small fraction of the total medical bill, every health care expense is added into the price of every new vehicle and is a drag on the struggling goliath's earnings.

It all adds up.

source: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/gm_viagra.html

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Rookie120 0]

OK, so the union got GM to agree to some goofy stuff. Who's fault is that? I agree that the blue bomber isn't my idea of what health care should be. Why did the management of GM agree to it?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[billvon 2,400]

>But those workers like my friend didnt demand a million a year. He gets
>about $23hr. I dont know about you but that sounds pretty reasonable to
>me.

It is reasonable if people are willing to pay that.

Let's say there's someone out there who just never got around to finishing high school. His skills involve flipping burgers, hanging out and judging the relative merits of beer. However, he wants a job and is willing to work. He wants to make $23 an hour like your friend, because he has two kids to support, a mortgage and doctor's bills. Isn't that reasonable, too?

>How do you determine what a market wage for skill is in a plant with
>thousands of workers?

The free market. If the company offers too little, the workers get jobs with another company who will pay better, and the first company gets no workers. If the company offers too much, they get so many qualified applicants they know they can reduce the offering price.

>Agree with the company on what they can afford?

The free market. If a company pays too much for labor, they go out of business and are replaced by a company with smarter executives.

>The workers asked for a wage and the company agreed to it. That sounds
>like market price.

Had the company had the option of paying the wage or not, I would agree. However, the union told them "if you don't meet our demands we will see you destroyed." That's not a free market.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

OK, so the union got GM to agree to some goofy stuff. Who's fault is that? I agree that the blue bomber isn't my idea of what health care should be. Why did the management of GM agree to it?

I agree that GM management is not blameless in the situation. But we all know what would happen if GM management went to the UAW leadership with pay and benefit cuts.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

It is reasonable if people are willing to pay that.

Which GM obviously was at the time they signed the contract.

Quote

Had the company had the option of paying the wage or not, I would agree. However, the union told them "if you don't meet our demands we will see you destroyed."

Oh yea the union said we will destroy you. I highly doubt thats what happened. GM had an option and they agreed to pay what they are now.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Had the company had the option of paying the wage or not, I would agree. However, the union told them "if you don't meet our demands we will see you destroyed." That's not a free market.

it's free enough. If the union demands $50/hr and the company says that's not possible, the strike will only last as long as it takes for the workers to realize a bit of sanity.

Remove the union and the lack of 'freeness' swings the other way, where the company can offer $10/hr in Michigan right now.

The health costs are a legitimate problem, and one that probably needs to be solved at the national level, or lots of mature large companies that gave retirees benefits will be in trouble.

[normiss 622]

Worked fine for ATC's, right?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Worked fine for ATC's, right?

there's a bit more complexity, there, since they worked for the government and like with pilots and cops, have restrictions on when they can strike, due to the impact on public safety.

GM being closed has financial impacts, but not people getting killed.

[normiss 622]

Close enough for comparison - union threatened strike, government stepped in and fired and replaced them, next!

GM could have done the same thing.
We still weed out unions in the TELCO industry all the time. Where we can't, we work around them and avoid using them when and where possible.

[TheBachelor 4]

Quote

>But those workers like my friend didnt demand a million a year. He gets
>about $23hr. I dont know about you but that sounds pretty reasonable to
>me.

It is reasonable if people are willing to pay that.

Let's say there's someone out there who just never got around to finishing high school. His skills involve flipping burgers, hanging out and judging the relative merits of beer. However, he wants a job and is willing to work. He wants to make $23 an hour like your friend, because he has two kids to support, a mortgage and doctor's bills. Isn't that reasonable, too?

>How do you determine what a market wage for skill is in a plant with
>thousands of workers?

The free market. If the company offers too little, the workers get jobs with another company who will pay better, and the first company gets no workers. If the company offers too much, they get so many qualified applicants they know they can reduce the offering price.

>Agree with the company on what they can afford?

The free market. If a company pays too much for labor, they go out of business and are replaced by a company with smarter executives.

>The workers asked for a wage and the company agreed to it. That sounds
>like market price.

Had the company had the option of paying the wage or not, I would agree. However, the union told them "if you don't meet our demands we will see you destroyed." That's not a free market.

For once, I agree with Billvon. Has hell frozen over?

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[billvon 2,400]

>Which GM obviously was at the time they signed the contract.

Correct. That was a bad move on their part, although they may have had little alternative.

>Oh yea the union said we will destroy you. I highly doubt thats what happened.

They said that there would be no work done until the company agreed to their terms. They then enforced it by strike lines and harassment of replacement workers.

Let's take the opposite example. You decide to quit and take a better paying job. Your company says "Sorry, we don't accept that; we want you to continue to work at your current salary. We have fair wage limits, you know."

You say "it's a free country. I'm leaving."

They say "of course you are free to leave. But we've formed an alliance with every other company of our type in the country, and we can guarantee you won't get a job in this industry ever again if you quit. Our alliance members have, in the past, harassed quitter's children, slashed their tires and sexually harassed their wives. We don't condone this, of course, but our operatives get very upset when people like you try to break our wage limits."

Is that OK? Would the argument "hey, it's a free country" apply to them as well?

[Gawain 0]

I heard an interesting tabulation about money as it relates to the US population. Each billion the government spends is roughly $3/person (man/woman/child). So, the $850B bailout is about $2550/person, or $10K per family of four.

Now, if President-elect Obama truly believes that economic growth stems from the bottom-up, why does he want to help GM from the top down, just offer a $10K voucher to each household to buy an American branded car... It would be right up Sen. Biden's alley too...as he said, "..give the money back to the middle class..."

That would clear the inventory, and wouldn't step on any management toes/union toes.

Obviously, that won't fly...or even work I expect. It just proves that all the rhetoric that was spewed during the campaign was steaming piles of sh*t.

The reality is this: GM, Ford, and Chrysler, while directly employing a few hundred thousand people can be tied to millions of other jobs in the market indirectly. Combined salary and benefits to some UAW workers can be measured as high as $60-80/hr. That doesn't wash when the mainstream autos are averaging $24K retail and the skilled precision work is now being done by robots.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 1,623]

If the elite can't trust the mob to make important decisions like directly electing a president of the USA (Reference: Federalist #68, justification for the Electoral College), why would the mob be trusted to make good decisions with money? They'd probably just spend it on women, beer and skydiving.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

... the $850B bailout is about $2550/person, or $10K per family of four.

When you're out on the street sometime, approach a total stranger and ask him:

"Hey, buddy, got a spare twenty five hundred bucks? We need to bail out wall street."

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

... the $850B bailout is about $2550/person, or $10K per family of four.

When you're out on the street sometime, approach a total stranger and ask him:

"Hey, buddy, got a spare twenty five hundred bucks? We need to bail out wall street."

That gives me an idea. The UAW should be the ones to bailout GM!

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

They'd probably just spend it on women, beer and skydiving.

That doesn't make them bad people

We are all engines of karma

[simplyputsi 0]

Agreed!! A bail out is the last thing the auto makers need.
Not long ago the CEO of GM stated that they had been building horrible cars that looked like a box for over 10 years and said he didn't blame people for not buying them.
However what are they still doing? It is improving, designs and all, but do you know at what cost? You would be amazed at the dollars spent on just coming up with a concept for a car. It is ridic!!!

Computer programs can do pretty much all of the details, and building a working CAR prototype should not cost millions of dollars. What are these prototypes made out of? Greed, that is what!

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[billvon 2,400]

>Now, if President-elect Obama truly believes that economic growth stems from
>the bottom-up, why does he want to help GM from the top down, just offer a $10K
>voucher to each household to buy an American branded car...Crazy It would be
>right up Sen. Biden's alley too...as he said, "..give the money back to the middle
>class..."

Great idea! They could take that $10K, get a loan for the other $20K and buy a nice US car. Hmm. Wait - lenders aren't lending much nowadays.

No problem. They'll get a second mortgage and . . . wait . . . maybe that's not such a good idea either.

But I guess most people won't have to borrow to buy a decent US car. After all, the economy is doing pretty well and . . . hmm . . .

A bailout plan that relies on people racking up more debt would be, IMO, too stupid for even the federal government to entertain. Of course, I've been wrong before.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

They'd probably just spend it on women, beer and skydiving.

That doesn't make them us bad people

Fixed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>Now, if President-elect Obama truly believes that economic growth stems from
>the bottom-up, why does he want to help GM from the top down, just offer a $10K
>voucher to each household to buy an American branded car...Crazy It would be
>right up Sen. Biden's alley too...as he said, "..give the money back to the middle
>class..."

Great idea! They could take that $10K, get a loan for the other $20K and buy a nice US car. Hmm. Wait - lenders aren't lending much nowadays.

No problem. They'll get a second mortgage and . . . wait . . . maybe that's not such a good idea either.

But I guess most people won't have to borrow to buy a decent US car. After all, the economy is doing pretty well and . . . hmm . . . STRONG!.

.

I think they'd go down to Wally World and buy a load of stuff that was made in China.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A bailout plan that relies on people racking up more debt would be, IMO, too stupid for even the federal government to entertain..

you mean like bailing out the banks?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>you mean like bailing out the banks?

Dumber than that, even. It would be like bailing out the banks as long as they create even riskier debt instruments.

[JohnDeere 0]

I agree that they should if they have to, but i have an inside connection at Ford and they say they can make to the end of 2010 if the economy stays the way it is. And it will not stay this bad for that long.....i hope. The other 2 thought have a lot of problems!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!