GM to pay up to $200M to help end American Axle strike

[Rob grand rpaids]

support our unions wrote:

There's no way the workers should have accepted AA's initial demand of $12 wages. It was worth it for them to go on strike because they could make $12 an hour anywhere, and those jobs weren't worth saving for $12. AA has been making tons of money and paying the CEO tens of millions a year so it's total BS for them to try to low-ball the workers.
Now that GM has said they want this strike over, the workers should hold out for a decent offer. GM is getting nervous and putting pressure on AA.
The workers need to hold out til AA caves in and plays fair.

It would be better if AA shuts the door. Remember that GM caused this situation by forcing suppliers to take smaller margins. GM isn't about keeping its suppliers in business, it's about paying their managers bigger bonuses. Sure, shutting the door will hurt the workers yet, it's the only way to send a message to GM that their greed needs to stop.

[Seenitbefore]

Chip wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple pay based on market demand, funny how most of the shareholders see the value, left up to you everyone would be out of a job in weeks.

So do tell what real world rationalization there is in paying a CEO more per year than he makes for the company and shareholders in profits.

Lets dispense with all the lofty economic model(s) mumble-jumbo and just stick with the real world.

The shareholders see the value only in their own interest(s). At that only concerned with their interest(s) in the short term.

As for everyone being out of a job in weeks, perhaps. Again I go back to there being no possible way anyone could survive in this country's economic climate making the kind of money necessary to compete with countries like Mexico, China, Viet Nam, etc. To try and make anyone believe they could is an exercise in purposeful deception.

And to admit that it doesn't matter is what civil wars are made of.

[Seenitbefore]

uaw proud wrote:

chip and everyone,it does not matter(pay)everything (all production) will be done overseas! 10.50 is still too much. mexico is 3.00 a day plus two meals,plus a ride to work.

Caused by the corporations and corporate follower traitors.

[JIMMYK]

Seenitbefore wrote:

A while back there was someone on one of these union bashing boards, bashing unions and their members making $25.00 per hour. This person said they made the same money and comparative if not equal benefits, I don't remember which, at a non-union shop. Saying they were making that kind of money where he worked because they made themselves worth it to the company and the boss figured they were worth it.
It's interesting that no one said this non-union person was overpaid for the type of work they did. No one telling him he was making over the prevailing wage and just weren't worth that much.
A "prevailing" wage for a type of work is a prevailing wage. It shouldn't then make a difference who and under what circumstances they are making it. If John W. Public is making $25.00 per in a union shop and isn't worth that based on the "prevailing" wage, while George H. Public is making the same over the "prevailing" wage at a non-union shop, they are BOTH overpaid according to the "prevailing" wage.
All this bally-hooing is nothing less than union busting...for whatever reason(s) each particular person believes they have the right to bust the unions.
Anyone that keeps trashing anyone because they are making $xx.xx per hour and they aren't worth that because it exceeds "the prevailing wage" must have a communist mindset...to believe no one is worth more than "the prevailing wage".

I would of said he was overpaid if it was for the same type work. With the same required skills and education. The only reason the Union catches so much crap is due to there entitlement mind set and the history of walking off the job when things don't go there way. Times have changed for the union I understand that they went on strike because there way of life is threatened. I would of expected nothing less. What is really hurting the union is the years of walking off the job when they only received a 3% raise instead of a 5% raise. People have watched for years as the union pushed employers for increased wages even when the members were making well above the average for the work they performed. The union has cost corporations hundreds of dollars due to strikes. The union would cripple and shut down manufactures knowing they had no other option then to give in. Let's face it all those years there was no way a manufacture could hire enough replacements for the union work force and they had no operations outside the country. Well times have changed, people are sick of it, and the manufactures now have the upper hand. If I was union I would of gone on stike if they were going to cut my pay in half. should of saved all the strikes for something that was worth while. Maybe then it would not meet with so much resistance.

[Seenitbefore]

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
I would of said he was overpaid if it was for the same type work. With the same required skills and education. The only reason the Union catches so much crap is due to there entitlement mind set and the history of walking off the job when things don't go there way. Times have changed for the union I understand that they went on strike because there way of life is threatened. I would of expected nothing less. What is really hurting the union is the years of walking off the job when they only received a 3% raise instead of a 5% raise. People have watched for years as the union pushed employers for increased wages even when the members were making well above the average for the work they performed. The union has cost corporations hundreds of dollars due to strikes. The union would cripple and shut down manufactures knowing they had no other option then to give in. Let's face it all those years there was no way a manufacture could hire enough replacements for the union work force and they had no operations outside the country. Well times have changed, people are sick of it, and the manufactures now have the upper hand. If I was union I would of gone on stike if they were going to cut my pay in half. should of saved all the strikes for something that was worth while. Maybe then it would not meet with so much resistance.

The point being no one did.

You present a reasonable argument. Funny thing greed. It will catch up at some point.

Though I can't say they have ever been alone in their pushing beyond reason. It' just that it has ALWAYS been the unions that have gotten all the publicity in that area. If anyone does report on corporate greed it's short lived. While when the workers do, not just unions, it's a staple in the news media for a very long time. The power of repeated messaging. It's rare to see the small business news media.

[irate]

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally toured the bathroom...trying to find crabs for a seafood dinner...I cringe at the Evil man...always right....mind over matter..I don't mind that you don't matter..HEHEHEHE..Change your name to hard working ROB..the golden one...evil man..where's mini me?

YOU are a complete idiot.

[irate]

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally toured the bathroom...trying to find crabs for a seafood dinner...I cringe at the Evil man...always right....mind over matter..I don't mind that you don't matter..HEHEHEHE..Change your name to hard working ROB..the golden one...evil man..where's mini me?

If and I do mean if you have actually worked one day in your life I would be surprised.Unions were essential in their time face it their time has come and gone.All you guys are just like sheep let's pay our rep 100,000 a year so he can tell our company (you know the one that gave you the job in the first place)that we want 50.00 hr full benefits and free medical until the day we die,just so they can turn around and say if you want to demand all of that we will just close the plant and put you out of work.Retards and guess what your rep is still getting his 100,000 a yr while you go unemployed.That is true intelligence. good job genious.

[Seenitbefore]

irate wrote:

<quoted text>If and I do mean if you have actually worked one day in your life I would be surprised.Unions were essential in their time face it their time has come and gone.All you guys are just like sheep let's pay our rep 100,000 a year so he can tell our company (you know the one that gave you the job in the first place)that we want 50.00 hr full benefits and free medical until the day we die,just so they can turn around and say if you want to demand all of that we will just close the plant and put you out of work.Retards and guess what your rep is still getting his 100,000 a yr while you go unemployed.That is true intelligence. good job genious.

I don't know how old you are. I hope you are quite young yet. Remember these days when it wasn't only the well to do that could legally protect their lively-hood. And remember that you participated in destroying that.

There will likely never be the day when people no longer need legal protection for their income because this society is set up as an adversarial competitive one.

[Chip]

Typical union employees strictly thinking of their own wage when looking at foreign competitors. Its not as simple as that. When a company looks at doing business overseas they look at a wide range of cost associated with doing so.
Step 1 would be to determine the initial cost of moving operations overseas. They have to research all of the formalities of how to do this, they have to purchase a building, purchase new equipment, ship new equipment, hire employees, develop logistics, etc. Once the initial cost is determined they amortize this amount into the future.
Step 2 would be to determine the annual cost of operating in the foreign country. There will be additional incidental costs like taxes, licensing, import/export paperwork, etc. There will be cost of shipping the product back to the US. There will be additional cost of purchasing material, if the material needed for production is not available in the foreign country it will need to be shipped, or if the quality is not as good it will create additional cost of quality. The workers may not understand things and cause decreased efficiency, poor quality, etc. Cost of the foreign country seizing your assets for government use if foreign country has an unstable economy. There are many known and unknown cost associated with foreign operations that will be taken into consideration.
Step 3 would be to determine if the savings are recouped before wages rise in the foreign country. Developing countries have a steeper growth curve, this is due to natural causes and the availability of technology from developed countries allows them to skip the cost of developing new technology. As a country develops wages increase, so lets just say that over the next 20 years wages will rise to near equal that of U.S. wages. The increased wage over time is calculated and a present value of this cost is estimated, and this amount is amortized.
Step 4 would be to determine loss of sales due to backlash from eliminating U.S. jobs. Its well known that there are consumers who will change preferences if a company does something that they don’t think is right. Toyota understands this, that is why they have manufacturing in the US, that is why they use U.S. suppliers etc. Domestic automakers understand this as well, that is why they have operations here. They are just trying to keep the cost of doing business here a viable option.

Lets just say for a typical manufacturing shop the cost of direct labor is 35%. A part with annual sales of
$100,000 consist of
$37,500 in direct labor ($27,500 wage plus $10,000 benefits)
$60,000 Material, overhead, shipping, etc.
$2,500 company profit
If they decide to ship the manufacturing of this product to a foreign country it may look more like this:
$90,000 decreased sales (step 4)
$5,000 amortized cost of initial investment (step 1)
$2,500 labor cost
$5,000 amortized cost of present value of increased labor (step 3)
$67,500 Material, overhead, shipping, etc. plus cost of (step 2)
$10,000 company profit

The simple $35,000 labor savings going into companies profit, and we can’t compete with foreign wages is just a load of s***. So why do you think that employers are asking for a reduction in wages, because if employees took a pay cut they could continue to operate in the U.S. A 2.5% return is unacceptable to investors, nearly all investors are demanding a 10% return, and therefore they will stop investing in your company, leading to a long term decrease in growth, and eventual bankruptcy.

[Chip]

UAWGirl wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess you'll believe anything you read. Of course you found the disclosures, but it doesn't mean they're correct. And based on these corporations less than flawless and honest track records, I can say I doubt their 'disclosure' is on the up and up. Gullible reader.

Its the law with the increased sanctions imposed by the sarbanes oxley act it is very unlikely that someone would outright lie on the financial statements issued to the public, because the cost of getting caught are so high. Your comment does show how incompetent you are though.

[Chip]

Before I get a bunch of stupid post like why don't you cut the salary of the CEO. The CEO of AAM made what 10mm last year, nevermind all of his own personal $ he put into the company if we cut his salary to 0 it would result in a saving of 10mm, or 3 tenths of 1% of sales, resulting in nearly nothing in terms of savings.

[bye-bye]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
May I suggest some reading for you. Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann and Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston. These two books get into what has really been going on behind this economy.

You're assuming that right-winger dumb a$se$ can read. LOL!!!

[Union All The Way]

Chip wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple pay based on market demand, funny how most of the shareholders see the value, left up to you everyone would be out of a job in weeks.

Where the heck you been Chip? The easiest way to generate cash flow..take from workers..take from taxpayers..when are you going to wake up? You are VERY pro management. Let me jar your memory..new GM UAW contract..2 tier wage..CEO gets a 40% pay raise..1 week later first quarter report..GM lost BILLIONS..again..HELLO..HELLO. .Chip???

[no pity]

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know how old you are. I hope you are quite young yet. Remember these days when it wasn't only the well to do that could legally protect their lively-hood. And remember that you participated in destroying that.
There will likely never be the day when people no longer need legal protection for their income because this society is set up as an adversarial competitive one.

Well said however my job is protected.Honest days work for an honest days pay.And by the way I am in the mid 50s range and have never had any problem with work or work performance but I was also raised that way.

[Union All The Way]

Rob grand rpaids wrote:

<quoted text>
It would be better if AA shuts the door. Remember that GM caused this situation by forcing suppliers to take smaller margins. GM isn't about keeping its suppliers in business, it's about paying their managers bigger bonuses. Sure, shutting the door will hurt the workers yet, it's the only way to send a message to GM that their greed needs to stop.

Not keeping suppliers in business?? How about the Delphi bailout..AAm..200 mil..want to reword your statement??

[flsr]

It seems to me that union members only want to look at the huge profits these corporations take in, thinking they ought to share more of it with their workers. This is all true, they should. But how do you force them to when they can close up and go somewhere else to hire workers for less, under ANY conditions. One commentor mentioned a 66% pay cut, does that mean they have been earning $36. an hour??? Ye Gods.

[Ritch Bich]

And where are all the union employees when a company is LOSING money? Right in there offering to share in the loss as much as share in the gains, right? HA!!!!!!!!!!

[Chip]

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Where the heck you been Chip? The easiest way to generate cash flow..take from workers..take from taxpayers..when are you going to wake up? You are VERY pro management. Let me jar your memory..new GM UAW contract..2 tier wage..CEO gets a 40% pay raise..1 week later first quarter report..GM lost BILLIONS..again..HELLO..HELLO. .Chip???

The pay for the CEO is a drop in the bucket compared to total revenue, why do you union people keep coming back to CEO pay, it is 1 person get over it. People that have a talent in short supply that is in demand usually make a lot of money, the CEO is no different than any proffesional athlete, actor, etc. You could cut the pay of the CEO down to 0 and it would make no difference relative to the billions of $ that flows through GM.

[Chip]

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Not keeping suppliers in business?? How about the Delphi bailout..AAm..200 mil..want to reword your statement??

The delphi bailout was forced by law because the bankruptcy occured less than 5 years of them spinning them off. AAM 200mm is being offered because GM is loosing that much money due to the strike. I worked for a GM supplier and they always take a year to pay their bill, and then they try to cut down the bill.

[Seenitbefore]

Chip wrote:

<quoted text>
Its the law with the increased sanctions imposed by the sarbanes oxley act it is very unlikely that someone would outright lie on the financial statements issued to the public, because the cost of getting caught are so high. Your comment does show how incompetent you are though.

See Chip that's where the error is. No they're not going to "outright lie". To say though they don't have/find ways of "creative accounting" is just absurd to think or assert because "that is illegal" if not just dishonest. And the government departments that audit just doesn't have the resources to do in-depth and forensic audits on companies...unless there is a major oops that can blatant justify one.

Besides that the GAO is regularly reporting expenditures and accounting "problems" with the Federal Government and nothing changes. Why would a private corporation be any different. I've read of a few that got caught, paid a fine...of less than what they made off it, and went right on with business as usual.

The reason Reagan got the R&D deduction removed from companies taxes with his "tax reform" is because they were putting company favors, junkets, parties, etc. under the R&D budget.

Like I've said before, I had a VP of Finance for a major corporation in GR in the family. I know that they do these things.