UAW to own 55% of Chrysler after restructuring

It also said that under the agreement, workers will no longer get most of their pay if they are laid off. Instead, they will get supplemental pay from the company equal to 50 percent of their gross base pay.

These guys, the union, just don't get it. They now get 85% of their base + unemployment benefits. Under the new agreement they'll get 50% + unemployment. That won't get it.
I have been very outspoken about the obvious double standard between the bank bailouts and the auto workers, but this is bullshit. A company can't stay in business that has to give what amounts to paid vacations to employees that are on lay off. These dopes are going to end up losing everything. If this is their idea of a viable solution it's time to shut them down. Any more bailout money is just throwing good money after bad.
 
You see, according to the government employees only deserve good treatment to the extend they belong to a union. If Citi got reestructured and their traders were owned billions in bonuses they would be left with nothing, if they had an union who contributed politically they would be the largest shareholders
 
This is a good microcosm example of why democracies fail.

The idiots votes themselves the gold, then the Country goes bankrupt.

There's no reason to think Chrysler's UAW "Management" won't do the same thing.

Its actually pretty funny!
 
Interesting thing is. The gov is afraid of people not buying a car from a BK company.

Now, which one is worse. That

Or a car build by a company 55% owned by Union and the rest by the gov.

Personally, I rather buy something from a BK company that is likely to be bought by some PE after declaring BK.
 
Company owned by the unions does not meet the free market principles. Both C and GM are doomed sooner or later.
 
Let me play devil's advocate here. Doesn't ownership by "the union" really mean the members of the union - i.e. the employees? If so, isn't this similar to employee incentives and profit-sharing given to employees by some companies? If the employees own stock in the company, it is in their best interests to work hard and keep costs down to ensure that the company does well. Whereas now they do not have that incentive, since their salary is the same regardless how the company does. So I think this is a good sign for GM.

Bettles
 
Quote from bettles:

Let me play devil's advocate here. Doesn't ownership by "the union" really mean the members of the union - i.e. the employees? If so, isn't this similar to employee incentives and profit-sharing given to employees by some companies? If the employees own stock in the company, it is in their best interests to work hard and keep costs down to ensure that the company does well. Whereas now they do not have that incentive, since their salary is the same regardless how the company does. So I think this is a good sign for GM.

Bettles
More...

then share profits, of which, there are none. why? because the union is an organism leeching off the host. the companies job is to deliver profits to its shareholders. to its employees to offer a safe working condition and a fair wage. in todays market - plenty of people would screw bolts on for 12$-15$ an hour. so the innefficiency will continue to rot the company and in a good world the union guys will eventually face reality. bondholders are getting 10 cents on the dollar and union gets 55% of the company. what is wrong with this picture??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top