bigugli Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 I do not know what the right answer is to this question. I do know that the bailout will probably be no more than a stay of execution. If the "3" fold, it means a loss of 10% of the jobs in Ontario within the first year. Nobody can calculate the job loss over the second year. It will mean 10% fewer people to shop in the stores, buy services, toys, entertainment, fast food, etc... Unless you are fortunate enough to have a secure government funded job, or you're in the funerary business, mass layoffs will have an impact on your economic future.
Bernie Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 I do not know what the right answer is to this question. I do know that the bailout will probably be no more than a stay of execution. If the "3" fold, it means a loss of 10% of the jobs in Ontario within the first year. Nobody can calculate the job loss over the second year. It will mean 10% fewer people to shop in the stores, buy services, toys, entertainment, fast food, etc... Unless you are fortunate enough to have a secure government funded job, or you're in the funerary business, mass layoffs will have an impact on your economic future. I think the point trying to be made is why bail out an operation doomed to fail? Invest the money into an industry that wants to succeed! ................................Like me!
LeXXington Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Won't accept consession for wages and want the taxpayer to pay. The way I look at it, you have people with Rich (sorry to pick on you) ~ Industry crumbled, now they work with me for next to minimum wage. These fine folks having to pay higher taxes becuase the Union would not accept anything less!!! 2 choices.. Fire anyone who will not work for the $$ your offering bet you can find replacement workers just as fast and we help you out or Don't accept taxpayer money and go it alone. Its so sad that the union would risk families like that.. And for the Union who said that wages are not the issue, if every employee at the big 3 dropped there wage by $1 how many people would that employ!! CEO's are working for a $1 time too pony up CAW/UAW how about all union bosses work for $1 too and drop union dues.. give families a little help before they are laid off. SAY NO TOO GREEDY UNIONS!!!
bigugli Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 I think the point trying to be made is why bail out an operation doomed to fail? Invest the money into an industry that wants to succeed! ................................Like me! I'm afraid there are no industries in Ontario to invest in using your criteria. They run to the pacific rim for their manufacturing if they are profitable.
hammercarp Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Won't accept consession for wages and want the taxpayer to pay. The way I look at it, you have people with Rich (sorry to pick on you) ~ Industry crumbled, now they work with me for next to minimum wage. These fine folks having to pay higher taxes becuase the Union would not accept anything less!!! 2 choices.. Fire anyone who will not work for the $$ your offering bet you can find replacement workers just as fast and we help you out or Don't accept taxpayer money and go it alone. Its so sad that the union would risk families like that.. And for the Union who said that wages are not the issue, if every employee at the big 3 dropped there wage by $1 how many people would that employ!! CEO's are working for a $1 time too pony up CAW/UAW how about all union bosses work for $1 too and drop union dues.. give families a little help before they are laid off. SAY NO TOO GREEDY UNIONS!!! From CNN news Corker said the two sides were very close to a deal and stumbled on the deadline for the union to agree to the reduced pay. The unions have accepted wage wage cuts so your first statement is false. It's when they take place that is the sticking point. Your last staement is also not true. CNN news The benefit costs are significantly greater for U.S. automakers, though, because they have to pay health care costs for hundreds of thousands of retirees. The union agreed to close much of that gap in the 2007 labor agreements by shifting responsibility for retiree health care to union-controlled trust funds. But those changes won't take effect until 2010. Does not look like greedy unions to me. Looks to me like they are helping the company and looking out for their own. Anyways it looks like they are going to get the funds anyway. So the name calling is uncalled for.
danbo Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 It's just Destiny..read your Bible . Changes are needed & forthcoming for us ALL.
aniceguy Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) the dowjones went from 11300 to 8400 that is an insane amount of personal liquidity gone vanished and regardless of what our investment team says I dont see recouping that money quickly enough, that ROI was a fundemental componant of investment income which is now gone... thank god I listened and bought interest only mortgages within the self direct or I would really be upset So where is my tax relief, where is my bailout, and lastly where is my money, sure I can liquidate take a modest tax break against earnings but peronally thats a flawed thing too. As far as Im concerned the big 3 and the over zelous unions that run them can all falter and go into chapter 12. The business model the big 3 ran under was flawed, the common guy say this on the assembly line, I recall a family member who was a high placed union guy at ford scratching his head as even he couldnt figure out where these cars were all going,yet the CEO's and forcasters in the corporate didnt see it....give me a break....let them sink, as I for one dont think we should pay for their poor business modelling Understanding how the forcasting models work they saw this coming and figured that they could ride it out.....opps.....I guess they were not able to factor crude speculation into the models fast enough...too short sighted without not enough long term stratagic planning IMO Edited December 12, 2008 by aniceguy
lookinforwalleye Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 All I have to say is.. I have friends at my work who were working in factories locally. Got laid off, can't find work. They were making really good money, 30/hr or more doing what they did. Industry crumbled, now they work with me for next to minimum wage. They whine.. but overall, they adapted and overcame it. Less money isn't a death sentence. If you have a mortgage it could be a problem, unless of course you live with mommy.
The Urban Fisherman Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 If you have a mortgage it could be a problem, unless of course you live with mommy. heyo - just for the record Rich doesn't live with Mommy, he supports himself, his girlfriend, their child and his rediculous obsession with fishing - works hard and play's hard. I've got a mortgage, and you know what - poop happens, if I lost my job tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd find something else, work my butt off again and eventually all would be well. I've been through bankrupcy with my parents when I was a younger lad and it isn't pretty - but we're still here, we have each other which is all that really matters in the end, and IMO I'm a stronger person for going through it. cheers, UF
BITEME Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 It's just Destiny..read your Bible . Changes are needed & forthcoming for us ALL. Follow the rest of the sheep!!!!!! Baaaaaaaaaaaaa
pigeonfisher Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 It's just Destiny..read your Bible . Changes are needed & forthcoming for us ALL. Possibly the only offensive thing on the thread.
cram Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 From CNN newsCorker said the two sides were very close to a deal and stumbled on the deadline for the union to agree to the reduced pay. The unions have accepted wage wage cuts so your first statement is false. It's when they take place that is the sticking point. Your last staement is also not true. CNN news The benefit costs are significantly greater for U.S. automakers, though, because they have to pay health care costs for hundreds of thousands of retirees. The union agreed to close much of that gap in the 2007 labor agreements by shifting responsibility for retiree health care to union-controlled trust funds. But those changes won't take effect until 2010. Does not look like greedy unions to me. Looks to me like they are helping the company and looking out for their own. Anyways it looks like they are going to get the funds anyway. So the name calling is uncalled for. The deadline they supposedly would not agree to is end of 2009.....so they were agreeing to paycuts but not until end of next year....why? The retiree healthcare thing is a legit problem. Companies with legacy in the US have a huge problem, and the system is always going to favour new companies wthat lack massive #'s of retirees......of course this all changes if Obama implements universal healthcare so that the big 3 doesn't have to pay for it. I say let them fail. The economy will hurt but no one has yet pointed out how the $$ will help these companies become competitive. If not competitive, why keep them around? Its time to pull the plug. I bet other auto companies come to Canada and the US to use up some of the production capacity. I understand that Honda/Toyota won't touch ex-CAW workers so it would not save them....but new jobs nonetheless.
hammercarp Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Okay here is my understanding. The US senate would not pass the bill until a caucus of republican neo con GOP s met with the leadership of the UAW and got more concessions out of them . They did not seek out more concessions from any other stakeholders just the UAW. Seems to me that they were just playing politics with the economic future of North America. Most of the posts on here that I have read that are not in favour of the stop gap loan fall into three catagories. 1) I got hurt in the economic downturn so should everybody else 2) I take pleasure in the misfortune of others 3) I will ride above the coming crap storm and take advantage of lower prices, lower wages and lowered expectations of others. It's great to see such high ideals espoused. Here is the reality. Ontrio is the north american leader in automobile production. If the auto industry fails, we fail. Ontario is still the economic engine that drives the Canadian economy. If Ontario fails so does the country.
cram Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Okay here is my understanding. The US senate would not pass the bill until a caucus of republican neo con GOP s met with the leadership of the UAW and got more concessions out of them . They did not seek out more concessions from any other stakeholders just the UAW. Seems to me that they were just playing politics with the economic future of North America. Most of the posts on here that I have read that are not in favour of the stop gap loan fall into three catagories. 1) I got hurt in the economic downturn so should everybody else 2) I take pleasure in the misfortune of others 3) I will ride above the coming crap storm and take advantage of lower prices, lower wages and lowered expectations of others. It's great to see such high ideals espoused. Here is the reality. Ontrio is the north american leader in automobile production. If the auto industry fails, we fail. Ontario is still the economic engine that drives the Canadian economy. If Ontario fails so does the country. I fall into none of the 3 categories...certainly don't enjoy the misfortune of others, have not yet been that hurt in the economic downturn, and don't care about the lowered prices (they'll actually go up with inflation if the fundamentals ever catch up to the US dollar being printed like newspaper). Anyway -- the companies are not competitive. Not at all. Why aren't they competitive? They seem to use the additional labour costs as a crutch to explain the reason , so why is it not fair for us to comment on those? As a side note, i think their problems have as much to do with business model and product quality (vs. labour costs), but anyway.... btw ...is ontario really the leader in automobile production? That's really interesting - had no idea. Does that # incorporate magna etc, or just the big 3 + honda autoplants?
The Urban Fisherman Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 People are entitled to their opinions, whether they're educated enough to give a proper opinion or not is another story. I don't have a degree in economics, so at the end of the day my opinion on this matter means squat. I'd like to think that the majority of the population isn't selfish enough to just think of themselves, and what they gain or lose from this whole thing. I say, speak your mind, respect other peoples views, like them or not, and whatever the outcome might be, work together for a better tomorrow! I know I'm just going to kick back, enjoy this thread to it's fullest, and hope it doesn't get to the point where it has to be locked. Cheers, UF Ps. I don't believe in god, but I respect people who do, and expect the same respect in return. Can't we all just get along.
forrest Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Saying the bailout has failed is a bit much. Bailout has not succeeded today sounds better. Its all politics, who really expected the UAW to settle in this round of negotiations? forrest
cram Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Saying the bailout has failed is a bit much. Bailout has not succeeded today sounds better.Its all politics, who really expected the UAW to settle in this round of negotiations? forrest True. Question -- what would be wrong with letting them go bankrupt and restructure their businesses to become competitive?
LeXXington Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 From CNN newsCorker said the two sides were very close to a deal and stumbled on the deadline for the union to agree to the reduced pay. The unions have accepted wage wage cuts so your first statement is false. It's when they take place that is the sticking point. Your last staement is also not true. CNN news The benefit costs are significantly greater for U.S. automakers, though, because they have to pay health care costs for hundreds of thousands of retirees. The union agreed to close much of that gap in the 2007 labor agreements by shifting responsibility for retiree health care to union-controlled trust funds. But those changes won't take effect until 2010. Does not look like greedy unions to me. Looks to me like they are helping the company and looking out for their own. Anyways it looks like they are going to get the funds anyway. So the name calling is uncalled for. You are correct, The unions did not want too take the pay cuts until 2011.. Good things its 2008 and they have the hat in hand now. The sticking point on the wage was that the Goverement wanted the unions too agree to the same wages as Toyota about $2.00 less!! 2007 labor agreements by shifting responsibility for retiree health care to union-controlled trust funds. But those changes won't take effect until 2010. AGAIN .. Note the 2010!!! Tell me why you would put everyone at risk over that, it sounds very resonable! They are in trouble now and need to be fxied before they get taxpayer $$
Anton Kanagasuntheri Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 True. Question -- what would be wrong with letting them go bankrupt and restructure their businesses to become competitive? Cram...Apparently asking someone to have solid business governance and always plan for the future is very wrong!!! Where will the union bosses go if you have to compete in a market?? What will happen to all the $30.00 /12hr shift jobs?? Imagine a North American cooperate world with a competitive edge?? No way man… otherwise what will happen to my uncle who makes $34.00/hr sitting at the TTC ticket counter at Bay and Bloore handing out tokens……
Terry Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 I know that no one wants to take a pay cut, but when they close the doors and all these unskilled works wake up to the real world and find out they can only find jobs that pay between 12 and 18 bucks with little if any benefits, they are going to hope for a do over.....
misfish Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 I know that no one wants to take a pay cut, butwhen they close the doors and all these unskilled works wake up to the real world and find out they can only find jobs that pay between 12 and 18 bucks with little if any benefits, they are going to hope for a do over..... Interesting you stated this bud. I was just going to post a question. How many of the workers would like to have a vote on a wage reduction? I mean, how many really have thier faith in the union. Just because they are paying them(dues),dosent mean they trust them. If it were I,you bet,if it meant keeping my job,I would except a pay cut. Was talking to the guy that picks up our steel scrap today. You be amazed at how many are worried about this. Losing everything.
LeXXington Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 1) I got hurt in the economic downturn so should everybody else2) I take pleasure in the misfortune of others 3) I will ride above the coming crap storm and take advantage of lower prices, lower wages and lowered expectations of others. It's great to see such high ideals espoused. None of the above, I see it as the UAW/CAW will be the most affected as these represent most of the workers. I question if they would do this too the point of putting the average worker out of a job. The big 3 should be doing what ever they can to save off going defunk. If I was an employee I would be thinking.. what can I do too save my job NOW not honour the current contract for a few more years. I wonder in the next contract if the union did not like it would they go on strike?? You can't ask people making $15 a hour to tay higher taxes so a worker that does not want too change can keep his\her job. If the auto giants built great reliable cars, kept cost's in check, and changed with the times they would not be in this mess. We need a viable auto induestry not one that bleeds the province only in the end too move too mexico cause of lower wages I am anti-union and proud of it.
LeXXington Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Just wanted too add, We can all agree to disagree I am not slagging anyone and feel for the families affected. I just like the discussion.
Bernie Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 It wasn't too many years ago the OMC guys didn't want to concede anything either. Where are they now? Many other company's bought up the sections of the technology. They hired some of the former employees-but only a fraction.
misfish Posted December 12, 2008 Report Posted December 12, 2008 Well, looks like they our govermnet, "WILL" bail them out. Just heard it.
Recommended Posts