backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 65 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Nov 27 at 10:09 AM

Rep. Gary Peters took issue with John McCain's remarks, saying Chrysler is likely to survive and thrive.  (Source: C-Span)
Gary Peters believes Chrysler will survive and thrive

This week, Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain delivered some stinging analysis about his take on Chrysler's future.  He commented, "Anybody believes that Chrysler is going to survive, I'd like to meet them."

Now a Michigan Representative, Gary Peters (D.) has rebuked Sen. McCain's remarks.  In a letter to Sen. McCain, Rep. Peters writes, "[I] will meet with you at your convenience to discuss the future of Chrysler and the contribution they make to our nation's economy.  Better yet, I'd be more than happy to bring you to my district to meet with thousands of Americans who are working hard every day to design new and exciting vehicles and ensure the continued future of the American automobile industry."

"Hopefully then you might choose to be a partner in the continued success of an industry critically important to our country."

Rep. Peters also defended the unions, which Sen. McCain had blasted during his comments on the auto industry.  While Sen. McCain took issue with the union's favorable terms compared to non-unionized labor, Rep. Peters points out that the unions made significant sacrifices during the bankruptcy process. 

He states, "Because of the sacrifices made by the UAW and other key stakeholders, the American automobile industry is well positioned to emerge from the current economic crisis stronger and more globally competitive than when we entered it."

The letter to McCain is concluded with a firm vote of support for Chrysler, stating, "While no one can predict the future, I believe that Chrysler has an opportunity to not only survive in the years to come, but to offer innovative new vehicles here in the United States and increase export opportunities overseas for its existing world class products like the iconic Jeep."

Sen. McCain supported the automotive bailouts under the Bush administration and his recent 2008 presidential bid.  After losing the election, he has since recanted and become an ardent critic, particularly of the government's decision to assume a stake in the struggling automakers.  Rep. Peters supported the bailout bills both under the Bush and Obama administrations.

The exchange between the national legislators coincides with GM's recent announcement that it will be repaying its loans ahead of schedule, including making a $1B USD payment in December.  The loans will be paid out of the funds $43B USD given to GM by the government for its 60.8 percent stake.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
In McCain's defense though...
By R6Raven on 11/18/2009 8:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
It would only be wrong if it weren't true.




RE: In McCain's defense though...
By scrapsma54 on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 8:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
Although I am not a Chrysler fan, I will have to disagree to an extent. Their cars aren't very easy on the eyes, although there are many people out there who grew up with the whole "HEMI" trend, which makes the new Charger and Challenger very appealing to them. Chrysler, rather Jeep, put out their 4.0L motor in the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee models which I think was probably one of the most dependable and durable motors of its time. As for the rest of the car, sure they were riddled with problems - most of it stemming from cheap plastic interiors and cutting corners to save money.

My only point is that while their cars as a whole may be considered junk (I wouldn't pay for one), their 4.0L Jeep and V-8 engines have really been quite nice for the last 10+ years. And personally, I think Jeep tanked when it decided to get rid of the regular boxy Cherokee and replace it with that crappy looking Liberty, then adding those micro-machine SUV's (Patriot, Compass).

Just to make note, when I say they have nice motors, I'm saying that from a point of view that I could really care less about miles per gallon or emissions. Just the power & dependability of the motor itself are my concerns. So basically, I'm just talking about the engines being good for SUV's and trucks, not at all speaking of their efficiency.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Runiteshark on 11/18/2009 9:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
The Slant 6 was one of the best engines that they made, ever. Its been in use forever and a day, and runs for 2-300k between rebuilds (usually rings and gaskets).

The new v6's they make are utter crap.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 9:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
I was actually referring to the 4.0L straight 6, which came out in 1987 and was available through the mid-late 1990's. Its known in the 4x4 off road market as one of the best engines made and many have easily obtained 300,000 miles.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Samus on 11/19/2009 5:22:29 AM , Rating: 1
Crystler mastered the inline 6 when Ford and GM (and even Toyota) gave up on the design concept (Ford, GM and Toyota no longer manufacturer inline-6 engines, except for diesel applications.)

Ford's inline-6 engines from the 70's and 80's were underpowered, and Toyota's had tremendous reliability issues eventually leading to them discontinuing production and axing the Supra.

The new Atlas inline-6 in the GMC Envoy is complete shit. It has no power (just a lot of torque) and guzzles gas like a V8. Which would be fine if it has power.

I'm pretty sure Crystler is second only to BMW in world-wide shipments of inline-6 engines when you consider few vehicles outside of the BMW and Jeep brands have them as an option.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By The0ne on 11/18/2009 10:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And personally, I think Jeep tanked when it decided to get rid of the regular boxy Cherokee and replace it with that crappy looking Liberty, then adding those micro-machine SUV's (Patriot, Compass).


I couldn't agree more with your statement. Up until now I've only seen one Liberty on the road...in San Diego.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Samus on 11/19/2009 5:24:45 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, yea, I live in SD and see them all the time. It must be the huge military population :)

Usually women drive them.

<<runs>>


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/18/2009 11:24:43 AM , Rating: 2
So basically, Chrysler products suck, except for one of the components. I would add they also have dependable window glass, so they should continue to be supported on those two points: good engines (well, just one of them) and good glass.

BTW, modern Hemis aren't. It is just a marketing name. And BTW, the old Hemis were very hard to keep running, which is why most people got the 440's and 383's instead. You could beat the heck out of them and they wouldn't flake out like the hemis. I only knew one person who ever owned one on purpose, and he only owned the car for a few months before getting rid of it (1967 King Kong Optioned GTX.)


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chrysler products suck, except for one of the components. I would add they also have dependable window glass, so they should continue to be supported on those two points: good engines (well, just one of them) and good glass.

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but you're greatly mistaken if you think I approve of any bailouts - then or now. I think Chrysler & Gm should have been let to fail long ago.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
I've still my '96 Chrysler T&C and thought it was the best car of it's type at the time -- by far. There are some good alternatives now, but still, Chrysler invented the minivan category of cars and has done very well by it with good vehicles.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By KingofL337 on 11/18/2009 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
You are right about the reliability of of the 4.2/4.0/4.0L HO
motors. But you are wrong about the origin, they were designed by AMC which owned Jeep, which is why they work. Chrysler may have manufactured them, but had no part in the primary design. Which basically proves the only products they made that were any good were not designed by them.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By rudolphna on 11/18/2009 3:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
True the original design was from AMC. But chrysler added and refined it over the years. Hell, they could have kept it even longer. All they would have to do is fix the Rear-main seal leak, add roller cams or maybe even OHC (instead of the Flat-tappet pushrod setup), done some tuning etc etc, I bet they could have kept it and used it in place of the 3.8 and 4.0L V6 engines.

Oh, and other chrysler products that excel- 4.7L HO, most Chrysler automatic transmissions are outstanding (except for the Mitsubishi sourced models), the Wrangler, the Cherokee (I don't care what anyone says, the GC is excellent). I love the look of the Avenger and Challenger too.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Parhel on 11/18/2009 1:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And personally, I think Jeep tanked when it decided to get rid of the regular boxy Cherokee and replace it with that crappy looking Liberty . . .


Well, if you like boxy, there's always the Jeep Commander. :)


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By inperfectdarkness on 11/18/2009 9:48:10 AM , Rating: 3
"i know!!! let's replace the prowler with something fugly, soul-less, and bland! let's call it the cross-fire!"

he's right though. unions did make sacrifices. they sacrificed a shitton of jobs because they stubbornly refused to have their workers paid wages commensurate with the work they perform. funny how non-unionized toyota, honda, and subaru factories are buzzing along gloriously in the same relative geographic areas...


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 10:38:55 AM , Rating: 4
Lets not kid ourselves here, its not like the Prowler was a model of success. I'm 30 years old, and I think I've seen maybe 1 or 2 on the road in my entire life. The CrossFire may not be that good either, but the Prowler? Cmon.

You're right, non-union manufacturing in this country has always been successful. When your level of effort means something in terms of your salary, promotion, demotion, or job loss - you tend to take your job more seriously since you have a sense of personal responsibility and motivation.

But when you can just skirt by doing the minimum in a union job, knowing full well that you won't get a promotion or demotion, whats the point in putting forth any real effort into your job? I mean, if you get laid off, you still get 90% pay...so it almost pays to not work more so than go to work.


By inperfectdarkness on 11/27/2009 10:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
the total run of prowlers was <12,000...fyi.

so if you never see any on the roads, that's probably why. chrysler thought it would be better as a limited-run. never mind the fact that they could have sold a million if they'd simply offered a v8 with a manual.

but you're right--the prowler was not a model of success. chrysler aborted it before it could be truly successful. precisely what i'd expect from a daimler subsidiary.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Spivonious on 11/18/2009 10:03:31 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed. What idiot replaced the wildly popular Neon with the horribly ugly Caliber?


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By hypocrisyforever on 11/18/2009 12:42:53 PM , Rating: 1
lol, uh.....the Neon was like one of the worst cars in history. Their engines/trans were made of playdough. Notice how they aren't that old of a model and you see like one on the road now, as opposed to the thousands they sold.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 3:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
It also was their very lowest-end car too wasn't it?


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
It also was their very lowest-end car too wasn't it?


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Spivonious on 11/18/2009 4:10:18 PM , Rating: 1
I see a lot of Neons in my area, including my wife's. Mostly the later models (2000+). I agree that the older ones were total crap.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By ajoyner777 on 11/19/2009 3:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
The neon was actually one of their better cars. For it's time, it had the best performance / handling in it's class. I had a neon, and when I sold it it had 197,000 miles on it and still ran and drove fine. I've heard of others putting 250k on them.

One thing I get really tired of is everyone jumping on the Toyota, Honda, <insert foreign car manufacturer here> bandwagon. In my personal opinion, most are ugly as hell, rust faster, are made out of cheaper materials, and perform worse than their American counterparts. Whenever I see a broken down car on the side of the road, 90% of the time it's a foreign car. To me buying a foreign car is almost Un-American.


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mars2k on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: In McCain's defense though...
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 11:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well now wait a minute here mars. It sounds to me like you're out on a McCain smear campaign, and I hate to be the one to tell you, but the election is already over. If you want to call out McCain, then its only fair to call other others who said the same stuff before him...lets compare him to his congressional counterparts and the person he campaigned against.

quote:
Since when is McCain an authority on business issues

I don't know that he's anymore of an authority on business issues than anyone else in congress. But the President himself has never even run a business, I don't think McCain is the one who you should be solely targetting here.
quote:
He himself admitted several times that the economy wasn't his strong suit.

Yes, he did. And his initial vote for the bailouts proved that. He's just playing politics now and trying to get support back. But cmon, Obama is trying to pass a health care reform bill, and the most controversial part of it he has admitted is "above his pay grade". Maybe you can tell me what pay grade is above President of the United States?
quote:
Exactly how long has his private sector career lasted?

I'm not sure that it matters, considering the one bailing out these companies has never even worked in the private sector lol.
quote:
Wasn't he the one who announced "the economy is in good shape" just before it tanked?

Didnt Barney Frank say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound businesses and business models just before the crash? What makes him an authority on that now - or is his blinded by his openly gay relationship with the pot smoking CEO James Ready?http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/barney-f...
quote:
Making the sort of statement McCain did is reckless and irresponsible considering his apparent lack of knowledge is business matters.

Stuff and nonsense. Using that logic means that everything President Obama is doing is irresponsible at best because he's never run ANYTHING, much less the entire nation.
quote:
Wasn’t his decision to recruit Sarah Palin another reckless decision?

No, in fact Palin is quite popular among conservatives - or having you noticed that her new book is at the top of the charts and she is giving out campaing speeches and interviews now? McCain's recklessness was himself, the fact that he is seen as too liberal for the Republican and Conservative base. How about Obama's decision to appoint Biden as VP, given his recent string of gaffes. Or how about his CZAR appointments of self avowed communists, people who believe in sterilizing the drinking water, giving all of our wealth to the indians, and using the government art departments as propaganda. Oh wait, were all those people recently forced out? hmm.
quote:
Didn’t that, along with his clueless pronouncement about the economy, contribute to crashing his presidential bid?

No. The fact that hes too liberal for his base, and the fact that Obama filled the gullible with a false sense of entitlement and hope contributed to his lost bid. However, I'll let all the recent poll trends speak for themselves.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/18/2009 11:29:36 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, a balanced and well reasoned post on DT!?! Without c&r$e words. WT&?


RE: In McCain's defense though...
By Steve1981 on 11/18/2009 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 5
If McCain was discussing esoteric details of economics or business you might have a point. But frankly, it doesn't take an MBA to see that Chrysler has a boatload of problems and they'll be lucky to survive the next few years.


Why is ANYONE surprised?
By drebo on 11/18/2009 11:21:06 AM , Rating: 4
Why is ANYONE surprised by what a Democratic politician from Michigan said? For the love of God, this guy is probably so deep in the pockets of the UAW that he could lick its balls.

He just got pegged as the latest public spin doctor from the UAW.

Unions need to go away. There is no reason for them anymore. They produce nothing and yet they take in BILLIONS in dues. Worst of all, they constrict the free labor market. This is not a good thing.




RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 11:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. There's still some corrupted companies out there that will screw you over in every sense of the word. Employees are nothing but numbers to them.

My uncle just recently hurt his back (life-long injury that surgery cannot fully repair) on the job by lifting heavy objects that he was asked to lift by his supervisors. The company ended up firing him because he could not return to work within an arbitrary amount of time, and they would not pay his medical bills. This company claimed that he did not hurt his back at work and that he must have hurt it somewhere else.

The dispute ended up going to court, and my uncle ended up winning all of the outstanding medical bill expenses along with compensatation for the injury since he can no longer lift more than 50 pounds and he cannot stand upright for longer than 20 minutes.

There would be no demand for unions if crap like this didn't take place. As it was mentioned in other threads, if you treat your employees right, they won't even want a union in the first place.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 11:50:57 AM , Rating: 3
A counterpoint to what I just said could be to just not work in factories or companies that have a reputation for screwing their employees over.

However, if you have a choice of putting food on the table or living in the streets, I think the choice is obvious. It's not always as easy as just "getting another job", especially here in Michigan.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 11:56:37 AM , Rating: 4
I do agree with you, but you also cannot complain about lack of work if you refuse to pick up and move to another part of the country/state/etc.

Just like no one forces you to work somewhere, no one forces you to live anywhere either. People, for some reason, feel a sense of entitlement to a job & benefits, and that it should just come to them and be available for them at their front door. They don't realize that in the past, people had to pick up their families and move to where the work was in order to have a better life and more savings.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
Easier said than done, especially if one owes on one's house more than one could sell it for (true for many), or have illnesses that attach themselves to local hospitals (true for some), as well as for general moving expenses cross country that one my not be able to finance (not cheap unless one is is a fresh out of school small apartment dweller or the like, something I was a few decades ago).

As well as there probably not being jobs where one moves to anyway. A Michigan person moving here to Oregon isn't all that much better, I think our unemployment rate is 11.2% or so.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 11:51:52 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but there are multiple counts of union corruption going on in the states. People who do not want to be unionized are being bullied, threatened personally, and even having their families threatened unless they agree to vote "yes" to be unionized.

Heres a sick one, union threatening a 16 yr old girl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-hJU04Kf7Q


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
The bullying is a two-way street.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 12:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, I've personally never heard of people beating up union members and threatening their families to abolish the union and their place of employment.

Or, if by "bullying" you really mean "criticizing", then okay. But the criticisms of the unions are true and deserved.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
As a son of a UAW union organizer, I can speak first-hand about the threats of violence over the telephone and in person from upper management of companies that did not want a union.


By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 12:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
Before anyone plays the "bias" card, let me be the first one to say that my dad and I don't see eye to eye on politics.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By Ammohunt on 11/18/2009 1:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
and what labor laws protected him in his law suit? he won the suit so that tells me that the system worked just fine without union thugery.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 5:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
What if he didn't win the case? Then what? What if he couldn't afford a good lawyer like he had? He'd be screwed.

"Thanks for working at our company and lifting stuff that we told you to lift. It's too bad you're on the verge of being disabled, and it sucks that you will have chronic back problems, but we wish you the best."

^That would have been better than anything he would have received from that place.

I'm not saying that all companies are like this, but hopefully you can understand why I think it's not a clear cut solution to abolish all unions.


RE: Why is ANYONE surprised?
By acronos on 11/19/2009 8:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
People who file workman's comp claims often don't pay for their lawyers. The lawyers work on contingency if you have a decent case. If anything, both jury's and the law itself are heavily biased against the employer. The laws are so bad that many people (in 10 years with 50 employees we've had around 5) get a job, work for 3 months, claim an injury, then live off the proceeds for several years, rinse, repeat.

I think the law as it exists adaquately protects employees and actively harms employers without any need of a union to make things worse.


What sacrifices did the Unions make?
By StraightCashHomey on 11/18/2009 8:12:15 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone have any links or information regarding what the Unions have sacrificed lately?

I'm pretty curious to see how much of a sacrifice they made.




RE: What sacrifices did the Unions make?
By Bateluer on 11/18/2009 8:39:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think they made much of a sacrifice, if any. They did become major shareholders, after the Federal Government, in Chrysler and GM at the expense of the secured investors.


By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 8:44:22 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone knows the current administration is in the tank for the unions, its no secret. It's rather just a sign of things to come in the future. Whats really scary is not only the fact that regulation and taxation has been driving manufacturing out of this country for decades, but that the current administration is standing behind unionization over the rest of the non-union labor in this country and penalizing business and investors to please them. There is a reason that the person who visited the white house 22 times (the most by any person so far) is Andy Stern, the head of the 2+ million person SEIU union organization.


By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 8:39:19 AM , Rating: 3
Not a list per-say, but they agreed to cut salaries of workers down $7/hr for some - meaning that they'll make about $50,000 per year now to put on bolts or sweep floors. They also made the huge concession (sarcasm) to not strike again until 2015, thus letting Chrysler not worry about being put in the typical UAW stranglehold of losing more money per day during the strike as opposed to losing less money per day operating as usual.

Oh yes, those happy go lucky Unions make it a better place for everyone, all the while they keep sealing their own fate by not realizing they can and will be easily replaced by non-union labor and labor in other countries - all as a direct result of thinking they actually have a right to not only demand these benefit packages, but to actually receive them with help of the government.


RE: What sacrifices did the Unions make?
By glennforum on 11/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: What sacrifices did the Unions make?
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 9:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
I never, ever agree with Jason on anything - especially regarding politics - but I don't think its really fair to chastise him in this case. He really is posting an article regarding what the democrat from Michigan said, and injecting little opinion to it - outside of a little bit of McCain bashing and his choice of words framing him like John Kerry (i was for it before i was against it).

I would cut him some slack on this one, as the democrat in question backing the unions has pretty already dug himself a hole with the American people in general because they don't buy his b.s.


By glennforum on 11/18/2009 12:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Point is...

DT is a really great site...except for Jason's politically slanted view of the news. I wouldn't even have a problem with his political viewpoints if he were honest in his "reporting".

There is always an alternative viewpoint but people are now having to choose a side, save our country or destroy it. People like Jason with their continued slanted view (similar to the way the Communists present the news) is ultimately going to hurt DT.

Haven't we all learned the lession yet? The numbers for MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc...are horrible and the blogs are losing traffic as well if they are not somewhat more balanced in their positions.

Isn't this supposed to be about tech anyway? Why is there room for dishonest political rants?


Take the money and run
By Beenthere on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/18/2009 11:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if Fiat can reduce Chrysler to rubble and then walk away without repercussions from the UAW, wouldn't that be worth a few bill? One less union monopoly.


RE: Take the money and run
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 3:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Fiat won't be moving back to Europe, they're not leaving Europe to begin with. Chrysler will have Fiat based designs to copy from (need to be enlarged a bit for the US as well as to meet US rules/regulations). Supposedly they're better than existing Chrysler designs, so killing current Chrysler models may be a good thing. At least some of them (don't think Fiat has minivans, for instance).


RE: Take the money and run
By Beenthere on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Take the money and run
By hashish2020 on 11/19/2009 12:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
You mean they tried it once, when their cars were crappy, not now, when their cars are pretty sweet and far more reliable than the horribly unreliable VW's and Audi's the "informed, Euro-centric" consumer in America loves


RE: Take the money and run
By Beenthere on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Take the money and run
By hashish2020 on 11/19/2009 2:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
...so you are still judging their cars based on ancient history.

Hey, Honda's were crap...in the 60's.


RE: Take the money and run
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2009 2:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
Fiats are supposedly pretty good nowdays.


Thats entertaining
By Mathos on 11/18/2009 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that sounds about right from what I've seen of many politicians.

Now, I get a laugh out of most of the people I see on here that automatically bash the union workers no matter what. Yup, unions are so hated that 10% of the US work force is still union labor. Now mind you thats down from 20% that it was for many years. Having had a Grandfather that worked for GM (main Buick plant), a step father who's worked at Delphi (AC Delco), a brother-in-law that worked for Saturn, I could probably think of quite a few others. I look at this and go, do you realize these people are working between 60 and 80 hours a week to make that 50k a year?? Most of it being mandatory and not optional. It wasn't, well if you wanna get some more money you can work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. It was if you want to keep your job, you're gonna work these hours. Now, my grandfather use to operate the machine that bored the cylinders on the big v8 engines that went into most large buicks and Cadi's back then. We actually have a picture of that, pretty interesting lookin machine, huge though. Now, how many of ya'll here think you can handle working on a line 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week??? Think the least they could of gotten was company partially paid insurance.

Now to mention Chrysler vehicles that I've seen that are or were pretty popular. Lets see here. Looks out on the road, being in texas trucks are popular. You'd be amazed how many Dodge Ram, Dakota, and Durango's you see down here. Jeeps, even though their design sucks now are still huge, though most people go for the old style wranglers. You see quite a few Dodge Chargers down here, most people get them and performance mod them, it's fairly easy to up the horse power to the wheels on most of the 6 cylinder chargers, many of the things you an do are more or less free. Much the same as doing a few mods on the 4.3L Vortec thats in my Blazer, or the 3.0L Vulcan v6 that was in the Taurus I use to have. I can't knock the Challenger, I want one myself. And by extension you see a lot of Chrysler 300's goin down the road down here.

Even though I don't think they make them any more, Dodge Stratus is and was a fairly popular vehicle. The Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim were popular for a long time.




RE: Thats entertaining
By RandomUsername3463 on 11/18/2009 12:14:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

I look at this and go, do you realize these people are working between 60 and 80 hours a week to make that 50k a year?? Most of it being mandatory and not optional. It wasn't, well if you wanna get some more money you can work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week.

My grandfather worked in a GM plant in Grand Rapids, MI for all his adult life & I never heard anything about him having to consistently work more than a standard work week. Knowing the conservative culture in that area during his lifetime, there would have been huge moral objections to working on Sunday.

Also, the way unions work, I seriously doubt that the average union employee worked more than 40-50 hour weeks. Maybe they did for the last couple years when they decided to try to keep companies from going bankrupt, but before 2000 I'd bet it was extremely rare.


RE: Thats entertaining
By Oregonian2 on 11/18/2009 3:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, how many of ya'll here think you can handle working on a line 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week??? Think the least they could of gotten was company partially paid insurance.


That's normal hours when working for a startup or even a long-time company working in start-up-like mode in a particular project department. I worked those kind of hours for about six years straight thereabouts. Got paid not a penny extra (was salaried as an engineer). Now the startup "half" of that, there was expectations of big payout with an IPO, but before the .COM crash and my company following (very indirect -- customers of customers crashed).


RE: Thats entertaining
By hashish2020 on 11/19/2009 12:30:18 AM , Rating: 1
Yea, sitting in front of a computer is ultra demanding compared to skilled trades work

The absolute bubble many DT readers live in is HILARIOUS.

Hey, I work ten times harder then you and I'm paid for only 15 hours of it, so I took a second job tutoring on top of it.

It still doesn't compare to the skilled trades, because it is all about programming, running experiments, teaching, you know, generally sitting on my ass and doing pussy work


RE: Thats entertaining
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2009 2:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yea, sitting in front of a computer is ultra demanding compared to skilled trades work


It is if you're in a startup working your buns off to make it successful before it goes bankrupt (which it will otherwise in a very short time when funding runs out because you have NO product going out the door in the meanwhile).


Sacrifices...
By Steve1981 on 11/18/2009 9:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, I would say it's the "sacrifices" that were expected of certain key stakeholders that make Chrysler's future iffy.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that screwing over bondholders and trying to dictate terms to your suppliers while expecting them to make large investments on your behalf for parts development doesn't work well in the long run.




RE: Sacrifices...
By mdogs444 on 11/18/2009 9:13:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that screwing over bondholders and trying to dictate terms to your suppliers while expecting them to make large investments on your behalf for parts development doesn't work well in the long run.

Not unless you're a union thug who threatens them with a tire iron.


RE: Sacrifices...
By pityme on 11/18/2009 10:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
Where is Jimmy Hoffa when we need him??


UAW is the killer
By Roy2001 on 11/18/2009 12:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Rep. Peters points out that the unions made significant sacrifices during the bankruptcy process. "
================================================= ===
Why they did not do this much much earlier?




RE: UAW is the killer
By Obsoleet on 11/19/2009 11:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why they did not do this much much earlier?


Because the popular bandwagon that unions are bad for the country isn't true. A lot of the benefits salaried employees receive came from the unions getting increased benefits for themselves, and the salaried side having to keep pace. The overall race for a better standard of living that unions provided, increased the quality of life for Americans from WW2 till today.
Only encouraging companies to leave the country through certain political policies has decreased our standard of living in recent decades. Politicians working for the corporations, instead of ensuring trade policies were well balanced and fair to the USA is what pushed companies to find it so desirable to produce elsewhere, and ship on a boat everything back.

Unions being bad for the country? They aren't. In the current crisis, union jobs are the only good paying jobs left.
This coming from a university alum who has a high paying job in a unionized company, but of course I'm on the salaried side. In the real world, being a pragmatist and not an armchair ideologue goes a long way. Businesses can operate with unions and still massively profit wildly like my multinational. All while patriotically contributing to our economy by paying family wages to all of it's employees.

For the companies, yes they would be "bad", but as they say "management gets the union they deserve". So it's their choice to have a union or not. Treat your employees well, and you won't have them unionizing.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki