GM payback

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Look at it this way, they had a loan just in case, be glad they did not need it and so they gave it back. better our own automobile company than some effing asian thieves.

I dont really agree. They paid back the loans so they could borrow more, at a better interest rate.

[whell]

I thought this thread might do with some resurrecting, especially in light of Dan Akerson's comments today:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...CeXfQD9I98J181

And, what happened to a good chunk of that bailout money? It has been said it "saved GM". However, a significant obligation that was crushing GM was pension obligations. Looks like we also propped up the unions.

http://detnews.com/article/20100916/...-find-politics

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

And, what happened to a good chunk of that bailout money? It has been said it "saved GM". However, a significant obligation that was crushing GM was pension obligations. Looks like we also propped up the unions.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Union members have always benefited from having contracts that protect their benefits.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

My two oldest brothers, ( I have a lot of siblings.), are both retired GM guys. Ed, is a union guy, John is a retired engineer/middle management type. Ed still has his pension and retiree health benefits, although his health benefits now come from the UAW, not GM. John has lost both, his pension went to PBGC (Federal Government) and he is now on Medicaid. Both are in their late sixties.

Straight from the source. From people on the front line.

There you have it,

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Looks like we also propped up the unions.

omg!

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You say that like it's a bad thing. Union members have always benefited from having contracts that protect their benefits.

Regards,

D-Ray

That's not quite the the whole point that is made in the Detroit News article, if you looked at it.

[merrylander]

Had they followed Senator Corker's plan everyone would have been dumped in the toilet.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

That's not quite the the whole point that is made in the Detroit News article, if you looked at it.

I read it and I was rejecting the author's rejection of the contract argument. We have twice been engaged in litigation in which, because of the contractual
rights established for retirees, we were able to protect the health benefits for the union retirees, but the company was able to screw the non-union employees. To put in you terms, those who voluntarily reject union representation to not receive the same benefits.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I read it and I was rejecting the author's rejection of the contract argument. We have twice been engaged in litigation in which, because of the contractual
rights established for retirees, we were able to protect the health benefits for the union retirees, but the company was able to screw the non-union employees. To put in you terms, those who voluntarily reject union representation to not receive the same benefits.

Regards,

D-Ray

thank you for weighing in RAY-MAN

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I read it and I was rejecting the author's rejection of the contract argument. We have twice been engaged in litigation in which, because of the contractual rights established for retirees, we were able to protect the health benefits for the union retirees, but the company was able to screw the non-union employees. To put in you terms, those who voluntarily reject union representation to not receive the same benefits.

Regards,

D-Ray

I'd accept your position if your cases also involved the Federal Government assuming the liabilities of companies, as well as taking on direct oversight for those companies.