Comments on: Chrysler Bankruptcy: What Are The Workers Owed?

By: Jeff in Miami Beach

Jeff in Miami Beach — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:22:52 +0000

There are two realities to the above column. First according to the bankruptcy courts the Bond holders get first dibs on the cash and assets as well they should. They risked their money for a chance to make the company grow.

The Unions on the other hand did not mandate a set aside for benefits that they knew would have to be paid. The Union knowing the company was having problems didn’t come to the table with their own bailout in the way of a loan to the company to keep it afloat. The unions also were there only for their piece of the pie and never really helped the workers.

Unions have yet to evolve into a resource for their workers. In Sweden unions work for several companies, large and small businesses, if a company is about to lay off workers or fire one the union is there to help them survive until they get them a new job and will even train them for better jobs. Now there is a reason for unions not to milk a company until dead and even when dead, try to drink the blood that belongs to the bond holders.

By: Roger

Roger — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:04:13 +0000

Doesn’t anyone see the irony of a foreign car company (Fiat)becoming a major owner of Chrysler without investing any money into the company? They Fiat want to take advantage of Chryslers dealerships. Chrysler is attempting to keep its market share in the US and a foreign company is bringing their cars into the dealerships to compete with Chryslers line up of cars. If Fiat was to bring money to the table like every other investor is required to do maybe the pensions would not be in jeoprady. Hopefully they do not go to the PGB, because they will lose their medical abd 50% of their pensions. Ask the workers from the steel industry how their pensions were affected by the PGB benefits.

By: Bull

Bull — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:37:28 +0000

To the several commenters that demand that the promise of pre-age-65 retiree healthcare tp the UAW workers be kept, would you plase answer this EXACT question….

If the company does not have the funds to do so, so that the gov’t is the ultimate payor (meaning TAXPAYERS), why is the UAW group entitled to this while the many “others” in the same situation are not equally given this, and yet the “others” (being Taxpayers) will pay for the UAW’s benefits?

I believe EVERYONE should treated equally …. universal healthcare …. not subsidized pre-age-65 healthcare ONLY for UAW members at taxpayers’ expense.

By: Cynical Synapse

Cynical Synapse — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:21:21 +0000

The situation of the “Big 3″ has been dehumanized by focusing on legacy costs, product mix, and inflexibility of the UAW.

Legacy costs is simply a euphemism for retirees, a cost which the so-called transplants don’t have. The US automakers have been in business for a century or more, but the transplants are all less than 10 years old. And in their homelands, the government helps with pensions and health care. The so-called legacy costs does not provide an equitable comparison.

As for what the workers are owed, the simple answer is what they were promised. They’re entitled to the good faith benefits—pension and health care—they were promised. They contributed to a defined benefit pension plan

By: VRB

VRB — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:07:59 +0000

Bull,
Be careful in your arrogance. You wouldn’t want to be seen panhandling in your old age or need someone to wipe your ass when you loose it.

By: Amy

Amy — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:25:40 +0000

It’s a horribly complicated situation, and yet, a deal’s a deal. When Chrysler told my dad they wanted him to retire early and they would pay him x number of dollars for the rest of his life per month, plus medical expenses, should no one be required to uphold that promise? I’d rather pay an extra 40 cents per paycheck than watch entire communities fall apart.
Even cutting the pensions by 25% will put the millions of retires below what they need in order to make ends meet. I must protest if anyone thinks the retires aren’t planning ahead for this, either, but with so few jobs available, and being over 55, who’s going to hire these people? I don’t know the exact statistics, but what’s going to happen in Michigan with welfare expenses if even half of the retires from Chrysler can’t pay their bills?

By: Bull

Bull — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:26:05 +0000

quoting …”They worked a lifetime and deferred a significant amount of current compensation in exchange for the company’s promise that, upon their retirement, they would be paid a fixed stream of cash and provided with help with their medical bills. Then, without their knowledge or consent, the company chose to not set aside enough money to honor that promise. In effect, the company borrowed money from them without even discussing the terms of the loan….So what we have is a bunch of old men and widows being forced to lend the company, for whom they worked a lifetime, some portion of the value of their pension and their health care. This loan was made on terms on which they have no input and they have no ability to liquidate their position.”

The support by the administration for honoring at least a portin of the unfunded retiree healthcare promises is quite understandable. But when you step back …… many many many companies have folded with retire healthcare simple canceled (yes, its legal). The only difference here is that the UAW group is large, loud, and it’ss a hot potato for the administration. But the UAW retirees are no more deserving of this than others before them that did not get it. All that being said, if the source of the funds to pay for it comes from moneys otherwise payable to the bondholders, I’m not inclined to protest loudly (although the logic is still lacking). If however, the US Taaxpayers will now be subsidizing pre-Medicare-age retiree healthcare for this select group(but not others .. e.g., the groups to which I & amny others belong), I PROTEST ! No one is providing ME with subsidized pre-age-65 retiree health care, and MY taxes must NOT be used to subsidize OTHERS (e.g., UAW retirees) in the same situation.