Replacing car-haul union workers breaks Chrysler's bailout commitment

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100113/OPINION03/1130316/1031/opinion03

Last Updated: January 13. 2010 1:00AM
James P. Hoffa

Automakers at the North American International Auto Show will do their best to persuade the public that they're successfully reinventing themselves.

On display will be vehicles based on batteries, hybrids and other advanced powertrains. Fiat-Chrysler will show off Ferraris and Maseratis as well as new trim levels for the Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Nitro and Journey.

What you won't see are the broken promises behind the spectacle. After receiving a $14 billion bailout gift from U.S. taxpayers, Fiat-Chrysler is destroying good American jobs.

Chrysler is able to participate in this year's auto show for one reason: the generosity of America's middle class. In addition to the taxpayer bailout, millions of people who work for a living tightened their belts for Chrysler's sake to protect jobs -- their own job, their family member's job, their neighbor's job. The United Auto Workers union made painful economic concessions to keep the company afloat. The men and women who deliver new Chryslers to dealers agreed to cuts in pay and benefits of up to 17.5 percent.

Now Chrysler wants to save money on the car-haul companies that deliver new vehicles to dealers. The company is demanding cuts that will drive their longtime car-haul carriers into bankruptcy. Thousands of good-paying car-haul jobs will be lost.

The cost to have union drivers like Teamsters haul new cars is only four-tenths of 1 percent of the vehicle's total cost. The unemployment and other social costs of wiping out thousands of longstanding jobs far outweigh any potential benefit to the automaker.

FULL story at link.

[laughingliberal]

1. #%$&*(#(#) $&%^% nt

[Vincardog]

2. #%$&*(#(#) $&%^% nt

[safeinOhio]

4. Loading and unloading car hauler and rail cars

is dangerous work. Been there, done that.

[Snotcicles]

6. Where at and for what company? nt

[safeinOhio]

11. Multi=level load, unload for FoMoCo.

you?

[A HERETIC I AM]

13. Snotcicles and I hauled out of the same yard for a while. He's still there.

(Sorry, Snotster! Didn't mean to jump the gun)

Flat Rock, Michigan.

SafeinOhio, you just loaded and/or unloaded rail cars, right? Or did you operate open rack car haul trucks?

The reason I ask, is because those open-rack transporters don't get loaded by yard personnel. The drivers load their own trucks. Your post above is a bit confusing.

[safeinOhio]

16. Yep, just RR cars

lined up loads for my teamster union Brothers in Wayne. Saw you guys working at a dead run like we were for the piece work pay. My hat goes off to you guys and the hard work you do. I'm guessing the work we did is also non-union now.

[Union Yes]

3. And the Dem Party stands silent as corporate America eviscerates organized labor. knr nt

[amborin]

12. +100000

[madrchsod]

5. Silvio is`t the only big asshole in Italy....

[defendandprotect]

7. k

[defendandprotect]

8. k

[Stinky The Clown]

9. This seems to be a pattern. Bailout then instead of thanks, a giant middle finger.

The banksters. The car makers.

Wait till the insurance motherfuckers do it, too.

And nobody in power gives a fat shit.

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. Biggest Teamster car-haul company to be affected by this will be Cassens.

http://www.cassens.com/

In the Detroit area, Cassens hauled Chrysler.

E & L hauled Ford ( I worked for E & L )

AAG Hauled GM. (I worked for AAG as well, on a "follow the work" rule, when E&L lost a contract)

All three occasionally hauled out of the others yards, but it was the above set up for years.

Cassens has been moving Chrysler products for decades.
E&L doesn't exist anymore. They got bought by Performance Transportation Services which also owned several other union carriers. PTS had big problems and it looks like they went under too.

BTW, E&L transport, when I worked for them in 1999-2000 was the longest continually operating auto transport firm in the US. During WWII, when US domestic auto production virtually shut down, E&L stayed busy by moving bomber fuselages from Ford's River Rouge facility to Willow Run.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Uh, we bailed out the auto *manufacturers*

I didn't realize that meant we also needed to bail out everybody who was in any way vaguely associated with the automobile industry.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. If you call moving your new car from the factory to the dealership...

"vaguely associated", I'm curious what you would call directly associated.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. So we bail out them and the dealerships too?

What about Jiffy Lube?

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. From the OP:

Now Chrysler wants to save money on the car-haul companies that deliver new vehicles to dealers. The company is demanding cuts that will drive their longtime car-haul carriers into bankruptcy. Thousands of good-paying car-haul jobs will be lost.

The cost to have union drivers like Teamsters haul new cars is only four-tenths of 1 percent of the vehicle's total cost. The unemployment and other social costs of wiping out thousands of longstanding jobs far outweigh any potential benefit to the automaker.

When you see on the Mulroney sticker the line for "Transportation" or similar language, you should be aware of something. The car buyer is paying that, NOT Chrysler or GM or Ford or any other manufacturer. There is a Ford dealer literally right across the street from Wayne Assembly where the Expeditions and Navigators were assembled. The vehicles sold by that dealer that were built 300 yards away carried the same transportation costs as a dealer in Butte Montana or Fairbanks Alaska.

It's much like the postal service in this regard. It costs you the same to mail a letter across town as it does across the country.

I don't buy the idea that Chrysler is looking to cut costs this way because those costs are passed on to the car buyer.

I don't see you complaining about that.

FWIW, you pay the same sort of fee when you buy a refrigerator. Someone has to pay to move the goods, and it is almost always the end user.
edited for sentence structure.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say.

So let me make an assertion and see if it agrees with what you're saying: I highly doubt that any savings obtained in this area is going to be passed on to the customer by Chrysler. This appears to be purely a move to improve their bottom line, not to lower prices.

Would you say that's correct or am I totally misreading what you've stated?

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. No, you aren't misreading me.

And I agree that none of any savings they might realize would be passed on to the customer.

I just don't buy the idea that Chrysler is going to save money because the costs are already being paid by the customer.

The fees charged to transport cars could be raised by $100.00 per car and it is likely no car buyer would bitch. After all, you buy one car every...what? 5 years? Would another hundred bucks make that much difference?

The point I am trying to make is that I just simply do not buy the car makers proposal. How does cutting costs in this very specific area - truck transport - going to help them when they are already compensated for these costs by the customer?

[Dr.Phool]

22. I got something you can fo with Jiffy Lube.

Every time I see one of your posts, it has some kind of anti-union, anti-worker, anti-liberal screed attached to it. I won't see them any more.

Good riddance.

[Omaha Steve]

21. We are not bailing out the truckers

How do you figure that?