By on August 29, 2015

marchionne

Sergio Marchionne seems to be taking a different tactic in this year’s UAW negotiations. Instead of threatening to take product out of North America and send it to China, the head of FCA is playing to the hearts and minds of the union membership, even going so far as to admit all automakers have screwed workers in the past.

“To be perfectly honest, we’ve all fucked with the UAW, right? We were threatened by them, so we took all the pickup trucks that we sell — and 90 percent of those pickup trucks are sold in this country, right — we took it away, and then we delocalized them” Marchionne told Automotive News’ Larry P. Vellequette.

Marchionne believes he and UAW President Dennis Williams “share a view about the fact that, in some fashion, to the extent that we are successful in creating wealth out of these car companies, real wealth, then we should be able to distribute that,” he said.

Bringing Mexican pickup production back to the United States would be a massive win for the UAW. Since March 2014, Ram has sold fewer than 30,000 pickups only once (January 2015).

Ram pickups are built at FCA’s Warren Assembly Plant in Michigan and Saltillo Truck Assembly.

“What a wonderful idea, distributing cash when you have it,” Marchionne said.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

87 Comments on “Marchionne: “To Be Perfectly Honest, We’ve All Fucked with the UAW, Right?...”


  • avatar
    anomaly149

    That picture is perfect! “…and we all enjoyed it to!”

    Sergio knows where his bread is buttered; guess he’s trying to play the good cop to Ford’s “MOVE IT TO CUATITLAN!” bad cop.

  • avatar

    All American brands should take a thorough look at themselves. I mean, the bluntness to offshore production to China, and still expect Americans to buy “American”. Look at the Germans – best paid autoworkers in the world and their cars that much appreciated that Chinese prefer the more expensive “Made in Germany” BMWs over the ones manufactured in China.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      The purpose of electoral politics is to make politicians do what the people want, and that is right. The fact that Marchionne is obviously pandering to public sentiment doesn’t make him wrong. In fact, whatever his other faults, I believe he is right.

      And to Voyager’s point, consumers need to punish GM if it makes good on its threat to punish the American public by damaging the national economy in order to punish its own workers, just to bump up its own stock price — all after it owes its own continued survival to the rest of us Americans. At a human level, GM’s stance is unacceptable. At the bottom line, we’re all in this together.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        I suspect most of the american public is cheering Ford and GM on for taking a bold stance against the UAW.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          raph,
          I tend to agree with your sentiment.

          If one looks at the makeup of the US’s or any even Australia’s workforce you will see that unionised workers are in fact the minority by a large margin.

          Those who are not in a union tend to berate the unionist for their behaviour.

          I do believe most major unions are coming to the realisation that it is the organisations that they work for that actually pay them for their efforts, not the other way round.

          The biggest hurdle for the US and Australia is for governments to reel in the public/civil servants at all levels of government from local to national.

          In many case here in Australia the public servant is actually on a much better wage than their counterparts in the private sector.

          The actions of unions ie, the UAW has brought about their own demise.

          Plus, if one looks at the US auto industry of late you will find the US has become more of an assembly point for vehicles.

          The US has increased production markedly with little growth in auto jobs. The manufacture of vehicle components is waning and coming in from China and Mexico.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          “I suspect most of the american public is cheering Ford and GM on for taking a bold stance against the UAW.”

          Most of the American public has been successfully persuaded that it benefits economically from Walmart’s low, low prices, too.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Here, let me inform you on the American public:

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx

          The lowest labor unions ever polled in the US was in 2008. Since then they’ve rebounded to 1984 levels and will likely be rising in the foreseeable future as more Americans end up in service jobs and fight for their right to unionize. The echo-chamber of right-wing white guys voices at TTAC do not represent the American people.

          The UAW has an unenviable position of having to fight 3 giants who have a public relations apparatus aimed at claiming anything wrong is the Union’s fault and that price increases are the problem of unions (even when the Japanese are unionized).

          Long story short, Marchionne being honest is a step in the right direction as the dwindling demographics of anti-union fighters are going to make that battle only more uphill as the US changes. But hey, you learned something today. :D

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            Would love to see a poll regarding public sentiment towards the UAW, my guess is you wouldn’t even get a majority of support from actual members. (At least not if the Tier 2 members were allowed to respond)

          • 0 avatar
            JD23

            Why don’t you mention the support for right-to-work laws illustrated by the same poll?

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            82% support right-to-work laws according to the same poll

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Seems you mentioned the 800lb Gorilla in the room. Poor management by Ford, GM and in the past Chrysler have contributed a lot too their woes. GM , Chrysler ” died” but have been revived. Ford has a lot of debt and appears lost

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          RobertRyan,
          Yes, I do believe you are also correct in the mismanagement of the US auto industry.

          There are many factors that are affecting the flow of the auto industry, from emissions, protectionism, regulatory requirements, etc.

          I think it is about time that the government stands back with a hands off approach and let the dead wood fall away.

          This will allow for the stronger business models to succeed. I’d bet Tesla would be one of the first to go under.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        UAW f**ked with the taxpayers, creditors, and shareholders; and Americans probably couldn’t care less about the UAW at this point. It might be cheaper to move production to China to prevent another stock-bailout of UAW’s next generation employees.

        Unions are not bad, but the UAW (like most American unions) is demonstrably awful. Selling workers down the river for a small bump in pay. They have no one left to sell.

        The US doesn’t understand socialism, and namby-pamby 20th-century socialism isn’t compatible with our culture. But we keep trying to be socially conscious, and all of our attempts at social policy and collective bargaining ultimately end in economic calamity and human suffering. Innovate and evolve or just admit that we suck at socialism, and declare Reagan as a demi-god. I don’t care which, but no more awful social policies dreamed up by our parents/grandparents during their acid trips.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          TW5, I have to take issue with several of your statements and the reasoning that appears to be behind them.

          “It might be cheaper to move production to China to prevent another stock-bailout of UAW’s next generation employees.”

          “Cheaper” by what measure? Your reference to “another stock-bailout” obviously implies that UAW was the primary/intended beneficiary of the GM/Chrysler bailout in ’09. In fact, they were only the incidental beneficiaries of an expenditure that played a huge role in preventing the next Great Depression as the nation’s largest manufacturing industry was about to collapse whole, taking down millions of middle-class manufacturing jobs and everything that went with them: income taxes, state and local taxes that kept whole communities afloat, countless families who would have sunk into poverty, and in some cases alcoholism, crime, divorce, delinquencies, and suicides. I never hear this kind of bitter criticism directed at the vastly larger, and vastly less justifiable, bailout funds poured into the pockets of the “too big to fail” Wall Street bankers, who continue today to do you personally an incalculably greater amount of harm that unfortunately goes 100% unreported on Fox News.

          “We keep trying to be socially conscious, and all of our attempts at social policy and collective bargaining ultimately end in economic calamity and human suffering.” This is utterly unconnected to reality. Social Security, just for one, has lifted countless millions of seniors OUT of would-be poverty and suffering. The role of “social policy” provided through government, or through quasi-government entities like Japan Inc. or the government-certified labor unions that co-own some of German’s largest enterprises, is absolutely essential in every single First World civilization in the world, and I defy you to name me a single country in the history of the world that has provided a decent life for most of its citizens without it.

          We’ve already “declared Reagan a demigod.” We’ve done it by accepting media-peddled nonsense that “government is the problem,” by allowing ourselves to be brainwashed into believing that our fellow citizens are at fault for our own economic stresses because some of them make a decent living — such as auto workers and the latest scapegoat, teachers (of all people).

          Stole this from another website: a CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. “You better watch him,” the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.” (Daily Kos, for the record.)

          Recognize yourself? Hint: You don’t have most of the cookies, and most of the rest of us don’t either. But those who do are delighted they have you thinking the way you are.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            The UAW was the intended beneficiary of the bailouts, hence their equity stake after government reorganization. Not only was their ownership controversial, but it was also counter to US bankruptcy laws. UAW has thrown away millions of manufacturing jobs with their votes and bargaining antics. Why would anyone fret about protecting the remaining UAW jobs? I’m not convinced that protecting them brings us any real benefit.

            Regarding SS and MED, I’d suggest you do more research. The programs are so poorly administered that we’ve simply traded poverty amongst the elderly for poverty amongst the young, particularly children under-18. The two poverty metrics are not directly related, but FICA taxes have removed employment opportunity for many Americans, and the employer mandate has added to the needless persecution of lower-class citizens. Institutional lower-class poverty has caused poverty rates amongst the young to climb. Also, Medicaid has been converted into LTC for seniors, not child medical care.

            Perhaps America’s propensity to sacrifice young for old could be attributed to some sort of ancestor worship instinct, but when you discover how Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security work, you realize the persecution is deliberate. “Taking care of the elderly” is good politics. Needless to say, we’re not taking care of the elderly as much as we are impoverishing the young and able-bodied, and it’s been this way since the 70s.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            The only nonsense here is the stuff TCD peddles. Unions are cartels that exact and transfer income from others into the pockets of their members. There was a time for unions, but that is well gone.

            Detroit is the enduring symbol of the Dem party/Union axis that took the wealthiest US city and made it the poorest. Unlike German unions, the UAW adopted the British model and organized against the interests of their industry. Japan has company unions that work in the interest of their company, not an industry-wide union that cares little of the survival of a particular company, UAW style.

            It is no wonder that non-UAW auto production in the US is thriving.

            Most informed Americans revile unions, especially the UAW. TCD is the brainwashed, not them. They know by experience.

          • 0 avatar
            thornmark

            >>Regarding SS and MED<<

            Always destined to implode as the population aged – Europe and Japan and every other welfare state TCD mentions are suffering from the same situation. He just is too ill-informed to know that.

            Same w/ unionized government employee pensions and benefits – his party made promises to buy them votes that in the future the public cannot ultimately afford to keep. That’s how Jerry Brown got his deathgrip on CA and why CA is in such dire shape in the LT.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            TW5, I’ve accepted your invitation to do “more research” on Social Security and Medicare.

            The outcome: a 2013 survey of Americans by Pew Research showed that just 17% of REPUBLICANS favored cuts in Social Security, and only 21% of Republicans supported cuts to Medicare. More Republicans actually support making each program BIGGER than making it smaller.

            To be supported by such overwhelming majorities of the public at large, it’s statistically obvious that most younger people also agree with these programs, not feel “victimized” by them (unless you believe that only greedy, fearful old people identify themselves as Republicans — and I’m sure you don’t).

            In sum, it would appear that most Americans have formed their opinions based on the same lack of “experience” as mine, and are just as “brainwashed and ill-informed” as I am. I feel a bit sorry for you, really — it must be lonely up there on Olympus, enlightened all by yourself.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            More fact-checking for Thornmark:

            The reason California’s government is in financial crisis is exactly the opposite of what he claims. The state doesn’t have budget crises because it demands money from the rich to finance society’s essentials, but because it CAN’T.

            Reason: Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, Thornmark’s fellow water-carrier for the rich, suceeded decades ago in crippling the state’s ability to raise taxes to keep up wiht the state’s economic and population growth. Now you have abominations like Oakland threatening to close 17 of its 19 public library branches (how exactly does this help the downtrodden, Thorn?), and the state contemplating the closure or non-maintenance of its state parks, places of irreplaceable beauty that are an asset not only to the state but to the entire nation.

            Not every state in America is in fiscal crisis — mostly just the ones that have been hogtied from taxing the rich, like Kansas and Wisconsin. Asking the rich to give some of their money so millions don’t sink into poverty works, for one very simple reason: Today more than at any point in American history, they have almost all the money.

            In sum, whether discussing tax policy or labor policy, you don’t enrich the bottom tier of Americans by shaking down those in the middle while leaving those at the top untouched. Education. It’s a great thing. Try some.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            More fact-checking for Thornmark:

            The reason California’s government is in financial crisis is exactly the opposite of what he claims. The state doesn’t have budget crises because it demands money from the rich to finance society’s essentials, but because it CAN’T.

            Reason: Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, Thornmark’s fellow water-carrier for the rich, suceeded decades ago in crippling the state’s ability to raise taxes to keep up wiht the state’s economic and population growth. Now you have abominations like Oakland threatening to close 17 of its 19 public library branches (how exactly does this help the downtrodden, Thorn?), and the state contemplating the closure or non-maintenance of its state parks, places of irreplaceable beauty that are an asset not only to the state but to the entire nation.

            Not every state in America is in fiscal crisis — mostly just the ones that have been hogtied from taxing the rich, like Kansas and Wisconsin. Asking the rich to give some of their money so millions don’t sink into poverty works, for one very simple reason: Today more than at any point in American history, they have almost all the money.

            In sum, whether discussing tax policy or labor policy, you don’t enrich the bottom tier of Americans by shaking down those in the middle while leaving those at the top untouched. Education. It’s a great thing. Try some.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The UAW VEBAs were creditors to GM and Chrysler. Anyone who understands the basics of Chapter 11 can understand why a creditor would be provided equity in order to win its approval of a bankruptcy plan.

            You clowns have had six years to figure out stuff that could be Googled in half as many minutes.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Oh….Pch101,
            Again you misinform…………clown.

            I do recall having this very debate with you a couple of years ago or so.

            So……this board you speak of, did the UAW choose over half who sat on it!!!!!!!!!!

            Hmmmm………you do misinform and distort information to suit whatever organization you work for……

            Clown!

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            My stalker from Down Under is so dumb that he can’t even figure out that I don’t read anything that he writes.

            I demand that TTAC provide me with a better quality chihuahua to follow me around. I really deserve better.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Pch101,
            You very well know that the UAW selected the VEBA representatives in the Courts.

            Do you not consider this a biased approach?

            Or, is it just?

            So, with bias on a board which outcome do you think would of been delivered?

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Too many times in the past, both sides of the UAW/OEM argument have held steadfast to certain demands and maybe that is the problem, neither side wants to give in even a little bit and as a result the problem becomes one of who will hold out the longest instead of how the two can work together for a common goal. Maybe, just maybe, Marccione is going to change the playing field enough that the UAW will actually buy into the game instead of fighting it.

      FCA has made some real changes in the Chrysler products. Not necessarily in their appearance yet, but definitely in how they approach the product and their services. The problem is that in order to get the right services, all to often you have to go over their dealerships’ heads. FCA has gone out of its way to help me with an ongoing problem when two different dealerships have denied any problem exists. What I’m hoping is that with the new designs steering product away from the old Daimler designs, we’ll see a sea change in product reliability for the better. If the UAW backs this shift then the dealerships will end up falling in line as well–or losing their franchises.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Perhaps Trump is correct…if you want to sell it here, build it here. The result of NAFTA has been to export US manufacturing jobs and to allow us to sell goods and services with a higher technological/educational input. Except that recent years have shown a collapse of tax revenues and an under funding of education, leading to shorter school schedules and more crowded classrooms. That should help US workers compete with overseas labor…right???? The unintended result has been to lower the standard of living here. Do you want fries with that job???

    • 0 avatar
      Spartan

      The UAW would be a lot less of a PITA if it weren’t for NAFTA.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      We underfund education by spending more per student than most of the world does. Thank the teachers unions, which want to do the least work with the least accountability for the most compensation.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        CJ you just described the world’s workforce. Most call it the Peter Principle. You’re always going full breitbart on Teacher’s Unions with very little facts other than rhetoric, but defend Police Unions without noticing the irony.

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          Except that he’s correct. For decades now there has been massive increased spending in edu in the US w/ little positive effect.

          If that occurred in a private enterprise it would likely go out of business, but since primary and secondary edu is essentially a government monopoly all the usual interest groups call for more funding rather the accountability they and unions especially decry.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          I don’t defend police unions ever. The irony of Obama trying to create social unrest by turning one bunch of entitled malcontents created by liberal policies on another bunch of entitled malcontents created by liberal policy is hilarious to watch for me. I don’t have a dog in the fight between unaccountable public employee unions and people that were stripped of their families and values by LBJ’s ‘great’ society. Did you notice that the worst problems are occurring places where no conservative has had a bit of influence in our lifetimes? It should make you think.

          Even if you believe that nobody wants to do a good job or be expected to do a good job, you still have to see that public employee unions don’t bargain with people spending their own money to buy union votes. Democrats buy public employee unions’ votes with taxpayers’ money, creating the closed-loop corruption killing most levels of government today. Why are cops perceived as unaccountable thugs? Because their unions make them unaccountable. Why are teachers that aren’t considered trustworthy with kids being paid to sit in empty classrooms? Because their unions make them unaccountable. Duh.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Oh, if only you were even half-right, CJ. I do agree with many of your points, but if you paid any attention at all to historical politics, it’s not the Democratic regions that have caused the worst problems–only the most visible ones. But that seems to be changing as we read and hear more and more about people in Conservative areas killing and being killed for no apparent reason–all the more visible because these have been considered quiet, law-abiding communities for decades! Strangely, these are also the areas that now try to suppress individual rights and liberties *in the name of* individual rights and liberties. Does that really make sense?

            And you might be surprised at some of those other areas too. You claim that the worst problems are occurring where no conservative has had a bit of influence in our lifetimes, yet I live in a decidedly “redneck” area in the heart of one of the most populous regions of our nation. The problems aren’t from people coming into our state and county but rather from people living within said state and county. Again, most of the problems come from people insisting on individual rights and liberties trying to impose their own will on others to take away individual rights and liberties.

            I, by the way, am a Republican living in that state and county and I am disgusted by these people. We complain about extremists from other countries while ignoring the extremists within our own. Is there any wonder why we are reviled by so many countries in the world? Even our supposed ‘best friends’, allies in more than one global conflict over the last two centuries, handle us with kid gloves; expecting us to bite back at them and more than once getting bit by us one way or another. It’s time to take a good, hard look at our country and see where it’s really going.

      • 0 avatar
        alluster

        Pentagon burning through $2B a day to play cop, 5000 miles away is not the problem. Let’s cut education spending and our kids can sell pizza and insurance to each other when they grow up.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @gasser,
      NAFTA has done more damage than anything else. ” Benefits” have been illusory. Prior to NAFTA, the “. Big Three” we’re just that, now they trail the Germans, Japanese and Koreans Globally

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      If you think we underfund education, you haven’t taken a baby step towards understanding the problem.

      In general, we throw money at every social problem, and we don’t discover the ill-effects until a few years before we die, when we’re paranoid about whether we have enough money for SS and MED. Then new generations of voters elect to throw more money at our problems, which turns every 65+ socialist freeloader into a limited-government (but not limited SS or MED) tea-partier.

      The US is like a fat person believing they’ll never get in shape unless they consume more calories so they have more energy for workouts. People don’t know enough to see how clueless they really are, and the junk-policy industrial complex LOVES IT.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        Agreed we throw money at social problems; however, I believe many of the failures are attributal because we don’t, like true Americans, actually want to do the work that accompanies spending. It’s so easy to say “look at how much money is wasted on Program X and Z” and not mention the crushing oversight and micromanagement or severe lack of vision or no-teeth policies or no enforcement when they are teeth or, most likely in the U.S., death at the feet of Political demagoguery. Then we say, “Haha! Told you spending on social policy is stupid. Let’s add more to the Defense Budget” (mia culpa, I work for DoD).

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        TW5, you are aware that the #1 recipient of government spending — by a huge margin — is not social welfare programs, but the military.

        Right?

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          @tonycd, in the last completed 2014 FY budget, the largest spending agency was Social Security, by a hefty amount over military spending, with Medicare and “Income Security” – unemployment and welfare program payments to states – now within hailing distance of military spending.

          In the completed FY 2014 actual spending, SS spending was $857 billion, Military was $620 billion, Income Security was $542 billion, and Medicare was $519 billion. The social spending for those three agencies/programs totaled over $1.9 Trillion in a $3.5 trillion budget.

          When you consider that there are other social spending programs run by other departments, while the Pentagon budget includes military pensions and pension payments for current civilian employees of the military, the gap is even wider. BTW – the Veterans’ administration is a civilian agency that runs benefit programs and hospitals for veterans and is not under military control.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @tonycd

          I’m only aware of the fact that you’ve never looked at a federal budget. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are nearly 50% of the budget. Military is 21%, including Veteran’s Affairs. HHS and SSA are both bigger than the DOD.

          The military is known for employing more people than any other bureaucracy by a wide margin. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when 50% of the budget was military spending, the economy was booming, and poverty rates were plummeting. That’s the military’s other claim to fame.

          I’m not saying we should remilitarize, but it’s amusing how many lefties want to tear down the DoD, though it’s one of the only successful social programs we’ve ever administered in this country.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            Okay, Budget 101. The military stands alone as by far the largest recipient of federal DISCRETIONARY spending — in other words, the dispensing of dollars that varies from year to year. This is by contrast to those dollars already earmarked in advance and not subjected to year-by-year debate because they are essentially long-term arrangements that are, partisan shouting aside, accepted by all as the societal consensus (including by roughly 80% of Republican voters in a 2013 survey, and by flaming liberals such as Donald Trump).

            In addition, Lorenzo’s side comment that veterans programs are “not under military control” is utterly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter which part of the government directly channels the money. It’s spent on former miltary personnel, directly because of the expenses created by war, and would be wholly unnecessary if we didn’t finance foreign wars, fight them, recruit U.S. citizens with the promise of subsequent “non-military” educational and healthcare aid, and then maim a great many of them. No amount of massaging in the budget process makes this spending “non-military.”

            As for TW5’s claim that military spending is the most efficient method of spending for job creation and economic stimulation, the history of the post-Vietnam and post-Iraq war eras, with their massive deficits to pay for war followed by an extended crash to pay the piper, don’t seem to support your assertion.

            Finally, regarding your graciously moderate statement that “I’m not saying we should remilitarize” — according to the official non-inflation-adjusted statistics from the U.S. Government Office of Management and Budget, the United States in the last six years has ponied up for the six highest national military spending binges in the history of the world. Exactly when did we de-militarize?

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            Tony, you don’t read the budget, and you don’t understand the budgeting process. Furthermore, you’re making arguments about consensus, as if political consensus is going to make the economy grow or the checkbook balance.

            Socioeconomics doesn’t care how many stupid people agree about the most politically correct way to run the country. Programs either work or they don’t. If you like certain programs, figure out ways to make them work, rather than allowing them to gut the nation.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      gasser,
      The US trails it’s competitors globally due to it’s insular approach in the overall management of the US auto industry.

      It must align itself to what the rest of the world is doing. If it can’t achieve this, then the US taxpayer will continue to support inefficiencies.

      The US auto makers don’t produce what we want.

      The big money earners for the US auto manufacturers are full size pickups. This market is protect from external competition. So, in effect the US consumer is paying more than need be for a product.

      The US’s car segment is heavily reliant on imported platforms and tech.

      Back in the 50s and 60s the US auto industry did represent the largest market in the world, by a long shot.

      Now it is the second largest market and proportionally much smaller globally.

      The US must change, or it’s vehicle industry will either collapse or the taxpayer will continually fund the manufacturers’ to remain “competitive”.

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        “The US auto makers don’t produce what we want.”

        How is what a nation of Limey transportees want pertinent to this discussion? Take Robbie with you and go ride your roos.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          ” US Automakers do not produce what we want”
          Reason they are shrinking in Australia and losing Market share in NA

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          He is from the U.S. You?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            RobertRyan,
            I do get a laugh from my fellow “citizens” at times.

            I might change my name to “Big Al in Oz”!

            That might destroy the other Big Al from wherever, I think Zambia or Liberia.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            Yeah… Al, take Robbie back so he doesn’t try to get home on his own and end up in Austria.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Rideheight
            You can buy signs in Vienna, that say “There are no Kangaroos in Austria” Many tourist guides have been asked by U.S. visitors, where the Kangaroos are. LOL
            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SmtuTWiHBr0/UBBAKLWDkvI/AAAAAAAAB9I/kpw7g6IEnKk/s1600/_DSC4290.JPG

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      gasser,
      Your Donald Trump analogy is rather simplistic. Trump should know better than to pass comments as he had. He has made quite a few comments I would not of even made.

      This is not anti-American, but the US is in a similar position that the Euro nations were in a century or so ago. The US back then was the world’s best producer of consumer products back then, like China is today.

      The US back then, like China today was building the biggest of everything. The “things” that went to the hearts of American’s.

      Now the shoe is on the other foot and like the Europeans of a century ago the “Buy American” crowd don’t want to compete. The Europeans complained about the quality of American product, now the Americans complain about Chinese product.

      Look at the Europeans now. Do you want to end up like them? If the US locks itself out and become overly insular the world will pass them by.

      The US must lead and lead equitably or other’s will turn away. The US used to have 50% of the world’ wealth, now it has 19%, people will find what they want elsewhere, like what happened to the Europeans.

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    The unions gave us Obama, who improved the economy for the unions and no one else. My next truck will be a Nissan.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      Ummm… My google finance S&P500 chart thinks you’re full of s4!t. My employer has grown double digit over the last 7 years too. Yup, it’s your own fault if you haven’t prospered.
      Thanks Obama.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        That only matters if we know your employer. For example, if you work in healthcare or something linked to Government contracting you are only reenforcing the OP’s point.

    • 0 avatar
      agroal

      This from a typical union hater who has no clue as to how he also came to benefit from having weekends off, child labor laws, the 8 hour workday, minimum wage, paid vacations, health benefits, safety standards, sick days and unemployment compensation. If we want anymore crap out of you we’ll just squeeze your head.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        I for one love to have weekends off (most anyway), I also disagree with you regarding the minimum wage you mentioned or health benefits, safety standards, sickies, etc.

        I do believe you are living on past achievements.

        There was a time when horses (and other beasts of burden) were of much value to humans’. But the days when they were most in the world lived like serfs, in what could of been describe as lower than “Third World” standards.

        What has given the world the standards we have now was not the unions at all, but technology.

        Technology has given mankind the ability to concentrate on more than ploughing fields, making candles and the management of food.

        Like the horse I mentioned above are history now. Most horses are used for recreation, not as tools. They have literally been put to pasture.

        Like unions should be. The modern world has far more advanced instruments than unions to manage ourselves.

        • 0 avatar
          dolorean

          M8, hate to disagree with you, but since the Luddite rebellion against the encroachment of the loom factories, technology has done more for removing jobs than adding to them. There’s a reason we have so many burgers-n-fries establishments out there versus good middle class manufacturing or other employment. Even those that have higher education and a skill are not immune to the whim of a corporate overlord golden parachuting out of situation they drove the company into in the pursuit of maximum quarterly earnings.

          I disagree vehemently that we have far more advanced instruments than unions to manage ourselves. People like your lovely Rupert Murdoch have worked their entire lives devoted to destroying the very entity that would keep them from earning maximum profits for the top tier at the expense of the worker, and that’s the collective workforce. It’s the old Gengis Khan analogy of the bundle of sticks, together makes us strong and allows for leverage which has been steadily removed from the equation.

          Agreed that UAW and other unions had their heyday a long time ago and that they had massive problems that came with “seniority”, but they are still needed. People need a voice that is more than just a forgotten tomorrow hashtag.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        As usual, you unionists claim too much. You’ve bought your own propaganda. The world does not owe you some respect, nor does it have to bow down and kiss your ring, as most of the things on your list are provably not from union agitation. Why can’t you just say you try to maximize the benefit for your people while minimizing the work?

        I’m sure history.com is bought and paid for by the Pinkertons, but I find this 8 hour workday and weekends off claim by the pro-union crowd always specious:

        http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-workers-get-40-hour-week

        Why did Ford institute the 40 hour work week in 1926, and the Great Sit Down Strike was 1936-1937, with the UAW founded only in 1935? Why does history.com assert that Edsel Ford came up with this idea? Was he a secret union sympathizer?

        Ford measured everything. There are whole books about how he used KPIs to measure productivity and he experimented with various changes to life and environment and hours and shifts throughout his entire career – but he was doing this in the 1920s. Edsel Ford pointed out to old man Henry the obvious – productivity was maximized at around 40 hours a week.

        By 1913, Henry Ford tried 9 hours, six day shifts to boost productivity to match Model T sales. In 1914, Ford shifted to the three shift structure. Again, this is 21 years BEFORE the advent of the UAW. Therefore, they had an 8 hour workday – because that maximized productivity! (Source: HFHA.org)

        As far as I can tell, the idea of unemployment benefits was invented by the Liberal Party to fight the growth of the Labour Party in the UK. Wikipedia cites 1911. I can’t find anything credible to refute this. Now, the Labour Party was the trade union party…which means that this was an idea created by those specifically competing with the trade unionists for the leftist vote. Now, the first law on unemployment benefits in the United States was signed in Wisconsin in 1932…by a Republican. Again, it predates the 1935 establishment of the UAW.

        Safety standards were rarely brought about by direct union action. Rather, they came about after a crisis – politicians have not changed. Boss Tweed knew Rambo Emmanuel’s dictum “never let a crisis go to waste.” Maybe there’s some incremental improvement on the job itself….but isn’t that the other job of a union? Make the job easier and pay more? Wouldn’t you fire a union if you were asked to do unsafe things and nobody said word one against it? OSHA wasn’t created until 1970…would have to be quite an ineffective union to claim that their goal was national safety standards and have it take 35 years from the creation of the UAW until then.

        Given that the innovation everybody points to for Henry Ford is the $5 minimum wage – more than double the prevailing wage at the time – again, in 1914, 21 years before unionization of the auto industry…makes this a hard thing to award to the UAW and auto unions.

        I understand why unions would want to be rid of child labor; in this instance, sure, but remember, they wanted no child labor for the same reason that many a union also wanted no black labor – to maximize the wage of its members by restricting who could be in the labor force. So, in this one, it’s a good end, but let’s not pretend it was any nobility to it – if children work for peanuts, and they can do 1/5th the work of an adult man at 1/10th the price, they’ll squeeze out head-of-houselhold male labor, which a group of male laborers would want stamped out.

        Health benefits? During WWII, the War Labor Board had price controls and wage controls, but permitted the employer to buy health insurance. Therefore, the third party payer problem we have today…is because the unions did what unions are supposed to do – demand more compensation – and the employers took advantage of a tax break. So, I guess you can let unions own the peculiar American system of health benefits that are the worst of all worlds – not free market, not single payer. (Source Zana Benefits)

        You are correct that unions invented sick leave. The Australian unionists appear to have wanted that in the 1920s. I’ll point out that sick leave has no standards in America, apart from the Family and Medical Leave act from the Clinton years. So, again, does everybody need to kiss your ring because you took advantage of something self serving, and it doesn’t apply to everybody?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          MrGreenMan,
          Interesting and quite an accurate account.

          I see it this way. The workers are not much different than their bosses/owners.

          They want the biggest return for the least effort.

          The biggest difference is the workers are not prepared to take risk to advance, whereas the bosses/owners gambled and from the statistics I’ve seen only one in five actually still have a business ten years later.

          Many fail. This is where the union guy must realise they should be allowed to fail and lose all as well.

        • 0 avatar
          dolorean

          “I’m sure history.com is bought and paid for by the Pinkertons, but I find this 8 hour workday and weekends off claim by the pro-union crowd always specious:”

          That’s because you’re limiting your small view to only the UAW. You’re forgetting the steel, mining, railroad and teamster unions to name a few, that did much to aid the drive forward to safety in the workplace, workers compensation, and a 40 hour workweek.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        +1, agroal.

        P.S. I am not in a union, but I endorse them because I am a fellow working American. And if it weren’t for the sacrifices of the American labor movement, who gave so much including, in hundreds of cases, their lives, I wouldn’t be off Saturday night with the leisure time to type this.

    • 0 avatar

      Ummmmm The unions have not really had a great time since Obama. Membership is down two tier wages for UAW etc. The top 5% of american earners have gained from this administration much as they have from every administration since Carter left office. Thats the real issue for middle class not some union boogey man.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    “we’ve all f*cked with the UAW”

    No one who always wears a nice sweater should talk like that.

  • avatar
    Chan

    Leave it to the Europeans to do the straight-talk.

  • avatar
    Joss

    they all fuck on behalf of Wall Street and it’s mandatory double-digit yields for shareholders. That’s what’s cost middle America jobs.

  • avatar
    bobman

    Absolutely. Sergio. Sergio! Go wash your mouth out!

    Ma che cazzo!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I’m an admirer of Sergio.

    Since he’s from Qubecistan maybe he can become the Prime Minister. He could turn British Colombia into an Italian speaking Province to counter the French on the other side of the country.

    He would receive much support in Ontario.

    His slogan could be “Fnck Everything, Fnck Ontario and Fnck the UAW”.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Marchionne’s not from Quebec, so that’s wrong. Of course, being wrong doesn’t stop you from posting garbage, post after post. For year after boring year.

      How’s the Orstrailian dollah doing? The currency of paradise, where everyone earns enough to laze about, you used to boast. It used to be a buck fifty, but I see that it is now worth even less than the Canadian. Another year or two, and a jarful won’t buy an ice-cream. We have a spot for you – Nunavut, where you can turn the place into Bondi Beach and preach at polar bears each spring. It’s a short career.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @WMBA,
        The Dollar is now about right. U.S. Dollar is now making US exports uncompetitive

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        wmba,
        I do know, everytime I mention Quebecistan you appear to be quite nervous. Do the “French” in Canada worry you?

        You Quebecistanians should learn to take it on the chin.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        wmba,
        Well, prices haven’t shifted and it appears our dollar isn’t slipping as fast as crude prices.

        It seems okay. The value of our dollar moves with market forces.

        I do think our economy is the one the true free markets globally. It’s called a market economy. There are only around half a dozen free market economies in the world.

        Have a look at the US and Canadian economies, they are mixed economies. That means there is more government interference and controls.

        • 0 avatar
          pdl2dmtl

          @ Big Al:

          Australia = True free market…. Hmm… I wonder how many of your precious resources are still yours. Independent much?

          Interesting resource below:

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-08/feil-australia3a-owned-and-operated-by-the-usa-and-china/3816204

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Do you know what a free market economy is?

            I do think many of you guys should look at the differences.

            I mean how much does BHP, Rio Tinto, etc own outside of Australia.

            How much does Shell own outside of the Netherlands or for that matter Takata (airbags manufactured in Washington State, yes) outside of Japan.

            The minerals are Australian.

            What business that operates within Australia must pay taxes.

            The biggest problem with off shoring are the newer net and high tech businesses, not mining, manufacturing or agriculture.

            Does building Taco’s and Tundra’s within NAFTA move jobs to the Japanese or for that matter how much money out of total investments are moving to Japan or whatever country.

            Just because a company is owned within a nation or not has little to do with how much money remains within. How much money from Apple or Google is left in the USA?

            The world is global, investment by businesses from outside of a country should be welcomed as it strengthens economies.

          • 0 avatar

            Big Al. The heritage foundation (not the most unbiased source mind you) does rank Australia higher than the US in their economic freedom list. We were actually about dead even until the economic collapse. Since then we seem to be mostly downgraded on government spending (being the world police does that) corruption and a few other categories. In trade and employment freedom we rank about the same. I wish I could find a better source for an free markets index but thats the best i could come up with in 30 sec of google foo.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Mopar4wd,
            Thanks for that.

            I do think the Economist’s Intelligence Unit also has rankings.

            Where Australia is failing at the moment is the lack of structural changes by the government to modernise even more our unbalanced system of taxation, ie, to much middle class welfare.

            And the lack of foresight to have some form of plan in place for when the so called resources boom ended.

            Our biggest hindrance will be the rise of seniors in the near future. But we have had a good system of compulsory superannuation in place for the past 25 years. 10% of your income must be invested into funds for retirement.

            We need more immigration, but we have the anti-immigration crowd who think they take jobs. But all of us in Australia, like the US and Canada are mainly immigrants.

            What many don’t realise is the current value of the AUD is about correct. If you convert our wages now into USD our average wage of $75 000AUD is around $55 000USD.

            So when we pay $50 000 for a vehicle it is the same as what you pay $37-38 000.

            We have an extremely deregulated market, including agriculture. We get a 1.5lb loaf or bread for around 60c USD, 2.2lbs of good cheddar for $5USD, even milk is around 65cUS a quart (l).

            Gasoline/Diesel is more expensive at around $3.30USD a gallon. Diesel at the moment is cheaper, odd. It always used to be around 10-20 a litre more.

            I was just in the Eurozone and meat there was in Euros what we pay in AUDs. That’s 50% more! The US is paying in USD what we are paying in AUD for meat, which is around 25% more.

            Housing is the killer here, very expensive in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    By dangling the prospect of bringing truck production back to the US, Sergio is cleverly playing the UAW against its own membership. The UAW’s priorities are not the same as their members. The workers want higher wages and benefits; the organization wants more dues-paying members. The UAW negotiates the best deal for the UAW and tells the rank and file that the contract was their best effort and they need to approve.

  • avatar
    Maintainer

    He’s got a trick up his sleeve. That’s the type of talk Mob Bosses (in film) would give right before your car blew up.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    I think it would be better for everyone involved in America if the UAW works WITH their employers instead of AGAINST them.

    The record of the UAW and unions is clear. Decades worth of documented damage inflicted by the UAW and unions on their employers.

    The key to quality and productivity is collaboration and cooperation, something that is foreign to the UAW and unions in America. Until it is too late, and the employer goes under. Hostess is now a Mexican-owned bakery. Chrysler a subsidiary of Fiat. etc etc etc.

    Fortunately, we don’t have to do without. The stuff we want can be imported from foreign sources. All hail NAFTA!

    • 0 avatar

      That’s called the Rhineland model, named after the way German employers, employee representatives, unions and often relevant governments sit down together to decide what’s best on the long run.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        voyager, I think that they each have a vested interest in how well their industry is doing because retirement plans and national interests are so closely intertwined with the industry there.

        That’s a by-product of the Marshall Plan after WWII, the self-sufficiency model advocated by the 50-year reconstruction-loan programs.

        Look at Germany, Holland and Japan now! Good Golly, Miss Molly, they put the US living standard for Americans Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker in the toilet.

        Totally different ballgame in the US, though. The adversarial employee-to-employer relationship is what the UAW and unions in America advocate: get paid more to do less!!! Job Bank, anyone?

        My mom and dad were both union until they were able to successfully shed that snake-skin and move on to bigger and better things in employment.

        I grew up in a union household. My folks were better off after having left their respective unions, got to keep more of their own money AND got paid more money, got better benefits, working for non-union employers.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      It doesn’t matter whether unions work with the company or they antagonize the company. The Rhineland model has as many confrontational labor miscreants as it has moderate collaborators.

      The difference-maker is whether the collective institution is actually pursuing a collective outcome. In Germany, the unions focus on stable full employment, particularly for young workers. Labor bosses are often technocrats or they are heavily influenced by labor technocrats in government. In the US, unions reject full employment and focus on installing wage floors. The wage floor creates a surplus of semi-skilled laborers, which undermines everything the union achieved during the collective bargaining phase. Unions also vote to widen the scale of labor surplus, which undermines unions and laborers in all sectors. Unions try to blame the situation on corporate/political conspiracy.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “Unions try to blame the situation on corporate/political conspiracy.”

        Thank you for saying more concisely what I wanted to convey in my original comment.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    I started reading the rest of the comments but the time and energy to explain the actual reality would be wasted as these yokels are too proud to repeat conservative talking points as facts without actually being able to source a reliable data point for a single point. Instead, I’m going to just say ‘Good for Marchionne.’ It’s clear he’s looking at a future where America is a different beast and after the next presidential election the supreme court is likely to start taking up union cases to start breaking down large sections of Taft-Hartley beginning with public unions then private ones.

    A liberal Supreme Court is going to be an interesting place for America’s largest corporations. God help them if Sanders is elected. :)

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “A liberal Supreme Court is going to be an interesting place for America’s largest corporations. God help them if Sanders is elected. :)”

      I think we would see an even greater outflow of industry and American talent to foreign locations, were that to happen. American Corporations and their managements are not stupid, contrary to what Dr Jonathan Gruber has expressed about the American voters vis-a-vis Ob*m*Care.

      And then there are the tax-inversions, the first knee-jerk reaction of US corporations that punished the current far-left liberal democrat administration so badly and rewarded Ireland (et al) with the greatest influx of American dollars since the end of WWII.

      I have heard that over $3Trillion USD are held outside the US, with Apple, Pharma, and other major corporate players being unwilling to bring that money back to the US and pay taxes on it.

      Their first responsibility is to their owners/shareholders, not the US government. And well they have effectively demonstrated that.

      Hey, even Burger King is among the dearly-departed for Canada. How about Hostess and Mexico?

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        I’m seriously trying not to laugh at your argument. It’s a joke to think what you do but hey, lets what Corporate America likes in their drones. Sycophants who sell the same M.O. to each other while refusing to acknowledge that their entire model relies on continued unswerving support for free market capitalism. Even the slightest bend to that model would make the entire system unworkable. But hey, HDC, go wild. Maybe you can move to Canada with BK to avoid all the evil socialism we’re making hay about down here.

        PS: Ireland is more socialized than we are. They also removed a huge chunk of their underclass through emigration. The argument is so poor conceived that I really don’t feel like bothering going down this road. When a student thinks this way I tend to just move on, it’s not worth my precious time to bother with their stupidity once you’ve explained your position.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    To be perfectly honest, the UAW has had it coming–more than once.

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    This is no different that the posturing by GM and Ford. Give us a good contract and we’ll bring the RAM trucks back from Mexico; give us a good contract and we won’t import Buicks from China and Germany; give us a good contract and we’ll build the Ranger, and maybe even Bronco,in Michigan. Demand too much and, f*** you, you get none of this.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Autojunkie: Anything they can do to make it look like Ram is not kicking them in the rear.
  • NigelShiftright: Provided that we are willing to go to war to defend Taiwan, I agree it’s not a long term...
  • teddyc73: “the K-based nonsense that went on at Chrysler for forever.” It wasn’t nonsense. It...
  • AmsterCub: I remember thinking the Contour was just modern enough that the design would look good for a long time to...
  • JGlanton: “Wrangler 4XE PHEV and it’s still dependent on gasoline for journeys beyond 21 miles” or,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber