Thank you Teamsters! #2 Auto Hauler to go out of business!

1345 Views 23 Replies 13 Participants Last post by ChevroletRevived, Jun 17, 2008

Ambalanche

Discussion Starter · Jun 16, 2008

This is unreal! The Teamsters wouldn't agree to even a 2 MONTH cut in pay and now the #2 Auto hauler in the country is dead! Sure, most of the drivers have found other jobs, but the company is gone! Way to go!! UAW pay attention!! This is the way to do it!!

http://www.leftlanenews.com/us-no-2-auto-hauler-to-go-out-of-business.html

Save

21 - 24 of 24 Posts

GMCdriver

· #21 · Jun 17, 2008

PAULSTS1 said:
Again I have to step in to say something that I don't want to say, but it's the truth: A lot of the payments that banks collect don't belong to the bank per se but by a private investor. The bank makes money by servicing the loan.

You have got to understand that financial entities don't see property as the buyers see it. If people are making payments on time, it's an assist, and profit making, if payments are not being made in a timely manner the loan is discribed as non-performing, and a liability. Liabilities, are written off and liquidated. Making arrangements increases the servicing costs, meaning more people have to be hired to accomplish it, and it just results in more losses.

Banks outside of the ones owned by the FDIC, would rather wholesale the house to an auctioneer than negotiate with you. People having problems with payment don't negotiate successfully unless there is a sudden influx of cash. These are the realities of life. I understand that the concepts are difficult to accept, that's why only a few people are Bankers and Accountants.

I wrote loans and mortgages for one of Canada's largest banks before I went into car sales so I don't need the level of condesention that you seem to think is required. My family dinners are alive with discusions on this kind of subject with my Aunt manageing commercial lending for the province for one FI and my mom running loss prevention and repos for the province for another FI. Trust me, they don't want your property, they want some money. My mom won't sign the final papers on a home repo unless the client is more then 2 years in arrears with no sign of new money comming in. They are re-writeing mortgages that were done as 20 year amortizations out to 40-45 years to make the payments keep comming.

Save

PAULSTS1

· #22 · Jun 17, 2008 (Edited)

GMCdriver said:
I wrote loans and mortgages for one of Canada's largest banks My Aunt manageing commercial lending for the province for one FI and my mom running loss prevention and repos for the province for another FI. Trust me, they don't want your property, they want some money. My mom won't sign the final papers on a home repo unless the client is more then 2 years in arrears with no sign of new money comming in. They are re-writeing mortgages that were done as 20 year amortizations out to 40-45 years to make the payments keep comming.

Thank you, your point shows there is a profound difference in the laws of Canada and the USA, NO BANK IN THE USA is going to let you go 24 months before they foreclose. In the USA most majors such as mine will act within 90 to 160 days, unless urged to by the FDIC.

This post has run it's course for me, as it was about contractual agreements in principle only, namely that which should occur between a union and it's membership, and the union and an employer. My intent was to support the union's decision to stand up for their agreement for the worker. I believe I have clearly given my opinion so I'll move on.

Save

emh

· #23 · Jun 17, 2008

PAULSTS1 said:
My belief from many years of banking experience is that even a temporary 15% reduction in income is enough for 90% of American workers to default in some payment obligation. The result of such action is injurious to that persons credit, and then his well-being. At no time can the company promise truthfully that even if the worker concedes to work for less, that he will continue to have a job, or be paid. Again the fact that the company went Bankrupt so soon, indicates they were already at the brink. Releasing the employee is the right thing to do, as that employee can get rehired and continue on with his obligations, fairly and legally.

It's likely true that a 15% reduction in income is enough to throw most Americans into financial trouble. However, it's still better for this company to be operating with fewer employees than out of business altogether. Those employees that cannot accept the 15% cut can look for employment elsewhere -- and they still benefit by having this company in business by creating a larger pool of available jobs in the overall economy.

A TEST: Next month attempt to pay 15% less to your Landlord, or bank on your mortgage, see if they take it! I'll wager they will throw it back in your face and demand the rest of it....or else! :yup: The union knows this, and they probably already knew how bad off the company was, so they didn't make a concession. By honoring their contract with their workers, the union isn't financially liable for anything.

The 15% reduction that is being talked about here is a court-ordered reduction (I believe while operating under bankruptcy protection). I'm pretty sure a landlord or bank would take a 15% reduction if there was a court order backing it up.