Chrysler to File for Bankruptcy

[Berkut]

They would enter into the same set of contracts that every other employer in America uses - here is the deal, take it or leave it. Or they would take it, because at that point the union would no longer have any power.

And sure, the union would scream and yell, but that is kind of the point. The union needs to be broken, and given that the union IS the problem, to a great degree, I think it is certainly the wisest course of action.

That will take time, and time is the biggest enemy of a reorg.

No, that will take an actual bankruptcy.

Honestly, they should just be allowed to fail. The cure is worse than the problem.

[DGuller]

Why do you need a contract for every single worker? 

b/c most people won't work for free?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.  Majority of people work without contracts.  I don't have one, and I'm not working for free.

[DontSayBanana]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.  Majority of people work without contracts.  I don't have one, and I'm not working for free.

Wrong. Almost every US employee has a contract that says what they will be paid in return for what work, and outlines procedures for grievances by and against the employer. Or are you working for minimum wage with no set of workplace guidelines?

The UAW is not the sole source of the problems; in fact, it has nothing to do with much of the excessive mismanagement at Chrysler. And Berkut, I wonder how you believe liquidating the company and destroying 150,000 jobs plus suppliers trumps 40,000 in the dealership network, which is already proven to be glutted?

[DGuller]

Wrong. Almost every US employee has a contract that says what they will be paid in return for what work, and outlines procedures for grievances by and against the employer. Or are you working for minimum wage with no set of workplace guidelines?

I don't have it.  I have an employee handbook, but it states specifically that nothing in it can be construed as a contract.  It also says that my employment is at will, and either party can terminate it at any moment without a consequence.  Maybe some legal mumbo-jumbo talker can accurately state I have some kind of implied contract, or something to that nature, but for all intents and purposes I don't have one as it is commonly understood.  No one I know does either.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't have it.  I have an employee handbook, but it states specifically that nothing in it can be construed as a contract.  It also says that my employment is at will, and either party can terminate it at any moment without a consequence.  Maybe some legal mumbo-jumbo talker can accurately state I have some kind of implied contract, or something to that nature, but for all intents and purposes I don't have one.  No one I know does either.

You don't have a negotiated contract; you do have an implicit one- the protections provided by FLSA and FMLA are pretty spartan. That implied contract is what you rely on when you make appeals to the labor relations board, for example.

Wiki sucks for in-depth analysis, but it's pretty good for definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_contract

EDIT: Let me be a little less obtuse. Your legal recourses for employment fall under FLSA for pay practice (very little protection), FMLA for health accomodations (partial protection), ADA and EEOC to prevent discrimination, collective bargaining agreements where they exist (typically the most protections, but only on a class level), and finally the terms and conditions of employment, which are the employee's implied employment contract.

[DGuller]

You don't have a negotiated contract; you do have an implicit one- the protections provided by FLSA and FMLA are pretty spartan. That implied contract is what you rely on when you make appeals to the labor relations board, for example.

Wiki sucks for in-depth analysis, but it's pretty good for definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_contract

Like I said, "implicit contract" is not what is commonly meant by a worker having a contract.

[DontSayBanana]

Like I said, "implicit contract" is not what is commonly meant by a worker having a contract.

What you're arguing is that contracts don't need to be negotiated for each worker. True enough, but the reasoning also lies behind the collective bargaining agreement; the idea that each worker has the right to negotiate a contract, or at least have a representative negotiate their contract.

Either way, unless you're going to run an incredibly sparse business and have no intention of paying anyone more than minimum wage, you're going to need to formulate some kind of contract, if only to be used as a placeholder for future employees.

[DGuller]

What you're arguing is that contracts don't need to be negotiated for each worker. True enough, but the reasoning also lies behind the collective bargaining agreement; the idea that each worker has the right to negotiate a contract, or at least have a representative negotiate their contract.

Either way, unless you're going to run an incredibly sparse business and have no intention of paying anyone more than minimum wage, you're going to need to formulate some kind of contract, if only to be used as a placeholder for future employees.

Maybe, but JR made it sound like Chrysler would have to hold tends of thousands of protracted negotiations if they moved away from unions.

[alfred russel]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.  Majority of people work without contracts.  I don't have one, and I'm not working for free.

Wrong. Almost every US employee has a contract that says what they will be paid in return for what work, and outlines procedures for grievances by and against the employer. Or are you working for minimum wage with no set of workplace guidelines?

The UAW is not the sole source of the problems; in fact, it has nothing to do with much of the excessive mismanagement at Chrysler. And Berkut, I wonder how you believe liquidating the company and destroying 150,000 jobs plus suppliers trumps 40,000 in the dealership network, which is already proven to be glutted?

This has to be about the 5th thread that "employment contracts" come up. I was going to post my "employment contract" sans salary, which told me my salary and then listed a bunch of legalese that basically nothing I see anywhere should be construed as giving me any legal rights and I'm at will meaning I can leave or be fired at a moment's notice. There are offer letters out there that specify that the letter is not a contract (I dont remember if mine says that or not).

If you want to call that a contract, fine. But the only term is my salary plus I guess the right to quit.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.  Majority of people work without contracts.  I don't have one, and I'm not working for free.

you do have one, it is just not in writing.  the proof is what happens if your employer doesn't pay you.  You sue  . . . in contract.

[The Minsky Moment]

Maybe, but JR made it sound like Chrysler would have to hold tends of thousands of protracted negotiations if they moved away from unions.

They would have to hire an entire workforce from scratch, and even non-union there are procedures that have to followed to do that.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, that will take an actual bankruptcy.

Honestly, they should just be allowed to fail. The cure is worse than the problem.

They should have done what I said on old languish - nationalize the whole company in 08 when they still had cash and then break it up and sell the pieces (or merge them into GM/Ford)

[dps]

Maybe, but JR made it sound like Chrysler would have to hold tends of thousands of protracted negotiations if they moved away from unions.

They would have to hire an entire workforce from scratch, and even non-union there are procedures that have to followed to do that.

Yeah, and the legal procedures that need to be followed to hire someone take about 10-15 minutes, if that.  And you don't have to do just one employee at a time. 

Granted, it takes more time than that to actually select the people whom you want to hire, but if an ad was posted that a re-organized, non-union Chrysler was going to hire a new workforce on Monday, it's certainly possible that enough current/former Chrysler workers would show up on Monday to staff a slimmed-down version of the company.  Heck, the new Chrysler might even get to pick and choose who they hired.  Which again, granted would take a bit of time, but we're talking about people who they would already be familiar with.

On the other hand, it's also possible that none of their current/former employees would break with the union and go to work for them, so they'd have to hire an entirely new staff.  Still, I'm not sure that would be such a lengthy process as you seem to imply.

[DontSayBanana]

This has to be about the 5th thread that "employment contracts" come up. I was going to post my "employment contract" sans salary, which told me my salary and then listed a bunch of legalese that basically nothing I see anywhere should be construed as giving me any legal rights and I'm at will meaning I can leave or be fired at a moment's notice. There are offer letters out there that specify that the letter is not a contract (I dont remember if mine says that or not).

If you want to call that a contract, fine. But the only term is my salary plus I guess the right to quit.

Strictly speaking, it is a contract. It's a craptacular contract, certainly, but I was simply going after the statement that most workers don't have any contract. Also, in regards to the "this is not a contract," there are huge bodies of cases out there that have shown that doesn't necessarily pass muster. Once you've put terms in writing, it takes a bit more than just adding "don't hold us to this" to waive the contractual obligation.

[JacobL]

With the economy as bad as it is in Michigan I can give a 99.999999% guarantee they could fill all jobs here quickly and with qualified workers.