Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bankrupt US parts maker Delphi dumps pension obligations

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:22 PM
Original message
Bankrupt US parts maker Delphi dumps pension obligations
Edited on Fri Jul-24-09 05:34 PM by Hannah Bell
About $6.2 billion in pension liabilities of bankrupt auto parts maker Delphi will be assumed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), an independent US government agency tasked with protecting private pension plans. Delphi is the largest parts supplier for General Motors, which emerged from bankruptcy on June 20.

The move... clears the path for “the new GM” to absorb some profitable parts of Delphi, while shifting the pension obligations owed to roughly 70,000 retirees onto the PBGC...Over the past decade, Delphi has encouraged its employees to take early retirement. Now, many of these retired workers will lose between a third and a half of their monthly pension payments.

Delphi’s decade-long “independence” from its parent company, GM, is a chronicle of the attack on the jobs and conditions of auto workers. Delphi was spun-off from GM, becoming a publicly-traded corporation in 1999, but it remained dependent upon sales to the largest US automaker. The real purpose of its creation was to prepare for a new round of layoffs at both GM and Delphi, and to shift pension obligations from the former to the latter. Indeed, the nominally independent parts makers, including American Axle, have served Wall Street as the first target in the lowering of wages and benefits for the whole industry.

The importance of the 2005 bankruptcy of Delphi cannot be underestimated. One of the largest bankruptcies of an industrial corporations in US history to that point, it set the stage for the sweeping rollbacks imposed on Big Three auto workers in 2007—in which the companies dumped their retiree health care obligations—and this year's bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler.

As Delphi entered bankruptcy, Delphi CEO Robert S. Miller explained that the action was needed in order to eliminate “legacy” costs—the contractual costs of providing pensions and health care to retired workers. Miller predicted that this would be necessary for the industry as a whole. He complained of the “social contract” that prevailed in industries like auto “to elevate their workforces with elaborate defined-benefit retirement programs.” That was all well and good “back in the days when you worked for one employer till age 65 and then died at age 70,” he said.

However, “People are living longer these days,” Miller continued. “And medical science is rapidly expanding the capability to spend vast amounts of money keeping you alive for decades...the question is, how can we afford it?”

...The attack on the pensions of retired auto workers which began at Delphi, was only an early phase in a far broader attack on the living conditions of retired workers...This will be followed, sooner rather than later, with an assault on Social Security.

The essence of the matter is this: the American ruling class no longer accepts the proposition that workers are entitled to healthy, decent, and long retirements. This, it has been concluded, is simply “too expensive.”


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/delp-j24.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. negative recs already, what a surprise! some democrats brook no criticism of the theft from
american workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yup. There's almost an instant negative rec on posts tackling corporatism
I wish the negative rec a-holes would have the cajones to post that they did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Please don't do that.
Edited on Fri Jul-24-09 06:01 PM by TexasObserver
I just recommended this thread. Someone else didn't. Don't be petty and attack those who think your thread should be unrecommended.

You do not have a right to be recommended, or a right to avoid being unrecommended.

Start your thread, promote it positively, and don't get drawn into bashing those who, for whatever reason, don't think your thread goes on the Greatest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well, yeah, but
the point is not why would people not recommend this thread, it's why in the heck would any supposed democrat/liberal/whatever unrecommend it? Why would you unrecommend it except to keep corporate wrongdoing out of sight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You are applying your personal standard, which is yours, not everyone's.
Of course there are reasons to unrecommend it "except to keep corporate wrongdoing out of sight." It is your conclusion that is faulty.

Each person applies their own standard for recommending and unrecommending. There are many topics I like but don't think a particular thread about such a topic is worthy of recommending. Most topics are worthy of being unrecommended, because most are so poorly presented.

You should stop inferring the intent of others in their unrecommends. They may mean nothing more than "this one doesn't strike me as being that good."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well, I see your point, but
>>You should stop inferring the intent of others in their unrecommends.

You might want to consider the use of "you should" - it may just be me, but it gets my back up when used to an adult. Minor point.

Yes, it is me projecting my view on the unrecommends, you are right. I don't unrecommend anything unless I think it is truly stupid. Otherwise I rec it or leave it alone.

Of course, I don't do much of either anymore, as I'm trying to wean myself off this place, with eventual success, I think. This may in fact be my last post..... ;->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I recommend and unrecommend many threads.
This topic is one that deserves discussion, and it has a decent source, and it's not simply a rant.

Sometimes I suspect that people unrecommend threads such as this because they simply don't understand them, or know enough to understand them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Exactly (as in "that was what I was trying to say")
and I'm still trying to quit this place, as it has many good points but is seriously @#$%ed up in some ways, esp. as regards admin. Yes, I know they say "contact privately." Sure. And it gets hid. Lots and lots gets hid.

I object to the hiding of objectionable posts - locked but not deleted - otherwise we the people have few ways of knowing what's going on. (I am fortunate to have some.)

I object to this "PM the admins." Open a forum for discussion. What are you trying to hide? (I think I know.)

I really don't care if I have member access to this board anymore, as I think I know what's going on here.

777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Diadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Did you read the entire article at the link? It goes into Obama gutting medicare.
I rec'd the thread before going to the link to read the entire story. Now I know why people un-rec'd it.

The pension issue hits close with me. My DH's pension sits in the PBGC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I agree. And I wish the people who un'recced had stated why. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-25-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. One reason to unrec this (and I wasn't one she was referring to) is that WSWS is a bogus source
Edited on Sat Jul-25-09 04:44 PM by HamdenRice
I would unrec anything coming from, say "Storm Front" or some Klan website, and I can understand that there are people who will unrec any OP that uses a WSWS article for the same reason.

The OPer and WSWS have both written that the Democratic Party and American organized labor unions are both criminal conspiracies to destroy the working class.

Having an OP that is a citation of WSWS on the Greatest Page makes DU look idiotic. They richly deserve every unrec that they get.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maccagirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. In other words...
Die already!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-24-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. It is wrong for businesses to be able to dump such obligations.
Edited on Fri Jul-24-09 05:45 PM by TexasObserver
Every recession we see this. Companies dump pension obligations and then sell off segments for profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-25-09 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. Sorry buy WSWS is not a credible news source. Do you have a "real" link? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC