UAW workers paid $75 an hour!!!

[SgtSpike]

So you have no problem with a $400 million dollar retirement package, not excessive at all? You don't think this kind of attitude towards executive compensation has no adverse effect on the company?

Nope - it's a free market, if a CEO is worth that much, then the company will pay him that much. If he's not worth that much, then the company will not pay him that much.

Again, when a good CEO is on the market and looking for a job, he will get many multi-million dollar deals. Companies have to offer A LOT to get (what they think is) the best of the best onboard and outbid the other companies. You put a cap on that, and suddenly the quality and quantity of CEO's will go down.

What about people who start up a company and make millions? Should they have their money taken away too?

As far as the auto workers, people are people. If it's people in a union they are going to negotiate for the best deal they can get, just like executives do. Economic times along with bad decisions by executives means that the auto workers are going to have to suck it up if they want to remain employed.

But you and Strauss have to start placing as much responsibility on the executives as you do on the people in unions. Just because you imagine we have a "free market", does not mean that every executive decision is right and moral, especially when short term self enrichment seems to be the primary executive goal these days, just because they (the executives) are in a position exert power over the Board of Directors who are all in on it too. Start looking at companies as an organism. All parts of the animal have to be healthy for it to be competitive.

The problem is, unions can "negotiate" by forcing the company to do what they want. Sure, they may be "merciful" in hard times, but give me a break - we both know an assembly-line worker isn't worth $75/hr in pay and benefits in the first place. No wonder GM is going down the drain.

 

[Strauss]

But you and Strauss have to start placing as much responsibility on the executives as you do on the people in unions. Just because you imagine we have a "free market", does not mean that every executive decision is right and moral, especially when short term self enrichment seems to be the primary executive goal these days, just because they (the executives) are in a position exert power over the Board of Directors who are all in on it too. Start looking at companies as an organism. All parts of the animal have to be healthy for it to be competitive.

Yeah I'll do that the day the president of a union declares on national television that his members earn to much and that the union is going to cut wages and benefits. :24::24::24::24::24::24::24::24:


Don't hold your fucking breath waiting for that telecast.

 

[Hoffa]

we both know an assembly-line worker isn't worth $75/hr in pay and benefits[/B] in the first place. No wonder GM is going down the drain.

You still don't get it do you?.
The figures you cite as pay and benefits for an assembly line worker are NOT $75/hr ! That's pure bullshit !.
I wonder why you continue to repeat it . :thumbdown

The actual figures vary for several reasons , and of course, new hires do not have it so good ---a reflection of the market . Since the foreign competition has been fierce , the pie has got smaller . All concerned have to deal with that reality , and will.
And thats not the only problem , the world recession has hit them hard . Even in Europe the Govts are making moves to protect their auto manufactuers . I believe France is making big loans to Peugeot and Citroen with the intention of saving the Manufactuers from the world financial crisis .

Back to your bullshit figures--- I will give you some approximate figures , not exact , but a hell of lot better than yours .
If you went to work today for Toyota USA ,Honda, Hyundai, BMW, working in the same job catagory , you would take home roughly the same pay --give or take a few dollars . It gets complicated because of different manufacturers , catagorys , overtime , and ..... location. The Southern US generally lower paid{except in overtime } no matter what. The cost of living is lower , and so wages , understandble .
The main reason they are paid as well as they are is ......to keep the Union out .
Now , if you are UAW , you will recieve better benefits , if not a whole lot more money.
Benefits such as retirement , health ins --ect.
This is a cost above what non-union companies normally pay .
It amounts to approx --roughly $9+ per hour , so lets call it $10. Remember --this is an average .
So the total cost to the non-Union foreign makers per hr , for a average assembly line worker is approx $45 per hour --the cost of the Union worker on average $ 55.
This would relate to APPROX $700/800 per unit sold over non-Union .
If the US automaker lowered price this amount ---do you believe it would change things dramatically ?????.
Hell , they knock 3 times that amount off in sales and promotions and still has little effect on consumer.
Do you follow this so far ?.

The only thing costwise left to disscussion is company liabilities , debts --another subject entirely.
One cost is retired employees . GM and the others have been around a hell of long time --unlike the forgeign companies . There are hundreds of thousands of retired autoworkers in the U.S. --people who retired in the 60's-70's ect ect. Remember , we used to have a strong middle class.
This cost is debated , but is currently --roughly --approx -- $15 per hour if added it the current hourly employees cost per hr -- added it to current employees cost ---dividing the cost by total employees hours . Its stupid to try that as it has nothing to do with it .
Thats exactly what they are trying do -- confuse their liabilities and commitments to past employees with current costs . It appears they have succeeded with you !. Thats how they come up with $70 p/hr.
One more thing for you to ponder , a arithmatic puzzle .
Toyota has rougly 700 retired employees in the U.S. --total . That's a liability
GM has nearly 440,000 retired workers in U.S. -- thats a huge liabilty.
If GM were a newcomer the costs would be much closer .
Another thing to consider , is when the old folks retired , the U.S. was ecomically strong , the dollar king , a large middle class , in short a whole different ballgame .
We were not a debtor nation begging loans ,people had money in banks --saving-- our workers did not compete with third world poor .
Not the case today , we have to expect a slide to bottom .

I work for several Unions , and the "publics" or the UAW are not among them , so I am just spectator .
But I do know this , as our nations econmic fails , and we compete with the poor , we will meet them in "the middle" --at some point . We will no longer enjoy what was in the past . SAD.
I am a realist , and it cannot be missed .
Most Union contracts will reflect this new reality , and in fact , already are --I know .
This is why I support further contract consessions in bargaining with the Automakers.
To give up collective bargaining rights , or allow Union busting tactics , as the far right would suggest , is crazy {seems we haven't heard the last from them}:yuk
This is America , and like most all civilized western countries , the workers have the right to bargain , be a part of the "free market". Now they just have to get a reasonable outcome for all concerned .
My fear , is for the retired , and the effect on the whole country if we drop the ball , and fail to extend loans.
>f

 

[Mikewastaken]

Did anyone take a look at my thread? I also worked on the 75$ an hour and more.

http://www.offtopicz.net/37781-general-motors-who-s-blame.html

 

[Ashl33]

that is crazy.

 

[SgtSpike]

You still don't get it do you?.
The figures you cite as pay and benefits for an assembly line worker are NOT $75/hr ! That's pure bullshit !.
I wonder why you continue to repeat it . :thumbdown

The actual figures vary for several reasons , and of course, new hires do not have it so good ---a reflection of the market . Since the foreign competition has been fierce , the pie has got smaller . All concerned have to deal with that reality , and will.
And thats not the only problem , the world recession has hit them hard . Even in Europe the Govts are making moves to protect their auto manufactuers . I believe France is making big loans to Peugeot and Citroen with the intention of saving the Manufactuers from the world financial crisis .

Back to your bullshit figures--- I will give you some approximate figures , not exact , but a hell of lot better than yours .
If you went to work today for Toyota USA ,Honda, Hyundai, BMW, working in the same job catagory , you would take home roughly the same pay --give or take a few dollars . It gets complicated because of different manufacturers , catagorys , overtime , and ..... location. The Southern US generally lower paid{except in overtime } no matter what. The cost of living is lower , and so wages , understandble .
The main reason they are paid as well as they are is ......to keep the Union out .
Now , if you are UAW , you will recieve better benefits , if not a whole lot more money.
Benefits such as retirement , health ins --ect.
This is a cost above what non-union companies normally pay .
It amounts to approx --roughly $9+ per hour , so lets call it $10. Remember --this is an average .
So the total cost to the non-Union foreign makers per hr , for a average assembly line worker is approx $45 per hour --the cost of the Union worker on average $ 55.
This would relate to APPROX $700/800 per unit sold over non-Union .
If the US automaker lowered price this amount ---do you believe it would change things dramatically ?????.
Hell , they knock 3 times that amount off in sales and promotions and still has little effect on consumer.
Do you follow this so far ?.

The only thing costwise left to disscussion is company liabilities , debts --another subject entirely.
One cost is retired employees . GM and the others have been around a hell of long time --unlike the forgeign companies . There are hundreds of thousands of retired autoworkers in the U.S. --people who retired in the 60's-70's ect ect. Remember , we used to have a strong middle class.
This cost is debated , but is currently --roughly --approx -- $15 per hour if added it the current hourly employees cost per hr -- added it to current employees cost ---dividing the cost by total employees hours . Its stupid to try that as it has nothing to do with it .
Thats exactly what they are trying do -- confuse their liabilities and commitments to past employees with current costs . It appears they have succeeded with you !. Thats how they come up with $70 p/hr.
One more thing for you to ponder , a arithmatic puzzle .
Toyota has rougly 700 retired employees in the U.S. --total . That's a liability
GM has nearly 440,000 retired workers in U.S. -- thats a huge liabilty.
If GM were a newcomer the costs would be much closer .
Another thing to consider , is when the old folks retired , the U.S. was ecomically strong , the dollar king , a large middle class , in short a whole different ballgame .
We were not a debtor nation begging loans ,people had money in banks --saving-- our workers did not compete with third world poor .
Not the case today , we have to expect a slide to bottom .

I work for several Unions , and the "publics" or the UAW are not among them , so I am just spectator .
But I do know this , as our nations econmic fails , and we compete with the poor , we will meet them in "the middle" --at some point . We will no longer enjoy what was in the past . SAD.
I am a realist , and it cannot be missed .
Most Union contracts will reflect this new reality , and in fact , already are --I know .
This is why I support further contract consessions in bargaining with the Automakers.
To give up collective bargaining rights , or allow Union busting tactics , as the far right would suggest , is crazy {seems we haven't heard the last from them}:yuk
This is America , and like most all civilized western countries , the workers have the right to bargain , be a part of the "free market". Now they just have to get a reasonable outcome for all concerned .
My fear , is for the retired , and the effect on the whole country if we drop the ball , and fail to extend loans.
>f

I didn't see any sources for your conclusions, yet I've seen source after source stating between $75/hr and $80/hr for domestic auto workers.

According to the Wall Street Journal in September 2006, on average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to its U.S. hourly workers. It's now somewhere around $78.21 (remember benefits). Toyota is around $48 per hour, that's 30 dollars an hour less. Depending on where you look for information, they bought out somewhere between 75,000 and 140,000 employees (in the last couple years). Now multiply 75,000 x 30, the answer is 2,250,000.

Lack of sources = fail.

 

[Hoffa]

Did anyone take a look at my thread? I also worked on the 75$ an hour and more./quote]
Yes , read it . Fire the employee's with no regard for service -- Work for half wage , and expect NO BENEFITS . I assume that means no healthcare , or any retirement , real hope for old age . Yeah , screw them!. What is needed is the rich ,,,and poor ,,,no room for the middle class.
Seriously , thats what is coming -IMHO.
How about work for half as much as it takes to live --that would be better , raise stockholders and execs profits .
Chinamen work for $60 per month, we could possibly lower the bar , and build our own shit !.
Talk about class warfare !. :eek
The below is really something to ..............desire ......aspire to.
I don't know what has happened to this country , but its going down the shitter with applause!. >f

"To all employees, if there was no union, GM would've fired every single last one of you 10 years ago and hired all new staff at half the cost, the low income person who lives the every day struggle would kill for half the money without benefits."

 

[SgtSpike]

"To all employees, if there was no union, GM would've fired every single last one of you 10 years ago and hired all new staff at half the cost, the low income person who lives the every day struggle would kill for half the money without benefits."

Exactly. Which is why there shouldn't be unions.

 

[Hoffa]

Exactly. Which is why there shouldn't be unions.

There isn't --in non democratic societies . Communist , Fascist , read your history . >f

 

[Strauss]

There isn't --in non democratic societies . Communist , Fascist , read your history . >f

Actually communist and fascists countries have unions. As I recall the largest union membership is in Red China. May not be what you'd call a union but they do exist.

 

[Hoffa]

I didn't see any sources for your conclusions, yet I've seen source after source stating between $75/hr and $80/hr for domestic auto workers.



Lack of sources = fail.

You still don't get it , you don't factor past liabilities on to current wages and benefits .
If so , you may as well put the corporate jets , or pin other business expenses to the employees wages .
So what do you expect ? --just duck out commitments to retired or maybe all creditors ??? fuck everybody ???.
Don't bother , I already know the answer . >f


"Detroit does need to reduce its labor costs as part of restructuring, but the hourly wages of its current workers don't spell the difference. GM says its average UAW worker earns $29.78 per hour; Toyota says it pays $30 per hour. The difference is in legacy costs. GM's total hourly labor costs are $69 because it includes pension and health-care costs for 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota, which has only about 700 retirees in the United States, says its total costs are about $48 per hour."
Editorial: Automakers | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/15/2008
----------------------------------------------------



“We’ve heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour,” Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said last week. “It’s a total lie. I think some people have perpetrated that deliberately, in a calculated way, to mislead the American people about what we’re doing here.”
So what is the reality behind the number? Detroit’s defenders are right that the number is basically wrong. Big Three workers aren’t making anything close to $73 an hour

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It’s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.
The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix — dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so — and end up at roughly $70 an hour.
The New York Times > Log In

 

[SgtSpike]

You still don't get it , you don't factor past liabilities on to current wages and benefits .
If so , you may as well put the corporate jets , or pin other business expenses to the employees wages .
So what do you expect ? --just duck out commitments to retired or maybe all creditors ??? fuck everybody ???.
Don't bother , I already know the answer . >f


"Detroit does need to reduce its labor costs as part of restructuring, but the hourly wages of its current workers don't spell the difference. GM says its average UAW worker earns $29.78 per hour; Toyota says it pays $30 per hour. The difference is in legacy costs. GM's total hourly labor costs are $69 because it includes pension and health-care costs for 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota, which has only about 700 retirees in the United States, says its total costs are about $48 per hour."
Editorial: Automakers | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/15/2008
----------------------------------------------------



“We’ve heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour,” Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said last week. “It’s a total lie. I think some people have perpetrated that deliberately, in a calculated way, to mislead the American people about what we’re doing here.”
So what is the reality behind the number? Detroit’s defenders are right that the number is basically wrong. Big Three workers aren’t making anything close to $73 an hour

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It’s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.
The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix — dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so — and end up at roughly $70 an hour.
The New York Times > Log In

Thanks for sources. But why in the world would you NOT include legacy costs, such as pensions, into the total cost for a worker? If the worker wasn't there, those costs wouldn't be incurred, so.... how is that any different from wages as far as expense to the company?

 

[Hoffa]

Actually communist and fascists countries have unions. As I recall the largest union membership is in Red China. May not be what you'd call a union but they do exist.

Union in name only. Eastern Europe had them under Communism , Cuba , and of course Nazi Germany .
In these circumstance , they no longer perform as in free society, or , they make them illegal by political means . The camps in Germany were full of labor people , I am sure you know this .
I could post how many labor people are, and have been killed in South American dictatorships , but it would not help . I don't intend to teach high school history here .
S-Spike needs to read a little history , I assume he is young and unaware . Just an assumption. >f

 

[Strauss]

Union in name only.

<DELETE>

I assume he is young and unaware . Just an assumption. >f

That's what I meant as to the unions.

I doubt he's that young (young being a relative term) but he is quoting reputable sources.

 

[SgtSpike]

S-Spike needs to read a little history , I assume he is young and unaware . Just an assumption. >f

Why? What have I said that is contrary to history? And why do you refuse to answer my question as to why pension costs would not be included in total cost of a worker?

I think it's hilarious how many people have said that I must be young... why must I be young? Because you think I am not intelligent, and older people are more intelligent and wise than younger people, so I must be young? Funny you bring that up, because you'll find that [generally], the older people get, the more conservative they become. So are you saying that intelligent people are conservatives?

 

[Minor Axis]

Don't hold your fucking breath waiting for that telecast.

Neither will I hold my breath for you to look at the situation in a balanced manner. What's with your language?

 

[Hoffa]

Why? What have I said that is contrary to history? And why do you refuse to answer my question as to why pension costs would not be included in total cost of a worker?

I think it's hilarious how many people have said that I must be young... why must I be young? Because you think I am not intelligent, and older people are more intelligent and wise than younger people, so I must be young? Funny you bring that up, because you'll find that [generally], the older people get, the more conservative they become. So are you saying that intelligent people are conservatives?

First off , I have no reason to believe you are unintelligent.
I only assumed you were young , never stupid. Hell, you could be 80 years old for all I really know .
The reason I assumed this was some of your comments . You obviously see no need for Unions , think they should not exist , and have no idea why they do .
So...I assumed you have read little history of labor Unions , why they were created , and what they seek to accomplish . I don't believe you know of the good things that they have brought about , political and other wise. Change in how people are treated as well as economic things.
I don't believe you are aware of how people can be and were treated , by the Auto industry , mining , meat processor's , ect ect. Its all in the history books.
I don't believe you know why dictators agree 100% with you , or why they persecute Labor if they cannot control them .
Your attitude is/was shared by those who might surprise you !.

The main reason I thought you were young , a teen possibly , had nothing to do with your intelligence, its another thing.
When I was young , a brief history of the Labor movement , and WHY there was one , was taught in public school --high school. Few my age would ask "why do we need Unions ", few would not know what the "speed-ups' were in a Ford plant , and most importantly , few would believe that man has changed , less greedy , or business less capable of abuse.
Its been my experience that many youth have no idea today of why Unions are important , and fault lies with education , or lack of it. The system ignores some history today that was taken for granted in past. Not the fault of youth , nor any indicator of stupidity .
I do suggest a read of history .
Its hard , impossible to debate Labor issues if the person you are debating doesnt understand why labor exists.
Sorry about the age thing . >f

 

[SgtSpike]

First off , I have no reason to believe you are unintelligent.
I only assumed you were young , never stupid. Hell, you could be 80 years old for all I really know .
The reason I assumed this was some of your comments . You obviously see no need for Unions , think they should not exist , and have no idea why they do .
So...I assumed you have read little history of labor Unions , why they were created , and what they seek to accomplish . I don't believe you know of the good things that they have brought about , political and other wise. Change in how people are treated as well as economic things.
I don't believe you are aware of how people can be and were treated , by the Auto industry , mining , meat processor's , ect ect. Its all in the history books.
I don't believe you know why dictators agree 100% with you , or why they persecute Labor if they cannot control them .
Your attitude is/was shared by those who might surprise you !.

The main reason I thought you were young , a teen possibly , had nothing to do with your intelligence, its another thing.
When I was young , a brief history of the Labor movement , and WHY there was one , was taught in public school --high school. Few my age would ask "why do we need Unions ", few would not know what the "speed-ups' were in a Ford plant , and most importantly , few would believe that man has changed , less greedy , or business less capable of abuse.
Its been my experience that many youth have no idea today of why Unions are important , and fault lies with education , or lack of it. The system ignores some history today that was taken for granted in past. Not the fault of youth , nor any indicator of stupidity .
I do suggest a read of history .
Its hard , impossible to debate Labor issues if the person you are debating doesnt understand why labor exists.
Sorry about the age thing . >f

Makes sense - and you're right, I do not know much about unions. So far though, the more I learn about them, the more they upset me. If you could point me to an unbiased source about what unions are all about, benefits they have accomplished in the past, etc, I'd be obliged.

And I'm 22 BTW. :thumbup

 

[Minor Axis]

First off , I have no reason to believe you are unintelligent.
I only assumed you were young , never stupid. Hell, you could be 80 years old for all I really know .
The reason I assumed this was some of your comments . You obviously see no need for Unions , think they should not exist , and have no idea why they do .
So...I assumed you have read little history of labor Unions , why they were created , and what they seek to accomplish . I don't believe you know of the good things that they have brought about , political and other wise. Change in how people are treated as well as economic things.
I don't believe you are aware of how people can be and were treated , by the Auto industry , mining , meat processor's , ect ect. Its all in the history books.
I don't believe you know why dictators agree 100% with you , or why they persecute Labor if they cannot control them .
Your attitude is/was shared by those who might surprise you !.

The main reason I thought you were young , a teen possibly , had nothing to do with your intelligence, its another thing.
When I was young , a brief history of the Labor movement , and WHY there was one , was taught in public school --high school. Few my age would ask "why do we need Unions ", few would not know what the "speed-ups' were in a Ford plant , and most importantly , few would believe that man has changed , less greedy , or business less capable of abuse.
Its been my experience that many youth have no idea today of why Unions are important , and fault lies with education , or lack of it. The system ignores some history today that was taken for granted in past. Not the fault of youth , nor any indicator of stupidity .
I do suggest a read of history .
Its hard , impossible to debate Labor issues if the person you are debating doesnt understand why labor exists.
Sorry about the age thing . >f

:clap

For the most part it's information that due to a variety of factors fails to compute with those who do not see a company as a team but as a dictatorship and the minions. And the minions better not complain. I've said over and over again that "unions" exist for a reason and it's not greedy workers, but workers who want a fair shake and in many cases don't get it which has been historically illustrated many many times. Of course then there is the argument about what is fair. Certain people in this forum (and I'm not referring to the Sgt) believe that fair= employment and that is all. "Your lucky to have a job!"

And yes unions are made up of people who can over reach, just like executives who become greedy with the consent of their BOD. Both should be judged critically. But conservatives usually only want to judge "labor" and turn a blind eye to the executives.

 

[Hoffa]

:clap

For the most part it's information that due to a variety of factors fails to compute with those who do not see a company as a team but as a dictatorship and the minions. And the minions better not complain. I've said over and over again that "unions" exist for a reason and it's not greedy workers, but workers who want a fair shake and in many cases don't get it which has been historically illustrated many many times. Of course then there is the argument about what is fair. Certain people in this forum (and I'm not referring to the Sgt) believe that fair= employment and that is all. "Your lucky to have a job!"

And yes unions are made up of people who can over reach, just like executives who become greedy with the consent of their BOD. Both should be judged critically. But conservatives usually only want to judge "labor" and turn a blind eye to the executives.

I agree . :thumbup
Labor is part of the American equation , and must be , that is not to say that over reach is not a factor .
Many Union workers have not yet seen the reality of the American workers situation , which is not good .
Some believe its still the good old days , and they are over -IMO.
Americans cannot compete with the worlds poor and still live middle class lives , send kids to good college , save for future ,ect ect in short , live as in past.
Expectations of the working class are based on the past , but I believe that will slowly change , and the sad reality will sink in.
Meanwhile , Union officials may understand the situation , but cannot dictate to the rank & file .
The members have the power ultimately , as it should be.
I have read some articles where the writers expect the President of the UAW to make agreements --on his own !. Or even more crazy , to give up the right to collective bargaining to some politicians !.
To me , this indicates a total misunderstanding of how it works , or ....just plain Union busting . >f