|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232
2nd String
|
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232 |
I am tired of the UAW. They are killing the auto industry and threatening the rest of the economy. Its absurd. If you think about it, imagine McDonalds having to pay $20 an hour to their workers while Burger King pays their employees $10 an hour. Who is going to stay in business? The fact the UAW is so stubborn makes me want to say "Screw the bailout, you don't deserve your jobs." If it wouldn't destroy the whole economy, I wouldn't care. They will get their way though it sounds like... if we can put off the collapse of the auto industry a couple years until the recession is over, I think we will be ok. The UAW is like a cancer on the auto industry that they can't get rid of.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
If your an employee who is under the UAW, it's a good thing. They get treated well.
But IMO, they are very, very bad for the companies. They dictate way too much, and the employees get a lot. A friend of mine quit working as a cop because he gets more money at GM. He also makes more money than I do, and I have a bachelor's degree. But at the same time, they're digging their own graves. They really need to renegotiate and cut wages in order to survive.
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg) "The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267 |
The way I understand it is it's not the wages it's the pension and medical benefits.These deals were struck when the big three were the only game in town. What one company paid for labor they all paid, now the games changed. The union stubbornly clings to benefits that are unsustainable.The government forced the big three to build small cars that lost money on every sale to meet cafe standards Also accounting principles of the day encourged pension deals over wage increases because they did not have to be shown on the balance sheet which made the profit statements look better than they really were.So whos fault is it? I 'm conflicted if there is no money somethings got to go but I really hate to see retired folks who counted on the promises made get the rug pulled out from under them.Then again if they go to bankrupty it will not only be retired workers who get smacked hard it'll be the suppliers and their employees who made way less money and are totally blameless in this whole mess .I don't see a short term fix for this mess. Maybe a 10 year conditional type loan. I really don't think we want to see the unemployment thats going to result if we let these guys go under.  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
Unions were a good thing when they started, but like anything that develops lots of money,, corruption follows.
Unions fought for and got fair wages, benefits, pensions etc... The problem is, they kept fighting for more and more.. with little or no regard for the overall health of the company they work for.. it was always "we want, we want"!
Basically, they bit the hand that fed them..
now, we are all paying the price...
JMO, but thier time as passed.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,245
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,245 |
The bottom line is the workers need to take a pay cut.Which would you rather have............A job making 25 or 30 bucks an hour or no job making nothing an hour.Seems like a no brainer to me.
My son had to take a job making a lot less than he was before he got laid off and I told him that what he's making now is better than nothing.He don't have the extra money he had before,but he's making enough to pay his bills and have a few bucks left over.
People need to realize that things are going to get worse before they get better,so if you have an extra buck this week,you'd better save it cause you might need it next week.
The auto industry workers need to open their eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
there wages are just about the same as all the non-union automakers...pensions as healthcare is what is killing them....
what do you say to all those retired workers?
unions aren't the problem....how can you spout corruption, when the entire reason they exist is corruption in management and owners? does that still exist? you bet....
gm ceo's are making 100 times more than the japanese car company ceo's....why not fix that? guess there is corruption in management still....
how anyone can insinuate that unions are the problem is beyond me.....so they don't want to give back....who does??? they already gave concessions in there upcoming contract...now they are faced with another choice....take more, or lose it all....i know what i would do....give the concessions...and i'm bigtime pro union....but u know what....what is management giving?
you always hear one side in the media...just like the 80 bucks an hour wages....that was worded to make them look much worse than they are....
plenty of hardworking non-union American workers getting screwed everyday, because they all go it alone....and thats just the way the big wigs in power like it....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Wages and labor costs
How many UAW members work at the companies that will be a part of this year’s auto talks?
There are 180,681 UAW members employed at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Of these, 177,498 are covered by the national agreements that will expire Sept. 14, 2007. The remaining 3,183 UAW members at Chrysler Jeep in Toledo, Ohio, negotiate a local contract distinct from the national agreement. Certain Delphi employees who have rights under the GM Benefit Guarantee also will be affected by the outcome of these negotiations.
An additional 419,621 retired members and 120,723 surviving spouses will also be covered by the agreements negotiated this year. Their pension payments and retiree health care benefits are subject to the terms of the UAW national auto industry agreements.
Employer Active members Retired members Surviving spouses Totals
Chrysler* 48,927 55,183 23,252 127,362
Ford** 58,300 94,824 28,183 181,307
General Motors 73,454 269,614 69,288 412,356
Totals 180,681 419,621 120,723 721,025
* Includes workers at Chrysler Jeep, Toledo, Ohio
** Ford active total includes 7,180 workers at Automotive Components Holdings
Source: United Auto Workers based on company data. Figures are for the end of the first quarter 2007
How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
The CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006.
The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM. These substantial sums do not include the value of stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation.
Why is the figure cited as hourly labor costs by the companies so much higher than the wage rates?
In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400,2 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.
This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures 2005 data
2 UAW Research Department, based on hours-per-vehicle data from the 2007 Harbour Report and labor costs as reported in the companies’ 10-Ks
3 National Automobile Dealers Association
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232 |
Of course the UAW is going to have that kind of stuff up on THEIR OWN website!
POST EDITED AS THERE IS NO REASON TO QUOTE AN ENTIRE ARTICLE TO ADD A ONE LINE REPLY.
Last edited by Referee1; 12/14/08 08:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Ok...looks like the UAW thread got added to the bailout thread...
Quote:
I am tired of the UAW. They are killing the auto industry and threatening the rest of the economy. Its absurd. If you think about it, imagine McDonalds having to pay $20 an hour to their workers while Burger King pays their employees $10 an hour. Who is going to stay in business? The fact the UAW is so stubborn makes me want to say "Screw the bailout, you don't deserve your jobs." If it wouldn't destroy the whole economy, I wouldn't care. They will get their way though it sounds like... if we can put off the collapse of the auto industry a couple years until the recession is over, I think we will be ok. The UAW is like a cancer on the auto industry that they can't get rid of.
jk24...It sounds like your buying the bogus figure of $73 per hour as a UAW workers hourly wage?
The figures I gave you above are from the old contract. In the new contract, the UAW agreed to take over the health care costs for the UAW workers and retirees from the companies and also agreed to a starting wage of $14.00 per hour for new hires, attempting to do their part in helping the Big 3 auto companies cut costs.
Also, everyone needs to keep in mind, it's not the workers who decide what kind of cars the Big 3 will build. It's up to the company designers and engineers to build the cars that management decides they want their workers to build.
The entire Big 3 could have been building cars to compete with Toyota, Honda, Nissan and the rest of those companies that build the smaller, more economical cars, but that is not the call of the UAW, is it?
Just trying to put some "facts" out for those who have this idea that UAW are making $73 per hour and trying to lay the blame on the workers who build the cars.
BTW, anyone think that the non-union foreign car companies in the south would be paying approx. $25 per hour to their workers if it were not for the UAW?
Without a UAW, auto workers in the south would likely have wages about half what they enjoy now, thus leaving millions more for management and the company to pocket.
We have already seen the trend of American workers, union and non union, working harder, longer and more productive but now we want to see American workers work for less.
What is next, slavery?...Is that the only thing that will make some of you happy?
Last edited by mac; 12/13/08 07:50 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
I didn't mean to kill the "blame the UAW" discussion...
Maybe what I posted made some folks think a little?....I certainly hope so.
What do you want the American dream to look like in the future...work until you drop dead?
I guess American workers are not supposed to retire or even think about retirement benefits, huh?
If a company does have retirees, most seem to think they should not get health care coverage....do I have that correct?
I guess American workers should not get vacation time either, right?
You want to compare the wages of UAW workers with non union auto workers but the non union workers don't have retirees.
And, who pays the non union workers health care expenses?
The company you say?....Are the foreign car companies subsidized by their countries' governments?...Do American workers have government subsidized health care?
Before you start comparing UAW and the non union workers of the foreign car companies, try to level the playing field first and compare apples to apples...not apples to oranges.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
You didnt kill it MAC, there is just nothing I can add because you said it all.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Mac,
The problem is that once a company is teetering on the brink of going out of business, something has to give. If something doesn't change ..... then everyone involved loses everything.
As far as foreign compnies go .... well, I doubt that they are getting any government subsidies for their operations and plants in the US. I also doubt that their government is picking up their health care for their plants in the US.
Much of the problem is that the Big 3 have retirement ponzi schemes in place ...... and didn't expect to reach a point where retirees might live to 80. When these programs were put into place. In the 50s, a person could expect to live to .... well ..... 67. Today it's almost 76. I'm not 100% sure ..... but I also don't believe that a person could put in 30 years and retire back then. The economics have changed, and lifespans have changed.
In the end, this all becomes, as they say, the art not of the perfect ... but of the possible. What keeps the company alive, while also being fair to its workers? There is no perfect solution. All I know is that we (The US taxpayers) will get stuck holding the bag once again if the Big 3 go out of business ...... and we'll probably get stuck holding the bag to keep them from doing so as well. People have asked "what is fair to ask of the workers" ..... and my answer would be "enough to keep their jobs alive". Is it fair to expect a person making $30,000 to pay more in taxes to support the job of a person making $56,000? (which is a person making $27 per hour, for 40 hours per week, over 52 weeks)
What do you see as a fair and equitable solution mac? What is the answer to the riddle that is the current economics of the Big 3?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
LOL First off, I wondered where this thread went.... Glad I found it. Quote:
there wages are just about the same as all the non-union automakers
I don't believe that to be accurate!
Quote:
pensions as healthcare is what is killing them....
So, what would you have them do,, dump all the legacy costs of pensions and healthcare for retirees?
Remember something,, there was a different time with different thinking. Back when my father retired from his union job working for GM, the thinking was,, you have your savings, pension and Social Security to live on when you retire. Most thought that SS and Pension would be the biggest part of that.
For better or worse, that was the thought process that the unions pushed..
Fortunatly for my father and mother, they didn't take that to heart so they saved and saved... Moms ok today because of that. Yeah, she gets a pension from my father and she also gets SS. that coupled with savings makes her comfortable... if she loses the GM pension, it will hurt, but she can still make it because of the savings and me. I'll suppliment her income if needed.
But some aren't that lucky... Some bought into the union rhetoric lock stock and barrel and today are suffering for it.
Quote:
unions aren't the problem....how can you spout corruption, when the entire reason they exist is corruption in management and owners? does that still exist? you bet....
Are you kidding me,,, Unions aren't the Problem? I'll give you this much,, they aren't the ONLY problem, but you can bet they are equally responsible for the condition of many businesses in the USA,, Autos, steel, textiles etc etc..
Are you telling me that it's managments choice to move manufacturing overseas because they want to.... Look, they found out, in the textile industry for instance, that they couldn't compete with foriegn factories.. and the UNIONS did nothing to help them stay competitive.. instead, unions said,, hey, we don't believe managment,, they are lying to us,,, and guess what.. it's been proven over the years that management didn't lie,., UNION leadership did.
Corruption,, you think there isn't any corruption in the unions..., again,, are you kidding me? Here's what I'll give you,, I'll admit that the unions have cleaned up thier act in the last 10 years,, but prior to that,, give me a break, these union leaders were crooks with a capital C... you need to do some research.
Union rank and file knew they were, My father absolutly knew, but ignored it because they kept fighting for the working man.. even if it meant that it eventually would destroy american industry...
Quote:
gm ceo's are making 100 times more than the japanese car company ceo's....why not fix that? guess there is corruption in management still....
I don't know if that is accurate, but I don't know it isn't.. I think that in recent weeks, they've addressed that..
GREED is a horrible thing and some CEO's of companies,, both in Manufacturing as well as banking, finance, investments,., they''ve all been taking big checks even when thier companies are been floundering.
I point this out because it's not just the Auto industry.. it was fashionable to take the big money with no performance... I wonder what happened with pay proportional to performance?
Quote:
you always hear one side in the media...just like the 80 bucks an hour wages....that was worded to make them look much worse than they are....
The media has made it look as if current union workers make 80 bucks an hour... but that's not the case..
The 80 bucks an hour is an average and contains things like current hourly average wages, benefits, mandatory payroll taxes, accrual for current employee pensions and facilities costs as well as legacy costs such as pensions for retirees, benefits for retirees etc etc..
You won't find autoworkers making 80 dollars an hours.. not the floor guys,..
But as others have pointed out,, you will find them making 70 + grand a year with OT..
You will also see that work rules cause redundency in effort that causes a serious lack of productivity.. I'm not sure if this is factored into the 80 dollars an hours they speak of or not.. just don't know.. but if not, then that just makes it bigger.
either way, these are things that honda, Toyota, Nissan don't have to put up with.
Do the unions need to get with the program... YES THEY DO... and they aren't alone.,, Management needs to jump on the bandwagon as well
And Politicions need to STOP playing politics and get this deal done.. in a hurry.
elf, you are taking a 100 percent union thinking approach to this,, you need to do some research and find the facts before trying to throw that past people...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Interesting read Mac, except it's from 2006 when the economy was hoping and auto-makers were selling cars like they were free. So a $200+ product dollars produced per employee hour is not so anymore.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
The figures I gave you above are from the old contract. In the new contract, the UAW agreed to take over the health care costs for the UAW workers and retirees from the companies and also agreed to a starting wage of $14.00 per hour for new hires, attempting to do their part in helping the Big 3 auto companies cut costs.
Correct. Except: How much money did GM promise the union in order for the union to take of the health care? Wasn't it something like $50 billion in cash?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
My bad. GM got to move $51 billion in unfunded RETIREE health care to a trust administered by the UAW. GM agreed to pay $36 billion to the trust. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20978036/ "The deal allows GM to move its roughly $51 billion in unfunded retiree health care costs into an independent trust administered by the UAW. " "GM agreed to pay the union about 70 percent of the total obligation, or around $36 billion. " Now, it says nothing about CURRENT employees, at least that I can find. This is from MSNBC from Sept. of 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
Quote:
I don't believe that to be accurate!
well heres one article....i'm sure there are more....
link
From Detroit Free Press
The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.
In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.
In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.
Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are not far behind Toyota and UAW pay levels. Comparable wages have long been one way foreign companies fight off UAW organizing efforts.
But Toyota workers' pay topping that of UAW members comes as the union faces contract negotiations this year with struggling Detroit companies that will seek billions in concessions, partly because they face higher costs for retiree health care and pensions than their foreign-owned competitors.
Who's to blame?
UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel said if Toyota workers were paid more than union workers last year, the blame lies with Detroit's auto executives. The companies have lost market share because of past mistakes, which have translated into fewer bonuses for workers, said Casteel, who is on the union's executive board.
"Our profit-sharing formula, I know, is better than theirs -- if our vehicles are selling," Casteel said.
Ron Lare, a 59-year-old Ford employee on pre-retirement leave, said Toyota workers shouldn't get too excited about their wages because bonuses fluctuate. The only thing consistent, Lare said, is union protection.
"The floor beneath their feet is basically what the UAW has won," said Lare of Detroit, who has worked at Ford for 28 1/2 years. "If the UAW gets beaten down, their pay is going to come down. You let there be a real recession in the auto industry -- that bonus won't be there for Toyota, either."
Union perks vs. nonunion perks
The pay comparisons reflect the relative profitability of the foreign and domestic companies more than shortcomings of the UAW. But the situation chips at the argument that workers united in solidarity can get better wages, benefits and job security -- especially as the UAW shrinks and growing foreign companies continue to ward off organizing efforts.
"How do you convince someone you're better off with the protection of a union when they're making more money than the union employee?" asked Alfred McLean, a 66-year-old hourly UAW member at General Motors Corp.'s Warren Tech Center. He has 28 years of experience.
Workers for foreign automakers don't pay union dues, but they do share the costs of insurance and retirement plans. UAW-represented autoworkers get health insurance and a full pension after 30 years -- valuable perks they will fight to keep during contract negotiations this year.
But even accounting for Toyota employees' health care spending -- $700 per year on average, according to the company -- the Georgetown workers still made more in 2006.
General Motors Corp., which lost $10.6 billion in 2005 and didn't issue profit-sharing checks last year, paid its production workers an average of $27 an hour, GM spokesman Daniel Flores said. That would be a base of about $54,000 a year, based on a 2,000-hour work year. The $30 average at Toyota's Georgetown plant, which includes a bonus, equals $60,000 a year.
Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group representatives said GM's base pay figures are similar to theirs. Only Chrysler, which had a 2005 profit, paid a bonus last year. The $650 bonus was not enough to surpass Toyota's pay.
Unknown in the calculation is overtime, which boosts UAW workers' pay. The auto companies would not release overtime data.
Lack of overtime hurts
Ron Harbour, president of Harbour Consulting and the publisher of a respected ranking of plant efficiency, said domestic overtime is dropping because of improved quality and recent production cuts.
"Because there was so much overtime for so many years, they got used to that level of pay," Harbour said. "And it built the economy around here that's collapsed so much -- second homes, boats, snowmobiles and all of that."
Toyota's bonuses are comparable to the record profit-sharing checks earned by Chrysler and Ford workers in the late 1990s. That puts the pay of Toyota's workers ahead of that of UAW workers for the first time, said Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.
But when massive profits rolled in, Detroit executives squandered them, he said.
"There were certainly years back then at the profit peak of the truck boom when we could gaily march out the door and buy Volvo, or Jaguar, or Saab -- brilliant moves -- with our truck profits, rather than invest in hybrids," McAlinden quipped about GM's and Ford's spending decisions.
GM's aim is to resume profit-sharing, Flores said.
"When profit is generated in the U.S., employees share in the profit," he said.
When asked about salaried workers earning bonuses because of UAW sacrifices last week, Ford CEO Alan Mulally said that all employees must be compensated competitively.
The 'union threat effect'
Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in labor issues, said Toyota's high wages are somewhat expected.
"Toyota pays high wages in part to avoid the UAW," Shaiken said, adding that economists would refer to Toyota's high wages as the "union threat effect," meaning companies pay union-comparable wages to fend off organizing efforts and the risk of a strike.
"But what Toyota inadvertently shows," he added, "is that you can compete paying higher wages."
Assembly workers for Detroit automakers last year remained a bit ahead of Honda's U.S. hourly workers, who made an average $24.25 an hour, or $26.20 with the $4,485 bonus they received. In November, Honda paid bonuses for the 21st consecutive year, the longest streak in U.S. auto history, said Ed Miller, Honda spokesman.
Nissan workers are paid $24 an hour in Mississippi and $26 an hour in Tennessee, but company officials would not disclose employee bonuses.
Hyundai Motor Co. pays its U.S. production workers less than other automakers. Wages at its Alabama plant start at $14 an hour and grow to $21 an hour after two years on the job, according to a January 2004 company release. Hyundai declined to say whether those wages have increased since then.
But the UAW's Casteel, who is working to organize autoworkers in southern states, said the UAW's recruiting strategy of comparing union and nonunion checks doesn't work in less-developed parts of the South. In Alabama and Mississippi, for instance, the U.S. Department of Labor says wages average less than $11 an hour.
"If you start looking at where they put these plants, they go out to the most desolate places you've ever been in your life," Casteel, an Alabama native, said of foreign automakers. "And they make sure there are no other competitive wages with any other industry. You'll drive through these piney woods for an hour and all of a sudden you run upon this major manufacturing facility."
Copyright (c) 2007, Detroit Free Press
Quote:
So, what would you have them do,, dump all the legacy costs of pensions and healthcare for retirees?
not at all.....fact of the matter is, i don't have a damn clue what to do. It is what it is....domestic car makers have been around longer, and they have more retiree's....if they all had 401k's instead of the traditional pension plans, then they wouldn't have this problem....but they don't....
i could spout tarrifs, or protectionism, but those have there plusses and minusus too.....am i aloud to not know? 
all i do know is its about time this gov't starts protecting American workers...just like all of those other countries do for there workers....
Quote:
Are you kidding me,,, Unions aren't the Problem? I'll give you this much,, they aren't the ONLY problem, but you can bet they are equally responsible for the condition of many businesses in the USA,, Autos, steel, textiles etc etc..
maybe i should rephrase what i said....you have unions....you have management.....both are inherently trying to accomplish something...unions want wages, working conditions....and management wants profit....
they are checks and balances of each other.....both are capable of being corrupt....both are capable of being fair....
my best case senerio is both being fair...does it always happen? no. but it should....if you remove unions, then management can do what it wants....seek profit....at the expense of the workers that help to make it.....or they can be fair......
when i look at management as a whole, i think that profit (greed) is more common than fair...there are plenty of good non-union companies, and there are plenty of fair owners....i don't want to make a all inclusive label, but thats my opinion....
its human nature....everyone wants something for cheap...its all around us in our lives every day....from what we buy, to who we hire to fix our car.....cheapest price...good quality or service...
Quote:
Are you telling me that it's managments choice to move manufacturing overseas because they want to.... Look, they found out, in the textile industry for instance, that they couldn't compete with foriegn factories.. and the UNIONS did nothing to help them stay competitive.. instead, unions said,, hey, we don't believe managment,, they are lying to us,,, and guess what.. it's been proven over the years that management didn't lie,., UNION leadership did.
heck ya it was managements choice...but it isn't really there fault...thats on the government for letting all that stuff in tariff free....
obviously jeans can be sewn cheaper in china for a dollar an hour...are you telling me that the workers should have agreed to work for those wages? for one its not even possible since minimum wage is much higher than that....and two, its not a livable wage....
why do American companies even have to compete with them....its so far from a level playing field it makes me sick...
management might have did what they had to, but its not the workers fault....and its certainly not the unions fault....they could have cut there pay in half, and still not been able to compete....
Quote:
I don't know if that is accurate, but I don't know it isn't.. I think that in recent weeks, they've addressed that.
ceo's are certainly coming under fire, but i don't know what they have done to address it.....i posted one article earlier in this thread and a video.....heres another
link
another
i get the 80 an hour stuff...i think we are in agreement...i was just pointing out how the media throws that out there to cause an uproar....they could have easily broke it down in the first place...
they didn't, and the reason imo, is the anti-union forces out there...
Quote:
Do the unions need to get with the program... YES THEY DO... and they aren't alone.,, Management needs to jump on the bandwagon as well
And Politicions need to STOP playing politics and get this deal done.. in a hurry.
i agree...
Quote:
elf, you are taking a 100 percent union thinking approach to this,, you need to do some research and find the facts before trying to throw that past people...
i do tend to take that tact...i'm for the little guy....imo they the smallest part of the problem...
if i had to rank the problem in order, i would say....
1. government....lack of tarrifs, wto, nafta...lobbiests...
2. managment...stupid ceo pay...blind quest for more profit...
3. workers...(unions)...wanting a good life...to keep up with inflation...time off, healthcare...
when i look at workers, i see a constant battle to just keep what they have....and as far as union or non-union.....all jobs are leaving this country....unions are down....thats what ticks me off....
Americans have lost there voice....
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
"Because there was so much overtime for so many years, they got used to that level of pay," Harbour said. "And it built the economy around here that's collapsed so much -- second homes, boats, snowmobiles and all of that."
one sentence they are complaining about how the big 3 took their profits during good years to buy Volvo, etc. And how that was poor money management.
Then they talk about how the workers were making good money and buying second homes and stuff, and it's a pity they aren't still making those wages.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
Looks as if you were closer to right on the average wage.. what we don't know is what job classifications are listed in that average for Toyota.. if they are adding in white collar, then that would skew your entire argument... I tend to think they are... but I can't prove it. Quote:
not at all.....fact of the matter is, i don't have a damn clue what to do. It is what it is....domestic car makers have been around longer, and they have more retiree's....if they all had 401k's instead of the traditional pension plans, then they wouldn't have this problem....but they don't....
no, I don't know what to do either,,, I know that it's not those folks fault as some on here would have you believe.. it's not the fault of the union worker who retired.. I don't believe they have 401's when my dad was still working.. I'm totally confident that had they had such a vehicle, he'd have jumped into it with both feet.
it's way more fair than the old methods... for both parties... But unions have fought that....
Quote:
maybe i should rephrase what i said....you have unions....you have management.....both are inherently trying to accomplish something...unions want wages, working conditions....and management wants profit....
as I said earlier,, there was a time when those things weren't legislated,, Employers could get away with anything.. Today, not so much. Thus the impact unions can have on a business aren't so big anymore..
Quote:
are you telling me that the workers should have agreed to work for those wages?
yeah,, I want all the textile workers in the US to take a paycut to 1.00 per hour... seriously, I'll ask you what you asked me,, is it ok if I don't know the answer to correct?
But the unions kept blaming the companies... you wanna know the truth,, blame Walmart and Kmart,,, they kept demanding lower prices of thier vendors,, the vendors cut corners and then the last gasp was,, make the stuff overseas for a buck an hour...
You want to suggest we blow up all the wal mart stores? of course you don't.
Quote:
i do tend to take that tact...i'm for the little guy....imo they the smallest part of the problem...
let's talk about that a little,, what protects the "little" guy better.. Unions that fight for higher wages and benefits with little to no regard to corporate profits...,
Or companies that fight to stay in business to they can continue to offer a living wage and benefits within thier means?
In the long run,, which is for the "little" guy?
remember now,, Profits are the reason guys with money start a business to begin with,, take away thier ability to make a profit, and they might as well shut the doors... union workers can be as outraged as they like while they stand in the unemployment lines......
I hate to sound angry,, but I can't help it.. Unions were and can still be a good thing... but somewhere along the line, they have to stop being adversarial and start becoming part of the solution... they need to PARTNER with businesses...
If they don't learn to do that, it's only a matter of time, but they will disappear from the planet.. JMO,, but I think i'm pretty close to right on...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
it's not the fault of the union worker who retired.. I don't believe they have 401's when my dad was still working.. I'm totally confident that had they had such a vehicle, he'd have jumped into it with both feet.
it's way more fair than the old methods... for both parties... But unions have fought that....
Ok you are for the most part wrong in the statement about unions fighting this. For one, you keep lumping all "union" together, as if they are one huge entity, and this is far from the truth. By doing this you are sort of implying that things are taking the worse case scenario(UAW and the ... poor mangement of the Big Three automakers) and making it seems as if all unions and companies operate in these pre 1990s ways.
I will use the two big unions that I have worked for, so am familiar with. Steelworkers and the AFL-CIO. AFL-CIO is kind of a conglomerate of many unions but it is easier to refer to them a a whole union. Technically the Steelworkers are part of the AFL-CIO but they are so large that they do their own union business with joint co-op with AFL-CIO. I at one time was a delegate to AFL-CIO for the Steelworkers, so I am familiar, and I am a member now of IUPAT, which is a smaller union that is part of AFL-CIO.
Ok, so I am just referring to how these two pension plans are run. These two unions run their own pension plans, that the companie pays into. The people at my job get so much per hour that is paid into their pension plan, that the AFL-CIO runs. So it works out good for the employee, the employer, and the union. If I stay where I am at for 30 more years(oh god please no!!!), I will have a pension that is based on years worked , the union will make a little money off it, and the company is not on the hook paying retirees until they die.This is similar to what they are doing with the health care for the UAW retirees. It keeps the company from having years and years of legacy costs.
The majority of unions are embracing this type of thing. Contrary to what ome believe the leadership in most unions realize that in orer for them to do well they need companies to do well.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
Quote:
Ok you are for the most part wrong in the statement about unions fighting this. For one, you keep lumping all "union" together,
Yes, you are right,, I was thinking more along the lines of the UAW when that thought arrived....
But you picked ONE statement that I was wrong aboiut.... did you just fix your mind on that and forget about the rest or should I assume you think I'm right about the rest of my comment....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
But you picked ONE statement that I was wrong aboiut.... did you just fix your mind on that and forget about the rest or should I assume you think I'm right about the rest of my comment....
Not not really commenting on everything you said. I agree with some of it, and I disagree with some of it. I just was commenting on your view of the way the pension plans are working.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
point blank question: Do you feel you should be able to work for a company, making huge wages, AND after 30 years of work have the company pay you a pension, AND your healthcare until the day you die, and then have them continue to pay the healthcare for you spouse?
That is what the UAW has now. The retired employee has no need to fear anything, as the company will take care of them. (or the union).
Is that right? If so, where do I sign up for wages and benefits that cannot feasibly be paid, yet I should expect to be taken care of.
What do I sign? How do I o it? All I have to do is work a UAW job for 30 years? Easy. I could retire. As it is, I plan on working till the day I die. And you know what? That doesn't bother me too much. But all I have to do is sign up with the UAW and I'm taken care of? Sign me up.
Ludicrous, isn't it? Yet that's what the uaw is fighting for right now. And they expect the company to stay in business somehow?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
So Arch, you're saying that these people who make about $60,000 a year are making "huge" wages?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
So Arch, you're saying that these people who make about $60,000 a year are making "huge" wages?
Compared to me, yes. For what they do? Yes. Throw in the benefits they get on top of their wages, and compare them to me - yes, they are making huge wages and the benefits are unbelievable. Good thing they are unbelievable, because they are going to go away soon.
Then those people making $70,000 will have to live like me.
Course, I'd love to be in the job banks thing........get paid for not working. Heck, I'd bet we'd all like to be there. But you know what? The job banks thing is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the uaw.
They can unite all they want. They should unite behind having a job, but they will push it, united no doubt, until a guy like me is paying their unemployment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Well, I respectfully disagree with your position. There are a lot more problems with the auto makers than the unions. I will admit that the unions are part of the problem. But are you telling me that if the unions were not there, the big 3 would have NO problems??
Also, why is it so bad that they get these good benefits? Should we also be mad that teachers have a great pension program? Or that doctors make so much money? Or that people who work with computers make good money?
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Well, I respectfully disagree with your position. There are a lot more problems with the auto makers than the unions. I will admit that the unions are part of the problem. But are you telling me that if the unions were not there, the big 3 would have NO problems??
Also, why is it so bad that they get these good benefits? Should we also be mad that teachers have a great pension program? Or that doctors make so much money? Or that people who work with computers make good money?
Did I say that? The unions are part of the problem -a big part, but still just part.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
here's another article about the wages....every one i have read says wages are on par with each other...can we agree on that? link UAW workers' pay on par with Japanese competitors in U.S. Photo Mark Madden, who is working on a Corvette in a General Motors assembly plant in Bowling Green, Ky., sends out a plea. ( DAILY NEWS (BOWLING GREEN, KY.) ) Zoom | Photo Reprints By STEVE EDER BLADE STAFF WRITER The question of how much a union assembly-line worker makes for building Chrysler Jeeps in Toledo versus how much a nonunion technician earns for building Honda Accords in Marysville, Ohio, is perplexing the policymakers in Washington. It's so perplexing that it halted the painstaking negotiations in the U.S. Senate to lend $14 billion to bail out the struggling automakers. As a prerequisite for the aid to automakers, Senate Republicans demanded that United Auto Workers agree to wage concessions that would cause pay for its assembly-line workers to fall in line by next year with those paid by Japanese companies. The numbers, however, paint a picture of UAW wages already in line with Japanese competitors building cars in the United States. "There's a lot of myths out there," said Ed Miller, a spokesman for Honda, which has plants in six states, including Ohio. "There's some assumptions about our pay and benefits that are just that - they are assumptions," he said. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, in a news conference in Detroit yesterday, accused the Republican senators of engaging in "subterfuge" to stand in the way of a bailout, going so far as to say the GOP wanted to "pierce the heart" of organized labor. "There were Republicans that wanted to tear down any agreement we came up with," Mr. Gettelfinger said. During the past month, as the Big Three have pleaded with Congress to loan them millions to bail them out of a financial mess that threatens their survival and as many as 3 million jobs, the UAW repeatedly has been forced to defend the wages earned by its workers and offer concessions to aid the faltering automakers. In one attempt to dispel rumors about lavish $73-an-hour wages paid to UAW workers, the union released a fact sheet explaining that Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors pay $28 an hour for assemblers and $33 an hour for skilled trades workers. New hires make about $14 an hour, according to the union. The fact sheet called the notion that UAW workers make $73 per hour "outdated and inaccurate," explaining that figure includes not only health care, pension, and other compensation, but includes the pensions and health-care benefits of retired employees. "That $73 was not explained very well over the years," Mr. Miller of Honda said. General Motors says its total hourly costs are $69 an hour - including the pension and health benefits of more than 432,000 retired workers. Toyota, which has fewer retirees and less costly benefit packages, says its total wage costs average $48 an hour. But based strictly on wages, the $28 an hour paid by Ford, Chrysler, and GM fall in line with their counterparts. Toyota says it pays about $30 an hour, while Honda pays $28.87, and Nissan pays an hourly rate of about $25 an hour. The $28.87 Honda workers earn includes the base wage of $24.80, plus an attendance bonus of $1.25 for each hour worked, a bonus-sharing program that adds $2.32 per hour, and an earnings payment of 50 cents per hour. Also, Honda workers are offered a competitive health care plan. At the Jeep plant in Toledo, workers were concerned about the perceptions of what they are paid. "We haven't had a raise," said Glenn Paisie, 53, of Point Place, a 30-year employee. "We don't get no raises. … We're only making a couple bucks more an hour than the foreign plants down in Georgia. The problem is they don't have any retirees to pay for. That's the biggest problem." Mr. Paisie noted that new hires at Jeep make about $14 an hour. "How much lower do you want us to go? I think about it, taking a cut, but you have to understand our bills are up to what we make," he said. Nelson Lichtenstein, the director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor, and Democracy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the rejection of a bailout is about much more than wages. "It's not just the wage," said Mr. Lichtenstein, who has written books on the automotive industry and Wal-Mart. "It is the whole ethos of having a career. That's what is at stake here." Mr. Lichtenstein believes those in the Senate who are demanding new concessions from unions are looking beyond wages and are hoping to wash away the power that the UAW has on the factory floor. "That's really what these Republicans are asking for," Mr. Lichtenstein said. Mr. Gettelfinger, during his news conference yesterday, accused Republican senators from the South who blocked passage of the auto-loan bill of doing the bidding of foreign automakers who have located factories in their states. "They thought perhaps they could have a two-fer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," Mr. Gettelfinger said. Mr. Lichtenstein said if the UAW falters, it'll cause the wages for assemblers to fall across the board. "If the UAW is caught in a total bind, then what will happen is in the South these transplants will start paying Wal-Mart wages," Mr. Lichtenstein said. Japanese firms such as Honda say they are continuing to pay a wage that's competitive with their Big Three counterparts. "People who live in communities where there are Honda plants, they know," Mr. Miller said. "The further you get away you are more likely to not know or get things confused." There are no Honda plants in or near Washington, where lawmakers are deciding the fate of the U.S. auto industry. In a statement late Thursday night after talks came to a halt, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) chided Senate Republicans for being out of touch with the "real America." "Tonight, Senate Republicans, who sometimes observe that all wisdom does not reside in Washington, D.C., decided that they should dictate a labor contract for American autoworkers to replace the one agreed to just last year," Mr. Brown said. "While workers were willing to be part of the solution, they could not and should not shoulder the entire burden." Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, a Republican, supported the bailout and bemoaned its failure, calling on the White House to use other funds to rescue the automakers. "The politics need to end before more companies fall through the ice," Mr. Voinovich said in a statement. Blade staff writer Chauncey Alcorn and the Associated Press contributed to this report. Contact Steve Eder at: seder@theblade.com or 419-304-1680. Quote:
I don't believe they have 401's when my dad was still working..
they didn't...i don't know your dad, but 401k's are pretty new.....what i am inferring is a retirement plan, that leaves with the employee..
arch pointed out that the afl-cio does that...so does my firefighter pension....thats the way to do it...
gm evidently agreed to provide retiree's with certain things...and when costs go up it hurts the bottom line.....
Quote:
as I said earlier,, there was a time when those things weren't legislated,, Employers could get away with anything.. Today, not so much. Thus the impact unions can have on a business aren't so big anymore..
as far as working conditions maybe, or hours....but people in this country got that stuff because of unions...and if unions don't have a big impact, then why are they constantly trying to bust them....why does wal-mart immediately shut a store if someone talks of organizing?
fact is almost everyone is an "at will" employee...can be cut for anything but race, gender, or age i think.......see ya....you see it in business all the time...they call it downsizing...its replacing expensive with cheap...making profit....
same thing with outsourcing....same thing with illegal immigrants....all for profit...all bad....
more unions are needed...imo....one big one....
maybe one day the people of America, will unite and say "enough is enough" United we stand....divided we fall.....
we've got the power...and as long as they keep us all divided into are little groups...white, black, men, women, republican, democrat, north and south...we will remain divided and powerless...
just the way the powers that be like it....
Quote:
yeah,, I want all the textile workers in the US to take a paycut to 1.00 per hour... seriously, I'll ask you what you asked me,, is it ok if I don't know the answer to correct?
But the unions kept blaming the companies... you wanna know the truth,, blame Walmart and Kmart,,, they kept demanding lower prices of thier vendors,, the vendors cut corners and then the last gasp was,, make the stuff overseas for a buck an hour...
why not....thats what it would take to be competitive.....well i have to ask, why are we competing? with someone we cannot obviously compete with?
why don't we do it the old fashion way....factory A on mainstreet, UDA....verus....factory B on Broadway, USA....state versus state...American company versus American company....who cares about the rest of the world...
the only way the whole wacky "free trade" scam will ever work, is if foreign wages come up to American wages, or American wages come down to Foreign.....wanna make a bet which way its gonna go?
Were the only materialistic fools anyway.......only difference was that every penny that was spent, went to another American who in turn spent his penny on something else American....
right now money is leaving the country by the billion....
just last year, the gov't borrows cash from china for a stimulus package....gives it to us....we go to walmart..it goes back to china....what a bunch of ignorant fools....
Quote:
let's talk about that a little,, what protects the "little" guy better.. Unions that fight for higher wages and benefits with little to no regard to corporate profits...,Or companies that fight to stay in business to they can continue to offer a living wage and benefits within thier means?
In the long run,, which is for the "little" guy?
see, we are back to the union is the problem....heck, maybe they were trying to learn from there ceo, and take the company for all its worth?
i'm union...i've taken pay freezes twice in my career, when our town lost income from companys closing...i've given the town things they wanted, and got things i've wanted...i get to negotiate...
of course you want profitable companies...why is it the unions job to set them up....
i guess what i want is profitable companies that treat their employees fairly...
Quote:
I hate to sound angry,, but I can't help it.. Unions were and can still be a good thing... but somewhere along the line, they have to stop being adversarial and start becoming part of the solution... they need to PARTNER with businesses...
i can agree with that, if you can agree that companies have to stop being so concerned with maximizing profit at the expense of the workers...
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
point blank question: Do you feel you should be able to work for a company, making huge wages, AND after 30 years of work have the company pay you a pension, AND your healthcare until the day you die, and then have them continue to pay the healthcare for you spouse?
That is what the UAW has now. The retired employee has no need to fear anything, as the company will take care of them. (or the union).
I think it was stupid for the company to negotiate that and I also think it was very stupid of the companies to not properly fund the pension plan. That money should have been paid into a fund(as most pension plans are done now).
Thats pension plan is part of their compensation while they were working, so now the shortsighted company does not have the means to pay the compensation that is owed to the employees. SO who loses?? It looks like it will be the guys who worked for that pension becuase of mismanagement.
I work for a company, part of my pay(compensation) is a certain amount per hour goes into a pension plan(ours is actually run by the union). I get a statement every quarter showing how much of MY money went into the pension fund, how much came out for administrative costs, and how much my monthly pension would be if I retired that day. When I retire, the company has zero liabilty to my pension, and if the plan is funded right, neither does the union. That is how the pensions are handled for the majority of union shop workers.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
[Did I say that? The unions are part of the problem -a big part, but still just part.
In my experiences with unions, companies, and negotiating contracts that are fair to the companies and the workers(ideally the goal for the modern unions) it is incompetent management that would allow a union to negotitate a ridiculous contract and basically allow the union to take over. The unions(The UAW and the big three automakers anyways) have become a big problem because poor mangement has allowed them to be. Thins are going to have to change,out on the floor, and in the offices. I dont think hourly wages really are the big poblem that needs to change.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
lol....i guarantee you if i was making 20 mil a year that wouldn't be the case...lol
are they that afraid of strikes?
i've always thought that they should have binding arbitration, instead of stikes....strikes hurt the company....a third party arbitrator usually picks the middle, and both sides leave with something, but not everything...
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,267 |
 It took eight years but we finally found something he's good at, Dodgeball. I'll bet Laura use to throw shoes at him when he came home from the bar. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
looks like gm doesn't have the cash for the healthcare costs for retiree's. You think they would have cash set aside for all of that...especially since they just negotiated it last year.... web page GM exec says opening UAW contract might be necessary Robert Snell / The Detroit News BIRMINGHAM -- General. Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers might need to renegotiate the landmark 2007 labor agreement if Congress does not approve an auto industry bailout soon, a company executive said this morning. But Diana Tremblay, vice president of labor relations for GM North America, said it is too soon to say whether the automaker needs to tweak the contract, which created a union-run trust fund. "If it is determined that that is the biggest problem that we need to work through, I am sure we will figure out a way through that that meets the interests of both parties," she said during a Leadership Oakland breakfast at the Townsend Hotel. "Our history shows that General Motors and the UAW can work through our problems. We need to see how the events unfold over the next few weeks." Advertisement GM and the union agreed to create a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association that is slated to take effect in 2010. The UAW will control and manage the VEBA for retiree health care benefits, eliminating one of GM's most significant cost burdens. But tight credit markets and one of the worst auto markets in decades has made it difficult for GM to pay the $7 billion it is required to put into the fund in 2010 and it seeking aid from the federal government for help in making that payment and for its continuing operations. You can reach Rob Snell at (313) 222-2028 or rsnell@detnews.com. * Article Tools: * Print * Email * Comment
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,959 |
It's certainly a step in the right direction if they can make that pension plan work..
I still don't like the idea of Union leadership manageing my pension.. But that's more of a personal preference I suppose..
But then again, who can you trust today.. look at the investment advisor that just got arrested.. Madoff or something like that.. he swindled his customers out of close to 50 Billion.
He ran what is known as a Ponzi Scheme with peoples money.. My understanding is that if you run one of those, you can do it for years and years and only when people want thier money out does it become clear that something is amiss. Other than that, my knowledge of such things is very limited...
But this VEBA thing sounds interesting. As long as there are watchdogs watching the watch dogs.... Shame to say it,, but I go back to,, who can you trust...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
JC...
1950 -- General Motors (GM) established a pension plan for its employees. GM wanted to self-fund their pension plan because they wanted to invest in stocks. State law prohibited insurance companies from investing pension assets in stocks. The 1950s saw a bull market caused by the release of pent-up demand, due to wartime restrictions and the need to rebuild Europe and Japan.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
j/c
I guess I'll just say that, overall, the thing that makes me the most upset is the double standard that Congress imposed. The bank bailout failed, but then quickly passed. How much regulation did Congress put on the banks? How much did they demand that workers at the banks take a pay cut?
Many of the banks now are blatantly keeping the bailout money to improve their bottom line. I've personally heard that from a bank executive. They're not lending money like they're supposed to.
The automakers come along, and it's the third degree.
If you want to grill people over getting federal money, that's fine. In fact, I'd prefer it. But, you can't grill select people in an attempt to defeat the Unions, which I believe this is all about.
The double standard is the biggest reason the failure of the auto bailout has frustrated me.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I think part of this IS that the money that went to the banks is just sitting there and being used for everything except loans. So, they are taking a different route this time around.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
If you want to grill people over getting federal money, that's fine. In fact, I'd prefer it. But, you can't grill select people in an attempt to defeat the Unions, which I believe this is all about.
The thing is it was mostly Republicans that were against the bank bailout. They only gave in because of great pressure that came from their people back home. I don't find it a double standard at all.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
Quote:
GM wanted to self-fund their pension plan because they wanted to invest in stocks. State law prohibited insurance companies from investing pension assets in stocks.
well then that seems to be the main problem right there...its not wages, its probably not even ceo pay....its the stock market...
state law prohibits that for a reason.....so you don't lose all of your funds that you owe to your retiree's....
if the money was all invested in stocks, and the stock market tanks like it did....bye bye money...so now they don't have the cash to pay the current retiree's let alone, the ones that are working now....same goes with the 7 billion to get free of ever rising healthcare...
wonder what stocks they were invested in...wouldn't doubt it was financials....or maybe even there own...
either way they are screwed.....
couple that with fewer autoworkers now paying in, longer life expectancy, and rising health-care costs, and you have a receipe for disaster....
i gotta wonder what the bankruptcy law says...if that pension is a debt....and it has to be satisfied, where would they get the cash? would they have to sell off assets to do so?
sounds like they tried to beat the system to make a buck, and it backfired in there faces...
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
i gotta wonder what the bankruptcy law says...if that pension is a debt....and it has to be satisfied, where would they get the cash? would they have to sell off assets to do so?
That is why the modern laws regarding pensions state that the pernsion plans have to be a certain % funded. I think it is 70%. Basically it means that 70% of the money must be physically in the fund, not tied up in speculation. The reason for this is because in the past companies that were running their own pension plans would take as much of their pension funsing as possible, invest it in themselves, then file bankruptcy. This would leave the pension plan fighting to get paid along with all the other debt holders .
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Bailout ???
|
|
