Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / December 2008
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 14:58 GMT http://mediamatters.org/items/200812060002
"...Contrary to an often-repeated myth, UAW members at GM, Ford and Chrysler are not paid $73 an hour. The truth is, wages for UAW members range from about $14 per hour for newly hired workers to $28 per hour for assemblers. The $73 an hour figure is outdated and inaccurate. It includes not only the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for current workers, but also includes the costs of pensions and health care for all of the retired workers, spread out over the active workforce. Obviously, active workers do not receive any of this compensation, so it is simply not accurate to describe it as part of their "earnings."..."
"...GM, which negotiated the four-year deal that serves as a template for UAW deals with Chrysler and Ford, says its total hourly labor costs dropped 6 percent this year from pre-contract levels, from $73.26 in 2006 to around $69 per hour. The new cost includes laborers' wages of $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, pensions and the cost of providing health care to more than 432,000 GM retirees, GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said...."
"...In the [December 2] column, I compare the total hourly compensation of a UAW worker at GM, Ford and Chrysler with an average worker's pay at a Japanese plant in the United States. I used $71 per hour versus $42 per hour to point out how uncompetitive the domestic industry is.
Well, plenty of folks, including UAW and auto industry retirees raised heck, saying the comparison is skewed. Why? Because the figures include workers' wages and benefits and all of the pension and healthcare expenses the domestic industry must pay to its large base of retirees. ..."
"..."It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people."..."
"...However, even though the UAW said in 2007 that "[t]he highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll," and GM has acknowledged that its $70 or more per hour figure includes payments for current retirees, media figures and outlets have repeatedly advanced the false claim about autoworkers:..."
So basically, this $70/hour number is including the health care costs of twice as many retires and their families as there are current workers. Plus the amount that the auto companies are currently paying in pensions for twice the amount of retirees as there are current employees. Of course they aren't paying the pensions of current employees now.
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 16:12 GMT > So basically, this $70/hour number is including the health care costs of > twice as many retires and their families as there are current workers. > Plus the amount that the auto companies are currently paying in pensions > for twice the amount of retirees as there are current employees. Of course > they aren't paying the pensions of current employees now. I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for those already retired, but they are paying into the pension fund trust for those who are currently working.
However, one problem is that if the pension fund suffers investment losses, then GM would have to make up the difference. Conversely if the fund is doing better than expected in its investments, the company can reduce or skip contributions. But apparently the GM pension fund is doing OK because of its conservative investment strategy (probably bonds), and GM says it does not plan to add any money to the fund for the next three or four years. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/business/25auto.html
The health care cost for retirees is more complicated, and you can read about it in the above article. Note that anyone over 62 is eligible for Medicare, but the GM health care plan is way over the top compared to what most retired Americans have available to them.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 17:35 GMT >> So basically, this $70/hour number is including the health care costs of >> twice as many retires and their families as there are current workers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > those already retired, but they are paying into the pension fund trust for > those who are currently working. In theory but not in practice. Here is an article that explains that. It is a 3 1/2 year old article but the concept is there. I hope you understand it better than I do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64599-2005Apr18.html
"...Now, as we all can see, pension and health care obligations are eating GM alive. The bill for the "free" lunch has come in -- and GM is having trouble paying the tab. In the past two years, GM has put almost $30 billion into its pension funds and a trust to cover its OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefits) obligations. Yet these accounts are still a combined $54 billion underwater. ..."
> However, one problem is that if the pension fund suffers investment losses, > then GM would have to make up the difference. Conversely if the fund is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Medicare, but the GM health care plan is way over the top compared to what > most retired Americans have available to them. HLS - 22 Dec 2008 17:19 GMT "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:c7d7a$494d2cd5$cef8ac46
>> However, one problem is that if the pension fund suffers investment >> losses, then GM would have to make up the difference. Conversely if the >> fund is doing better than expected in its investments, the company can >> reduce or skip contributions. Is that specific to GM? I worked for a company some years ago, which invested our pension money into one of three (employee selected) stock accounts.
We lost a ton of money, as the administrating broker wore the stocks out trading them. (As usual, the brokerage gets paid for trades, not for performance).
Our company didnt reimburse a cent.
Did I miss something (besides my money)?
Mark A - 22 Dec 2008 17:47 GMT > Is that specific to GM? I worked for a company some years ago, which > invested our [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Did I miss something (besides my money)? That is not a defined benefits pension plan (which have been phased out or never existed at most companies). A defined benefit pension plan like GM has provides pre-defined benefits based on salary, years of service, etc when you retire. It works sort of like Social Security. So if they don't have enough funds in the Pension Fund account (which is separate from the company accounts) to pay for the anticipated retirement pay they will have to give out, the company is required to make up the difference. This money is accrued in advance, and is not pay as you go (like the government does with Social Security). For example, at the end of 2007 GM had $100 billion in their pension fund account and they anticipated that they would eventually have to pay out $85 billion in the future.
If you select your own investments, you definitely do not have a defined benefit pension plan, you get whatever money is in the account when you retire. Assuming you aren't talking about a 401K, then you probably have a cash balance retirement plan, where each employee has a specific amount of money in the account based on the contributions made by the company and any investment gains or losses on the account as the result of investments. No, the company is not responsible for investment losses.
It is possible to have a cash balance retirement account even if you don't get to choose your own investments, as IBM had from about 1999 - 2005 (before they completely eliminated pension benefits and increased the company matching on the 401K plan. In this plan the cash balance was guaranteed to increase by a certain percent each year depending on which contract they signed for that year with a financial services company (usually an insurance company). This is why the US government could not allow AIG (largest insurance company in the US, or maybe the world) to go bankrupt, because they had a lot of pension fund and 401K money in their accounts.
mechanic@telusplanet.net - 20 Dec 2008 19:18 GMT > I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current > employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for > those already retired, but they are paying into the pension fund trust for > those who are currently working. If this were an absolute truth, the government pension schemes (CPP in Canada and OAS ? in the US) wouldn't be in trouble.... As it stands (and I'm no spring chicken), In will be lucky to see much in the way of returns from my CPP "investment".
Employees are an expensive thing to have.... add a collective bargaining agreement that brutalizes the employer with "work to rule" efforts and what can only be called "denial of service" attacks (strike actions).. and people can get paid much more than a task is worth in absolute terms...
My wage and benefit package costs MY employer much less than a unionized auto assembler costs one of the detroit 3.... What is real strange is that MY job requires that I know how these things are built and ALSO how to fix the friggin' things... Something that Lou down at lug nut installation doesn't need to know...
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 19:21 GMT >> I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current >> employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the friggin' things... Something that Lou down at lug nut installation > doesn't need to know... Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less?
mechanic@telusplanet.net - 20 Dec 2008 20:04 GMT Jeez... I love the way some of you guys pretend to know stuff....
I do well... I do very well, thank you.... and I do very well because I know my stuff and I apply myself in a free market. If I were to become a union member, I would take a drop in pay... honest (wanna see tax slips?).
A trade union is socialism at its purest.... Communism, if you will.... we are all equal, comrade... oops, I meant brother... we don't need to be good - we only need to be together... unionism/socialism/communism.... this kills individuality... it kills achievement... it pays people to do as little as possible....
But, I digress.... I am an automotive service technician... I have learned my craft well... I study, I train, I learn... Currently, I work in the service department of a Ford store in Canada. I am in control of what I get paid.... I use my reputation and knowledge and abilities as bargaining chips....
I will do my best to teach an apprentice what I know.... but he will never be allowed to ride my coat tails to a better place...
It's not that I like "being paid less".. it is that I can't afford to join a union and go there.
>>> I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current >>> employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> installation doesn't need to know... > Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less? Tim - 20 Dec 2008 20:28 GMT > Jeez... I love the way some of you guys pretend to know stuff.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > kills individuality... it kills achievement... it pays people to do as > little as possible.... Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee negotiator. What could be fairer?
> But, I digress.... I am an automotive service technician... I have learned > my craft well... I study, I train, I learn... Currently, I work in the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>> installation doesn't need to know... >> Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less? Ed Pawlowski - 20 Dec 2008 20:41 GMT "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > negotiator. What could be fairer? I'll represent myself, thank you. Then I know what is fair for me.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 20:46 GMT > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee >> negotiator. What could be fairer? > > I'll represent myself, thank you. Then I know what is fair for me. That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just equalizes things for the worker. Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage.
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 20:58 GMT > That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they > don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just > equalizes things for the worker. > Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. When an employee can threaten to quit when they are not paid what they can get elsewhere, they have the upper hand. Most non-union employees have changed jobs many times in their career, and bettered there pay each time (not just cost of living increases). I have gone back to work previous employers, each time at significantly higher pay.
Employees who cannot get the same or higher pay elsewhere are generally not worth what they are paid.
The main reason that everything is made in China these days (with the exception of cars, but that is probably coming) is primarily because of labor unions.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 21:02 GMT >> That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they >> don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > exception of cars, but that is probably coming) is primarily because of > labor unions. It is primarily because they will work for rice.
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 21:31 GMT > It is primarily because they will work for rice. So what do you think they were working for before everything was made in China? Half as much rice as they make now.
Actually, you have been brainwashed. China is a rapidly growing economy and your would surprised how many millionaires and billionaires there are in China.
Everyone said the same about Japan 25 years ago, and now Japanese have a much higher standard of living than in the US. If you went to Tokyo, I doubt you could even afford to get out of the airport.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 23:18 GMT >> It is primarily because they will work for rice. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > much higher standard of living than in the US. If you went to Tokyo, I doubt > you could even afford to get out of the airport. I doubt they have a much higher standard of living than here. They have had a rough last decade and are not buying very many cars from what I heard. As for the number of millionaires and billionaires, that's because they don't pay very much to the actual workers.
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 00:19 GMT > I doubt they have a much higher standard of living than here. They have > had a rough last decade and are not buying very many cars from what I > heard. > As for the number of millionaires and billionaires, that's because they > don't pay very much to the actual workers. Don't pay much by what standards? By Chinese standards they pay excellent wages in automobile factories there.
Mike Marlow - 21 Dec 2008 04:22 GMT >>> It is primarily because they will work for rice. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > As for the number of millionaires and billionaires, that's because they > don't pay very much to the actual workers. You are brainwashed.
Pathetic.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
mechanic@telusplanet.net - 25 Dec 2008 19:41 GMT Being able to afford "something" has little to do with ones standard of living...
Where I live, we are in a labour crunch. McDonalds is offering $13 per hour for burger flippers.... I couldn't afford to live on $13 per hour.
However.... when the "free" world becomes involved, we might see a "sweat shop" develop.... An employee will cling to their job.... glad to have above "average" income... willing to work long and hard hours to maintain that above average income.
Whoaaaaa. that sounds a lot like me....
>> It is primarily because they will work for rice. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > much higher standard of living than in the US. If you went to Tokyo, I > doubt you could even afford to get out of the airport. Gosi - 25 Dec 2008 19:57 GMT On 25 Dec, 19:41, <mecha...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Being able to afford "something" has little to do with ones standard of > living... > > Where I live, we are in a labour crunch. McDonalds is offering $13 per hour > for burger flippers.... I couldn't afford to live on $13 per hour. If the burger flippers are supposed to be able to live in $13/hour then I guess the Wall Street guys should get the same or less. Losing billions of dollars can not be more difficukt than flipping burgers. Same to rick and co Cars are made by robots and not much skill involved for the monkeys that feed them.
Tom - 25 Dec 2008 20:33 GMT hey ya top posting freak. just want to let you know it finally stopped raining here long enough for me to get the bed off of the 2000 F350, and the new fuel pump in.
thanks for the tips. you made the job alot easier. <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:amR4l.818$%
mechanic@telusplanet.net - 27 Dec 2008 19:56 GMT Top posting freak???? I'll have you know I ressemble that friggin' remark..... About time you got some work done....
> hey ya top posting freak. > just want to let you know it finally stopped raining here long enough for > me to get the bed off of the 2000 F350, and the new fuel pump in. > > thanks for the tips. you made the job alot easier. > <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:amR4l.818$% Top posting freak???? I'll have you know I ressemble that friggin' remark..... About time you got some work done....
Now..... That should screw them up for a while....
Tom - 27 Dec 2008 23:45 GMT aw, cut me some slack, will ya?? you ever try to do anything when you are older than dirt, it is pouring rain for 3 weeks straight, the truck is outside, and you have a ankle with 6 broken bones in it? ;-)
> Top posting freak???? I'll have you know I ressemble that friggin' > remark..... About time you got some work done.... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Now..... That should screw them up for a while.... mechanic@telusplanet.net - 28 Dec 2008 03:22 GMT I didn't even know ankles had six bones.... broken ankle? What'd you do - lift your wallet wrong??? 8^)
> aw, cut me some slack, will ya?? > you ever try to do anything when you are older than dirt, it is pouring [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> Now..... That should screw them up for a while.... Tom - 28 Dec 2008 12:55 GMT 2 stress fractures, 4 chip fractures, and 2 torn ligaments.
i got my first pension check cashed at the bank, and did not realize how heavy that dang wallet was gonna be till i tried to lift it and carry it down the steps.!!!
>I didn't even know ankles had six bones.... broken ankle? What'd you do - >lift your wallet wrong??? 8^) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>> >>> Now..... That should screw them up for a while.... Ed Pawlowski - 26 Dec 2008 02:43 GMT > Being able to afford "something" has little to do with ones standard of > living... > > Where I live, we are in a labour crunch. McDonalds is offering $13 per > hour for burger flippers.... I couldn't afford to live on $13 per hour. While not a wage I'd want to try to live on, it is pretty good money for a high school kid, an uneducated dropout, or a part time mom that wants to make a few extra bucks while the kids are in school.
Gosi - 26 Dec 2008 11:09 GMT > <mecha...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > high school kid, an uneducated dropout, or a part time mom that wants to > make a few extra bucks while the kids are in school. As I understand it then it is going very well for McDonalds now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index the price of a Big Mac was $3.57 in the United States The Big Mac can be used to tell the difference in cost of living around the world etc.
mechanic@telusplanet.net - 27 Dec 2008 20:13 GMT Yes and no, Ed.... Over ten years ago, people were getting $17/hour sweeping floors.... In something a little over 6 years, my wages have doubled... Is this normal? I think not....
This is inflation on steroids...
While each and every one of us would dearly love to be paid with sacks and sacks of money... it can't happen.... A job is only worth what it is worth in terms of knowledge - in terms of technical expertise - in terms of investment in tools....
Speaking of which.... Let's look at a salesman... He has, among other things, a suit. Might be a cheap one - might be an Armani... His ''tools" incl\ude looking good - smelling good and sounding good... $800 for a decent suit, $200 for nice shoes, $1500 to have his teeth capped and that halitosis dealt with.. done deal... can't do anythiung for the mans personality - but we are all in that boat.
I smell bad - I don't own a suit - I'm an a.shole and usually proud of the fact... but I own a LOT of tools... more than some people paid for their house. I have a lot of intellectual property... I deal in reality and cannot baffle people with bullshit because it will catch up with me.
We are coming to that point in time where the stark reality will be getting paid appropriately for what we do. Assembly line workers are in for a rude awakening....
>> Being able to afford "something" has little to do with ones standard of >> living... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > high school kid, an uneducated dropout, or a part time mom that wants to > make a few extra bucks while the kids are in school. Ed Pawlowski - 20 Dec 2008 21:11 GMT "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they > don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just > equalizes things for the worker. > Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. Employees can quit too. Years ago I worked for a company with a union (I was not a member). We paid the employees about $1.50 over the contract rate. That was the labor market we were in. When the company next door needed people, he'd pay a little more than us and a few guys would jump ship. If we needed them back, all we had to do was offer them a bit more.
As for the union, all they did was collect dues. That was the business they are in.
Mike Marlow - 21 Dec 2008 04:21 GMT >> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just equalizes things for the worker. > Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. Sure it would. Those employees that get off their butt and offer the company more are worth more in wages. Your union mentality is hurting you - killing you. Fair is to be paid what you're worth based on what you offer - not based on the fact that you breath. You don't like the threat of getting fired? The make yourself worthwhile to the company. Millions of people do that everyday. You are epitomizing the very reason people have come to despise unions - you are seeking protection from poor work and poor workmanship. Hell - you do not deserve those protections.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
mechanic@telusplanet.net - 22 Dec 2008 00:14 GMT When I got this job, I was looking for one.... Like the stock market or a retirement plan, one should invest wisely.... Your career is one of the most important investments in your life.... As such, you should always be "situationally aware".
"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul".
If my 'job' didn't pay me enough money, I would better myself and EARN more money (earn??? what a freaking concept). No need to improve - no need to apply myself... the union can always bully the employer into a higher remuneration.... Oh... wait... isn't that what drives inflation? Getting paid more than a task is worth?
Great people do great things.... sheep, no matter how well cared for, are going one place - right beside the mint jelly.
>> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > equalizes things for the worker. > Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. mechanic@telusplanet.net - 28 Dec 2008 16:50 GMT Wow.... imagine... an employer (the guy that signs the FRONT of the cheque) being able to decide where HIS business is going. How unorthodox can you get?
I spent many years as self employed... A small business, the most I had for employees at one time was about 12 - a mix of full and part time. "This" is the "job" and "these" are the tasks the "job" requires - none are illegal, dangerous or immoral... "this" is what it pays.
While you might decide that holding a gun to my head for higher wages or expensive benefits might be appropriate - as the keeper of the purse strings, I would find it appropriate to decide what I am going to spend and where I am going to spend it.
Now that we have manufactured our own Catch 22... I can prove that it is my ball - my glove... hell, even the ball field belongs to me - and I can send everyone home.
Picture, if you will, a shepherd... He can either drive the sheep to where he wants them... or he can follow them - praying that they will wind up where he desires....
>> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > equalizes things for the worker. > Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 20:54 GMT > Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > negotiator. What could be fairer? Union negotiation of pay negates the reality that some people are better employees than others in terms of productivity and quality of work, and that they should be paid more. When you have a union that negotiates pay based on seniority, then there is no incentive for an employee to work harder or improve the quality of their work.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 21:01 GMT >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee >> negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seniority, then there is no incentive for an employee to work harder or > improve the quality of their work. I thought trained monkeys could do these jobs.
Jim Higgins - 20 Dec 2008 22:06 GMT > >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > >> negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I thought trained monkeys could do these jobs. They could.
Gosi - 22 Dec 2008 10:43 GMT > >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > >> negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I thought trained monkeys could do these jobs. They do
Tim - 27 Dec 2008 14:25 GMT >>>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee >>>> negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They do Oh. Some trained monkeys do a better job than others.
Gosi - 27 Dec 2008 16:18 GMT > >>>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > >>>> negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Oh. Some trained monkeys do a better job than others. Gorillas are quite good but not that many. Chimps are in greater supply.
Mike Marlow - 21 Dec 2008 04:13 GMT > Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one > employee negotiator. What could be fairer? You take care of yourself - that's what could be "fairer". Do your job diligently, leave every day having done just a little more than what was asked of you, and stop looking at your employer as your enemy, and you won't need all of those negotiators either.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Tim - 21 Dec 2008 14:39 GMT >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one >> employee negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > asked of you, and stop looking at your employer as your enemy, and you > won't need all of those negotiators either. Sure. I trust the management to be fair to them, just like I trust Bernie Madoff to be honest and not cheat anyone. Or those Wall St. bankers. Yeah, I trust them to be fair and honest. Goodness, how old are you? 5?
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 15:09 GMT > Sure. I trust the management to be fair to them, just like I trust Bernie > Madoff to be honest and not cheat anyone. Or those Wall St. bankers. Yeah, > I trust them to be fair and honest. > Goodness, how old are you? 5? A free market is not based on trust, it is based on the right to go somewhere else if you don't think you are being paid enough, or for the company to hire someone else if they think someone else can do a better job or do it cheaper. This is the same thing you do when buy goods and services for your personal use. You want the best product or service for you money. If you buy gas for your car, you don't care if the gas came from US crude oil or foreign crude oil, so long as you get the best price for a given quality.
I have no idea what "fair" is when it comes to wages. Wages are based on supply and demand. If fairness is comparing UAW wages to others who do similar labor, then UAW workers would be making a lot less.
Regarding Bernie Madoff, anyone who bothered to read the financial statements could see that they were audited by a very small CPA firm, and not one of the big name CPA firms. That should have been a major red flag right away. They have since found out that the CPA firm that did the audits has been insisting for years to regulatory groups that it does not even do audits.
SC Tom - 21 Dec 2008 15:57 GMT > I have no idea what "fair" is when it comes to wages. Wages are based on > supply and demand. If fairness is comparing UAW wages to others who do > similar labor, then UAW workers would be making a lot less. I don't totally agree with you there. I lived in the Detroit area for 11 years from 1969 to 1980. The first 5 years there, I worked at Ford's Wayne Assembly Plant, which of course was a union job. The wages were very good for that time, and I had no trouble getting what I wanted in the way of most toys and needs. I left there and went to work for a large retail nursery chain that was growing and expanding all up and down the east coast. Even after 2 promotions to top assistant store manager, I still wasn't making as much as I did at a union job. The store I managed was a 2A store, meaning it grossed over $2.5M per year (pretty good chunk of change for 1976!). The demand for product was there, and so was the supply, but the wages weren't. Is that to say the wages were unfair? Not really- it was still a pretty good living. "Fair" to me would be a wage that would allow a family to have the basic necessities, and a few perks, without going so deeply into debt that they'd never get out. Otherwise, you might as well "sell your soul to the company store" as the old song went. A lot of the problem today (IMHAWO) is that everyone wants what they want, and they want it NOW! If that means maxing out 4 or 5 credit cards, so be it. If that means getting a mortgage on a home Bill Gates couldn't afford, don't come crying to me when the bottom falls out. As luck (and research) would have it, I managed to put pretty decent money into my 401k at the last company I worked and build myself an OK nest egg. I'm not rich by any means, not even in the well-to-do category, but at age 62, I've managed to pay off my mortgage (1900 sq. ft. home) and my vehicle (2002 Escape) and have no credit card debt. I'm certainly no financial wizard, just a retired IS guy. But I think if I can do it, most people can. Yes, I went through some lean years (repossessed vehicle and homeless for a few months), but that's all behind me now. It can be done, and you don't have to have a $100K a year job to do it (unless, of course, you're spending $125K a year).
Sorry for the rant- that's just the way I see it.
SC Tom
Ed Pawlowski - 21 Dec 2008 16:23 GMT "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
> "Fair" to me would be a wage that would allow a family to have the basic > necessities, and a few perks, without going so deeply into debt that > they'd never get out. I sort of agree, but some skill and responsibility should go with that. The Federal minimum wage is a joke, but dishwasher should not make as much as a skilled machinist or doctor.
Gosi - 21 Dec 2008 16:48 GMT > "SC Tom" <s...@tom.net> wrote in message > > "Fair" to me would be a wage that would allow a family to have the basic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Federal minimum wage is a joke, but dishwasher should not make as much as a > skilled machinist or doctor. Rick F. Wishywashy should get a bit less than a diswasher for collapsing all trust of GM. Actually he should pay back old wages and bonuses for the last few years he robbed
SC Tom - 22 Dec 2008 14:38 GMT > "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message >> "Fair" to me would be a wage that would allow a family to have the basic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Federal minimum wage is a joke, but dishwasher should not make as much > as a skilled machinist or doctor. I don't think a dishwasher would ever make as much as a doctor or someone in skilled trades unless the dishwasher applied himself, got a better or more education in a particular field, and changed jobs. Of course, that's where the skill part comes in, and with that new job would come more responsibility for his own actions (which seems to be missing in American life now). After leaving the assembly (union) job, each of my new ones required more education and skill, and definitely more responsibility. The IS position I retired from required the most of all, but I still didn't earn as much as an assembly line worker at a U.S. automaker's unionized plant. But that was my decision to leave that job, so I can't blame them for what I don't make. Hey, that's the American way- get as much as you can, and if you don't want to learn a skill, join a union.
And yes, the minimum wage is pathetic. A 40 hour week would keep a SINGLE person below the poverty level, much less a family.
SC Tom
Mike Marlow - 22 Dec 2008 13:22 GMT >>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one >>> employee negotiator. What could be fairer? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bankers. Yeah, I trust them to be fair and honest. > Goodness, how old are you? 5? I sir am probably a good bit older than you and have experienced fair treatment for my entire working life. Sure - there are some unethical people out there and once in a while they cross your path in life, but that is an entirely different matter. It is a shame that you are so influenced by someone as to belive that it is you versus your employer. You will never have a good relationship with an employer with that philosophy. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. You are exactly what the unions want in their rank and file.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 20:51 GMT > Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less? You only get paid more in a union until the company goes out of business, or ships the job overseas.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 21:00 GMT >> Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less? > > You only get paid more in a union until the company goes out of business, or > ships the job overseas. What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business?
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 21:27 GMT > What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business? I doubt that the Big 3 will go out business, but it is possible. Bankruptcy does not usually mean out of business, it usually means reorganization. Every major airline has declared bankruptcy except for AA and Southwest, but only a few have actually disappeared.. The unions forced a shut down of Eastern Airlines instead of negotiating a reasonable union contract. Other airlines bought the Eastern planes, repainted them, and increased their routes.
What will happen is that other automakers will take over and increase production in the US. But there will invariable be more auto imports. I doubt that it will affect my job much, because I am not associated with the auto business, even indirectly.
When I lost my job in the mid 1980's because the price of oil hit $8 (that was in 1986 dollars), I don't recall anyone in the northeast worrying about my well-being.
Vic Smith - 20 Dec 2008 21:38 GMT >> What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >doubt that it will affect my job much, because I am not associated with the >auto business, even indirectly. If they go bust along with the union, there's nothing to keep the transplants here. The industry is intricately interwoven, and once it starts unraveling, it could end in tatters. But it won't happen because of that. IMO.
--Vic
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 21:47 GMT > If they go bust along with the union, there's nothing to keep the > transplants here. The industry is intricately interwoven, and once [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > --Vic Au contraire . The reasons that Japanese moved production to the US (and why the Germans are doing so also) is because they got killed by the falling dollar years ago, and if the cars were still made in Japan, no one would be able to afford them (or the Japanese auto-makers would be taking big losses).
If you look at the value of the dollar versus the Euro for the last 5 years, and the fact that the price of BMW's, VW. Audi, and Mercedes has not increased much, you will see that the Germans are getting killed by the exchange rate in the US. They know they have to keep the prices low in order to maintain market share and hope the dollar goes back up, or until they can shift production to the US.
The US worker is to Germany, what the China rice farmer is to the US. The German worker will complain that the US employees will work all day for a few Big Macs (which may be close to true based on what a Big Mac costs in Germany).
Vic Smith - 20 Dec 2008 22:08 GMT >> If they go bust along with the union, there's nothing to keep the >> transplants here. The industry is intricately interwoven, and once [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >able to afford them (or the Japanese auto-makers would be taking big >losses). And contrary to that, the accepted reason to my knowledge for the Japs building plants was American political pressure and threats of limiting import sales back in the Reagan administration. When I mentioned "interwoven" that includes politics. Which usually trumps all the high falutin "economic theory" you might have about the value of the dollar. Keep in mind that the "best" economic minds have gotten the local economies to the place they are now. It is politicians who will set things straight, not economists. That's not to say they won't follow economic principles, but they will be local in nature, not global. All politics is local, as you can see by the current geographical divide on this bailout issue. A less delicate way to say it is when you get a .45 stuck in your face, you cough up your wallet.
--Vic
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 00:18 GMT > And contrary to that, the accepted reason to my knowledge for the Japs > building plants was American political pressure and threats of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > --Vic Accepted by whom? There were import quotas on cars even before Reagan. That is one reason for them moving production here, but the main reason is to protect against currency fluctuations. As the US has moved more to free trade stance, the issue of import quotas is no longer a factor, and even the Germans are moving production here.
Vic Smith - 21 Dec 2008 01:24 GMT >> And contrary to that, the accepted reason to my knowledge for the Japs >> building plants was American political pressure and threats of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >trade stance, the issue of import quotas is no longer a factor, and even the >Germans are moving production here. Accepted by anyone who actually lived through that period, or read about it. The paper below details it and is well done on the more obscure historical details. Some of the parallels with current events are striking. I recommend it to anybody interested in what is happening now if only for those parallels, and further as an example of despite how history repeats itself, the "Big 3" haven't learned much. Deja vu all over again. But my main point has nothing to do with the arcane arts of dollar valuations determining plant locations or what the Germans are doing. It is that the politicians will decide what "economics" are applied. Just like they have decided to bail out GM and Chrysler. Despite what all the "experts" here and elsewhere have said. I suspect there will be more "loans" forthcoming, and much gnashing of teeth to getting the automakers and the UAW to respond as they should. I won't predict the final outcome.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/japan/scohenwp.htm
--Vic
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 01:47 GMT > Accepted by anyone who actually lived through that period, or read > about it. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > --Vic I did live through it, and paid list price or slightly higher for 2 Japanese cars (1979 and 1986).
I agree that the parallels are interesting (deep recession of early 1980's), but there is only a passing reference to the Japanese building factories in the US, i.e., that it eventually made import quotas (even if voluntary) no longer an issue. But that does not mean that is reason why they built the plants here, that is a merely an ancillary benefit. The main reason is the foreign currency issues. As the author noted, the Japanese companies made more money (windfall profits) with the voluntary quotas then they made without them.
In any event, even if that is debatable for the 1980's, it is certainly not the reason why they are building plants here now. You cannot seriously believe that BMW and Mercedes are worried about import quotas and that it played an important factor in their decision to build plants in the US.
Vic Smith - 21 Dec 2008 02:32 GMT >> Accepted by anyone who actually lived through that period, or read >> about it. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I agree that the parallels are interesting (deep recession of early 1980's), And doubling of gas prices.
>but there is only a passing reference to the Japanese building factories in >the US, i.e., that it eventually made import quotas (even if voluntary) no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >more money (windfall profits) with the voluntary quotas then they made >without them. Are you linking the windfall profits to currency valuations? The paper suggests simple price gouging. If you can't provide cites for your argument, desist. Otherwise, I'm willing to read them. I am willing to be wrong and learn something.
>In any event, even if that is debatable for the 1980's, it is certainly not >the reason why they are building plants here now. You cannot seriously >believe that BMW and Mercedes are worried about import quotas and that it >played an important factor in their decision to build plants in the US. Of course not, and I never remotely suggested that. Why the Japs built here in the first place was a side issue, and the past is the past. As I said above, what I believe is that politicians - and the automakers themselves - will decide the fate of the "Big 3." Just as they've done in the past. It will be an "American" decision and have nothing to do with Japs or Germans. It will be about American jobs. Economists' pontificating about the value of the dollar versus the yen, yuan and mark won't count. BTW, it appears many if not most American politicians drive "Big 3" cars. That counts.
--Vic
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 02:54 GMT > Are you linking the windfall profits to currency valuations? > The paper suggests simple price gouging. > If you can't provide cites for your argument, desist. > Otherwise, I'm willing to read them. > I am willing to be wrong and learn something. Not at all. I was paraphrasing what the author said in the article you posted, i.e.. that with the volutuntary quotas the Japanese made windfall profits because they were able to raise their prices as the demand for their cars soared. You call that price gouging, I call it supply and demand (dealers made a bundle also). They also invested that money in bigger and more luxury models, which dealt a sever blow to US automakers later on.
Tom - 21 Dec 2008 01:03 GMT if i could figure a way to go non union, i would be there in a heartbeat. but my work is almost 100% union specific, seeing as you must hire union employees if you want to do municipal, county, state, or federal funded work. and since i am in the road construction trades, i have to be union. which means the guy that does nothing but gripes about having to show up for work and actually drive the truck 3 miles gets the same pay as i do, even though i will put 500 + miles a day on the truck.
>> I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current >> employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the friggin' things... Something that Lou down at lug nut installation > doesn't need to know... Tim - 20 Dec 2008 20:48 GMT >> So basically, this $70/hour number is including the health care costs of >> twice as many retires and their families as there are current workers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > those already retired, but they are paying into the pension fund trust for > those who are currently working. How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense?
> However, one problem is that if the pension fund suffers investment losses, > then GM would have to make up the difference. Conversely if the fund is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Medicare, but the GM health care plan is way over the top compared to what > most retired Americans have available to them. Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 21:18 GMT > How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and > including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since > they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense? Pension fund accounting is a complex subject, but a company must deposit cash into the pension fund in advance each year based on the number of employee hours worked that year to cover what the future projected pension benefits are. That is the law regarding pension funds and the rules regarding Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
If the investments in the pension fund are doing well, they may be able to skip funding for a year, if the investments are doing poorly they make have add additional funds, irrespective of the number of employee hours worked that year. The Pension Fund is in a separate set of accounts from regular GM accounts and are not affected by a bankruptcy (unless the fund is underfunded for some reason in which case the difference is made up the US government which has an insurance plan for such pension funds, sort of like the FDIC for bank accounts).
At the end of 2007 the GM pension fund's assets were worth $104 billion, more than enough to cover its projected obligations of $85 billion for retired and current workers (based on the number of years a current employee has worked so far). We do not know for sure what will happen when they close the books for 2008 and look at their investments (which may have taken a hit due to the market crash).
Health care is a different story.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 21:21 GMT >> How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and >> including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > benefits are. That is the law regarding pension funds and the rules > regarding Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Who says this $70/hour is based on GAAP? It is just a number they have given the media. Why don't they break out the details?
> If the investments in the pension fund are doing well, they may be able to > skip funding for a year, if the investments are doing poorly they make have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Health care is a different story. Vic Smith - 20 Dec 2008 21:33 GMT >>> How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and >>> including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Who says this $70/hour is based on GAAP? It is just a number they have >given the media. Why don't they break out the details? The number is bullshit. You would have to have an uninterested party look at the books. GM's bullshitting with these numbers has come back to bite them in the a.s when they have hat in hand. When I was UAW at IH in the late '60's there was a short strike. The Chicago Tribune published we were making $30 an hour. I was making about $6 and probably in the top 20%. Believe me, benefits wouldn't even get them close to $10. Of course the Trib and IH were joined at the hip. Actually, the only guy I believe on costs is Corker, though I don't necessarily agree with his solutions. There should be an open public forum with him and the UAW head thrashing it out. There's so much BS out there it's stinking up everything.
--Vic
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 23:21 GMT >>>> How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and >>>> including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > GM's bullshitting with these numbers has come back to bite them in the > a.s when they have hat in hand. Exactly. They look like fools for paying so much but didn`t want to tell congress that they were lying about the amount the workers got paid. I`m not sure why the UAW doesn`t go on the offensive and explain these numbers to people on the news programs.
> When I was UAW at IH in the late '60's there was a short strike. > The Chicago Tribune published we were making $30 an hour. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --Vic SC Tom - 21 Dec 2008 00:13 GMT > The health care cost for retirees is more complicated, and you can read > about it in the above article. Note that anyone over 62 is eligible for > Medicare, but the GM health care plan is way over the top compared to what > most retired Americans have available to them. Medicare is not available until age 65. If it was available at age 62, I wouldn't be paying out the butt for coverage now LOL.
SC Tom
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 00:39 GMT > Medicare is not available until age 65. If it was available at age 62, I > wouldn't be paying out the butt for coverage now LOL. > > SC Tom You just ruined my day. I guess I will be working 3 more years than I thought.
Gosi - 21 Dec 2008 10:01 GMT > > Medicare is not available until age 65. If it was available at age 62, I > > wouldn't be paying out the butt for coverage now LOL. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You just ruined my day. I guess I will be working 3 more years than I > thought. If you are working for GM there is no need to worry
Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 13:47 GMT > If you are working for GM there is no need to worry Not a chance.
Ed Pawlowski - 20 Dec 2008 19:28 GMT > http://mediamatters.org/items/200812060002 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Obviously, active workers do not receive any of this compensation, so it > is simply not accurate to describe it as part of their "earnings."..." Semantics. It is still the cost of every hour of labor no matter how you assign the costs. Other car makers do not have that pension portion to contend with. GM, OTOH, has not only today's labor to pay, but yesterday's too. That pension should have been funded by some other method than the Ponzi scheme they used. Other companies got into the same problem over the years, making promises to pay based on what will happen in the future.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 20:10 GMT >> http://mediamatters.org/items/200812060002 >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ponzi scheme they used. Other companies got into the same problem over the > years, making promises to pay based on what will happen in the future. So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers? If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave out current retirees' costs from the formula. Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly. By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement plans.
Ed Pawlowski - 20 Dec 2008 20:48 GMT "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union > worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers? > If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as > non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the > current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave > out current retirees' costs from the formula. It was poor planning a long time ago. Never said the worker should take less, but the company has to get out from under a debt that is going to kill them. The company and union are at fault with many of the problems and both have to work tegether to get out of the situation. Maybe some sacrifce for both is to ther mutual benefit (and that includes retirees)
Right now our business is slow as 50% of or business is tied to new construction. No bonus and I'm not expecting an increase next year. Nor will I complain as I'm still getting a check every month, unlike many others. When things turn around, the bonus will be back.
> Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly. Never did.
> By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement > plans. They call it the Social Security Administration.
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 21:01 GMT > So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union > worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement > plans. It is simply not true that workers at the Big 3 get paid the same (or less) than the other auto-workers in the US. They get paid more. That is irrespective of any pension or health care obligations that the Big 3 have for their retired workers. When I say they get paid more, I mean salary, pension accruals, and health care accruals for current employees.
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 21:09 GMT >> So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union >> worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for their retired workers. When I say they get paid more, I mean salary, > pension accruals, and health care accruals for current employees. No, but that is what they will be asked to do if the calculations about hourly cost include health benifits and pensions of retired workers. You will have to take less to account for the money spent on retirees. Some non-union auto workers make the same or more than UAW workers when considering only hourly rates. It depends on the factory. There are some auto workers making less than $15/hour and some making around $30/hour. And that is for non unionized import factories.
Mark A - 20 Dec 2008 21:33 GMT > No, but that is what they will be asked to do if the calculations about > hourly cost include health benifits and pensions of retired workers. You [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are some auto workers making less than $15/hour and some making > around $30/hour. And that is for non unionized import factories.'' The calculations do not include the retirement benefits of retired workers. Pensions are funded in advance. Health care is a different issue, but they could change the health care provisions if the union agreed (unlike the pensions for retired employees, which cannot be changed by law).
David Starr - 20 Dec 2008 22:15 GMT >The calculations do not include the retirement benefits of retired workers. >Pensions are funded in advance. Health care is a different issue, but they >could change the health care provisions if the union agreed (unlike the >pensions for retired employees, which cannot be changed by law). GM will be out of the health care business in 2010. It's being turned over to the UAW, and under the agreement connected to the loan, the GM funding to get it started will be GM stock. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Speak softly and carry a loaded .45 Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tim - 20 Dec 2008 23:24 GMT >> No, but that is what they will be asked to do if the calculations about >> hourly cost include health benifits and pensions of retired workers. You [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The calculations do not include the retirement benefits of retired workers. Yes they do. Prove they don`t.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081219.WBdriving20081219165 105/WBStory/WBdriving
``...Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers....``
> Pensions are funded in advance. Health care is a different issue, but they > could change the health care provisions if the union agreed (unlike the > pensions for retired employees, which cannot be changed by law). Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 00:30 GMT > Yes they do. Prove they don`t. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of > retired workers....`` You are confused. The $70 may include retired workers, but in that case it also includes the hours that the retired workers actually worked. The current workers are NOT paying for the retirement of retired GM workers. The GM Pension Fund (separate from GM) had over $100 billion, and the anticipated liability for retired workers was $85 billion at the end of 2007 (2008 numbers not released yet).
Now I don't know if $70 or $73 or $50 is the correct number, but I know that GM has already funded in a separate pension fund account $100 billion for the people who have already retired. I posted the NY Times article that documented that (not a blog like above).
Health care is a different matter, and GM is probably paying and expensing retiree health care costs as they occur (they have not funded it in advance).
Tim - 21 Dec 2008 01:20 GMT >> Yes they do. Prove they don`t. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the people who have already retired. I posted the NY Times article that > documented that (not a blog like above). GM never said where the money comes from. Maybe some of it is coming from a separate pension fund that they fund and they are including it in the calculation.
> Health care is a different matter, and GM is probably paying and expensing > retiree health care costs as they occur (they have not funded it in > advance). Mark A - 21 Dec 2008 01:26 GMT > GM never said where the money comes from. Maybe some of it is coming from > a separate pension fund that they fund and they are including it in the > calculation. I don't think it really matters. GM is supposed to have it wages in line with other automakers (Honda, Toyota, etc) who make cars in the US by 2010. Someone will figure out whether they do or don't accomplish that.
If they are already in compliance, then the UAW doesn't need to "educate" the public, since they will not be getting a pay cut (if they are correct).
Jeff Strickland - 20 Dec 2008 23:36 GMT > http://mediamatters.org/items/200812060002 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Obviously, active workers do not receive any of this compensation, so it > is simply not accurate to describe it as part of their "earnings."..." Except that if the costs of retired workers are ammortized over the active workforce, then the active work force IS paid the equivelent of $73, even if they personally never see anywhere near that amount of money. The effective labor cost is the same, whether it is in your paycheck or not.
If the car costs 15k in material and current costs to build, then the additional costs of retirement packages is added in, then they can only add that as a function of the current labor costs because the material costs do not change.
Assuming (as you do) that current labor costs run to about $25, then the discussion becomes about the cost of retirement benefits that approach $50 per working person. That particular discussion might be difficult to support, but you do not seem to be arguing this point.
> "...GM, which negotiated the four-year deal that serves as a template for > UAW deals with Chrysler and Ford, says its total hourly labor costs [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > for twice the amount of retirees as there are current employees. Of course > they aren't paying the pensions of current employees now. Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Dec 2008 23:17 GMT > "...Contrary to an often-repeated myth, UAW members at GM, Ford and > Chrysler are not paid $73 an hour. The truth is, wages for UAW members [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this compensation, so it is simply not accurate to describe it as part > of their "earnings."..." And if you go apples to apples, Toyota workers get about $48 per hour, roughly $17 in wages and the rest in benefits.
Someone mentioned the price of a Toyota is about the same as an American car of comparable value.
The trouble is, for every 1000 GM cars, there are far more fall-outs than per 1000 Toyotas. The parts last longer on a whole.
So, Toyota is putting the money into better parts. And enough profit so they don't have to go running to the government with their hands out.
If GM in particular had focused more on being a carmaker than a bank or an investment firm, they wouldn't be in this mess.
Toyota has the financials as an aside. Oh, and their homebuilding business, too. And their sewing machines. . . textile looms. . . etc.
ds549@webtv.net - 27 Dec 2008 00:33 GMT i guess if your a uaw member this matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm
|
|
|