Is the UAW run by dolts?

[Trell]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
No, I'm one of those do the right thing for the right reason crowd.  If you promise something then you should do it.  And yes, I'm rated at 100% according to the VA and know that service connected injuries are sometimes long lasting.  If you step up to the plate for your country and pay the price your country should step up to the plate to make good as best it can.  This has little to do with the auto industry beyond honoring an agreement.

Cool so you are behind the unions with  health care. and retirements  right?

[Toad]

All of you union bashers conveniently ignore the fact that the Japanese factories in the US are paying the employees essentially the same wage as the US automakers. In one case, Toyo is paying the same UAW wage at the Fremont plant.

It's not wages; the Japanese pay about the same wages to screw a car together here as the the US companies pay.

The legacy retirement benefits are the issue. These are benefits that the car companies AGREED TO PAY in the future in return for work DONE IN THE PAST. In short, these benefits were already paid for by the workers.

These legacy costs are what make the difference between what workers cost.

If Toyo or Nissan in the US promises retirement benefits to their workers, in 40-50 years these costs will be having the same effect on them.

It's always easy when you are the new guy with none of the associated costs of longevity. However, no one gets to be the new guy forever.

[VWE]

Originally posted by Toad
All of you union bashers conveniently ignore the fact that the Japanese factories in the US are paying the employees essentially the same wage as the US automakers. In one case, Toyo is paying the same UAW wage at the Fremont plant.

It's not wages; the Japanese pay about the same wages to screw a car together here as the the US companies pay.

The legacy retirement benefits are the issue. These are benefits that the car companies AGREED TO PAY in the future in return for work DONE IN THE PAST. In short, these benefits were already paid for by the workers.

These legacy costs are what make the difference between what workers cost.

If Toyo or Nissan in the US promises retirement benefits to their workers, in 40-50 years these costs will be having the same effect on them.

It's always easy when you are the new guy with none of the associated costs of longevity. However, no one gets to be the new guy forever.

Actually in a current Forbes article Toyota, Honda, Nissan hourly workers wages including benafits is quite a bit below the big 3:

According to Forbes:

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, and especially Ford, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.

What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about: "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school degree, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a Ph.D.

[Toad]

I have detailed this out in other threads on the same subject.

Your numbers are wages and benefits.

If you look at straight wages, the pay is very close to the same. There's a little difference but it is not significant.

It is the benefits that account for the difference in the numbers you quote from Forbes. The vast majority of THIS difference is due to legacy retirement and healthcare costs that the US car companies agreed to during past negotiations (going as far back as 30-40 years) that the new foreign companies do not have because they haven't been around long enough to accrue such obligations.

If you search this BBS, you'll find detailed comparisons and explanations in old posts of mine, with supporting links.

You actually have the proof in your own post. Those "transformational" benefits are the ones that make the difference. It's BENEFITS, not PAY.  Again, those BENEFITS are obligations from contracts long ago. You'll find the newer workers dont' have the same bennies that the old timers had. That changed  a while ago.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Trell
Cool so you are behind the unions with  health care. and retirements  right?

Military and private companies are two different worlds.

I think they are in a sucky position where old world concepts such as company pension meet new world concepts such as 401k where the company has little to do with your retirement beyond matching some funds.  There are many examples of people getting screwed by corrupted pension systems.  

I can't imagine how the US manufactures can go forward under the current deals but they should not be weaseling out of prior commitments.  A deal is a deal.

If the US companies want to sell more cars they should try building more cars better and beating the competition at their own game.  The union issues are not an excuse for the poor quality product.  They have made a habit of screwing over customers with vehicles designed to fail instead of spending the extra 1-2% on higher quality materials.  They are their own worst enemy.

[Toad]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
A deal is a deal.

 

Apparently not many of our fellow AH BBS posters agree.

Well, until it's their deal that is no longer a deal. Then they might feel differently.

As long as it is someone else getting the hosing, they seem to be OK with it.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by VWE
Actually in a current Forbes article Toyota, Honda, Nissan hourly workers wages including benafits is quite a bit below the big 3:

According to Forbes:

Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers, 2006.

Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)

GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)

Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)

Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D. (see graph above, click to enlarge), and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, and especially Ford, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.

What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about: "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school degree, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a Ph.D.

I don't know that I'd trust Forbes' numbers on this...They might have included ALL costs(including training, safety, etc.)

THIS is data from the UAW site itself, explaining some of the contract pay increases...http://www.uaw.org/contracts/03/gm/gm02.cfm

[Trell]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Military and private companies are two different worlds.

I think they are in a sucky position where old world concepts such as company pension meet new world concepts such as 401k where the company has little to do with your retirement beyond matching some funds.  There are many examples of people getting screwed by corrupted pension systems.  

I can't imagine how the US manufactures can go forward under the current deals but they should not be weaseling out of prior commitments.  A deal is a deal.

If the US companies want to sell more cars they should try building more cars better and beating the competition at their own game.  The union issues are not an excuse for the poor quality product.  They have made a habit of screwing over customers with vehicles designed to fail instead of spending the extra 1-2% on higher quality materials.  They are their own worst enemy.

completely agree with this except for
Military and private companies are two different worlds.


Why are they different for retirement?

[LePaul]

Oh a thread Toad can stretch his Union feathers.  Alas, this forum had been all too quiet lately  

The UAW seems to ignore the real issue....GMC is in the tank, yet they still want a bigger piece of the pie.  If you point this out, the Union boys will point out at all the faults of management.  And visa versa.  Yawn.

The forgeign builders seem to be able to turn a profit and function with their unions here in the US.  (I imagine the higher wages null out the tariffs they had to pay being built overseas?)

I'll watch the pissing contest and strike from the sidelines.  And speak with my purchase of non-GMC vehicles  

[mtndog]

I certainly wouldnt trust what the union puts on their site either. The last laborers strike here in chicago  dissemminated propaganda (website/pamphlets) that MARBA( mid Atlantic REgional bargining association) wanted a 50% reduction in wages all the while Marba s site had already agreed to a $5 an hour increase over three years.
  the problems with unions isnt the pAY FOR SKILLED WORKERS, ITS WHAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SLUGS. aPPRENTICESHIP IS (oops caps) based on time usually not skill. Once the time is completed they are "skilled". Its just a joke...A skilled , hard working individual generally does not need a Union. He will find an employer willing to pay.
  One question is, if the union members were to take all earnings home, all 73.00 and change but had no union ,were responsible for thy're own insurance and pension, would they be better off?

mtndog

[Toad]

Wage Comparison from the Detroit News

Wednesday, February 21, 2007


...Most UAW hourly workers are paid an average of $28 an hour, compared to $26 an hour or less for nonunion workers at U.S. plants owned by foreign automakers, McAlinden said.

...

Again, it is NOT the direct payable wage.

It is the benefits and the majority of the benefit cost problem is legacy costs for older retired workers.

Of course these older, underserving scum workers negotiated for those benefits and paid for them in advance through the sweat of their brows but hey.. screw them, the unwashed Bastids.

The really deserving guys are the CEO's. They need a little love.

Monday, Nov. 28, 2005 10:21 a.m. EST
GM CEO Secures $4.6 Million Pension
 
As General Motors slashes jobs, closes plants and battles to avoid bankruptcy, the company’s CEO has set up a retirement plan that will pay him at least $4.6 million a year – nearly twice his current salary.

G. Richard Wagoner, who the New York Post calls "the greediest, most undeserving CEO since Chainsaw Al Dunlap,” was named GM’s chief financial officer in 1992, when the company had a global payroll of 750,000 employees.

Under Wagoner’s command as CFO and, since 2000, CEO, the carmaker has seen its employees dwindle to 324,000.

Cod bless ya, Mr. Wagoner! Thanks for saving GM!

[Toad]

Originally posted by mtndog
 One question is, if the union members were to take all earnings home, all 73.00 and change but had no union ,were responsible for thy're own insurance and pension, would they be better off?

mtndog

Of course they would be better off.

Funny thing is, this option is always open to managment whenever they sit down at the bargaining table. Thing is, management doesn't seem to want to part with money in the here and now. They prefer to defer payments, using retirement plans and future retired health benefits.

Now you see why they prefer to defer; it's because they never had any intention of fulfilling their obligations.

And LP, as I've said many time: the only thing worse than a union is no union. The pendulum will swing back. Management will make it so oppressive that unions will once again become strong.

It's the way of those who are greedy and can't be troubled to read history.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by mtndog
I certainly wouldnt trust what the union puts on their site either. The last laborers strike here in chicago  dissemminated propaganda (website/pamphlets) that MARBA( mid Atlantic REgional bargining association) wanted a 50% reduction in wages all the while Marba s site had already agreed to a $5 an hour increase over three years.
  the problems with unions isnt the pAY FOR SKILLED WORKERS, ITS WHAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SLUGS. aPPRENTICESHIP IS (oops caps) based on time usually not skill. Once the time is completed they are "skilled". Its just a joke...A skilled , hard working individual generally does not need a Union. He will find an employer willing to pay.
  One question is, if the union members were to take all earnings home, all 73.00 and change but had no union ,were responsible for thy're own insurance and pension, would they be better off?

mtndog

The pay scale numbers would be accurate-Any difference on a check could be compared to that scale. As far as the laborers' strike, you would have to realize, that they would not put anything so drastic as a 50% reduction up to see, Because it would come down to a vote on the agreement. Members would think they are voting for the existing agreement that gives a 5$ raise, when they were voting in a 50% reduction. It's an old trick.

Apprentiship is usually done at a reduced pay scale (as much as 50-60% of what a full-scale journeyman makes) and the length of time is usually enough that they will either competently learn the trade, or get booted out of the program( and thus, the job.)

A skilled, hard-working individual CAN get work without a union, but will only make about 1/2 of what the union guy makes per hour, and usually without the Health care or pension.

As to the last, that depends; You might be able to get by without health care for a great amount of time. You might be able to save up enough( Or make some sort of retirement investment) That would be better than the unions' pension plans. But, You take your own gamble then. It's been proven in The U.S., that not every investment is gaurenteed. Look at the S&L's, the Enrons, the Worldcom's, the PG&E's...Plus, with the Pension money deducted from your check, you can dodge some taxes.

There are going to be differences based on the particular trade, or on geographic/political bounderies.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Trell
completely agree with this except for
Military and private companies are two different worlds.


Why are they different for retirement?

Serving really means serving.  You take less pay, much higher risks and compromises.  The reason you can retire out of the military at 38 is you are well worn by then.  The government is also a continuity unlike a corporation. You can predict the government will be there 30-40 years down the line.  Can you say that about any company?  

BTW,  I favor TSP and other government private style savings plans.  However, I also favor health care for military retirees  and disabled vets.  Often injuries are aggravated and become bigger issues later on down the line.  Injuries that would not have been there if not received in the line of duty.

[mtndog]

oh yea, and if you think the UAW pension is in trouble check out CALPERS.
i believe they were underfunded by some 300 billion.
 If you're registered at Forbes, see if you can find an article from a couple of years ago about it. incredible eyeopener!


mtndog