Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: VWE on September 24, 2007, 08:26:36 AM
-
I like Honda, the cars are mostly built by robots and seem to last for ever. As soon as it looks like an American auto maker is coming back strong here is a group of some of the wealthiest workers in America saying that $40.00 an hour just aint cuttin it! http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070924/auto_talks.html?.v=10
Actually wage and benefits come out to $73.26 an hour average for GM workers.
-
The sticking point here seems to be retiree health care, the UAW is afraid that it may go away.
I agree with you, retiree's should not get employer provided health insurance, especially the public sector and military, it just raises taxes.
shamus
btw, I am not being sarcastic this time
-
If they go on strike, fire them all.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
The sticking point here seems to be retiree health care, the UAW is afraid that it may go away.
I agree with you, retiree's should not get employer provided health insurance, especially the public sector and military, it just raises taxes.
shamus
btw, I am not being sarcastic this time
Let me guess, you never served did you?
-
Yep, it's totally fair and right to promise your employees for the last 40 years that you'll provide healthcare in their retirement package and then take it away from them.
Suckers! What a hoot! How could they believe such BS? After all, contractual agreements are merely suggestions that management follows or discards as the whim strikes them.
-
This will tell you quite a lot more about the strike, for those of you who wondering where the numbers were coming from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070924/bs_nm/gm_uaw_dc;_ylt=Ah2YvR.2sx2CdUIEd9jFTitv24cA
Alot of this has to do with GM's overall success in the market, btw. They've been wanting a break to help compete, with the shrinking share of the market.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep, it's totally fair and right to promise your employees for the last 40 years that you'll provide healthcare in their retirement package and then take it away from them.
Suckers! What a hoot! How could they believe such BS? After all, contractual agreements are merely suggestions that management follows or discards as the whim strikes them.
OK, lets assume GM agrees this week to continue to offer final-salary pensions and retiree health care. Seems fair. They've been promising workers that for the last 40 years, so why change. Lets also assume Ford and Chrysler are forced by the UAW to follow suit.
Problem is, who's going to pay for it all when - in five years time - all three are bankrupt?
If I was an auto-worker right now, I'd be looking for the UAW to come up with something that ensured the long-term survivability of the the US auto industry rather than maintain a status-quo for a couple more years while the industry descends into oblivion.
Final salary pensions and retiree health-care are a thing of the past. What other private industry still offers them? The UAW is living in a fantasy.
-
So if you enter into a 30 year contract for a home loan and you abide by the terms of the agreement for 29 years and then the going-broke mortgage company changes the deal and doesn't give you title you'd be OK with that?
The employees already paid for that healthcare. It's a point often overlooked in these discussions. When the contracts were voluntarily signed by BOTH sides, some pay was taken in cash and some pay was taken in benefits. The benefits were paid for with work that was done.
One thing you can be 100% certain about; the executives of these poor, going-bankrupt automobile companies will never, ever give up their health and retirement benefits.
The moral of the story is cash on the barrelhead.
If the company you work for promises you ANYTHING that will be paid or given at some point in the future, politely decline and just insist on the monthly current cost/value of that benefit be added to your paycheck.
If we've been shown anything in the last 25 years it is that the managers of companies will steal from their employees. They'll steal every last thing they can get despite any promises given or contracts signed.
Probably the best idea of all is work for yourself. You are the only person that won't try to cheat you.
-
The UAW will be singularly responsible for the collapse of most of the US auto industry. I wonder what these tards will do for a living once they ruin their current employers. The UAW's do not work in the real world. They are perhaps the finest example of a Union artificially driving wages up, compared to skill levels. The cold slap of reality will be harsh indeed.
I'm glad I put this in writing. Within the next couple of years, I'll be able to say "I told you so."
-
Originally posted by Toad
So if you enter into a 30 year contract for a home loan and you abide by the terms of the agreement for 29 years and then the going-broke mortgage company changes the deal and doesn't give you title you'd be OK with that?
The employees already paid for that healthcare. It's a point often overlooked in these discussions. When the contracts were voluntarily signed by BOTH sides, some pay was taken in cash and some pay was taken in benefits. The benefits were paid for with work that was done.
One thing you can be 100% certain about; the executives of these poor, going-bankrupt automobile companies will never, ever give up their health and retirement benefits.
The moral of the story is cash on the barrelhead.
If the company you work for promises you ANYTHING that will be paid or given at some point in the future, politely decline and just insist on the monthly current cost/value of that benefit be added to your paycheck.
If we've been shown anything in the last 25 years it is that the managers of companies will steal from their employees. They'll steal every last thing they can get despite any promises given or contracts signed.
Probably the best idea of all is work for yourself. You are the only person that won't try to cheat you.
Boohoo, the managers are to blame. :cry
The truth is that it was stupid for both of them to sign the contract that would eventually lead to the demise of the company.
By the way, your mortgage analogy clearly does not stand.
-
Oh, btw, the ONLY thing that will ensure the long term survivability of US car companies is designing and building a better product than the other guy.
The US companies have lost just about every market to people that just do it better. They are on the verge of losing the pickup truck market to the Japanese; I think it will happen. It's the last major market segment where the US predominates. However, Nissan and Toyota have set their sights on this market and it won't be long until they have the best selling trucks.
That will happen for one simple reason. US auto executives aren't smart enough or innovative enough to compete with their betters. Econo boxes? Got their butts whipped. Family sedans? Got their butts whipped. They'll lose the truck segment too.
But only after finding some way to blame the fact that their trucks lack all the innovative features of the Nissans and Toyos on the UAW.
-
Laser, yes it is managment. Clearly.
They make ALL the decisions on what to build, where to build it, how to build it, how to market it and what contract they will sign with the UAW.
You blame the UAW for asking for more in their contracts over the last 50 years? How many times have you asked someone you worked for to pay you less?
If the managers agree to give the employee a raise, is it the manager's fault for granting it or the employees fault for asking for it? Who signs those checks, the employees?
The mortgage analogy? Take any contract you like. When one side and only one side fails to fulfill its obligations under the contract it is clear where the blame lies.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
The UAW will be singularly responsible for the collapse of most of the US auto industry. I wonder what these tards will do for a living once they ruin their current employers. The UAW's do not work in the real world. They are perhaps the finest example of a Union artificially driving wages up, compared to skill levels. The cold slap of reality will be harsh indeed.
I'm glad I put this in writing. Within the next couple of years, I'll be able to say "I told you so."
Well...I would not say that the UAW will put the big 3 under on it's own, Steve. The American people, as the consumer's that could potentially buy American cars, but increasingly buy foreign, will.
GM's share of the market has been shrinking, and that's simply because of competition from imports. For every American Auto manufactured, there are at least 2-3 competing foreign brands. Which, I might add, can sell in the U.S. without the stiff tarriff's and penalties which U.S. Manufacturers' face when they sell abroad. Oh, I know that the Big 3 have factories making cars in places like Mexico, where the average assembly line worker makes something like $5 a day, No health or retirement benefits, and no environmental constraints on how they operate, No real safety concerns...
I figure for what they spend on the UAW up here, they more than make up for in places like Mexico.
P.S. Hey VWE, where did you get the numbers' from in your original post? I did'nt see them in your news linky.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, btw, the ONLY thing that will ensure the long term survivability of US car companies is designing and building a better product than the other guy.
Mmm, no, it will have to be a better built and designed product than the other guys that people can afford to buy. One of my first experiences with the newer GM trucks was a fully loaded 3/4 ton shutting down on the interstate with 4.5 miles on the odometer. $35K worth of truck, dead after 5 minutes. I drive an older Jeep now. A fraction of the cost, and I've put 16 thousand times as many miles on it without getting stranded once. :)
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Mmm, no, it will have to be a better built and designed product than the other guys that people can afford to buy. One of my first experiences with the newer GM trucks was a fully loaded 3/4 ton shutting down on the interstate with 4.5 miles on the odometer. $35K worth of truck, dead after 5 minutes. I drive an older Jeep now. A fraction of the cost, and I've put 16 thousand times as many miles on it without getting stranded once. :)
Incidentally Hub, Did you find out what caused it to conk out?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Well...I would not say that the UAW will put the big 3 under on it's own, Steve. The American people, as the consumer's that could potentially buy American cars, but increasingly buy foreign, will.
American cars would be priced lower if the UAW hadn't artificially raised wages. Lower prices, more buyers.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
American cars would be priced lower if the UAW hadn't artificially raised wages. Lower prices, more buyers.
Alot of American cars are lower in price, but people will pay more for the quality of a Honda. I was looking at new and used mini vans. I can get a grand caravan or spend more money and get an odyssey. Wages have nothing to do with it, the quality of foreign cars will get people to spend more money for them.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Incidentally Hub, Did you find out what caused it to conk out?
Yeah, nobody at the General Assembly plant was paid enough to be bothered to put fluids in it.
-
Perhaps I'm a little too close to this to make an unbiased statement; Three generations before me were GM life long employees. The US auto industry has been dead for over twenty years-it just doesn't know it yet.
Watch this very closely. When GM finally finds a way to wiggle out of its contractual obligation to its retirees, it will set a precedent, which will void ALL contracts that promise future compensation.
$40 an hour? There are no line workers earning $40 an hour. My dad with 30 years at the V8 plant in Flint, Mi was earning $23 in 1998 driving a fork truck. I'd doubt highly that the UAW has bargained an almost 100% pay increase in the last nine years (in fact in the last twenty years the UAW has done nothing but take concessions). I believe that number was either pulled out of the air or an average of all hourly workers-from the guy who sweeps the floor to the C and C guy in the machine shop building tools.
I would highly recommend not signing any contract today that promises a portion or earnings in future compensation.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Well...I would not say that the UAW will put the big 3 under on it's own, Steve. The American people, as the consumer's that could potentially buy American cars, but increasingly buy foreign, will.
GM's share of the market has been shrinking, and that's simply because of competition from imports. For every American Auto manufactured, there are at least 2-3 competing foreign brands. Which, I might add, can sell in the U.S. without the stiff tarriff's and penalties which U.S. Manufacturers' face when they sell abroad. Oh, I know that the Big 3 have factories making cars in places like Mexico, where the average assembly line worker makes something like $5 a day, No health or retirement benefits, and no environmental constraints on how they operate, No real safety concerns...
I figure for what they spend on the UAW up here, they more than make up for in places like Mexico.
P.S. Hey VWE, where did you get the numbers' from in your original post? I did'nt see them in your news linky.
This is the link, but you have to be logged into Forbes to read it... I tried to bring it up while not being logged in and it won't show the article.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/13/ap3818877.html
-
The problem I have found with many US trucks..... foreign made parts. When something fails your out 1 or 2 months for a replacement. Pathetic!
I won't buy an import.... GM best start having parts made here in the US so they won't fail like the garbage from overseas.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Let me guess, you never served did you?
I figured that that would get some attention :)
Are you one of the "hooray for me I got mine, to hell with you" crowd?
The auto workers have the same expectations that the corporation is going to stand behind its promises to them, as you expect the government to stand by it's promises to you.
shamus
-
Auto workers arent particularly skilled, so why are they making such huge wages? So why do I, as an American consumer, have to pay such high prices for American cars? American cars arent exceedingly better than foreign designed cars.
So what do I think about the UAW strike? Fuggem, feed'em fish heads. I hope they all end up on welfare by the time this strike is over.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Alot of American cars are lower in price, but people will pay more for the quality of a Honda. I was looking at new and used mini vans. I can get a grand caravan or spend more money and get an odyssey. Wages have nothing to do with it, the quality of foreign cars will get people to spend more money for them.
geez, I guess it was too hard to follow. The prices may be lower than some imports... I wasn't comparing that. I was comparing current prices to what would be lower prices for the same unit.
Wages do have something to do with it... they could keep the prices the same and spend more on quality control if wages were lower, for example.
Duh.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Auto workers arent particularly skilled, so why are they making such huge wages? So why do I, as an American consumer, have to pay such high prices for American cars?
UAW inflated wages.
-
The answer to the question posed in the title of the thread is yes. They will not be satisfied until they kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Union executives are just as guilty as corporate management in killing the goose. And BOTH union management AND corporate management will walk off with plenty of money, only those who paid dues will suffer.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Alot of American cars are lower in price, but people will pay more for the quality of a Honda. I was looking at new and used mini vans. I can get a grand caravan or spend more money and get an odyssey. Wages have nothing to do with it, the quality of foreign cars will get people to spend more money for them.
They sacrificed quality for price. If the wages weren't that high, they wouldn't have to sacrifice quality at all.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
They sacrificed quality for price. If the wages weren't that high, they wouldn't have to sacrifice quality at all.
The bottom line is to satisfy the share holders. Shareholders are satisfied through profit. You really think that any American auto manufacturer would put one dime more into a vehicle if it didn't have to?
It is foolish and naive to think that American automobiles would be cheaper if wages were lower.
(and yes I realize that quality + inovation + value = reputation + profitability, but I really don't think that American automotive execs do)
-
I read quotes from top union guy saying that it wasn't about retiree health care, but was about preserving jobs.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I figured that that would get some attention :)
Are you one of the "hooray for me I got mine, to hell with you" crowd?
The auto workers have the same expectations that the corporation is going to stand behind its promises to them, as you expect the government to stand by it's promises to you.
shamus
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:)
-
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
-
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?
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
Wage Comparison from the Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/AUTO01/702210382/1148)
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
AAARRGH, ityped a long reply to Toad and Frode and seem to have lost it
Oh well maybe when i get home....
mtndog
-
The companies like the idea of long term benefits, because it has 2 outs for them- they run out of money, collapse, and don't pay the benefits because they can't, and, there's always the off chance someone else will screw up worse, and they'll gain a nice chunk of the market, and be able to pay.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for those who invested their lives in the companies, and won't get squat, but, on the other side of that coin, I'm surprised they'll let a company be responsible for their retirement, knowing that the company isn't interested in their future once they stop being productive workers.
I'm not anti-union, but I think the union in the manufacturing environment has outlived it's usefulness. The unions, like it or not, are just like the companies now- they make money at the expense of the workers. The workers, and the consumers who buy these products are the ones footing the bills, not the ones reaping the rewards. It isn't supposed to work like that.
-
Originally posted by VWE
I like Honda, the cars are mostly built by robots and seem to last for ever. As soon as it looks like an American auto maker is coming back strong here is a group of some of the wealthiest workers in America saying that $40.00 an hour just aint cuttin it! http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070924/auto_talks.html?.v=10
Actually wage and benefits come out to $73.26 an hour average for GM workers.
With that salary you are either talking Skilled Trade or "Salary" at a plant. Not your "average line assembler".
-
Originally posted by 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
You don't have a clue about CALPERS pension system. No way it is underfunded by $300 billion.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Yeah, nobody at the General Assembly plant was paid enough to be bothered to put fluids in it.
Maybe the guy on the line was out of fluids and had informed his non-union foreman of this.But u see management only cares about keeping the line moving.
"Quantity is job #1" is what us Ford assembly line workers say about Ford's mentality.
"You won't see that at 55mph" is another management one-liner.
-
do your homework, it is ! the article in forbes layed out the finances quite clearly...mostly has to do with the governing boards being interlaced with cronies and approving sweet deals for each other. After all its not their money. they are just passing along the payments to the future as well.
Cali has been in severe finacial crisis for years, They do not have the cash to fund the fund.they are paying todays bills with tommorrows money.they are far from being alone.
mtndog
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Maybe the guy on the line was out of fluids and had informed his non-union foreman of this.But u see management only cares about keeping the line moving.
"Quantity is job #1" is what us Ford assembly line workers say about Ford's mentality.
"You won't see that at 55mph" is another management one-liner.
The first concept was definitely popular. The second wasn't, but this was right after the redesign, and the then current F150s were really popular, even with the GM employees. :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
They sacrificed quality for price. If the wages weren't that high, they wouldn't have to sacrifice quality at all.
Honda does it, their wages are just as high
-
This is why I bought a car that was built in Wolfsburg in Beautiful Niedersachsen by a skilled auto builder.
The share holders should do something about CEO benefits.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
They sacrificed quality for price. If the wages weren't that high, they wouldn't have to sacrifice quality at all.
Gimme an effing break. Quality is a process - that's an American idea that the Japanese put into practice. The fact U.S. automakers didn't is a living, breathing monument to short-termism.
Jesus H. Christ, in my own lifetime, the U.S. has gone from having the world at its feet to kowtowing to the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
-
Hard to preserve jobs in the automation age.
Hard to pay employer medical insurance costs when those costs:
- have risen 87% since 2000.
- will be higher than total corporate profits next year.
- have risen 4 times the inflation rate.
- are almost $12,000 per year per employee for family coverage.
Hard to preserve a standard of living for workers when medical insurance costs:
- increased almost $1,100 more per year for employee contribution.
- increased 143% for employee contribution since 2000.
The UAW and GM should join forces and drag the insurance and medical industry to the bargaining table.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
"Yeah, nobody at the General Assembly plant was paid enough to be bothered to put fluids in it."
One thing everyone forgot about there.......every new vehicle goes through a new vehicle inspection after it comes off the transporter at a dealership, and before it is put on the showroom or on the sales line. Most inspection forms I've seen are anywhere from 50 to 100 item checklists, covering everything from tire pressure to fluid levels to vibrations and noises at "normal operating conditions".
Your truck going tits up with only 5 miles on it wasn't the fault of a factory worker.....it was a lazy dealership automotive "technician", probably some teenager who just went through the checklist and marked everything as good so he could hurry up and get the truck out on the road and haul butt doing the road testing.
I personally think the autoworkers assembling cars here in the US ARE overpaid....but that's just me and my own opinion. But before you blame everything on them, look at the processes and steps a vehicle goes through before it gets to the consumer and you will find a list of other employees who dropped the ball and overlooked things on your truck, not just the assembly line workers.
-
mtndog.. I have looked and all I see is that calpers has reported huge profits.. they are looking for places to invest and ways to give more to the members.
They have started programs that gave veterans their time in the service as calpers time and allowed members to buy "years" of service.
It pays it's pensioners an average of 2.5% cola raise every year.
The only bad investments it has had are the ones the democrats made them "invest" in... minority stuff.. loans for minority and poor areas that fail.
lazs
-
So what if wages are equal. Labour costs aren't.
-
Originally posted by eddiek
Originally posted by hubsonfire
"Yeah, nobody at the General Assembly plant was paid enough to be bothered to put fluids in it."
One thing everyone forgot about there.......every new vehicle goes through a new vehicle inspection after it comes off the transporter at a dealership, and before it is put on the showroom or on the sales line. Most inspection forms I've seen are anywhere from 50 to 100 item checklists, covering everything from tire pressure to fluid levels to vibrations and noises at "normal operating conditions".
Your truck going tits up with only 5 miles on it wasn't the fault of a factory worker.....it was a lazy dealership automotive "technician", probably some teenager who just went through the checklist and marked everything as good so he could hurry up and get the truck out on the road and haul butt doing the road testing.
I personally think the autoworkers assembling cars here in the US ARE overpaid....but that's just me and my own opinion. But before you blame everything on them, look at the processes and steps a vehicle goes through before it gets to the consumer and you will find a list of other employees who dropped the ball and overlooked things on your truck, not just the assembly line workers.
No eddie, I was working at the assembly plant. This vehicle (and quite a few others which weren't road worthy, or even suitable to send to a dealership to be repaired before they had even been driven ) came directly off the line. It was an assembly screw up. They have lots.
-
Excuse me Lazs and others I mispoke about the current condition of calpers as well as a typo (should read 30 billion , lol just alittle difference).
The forbes article i was refferring to was several years old . i can not find it online. There are plenty of articles from several years ago quoting the health of Calpers....http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/5012/ .Just one from a not too distant past.
Unfunded pension liabilities for CalPERS and CalSTRS are $49 billion and a new accounting rule going into effect next year will result in an accounting for the first time of liabilities for retiree health benefits. A February 2006 Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) report estimates that the state's unfunded liabilities for retiree health care benefits and their dependents is between $40 billion and $70 billion and recommends that, in addition to current expenditures now reaching $1 billion per year, up to $6 billion per year be set aside to retire that unfunded liability. Also expected to be in the billions is the unfunded liability for retiree health benefits at local governments and school districts.
Do most of the links have an agenda? probably...
A key seems to be the definitions of "funded" and "underfunded
sorry for going off topic
mtndog
-
quote:Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Let me guess, you never served did you?
Originally posted by Shamus
I figured that that would get some attention :)
Are you one of the "hooray for me I got mine, to hell with you" crowd?
The auto workers have the same expectations that the corporation is going to stand behind its promises to them, as you expect the government to stand by it's promises to you.
shamus
I, personally think that someone who put their kiester in harms way (or took the oath to do so) for their country can't be remotely compared to a bunch of union workers as far as benefits are concerned. Any why not the surviving family of fallen servicemen. Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.
Not to attack anyone personally, but I've served, AND I was a union member at one point. The unions do serve a purpose, but the "Not my job" philosophy is really hard to swallow sometimes. I know it doesn't lend itself to the whole team thing whether its a "union" or not. Besides U.S. cars have been crappy for a long time now.
Maybe, nobody here remembers (I know I don't) when this country pulled together for a cause (WWII). Folks didn't make/buy fancy brass items (needed it for shell casings), planted Victory gardens (less use of oil for deliveries of food), didn't buy a car for everyone in the house (besides that we all but stopped making them for a while), etc. My 86 year old Grandfather lives with my wife and myself. He served his time in the Navy on a tanker(read 24 hour moving target), the Uss Monongahela (10 battle stars, etc), and he can't believe the state of our country these days. People go apes**t when their cell service conks out for 10 min. God forbid they sacrifice any conveinences for the good of the nation. Work ethic is in the crapper. The government "owes" us? Our employers "owe" us? Maybe when we start to give up the "I can't see it from my house" attitude that most Americans have adopted, than we can have the privelege of being able to earn (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/earn) these benefits.
End of rant.
-
my bad then, hub.
I figured you were talking about a vehicle you got at a dealership. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
If it wasn't your mistake, no worries. :)
-
mtn... most of calpers problems can be traced directly to the democrats that have their hands in it. They are making bad investments for PC reasons. even so... it is a very healthy system... for retirement...
The health care portion is not doing so well... not everyone who is in their retirement program is in their health care system too... in fact... most aren't.. or weren't last I checked.
lazs
-
What are the total assets of Calprs? Slightly north of $250 billion. Only being underfunded by $30 billion is not a problem at all. Being approximately 10% underfunded does not mean the plan is in trouble or unhealthy. If you know anything about pension funding, this is well within the normal funding corridor. Tomorrow the State could issue a pension bond and the plan could be 100% funded. That doesn't mean it is any better off than today.
Also, retiree health care is a SEPERATE issue from pension. New GASB rules do require government agencies to account for liabilities for retiree health care. Smart agencies will start to fund these liablities in a plan similar to the pension. In most situations in the state, retiree health care is NOT a vested benefit, and it has not been prefunded for that reason. This means the program can be ended tomorrow for future retirees. In fact, Sacramento county board of sups did just that a few months ago. The large liabilities being tossed around in the media are very misleading and have faulty assumptions. They often include liabilites for current employees that haven't retired, and also make projections for future hires (people that haven't even began working). Some assumptions by the actuaries make a huge difference in the outcome. I have seen two studies for the same county, each by seperate actuaries. The major difference between the two was the projected growth rate for healthcare (something that is no more than a wild guess). One projected the liab at $2.6 billion, and the other was $1.4 billion. A big Difference. Look at your own difference, $40 to $70 quoted. The media loves to sensationalize the "B" word (billion). A billion contribution is less than 1% of the States budget which is fairly insignificant. One other note, approximately 70% of the benefits paid out have come from investment earnings of money being set aside. The remainder is from contributions (usually half from the employee and half from the employer).
Laz is right about the "Social" or "double bottom line" investing. I know we avoid it like the plague. Partly why we have better returns than Calprs. Major reason also is it is a lot easier to invest $5 billion than $250 billion.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
No eddie, I was working at the assembly plant. This vehicle (and quite a few others which weren't road worthy, or even suitable to send to a dealership to be repaired before they had even been driven ) came directly off the line. It was an assembly screw up. They have lots.
Well then your original post was misleading - you came off like you had just bought a new GM truck and had it pack up on the highway on the way home. You kind of skipped over the part where you were driving the factory rejects.
My History with GM:
First car I ever wanted: Mom's 1968 Impala Convertible (8-Track and all)...
First GM I got to drive: Mom's 1975 Monte Carlo (nice, we drove it till the wheels fell off)
First GM I hated: A used 1980 Buick Skylark (complete piece of junk - I was happy sending it to the junkyard. The car stranded me more times than my 1972 MG midget, and the electrical system was less reliable than Lucas which I had thought impossible until that time)
-- 15 year gap where I wouldn't touch a GM with a 10 foot pole after the Buick...
1991 Saturn SL2 - bought it in 2001 from my brother in law after my honda got wrecked. Was a great little car, nearly drove it to death but got rear-ended by a trash truck in 2006 and it got totaled by the Ins. Co.
2006 Saturn Vue - liked my Saturn enough to go buy a new one... so far so good. 50K miles in 2 years, and it has been flawless. Maybe GM can make nice cars after all...
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Well then your original post was misleading - you came off like you had just bought a new GM truck and had it pack up on the highway on the way home. You kind of skipped over the part where you were driving the factory rejects.
I didn't say driving factory rejects- you did.
Brand new trucks, being sent out the door to carhaulers and then to dealerships, or directly to customers. Brand new trucks which are supposed to start, drive, run, stop, and be fully functional and not require repair.
Brand new trucks which have to be inspected by the dealerships, because it assumed by all parties that the vehicles will be substandard.
That's arguably why the Japanese are building trucks in America now. The bar is incredibly low, and they've done well in the past whenever we've lowered the bar. Also, it helps explain why American built cars have a bad rep, and why the automakers aren't doing so well lately.
-
Strike is over..!
:aok
-
Hubs, the Japanese were building trucks in the US back when I was working at the dealership I described.......and did I mention it was a Nissan dealership?
Almost all, if not all, auto manufacturers have checklists for their new vehicles, to be performed at the dealerships. Not just US manufacturers.
As to the country of origin, back then the VIN told you where the vehicle was made.
Guess which country of origin gave us the most defects? If you guessed the US, you were wrong.
Some Nissan trucks and some Sentras were being built in Tennessee, not just Japan. All Maximas and IIRC Pathfinders were assembled in Japan. I can't recall if the Altimas were being built in Japan solely, but IIRC they were since they were an entirely new model in 1992-93, when I worked at the dealership.
Let's see..........
1993 Altima, would not shift out of 1st gear (auto trans), built in Japan; after replacing the transaxle, computer, etc. 4 times, the factory rep gave up and had us put the car back on a transporter to send to wherever factory lemons go. The car never made it to the line or showroom.
1992 Nissan extended cab pickup, 5 speed transmission......never made it to the showroom or new car line, cause the shifter would jump out of place, and I mean to where it could not be placed into any gear. Factory told us to R&R the transmission and put it on the line.......fine, but after 3 transmissions did the same thing, it was sent back to lemon purgaory also.
1993 Maxima, again, transmission problem...manual transmission would lock in 1st gear....disassembly revealed nothing that to the naked eye would cause it to do that, so a factory new transaxle was installed with the same results. Again, after two more transaxle R&R's, it was transported away.
Or there was the ice storm in the winter of '92-93 where a lot of the Sentras wouldn't start in the cold weather..the Japanese made ones anyway. The shop was full of Sentras backed and pulled into stalls, their fuel pumps being replaced. The American made ones performed flawlessly.
Am I being selective? Perhaps, but mainly I am pointing out that all manufacturers produce lemons from time to time. People want to bad mouth US car makers as the only ones whose quality has deteriorated, but that is a myth. All of them make plenty good ones, and a few lemons, but people only wanna talk about the bad things that have happened.
I'm not picking on or at you, just venting a bit on the subject you brought up.........
-
Ya know, it's probably one of those things where you have to work on the inside to see how bad it really is. I have no experience with the Japanese trucks, but you're probably right- everybody screws up at some point. The thing that got me about the GM trucks, were that so many required work coming off the line. I hope that's not an issue common for all makes, but it could be.
-
And, of course, the workers are solely responsible for the product coming off the end of the line. That is blatantly obvious.
After all, it's SO easy for a worker to shut down the line when something is going wrong.
-
Now that the strike is over with GM getting everything it wanted, I am looking forward to the quick recapture of market share and the inevitable increase in jobs in the U.S. by the corporation.
shamus
-
You think GM got everything it wanted?
health care in America is easy to fix... we simply have to go back to 1950's levels of service and testing and equipment and malpractice insurance and settlements.
the problem is.. everyone seems to feel that they are entitled to live forever. They also feel that if a doctor makes a mistake... it is the same as if they won the lottery.
Say they came out with a drug that could make anyone live one more year but it costs $5,000,000
Who should get it? who should pay for it?
lazs
-
Caught Jim Cramer on hardball last night channel surfing. matthws asked him what he thought of the car maker ,
cramers answer....they're not car makers, they're in the health care business.....He also added that GM is the largest buyer of viagra in the world. lol ... god bless those retirees
mtndog
-
Originally posted by Toad
And, of course, the workers are solely responsible for the product coming off the end of the line. That is blatantly obvious.
After all, it's SO easy for a worker to shut down the line when something is going wrong.
Yep, my car was missing 7 bolts in the rack & pinion mounts. Oh wait, did the robots miss that?
-
Originally posted by Toad
After all, it's SO easy for a worker to shut down the line when something is going wrong.
i can't remember what mfg it was, but they said one worker could shut down the line if something was wrong. It might have been Honda.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i can't remember what mfg it was, but they said one worker could shut down the line if something was wrong. It might have been Honda.
When Saturn started out that was the policy at Saturn.
shamus