UAW Strikes
-
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)
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/07/...of-market.html
From the UAW's own website:
Average Hourly Compensation – March 2004
Union NonUnion Union
Advantage
Total Wage $20.32 $16.21 $4.11
Total Benefits $11.61 $6.06 $5.55
Negotiated Benefits $8.81 $4.15 $4.66
Paid Leave $2.22 $1.41 $0.81
Supplemental Pay $1.07 $0.61 $0.46
Insurance $3.27 $1.46 $1.81
Retirement & Savings $2.15 $0.64 $1.51
Legally Required Benefits * $2.79 $1.92 $0.87
Other Benefits ** $0.10 $0.03 $0.07
Total Compensation $31.94 $22.28 $9.66
$140K for an assembly line job? HAHAHAHAHAHA wow I'm surprised they all haven't just said "fuck it" and left the country.
Lets see...go through 4 years of school to get a degree and earn anywhere from $40K-$300K a year depending on the degree OR join UAW and work for GM earning $140K a year. The fact that a vast majority of educated people are being paid less than "uneducated" assembly line workers shows how bass akwards the industry is.
-
110% in agreement with you on that one. I hope they kick the union off. Fuck them, there is no reason for some half retarded guy to be making that much money. I dont care if the price doesnt go down, the overblown benefits they get is rediculous. Did you know that the #1 reason corporations sign the dotted line? GM for example, say they want a $.50 raise, just for a number. If they are employing 300,000 people, at 40 hours a week, thats $312,000,000 in one year. If the unions strike, GM loses approx. $1,600,000 a day in overall "book" or accounting money, through various sources. That is 190 days of production to equal the amount of just paying it up front. Now, if you add in the cost of transportation delays, public exposure, negative marketing by the union, etc. that number is supposedly alot higher. Ive heard numbers in the $2 million+ area, per day. Thats 150 days of production. Basically they are just cutting their losses, and happy to not have to deal with it.
On a side note, everyone that thinks the mighty Japs (toyota, nissan, etc.) are making soooo much money compared to the big 3, but trust me, their day is coming. They tout their american made pride, but when the others are gone, the union vampires will come hunting their next victim. Also, its pretty sad that the mighty toyota doesnt have that large of a profit margin over GM, yet their production labor costs are 1/2 as much. Once that becomes equalized, you may see a whole different side of the coin.
Gary -
MisterCMK;187204 wrote:
Dustin, it sounds like you have never worked in a union trade before. Unions also help keep the trunk slammers and hacks out of the trades and from taking the jobs away from the skilled workers.The market could easily take care of that without a Union. A big issue is that people can sue over anything nowadays so businesses are extremely hesitant to fire anyone because it opens up the possibility of the fired employee suing them for some bullshit reason.
Unions serve no purpose anymore. Any purpose they might serve would already be taken care of by the market itself or by laws that are already in place.
-
Whats a trunk slammer?
MisterCMK;187204 wrote:
Dustin, it sounds like you have never worked in a union trade before. Unions also help keep the trunk slammers and hacks out of the trades and from taking the jobs away from the skilled workers.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Here's the crazy thing though about auto workers unions....ALL of the car makers in this country have union workers (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, etc...) When was the last time you heard of a strike against anyone aside from the "Big 3"? Oh yeah...it doesn't happen. These "foreign" companies come TO THE UNITED STATES to create jobs/build cars (while taking over major market shares based on proven reliability), they hire union labor to do so. Tell me why they aren't constantly in the news regarding strikes/walkoffs/contract negotiations/etc...
Basically, the unions are working as subcontractors to the industries they are in. My company (and yours Dustin/Dave) use subcontractors every day after negotiating terms. Basically the union workers work for the union, the union then goes over the T's & C's of the work they are contracted to do with the company. The union gets paid when its workers meet/exceed its commitments.
Mark me as pro-union, but I will say there are some messed up unions out there as well...just as there are messed up employers.
-
Unions are only good for the employees. They do not help the employers.
Unions allow workers to be lazy because they get paid the same according to job title even if they do half of the work. I am not saying that all union workers are like this, but there are quite a few that are. I think that is wrong. You got a guy that is busting his balls and another that is doing jack shit and they both get paid the same.
There is a mechanical contractor in town that is non union and pays his guys union wages and close to union benefits. This allows them to find the best employees, pay them what they are worth, and not have to deal with the union bullshit. By best I mean hard working, craftsmen at their trade, and the right fit for the company.
-
My only beef with unions is that they are granted special legal rights that other private organizations are not granted. They are also responsible for magnificently thuggish violence against all kinds of people, which to some extent is legally allowed.
Unions really are enshrined mob-rule; it's not suprising that union-action has often devolved into mob behavior in the past.
Companies stupid enough to put up with unions deserve to go under.
I don't understand why employees are so eager to join a union. If you don't think your employer is giving you a good deal, just work for somebody else. If you feel like paying a tax to somebody (union boss) for the "priviledge" of having your personal merits ignored, while supporting the freeloading and underperformance of other people, why not move to a socialist economy? Taxation on individual performers to subsidize those who do not or can not perform is a tenet of socialized states. Unions are a microscopic version of that, and like the small minds that have tried facist/socialist techniques elsewhere, they need violence and fear to benefit a few at the expense of many.
That said -- I beleive that labor in Germany costs significantly more than it does here, yet many of the German automakers are extremely profitable (Porsche and BMW, for instance). I think to some extent the big three are pinning more of the blame on unions than is strictly necessary. A more desirable product might justify a higher price, and thus more potential for profitability. The designers, marketers, and product planners (probably) aren't union jobs, yet they have considerably more impact on sales than the union guys do. If the cars aren't selling or aren't selling at a profit, that's hardly the fault of union labor.
-
No no nooooo.... :icon_tongue:
A union is nothing like a subcontractor.
If the subcontractor goes to renegitiate his contract when it's up and the employer doesn't like the terms, you send the subcontractor packing and hire someone else.
If the subcontractor decides to stop working and put a stop to your business, you send them packing and hire someone else.
If a subcontractor is standing around holding things up because he doesn't want to help to do something because he doesn't think it' his job, but that he could easily (and safely) do, you smack him upside the head and send him packing and get hire someone who will actually work to make the company prosper.
Hiring, firing, raises, promotions, etc is the job of the employer, not the employee.
Just my $0.02
tjamz;187223 wrote:
Here's the crazy thing though about auto workers unions....ALL of the car makers in this country have union workers (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, etc...) When was the last time you heard of a strike against anyone aside from the "Big 3"? Oh yeah...it doesn't happen. These "foreign" companies come TO THE UNITED STATES to create jobs/build cars (while taking over major market shares based on proven reliability), they hire union labor to do so. Tell me why they aren't constantly in the news regarding strikes/walkoffs/contract negotiations/etc...Basically, the unions are working as subcontractors to the industries they are in. My company (and yours Dustin/Dave) use subcontractors every day after negotiating terms. Basically the union workers work for the union, the union then goes over the T's & C's of the work they are contracted to do with the company. The union gets paid when its workers meet/exceed its commitments.
Mark me as pro-union, but I will say there are some messed up unions out there as well...just as there are messed up employers.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;187239 wrote:
No no nooooo.... :icon_tongue:A union is nothing like a subcontractor.
If the subcontractor goes to renegitiate his contract when it's up and the employer doesn't like the terms, you send the subcontractor packing and hire someone else.
If the subcontractor decides to stop working and put a stop to your business, you send them packing and hire someone else.
If a subcontractor is standing around holding things up because he doesn't want to help to do something because he doesn't think it' his job, but that he could easily (and safely) do, you smack him upside the head and send him packing and get hire someone who will actually work to make the company prosper.
Hiring, firing, raises, promotions, etc is the job of the employer, not the employee.
Just my $0.02
If the employer isn't happy that the union strikes, he can hire people from outside of the union to work for him as well though. Yes, I agree there are a few differences between a subcontractor & union...but both will work to protect their employees. If I sub Bergstrom Electric (Actually, they are a very good electrical contractor...just using them for an example)for a job and Joe Electrician f#cks up my job, I can do NOTHING about him...I can go to the head of Bergstrom and demand that shit gets fixed, but I can't completely kick Bergstrom off the job unless they break the terms of their contract with me....repeatedly. Same general rules apply to unions.
Grinnell (now SimplexGrinnell) was a union run sprinkler company owned by Tyco Int'l. There was a HUGE union problem....the union had some pretty serious demands, Grinnell wanted nothing to do with it so they hired outside pipe fitters to fill the void....the union gave permission for their guys to cross picket lines at this point and eventually Grinnell managed to "break" the union hold. Sounds great, right? WRONG! The best of the fitters stayed with the union and went on to work elsewhere in the industry...the lower echelon (not all...there were some great guys that stayed w/ Grinnell as well) stayed w/ Grinnell. To this day SimplexGrinnell has problems hiring good, qualified fitters nationwide....and they are harder to fire now than they were under union control.
-
oh...fwiw, the UAW & GM came to an agreement today
-
Unions serve a purpose, but just like everything else in this country, they have gotten out of hand.
Let the unions stay, get rid of minimum wage I'm tired of getting paid less so some idiot can get paid as an equal. No one is equal, no one should be paid as an equal.
-
Umm what. there has to be a minimum wage otherwise employers could dump employees and hire on others, to take over, and pay them half the wages. Which would be bad for the people they hired on as well since they might not be making enough for the cost of living.
If those numbers for the UAW are correct and some assembly line clown is making more in one year than I do in five, thats absolutly outrageous. I know taking cost of living into account will dampen it a little but jesus.
If it gets the cost of my 08 mustang down even just a grand, fuck the unions.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8 -
capitlj;187307 wrote:
Umm what. there has to be a minimum wage otherwise employers could dump employees and hire on others, to take over, and pay them half the wages. Which would be bad for the people they hired on as well since they might not be making enough for the cost of living.You should use some of the free time you'll have not driving (suspended license) to read up on some economics. I recommend "Free to Choose", by Milton Friedman. The free public library should have a copy.
In any case, just because many politicians practice willfull ignorance of economic laws doesn't mean they aren't economic laws.
The minimum wage hurts the labor market and especially hurts those who have the least ability to earn money. The notion of a minimum wage is unethical. Let me illustrate.
Suppose you have a TV. You are willing to sell this TV for $20, because it's not worth any more than $20 to you. You can think of lots of things you'd like to spend that $20 on, and you'd be happy to part with the TV.
Thankfully, the government doesn't step in and say "no way kid, you CAN NOT sell your tv for only $20.. we'd rather you didn't sell it at all unless you can get at least $50 for it"
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it ?
Well, that's precisely what the minimum wage is. The government would rather have people NOT WORK than have them work for less than minimum wage. That's too bad, because not everyone who is working needs to collect minimum wage -- just a little money for this and that might be fine. A great example of this sort of situation would be senior citizens. They can sit at home rotting, or they can go and do something for a few hours a week and get a little money for it. They may not care if its $3 or $6 an hour, but an employer definitely has to. It may be the case that hiring 2 seniors at $3/hr each gets you the same or more work as hiring a younger/faster person at $6, but thanks to government interventionism, the seniors, the employer, and the community all lose out.
Let me repeat that -- the minimum wage effectively sets a skills/employability floor, below which nobody can be employed in any capacity whatsoever. There's no business case for hiring someone who isn't an able bodied young adult for a minimum wage job assuming that there's an able bodied young adult willing to do that work for the minimum wage. This means anyone less productive than an able bodied young adult is going to have a hard time finding work, and these are the sorts of people that we want to help find gainful employment the most!
People need to realize that employment is a mutual agreement. You agree to do what your employer asks you; your employer agrees to pay you. Your job is to try and get paid as much as possible; your employers job is to pay you as little as possible. If either of you find the terms unagreeable, either party can cease participating. Life goes on.
Why the government doesn't trust individuals to correctly price their own labor is a matter for another discussion. I suspect it's because its politically advantageous to turn citizens into people who depend on the welfare state. Pricing them out of the labor market is one way to help acheive that.
(note also -- its nearly impossible to be a day laborer or anything like that any more. there are too many forms, insurance issues, legal liabilities, etc. An employer has to invest too much in an employee to "give them a shot" in many cases. The government and legal climate continue to make it harder for employers to hire people in a mitigated-risk fashion. In france it was so difficult to fire people that hiring in some industries basically froze entirely, with the obvious negative effects on the economy, culture, etc)
Nearly nothing is more fundamental than a persons right to perform some service someone else finds of value. By setting a labor price floor, and by over-regulating employment, the government has derailed the ability for all kinds of people to be gainfully employed.
If you visit NYC some time on a rainy day, there are people that just show up outside of subway exits with a coat full of umbrellas. I'm sure they're not licensed businesses, I'm sure they're not reporting taxes, and I'm sure they're not part of some union or benefits program. But damn if they're not providing a valuable service, making enough money that it's worth it for them to do it. Is what they're doing illegal? Probably. But that's because our laws are unethical, not because they're doing anything wrong.
I've still got my $1 umbrella that I bought from a guy for $5 in Manhattan when it was pouring. That guy had was in the right place, at the right time, with the right attitude. I wish some of our "leaders" would learn a thing or two from the guys in NYC selling umbrellas in the rain.
-
Maybe if the Big 3 actually came out with cars that appealed to more people these days and could actually sell stuff they would actually make a profit and it wouldn't matter...I say hell with them let the move...most of their stuff isnt even american made anyways
-
thrash;187446 wrote:
You should use some of the free time you'll have not driving (suspended license) to read up on some economics. I recommend "Free to Choose", by Milton Friedman. The free public library should have a copy.In any case, just because many politicians practice willfull ignorance of economic laws doesn't mean they aren't economic laws.
The minimum wage hurts the labor market and especially hurts those who have the least ability to earn money. The notion of a minimum wage is unethical. Let me illustrate.
Suppose you have a TV. You are willing to sell this TV for $20, because it's not worth any more than $20 to you. You can think of lots of things you'd like to spend that $20 on, and you'd be happy to part with the TV.
Thankfully, the government doesn't step in and say "no way kid, you CAN NOT sell your tv for only $20.. we'd rather you didn't sell it at all unless you can get at least $50 for it"
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it ?
Well, that's precisely what the minimum wage is. The government would rather have people NOT WORK than have them work for less than minimum wage. That's too bad, because not everyone who is working needs to collect minimum wage -- just a little money for this and that might be fine. A great example of this sort of situation would be senior citizens. They can sit at home rotting, or they can go and do something for a few hours a week and get a little money for it. They may not care if its $3 or $6 an hour, but an employer definitely has to. It may be the case that hiring 2 seniors at $3/hr each gets you the same or more work as hiring a younger/faster person at $6, but thanks to government interventionism, the seniors, the employer, and the community all lose out.
Let me repeat that -- the minimum wage effectively sets a skills/employability floor, below which nobody can be employed in any capacity whatsoever. There's no business case for hiring someone who isn't an able bodied young adult for a minimum wage job assuming that there's an able bodied young adult willing to do that work for the minimum wage. This means anyone less productive than an able bodied young adult is going to have a hard time finding work, and these are the sorts of people that we want to help find gainful employment the most!
People need to realize that employment is a mutual agreement. You agree to do what your employer asks you; your employer agrees to pay you. Your job is to try and get paid as much as possible; your employers job is to pay you as little as possible. If either of you find the terms unagreeable, either party can cease participating. Life goes on.
Why the government doesn't trust individuals to correctly price their own labor is a matter for another discussion. I suspect it's because its politically advantageous to turn citizens into people who depend on the welfare state. Pricing them out of the labor market is one way to help acheive that.
(note also -- its nearly impossible to be a day laborer or anything like that any more. there are too many forms, insurance issues, legal liabilities, etc. An employer has to invest too much in an employee to "give them a shot" in many cases. The government and legal climate continue to make it harder for employers to hire people in a mitigated-risk fashion. In france it was so difficult to fire people that hiring in some industries basically froze entirely, with the obvious negative effects on the economy, culture, etc)
Nearly nothing is more fundamental than a persons right to perform some service someone else finds of value. By setting a labor price floor, and by over-regulating employment, the government has derailed the ability for all kinds of people to be gainfully employed.
If you visit NYC some time on a rainy day, there are people that just show up outside of subway exits with a coat full of umbrellas. I'm sure they're not licensed businesses, I'm sure they're not reporting taxes, and I'm sure they're not part of some union or benefits program. But damn if they're not providing a valuable service, making enough money that it's worth it for them to do it. Is what they're doing illegal? Probably. But that's because our laws are unethical, not because they're doing anything wrong.
I've still got my $1 umbrella that I bought from a guy for $5 in Manhattan when it was pouring. That guy had was in the right place, at the right time, with the right attitude. I wish some of our "leaders" would learn a thing or two from the guys in NYC selling umbrellas in the rain.
The minimum wage laws are necessary now though unfortunately. There is no way in hell producers would lower their prices on stuff just because a minimum wage was abolished. Thus if the wage floor was removed, you'd have tons of people working for LESS money while attempting to buy goods that wouldn't adjust for the lower income. Some vendors would, which in essence would put Wal Mart in a full monopoly of the entire market of sales.
Competition might help a little but I guarantee the market wouldn't adjust well enough to not have a detrimental effect on the economy and the consumers.
-
StangerBanger96;187466 wrote:
The minimum wage laws are necessary now though unfortunately. There is no way in hell producers would lower their prices on stuff just because a minimum wage was abolished. Thus if the wage floor was removed, you'd have tons of people working for LESS money while attempting to buy goods that wouldn't adjust for the lower income. Some vendors would, which in essence would put Wal Mart in a full monopoly of the entire market of sales.Competition might help a little but I guarantee the market wouldn't adjust well enough to not have a detrimental effect on the economy and the consumers.
I don't think I agree with this assessment. Why do you claim producers wouldn't lower their prices? Wholesalers and retailers lower the prices for all kinds of reason as it is currently. If the cost of labor to a retailer goes down, they certainly have more latitude to lower prices than they did before while still stayingp profitable.
It's also not clear that "tons of people" would be working for less money. That is, I don't think lots of people would have their pay cut immediately. I think that some people WOULD start to work that weren't working previously.
Infact, Wal-Mart already pays ABOVE the minimum wage in most cases. Wal-Mart recently lobbied to INCREASE the minimum wage precisely because it shuts out smaller businesses with poorer cash flows.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm899.cfm
interesting data point:
Only 2 percent of America’s workers make the minimum wage, but 5 percent of the workforce is unemployed. Which group needs the most help? Consider also that most minimum wage workers are part-timers and under 25 years old and that half are bound for a raise within a year. Clearly, raising the minimum wage won’t help the unemployed at all and will only make their job opportunities scarcer.
-
I respect your opinion on this matter thrash, but I think you are incorrect. In a perfect world, it would work perfectly.....but so does Socialism (in a perfect world), and I think most of us agree that socialism doesn't have the best track record historically.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login