Auto Unions Refuse to Take Pay, Benefit Cuts, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:15 AM by kozmo
Um, yeah... totally outrageous! I have multiple college degrees and have ZERO job protection. My medical benefits are fair, but nothing close to the unions and I have no job bank to pay me 90% of my salary if I get let go from my job. I am highly skilled at what I do and don't make anywhere near $70/hr.

A neighbor of mine who is an Industrial Engineer for GM, has a masters degree and has worked with the compnay for 10 years, stated that most entry-level assembly line workers take home more $$$ each year than he does with their OT. By the way, he's salaried and has been required to work 50 hour weeks for the past 2 years. Is there anyone reading this that can justify this?

A relative of mine, retired auto-worker, takes home more money from his pension monthly than I earn working. His benefits are paid in full. Can anyone justify this?

A close friend who I went to school with, dropped out of HS his senior year, went to work at a local Ford plant... Last year (2006) he produced a W2 that stated his earnings as $137,700 some odd dollars. This friend, who I love dearly, laughs at me for "wasting my time in school" as he earns far more than I. He struggles with basic math and cannot spell to save his life. Can anyone justify this for me?

This industry MUST be allowed to fail. These unions MUST be disbanded. A major realignment is in order and the government's interference is preventing it. The quid pro quo that has been allowed to continue, with politicians receiving HUGE campaign contributions from these organizations in exchange for legislation favorable to the status quo must end. Money must be removed from the political equation or the politicians will continue to bankrupt this nation. Friends, I feel that social and civil unrest is knocking on the door. Be prepared.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:23 AM by 44soulslayer
reply to post by kozmo



Thats exactly the problem with labour unions and other red flag type organisations...

They want "equality" of pay for menial workers to be paid the same rate as a skilled engineer, designer or accountant. Its pretty ridiculous when you consider that the latter are all professionals who have spent a large amount of time and money training to gain specialized knowledge.

GM deserves to fall; the unions deserve to be blasted for the ridiculous expectations that they have created. They could learn a huge number of lessons from Toyota about better labour control, better vehicles, better manufacturing practices, better quality controls and aftercare and better management in general!


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:29 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by mikellmikell



Originally posted by mikellmikell
I hate to burst your bubble but the UAW do not make 70$ an hour. Thats a a number people throw out to make us look bad. Hourly make about 30 $ with benefits. management starts out at about 60$ with bennies and a Pro E jockey working as a temp can make 80$ and hour. The SAP programmers make 100$ an hour. A welder at a nuke plant makes over 100$ an hour. The government help build the foreign companies plants here the least they could do is help out the American companies.

mikell


We're talking salaries *and* benefits. According to the automakers themselves:




Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69, including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.




reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:33 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by Total Reality



Originally posted by Total Reality
I don't think any of the workers should have to take pay/benefit cuts. Why blame the workers? It's not their fault in the least and by blaming them and cutting wages you're not fixing the real problem. The banks that we gave the money to should be giving these companies loans from the TARP funds as well as the homeowners that are losing their houses.


Please. If your labor costs are $30/hr higher than your competitors, then that is a distinct disadvantage you are working under.

You cannot survive that unless you have an immensely better product, which Detroit does NOT.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:33 AM by kozmo
reply to post by 44soulslayer



Thanks 44, we're in agreement! To put this in greater perspective for the union supporters... Let us assume that the Big 3 cease to operate... Can you tell me for what line of work these people are qualified? What special skills do they possess that makes them any more valuable to a company than say, a burger flipper???

I am not demeaning an honest day's work from anyone. I am, however, pointing out the gross inequality of pay for autoworkers versus other skilled workers. Assembly line workers in other industries, non-union I should add, equal no more than about $15 to $20 per hour, TOPS! To add, I hear stories all of the time about these guys sleeping on the jo, playing cards in the breakroom for hours etc... However, they cannot be fired because of he unions.

If these folks want to earn $40 to $100 per hour, then they are going to need to develop skills that are in demand. Do you what a Pro/E designer makes that kind of money? Because so few people can do the work and do it well. Same with the SAP developer. It takes years and thousands of dollars in training and certification to to become proficient at SAP programming - they deserve it. However, turning a wrench... Hell, I could do that coming out of the womb!


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:35 AM by Jkd Up
reply to post by jsobecky



Great find! you are correct. The auto unions right now are being stubborn and not waveing, holding up the salvage of their own job. The odd part about this is that the unions are so used to getting their way, they are now the bad guys. But I am not sure that the governmnet will cave in just so the unions will get their demands.

This makes for an interesting standoff. Two of the biggest crooks around; the government and the mob. Ooops. did I say that out loud.



reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:46 AM by detachedindividual
I'm not sure about the figures you've given, I've just seen a guy giving a news conference stating completely different figures and reasons.

But, I am in agreement, and I've said it many times, that I would rather be on half pay than be unemployed.
They should count themselves lucky that they still have an income while so many others don't.

Something that has really bugged me over the last few days...

These companies are in desperate financial crisis, the money is expected to see them through for a few months (I think I heard that). But how many vehicles are currently sitting in showrooms and forecourts and ready to be sold, but no one is buying?

This financial crisis is affecting the entire planet. Who is going to be out buying the cars already produced, let alone the vehicles they are going to continue producing?

This is already a completely failed industry, simply because sales are going to fall off a cliff if they haven't already.
This recession is expected to last at least a couple of years. So what good is it giving them billions, sending people back to work to manufacture cars that are not going to be sold? These companies are going to sink and these people are going to be made unemployed.

Is it simply about controlling the inevitable?
Do they figure that letting people go in stages, while the companies slowly die is going to be easier to manage?
And will the car companies even adhere to that process if they decide that this industry is dead.

These companies are going to sink, either in the next couple of months (if they don't give them the money) or in March/April (if they do).

So is it even worth the gamble that this staged collapse will help alleviate the potential stress on welfare?


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 10:39 AM by jsobecky
reply to post by detachedindividual



Originally posted by detachedindividual
I'm not sure about the figures you've given, I've just seen a guy giving a news conference stating completely different figures and reasons.


I think the person you saw was Ron Gettelfinger, UAW president. He started off by blaming the Republicans, and never mentioned the fact that Harry Reid also voted against it.

reply to post by Total Reality



I agree that management is bloated and overpaid also.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^