Caoboy

iTrader: (2)

Why?

There's an assembly factory here called TMI, they do interiors for Toyota. I have a friend that works there, started at $13 an hour, and after a few years, he's making $17 an hour.

Non union, and more down to earth for their wages too.

LexFather

The funny thing is I don't see no one putting a gun to GM/Chrsyler/Fords head to sign these contracts.

If they don't sign them, you have no union. Grab your ***** and don't sign them.

You CANNOT BLAME the UNION for having the ***** to ask for things and management keeps AGREEING to them.

I8ABMR

I am sorry but for a job that requires no education AT ALL, they sould be paid less that half of what they make. There are medical professionals that I know who make less and are trying to pay off student loans. For these clowns its all income with no major educational loans, if any at all.

Indio

iTrader: (1)

The reason transplants pay a competitive wage is the looming threat of the UAW, why else would they pay on average 26 dollars an hr for work you guys think is worth 15 dollars at best?

Senator Corker and that southern bunch that blocked the bailout don't give a damn about making the big three "lean and competitive" , why would they? They represent states that are home to the competition, they are pushing hard for bankruptcy so they can bust the UAW, why? Without the threat to organize wages at the transplants will go down therefore reducing labor costs (along with the quality of life for the employees), if this can be done it will mean a nice fat campaign contribution for said senators.

The unintended result will be suppliers going down with Detroit thus significantly raising parts and operating costs for transplants who will then pass them on to the customer, so be careful what you wish for.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

Thank you very much...

Exactly the point I was trying to get across...

FKL

Thank you for eloquently stating your point. I could not have said it better myself and it's good knowing it's not just myself who disagrees with the union busting mentalities.

I'll take everyone's silence on this issue as meaning you accept this fact.

Caoboy

iTrader: (2)

At the time when business was booming, and no union=no workers, locking into a contract was the best thing they could do, especially when workers striking means they lose a lot of money on the factory being shut down. Even though it's a factory, people still have to be trained, that takes time and money and no products moving out means you are in the red...now it's kicking them in the cornhole.

jracerlmn

well unions are useful on occasion but at the same time unions need to know when too much is too much.

do they not realize that their livelihoods rise and fall with the company? if the company falls they will no longer get paid nor have a company to fight with.

silversprucesc3

Gentlemen,

I believe the wages posted included benefits. This would be normal FTE (full time employee) wage assesment.

In straight terms the hourly wages are closer to 20 - 30 per hour.

rdgdawg

Ummm... isn't the whole point of these discussions the FACT that the UAW agreements are crushing the Big 3 in terms of profitability, restructuring, ie SURVIVAL?????

This is free enterprise folks, if I can charge you $10 rather than $6 and you're willing to pay it, kudos to me. If you can make $71/hr instead of $45, congrats!!! That is what America is built upon...

If it crushes an entire industry, ehhhhhhhh..............

EXAMPLE:
If, however, I continue to charge $10, you only will pay me $5, my FIXED COSTS (OEM/suppliers renegotiated BUT Union contract IS NOT) are a minimum of $6 and my COMPETITOR has a better product for $10, either I take a loss at $5 or I GET NOTHING!!! I then need to improve/remarket my product... BUT MY FIXED COST (union contract) IS STILL SET. Unless I can renegotiate until I make those changes, my business is TOAST

My FIXED COST (Union contract) can either- scale back (reduce hourly/payroll/etc.) to HELP me revamp my business at a REDUCED PROFIT or milk me dry until I close my doors forever...

My Econ 101 for today!!

kalvano

Tenured UAW workers make around $30 an hour, comparable to Toyota and others. I think new hires start at around $15 an hour.

The $70 an hour figure includes all the benefits and everything that are paid to past and current UAW workers. Basically, your average Joe is not making $70 an hour, but that's what all total UAW benefits the automakers are paying equal out to.

CDNROCKIES

Nothing you have said here is incorrect, in fact, it is precisely the point.
This isn't about crapping on the hard working people that are members of the UAW, but more about the stranglehold the UAW has on GFC. Remove the emotional arguments and look at it purely from a business perspective.

The bottom line is that the $70/hr figure, regardless of whether it includes benefits, is what GFC actually have to expend. That number wasn't reached just in the most recent negotiations, but achieved over time through pensioned employee benefits. GFC definitely shares the blame by signing previous contracts that have put them in this position.

If your company has to pay it's employees an average of $30 more per hour, how can you expect to stay competitive? This doesn't mean that a GFC employee is actually taking home $30/hr more than a comparable Toyota USA employee. But it does mean that for GFC on their statements they are expending that amount for every single employee, for every single hour worked.

Labor is always one of the most difficult expenses for a company to wrestle with. If you can't find a balance between fair pay for your employees and the bottom line your business is going to be in trouble. Simple concept that GFC ignored when their shareholders were cashing huge cheques during their profitable years.

As an aside, it puzzles me how the shutting down of the GFC plants for a month is going to save them significant money? They are still going to be paying every single one of their employees and getting nothing for it.
This seems more like a ploy to "scare" the government and public into fast tracking the bailout that they claim is their only option.

ffpowerLN

iTrader: (1)

Unless you are paid by cash, whose wages aren't including benefits from any decent size corporation?

silversprucesc3

Very few employees actually know their true "labor costs"...
If I were to ask you your salary would you include your benefit costs?

My point was that you, I and others realize the total hourly costs described however judging from some of the comments in this thread I sensed some believed the total cost to be hourly rates.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Instead of giving GM/C money, maybe they should have just taken on the retiree benefits... it would have been simpler and removed the excuse/burden.

But now the Feds are going to be in GM/C's shorts, and that ain't gonna be pretty.

Watch your wallet for the NEXT bailout... the Bush one just buys some time for Obama to get into office.