Latest on the UAW Bailout

Status
Not open for further replies.
makes me wonder why I went to college, grabbed a bachelors, then went back for a masters.... years of time & sacrifice.... plus the costs of the education... and I still don't achieve that kind of pay/benefits. Are those numbers for real? M
 
I mentioned this in another thread. I have three engineering degrees (two masters) from Big Ten schools that represents eight years of education and lost wages. I work in the auto industry. My girlfriend is a UAW member clerk in a warehouse for one of the automakers. Last year she made more money than I did. She put in a good amount of overtime... but so did I - unpaid! My job has more responsibilities than her job. I have 28 years experience working in my field helping design engineers and manufacturing plants with their problems. She's been in her job about 10 years stacking boxes and tracking inventory. Something is wrong with this structure of compensation. Either the UAW workers are paid too much for what they are doing or I am paid too little. It's been mentioned many times among my colleagues over the decades about this disparity and "why should anybody bother with a college education" when they can become a UAW member and make the same wages. Back in the 70s, it was even considered 'uncool' by some to get an education, which only added to this spite.
 
 Originally Posted By: meep
makes me wonder why I went to college, grabbed a bachelors, then went back for a masters.... years of time & sacrifice.... plus the costs of the education... and I still don't achieve that kind of pay/benefits. Are those numbers for real? M
You sound just like me. I lived in Memphis growing up so there were not any auto plants around my city. However, now that I have finished my education. There is a plethora of FOREIGN auto plants springing up in the South region. Alabama, Mississippi, Texas. The Toyota plant that went to San Antonio, I know West Memphis, Arkansas was in the running for it but lost out.
 
If one's pay is based on how much grief he DOESN'T cause the employer, rather than the good he DOES cause that should be a red flag that something isn't right. I'm proud to say that my pay rate is what it is because my employer and I came to an agreement based on what they thought I was worth to them. If the UAW members do such a good job then there shouldn't be any problem with dissolving the contracts and opening up the wage structure to the market. Just my $.02 Calvin
 
 Originally Posted By: Kestas
I mentioned this in another thread. I have three engineering degrees (two masters) from Big Ten schools that represents eight years of education and lost wages. I work in the auto industry. My girlfriend is a UAW member clerk in a warehouse for one of the automakers. Last year she made more money than I did. She put in a good amount of overtime... but so did I - unpaid! My job has more responsibilities than her job. I have 28 years experience working in my field helping design engineers and manufacturing plants with their problems. She's been in her job about 10 years stacking boxes and tracking inventory. Something is wrong with this structure of compensation. Either the UAW workers are paid too much for what they are doing or I am paid too little. It's been mentioned many times among my colleagues over the decades about this disparity and "why should anybody bother with a college education" when they can become a UAW member and make the same wages. Back in the 70s, it was even considered 'uncool' by some to get an education, which only added to this spite.
Sounds like you need to join a union! ;\) I actually don't see why engineers don't, if actors and writers do in the entertainment industry, why not you guys? My $0.02 is that UAW wages are so high because; They negotiated their contracts based on profit sharing. GM automated something, makes 4 jobs into 1, the union made sure the 1 left got paid more, GM made more, and the contracts were the same be for Ford and Chrysler and everyone is happy. But the imports wrecked this game with un-unionized shops, and cutting into market share. Big 3 management has not been good for the last 20 years either, so here we are with a big mess. The solution? I don't know? Make Toyota buy the big 3 and run it with a small part of their cash reserves? Ian
 
I think that you hit the nail on the head Ian. Ebb and flow...Evolution... Growth and profits that was deemed to be ineviatable...when they are not.
 
 Quote:
Gary, you don't know squat about me, so don't accuse me of laying down with the same executives you seem to loathe so much.
No. I never pretended to know you. You'll note that it was posed as a question.
 Quote:
were likely never promised to be placed in an account in one lump sum by the Big Three........
..and this alters .."what"? If you screw up ..or falter ..are you off the hook due to your mismanagement of your life? Do you endorse allowing home squatters that over extended their known obligations a "free ride"? Why does a corporate entity get your grace and not your insistence that they suffer the liability of their incompitence?
 Quote:
were intended to be obtained from the sale of FUTURE automobiles. Sales declined, thus the amount available to contribute to that "fund" declined.........
As I said, there are skyscrapers full of people who figure just what projected future obligations would be. This is routinely done for all kinds of things ..and the fundamental being life insurance. They know exactly what's required to pay the odds of life expectancy off at the expected time of death. It's not rocket science to KNOW just what pension and benefit funds are needed TODAY for the negotiated rate TODAY to assure those funds are there to pay TODAY'S portion of the future's obligation. That is, if the place closed 5 years ago, they would still be incapable of providing life time benefits that they're obliged to fulfill.
 Quote:
those funds and whatever promise they were intended for would and could not keep up with the rising cost of health care over the life of the retirees it allegedly was designed to support.
Why not? Now surely this would soak up TONS of revenue and would have tanked the enterprise much sooner. So That means you too appear to endorse the "false" nature of the negotiated contract. The general ignorance of the whole situation is the watershed benefit of the auto industry. It's been a party that no one wanted to stop. No one. Now that the bill is coming due ..now the rats are jumping ship and the weasels are welshing. Tempest is correct. The human condition has never evolved.
 Quote:
If you care to actually do some research, you'd find that the big three are only one of hundreds of corporations with underfunded health and pension funds. The government only requires a certain level of contributions by the companies into their pension and health funds each year. Any excess above that amount, (with permission of the fed, I believe), . And I do not know of ANY corporation that can claim, with a straight face, that they have a handle on TOTALLY KNOWN future legacy costs.
I've done the research and have cited these facts many times.
 Quote:
can be used by that corporation for other operating costs
..and this included distribution of profits. So, it's easy to see that instead of assuring future funding for future obligations, this money was put into others hands?? Good, we agree that this was a plan configured to fail leaving the beneficiaries out what they were promised ..and the tax payer picking up a good bit of the slack. Privatized profits ..and socialized costs ..with losers everywhere except those who spent the money when they had it. That about it?? See how easy that was to rip people off and get the general population to take care of the bitter dregs that they left behind in untidy (cough-cough) "unintended consequences"??
 
 Quote:
In my opinion, the relevant issue is that an unskilled and easily replaced worker is valued more than a skilled and difficult-to-replace worker.
I've heard this from teachers to whomever. They whine and demand parity with (fill in the blank). In the case of teachers ..they compare themselves to accountants and engineers ..and ..assembly line workers. My retort is that they chose to be where they are ..and not be accountants ..engineers ..or the lowly assembly line worker. Could they handle the curriculum and demands of the academics ..or the toil of the other??? I'll also take exception to JUST unskilled labor being easily replaced. Everyone is easily replaced. When it comes to most of the "professional associations" ..they too are not subjected to market forces ..but rather are subjected to "take a number for better service" in terms of compensation.
 Quote:
I am curious as to what makes the union employee 24% more valuable...?
Nothing at all. The more important question you need to ask is why the UAW looks so overly paid? It's kinda like the whole floor except that under the UAW is sinking for the crude and the rude ..and a just about everyone else. While you're pointing out those that have insisted on resisting the devaluation of the American standard of living, they're wondering why you're standing idle and flat footed allowing it to occur. In most manufacturing, labor costs aren't a big % of the cost of a product. They're just the most flexible. Not too many businesses get to discount the other aspects of their costs ..but the human element can be ..therefore, it is.
 
 Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Sounds like you need to join a union! ;\) I actually don't see why engineers don't, if actors and writers do in the entertainment industry, why not you guys?
Back in my father's day, it was customary to pass on the terms of the UAW contract on to the engineers... things like overtime pay, COLA, and other concessions won by the UAW. It was rather sweet. This disappeared some 15-20 years ago. For one automotive job I was a member of the Society of Engineering and Office Workers (SEOW). I can't say if it hurt of helped my position. One has to be careful in wishing engineers were unionized. It may take a good situation and polarize the two camps, creating more angst. Though it can help raise the compensation level, it can also create more unemployment among the engineering ranks. It also creates a disincentive for employers to hire more engineers, knowing it would be that much more difficult to shed them.
 
As a fellow engineer, unions would be a horrible move. I agree engineers are a bit underpaid, but not too bad. I think other jobs, like UAW, are severely overpaid. As for unions and engineers, you can't afford to protect engineers. Lazy, overprotected engineers would spell disaster for any industry. Engineers, like every occupation for that matter, need to earn their keep and prove themselves before moving up. This doesn't even get into the life-safety situations that would arise from lazy, unmotivated engineers.
 
 Originally Posted By: meep
makes me wonder why I went to college, grabbed a bachelors, then went back for a masters.... years of time & sacrifice.... plus the costs of the education... and I still don't achieve that kind of pay/benefits. Are those numbers for real? M
Well there are plenty of master's holding competitors for the number of master's needing jobs. Higher education is one of those cancers... tuition rising higher than the rate of inflation... nobody wanting to cut 'em off... just take out more loans, we'll cover you.
 
While not a union ..I can see your point with engineers having some "socialized" aspect brought into the discipline ..especially in the automotive sector. Look what it has done to the Germans The US market is light years ahead in terms of technology.
 
 Quote:
While you're pointing out those that have insisted on resisting the devaluation of the American standard of living, they're wondering why you're standing idle and flat footed allowing it to occur.
Maybe because over valued labor causes your company to go bust in a global economy. It would be even less than it is if these companies were allowed to modernize their factories the way their competitors have.
 Quote:
In most manufacturing, labor costs aren't a big % of the cost of a product.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-06-22-gm-healthcare-usat_x.htm
 Quote:
GM expects to spend at least $5.6 billion on health care this year, more than it spent on advertising last year.
 Quote:
"It is a well-known fact that the U.S. automobile industry spends more per car on health care than on steel," says Lee Iacocca, the retired chairman of Chrysler
 
 Quote:
Maybe because over valued labor causes your company to go bust in a global economy. It would be even less than it is if these companies were allowed to modernize their factories the way their competitors have.
While I surely see the merit of getting the most out of your dollar ..there's is absolutely no reason to trade the American lifestyle and elevate the poor masses at the cost of our selves. Trade and monetary manipulation has killed most of our manufacturing .. Many manufacturing interests went dry when TEMPORARILY investors could get 30%+ in the market on vapor speculation ..while a lowly manufacturing concern could only yield 3-5% profit. Allow subsidized products to be dumped on the market ..and then construct a bureaucratic labyrinth to wade through a mountain of red tape to fight the practice ..the process taking just long enough and at such high cost ..that you end up folding.... Tell me this is news to you. Please tell me these are past conditions that you were 100% unaware and 100% ignorant of. Not one clue ..not one inkling?? You will note that I said "MOST" manufacturing. Healthcare costs have gone up due to demographics. YOU are paying more now due to the aging population and the monopoly that the AMA and FDA have on costs via insurance. The fact that most employers have divorced themselves from healthcare costs and pension cost doesn't alter these costs ..just who appears to pay for them.
 
gary -- "trade and monetary manipulation has killed most of our manufacturing" . what's the matter with you, gary ? it can't be that !!! you're letting logic and fact get in the way of a good debate. it has to be that $150,000 /year that the greedy big 3 line workers earn ! and johnny -- that cold/snow that came into your area -- methinks that the uaw workers are responsible for that. it has to be ! it can't be because it's winter ! d*mn you, uaw workers !
 
If the CEOs get millions of dollars in compensation why can't the workers get a measly $150,000$ My opinion G.M. Mt experience with G.M products has been real poor so I wouldn't buy one and it is not because of stuff the employees didn't put together correctly.
 
steve s. -- i didn't figure that i would have to say this -- i was being sarcastic. and, the line workers make $28 / hr. how could they possibly make $150,000 / year ? and don't say overtime. how much overtime have big 3 assembly plants had in the last year or so ? and car sales are not just a big three problem. for november -- toyota sales down 33%, nissan down 42%, bmw and mb down 25%, and all are cutting production. it has become a very serious worldwide issue. kudos to you if you think $150,000 / year is "measly". take care.
 
 Originally Posted By: Steve S
If the CEOs get millions of dollars in compensation why can't the workers get a measly $150,000
I've thought on this question a lot, actually. Here's what I came up with FWIW. Each CEO has thousands of people depending on him, and is supposed to be hard to replace. As much as many people like to bash on Big 3 CEOs, there are very few people who have the specific skill set and motivations for those jobs. The pay is accordingly high. None of the above is true of line workers. They are important, but most of them are easily replaceable. Sounds grim, but it's frankly true.
 Originally Posted By: Steve S
My opinion G.M. Mt experience with G.M products has been real poor so I wouldn't buy one and it is not because of stuff the employees didn't put together correctly.
Like I said above: everything affects the bottom line, and the bottom line affects everyone. If the workers are getting huge pay for work that is nothing special, there are many ways in which that will drag the company down besides an immediate effect on the quality of the product.
 
 Originally Posted By: Steve S
If the CEOs get millions of dollars in compensation why can't the workers get a measly $150,000$ My opinion G.M. Mt experience with G.M products has been real poor so I wouldn't buy one and it is not because of stuff the employees didn't put together correctly.
Because simple workers don't make real decisions. With higher pay comes more risk. If every decision a worker makes can make or brake a billion dollar company, they should be compensated accordingly. Likewise, if the decisions that worker makes literally has no effect on the business as a whole, they should be compensated accordingly. No one has a "right" to make that much money. It should be earned. Typically, earning that means taking a much bigger risk. What risk is a line worker taking?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top