Autoblog

More union propaganda. Regardless of the take home pay, the retirement and health care benefits are a terrible burden on GM. Yesterday I read an article about a 54 year old UAW retiree whining about his future. Get a job, a-hole! Very few people in the US can retire at 54 with a pension and health care unless you are a govt worker (also ridiculous) or a UAW employee. This has got to stop if GM is to survive.

↓↑report

You're kidding, right?

I mean - sure, it's well put - but the argument is specious.

What does the employees net-pay have to do with the companies' gross-pay? Regardless of what the employee takes home, the employer in this case is still shelling out 70$/hr which is higher than their competition.

Why not take out the cost of commuting for the employee too? Child care? Fed taxes + SocSec + Medicare + State/Local taxes? Take out their groceries, their electric, etc., etc., etc. At the ned of the day, you'd be able to say "Look - the employee only ends up with $2.45 an hour!"

Hopefully, you now see the shell game the argument is presenting.

↓↑report

I'm confused.

So, basically, what I'm reading is telling me that they're making $38 an hour...and that's...bad.

Heck, I make $28 an hour with no benefits. Maybe I should form a union to suck my company dry to the point of collapse, too.

↓↑report

Regardless of what the current wages are for a unionized employee, this is still a union generated problem. The UAW work rules are so in-flexible that the automakers are paralyzed when it comes to change. I used to work for GM but left several years ago for what I think is a better future and that is working in a non-union factory for Honda. There, if a job needs to be done, anyone can do it and there is none of this "taking work away from an unionized employee BS" that is so entrenched in the unionized environment. The unions need to wake up, smell the coffee and realize if they don't wise up and move into the 21st century with their thinking, they will fade into history along with a huge number of jobs.

↓↑report

As if paying $38/hr for semi skilled labor makes ANY sense at all...

I make less than that and am an engineer working on getting the replacement for the SPACE SHUTTLE off the ground.

explain to me that disparity, please. Thanks.

↓↑report

So....how far in the tank is Autoblog now?

Per what you have written here - misuse of the English language aside...

The hourly COST of each union employee = $70 per hour.

The WAGE paid to each working union employee (non-retired) is $28 per hour.

The BENEFITS paid to each working union employee (non-retired) is $10 per hour (helath care insurance...)

The BENEFITS paid to the pool of retired workers amounts to an ADDITIONAL $42 per each hour worked by a unionized worker (obviously, that is a function of the number of workers working).

So the COST (perhaps you could say LOADED COST) of a GM union employee is $70 per hour:

$28 in WAGES
$10 in BENEFITS
$42 into the retiree BENEFITS pool

It is that total cost which prevents GM from thriving while the other manufacturers in the USA are not on life support.

Be more honest with your prose, Autoblog. It will help you in the long run.

↓↑report

This is nothing new. Everyone knows that the real damage comes from legacy costs.

Unions were necessary several decades ago. They served their purpose and are now an archaic and unnecessary drain on the automakers' bottom lines.

Anyone who thinks that these union workers had nothing to do with the current financial crisis must have their head in the deepest hole in the world. It is exactly this type of person - uneducated and overpaid - who went out and signed up for jumbo mortgages that they eventually weren't able to pay.

↓↑report

Agreed...this is pure union propaganda. Granted, they have reaped some benefits from their actions, but one has to ask themselves what the antagonistic relationships the unions have established with factory management have garnered in the way of product quality. The Japanese aren't unionized and their cars seem to run forever (198k miles on my old '98 Maxima, and it was still bulletproof when I traded it) Unfortunately, I have yet to own a domestic vehicle that didn't begin to crap out immediately after the warranty expired, or even before (I'm talking to YOU Chrysler).

I think the unions realize they are dying. They're a business...in this to make money. We all see how well those manufacturing jobs are going here in the U.S. Oh wait, they're all in Mexico or China because American companies can no longer keep jobs here and be competitive in the market place due to labor costs.

Now, the unions are turning a great deal of attention to a massive injury with jobs that cannot be exported overseas: HEALTHCARE. I am a nurse, and in the last 2 months, I've received no less than 3 mailings to my home from union organizations vaguely disguised as "organizations for change". What is amusing is that this article gripes about paying for the rising costs of healthcare and how it is crippling the Big 3. What the heck do you think will happen when hospitals begin unionizing in earnest? You think healthcare is expensive now? Costs will, without question, absolutely SKYROCKET.

Unions need to die.

↓↑report

Exactly, very well put. But there's another issue. Responsible and irresponsible employers.

So here's the deal. Unions are necessary to protect the employees from irresponsible employers - limited work-day, minimal wage, work safety requirements, even minimal age for workers, it's all down to unions' pressure. Otherwise there'd still be 16-hour work-day and 12 year old kids working in the factories.

However, the unions DO go overboard - anybody remember British Leyland?

If you have a responsible and well run employer, you don't necessarily need unions. Unhappy and chronically exhausted employee is useless. And it's not that you can hire an army of unqualified people, you need to train them. Training new staff requires resources so the company will try to keep the workers it trained in the company.

Which leads, again, to how the company is organized, how well it's run. And that brings me to the Detroit Three and their lack of plans, vision, organization and corporate responsibility.

↓↑report

Guys - no other auto companies have anywhere near the number of retirees as the big three. Of course their hourly rate is larger by far.

As if this is anyone's fault?

The big three have been doing business here for generations - the transplants have not. It's as simple as that. The reason nobody worried about the big retirement costs 30/40 years ago is because these contracts were competitive at that time! The only competition for the big3 were the other 2 automakers - and they had the same contract terms with their workforce. I'm not saying nobody didn't make stupid choices, (UAW for not being realistic about competition, management for not demanding realism from UAW) but please, let's keep things in perspective.

@Richard - doublecheck your arithmetic

↓↑report

"Source: The New Republic, via DailyKos"

The source for this post should be all one needs to run away from this story. DailyKos ??? You immediately lose any and all credibility you may have had before opening you mouth.

↓↑report

"As if paying $38/hr for semi skilled labor makes ANY sense at all...

I make less than that and am an engineer working on getting the replacement for the SPACE SHUTTLE off the ground.

explain to me that disparity, please. Thanks."

At least the cars are on the road. Light that candle already!

-)

↓↑report

I think the article is not propaganda as the others have stated here. The article reveals the truth about what current active union members are making per hour and shows that there is no difference between Union and Non Union. Do both parties deserve to make this much money per hour for being considered basic labor? I would have to say no, but they need to compensated fairly. What that is I cannot say, but working in a factory doing the same repetitive work for 8hrs at a time is very hard work. The total cost being $70 per hour is hammering the Big 2.5 for having been the biggest companies in the world for most of the last century. The revenue and growth that went into the pension calculations were obvioiusly incorrect back when they were agreeing to the contracts that put them in place. The inferior product the that was coming out of Detroit for the last 20 years was the nail in the coffin. The current products from Ford and GM are quality and attractive with Chrysler still lagging. The shrinking, laying off, plant closings, and bad public perception have all contributed to the downward spiral. The financial crisis from Wall St. expediated and exposed these wounds for all to see in a much more rapid manner. I cannot blame the Unions for 100% of the issues as that is not a true and fair description. All parties involved have contributed to the current situation as all parties were only looking out for their own self interest instead of working together to be the best companies in the world.

The fact is that if anyone has a job right now you should be thankful as it is turning into an "Employers Market". People will undercut you for your job. To think otherwise is foolish. Unions were created at a time when employers would abuse workers to squeeze profit out of every second of every day. The new reality is reverting back to those times as people become desperate for work. Wages will fall across the country as deflation is kicking in. I hate to think what will happen if any of the Big 2.5 collapse. You will see food lines, soup kitchens, and crime like you have not seen before. Pretty much a new depression that will affect every corner of North America and the world for that matter.

My point is that the Union is a mear cog in the whole machine that is broken. We cannot let the entire machine collapse or we will all be in serious trouble.

↓↑report

"via daily kos" says it all. Consider the source. Biased. Why not quote a column written by a GM exec or the Republican national committee while you're at it?

And only morons would be saying GM employees "take home" $70 an hour. Of COURSE the benefits and other costs are included in that number. That's exactly the problem! Those "other" costs are too high!

GM execs put off the day of reckoning for themselves in years past by deferring compensation to retirement funds rather than hourly pay. The result is paying for legions of retired workers who produce nothing.

$28/hour plus $10 benefits is one thing. Then if you add $32/hour in retirement/healthcare benefits you make your company unprofitable. It's not that complicated. It's like paying the McDonald's worker $8/hour, but you give him another $12/hour in "other" benefits. You're not going to be able to sell burger meals for $5 doing that. Fact of life.

Grow up, the union leaders sold their economically uneducated and unsophisticated members a bill of goods and priced them out of the market so they'd look like heros, knowing it would one day cost them their jobs.

Did you guys really think you could compete globally at those pay rates? And you'd better think about your public pronouncements of how you're "entitled" to this or that, as those of us who buy your trucks and negotiate our own pay make far less and may just go buy a non-union made product to show you what we think of your entitled attitude.

↓↑report

Ok, AB (and Daily Kos) are fully right in bringing this to light. Just look at the misleading (or outright FALSE) quotes in the news today:

"Union Workers at Big Three Automakers Average $73 an Hour" CNSnews.com

"The nonunion autoworker makes $48 per hour and the union autoworker makes $73 per hour." newschief.com

"Detroit pays an average hourly assembly line wage in the mid $70’s (total compensation including benefits)." motley fool

Obviously, these headlines are NOT TRUE. Thanks AB for at the very least clarifying the statements made by the media.

↓↑report

edit - it's also interesting to note that "legacy costs" are really "health care costs". Japanese automakers don't have this since they have government-sponsored healthcare. It's no wonder US automakers can't compete....

↓↑report

Norb:
It's the deeds of people like your old man, mine, and all the other union members and organizers that allow other people to dump on unions. Labeling your opinion piece as union propaganda or specious without corroborating facts is beneath my contempt, I don't know about yours. To paraphrase Tip O'Neil, "The sacrifices we and our parents made have allowed our children to be Republicans."

First, I defy anyone to point out a major worker benefit that wasn't a Union demand. Second, who put a gun to GM's head?

↓↑report

The anti-union folks out there may not want to hear it but the argument has always been "union employees make too much money, that's why GM is going bankrupt". If that's your argument then this blows it out of the water.

If your argument is that GM can't compete and continue to pay for retiree healthcare costs then take that up with GM management and your congressman. And whining about how much or little your make is totally irrelevant within the scope of this discussion.

Wish for the failure of the American bue collar, middle class worker if you must, but at least do it using sound arguments.

↓↑report

Tim UF,
If you are in fact an engineer making less than an auto worker, it suggests to me that the engineering degree must be in comode/plunger design.
nuff said.

↓↑report