Rally 'round the family: Ford backs up Chrysler's "weak" assessment of new CAW contract
GM just ratified an agreement with the Canadian Auto Workers union, and as soon as it did, Chrysler blasted it for being "weak." Chrysler's complaint was that the CAW didn't offer enough concessions to bring production costs into line with market realities. Now Ford has piped up in Chrysler's corner, saying "We believe the recently negotiated agreement between General Motors Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers will not keep Ford's Canadian operations competitive in today's global economy."
Ford's Canadian labor costs per hour are supposed to be $70 Canadian, about $55 in U.S. dollars. Even though that is the amount that Ford recently just got its American labor costs down to, the company says it will need more savings from up north. GM, which hailed the agreement as promising, hasn't commented on its competitors' assessments, and neither has the CAW.
[Source: Auto News, sub req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ed 12:38PM (3/14/2009)
I don't see why Canadian Union labour costs should be as high as they are in they are in the states. Doesn't Canada have socialized medicine? That should be taking a good bit of burden off of the big three in comparison to their obligations in the states.
Reply
jpm100 12:53PM (3/14/2009)
The Ontario government hits up its companies through payroll taxes to fund much of that healthcare. There is also a fee to people on the Ontario plan which the autocompanies pick up, I believe.
Then the autoworker's healthcare is supplemented to a level similar to US workers like a semi-private room and adds drug coverage.
I believe pensions are similar in that the companies are hit heavily for the government plan as well as private plans that may be separate.
Then there's payroll taxes just for the heck of it too.
Ed 1:03PM (3/14/2009)
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
superman211 1:50PM (3/14/2009)
Yep, the more the Govt gives the more they can take.
Jake B 5:11PM (3/14/2009)
That is what Obama wants to set up in our country. I say screw that.
Enigmatic 12:44AM (3/15/2009)
As long as you're a Canadian, you don't have to pay. I don't mind paying higher taxes so that people in less fortunate situations can go to the hospital without having to worry about their bill. That fact that in the States their are people who have been put into financial misery due to health issues is unacceptable for me. In Canada, the healthcare system is far from perfect, but I'll trust my government over the insurance corporations.
Tony 6:02PM (3/15/2009)
While we may have medical care free for all who NEED it, I stressed the need part as you still have to pay for cosmetic surgery. It is still the proverbial WE that pay for it. I would rather have it this way than the US system of insurance as insurance companies will always find some way of reducing their pay-out to the detriment of YOUR health. It still remains that the legacy costs are just as astronomical up her as in the states with the Detroit three. What burns my butt, is some uneducated putz RETIRING with a FULL pension at 45 YEARS OLD and expecting me to pay for his or her pension with MY tax dollars. The minimum retirement age for any pension should be 55 years. This putz still has 20 plus working years ahead of him or her and are the reason for the maladies in the auto companies.
stratojet 1:29PM (3/14/2009)
The CAW concessions don't reflect the severity of the actual situation for GM.
-Cost of living allowance should have been eliminated, as it was for the salaried employees 20 years ago
- Salaried employees had their salaried reduced from 3-10% temporarily, so GM says.
-Salaried employees had their wages frozen since 2008.
- Pension regimes\ has been changed in 2006 and froze the defined pension and went to an employee/GM contribution plan. A little bit like a 401K in the USA. This is what is killing the corporation.
I think that what GM has agreed to is not significant enough. A noodle on the wall, Desrosiers said. It will be very tough for the CAW because Chrysler and Ford are not playing a game. This time, it's for real. The balance of power has shifted abruptly in favor of the manufacturers.
This is historic and soon you will see this trend in the public sector: Government, municipal, provincial. There is a limit to what you can extract from the average Joe in taxes. It has already started in California. A lot of citizens say that their taxes should not go for GM and Chrysler bailout. So, what is it going to be for the public sector?
Reply
stumack 8:00PM (3/14/2009)
As a public sector worker, I'll never argue that I don't have decent benefits and a good deifined benefit pension plan. What I don't have (that a CAW worker does) is
-a non-contirbutory pension plan (the public at large is just finding this out and is flabbergasted !)
-paid child care
-paid legal costs for personal matters (divorce, real estate transactions, etc.)
-employee discounts
-"30 and out" retirement
-COLA increases
This ALL should have been gone in the negotiations between the CAW and GM Canada. The 87% ratification proves they gave up nothing of value to them. If they had really been asked to take a haircut, 55% would have been it. It was cheap pre-packaged theatrics to qualify for a handout.
stratojet 1:30PM (3/15/2009)
"As a public sector worker, I'll never argue that I don't have decent benefits and a good deifined benefit pension plan. What I don't have (that a CAW worker does) is
-a non-contirbutory pension plan (the public at large is just finding this out and is flabbergasted !)
-paid child care
-paid legal costs for personal matters (divorce, real estate transactions, etc.)
-employee discounts
-"30 and out" retirement
-COLA increases
This ALL should have been gone in the negotiations between the CAW and GM Canada. The 87% ratification proves they gave up nothing of value to them. If they had really been asked to take a haircut, 55% would have been it. It was cheap pre-packaged theatrics to qualify for a handout."
I totally agree with you. I was not even aware about this. We learn something new everyday.
However, in Canada and most provinces, the pensions are underfunded. The next generation will have to pay for this. So the actual public sector employees who are benefiting from this regime should also make some sacrifices. now. It is just fairness and it really looks similar to what Chrysler and GM is going through. It is unfair to pass the puck to the taxpayers or to the generation x and Y.
ferrarihire 6:21AM (3/16/2009)
Perhaps more work needed then. Jaguar in the UK have a 4 day working agreement and say no job losses.. I think its a good idea.
Supercar Hire
Reply
Tim 1:31PM (3/14/2009)
The whole idea that unions along with socialized (universal) health care can lower the costs for business is put into serious doubt IMO.
Reply
S S 6:52PM (3/14/2009)
Unions will never lower the cost of business lol ... however I think workers deserve to have their rights protected, and right now, only the unions do that. If it weren't for unions we would still be working 7 days a week 365 days a year in miserable conditions. I find it pathetic that we have to compete with countries (i.e. China) that do not protect their workers and are a step away from slavery.
Also just to make some things clear ... yes Canada has socialized medicine that is universal.... but Universal medicine is not necessarily socialized... look at Switzerland and others for ex. all with incredibly competitive economies...
Mayur 1:44PM (3/14/2009)
"With a pocket full of shells"
Reply
s13hybrid 2:41PM (3/14/2009)
you beat me to it.
Bulls on Parade!
harlanx6 1:45PM (3/14/2009)
Free medical care is like the tooth fairy. If you are over 10 years old you realize it has to be paid for. Oh, you are going to shift that burden to the rich? You really do believe in the tooth fairy!
Reply
rypt 1:50PM (3/14/2009)
Why does the UK manage to have the likes of the NHS then? It is all paid via general taxation
superman211 1:52PM (3/14/2009)
Yeah. Somebody pays for it. That means everyone has to over pay a huge system that really does nothing.
Yaroukh 2:03PM (3/14/2009)
@rypt: From what I have heard health-care in UK is quite bad.
why not the LS2LS7? 2:37PM (3/14/2009)
An absolutely accurate point. One which indicates (accurately) that we are already paying for health care for the uninsured. It is just done by jacking the costs on the insured to cover those who can't pay.
I had a friend who injured himself in recreational activity. He was between two $60,000 jobs and so had no health care coverage. He went to Stanford hospital for treatment. His bill was to be $1500, but when he didn't have coverage they switched it to zero. He said this didn't seem right, as he was able to pay, he just didn't see paying $1500 but they said this was how it worked.
It's illegal for a hospital to refuse emergency medical care to someone regardless of their ability to pay. And as you correctly point out, that means we're paying for it already.