Another Anti-Union Talking point debunked

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Corbett
$70 or even $30 an hour is too much for putting a bolt into a chasis for 8 hours a day.

I would be willing to bet money most of us wouldn't last on an assembly line. You make it sound like easy work but the danger factor alone what crains, robots and other heavy machinery moving about would keep me away not to mention psychological torture if it's as repetitive as you say..

Standard response. If the job is so crummy, why not let all the jobs get automated. Why is UAW fighting so hard for jobs that are so crummy?

Most automated machines these days are safer than having a human do it by hand...
In my line of work I see this daily. There is guarding, light curtains, e-stops, etc to eliminate hazards for workers. Most machines automated today - one would have to be a moran to hurt themselves on. Moran = using machine in a way not intended, bypassing guard switches, etc. So here's notice to all you potential morans - the FUCKING GUARDING AND SAFETY SHIT IS THERE FOR YOUR PROTECTION - LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE...

(sorry - bad day with customers who call about "broken machines" but don't bother to mention that they jumpered and bypassed who knows what...)

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

This is every job, though. I worked in a kitchen for quite a few years during high school and college, and it required a fair amount of skill, or at least it did to become exceptional at my work.

Being a cook is not unskilled labor either imo. Some people go to school for it of course.
Maybe not glamorous, or something to make you megabucks, but good solid work. Which there is nothing wrong with.
Not everyone cares to spend their lives generating vast amounts of money.
As long as I do a good job and make people happy with quality product/service and of course I pay bills I am happy.
Different strokes 4 different folks. /shrug

This elitism though bashing blue collar workers is pretty lame and shallow on some peoples part.
What a sick society we have to be so $ obsessed when life has so much to offer for the short time we are here.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, when you hear about the $78/hr or so, it is the overall cost (salary, benetfits, health insurance, pension, etc.), NOT just the salary/wage.

EXACTLY!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, when you hear about the $78/hr or so, it is the overall cost (salary, benetfits, health insurance, pension, etc.), NOT just the salary/wage.

Yes, that is the current talking point. And as the article said, it is untrue they are compensated that much in benefits.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, when you hear about the $78/hr or so, it is the overall cost (salary, benetfits, health insurance, pension, etc.), NOT just the salary/wage.

EXACTLY!

Well, that is 2 people now chiming in who did not read the OP. :roll:

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, when you hear about the $78/hr or so, it is the overall cost (salary, benetfits, health insurance, pension, etc.), NOT just the salary/wage.

Yes, that is the current talking point. And as the article said, it is untrue they are compensated that much in benefits.

I can cite other sources to support my argument but that beyond the point. The bottom line is domestics are losing money (big time) and imports are not (even when they build vehicles in the US). You can say imports CEOs are not making as much as domestics CEOs but the "overall" cost structure of the domestics are not substainable in the long term or even short term as it stands right now.

 

[ProfJohn]

THe median hourly wage for the US in 2007 was $15 an hour. These people are making almost double that amount and we are suppose to feel sorry for them?

Add in all their benefits, vacation time, holiday pay and the nice cushy environment that the union creates for them and I think they have it pretty good.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, when you hear about the $78/hr or so, it is the overall cost (salary, benetfits, health insurance, pension, etc.), NOT just the salary/wage.

EXACTLY!

Well, that is 2 people now chiming in who did not read the OP. :roll:

Sounds like they read the OP just fine. You seem to have missed all the previous discussions and articles on this figure. You seem to cling to this one article like it's gospel because this is what you WANT to here. But the article has some pretty clear biased when presenting their information.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


(sorry - bad day with customers who call about "broken machines" but don't bother to mention that they jumpered and bypassed who knows what...)

I hear you there. I am dealing with same crap from a idiot who tried to bypass stuff and then pass it off as I sold him something broke.
bastages! Cheer up, tomorrow is turkey day, no work, just carbs!

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

This is every job, though. I worked in a kitchen for quite a few years during high school and college, and it required a fair amount of skill, or at least it did to become exceptional at my work.

Being a cook is not unskilled labor either imo. Some people go to school for it of course.
Maybe not glamorous, or something to make you megabucks, but good solid work. Which there is nothing wrong with.
Not everyone cares to spend their lives generating vast amounts of money.
As long as I do a good job and make people happy with quality product/service and of course I pay bills I am happy.
Different strokes 4 different folks. /shrug

This elitism though bashing blue collar workers is pretty lame and shallow on some peoples part.
What a sick society we have to be so $ obsessed when life has so much to offer for the short time we are here.

Well you definitely wouldn't insult me by calling it unskilled labor. It's not an insult to the workers or anything, I'm not trying to imply the jobs require no practice or skill to be good at -- I just thought that's the category this kind of work fell under, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Ktulu
You seem to have missed all the previous discussions and articles on this figure.

I have seen no supporting evidence or numbers, just hearsay on how much they make + what bennies are worth. Which is why I posted a article with some actual figures. Of course something that sounds so blatantly outrageous is untrue. Surprise surprise.

 

[Svnla]

OP, as I said, here is one of the article from CNN

http://money.cnn.com/galleries...s_crisis_causes/5.html

"GM estimates its hourly pay for an assembly line worker is about the same as that of someone working for an Asian manufacturer here.

The differences come from retirement and health-care. Detroit automakers pay a lot more per worker-hour because they have more retirees to whom they extend full health-care benefits."

You want more? I can get more. Like I said, I used to work in the domestic auto industry for a few years so I know a thing or two and just don't blow smoke.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Well you definitely wouldn't insult me by calling it unskilled labor. It's not an insult to the workers or anything, I'm not trying to imply the jobs require no practice or skill to be good at -- I just thought that's the category this kind of work fell under, but maybe I'm wrong.

It is just a term, I am no judge of others jobs I do not know how to do so I accept it, the term could be put better though, it seems to lead people to believe that these jobs are populated by brain dad monkeys or something it seems. That's my only beef.

 

[Squisher]

Unskilled labor spans the gambit from jobs you can learn in an hour to ones that take a full year to master.

It has always been a tenet of the UAW or any union that they should be paid similarly. I can't agree with that. I always thought a lot of jobs should have had a wider differential in pay.


Getting back to the OP's post, the article just barely touches on what goes into that $70/hr. fully loaded labor cost figure . If you can reduce costs that number goes down. Something like the union allowing unskilled labor to do some jobs without having to wait for a skilled tradesman might reduce costs and therefore reduce labor costs.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, as I said, here is one of the article from CNN

http://money.cnn.com/galleries...s_crisis_causes/5.html

"GM estimates its hourly pay for an assembly line worker is about the same as that of someone working for an Asian manufacturer here.

The differences come from retirement and health-care. Detroit automakers pay a lot more per worker-hour because they have more retirees to whom they extend full health-care benefits."

You want more? I can get more. Like I said, I used to work in the domestic auto industry for a few years so I know a thing or two and just don't blow smoke.

A few paragraphs of a almost word for word talking point with no data is not very compelling. You as well as I know the corporate media is a sounding board with little or no investigation into their own journalism if they can get away with it.
The devil is in the details they say.

Feel free if you know of this well to tell us what is up in your opinion and experience, I would much rather debate with someone who has been there then copy and paste while dodging the typical P&N flames.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Svnla
OP, as I said, here is one of the article from CNN

http://money.cnn.com/galleries...s_crisis_causes/5.html

"GM estimates its hourly pay for an assembly line worker is about the same as that of someone working for an Asian manufacturer here.

The differences come from retirement and health-care. Detroit automakers pay a lot more per worker-hour because they have more retirees to whom they extend full health-care benefits."

You want more? I can get more. Like I said, I used to work in the domestic auto industry for a few years so I know a thing or two and just don't blow smoke.

A few paragraphs of a almost word for word talking point with no data is not very compelling. You as well as I know the corporate media is a sounding board with little or no investigation into their own journalism if they can get away with it.
The devil is in the details they say.

Feel free if you know of this well to tell us what is up in your opinion and experience, I would much rather debate with someone who has been there then copy and paste while dodging the typical P&N flames.

Here you go (to support my original argument in this thread):

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/2...es/gm_delphi/index.htm

"The top pay for a GM hourly employee is $27 an hour, but with benefits and future health care costs GM estimates that hour of work costs the company $73.73."

Here is another one about how expensive healthcare for GM and how good GM employees got:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...-healthcare-usat_x.htm

"But his arteries are cleaned out, thanks to a $160,000 heart-bypass surgery a few years back.

"I ate too many steaks and not enough veggies," says O'Driscoll with a laugh.

For as long as O'Driscoll has worked at GM, he hasn't had to worry about health care costs. He paid nothing for his heart surgery, and he estimates that during the past five years, he has paid his cardiologist a total of $500. GM doesn't take anything out of his paycheck for health insurance."

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
The union worker doesnt design the shotty sedans.

The union worker doesnt design the factories or processes.

The union worker doesnt source to lowest bidder w/o regard to QC.

The union worker doesnt decide to only focus on SUV's ignoring emerging trends like hybrids and small luxury.

The union worker doesnt get private jets, golden parachutes, vacation villas around the world and millions a year like the execs who did indeed run these companies into the ground.

The union like it or not has to take some of the blame. Money spent on excessive labor costs is money not spent on better engineering. Yes Management has plenty of blame to take, but they are not alone.

Even if you think the unions are overpaid, under worked, etc - who agreed to pay these so-called excessive costs? Management. None of this would be a problem had cars been superior, again, management responsibility. We'd all be driving Fords and Chevys happy to pay these workers 70K for their superior products. Just like we fly on Boeing planes without a thought given to their 'overpaid' workers.

 

[Svnla]

Here is another one. How GM's decision years ago (generous benefits and healthcare) came back and bite them hard. Look at the date of the article (over 3 years ago and the author worried about what if..and now it happens)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A64599-2005Apr18.html

"If GM were making lots of money selling vehicles, this would all be manageable, sort of. GM could buy enough time for demographics to bail it out, as more retirees begin getting Social Security and Medicare, reducing GM's costs, and other retirees die off. Its ratio of retirees to workers, currently 2.5 to 1, would shrink. Alas, GM's vehicle business is in the tank. Unless GM starts making money on vehicles or gets a break from the UAW or the federal government, things are going to get really ugly."


A GM retiree point of view:

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/19/13379/046

"It is clear that GM cannot continue to give in to Union contractual demands and be profitable. (Eisenstein, pars. 21)

On the other hand, although GM management has been burdened with these demands, management is not without blame."

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Svnla


"The top pay for a GM hourly employee is $27 an hour, but with benefits and future health care costs GM estimates that hour of work costs the company $73.73."
"

This is not a GM estimate of their wages, it is the FUTURE healthcare costs estimated of how much they would get. Details details. That is not current wages.

And as far as the second one UHC is the answer to getting rid of the overhead of health care costs for the employer, something we shall see soon hopefully. I do not see where the 70+ dollar an hour figure comes into that second one though.

 

[LegendKiller]

I mentioned similar problems with the wage analysis weeks ago.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
THe median hourly wage for the US in 2007 was $15 an hour. These people are making almost double that amount and we are suppose to feel sorry for them?

Add in all their benefits, vacation time, holiday pay and the nice cushy environment that the union creates for them and I think they have it pretty good.

Moot point.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Svnla


"The top pay for a GM hourly employee is $27 an hour, but with benefits and future health care costs GM estimates that hour of work costs the company $73.73."
"

This is not a GM estimate of their wages, it is the FUTURE healthcare costs estimated of how much they would get. Details details. That is not current wages.

And as far as the second one UHC is the answer to getting rid of the overhead of health care costs for the employer, something we shall see soon hopefully. I do not see where the 70+ dollar an hour figure comes into that second one though.

Humm, you probably want to read the article I just posted (about a GM retiree). How generous benefits/freebies can really add up.

My source number (wage) is very close to your op ($27 vs. $28). You only focus on wage and healthcare. Did you see how much other benefits (job bank, pension, retirees and dependents benefits) cost GM?

No one is saying GM employee salary/wage is 7x.xx per hour. It is the total "overall cost". Someone from accounting probably can explain better than I can.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
The union worker doesnt design the shotty sedans.

The union worker doesnt design the factories or processes.

The union worker doesnt source to lowest bidder w/o regard to QC.

The union worker doesnt decide to only focus on SUV's ignoring emerging trends like hybrids and small luxury.

The union worker doesnt get private jets, golden parachutes, vacation villas around the world and millions a year like the execs who did indeed run these companies into the ground.

The union like it or not has to take some of the blame. Money spent on excessive labor costs is money not spent on better engineering. Yes Management has plenty of blame to take, but they are not alone.

Even if you think the unions are overpaid, under worked, etc - who agreed to pay these so-called excessive costs? Management. None of this would be a problem had cars been superior, again, management responsibility. We'd all be driving Fords and Chevys happy to pay these workers 70K for their superior products. Just like we fly on Boeing planes without a thought given to their 'overpaid' workers.

Management was basically forced to agree to excessive wages and bennies because of the threat of a strike. This is not to say that management did not make mistakes, but labor has played a big part in bringing down the big 3.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
The union worker doesnt design the shotty sedans.

The union worker doesnt design the factories or processes.

The union worker doesnt source to lowest bidder w/o regard to QC.

The union worker doesnt decide to only focus on SUV's ignoring emerging trends like hybrids and small luxury.

The union worker doesnt get private jets, golden parachutes, vacation villas around the world and millions a year like the execs who did indeed run these companies into the ground.

The union like it or not has to take some of the blame. Money spent on excessive labor costs is money not spent on better engineering. Yes Management has plenty of blame to take, but they are not alone.

Even if you think the unions are overpaid, under worked, etc - who agreed to pay these so-called excessive costs? Management. None of this would be a problem had cars been superior, again, management responsibility. We'd all be driving Fords and Chevys happy to pay these workers 70K for their superior products. Just like we fly on Boeing planes without a thought given to their 'overpaid' workers.

Management was basically forced to agree to excessive wages and bennies because of the threat of a strike. This is not to say that management did not make mistakes, but labor has played a big part in bringing down the big 3.

My understanding is also that management isn't allowed to fire union labor and replace it with non-union.

 

[Zebo]

UHC won't save Big 3's hide. It's a fundamental problem of inferior products no one in their right mind is buying. That's like saying Yahoo could be Google if only for an injection of cash. Keep in mind with UHC Toyota and Honda also would reap those reduced costs as well. We , as a society, need to get more back to basics e.g. rewarded for performance top down and not with these execs who come to cash in and cash out a short tenure leaving companies reeling. No more workers who don't work or are dead wood. 20 billion from taxpayers won't do it either, only delaying inevitable. I'm afraid the only thing that could save the big 3 is for them to fail and workers, execs and investors alike get reborn under a fighting spirit brought about by some reflection and humbling defeat.