UAW Concessions?

[S. C.]

And if, as you say, UAW workers in job banks were sent somewhere to "help" the poor and elderly, it should be noted that they were being paid nearly $70 hour in wages and benefits for their altruistic "work." Most folks do that kind of thing for free, and they aren't "sent," they volunteer; few do it for $70 an hour.

The point being..... I thought it was very good to have people out of jobs go help elsewhere. They still would of been paid even if not sent to help.

Regarding the $70 an hour... that is wages AND benefits not just wages. And if they were not in jobs bank they would of been collecting unemployment and still kept their benefits for a period of time.

 

[zulaya]

Just to put some perspective on this...

$70 per hour (WAGES AND BENEFITS)

$70 per hour for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year. My simple math makes that $145,600.

My DH is a senior level systems engineer with a college degree and 10+ years in his field. And he's not making 6 figures with his total salary (wages and benefits).

And I'm not even addressing possible overtime.

While I agree that no executive should be paid top dollar, bonuses and golden parachute type deals when the company is in dire straits, I have trouble mustering any sympathy for union workers who are pulling in 6 figures worth of wages and benefits and their leadership thinks they can't tighten their belts anymore.

 

[TCPluto]

The point being..... I thought it was very good to have people out of jobs go help elsewhere. They still would of been paid even if not sent to help.

Regarding the $70 an hour... that is wages AND benefits not just wages. And if they were not in jobs bank they would of been collecting unemployment and still kept their benefits for a period of time.

Sure, months not years. But the reality is, he would have gone to work in Flint, which he did after milking GM for 4 years. It's the same job that was available on day one when his plant closed.

Unemployment insurance is paid for by the company. The jobs Bank did not come out of that insurance.

Paying thousands of workers to stay home and collect nearly a full salary?? Wasteful, idiotic, and shameful..

 

[Pin Wizard]

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That's a 52 percent differential from Toyota's (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

And then there's this:



http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/13/a-cancer-on-the-big-three/

A government bailout without concessions by the UAW and management would be insane. But we'll probably do it anyway.

They are all overpaid. Based on this chart, Nissan will be on the top of my list to check into when purchasing my next vehicle! The top three can forget it. Not even looking at them!

 

[S. C.]

Did AIG and the banks take concessions? That is an honest question I've been wondering about.

Also wondering what AIG and bank workers rate of pay and benefit packages are?

 

[JimmyPicker]

Why is this turning into an either/or battle?

The management should take pay cuts and so should the unions. Can everyone agree about that?

If they don't take the pay cuts, the auto makers will be out of business, and they'll all be out of a job.

Even if they get a bailout, it won't help. The auto makers will blow through that money in a couple of years, and we'll be back to square 1 all over again.

Then what do we do? Give them another bailout? And yet another a few years after that?

If that's the case, then the unions and auto makers are working for us -- the taxpayers, the ones fitting the bill. What do we get out of this? Nothing. Are we all going to get a new sparkly GM or Ford in our driveway?

No, we won't.

And it's completely unfair that the UAW is asking for US, the taxpayers, to give concessions, but they're unwilling to.

 

[minnie61650]

...And it's completely unfair that the UAW is asking for US, the taxpayers, to give concessions, but they're unwilling to.

Just an FYI :

the UAW gave many connessions in the spring of 2007:

April 10, 2007

Why Compromise is Not Victory
How Concessions by UAW Lost Jobs
By LEE SUSTAR




THE LATEST round of concessions, which began in the midst of the current contract that expires in the fall, have already included cutbacks in retiree health care worth $1 billion to GM and $850 million to Ford, as well as buyout programs that allowed workers to retire early or take a lump sum in cash and give up their jobs and benefits. Some 70,000 accepted.

Meanwhile, UAW locals gave in to demands to reopen plant-level contracts, agreeing to the elimination of long-established work rules that once gave the UAW the power to resist management's constant pressure for speedups and preserved union jobs. As of March,[2007] Ford and the UAW had renegotiated 34 of 41 local agreements, according to the Global Insight news service.

Link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar04102007.html

 

[S. C.]

UAW workers are taxpayers too!

 

[Colleen27]

I guess this question kind of goes with the bail-out threads. I don't know if we should or shouldn't bail out the auto industry - I feel split.

I heard on a radio show yesterday that when you factor in benefits, the average auto worker makes upwards of 60.00 per hour. (I don't know if it's true or not - just what was said on the radio).

My question is since things are so bad, have the union members taken concessions in pay, benefits, etc? It not, why not? Are they willing to?

I'm not asking because I'm anti-union or pro-union. I work for a non-union corporation in an industry especially hard it by the mortgage melt-down. We have seen huge layoffs and taken an 18% pay decrease this year. We don't like it, but we're doing it because we have no choice and want to keep our jobs. Lots of companies are doing this right now.

I'm just wondering if unions are willing to make the same sacrifices?

My post isn't an attack on any group, I just am curious about this and what others think.

The unions have been accepting reductions in every round of negotiations, even back when the automakers were turning a profit. They agreed to major health care concessions in the same year Ford brought Mulallay in and paid him 40M for his first 4 months on the job.

Now they've said they won't agree to any more concessions and I can't say as I blame them. It is ridiculous to expect the unions to accept an end to retiree benefits, pay cuts, benefit reductions, etc. while the execs keep getting more and more. I'd expect them to be more cooperative if there were concessions made across all levels within the company, but so long as all the cost cutting is laid on the backs of the union workers, I can't blame them for their position.

 

[Colleen27]

You've identified the problem. The union only cares about themselves,and only for the day. They are too short sighted to see that they are a huge factor in this problem and they will be the death of these companies.

You cannot lay the blame for the state of the auto industry. It wasn't the unions that decided to ignore upward trends in oil price and demand and keep piling eggs in the 'huge SUV' basket. It wasn't the unions who decided to keep electric and hybrid technologies on the back burner. It wasn't the unions who put quarterly profits ahead of long term growth when it came time to make product decisions.

The problems with the auto industry have the same root cause as the problems with our financial sector - too much focus on the right now, on short-term profits and good quarterly numbers, at the expense of long term growth, corporate responsibility, and prudent decisionmaking.

 

[JimmyPicker]

UAW workers are taxpayers too!

Sure.

My small business is suffering, too. Any of you taxpayers want to bail me out?

 

[Colleen27]

In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

Let's put that in perspective, though. Non-union manufacturing is about on par with fast food in terms of wages and benefits. Around here, non-union shops pay $7-8/hour, have a 90 day delay in benefit eligibility, no paid vacation or sick time, and high employee shares of insurance costs (often prohibitively so - my ex's share of family insurance coverage was $125/week at an $8/hour job). Is that the standard we want for American workers?

 

[justhat]

Everyone here does realize that "the union" doesn't make the decision on strikes, concessions, etc., right? The employees do. The union can suggest whatever it wants, but it's the employees who vote and decide what action they're willing to take. So if the workers are willing to lose their jobs rather than take a paycut, how is that the unions fault?

 

[JimFitz]

UAW killed the auto industry. They get what they deserve.

 

[Tink888]

I wholeheartedly agree that both management AND the union should be willing to give up additional compensation/benefits.

Years ago DH had 17 years in a factory and was a union member. He made decent money, excellent benefits - paid next to nothing for health insurance and it was a great plan. Anyhow, the company was sinking financially and was ready to close, the union wouldn't back down or give anything up - neither would management. We all fought the good fight and in the end, the company closed. Everybody lost.

Flash forward a few years and we're both working non-union jobs. Decent money and paying about 450.00 per month for health insurance with 80/20 coverage with big deductibles. It stinks but it is what it is.

As the UAW president said, the REAL problem is the economy and that is true for EVERY person across the country. I'm feeling it and I've definately taken the hit in my paycheck from the pay decrease but I'm still working (for now). No doubt there are many others who have as well.

I don't want to see ANYONE lose their job. It's an awful thing to through. At the same time, as a taxpayer and an employee who has given things up in order to keep my job, I also have a really hard time getting behind a government bailout to keep an industry afloat when it appears that both managment and the union are unwilling to change or give anything up themselves.

I feel like if I'm making making financial sacrifices in my own life due to the economy and then I'm being asked to make sacrifices as a taxpayer to bail out a corporation, I at least want to see the management and employees there giving something up as well. If they aren't willing to help themselves, how can they expect the taxpayer to willingly help as well? Something's gotta give.

 

[dvcgirl]

UAW killed the auto industry. They get what they deserve.

And I'd add that the argument that "The Big Three are failing due to the gas price spike and credit crisis".....put forth by management and the unions isn't exactly the truth. Surely, both of those occurrences have had an impact....on *all* auto makers. Yet, it's the bloated Big Three that are floundering.

Why? Because they were making more profitable huge trucks and SUVs. They can't stand up to their unions. And frankly, they were just poorly managed. How is it that Honda and Toyota are going to make it and GM and Ford aren't?

The consensus is building against the Big Three. More and more economists, even some Democratic politicians are speaking against the idea of bailing these guys out.

I just don't buy this premise that 10% of all US jobs go "poof" if GM and Ford file for bankruptcy protection....I just don't. It feels just like the scare tactics used by Paulson and Co. that we needed 700 Billion to save the world.....and the markets tanked anyway.

Will it be easy on the economy? No, not initially. But even with a "50 Billion Bridge loan" (that we all know we'll never see again), they're at risk to fail.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Just an FYI :

the UAW gave many connessions in the spring of 2007:




Link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar04102007.html

From my understanding, even with the little concessions they gave, the employees still make $74 an hour. Way too much. They need to have more concessions. They need to be like the other car industries in the US. They do not seem to have a problem and their employees make $47 an hour.

I'm to the point now that the big three need to fail. Just handing them money is not going to solve the problem and that is UAW, management and CEOs. UAW doesn't want to make anymore concessions, then that is fine, you won't have a job.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

And I'd add that the argument that "The Big Three are failing due to the gas price spike and credit crisis".....put forth by management and the unions isn't exactly the truth. Surely, both of those occurrences have had an impact....on *all* auto makers. Yet, it's the bloated Big Three that are floundering.

Why? Because they were making more profitable huge trucks and SUVs. They can't stand up to their unions. And frankly, they were just poorly managed. How is it that Honda and Toyota are going to make it and GM and Ford aren't?

The consensus is building against the Big Three. More and more economists, even some Democratic politicians are speaking against the idea of bailing these guys out.

I just don't buy this premise that 10% of all US jobs go "poof" if GM and Ford file for bankruptcy protection....I just don't. It feels just like the scare tactics used by Paulson and Co. that we needed 700 Billion to save the world.....and the markets tanked anyway.

Will it be easy on the economy? No, not initially. But even with a "50 Billion Bridge loan" (that we all know we'll never see again), they're at risk to fail.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think that the unions should do whatever is in the best interest of their members. Management should do whatever is in the best interest of the shareholders. Taxpayers should do what is in their interest, which is to let the industry succeed or fail on its own.

It will be a sad day when GM, Ford, and Chrysler fail. Unfortunately, there is no money to give them that won't cause problems elsewhere. The government can't give them money without taking it from someone else. They can tax money away from those that earn it. They can borrow money (taxing future generations), but that makes less money available for others to borrow. Finally, they can print more. That causes inflation, which acts as a tax on everyone that has dollars.

The world only needs so many cars. Right now, we have far too much capacity to make cars and far too little demand for them. I don't see demand increasing that quickly, so some car making capacity is going to go away. Better to deal with the adjustment than to drag down the rest of the economy trying to maintain excess capacity.

It's going to be very difficult for those that lose their jobs, but it's a necessary adjustment.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

I think that the unions should do whatever is in the best interest of their members. Management should do whatever is in the best interest of the shareholders. Taxpayers should do what is in their interest, which is to let the industry succeed or fail on its own.

It will be a sad day when GM, Ford, and Chrysler fail. Unfortunately, there is no money to give them that won't cause problems elsewhere. The government can't give them money without taking it from someone else. They can tax money away from those that earn it. They can borrow money (taxing future generations), but that makes less money available for others to borrow. Finally, they can print more. That causes inflation, which acts as a tax on everyone that has dollars.

The world only needs so many cars. Right now, we have far too much capacity to make cars and far too little demand for them. I don't see demand increasing that quickly, so some car making capacity is going to go away. Better to deal with the adjustment than to drag down the rest of the economy trying to maintain excess capacity.

It's going to be very difficult for those that lose their jobs, but it's a necessary adjustment.

Excellent post.