UAW Strike

[gounion]

I have been following this, but hadn’t commented yet. I’ve got mixed feelings. The new President DOES have more experience than I worried, he’s been on national negotiating committees, so that’s good. The UAW leadership has been TERRIBLE for years, and yes, pretty corrupt. So maybe the change is good.

And not taking everyone out right now, striking at smaller shops that won’t hurt the company right now shows he’s willing to see if this can be resolved before it gets bigger. Plus, the President has sent negotiators to mediate between both sides, one of which who is the acting Secretary of Labor.

Of course, the companies say agreeing to the union’s proposals would bankrupt them - I can’t tell you how many times I heard that coming out of management’s committees. Yeah, bullshit.

Of course, they also said that when the unions got a 40-hour week, down from 60 at the time - 6 10-hour days.

If the companies will NEGOTIATE, the 32-hour week is actually a good idea. First, they’re going to need less labor and will reap larger profits from electric vehicles. Plus, they could then negotiate irregular work weeks, so they could keep a line moving seven days a week WITHOUT OVERTIME PAY!!!

More people working means more employees and it’s better for the economy as they spend the money.

And it looks to me like the CEOs and leadership still get big pensions for themselves, so I disagree with them ending the pensions for the workers.

My worry is how much the union was at the table. They should have been there the whole time. Now, they do have Labor Board charges against the companies for refusal to bargain, something unions rarely, if ever, do without cause. I’m sure they can lay their proof at the feet of Biden’s people, and the companies will have some explaining to do.

Electric cars will mean huge profits for the carmakers, and will decimate the employees, if something isn’t done. I think the 32-hour workweek is actually a very smart proposal from the workers. They should be able to keep the number of people employed closer to the current number.

But I think they need to pare down the number of proposals they are married to. That’s one of the thing mediators are very good at doing. To me, first you do away with the two-tier wage system, which is a no-brained. Then, the 32-hour week. Again, there’s a lot of creative things that could be done to make it really good both for the company and the union. Overtime is always something that is detrimental to the company. Third, reviving defined-benefit pension plans for all. If you do that, raises could stay in the 20 percent range that the companies are currently proposing.

You know what would help the companies right now, and would help EVERY DAMNED COMPANY IN AMERICA? UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! I mean, companies are paying north of two grand per employee per month! They don’t do that in any other nation! Hell, let them buy into the ObamaCare exchanges would lower the costs both for them AND for the government!

But with the Republicans controlling the House, it’ll never happen. It’s so damned short-sighted it isn’t funny.

I would love to see the UAW return to the days of Walter Reuther, where they were both honest and respected. But then, the auto manufacturers were smarter about things then, too.

The UAW NEEDED cleaning out. I’m hoping Shawn Fain is a smart, honest negotiator who understands the “art of the possible”.

[Glennfs]

40pct raise for 25pct less work is really more like a 50pct raise

[gounion]

40pct raise for 25pct less work is really more like a 50pct raise

You mean raises like the CEOs get?

They got their wages and benefits cut bad in 2009. Since profits are quite good, they should get made whole for those years they’ve done without.

They took a big one for the team to save the companies back then. And, as I said, this could be a win-win that could eliminate overtime.

If the technology is going to change so that less labor is used on a car, you can bet the price won’t come down. The workers deserve protection.

[Ted]

40pct raise for 25pct less work is really more like a 50pct raise

$1 per hour x 2,080 hours per year = $2,080

Factor in a 40% raise

1.40 per hour x 2,080 hours = $2,912

Factor in a 4 day work week of 32 hours per week x 52 weekx = 1,664

$2,912 ÷ 1,664 hours = $1.75 per hour

An effective per hour wage increase of 75%

[gounion]

$1 per hour x 2,080 hours per year = $2,080

Factor in a 40% raise

1.40 per hour x 2,080 hours = $2,912

Factor in a 4 day work week of 32 hours per week x 52 weekx = 1,664

$2,912 ÷ 1,664 hours = $1.75 per hour

An effective per hour wage increase of 75%

Sounds like a normal year for a CEO, eh?

Again, they’ve been screwed for over a dozen years. And no one believes they’ll end up with 40% AND a 32 hr week. These were opening proposals.

[gounion]

Ted, here’s the reality: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-d ... kers-make/

Adjusting for inflation, autoworkers have seen their average wages fall 19.3% since 2008, according to Adam Hersh, senior economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. That's because autoworker "concessions made following the 2008 auto industry crisis were never reinstated," Hersh said in a recent blog post, "including a suspension of cost-of-living adjustments."

[Ted]

Ted, here’s the reality: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-d ... kers-make/

I agree that the workers should be made whole and that is roughly what is being offered. At least by GM.

+++++++++++

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

In an interview with CNN, General Motors CEO Mary Barra said she’s “frustrated” with the autoworker strike that began overnight, and said that her company has a “very compelling offer” for the union.

“I think we have an offer that resonates with our people,” Barra told CNN’s Vanessa Yurkevich, saying that the offer includes pay raises up to 21%, job security and healthcare. “Our team is ready to be at the table… and we need UAW leadership to get back to the table so we can get these issues resolved and get people back to work.”

+++++++++++

I don't have all of the details of the negotiations from both sides so my judgment is based on what information I have at hand. Pay raises up to 21%, job security, and healthcare seems much more reasonable than a 46% pay increase for 20% less work and the restoration of pensions. Especially pensions - which requires a constantly growing workforce and conservative financial management to support.

[gounion]

I agree that the workers should be made whole and that is roughly what is being offered. At least by GM.

+++++++++++

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

In an interview with CNN, General Motors CEO Mary Barra said she’s “frustrated” with the autoworker strike that began overnight, and said that her company has a “very compelling offer” for the union.

“I think we have an offer that resonates with our people,” Barra told CNN’s Vanessa Yurkevich, saying that the offer includes pay raises up to 21%, job security and healthcare. “Our team is ready to be at the table… and we need UAW leadership to get back to the table so we can get these issues resolved and get people back to work.”

+++++++++++

I don't have all of the details of the negotiations from both sides so my judgment is based on what information I have at hand. Pay raises up to 21%, job security, and healthcare seems much more reasonable than a 46% pay increase for 20% less work and the restoration of pensions. Especially pensions - which requires a constantly growing workforce and conservative financial management to support.

Wow, healthcare? REALLY? Isn’t she sooooo damned wonderful that she’ll provide healthcare?

So, she can get a 20% - or more - increase every year, and they can make big payouts to investors, and SHE has a pension - but the workers should just be happy with the dregs that they give out.

Let’s be clear: That 20% raise - which isn’t immediate, it’s over the life of the contract - just brings them back to what they were making in 2009. Plus, they lost their pensions.

I’d like to know - when you tens of millions of dollars every damned year, why you need a fucking pension? Couldn’t you save up enough to not need one?

To me, if the CEO needs a pension, then the workers CERTAINLY need one, too.

[Toonces]

It's part of the give and take. Your first, or even your second offer isn't necessarily what you'll take. It's negotiating.

If the company is doing well, I don't see why the employees should also not benefit.

Although, each time that workers somewhere demand more pay, a whole gaggle of people will complain that ______ will cost so much more. We see this all the time with McDonald's. "Big Macs will cost $25". Obviously, this would never happen. Yet, people seem to latch on to the idea that the employees should accept less money. Rare is it that I see someone say that the company should accept less profit. It seems foreign to people a concept wherein workers are paid a decent wage and the company, still profitable, has a smaller profit.

[gounion]

Ted, I have a serious question for you - if a CEO that makes $30 million a year deserves a company-provided defined benefit pension plan, why don’t the worker who makes $20 or $30 an hour deserve one, too? Isn’t it going to be tougher for him to retire comfortably without one than it is for the CEO?

[gounion]

Also, Ted, GM CEO Mary Barra says her salary is only $2 million, and the rest of her $30 compensation last year was incentives, or 92% of her compensation. She says they are offering profit sharing with the employees.

I was on one negotiations where we had a long-term contract, with no raises, only cost-of-living raises, and incentive-based bonuses. But the union also tied the incentives of the CEO to the workers - If the CEO got a 10 percent bonus, so did the workers.

So is Ms. Barra willing to tie HER incentives to those given to the workers? Another good year, and they would all receive over 10 times their regular wages?

They might go for that.

[Bludogdem]

Ted, I have a serious question for you - if a CEO that makes $30 million a year deserves a company-provided defined benefit pension plan, why don’t the worker who makes $20 or $30 an hour deserve one, too? Isn’t it going to be tougher for him to retire comfortably without one than it is for the CEO?

Is it “ a company-provided defined benefit pension plan”?

[gounion]

Is it “ a company-provided defined benefit pension plan”?

That's what CEO's get from companies.

So, can you answer the questions?

[Bludogdem]

That's what CEO's get from companies.

So, can you answer the questions?

Prove its “a company-provided defined benefit pension plan “

[gounion]

Prove its “a company-provided defined benefit pension plan “

Looks like Green Grass isn't interested in answering the questions. He's just sniping from the sidelines.

[Bludogdem]

That's what CEO's get from companies.

So, can you answer the questions?

Actually as a general rule they don’t. As they are contract employees, it’s a line item on their contract, negotiated by a team of experienced professionals representing the executive. Probably there for some tax and estate planning advantage. It’s a once a year contract required transaction. The company isn’t funding and managing a defined pension for contract executives

On the other hand if they were providing a company managed defined pension for the contract executives it would be wrong.

[ZoWie]

The team of experienced professionals representing the wage and salaried employees is called their union. If there is no union, they are on their own dealing with experienced and well-lawyered employers, and basically do not stand a chance. Then they get pissed off and blame the president if he is a Democrat, otherwise they blame Jews and people who list their pronouns.

It's called the American Way. Those who don't like it are said to be pissing on The Flag.

[Motor City]

Why it is easier for a camel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gngQPsL2zfA

UAW on Strike: Auto Workers Target All Big Three Automakers at Once

[Glennfs]

Ted, I have a serious question for you - if a CEO that makes $30 million a year deserves a company-provided defined benefit pension plan, why don’t the worker who makes $20 or $30 an hour deserve one, too? Isn’t it going to be tougher for him to retire comfortably without one than it is for the CEO?

So would GM be better off paying a CEO whose business plan brought in record profits 30 million a year.
Or
Would they be better off with the Yellow Freight CEO whose business plan bankrupted the company.

Auto workers are already well compensated the raises offered by Ford were more than generous.

At the end of the day the Union will probably "win" this strike. Then in 5 years find EVs being made in other countries. Or find that Union built cars can't compete price wise with foreign imports or cars built here by non union workers.

There is a reason my Toyota ( built in the USA) was only 24k and has the same quality as Union built cars costing 10k more.

Also GM hourly employees received 500 million in bonuses almost 20 times what the CEO earned.

https://www.wzzm13.com/article/money/ho ... df2f395c44

[Ted]

Ted, I have a serious question for you - if a CEO that makes $30 million a year deserves a company-provided defined benefit pension plan, why don’t the worker who makes $20 or $30 an hour deserve one, too? Isn’t it going to be tougher for him to retire comfortably without one than it is for the CEO?

Do you have details about the pension plan for the CEO?

Compensation for the CEO seems to include a generous base salary plus a significant amount of incentives based on the overall performance of the company. I haven't been able to find any details about the pension plan for the CEO - how it's funded, managed, etc...

More dollars put toward individual retirement plans would ultimately be a better option than creating a new pension plan.

Why do you think a new pension plan for employees in the auto industry is going to be successful given the failures resulting from the last one?

[gounion]

Do you have details about the pension plan for the CEO?

Compensation for the CEO seems to include a generous base salary plus a significant amount of incentives based on the overall performance of the company. I haven't been able to find any details about the pension plan for the CEO - how it's funded, managed, etc...

More dollars put toward individual retirement plans would ultimately be a better option than creating a new pension plan.

Why do you think a new pension plan for employees in the auto industry is going to be successful given the failures resulting from the last one?

No, I don't have their plan. But I have a relative on my wife's side that's pretty high up at Ford - and they have a quite generous plan for the execs.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do pensions. The problem with the autoworker's plans was that the company wasn't putting any money into it, and they were betting the money on the stock market and lost their ass.

Tell me, Ted, if I borrowed a hundred bucks from you to do something, and I took it instead to the casino and lost it all - then I came back and said, sorry, Ted, I'm not going to pay your money back because I lost it at the casino, wouldn't you say, sorry, but you still owe me the money, right?

[gounion]

So would GM be better off paying a CEO whose business plan brought in record profits 30 million a year.
Or
Would they be better off with the Yellow Freight CEO whose business plan bankrupted the company.

Auto workers are already well compensated the raises offered by Ford were more than generous.

At the end of the day the Union will probably "win" this strike. Then in 5 years find EVs being made in other countries. Or find that Union built cars can't compete price wise with foreign imports or cars built here by non union workers.

There is a reason my Toyota ( built in the USA) was only 24k and has the same quality as Union built cars costing 10k more.

Also GM hourly employees received 500 million in bonuses almost 20 times what the CEO earned.

https://www.wzzm13.com/article/money/ho ... df2f395c44

sorry, but the money offered just brings them back to what they were in 2009. Nothing for all their sacrifice. And the companies still won't end the two-tier system.

Glad you're listening to Trump who says all the electric cars will be made in China. Whatever he says, you believe.

Again, if the CEO gets 90% of her pay in incentives, are the employees going to get the same percentage of incentives as the CEO?

And I thought it was the greedy employees that refused to give more concessions that drove the company bankrupt at Yellow. You sure change your tune all the time.

And yeah, the workers shouldn't ask to get the money and benefits they gave back in 2009 to save the companies. They should just be good little workers happy with whatever crumbs the company lets them have, or they'll just move everything to China, like Trump says.

Of course, when they do that, there won't be any price cuts. After all, Mexican workers at the US plants in Mexico make about $25 A DAY - not an hour - and no healthcare - so why don't the prices on cars made in Mexico reflect those labor savings? Why aren't they cheaper by a long shot?

And Glenn, I know if you could buy a car from China really cheap, you'd be the first in line for it, wouldn't you?

[Toonces]

glen is right. Workers are taking too big of a piece of the pie, they need to take less. Why, transported goods are expensive and I think those who deliver goods should help alleviate the pain the consumers are feeling. They are paid far too much.

[gounion]

One of the things that gets me about you conservatives is that you NEVER think that CEOs make too much, EVER. You ALWAYS complain about overpaid workers. You think the autoworkers should be happy with whatever the company WANTS to give them, and not even have the ability to negotiate. Glenn argued forever that a $15 minimum wage would bankrupt the nation.

But, right now, the highest CEO yearly pay is nearly $250 million and rising all the time, far faster than inflation. Workers should expect to keep up with inflation, because, gee, that would cause MORE inflation, right?

So how much would too much be? Would you speak up about the high CEO pay if it were a billion a year per CEO? Two billion? Five?

I remember a great labor cartoon where the boss was talking to his workers, and saying something like “You wouldn’t have any problems retiring if you put a couple hundred thou a month away, like I do!’

So, you all want to take away pensions from workers, and you want to do away with Social Security and Medicare.

So, if you get your wishes, what happens to the workers?

Do you even care?

[Toonces]

A question does remain.

Should the workers take less in pay or the company take less in profit?

If Ford wanted to sell a comparable vehicle to a comparable price of Toyota, should the workers take less or shareholders? Explain your answer.

This isn't intended to be a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious as to why someone believes it is the workers who should take less.

Would people also agree that we've become more profit-centric in the last 50 years? Think of wages as they relate to costs between now and, say, 1950. Wages as to the prices of houses.