the $75/hr is just the UAW workers…
I also work for a company where I see wages, and guess what, we don’t count fringe benefits into a person’s salary, that is just asinine! Here is a more practical view of what these workers make, before you get yourself all worked up without checking your facts: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/21/145754/25/353/664759
Where did I get all worked up before checking my facts about this? You were the one saying it included the ceo’s pay when it did not. I stated it the $70/hr includes benefits. All the comparisons all include benefits as well. The benefits are a huge part of the cost of the emplyees…most people pay a much larger portion of their benefits when compared to the UAW workers. With OT it was/is not uncommon for a fork lift driver, an assembly line worker to make over $100K (not including benefits) for the skill level it takes to do that work they are grossly overpaid. Bottom line is they are getting way more than what they are worth as are the high-ups…this needs to stop.
To sum it up way overpaid workers + way overpaid executives + a union that demands out if line benefits/pay/contract + decreasing sales = fail
These people work on assembly lines and what not, they need the health coverage, I will not need it as much sitting behind a computer punching numbers might give me bad eye sight and carpel tunnel not a bad back and aching legs/arms, maybe have something fall on me etc etc. They deserve to get good benefits. Usually, for most big companies, the fringe benefits are about ~30% of their pay, so no I am not surprised, because that’s how this works, I see it every single day, I write up the budgets.
The number seems way too high, so I thought they lumped in the wages of CEO’s, maybe it doesn’t. I am still not sure about that, but did you read the actual statement
But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $24 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila. Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people.
Again…this is not good. If benefits are costing that much then they should be required to pay a partion like the rest of America. The contracts are way to in favor of the employee to a point where it hurts the company…I don’t know what your thing is with thinking people who do mindless work deserve to make $80-100K/year and have a benefit/reitrement package the is better than 99% of people in America. In today’s age full benefits, pension are a thing of the past…costs are way to high to expect a company to pay for this.
I agree, Unions do favor the employee, that’s why they were started. Pensions are a plan that the company devises, sure the Union was all for pensions, but the company needs to negotiate better then. This is part of the problem with GM as you have read I am sure. And I wasn’t even talking about pensions. People should take some of their wages to pay for retirement, not a guaranteed pension, but that’s not up to me to decide. Most people invest into 401k’s and such, instead of receiving pensions, this isn’t that common anymore. This is what congress is telling GM (I keep saying GM, but I mean all 3 when I say it, I am just lazy), is that you need to devise a better business model/structure.
There are still co-pays and such, that’s the benefit (pun intended) for working for a big company, to have these things paid for you by your employer. These are physically demanding jobs, this isn’t sitting behind a computer. And again, these people don’t make 80-100K/yr. That’s not how it works. Let’s take an example the average:
$28/hr * 40hrs *52 weeks = $58,240/yr for a not so fun job to begin with. But, that is the average, the guys getting into the union start around $12, how many years of busting your balls and physical labor do you have to do to get to $28 bux an hour. Another thing you aren’t taking into account is that most of these assembly line workers only work 30hrs/week, they deff. don’t work 52 weeks/yr. Overtime doesn’t happen often. So, even if you do make $28/hr say you work 30hrs a week for a full 52 weeks, that’s still only 43/yr. Do you want to work on an assembly line for that kind of money?
The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages,
> and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health
> insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour
> figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained
> by adding up GM’s total labor, health, and pension costs, and then
> dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it
> includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers.
> The reason the US and Japanese companies have different total costs
> for their American workers? The US companies have been employing
> American workers for almost a hundred years. They have a lot of
> retirees. Most of the Japanese auto plants in the US are less than 20
> years old. They have almost no retirees, so their costs are only for
> active workers.
> So, why is this pernicious falsehood about inflated wages bouncing
> around the public discourse on the auto industry? Several reasons.
> First, it demonizes unions and their members as greedy and not
> interested in the long-term health and profitability of the
> corporations with which they sign contracts. It also ignores the fact
> that in 2007 the UAW signed a landmark contract in which they assumed
> future responsibility for healthcare for their members employed by the
> Big Three. The auto companies paid in to a fund, which will be
> administered by the UAW. Over the long haul, this is expected to
> radically decrease the auto companies’ legacy costs (although the best
> way to help company and union is to pass national health care).
> Making false claims inflating the earnings of unionized workers is
> also part of the Republicans’ long-held practice of class warfare.
> It’s intended to gin up envy and disgust at people making a good
> hourly wage. Few people would be unsympathetic to an auto worker for
> making $58,000 per year. But more would feel unsympathetic if they
> thought that same auto worker made $73 per hour, which over the course
> of a year is over $150,000.
> Finally, harping on imaginary and inflated wages for workers is a way
> to distract from one of the big problems with the US auto companies
> (and most US corporations in any sector): executive compensation. For
> instance, in 2007 General Motors CEO Rick Waggoner made close to $20
> million in total compensation.
> Are you surprised that conservatives are playing with math to come up
> with the false figure of $73 per hour for UAW members working at the
> Big Three, while saying nothing about a Big Three CEO making $9,500.00
> per hour?
Do you guys honestly think they make $73 an hour?
It seems like you guys are defending UAW workers. Fact is the structure of their contract is plays a big role in the financial situation the big three are in now. Go around and do a survey and ask people if their benefits/retirement packages/job security is anywhere near as good as the UAW. I am willing to bet that almost everyone would answer no where close. Plants are closing and people are getting paid to sit around and do nothing. I am not saying this is the only reason why the big three are failing but it only adds to the mess. It is one of the things that need restructured to fix this mess. I don’t want to hear it’s the big three’s fault for agreeing to these contracts…when there is a strike b/c these greedy crybabies truly believe the deserve benefits/retirement plans that are better than 90% of other Americans…what can you do? You figure this is somewhat similar to the PAT mess we have going on here. Like I said before there are a few good unions that help keep things fair…but there are a lot where they think the employees deserve a lot more than what they deserve. If you do not see this you are blind.
Here is a good story showing how some workers are strapped b/c their salaries were reduced to “only” $85K and they are filing for bankruptcy…and he is a forklift driver…making more than most Americans.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0509/18/A01-318432.htm
No one said they were making $73 an hour. Even that link to the Dailykook said that the average cost is $70 per hour (70-72-73, whatever the exact number).
The bottom line is that it costs GM $70 per “union man hour” worked. It really doesn’t matter if that money is going to the guy on the line or the retired guy that used to work the line, it still is money and it still is a cost that is making GM and others non competitive. These are costs to the automakers that go to benefit UAW workers.
It feels good and all to rail about ridiculous exec salaries(and they are ridiculous, i agree, especially considering the **** job they have done), but those salaries did not cause the financial problems. A couple of hundred executives Vs over 100,000 UAW workers is peanuts. Then take into account the nearly 500,000 retirees and spouse who get free health insurance from GM, for which GM paid 3.3 BILLIONin 2007.
We can point fingers all day, but the bottom line is that this kind of cost structure is no longer sustainable. The UAW has killed the goose. No one thought about the future, now the future is in doubt. Sometimes, reality just sucks.
yessss. 3 pages of a complete bs thread i started ftw!
also throwing away money for stupid ****.
endorsements and advertisements.
seriously who bought a buick because of tiger woods on here:rofl:
OR
the 1985? Camaro because of michael jordan 
There was a very good story on 90.5FM this morning regarding the Big3, possible outcomes of the recession and expert/franchise opinions on what GM should do to ‘fix’ their problems.
One suggestion being, to reduce the number of US dealerships from 7600 to about 4000-5000.
One franchisee interviewee stated that his Honda store outsold his Pontiac store 106 to 8 cars a month. He said it’s because there is too much competition in his area and that GM cars/trucks have become a commodity. People aren’t buying a name or an image, they’re just buying another hunk of metal.
He also went along to say, Pontiac has no defining style or attractive vehicles in it’s product line and that GM should eliminate the Pontiac name plate. Rather, GM states Pontiac will become a special limited production badge.
Also up for the chopping block was the GMC Truck name plate. It was the consensus that GM simply has too many badges that offer too many models, most of which have no name recognition or customers wanting to buy them.
GM is in hopes that the economic downturn will force a number of dealerships to close, because of franchise protection laws, they have been unable to do so.
GM predicts a number of 900 dealerships in the US will go under, but that’s not enough to make their market solvent.
Other franchise owners state failure due to not only the mass number of GM dealers, yet the quality and condition of the dealerships themselves, does not project a good image upon potential customers.
Honestly, if I were to restructure the branches, dissolve GMC, Hummer and Pontiac right off the bat. Total garbage. Sorry Chad 
they are no longer competitive because they manufacture high priced garbage. it was all in due time.
true
but the UAW definately isn’t helping the matter.
That’s a good point. I see cars on the road and I have no idea what version of GM they are… All the brand sharing is out of control. And it’s true, aside from the G8, there is nothing stylish or defining about any of the cars Pontiac produces.
[ame=“http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fF6lxILnRuE”]YouTube - Japan Airline’s CEO Slashes his Pay Below the Pay of Pilots, other CEO Should Learn from Him ![/ame]
If anything, GM should axe Buick. Hasn’t made a car worth a dime since the G-Bodies. IMO, of course.
Did cutty jack your password or something?
No. But think about it. What has Buick made since 1988 that was worth a dime? The new models they come out with get uglier and uglier. At least Pontiac has made some attempt to make a higher performance car here and there. Buick doesn’t have an economy or high performance kind of car (anymore, save for the S/C Regals in the late 90’s/early 2000’s), just lame old-people cars. GM has plenty of other options in that category, as well as economy and high-performance cars. Just like Ford needs to axe Mercury.
buick has the loyal retirees.
The big 3 should go back to the carb setup and let people miss the ease of EFI