Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it hardball, or is it real?
That's the question some 35,000 Teamsters working at YRC Worldwide units must be asking themselves in the wake of a reported threat by the nation's largest trucking company to shut down unless 1,500 Teamsters in Chicago approve a $1.16 per hour wage cut and a pension freeze[/LEFT]
Let's see. Take a small pay cut or LOSE YOUR JOB. It seems pretty obvious to me. If they strike and the company folds, they lose it all. There are PLENTY of other frieght companies out there and thousands of unemployed CDL "A" drivers who would like to get back to work, and if they strike and the other companies get a lot more work, they'll be able to hire some of those unemployed folks. This is not the type of economy to try strong-arm tactics in. They will fail, and lose it all. And then the union will be responsible for putting hundreds of non-union employees--clerks, accountants, etc. out of work as well.
The company has been mismanaged from the get go with the recent acquisitions it has made. This is the employees second pay cut. When is enough, enough? Back in the horrible days of 2003-2004 with the airlines, they were seeking huge concessions - and got them - to the tune of 50% pay cuts. Yet had the employees worked for free, the companies still would have lost money.
Businesses need to understand that employee salaries historically have not made or broken a company, it was mismanagement that caused the company to get in the situation it is in. For example - GM. At one point they had over 50% of the market share in the US, now it's down to around 20% IIRC. All due to the crappy cars management designed, sourced, and ordered built.
It was a combination of not designing and building cars that the American public wanted and the UAW contract with all sorts of insane pay scales and retirement benefits that were simply irrational to think they could be continued indefinitely that brought GM down.
GM made good profits when they had the market share, and they could continue to fund the retirement and medical benefits. Kinda like our social security house of cards. Someone like me in my 20's has no hope of ever getting SS yet I will pay into it for my entire life.
As they lost market share they lost the ability to pay for their employees retirement. The employees fault? Hardly. Just as in this example, the company was mismanaged and used its resources to fund acquisitions that just didn't make sense. Unfortunately, it's always the employee who pays the ultimate price. Pay cuts don't save companies, history has proven it over and over again. Might as well get full pay to the last day.
It was a house of cards, and it was going to fall even if they had maintained market share. The way it was structured there was no way they could continue to offer the benefits that had been negotiated even if they ahd remained profitable. Too bad the GM and UAW bean counters were too stupid to figure that one out. (And I agree, it's the same thing as Social Security which I will pay into for 50+ years and never see a dime in return.)
It was a combination of not designing and building cars that the American public wanted and the UAW contract with all sorts of insane pay scales and retirement benefits that were simply irrational to think they could be continued indefinitely that brought GM down.
This is oversimplified and inaccurate. If you compare the union wages and benefits to the non-union workers in other auto companies, there is very little difference in overall labor costs except for one factor. That is health care.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler were much too overloaded in middle level management and executive pay. They fostered a corporate environment which discouraged innovation and efficiency at all levels. As proven by the phenomenal SUV sales, they were indeed building cars that people wanted until the gas crunch hit, and even Holy Toyota didn't see that one coming, they were just better prepared because they already had smaller (tiny) cars in the markets of other nations. Even the quality issues can be fairly laid at the feet of management. You can't build a car better than it was designed.
There are a lot of employers taking unfair advantage of the current labor market. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings again, and those companies will have a hard time getting any sympathy from this consumer.
The company has been mismanaged from the get go with the recent acquisitions it has made. This is the employees second pay cut. When is enough, enough? Back in the horrible days of 2003-2004 with the airlines, they were seeking huge concessions - and got them - to the tune of 50% pay cuts. Yet had the employees worked for free, the companies still would have lost money.
Businesses need to understand that employee salaries historically have not made or broken a company, it was mismanagement that caused the company to get in the situation it is in. For example - GM. At one point they had over 50% of the market share in the US, now it's down to around 20% IIRC. All due to the crappy cars management designed, sourced, and ordered built.
If you think you can pay a guy screwing sh_t together all day $75/hr with full benefits and still turn a profit then you are smoking the good stuff. The union demanded this compensation and the money had to come from somewhere. It came from R&D, design, and quality parts.
If you think you can pay a guy screwing sh_t together all day $75/hr with full benefits and still turn a profit then you are smoking the good stuff. The union demanded this compensation and the money had to come from somewhere. It came from R&D, design, and quality parts.
The $75 figure must include benefits, their average pay according to the auto makers is around $29/hr.
FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_auto_workers_really_make_more_than.html - broken link)
The biggest cost is from the retiree benefits, of which Toyota IIRC has two. Yep, two retired employees.
Here's the thing that pisses me off about America. If a company renegs on their contract by not adding and covering pension payments when they become due, they are allowed to walk away from them and dump them. When an everyday Joe does the same he ends up screwed for a good amount of years due to his credit being completed FUBAR'd.
Plus, the big 3 posted record profits with the invention of the SUV. That money could have been plowed back into the company however it was not.
pay a guy screwing sh_t together all day $75/hr with full benefits
If you actually believe guys were getting paid that then I have some Florida swampland to sell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
The $75 figure must include benefits, their average pay according to the auto makers is around $29/hr.
That would include skilled workers, the ones that are worth that and more on the open market. Assembly workers were starting at about $14.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
