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.
It's not about what each Detroit auto worker's paycheck actually comes to....it's a figure that calculates their cost for labor per employee (including benefits and pensions....it's all part of the cost of labor) so that it can be compared to others (which have been calculated the same way).
It's an "apples vs. oranges" thing - they're both fruits, but very different.
The title of the thread - $73 an hour; "It's a total lie" - is correct.
When we talk about how much a person makes (and I'm talking about typical people talking about it, not economists), it's generally expressed in terms of actual pay, either per hour or annually. In those terms, do American auto workers make $73 an hour? Absolutely not.
The $73 a hour is a combination of three different types of expenses to auto companies, expressed in a per-worker manner.
The first type of expense are actual wages. According to what I have seen online, new UAW workers earn $14 an hour; workers on the job prior to contract changes in 2005 & 2007 earn $28 an hour; highly skilled workers can earn up to $33 an hour. (As a comparison, my plumber gets $45 just for walking through my front door.)
The second type of expense are the fringe benefits ... things like health insurance, retirement, leave, etc. When companies talk about their total employee costs (vs. wages paid), they'll include these numbers. So if you're sitting in an office somewhere, or running a cash register, or turning a wrench, you think of your salary in terms of a per-hour number, and your boss thinks of the total cost of having you work there. These are two very different numbers.
The third type of expense (and I have no clue whether this is a common practice or not, but the car companies do it) is the cost incurred by the auto companies for all former employees who are now retired and drawing money from their retirement. For the Big Three, we're talking a large sum of money, partly due to some fairly generous retirements and partly due to a large number of retired auto workers (more than one million retired workers and their dependents).
Do autoworkers make $73 a hour? No way. If you take the highest per hour number for highly skilled workers ($33) and add the costs for fringe benefits (estimated at $15), you get $48 ... and that's one-third less than is being talked about. And that's still not $48 in wages.
Other than ridiculous CEO bonuses, I don't recall any discussion of the wages of Wall Street workers when the $700 billion Wall Street bailout was being discussed. But for an auto company bailout of $14 billion (that's a mere 2 percent of the Wall Street bailout), suddenly employee wages - inflated and expressed in an inaccurate manner - are front and center. Gee - I wonder why.
My feeling is that I make $24 an hour. If they are willing to give up 1/3 they will still be making twice as much as I do.....and that is pretty much where my sympathy stops.
Some people are very simpleminded.
I doubt anybody short of management makes close to $70 per hour. I'm certain however that many cost close to that much.
The issue isn't what the guys actually performing work are getting. Its the CEO's & management.
Just easier to play on our emotions by making it look like nut turners are making a killing.
Believe me, no greedy buisness person is going to overpay for labor, even tho, to my way of thinking the labor is worth much more than the management & I think things are inside out. Not just in the auto industry but in most of the corporate world, paper pushers are kings & the producers are peasants.
But anyway, theres no way I could live on $20 an hour all told. I probably cost almost $70/hr but bring home just over $30. So, would you say I make 60+K or 140K annually? Uncle Sam & me figure $60.
Get rid of the union wont help, The non union corps are on par with them pay wise. The issue is management. Period.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960
That figure -- repeated on television and in newspapers as the average pay of a Big Three autoworker -- has become a big symbol in the fight over what should happen to Detroit. To critics, it is a neat encapsulation of everything that's wrong with bloated car companies and their entitled workers.
To the Big Three's defenders, meanwhile, the number has become proof positive that autoworkers are being unfairly blamed for Detroit's decline.
I am a union employee too and my problem is not what they get paid for an hour of work. But the benefits for retirees are excessive. Just because you put in 25 or 30 years does not mean the company owes you free medical and dental the rest of your life. That is what Medicaid is for once you are 65. And, if my company (which is laying off 14,000 people next year) lays me off, I do not continue to get paid 95% of my base. I get whatever unemployment will pay me and NO benefits while laid off.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Yes and anyone who cannot survive in the USA on $20 to $30 dollars is living way too high. I think they should just admit it was nice while it lasted, and they didn't even have to pay for college to make those kinds of wages, but now it's time to cut back a bit.
A whole lot of us don't make anywhere close to what the autoworkers were making and don't feel that we should have to give up a big chunk of our pitiful incomes to keep them plush, and that's exactly what a taxpayer provided bailout would do -- give large amounts of tax dollars to keep their incomes higher than everyone's.
$20 is not much money. You cannot make house notes, car notes and feed a family on that.
$20 is not much money. You cannot make house notes, car notes and feed a family on that.
Strange many people do. Or their other half works to fill the gap.
The UAW is not budging an inch. How many plants have shut down because the Unions refused to meet the company half way? I know of 3 in my area alone.
The retirement should be changed to a 401 k. Benefits should reflect what other car makers are paying and providing.
The UAW needs to get a reality check here because guess what? Toyota and Honda are kicking their collective asses. Quality, economy,and reliability. Not all of these are the UAW's fault put make no mistake the UAW workers are not the best in the country at what they do. When you are not the best you can hardly feel like you can not be replaced.
The CEO's of the big 3 should be fired. New CEO's should receive pay on par with their competitors.
The union needs to keep up with the rest of the world. Nobody gets free medical any more, nobody outside of government gets pensions. Time to grow up. A lot of these union guys get $30.00 an hour to turn a wrench that you could teach a chimpanzee to do.
The execs also get paid way too much for the unique ability and talent to drive their companies into the ground. Nobody comes out smelling too good.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
Strange many people do. Or their other half works to fill the gap.
The UAW is not budging an inch. How many plants have shut down because the Unions refused to meet the company half way? I know of 3 in my area alone.
The retirement should be changed to a 401 k. Benefits should reflect what other car makers are paying and providing.
The UAW needs to get a reality check here because guess what? Toyota and Honda are kicking their collective asses. Quality, economy,and reliability. Not all of these are the UAW's fault put make no mistake the UAW workers are not the best in the country at what they do. When you are not the best you can hardly feel like you can not be replaced.
The CEO's of the big 3 should be fired. New CEO's should receive pay on par with their competitors.
I do not have a problem with them getting a pension but the health and dental care should not be the reponsibility of the company once the employee leaves.
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.
