Strike has begun

[Rocksalt]

The whole CEO makes millions and we make pennies argument is a red herring. You take a company like Boeing where the CEO made 22 million for 2022 and if you took his pay to spread out to the other 140K workers within the company, it comes out to like $150 raise every year. Chump change and you still need to pay someone to run the company and keep it a going concern.

Back in 2009 when Chrysler was looking to go bankrupt and I am not talking about reorganization bankruptcy but a real chance of the company going into liquidation bankruptcy, the UAW was all crying for the govt. tit bailout.

The govt. came in and forced a reorganization bailout courting the eventual then buyer that was FIAT. The govt. forced the UAW to have skin in the game by insisting the UAW buy shares into the new company that were borrowed on the solvency of the UAW pension fund and make the UAW have a board seat with input on the company's direction going forward.

When FIAT came in and became a major but not majority state holder in the new Chrysler (now FCA), the UAW chaffed at being on the board and could not sell their shares to FIAT corporate fast enough to get off the board.

So the UAW likes to talk a big shit about about CEO pay and so called corporate greed, but when they were given the opportunity to have input and say on the company being run, they ran from it because they like their usual troupes of playing the wage worker victim rather than being in the inside to make the change they all clamor about.

not true.. the disparity in terms of CEO's average pay and workers average pay has steadily increased. These are facts.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 57233]

If the union workers want to move to a payer per number of cars delivered instead of per hour then sure. Figure out how many cars the line currently makes in 40 hours, make pay based on that and if the workers want to speed the line up 25% while maintaining quality then I'm all for it. If they want to assemble 25% less cars though and still get paid the same, that's a bogus ask imo though.

As a deadline driven work some weeks I work 35 some weeks I work 80, some weeks 100. More often than not I'm somewhere in the 45-50 range which is why I'm salary, I just work hours I want to instead of a set 5/8s

If it was how many defect free cars currently get produced on a 40 hour line, they would 100% go for it. They could do the same production in 3-4 8 hour days.

 

[Pescatoral Pursuit]

If the union workers want to move to a payer per number of cars delivered instead of per hour then sure. Figure out how many cars the line currently makes in 40 hours, make pay based on that and if the workers want to speed the line up 25% while maintaining quality then I'm all for it. If they want to assemble 25% less cars though and still get paid the same, that's a bogus ask imo though.

As a deadline driven work some weeks I work 35 some weeks I work 80, some weeks 100. More often than not I'm somewhere in the 45-50 range which is why I'm salary, I just work hours I want to instead of a set 5/8s

It's charitable of you to offer to structure this aspect of the industry and to determine how auto workers should work and how much they should be paid. St. Bleda for sure.

You probably wouldn't mind if the auto workers structured your work and pay either.

 

[bleda2002]

It's charitable of you to offer to structure this aspect of the industry and to determine how auto workers should work and how much they should be paid. St. Bleda for sure.

You probably wouldn't mind if the auto workers structured your work and pay either.

If the auto workers want to structure my pay go for it, I get paid based on what I produce, I either make my deadlines and produce what I'm expected to produce or I'll very quickly find myself unemployed. If they instead want to switch me per hour, I'll make even more money since I'd get over time to finish my current workload instead of just salary.

They agreed to get paid x dollars per hour. Now they want an effective 25% raise by asking to work 32 hours for 40 hours pay. The only equitable way that works is you either take the pay cut and get paid 32 hours pay, or you are saying you can do 40 hours work in 32 hours and then deserve the same amount of money.

They also want 40% raise so they will effectively get nearly a 75% per hour raise. 40 hours x 32.00 for 1280 bucks turns in to 1280 for 32 hours or 40 bucks an hour. Add in the 40% raise to be 1800 bucks a week and now the 32 hour pay is 56 bucks an hour all for 75% of the productivity they are making today because the line moves at a set speed.

 

[Pescatoral Pursuit]

They agreed to get paid x dollars per hour. Now they want an effective 25% raise by asking to work 32 hours for 40 hours pay. The only equitable way that works is you either take the pay cut and get paid 32 hours pay, or you are saying you can do 40 hours work in 32 hours and then deserve the same amount of money.

On top of that they also want 40% raise so they will effectively get nearly a 75% per hour raise.

40hours x 32.00 for 1280 bucks turns in to 1280 for 32 hours or 40 bucks an hour. Add in the 40% raise to be 1800 bucks a week and now the 32 hour pay is 56 bucks an hour all for 75% of the productivity they are making today because the line moves at a set speed.

It's charitable of you to offer to structure this aspect of the industry and to determine how auto workers should work and how much they should be paid. St. Bleda for sure.

You probably wouldn't mind if the auto workers structured your work and pay either.

You think they get all that?
Do you know how much the union takes out of each check that they'll never see again?

 

[bleda2002]

You think they get all that?
Do you know how much the union takes out of each check that they'll never see again?

What they have to pay the union is between them and the union, the company is paying them the wage and doesn't get a discount on union dues so that's their labor costs.

Edit: btw I'm not against the workers asking for raises, tying wages to inflation and asking for better profit sharing/bonus agreements. All those things make sense, but all within reason, an effective 75% raise just sounds greedy.

 

[916WI]

it has to do with corporations paying their workersand not hogging all the profits

The automakers ARE paying their workers--As far as line work is considered, unionized auto manufacturing employees have some of the best compensation packages out there. Of course, the corporation has every right to retain the profit. If the UAW brass weren't such greedy pigs, they could have asked for(and received) increases in profit sharing percentages--everyone wins in that situation. It would make zero sense to elevate base wages above market because the automakers have had a few good years and are "hogging profits". If we enter into a recession, would it then be alright to remind those wage increases-when the profit isn't there to support them?

 

[j.o.y.ride]

I understand wanting more pay and better benefits, but, I think they are way out of line.

9% a year to catch up to where inflation went during the tenure of their prior contract is out of line?

 

[Deleted member 57233]

They also want 40% raise so they will effectively get nearly a 75% per hour raise. 40 hours x 32.00 for 1280 bucks turns in to 1280 for 32 hours or 40 bucks an hour. Add in the 40% raise to be 1800 bucks a week and now the 32 hour pay is 56 bucks an hour all for 75% of the productivity they are making today because the line moves at a set speed.

They were asking for a 40% raise spread out over 4 years, because that is what the CEO got. They have dropped it to a 36% raise over 4 years which really isn't that outrageous. If you aren't getting at least a 10% bump each year at your current job, you are basically losing money and should be looking for a new job.

 

[bleda2002]

They were asking for a 40% raise spread out over 4 years, because that is what the CEO got. They have dropped it to a 36% raise over 4 years which really isn't that outrageous. If you aren't getting at least a 10% bump each year at your current job, you are basically losing money and should be looking for a new job.

Depends on the industry and how much you make but the actual average is 3% a year across all industries in the US. 40% is again fairly ridiculous expectation for an already high paying job in a given industry much less the effective 75% raise they were looking for (not including cola).

 

[Deleted member 57233]

Depends on the industry and how much you make but the actual average is 3% a year across all industries in the US. 40% is again fairly ridiculous expectation for an already high paying job in a given industry much less the effective 75% raise they were looking for (not including cola).

It's spread out over 4 years. Using the 3% a year average, then comparing it to 4 years of raises (36% total) is just being purposefully misleading.

And 3% a year is not a raise, it is losing money, and no one should settle for that.

 

[bleda2002]

It's spread out over 4 years. Using the 3% a year average, then comparing it to 4 years of raises (36% total) is just being purposefully misleading.

And 3% a year is not a raise, it is losing money, and no one should settle for that.

Fine 9% a year average is still 3 times the average annual raise. I agree 3% is low, but it again depends on the industry and where in the pay range you are. I consider 3% to be the minimum personally but Im also realistic and realize that 5-6% is a pretty damn good raise for a non promotion year.

The big 3 already offered a 5% a year effective raise but the UAW called it insulting.

 

[Deleted member 57233]

Fine 9% a year average is still 3 times the average annual raise. I agree 3% is low, but it again depends on the industry and where in the pay range you are. I consider 3% to be the minimum personally but Im also realistic and realize that 5-6% is a pretty damn good raise for a non promotion year.

The big 3 already offered a 5% a year effective raise but the UAW called it insulting.

5% is insulting. It's literally taking money out of their pockets with the increase in cost of living over the last few years. It's especially insulting when the company boasts about how well they are doing, while giving executive raises closer to 40% and doing massive stock buybacks.

 

[bleda2002]

5% is insulting. It's literally taking money out of their pockets with the increase in cost of living over the last few years. It's especially insulting when the company boasts about how well they are doing, while giving executive raises closer to 40% and doing massive stock buybacks.

Long term inflation rate is about 3% with 2022 being an outlier at 8% but even 2021 and 2023 are coming in under 5%. Total inflation from 2020 to now is 18% so even with the outlier year a 5% raise is not insulting nor is it taking money out of their pockets since that's still above the inflation rate.

This is the up/downside of being union and negotiating years in advance some times the workers win when the economy gets lean but they still get raises and other times they get the short end of the stick when the economy booms and they still only get what they agreed to.

 

[Cburd61]

9% a year to catch up to where inflation went during the tenure of their prior contract is out of line?

Yes, in my opinion, it’s asking too much. I built BMW’s for 22 years. The most we ever got was 8%, once. It usually averaged 6 or 7, if we got one at all. 10% for 2 years sounds more reasonable to me. Don’t get me wrong, I hope they can get as much as possible. I realize inflation has been stupid high the last year or so. I don’t wish to see anyone struggling money wise, but you need to budget wisely. I’ve seen too many people at our plant get hired in, buy new vehicles, a house, or both, then complain that they aren’t making enough.

Sponsored