Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16738 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 10:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: lokki (Jun 24, 2009 11:21 am) In the old days, you would often rise up the ladder as you stayed in a company...it does not seem like that is true, to some extent...if companies looking to fill positions look outside the company, then it seems likely that people will rise to their highest limit in Company 1, then market their skills for a riase in Company 2... The old system of loyalty does not seem to exist like it used to...both ways, employee to employer and employer to employee...since fols can be laid off in a moments motice, why should they stay loyal to a company that may dump them any minute???...how many articles have you read in Time, Newsweek, US News where the writer claims that the averge person will work for 5-8 employers in their working career???...If someone gets $30K now, and a competitor offers $42,500, why not jump ship???...we see pensions failing, so why stay with one company forever???...take your 401K and go anywhere you want... It would seem that only the unmotivated would now stay in a company for 40-plus years...right up the alley of the average UAW worker, who has no marketable skills and, rest assured, there are NOT any employers lining up to hire any displaced UAW worker...even Roger Penske wanted ALL of Saturn except what???...the manufacturing facilities...why???...because he knows who works at the plant, and he is running from the UAW at the speed of light, because he knows what we know...they aren't worth a plugged nickel when it comes to work ethic and work performance... |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Jun 24, 2009 1:17 pm) For most politicians, I'll bet thats true, but for run of the mill grunt government retirees, theres no golden benefits. I shouldnt have spouted off about the UAW, since I dont know the facts.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 24, 2009 7:39 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: wesleyg (Jun 25, 2009 4:06 am) SS penalizes those who worked two jobs because they must be double-dipping in the retirements. How SS misses most abuse of the systems but it made legislators feel better two decades ago to cut back SS payouts if someone had another retirement--cut, not eliminated if I understand correctly. But UAW people collect both and I assume they are not penalized by having a high payout from UAW in retirement when it's added to the SS along with the full healthcare and everything care they used to enjoy. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 24, 2009 7:35 am) And the school system is supported by property taxes and is partially why a $400k house in Illinois can have $10k/yr in property taxes depending on the area. My house probably lost $50k in value last year, yet my property tax assessment still went up almost $1k/yr. Sales taxes went up 1% and now the state wants to increase income tax from 3% to 5%. It's getting a bit excessive IMO. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 25, 2009 4:23 am) Actually I believe the GM Pension fund does take back some of the retirement when a retiree takes SS. The reason being, that GM paid half of the SS premium during the employment. It is a negotiated part of the retirement. The real problem was and is, that GM agreed to an open ended health care plan for the life of the retiree and spouse. When they signed the contract it may have cost GM $200 per month for the gold plated health care plan. Now it is probably more like $800 per month or even more. Our Teamster plan was barely copper plated and costing our company $1200 per month. Even at $1200 per month our plan is in financial difficulty because the cost of services are escalating.
|
|
|
Replying to: michaell (Jun 24, 2009 9:29 am) It's something like that here in Maryland also. The problem with it, from a funding standpoint, is that it's based on the average of your highest 3 years salary. As you said, up to 80% of that highest average, which a pretty darn good deal no matter how you slice it. Way over what most workers in private industry can expect. Federal workers in the old system had it just as good. I'll repeat my story again about our friend who retired from the feds after 40 years. After a couple of years of COLA's, he's bringing home more now in retirement than he made while he was working. Courtesy of the US taxpayers.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 25, 2009 5:18 am) No doubt increasing healthcare costs are creating real problems. My wife's employer just changed the formula for healthcare in retirement and she missed by being two years to young. Oh well, at least we have another 25+ years to plan for it. |
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Jun 24, 2009 11:21 am) The way they transitioned to the cash balance plan really hit older workers hard. In my case, at 65 I will be bringing home around $400/month less under the new plan than I would have under the old defined benefit plan. This is because there's an accrued interest that's part of the cash balance plan, and, for older workers (those over, say, age 55), there's just not enough time for the compounding effects of the interest to offset the loss from the defined benefit plan, had it continued. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 24, 2009 11:26 am) 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
