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)
16663 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 9:32 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 01, 2009 10:06 am) Since they began operating U.S. auto factories in the early 1980s, the nonunion Asian and European transplants have kept their wages within a few dollars of those paid by the Detroit 3 to UAW work forces. At the 19-year-old Toyota plant in Georgetown, Ky., workers earn about $25 an hour, plus bonuses, compared with about $27 an hour for UAW workers at the Detroit 3. Last year, Georgetown hourly workers took home $6,300 in bonuses, reflecting the plant's high productivity and Toyota's global profit bonanza. http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6285673/the-general-forum/toyota-backs-off-wage-- parity-at-new-plants/index.html But Toyota's newly opened Tundra plant in San Antonio started its unskilled hourly workers at about $15.50 last year. After three years, the rates will increase to about $21 an hour. Nissan pays workers just under $22 an hour at its Canton, Miss., plant, which opened in 2003. Hyundai's pay rate for production workers in Alabama is close to that. In March, Hyundai said it will expand an on-site engine plant there and hire workers at $13.50 an hour. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 01, 2009 8:28 am) The wage differential paid in those plants, while substantial, is only a small part of this competitive threat. The difference in benefit obligations is enormous. The Big Three are committed to paying an ever-growing number of retirees tens of billions in pensions and health care. The current retiree to active worker ratio at GM is 2.5-1. Korean based Hyundai recently opened a state of the art plant in Alabama. They, of course, will have no retirees any time soon. In any case, they do not provide a defined benefit pension as UAW workers enjoy. Like most of the transplants, Hyundai workers are enrolled in a 401(k) plan–the kind of retirement security that Enron workers once counted on. The transplant bosses also contribute far less toward out of control health care costs than the Big Three are required to cough up. The Big Three have seen this coming. More than a decade ago they started to spin-off the unionized sector of their parts manufacturing with the long range goal of seeing these outsourced operations drive down labor costs. But when GM spun off Delphi in 1999 they had to agree to a transition period–at least through 2007--where they would continue to guarantee basic obligations they had accepted under previous contracts. Delphi, following other major parts suppliers, Federal Mogul and Tower Automotive, has now entered bankruptcy and is demanding huge cuts in wages and benefits. That’s not only bad news for the 24,000 UAW members (and several thousand in other unions) at Delphi. If GM is held to its guarantees of Delphi pensions then General Motors itself may threaten to go the bankruptcy route. "GM is in meltdown mode," said Peter Morici, a professor of business at the University of Maryland. "The company would be in bankruptcy next year if it didn't have so much cash. It has to get labor costs down to below what Nissan and Toyota pay in the southeast U.S." If General Motors could realize this learned academic’s goal it would have far reaching ramifications for millions of other workers whose boats have risen over the years on the UAW’s wage and benefit tide. While health care and retirement obligations put the Big Three at a competitive disadvantage in the auto market the entire industry faces other crucial problems. Consumer debt in the U.S. is near the breaking point. Also facing sky-rocketing fuel costs, tapped out, worried consumers mean the domestic market pie the corporations must share in will almost certainly decline, not expand. http://www.kclabor.org/uaw_capitulation.htm
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Jan 01, 2009 10:47 am) That is most likely untrue. Enron employees were forced to invest in Enron Stock. They were not allowed to sell their shares. Enron was a crooked operation from the start. "GM is in meltdown mode," said Peter Morici, a professor of business at the University of Maryland. "The company would be in bankruptcy next year if it didn't have so much cash. It has to get labor costs down to below what Nissan and Toyota pay in the southeast U.S." That is exactly what I said. GM workers need to be cut back to $20 per hour for GM to survive. A two tier system is just asking for labor unrest. Wagoner should not have settled for that kind of ignorance. There is nothing wrong with a Union cutting wages when times are tough. I watched the IBEW electricians lose $5 per hour when the price of oil tanked. They went down to $23 per hour and no one left. There were guys lined up to take their job if they did. Supply and demand goes for labor as well as tomatoes.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 01, 2009 10:06 am) "Then perhaps they could just BK the NA division and retain corporate HQ and the rest of the company? That would be the smart thing to do. Then GM has not done anything that seemed all that wise over the last 30 years. GM can build any car in Mexico or So America that they can build here only cheaper. I just don't think they can break out of the repressive UAW contracts and legacy without filing for C11. " That is the crux. I don't believe even ch 11 would free the three. Why would it ? It hasn't worked for the airlines ? So what we would achieve is an industry that scares the public even more so than today and that takes some doing. A downsized uaw that comes back to exact their retribution as the economy eventually improves. That is the fallacy of the House Republican leadership . That there somehow is a taxpayer gain in a big three bankruptcy. And that would be exactly what ? They dunno but it sounds kind of conservative so there fore . Lord help us from clueless politicians.
|
|
|
A $2150 UAW pension is better than a $14.50 per hour job at a transplant. The transplant worker has to pay soc sec and since he has no pension he has to put 15% into a 401k. That leaves $1944 a month gross, which is 206 a month less than the UAW pension for 30 and out. The UAW guy doesn't need a 401k because he's already into an income for life situation. When the pensionless transplant worker has 3 years in and gets a 20% raise, he will catch up to the retired UAW. So in effect, the retired ex-UAW nearly costs GM more than the active worker at the transplant factory costs the parent co. back in Japan. Japan uses part of the profits from the American worker (and there is a lot) to design a robot that can eliminate the transplant worker's job forever. The guy on pension can only be elimated by death and that could also possibly include that of a spouse before GM's obligation is done. I would not be suprised if today, the total UAW pension payouts each month exceed the combined US citizen gross payroll of all Asian transplants employees combined.
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jan 01, 2009 8:10 pm) I have read your post and not sure of your point. First and foremost, GM & the UAW should have NEVER entered into a contract that did not set aside money for retirement as the employee worked. That was sort of rectified in 1990 with ERISA. When they say a pension plan is fully funded that means if the company goes broke the retirees and those vested should be covered for their retirement. IF the UAW and GM agreed to pay the retirees health care for life they should have set aside money to do that. If they did not and the company goes broke, the retirees will not get anything but Medicare with their SS when they turn 65. It seems throughout the hearings the only real interest was in covering the workers. How lame is that. If the tax payer is bailing out the automakers we have the right to see something positive. Not just payments to UAW workers for building vehicles no one wants. Why is it so bad that a new hire only gets $14.50 per hour? My understanding is they can work up to around $25 per hour. That seems like plenty for a menial task job. Calling auto assembly skilled work is a real push. If they have electricians, machinists, and other skilled workers that should be separate. I am sure that my retirement after 37 years in the Union is higher than many people doing the same kind of work I did. When and if they find a good company they will end up making far more than my retirement. One of the Technicians I worked with the last 10 years I was up in the Arctic quit and went to work for Conoco Phillips doing the same work only non union. His gross this year will be over $150k. A good $40k more than he was making working the Teamster job. He will get a retirement from the IBEW that he had 12 years in. Another retirement from the Teamsters with 11 years and however long he stays with Conoco Phillips. There are good jobs if you are not set in your ways. You cannot stay in Flint and expect the work to come to you. I would not be suprised if today, the total UAW pension payouts each month exceed the combined US citizen gross payroll of all Asian transplants employees combined. Is that a good thing or bad? I think I read that GM pays pension to about 450,000 people. They only have 266,000 people working WORLD WIDE. General Motors is a FAILURE. They have created a monster and it is in the form of retirees that did not produce long enough to pay for their own retirement. The average retiree should have had at least 45 years in the company to get 50% of their pay. That is about what Ma Bell paid their retirees at age 65. Not a minute before. AT&T is still going strong while GM with their millstone UAW are ready to dissolve. |
|
|
Replying to: duke23 (Jan 01, 2009 6:34 pm) Well some airlines have failed completely. However, three of the biggest - Continental, United, and Delta, were in BK and successfully restructured and emerged leaner and stronger. So your statement is incorrect.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 01, 2009 8:48 pm) I don't understand. If the pension is fully funded then GM is not paying anything. The pension should be an annuity covered by it's investments. So GM has (supposedly) no unusual pension costs for its retirees. Health care is the big enchilada, but the Union has agreed to manage a fund. GM is supposed to pay into the VEBA and the amount is well less than the bailout money they asked for. So PAY the VEBA and then there should be no more discussions about GM's cost for retirees, right? So why is GM still whining about labor inequality? If, as Goldfinger as stated, the UAW is cost-competitive, GM only needs to beg congress for the VEBA amounts (I believe the amount is $7B) and pay it into the fund. Then all they have to do is make some vehicles that will sell well enough to support their bloated structure, which is their real problem. And since that's not likely to happen they should be cutting big time so that the company size and cost structure mirrors their ability to sell product.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 01, 2009 12:40 pm) For every dollar that we individually contribute to the plan, up to 6% of our income, the company is committed to contributing an equal value in its stock. Enron was riding high, and as we saw the company officers and supervisors investing in company stock, we felt assured that our own investments were solid. There are a few things you need to understand about our § 401(k) plan to understand the impact of Enron’s collapse. First, we are free to make various kinds of investments with our own contributions, but the plan prohibits any employee under age 50 from trading the company’s contributions. In other words, the company puts in its own stock, and until we reach age 50, we hold that stock. Second, until very recently, even after age 50, we could only trade 25% of the company’s contributions per year. Third, I said before that the company is committed to contributing stock equal in value to our cash contributions. The company’s practice, however, has been to purchase blocks of stock at the beginning of the year, which it then uses to match our contributions over the course of the year. In making those contributions, Enron uses the cost of the stock when it purchased it, not the value when it makes the contributions. In good years, this certainly has been advantageous. But over the course of the last year, our employer has been contributing stock worth a fraction of the contribution it is supposed to be matching. Tim Ramsey, age 55, 33 years with PGE: $995,000 loss. Roy Rinard, age 53, 22 years with PGE: $472,000 loss. Al Kaseweter, age 43, 21 years with PGE: $318,000 loss. Joe and Diane Rinard, age 47, 12 years with PGE: $300,000-plus loss. Dave Covington, age 42, 22 years with PGE: $300,000 loss. Tom Klein, age 55, 30 years with PGE: $188,000 loss. Mike Schlenker, age 41, 10 years with PGE: $177,000 loss. Patti Klein, age 47, 24 years with PGE: $132,000 loss. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 01, 2009 8:52 pm)
|
|
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
