.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

But calling it 70 per hour is much more effective to get people all worked up.

What are these figures then?
Total number of auto workers X average hourly wage X 40 hours per week X 52 weeks per year. Take this figure and use it to divide the total of the salaries for CEOs, lawyers, etc. and tell me what that percentage number is. I am curious to see how these numbers compare. I'm guessing less than 1 %.

Come on John!! You are smarter than that!! I can't believe you posted that!!!
Nick
A better exercise would be to total up ALL the expenses, pension funds, perks etc of the Board of Governors, and then divide it into the number of cars produced, and see how much of the car sale price is increased to cover those expenses, salaries etc etc etc. I bet it is more than 1% And one other point, in fairness...I bet every Board member has at least 10 people directly doing his work for him , so add in their costs too, and you might find a fairer assessment of where the costs to produce a vehicle actually come from.

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 11-21-2008).]

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You got that right. It's all about perceptions and emotions, not about facts or evidence. That's what separates reason from non-reason. Perceptions and emotions got Galileo locked up, took the church over 3 centuries to acknowledge that they were wrong. JazzMan

Fact is after benefits are added up they make about $71 dollars an hour. Whether they are working or in a job bank.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You got that right. It's all about perceptions and emotions, not about facts or evidence. That's what separates reason from non-reason. Perceptions and emotions got Galileo locked up, took the church over 3 centuries to acknowledge that they were wrong. JazzMan

...and got Obama elected, even though he has virtually no experience and his policies are fairy-dust.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-21-2008).]

When I worked for the Union here in Florida I didn't have to pay for benefits, you bet your ass I counted it as part of my pay. Now I work in a non union job and you bet your ass I count on how much I have to pay in for insurances when I ask for a raise.

When I was a working stiff, EK used to calculate your benefit package and estimates were based on adding in vacation, bonuses, medical, paid holidays (10 per year), company paid pension contributions, FICA, and any sick time you took off. They summed up all these extras to your base salary to calculate your "salary package" was more than twice what your hourly rate was.

"Cohn's 2007 book, Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay for It, calls for universal health insurance, financed by the government."

Got any more "unbiased" sources?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You got that right. It's all about perceptions and emotions, not about facts or evidence. That's what separates reason from non-reason. Perce JazzMan

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it. Very informative.

Regarding being about perceptions and emotions, I don't LIKE it, but that is the way the media and the U.S. IS.

You may like Obama based on REAL facts about him and REAL evidence. You may not. Regardless, he didn't get elected on FACTS or EVIDENCE. A percentage voted for him based on that. But MOST voted for him on perceptions and emotions.


So you can't really have it both ways.


But back to the original topic, which you posted an excellent article about.

The average worker, according to the article, is making more like $38/hour. So that is more FACTUAL. But it IS ALSO factual that GM is paying $70/hour to WORKERS. It is just that about $32/hour is going to retired non-workers! And that is the environment GM is trying to be successful in.


I feel the writer of the article, having the FACTS, STILL HIMSELF went for PERCEPTION. Via adjectives. He calls the $10 per hour "A FRACTION" of the benefits and pensions of $42 per hour.

Common of the use of the phrase "a fraction" would be an implication of one or two percent. But it REALLY is about 25%! So the WRITER is trying to use adjectives to give a perception of it being smaller than it really is.

He also tried to use perception to downplay the significance of $24/hour versus $28/hour, as if that was an insignficant amount.

That is about EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR. Times how many workers. That is a HUGE competitive disadvantage, not small.
So I really like the information the writer gave. I, like you, Jazzman, do NOT appreciate that he took the facts or evidence, and tried to use perception and emotion to shape it.


But on a comparative scale, the auto executive use of the $70/hour figure was MORE manipulative than there was in this guy's article.

Good article, thanks for finding it.

Regardless of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the $70/hr claim, the fact still remains that the domestic automakers are crushing under the weight of their overhead. Part of that overhead is caused by the unions. And the inept corporate mgmt doesn't help things.

Personally, I think that if they can't pull themselves together, they should go out of business and be replaced by a leaner, meaner business model. The idea of bailing out idiots so they can continue being idiotic grates on my nerves.

I still would like to know how the total of the figures of what the CEOs, lawyers, etc. make compare to the auto worker's totals. Some seem to think if these numbers could be reduced they would make a significant change. I am just wondering what that change would be and if it is as significant as people seem to think they would be.
There certainly are a lot more indians than indian chiefs in the automotive companies. Even if the chiefs are extremely highly compensated, their numbers would not add up to a significant portion, especially when they are compared to the total of the workers salaries. That is why I am asking if someone has these numbers, so I can see if my assumption is correct.

The "$70/hour" worker has been taken out of context. It is not actual individual salary, it is the burden rate that GM must pay per hour. It is an accounting phenomenon, what GM is obligated to pay. No big mistery here, any large or medium size company calculates the salary/pension burden this way.
Hope you didn't waste alot of time in your search for the truth.

I found the third quarter earnings report for GM. Maybe some of you would like to go over them.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net...4530&p=irol-earnings

All that might be relevant if it weren't for the fact that GM/Ford/Chrysler still has to shoulder the equilivent of $71/hr average/employee no matter how it's spun.
I thought all that was common knowledge anyway. All large corporations figure their real payroll costs the same way. They also include what the administartive costs/employee is in that figure--doesn't change anything.

So that is exactly what people have been saying. pay w benny's is over 70 bucks an hour.

Also the employee has to pay the union their dues.

Other than misdirection what is your point?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: He also tried to use perception to downplay the significance of $24/hour versus $28/hour, as if that was an insignficant amount.

Agreed. think about this. $4/hr times the 250,000 UAW workers is $1million PER HOUR. How many cars need to sell for the profit margin to cover that $1 million difference EACH HOUR?

I would say even $25 or even $20 an hour is quite excessive for a general assembler at GM. It should probably be around $12.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: So anyway, the $70 hourly wage figure for GM workers has been debunked IHMO. The only people making $70/hour at GM, Chrysler, or Ford are the top management and CEOs, and their lawyers. JazzMan

"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."
André Gide

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: So that is exactly what people have been saying. pay w benny's is over 70 bucks an hour. Also the employee has to pay the union their dues. Other than misdirection what is your point?

Pay w/ bennies costs GM over $70 an hour. That's NOT what the individual line worker gets. Their pay w/ bennies is closer to $38 ($28 hourly + $10 benefits cost). GM still has to come up with the money for $70 an hour because they're paying benefits for retired workers, but all of that is not going to each individual worker.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Pay w/ bennies costs GM over $70 an hour. That's NOT what the individual line worker gets. Their pay w/ bennies is closer to $38 ($28 hourly + $10 benefits cost). GM still has to come up with the money for $70 an hour because they're paying benefits for retired workers, but all of that is not going to each individual worker.

Yes I see but it is what GM has to pay regardless in comparrison to what non union has to pay. The 70 still stands as an actual expense day in and day out.
I understand that the employee doesn't recieve all the benifits of the 70.
The point and the figures have not changed unless I am not understanding this.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Yes I see but it is what GM has to pay regardless in comparrison to what non union has to pay. The 70 still stands as an actual expense day in and day out. I understand that the employee doesn't recieve all the benifits of the 70. The point and the figures have not changed unless I am not understanding this.

The point was people screaming about how overpaid line workers are and using the $70 figure like they actually pocketed $70/hr.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The point was people screaming about how overpaid line workers are and using the $70 figure like they actually pocketed $70/hr.

You see I never thought that was the point. To me I always knew it included benefits but not that it was retirement payment also.
I thought the point was strictly a financial comparison between non union and union and I still think that is the point.

This would be Jazzman's attempt at a "Jedi Mind Trick"

Most of us realize that the employee was never getting $70/hr in wages and benefits. And most of us did not try to trick others into saying it was actually $70 in wages and benefits.
I've tried and apparently failed in showing Steve that it is the LEGACY COSTS that Toyota and other foreign companies in the U.S. WILL NOT incur. You work for GM and from what I understand your health insurance costs are nearly ZERO. You work for Toyota U.S. and your paying a good portion for your health insurance. Toyota will never incur the health insurance costs and LEGACY COSTS that GM has.

You work for GM and your retirement fund is 100% burden on GM. You work for Toyota and you pay into a 401k type plan. Toyota will never incur the retirement benefits costs and LEGACY costs that GM has.

Hell, even the Federal Government figured this out with the military. I use to get free health care after I retired. I pay insurance premiums and deductibles when I retire. I get a retirement that I never kicked in any money for. Now, however , I can kick into a Thrift Savings Plan. When my kids join, I'm sure that the Thrift Savings Plan will be the only form of retirement.

That $71/hr figure was known by most of use to include:

Hourly Wages
Benefits
Retirement Funds for all UAW workers
Legacy Costs
FICA and other Payroll Taxes that the Employer must pay and the Employee never sees.

Anyone who has own or managed a business should/would understand all of these costs that go into that $71/hr figure.

I really hate how this financial crisis turned into an anti-union fiasco. That huge hurdle to shift healthcare responsibility/control to the UAW (known as the VEBA) is what all of us in the auto industry have been looking forward to. I'll be the first to admit that the management has put the company in a tight spot by banking on SUVs (and not seeing the signs to pull out of them) but the financial situation is going to change dramatically from 2010 and onwards. Thats basically how we have been seeing it, tiptoeing carefully to 2010 and then the credit crisis screws it all up.

quote Originally posted by CTFieroGT87: I really hate how this financial crisis turned into an anti-union fiasco. That huge hurdle to shift healthcare responsibility/control to the UAW (known as the VEBA) is what all of us in the auto industry have been looking forward to. I'll be the first to admit that the management has put the company in a tight spot by banking on SUVs (and not seeing the signs to pull out of them) but the financial situation is going to change dramatically from 2010 and onwards. Thats basically how we have been seeing it, tiptoeing carefully to 2010 and then the credit crisis screws it all up.

The tide has been turning against unions for quite awhile now. Look at how drastically the percentage of workers in a union has dropped in the last 30 years. This mess has just intensified the trend.

As Aceman pointed out (again), the big problem at GM is legacy costs. The company is literally being crushed under that weight. While it's quite true that current employees aren't pocketing $70/hour (not sure who claimed this?), that's essentially what GM is paying out. Whether it's going to current employees as wages, going to health care costs, or going to retirees, it's still money flowing out of GM. And yes, it is fair to add those costs in. Not only fair, but necessary. You can't pretend that those costs don't exist. It would be like saying my living expenses only cost $1000 a month (the mortgage payment). That would ignore the utilities, food, gas, insurance, etc.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-22-2008).]

quote Originally posted by afRaceR: The "$70/hour" worker has been taken out of context. It is not actual individual salary, it is the burden rate that GM must pay per hour. It is an accounting phenomenon, what GM is obligated to pay. No big mistery here, any large or medium size company calculates the salary/pension burden this way. Hope you didn't waste alot of time in your search for the truth.

Awww, be careful, you're going to ruin JazzMan's day with facts like that!

quote Originally posted by aceman: This would be Jazzman's attempt at a "Jedi Mind Trick" Most of us realize that the employee was never getting $70/hr in wages and benefits. And most of us did not try to trick others into saying it was actually $70 in wages and benefits. I've tried and apparently failed in showing Steve that it is the LEGACY COSTS that Toyota and other foreign companies in the U.S. WILL NOT incur. You work for GM and from what I understand your health insurance costs are nearly ZERO. You work for Toyota U.S. and your paying a good portion for your health insurance. Toyota will never incur the health insurance costs and LEGACY COSTS that GM has. You work for GM and your retirement fund is 100% burden on GM. You work for Toyota and you pay into a 401k type plan. Toyota will never incur the retirement benefits costs and LEGACY costs that GM has. Hell, even the Federal Government figured this out with the military. I use to get free health care after I retired. I pay insurance premiums and deductibles when I retire. I get a retirement that I never kicked in any money for. Now, however , I can kick into a Thrift Savings Plan. When my kids join, I'm sure that the Thrift Savings Plan will be the only form of retirement. That $71/hr figure was known by most of use to include: Hourly Wages Benefits Retirement Funds for all UAW workers Legacy Costs FICA and other Payroll Taxes that the Employer must pay and the Employee never sees. Anyone who has own or managed a business should/would understand all of these costs that go into that $71/hr figure.

Toyota and the rest WILL have these same legacy costs... someday. Because their workers will eventually retire. And they will have to pay their retirement benefits, just like the Big Three does. Right now, they have virtually no retirees, so their legacy costs are negligable. That won't be the case 50 years from now. By then, all worker's costs across all the manufacturers will be about the same.

The big problem for the Big Three right now is upper management's bad decisions about which cars (or trucks) to produce. they chose trucks and SUVs and ignored small and mid-size cars, and ignored the handwriting on the wall.

I would ask you all, what is the solution? Should we allow GM and the others to abandon their retirees and YOYO them? "You're On Your Own, pal (and good luck with that! Hahahahaha!)" Or how about universal health care, and an expanded retirement program, for all American workers? Or is there another alternative?

Any ideas?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You have to realize that GM didn't hold a gun to anyone's head to buy SUVs. They made and sold what people wanted, and SUVs were quite popular until gas spiked to $4+/gallon. And you can't just start making hybrids overnight.

I do fault GM for putting most of their eggs in the SUV basket, and essentailly abandoning the small car market to the competition.

quote Originally posted by GT86: I do fault GM for putting most of their eggs in the SUV basket, and essentailly abandoning the small car market to the competition.

Again, GM builds what sells. People demanded SUVs for many years. That's the bottom line. They only started wanting small cars after gas prices spiked. The other factor is that SUVs have a good profit margin, and small cars don't. SUV sales tanked with the gas price spike, and so did profits. When you're paying the highest costs per vehicle in the WORLD, you have to go with what makes money. Otherwise, you end up bankrupt. Oops, too late.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Again, GM builds what sells. People demanded SUVs for many years. That's the bottom line. They only started wanting small cars after gas prices spiked. The other factor is that SUVs have a good profit margin, and small cars don't. SUV sales tanked with the gas price spike, and so did profits. When you're paying the highest costs per vehicle in the WORLD, you have to go with what makes money. Otherwise, you end up bankrupt. Oops, too late.

SUVs were popular, but it's not like small cars weren't selling. Camrys, Accords, Sentras were all still doing well, even during the SUV craze. And they were gaining market share against similar-sized domestic offerings.

GM saw big $$$ in SUVs, and really dropped the ball when it came to the car market. I don't fault them for building the things, they would have been stupid not to given the demand. But like I said, they put most of their eggs in that basket, and now have little to fall back on.

quote Originally posted by GT86: How so? Toyota and the rest aren't providing 100% paid-for healthcare, and I would bet they don't have the pension plans that GM did. I'm sure they've got 401k, but any matching they do will end when the employee quits or retires. And I highly doubt they will continue to contribute towards health insurance after the employee is no longer working.

The Big Three won't be paying 100% anymore, either. They currently aren't, only to retired workers, who have a signed contract for their benefits. All that ends 2010, when the UAW takes over paying for benefits. One more year, and all automakers will be about equal.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Toyota and the rest WILL have these same legacy costs... someday. Because their workers will eventually retire. And they will have to pay their retirement benefits, just like the Big Three does. Right now, they have virtually no retirees, so their legacy costs are negligable. That won't be the case 50 years from now. By then, all worker's costs across all the manufacturers will be about the same

We aren't talking about "in 50 yrs"--we are discussing 'today', but you can be sure Toyota etc have seen what mistakes Big 3 made and will avoid making the same.

quote The big problem for the Big Three right now is upper management's bad decisions about which cars (or trucks) to produce. they chose trucks and SUVs and ignored small and mid-size cars, and ignored the handwriting on the wall.

They built what was selling--what was popular-what the public wanted to buy. Granted, they had nothing in the works for near future release, should America change change it's wants (which it did--for about 1 yr), but now that gas has dropped, trucks and suvs are again selling, at least around here.

quote I would ask you all, what is the solution? Should we allow GM and the others to abandon their retirees and YOYO them? "You're On Your Own, pal (and good luck with that! Hahahahaha!)" Or how about universal health care, and an expanded retirement program, for all American workers? Or is there another alternative? Any ideas?

Yes, tho you will not like them. GM should be left alone to it's own fate. It is too big all across the board. Bottom to top, legacy included. When (not if) it goes bankrupt, the federal govt will assume the pension plans, and it "should" restructure them to no more than whatever % of full pay our US Military retirees recieve.

The foreign car companies are in trouble too right now. Sure they are smaller and have more cash on hand but that just means they will last a little bit longer, but they ARE going to go too. I can't remember where I read it but Honda is planning on shutting down a number of facilities for a few months.

I have a question for you guys. The pension fund for the retired employee's was funded, so what happened to the money? Did they pull a SS thing like congress has been doing all along?
I ask this because of the extra 20 or 30 some odd dollars an hour that they are adding to the dollar an hour number for existing workers. Sounds like creative accounting to me.