quote Originally posted by Red88FF: 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.

I would imagine it's a result of "wishful thinking", (Not realizing retirees would live as long as they do.) bad actuary science and taking from the funds to pay off the BUYOUTS that they've been offering over these years.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: 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.

The real question is, was it funded? Was there a half week's pay going into the fund each paycheck an employee got? I bet in times that weren't as lean, the company said, "we're making tons of money, if I do not pay as much into the fund this quarter, I can beat wall street earnings projections, and get a bigger bonus" and thus less money went into the fun than perhaps needed, with the intention if making it up at a future date.

Also do not forget, I think the biggie is skyrocketing health-care costs. They probably never projected those to run as high as they have in recent years, and that may have broken the camel's back to an extent as well... 100% paid health-care to retirees.... wow. If any of the big 3 go under, yes mgmt made some poor decisions, but the unions did extort unreasonable benefits as well saying "gimme gimme gimme or we wont work, and you're not allowed to hire anyone else" leadership after a point either must concede, or the company goes under right then and there anyways....

Funded according to projected costs--but not on a day to day basis. For the last several years, it has been funded with borrowed money.

With O/T, plus holiday pay, plus "incentives", plus shift premiums....its REALLY not that hard to break 100k in an auto plant. I've done it a couple times.

Mind you, the work is so boring you go into the hole 250k to pay for the labotomy just so you can tolerate it, so in the end its a 150k loss.

What about the Jobs Bank Program?

.

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

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: It basically boils down to the fact that the anti-union haters want to make it look like union workers make more than they actually do in order to stir up hatred toward union members. Simple as that. Fact of the matter is that GMs workers are paid competitive with their counterparts at Toyota, and in fact will be be paid less than their counterparts within two years, and will also be taking pay cuts in the form of increased copays for insurance, while at the same time they'll be taking pay cuts in the form of real wage erosion due to inflation with no compensating pay raises. The union-haters have achieved what they want, less workers working and more workers working for less. It's the American way, isn't it? JazzMan

No, it's just that union supporters insist on denying that unions have a negative impact on a company's bottom line. If UAW workers will truly be making less in 2 years, they will simply be paying the price for the excesses of those who went before them. Excesses, by the way, that were pushed for by the UAW. The bill is finally coming due, and trying to pin that on "union haters" is exceptionally hypocritical, since it was the union that ran up the bill.

Increased copays? Welcome to the real world, the world where health care costs continue to climb. Do you expect a company to shoulder all of those increases?

You'd probably label me as a "union hater". I don't hate the unions, but I hate the excessive burdens they've placed on industry. They had a purpose in the past, but the need for them has eroded to the point where they pose more negatives than positives. I don't understand why you feel that workers need unions in order to get competitive pay. I don't understand why you feel that workers need unions to get benefits. I don't understand why you feel a company must be forced to deal with a union if that company doesn't wish to. I don't understand why you feel a person needs to rely a socialist extortion organization to earn a living.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: As of 2007 the contracts offload the pension benefits from GM by 2010 anyway so the point is moot, the unions have given up enough benefits to make their wages comparable or even less than what Toyota et. al. are paying, and the Toyota workers *are* non-union. JazzMan

And profitable.

Interesting, that you just 'assume' 99% of the responders here believe that $70/hr is true wages. I personally know of no one who believes that.
Way back when, I drove a company vehicle for about 18 yrs on a daily basis as an oilfield mechanic. Took it home every night, since I and the other 3 mechs were always on call 24/7. Company paid most of the fuel, and all maintenance. That vehicle, was figured in as part of our income/benefits--even regarding Fed Income Tax. For about 12 years, I did not even own a personal vehicle, as I used their truck almost all the time for both business and personal use. Got a new truck every 2 years minimum--depended how many miles were on the old one. Other things that figure in to a wage benefit package included uniforms, health/hospitalization, profit sharing program etc, tho not taxable until disbursement took place.

I do NOT hate unions. Just UAW, and a very few others. My father was a union member his entire career at Humble/Exxon. They never went on strike, and the fact he was in a union was never really even talked about much--it was just that unimportant of a detail. My father lived ate breathed Humble/Exxon--not lived ate breathed OCAWIU. I have 2 nephews employed at Exxon/Mobil Baytown and they are the same way. The company is all important--OCAWIU (or whatever it is now called) is just a minor detail in their lives.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Interesting, that you just 'assume' 99% of the responders here believe that $70/hr is true wages. I personally know of no one who believes that.

I am thinking that only 1% believed it, Jazzman. Believed that we believed it.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: ........workers at GM making less than their Toyota counterparts......

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Of course, the article indicates that in less than two years GM employees will be making less than what their counterparts do at the import plants here in the states.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: At that point, GMs employees will actually be making slightly less, including the less than $10/hour in benefits that they receive, than what the import car makers pay their domestic line workers........

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: ...... the unions have given up enough benefits to make their wages comparable or even less than what Toyota et. al. are paying, and the Toyota workers *are* non-union.

As maryjane mentions, they are also profitable. They are also hiring.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The union-haters have achieved what they want, less workers working and more workers working for less. It's the American way, isn't it?

Think about what you said. The American way ? Competition is the American way. Not like the UAW and the Teamsters used to use violence against strike busting workers. Union haters ? I have often said I would like to see the oilfields I work in unionized. Less workers working, the American way ? We have created more jobs and opportunities...........More workers working for less ? The law of supply and demand James. Actually, with the laws of supply and demand, a lessor amount of workers can demand a higher pay.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Also, our insurance premium went up 40% over last year, that's the cost the company pays the insurance company. Now we pay $537/month, $154/month more. Did I get a raise of $154/month? No, and in fact, my company now charges me $40/month more for my insurance than they did before. That means that I got a $40/month pay cut, even though my wages and benefits went up $154. JazzMan

Your insurance premiums went up $154/month

You are having an extra $40/month witheld from your check because of the increase.

Your company is paying the $114/month difference to the insurance company.

Yes, your company gave you a $114/month raise, or $1,368/year. No way in hell is there any justification for you to feel like YOUR COMPANY gave you a pay cut, because they didn't.

Be sure to tell them thank you.

John Stricker

Not sure what this has to do with anything but this seems to be as good a place as any to mention it.

Back about 5 years ago, my daughter worked at a local Rite Aid as a pharmacy tech here in my area which is a highly unionized / UAW city.

She mentioned The NUMBER ONE most filled prescription filled by UAW insurance hands down at the pharmacy she worked at was Viagra.

so, how about a poll:
what do YOU think should be the yearly income of vairous auto company jobs?
just spout off a few positions and what you think is a fair wage for that position.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: You obviously didn't bother reading the article before posting your erroneous reply. Shame on you. You could at least bother reading the whole thing. What possible harm could it do to do that? JazzMan

I read it. I just happen to understand terms like average and legacy cost. My statement is not erroneous. The fact is those workers cost about $70 an hour when all the benefits are factored in. But You should go back to calling soldiers cowards. You are much better at it.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: A fair wage is what the free market will bare. The union removes that main factor.

untrue - well, the 1st part is true - what the market will bear.
again:
so, how about a poll:
what do YOU think should be the yearly income of vairous auto company jobs?
just spout off a few positions and what you think is a fair wage for that position.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 11-24-2008).]

/\ we've already done that once in another thread--maybe 2 different threads. No need to go back is there?
Anyway--looking forward, regarding the premise that UAW is footing the bill for GM's pensions:

The VEBA, (Voluntary Employee's Benefit Association) which is actually being hailed by Detroit media and civic leadership as a positive measure, is in reality a way for the UAW to protect its retirees from losing their health benefits in the event of an automaker bankruptcy. Negotiated by GM in 2007, it requires the UAW to administer retiree health benefits beginning in January 2010. That’s the part the industry’s defenders keep pointing to – the notion that it offloads retiree benefits onto the union, as if the union was going to pay these benefits out of its own pocket.
(In reality, the only the thing UAW is shouldering, is the administration of the benefits--as I have said several times.)

In fact, GM is required to continue spending $1.8 billion a year through the end of 2009 on retiree health benefits, while also bankrolling the VEBA to the tune of an astounding $24.1 billion so the funds are ready for the UAW to begin administering on January 1, 2010.

GM will be required to make up to 20 additional annual payments of $165 million apiece in order to guarantee that retiree health benefits for UAW members are not reduced at all for 25 years. This is what the Big Three would have us believe amounts to legacy cost relief.

So yeah, it's funded--sorta-maybe--in the future--by GM--not UAW. UAW just pays for the cost of administrating the plan.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: /\ we've already done that once in another thread--maybe 2 different threads. No need to go back is there? Anyway--looking forward, regarding the premise that UAW is footing the bill for GM's pensions: The VEBA, (Voluntary Employee's Benefit Association) which is actually being hailed by Detroit media and civic leadership as a positive measure, is in reality a way for the UAW to protect its retirees from losing their health benefits in the event of an automaker bankruptcy. Negotiated by GM in 2007, it requires the UAW to administer retiree health benefits beginning in January 2010. That’s the part the industry’s defenders keep pointing to – the notion that it offloads retiree benefits onto the union, as if the union was going to pay these benefits out of its own pocket. (In reality, the only the thing UAW is shouldering, is the administration of the benefits--as I have said several times.) In fact, GM is required to continue spending $1.8 billion a year through the end of 2009 on retiree health benefits, while also bankrolling the VEBA to the tune of an astounding $24.1 billion so the funds are ready for the UAW to begin administering on January 1, 2010. GM will be required to make up to 20 additional annual payments of $165 million apiece in order to guarantee that retiree health benefits for UAW members are not reduced at all for 25 years. This is what the Big Three would have us believe amounts to legacy cost relief. So yeah, it's funded--sorta-maybe--in the future--by GM--not UAW. UAW just pays for the cost of administrating the plan.

so - what was the results? or maybe a hint on search words?

And, the ugly "S" word is circulating about the web this morning. Strike.

"As GM (GM) Looks At Chapter 11, UAW Should Dust Off Strike Fund
The GM (GM) board is looking at a Chapter 11 as a way to get the car company out of its mess. Even if Congress approves funds for the car company, it might insist on a pre-packed bankruptcy to wipe out common shareholders, debt obligations, and significant parts of its liabilities for UAW retirement and health care programs.

In other words, the new VEBA fund may never get the cash due to it from GM, putting hundreds of thousands of current and former GM workers into the ranks of the uninsured.

Remember--I have already said several times, that GM is still paying and will continue to have to pay for the pensions--not UAW?
continuing.......

The UAW only has one point of leverage now and that is a strike. A work stoppage would undermine any attempt to allow the company to operate "normally" under court protection. A bankruptcy judge would certainly mandate that the union return to work and senior UAW officials might spend some time in jail when the union ignores the order.

It is impossible to say how much the market downturn has reduced the amount of capital available in the UAW strike find. In January 2007, the Detroit News said that the union had $874 million. Even at half that, the UAW could support a long enough strike to make the court and GM negotiate with it over benefits.

Douglas A. McIntyre

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-24-2008).]

.

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

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so - what was the results? or maybe a hint on search words?

Dunno-- I posted my thoughts on it, but don't think many others did. It was an offshoot of the thread that got closed.

.

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

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: How much are they coughing up to honor their obligations and promises? Dunno, but I'm sure it's less than what they originally promised, and again, in less than 24 months it'll be a done deal. JazzMan

The answer is billions, and I believe they will need to continue making payments even after 2010. The UAW isn't taking on the chore of funding, they are just taking over the administration of the fund.

Yep, it will be a done deal in 24 months or less, except for "GM will be required to make up to 20 additional annual payments of $165 million apiece in order to guarantee that retiree health benefits for UAW members are not reduced at all for 25 years".

That is assuming GM isn't in Ch 7 or Ch 11 very soon and the US Treasury (American Taxpayer) is taking care of the pensions..........

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Stricker, if I lived in the make believe world where I could choose where to spend that money then I'd be happy with that "raise", but I live in the real world where the money I do have discretion on spending shrank by $40 a month. The real world where I have to pay for my own food, pay for my own gasoline to get to work, pay for everything that I spend. In this real world the money that I have to spend, actually spend, on things like mortgage, parts to fix my car, etc, is what matters to me. Maybe someday I'll get to go visit that fantasy world of yours, then maybe I can enjoy the benefits of my "raise", LOL. JazzMan

In the real world, your company has just decided to spend more of their money on you. In the real world, health care has costs, and it appears your company is carrying most of that burden. In the real world, your income has gone up, since you benefit from health insurance.

In your world, I could see how you'd be unhappy with this.

edit: are you required to purchase the insurance?

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-24-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Stricker, if I lived in the make believe world where I could choose where to spend that money then I'd be happy with that "raise", but I live in the real world where the money I do have discretion on spending shrank by $40 a month. The real world where I have to pay for my own food, pay for my own gasoline to get to work, pay for everything that I spend. In this real world the money that I have to spend, actually spend, on things like mortgage, parts to fix my car, etc, is what matters to me. Maybe someday I'll get to go visit that fantasy world of yours, then maybe I can enjoy the benefits of my "raise", LOL. JazzMan

Considering we all will eventually die no matter what, all insurance is discretionary spending. It just--at best--postpones the inevitable. If and when, I go to the hospital, I will enjoy the benefit of a similar "raise"--it beats not having ins at all--and the end of postponements.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Stricker, if I lived in the make believe world where I could choose where to spend that money then I'd be happy with that "raise", but I live in the real world where the money I do have discretion on spending shrank by $40 a month. The real world where I have to pay for my own food, pay for my own gasoline to get to work, pay for everything that I spend. In this real world the money that I have to spend, actually spend, on things like mortgage, parts to fix my car, etc, is what matters to me. Maybe someday I'll get to go visit that fantasy world of yours, then maybe I can enjoy the benefits of my "raise", LOL. JazzMan

yes - this is a tough spot for many to grasp. that big 'ol gap between what the employee gets and what the employer pays. because - pay is the incentive to the employee, isnt it? the cost to the employer is NOT the employees concern, is it? just because it costs you $50 to give me $40 - I still only get $40.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Stricker, if I lived in the make believe world where I could choose where to spend that money then I'd be happy with that "raise", but I live in the real world where the money I do have discretion on spending shrank by $40 a month. The real world where I have to pay for my own food, pay for my own gasoline to get to work, pay for everything that I spend. In this real world the money that I have to spend, actually spend, on things like mortgage, parts to fix my car, etc, is what matters to me. Maybe someday I'll get to go visit that fantasy world of yours, then maybe I can enjoy the benefits of my "raise", LOL. JazzMan

You could always tell your company to drop your health insurance and stop paying their portion of the premium and to stop taking out of your paycheck your health insurance payroll deduction. Also ask them for them to give you the amount that they pay into the health insurance company. Then you could get your own health insurance coverage with all that extra money.

Then you could spend all that money on fixing your car and paying your mortgage and buying your food. Screw paying for health insurance. You can be one of the "No Insurance Write Offs" people at your next hospital visit.

Or, you could buy a comparable health insurance plan on your own. Good Luck with that, Mr Bitter II.

quote Originally posted by aceman: You could always tell your company to drop your health insurance and stop paying their portion of the premium and to stop taking out of your paycheck your health insurance payroll deduction. Also ask them for them to give you the amount that they pay into the health insurance company. Then you could get your own health insurance coverage with all that extra money. Then you could spend all that money on fixing your car and paying your mortgage and buying your food. Screw paying for health insurance. You can be one of the "No Insurance Write Offs" people at your next hospital visit. Or, you could buy a comparable health insurance plan on your own. Good Luck with that, Mr Bitter II.

actually - for MOST people - this is actually the right answer. Drop your health care, and take that money, and put it into a HSA. It is of course very scary at first. but, once you get some $$$ built up in the HSA - you can now start keeping some of that extra income. But - this does mean you must excercise self control - and save money on your own. due to this, SS, 401K, etc - it is quite clear that many people are unable to save money. DO NOT attempt dropping insurance, and starting a HSA if know you cant save money. because you will end up with $5-$10k in cash at your disposal. and - you will need it at some time.

.

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

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: What good would 5-10k do in an HSA? A simple trip to the hospital could easily top 50k, and a cancer diagnosis can easily top half a million dollars unless you were lucky enough to die quickly, very quickly. My three days in the hospital this spring cost over $35,000, and it was just a couple of procedures. JazzMan

yup - this is not for everyone. you need to be a averagely healthy person. and, the younger you start this - the larger your HSA will can get. and, you dont have to save in an HSA either - but - I suggest that, just to keep things widely seperated.

and, the more people who do go and do this - the more insurance will go up for those who remain. until they will be forced to do what they did with auto insurance: force it upon everyone.

but, anyways - way O/T

we are dancing the gap between what an employee receives, and what an employer pays. well - try it this way: only one number matters to each concerned party. the employee is only concern with what is received - and the employer is only concerned with what it costs.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I asked my company specifically about this, dropping the coverage and giving me a pay raise equivalent to what they were paying under the old premium. They refused. They told me I could drop coverage entirely and save the $40, but not get another nickel back for saving them almost $500. But, with my heart problem that would be absolutely stunningly foolish. The hospitals down here don't "write off" unpaid health bills like they used to. Now they sell that debt to third party debt collectors for probably 50-70 cents on the dollar and the debt collectors go after you for the full hospital bill. They'll hound you day and night, try to garnish your wages, sue you in court, harass your neighbors and friends, try to get your relatives to pay your debt, etc. It's a booming business. So no, since I don't want to become an economic refugee I'll keep the insurance coverage. The extra $40 I am forced to spend there simply comes out of my discretionary spending in the consumer economy, hurting it just that tiny bit more. Actually, I'll just reduce my retirement savings rate instead, that's really the only slack I have left in my income/expense structure. Oh, the reason the insurance is so high for our company is that there are apparently two employees who've had transplants of some sort; since we can't fire them for getting sick the insurance company doubled our rates instead. I wonder if there is a way to get rid of those workers, and if that would lower my insurance copay. JazzMan

Right. So thank your boss for that pay raise you got via your company paying a majority of your increased health insurance.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: So no, since I don't want to become an economic refugee I'll keep the insurance coverage. The extra $40 I am forced to spend there simply comes out of my discretionary spending in the consumer economy, hurting it just that tiny bit more. Actually, I'll just reduce my retirement savings rate instead, that's really the only slack I have left in my income/expense structure. JazzMan

You are not forced to spend that extra $40, you are choosing to. As such, it is discretionary spending and it does contribute to the "consumer economy".

I agree that it would be foolish to go without health insurance, but you are not forced to have it. My insurance premiums will be increasing in January, and no, I'm not thrilled about that. But the insurance plan is increasing in cost, just like everything else. My employer is paying more, and since I benefit from the insurance, it's only fair that I pay my share of the increased cost. I'm not mad at my employer for passing on some of the burden to me.

I don't get your position. You want the insurance, you choose to have it, you benefit from it, but yet you don't feel you should be paying for it. Or am I missing something?

quote Originally posted by Wichita: 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.

I think $12 is too low, but in all seriousness, many college grads in professional positions don't make even $23 per hour...As an aside, $40K a year is only $19.25 per hour. How much should someone make to put cars to turn bolts and install windshields?