I wanted to create a thread that will lay out the truth about the UAW.

For the record, I'm not union. I have worked with union members in my field, and even in the military, and found them to be a pain in the a**, frustrating, and a stickler for their rules which some people mistake for being lazy (I blamed the contract negotiators far more than I blame the rank & file.... it takes 2 sides).

But at the same time, my dad (a trucker after he bailed on the steel industry way before it declined) was union. My uncle, a airline mechanic then shop boss for United was union. And pretty much 90% of the people who I knew had parents, friends, and relatives in unions. The union also almost singlehandedly created the American middle class, and was the counterweight to management abuses of the workforce that although are extremely rare, still occasionally happen today (Oshawa anyone?).

So although, I personally have issues with unions, I also keep in mind my Western Pennsylvania union based roots (though I've never been a part of one, and always have been on the opposite side) and in this instance the facts of what's going on as oppose to repetitious quotes and sayings that have no real relation to current situations.

I'm usuing your post ol'93formula, because as you point out and have read, there are alot of boards out there that have people who are extremely vocal in laying blame on the unions, yet give a free pass to decision makers who have greater responsibility for what happens in a company, as well as other number factors, simply because it's intellectually the easy thing to do... not because it's right.

You know, Formula, anyone posting that UAW members make $100 per hour is a complete and utter moron. There is no polite, let alone more accurate word to describe them. All these idiots have to do is go to google or yahoo, and type in "UAW wages" or some variation of that, and search this themselves.

Here's the skinny.

The UAW has 2 areas of workers. "Assemblers" and "Skilled". You're either putting the parts together, or you're making the part.

Skilled trades make more. An example of a skilled trade are the guys putting working in the foundaries, the guys putting the engines together. The UAW guy that handbuilt that LS7 engine is a skilled UAW member.

Assemblers are the guys that you see pictures of on the news clips guiding in seats, bolting in dashboards, bolting on suspension parts, etc.

Pay scale depends on how long you've worked at the company and what your job description is.

Now listen to this, and listen to it good.

The average wage for an UAW assembler at GM (typically the higher paying company) is $27.81 per hour.

The average wage for a skilled trade person at GM is $32.32 per hour.

Your first question would (and should) be, where do these people get their $100 per hour figures.

My impulsive reply would be out of their a**. But in reality where they get their numbers is an gross exxageration of another figure: Total Compensation.

As a whole, people with either little intellegence or people who want to use any thing to back up a contention will carelessly grasp a soundbite instead of the whole picture.

Total compensation includes not just wages, but overtime pay, shift premiums (pay for taking unpopular shifts), holidays, & vacation days. Also included are employer paid costs such as training, health care, premiums, contributions to Social Security & Medicare, workmans comp insurence, & unemployment insurence. Some estimates go as far as including figures that add in the cost of retirees no longer on the payroll divided into the number of employees still working in the company and add that to compensation.

This Heritage Foundation article includes retiree costs (legacy costs) in with the numbers in this article:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2135.cfm

But what the Heritage Foundation ignores the inconvienent fact that the Japaneese plants in the US they use as an example have have next to no retirees since they have only been manufacturing in the US barely 25 years. Meanwhile, GM not only has more retirees due to them being here in the US the whole time, but since GM once had half the US market and a huge percentage of auto workers putting together all those vehicles before the days of computerized assembly that started in the 80s, of course if you add in retirees into Total Compensation Labor Costs, GM (as well as the other 2 US automakers) are going to be at a huge disadvantage to Japaneese factories here. DUH!



As far as how much of the price of a new car is related to labor, keep in mind the average price of a new car is about $29-30,000. The labor that went into that vehicle (meaning Total Compensation) is about $2,400. Less than 10%. The dealership where you buy your car typically gets more than that.



Then there's the idea that UAW members get paid $60 per hour mowing grass or taking out garbage. First of all, as mentioned, the idea that they get paid that much is ridiculous. 2nd of all, those types of tasks are outsourced, often to "temps" or janitorial agencies. In the old days, those who were no longer capable of working on the lines due to injury or age, and didn't want to stay home or retire, did this type of work. There are still a few dinosaurs around doing this. But it is by no means widespread. You could probably count the number of people in those positions. But anti-union people like to point out these individuals as the norm for the UAW.


An area anti UAW people like to also ignore is that the UAW is a shadow of it's former self.

There was less than 460,000 UAW members last spring before the job slashing this year. In 1979, there was 1.5 million UAW members. That's close to a 70% decline in membership.



The areas where the UAW does rightfully earn scorn is with the jobs bank. When a factory is closed or employees are layed off, members continue to earn most of their pay. The idea is that the time will be used for training, job placement, or if neither ios available, they will do odd jobs around the area. In theory till the factory reopens. But most factories closed over the past number of years simply aren't coming back. Ford took the lead to end this by simply buying out half it's workforce. Chrysler did a modified version of this. GM is still stuck with a large Jobs Bank because it's the larger company and has more factories.


I have advocated people to check things themselves, because that's the only way to have intellegent discussions.

It's one thing to have different points of view on a subject. This forum (let alone the world) would be a boring place if there weren't differences of opinion. But at the very least, one doesn't need to be an expert (we all have lives outside of the internet). But at the very minimum, one should have at least the knowledge of what's possible and what's BS when taking on a topic.


http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php
http://www.baynews9.com/content/9/20...+Below+500,000

 

Guy, I'd like your take on the blurb I read within an article in the USAToday. This was a few weeks back and they were quoting some workers from Lordstown.

In this article, a worker said they were going to have to cancel a planned bake sale / fundraiser for the community because GM informed them that, in a change from previous years due to the cutbacks, they would not be paid overtime for being at the bake sale.

No bias here as my background is much like yours. I know what I think about this, now I'd like to hear what you think.

 

I have a few questions: what is the average wage earned by employees in "transplant" auto factories and how does it compare to UAW rates?

I understand that new hires are coming on board at lower rates, and that attrition will eventually bring wages in line with others in the same industry.

Why wouldn't the UAW allow parity to be achieved immediately by lowering certain wages now instead of insisting on the previously negotiated attrition process? It seems to me that this eventuality may never come to pass if GM dies next month.

On the management side, the only way to "streamline" GM's decision making process is by eliminating most of the middle managers. With a million approvals needed for any project to go forward, its no wonder approvals take longer than engineering solutions do. Most of the beaureaucrats need to be cut, not just reorganized.

Then there's the dealer network. Pontiac dealers clamoring for duplicative cars, etc is a problem not easily solved without being able to tear up dealer contracts.

Ultimately, GM lacks a vision of what its brands need to be. It is interesting that the vision for Chevrolet and Cadillac is pretty clear, and those divisions seem to be thriving. Pontiac? Saturn? GMC? What vision does GM have for these brands, and more importantly does GM make decisions that are consistent with this vision?

While I credit GM's current existence to the fact that Wagoner undid a lot of Zarella's destructive work, cars like the G5 and G3 prove that Wagoner didn't stick to his guns.

Why are there four lambda vans? This duplication of effort and expense to placate the dealer base at the expense of the corporate vision is a management failure IMO.

I am a huge and unabashed GM fanboy. My ideal stable of cars would be a Buick Enclave, a CTS-V and a ZR1. The current situation has me literally depressed, and I'm not even in the industry anymore.

Understating the current situation by stating the UAW isn't at fault, or is exclusively at fault, or Wagoner is/isn't at fault fails to recognize that everybody is at fault. I was planning on trading my Grand Cherokee for an Enclave next spring. I still hope to be able to do so.

 

Here is an article that breaks down the $73 an hour figure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/bu...BLSW/lmdlDAW5A

B

 

The Unions deserve a lot of credit for the current work environments and safety at the workplace that we all enjoy today. Like anything else the pendulum swings both ways and for a time they got a little fat and lazy. But the trend is now going the other way.

I've said it before I don't begrudge the UAW for getting the best deal they could for their workers. I don't blame the Big 3 for giving in several times because that's the way their business has worked since Henry Ford. The UAW and the Big 3 can't help that the American economy has cheapened to the point where they are no longer viable. They really never had a chance against competitors following a more lean business model. Maybe they should have changed or maybe we should have protected them and us as a whole more efficiently. Lots of the problems we have today for people in need of healthcare and retirement have come because we chased the jobs that support that right out of this country. There would never be the need for a, almost certain to be flawed, National healthcare and nobody would be worried about their 401K's being gambled away on Wall St. if our employers supported us like they did for our parents and grandparents.

As we become just a part of the world economy we have to regress to levels as employees that we as a nation passed a long time ago. Why point at them for having too much and start looking as ourselves and our employer for offering too little.

In the end all will even out and it’s going to take this severe economic downturn to make it happen. Our bubble has burst.

 

Guy, with regard to skilled trades vs. "assemblers", where I work skilled trades are millwrights, pipe fitters, and electricians. Everyone else is production. This could be because we don't have much to really assemble, since we make parts and not cars.

 

Actually my first question is did anyone actually give $100 per hour figures and if so why take them seriously outside of trying to prove a point? What is that hypothetical assembly working making? about 208,000/yr?

Are you saying they are using Gross income with shift diff, and Pension payments to retired workers?


Do the Japanese plants have 401k and Pensions? Are they Unionized? What are the comparable hourly rates/benefits. Basically how do they compare?

how is that relevant? If they were supplying a service instead where the Service was 75% of the cost, or vise versa what would that matter?


Very interesting. Definately checking that out more later.

 

My question still remains from the last thread and was not addressed in guionM's solid post . . . why does someone who does a repetitive task like removing velcro from a windshield, etc, deserve $28/hr? That's $58,240 a year (without overtime)! Most teachers never see that kind of money. Hell, most hospital staff will never see that kind of money for jobs that require much more training and skill and thought to perform. I don't care if it's UAW or transplant or what, I can't justify that kind of money in my mind for such a simple, robotic job.

 

Most modern businesses only offer pensions and retiree healthcare to senior-level management. It's not just that GM has been around longer, but those transplant companies will never have significant legacy costs.

Essentially, the government is subsidizing "new-style" businesses through the Medicare program on the backs of "old-style" businesses like GM. This is one playing field that could easily be leveled through health-care reform.

 

A rather depressing article. It make an assumption. Part of the reason that American cars haven't done that well is because historically the U.S. manufacturers have taken shortcuts to make up for their higher labor costs.

If the labor costs are brought into parity with the imports, and the car quality is just as good (new Malibu and Fusion seem fully competitive with Accord and Camry), how long will it take for Americans to pay as much for the Malibu and Fusion as for the Accord and Camry.

If it takes a long time, then Americans actually have to charge less, which means they have to produce them for less money, which means that everyone up and down the chain actually have to make less money at American companies than they do at the imports. Otherwise, there will be only one outcome.

Back to the assumption in the first line. If enough people will pay just as much for a Malibu or Fusion as a Camry, and labor costs are brought into parity, then GM and Ford will compete with Toyota.

 

No, Japanese plants are not unionized. The UAW would love to get in there, but they always get voted down. If you keep your workers happy, there isn't a reason for them to form a union.

 

That is interesting. The articles says that fixing worker costs to equal the competitors would save GM about $800 per vehicle. Let look at that.

$800 x 17 million vehicles a year = $13.6 BILLION savings per year

$800 x 12 million vehicles a year = $9.6 BILLION savings per year

Now, those savings coupled with management restructuring and condensing of their model lineup could really make a difference.

 

You can reasonably say that extreme criticism of the UAW is without merit. You can say they have made concesssions, or have a shrinking membership (so what) or are just PART of the problem. Thats all true.



UAW is still a problem.

Problems they caused in the past are at the root of the situation. The fact is the current membership has been sold out. UAW leadership has USED them to gain and protect the ridiculousness of the past members, the retirees.

You can't use current UAW situations to defend past blunders. There existence is of no help to a dead company. We are past the time for debate. The UAW needs to be removed from the tit so that the drastic changes necessary can move forward.


There is no pro-UAW arguement that makes sense. Labor cost is not a strong point for the Big three. Trying to shelter them from reality is delusional and political.

 

I have no problem with the labor at GM making a good living, when GM was making millions in profits every year. I think that the workers should participate in the success of the company, only fair-

Likewise, when lean times hit, and GM has to tighten it's belt, I think all employees, hourly and management alike need to reduce their expectations- It may screw up your budget, but what would you rather do- go from 50 thou a year to 40 thou, or 50 thou a year to unemployment? If you take the lost, you will still be there when the company turns around- think about it-

 

Those numbers look a little high. 17 and 12 million are total car sales for 2007 and 2008. I don't think you should include cars sold by Toyota and Honda.

GM made a sold a total of 9.3 million worldwide last year. 4 million were sold in the US.

$800 x 4 million vehicles a year = 3.2 billion. Still not a small amount.

But, GM lost about 38 billion last year. Where does the other ~35 billion go?

Everytime I turn on the radio or TV all I hear is "It's the pay". In Congress the only thing they get stuck on is "How much do you pay?".

Can anybody provide a link to an article saying where the other billions go?