ent72olds

Bob,
I cant speak for the UAW worker, and I'm not sure what industry/biz you're in, but a lot of the "big companies" are doing away with pensions, and moving to 401k's with the company making a larger contribution. The big reason I took my job was for a good pension and retirement plan, but when the bottom of our economy fell out a few years ago, the shareholders(John Q Public) were upset and where do you think the company "found" new profit! Yes, my paycheck...along with a bunch of layoffs! Now, I don't want to sound selfish, and I'm still thankful to have a job, but not only did I lose an important part of my "future"(key word, something the shareholders and execs do not care about because it would mean "waiting" to fill their pockets), but now I had to take on the extra responsibility and workload from the poor souls laid off! And don't ask my how my 401k is doing as we all know, that could be gone tomorrow...and the "healthcare benefits" you speak of, aren't all it's cut out to be...and besides, our president is going to make sure we all get healthcare soon enough, job or no job! Illegal immigrants get it! But that's a topic for another forum....also, let me preface, I don't intend any malice by my comments. Just exercising my right to free speech!

jaunty75

This was true right up to the moment that the U.S. Government (i.e., me) had to step in and bail out Chrysler and GM. Now these good benefits packages are costing ME money as a taxpayer.

If GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota/Honda or any other company, auto or otherwise, wants to hand their workers, union or otherwise, gold-plated pay and benefits packages, fine, but do so as long as you can do so and remain in business as a going concern WITHOUT my help as a taxpayer. As soon as you DO ask for my help, then I have a right to question, and criticize, what you do, including criticizing you for handing out unsustainable pay and benefits packages to your workers.

Destructor

As long as Soviet officials have anything to do with running GM I will not buy a GM vehicle.

On earth day I drive all three of my cars, the EPA can go F themselves.

MDchanic

If I, as a part owner of GM, could get a car at cost, I'd buy one.
Heck, I'd probably be wiling to buy one if I just got regular dividends from my "investment."

- Eric

MN71W30

I remember one big eared politition telling us about a sucking sound from the south. Old Ross was right. Your theory sounds good if we all had the same standard of living and played by the same rules. But to think that NAFTA hasn't affected manufacturing jobs here in the USA would be wishfull thinking. But the good news is, things should stablize as the other countries standard of living increases and ours decreases. Then no one will have any reason to cross the border and work in the USA.

Aceshigh

For people who are still clueless ,
Clinton DID NOT Create NAFTA
Ronald Reagan created NAFTA, and yes, cars were built in Canada before this went into effect.

http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/c...eng&menu=integ

1988 Canada already had a Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Clinton just took office and signed off on the
bill that Reagan started, and Bush Sr had Mexico's president sign just a month before Clinton took office.

It's not a Rep VS Dem issue, they both are responsible for allowing Free Trade.

Most UAW assembly line workers make $16-$39 an hour. The average is $28 an hour. That's a fair wage IMO.
Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour.
That's the part that is actually the problem. Not the hourly wages.
For every 5 retired UAW workers, they need 1 working to support their benefits IIRC.

Pensions and Healthcare benefits are a serious problem overall for any entity including State and Federal Govt's.
60 Minutes just did an episode on this on Dec 19th about how states are so broke
because of these ludicrous pensions, and it's plaguing many corporations like GM as well.

Watch: > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n7166220.shtml

Unions need to cut the unsustainable pension BS because the corporations are using those funds
as a backup, just like Enron, and the Federal Govt with Social Security. Everyone needs to
switch to a 401K and be responsible for their own retirement.

TK-65

The top wage on the assembly line is 28 dollars. Thats not the average thats the top wage, no one working the line is making more that that. Nobody is making 39 dollars on the line. Trust me, I work the line everyday.

Aceshigh

The wage I'm referring to includes:

Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour,
including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay.

It's the same as my pay.
I get $ X per hour, but that's NOT what I make total in wages. I get a night differential,
holiday pay, on call pay, overtime, etc. I also get free services, a company phone, a company
truck with paid gas card. That ALL can be included in my "Total wages"

So yes, it's very cryptic in how the information is presented to the casual reader.

This is one of the sources that I got the wages figures from.

http://iphone.indystar.com/posts/34860

coltsneckbob

Lets also compare that UAW wage to the 6 figure guy. Lets assume a low to mid level manager in a salaried postion of $120,000/year. The UAW work btw at $28/hour is making $28 * 40 hours per week * 52 working weeks per year = $58,240. And for the UAW worker we could add 5 hours per week of overtime for half a year which would be $28 * 150% * 5 * 24 = $5,040, but lets ignore that.

Now lets figure how many hours per week the management person typically spends at work. In most companies 40 hours is the minimum. This does NOT include lunch, so actually it is 45 hours, but lets not count that either. Very often though there are "working" lunches so lets say 41 actual working hours minimum. Add to this the always expected NON-PAID overtime. Lets not get too crazy so lets say we round out the week to 50 hours. Now lets add 1 hour per week for "self education" - required if one is to keep up (trust me it is always more). So now we have 51 hours per week....now:
1) Assume 48 working weeks of 52
2) Resulting in 120,000/51/48 = $49/hour

As far as company paid health, pension, other benefits lets assume it is 75% of the UAW number (since management rarely gets a better deal). A previous post said the UAW benefits were about $33.58/hr so we have:
$49 + (33.58 * 75%) = $74.14/hr

Given that this manager must compensate for a lousy pension as compared to the union employee we need to substract something. Therefore, lets assume that the manager in order to equalize his retirement include with the UAW must save at least $10,000/year (low estimate). That leaves him with:
$74 - (10,000/51/48) = $70/hour

Lets ignore the fact that generally a management position requires suits, ties, and dry cleaning etc. In the end the UAW worker on the line is getting:
$28 + $33 = $61/hr as compared to the $70/hr for the management worker

We can certainly quibble about the accurracy of the assumptions I have made here, but I don't think I am off by a tremendous amount. Besides the intent was to show that:
a) Selecting certain numbers (even if true) without the full context can
be misleading - in other words salary alone does not tell the whole story.
b) That the net per hour wages are closer then the salaries first suggest.

TK-65

COLA, cost of living, is not included anymore. We do not get it. Overtime? Yeah right. Night shift? Assembly lines at my plant do not run on midnights. Two shift in assembly at almost every plant. So adding in all that other "pay" is like adding in health and pension. In the real world, my check, I make 28 bucks an hour.

coltsneckbob

But, you do understand that no matter how you look at it you are not doing that much worse then some of those 6 figure mid level managers.

Longhorncutlass

To what extent do you believe that the way or manner a car (any car, foreign or domestic) is driven and taken care of affects it's reliability and longevity?

It would be interesting for someone to buy both a new Chevrolet Malibu or Impala and also buy a new Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord and drive and care for the Chevrolet and Toyota or Honda exactly the same and see which one was more reliable over the long term.

I think it has a lot to do with that car lasting, foreign or domestic.

TK-65

A typical UAW-represented worker at Chrysler, Ford or General Motors who has reached eligibility for receipt of an 80 percent Social Security benefit receives just over $18,000 per year from his or her employer.

MDchanic

These studies have been done in industry, generally using taxicab companies who have hundreds of cars that may not be switched off for a week or longer.

I have no idea how to find the results.

- Eric

coltsneckbob

Pretty good considering that I know from looking at my company's internal pension calculator that someone making $95,000/yr will receive just about that same amount after 30 years.

ent72olds

Bob, in your "equation", you're forgetting that most of the management positions you speak of also recieve quarterly bonuses, and what company doesn't pay for education? If you're taking classes having to do with your job, and future advancement, they company pays for it! Even on a lower level, in my industry, ASE, I-CAR etc., all are classes needed to be certified or you don't keep that job....paid for I will add, by the employee himself! I-CAR points aren't cheap....but I will give you this, the management guy does bring his work home (Blackberry, laptop), and never gets a "real" vacation. So, as you said, that does count for something.

ent72olds

Count yourself lucky you still have a pension! Don't put all your eggs in one basket! They could take it from you tomorrow!

TK-65

That same person, making 40,000 more a year, after the same 30 years will have made 1.2 million more in salary than the UAW worker.

Still not doing that much worse?????

coltsneckbob

Most companies will not pay for all the education you need. Sure I can take a 40 hour class, but that is almost always introductory or a little better. I still have to learn advanced stuff on my own. In addition when new standards/regulations/etc come out there is rarely a course for them. If you want to be a high performer then there is no question you need to spend extra hours on self education.

Part of it is too that in the management position the job is not nearly so repetitious . That is good and bad. Good in that it is not boring, bad in that you are always having to learn something new.

When you mention being lucky about a pension it reminded me of an acquaintance that retired a few years ago from a mid level management position. He was informed recently that the company would no longer pay anything toward his health benefits. If he wanted to stay in the plan he now has to pay $1,500 a month. That is a 4x increase. The union health benefit is locked in (unless they agree to renegotiate).

OK, I am not complaining. And I agree with you that for now I am lucky to have that pension available......but who knows. My point as I said before is that the union workers who complain that management make the big bucks need to understand the whole picture. In addition, to get back to the original point that was somewhere in the middle of the thread LOL, the cost of labor is a very significant part of the cost of the USA made automobile. To be more specific it is the union costs. You can remove all mid level management and it will hardly dent the cost structure.

I don't have a solution. I do know that a UAW worker needs to make a decent wage to live. What is decent, well that I just don't know.

I don't have information on the Japanese or German wage structure for line/union workers, but I think it would be interesting to compare. If they are similar or less then we have to ask why is it that they still beat us (albeit by less margin then before) in quality? Are the car's components of less quality? If so why......does that get us back to the long term costs of union benefits.....I dunno.

coltsneckbob

Well, again you're not accounting for all the factors. Yes on the face of $1.2M more in salary, but that manager has to lay out more for certain expenses (as I've outlined). Has to save more per year (due to lower pension) - so you need to subract out the UAW pension from that $1.2. And finally consider the additional hours required. If the UAW person had to put in all the additional "at home" work time they would significantly increase their yearly income thus further eroding the $1.2M gap that you cite.

TK-65

The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400, which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.

TK-65

Whatever. From the way you put it, every middle manager in America is going to be in line for these low wage UAW jobs. Just not worth it to make 1.2 million more over 30 years, dry cleaning those damn suits and answering email at home is just too much to bear.

coltsneckbob

I did some googling just now and I saw something that said the UAW says that labor is under 10% of the price of a new car (not a fixed amount)......though I can imagine that if that is an average that the cost as a percentage is much higher for a lower priced car then for an expensive one. That is perhaps why Cadillac can compete so well, but less expensive brands suffer to the Japanese brands.

To say the labor cost is $2,400 is simply not enough information to draw any conclusion from. I can possibly guess what direct cost is, but not sure what indirect includes - does it include benefits? R&D? Or, is simply things like Human Resources, building maintenance, etc?

coltsneckbob

LOL you are right in some cases I know managers that ask themselves that very question. Hey, look I am not saying that a UAW makes as much as a manager. They don't. But, you need to understand that they make a good wage in comparison.

Additionally, managers become management for several reasons. There is alway the "hope" (not so much nowadays) of advancement to better positions. They do not like assembly line (repititious work) perhaps. Or, simply because there is a marginally better increase in pay. There is also the fact that a management position is much more marketable or interchangeable in different industries - so in that sense there is at least (the illusion) of job security. And yes they will make a bit more and if they are smart they can parlay that into something more substantial after 30 years.

MN71W30

The 1,000,000 question. Whats a fair wage here in the USA when a foreign company can pay it's workers 10 times less than an American employer. Even if the big evil unions cut their wages and benefits, how much would they have to cut them to compete with a third world country? The wages would have to be very close to the foreign wage... Period!!! Maybe cheaper because of all the other rules and regulations our companies need to adhere to in this country. In my eye's, There's no easy way around this one.
It's all part of a cycle. When things were good the unions took what they could. When times are tough, the companies will watch you starve on the street and the wages will tumble. People pay $75.00 to watch a football game. Who determined that price? The money was there and they took it. When people decide it's too much and stay at home the prices will fall. This recession/depression is gonna hurt. And it's gonna hurt along time.

coltsneckbob

Yes, you are right about that being the big question. It goes both ways too. How much is too much. CEOs of many foreign companies make something like 10 to 20 times the avg employee wage. In the USA most CEOs make 110x as much at a minimum up to 200x as much.

In addition, and this is a prickly topic, foreign governments typically subsidize industry through national healthcare, tariffs and other such things that we don't. I am not certain in the long run which is better, but again, as always, the picture is much more complicated than a simple number.

Aceshigh

This guy ^ ^ Coltsneckbob is hitting all the key points
Very true and I agree with just about every angle you've addressed.

BTW I just got back from a Ford dealership scoping out all the new Fords.
I can honestly say I'd consider a new Ford in a heartbeat except for 1 problem.....

The pricetags are INSANE!!!!!
$50,000 for a new 2011 Ford Explorer fully loaded. Are these people retarded ??
http://www.autotropolis.com/auto-new...-explorer.html
Is Ford trying to move itself into the luxury level of pricing ??
These vehicles have stepped up into a new level of quality appearances, and designs.
But I can't see them selling very many........not at these prices.

coltsneckbob

I never expect to pay MSRP. In fact on the Mazda I just got my wife I got 12% off of MSRP. The magic words are "If you meet my price I will sign right now". They did and I did.

A few years ago I bought an Escalade. I wanted 15% off of MSRP plus the rebate of something like $7,500. I had the salesmen and 2 of those slimy back office guys hovering over me. After 10 min of their haranguing me I got up and said I am going to Mercedes. As I put on my coat the big back office guy said OK you got it.

Excluding the rebate I would start (and stay) with $42,500 as my price. Rebates on top of that. I think that is still a lot for an Explorer though since that vehicle has long since recouped its development expense.

ent72olds

Explorer is all new.....crossover now!

citcapp

The reason I stopped buying new cars 30 years ago.

By two years old still have warranty save big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

citcapp

GoodOldsGuyDougie

66ninetyeightls
You don't know what your talking about concerning NAFTA. And I don't give a damn what goes on up there. And that BS that goods will become cheaper is always a crock. Whats cheaper in automobiles? Nothing! I'm tired of saving other countries. Its time this country took care of itself plain and simple.



Aceshigh-really now, you figured out who to google something. The fact is Clinton(the fat slob Joke that he is) Signed the bill into Law. Under the same BS as oh this will make goods cheaper for everyone. as noted above, only the Clinton supporters would go for that BS. Its always a lie. Nothing every gets cheaper. If it does it becomes like chinese drywall. No thanks.

BIGJERR

MMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

My Olds Intrigue just turned 191K.........One of the best cars I have owned.....

I shopped around for my last car,Took me a month to get a Deal.......

2007 Pontiac Torrent.......20K on the odom.....Blue book(JOKE) $17k
They pitched there points on it being the same baseline as a Equinox blah blah.....
Isnt Pontiac getting discountinued I asked? MMM Yes............$4600 off blue book baby.......Still have GMs 3 years or 30k and 10 years 100k on driveline.......Happy so far!

MDchanic

Dougie, I don't give a rat's behind about Clinton, but the fact is that this law was originated under Ronald Reagan, pushed by GHW Bush, and carried along by Bill Clinton. It is a major international treaty, which took years to enact, and it is absolutely NOT just a Democrat thing. If you want to blame Clinton for it, then go ahead, be my guest, but the fact of the matter is that BOTH parties sold our country out, and worked damn hard to do it.

Hate Clinton all you want, just don't forget to hate Reagan and Bush while you're at it.

- Eric

Aceshigh

How about some comic relief fella's. Right there.

Might have helped you before you spouted off saying Clinton CREATED NAFTA
which allowed GM vehicles to be built OUTSIDE of the United States.

Might have also clued you in to the fact there was a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT with Canada already since 1988.
So NAFTA wasn't the first to allow it. Dee Dee Dee. By my count, that's 2x you were incorrect.
So lets recap , Reagan CREATED NAFTA, Clinton SIGNED NAFTA, and GM already had clearance
to build outside of the USA for tariff free importation long before NAFTA.

For a modern reference: The 1993 Chevrolet Camaro was produced in Canada even before NAFTA was signed.
GM has been building vehicles in Canada since 1915, and the 1965 AutoPact removed many tariffs.

Want a shovel to dig deeper ?? BTW I did a report on several Free Trade Agreements in college
just a few years ago. So I can answer most of your questions about FTA's. Both political parties are involved.

MN71W30

I became aware of the origins of NAFTA only a couple months back from my brother in law. My brother in law owns a small welding company and it has made a decent living for 25 years. He is a union hater and I'm sure he can defend his position pretty well on the subject. But now he is getting concerned about foreigners squeezing him out.
He likes to spout off about the UAW also, and I agree, they seemed to have backed themseves into a corner. But the reality is, early on my brother in law made an honest living paying his welders below what a union company would pay theirs and enjoy the profit margin, Most of his employees never got benefits, they worked hard and lived a lower middle class lifestyle.
Now he is faced with foreign labor that can easily under cut him and it is just a matter of time before his doors will be closed. Now they are enjoying the profit margin.
Maybe I look at things a little to simplified. This seems to be a destructive situation. And I don't think all the poop has hit the fan yet for the good old USA.

Aceshigh

No , I agree with you. We have not seen the full effects. Free Trade is going to be the demise of the middle class in America along with the immigrant Amnesty yet again. Our leaders are trying to separate the classes of people by eliminating the middle class. Granted Unions CREATED the Middle Class in the 30's with that Flint Michigan strike many economists say. They fought for better wages. But the pensions and healthcare for retiree's is what is becoming it's demise with Free Trade.

NAFTA wasn't the real problem. The Chinese Trade Agreement of 2000 was a MUCH bigger problem. NAFTA was really just adding Mexico. Technically speaking here, when you walk into a Target or Walmart or Home Depot , look at where 99.9% of the tools and products are made TODAY.......they are Made in China. China is the REAL threat to our economy IMO. They are controlling their currency value to not rise. It's going to be our demise.

My vote is to reinstill the Trade Tariffs and protect American workforce labor. But the cat is already out of the bag, and corporate Giants like Walmart with more money then several countries combined will fight it and win. We need a Congress and President who can fight back to regain what America has lost. Otherwise.......you better start taking up a 2nd language. I'm taking Spanish and I'm 36......sucks. Mandarin will probably be a good 2nd choice for business.

MN71W30

Gulp.
Great post.
My other brother in law was a VP at 3M. He warned me about China 20 years ago. I didn't give it a second thought at the time.

Wǒ xūyào yī fèn gōngzuò)

That means " I need a job" in Chinese.

GoodOldsGuyDougie

Yea the still hard fact is Fat Boy President Clinton signed the Bill that opened the flood gates Aces-Low!. That's the only fact that really counts. That started the damage in ways you wouldn't understand since you like Jap Cars. Now go polish Obama's shoes and enjoy your change.


MDchanic -- for sure none of them are all alone in the damage they are creating for our country. I'd like to swing at all of them.

MN71W30

I think the fact that really counts is that we agree it was a bad move for the USA. International pressure probably had as much to do with it as our presidents. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I would bet there is a long range plan in place. I know it is written that the borrower is a slave to the lender. But it seems that if we close the doors on China's goods, their economy will hit a brick wall. I don't think it's an issue that can be resolved on the forums of Classic Olds.