Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

[midcan5]

"No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees."

....

"As for whether Toyota workers earn more than employees of U.S. domestic automakers: In 2006, at Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., plant, workers averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members at Ford, General Motors and Daimler Chrylser, according to the Detroit Free Press. The difference was due to profit-sharing bonuses; Detroit's workers aren't getting many of those these days because, well, there's really nothing to share. The transplants don't give out much data, however, so it's hard to tell if this pattern is continuing or even if it applied to all Toyota plants in 2006.

A final note on all this: Labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle. And it's not the cost of American cars that people complain about; they're already often thousands of dollars less than their Japanese counterparts. Whatever changes may be made in the carmakers' labor agreements, we're convinced, and the recent hearings show, that there are much bigger problems in Detroit."

FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

 

[Skull Pilot]

that figure was total cost to the company per worker. no one ever implied it was their hourly rate

 

[Paulie]

that figure was total cost to the company per worker. no one ever implied it was their hourly rate

Nope, but that certainly hasn't stopped the liberals from claiming it anyway.

 

[Ravi]

that figure was total cost to the company per worker. no one ever implied it was their hourly rate

Are you joking? Read through the threads on this forum, almost all the right wingers have implied just that.

 

[midcan5]

that figure was total cost to the company per worker. no one ever implied it was their hourly rate

And you woke up, what 15 minutes ago, from a rip van winkle sleep?

Republicans dislike anyone making a decent salary or having equal rights for that matter.

"No, this defeat had little to do with fiduciary integrity. Rather, the Republicans’ torpedoing of this proposal was done because they despise labor unions. They despise everything unions stand for. Southern Republicans despise organized labor for the same reason Southern Republicans despised the civil rights legislation of the 1960s—because it interferes with their “right to choose.”"

David Macaray: Killing the Auto Bailout

 

[Paulie]

Are you joking? Read through the threads on this forum, almost all the right wingers have implied just that.

You ought to point some out. I only remember the ones I was involved in, where the few righties who WERE participating were arguing that the entire package consisting of $70/hr was too much. We all included the fact that some of it is benefits. If these automakers are going to survive, the people doing the labor are going to have to be willing to trim some of that $70. Be it pension, retirement package, wages, whatever.

It's been the lefties who have been putting the words in the mouths of the righties, from what I've seen. I went through the whole thing with Red Dawn a couple weeks ago, where he CONTINUALLY claimed I was implying $70 was all wages, even regardess of the fact that I continually corrected him throughout the discussion. It was like I wasn't even saying it, he was oblivious.

 

[oreo]

"No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing benefits to retirees."

....

"As for whether Toyota workers earn more than employees of U.S. domestic automakers: In 2006, at Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., plant, workers averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members at Ford, General Motors and Daimler Chrylser, according to the Detroit Free Press. The difference was due to profit-sharing bonuses; Detroit's workers aren't getting many of those these days because, well, there's really nothing to share. The transplants don't give out much data, however, so it's hard to tell if this pattern is continuing or even if it applied to all Toyota plants in 2006.

A final note on all this: Labor costs only account for about 10 percent of the cost of producing a vehicle. And it's not the cost of American cars that people complain about; they're already often thousands of dollars less than their Japanese counterparts. Whatever changes may be made in the carmakers' labor agreements, we're convinced, and the recent hearings show, that there are much bigger problems in Detroit."

FactCheck.org: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

Toyota workers--"non-union" by the way actually make $2.00 more per hr. that workers at the UAW.

THE PROBLEM: The union--& management made an agreement that retirees of the auto industry would retire with 80% of their final salary. Along with this add in health care benefits, & everything else, & that's how they come up with the $70.00 per hr. "COST PER EMPLOYEE."

BTW--Toyota is still making money--right here in the U.S.

Sometimes unions can kill the industry that put the food on their tables. This is a very good example of that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you woke up, what 15 minutes ago, from a rip van winkle sleep?

Republicans dislike anyone making a decent salary or having equal rights for that matter.

"No, this defeat had little to do with fiduciary integrity. Rather, the Republicans’ torpedoing of this proposal was done because they despise labor unions. They despise everything unions stand for. Southern Republicans despise organized labor for the same reason Southern Republicans despised the civil rights legislation of the 1960s—because it interferes with their “right to choose.”"

David Macaray: Killing the Auto Bailout

show me where I ever said the 70 dollar an hour figure was an hourly rate. you can't because I never did.

And the hourly rate per say was never the issue. the issue is total cost of labor.

And the total cost of labor for American auto workers is a major reason why even though GM and Toyota sold about the same number of cars in 2007 that GM lost over 35 billion dollars and Toyota made a 17 billion dollar profit.

I am not a republican so your comments about them mean little to me . I am however a libertarian and believe anyone has a right to earn whatever they can as long as the market supports it.

GM has not been a profitable company and is not making enough revenue to support its current model. I as a tax payer should not be forced by the government to prop up such a company.

GM has two options, change its business model to one that can be supported by its revenue which means filing for bankruptcy and restructuring or going out of business.

Option 3, forcing tax payers to buy into or lend money to a failing company is not only unethical it is unconstitutional.

 

[editec]

Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?

No, they don't.


That numbber is just more anti-worker BS the obsequious toadies of the rich here like to whine about.

 

[Paulie]

No, they don't.


That numbber is just more anti-worker BS the obsequious toadies of the rich here like to whine about.

Ed, no one claimed it was all wages.

I haven't yet seen anyone cite a post where someone claimed the UAW members were making a total of $70/hr in wages.

Several of us have stated that number, referring to it merely as the PACKAGE the workers receive.

None of this, though, changes the fact that the number needs to be trimmed, wherever possible.

Everyone ought to be willing to take a little cut to save their careers.

 

[Paulie]

My career is in jeopardy right now. Work is scarce at this time. I'm looking into going back to school and re-training for a new career. But I'd be willing to take a pay cut right now if it meant I could stay working full-time.

I mean, shit, I already DO take a pay cut. I'm in business for myself, and I'm already lowering my prices for contracts. I'm willing to take the hit if it means I can stay working.

Are the UAW workers?

 

[glockmail]

My career is in jeopardy right now. Work is scarce at this time. I'm looking into going back to school and re-training for a new career. But I'd be willing to take a pay cut right now if it meant I could stay working full-time.

I mean, shit, I already DO take a pay cut. I'm in business for myself, and I'm already lowering my prices for contracts. I'm willing to take the hit if it means I can stay working.

Are the UAW workers?

The problem is less the workers than the retirees. Most don't have the option to take a side job if their benefits are cut, and some can't reduce their expenses. Besides, a deals a deal as far as most are concerned. Sure, it was shown to work if the company continued to grow and expand. But since reality has set in, the company's in trouble.

It is the same for social security.

 

[Paulie]

The problem is less the workers than the retirees. Most don't have the option to take a side job if their benefits are cut, and some can't reduce their expenses. Besides, a deals a deal as far as most are concerned. Sure, it was shown to work if the company continued to grow and expand. But since reality has set in, the company's in trouble.

It is the same for social security.

When you're faced with the reality that the company you work for is heading for inevitable bankruptcy, and you're about to lose your career, the least you could do is make some concessions for the good of everyone.

Obviously the companies can't afford to pay wages and retirement packages, so somewhere along the way, something needs to be trimmed.

It seems to me like nothing short of employees taking what might only amount to a TEMPORARY reduction, and the companies trimming their budget, will work.

That means, for starters, stop making Hummers and start making something VIABLE.

 

[glockmail]

When you're faced with the reality that the company you work for is heading for inevitable bankruptcy, and you're about to lose your career, the least you could do is make some concessions for the good of everyone.

Obviously the companies can't afford to pay wages and retirement packages, so somewhere along the way, something needs to be trimmed.

It seems to me like nothing short of employees taking what might only amount to a TEMPORARY reduction, and the companies trimming their budget, will work.

That means, for starters, stop making Hummers and start making something VIABLE.

The unions are banking on the feds bailing them out. After all, it is a bailout of the union, not the auto industry. The portion of the industry in the US that is not unionized are having no problems. And Nissan and Toyota both make super-sized SUVs, just like GM and Ford, so that's not the issue.