^^^ Good points, jgscott.

 

Payroll for all GM employees is about $12 billion/year not including heath care etc. Explain how giving them all a 34% increase is the same as giving their CEO getting equal increase. You can call it hypocrisy if you like but it's apples to oranges from a financial perspective. Emotional argument nothing more.
No, it isn't. It's in fact nonsense.

 

Ford has tentatively inked a deal, will this satisfy the pro union crowd? Deal is not final must be approved.

 

Well, It's nice that they are getting the 25% spread out over a period of time, but, IMO, the real issue is pensions. I always was, and always will be, a firm believer in them. Converting from pensions to simple (and usually inadequate) IRAs really screwed a lot of workers up.

 

If it were nonsense, there wouldn't be an ongoing strike in the first place.

 

What? Huh? Your bold makes Zero sense to me. How can real number be factual nonsense to you is beyond my understanding.


https://newrepublic.com/post/175598/...ary-uaw-strike

“My compensation, 92 percent of it, is based on performance of the company,” Barra said. “When the company does well, everyone does well.”

What Barra really means is this: Her compensation as CEO is tied to General Motors’ profit margins. This means that Barra’s exorbitant salary is also a function of how low she can keep autoworkers’ wages. Barra’s salary has increased 34 percent over the last four years, while in four years workers’ pay has only increased by 6 percent.

 

You have not thought any of this through.

What real numbers? X% increase in Barra's compensation package is ≠ to X% increase for 164,000 employees. For some reason you completely missed the context, the argument was if Barra can make X dollars and get X increase then every single employee can get the same increase because GM can afford it. You can't possibly think this is a solid point, well I guess you do since the article you posted says the same nonsense.
lol, this is what passes for journalism. If Barra made ZERO DOLLARS and the money went straight to workers they would get another $150/year. This proposed increase will cost GM at least $3 billion/year. Explain how that compares in any way to $30 million dollars. And I guess I have to spell it out, this is Barra's compensation package.

 

I wonder if the union workers are ok with basing their pay on performance.

Hmmm, might end the strike quick. Lol
Or maybe they would be ok with that.

 

Pensions are unsustainable which is why most companies don’t have them anymore. Additionally, if one has one it is part of their overall compensation so you can’t just look at their hourly wage, you have to factor in the pensions too.

 

Nonsense. There are zero UAW employees for whom an IRA is their primary retirement vehicle. Zero. It would honestly surprise me if as many as 10% of them even have an IRA.

 

of course you're a 'firm believer' in them because you have one and they're great, but the reality is if people retire at 55 or 60 perhaps, and live to 85 or 90, that's a 30 year pension payment. and uaw gets/wants company provided healthcare in retirement too. their period of pension and other benefit payments could well be longer than their career. that's millions of dollars PER EMPLOYEE. that's an enormous and unpredictable financial ball and chain for companies. after ww-ii these giant benefits were put in place when unions were stronger and the companies went along with it (with little choice). these companies are not the invincible giants they once were and they have fierce competition.

even federal, state and local governments struggle with this, still offering pensions but usually offset by lower salaries for many positions than private jobs. of course unlike private companies, government doesn't have to make a profit or answer to shareholders, so it can just spend more and more and tax more and more and borrow more and more.

if the uaw "wins" big with this, ford, gm, and stellantis will be at a huge competitive disadvantage, not willing to hire additional people because the cost is far too high.

 

I have been hesitant to post this, but with the continued mention of pensions, here is my issue with union pension plans. The US has the Pension Benefit Guaranty Association to protect private pensions. This organization provides reduced benefits to those whose pension plans are insolvent. These benefits are funded primarily by premiums and the remaining assets of the insolvent plans.

However, the reduced benefit was not good enough for the overpromised, underfunded, mismanaged union pensions plans. So as part of the 2021 American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion emergency spending bill that was ostensibly meant to combat COVID-19, $90 Billion was allocated to bail out these union pension plans.

I am self-employed, so now I must provide for my own retirement, and with my tax dollars, the union members’ retirement as well.

 

Good summary. It summarizes the ongoing situation that's been evolving for years. Five years from now the whole union, pay and pension situation will look much different than it does right now. It's unsustainable.

 

thank you, and yes, but if anything there seems lately to be greater sympathy for unions and labor than for corporations. so they will kill the sacred cows and the country will likely go bankrupt in the coming decades.
but can't get into politics here.

hopefully the strikes end soon and these companies can remain in business somehow.

 

I am in a union and was fortunate enough to get in before the pension benefits were voted out in favor of a 401(k) plan, so I have both. My planned pension benefit is pretty substantial, but I actually like my 401(k) better as I have the ability to increase it's size at will, to change how it is invested, etc. I definitely understand that there is some risk with it, but because there is company matching on an per dollar basis, it's an easy way for me to get a lot of additional retirement funds from the company in addition to what I invest in it. The only way I can increase my pension benefit is to work more years.