It's so small of a difference it really doesn't do anything more than serve as headline stock. That's why facts never come into play

 

Who says "dregs" are normal? Most workers are not dregs.

 

This is a simple question, how much should Mary Barra make. That's it. You've touted how a fair CEO salary is critically important to workers and companies a whole. Put a number on it, if you refuse to answer then you are not here for a real conversation. This entire strike is about MONEY.
According to mmarshall CEO pay is extremely important. Fine, then afford us some decency and put a dollar figure on it.

 

Uh......okay. Have you been to a union plant vs a Honda plant? It's insane how much better the workers are in other places, that extends to ANY union not just car production.

 

I think the CEO should get 3-5% of the profits after all expenses/taxes. That's still somewhat low but at larger operations it's fine, small scar that would be extremely bad.

If I hired three people for example I would take 40-60% easily so I guess that makes me more evil than GM

 

I'm fine with whatever the CEO and/or BOD approves. If anyone doesn't like it they can go work somewhere else. Jen-Hsun Huang of Nvidia makes $22 million/year they have zero problems attracting potential employees.

BTW you are spot on about union workers they are incentivized to be drones. Don't rock the boat, don't show anyone up. Go to work do the minimum expected of you. Step outside those boundaries and things can get very ugly for you.

 

Pensions are gone and they're never, ever coming back. That said, as of two weeks ago UAW workers had by far the most generous 401k plan I've ever seen in my life. They vary slightly by company, but in broad strokes it's an automatic 6.5% company contribution, plus $1 per hour, plus matching contributions of 90 cents on the dollar up to another 5%. For comparison, my plan, which is slightly above average, has a 0% automatic company contribution, 100% match on the first 3% of employee contributions, then 50% match on the next 2%, such that you get 4% total if you contribute 5%. That same 5% contribution by a UAW employee would net 11% plus $2,080 of company contribution. Almost FIVE TIMES the national average. And it just got juiced up again with the new agreements over the course of the past week, though I haven't dug into the details yet.

The union was demanding that they keep that generous plan AND get a full pension "like the old days".

The trick is, pensions don't hurt profits when they're granted. They hurt 30-35 years later, when "salaries" continue to be paid to people who are no longer working. As you noted, American auto production and employment peaked in the 60s and 70s. But pensions didn't go away until 2000-2007 depending on the company. Funny how they all went bankrupt almost exactly one career's length after they added the largest number oft workers to the (future) pension rolls. And as noted a few pages back, a few years ago, you and I (and everyone else) cut a check for $90 BILLION in UAW pension shortfall. Or $12 Billion more than GM's entire net profit since 2010.

 

geko29 excellent post. mmarshall's assertion that the ceo is greedy pales in comparison to the greed of the uaw wanting everything and giving nothing.

The Villages community here in central florida is thankful for the uaw though as so many of them retire there to get away from snow and cold! they bring their millions, buy nice homes, fancy golf carts, spend in all the restaurants... it's been a huge win for the family the started The Villages (now more than 150,000 people).

 

Well, as I write this, we still don't all the details of the settlement, and the workers, despite a pay raise, still may not (?) have gotten what they need most...pensions. It's hard to call that greed.

 

You're either ignoring those of us stating that pension plans are not sustainable, or are living in a different reality. In your world, how are these pension plans funded? Remember, there are way more people taking out than putting in.

 

Pension plans can absolutely be sustainable. I have one from a former employer that’s fully funded because appropriate contributions were made by all stakeholders, it’s administered professionally and, importantly, the employer didn’t dip into it in years gone by claiming it was “overfunded”.

 

This is a non government business that still offers pensions to new hires? What line of work is it and how long has it been in business? What's your estimate of current employees vs retirees?

I work at one of the oldest tech companies in the country, which had a pension when I started. It was deemed too costly and was ended back in the early 2000's. There was no way to economically continue funding it. It reached a point where there were way more retirees than current employees, similar to the auto companies. They gave us old timers a portable pension and upped our 401k matching to 6/6 100%.

 

it's non government, professional services, large and very well-established. I do not know if they still offer pensions, I don't work there any more. All I know is the pension plan I'm in is appropriately funded as I get funding reports every year.

 

I get funding reports from mine as well. I have a portable, which if I leave it alone will be paid out like a pension when I hit 65 shortly. It's all good and is government backed as well. However, as I said, it's no longer being offered. I'll bet your old employer is also no longer offering them, which was the whole point of my statement. They are no longer sustainable.

 

they don't need it. this isn't the 1960s. if they contribute to their hugely generous 401k's, as geko pointed out, they all retire millionaires.