The problem with America

[dave p]

Troll. My solution is justifed... accountability is Americas problem, but that's clearly a different subject cause I TURNED MY SELF IN. I bet you can't say you've ever shown that much integrity in your life.

you would lose that bet.

[Lohman446]

Unions were good until they were unchecked. As much as GM would like to blame the union there were two sides at the negotiating tables that said "there is a butt for every seat" and simply passed on the cost of union demands to the consumer. Not to mention being in a state that does not have the guts to pass "right to work" legislation has helped. As much as one could blame the unions they have had a lot of help in being the problem they are today.

[gam-e]

Unions were good until they were unchecked. As much as GM would like to blame the union there were two sides at the negotiating tables that said "there is a butt for every seat" and simply passed on the cost of union demands to the consumer. Not to mention being in a state that does not have the guts to pass "right to work" legislation has helped. As much as one could blame the unions they have had a lot of help in being the problem they are today.

Yes, politicians have much to gain from passing this type of unsustainable legislation. I can't agree more. I think the unions have been used like a shield to mask the uglier issue - that it's our boys who are making it happen in the first place, and at our expense.

[drg]

In my opinion unions have about run thier course in this country ,and I was raised up in a union household , but now days I wonder if some of the auto manufacturers ( 1 example ) would be in better shape if labor costs wern't so high & not just thier labor , you have to add the steelworkers costs , the coal miners costs , ect. ect.

Actually the decline of unions is the real problem. As with everything you need forces counterbalancing other forces to reach a good equilibrium, but business has gotten WAY out of hand and WAY too powerful versus labor.

Labor hasn't been "too powerful" in this country for a LONG time. What you see as unreasonable union demands are actually proper compensation for workers, but with the weakening of labor organization by conservative interests in this country, workers have been basically screwed and now less is looked at as the status quo. People even get angry when others make more than them ... perfect cover for the real culprits, those at the top taking home the big bucks -- far, far more than their rightful share -- that could easily go toward a more fair deal for workers. Automakers would be in better shape if all factories in the US were unionized and proper trade policies were in place that do not hurt the American worker.

When you don't have labor organization, industries can go seriously, seriously wrong and become downright dangerous to the interests of the working class and even the country as a whole. There are NO unions in the financial sector and as a result the industry essentially broke the world. Traditional union demands like job security and defined benefits prevent the kind of recklessness that caused the current financial crisis.

[Lohman446]

Labor hasn't been "too powerful" in this country for a LONG time. What you see as unreasonable union demands are actually proper compensation for workers,

$75 an hour to run a machine is reasonable compensation? Come on man. So when you want something done on your paintball marker you are willing to pay the air smith $75 per labor hour to design and then do it? Thats not even considering the return on investment the air smith should be making for owning the equipment, advertising, etc. People flinch when I tell them the labor rate is $50 per hour, and yet somehow I should be providing more compensation to be proper?

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/General_Motors_(GMGMQ)/Bears/General_Motors_(GM)/Bears/Average_Hourly_compensation_the_highest_amongst_competitors

The fact of the matter is if we went with the logic all we would do is cause hyperinflation. The fact is that unions were a contributing factor to workers being paid three times what the average is. And yes, your health benefits, pension, etc all count as part of compensation.

The problem is: people beleived they could have whatever they wanted and it was reasonable. $300K house on 50K a year became reasonable. Banks, believing they could make money even if the borrower defaulted (because everyone was justifying that money and buying it after foreclosure) went ahead and loaned the money. Greed, stupidity, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of government oversight caused the financial mess, not weaker unions.

[drg]

$75 an hour to run a machine is reasonable compensation?

That number is bunk. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...more_than.html

As you can see, that chart is 100% unmitigated deception. It's comparing total labor-related costs of automakers to partial labor-related costs of other fields. Total, utter garbage.

As for whether $50-75/hr is reasonable, it sure is. That was pretty typical skilled trades rates even ten years ago.

[Lohman446]

That number is bunk. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...more_than.html

As you can see, that chart is 100% unmitigated deception. It's comparing total labor-related costs of automakers to partial labor-related costs of other fields. Total, utter garbage.

As for whether $50-75/hr is reasonable, it sure is. That was pretty typical skilled trades rates even ten years ago.

Total labor cost is your compensation. Look, if I was required to give healthcare to every employee tomorrow guess what would happen. A) Labor rates would go up to the public or B) there "pay" would go down. Businesses are not some magical entity where money just appears. I have a limited amount of it based on what I take in and what I pay out. FOR THE RECORD: I take home less than my top paid employees, especially if you count the amount of time I work more than they do.

The problem is this thinking that $50 to $75 an hour is reasonable. Hint: If I can train someone to do your job in under a week its not a skilled position. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Yes, you should be able to make good money for a skill intensive job - however, a lot of these jobs that people think are skilled are not.

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.

These are all forms of compensation. Thus, I was rather accurate when I included them. What I have to pay an employee in pay and benefits are what that employee is receiving. The $75 an hour figure (its actually $73 and some change) is a very accurate depiction of compensation. Even if you take out legacy costs (Costs of benefits to retired workers) its still over $50 an hour. Again, I'm sorry, but generally speaking picking up a part and bolting it on is not a skilled position. Again, if I can train someone else to do it in under a week (or two hours) its not a skilled position.

[maniacmechanic]

As for whether $50-75/hr is reasonable, it sure is. That was pretty typical skilled trades rates even ten years ago.

sounds like I need to hire you to go in and talk with my boss about my payscale
I'm a 50 year old heavy equipment , heavy truck mechanic . I've allways been a mechanic , at one time I was ASE certifed in heavy truck , so lets just say 30 years experience , class A rated mechanic find me a job that payes between 50 to 75 an hour

[drg]

sounds like I need to hire you to go in and talk with my boss about my payscale
I'm a 50 year old heavy equipment , heavy truck mechanic . I've allways been a mechanic , at one time I was ASE certifed in heavy truck , so lets just say 30 years experience , class A rated mechanic find me a job that payes between 50 to 75 an hour

See this is the problem, people don't understand the difference between the rate you pay and the hourly wage someone is paid. Just because the customer pays $50 to 75 an hour doesn't mean that money goes straight into the pocket of the worker. Customer rates go to wages, benefits, company overhead, company profit and more.

UAW workers are paid generally in the $20-30 range hourly wages, and after the latest contracts start off around $18. Very reasonable and not at all the dire picture painted by those who skew the numbers for political ends. Legacy costs are simply the result of the number of retirees a particular company has; Toyota with the same retirees as GM would be in the $63/hr total compensation range, only 10% less than GM at the time of the comparison. And labor costs are only 10% of the cost of a new car.

Be careful. This is a trick being foisted on you by the right. They are not looking out for the working class; just the opposite. And insomuch as they can get you to resent other working class people and especially the advocates of working class people, you play right into their hands.

[drg]

These are all forms of compensation.

The numbers on that chart for other industries are not counting the same things, thus the chart is 100% invalid.

[Lohman446]

There is no trick here DRG - $55 an hour (your source, without legacy costs) compensation is not a reasonable rate to expect for a largely unskilled position.

And I understand well the differences between rates charged by a business and pay.

Being only 10% of the cost of a new car does not make it better. Paying more than a reasonable rate (A LOT MORE) is not a good business move. Too many people expect entrepenurial type compensation with little to no investment. This goes from the top to the bottom in some industries. Again, compensation is pay - even if its in the form of benefits. Few business models could survive paying $55 an hour to unskilled workers. If I am compensating an employee at $55 an hour I need to be billing that time out at approximately $125 to cover it. So, if we consider business profit as part of the equation (as labor should turn a profit) your precious "only 10%" is doubled.

Don't believe the union representatives either - they are protecting there own interests, not those of the working class who actually pay for there lifestyle. If you believe that either party (or leaning left or right) is composed of those who have your interests at heart in today's society you are a fool. There is the exception out there who is not looking out for themselves, but they generally don't make it in modern politics.

[drg]

There is no trick here DRG - $55 an hour (your source, without legacy costs) compensation is not a reasonable rate to expect for a largely unskilled position.

Says who? Again, the actual hourly wage these people are making is in the $18-30 range for the most part, a very nominal figure for manufacturing jobs. You think any employer only pays their employees' wages and nothing else?

Furthermore, the comparison falls apart when the vaunted Toyota is at $45 by the same metric; not a big difference at all. it's not that these people are being paid too much, it's that others are being paid too little, largely because of the insidious effect of so-called "free trade" policy which has only created competition between US labor and overseas labor ... which inevitably leads to a reduction of US standard of living toward overseas standards.

Part of the differences in compensation stem from the areas in which the plants are located, many foreign automakers have plants in for example the south where living standards and cost of living are lower. Rather than dragging down the whole nation, companies that profit off of American labor should be expected to keep the standard up.

Ultimately the chart and the comparison is a sham; there are people at the high and low ends of the compensation spectrum in any industry, and the automaking industry is indeed America's premiere manufacturing industry, so it should be the gold standard for compensation. Regardless, the automotive trades are included in the "goods producing" industry figure, so the chart is incredibly misleading and only serves to obfuscate reality.

Don't believe the union representatives either - they are protecting there own interests, not those of the working class who actually pay for there lifestyle.

I see this assertion off and on, and it's really quite ignorant. Rarely is it made by anyone who has ever been in a decent union and had any inkling of what it does. The union leadership's interests are tied directly to the membership's interests. It does them no good to screw their own people.

[Lohman446]

So the $55 an hour compensation is a sham? Its your source - its without legacy costs. It is the cost of pay + benefits. That is compensation. I'm lost at this crying foul of the number that your source backs. I would like to see you address Maniacmechanics challenge of finding a job that pays that kind of money.

I'm glad you have such faith in your union and its representatives. I think its naive and flies in the face of history, but at least you have it.

[gam-e]

I think it flies in the face of history, but at least you have it.

That is absolutely right, and a fact not to be taken lightly. In the grand scheme of things there are two things that jump right out - at least to me - which are starkly different than their predecessors. Monetary policy and Unions. Money doesn't have to be something with intrinsic value anymore, and people feel the right to consume more than they produce. I guess they think the imaginary role model American citizens are going to reel in the slack for them.

[Lohman446]

Any entity that requires you to pay it to have a job (ie a union in a non right to work state) does not have your best interest at heart. If they did it would be so apparent to you that you would willingly pay them and they would not have to hide behind politicians making laws to require it.