Most F150 SuperCrew trucks around here are in the $45K to $75K price range. That's not that bad for what they are. (although a LOT more than I paid for my first brand-new truck, a 1976 Dodge Powerwagon 4x4 with the 440 CID engine...about $7500)
Most F150 SuperCrew trucks around here are in the $45K to $75K price range. That's not that bad for what they are. (although a LOT more than I paid for my first brand-new truck, a 1976 Dodge Powerwagon 4x4 with the 440 CID engine...about $7500)When the managers don't budge expect the UAW to expand the strike. Ford has a tremendous supply of F150's sitting on dealer lots right now because they cost too much for normal people to afford.
Don't autoworkers get some end of year bonus based on net profits for the fiscal year? I don't know if that's only for UAW members, or for the non-unionized manufacturers. On NBC News the other day, there was a graphic that showed Big 3 workers had the highest average wages, the non union plants weren't far behind, but Tesla workers were significantly lower (this is shocking considering one of the plants is in the Bay Area).My understanding is that workers want way too much, but you always start out high hoping to meet in the middle. Corporate apparently made around 20 billion in profit among the big three, but they don't really want to share any of that with the workers because management can hardly afford gas as it is with those huge salaries. The comments I'm seeing from conservatives are that the workers are outrageous nuts for wanting wage increases, someone needs to think of all the corporate VP's and such. Maybe a tax cut for the automakers so they don't leave the US?
I really hope they strike at a few places to create a bottleneck and force the three automakers to shut all their plants down until they're ready to make a fair offer to the UAW, since them closing the plants would mean the workers could get unemployment.They’re doing a target strike I forgot the term but it’s a new idea basically the critical people as in the folks who make parts to feed to lines do the strike and they increase the amount as needed.
Benefit is they don’t have to spend as much to compensate members and they don’t cause immediate havoc with the car industry thus ruining their reputation
Edit: link
My company, I need to contribute 6% for them to match at 3%. It is BS.Nope, it's certainly a factor. I read many years ago that to be a decent replacement for defined benefit pensions companies would need to contribute 13% to 401ks. VERY few companies do this.
I'm no fan of the CEO raises, am generally a fan of unions (my wife is in one that we continue to participate in by choice) but the UAW is not an organization to be cheering on. Living in SE Michigan I hang out with a lot of people tied to the Big 3. I have a close friend who is a Line Supervisor who lamented he got assigned a worker with an established history of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. Sure enough within 4 months he groped yet another female employee and was just relocated yet again to another assembly area. I was at a BBQ and the host was bragging about how if anyone with that brand of vehicle needed an odometer rollback on their lease to see him. I asked him if he was worried about getting caught. He just laughed and said "I'm a union rep. They (the mfg) know I do this and haven't been able to touch me ever". I know at least 5 people who he's rolled back their odometers for. The wage theft. The protection of people purposefully sabotaging brand new vehicles. The stories go on and on and on.
But hey don't take my word for it:
Why am I paying union dues when the union won’t protect me from sexual harassment?
What happens when a female union member in Chicago reports sexual harassment in the workplace? If she’s a member of the United Auto Workers, nothing. Well, that’s not completely accurat…www.chicagotribune.comUAW Staffer Sues Union Alleging Sexual Harassment, Retaliation
A woman on staff at the United Auto Workers filed a lawsuit claiming she was sexually harassed by higher-ranking UAW officials and that the union failed to take corrective action when she complained of the alleged incidents.www.wsj.comUAW investigates sexual harassment allegations against board member
Richard Rankin, director of Region 2B, according to two people familiar with the situation,\u00a0is the subject of an\u00a0independent investigation\u00a0into his interactions with memberswww.detroitnews.com
And the rampant corruption
UAW corruption scandal deepens as feds charge 16th person after $2M misspent
The criminal case is the first filed since a federal judge installed a corruption watchdog to oversee reforms within the United Auto Workers.www.detroitnews.comOpinion | The UAW’s Culture of Corruption
A court-appointed monitor reports the union has a way to go.www.wsj.comUAW's legal team overhaul continues as Fain copes with federal investigations
The UAW's president moves to dump a Chicago law firm in the latest overhaul of union's legal team amid landmark federal oversight and ongoing probes.www.detroitnews.com
Fair enough since universal basic income is not available seems wise to me to angle for a retirement guarantee. Should the union folks just hope a universal basic income will appear?
You are mistaken. Pensions are sustainable if you use realistic numbers for what you expect investments to return and actually fully fund the contribution amount. The problem is regulations in this country are extremely weak so very few pension programs are fully funded.My issue is pensions just aren't feasible today. Not in today's market. How can a company maintain growth and profability when they are taking care of old employees who are still recieving a pension and health benefits well into their late 70s and beyond? That puts enormous strain on the bottom line of that company. Now, add in tens or even a hundred thousand retired employees. Pensions were feasible 50 years ago because most people passed away much earlier. Today, people are living to 80, sometimes 85 or 90 years. Now, we are talking about 30 plus years that the company has to pay out for that retiree until he, or she passes away. This is why we are going to see a big push for states to get rid of pensions as well. Its just not feasible unless they a) raise taxes b) lessen or get rid of the perks that pensioners now enjoy. Maybe I'm mistaken.
They're also a pretty big target for scams and mismanagement - both deliberate and accidental. To your point that is something we could lessen the risks of but there is too much money to be made by not doing thatYou are mistaken. Pensions are sustainable if you use realistic numbers for what you expect investments to return and actually fully fund the contribution amount. The problem is regulations in this country are extremely weak so very few pension programs are fully funded.
Workers demanding that the company try to keep up with inflation is certainly a valid demand.A 20% raise over 5 years would be a little less than 5% anually.
Having a company pay pension is like forcing an individual to afford medical bills.You are mistaken. Pensions are sustainable if you use realistic numbers for what you expect investments to return and actually fully fund the contribution amount. The problem is regulations in this country are extremely weak so very few pension programs are fully funded.
Sounds good. Until basic income is law, let's send the folks who underfund pension plans to prison for wage theft. Because that is what it is: theft.Workers demanding that the company try to keep up with inflation is certainly a valid demand.
Having a company pay pension is like forcing an individual to afford medical bills.
Never going to work, despite you possibly having one shining example out there of someone filthy rich enough to do it.
What about the rest of us, what about the average Joe, or in this case, a normal company?
The only sustainable solution out there is a better society as a whole. Where we take on the burden together with Basic Income. Liken it to having insurance pay the vast sum of your medical bills. No one person can do it alone. The costs, the burdens, they must be shared. Divided we will fall.
If the companies didn't want to trade immediate compensation for retirement benefits, they shouldn't have entered such a contract.Having a company pay pension is like forcing an individual to afford medical bills.
If the companies didn't want to trade immediate compensation for retirement benefits, they shouldn't have entered such a contract.
Corporations and the ultra wealthy are enjoying bumper profits. That’s money they take from the workers. There is plenty of money for pensions, it’s being inappropriately allocated.My issue is pensions just aren't feasible today. Not in today's market. How can a company maintain growth and profability when they are taking care of old employees who are still recieving a pension and health benefits well into their late 70s and beyond? That puts enormous strain on the bottom line of that company. Now, add in tens or even a hundred thousand retired employees. Pensions were feasible 50 years ago because most people passed away much earlier. Today, people are living to 80, sometimes 85 or 90 years. Now, we are talking about 30 plus years that the company has to pay out for that retiree until he, or she passes away. This is why we are going to see a big push for states to get rid of pensions as well. Its just not feasible unless they a) raise taxes b) lessen or get rid of the perks that pensioners now enjoy. Maybe I'm mistaken.
ExactlyThere is one fact that I haven't seen mentioned here. The Autoworkers gave a lot of concessions back in 2008 (I am not 100% on the year) to help the auto industries survive during hard times. They lost their cola (cost of living adjustment), raises, and other benefits. So, some of the their demands now, revolve around trying to recover what they gave up back then, in good faith, to help the auto industry survive, now that the industry is making record profits.
I think that’s the point the CEOs bonuses are based upon company performance and they’re all around 40% pay increases and worker are at 20% with various profit sharing. Hence the problem.Greedy unions are a bane to the nation and will make inflation worse, not better. CEOs should take pay no more than triple the highest union wage plus actual expenses. To make the big money, the rest would be based on stock performance so the market judges their job performance.
You are a fucking moron.. You really need to go learn how Unions impact EVERY job in this country for the good, that includes your non union jobs.. If it wasn't for unions, you wouldn't have good pay, benefits, much of the safety regulations, overtime laws (they are not responsible directly, but indirectly they played a roll), and many more of "qualify benefits" the Non Union jobs offer. Without Unions, there would be no middle class.Greedy unions are a bane to the nation and will make inflation worse, not better. CEOs should take pay no more than triple the highest union wage plus actual expenses. To make the big money, the rest would be based on stock performance so the market judges their job performance.
That would work if by the end of the year your company shares go up by 40%. If however shares stay the same or go down by 12/31/xx, your get NOTHING as your CEO bonus. NOTHING!!I think that’s the point the CEOs bonuses are based upon company performance and they’re all around 40% pay increases and worker are at 20% with various profit sharing. Hence the problem.
I guess that is the core of the problem. Companies performed so well over last years the CEOs have averaged a 40ish percent pay increase, hence the bargained for guys also want a 40ish percent increase.That would work if by the end of the year your company shares go up by 40%. If however shares stay the same or go down by 12/31/xx, your get NOTHING as your CEO bonus. NOTHING!!
lol
You are a fucking moron.. You really need to go learn how Unions impact EVERY job in this country for the good, that includes your non union jobs.. If it wasn't for unions, you wouldn't have good pay, benefits, much of the safety regulations, overtime laws (they are not responsible directly, but indirectly they played a roll), and many more of "qualify benefits" the Non Union jobs offer. Without Unions, there would be no middle class.
No, it's not, it started in the past, and continues today.. you have no fucking clue.. you are a fucking moron. Why do you think the middle class has been shrinking since the decrease of unions, along with anti union legislation that periodically comes out? You some how think that many of the laws on the books that are for the working class (safety, labor laws, etc), that are a direct result of unions, would somehow continue to get better, and or stay on the books if unions disappeared. You don't seem to grasp that many of such laws, your good pay, your benefits would disappear if unions where not around. Stop being so damn ignorant!Everything you cited was in the past. What they are asking for now is just plain greedy.
As for as 40% more money and a fucking 4 day work week......we can do this because money grows on trees and we can just pick ourselves of 40% more of it to pay for these wage increases. Makes perfect sense.
Felix doesn’t work for a living; he sponges off those who do, hence his desire to see workers keep even less of the money they earn, more for Felix to mooch.You are a fucking moron.. You really need to go learn how Unions impact EVERY job in this country for the good, that includes your non union jobs.. If it wasn't for unions, you wouldn't have good pay, benefits, much of the safety regulations, overtime laws (they are not responsible directly, but indirectly they played a roll), and many more of "qualify benefits" the Non Union jobs offer. Without Unions, there would be no middle class.