MSNBC's Brzezinski falsely asserted "the average Big Three automaker union worker's compensation is $73/hour"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski falsely claimed that "the average Big Three automaker union worker's compensation is $73/hour -- two and a half times the average for the taxpayer being asked to bail them out." In fact, the $73 figure includes not only future retirement benefits for current workers, but also benefits paid to current retirees, according to GM.
In a November 21 blog post on the Daily Beast website, MSNBC host and Daily Beast "insider" Mika Brzezinski falsely asserted that "the average Big Three automaker union worker's compensation is $73/hour -- two and a half times the average for the taxpayer being asked to bail them out." In making the assertion, Brzezinski cited a November 18 article by Pete Winn of the Media Research Center's Cybercast News Service (CNS), who reported that "[i]t costs over $73 per hour on average to employ a union auto worker, according to University of Michigan at Flint economist Mark J. Perry." However, as the CNS article noted, the $73 figure includes not only "compensation" for current workers, as Brzezinski claimed, but also benefits paid to current retirees. CNS quoted Perry, who has used the $73 figure to argue against an auto industry bailout, noting that the figure "includ[es] legacy costs -- retirement costs, pensions, and so on -- so it's looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers," not just the average union worker's hourly compensation.
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to General Motors, the $73 figure includes not only current workers' hourly wages and benefits, including health and retirement, but also retirement and health benefits that U.S. automakers are providing for current retirees.
From Brzezinski's November 21 Daily Beast post:
CNSNews.com's Pete Winn reports that the average Big Three automaker union worker's compensation is $73/hour -- two and a half times the average for the taxpayer being asked to bail them out. Compare that to the union autoworker for a foreign transplant building cars here is $44/hour. The numbers are a snapshot of the current contract with the UAW. They are EXACTLY why they are in the current crisis. Apparently, changes are coming. According to our research at NBC news, by 2010 compensation for US autoworkers will be roughly in line with foreign autoworkers and the UAW will cover health care costs. This is why the Big Three are looking for a bailout to bridge them to 2010. I want all of us to question: Should we trust THIS bailout will be different? Should the government be imposing what innovations are necessary? Do we bridge them again or should Chapter 11 do its job? Should the basics of capitalism, success and failure, apply to the Big Three too?
How much do you think the bank employees get paid Mika?
We have no problem bailing them out...
Michigan is hurting, this will mortally wound us.
There was mostly mild disgust at the bank bailout from a lot of conservatives.Then the Auto Industry ran into its problems, and the media finally had something juicy to report, something to make the average working stiff furious; Some of this money would go to Union Benefits!
And somehow a working stiff making $73 is outrageous. Nah we can't be having a with rich blue collar population.
Yes, why do they want to punish auto workers for being successful at their work?
Better to punish them than the execs.
I mean when the average exec. in the US makes 411 times their employees average salaries, they clearly deserve it.
A good Chief Executive Officer deserves to be paid well. But does any CEO deserve to be paid more each day, including weekends, holidays, and vacations, than an average employee of the company is paid for a full year? Reality is even more outrageous. On average, American CEOs earn 411 times what their employees earn. Some CEOs earn more than 1000 times what their lowest paid workers earn.
According to Rich Clabaugh at the Institute for Policy Studies, Mexican CEOs trail for the silver medal with a distant 61 times employee pay. Brazilian CEOs with a ratio of 60 get the bronze medal. Equally successful CEOs in other countries share more of the company's profits with employees, and thus have lower ratios of CEO pay to employee pay: China 36, Britain 32, Canada 23, France 23, South Korea 23, Germany 20, and Japan 11. The stark compensation differences between American CEOs and CEOs in other countries reveal that extreme CEO greed is uniquely American.
http://ezinearticles.com/?An-American-Gold-Medal-in-the-Greed-Olympics&id=1398591
Damned Unions.
Easy on the CEO, Ol' Ben. He's just like everyone, he's got a Ford Cortina, it just won't run without fuel.
(Sorry, I'd been very good lately, up til now)
Fill 'er up, Jocko!
Reminds me of a few years back when the head of a car parts manufacturer, Frank Stronach of Magna Int'l who makes $43.2 million/yr said...
"If I added up all the hours I've spent working over the past 40 years, I probably haven't made much more than the minimum wage."
Of course that means he'd have to work 600 - 700 years (24 hrs/day) to make one year's salary.
So you're saying the guy is a pretty hard worker? And you couldn't even work any Clash lyrics? I guess we know who the mature one is.
Yeah, I'm sure he worked real hard.
As for me? People always guess my age as younger than I am cause I'm so immature.
And for Joe's wisdom;
Elevator! Going up!
In the gleaming corridors of the 51st floor
The money can be made if you really want some more
Executive decision-a clinical precision
Jumping from the windows-filled with indecision
Did you factor in Overtime and Double Pay for Holidays??
Yes, why do they want to punish auto workers for being successful at their work?
It's much worse than that. In order to come up with this incredibly inflated figure, they are lying. Incorrigibly so.
They didn't seem to have a problem parading " Joe the Plumber " around making what was mathematically a 11o bucks an hour ( or more counting benefits ). Wonder if Joe finally paid his back taxes from the proceeds of his appearances ? This selective " outrage ' is quite comical.
You don't seem to understand Colonel. The reason we're in such a sad state today is directly related to the minorities, gays, Mexicans, new home owners and auto workers. You've got to start paying more attention to what's goin' on.
Just ask Joe the Dumber. It wouldn't surprise me if they don't drag his sorry ass all over the news shows to give his opinion since he's a working stiff like the rest of us and knows so much about so many things.
While I don't disagree with your list of evildoers , you forgot atheists, the democrat party controlled congress and trial lawyers.
Pregnant trnsvestites wanting abortions have, for some reason, not been on the conservatives radar. Coud it be they are the real reason for the economic woes our nation is now experiencing? This economic mess could very well be bottoming out and a brighter future is on the horizon. I believe the big 3 execs will drive back to Washington in a Chevette, a Pinto and a Lebaron. I did like what Obama said today in a news conference: We can't allow the American auto industry to fail. The post holliday Consumer confidence index will be interesting to see after the holliday season is over. My prognostication is that it will be down 20% from the last season. A traumatic experience for retailers and manufacturers but, not a game over senario.
That's really the issue, isn't it? Non union workers get pretty much similar kinds of benefits too, but the big difference is if a non union company decides it can make a savings cutting salaries they just outsource to a foreign company. It's harder to do that with unions, ergo the conservative ire.
BTW, I see the union workers got a $3 pay raise from this weekend. Sweet!
Snoop, it's one of the most glorious achievements of the Republican Party,and one that amazes me. They're not even underhanded about it, it's right up front, they've convinced millions of working Americans to vote for them to represent the defenseless corporations against the evil Unions.
I think they're doing this to derail the Employee Free Choice Act. If the conservatives succeed in passing the buck to the UAW, it's gonna make it harder for the Democrats to pass the legislation.
It's time to say how it is: US Automakers are worthless, from production to innovation. GM, Ford are 20 years behind in technology and creativity. Chrysler, gained some momentum from Benz, but not surprised when German quality pulled the plug finally. The cars haven't changed in decades, one should be lucky to have American car drive up to 100K. Next, unions have to go, i mean disappear already. Toyota pays employees well with out the unions, everyone is happy. The bailout of US Automakers will never stop, 5 years from now or sooner they will be begging again. I think its time to close one of them down! It will be an economy shock, no doubt, but we will be healthier in the long run. People recover and will succeed. Why should the rest of the USA pay for a something that they don't even drive...? Same goes for financial bailout plan…
Yeah, you're right. It's the union's fault. American autos are done, we should just give up on them instead focusing on and investing in innovation. Giving up before you try is what this country is all about
Anyway, you should get on your knees and thank God every night that labor organizers were there shedding their blood for YOUR right to a 40 hour week, safe work places, overtime and so much more. You ingrate little pigs irritate me no end.
We should just accept a low wage, service industry, Wal-Mart existence is the best we can hope for as Americans.
And to your Toyota example, you do realize they are moving to Canada because they have national healthcare up there, don't you? Toyota goes south where there are no demands on them to provide the standard of living that unions provide through collective bargaining, or they go where they don't have to provide healthcare.
What would you do with guaranteed healthcare you could call your own and take with you from job to job? What career would you pursue if you were free of the burden of outrageous premiums or freed from the hassle of working a job just for the benefits?
Think about it.
Anyway, you should get on your knees and thank God every night that labor organizers were there shedding their blood for YOUR right to a 40 hour week, safe work places, overtime and so much more. You ingrate little pigs irritate me no end.
Bravo. I think these people-- meaning most Americans-- think that we have these benefits because of the essential goodness of their bosses. Most of these companies would be more than satsified if everyone was an at-will temporary employee making $7.50 an hour. That would be paradise for them.
Of course, they'd have to wall-off their streets and residences, but many want to do that as well (re: 1989 SCOTUS case outlawing private gates on public L.A. streets.)
Do you think the $7.50/hour figure would be there without what the GOP refers to as the 'economy crippling' minimum wage law?
Next, unions have to go, i mean disappear already. Toyota pays employees well with out the unions, everyone is happy. The bailout of US Automakers will never stop, 5 years from now or sooner they will be begging again.
We don't have to destroy what's providing workers with a middle class lifestyle; we have to take wages out of competition. You do this by organizing the entire industry.
And the salaries at Toyota are a direct result of the UAW's presence in the industry. Toyota is trying to keep the union out and the figure they're paying their workers is just enough to do it. If the UAW wasn't there, the industry would be in a race to the bottom.
Yup. $8.00 an hour.
Also, you do realize that Toyota doesn't have nearly the the amount of retirees here in America as that of the big three have, right? Toyota has only been building cars here since the 80's, so naturally, they don't have literally hundreds of thousands of retirees drawing pensions like our auto makers do. And while American auto CEO's make around 30 million a year, Toyota CEO's make a little more than one million. So don't blame the union for negotiating a decent wage for a very productive workforce until you are prepared to blame outrageous CEO compensation and barely competent management with equal zeal.
one should be lucky to have American car drive up to 100K.
I'm on my third Saturn with 175K miles, My first two went well over 200K. All three of them went `100K without any problem of any kind.
Toyota pays employees well with out the unions, everyone is happy.
Everyone is definitely not happy. "temporary Toyota employees protest conditions."
http://www.priusownersgroup.com/?p=2984
As noted elswhere, UAW where are you? Other people are fighting for your members. Where is your public voice? Ideas and input on a situation that deeply effects your people? Are the media channels closed to you?
This is from Huffpo:
One example of the lie: the $70 figure comes in part from measuring all health benefits and pensions paid to 450,000 UAW retirees and their families. In truth, as Mark Brenner, the co-director of Labor Notes, points out in an insightful op-ed and in an interview with me:
Let's repeat that point: if the autoworkers worked for no salary at all, it would cut just 5 percent off the cost of their cars.
Jeebus, is that what whiney conservatives want - a free labor force? That's pretty christian of y'all...
Snoop,
Not that I disblieve Mark Brenner, but can you provide any link that supports that 5% figure other than Mark? I could not find any. That number certainly flies in the face of conventional wisdom regarding auto industry costs.
Thanks
AA (and Snoop),it doesn't make much difference if it 5% or 10%, I think the labor figure in Snoop's citation is direct labor, while the indirect (legacy) is 1.3 x as much as the direct labor. This is part of the problem, another part is the huge bureaucry between the floor and the CEO. And because a lot of the parts in the modern motor vehicle are actually made by third parties, off site and under similar contracts, the total labor figure in an vehicle is certainly larger than 5 or 10%. You only need to look back over the related posts of the past several days to see the economic impact a total shutdown would have through the workforce. Don't get this wrong, I'm not saying that a bailout is the best answer, a lot of that will depend on what the Automakers bring to the table next Monday. I'm not for a total shutdown of the big(?) three, but there needs to be a change in their business model before I'm willing to buy into a bailout that at the moment appears to be a stopgap measure and will not be the full cost to the American taxpayer of today and the future. When you see the difference in cost to the consumer between an "all-American" vehicle and any American made foreign vehicle, it ain't all that much in most instances, so there is more to the problem than the $70/hr and the $44/hr figures. The American business model has to change.
Oscar,
Having been around manufacturing and the auto industry, I find it hard to believe the direct labor costs are either 5% or 10%. I don't have the figures, but I would expect something more in the line of 50%. That is why I would like to see the source.
50%? When you say you've "been around" mfg. & the auto industry, I hope you don't mean you were running anything. Although you would have had either some very happy employees, or some happy customers.
Lets look at a $30,000 vehicle (just as an example). 5% would be $1500. At $70/hr, that would be a shade over 20 hr/vehicle. At $30/hr, say 50 hr/vehicle. Assuming that a lot of the material going into the vehicle (drive train, internal finishing, etc) is supplied by a third party, I would think 50 hr/vehicle would cover the assembly time. Total labor for all the components may reach the 50% range, but I sould estimate closer to 35% (direct labor only, no bennies, overhead, etc). These are based on MSRP, so I think I could live with the 5% for direct costs, anothor 7% for the legacy costs, etc. But I, as you, would like to see the source.
It appears that the big three average around 30-34 assembly hours per vehicle.
So we are looking at around 7% for direct labor costs (at assembly), based on the above scenario, more for less expensive, less for more expensisve. This assumes that almost all components come from off-site to the assembly plant. Toured the River Rouge Plant in Dearborn many years ago and can't remember the figures quoted, except they were taking a car (Mustang/Cougar at the time) off the end of the line about every 7 minutes, i think.
In the manufacturing facility where I'm employed, the labor costs are higher (as a percentage) because we are bringing, for the most part, raw material in and doing the fabricating, welding, finishing and assembly. Because we are also a custom shop, a lot of the engineering hours are factored into the final product also. I know a $30,000 piece of equipment has a lot more than 34 hours in it in our facility.
I work in manufacturing, and I can tell you for certain that direct labor costs are around 5 to 10%. In fact, at least where I work, cost per box calculations from highest to lowest are 1) utilities, 2) transportation costs, 3) taxes, 4) indirect labor costs, and 5) direct labor costs.
I work in custom manufacturing of heavy HVAC equipment and can pretty much say the same for labor costs, which have been pretty stagnant. What's been killing us over the past few years is the cost of steel, copper, and freight.
Yup, anyone with any experience can tell ya transformation and inventory costs are the biggest expense a company can deal with. My company's model is build on demand so we have low inventory and transformation costs. The big three have huge transformation costs because they have to keep tons of inventory on site prior to build and then keep tons of completed inventory on the books for months on end via the dealerships. If nobody wants the car offered the auto industry eats that cost. Gee, maybe if they built something everyone wanted they wouldn't have that problem?
In fact, at least where I work, cost per box calculations from highest to lowest are 1) utilities, 2) transportation costs, 3) taxes, 4) indirect labor costs, and 5) direct labor costs.
How much is the cost for all that browsing you do Snoopy to get together those fabulous cartoons?!!!
That's free advertising! ;)
Ok, I'm checking the time of your postings and, yeah, you're off the clock...!
Spot on Snoop. Here is some useful information from UAW (although based on 2006 data).
I think the labor figure in Snoop's citation is direct labor, while the indirect (legacy) is 1.3 x as much as the direct labor.
The legacy figure is due to the republican war on labor. In the beginnings of my union, we had about 27 active workers paying for each retiree's benefits. Now we're almost at a one to one basis and it will drop below that unless union density is increased.
Sounds a lot like the SS scenario in the near future.
No not really because SS was design to work on a one to one basis. If CEOs were still making 40 times what their employees made, the system would be in better shape.
loonz,
Do you have any link to support your contention that SS is supposed to work on 1:1 basis?
Sure he/she does. That's why in about 2040, they will be paying 85% of projected benefits to stay solvent.
I read this a few years back. I'll try to find it.
If you re-read the original post about the $70 figure, in the article it clearly states the the auto workers recieve $29.78 in hourly wages.
Peebs, are you talking about Brzezinski's post?
Peebs,
Maybe I'm reading a different article but I did not see that wage. The article I followed up at CNS.COM quotes University of Michigan at Flint economist Mark J. Perry.
He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.
“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.
For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.
“So we’re looking at somewhere around a $29 per hour pay gap between the Big Three and the foreign transplants that are producing cars in the United States,” Perry, chairman of the economics department, told CNSNews.com.
There is more if you are interested
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499
peebs,
I found it. It is from Saturday's MMFA:
GM, which negotiated the four-year deal that serves as a template for UAW deals with Chrysler and Ford, says its total hourly labor costs dropped 6 percent this year from pre-contract levels, from $73.26 in 2006 to around $69 per hour. The new cost includes laborers' wages of $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, pensions and the cost of providing health care to more than 432,000 GM retirees, GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said
“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.
Yes, but there's no rational justification for averaging out that total among just the present-day workers, and then trying to claim that this constitutes their average wage and bennies together.
In other words, it's lie for anyone to project this personally onto the work force. It may constitute some kind of average for GM, but it's a misleading, essentially meaningless calculation-- unless, of course, you want to harm a union work force by overstating their pay.
unless, of course, you want to harm a union work force by overstating their pay.
They're trying to create the appearance that these workers are taking home 150K+ per year rather than 60K.
Exactly. And so far, even with all the corrections, the MSM hasn't picked up on this. It's baffling. It seems blatantly propagandistic.
The article I followed up at CNS.COM quotes University of Michigan at Flint economist Mark J. Perry.
AA, AA, AA ...
We've warned you TIME and TIME again against believing anyhthing posted at cybersewers like CNS. Don't you ever use a reputable news source?
These companies have an army of bean counters who keep many books, one to show the IRS, one to show the Union bosses, one to show the american public and one noone gets to see other than the shareholders at the yearly meeting. Depending at who it favors at different times.as long as i can remember, whenever union negotiations loomed , the company i worked for years ago, would always declare some kind of loss and cut out overtime. Mika might be correct in her reporting, just maybe not complete in her reporting.
Let's just say, if they were making $73/hour, that would be over $150k/year. They are not making that much cabbage.
You're exactly right. If this bs keeps up, someone should do a few anecdotal stories, interviewing a few UAW workers, and put on display the overly-lavish lifestyles that these elitist union workers live.
They are not making that much cabbage.
Well, that $73 figure includes bennies, not just gross wages, but what's not being understood is that it includes EVERYONE's bennies, not just the present work force
well since mika brzezinski want the public to be inform about salaries of auto workers,how about informing the public about GE,one of the biggest defense contractors,that owns msnbc,and nbc,who are making enormous sums of money with the war in iraq and other wars.
The selective outrage coming from the Right is, as usual, hysterical. The banking industry has its t*t in a ringer mostly because of reckless greed, yet those on the Right see nothing wrong with putting out that fire with buckets of money.
On the other hand, a key industry in our dwindling manufacturing base is sinking, and the "Conservatives" are ready to throw them an anchor. WTF?
Look at the final vote in the House on the Bill. Democrats 172 Yes, 62 No, Republicans 91 Yes, 108 No. Now, who is in favor of throwing buckets of money at the banking industry?
And is the Bush Maladministration... which formulated and has thus far maladminitered this bail-out plan... Democratic or Republican?
Bush advertises himself as a Republican and he couldn't even get a majority of his own "people" to agree with him on this one. He had to reach across the aisle in a gesture of bipartisanship to get it done. And that don't even consider the 126 that never even showed up to vote.
Let's face it - if people made $73 and hour building cars, wouldn't there be long lines of prople trying to GET those $73-an-hour jobs???
(BTW, $73 and hour works out to $151,840 per year, and no one outside management at the Big Three makes that.)
Joe the Plumber makes more than that ;>)
Only if Obama would let him.....
.........without "stealing" all that hard earned money over $250,000. ;>)
Joe the Plumber is a righteous guy. You have to admire his stalwartness. He says he won't make that extra $100,000 over 200K because he doesn't want to pay the extra $6,000 in taxes. What integrity the guy has....
wz,
If memory serves, the compensation figure is based on a 35 hour work week. Of course it includes benefits, including legacy costs. In one of the articles I read, the total per hourly worker is somewhere around $100,000 per year.
It looks to me like the auto industry and UAW are trying to bring costs into line. But that is like turning around an aircraft carrier. (it takes time.) I maybe wrong, so please correct me if I am, but the medical benefits to 435,000 retirees looks to be the part that raises the average compensation per hour for the union workers so much.
On a related note, I have a relation who is a disabled union worker, (it is not the UAW.) This relation cannot perform work due to a repititive stress injury. However this relation could perform some work but chose not to because a different line of work would involve a paycout. Instead the relation has been on full disability for over 20 years. The disability does not prevent this relation from leading a very active and sports centered life. IMHO this person lives the life of Riley. Coincidentally, this person is very active in the union.. or was until they moved to a resort area a few years ago.
Of course this is anecdotal. However I would not be surprised to see this same type of situation with the UAW medical payouts and could be a major reason why health care costs are so high.
Sorry. I have a disability with my typing..
paycout=paycut
I have a hard time believing that scenario. Most contracts have a provision that states an employee must return to work after a certain period of time and do something unless they are unable to do any work whatsoever.
yeah, it sounds like a case of disability fraud if so. Most plans require some sort of work, unless totally disabled, night watchman, whatever.
carl,
This relation has told me he has been investigated more than once. I do not discuss particulars with him as it is none of my business. Apparently there is a loophole that has kept him from having to find new work. I do believe he may have moved from disabled to retired.
It's not hard to believe if you're a wingnut. He lives right next door to the "Welfare Queen" who collects checks for thirteen dead people and twenty non-existent kids. When Johnny Cochrane was alive he used his legal prowess to set this up for her and several thousand others. Check it out. Just drive to Fantasyland and the evidence will be right there.
The master blaming the slave for the economic crisis. We were fed the bs that poor people caused the housing collaspe and now greedy unions and overpaid workers are blamed for the automakers problems!?!? Warren Buffet(sp) said class warefare is being waged and his class is fighting and winning!!!! This propaganda being pushed by Mika is one of the reasons why.
Warren Buffet is not my economic beacon. He encouraged China to offload already offloaded work, to vietnam to save costs. the guy is not a country first guy. He said this during the time WalMart opened a store in China. He irks me.
SO!?!?? Is there class warefare or not????That was my point!!!
This nation was founded on class warfare. Unfortunately, the royalty has consistently tricked about half of the commoners to fight for the crown.
powers that be pay alot of money and put mucho effort into keeping the working man ignorant of his class interest. It's effectiveness can be gaged by the posters here blaming the Union for the economic crisis.
Bingo!
Michigan has been hurting for ages, just take a good look at Detroit. Is anyone living in that city any longer? You need industy that will thrive not one that borrows and keeps pushing crapy product down our throats... The opportunity cost for this bailout is huge, and i frankly see no repayment of any kind, EVER! It is all SUNK COST! Not even SUNK, it has been covered with layers of mud....
Yes, but the Red Wings would beat the snot out of your local/regional hockey team...
But could the Lions beat my high school team?????
Don't matter cause it's HOCKEYTOWN!
Da Pistons surely would not agree with that, would they?
Don't know, don't care. If they start refrring to Detroit as basketballtown - maybe they'd have a point? =>
Anything is better than Kid Rock Town though...
Bill Lambeer would have made a great defenseman, except for his height.
eric,
I believe the "crappy product" accusation is long out of date. IMHO all three domestic auto makers put out quality products.
yeah, the quality issue is a red herring. This is 1979 rhetoric-- like blaming Jimmy Carter for our troubles, which they would never do....right?
We have a bad economy. Car sales have fallen for the last 4 years-- since the econ. went south. It's not GM's fault, or the workers. Cars are also too reliable these days.
So... what does Mika make an hour? Salary And benifits. And Joe too? And Willy?
It amazes me to hear people making such stoopid amounts of money for sitting on their asses and making ignorant, pontificating pronouncements off the tops of their rather bulbous heads sneering at the earnings of working people.
No... no class warfare being fought here.
Nothing worse than rich people taking pot shots at the rest of us. Really offensive. They have no shame.
Let's take a look at her last name and see if we can get a clue as to the lady's political leanings. The daughter doesn't fall very far from the daddy This family doesn't have a great track record as populist regard
The obvious questions your article doesn't answer are:
What does the average auto worker make?
How much cheaper would a car cost if healthcare were not required of businesses but rather substituted by national healthcare?
Let's have a little follow-thru.
Damn good point.
Furthermore, worker pensions are paid for from worker contributions and add only a small portion to the cost of a new car. Can we say the same of executive pensions?
We don't know because that's information executives will not disclose.
And for all you conjobs running around this thread talking about legacy costs, take a gander at what the Wall St Journal's Ellen E. Schultz and Theo Francis have to say:
"When General Motors cites retiree costs, the giant auto maker has a point: It owed nearly 700,000 U.S. workers and retirees pensions that totaled $87.8 billion at the end of last year.
But $95.3 billion had already been set aside to pay those benefits when due.
All of these assets are earning investment returns, which offset the pensions' expense. GM lost $10.6 billion in 2005. But deep as its losses have been, they would have been far worse without the more than $10 billion per year in investment income that the GM pension plan for the rank and file generates.
The pension plan for GM executives is another matter. Unfunded to the tune of $1.4 billion, it detracts from GM's bottom line each year. This is criminal. The workers' pensions--their money that they agreed to forego in each paycheck so they would have a decent living down the road during retirement--is generating cash for GM, while the executives' pensions is truly the drag on the company
Just how much is a mystery, because GM doesn't break out the figure. It said executive pensions are "a very small portion of our overall expense" but declined to give the figure.
Earlier this year, GM announced it would freeze the pensions of its 42,000 salaried workers starting next January, as well as of those 5,200 highly paid employees. The freeze of the executive pensions will cut GM's pension liability by $60 million, while its freeze of salaried workers will yield a far bigger reduction, $1.6 billion.
A spokeswoman for GM said its concerns about its pension plans have eased, though the company remains concerned about retiree health-care costs. With the pension freeze and improved returns on its pension assets, including billions of dollars GM has contributed to the plans in recent years, "I would say pension really is not a problem any more," the spokeswoman said. She said that GM has no fixed obligation to pay the executive benefits and could renege at any time, although she called such a move unlikely.
GM has often said its U.S. pension plans added about $800 to the cost of each car made in the U.S. in 2004. It declines to say how much was due to executive pensions."
How much cheaper would a car cost if healthcare were not required of businesses but rather substituted by national healthcare?
That's the question of the year. The answer to this is the solution, too.
This is tough. The big three Ceo's . . . the blue collar workers. I find the Ceo's to be annoying whiney ass charlatans who deserve to be on a chain gang. I don't think such harsh thoughts about the others.
Media Matters:
You dismiss the $73/hour figure, yet fail to tell us the actual number.
If you don't know what's right, how can you say what's wrong?
My apologies to everyone for the length of this post. I placed it as a link above but our trolls (resident and non-resident) are being especially obtuse. This from the UAW:
How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
The CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006.
The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM. These substantial sums do not include the value of stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation.
Why is the figure cited as hourly labor costs by the companies so much higher than the wage rates?
In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400,2 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.
This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
How much are current UAW auto industry wages?
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor. Between 2003 and 2006, the wages of a typical UAW assembler have grown at about the same rate as wages in the private sector as a whole – roughly 9 percent. Part of that growth is due to cost-of-living adjustments that have helped prevent inflation from eroding the purchasing power of workers’ wages.
What is the compensation for auto industry executives?
The CEOs of Chrysler Group, Ford and GM earned a combined total of $24.5 million in salaries, bonuses and other compensation in 2006.
The next four highest paid executives received average salary and other compensation of $1.3 million at Ford and $1.4 million at GM. These substantial sums do not include the value of stocks and stock options that were also part of executive compensation.
Why is the figure cited as hourly labor costs by the companies so much higher than the wage rates?
In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll.
How much value do UAW members contribute to their employers?
American autoworkers are among the most productive workers in the world. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour.1 This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
How much are labor costs in relation to the total price of a new vehicle?
The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400,2 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants.
This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.
1 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures 2005 data
2 UAW Research Department, based on hours-per-vehicle data from the 2007 Harbour Report and labor costs as reported in the companies’ 10-Ks
3 National Automobile Dealers Association
1 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures 2005 data
2 UAW Research Department, based on hours-per-vehicle data from the 2007 Harbour Report and labor costs as reported in the companies’ 10-Ks
3 National Automobile Dealers Association
So we do know what we are talking about and when Brzezinski gives the $73 per hour figure she is either ignorant (not good for a journalist) or a liar that intends to mislead (not good for a human being). Class warfare indeed.
This is a continuation of the misleading reports. The original post on this subject did give the correct figure ($29.78 per hour).
The corporate news agencies are trying to paint the UAW as the villain in this story. It does bear some blame, but the Big3 are also to blame for their business decisions.
she should go work one of these high paying jobs and see what its like - like to see her handle a room full of special ed students and make the high paying teacher wages that the Union got for them
Can no one is the news media do simple multiplication? If the "average" union autoworker made $73/hour that would result in an annual salary of $151,840. C'mon -- no one can think an assembly line worker makes that much money.
Richard Waggoner, CEO of GM, received a total compensation package in 2007 of $14,415,914. That's $6,930.73 @ hour.
Source: http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/general-motors-corp.asp?yr=2008
Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford, received a total compensation package in 2007 of $21,670,674. That's $10,418.59 @ hour.
Source: http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/ford-motor-co.asp?yr=2008
Hey Mika, wanna talk about those numbers?
Could someone actually give us a fair picture of what it costs per hour then? I get so tired of hearing this BS from the NEOCONS. The misuse of data to make their point gets tiresome.
No surprise that Brzezinski completely misrepresented the facts about worker salaries.....she does things like that CONSTANTLY. That character is an embarrassment to women, serious people and the profession of journalism. Not only is she a dim bulb, a good portion of her time is spent either tugging at her cleavage and checking out her hair and makeup in the monitor, or acting like 'Mommy Mika" to 'the boys' on the panel. It's a creepy dynamic, as she moves from eyelash-batting and flattery to scolding and chastizing. Scarborough treats her like a doormat, and she seems fine with that.
Ugggh.
Oh, thank you! I thought I was the only person who could not stand this woman!
Basic cost accounting requires that costs incurred in making the cars you make TODAY be included in the cost of the car. That includes 'fully-loaded' labor costs for the CURRENT WORKFORCE - wages/salary, health insurance, pension, FICA, MediCare etc.
But it emphatically does NOT include the costs incurred in building cars in the past, specifically, in this case, the costs of current retirees. The costs involved in supporting the retirees are properly accounted for in the costs of the cars that THEY built when they were part of the car company.
Loading costs for current retirees into the calculation this way is just dishonest.
Now, who do you suppose got this little set of numbers together anyway? Who would want it to look as if the unions were THE CAUSE of the problem?
Here's an idea I'd like to float: The U.S. Congress shall disburse financial aid to help the failing auto industry contingent, among other things, on a voluntary freeze on all layoffs in the auto industry and all their subsidiaries lasting no less that 24 months.
If they don't yield to that demand then Congress, invoking its powers during times of national emergency can enact a temporary law declaring illegal for any company receiving federal financial aid to lay off any or all of its workers. The law will last only two years, of course!
The rights of the powerful must always be challenged.