Larson rewrote history to dispute Media Matters item documenting his falsehood on autoworker pay
SUMMARY: Lars Larson responded to a November 22 Media Matters item by misrepresenting what he had said five days before about autoworkers' hourly compensation. Larson claimed on November 24, "[T]hey [Media Matters] were saying that if you count just what is being paid to the worker and to his pension and for his medical care, that it doesn't add up to $73 an hour and they're right, but that's not what I said. I said that the total cost of having that worker on the assembly line is over $73 an hour." In fact, as Media Matters documented, Larson falsely claimed on November 19 that American automakers are "paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits."
During the November 24 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Lars Larson responded to a November 22 Media Matters for America item by misrepresenting what he had said five days before about autoworkers' hourly compensation. Larson stated of the Media Matters item, which included him among a group of media figures who had falsely asserted or suggested that U.S. autoworkers make $70 or more per hour: "They said that I was going on the air and telling things that were untrue by saying that the average worker at General Motors is costing General Motors $73 and change to put that person on the assembly line. ... [T]hey were saying that if you count just what is being paid to the worker and to his pension and for his medical care, that it doesn't add up to $73 an hour and they're right, but that's not what I said. I said the total cost of having that worker on the assembly line is over $73 an hour." In fact, as the audio and transcript included in the Media Matters item shows, Larson falsely claimed on November 19 that American automakers are "paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits" -- he did not say that "the total cost" to General Motors and other U.S. auto manufacturers is $73 an hour for each worker they employ.
From the November 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Lars Larson Show, as documented by Media Matters:
LARSON: When Detroit is making cars at $73 an hour to its line workers, its unskilled, high-school graduate workers, and I'm a high school graduate as well. When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately.
By contrast, on his November 24 broadcast, Larson acknowledged that "[p]art of the cost is paying the retirement benefits of all the retired auto workers because that money was never set aside during the term of the contract." Indeed, as Media Matters has noted, according to GM, 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.
Additionally, Bill Cunningham repeated the false assertion on the November 24 broadcast of his Cincinnati-based radio show that the "Big Three" automakers are paying workers more than $70 an hour. Cunningham suggested that "a typical UAW [United Auto Workers union] worker" is "making $75 an hour in wages and benefits." Later in the broadcast, he asked guest Rep.-elect Steve Driehaus (D-OH) if Democrats can "look the UAW in the eye" and say "you can't make 75 bucks an hour when Toyota's making 45."
Further, neither Larson nor Cunningham noted that the "Big Three" negotiated with the UAW in 2007 to significantly reduce the salary and benefits packages for certain new employees, cost reductions not reflected in the $73-per-hour and $75-per-hour figures. Bloomberg News reported in October 2007 that "[o]ver the life of the new accord [with GM], hourly base wages will start at $14 and rise to $15.30 for new hires such as forklift drivers and others not directly involved in making vehicles or parts. That compares with $28.12 for current employees, whose pay won't be cut." The negotiations also "create[d] a fund run by the union that will be responsible for 73 percent of GM's $64 billion in liability for retiree medical care."
From the November 24 broadcast of The Lars Larson Show:
LARSON: I'll tell you that over the weekend, I got word that Media Matters, which is the same group that has gone off after a number of different talk shows -- and you can expect them to continue to do that more. They'll be going after people like me and people like O'Reilly and others because of the things that we say. They targeted me over the weekend and here's why. They said that I was going on the air and telling things that were untrue by saying that the average worker at General Motors is costing General Motors $73 and change to put that person on the assembly line. The fact is I stand by those numbers. Now, here's the distinction that they would like to draw. They'd like to say that not all of that money goes directly to that worker into his pockets, and that's absolutely right, but I've made no secret of that.
The actual amount of salary that any one of those GM workers makes is about $31 -- $31 and change per hour. That's about $65,000 a year. The average Toyota worker's is about, salary, $28 or about $56,000 a year if you don't work any overtime. But the part they were raising Cain about was this: They were saying that if you count just what is being paid to the worker and to his pension and for his medical care, that it doesn't add up to $73 an hour, and they're right. But that's not what I said. I said the total cost of having that worker on the assembly line is over $73 an hour.
[...]
LARSON: For an auto worker, part of the cost of putting that auto worker on the line because of what the unions have pushed is money that doesn't go in his pocket. It's money that pays the 90 percent salary that is paid to workers to sit in a room in what's called a job bank, where they don't work at all but they simply collect money without performing any work and they get paid anyway. That's part of the cost. Part of the cost is paying their retirement benefits of all the retired auto workers because that money was never set aside during the term of the contract. Now it's being paid as one more cost of General Motors and Ford and Chrysler as well. So you have a number of costs to put that worker on the assembly line, but there's no debating the fact that because of the union requirements, it does cost $73 and change to put that auto worker on the line, because if you went to the union and said, "Listen, we'd love to put this guy on the line, we just don't want to pay for the job bank guys, the thousands of workers who are sitting around doing nothing," well, you don't get that choice. If you want the worker on the line, you have to pay for the job bank people who aren't doing anything. You also can't say, "We'd like to be able to put that worker on the assembly line making cars without paying for the retirement costs of previous workers," and you don't get that choice either. So I'm going to stand by those numbers, no matter what Media Matters has to say about me. I'm telling you the truth.
[...]
LARSON: When you talk about the cost of having an auto worker on the line, you can't just say, "What does he get as salary?" You have to include all of the costs, even if there are costs are not paid for him but are paid for his co-workers. If that's the total cost of putting a worker on a line, I don't care what Media Matters -- in fact, in some ways I take it as a compliment that Media Matters has attacked me on that one. I'll stick by my guns on that one. And I don't have to worry about the liberals because they don't believe in guns.
From the November 24 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:
CUNNINGHAM: I want the middle class and auto workers to be saved somehow if at all possible, and those responsible need to get a haircut. And it may mean the retirees and the dependents don't have gold platinum health care anymore. It may mean there's 30 percent fewer auto workers. It may mean instead of making $75 an hour in wages and benefits, the typical UAW worker will make what a Toyota worker makes, which is about $45 an hour. That may happen. But whatever it takes, we must save the middle class in the Midwest to survive as the beacon of hope throughout the world.
[...]
DRIEHAUS: You can't just throw money at the problem unless the automotive industry is willing to come forward with a package that makes sense in terms of reform, in terms of moving them in the right direction. And I think that's what you heard from congressional leaders last week, was that we're not just gonna throw money at this. There has to be a plan in place before the assistance comes forward.
CUNNINGHAM: Well, Steve Driehaus, can you Democrats look the UAW in the eye, look the labor unions in the eye that helped get you guys elected and say, "The gravy train is over, you can't make 75 bucks an hour when Toyota's making 45"? Can you look the labor unions in the eye and say, "No more"?
DRIEHAUS: Look, this is gonna be squeezing everybody. It's gonna be retirees, it's gonna be employees, it's gonna be management. It's gonna be labor. Across the board, everybody's gonna have to sacrifice to fix this thing.
They know that their ditto-head type listeners won't bother to look up the transcript, and even if they heard it, will believe that they didn't.
Oh Mars Martian, how did you go so bad?
I just love watching these idiots getting flat out busted and then flopping around like a fish out of water trying to salvage some dignity.
I dont understand why they even bother. It is not like most of their listeners fact check. Dignity? Not in their dictionary.
They should just keep spewing the hatred, ignorance and, contempt for everything rational and hope they get Limbaugh's paycheck.
Their believers are the real suckers. It is sad.
Good thing Reagan did that, too! The nation doesn't need a bunch of coke-heads directing our planes in for a landing.
So it was all a benevolent plan to save us from cocaine using air traffic controllers. Who could all be identified by being union members. Where did you find this particular bit of revisionist history?
"Where did you find this particular bit of revisionist history?"
Personal experience, my brother (from another mother)....personal experience.
Reagan is no hero in this situation. I hope your brother got some help, if he was the one with the problem.
For an interesting discussion of the situation with air traffic controllers now, Ed Shultz interviews Paul Rinaldi of the Air Traffic Controller's Association. the podcast of this interview from November 5th is found on this page: https://www.wegoted.com/todayshow/archive.asp?year=2008&month=11
I think he's calling eweston his brother but I may be wrong. But that's beside the point. It's just an annecdote.
Perhaps the right-wing professional liars would be much happier if their employers no longer have any advertising revenue streaming in from the big 3 auto manufacturers.
-- the "Big Three" negotiated with the UAW in 2007 to significantly reduce the salary and benefits packages for certain new employees -- mmfa
That's hardly good news for the working stiff.
But here's a stat that struck me about the style of management at GM. They bragged about cost reductions, which included reducing the number of certain hourly employees from 132,000 to 64,000...a reduction of 52%.
During the same period of time they reduced salaried employees from 44,000 to 32,000...a whopping 27%.
Yep, the management style that thinks the way to cut costs is to reduce twice as many line jobs as staff jobs...LOL.
You do understand that a great deal of that $73/hour represents the labor cost of current retirees, not current employees, right?
You are calculating worker's hourly wage as $73 with this formula:
$his_wages + $his_benefits + ($total_cost_of_current_retirees / #current_employees)
So, if you fired ALL of those $73/hr employees, and replaced them with maybe 1/2 the number of workers at $6.50/hour and NO benefits at all, by your math these new folks would still be making about what, $45/hour? In fact, if you get the number of employees down to 1 they would be making a truly astronomical figure.
The costs for current retirees were incurred, and properly are accounted for, as costs of the cars built by the retirees. If management did not take appropriate steps to finance those costs when they accepted them as part of the employment contract they negotiated with the workers, that is a failure of management, NOT the union.
"You do understand that a great deal of that $73/hour represents the labor cost of current retirees, not current employees, right?"
Isn't that what Lars is saying? That the total cost of each current 'average' assembly line worker is $73 when you factor in all the costs? So, what is mmfa's complaint?
"The costs for current retirees were incurred, and properly are accounted for, as costs of the cars built by the retirees."
What are you smoking? Are you trying to say that the cars being built now are building the 'nest egg' for future retirees and that NO future cost to the company will occur? That is totally idiotic to say that the retiree is getting ALL his retirement from cars that he already built. The FACT is that the union made the corporation account for the retirees money with new money, not old money. That is a failure of the union for demanding such a crooked deal and the failure of management by allowing it.
When you say it's a management failure and not a union failure, are you saying that the union should NOT renegotiate it's contract if it will keep the company solvent? Or, are you saying the union should stick to their guns and let the company go bankrupt?
The figure of $73 is totally bogus and you know it. Lars used to be more interested in being accurate in his commentaries (that was a long time ago) Now he just follows right wing talking points no matter how false or misleading. Another guy who sold his soul.
Lars said something, then denied that he said it. That's it in a nutshell. So stop whining.
Oh? And, when was that?
The best way to gauge the accuracy of any given mmfa article is to read it. (Phlib)
Really stating the obvious there,I think that would apply to just about anything Phlibby. Ironic that the person posting that thought is the one who didn't seem to read the item.
You're right. I should have said "inaccuracy". Thanks for catching that and giving me the opportunity to make a correction.
Based on the number of posts on this site the past couple of days, you seem to be on a liberal-bashing, whining binge yourself.
Lars, do you realize that there are devices which record your speech, so when you lie about what you said everbody knows it?
"Isn't that what Lars is saying? That the total cost of each current 'average' assembly line worker is $73 when you factor in all the costs? So, what is mmfa's complaint?"
No. What Las said was, "(American automakers are) paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits."
Feel free to tell us just how many factory workers you think are receiving a salary of $73.73 an hour?
So, you're argueing semantics, also? Face it, Lars is right and you are wrong. Bring some facts, if you have any. But, I don't think you do, so you'll bring opinion ... just like mmfa .... incorrect, misleading opinion. Mmfa achieves the exact same thing they whine about republicans doing--- providing misinformation.
http://www.fistfuloftalent.com/2008/11/the-cost-of-talent---us-vs-foriegn-automakers.html
"While in the past UAW settled for some benefit decreases while bargaining with the Big Three U.S. automakers, according to the Wall Street Journal in September of 2006, “on average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to its U.S. hourly workers.” Those increased costs, including the cost of health care, were passed along to consumers, adding $1,600 to the price of every vehicle GM produced. In February 2008, after General Motors offered buyouts to 74,000 employees, the Center for Automotive Research estimated the average wage, including benefits, for current GM workers had dropped to $78.21 an hour." : http://tommydavis.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/us-automaker/
This confirms that you haven't read the article that you're supposedly posting about.
No semantical argument is necessary here. MMFA always provides the transcript. If Lars wanted to claim the cost or even "compensation" paid by the auto companies was in excess of $73 that is what he should have said. He didn't. "Paying $73 an hour (to those people)" was the phrase he used. He got called on it. Like all right wing shills he hates being called on his BS so he reverts to denial (aka lying about his lie). To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else. No one but a complete dupe is buying his attempt to squirm out of it (or the pathetic efforts of his apologists). I employ 163 people. If I hired someone promising them $61 an hour (which is my average cost per hour for each employee) and gave them a paycheck based on $28 per hour which is my company's average base hourly rate I would expect to be sued. I employ good people and wish I could pay them more. I will when I can. My books are open to any employee. The cost of healthcare benefits is killing me. But I get by--and thanks to the efforts of my employees we will all get through this. No layoffs, no give backs. Taking good care of your workers and their families is the most important part of being and remaining competitive. I owe them everything and wake each morning grateful for their effort. To state the pay scale of any employee in this way without providing the whole story is dishonest and dishonorable. Thank God that MMFA does what they do so well. Save your indignation for the real liars like Andrew Sorkin, the New York Post, James Gattuso, and the others cited by Eric Boehlert here.
He's still trying to attribute costs to the worker that have nothing to do with that worker. It doesn't "cost" GM $70 an hour to have a worker on the assembly line because a big chunk of that $70 are costs that GM would be responsible for anyway.