About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox's Gallagher latest to falsely claim Big Three autoworkers make $73 per hour

December 02, 2008 7:16 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On The Live Desk, Trace Gallagher falsely claimed that autoworkers for "the Big Three" earn "73 bucks in wages and benefits." In fact, according to General Motors, the $73-an-hour figure is based not only on current workers' hourly wages and benefits, such as health care and retirement, but also retirement and health-care benefits that U.S. automakers are providing for retirees.

17 Comments

On the December 2 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher repeated the falsehood that the average union autoworker earns $73 an hour in wages and benefits. Gallagher asked Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI): "[I]s it tough to justify to your constituents when you have the hourly compensation and wage of the Big Three at around $73 and you have the hourly compensation and wage for the average American at $28? I mean, it's a big disparity to ask those making 28 bucks in wages and benefits to pay for those who are making 73 bucks in wages and benefits." In fact, according to General Motors, the $73-an-hour figure is based not only on current workers' hourly wages and benefits, such as health care and retirement, but also retirement and health-care benefits that U.S. automakers are providing for retirees, as Media Matters for America has noted.

Numerous media figures have advanced the falsehood that autoworkers earn $70 or more per hour in wages and benefits, some using it to blame autoworkers for the domestic auto industry's financial straits.

From the December 2 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha and Trace:

GALLAGHER: Is there a plan B if the Big Three don't get this bailout?

UPTON: Well, not really. In fact, GM, they'll probably say, at the end of the week, if they don't get some type of bridge loan commitment, certainly this month, now that we're in December, we're not sure that they can actually make it into -- very much into next year at all. So, there's really no -- no one's talking about a plan B right now. What we're trying to do is -- Ford now is -- at least they've shared with us a summary of a plan that's going to be going to all the members on the banking committee -- House Finance Committee over here in the House. We'll see what the reaction is among both Republicans and Democrats.

Hearings are going to be later on this week, and you know, hopefully, they're going to be showing that, in fact, there is going to be some belt-tightening and a number of different changes that will justify a bridge loan to get them into the next level of vehicles that Americans want: electric hybrids, other things to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. And if we can show that they can pass the plan, hopefully -- or that the committee reaction is positive -- hopefully, we can get a bill on the House floor -- House and Senate floor, as early as next week.

GALLAGHER: Congressman, when you talk about justifying this bridge loan, is it tough to justify to your constituents when you have the hourly compensation and wage of the Big Three at around $73 and you have the hourly compensation and wage for the average American at $28? I mean, it's a big disparity to ask those making 28 bucks in wages and benefits to pay for those who are making 73 bucks in wages and benefits.

UPTON: Couple of things. First of all, the last big contract that the UAW did does away with a lot of the legacy cost difference between the Big Three and some of the transplants, Honda and Toyota. Almost gets rid of it by the end of next year. Second, we're going to see, I'm sure, some more concessions. The UAW, I think, is going to be testifying later on this week as well, talk about some other price-savings things that they can do. But, you know, let's look at the facts here. We're looking for maybe $25 billion dollars as a bridge loan that gets paid back, manufacturing staying where it is --

GALLAGHER: What if it doesn't get paid back, Congressman? What if it does not get paid back?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by pete592 (December 02, 2008 7:27 pm ET)
         

      Fox News...If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull****.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (December 02, 2008 8:59 pm ET)
           

        But it's not just FOX. They're all doing it-- every single one of them-- except maybe Olbermann, who then gets the facts wrong himself, as he did the other day.

        I don't know what's worse. The fact that these people keep lying about this, or that no one-- and I mean no one-- ever rebuts them on these shows. It's always, "yes, but..." It's a nightmare.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (December 02, 2008 7:43 pm ET)
         

      Gee, maybe if the big three made a car that people wanted to buy they wouldn't be carrying such huge transformation cost debt, ya think?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 03, 2008 10:56 am ET)
           

        Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.  Get some actual facts, dude.

        6 myths about the Detroit 3

        BY MARK PHELAN, FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

        The debate over aid to the Detroit-based automakers is awash with half-truths and misrepresentations that are endlessly repeated by everyone from members of Congress to journalists. Here are six myths about the companies and their vehicles, and the reality in each case.

        Myth No. 1

        Nobody buys their vehicles.

        Reality

        General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.

        Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.

        Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.

        Myth No. 2

        They build unreliable junk.

        Reality

        The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.

        Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

        Myth No. 3

        They build gas-guzzlers.

        Reality

        All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

        Myth No. 4

        They already got a $25-billion bailout.

        Reality

        None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.

        Myth No. 5

        GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

        Reality

        The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

        Myth No. 6

        They don't build hybrids.

        Reality

        The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (December 03, 2008 2:41 pm ET)
             

          Here, let me help you with a few actual facts, dude. The parts you left out will lend clarity to what you wanted us to think...

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

          The Consumer’s Truth Myths and Facts about American Consumers and Fuel Economy

          Manufacturer Myth – American consumers like gas guzzlers and are not interested in technology that will save them money and help the environment.

          Consumer Fact – Fuel economy is one of the top concerns of drivers in the U.S.

          Too-high fuel consumption ranked second in a list of all driver complaints gathered in a May 2003 J.D. Power and Associates poll.

          • Hummer owners, according to the same poll, ranked Hummers last in a list of 36 brands, registering almost twice as many complaints about their vehicles as did other owners, many of which concerned the Hummer’s extremely low fuel economy.

          Consumer Fact – The demand for hybrid-electric vehicles has been significantly

          underestimated by automakers.

          Increased gas prices and general economic downturn are leading consumers to trade in their gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

          The waiting lists at Honda and Toyota dealerships for hybrid vehicles are now up to 10 months long.

          Consumer Fact – American consumers favor fuel economy increases and want to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil.

          Sixty-one percent of Americans favor increasing the fuel efficiency requirements to 40 miles per gallon (mpg), even if it increased the price of cars.

          • Ninety-three percent of Americans believe the United States should require cars to get better gas mileage to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

          • Sixty-one percent of labor union households agreed that “increasing fuel efficiency is the single most effective action that could reduce national dependence on foreign oil.”

          • Eighty-one percent of consumers “approve of the government requiring car manufacturers to meet higher fuel efficiency standards than they do now.”

          Consumer Fact – American consumers want to save money at the pump, even if it costs them more money up front.

          Seventy-six percent of pickup drivers favor increasing the fuel economy of pickups. An overwhelming 87 percent surveyed said that they would be willing to pay $500 additionally for a higher-mileage pickup when told that they could expect to save $2,000 worth of gasoline during the life span of their truck.

          • Sixty-one percent of Americans believe that greater conservation of energy supplies is an important piece of the solution to our energy problems.

          Consumer Fact – American consumers will pay more for their vehicles because they value a cleaner environment and want to address global warming.

          Sixty-three percent of Americans polled said they would be willing to pay 3 percent (or nearly $900 on a $30,000-vehicle) more for their sport utility vehicles in order to solve emissions problems stemming from their use.

          • Seventy-five percent of predominantly Republican and Independent voters in New Hampshire “favored increasing fuel economy to address global warming, even at an extra cost of $300.”

          Manufacturer Myth – The auto industry merely “follows the market” for SUVs.

          Consumer Fact – The auto industry spends billions to advertise SUVs, which are by far their most profitable products.

          During the last decade, automakers and their dealers spent over $9 billion advertising SUVs. This ever-increasing expenditure rose nine-fold during that time, from $172.5 million in 1990 to $1.5 billion in 2000 – a rise that exceeds, in percentage, the growth of SUVs over the same period.

          • The auto industry spends more per year on advertising than any other industry in the United States – more than the next three biggest spenders (financial services, telecommunications, and national restaurant chains) combined.

          • For total advertising spending in 2001, the Big Three American automakers ranked #1 (General Motors), #3 (Ford), and #6 (DaimlerChrysler) among corporate spenders.

          • Per advertising dollar spent, the Big 3 have three times the revenue of the other top ten spenders, averaging $42.30 for every ad dollar spent compared with $13.67 for the other seven companies.

          Consumer Fact - Manufacturers have a huge financial investment in the attempt to persuade consumers to purchase SUVs.

          Cut-rate designs based on pickup truck chassis and low fuel economy requirements for SUVs generate very high profit margins for these “cash cows” of Detroit.

          While manufacturers make only a 3 percent profit on cars, they make 15 to 20 percent profit on SUVs. This means that while manufacturers reap around $1,500 profit for a compact sedan, they rake in about $10,000 on SUVs.

          • SUV and pickup truck sales account for nearly all of the profits of the Big Three auto companies. For example, in 2002 General Motors generated 90 percent of its profits from SUVs and pickups.

          • Domestic manufacturers were protected until the mid-1990s by a tariff which imposed costs on foreign manufacturers, discouraging the importation of SUVs and helping to create crucial leverage for Detroit in that market sector.

          The largest SUVs receive special breaks on key safety laws, helping to generate more profit. SUVs over 8,500 lbs. are held to a less protective side impact standard than applies to cars and need not meet any roof strength standard. In addition, the largest SUVs need not install new anchorage systems to accommodate child restraints.

          Consumer Fact – Special tax breaks for small businesses allow huge write-off’s for SUVs, further distorting the market and generating a false demand.

          Thanks to the recent Bush tax cut, when businesses purchase an SUV (or other light truck) over 6,000 lbs., they can immediately deduct $100,000 dollars, paying in full for every vehicle over 6,000 lbs. except the Hummer.

          These special interest tax breaks do not preclude businesses from taking the standard 20 percent deduction annually over five years.

          • It is estimated that the original SUV tax break, which capped initial deduction at $25,000, cost the federal government between $840 million and $987 million yearly, making it one of the biggest tax breaks, per capita, in the U.S.

          Consumer Fact – Deceptive advertising about SUVs drives their popularity and misleads consumers about their safety.

          Despite being marketed to consumers as rugged, go-anywhere vehicles, only 1 to 10 percent of SUV owners use their vehicles for off-road driving or towing.

          • Jeep Grand Cherokees, for example, were marketed with ads calling the vehicles “Still the best insurance policy ever” and touting their existence as “one of the safest 4x4s out there” with a “legendary four-wheel drive [that] shows no fear in the face of a blizzard [and a] braking system [that] helps you stop even when the rain or sleet or snow hasn’t.” Similar ad campaigns have been launched to hype most SUVs.

          • But J.C. Collins, Ford’s top marketing manager for SUVs said “[t]he only time those SUVs are going to be off-road is when they miss the driveway at 3 a.m.”

          • And Csaba Csere, the editor in chief for Car and Driver magazine said in interviews that “the bottom line is that, in every measurement of dynamic ability on pavement, cars outperform trucks,” effectively denying the myth that SUVs handle better than cars in the most common hazardous conditions.

          • In April 2003, 40 state Attorneys General called on SUV manufacturers to immediately stop their misleading advertisements claiming that SUVs have the same handling as passenger cars, or that SUVs can handle emergency procedures safely at fast speeds. The letter was one result of a $51.5 million settlement with Ford over deceptive advertising of its Explorer.

          Consumer Fact – The market does not always know best, and Congress has a responsibility to act for consumers to preserve other American values, such as reducing dependence on oil and asthma- and cancer-causing air pollution.

          Passenger vehicles consume 8 million barrels of oil every day, constituting about 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption.

          • Between 1990 and 1999 oil consumption in the U.S. rose 15 percent and American oil imports rose 40 percent. If that trend continues, by 2020 64 percent of oil used in the U.S. will be imported.

          • The U.S. currently spends almost $200,000 per minute to purchase foreign oil.

          • U.S. passenger vehicles alone produce more carbon dioxide pollution than all but three countries worldwide (China, Russia, and Japan) – amounting to almost 5 percent of total worldwide CO2 emissions.

          • Air pollution caused by cars and light trucks produce a literally breathtaking amount of U.S. air pollution, second only to electricity generation.

          • The shortsightedness of automobile manufacturers should not blind Congress to the right road. During the 1970’s oil crisis, the original fuel economy standards that had been strongly opposed by manufacturers, helped to save the industry from the onslaught of foreign competition during the 1979 oil crisis and the high interest rates that followed.

          Manufacturer Myth – Consumers currently have the right information to choose a vehicle that best suits their needs.

          Consumer Fact – Manufacturers have long opposed point-of-sale labeling that would give consumers information about vehicle safety and efficiency and that would allow them to make a truly educated decision about which vehicle is best for them.

          Currently consumers are provided, at the point of sale, with labels that explain the highway and city fuel economy estimates for each vehicle. Consumers are not, however, given pointof-sale, in-depth information about the safety hazards of the vehicles that they plan on purchasing even though that information is routinely gathered by both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and manufacturers and NHTSA has authority to require them.

          Consumers savvy enough to navigate NHTSA’s on-line information in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) are able to view some safety information on the select vehicle models tested each year by the agency. But many consumers have no access to the Internet or are unaware that the information exists. NHTSA’s own research shows that only about 1.5 percent of consumers would consider researching auto safety issues by contacting a federal agency, while about half would think to request safety information from auto dealers, where there is no independent test information available.

          Consumer Fact – Manufacturers oppose measures that would make vehicles safer, and continue in their attempts to keep such hazards a secret from the public.

          Manufacturers have historically opposed safety standards, such airbags and seatbelts, and they continue to hinder safety efforts through their opposition of measures to reduce rollovers, particularly in SUVs and light trucks, and roof crush standards that would help make rollovers more survivable.

          In 1994, pressure from the industry killed a federal minimum standard on rollover prevention, which would have saved thousands of lives. The key argument automakers used to kill the safety standard was the cost for an SUV-redesign. New data shows that SUV rollovers are now the leading cause of the increased death rates on U.S. highways.

          Ford imposed secret settlements on killed and injured plaintiffs in Ford Explorer cases throughout the 1990s and never told Federal safety regulators. At least 271 people died in Ford/Firestone crashes in the U.S. alone and over 700 were severely injured.

          General Motors successfully resisted a recall of 9 million C/K Pickups that had exploding gas tanks which have led to the fiery deaths of over 725 people. GM has reached 331 individual settlement agreements totaling $495 million in payouts.

          • Automakers continue to press NHTSA to keep early warning safety defect information, a collection mandated by Congress in the TREAD Act of 2000, a secret from the public. A decision is pending from the agency after heavy industry lobbying and threats of litigation.

          Making vehicles capable of reaching 140 miles per hour, twice the speed limit, increases incentives among young vulnerable drivers to speed and get involved in crashes and wastes fuel simultaneously.

          Manufacturer Myth – The explosion of SUV sales increases safety for everyone.

          Consumer Fact – The rise in SUVs and other trucks has erased many of the gains made by decades worth of automobile safety improvements.

          In a report on the risks of rollover crashes, NHTSA explains that, “the increase in light truck occupant fatalities accounts for the continued high level of overall occupant fatalities, having offset the decline in traffic deaths of passenger car occupants.”

          • New federal data shows that SUV and pickup truck rollover fatalities accounted for 53 percent of the increase in traffic deaths between 2001 and 2002.

          • Guardrails on many roads are too low to effectively protect SUV drivers, and will cost millions of dollars to upgrade.

          Manufacturer Myth – Increased CAFE standards will force consumers to drive “purple people eaters.”

          Consumer Fact – Manufacturers have always “cried wolf” about their inability to make improvements in fuel economy.

          Manufacturers made the same claims in the 1974 CAFE debates. Ford claimed that under the proposed standard they would only be able to produce “sub-Pinto sized vehicles.” Daimler/Chrysler argued that the standards would lead to the outlawing of numerous engines and car models, in effect restricting the industry to produce only “sub compact size cars – or even smaller ones.” And General Motors, calling CAFE “an unjustified interference with individual freedom,” claimed that their sales would be reduced to vehicles “smaller, lighter, and less powerful than today’s compact Chevy Nova.”

          • Regardless of these protests, manufacturers doubled the fuel economy of passenger vehicles between 1977 and 1990 and continue to make large and mid-sized vehicles.

          Consumer Fact – Obviously, this nightmarish world devoid of choices for consumers has never materialized.

          A Department of Energy study showed that over 85 percent of fuel economy improvements were achieved through technology – not by weight reduction or a limit of vehicle choices.

          • Thanks to the reality of technological ingenuity, market dynamics and ever increasing competitiveness among manufacturers, consumers have more vehicle choices now than ever before.

          Consumer Fact – Heavily marketed, highly profitable SUVs are the real people eaters.

          SUVs are marketed with a kill-or-be-killed mentality, hyping the dangerous potential of SUVs to other motorists. The 1998 Lincoln Navigator was advertised as an “Urban Assault Luxury Vehicle” and recent Hummer campaigns have used menacing phrases such as “Teach cabbies some respect,” and “Threaten a man in a whole new way.”

          • And the high kill rate of SUVs makes their aggressiveness the major tragedy of today’s roadways. According to federal crash statistics, when an SUV hits the near side of a passenger car, the driver of the passenger car is over 16 times more likely to die than the driver of the SUV.

          • One former NHTSA Administrator estimated in 1997 that the aggressive design of light trucks (a category including SUVs, pickup trucks, vans and minivans) has killed 2,000 additional people needlessly each year.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 05, 2008 11:34 am ET)
               

            All very good points, and I agree with 99% of what you posted.  But it doesn't really support your original post, nor does it counter mine.

            No one is suggesting that GM Ford and CHrysler are well-run companies, putting out top of the line vehicles that are verything to all people.  Obvuously that's not the case, or they wouldn't be in this much trouble.  SUV's are gas-guzzlers and are unsafe - rollover is the worst kind of accident there is: fairly common and very difficult to survive.  Nor am I denying that there may have been forces at work other that "the market" that led to their balloning sales.  But whatever the reason: they made A LOT OF MONEY on these vehicles!  It's hard to sit in a boardroom and argue that more of the less-profitable cars should be sold, when the demand is there for the more profitable ones.  And you are also correct in asserting that "the market" is not always right - I agree: congress has the right to demand that automakers change their ways, and their product line up, if they expect congress to give them a $34 Billion Dollar loan.  I have no problem with them attaching strings to such a significant request.  (And I have always believed that the industry has been dead wrong about CAFE Standards.  If Al Gore had been elected and raiosed them back in 2000, all of the big-three would have fared better of the past tw-three years, given the high gas prices.  It would have SAVED them, not KILLED them.  I agree with you there 100% as well.)

            But your original post had nothing to do with any of that.  Youd said "maybe if the big three made a car that people wanted to buy they wouldn't be carrying such huge transformation cost debt".  The FACT is that more people bought GM's than any other brand, both in the US and World Wide, both last year and so far this year.  Ford and Chrysler have also outperformed all but Toyota, in terms of sales.

            MY POINT is that comments about the products being largely responsible for the companies' current troubles are based almost entirely on anecdotal data five to twenty years out of date.  And the DFP article I posted supports that, and is not rebutted by your post (as on the dot as your post was!)  And it absoultely was!

            But the Big 3 certainly live in a bubble, and need a good dose of reality form the POV of the rest of the country.  Being in the auto industry myself (Safety Restraints Engineer) and having lived all over the country I can see a large disparity between how Detroit views it products and how the rest of the US does.  But the public perception is based more on the US Prducts from the 80's and 90's than from their current lineups - which includes many hybrids, many 30+ mpg cars and soon the first TRULY electric car, in the Chevy Volt.  And the quality these days is every bit as good as Japan's.  The products aren't perfect, but they are the least of the big 3's problem's at the moment.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (December 02, 2008 7:58 pm ET)
         

      Freaky Fox phony frazzles facts, which fools finicky fickle folks who fixate on false figures.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (December 02, 2008 8:36 pm ET)
           

        Snoopy Presents: Real Facts of Genius

        (Real Facts of Genius!)

        Today we salute you. Ms. Fox News Make Up Facts As You Go Along Reporter!

        (Ms. Fox News Make Up Facts As You Go Along Reporter!)

        Thinking nothing but an agenda and a party, you're living the real American dream,

        Getting paid to think up fun lies to tell... Republican style.

        (Thinkin free!)

        Sure there's danger, facts, vetting, research, and foot work, completely out of the question

        (WATCH OUT NOW!)

        Your keen instincts tells you to stick to activities that involve a lot of bouncing and jiggling boobies. And if that doesn't work, who cares? You're blonde.

        (Wind Tunnel!)

        So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, Cheasty Babe. 'Cause we all know, when the the going gets tough, the tough bounce boobies.

        (Ms. Fox News Make Up Facts As You Go Along Reporter!)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (December 02, 2008 8:02 pm ET)
         

      I'm sick of these news punks mutilating the debate, begrudging people who make a decent wage for their labor as if we all should just shut up and take whatever crumbs they think we deserve. 

      It isn't like the rank and file auto worker is a feckless non-productive employee. Productivity in America rises every year, corporate profits soar and executive salaries balloon, yet wages for workers shrink relative to the cost of living. So get the story straight Gallagher, taxpayers are being asked to pay for the failed vision of management, not the people who build what they're told to build.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (December 02, 2008 8:47 pm ET)
           

        As a former DELL employee new to unemployment, I second that comment!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (December 02, 2008 9:05 pm ET)
             

          I'm real sorry to hear that, Snoopy. Hopefully, with a strong public investment strategy we can get people back to work soon. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (December 03, 2008 9:56 am ET)
               

            I hope that helps, but I was a victim of outsourcing. We ran out of ideas on how to make the cost per box cheaper so the only cost cut left that was achievable was to cut wages and shipping. Dell got a two for one by outsourcing closer to where they think the next market source is.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (December 02, 2008 9:00 pm ET)
           

        There's nothing more offensive than these rich guys tsk-tsking working people who make a decent wage. It's just incredibly ugly and inappropriate-- really shameless.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (December 02, 2008 9:10 pm ET)
             

          True that. But they were hired to protect the interests of some truly filthy rich people.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (December 03, 2008 9:23 am ET)
         
      Let's play the Right WingNutz Game - Imagine! [Go to the Newsbusters site - they use "imagine" more than John Lennon.] Imagine if a liberal or progressive commentator said members of the US Military make - what? we can just make up a number, that's what those folks seem to do - $100 per hour. We factor in "free" housing, food, and wonderful travel benefits for active military personnel, all the retirement benefits of former military members, the pathetic Veterans' benefits for education and health that are woefully short but none the less they are costs, we'll be at $100 per hour before we know it! Just Imagine the outrage! Ole BlunderRush, Sheer Insannity, Ann Falter, Bull O'Really? and the rest of the rabble would be screaming about it. Please Note: This is just an example and not a slight, dig, or slur at members of the United States Military. Their job is already tough enough!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (December 03, 2008 10:36 am ET)
         

      This is becoming a war of symbolism.  The U.A.W. seems to be the last holdout of well-paid manufacturing employees.  I know that there are still others in the country, but the automakers are in the news.  

      Through asinine trade and tax policies, our corporations have been allowed to shop around the world for the cheapest labor available, and have dragged us into a breakneck race to the bottom.  Both political parties apparently share the blame for this,  and the results are becoming painfully clear.

      As for the $73/hour (gasp!) that these guys allegedly make.... it does sound like a lot to most of us,  but it's about half of what Joe the F***ing Plumber pretended he was going to make in his Whine Tour.  The Cons kept promoting the $250,000-Joe as an "average guy", yet they are vilifying people who work just as hard for half as much.

      Go figure.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace