ABC's Bury falsely claimed Big Three auto companies "pay union workers more than $73 an hour in wages and benefits"
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.
SUMMARY: On World News, Chris Bury falsely claimed that "Ford, Chrysler, and GM pay union workers more than $73 an hour in wages and benefits." In fact, according to General Motors, the figure -- which GM puts at $69 per hour -- 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 current retirees.
On the December 3 broadcast of ABC's World News, national correspondent Chris Bury falsely claimed that "Ford, Chrysler, and GM pay union workers more than $73 an hour in wages and benefits." In fact, according to General Motors, which reportedly puts its current hourly labor costs at around $69, the 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 current retirees, as Media Matters for America has noted.
Bury described the alleged $73 an hour pay rate as "the big stuff" that the United Auto Workers "did not offer to give back" as a concession to keep GM, Chrysler, and Ford from falling into bankruptcy. But the Associated Press reported that GM "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," and according to a GM spokesman, "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."
Bury joins numerous other media figures who have advanced the falsehood that U.S. autoworkers employed by General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler earn $70 or more per hour in wages and benefits.
From the December 3 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
BURY: But the union did not offer to give back the big stuff: pay and benefits that remain a fundamental problem. Ford, Chrysler, and GM pay union workers more than $73 an hour in wages and benefits. Japanese plants here shell out just over $44. For GM, that translates into $1,500 more per car than Toyota has to pay.
DAVID COLE (chairman, Center for Automotive Research): That's like trying to run a marathon, and your competition is wearing track shoes and a great track outfit, and you're wearing galoshes and an overcoat and carrying a bowling ball.
BURY: That competitive gap will shrink dramatically when big cuts in pay and benefits kick in over the next few years, but that's too late. Today the union chief bristled at blaming autoworkers.
RON GETTELFINGER (president, United Auto Workers): Are we going to take a look at what's happened to our economy, to the housing crunch, to the Wall Street bailout, and the failures on Wall Street? Those are the things that we need to look at.
BURY: The concessions may not be enough to stem the bleeding, but they may help convince Congress that Detroit is serious about changing its ways, and today, President-elect Obama suggested he is warming to the bailout plan.
The lie that won't go away. This is a good example of why we need better math instruction at the grade school level; the level required to understand the dishonesty of this statistic.
The corporate media repeats so much right wing junk that they should have a full time septic removal system to pump it out of their buildings. Maybe even BEFORE they give it airtime!!!
I just hope Bury got out of bed in time to catch Morning Joe today. That's the hard -hitting news show that had somebody mention that this is BS, after a few weeks of uncontested promotion by the media at large.
might be the only autoworker that actually makes 73 dollars an hour taxable income is Allan Mullaly ?
The sad thing is that if the $73 figure was actually true it might explain why these Big 3 have lost their a**es. As it is at $28 per hour, I guess their business model just plain wasn't workable.
I know, I know, they are making great product...now. The problem is that years ago they were putting out substandard product and people will go in another direction the next time if they get burned. Goodwill crumbles much faster than it returns, and I believe the Big 3 squandered a lot of goodwill earlier years.
A car is a major expense for most people, selling someone a car that doesn't last as long as the payment is a lousy way to get repeat business.
I love my Ford Focus. It's been a good car with great mileage and little headache. I'd buy Ford again. However, it gets 30 MPH. The big 3 are screwed because they invested all their money in plants to produce giant gas guzzling SUVs, which are no longer popular.
You could make an argument that they were blind-sided by the tectonic shift that occurred in the 70's away from muscle cars and towards compacts. This is when Japanese cars got a toehold in the market, having been naturally small and efficient. However, they should have seen this recent gas crisis coming and prepared for it.
I just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" the other day. That was one of the most depressing pieces of film I've ever watched. If we do bail them out, one of our conditions should be that they have to bring back the electric car and not purposefully kill it this time.
So we are going to trade oil based energy (to propel current vehicles) with coal based energy (to provide the charging power for the electric car)? Yeah, I know there is solar (saw the sun briefly today for the first time since the weekend) and wind (the wind farm I can see has not had more than a very small handful of blades turning this week either).
Electric cars are more efficient than internal combustion vehicles. Even if this were not so, I think it's easier to expect the utility companies to find ways off of the carbon teet in the future. Additionally, coal energy is at least produced from US resources. Lastly, we have a mix of electricity production in America. Here in the NW, as you know, we get most of our electricity from renewable hydroelectric sources.
In sum:
Internal Combustion: All carbon, some foreign sources
Electric: Some carbon, some renewable, all domestic sources
It's funny that an Eastern Washington dude would somehow leave out hydoelectric, considering that Grand Coulee alone produces enough electricity to power the Seattle area.
I know that hydro is renewable, but the renewable energy initiative that was passed a couple of years ago will not allow hydro to be counted toward the renewable energy goals. Just a little tweak to you, SJ, as I sit here (now in the dark) under gray skies the past four days and the nearby windmills as quiet as can be.
Work the geo thermal reources into it also. Either to produce electricity or hydrogen. Most of Washington's is in the eastern side and in the basaltic south central plains. You'd like the Cascade volcano's would be good, but I haven't seen any thing on their potential.
I believe the P.I. had an article a day or two ago, about an increased efficiency method in hydroelectric production. acouple of 10%'s worth.
I'm thinking the energy released on the day in May of 1980, if harnessed, would have probably powered us until now (at least in the NW). Yes, they are finding some better ways of building turbines to get more energy out of the existing hydro plants, will be happening over the next turbine replacement cycle. I don't understand why hydro could not be used to count toward the renewables, but the Westside voters know better than us Eastside country boys/girls.
That's certainly the truth. One only has to look at who each county picked for president to prove that axiom.
I wonder if autoworkers can still remember the old days, when getting paid $28 an hour meant that they would get $28 bucks for each hour they worked before the goverment took its cut.
I don't quite understand your post here Victor?
Are you saying that in the "old days" the workers didn't pay taxes?
No, I should have left taxes out of it. I was just mocking the new math - where 28 has been replaced with 73.
they are also pushing the " Obama birth certificate thing ""
Think about this: GM shares are $3 a share. You could buy 100% if their shares for $3 billion dollars and keep all the future profits, so why would we want to loan them $14 billion in the hopes that they retool and pay us back?
Good thought, Snoop, but the way it's going that $3 billion "investment" would apparently be worthless in 6 months unless GM gets it's way.
Not if we fire them and take over running the place... ;)
And in a couple of years I wouldn't have enough left over to buy my ulcer medicine. Don't have one now, but trying to run a dinosaur like GM is now structured would probably give me one. But if you have an extra $2.8 billion sitting around, I might be interested in a minority share ;>)
Randy (R.A. Roth)
So the argument must be "if only the workers made less, they could turn a profit?" OK, then, how about everybody gets minimum wage and no benes, pension, whatever? Now will they turn a profit? NO! Because a) people don't want to/can't waste money on a car when they don't have a job or are about to lose their jobs and b) even more importantly, FINANCING HAS DRIED UP! So even if the workers turned into volunteers and the raw material was free, it wouldn't help. But, damn, isn't that the wet dream of every business owner in America, if they could only skip paying for parts and labor, pocket all the profit. "Minimum wage is your boss saying 'if I could pay you less, I would.'" Chris Rock.