Boston Herald furthers false claim that United Auto Workers members have "$78-per-hour jobs"
SUMMARY: In a Boston Herald column, Michael Graham repeated the falsehood that union autoworkers have "$78-per-hour jobs." In fact, the figure representing the hourly cost of labor to U.S. automakers -- a cost that GM puts at $69 -- includes not only 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.
In a December 4 Boston Herald column, Michael Graham repeated the falsehood that United Auto Workers members have "$78-per-hour jobs." In fact, the figure representing the hourly cost of labor to U.S. automakers -- a cost that GM puts at $69 -- includes not only 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. Despite this fact, 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 Graham's December 4 Boston Herald column:
In Massachusetts, it seems to always come around to Joe Biden's favorite three-letter word:
Jobs.
Our congressional delegation overwhelmingly supports throwing another $34 billion at GM and the gang so that United Auto Workers members can keep their $78-per-hour jobs. The Big 3 bailout is really a bailout of union contracts that include, among other things, the infamous job bank. That's where U.S. car makers must pay some 1,400 "workers'' full wages for years after they've stopped working due to layoffs. Some stay on the payroll until they retire.
I think the unions need to start publicly correcting these assertions...little traction is being gained in the media on this.
I still don't like how MMfA goes after papers for printing editorials though...this guy's a talkshow host, not a sanctioned member of their editorial team, correct?
80% of the people who make the list here are talkshow hosts.
Also, I think there's a duty of the editorial staff to fact-check every submission sent to them for publication. Could be wrong though.
There may not be a duty to fact check, but they can show come responsibility by printing the responses they receive, particularly the ones that debunk the $78-per-hour myth.
Especially if they believe in fair, balanced and accurate reporting.
Otherwise, they're just right-wing shills.
"particularly the ones that debunk the $78-per-hour myth."
Which ones are those? Got any?
And, dexter wonders why the unions doesn't speak up....well, it could be because these claims are true! mmfa is just trying to whine about another fact without any basis to their claims. Provide some facts to back up mmfa's whine about lower wages/benefits than claimed.
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2135.cfm
You are serious? Have you read anything at all? That figure is totally made up. It's bogus. It's deceased; expired; preposterous, and further, a hack-job compilation of all benefits tacked on to salaries, including retired persons. Let go; give it up; free your mind.
Ok, mary, if that's how you see it, provide me with proof of your agreed upon figure. Simply saying I'm wrong and showing a picture of a broken record doesn't cut it for proof.
Auto workers don't make $70 dollars per hour, even if you include their benefits. It's much, much less. There's your debunking.
"But 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."
Maybe you're spelunking. Because you certainly aren't debunking anything. This is from the mmfa link in this article. GM says they pay "around $69 per hour" in hourly labor costs. Considering GM has the facts and you don't, I will believe GM. And, considering the source of my facts comes from mmfa YOU should believe the facts, too. Why aren't you?
Once again, "Auto workers don't make $70 dollars per hour..". They don't. Including existing retirees is dishonest and leads people to believe individual workers are making more than they are. It's simple as that.
Then why does mmfa provide a link that proves they do cost that much per hour?? If they want to prove auto workers don't cost that much, then they shouldn't provide the evidence that debunks their own arguement.
The problem isn't with the statistic itself. It's how it's used. The press is indicating that the average worker makes $75/hour. They don't, even if you include their benefits. You know this, of course.
I do like them going after papers and holding them accountable for what they decide to print. If they're enabling the bull****, knowingly or otherwise, they can also correct it.
I'm completely with you on items that are shown to be journalism vs articles posted under the big EDITORIAL PAGE headline. Opinions are opinions, and editorials are opinions. Is that opinion completely wrong? You may think so, and you also may think that one is ignoring a breadth of evidence to the contrary. BUT, it's still an opinion.
True, but it is still worth noting by MMFA. Everything Pigboy Limbaugh says is "editorial comment", but most of his drooling audience thinks it's gospel.
Yeah I'd rather see MMfA concentrate on the writer, that's all. In our tabloid society these days, I can't imagine a paper could survive by doing something so boring as REPORTING THE NEWS, unfortunately.
Concentrate how? So they pin it on the BH for furthering the claim, but they directly credit Graham for writing it in the first sentence of the item. They also provide his e-mail address directly below the BH contact link.
Opinions are opinions, and editorials are opinions. - dex
But the wages of the employee is a fact and not an opinion. Facts are facts, no?
I sent an e-mail to this Michael Graham and he responded:
Dear Mr. Graham,
American auto workers don’t make $78 an hour in wages benefits as you claim. GM puts total labor costs at $69 per hour, and this figure includes the pensions and health benefits for over 400,000 retirees. So the $78 an hour figure for current workers that you tossed out is a complete lie.
Please go to Media Matters. It may help you get your head out of your ass—but I’m not holding my breath.
You’re a perfect example of the pathetic hack journalism that has so disgraced our nation.
Graham response: On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.
My response:
Thank you for your response. I withdraw my previous negativity.
However, I’ve got to tell you, I find it amazing that you seem unable to grasp what seems to me a very simple and important point. You stated that GM workers “want to keep their $78 per-hour jobs.” You’re lumping retiree pensions and health benefits into these supposed “$78 per-hour jobs.” But are you telling your readers this? Or are you leading them to believe that GM workers are actually making $78 dollars an hour? When you compare GM’s hourly labor costs of $81.18 by your research (or $69 an hour by my research) to Toyotas or Hondas, do you also account for Toyota’s retiree pension costs and health benefits costs? Are you comparing apples to apples? It is my understanding that auto workers have made significant labor concessions in recent years, did you tell your readers this?
As a journalist, are you presenting an accurate picture? Have you done the homework?
2nd Graham response:
All I can give you is the SOURCE material. If you want to fight that, I don't know what to say. If it costs me $8100 in real money for you to work 100 hours, your job costs me $81 an hour.]
Meanwhile, this has got to be about the most marginal picking of nits Media Matters has ever launched--and that's saying a lot. I promise that if you read my columns regularly, you'll find much more to complain about that's worthwhile.
Instead of the invective-- or citing MMFA, which is just going to turn him off-- all you need to say is that it is misleading to divide that dollar figure among only present-day workers, which he is doing, when it includes the costs for retirees as well.
Then ask him why he's doing it, trying to pawn off this total figure to make it look like current employees are sharing this money alone, and thus earning six-figure salaries. I'd love to see his answer.
That was sort of the exchange I had with him.
I wrote:
Dear Mr. Graham,
You were WAY off in your Herald column today. Autoworkers don't have "$78-per-hour jobs." They make $28 an hour. Please print a correction.
Then he replied:
General Motors (19 percent) and Toyota (18 percent) have about the same share of the U.S. car market. But Toyota has enormous efficiency advantages. GM has eight product lines, Toyota three. GM has 7,000 dealers, Toyota, 1,500. Toyota pays its workers in the U.S. an average of $48 an hour. GM, Ford and Chrysler pay their employees an average of $73 an hour. For GM to have a chance to become competitive, it must cut its product line by at least 50 percent, its dealer network by at least 50 percent, and its labor costs by at least 30 percent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/auto_bailout_wont_prevent_bank.html
Then I replied:
First of all, $73 is not $78, but more importantly, that $73 an hour figure is very misleading, because it includes retirement and health care costs for people who no longer work for the big three. It does not make sense to say today's autoworkers are making on an hourly basis certain costs assigned to automakers. The point of doing this seems to be to place blame on the workers for "making $70 something an hour" when, in truth, they make on ave. $28 an hour.
Then he replied:
No, they don't "make" $28 an hour. They make ALL their benefits. I use the word "benefits" in the column.
http://blog.kir.com/archives/003146.asp
On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs. At that rate, labor costs per vehicle at Arlington are about $1,800, based on the Harbour Consulting estimate of labor hours per vehicle.
And besides, is that the only complaint about my column? I've got a figure of $81.18 an hour for UAW workers I could have used. The number has come down a little recently, but the point is the differential with non-union American auto workers. Does it really change the point if you compare their salary last year vs. this year?
Media Matters has a bad habit of doing this. I'm a writer, I sometimes make a fact error. Not this time. The two emails I've gotten are a waste of everyone's time. Be patient--I promise I'll REALLY screw up sometime. Then feel free to hit the red button.
Thanks for the email.
GRAHAM
Then I replied:
The average autoworkers do not have $78-per-hour jobs. They do if you add in stuff that they're not paid - like money and benefits paid to retired autoworkers - but if you're talking about the ave. hourly wages and benefits paid to current autoworkers, $78 and hour is more than double their actual wages and benefits.
Victor, thanks for keeping on with him. This sort of dishonesty lowers the level of debate. He's being deliberately obtuse by using that inflated figure.
Perhaps he'd like us to calculate his salary based upon that kind of standard...
The columnist is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts.
The facts surrounding a person's actual wage is not a matter of opinion.
Whether you think that actual wage is too low or too high is a matter of opinion.
I think we're getting a little off-topic. The point was that maybe it should be a little less "Boston Herald" and a little more "Michael Graham."
This is the specific error:
Graham response: On average, GM pays $81.18 an hour in wages and benefits to U.S. hourly workers, including pension and retiree medical costs.
Simply not the case. This amount goes beyond hourly workers, and includes current and future retiree benefits. Retirees are not hourly workers. Not.
Instead of insulting these guys, just point out their specific error or false premise. This is something you NEVER see liberals do on TV. They don't immediately rebut phony premises, they just argue, thus cheapening the discourse all around.
"This amount goes beyond hourly workers, and includes current and future retiree benefits. Retirees are not hourly workers. Not."
That money has to be accounted for somehow. Where does it come from? The money tree? I guess if the bail-out goes throught then it does come from the money tree. Taxpayers will end up paying those union workers their $78/hour. Including the laid-off workers who still draw 80% pay from the company AND benefits.
That figure just is misleading. As if EVERY wage would be given as a compilation of every cost incurred. Is that normal? NO.
No other person in this country's "wages" are calculated that way. I certainly don't include retirees when figuring what I get paid. It's legitimate to include salary and benefits for the individual worker who works that hour. It's completely and utterly dishonest to pretend that worker makes more by including money paid out to past employees who have now retired.
Well, gee GoB, who else works for the auto manufacturers? And you don't include that figure because 'you are being paid'. But, when your employer figures his financial costs to run his business, those numbers will come into play. And he will figure per/employee profitibility by counting his employees and and figuring his costs then equate that to cost/employee. Which is being stated, NOT hourly pay to low level janitors.
But that isn't what they're claiming. They're saying its the workers' hourly wage!!! Come on, do you have a salary? Would you like yours announced to the public in such a dishonest manner???!!!
"But 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's from the link mmfa provides in this article. Now, what were you saying? Mmfa simply debunks their own whining complaints with a link that proves what the Herald is saying. If you choose to believe mmfa misinformation that's your choice. I'll believe what the actual company says about their payroll.
You seem intent on your path. The american worker and his/her union are who you want to be responsible for the problem. No information will deter you. You merely refuse to accept it.
Frankly your sources have been shown to be wrong with great frequency. Do you have any reason to continue to believe them? Is your hatered of the american union worker that important? If they, the auto industries, go down, whose going to support your major sports broadcasts with advertizing? Some future thing to blame on your targets of choice I guess.
The new cost includes laborers' wages of $29.78 per hour,
Finally and amazingly, you discovered the accurate wage level for auto workers. Welcome back to reality.
Which is NOT what is being discussed. What IS being discussed is 'cost' of the employee broken down to hourly costs. If you're trying to tell me I'm not in reality, where are you? You are ignoring what this thread is about... or haven't read it.
Read what the Boston globe writer SAID. He called that inflated figure an hourly wage, which it is not.
You're just whining, now, Mary. There are 15 different articles at mmfa, all covering the same subject... the cost of employees per hour. Mmfa provides the link that proves the $69/hr 'myth' is true. Yet you keep arguing it isn't true. Is this another case of the blind leading the blind. Because you certainly aren't following what's happening.
"Our congressional delegation overwhelmingly supports throwing another $34 billion at GM and the gang so that United Auto Workers members can keep their $78-per-hour jobs."
You're confused. The phrase above means that workers are being paid 78 dollars an hour. If someone claims that a worker costs them 69 dollars an hour, that's not the same thing.
Yes, but there is also a difference between opinion based on fact and just pulling information from your nether regions, then opining on it. To me, if someone is going to opine, they should at least have their facts straight. I can get behind someone who has a different opinion than I have, no problem there. They just need to have their facts correct first. They just look like idiots when the truth is shoved in their faces.
$78? Did they all get a raise?
I say we give them more fake money and get them up to $100/hour so we can better claim that they are ruining the country.
I have a FORD and those guys in Kentucky did a great jobs putting my powerstroke together ensuring my next powerstroke is going to be a powerstroke. Hooray for the guys that put it together.
I guess you haven't owned it very long. Expect to pay for your own repairs, soon, since when the company files bankruptcy you'll lose your factory warranty. BTW, are you another liberal who wants global warming stopped while driving another guzzler? What kind of milage you get with that? 12-14 mpg? How about those emissions? Hows that cat converter work on that thing?
My Ford Focus gets 30 MPG, is a Partial Zero Emissions vehicle and has never spent a day in the shop with almost 50,000 miles on it.
You're focus isn't a truck, like wolf has. 50K miles? I think it's about time to change the oil; "never spent a day in the shop". You are not getting the milage you got when new if you never maintain it. I get 39mpg with my 96 corrolla. I built a hydrogen generator unit for it and increased milage from 33 to the current 39. What have you done to improve the global warming situation? Wait, don't tell me; left your car un-maintained for 50K miles.
Keep clawing there you'll reach an artery enventually. Is there any other argument that you might bring up global warming?
Saw figures on auto sales, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan's figures are worse than Ford's. Nissan at -42.2% is second worst behind Chrysler at -47%. I know somehow its still a unions fault somewhere in your head.
Looking forward to your next egregarious insult.
The funny thing is that wolf shut up as soon as I exposed him for driving a gas (diesel) guzzler and creating more pollution than any car out there. Thanks wolf for polluting our lands with your pride and joy! Another typically hypocritical liberal.
When you have lost the argument, change the subject. Got it. It's the the con MO.
I built a hydrogen generator unit
Somehow that is kinda hard to believe. If true, could you build one for me
I built a hydrogen generator unit
Somehow that is kinda hard to believe. If true, could you build one for me and
I built a hydrogen generator unit
Somehow that is kinda hard to believe. If true, could you build one for me and how
...much would it cost?
Yes, I could build one for you. I can give you instructions on how to install it. But, you'll have to do all the maintanence. I've had it on my car for about 4 months and there is a lot of minor maintanence that goes into it. OR, you can just search online for one of your own. 'water4gas' is a good place to go for discriptions. Or just google hydrogen generator, you'll be able to find instructions on how to build your own. It cost me about $50 initially, and the upkeep is about $5 a month.
I wouldn't believe the claims they make though. They say you can increase your milage 80+%, but I only got a 15% increase. But when prices were as high as they were, it was worth it.
Prove it. I bet you dont' even know what hydrogen is. That would require understanding of science and we all know that Cons are ignorant of science.
He never said it was a truck.
I change my own oil. It doesn't go into the shop for that.
You are a dishonest little fother mucker, aren't you?
You do your 15K service by yourself too? How about the 30K service? You're just about do for the 60K service, are you going to do that one? Have you even read your owners manual about what maintanence needs to be done? It isn't JUST oil changes.
Do you know of any vehicle they put the powerstroke in besides trucks? Do you really change your own oil? I think you wouldn't know a drain plug from a spark plug. Let alone be able to get the filter off. Besides, it's well known that liberals don't do things themselves, they get people to do them for them. Even our soon to be leader has stated he will simply put people in position to make the decisions for him.
I did the maintenance myself. Ever heard of a garage attached to a house where a human being can work on their own car?
Nothing has gone wrong with the car, not one thing. I'm very happy. That's the point. Of course, you knew that.
Just goes to show you'll lie through your teeth to make a point. "Ever heard of a garage attached to a house where a human being can work on their own car?": That is the most common lie told to a mechanic when asked how a customer does their own work. Does your garage have a lift? Or do you own 4 jacks so you can rotate the tires. You never touch the engine of your car. You probably don't even know how to open the hood, even if you could you would be able to find the dipstick let alone know what to check. FACT is you never work on your car and you lied when you said; "and has never spent a day in the shop with almost 50,000 miles on it.". If you want to make a moronic point, at least don't lie to do it. Do you hate losing arguements to conservatives SOOO much that you'll lie?
There's no lie. Want to give me a call and you can quiz me about basic car mechanics? I'd be happy to debunk your stupid and unfouned assumptions about a liberal's understanding of cars.
Yes, you're lieing. Did you clean your own brakes or did you let someone else breathe the asbestos you released into the atmosphere while checking your rear brakes? What's your tire rotation pattern? How much trans fluid did you use when you changed that? How many special tools did you buy to change your spark plugs (how many band-aids)? You have no understanding of cars. You havene't even popped the hood, other than to let your wife check the oil for you and tell you to take it somewhere.
There's no need to lie, like you do, to make your point. But, since you are lieing, I'll point it out. Especially when you can't keep a simple conversation clean. Unbelievable, you call me a 'dishonest MF' then lie like a dog about working on your own car.
Which is why you can't make a decent arguement about any given subject. You lie. It's obvious you know nothing about cars, why are you even discussing on this thread when it is about the auto industry?
Email me and we'll set up a call. My email is johnsonium@hotmail.com. Does your mommy allow you to call long distance from her house? Put your money where your nasty mouth is.
78 dollars an hour ? yeasterday itr was 73 dollars an hour.
Hey! They got a $5 an hour raise in this economy?
Yeah, they're getting a $3 dollar raise every 5 days until GM makes uncle sam say "I give".
PARADE magazine doesn't seem to have trouble publishing the real wages of iindividuals in different job s . They even had Judge Judy's salary last year. Like polling, it is all in the way you ask.
Did you know she's a billionaire? A billionaire???
I think it is amazing that so many media types are spewing this lie. Do they think auto workers live like kings?
I'm sure they don't think that, but it's their job to convince their viewers that it's those who actually do the work who are responsible for all of the problems.
I've been going back and forth with Michael Graham by email about his "$78 an hour" claim and he's insisting it's correct - even when nother he cites uses his $78 an hour figure. Just plain weird.
yeah, I could never understand that, unless those supervisors responsible for keeping the workers on task are not doing their jobs. Or they have reached and passed the maximun return on investment in outsourcing.
Even us kings have to tighten our cummerbunds lately.
I've had to lay off a manservant and a footman.
Are they in the same 'job bank' that the auto workers are in?
The fact that the money does not go directly into the pockets of the sucky union employees but rather pays their benefits too and also benefits for worthless geezers makes no difference. It's all wasted anyways. I don't care if everyone at the big three loses their jobs. Too bad. Go get new jobs with more productive companies that actually make quality products and aren't supported by central planning from the US government. If you're too stupid to go back to school or get retrained another way then stay at your homes and cry about it. The US Treasury will just print more money for your welfare checks anyways. Waaaa!!!!!!!!!!
I'm guessing - compassionate conservative?
...of the most christian kind.
No, Murdock just believes in the almightly FREE MARKET...
Another words, he's a moron.
I'm not saying that we should necessarily bail out the auto companies, but it's well known that many other countries subsidize their auto industries.
The "Free Market" only exits in the fevered brains of conservative nuts.
"it's well known that many other countries subsidize their auto industries."
Oh? Which ones? The socialist ones? Are these the same countries that have 20% unemployment rates, also?
No. The ones that we've held up as great emerging capital markets. Namely, Japan, China and South Korea. They all have subsidized, protected industries.
You should think a little bit before you post.
Subsidized, yes....unionized, no. Which do you want?
The quote used the word "subsidized", now you are changing it? Game. Set. Match.
But, I was right. The socialist ones are the ones who subsidize their auto industry. (at least the ones you gave examples of). You couldn't seem to remember there are several countries in Europe that produce cars; Germany, France, Britian, Sweden, Italy. How are those done; subsidized or unionized? If the unions left the auto industry, then there would be no reason not to subsidize it. I don't want MY tax dollars going to support illegal activities that the unions always provide.
I don't care where you want your tax dollars going. You don't get a choice. If I had a choice, my dollars wouldn't be going to a way over-inflated defense budget.
That explains why you are a liar. You support the union's illegal activities. I would rather have the government subsidize our auto industry than let a crooked union system run it. It's obvious we see what happens when unions are in control: poor quality, higher wages, broke industry. Thank you unions for doing what you do best--ruin anything you get your greedy little hands into.
Unions don't have anything to do with it.
What do you do for a living, assuming you have a job?
Evidently you don't know what printing more money does to the value of the dollar, which in turn would cause more problems with the economy.
You're just another right-wing slimeball whose mantra is "I got mine, screw everyone else!"
If you were one of the auto industry workers, you wouldn't feel this way. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for once, punk.
CSL, I'd only disagree with your guess as far as the "I got mine" part. Murdock sounds to me more like one wo hasn't had his first job yet ("sucky" in the first line is a tip-off). I'm going with high school wingnut, or 35 year old trust fund baby with a subscrtion to the Limbaugh letter.
Maybe we're over thinking this.... Murdock could just be an a$$hole.
Maybe murdock is right and you're all just whining too much. I haven't seen any actual proof of his claim being false, I've only seen complaints and opinions. At least he can provide some proof to back up what he says. None of you have. In fact, I've seen more proof that what he says is correct than anything mmfa has ever stated.
I see no proof in his posts. Just someone who'll be ranting about why all his favorite sports programs are disapearing. No big time auto sponsership will be there to pay for it. He'll blame whoever rush and co tell him is responsible, just like you.
Economic Darwinism like you preach leads to survival of the fittest in the streets.
Hope you're up to it.
Maybe I'm being a bit too simplistic here, but one would think that the media would get behind this bailout. Seems to me that if the big 3 were to get a bailout, they would be able to pay their workers and be able to advertise on big media networks. That in turn is income for the networks to pay their news anchors, etc. the huge salaries they make.
But instead, the media blames the workers, but not the people at the top who are more responsible for the problems than they are.
Media: who are you protecting - and why?
You know, that's a good point. I'll bet U.S. car commercials make up a significant percentage of their ad revenue.
That's true, I recall they spent a ton of money advertising SUVs. But I like Michael Moores' take - at $3 a share you could buy 100% ownership of GM for $3 billion dollars. They want $14 billion for the bailout. Screw em, buy em.
I think your question is a good one.
What question?
-- U.S. car makers must pay some 1,400 "workers'' full wages for years after they've stopped working due to layoffs. Some stay on the payroll until they retire -- Boston Herald
Anyone who frequents this site is already aware of the $78/hr myth. It would be helpful for mmfa to flesh out their reporting on the real issue...the economics of the union payscale and its affect on the industry and the attempt by many to paint the UAW factory worker as the culprit in the demise of the auto industry....instead of just repeatedly and uncritically responding to the inaccurate media reports.
-- The gap between union and nonunion compensation is big: Total benefits put union workers at $36.34 per hour compared with $25.65 per hour. -- CSM
A nice read on auto industry economics.
-- more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers -- Detroit News
A little dated but informative.
-- McAlinden says that General Motors job banks costs more per person than Delphi, more on the lines of $120,000 per person per year. The number in job banks is being reported as 3,500 people, but industry insiders believe that number is way low -- Carlist.com
Another in-depth look at the jobs bank and its costs.
-- UAW to renegotiate labor terms, suspend jobs bank -- AP
A look at the UAW's attempt to defray costs.
Help yourself if you're interested...move on if you're not.
"According to testimony, in an apples-to-apples comparison, a Chrysler worker today earns about $28 an hour, compared with $25 an hour for a worker at Toyota's Georgetown, Ky., plant."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-fri-greisingdec05,0,1100779.column
I think it's true that some of the UAW baggage, like the Job Bank, should be put on the table for review.
However, the bottom line is that the workers who are in danger of being laid off are not making anywhere near $78 an hour. If we lose 3 million jobs, as predicted, what will that do to an economy that is already teetering on the edge?
-- If we lose 3 million jobs, as predicted -- nerzog
???
"I think it's true that some of the UAW baggage, like the Job Bank, should be put on the table for review."
So you agree that auto makers are paying more per hour average to cover those costs? Besides, what is being argued by liberals is actual per hour pay by employee, what is being argued by everyone else is company 'average cost' per employee broken down to per/hr.
Every buck they spend on wages earns them three bucks from their workers. Your singular point is that we must pay our blue collar worker less, and reduce the benifits to society that that labor produces. Lets try trickle down economics one more time too.
The economic policies that support your atittudes now have been of economic benifit to less than 1% of the population. That population shrinks with every bad day on wall street. Been quite a few bad days recently. I see more bad days ahead. At what point would you admit that your economic guru's are conning you? When those economic benifits are reduced to .001% of the population?
I point out the fault of yours/mmfa's arguement constantly being made about cost of employees and you change the subject. Very predictable.
Why is mmfa continueing to argue that the cost of each employee is $69 per/hour is incorrect when THEY provide the link to GM actually saying that is how much it costs. I'd say mmfa has a seriouc misinformation problem and they should apologize for lieing to the public to advance their agenda. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/UAW-GM-say-new-pact-makes-apf-13624940.html http://mediamatters.org/items/200812050006?f=h_latest
There's no flaw. The people spreading the lie about what the average worker makes need to be debunked and MMFA should be commended for calling them out every time.
Then perhaps they should STOP providing the link that proves them wrong. Since they provide that link, they are just pushing misinformation in a dishonest way. Facts are facts and mmfa provided them. Then they try to say those facts are not facts, even though they supplied the facts.
It doesn't prove them wrong. What it proves is that the average worker does not make $75/hour, far from it.
A good discussion would include some facts about the big 3...
The Consumer’s Truth Myths and Facts about American Consumers and Fuel Economy
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
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.
• 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.
Consumer Fact – The rise in SUVs and other trucks has erased many of the gains made by decades worth of automobile safety improvements.
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.
Consumer Fact – The auto industry spends billions to advertise SUVs, which are by far their most profitable products.
Consumer Fact – Obviously, this nightmarish world devoid of choices for consumers has never materialized.
Manufacturer Myth – Increased CAFE standards will force consumers to drive “purple people eaters.”
Consumer Fact – Special tax breaks for small businesses allow huge write-off’s for SUVs, further distorting the market and generating a false demand.
Manufacturer Myth – American consumers like gas guzzlers and are not interested in technology that will save them money and help the environment.
That entire article, that you failed to properly credit authorship to, proves once and for all that snoopy doesn't know squat about the auto industry. That snoopy simply cuts/pastes what he is told to. You make a good liberal. Now, go get me a cup of coffee.
Yes massa, right away massa, you betcha massa, don't beat me agin massa.
You'd think after Nov 4th you might be reluctent to declare victory so early and often as you did pior to it. But why fool with a losing stratgey.
Sorry phil, but if you want coffee, get it yourself. Just go up the stairs and take a right to get to mom's kitchen. Be sure to put on your bathrobe before you venture out of the basement.
It's a fully converted basement. All the amenities of home. I don't ever have to leave it, I just ring the servants bell and *pooof* what I want is there. :)
BTW, Mom's kitchen is to the left.
Thanks for confirming the obvious.
Why should I lie, like YOU do? You may not like me, but at least I tell the truth.
You don't tell the truth. I reiterate that you are a dishonest fother mucker. And, since you live in her house, you have easy access. How convenient.
When are we going to stop with the 75 buck an hour auto worker crap and start investigating the probable criminality associated with the collapse of the world financial system?
When they start hiring blue collar workers in large numbers, and/or the financial rank and file start a union I'd guess.
The daily double. Truly depressing and depressingly true.
There are two basic problems with the framework in which the media have presented the issue of auto worker salaries, the first-- and least-- being the inflated and misleading hourly wage of $70 plus. The real issue here isn't whether auto workers make that much: it's why shouldn't they? In many cases, these people are highly skilled employees; in many more cases, they are engaged in mind-numbing and/or body wrenching endeavors from which most Americans would shrink. Why does a highly educated CEO who fails merit tens of millions of dollars in severence pay (see Carla Fiorina) while a capable rank-and-file worker makes a fraction of that-- and must perform too! Why can't big corporate salaries come down and the real wages of average Americans go up to a level which allows for a good standard of living? We need to create more parity among people at all levels in our labor force, and we need to eliminate poverty. Only when we do this can we achieve justice and prosperity for all.