Beck falsely claimed average UAW worker makes $154 per hour
SUMMARY: Glenn Beck falsely claimed that "the average UAW [United Auto Workers] worker" earns "[a] hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour if you look at -- you know, if you add in all of the benefits." In fact, a recent Barclays Capital analysis reportedly found that U.S. automakers "pay an average of $55 an hour in wages and benefits to hourly workers."
During the February 18 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed that "the average UAW [United Auto Workers] worker" earns "[a] hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour if you look at -- you know, if you add in all of the benefits." In fact, a recent Barclays Capital analysis reportedly found that U.S. automakers "pay an average of $55 an hour in wages and benefits to hourly workers," far less than the figure Beck provided. Beck did not disclose his source for the $154 per hour figure, stating only that he saw it "come across my desk the other day."
Both The Washington Post on February 12 and The Wall Street Journal on February 6 reported that UAW members earn on average $55 per hour in wages and benefits, citing an analysis conducted by Barclays Capital, an international investment bank. Similarly, on December 9, 2008, The New York Times' David Leonhardt calculated that the compensation of unionized autoworkers is "roughly $55 an hour or so," including wages, overtime and vacation pay, health insurance, and benefits.
As Media Matters for America noted, during the final months of 2008, dozens of media figures and outlets advanced the falsehood that autoworkers employed by the domestic automakers are paid $70 or more per hour in wages and benefits, when in fact such estimates include the cost of benefits for current retirees. According to Leondhart, the added cost of retiree benefits "isn't mainly a reflection of how generous the retiree benefits are. It's a reflection of how many retirees there are."
From the February 18 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Brain Room downstairs, which is our fact-checker -- I saw something come across my desk the other day -- that the average UAW worker makes a hundred -- I think it was -- Gresh, what was it? A hundred and fifty-four or $152 an hour when you look at -- what?
OFF-SCREEN: A hundred and fifty-four.
BECK: A hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour if you look at -- you know, if you add in all of the benefits. A hundred and fifty-four dollars an hour? How could you possibly be competitive?
MARK McKINNON (spokesman for the Workforce Fairness Institute): Yeah, and it's $1,600 more per car just for the health-care costs for the employee.
Let's assume that he's basing part of this nonsense on the $70 per hour myth. That would be $84 per hour in benefits. That's $3360 per week, $174,720 per year. All while making $145,600 in wages.
Are these guys getting diamond-encrusted bifocals, or what? Who believes this crap?
either Beck is getting desperate or he is just bored. i mean draging this nonsense back after it was debunked numerous times.
i looked up the guy he was talking to and searched google for the organization he was speaking for and found out it is an Anti-Union group. even though it says its not. cause if you look at the groups its allied with, they are all anti union groups. so its no surprise Fixed Noise would have an Anti-Union spokesman working with them.
either Beck is getting desperate or he is just bored.
No, he's just stupid...but, to his credit, he's consistently stupid. I know I continue to beat a dead horse, but how stupid are FOX viewers to believe anything this goofball has to say?
Beck presents the same conundrum for me that Rush and Hannity do. Can they possibly be stupid enough to believe the crap that comes out of their mouths every day? If they're that stupid, how did they get nationally syndicated Radio and TV shows?
On the other hand, we're faced with the uncomfortable realization that Media Corporations and the Republican Party are willing to pay these buffoons multiple millions of dollars to lie to us... on purpose.
It makes my head hurt.
I don't think Limbaugh is stupid. In fact, he's clever and knows exactly what he's doing. Hannity ain't the brightest bulb and, like Limbaugh, he tries to be clever although he can't pull it off except before an extremely stupid audience...but he knows he's lying. Beck, on the other hand, I think he's just a genuine whack-job...a real nut case.
...and not a particularly bright nut job.
You're probably right about Limbaugh. At least Limbaugh has some talent for what he does; Hannity is a talentless jerk with a voice like a weedeater. I have no idea how he got where he is.
Years ago, I heard Beck before he got big, and he came across as an "every man", just trying to figure it all out. At some point, he apparently figured out that he could make much more money by carrying water for the GOP.
I see Beck as a not exceptionall bright guy with some sort of psychological instability on display and who lucked into a niche that pays him a lot of money. Look at Michael Savage, for example...
Hannity is simply the "raw nerve" of the conservative rhetoric machine. Where limpaugh uses misinformation and false premises to promote conservative ideology, Hannity simply repeats the same mantras over and over, and has no need to comprehend anything he is saying. He is like an IV drip of conservative rhetoric for conservative junkies.
Beck, on the other hand, is just more focused on projecting his "sincere" persona than speaking truth. He douses for empathy at the expense of reality.
One of your best sir Neon! "IV drip of conservative rhetoric".
Have you ever listened to Beck's radio show? The average caller sounds like a slow learner. As a hypothetical, a typical Hannity caller might rant and rave that it is a proven fact that Barack Obama is a card-carrying Marxist/Socialist/Muslim...and the media is covering it up. A typical Beck caller might say he has heard that Barack Obama is a Marxist/Socilaist/Muslim and wants Glenn to tell him if it is true.
I occasionally listen to him on the drive home, but I can't stand much before I have to turn it back to NPR to hear some sanity. His overall theme seems to be that we're in moral decline, the Mexicans are going to take over the country and we're doomed.
Rush is not smart he is carismatic and can manipulate others.
well i didnt want to whip that one out, im trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, hime being a born again christian and recovering alkie.
but yeah your right, he is stupid. perfect example: he actually had the balls on camera when he was with headline news to ask a girl he was interviewing to come meet him so he could take naked pictures of her.
Well...they voluntarily watch Fox News, which in and of itself indicates a lack of brain function. Those who actually BELIEVE Fox lower the average even further...
"..dragging this nonsense back after it was debunked numerous times." Kind of like that loser Al Gore's so-called Man-Made Global Warming theory has been debunked numerous times but is still being repeated as a fact by the Lame Stream Media.
In the early days of the Unions, they did a great job of creating good pay, safe working conditions, etc. But the last few decades, the Unions have slowly destroyed all of that good work and dug their own graves. By threatening their companies with strikes and work stoppage unless the Union gets outrageous pay/compensations (especially the UAW)!!! They claimed that when the companies were doing good and making good profits, the Union workers should get more money. But when the companies are now losing money and profits, they are whining that they should not get less money. Talk about hypocrisy! The companies should be slammed for caving into the Union demands. The Unions made their beds, now it's time to lay in it.
GM and Chrystler should not get any more taxpayer bailouts. They should file for bankruptcy just like any other company would have to. The way-to-generous retiree benefits packages need to be cut to reflect the financial trouble that the companies are now in. By refusing to make concessions to keep their jobs, the UAW is having the American people look on it as being hardheaded and unreasonable. Most people have no love-loss for the Union. Every other retiree has to pay for their own health/dental insurance, so why not make the UAW retiree pay for their own!!!!! That is the main sticking point in the negotiations with the auto companies. An don't say I don't understand being in a Union, because I am a Firefighter on disability because of severe injuries I got while on the job. I was a member of the IAFF and now I'm with the IAFF Alumni.
Finally, just because people are criticizing the UAW union, that doesn't mean that they are anti-union!! If GM and Chrystler wasn't getting taxpayer bailouts, nobdy would be saying anything about UAW. But because they are getting bailouts in the tens of billions of dollars, we have a right and duty to call it like we see it. Down here in the South, the non-union car companies are doing a whole lot better than Detroit workers. Plus, they aren't getting any taxpayer bailouts. I wonder why that is that way, DUHHH!!!!
"Yeah, and it's $1,600 more per car just for the health-care costs for the employee."
DOH! Glenny won't be having him on again. He just articulated a good argument for a National Health Care Plan.
It's obvious what these Troglodytes are trying to do. They're creating an "Us vs Them" scenario for the uneducated schlubs in the Republican base.
If they can get these working class dupes to focus their anger on those "overpaid" auto workers, maybe they won't notice that the Republican Party's Prime Directive is to make life easier for Millionaires and Billionaires.
And then they'll turn right around and accuse the Democrats of "class warfare".
"He just articulated a good argument for a National Health Care Plan."
Absolutely. But then on the other side, they say national health care would be "socialism". At what point does this qualify as phobic behavior, where you're going to keep yourself in a losing situation because you're scared of the label attached to the alternative?
I have been saying this for years, that if we had companies throughout the United States that currently pay for their worker's health care kick in, say, 25% of what they're paying now into a national system, and we, the taxpayers, make up the difference (it wouldn't be much different than what most of us pay out of our paychecks now I don't think), we could create a single payer system, and corporations could get out from under the yoke of legacy costs, and high health care costs.
But no, that would be socialism, we can't have the country taking care of its citizens after all, that's just silly.
Imagine what a stimulus it would be if small businesses and individuals were relieved of a portion of that financial burden? My health insurance costs more per month than my mortgage.
I also can't afford to leave my job because of my wife's pre-existing conditions. So, even if I wanted to start my own business and become a Republican, I couldn't do it.
If my insurance premiums were cut in half, I could buy a new car!
Indeed. Many bottom lines of many companies in this country are hardest hit by the rising costs of health care. I know at the last 2 companies that I've worked for, I saw my premiums go up over 300% over the course of 2 years. I started out paying $60/pay period, and then by the time I "left" the job I had last, it had gone up to, $180/pay period, for just me. My wife is covered under her own work's health care plan. If we could remove some of that burden from the corporations, and some from us regular folks, things could turn around, fairly quick I would think.
Absolutely. Our company has some people who have been identified as "high risk", so our premiums for a family run about $650 a month, and that doesn't count what the employer pays.
The funny thing about Republicans and health care.... they weep and wail about "Socialized Medicine" and having bureaucrats making medical decisions, and having to pay for somebody else's care.
Essentially, that also describes the Insurance system we now have. Healthy people's premiums are used to pay for the care of sick people, and insurance bureaucrats make decisions about what to pay for and what not to pay for. It's the same thing they claim to fear.
Only rich people are exempt from this system. But I guess that's the point.
There are posters here who say if we go the single payer route we're limiting Americans' freedom and liberty (which is a fabrication since you would be able to supplement government insurance with private insurance if you choose to) but how much freedom does one have if their financial resources are limited? Americans at the lower echelons of society have little freedom and liberty while Americans at the highest echelon have all the freedom and liberty they could imagine.
Exactly, I've heard that many times as well. "You won't have choice..." If I don't have any insurance or money, I don't have any choice either. It's like I'm supposed to believe that I should want to have no doctor because I don't want to be assigned one without my input. Something is better than nothing.
At least we can all choose which doctor we can't afford to go to.
Now there you go, looking at the bright side of things. That's a habit I need to develop.
Whoa Glenn... Just whoa.. The correct number was supposed to be $70+ / hour. I mean that was the point that was hammered home a long time ago, and now you want to more than double it? As Brab pointed out above, even if they were making 154/hour (which, they're not), they would be brining home $145k/year, which is still about 5 times less than your now salary confined banking CEO. I don't hear you complaining about them do I?
We know Glenn, you, and Fox, both hate a working man. It's OK, you can admit it. For some reason, you don't want them to be able to, you know, pay their bills, or have a job, and you want to blame the misbegotten whoas of the auto industry on the UAW, but you just can't quite do it. I chalk it up to American auto makers being outclassed in quality of their vehicles, along with not making anything that people want to buy. Sure, times were good when everyone wanted that big SUV or pick up truck, but son, those days are now past. Time to start making, cars, not light trucks.
Poverty is better than socialism in Glenn's bizarro world.
Of course it is. Because I'm sure that he makes a decent wage, and even if he were out of work for a time span, if he has been smart enough, he'll have more than enough money to get by for quite some time.
As long as OTHER PEOPLE are poor. The moment anything even threatens to cut into their cash flow, the rich Repubs scream like babies.
See? Not Glenn's fault. That number actually came from the mouth of a newly hired lighting technician working backstage on Glenn's set. From what I hear, the guy used to work in hollywood on movie sets, but recently was layed off at the behest of one of the stars.
well it is his fault for opening his mouth. but thats what he is paid to do.....
More than doubled. That's a $100 per hour raise since November. I guess the CEO's gave out big raises so they could justify their bonus at taxpayer's expense?
What is the average per hour compensation (salary plus benefits - not the legacy "benefits" these fools keep trying to add to the correct number, but personal benefits) of Ole BlunderRush, Sheer Insannity, the bitter little idiot Mark Levin, the Silly Savage, Glenn Beck - heck throw in Bull Cunningham, as well?
Especially considering they are on the air only a few hours each day (thank the Good Lord!)...
Yeah but any old fool can put together a car. Now lying... that takes a real talent and those lucky and hard working enough to master it should be compensated accordingly.
well Billo the clown just got a 24 million dollar contract i think......i could be wrong but i know it was at least 10+ million
Beck costs his viewers at least $154 per hour in brain cell loss during his program.
Hey, Glen!
I heard through the grapevine that you make somewhere around $10 million a year. You know, if you worked 24/7/365 your hourly rate of pay would be $1141.55. Not bad for some who makes a living trowelling out intellectual fertilizer.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that for someone who creates exactly zero useful products you get paid very handsomely.
Nice work if you can get it.
This "Drunk" has no credibility at all.....He is in a perfect place...FOX NOISE!
What will it take for working people to wake up?
This nonsense isn't aimed at someone sitting in a board room but at those who punch a clock. There's a systematic attack on workers coming from the wealthy, the Republicans and the media.
Rush Goebbels is leading the propaganda campaign and his minions, Beck, Hannity etc keep repeating the message.
If workers salaries, benefits and pensions continue to erode and more and more people lose their jobs and homes, they'll be blood in the streets before long. Don't expect people who are on the verge losing everything to act sane.
If you insist on hitting a hornet's nest with a stick, prepare to be stung.
I would really like to get the total figure that is paid to the Health Care type companies out there. And all above are correct, companies would save a ton of money. Sort of like a tax cut. We need a name for it.
Tis a real pity so many Americans listen to the sewer-swill, emanating daily from Beck's sphincterous cavity.
Depending on the stats, where do you think the profits go back to? The workers? The UAW? Or the CEOs...?
Oooh, that's gotta be one of the funniest things I've ever read! Cereal is one of the most automated processes in the country! They have a boxing machine to form the box to shape, a dispensing machine to fill the box, a palletizing machine to accumulate the boxes and box them, There is so little direct labor involved in the creation of a box of cereal. They spend more on engineering support and maintenance than they do on manufacturing labor (union) to make a box of cereal.
Then why does 15 cents worth of grain cost $3.40 per container?
Really? At every level from production to consumption somebody is making a profit. The farmers that grew the grain and any other organic materials used (such as sugar) have to cover their costs and make a profit. So does the mill that produces the wood pulp used to make the box and the plastics manufacturer that makes the inner bag. We'll figure that the box production, art and design is all done in house as that is fairly common in large enterprises. Now there will be a distributor transporting the goods from factory to store shelves, another middle man getting a cut. And finally the retailer needs a profit as well. You can get from $.15 to $3.40 pretty quick with all those mouths wanting a taste of the pie. That's one of the weaknesses of capitalism and a consumption based economy. But one of the strengths is that I can choose from an entire cereal aisle in the market and from multiple markets in an average city.
You hit the nail on the head in your last two sentences. I understand economics but sometimes, as a consumer society, we have inflated choices for goods and services, which, over time, can lead to the economic struggle we have today. It's exporting that seems to be our bugaboo. If the same goods and services we expect our consumer society can be exported, we'd be in good shape but abroad, those goods and services don't add up, for various reasons, like tariffs and trade restrictions and too often an inbalance in money value.
Like moon said, transportation costs, transformation costs, indirect labor, you name it. I'm very familiar with automation, when I worked at Dell, Siemens, DSC and other corporations one of my duties was to travel to other automation plants to learn and share best practices. I've been to the kellogg's plant, and if you think it's overstaffed with a bunch of portly union workers who take a 15 minute break every hour then you're extremely underinformed.
I don't know if they have that figure but the heads of the Big Three should.
Then we want to see the figures.
Call any republican in Congress.
Sig, you do realize that your example is completely insane and made up, right? And clearly it's done just to get a dig in on unionized labor. Manufacturing is not leaving this country because of union labor costs, it is leaving because of plain old labor costs. If you produce in Canada you don't have to deal with medical benefits. If you produce in Mexico you don't have to worry about medical benefits or worker safety. If you produce in China you don't have to worry about medical, worker safety or product safety. If you produce in a Third World nation you don't have to worry about any of those things plus you can pay workers $1 a week, chain them to the line and sell their daughters to sex-tourists. Do you really believe that we as a nation should emulate the Third World in how we treat our workers?
In response to your last line, no, of course not, but how de American car manufactureres expect to remain competative paying workers 5 or 6 times the foreign rate?
It's hard to answer that when worker compensation isn't being talked about truthfully. Beck's $154 figure is a complete fiction but the $70 figure used by the talkers several months ago isn't a good basis of comparison either. It included legacy costs of retirees and the costs of current worker's health benefits, neither of which foreign automakers have to worry about.
But labor is not the only problem US automakers have. Management is largely responsible for the deterioration of quality and reputation of American cars. The engineers and workers have been held back by the accountants and the marketers. Mercedes, Lexus and BMW have made fortunes selling high quality luxury cars. Toyota and Honda have successfully sold mid-range economy with good mileage. Even Hyundai has made money with their line of inexpensive starter cars. What has the Big 3 given us? A stunningly bland array of SUVs and practically disposable, interchangeable mid-sizers that might last until you finish paying them off.
We can make great cars in this country, we just haven't for quite a long time.
You have a "race to the bottom" mentality.
That's why I come to this webpage. The competition is fierce!
Look, it took me 30 seconds to find this information! Jeez, sometimes I wonder.
"Chrysler and Toyota each used 30.37 hours of assembly, stamping, engine and transmission time to build a vehicle last year, according to the annual Harbour Report North America 2008, released this morning.
In addition, General Motors Corp. for the first time beat Nissan Motor Co in the total number of hours needed to build a vehicle. GM used 32.29 hours of labor to build a vehicle, compared with 32.96 hours for Nissan.
"Ford used the most labor hours among the top six automakers in the United States, using 35.1 hours to build a vehicle."
Since highly paid TV pundits (and their viewers) don't seem able to do 3rd grade math, $55/hr x 30 hours = $1,650 per vehicle.
Note that this is for the key vehicle components and assembly, not including the raw materials and subassemblies which are often obtained from subcontractors. My cousin is a mgfrs rep for such a parts company in Cleveland.
Think like an MBA (I know this is really testing Glenn Beck's lack of math competence). If the auto companies were paying $150 an hour they wouldn't stay in business against $5 per hour labor in Mexico unless US manufacturing were highly automated. In short, $150 an hour completely illogical. Beck should hire a coupla MBA students, pay them $150 an hour from his $10 million contract just to help mask his stupidity.
* source: Rick Hagland Grand Rapids (Michigan) Press. 6/5/2008
blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/06/chrysler_matches_toyota_in_us.html
OK, you've gone on long enough.
Substantiate your claim that American auto workers make 5 or 6 times the foreign rate?
The last time I went car shopping, foreign and domestic mini-vans, SUVs, compacts and mid sized cars were similarly priced.
You mean like the ~$6,000.00 brand new Hyundai? Korea!
$55 an hour isn't so bad. Sure glad my tax dollars could help.
$55 includes projected benefits over estimated lifetime. That's not what they take to the bank every pay period. If the automakers invested the money in pension plans like insurance companies do, the cost might be lower.
Blaming autoworkers for the problems in the auto industry is like blaming the Microsoft software developers for the problems in Vista. (like that analogy?)
Vista sucks because management was brain dead. They were making so much money by shipping junk software and then making more money by having users pay for support, that management just didn't care anymore.
US automakers did the same thing 30+ years ago, and perpetuated the charade.
I'll invoke the new concept of the year, "moral hazard." Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions." wikiepedia
Neither management nor labor bore the full consequences, so they kept repeating the errors and shifting the blame.
The difference today from 1974 is that we have PRAVDA in the form of Beck and his cohort to shift the blame.
Kill the messanger.
ooops, messenger.
Beck is a drunk...Beck is a drunk! BECK IS A DRUNK! You never listen to drunks!
Beck needs to interview the Mayor of Detroit, Virg Bernero.
Roundhouse
Minor correction, the mayor of Lansing. We could have used him in Detroit instead of Kwame Kilpatrick, though.
Lansing. Right. Thank you.
Glenn:
Lets try this research.
Avg. wage (Ford/GM/Chrysler) worker $28.50 an hour
Avg. cost of health care per employee $8000.00 per year. That is $42.50 per hour in health care costs.
So thats $42.50 (Health care) and $28.50 in (wages)= $71.00 an hour total for benefits and wages, not $154.00 an hour. Get your research right !!!!!!
Keith
It isn't false. Most companies measure their cost based on productivity.
For example:
Hourly wage rate is $15
Their benefits are $10 per hour
Total hourly burden rate $25
So is that the cost to the company? No, it does not take into account the fact that many of those paid hours did not go to support direct production of the good or service provided by the company.
So lets explore this:
Total working hours in week 40, in one year 2080
Employee vacation 3 weeks, or 120 hours (probably low for most union shops)
Holidays 10 days (either not worked and paid or worked and paid Overtime, 80 hours)
Sick days, 5 days per year (40 hours)
Paid lunches and break (1 hour per day, 260 hours / year)
That is 540 hours per year (conservative) of unproductive time that is paid to the employee as part of their wage.
Actual productive 1540 hours (2080-540)
Now lets figure out what one of those productive hours costs:
Base burdened wage 52,000 (25/hr) / Productive hours 1540 = Productive wage rate 33.77 (Twice the base wage)
Now you also have to consider vacation relief, absentee coverage and jobs required by contracts that the company would not have to pay for if it wasn't for a contract requirement.
Bottomline, it is entirely possible that the direct labor cost of a UAW worker could be 154.