LSFan00 Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 On Wednesday, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger predicted there would be no wage cuts as part of the union’s concessions to GM and Chrysler. Gettelfinger argued Toyota’s workers actually make $2-per-hour more than UAW workers, if you count bonuses. But … but. … Toyota did not go bankrupt. … Toyota hasn’t had to be rescued with $17.4 billion of taxpayer money. … If Toyota can afford to pay its workers $2/hour more than UAW workers–perhaps because it doesn’t have to build cars under the union’s legalistic work rule system–that’s great. It doesn’t mean Gettelfinger’s workers have a right to $28/hour if at that wage their employers can’t stay in business without an ongoing multi-billion dollar subsidy. I’m sorry if this seems obvious. It’s apparently not obvious enough. Link This actually makes me want to buy a Toyota. I HIGHLY doubt I am alone. So will promoters of greater unionization now boast that with unions, workers can earn $2/hour less? ... P.P.S.: The simplest solution would still seem to be to simply not give the Detroit companies more money. Let them keep the bailout funds they've gotten. Fine. A little gift. Beyond that, they have to work out amongst themselves--employers, union, creditors, bondholders, investors--how to survive. A car czar, or board of czars, increasingly looks mainly like a way to provide cover for ongoing subsidies, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Then go buy one, troll. Want proof you're a troll, this was posted in the Ford discussion forum, and doesn't even mention Ford! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Then go buy one, troll. Want proof you're a troll, this was posted in the Ford discussion forum, and doesn't even mention Ford! Not to mention the fact that Dearborn hasn't been Western-Unioned anything from Washington... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I don't think the rest of America wants to set a pay scale for anybody, I think they just want the D3 to be able to hire for whatever it takes to get someone competent to do the job. Holding buildings hostage until you get a little more cream off the top is so twentieth century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ah. The other anti-union troll. Thought you'd never get here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ah. The other anti-union troll. Thought you'd never get here! I'm not anti-union, I just don't see what's wrong with being able to pay whatever it takes to fill the seat. I mean they do have to charge what people are willing to pay for their cars don't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Okay, so the point was UAW workers are getting paid too much, right? That's why the union was supposed to make concessions, right? So now the union is getting paid less than Toyota employees (as opposed to those sadsack temps that got dismissed in 2008 with a fist full of nothing for their troubles), and still concessions are expected? ------------ George Santayana: A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 The point is; the UAW="big 3" in the public eye. Ford does happen to have a number of employees who are UAW members. I apologize profusely for not pointing this out. It is beyond bad PR; it is horrible PR, and typical double speak after promising concessions; claiming, now, for the first time that Toyota workers (after getting BONUSES) might have made more, after ignoring health costs, job banks etc., and oh by the way the federal bailout (v1) is simply breathtaking. They're not going to negotiate wages, or work rules. Bankruptcy remains the only way for these companies to survive. A "bailout" merely allows Washington politicians to meddle and throw billions of taxpayer dollars away in the process, without helping the businesses. Businesses exist to make money for stockholders Richard, deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 This thread needs to be closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 This thread needs to be closed. I really don't think you do yourself a favor crying so much anytime the head of the UAW is quoted. Try to sit back and relax a little. I'm not actually trying to engage you in a dialog, or piss in your Wheaties for that matter. Feel free to not comment on anything I say on this board, and have a great day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Okay, so the point was UAW workers are getting paid too much, right? That's why the union was supposed to make concessions, right? So now the union is getting paid less than Toyota employees (as opposed to those sadsack temps that got dismissed in 2008 with a fist full of nothing for their troubles), and still concessions are expected? ------------ George Santayana: A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim. No concessions necessary, simply allow the D3 to hire for whatever it takes to fill the job. Fair enough? Edited January 27, 2009 by davdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Frankly, I believe the point Gettelfinger was making was that wages were off the table as far as concessions go. He's got a pretty reasonable point, IMO. But, of course, we do have our demagogues, who substitute cheesy internet graphics, sloganism, and stump speeches for reasonable suggestions. Fact is, in many GM & Chrysler factories, the UAW could probably stand to loosen its work rules. But why not Ford? Because Ford negotiated new work rules with the UAW instead of stomping their feet, whining to the press, and howling at the moon. But please, by all means, feel free to stomp feet, whine, and howl at the moon here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tico Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 excuse me for stating the obvious but if Ford had a good economy and #1, 2 or 3 product in each catagory there would be nothing to whine, stomp, or cry about union or no union. Lets just hope 2010 is a good year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navlys32 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 What about this idea? If the UAW is in the business of labor, then the UAW is a monopoly and there should be a competing union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante hicks Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 What about this idea? If the UAW is in the business of labor, then the UAW is a monopoly and there should be a competing union. Feel free to start one. When the next UAW (whether it be big 3 or supplier) contract is up, go in there and try to get the workers to defect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante hicks Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) They're not going to negotiate wages, or work rules. Your quote mentions competitive wages, it doesn't say anything about not negotiating work rules. In fact, by saying "part of the union's concessions," Gettlefinger implies work rules will change. Edited January 27, 2009 by dante hicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 So, basically you agree with the union that the production jobs at Ford are worth $14 an hour? Isn't this like my paperboy telling me that "yes you're paying $30 a week for the paper to be delivered and I'm worth every cent, but if you do get a new paperboy you'll only have to pay $15 a week?" What the heck is the UAW actually saying? Are they saying they've been overcharging for production labor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Frankly, I believe the point Gettelfinger was making was that wages were off the table as far as concessions go. He's got a pretty reasonable point, IMO. But, of course, we do have our demagogues, who substitute cheesy internet graphics, sloganism, and stump speeches for reasonable suggestions. Fact is, in many GM & Chrysler factories, the UAW could probably stand to loosen its work rules. But why not Ford? Ford took no money from the Federal Government. GM and Chrysler have made a deal with the Devil. Gettelfinger, whatever people want to say to him, is going to have to deal with that. If the Federal Government is going to tell the automakers what cars to build, it isn't a stretch to believe they will tell the UAW what to do. Otherwise, GM/Chrysler are caught between a rock and a hard place, and won't stay there long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
povertyknob Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Link This actually makes me want to buy a Toyota. I HIGHLY doubt I am alone. I'm not sure what part of that makes you want to buy a Toyota. Wages are comparable. You seem like a smart guy so I'm pretty sure you know the difference between wages and overall compensation. Overall compensation needs to be addressed in order to be competitive with the transplants- which is pretty much what Gettelfinger said. I'm sure you also understand that it's going to be a bit of an uneven playing field since the transplant facilities haven't been here long enough to face the same sort of legacy obligations that the domestics have to deal with. There seems to be a widely held misconception that the UAW has refused to yield anything and that is simply not true. Negotiations are ongoing and we all hope for an agreement that makes the domestics competitive without being too painful for the UAW. I get the impression that you won't be satisfied with any agreement that doesn't reduce wages- even if total compensation can be reduced in other ways. It's been explained on these forums countless times that UAW employees don't "make" 73 dollars per hour. Yet the media continues to repeat this sort of disinformation in many auto related articles, sometimes with an explanation of the real wages by the fourth paragraph,mostly not. Folks who work for Ford , particularly hourly, are weary of defending ourselves from half-truths and disinformation. You're welcome to post almost anything you wish, but you shouldn't be surprised if people get angry about your decision to buy a Toyota based on your reaction to Mr. Gettelfinger's quote. Or was that what you intended.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I'm not sure what part of that makes you want to buy a Toyota. Wages are comparable. You seem like a smart guy so I'm pretty sure you know the difference between wages and overall compensation. Overall compensation needs to be addressed in order to be competitive with the transplants- which is pretty much what Gettelfinger said. I'm sure you also understand that it's going to be a bit of an uneven playing field since the transplant facilities haven't been here long enough to face the same sort of legacy obligations that the domestics have to deal with. There seems to be a widely held misconception that the UAW has refused to yield anything and that is simply not true. Negotiations are ongoing and we all hope for an agreement that makes the domestics competitive without being too painful for the UAW. I get the impression that you won't be satisfied with any agreement that doesn't reduce wages- even if total compensation can be reduced in other ways. It's been explained on these forums countless times that UAW employees don't "make" 73 dollars per hour. Yet the media continues to repeat this sort of disinformation in many auto related articles, sometimes with an explanation of the real wages by the fourth paragraph,mostly not. Folks who work for Ford , particularly hourly, are weary of defending ourselves from half-truths and disinformation. You're welcome to post almost anything you wish, but you shouldn't be surprised if people get angry about your decision to buy a Toyota based on your reaction to Mr. Gettelfinger's quote. Or was that what you intended.....? very well said and I'm not even going to get in this argument because it's the same people rehashing old ones and LSFan is a rehasher along with a few more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smok Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I'm not sure what part of that makes you want to buy a Toyota. Wages are comparable. You seem like a smart guy so I'm pretty sure you know the difference between wages and overall compensation. Overall compensation needs to be addressed in order to be competitive with the transplants- which is pretty much what Gettelfinger said. I'm sure you also understand that it's going to be a bit of an uneven playing field since the transplant facilities haven't been here long enough to face the same sort of legacy obligations that the domestics have to deal with. There seems to be a widely held misconception that the UAW has refused to yield anything and that is simply not true. Negotiations are ongoing and we all hope for an agreement that makes the domestics competitive without being too painful for the UAW. I get the impression that you won't be satisfied with any agreement that doesn't reduce wages- even if total compensation can be reduced in other ways. It's been explained on these forums countless times that UAW employees don't "make" 73 dollars per hour. Yet the media continues to repeat this sort of disinformation in many auto related articles, sometimes with an explanation of the real wages by the fourth paragraph,mostly not. Folks who work for Ford , particularly hourly, are weary of defending ourselves from half-truths and disinformation. You're welcome to post almost anything you wish, but you shouldn't be surprised if people get angry about your decision to buy a Toyota based on your reaction to Mr. Gettelfinger's quote. Or was that what you intended.....? Whatever the argument is, the expense is being paid out in the amount of $73 per hour worked of a current employee. That number is real. You said that it's a unfair comparison since Toyota doesn't have the legacy costs like GM/Ford, since they haven't been around for a while. Well, what about the profits GM/Ford made for decades. What happened to that. Sure they have LEGACY costs, but they also enjoyed HUGE PROFITS in the past. That money should have been managed for future legacy costs. The profits (in part) were distributed for profit sharing, dividends, management bonuses....and less on new technology development and right product mix. The blame can be shared amongst all. The UAW can take credit for inflexible, non-adaptive, lines of demarcation work ethic, and management can take responsibility for not investing properly in small/midsize and hybrid cars and with clueless product decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Whatever the argument is, the expense is being paid out in the amount of $73 per hour worked of a current employee. That number is real. Prove it, please provide a link to the data used to derive that amount. The auto makers are now distancing themselves from that original counterproductive claim. Edited January 27, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davdog Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I'm not sure what part of that makes you want to buy a Toyota. Wages are comparable. You seem like a smart guy so I'm pretty sure you know the difference between wages and overall compensation. Overall compensation needs to be addressed in order to be competitive with the transplants- which is pretty much what Gettelfinger said. I'm sure you also understand that it's going to be a bit of an uneven playing field since the transplant facilities haven't been here long enough to face the same sort of legacy obligations that the domestics have to deal with. There seems to be a widely held misconception that the UAW has refused to yield anything and that is simply not true. Negotiations are ongoing and we all hope for an agreement that makes the domestics competitive without being too painful for the UAW. I get the impression that you won't be satisfied with any agreement that doesn't reduce wages- even if total compensation can be reduced in other ways. It's been explained on these forums countless times that UAW employees don't "make" 73 dollars per hour. Yet the media continues to repeat this sort of disinformation in many auto related articles, sometimes with an explanation of the real wages by the fourth paragraph,mostly not. Folks who work for Ford , particularly hourly, are weary of defending ourselves from half-truths and disinformation. You're welcome to post almost anything you wish, but you shouldn't be surprised if people get angry about your decision to buy a Toyota based on your reaction to Mr. Gettelfinger's quote. Or was that what you intended.....? The only real truth that matters is the uaw telling ford they can hire new employees at $14 an hour to do the exact same job that ford presently pays $28 an hour for. You folks are fiip flopping here, is the job worth $28 an hour or $14? No one ever seems to want to answer that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The only real truth that matters is the uaw telling ford they can hire new employees at $14 an hour to do the exact same job that ford presently pays $28 an hour for. You folks are fiip flopping here, is the job worth $28 an hour or $14? No one ever seems to want to answer that one. FWIW....as far as i am concerned I'm fine with $28 hr IF THEY WORK. They strike they get NADA. And in reality I beleive they deserve it FAR more than the FIVE guys charging the State $50 plus, dressed in Orange I see OBSERVING the one guy filling a pot hole or digging a trench.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) The only real truth that matters is the uaw telling ford they can hire new employees at $14 an hour to do the exact same job that ford presently pays $28 an hour for. You folks are fiip flopping here, is the job worth $28 an hour or $14? No one ever seems to want to answer that one. On top of that, D3 will make one off payments to transfer all pension liabilities to UAW run VEBA. That is a huge burden removed from car makers - the real watershed in the last agreement. Do Toyota workers have a group pension plan set up or is it the individual's responsibility? Edited January 27, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.