UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike

[ice-capades]

UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike in Talks with Detroit Three Automakers

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2023/08/03/uaw-demands-46-percent-pay-hike-in-talks-with-detroit-three-automakers/70525605007/

 

The United Auto Workers is seeking a 46% wage increase over four years as a part of its negotiations with the Detroit Three automakers, according to a page of the union's written demands.

 

The proposal would be the largest pay increase in recent memory. The proposal from the Detroit-based union that represents approximately 150,000 workers making Chevrolets, Fords, Jeeps and more calls for a 20% general wage increase upon ratification of a new contract "to offset severe impact of inflation" over the past few years, according to the write-up obtained by The Detroit News.

 

After that, the union demands a 5% wage increase every September through the life of the agreement through 2027.

The UAW's top wage is $32.32 per hour after two 3% wage increases since 2019. The union's proposal would bring that to $47.14, nearing the $49 per hour average top rate recently achieved in a tentative agreement by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with United Parcel Service Inc.

 

Meanwhile, pay would be well above estimated averages of wages for workers at nonunion competitors manufacturing in the United States.

UAW President Shawn Fain on Tuesday shared an overview of the "members' demands" that called for "double-digit" wage increases, a cost-of-living allowance, pensions for all, a jobs bank-like Working Families Protection Program and more paid time off. Fain also suggested the union would fight for a 32-hour work week.

Edited August 4, 2023 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[Oac98]

1 hour ago, ice-capades said:

UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike in Talks with Detroit Three Automakers

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2023/08/03/uaw-demands-46-percent-pay-hike-in-talks-with-detroit-three-automakers/70525605007/

 

The United Auto Workers is seeking a 46% wage increase over four years as a part of its negotiations with the Detroit Three automakers, according to a page of the union's written demands.

 

The proposal would be the largest pay increase in recent memory. The proposal from the Detroit-based union that represents approximately 150,000 workers making Chevrolets, Fords, Jeeps and more calls for a 20% general wage increase upon ratification of a new contract "to offset severe impact of inflation" over the past few years, according to the write-up obtained by The Detroit News.

 

After that, the union demands a 5% wage increase every September through the life of the agreement through 2027.

The UAW's top wage is $32.32 per hour after two 3% wage increases since 2019. The union's proposal would bring that to $47.14, nearing the $49 per hour average top rate recently achieved in a tentative agreement by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with United Parcel Service Inc.

 

Meanwhile, pay would be well above estimated averages of wages for workers at nonunion competitors manufacturing in the United States.

UAW President Shawn Fain on Tuesday shared an overview of the "members' demands" that called for "double-digit" wage increases, a cost-of-living allowance, pensions for all, a jobs bank-like Working Families Protection Program and more paid time off. Fain also suggested the union would fight for a 32-hour work week.

Lofty goals, I don’t think all of that will be achieved. 

[Oac98]

I have a question for the UAW members in here. Will your ratification be online or in person. Unifor Ford will be a zoom meeting which I think sucks. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

7 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

I have a question for the UAW members in here. Will your ratification be online or in person. Unifor Ford will be a zoom meeting which I think sucks. 

I watched Shawn Fein’s livestream on Tuesday and that question came up. He said point blank that decision hasn’t been made yet. 

[Oac98]

6 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I watched Shawn Fein’s livestream on Tuesday and that question came up. He said point blank that decision hasn’t been made yet. 

Ok thanks I watched parts of it I missed that part. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

I think that family protection plan or whatever they want to call it is mind numbingly stupid. Why should it ever be on any company to pay someone to work somewhere else, even if it’s on a volunteer basis? I don’t know who outside of Shawn Fein is asking for this. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

Lofty goals, I don’t think all of that will be achieved. 

Those aren’t lofty they’re downright ridiculous. 10% up front and 3%/yr would be more than fair to cover inflation.  What UPS makes is irrelevant - different industry.

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

Ok thanks I watched parts of it I missed that part. 

It was near the end when he wasn’t really saying much. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

Those aren’t lofty they’re downright ridiculous. 10% up front and 3%/yr would be more than fair to cover inflation.  What UPS makes is irrelevant - different industry.

GM and Stellantis have both all but said they’re offering double digit raises. It’s still unknown exactly what they’re offering

 

Meanwhile all we’ve heard from ford is ?

[T-dubz]

With demands like these, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more plants open in non union states.

[Flying68]

Maybe a silly question, but asking for a 20% increase in the hourly rate while simultaneously asking for a 20% reduction in hours worked seems counter productive if the goal is to increase compensation.  Would anything over 32 then be considered overtime?

[fuzzymoomoo]

I hope I’m wrong but I think the UAW is unintentionally setting up the membership to be disappointed with any agreement that is presented with all these boisterous demands. 

[Oac98]

16 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I think that family protection plan or whatever they want to call it is mind numbingly stupid. Why should it ever be on any company to pay someone to work somewhere else, even if it’s on a volunteer basis? I don’t know who outside of Shawn Fein is asking for this. 

Exactly sounds like nothing but crap 

[fuzzymoomoo]

4 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

Maybe a silly question, but asking for a 20% increase in the hourly rate while simultaneously asking for a 20% reduction in hours worked seems counter productive if the goal is to increase compensation.  Would anything over 32 then be considered overtime?

The way I understand the situation is that would be legally considered part time work so the company would be under no legal obligation to continue to provide benefits which opens up a whole different can of worms. 
 

Either way I want no part of a 32 hour work week, I would go stir crazy with that much time off. These 16 hour weeks I’m on now are bad enough. 

[akirby]

18 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

GM and Stellantis have both all but said they’re offering double digit raises. It’s still unknown exactly what they’re offering

 

Meanwhile all we’ve heard from ford is ?

10% plus 3% a year is 19%.

[fuzzymoomoo]

9 minutes ago, akirby said:

10% plus 3% a year is 19%.

Is that what’s being offered? I haven’t seen an actual statement with those figures in it but I wouldn’t complain if that’s what was offered. I’m admittedly in a weird spot with this contract since I’m starting in trades in 3 weeks. The standard hourly scale won’t apply to me so I need to see how the apprentice scale changes before I make any decision. My vote will count towards the trades vote, not hourly and I need to talk to more of the journeymen so I know what kind of stuff I need to be looking at and what’s good/bad and all that. 
 

Skimming through the article again I think I get the point Fein is trying to make here. His point is CEO pay has gone up a certain percentage so he thinks it’s only fair that hourly pay increase by the same percentage, and I agree with that sentiment but only to a point. As much as I’m not a fan of lump sum payments, that might be a better route for the union to take to get closer to their goal. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[Oac98]

28 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

It was near the end when he wasn’t really saying much. 

I will watch it again anyways

[Flying68]

4 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

The way I understand the situation is that would be legally considered part time work so the company would be under no legal obligation to continue to provide benefits which opens up a whole different can of worms. 
 

Either way I want no part of a 32 hour work week, I would go stir crazy with that much time off. These 16 hour weeks I’m on now are bad enough. 

Thanks.  I know some of our IAW employees are on 36 hr work weeks, but they work 3 12's on the weekends and get overtime for hours beyond that.  The IAW and Spirit Aerosystems just ratified a new 4 year deal that amounts to a 21.5% increase over the 4 years of the contract plus other built in adjustments and bonuses.  Good luck.  I always take the philosophy that labor deals should be fair, because if it is not balanced you either end up with a pissed off workforce or a laid off workforce, and neither is good.

[Flying68]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

10% plus 3% a year is 19%.

It is actually 20.2%.  1.10*1.03*1.03*1.03=1.201999

[Oac98]

16 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

The way I understand the situation is that would be legally considered part time work so the company would be under no legal obligation to continue to provide benefits which opens up a whole different can of worms. 
 

Either way I want no part of a 32 hour work week, I would go stir crazy with that much time off. These 16 hour weeks I’m on now are bad enough. 

32 hour work week is another bullshit proposal. I like this guys aggression but not all of his proposals are even remotely gonna be considered.

[fuzzymoomoo]

10 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

32 hour work week is another bullshit proposal. I like this guys aggression but not all of his proposals are even remotely gonna be considered.

Which is why I think he’s unintentionally setting us up for disappointment. It’s fine if he wants to propose that but there’s some things that should be kept behind closed doors for that reason. Had he publicly stuck to the main points of wages, COLA, ending tiers and more vacation/personal time it would be a lot easier to sell any agreement to the members. He’s made it so much harder on the locals, and I am fully aware there will always be a certain percentage that will vote No regardless of how good or bad the deal is. There is such a thing as too much transparency. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[jasonj80]

7 minutes ago, akirby said:

10% plus 3% a year is 19%.

It is  20.1% (compounding over 4 year) 

 

15 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I hope I’m wrong but I think the UAW is unintentionally setting up the membership to be disappointed with any agreement that is presented with all these boisterous demands. 

Old school rhetoric/contract from when he was young, makes sure he is kept in power as leader as he is going to continue to fight for the membership. Some have a feeling his leadership is going to be short lived based on conversations that he is a lot of bark and no bite and he's way outside his element, he's never been at this level in contracts and he's going to be able to deliver on none of this.

 His demands are going to bankrupt the companies and the guys I know that went though it the last time know there isn't going to be a bail out like last time. Worse it turns off customers because they don't get anything close to that at their jobs. The problem is these demands become what the workers actually get in the eyes of the public because they read them.  

The "volunteer work" is so y'all can go door to door and work polls in political campaigns, and try to unionize other places; Oh and do other community events.

[fuzzymoomoo]

5 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The "volunteer work" is so y'all can go door to door and work polls in political campaigns, and try to unionize other places; Oh and do other community events.

Yeah, that’s absolutely ridiculous to ask any company to pay for that. 
 

to your first point, he was an international bargaining rep years ago FWIW. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Is that what’s being offered? I haven’t seen an actual statement with those figures in it but I wouldn’t complain if that’s what was offered.
 

Skimming through the article again I think I get the point Fein is trying to make here. His point is CEO pay has gone up a certain percentage so he thinks it’s only fair that hourly pay increase by the same percentage, and I agree with that sentiment but only to a point. As much as I’m not a fan of lump sum payments, that might be a better route for the union to take to get closer to their goal. 

No that was just my opinion of what would be fair and much more realistic.

 

I agree that CEOs and other executives are overpaid but it’s also a free market and each job has its own market rates.  One has nothing to do with the other.

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

It is  20.1% (compounding over 4 year) 

 

Old school rhetoric/contract from when he was young, makes sure he is kept in power as leader as he is going to continue to fight for the membership. Some have a feeling his leadership is going to be short lived based on conversations that he is a lot of bark and no bite and he's way outside his element, he's never been at this level in contracts and he's going to be able to deliver on none of this.

 His demands are going to bankrupt the companies and the guys I know that went though it the last time know there isn't going to be a bail out like last time. Worse it turns off customers because they don't get anything close to that at their jobs. The problem is these demands become what the workers actually get in the eyes of the public because they read them.  

The "volunteer work" is so y'all can go door to door and work polls in political campaigns, and try to unionize other places; Oh and do other community events.

This type of rhetoric does nobody any good and mfrs are probably laughing at this.  These tactics only worked in the past when it was a captive market and the UAW built 95% of all the vehicles.  As long as all the mfrs paid the same nobody had an advantage.  But when you have to compete with non union or other union workforces you can’t just write your own check.

 

Get raises to cover inflation but the rest should be focused on keeping as many jobs in the US as possible and other benefits that don’t make the labor costs uncompetitive.