Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?

"Tim" > wrote in message
>
> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee
> negotiator. What could be fairer?
>

I'll represent myself, thank you. Then I know what is fair for me.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message
>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee
>> negotiator. What could be fairer?
>>
>
> I'll represent myself, thank you. Then I know what is fair for me.
>
>

That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if
they don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This
just equalizes things for the worker.
Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage.

Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So basically, this $70/hour number is including the health care costs of
>> twice as many retires and their families as there are current workers.
>> Plus the amount that the auto companies are currently paying in pensions
>> for twice the amount of retirees as there are current employees. Of course
>> they aren't paying the pensions of current employees now.
>
> I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current
> employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for
> those already retired, but they are paying into the pension fund trust for
> those who are currently working.

How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and
including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since
they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense?

>
> However, one problem is that if the pension fund suffers investment losses,
> then GM would have to make up the difference. Conversely if the fund is
> doing better than expected in its investments, the company can reduce or
> skip contributions. But apparently the GM pension fund is doing OK because
> of its conservative investment strategy (probably bonds), and GM says it
> does not plan to add any money to the fund for the next three or four years.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/business/25auto.html
>
> The health care cost for retirees is more complicated, and you can read
> about it in the above article. Note that anyone over 62 is eligible for
> Medicare, but the GM health care plan is way over the top compared to what
> most retired Americans have available to them.
>
>

"Tim" > wrote in message
> So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union
> worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers?
> If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as
> non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the
> current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave
> out current retirees' costs from the formula.

It was poor planning a long time ago. Never said the worker should take
less, but the company has to get out from under a debt that is going to kill
them. The company and union are at fault with many of the problems and both
have to work tegether to get out of the situation. Maybe some sacrifce for
both is to ther mutual benefit (and that includes retirees)

Right now our business is slow as 50% of or business is tied to new
construction. No bonus and I'm not expecting an increase next year. Nor
will I complain as I'm still getting a check every month, unlike many
others. When things turn around, the bonus will be back.



> Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly.

Never did.


> By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement
> plans.
>
They call it the Social Security Administration.

>"Tim" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less?

You only get paid more in a union until the company goes out of business, or
ships the job overseas.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee
> negotiator. What could be fairer?

Union negotiation of pay negates the reality that some people are better
employees than others in terms of productivity and quality of work, and that
they should be paid more. When you have a union that negotiates pay based on
seniority, then there is no incentive for an employee to work harder or
improve the quality of their work.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they
> don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just
> equalizes things for the worker.
> Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage.

When an employee can threaten to quit when they are not paid what they can
get elsewhere, they have the upper hand. Most non-union employees have
changed jobs many times in their career, and bettered there pay each time
(not just cost of living increases). I have gone back to work previous
employers, each time at significantly higher pay.

Employees who cannot get the same or higher pay elsewhere are generally not
worth what they are paid.

The main reason that everything is made in China these days (with the
exception of cars, but that is probably coming) is primarily because of
labor unions.

Mark A wrote:
>> "Tim" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less?
>
> You only get paid more in a union until the company goes out of business, or
> ships the job overseas.
>
>

What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business?

Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee
>> negotiator. What could be fairer?
>
> Union negotiation of pay negates the reality that some people are better
> employees than others in terms of productivity and quality of work, and that
> they should be paid more. When you have a union that negotiates pay based on
> seniority, then there is no incentive for an employee to work harder or
> improve the quality of their work.
>
>

I thought trained monkeys could do these jobs.

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
> So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union
> worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers?
> If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as
> non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the
> current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave
> out current retirees' costs from the formula.
> Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly.
> By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement
> plans.

It is simply not true that workers at the Big 3 get paid the same (or less)
than the other auto-workers in the US. They get paid more. That is
irrespective of any pension or health care obligations that the Big 3 have
for their retired workers. When I say they get paid more, I mean salary,
pension accruals, and health care accruals for current employees.