Remember recently when I informed y'all about my boss's brother who made just over $100,000 with the UAW in Detroit? Nearly everybody called me a liar and swore up and down no UAW member makes anything approaching that kind of money? Well, here is a link regarding an agreement that Ford has made with the UAW whereby some workers are taking a pay cut to $114,000 per year. So for those assholes who swore up & down that no UAW worker ever made anything approaching $100,000, rim my ass- and enjoy it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090311/ts_nm/us_ford
I know. You're always a straight up person. Also, I make this thread mostly in jest. Message boards like this are mostly full of dopey kids and the rest of us have to take that into account.
Man, so you're saying I should look for an IAW job, huh? Meh, I'm an engineer. Forget it. I should learn how to rivet something. Why did I waste 4 years of college time, when I could've been in a union?
Skimming the article, I didn't see that . . . but if UAW workers are getting paid 114K/yr, that might help to explain Ford's $14.7 billion net loss for 2008.
I don't see $114,000 in that article anywhere. And the $55 per hour rate is the total of hourly rate, plus paid time off, plus an estimate of the effective hourly cost of benefits - bonuses, health coverage, pension,etc. . I have no idea how many hours worked per year are used in these computations. Saying they will earn $55 per hours is not the same as the base hourly rate of pay they earn. There won't be thousands of factory worker W2's for the year that say $100,000+. And you do realize that factory workers - even in good times - are not paid a weekly or monthly salary like most office workers. They are paid for the hours they work and they often don't get hours. Anywho, I don't disagree that they have been generally overpaid for what they do, but no need to confuse the issue with misleading info. Besides, I think two issues have had more of a negative impact of U.S. carmakers than the effective hourly rate of factory workers: 1) Union work rules that make it more difficult to be productive, something that is a big "hidden tax" of some unionized industries; 2) Lavish retirement benefits given to too many workers who are allowed to retire early (retirement based on years worked, not age) or given early retirement during previous company downturns. This is also partly union caused. Non-union shops layoff workers and pay severance. No long-term healthcare liability. They are bought out of any pension vesting. Often there is no vesting or the shop had 401k plan, which the employee takes with them. Union factories don't get off that easy when they have to get rid of workers, and the long-term liabilities piled up on them for retiree healthcare and pension benefits over the last few decades.
The 2 main reasons for business in trouble are high business taxes (that just went up) and high union wages and low/poor productivity.
really, you kinda have to figure in benefits into your salary. if i make 100k with no benefits, or 90k with full benefits for my whole family, the 90k is actually worth more in comparison to buying my own insurance.
Au contraire. According to our new Administration, if you make over $75K, you're "rich". It's time to step up, time to chip in, time to be part of the deal...spread the wealth!
You were the one who initiated hostilities by telling Masbee to "start rimming." He said you were crude and ignorant to say such a thing. You then decided to keep attacking him. Sorry, that's not going to be allowed. If you can't handle disagreement with your views, discussion forums aren't for you. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to PM me or another moderator. There's no point hijacking this thread.
