| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Auto Worker Compensation
Submitted by willamettevalley on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 05:39
![[wages.jpg]](http://www.thebierlys.com/images/wages.jpg)
Found graphic here. Another graphic here.
Why should we tax workers averaging around $30/hr. in wages and benefits in order to bailout a company who can't keep labor costs under $70/hr.? The unions have made the Big 3 inflexible and over-burdened with unfunded pension and health insurance costs. The businesses were hurting so bad, the credit crunch just sped up the inevitable day of reckoning.
I write more about this subject on my blog.


Comments
this ain't the unions fault
nobody forced Detroit to not innovate for thirty years. nobody forced detroit to hire interior decorators instead of actual engineers.
the problem is nobody wants their stupid cars, they overleveraged themselves out into SUVs, and they ate their seed corn with progressively longer loans that were a conflict of interest between the corporations' long term survival and their current stock price.
Just like Circuit City, you can see which won.
Anything that wasn't a bank, or didn't invest in banking during the Bush years, got bought out by a bank.
Why are we bailing out Cerberus Financial??
I second that opinion
Even ignoring everything RisingTide wrote, stating that, "The unions have made the Big 3 inflexible and over-burdened with unfunded pension and health insurance costs." shows some serious slant in your worldview.
Both parties sign on a contract, and Detroit continued to sign contracts they shouldn't have because they did not have the fortitude to any differently. Maybe William Shatner could get in there and negotiate for them, but the big three need to make a real case to their employees for renegotiation NOW, with real cost cutting, and some aggressive future profit-sharing included in the deal.
Everyone but Geddlefinger can see that UAW workers's compensation is part of the problem, and I think even I could make the case that the unions would fare better renegotiating than they would in a Bankruptcy Court.
My problem with what you show is that you blame the unions. If I am selling you my 93 Ford Explorer with 220 thousand miles, and I ask for ten grand and you give it to me, who is at fault. You could make a case that I was greedy, but I could just as easily make the case that you are an idiot. Labor negotiations suck; the big three need to face that and jump in.
Terry
Never said Big 3 management wasn't at fault too
All I did was post some facts. Sure, the Big 3 ultimately agreed to the contracts, but when unions have the power and political backing to go on strike and demand what they did, over time they won out and made the labor costs for the Big 3 inconsistent with the rest of the industry. This is irrifutable.
You could definitely point to some other factors to why the Big 3 lost market share, but the extra expense of unionized labor is certainly one of the biggest. It costs an extra $2-3K per vehicle just in labor costs compared to the foreign-owned American-produced cars.
And I think you are wrong about the UAW. They just made what they considered "major concessions" last year and have said recently they are not willing to give up anything more. Everything I've seen and read from UAW workers is them talking about how they deserve what they are paid, not because of how productive they are, but because they need that much to comfortably buy a house, send their kids to school, spend money in the local economy, retire some day, etc. They ignore the fact that they are compensated far above average wage in this country. How do they expect the rest of us make it?
Finally, isn't it possible that some of the business decisions the Big 3 made were because they had to find ways to put off costs to the long term to stay competitive in the short term?
when your idea of selling more cars
involves changing loan terms from one or two year loans to five year loans, to eight year loans... I can tell you that they sold themselves out of a market.
UAW has the most to lose if they go to bankruptcy court. But right now they're posturing, which is after all what they're paid to do. They think that we, the American Taxpayer, can't afford to let the Big 3 go broke. So they, just like the management, say "we aren't budging. you do something about it." By this point, I'm pissed as hell at the lot of them, and I say we let Rahmbo at them until he pounds them into mush or there's a REAL solution with concessions from all sides.
I could also mention the issue of National Security... ;-)
Costco has labor costs that are completely inconsistent with Walmart, and yet they're doing just fine. Sometimes, labor isn't everything.
Unlike the airline unions, I don't think that the auto workers were in a monopoly and getting fat off of huge profits. That said, I think everyone could afford to tighten some belts
WalMart and Costco are apples and oranges
Costco has a nice little niche in the market, about 1/10th the size of WalMart's. For most people, as long as quality is not drastically different, price is the biggest concern. These people tend to shop at Target/KMart/WalMart type retailers.
Other people are fine with higher prices if they think they are getting better quality and supporting their community, want a store that is nearby, or like to buy a few items in bulk. These people tend to shop at Costco. Costco has an entirely different business model which is to sell in bulk whatever it can make a good profit on. This makes their workers more productive on average, so Costco can afford to pay them more. Plus it is good PR and helps sales, so you can consider labor costs a replacement for advertising costs.
It is two different business models.
I would say that the Big 3 got forced into the high-margin SUV-type business model precisely because of high labor costs. The unionized labor drove the business model, not the other way around. As long as SUV's are selling like candy, everything's gravy (except that UAW keeps demanding bigger piece of the pie). When gas prices go up and credit markets tighten, oh crap!
you don't understand costco's business model very well
they don't make a profit on a lot of their items, so they can afford to undercut the competition.
how do they make it up? membership fees. it's membership fees that make their stores profitable.
My $45/yr. keeps them in business?
You really think that each shopper's $45 per year is what keeps Costco in business?
I always thought it was more to make it seem like a club (this store is so great you have to pay to get in), keep the cheap crowd out (if someone is not willing to spend $45 for membership, they're probably not likely to spend much money in our store), and to keep people coming back (dang, I payed $45 for membership, I'd better shop there to make good use of it).
I only shop at Costco because it is 2 minutes from my house. Saves me time. I only buy a handful of items there that are same or better prices than other stores. Most of there stuff, once you convert the price from their larger packages, is actually MORE expensive than other local grocery stores. I'm pretty sure they make a pretty hefty profit on all of that stuff.
umm... where do you live?
I live in a city whose main supermarket prides itself on overcharging for produce.
They need about 40k members per store to be profitable. The store I shop at has about 23k, as of last weekend (this is what happens when you need a towtruck and you don't have a cell phone).
Costco has insanely cheap basmati rice, and decent deals on perishables (muffins, bread). I tend to enjoy the extra quality that comes from Costco -- and you can't beat their powder laundry detergent (they're using an old recipe that they bought from Tide).
I'm probably an atypical buyer, as I buy the coupon items, some peanuts and olives, and then get the bulk commodities (less than $3 a pound for cheese? I can't find anything less than $4 at the grocery store). The two pounds of yeast that I bought would have cost me $40 at the grocery store.
Mountain Fresh Tide
Now i understand where you are coming from. Basmati Rice? Muffins? Olives? Yeast?
Do they have good deals on Meat & Potatoes?, maybe il check them out. Or maybe ill go to Sams Club instead.
they have excellent lean meat
It's not consistently cheaper than "take this for free" sales from Giant Eagle, but it's higher quality 87% lean ground beef, which means that they're using something different to grind up...
They have the most fantastic russet burbank potatoes, and in 20lb. bags for around $8.00. Great deals on most produce, actually.
Basically anything in a big package is likely to be a good deal, as they don't spend money on advertizing (and their store brand is awesome!)
Unionized Labor - good conversation
Willamettevalley,
This is a great conversation, btw. I have had mixed results here.
First, you may have not said the Big 3 weren't to blame, you just didn't iterate it there, which is what I was commenting on.
You write, "Sure, the Big 3 ultimately agreed to the contracts, but when unions have the power and political backing to go on strike and demand what they did, over time they won out and made the labor costs for the Big 3 inconsistent with the rest of the industry. This is irrifutable."
And this is correct! I do not refute that. What I challenge is that this fact in any way makes the Union to blame for the auto-makers problems. And I say that with my laissez-faire hat on. Unions were a fact of life at the Big 3, it was the companies's responsibility to take their medicine and deal with the strikes.
"And I think you are wrong about the UAW" For right now, maybe. But when faced with a prepackaged-court-ordered bankruptcy that strips them of everything, they might play ball. It will mean the end of UAW leadership, though.
"Finally, isn't it possible that some of the business decisions the Big 3 made were because they had to find ways to put off costs to the long term to stay competitive in the short term?"
Sure, but that doesn't make it smart. It's like diet and exercise. We all know we need to do it, and we have to give something up (time, flavor and sweat) but it is the right thing to do. The companies screwed up and they will take the Unions down with them if the unions won't play ball. The only plus side for conservatives will be that if they DO collapse and the UAW refuses to budge, it will break the back of the Union lobby.
My big point is, I guess, that management is almost entirely to blame. They will pay a higher price now. We should consider it interest for deferring their difficulties until now.
You can't say "laissez-faire" and "Unions were a fact of life"..
... in the same paragraph. The unions have political power. If you are trying to run a business and you are stuck between your shareholders, who want you to get a deal done, and unions, who want more benefits for their workers, I have a feeling it is not as easy as you seem to think to deal with a strike.
If you delay an agreement during a strike by holding your ground, you prolong the damage to the business and run the risk of losing your job when the shareholders get mad at you for the business losing money. There is incredible pressure to make a deal. Plus, in a few years you may not be running the company anyway, so you have no reason to care about what happens 20 years down the road.
You say the companies screwed up and will take down the unions with them. I say the unions screwed up and are pulling the companies down with them. Now, no matter what happens, some or all union workers will reap what they've sowed over the past half century (except for the chunk that taxpayers end up paying).
If it costs you an additional $2000 to make a car, you're only chance of being competitive is to make higher-priced cars. You just can't compete against a $12,000 Toyota car. You can't just chalk that up to a bad business decision. It was a forced business decision.
If the union pressured the companies into higher wages, higher benefits, higher pensions (some retirees collecting pensions longer than they even worked at the company), and a requirement to pay people laid off, how is the union not at least partially responsible for the companies' troubles?
I refuse to buy a 1980's car in 2008.
they had problems related to things costing more in this country.
you can pin that on the Republicans. Health Care is the main difference in compensation, and it's killing detroit.
but nevermind that.
let's get back to talking about the evil unions.
Washington International Airport! (if you don't get this reference, you'll have a hard time understanding how warped our national discourse has become).
Rising Health Care Are Because of Lack of Market Forces
You can't pin rising health care costs on Republicans. The rise is for 2 reasons.
1. People are using health care much more. People go to the doctor more than twice as often now compared to 1980. Use of prescription drugs has increased even more dramatically. Basically, demand has risen.
2. There are only indirect market forces in health care. Can you imagine what would happen to food prices if your employer picked your food insurance company for you, you could only go to a certain grocery store, there were no prices on any of the food items, customer service would look at you like you were crazy if you tried to ask how an item was, and you just grabbed anything you wanted/needed without regard to price? If food costs were only kept down by food insurance companies saying they would only reimburse grocery stores certain amounts for certain products? If you had to pay more if you went grocery shopping without insurance, but you only knew how much the bill was 2 months after you went shopping? If steak was $10 at one store and $50 at another?
In general, nobody is as careful with money as people are with their own money. The insurance companies cannot police insurance fraud nearly as well as consumers can look after their own money.
If an MRI costs $700 at one facility and $3000 at another, there needs to be some price visibility, as well as some cost sharing, so that the patient has both the knowledge and incentive to go to the less expensive option (assuming quality is the same).
We need more price and quality transparency, and to move toward personal medical savings accounts to pay for non-catastrophic services. McCain's tax proposal to shift the tax code to offer a $5000 tax credit per family would have cut taxes for 90% of Americans and moved towards a more market-based system that would help reign in costs.
It's the fucking market forces that are raising health care cost
Fucking wall street and their bloody quest for the almighty profit.
When corporations have the practice of denying care for any procedure above a certain dollar amount, It isn't the fault of people using the damnable insurance!
When people have to sell off their houses for medical reasons, despite having purchased the best insurance that they could find -- it's not their fault for using it more.
We have made substantial increases in productivity in medicine -- and yet it's still projected to cost 20% of our GDP.
THAT is unacceptable.
An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.
WHAT market forces let some kid die of a toothache, for crying out loud? He was the quiet kid, his mum spent months trying to get his brother a dentist appt...
The bloody gory truth is death by spreadsheet. I have been at the heart of this, where I was told by my insurance company that they would not prescribe a medication, even with express doctor's orders -- DESPITE the demonstrative fact that this was likely to cause chronic moderate shock. That's emergency room care, every motherfucking day -- that's thousands of manhours lost in muddled thinking.
And for what? for a measly $300 dollars that they'd have to pay out.
Nah, I could go on, but I invite you to post your shpiel on someplace where someone with more time can respond.
Your entire rant assumes that our managed health care system
is a given - a fixture and natural creation of the free market system. If you didn't get it, willamettevalley's entire post was a criticism of the same insurance system you're criticizing. It's not the free market that keeps insurance companies afloat. We didn't choose with our dollars the managed health care system we have now. You're confusing the fact that a certain large industry is benefiting disproportionately with pro-free market ideology.
managed health care wasn't a problem in 1992.
The problem isn't entirely with managed health care -- It's more a problem of wall street demanding ever increasing profits from a sector of our economy that really shouldn't be concentrating on "more profit" all the time.
I do understand the idea that managed health care isn't a good thing, I just don't agre with it ;-)
A truly free market would dramatically lower health care costs
RisingTide, you are so mixed up it is difficult to know where to start.
Our current health care system in $ amount is funded over 50% by government and 35% by employer-provided insurance. The remaining 15% individual market gets gored by the rising costs caused by the rest of the system.
Private insurers have about 10-12% of administrative costs. Employers and government have much higher admin costs. The federal government, as a rule, wastes about 30% of all money flowing through D.C. in administrative costs.
Market forces are inescapable. I should have stipulated in my last post that FREE Market Forces will lower costs. Government interference (other than the proper role of fighting fraud) almost always raises costs, and the sum total of interference in the market ALWAYS raises costs.
When it comes to health care, one can make the argument that government should interfere to some extent in order to assure everyone can receive health care (and I support that to a point), but one cannot legitimately argue that the government interference is not raising costs.
Not having to fight with insurance companies is one of the best arguments FOR a free market system. If you got a high-deductible individual health insurance the same way you get car insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, rental insurance, etc., you would have most of your interactions directly with your doctor. How often do you have to deal with your car insurance company?
Say we moved to a system where the average citizen received a $5000 tax credit to go purchase a plan with a $1000 deductible with preventative services fully covered (or even a $15 rebate from your insurance co.) and a Health Savings Account that you owned and moved with you from job to job and year to year. This high-ded plan would be much less expensive (and you would be allowed to purchase across state lines), and your employer could still contribute money tax free into your HSA. Any money you had left over from the $5000 would go straight into your HSA and accumulate.
Under this system, after a couple of years of you and/or your employer adding to your HSA the difference between the cost of your current insurance plan and the lower cost of the High-deductible plan, you would have plenty of money in your HSA to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Everyone would instantly have a very strong incentive to start shopping around for the best prices for medical services. Health providers would be forced to become more effecient to compete for your health care dollars. Competition would drive costs down. You wouldn't have to deal with your insurance company unless you had major medical expenses. Millions of Americans that currently get NO tax subsidized health care insurance through there employer would fairly receive the same tax subsidy as everyone else. The only excuse for not having health insurance would be if you were too lazy to sign up. Administrative costs would be reduced greatly once everyone got on a plan they liked and insurance companies didn't have to process every single doctor's visit.
The current system is what is RAISING health care costs. No price or quality transparency, over-regulation of Insurance (you must cover sex-change operations), third-party payer so neither doctor nor patient sees full cost, medicare & insurance fraud, and ridiculous lawsuits that reduce the number of doctors and causes the remaining ones to spend 25-50% of their profits on liability insurance.
I had trouble following your last few paragraphs (under my plan you would have plenty of money in your HSA to purchase the $300 of medication, and where are people not able to see dentists for a toothache??), but if you are worried about the insurance companies denying coverage for services, just wait until the government denies the services altogether, or makes you wait so long for them that you die. This is what is happening in Canada. It takes 17 weeks to see your doctor. There are more MRI's in a large American city than all of Canada. People with major illnesses often die while waiting for surgeries. Many others travel to America to pay for services. Did you know that Canada pays numerous hospitals in northern sections of America to provide services for Canadians?
Other countries keep costs down by rationing health care, the way that Medicare is starting to do now. Medicare will only pay so much for each procedure, and many doctors now will not provide service to Medicare patients because it is not profitable. The next step will be for the government to mandate the doctors to not discriminate. Then the doctors will start going out of business, demand for health care services will overwhelm supply, and you'll start having to wait longer and longer for each appointment. And nothing will be done to reduce the inefficiencies in the system. This is the direction we are headed.
seeing a dentist for a toothache costs over a thousand dollars
I can pull the whole thing from my insurance stats. but that's insured. if you aren't, it is likely to cost much more.
In canada, fewer people die from killing themselves. They are much poorer than us, so some of what you're talking about is less comparative, but I can tell you that some of their services are much better than our 'cost managed' ones.
Doctors already don't want to be doctors anymore. Our current system sucks, when more than 50% of PCPs would choose another job.
UAW, Management, and ?
Good Post, but one thing that gets lost in the debate are the ineffective energy policies we've had in our country that forces the car companies to be slaves to the price of crude oil, regardless of the US or world demand.
Given the fact that the Big 3's unprofititable contracts result in much smaller margins per car than foreign automakers, i believe they would of been able to shoulder the slowing economy better if they werent hurt by an unstable world oil market and its artificial cost drivers. But maybe now we can get the comprehensive fixes that the industry desperately needed.
Hundreds of <a
Hundreds of <a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk">links of london</a> jewellery in stock,Free Gift Wrapping,Complete links of london jewellery collection,including necklaces,bracelets,earrings.<a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk">links of london store</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk">linksoflondon</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-bracelets-13.html">links of london Bracelet</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-charms-15.html">links of london Charms</a>Cheap Links Of London,Fast Deliv ery!linksoflondon silver range for 2009 including linksoflondon necklaces,Links Of London Earrings,Charms,and Bracelets<a href="http://www.linksjewel.co.uk">links of london</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-earrings-19.html">links of london Bracelet Earrings</a><a href="http://www.linksstore.co.uk/linksoflondon-necklaces-14.html">links of london Bracelet Necklaces</a>The love for beauty is a nature of all human beings; the love for links jewelry is a habit of the public since various smashing links of London necklaces <a href="http://www.jewelrytiffany.co.uk">tiffany jewellery</a>