Could easily avoid this by paying workers properly.
but that could hurt the poor shareholders
$150/hr in pay and benefits tho.
Edit: Wow, so many downvotes when I'm just providing some context I read. For what it's worth I support the strike but the decision should be informed as much as possible. I left Reddit to get away from this toxicity.
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
Combining pay with benefits as a single dollar amount is gibberish.
Why don't you list the actual hourly wage they're asking for?
If they make $60/hr with benefits and it goes to $150/hr with benefits, how much of that increase is benefits?
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
The automakers combine benefits with wages to make the number seem much larger than it actually is, so the workers sound greedy.
Their current wages are around $20/hr. Calling that "$60/hr with benefits" is beyond misleading , it's fucking disgusting. You can't pay rent with benefits, fuck off.
Why are you so rude? Be civil and have a discussion.
Now, what is the new hourly wage component of that $150/hr. You must know, right?
Don't tone police me honey 🙄 when you side with the bosses you become my enemy. Don't be surprised when I treat you like one.
The demand is to increase the top hourly rate to $47 per hour - so use that number, not the numbers fed to you by the industry. That's what wages should be if they had kept up with productivity and inflation over the past several decades.
I'll tone police you as much as I please if you're disrepectful, honey. You lump everyone with the enemy if they provide different perspectives? I make a small fraction of what these workers make and I simply have questions. That makes me the enemy? What a close-minded view of the world you have. What if plants close and people make $0/hour? Because people listened to those like you who stifle diversity of thought?
Thanks for that info on $47/hour. That makes $103 in benefits.
Now, how much of that is retirement plans and pensions? Make sure you tell the workers they can't use that money for rent though, like you suggested.
Continuing to post the exact same article, and parrot the same talking point, isn't exactly painting you in a good light. If you want discussion, try moving forward with it.
I agree and am trying, but I am being inundated with name-calling and foul language. I'm just one person.
Sure, but in order to change the narrative, you need to move forward, saying the same thing over and over will result in the same responses, and get you where you are. I personally disagree with your points, but if you raise them in good faith, then you deserve to be heard. The key is "in good faith", if you're unwilling to accept you may be wrong, how can you expect others to?
Discussion is difficult on lemmy, but the only way to make it better is to keep trying.
Because the combined number is how much they're costing the company.
How many billions did each of those companies make last year?
Keep pushing and the jobs get relocated completely. This latest push is the union signing the death warrant for the area.
Relocated to where? You know they would have to build a new factory and train new employees, right? Who's going to make all the cars until then?
General Motors currently operates 4 production facilities in Mexico, as does Ford.
Stellantis has 7.
You're right, it'll take some time to shift completely, but this sort of push by the union is the kind of catalyst that can light a fire under execs to get it done.
What's cheaper, what the union is asking for or the cost of moving production? When those lines cross on the graph, the union is fucked.
I agree, that is what the oligarchy will try to do, so sending key manufacturing jobs overseas should be illegal and punished with seizure of assets and ownership of the plants redistributed to the workers.
They're the source of all the company's profits.
If it were enough, they wouldn't be striking. Or do you presume to know their circumstances? Surely you'd never think the 10 minutes you spent looking up sources gives you better insight than the voting body of the union members who are wagering their lives on this, right?
Frankly, since you are probably an empathetic, thinking individual, im confused how you came to the conclusion to share a thought so comparitively shallow.
EDIT: if people take the time to look at his history, he had none before this thread. His aim is to troll, so block him and move on with your lives
Wow, right out of the gates with the insults. You sound like a sociopath. I'm just providing some context I read:
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
"benefits" is doing so much heavy lifting and contains so much bullshit there.
Maybe. They are making $60/hr now including benefits. If they increase it to $150/hr, I'm not sure how much of that increase is benefits:
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
And?
You should celebrate average people getting paid more, not complaining about it
We don't need CEOs who do basically nothing getting paid tens/hundreds of millions a year
I'm not complaining about it. I'm providing some context.
You sound like you're whining more than anyone.
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
Either you added a zero or forgot a decimal
Nope, I didn't. Do a little research before opening your mouth:
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
Less than the ceos make by far and they aren’t doing near the actual work
Cut the CEO's pay, but that wasn't my point.
"The automakers have said the UAW demands could hike the current mid-$60-per-hour labor cost to more than $150 an hour."
These laborers are the only reason the company has profits or products, I don’t get your point. They should get their share of the pie no matter what the dollar amount is.
Also, counting the cost of benefits isn’t a fair comparison, you can’t pay rent or buy bread with dental insurance.
If you split the CEO's wages with all employees, there is no way anyone is getting anywhere near that much of a bump in pay.
Also, the benefits include retirement pensions. You can pay rent and buy bread with that money, I'm pretty sure.
These auto makers made $32 billion in profit last year! Just stop. UAW isn't asking for anything outrageous
You equate past performance with future sustainability? Just stop.
Past performance? What about the past concessions UAM made to keep the doors open for the manufacturers during the great recession? Those companies promised to return them but never did?
Sure, they may have made those promises but the bottom line is the botton line. They can't just summon cash. Sure, cut the CEO pay and pay them more, but the future is a few more years than the pandemic lasted.
The bottom line is this workers made the company record money. Bottom line is the CEOs, executives, and stake holders have themselves 40% raises so why not the workers? And those concessions by the workers were not made during the pandemic. They were made during the 2008 great recession. The auto makers are not going to go broke because the workers demands. That's just a lie.
"So why not the workers?" Re: a 40% raise. Sure, I agree in principle, and I really wish the CEOs didn't get that raise. It was selfish and stupid for that to happen. I just don't know if the financials can handle a 40% raise for everyone. The economy and auto demand might be different next year.
People disagreeing with you is not toxic.
I've gotten a lot of namecalling and foul language directed at me.
Just because your opponent is big doesn't mean they're going to win. This is an example of taking advantage of their size. They can't move quickly, so they tried to guess.
This union is run by some smart people. They didn't strike all at once so they can rachet up the pain in the future.
“Strike preparation and contingency planning is part of our normal process in a contract negotiation year — as a responsible business we have to do that,” a spokesperson told In These Times. “They made it very clear that a strike was possible and we did everything we needed to do to protect the business.”
Hmm. If only there was another way to protect the business.
A strike means the business has already failed shareholders. The business is inevitably going to make a new agreement with the union anyway, they should have done that before the strike stops the work, tanking profitability to near zero.
I wish the shareholders would hold them accountable since that's all these companies seem to care about. Strikes are 100% avoidable by the company. It is lost profit with no gain for them. They are failing their fiduciary duty and shareholders should make that clear.
Totally agree. Maybe I needed a /s? ;)
I don't know shit, but I would think the workers know exactly what factories are making preparations (by watching them happen). Further, they know exactly what the build process is, due to doing it.
I wonder if the union can rotate the workers on strike.
Unions can rotate strikes, it would be a form of workshare. Although that word is loosely defined so it could mean two people doing one job halftime like we saw during the pandemic. Anyway, rotation depends on how the previous collective bargaining agreement was written and if the owners are willing to allow it. Most often business owners will just shutter the doors rather than deal with that bullshit but it's possible.
