SG Broadband Community

Mark wrote:true, but that is the amount GM pays for all the union extras and health care, retirement benefits, ect.
or am i off base here ?

as Honda pays about $47 per hour or so ?

Yes that's true but like Doc said, it's a fully loaded cost. Those figures also include health costs for retired workers.

It's disingenuous for the news to keep reporting that big three auto workers and since the cost was from a GM paper, to say they are making 73 bucks an hour.

Now if Toyota was in business half as long in this country as say, GM, their fully loaded costs would be very close to GM's.

You want that cost to go away? Provide universal heath care.

mountainman wrote:$73/hour..... ?!?!?!

Cost to the company, per employee.
You have your before tax wages to the employee
You have your retirement plan that the company pays into to the employee
You have your benefits such as dental and medical care, which the company usually pays the larger percentage of
Life Insurance
Disability
Unemployment
Other "things" you're given when you're hired...uniform? Supplies? Tools? Desk? Training?
A percentage of the human resource staff time.
You have your sick time, holidays...the employee still gets paid...

When a company hires someone...there is a "cost to the company" substantially more than just the hourly or salaried wage the employee takes home each week.

A month or so ago in an older thread about the US auto crisis...I either read it or saw it on TV or something....some numbers comparing these "cost per employee" differences between the US Big 3, versus other offshore brands.

If I recall correctly...for Detroit, it was $75-ish. On the other end of the scale, Hyundai was used as an example...it was somewhere around $30.00 (give or take a couple) . Now, this was US plants....so we're not talking about the cost of a factory in some 3rd world country using slave labor for 8 cents an hour. It was a Hyundai plant in Texas if I recall, and the workers there were fairly competitive in wages against Detroit....lower..a little..but not much. Many of the workers at this plant were prior workers in Detroit..they quit Detroit big 3 to move to work down at the Hyundai plant. So something must have been attractive, no?

It just makes you wonder...what accounts for the gross differences in "cost per employee". When the employees (the majority of blue collar workers) make roughly the same. Factor in fat Detroit CEO and management salaries/bonuses I'm sure. The blue collar workers, even though their hourly wage is a little lower than Detroit....they probably "take home" more..since they don't have to pay

//edit....wow, I was looking up UAW costs/dues at some UAW website...and it was hijacked by a trojan that tried to install a variant rogue antivirus on my system, "Antivirus 360".

Was going to look into comparing
*Slightly lower wages of working at a plant like Hyundai, but take home more because you don't have to pay UAW dues
*versus making higher money, but having to pay UAW dues. I don't know what % of your pay they take.

Should be a chain connecting the Big 3 boat to the UAW one.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Should be a chain connecting the Big 3 boat to the UAW one.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!

LMFAO!! Now GM and Ford are asking another country for help... This is including the assistance they want from the US.

http://forexdaily.org.ru/Dow_Jones/page.htm?id=357212

what joke...

Sava700 wrote:LMFAO!! Now GM and Ford are asking another country for help... This is including the assistance they want from the US.

http://forexdaily.org.ru/Dow_Jones/page.htm?id=357212

what joke...

Its nothing new, in Australia and Canada and I think Germany as well theres discussions of help too. been going on for a while for the divisions over there.

Sava700 wrote:LMFAO!! Now GM and Ford are asking another country for help... This is including the assistance they want from the US.

http://forexdaily.org.ru/Dow_Jones/page.htm?id=357212

what joke...

I wouldn't say they are asking for help....Both Saab and Volvo have said that their brands will carry on with aid from their respective countries no matter what happens to GM and Ford.

DH, do you have any personal experience with the UAW, or is it all by reading that you are basing your opinion on?

Another reason to let them fail.. I mean how beyond stupid is this:

If gas prices stay low, Chrysler factories will produce more gasoline powered models. If gas prices rise, factories can start rapidly turning out more electric cars since the models are essentially the same.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/autos/c ... 2008121513

Give them money to keep on making Gas engines when they have the ability to produce Electric instead.... If they for some odd stupid reason get that money they should be forced to abandon gas engines and only build the electric to get us off the oil addiction.

Sava700 wrote:Another reason to let them fail.. I mean how beyond stupid is this:

It makes sense becasue if prices stay low more people are going to be willing to by less efficient cars.

YARDofSTUF wrote:It makes sense becasue if prices stay low more people are going to be willing to by less efficient cars.

it fails in the aspect of them wanting money to help save them yet most likely the Govt won't force them into these changes they claim they can make on such a quick setup. If they can do it..they need to do it cause prices will go up sooner or later not to mention the repair parts costs dropping over the years..as it stands now its almost impossible to find someone to even work on a Hybrid around here let alone attempt to find parts to repair them without getting really ripped from a over priced warranty.

With what the house passed, yes change in the auto industry would come. It was part of the bailout the Senate didn't pass.

So if the bailout comes by way of the Whitehouse, then yes, you would be correct in that I think the ties would have to be the same as what was offered to the big lending institutions. Which was really very little.

Time will tell, but I'd agree with you that given that gas stays cheap, a good many people won't buy a hybrid for 4 to 5 thousand more over a gas model.

Chrysler Shuts Doors, Opens Talks With GM

[INDENT]Chrysler LLC and General Motors, two of America's premier auto manufacturers, have reopened merger talks as the industry further spirals downward, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

A day earlier, Chrysler announced it would close all its North American manufacturing plants for at least a month, the starkest move taken by U.S. automakers as they anxiously await word about government loans. [/INDENT]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/ ... ryHeadline

This is something they should do.. merge, then you will see GM/Chrysler merge with Ford and perhaps you might see better vehicles. Merging with Bankruptcy is a good idea since they can also get out of greedy contracts and start profiting like the airlines did!

Ford doesn't want a merger, they arent in as bad a spot as GM and Chrysler.

GM and Honda are also closing plants for a while to cut their production numbers.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Ford doesn't want a merger, they arent in as bad a spot as GM and Chrysler.

GM and Honda are also closing plants for a while to cut their production numbers.

Ford may not want a merger but them using their not so bad spot for a take over of the two combined other companies might be a good idea since they will be broke and/or bankrupt.

Ford and the others are shutting down plants for 3weeks or more starting next week which is usually normal.

Sava700 wrote:Ford may not want a merger but them using their not so bad spot for a take over of the two combined other companies might be a good idea since they will be broke and/or bankrupt.

Ford and the others are shutting down plants for 3weeks or more starting next week which is usually normal.

Ford would nto gain anything by merging with GM and/or Chrysler. Ford has been preparing itself for a turnaround on its own, why would they want to take on more debt and product overlap? Ford has said they only need help if GM and Chrysler get a bailout or file chapter 11, otherwise they'll be fine.

GM and honda are doing it to cut production by a good bit, and shutting down for longer than usual.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Ford would nto gain anything by merging with GM and/or Chrysler. Ford has been preparing itself for a turnaround on its own, why would they want to take on more debt and product overlap? Ford has said they only need help if GM and Chrysler get a bailout or file chapter 11, otherwise they'll be fine.

GM and honda are doing it to cut production by a good bit, and shutting down for longer than usual.

Ford may not gain anything but the other two as a whole will...thats the best solution for the Big 3 to become the Big 1... the same ole comment about who would buy a car from a bankrupt company is nonsense when you had millions of people still flying on airlines that were bankrupt...which came out to profit years later after restructure and removal of greedy contracts.

Sava700 wrote: the same ole comment about who would buy a car from a bankrupt company is nonsense when you had millions of people still flying on airlines that were bankrupt....

Huge difference Sava. The airlines provide a service that's essentially a "one time" thing. Not like passengers are expected to maintain the planes. You get on the plane, ride for awhile and get off. No more to expect.

Buying a 30k hunk of steel from a company that might not exist in 3 months is another ball of wax. You need that company around for parts and expert assistance with problems.

Sava700 wrote:Ford may not gain anything but the other two as a whole will...thats the best solution for the Big 3 to become the Big 1... the same ole comment about who would buy a car from a bankrupt company is nonsense when you had millions of people still flying on airlines that were bankrupt...which came out to profit years later after restructure and removal of greedy contracts.

The big 3 merging into 1 would send them all out of business, so thats very bad for Ford.

Filing chapter 11 could work out, but all of them merging into 1 company is beyond retarded.

Bush Considers "Orderly'' Auto Bankruptcy

The Bush administration is seriously considering "orderly" bankruptcy as a way of dealing with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry.

"The president is not going to allow a disorderly collapse of the companies," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday. "A disorderly collapse would be something very chaotic that is a shock to the system."

But, she added, "There's an orderly way to do bankruptcies that provides for more of a soft landing. I think that's what we would be talking about."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/ ... ryHeadline

Interesting article. And it seems to back up the idea of GM and Chrysler merging as being bad.

Is it just me or is Dana Perino sexy



Anyone care to photoshop that boom mic?

Think wrote:Is it just me or is Dana Perino sexy



Anyone care to photoshop that boom mic?

Just what, prey tell, is an orderly bankruptcy? Good god..

downhill wrote:Just what, prey tell, is an orderly bankruptcy? Good god..

Let me know if you find out.

Yeah it doesn't make a bit of sense. Chapter 11, tons of people get hurt, including suppliers who will probably have to claim chapter 7 by the time it's done. Gone, kaput. Most economist paint a pretty dismal picture of GM, if they do claim chapter 11, simply because their part suppliers will all be gone. That means chapter 7 for GM, sooner or later.

Think wrote:Is it just me or is Dana Perino sexy

Very! 5'1" tall. Sweet little thing!

MadDoctor wrote:

Very! 5'1" tall. Sweet little thing!

You know her personally, don't you! You dog......

Bush to Give Low-Interest Loans to Carmakers


Auto Loan Plan Will Be Announced By President Bush at 9 a.m. ET.

The loans come with strings attached. The automakers will need to restructure, getting tough concessions from creditors, suppliers and the labor union. The key phrase from the White House will be "viability."

The money is expected to come from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

It was only a matter of time.

On the news last night, one of the suppliers that builds steering columns for Chrysler up here in CT is shutting their doors first of the year. Workforce of about 600 jobs in that area.

downhill wrote:Yeah it doesn't make a bit of sense. Chapter 11, tons of people get hurt, including suppliers who will probably have to claim chapter 7 by the time it's done. Gone, kaput. Most economist paint a pretty dismal picture of GM, if they do claim chapter 11, simply because their part suppliers will all be gone. That means chapter 7 for GM, sooner or later.

downhill wrote:Bush to Give Low-Interest Loans to Carmakers


Auto Loan Plan Will Be Announced By President Bush at 9 a.m. ET.




It was only a matter of time.

I think I can handle this decision as long as they get right concessions but knowing for example how the UAW reacted to that the other week this should get interesting.

I see the new retirement plan for us federal guys now includes stock in Chevy... replacing our 401K.

WTH?!?!?!?!?!?!

UAW this, unions that. Good grief.

Really it's how the south acted. It just sad that as a country, we'd let business fail because of party lines or boundaries. In this case, the south against the north.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Civil war never exactly ended.

You're aware that even the Euro, is more united in protecting their own industry than we are? That says a lot for Corker and crowd when they'd work to protect their own states before they'd work to protect their own nation.

Stuff like this isn't helping DH:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/ ... 7156.shtml

Couric: Having said that, UAW members average 42 paid days off a year, including five weeks of vacation and 17 holidays. Do you think, Mr. Gettelfinger, this may seem excessive in light of current economic conditions and the condition of the U.S. auto industry right now?

Gettelfinger: Well, you know, I would like to compare that to the Congress of the United States, but I won't do that. What I will say to you is this: We have made it unequivocally clear that as long as all stakeholders are willing to come back to the bargaining table, we're willing to be there. We're willing to do more.

What isn't helping? The news not covering both sides of the coin, like exactly why those Senators from southern states trying to break the UAW or a slanted question by Couric, knowing full well that the UAW is willing to bargan but she needs to appease the mass that's she's indeed willing to ask tough questions as long as those quesitons don't raise the hackles of hard core Fox viewers who already hate her? lol


I dunno...but no matter the news stories about it all, this will always get overlooked.

What I will say to you is this: We have made it unequivocally clear that as long as all stakeholders are willing to come back to the bargaining table, we're willing to be there. We're willing to do more.

I would guess that if you take away enough perks, there won't be a reason to be a member of the UAW.

What's next? My guess is they'll go after retirement dates.

Then after that, the truckers union and then unions representing railroads.

We aren't far right now from the days of the robber barons.


I stand by my original post that indeed, there are those in power who would rather work for their states than the country as a whole and it's not really the UAW as much as it is, bringing down industry in the north as it means more bucks in their respective states. The UAW gambit is just a smokescreen.

If the UAW is so willing to bargan why didnt they last time they met?

The auto industry needs to smack the UAW around a little. Tell them look, your gonna conceed on some things or more new plants are going up in Brazil and the likes.

YARDofSTUF wrote:If the UAW is so willing to bargan why didnt they last time they met?

The auto industry needs to smack the UAW around a little. Tell them look, your gonna conceed on some things or more new plants are going up in Brazil and the likes.

Yard, you've been in a union. Who says they weren't willing. Corker was asking an unrealistic concession. There was no way the UAW could have taken a vote on it in two hours. Corker new that. Again, it was nothing more than a smoke screen.

You seem to also think that the UAW hasn't made any concessions. The truth is, they've made quite a few over the last few years.

Then again, it's that "biased liberal news agenda" at work here again. They are doing such a bang up job, giving everyone a "balanced" source of news on the issue that like WOMD people are just not educated on this issue. Most people just think the UAW is at fault for the whole mess.

downhill wrote:Yard, you've been in a union. Who says they weren't willing. Corker was asking an unrealistic concession. There was no way the UAW could have taken a vote on it in two hours. Corker new that. Again, it was nothing more than a smoke screen.

You seem to also think that the UAW hasn't made any concessions. The truth is, they've made quite a few over the last few years.

Corker was involved with the talks for the UAW to delay the VEBA payment?

The UAW has lsot track of who the hand that feeds them belongs to.

Yes I'm pro union, but that doesn't mean I'll support all unions, the UAW has shown bad form.