This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rasch187.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Autoworkers-Compete-to-Keep-Jobs-on-New-Gameshow

>> ^jwray:
The trouble with those exclusive contracts that prohibit employers from hiring nonunion employees is that the if the employees become unsatisfied with the union they can't quit it to form a different union without losing their jobs. It's a monopoly. So the union can be as corrupt and inefficient as it wants and the employees in the industry can't divest from the union without moving to a different industry where they have no experience.

That's a change to unions I could agree with, though I'd probably want the EFCA to be wrapped in with that, so it's trivially easy to form a new union.

>> ^Trancecoach:
$28.00 / hr with benefits? Where do I sign up?


Yeah, seriously. That's more than most college graduates make.

The UAW guy in the video admits to making $47 an hour with benefits. That's like 100k a year. That's more than double what it takes to live very comfortably in detroit. That's more than 5 times what grad students make, including benefits.

@NetRunner:

Woah there. It's apparent by this post and others on this topic that this is a subject that hits close to home. My reply here was without emotion, and merely an observation based on evidence presented and personal experience.

So let's see:

"Go educate yourself about the current state of the unions, and how competitive they are with non-union autoworkers. You'd clearly be shocked."

If you are referring to the $70/hr versus $40/hr versus $28/hr debacle, frankly, it doesn't really matter. If the average currently productive worker (read: not a retiree or whatever) is earning any more money than the labor market would normally support at a non unionized plant, then they are at a competitive disadvantage. That is bad for everyone.

Besides, if unions are so competitive, why do they need them in the first place? You say I need an education? Help me out then.

"The only thing really dragging down the big three as far as labor costs are past obligations that are not subject to renegotiation for reasonably obvious reasons -- are you going to tell already retired workers that they need to lose their pensions and medical benefits, because times have changed?"

I agree with this. I even noted this in my original comment: "Obviously that's not the only problem going on that got the auto manufacturers..." Of course there are other major problems. My point was, a competitive disadvantage due to high (currently productive) labor costs relative to the competition is a contributing factor.

"But hey, clearly you've got an axe to grind about organized labor. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating."

An axe to grind? Hmm. No, I just happen to believe that if I am able and willing to do work for myself, I shouldn't be forced to pay someone else to do it. Unions also make rapid adjustment to market conditions difficult via stonewalling things like salary changes even when they are necessary.

"If you think they shouldn't deserve to exist anymore, aim your criticism with the people who ran the company, and made the decisions that led them to where they are, not the labor unions who did exactly what they were supposed to do."

Which leads to my next point: the fostering of the "them versus us" mentality. That is, management versus labor. There was a really interesting special on the airline industry a while back where this was discussed. You have mechanic unions, pilot unions, flight attendant unions, and the big, bad management who are trying to keep the company afloat. These attitudes don't help anyone out. Organized labor forgets one very important thing: management needs to be able to do their job too, and what's bad for the company is bad for everyone within the company - though the reverse is obviously not always true.

Now, does management bear responsibility for the state of the company? For sure. I never disputed that. Has management been able to do everything they felt they needed to without being blocked by a union under threat of a strike? That's a question worth investigating.

"As for the political motivations of the Republican party, there's hard evidence to support the proposition that this "blame the unions" thing is motivated primarily by politics."

Yup, I saw that (even commented on that video). Personally I was more interested in the text of the note rather than some media's interpretation of it. The first paragraph essentially accuses the Democrats of doing this as a way of paying off the union for their support in the election. The second paragraph I think needs to be repeated:

"This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling."

I can't help but wholeheartedly agree there. Making snap decisions about spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money without having time to understand the ramifications is bad. That is just the common sense view. Fortunately for me, there are also several people who predicted the current economic climate and are far more educated in economics than I am that would also agree. I believe one of the more prominent ones has been floating around on the Sift lately.

In fact, I think the view that bailouts in general are bad has some merit. The money must come from somewhere, and it's not like the government has hundreds of billions of dollars sitting around waiting to bail out failing companies. So, it's either coming from cuts in existing programs, borrowing, or printing more money. If I had to take a wild, uneducated guess as to where it's coming from, I'd say the latter two are the likely suspects, and those aren't good for anyone right now, union or no union.

^ Go educate yourself about the current state of the unions, and how competitive they are with non-union autoworkers. You'd clearly be shocked.

The only thing really dragging down the big three as far as labor costs are past obligations that are not subject to renegotiation for reasonably obvious reasons -- are you going to tell already retired workers that they need to lose their pensions and medical benefits, because times have changed?

But that's not the main source of their trouble, and certainly not the primary reason they're about to go bankrupt. Take your pick of many factors, including poor decisions in product mix, the subsidies that southern states have given to their competitors, CEO pay being about 10 times what their competitors have, and the little problem where people are having trouble getting loans because of the credit market that's putting a dent in all auto manufacturers, even the supposedly unflappable Japanese ones.

But hey, clearly you've got an axe to grind about organized labor. Don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating.

If you think they shouldn't deserve to exist anymore, aim your criticism with the people who ran the company, and made the decisions that led them to where they are, not the labor unions who did exactly what they were supposed to do.

As for the political motivations of the Republican party, there's hard evidence to support the proposition that this "blame the unions" thing is motivated primarily by politics.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
>>
La dee freeekin daaaa...
First, being a grad student is a choice, no one is forcing you to get a Ph.D.


Where did I imply otherwise?


It is also against the law for a University to not provide health for graduate students. By federal regulation, you are technically an employee of the state,


Well, maybe where you live, but that's absolutely not the case here. All grad students here (and at my previous university) are explicitly NOT an employee of the university. They are students. We have to send a statement to the IRS every year re-affirming that we aren't employees and that our stipend is not being rendered for our services but rather covering living expenses.

See the last section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_School
It says fellowship recipients are not typically employees of the university.


Moreover, if and when you do graduate you will be making upwards of 70K. In physics the number is around 90K, biology it is a little less. In 3-5 year you could make as much as 100-200K. This is in industry of course. So you are trading short term income for long term higher wages. Think of it as an investment in your future.

There's nothing short term about Ph.D. wages. You have to go to university for a decade, often at considerable expense for the first 4 years, and near break-even for the next 5 to 6. That's why people aren't in it for the money. If you wanted money you'd do something with a faster turn-around like a law degree which also has higher expected income.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^Grimm:
This is why people are confusing the two.
Employees are NOT getting paid $70 an hour.


I know this. My brother (read above) is being paid $29/hr as a foreman.
The $70/hr claim is one giant lie, no matter what you factor into that. I am writing up a post to sifttalk with loads and loads of information, and I will post it later tonight.


Just because your brother doesn't get paid $70 an hour does not mean the company isn't spending $70 an hour per employee on all wages and all benefits.

There is money spent on employees that are currently working. There is money spent on employees that are no longer working. It's deceiving to say they only pay $29 an hour and ignore what their costs in benefits are and to ignore what their costs in employees who no longer work there.

Why would you need to combine the two and then divide it by just the employees that are still there? Because they are the only ones producing income for the company. So on average each employee needs to produce $70 an hour just to cover all of the costs of wages and benefits for employees past and present.

That's not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing....it just is what it is and is something that needs to be looked at when a company is bleeding by the billions.

>> ^rychan:
I'm a Ph.D. research student, basically a professional scientist, and I get paid about $25,000 a year. Zero benefits. No health care, no maternity leave, no retirement, nothing. If I'm lucky I'll be compensated as much as a UAW assembly line worker when I graduate after 10 years of impoverished higher education.


La dee freeekin daaaa...

First, being a grad student is a choice, no one is forcing you to get a Ph.D.

It is also against the law for a University to not provide health for graduate students. By federal regulation, you are technically an employee of the state, and discounted rates are made available for you to purchase. They are not included in your stipend because many students are still covered by their parents or are covered by their sposes. You can receive health care benefits by paying a small monthly or large yearly fee for benefits, just like any other employee. I recommend you ask the graduate student secretary.

Moreover, if and when you do graduate you will be making upwards of 70K. In physics the number is around 90K, biology it is a little less. In 3-5 year you could make as much as 100-200K. This is in industry of course. So you are trading short term income for long term higher wages. Think of it as an investment in your future.

Grad student stipends vary from 20K to 30K. But I agree that if the US wants to stay competitive in the global market we should be giving State Universities and National Labs federal funding to attract both better talent and stimulate the economy.

Start studying for that qualifier... it is gonna be a bitch.

>> ^Grimm:
This is why people are confusing the two.
Employees are NOT getting paid $70 an hour.



I know this. My brother (read above) is being paid $29/hr as a foreman.

The $70/hr claim is one giant lie, no matter what you factor into that. I am writing up a post to sifttalk with loads and loads of information, and I will post it later tonight.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^Grimm:
But the bottom line is when you factor in wages and benefits these companies are spending $70 an hour per working employee
But that is simply not true. Your math is all wrong.
A lot of that money is spent on current retirees benefits and wages, as well as their spouses. They are not a "working employee", they are retired. That money is factored in to the average.

This is why people are confusing the two.

Employees are NOT getting paid $70 an hour.

BUT it is costing the companies $70 an hour per employee for all wages and benefits including those that don't work there anymore.

You can't just say "it's not fair to count pensions etc" because those are real costs to the company. If I have 100 employees that I pay $25 an hour to work and I have another 100 retirees that I pay $25 an hour then my cost in wages and benefits is $50 an hour per employee. I'm not paying my employees $50 an hour but that's what it's costing me.

So the bottom line is I only have 100 employees and when I factor in what is paid in wages and benefits it's all costing me about $50 an hour per employee.

The reason it is important to look at it this way is to understand what your costs in wages and benefits is compared to your "productive employees" the employees that produce something.

>> ^thinker247:
Is anybody asking why Americans aren't buying American cars?

Yes and no. US car sales aren't as horrible as people make it out to be, as far as I can tell. I personally don't like modern US cars, but a lot of people forget there's been US hybrid trucks for about eight years now. Plus, we sell a lot of cargo trucks too:

"The F-150 attracted 473,933 buyers this year, making it the No. 1-selling vehicle for 2008--it's been the best-selling vehicle in America for 27 years running. Another 431,725 buyers drove off Chevrolet lots in a Silverado."


Here's a list of the top 10 selling cars in the US: (from Bloomberg)

1 - Ford F-150
2 - Chevrolet Silverado
3 - Toyota Camry
4 - Honda Civic
5 - Honda Accord
6 - Toyota Matrix
7 - Nissan Altima
8 - Chevy Impala
9 - Dodge Ram
10 - Ford Focus

So that's five of the top ten, with numbers 1 and 2 being American cars.

Honda, Toyota and Nissan have all received massive federal funding and tax incentives in the last 15 years. We're talking $500million+ for each company. Talk about "socialism". It's OK to give them cash, but not our own?


>> ^thinker247:
And what is the purpose of a union?

Wow, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States


It's an incredibly dark, fucked up story. Once read, you'll understand why they're not just purposeful, but also required due to humanities dark nature to enslave eachother.

>> ^Grimm:
But the bottom line is when you factor in wages and benefits these companies are spending $70 an hour per working employee

But that is simply not true. Your math is all wrong.

A lot of that money is spent on current retirees benefits and wages, as well as their spouses. They are not a "working employee", they are retired. That money is factored in to the average.

ps: I talked with my brother last night who's a foreman at Ford (for nine years). He makes $29/hr, has two children, one with MS, and a wife who works at Target as a cashier. Yeah, their life is all limousines and champagne...uggh.

>> ^rychan:
The New York Times article was correct and straightforward. Olbermann is wrong. Olbermann claims the NYT claimed $73/hour wages. They never did. They correctly said $73 was the average compensation per worker, and Olbermann doesn't refute that. These gigantic health and pension and survivor benefits should rightfully be included in the compensation.
I'm a Ph.D. research student, basically a professional scientist, and I get paid about $25,000 a year. Zero benefits. No health care, no maternity leave, no retirement, nothing. If I'm lucky I'll be compensated as much as a UAW assembly line worker when I graduate after 10 years of impoverished higher education.


Sounds like you picked the wrong degree.

>> ^rychan:
The New York Times article was correct and straightforward. Olbermann is wrong. Olbermann claims the NYT claimed $73/hour wages. They never did. They correctly said $73 was the average compensation per worker, and Olbermann doesn't refute that. These gigantic health and pension and survivor benefits should rightfully be included in the compensation.

Sequence of events is out of kilter. There was an earlier article (11/18) where they said:

At G.M., as of 2007, the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs.

Then this Olbermann clip aired 11/26.

Then the NYT debunked their own $70/hour myth that they'd propagated with a later article which I quoted in another discussion.

As for "rightfully included in the compensation", depends on your definition of "rightful". Ask someone what their salary is, is their answer going to be based on their pre-tax wages, or are they going to calculate an estimate of all their benefits, and pump the number up?

More to the point, someone who has a vested interest in fomenting resentment towards unions, which thing are they going to do? Use actual wages, or cook the books and make it sound like all union workers make $150,000/yr?

As for the bit about being a research student with lower wages, let me give you a taste of the conservative medicine. You're on your own to find a deal for employment at the salary and benefit level you want. If you think you'd be better off building cars, go ahead and do it. If you think a fancy shmancy education entitles you to anything, let your situation be a lesson.

Honestly though, I suspect you're twisting facts a bit yourself. I'd bet the salary expectation for you will go up when you drop "student" from your job description, and that your college or university offers a student health care plan. I'd make a pretty good bet that you'll wind up making more than $30/hr, or if you insist that all potential benefits are "rightfully" included, $70/hr.

If I'm wrong, get thee to Detroit, and start rooting for the bailout so there's a chance they start hiring again.