30% salary cut at Ford

[li7in6]

The average cost for a line worker including wage, pension, medical, etc. is $70. Toyota and other non-union companies have a cost near half of that.

Where do you get you're information? fox news?

That "$70 per hour" bullsh*t has been disproved time and time again.

That $70 per hour figure is not what is payed to autoworkers in wages and benefits. IT encompasses current workers AND past workers retirement benefits currently being paid out. The assertion that a single autoworker is getting $70 in compensation per hour is a blatant falsehood and a magical made up number used to point the a finger at the autoworkers instead of the mismanagement at the top.

Please stop perpetuating misinformation.

 

[_Kyle_]

Where do you get you're information? fox news?

That "$70 per hour" bullsh*t has been disproved time and time again.

That $70 per hour figure is not what is payed to autoworkers in wages and benefits. IT encompasses current workers AND past workers retirement benefits currently being paid out. The assertion that a single autoworker is getting $70 in compensation per hour is a blatant falsehood and a magical made up number used to point the a finger at the autoworkers instead of the mismanagement at the top.

Please stop perpetuating misinformation.

The costs that the Big 3 pay out are still much larger than the rest of the auto companies. Like you stated, the employee themself isn't getting $70/hr compensation, but the total cost per employee still is $70/hr. While a company like Toyota has a much small per employee cost. I wish I could find the source, but isn't like $2000-$3000 of the cost of a NEW car wrapped up in stuff like retirement benefits and stuff for previous employees? The figure might include health care too, I can't remember at this time.

 

[4x4fun]

i think its funny some of the points being brought up. as far as pay.
im in the my pay check is comming from the US NAVY. iv been here for a lil over 4 years. im making 54K a year and gettinf fully bennys. there are plenty of retards and people that sit o there ass. im not losing my job anytime soon. infact i cant even quit if i wanted to. unions are not the problem they look after the employee someone has to. iv worked in shops were i volunteered to do 14-16 hour days for three weeks to help get out of a hole and got shit when i asked for a day off after the three weeks, some one needs to look after bosses. the big issue is in my mind is that the union thinks every one is equall and that is not the case. shitty people need fired, i tell my guys (half joking) after a sucky long day. "congrads you earned the right to come back to work tom" a job more so a good paying one is not a right. its earned

 

[li7in6]

The costs that the Big 3 pay out are still much larger than the rest of the auto companies. Like you stated, the employee themself isn't getting $70/hr compensation, but the total cost per employee still is $70/hr. While a company like Toyota has a much small per employee cost. I wish I could find the source, but isn't like $2000-$3000 of the cost of a NEW car wrapped up in stuff like retirement benefits and stuff for previous employees? The figure might include health care too, I can't remember at this time.

the cost per employee is not $70 an hour.

The $70 an hour figure comes from the total amount spent/budgeted on employee compensation per year divided by the number of man hours worked in a given year. The dollars spent includes current benefits for all employee's past AND present. Saying a single UAW worker "makes $70 an hour" is complete nonsense as the actual amount of money earned in pay and benefits per employee is much lower.

If you're beef is with the pension plans for previous employee's, then make your argument about the UAW's pension plans. Stop the nonsensical "UAW workers make $70 an hour so they need a huge pay cut" line of thinking because it simply is not based on fact.

 

[Jspafford]

Good gawd... Everyone whining about the unions taking a paycut. Screw them. I work two jobs so I can keep a roof over my head. One I make less than $12 a hour (40) hours, the second I make $8 (20) hours a week. I work 60 hours a week all month just so I can break even at the end of the month.

I would LOVE to have a union job, even if it came with a 30% paycut. I would still be making twice what I do now, and then, maybe I would be able to have a life outside of working, coming home, keeping up on the house, and starting all over in the morning.

The world is screwed.

Oh yeah, my name is Justin and I drive a 1989 Bronco II with 167K because I can't afford anything newer!

 

[li7in6]

Good gawd... Everyone whining about the unions taking a paycut. Screw them. I work two jobs so I can keep a roof over my head. One I make less than $12 a hour (40) hours, the second I make $8 (20) hours a week. I work 60 hours a week all month just so I can break even at the end of the month.

I would LOVE to have a union job, even if it came with a 30% paycut. I would still be making twice what I do now, and then, maybe I would be able to have a life outside of working, coming home, keeping up on the house, and starting all over in the morning.

The world is screwed.

Oh yeah, my name is Justin and I drive a 1989 Bronco II with 167K because I can't afford anything newer!

I don't understand you're line of thinking. Because UAW workers make more money than you means they should get a pay cut? I have no idea of your situation but simple job training, maybe 6-12 months at a community college could put you in a better occupational position. Because you either aren't qualified or cannot get a better job doesn't mean UAW workers are overpaid and under worked. I've worked 40 hours a week making $15 an hour in California(with its ridiculous costs of living), granted i don't have a spouse or any kids, but it was survivable. He'll i saved enough to have a project car at the time and helped my brother and girlfriend out when they were having trouble. Assuming you're making almost $2500/month nearly $30k a year. That puts you solidly in middle class income. You're obviously overworked but if you're broke its more likely due to mismanagement of money, than lack of earning it (unless of coarse, there is circumstances i don't know of bearing down on your financial situation).

Given the state of the economy and American car companies financial problems, IMO it would be better for the majority to take a substantial cut in wages, or much better, benefits/pension instead of the alternative of massive layoffs and potentially hundreds of thousands more relying on unemployment. But I'm a firm believer in cutting at the top. The fat ass, overpaid, millionaire executives that are running these companies into the ground should get laid off, replaced, or take hugely substantial pay cuts before the workers that are struggling by at the bottom with mouths to feed get laid off or reduced pay.

 

[_Kyle_]

the cost per employee is not $70 an hour.

The $70 an hour figure comes from the total amount spent/budgeted on employee compensation per year divided by the number of man hours worked in a given year. The dollars spent includes current benefits for all employee's past AND present. Saying a single UAW worker "makes $70 an hour" is complete nonsense as the actual amount of money earned in pay and benefits per employee is much lower.

If you're beef is with the pension plans for previous employee's, then make your argument about the UAW's pension plans. Stop the nonsensical "UAW workers make $70 an hour so they need a huge pay cut" line of thinking because it simply is not based on fact.

I thought my wording clarified that but I guess not. By total cost, I mean whatever they pay out divided by the total employees employed comes up with $70 or whatever figure it may be.