If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
"Tim" > wrote in message > > Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > negotiator. What could be fairer? > I'll represent myself, thank you. Then I know what is fair for me. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee >> negotiator. What could be fairer? >> > > I'll represent myself, thank you. Then I know what is fair for me. > > That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just equalizes things for the worker. Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message > ... >> So basically, this $70/hour number is including the health care costs of >> twice as many retires and their families as there are current workers. >> Plus the amount that the auto companies are currently paying in pensions >> for twice the amount of retirees as there are current employees. Of course >> they aren't paying the pensions of current employees now. > > I doubt that is correct. Generally pension costs are accrued for current > employees and put into a trust, so they are not paying pension costs for > those already retired, but they are paying into the pension fund trust for > those who are currently working. How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense? > > However, one problem is that if the pension fund suffers investment losses, > then GM would have to make up the difference. Conversely if the fund is > doing better than expected in its investments, the company can reduce or > skip contributions. But apparently the GM pension fund is doing OK because > of its conservative investment strategy (probably bonds), and GM says it > does not plan to add any money to the fund for the next three or four years. > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/business/25auto.html > > The health care cost for retirees is more complicated, and you can read > about it in the above article. Note that anyone over 62 is eligible for > Medicare, but the GM health care plan is way over the top compared to what > most retired Americans have available to them. > > |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
"Tim" > wrote in message > So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union > worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers? > If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as > non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the > current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave > out current retirees' costs from the formula. It was poor planning a long time ago. Never said the worker should take less, but the company has to get out from under a debt that is going to kill them. The company and union are at fault with many of the problems and both have to work tegether to get out of the situation. Maybe some sacrifce for both is to ther mutual benefit (and that includes retirees) Right now our business is slow as 50% of or business is tied to new construction. No bonus and I'm not expecting an increase next year. Nor will I complain as I'm still getting a check every month, unlike many others. When things turn around, the bonus will be back. > Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly. Never did. > By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement > plans. > They call it the Social Security Administration. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
>"Tim" > wrote in message
.. . > > Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less? You only get paid more in a union until the company goes out of business, or ships the job overseas. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
"Tim" > wrote in message
... > Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee > negotiator. What could be fairer? Union negotiation of pay negates the reality that some people are better employees than others in terms of productivity and quality of work, and that they should be paid more. When you have a union that negotiates pay based on seniority, then there is no incentive for an employee to work harder or improve the quality of their work. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
"Tim" > wrote in message
... > That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they > don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just > equalizes things for the worker. > Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage. When an employee can threaten to quit when they are not paid what they can get elsewhere, they have the upper hand. Most non-union employees have changed jobs many times in their career, and bettered there pay each time (not just cost of living increases). I have gone back to work previous employers, each time at significantly higher pay. Employees who cannot get the same or higher pay elsewhere are generally not worth what they are paid. The main reason that everything is made in China these days (with the exception of cars, but that is probably coming) is primarily because of labor unions. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
Mark A wrote:
>> "Tim" > wrote in message >> ... >> >> Maybe you should join a union. Or do you like being paid less? > > You only get paid more in a union until the company goes out of business, or > ships the job overseas. > > What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" > wrote in message > ... >> Trade unions just make the equation one employer negotiator, one employee >> negotiator. What could be fairer? > > Union negotiation of pay negates the reality that some people are better > employees than others in terms of productivity and quality of work, and that > they should be paid more. When you have a union that negotiates pay based on > seniority, then there is no incentive for an employee to work harder or > improve the quality of their work. > > I thought trained monkeys could do these jobs. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading?
"Tim" > wrote in message
... > So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union > worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers? > If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as > non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the > current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave > out current retirees' costs from the formula. > Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly. > By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement > plans. It is simply not true that workers at the Big 3 get paid the same (or less) than the other auto-workers in the US. They get paid more. That is irrespective of any pension or health care obligations that the Big 3 have for their retired workers. When I say they get paid more, I mean salary, pension accruals, and health care accruals for current employees. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is the compensation number accurate or misleading? | jim beam | Honda | 0 | December 20th 08 03:51 PM |
Water for Gas, is a little misleading | virig[_2_] | Jeep | 2 | August 30th 08 02:12 PM |
misleading in Hummer article | GO Mavs | Driving | 16 | July 26th 07 10:18 PM |
Damn misleading headline: | Fred G. Mackey | Driving | 6 | March 27th 07 11:28 PM |
Torque temperature compensation value? | Daniel[_1_] | Technology | 8 | July 26th 06 02:01 PM |