first of all i saw you had posted this article in another thread and i believe you posting it here again may be considered spam . you might want to be careful about doing that lew . secondly i say wonderful the workers should be paid when laid off brcause of the owners mistakes or greed ! thank God for unions ! ! ! On Dec 22, 7:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Automakers Forced to Pay 85- to 95-Percent of Wages to Union Members > Who Are Not Working > Friday, November 21, 2008 > By Tiffany Gabbay > > United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger(CNSNews.com) – The Big > Three automakers are forced to pay 85- to 95-percent of union wages > and benefits to members of the United Auto Workers union who aren’t > working – even if their plants have been closed. > > Industry analysts say union labor agreements that obligate the Big > Three to pay millions of dollars to workers who are no longer working > are a major reason why the automakers are in trouble – a problem that > no short-term bailout can fix. > > During hearings last week where the chief executives of Ford, Chrysler > and General Motors appeared before the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. > Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) raised the issue. > > Corker asked Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, why with all of the > measures he has taken to prevent a collapse, his company was still not > making money. > > “Is it because of the (United Auto Workers) union?” Corker asked > pointedly. > > Wagoner, who demurred from answering directly, said that even at > plants that are closing, “85 percent” of union employment benefits > still “have to be paid.” He said that GM has had to restructure and > reduce the cost of operating in the U.S., but the company still pays > for employees that are not currently working at “idle facilities.” > > Chrysler Chairman Robert Nardelli, facing a similar question from > Corker, confirmed that “agreements are in place” between Chrysler and > UAW that, regardless of demand, Chrysler must still operate at a pay > rate of 95 percent of wages for employees not currently working at > idle facilities. > > Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s school of > business, told CNSNews.com that one of the biggest problems the > companies face is the UAW’s Jobs Bank – a program established more > than two decades ago that guarantees nearly full salary and benefits > to out-of-work employees. > > “Right now if a plant closes in St. Louis and a new one opens in > Kansas City, the workers don’t have to move from St. Louis to Kansas > City; they can opt to get a $105,000 payout or go on Jobs Bank where > they can collect 95 percent of pay for the rest of their lives,” > Morici said. > > The Detroit automakers have not released official numbers indicating > how much they currently spend on their respective Jobs Banks, but > previously released four-year labor contracts signed with the UAW in > 2003 revealed “contribution caps” to be implemented by each of the Big > Three. > > These contracts say that GM agreed to allocate $2.1 billion in Jobs > Bank payments over four years, Chrysler $451 million for its program > along with another $50 million for salaried union employees, and Ford > agreed to set aside $944 million. > > Morici, who also testified at last Tuesday’s committee hearing, said > that economists estimate that $2,000 per vehicle of every car > manufactured by the Big Three goes directly to pay employee benefits, > something foreign automakers do not have as part of their overhead. > > The economist said he believes U.S. automakers are “capable of making > high quality vehicles” but that the extremely high labor and product > development costs will keep the Big Three from becoming profitable and > surviving. > > “My view is they can’t do that because their labor costs are too high > and their product development costs are too high” Morici said. > > “They need to lower their labor costs to those enjoyed by say, Honda > at the new Indiana plant and eliminate all of the burdens and work > rules that get in between the management and workers in terms of > defining how the work place is run,” he added. > > UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, meanwhile, told the congressional > panel that his union will not be making any concessions in order to > receive the proposed $25 billion in government aid – and attributed > the automakers’ difficulties to the economy and the tight credit > market’s impact on car buyers. > > Viewer Comments > The following comments are posted by our readers and are not > necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. > To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of > Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you. > > Showing 1-5 of 15 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 > 2 3 Next Loading... > > freeseeker at 02:57 AM - December 02, 2008 > Most of our employees, both production and skilled, have higher > eduction. Most have at least some college, many have advanced degrees. > What I'm telling you is, we get paid more, yes, because we've earned > it. I'm sick and tired of class warfare among blue collar workers. > Pitting one worker against another. A liberal ploy if I ever heard > one. Finally, the auto industry has earned a bailout. The only reason > Ford and the others are loosing money is because Congress has > destroyed the economy over the last 2 years. The industry loses right > now are loses not of our own making. Remember in 1994 when the > Democrats were warning that if they ever got back control of Congress > they were going to make the American people pay for throwing them out > in the first place. January 3, 2007 the economy was humming along. > It's taken the Democrat controlled Congress less than 2 years to screw > up everything and everyone. The economy being in the condition it's in > was a successful vendeta. > > freeseeker at 02:43 AM - December 02, 2008 > I'm a skilled trades worker. Electrician by trade. My base rate of pay > is just shy of $33.00 per hour. That's about $1.00 per hour more than > a typical Toyota skilled worker. Do I have good beneifts? Yes, of > course. If not I'd have to take all my skills and find a job that > included good benefits. But then again I'm a highly trained commodity. > My skills have value. As the work force changes, as all the companies > automate, the production workers are becoming fewer and fewer. They're > skills are also becoming greater and greater. We all earn the money we > make. Frankly most of you can't do what we do, and wouldn't last a day > if the opportunity presented itself. I speak from experience, I've > been an assembler, a production machine operator, an electrical > apprentice, a journeyman electrician, and both a production and > skilled supervisor. I have a college degree, a state journeyman's > license, and soon to have a master's license. > > freeseeker at 02:30 AM - December 02, 2008 > I'm a Ford worker. "Frank as I wanna be" is correct about the 85% pay. > With the 2007 contracts the jobs bank is coming to an end. As it is > now the jobs bank does not last forever. As I read the contract you > run out of that benefit after 2 years. That is two years after > unemployment runs out. The jobs bank was originally created to > discourage the companies from laying people off in the first place. > Frakly I don't see what else Ford could do to satisfy Congress. Ford > alone has gotten rid of 51,000 employees and closed 17 plants. Our > quality and gas milage meets or exceeds anything the Japanese or > Koreans are putting out. And I'd put the new Lincoln MKS against a > Lexus any day. Our new F-150 is the finest new truck on the market. > The Toyota Tundra is, by comparison, JUNK! I've also read comments > about the wages paid to UAW represented workers. Production does not > make $30 an hour. They make about $1.00 an hour more the a typical > Toyota worker. > > matts2 at 11:07 PM - November 30, 2008 > What an astounding misunderstanding. Here is the the original comment: > "Wagoner, who demurred from answering directly, said that even at > plants that are closing, “85 percent” of union employment benefits > still “have to be paid.” Got that? Not 85% of all wages, 85% (and that > for a limited time) at a *closed* plant. From that you somehow > concluded that 85% of all wages are to non-workers. For your > conclusion to make sense it would mean two things. First, that the > automakers have laid off all of their non-union workers, so 85% of > union wages was 85% of all wages. Second, that they have closed all of > their plants so pay to laid off workers was the only pay. Next time, > if some fact seems too outrageous, check to see if it is a fact before > you show your outrage. > > Santee at 02:14 AM - November 25, 2008 > What other company has such a package for its employees? The Big Three > auto makers are in trouble for good reason! We wonder why such > benefits would have even been considered, until we realize the > stranglehold that the UAW has on the Big Three. The UAW "will not be > making any concessions in order to receive the proposed $25 billion in > government aid." Sounds like the Big Three still will not "make it" > with all the money that the government can throw at them because they > still have not gotten it together. The best of plans and all the > retooling in the world, will not make them competitive with other auto > makers. Let them go Chapter Eleven, get rid of most of the garbage > that has built up over the years, retool for energy efficient vehicles > then perhaps they can be competitive again. The government should not > throw money down this rathole. > > On Dec 22, 6:35 am, Florida Cracker 532 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Blacks and Immigrants Bring in the Union [ anti-union campaign went > > down to defeat ]http://www.truthout.org:80/122108B > > When workers at Smithfield Foods' North Carolina packing house voted > > in the union on December 11, the longest, most bitter anti-union > > campaign in modern labor history went down to defeat. Sixteen years > > ago, workers there began organizing with the United Food and > > Commercial Workers. In 1994 and 1997, the union was defeated in > > elections later thrown out by Federal authorities because the company > > created an atmosphere of violence and terror in the plant. In 1997, > > one worker was beaten after the vote > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
