UAW contract…..Yikes!

Jason wrote:

Ford said last week its electric vehicle operations are on track to lose $4.5 billion this year, a 50% wider loss than previously projected.

Boy I hope none of the UAW workers get a pay cut or even worse get axed to make up for some of the losses… maybe the “Big Guy” that took a spin in the Ford Lighting will subsidize Ford some more to make up the difference using tax $ out of the general fund.

I totally agree with this. If you want the high points you need to take the low points too. Oh my boss bought a cabin I should get a raise. Oops I guess my employer might loose his house well I least I get to keep mine. You should be paid on your performance if you think your worth more try something else. If they do not have enough employees they will pay more. That’s how it works in the private sector for ever and it works well for good employees. The unions definitely were needed to insure workers safety in the past but have slowly became the new CEO. If you want to complain about there wages maybe you should take a look at some of the high union rep wages.

supercat wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jason wrote:</div>
Ford said last week its electric vehicle operations are on track to lose $4.5 billion this year, a 50% wider loss than previously projected.

Boy I hope none of the UAW workers get a pay cut or even worse get axed to make up for some of the losses… maybe the “Big Guy” that took a spin in the Ford Lighting will subsidize Ford some more to make up the difference using tax $ out of the general fund.

I totally agree with this. If you want the high points you need to take the low points too. Oh my boss bought a cabin I should get a raise. Oops I guess my employer might loose his house well I least I get to keep mine. You should be paid on your performance if you think your worth more try something else. If they do not have enough employees they will pay more. That’s how it works in the private sector for ever and it works well for good employees. The unions definitely were needed to insure workers safety in the past but have slowly became the new CEO. If you want to complain about there wages maybe you should take a look at some of the high union rep wages.

^^^^ ^^^

I don’t have a problem with an executive making 5-10 times what an hourly employee makes but at 400 times the average hourly wage? That’s f’ing insane.
[/quote]

Oh Brother!

5-10 times? What kind of a leader would you get for that?
I’m not buying any stocks in that company.

Besides if a CEO can “Leverage” 400 times the average salary, then that’s good.
Right? He did well on his negotiating.
That’s what the premise of this thread is, negotiating.

Oh Brother!

5-10 times? What kind of a leader would you get for that?
I’m not buying any stocks in that company.

Probably a pretty good leader, not a arrogant big headed prick who thinks his crap don’t stink.
Your way is why the ufc is failing currently and loosing all its fighters.
I wasn’t aware a leader was only considered by the income of what he makes over his employees. With that mind set I’d hate to have that guy as a boss.

Sometimes a Major Corporation needs an arrogant big headed prick who thinks his crap don’t stink.

Read “Jacked up” by Bill Lane or any other books on Jack Welch. It gives a very good insight on what it takes to be a CEO of a major corp.

In mega corporations you get paid on what the company earns. The CEO’s set the course of the company and the rest of the team executes that plan. If the plan is successful the CEO gets paid. If it doesn’t he gets fired.

If you want to use the CEO of Ford as an example if he were released today he would have a new job offer before the ink was dry on his exit document. He is successful, Ford is successful and the workers are also doing well.

The ONLY reason the UAW could go after these increases is because of the successes of the CEO’s.

In Joe Blows case the leader of his company is doing something right and lining up good jobs. He will value Joe Blows contribution only to a certain point. He will pay what he perceives Joe Blows value is. If Joe Blow believes he is worth more he is free to leave for another job, retire, or start his own gig.

The union wants all the Joe Blows sharing equally regardless of what they contribute.

You have to remember that it’s the businesses descion to be a union shop. They made the choice to have union workers. My company could go non union and hire a bunch of illegals. But they are aware that’s a bad choice for there own income

Dutchy……i pretty much kinda agree on everything you posted EXCEPT for the last sentence.

every contract/agreement ive ever read has conduct rules from violence in the workplace to substandard performance. they are usually broke down in 2 categories…….
1) grounds for immediate termination
2) behaviors that are dealt with via warnings, usually a 3 step disciplinary actions. meaning you get warned to correct your behavior.

so if your Joe Blow has performance issues the company can warn him and the 3rd strike your done. so the notion of the union protecting the less steller is not a fair statement, the employer has the rules in place to do something about it.

i would be pulling your leg if i didnt think the Union would not defend them, they do, but with documented proof its hard to defend.

and its baffling the amount of violations that get someone terminated……is attendence!!!!

Bearcat89 wrote:

You have to remember that it’s the businesses descion to be a union shop. They made the choice to have union workers. My company could go non union and hire a bunch of illegals. But they are aware that’s a bad choice for there own income

At one point the workers voted and it became a union shop

Jeremy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
You have to remember that it’s the businesses descion to be a union shop. They made the choice to have union workers. My company could go non union and hire a bunch of illegals. But they are aware that’s a bad choice for there own income

At one point the workers voted and it became a union shop

And that is replaceable. Those workers also obviously needed protection from a crap employer otherwise the vote wouldn’t have happened

Where I worked they have a two tier system.From the workers stand point it doesn’t work. The new people all say – Why should I work as hard as you do and make $8 dollars less and have fewer benefits. Now days with most jobs paying $20 an hour $33 seem a little low for someone who has been working there for 15 to 20 years.

How much should a person who works 8-5, 5 days a week running a team of 10 people (assigning tasks and work schedules) plus doing in house sales make per year? Lets say the company grosses $3 million a year. A small company.

Im guessing the 10k+ profit sharing bennies are going to be a thing of the past if they get their way. That equates to approx $5 per hour or a 17% pay decrease based on a 60k assembly job. After contract negotiations they might walk away with a 6% raise per year.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2023/01/31/gm-uaw-profit-sharing-checks/69853383007/

Dutchboy wrote:

How much should a person who works 8-5, 5 days a week running a team of 10 people (assigning tasks and work schedules) plus doing in house sales make per year? Lets say the company grosses $3 million a year. A small company.

If you use some math from earlier in this thread, I would say 400k to 500k. That’s using the formula 4-5 times the worker, saying they make 100k on average.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Sometimes a Major Corporation needs an arrogant big headed prick who thinks his crap don’t stink.

Read “Jacked up” by Bill Lane or any other books on Jack Welch. It gives a very good insight on what it takes to be a CEO of a major corp.

No, no they don’t. An arrogant big headed prick who makes a salary that handcuffs the company’s payroll is more than likely going to make decisions that benefit them at the company’s expense.

Keep in mind, a CEOs #1 priority is to increase the company’s value to benefit the shareholders. The executives and shareholders have the power remove the CEO. Nothing in that power structure benefits the employee. This power structure encourages companies to limit employee wages and benefits. It should be the other way around.

The employees have no power… unless they unionize.

“Handcuffs the company payroll”, where did that come from?

“Benefit them at the company expense”? Nonsense.

Then you state “Keep in mind, a CEOs #1 priority is to increase the company’s value to benefit the shareholders.” HUH?

Which one is it?

The employees have no power… unless they unionize.
Somewhat disagree with this statement. You have to look out for yourself.
If you excel at what you do, you have bargaining power which makes your statement incorrect. If you are mediocre at best, then yes I agree with your statement.

BTW – I’ve been on both sides so I can speak from experience. Can you?

If employees want power they should own a company. I’ve never met a group of employees who believe being a owner is hard.

You’re suggesting that a CEOs pay has no affect on the company’s payroll. That is nonsense.

Pretty simple math to understand the difference between 5-10 times an average employees pay and 400 and what that that has on payroll.

CEO pay ratio has been increasing exponentially since about 2018. Clinton policies enabled this to explode back in the early 90s and Trumps Tax Cut and Jobs Act back in 2017 completely failed to change this. Where is this ratio headed and how does this benefit everyone? How can this trend be good for any company?

With the rapidly increasing CEO pay ratio, someone ends up being the loser.

It reminds me of a quote from office space.

It’s a problem of motivation. If an employee works a little harder to move a few more units, the employee doesn’t see another dime. That only makes an employee work just hard enough to not get fired.

My point isn’t about employee motivation it’s about executive motivation. He’s only going to give the employee just enough to not leave while working to keep the shareholders happy. Instead of making a work environment that encourages productivity and creativity.

I’ve never been a CEO and would never want that position. I was a manager overseeing 6-10 employees for about 10 years. People work harder and are much more motivated when they are paid well. They take their jobs much more seriously and don’t spend their time and energy looking for other jobs, gossiping about company financial decisions and tend to work much better as a team rather than competing against themselves.

It was far easier to get people to come in on weekends when their pay was good. It became nearly impossible (same employees) when pay started lagging. Luckily I wasn’t manager when that started occurring because I probably would have left the company.

Dutchboy wrote:

If employees want power they should own a company. I’ve never met a group of employees who believe being a owner is hard.

LOL! Nailed it.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
If employees want power they should own a company. I’ve never met a group of employees who believe being a owner is hard.

LOL! Nailed it.

Most anti-union quote of this discussion.

This is like trying to have a common sense conversation with my X.

My bad.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

This is like trying to have a common sense conversation with my X.

My bad.

Well both of us are passing off our opinions as facts so I think we’ve reached the limit of meaningful conversation. I going on strike from this conversation until an agreement has been reached.

The most unhappy employees I ever had all thought my job as the owner was easy. Their thought process was “I’m doing all the work and he makes the big bucks”.
That being said I wish I could have made 300 times what my employees took home every 2 weeks.
My mind set was it wouldn’t be right to do that.
I also had several employees that worked for me anywhere from 15 to 25 years.

Ford Motor Company had 173,000 employees at the end of 2022.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

This is like trying to have a common sense conversation with my X.

My bad.

I actually agree with both of you as a ceo and an owner of company are 2 different positions. The owner of a company puts it all on the line and should be paid as such. A CEO is just an employee and if the company goes under they just move on to another, they should also be paid as such.

The unions will sell out its members over a few things, they want a closed shop, automatic dues from paychecks and long term contracts. They want to get as much money from employees as they can for minimal effort

In reality the strike will show exactly who needs whom, and at what price. Let it ride for a few weeks and see where things shake out.

Jeremy wrote:

The unions will sell out its members over a few things, they want a closed shop, automatic dues from paychecks and long term contracts. They want to get as much money from employees as they can for minimal effort

WOW…..pretty baised opinion there bud. i was one of them Union thugs working for the members………and i remember working my tail off and pulling hair out for those members!!

By the sounds of it from what I’ve been reading is both sides are playing hard ball. Can’t see any big winners from this. I wonder if we will see the big 3 team up in negotiations?

I would guess the union tried long and hard to get the contracts with the big 3 all to come due at the same time. Their goal is to paralyze the car industry until they get their way. News flash for the UAW….Ford has more cash than the workers do.