Ford Beats Unions

mattjulien · March 11, 2009

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_bi_ge/ford_uaw

Read it on yahoo a few minutes ago. I hope GM will be able to do this...

Zembonez · March 11, 2009

Perhaps so. Time will tell.

tobias · March 11, 2009

It's definitely a good start.

mattgob86 · March 11, 2009

$55 AN HOUR

Sigmawess · March 11, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

Zembonez · March 11, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

That is only PARTIALLY true. Current labor costs maybe... but retirees and benefits are a whopping 46% of GMs expenditures. Don't take my word for it. Go look at GMs disclosed earnings sheets. Unions have sucked more companies dry in this country than we can count.

MarkD · March 11, 2009

As Industrial Engineer at a plant in SC, I determined our total cost per employee per hour at $28/hour. This is before it closed its doors because it couldn't compete with foreign competition due to production costs/unit.

Zembonez · March 11, 2009

This is one of the pitfalls of being a free market economy. It's dog eat dog and those who can't find a way to be competitive close up shop. Free market capitalist markets can be cruel... but they can also be extremely profitable. Nobody whines when they are raking it in.

Sigmawess · March 11, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

That is only PARTIALLY true. Current labor costs maybe... but retirees and benefits are a whopping 46% of GMs expenditires. Don't take my word for it. Go look at GMs disclosed earnings sheets.

Absolutely retirees costs are huge, but these are deals GM made in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The unions concessions with the past few contracts have substantial decreased the future retiree benefits. This will work itself out in the future with the next group of retirees. GM was making money hand over fist and was willing to agree to huge contracts, without looking to the future. Dont get me wrong, I love GM, but I also can see the Unions side. GM had the ability to build plants in right to work states and avoid all this in th past, they chose not to and now want to play the pitty party.

Sigmawess · March 11, 2009

Was it a textile plant?

Zembonez · March 12, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

That is only PARTIALLY true. Current labor costs maybe... but retirees and benefits are a whopping 46% of GMs expenditires. Don't take my word for it. Go look at GMs disclosed earnings sheets.

Absolutely retirees costs are huge, but these are deals GM made in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The unions concessions with the past few contracts have substantial decreased the future retiree benefits. This will work itself out in the future with the next group of retirees. GM was making money hand over fist and was willing to agree to huge contracts, without looking to the future. Dont get me wrong, I love GM, but I also can see the Unions side. GM had the ability to build plants in right to work states and avoid all this in th past, they chose not to and now want to play the pitty party.

There is a lot of that going around these days!

svensk · March 12, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

I've got a 4 year degree and I make NO where close to that in total wage+benefit+401K matching compensation.

tobias · March 12, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

I've got a 4 year degree and I make NO where close to that in total wage+benefit+401K matching compensation.

What??? Jas makes that much sitting at home, slacker?

VMax2007 · March 12, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

I've got a 4 year degree and I make NO where close to that in total wage+benefit+401K matching compensation.

What??? Jas makes that much sitting at home, slacker?

Hell yeah, his allowance is in the 6 figures!

svensk · March 12, 2009

55 dollars an hour is total cost( health benefits, retirements, etc.) That is not what the workers make an hour. Thats actually pretty cheap! Alot of people like to blame the unions, but labor cost only account for about 10% of the big 3s expenditures, which is nothing.

I've got a 4 year degree and I make NO where close to that in total wage+benefit+401K matching compensation.

What??? Jas makes that much sitting at home, slacker?

Hell yeah, his allowance is in the 6 figures!

wouldn't surprise me.