Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevyRules
What shows on your W2? That’s your income. That comes from your hourly wage. Does the W2 reflect the benefits the company pays? No so therefore these workers do not earn $60/hr. Now to the company what each employee costs them may be an equivalent to paying them $60/hr, but when it comes to saying what an employee earns, it’s their income straight and simple. It’s always been described as I make $30/hr plus health and benefits. I have never heard of anyone say they make $60/hr and that includes benefits built in. Only times I have heard of including the equivalent wage with the cost of benefits included is in recruitment material to say a potential recruit can make $80,000 first year or in talking points of why a certain group is overpaid because it makes it appear they are making more than they do. It’s deceitful and misleading.
I’m not going to get into the debate of whether the UAW is being greedy or not, whether these people are overpaid, etc. It was just about keeping things honest without using to what I find at least misleading talking points. Want to say $30/hr plus only covering 3% of their healthcare and a good retirement contribution is more than fair compensation for what they do? Fine go at it.
|
If you work at a grocery store and they owe you $100 dollars and on pay day you get $50 cash and $50 in food, do you say you were ripped off for $50 bucks because there is only $50 in my wallet? Or, did you actually get paid $100? Furthermore, did the grocery store actually do you a favor so you only have to report $50 on your W2?
Bottom line? You twist it any way you want. At the end of the day, YOU pay the same amount on the car that goes towards their wages and perks. It matters not who actually "pays the bill". They get the equivalent of $60/hr. They might not get it in their hand per se, but they get it.
And, you'll eventually pay for the increase they are asking for.