[DDFast]

I don't think anyone said they make $60-65hr I believe they said that is the cost of that employee to the business.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by DDFast

I don't think anyone said they make $60-65hr I believe they said that is the cost of that employee to the business.

Go back last page to my reply to 95 imp. He said they make $60/hr to turn lugnuts. Nothing about what an employee costs the employer.

[HDRDTD]

Simply put, there are two different ways to look at what a person makes per hour.

One view is the typical hourly wage by itself. (maybe $20-30/hr)?

The other view is the typical hourly wage, plus the costs the company pays for your various benefits. (maybe $60-$100/hr)?

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by HDRDTD

Simply put, there are two different ways to look at what a person makes per hour.

One view is the typical hourly wage by itself. (maybe $20-30/hr)?

The other view is the typical hourly wage, plus the costs the company pays for your various benefits. (maybe $60-$100/hr)?

Since benefits vary company to company, it’s fairer to say an employee makes the former vs the latter when it comes to stating an employees salary( not total compensation).

[ZL1 affair]

I would love to have a job at GM, they treat their employees like gold!

https://buildingastrongerfuture.gm.c...ture/home.html

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Since benefits vary company to company, it’s fairer to say an employee makes the former vs the latter when it comes to stating an employees salary( not total compensation).

You have that backward, the fairer way to state it is what's a person's total employment package.

Example: Some people may make 90.00 hr but are contract labor and have no benefits but another person in the same department may make 45.00 and get Health, Holiday, and Vacation which could equal the income or spending each year of the employee that gets 90hr. The only way to compare is to include ALL the benefits paid by the company.

The same logic goes even between jobs when looking to change to a different company.

[Frisbey]

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

You have that backward, the fairer way to state it is what's a person's total employment package.

Example: Some people may make 90.00 hr but are contract labor and have no benefits but another person in the same department may make 45.00 and get Health, Holiday, and Vacation which could equal the income or spending each year of the employee that gets 90hr. The only way to compare is to include ALL the benefits paid by the company.

The same logic goes even between jobs when looking to change to a different company.

Well stated Memphis SS

The difference is looking at it from an employers position or employees position,
Unfortunately without the employers position, there is no employees position.

Just the way it is.

Make it too hard on the employer, and there won’t be any employees.
Something to think about

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

You have that backward, the fairer way to state it is what's a person's total employment package.

Example: Some people may make 90.00 hr but are contract labor and have no benefits but another person in the same department may make 45.00 and get Health, Holiday, and Vacation which could equal the income or spending each year of the employee that gets 90hr. The only way to compare is to include ALL the benefits paid by the company.

The same logic goes even between jobs when looking to change to a different company.

Exactly! Their not making $30/hr and pay for their own vacation and health insurance.

Just because they don't directly cut a check doesn't mean it doesn't count. Somebody is paying for those bene's that those guys get. And if they could find a better paying job, they'd all leave in a heartbeat.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

Exactly! Their not making $30/hr and pay for their own vacation and health insurance.

Just because they don't directly cut a check doesn't mean it doesn't count. Somebody is paying for those bene's that those guys get. And if they could find a better paying job, they'd all leave in a heartbeat.

The problem with the situation with GM and the UAW is that GM pays 97% of every UAW members healthcare, while every other company in America - as well as GM to their non-union employees - pays 75% or less. No one is saying GM shouldn’t have to pay any of it, but to be more in line with the cost structures of their competitors and most other corporations they really do need to cut that down.

It would not hurt or destroy someone’s paycheck if $75-100 of it - pre-tax, oh by the way - went to healthcare.

[CamaroSS50]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

+1 $60+/hr to put lug nuts on right (most of the time) is ridiculous. Supposedly, 2-3K of every new car goes to the union and they "need" more? THAT is crazy...

UAW worker: Top pay for a factory assembler working 40 hours a week would be $65,000, according to UAW records. In addition in 2018, FCA paid an average of $6,000 in profit sharing, Ford paid $7,600 in profit sharing and GM paid $10,750.

So, in 2018, a lug turner made $75,750 + benefits + pension ++++

They should be kissing the ground GM walks on.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

Exactly! Their not making $30/hr and pay for their own vacation and health insurance.

Just because they don't directly cut a check doesn't mean it doesn't count. Somebody is paying for those bene's that those guys get. And if they could find a better paying job, they'd all leave in a heartbeat.

No one is saying the benefits are free. I’m just saying it’s not fair to pass off someone’s salary as $60/hr when it includes those benefits because you’re trying to imply their income is $60/hr when it isn’t the case. The benefits are a part of their total compensation package, but not their hourly wage that is put on their W2. Do you tell friends your salary including benefits or tell them your base wage?

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

No one is saying the benefits are free. I’m just saying it’s not fair to pass off someone’s salary as $60/hr when it includes those benefits because you’re trying to imply their income is $60/hr when it isn’t the case. The benefits are a part of their total compensation package, but not their hourly wage that is put on their W2. Do you tell friends your salary including benefits or tell them your base wage?

So, if they get a check for $60/hr and have to pay their own bene's is somehow different than getting paid $30/hr and the company gives you "freebies"?

Never mind that even $30/hr is crazy to turn bolts, but what about the rest of America who makes $30/hr (or less) and has to pay their own healthcare, retirement, etc.?

And to top THAT off, go to your boss(es) and say you're having a hard time making ends meet and need more or, the company made more money this year and we want our cut.

It's greed. Pure and simple greed. "The 1%" doesn't have the greed market cornered. And who pays for that greed? You and I do every time we buy a car.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

So, if they get a check for $60/hr and have to pay their own bene's is somehow different than getting paid $30/hr and the company gives you "freebies"?

Never mind that even $30/hr is crazy to turn bolts, but what about the rest of America who makes $30/hr (or less) and has to pay their own healthcare, retirement, etc.?

And to top THAT off, go to your boss(es) and say you're having a hard time making ends meet and need more or, the company made more money this year and we want our cut.

It's greed. Pure and simple greed. "The 1%" doesn't have the greed market cornered. And who pays for that greed? You and I do every time we buy a car.

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.

[MrChrisLS3]

The only real advantage to having a union in the automobile business is handling the ebb and flow nature of it. Having the UAW allows the manufacturer to reduce production, cut shifts, when needed, and still be able to keep those employees on the bench, ready to come back in the game when production comes back up.

While, it may be expensive to pay idle employees, it is a lot less expensive than training a whole new shift of green peas when that shift comes back on line. Not to mention the mistakes that lack of experience creates in terms of QC and warranty repair down the road.

As to whether they are over compensated, I don't know. Perhaps it's the philosophy of not paying so much that they don't need the job, and paying enough to keep them from looking for another one.

But I guess my point is that it might be cheaper to overpay existing employees and keep them, then to underpay and constantly train new employees. I know that I feel better driving a 4000lb machine that was built by folks that have done it for awhile then by a newbie part timer that is always tired from working their second job at night. #my car won't move, and #when it does, it won't stop