Honda Car Forum

Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:2cfbf$494d59a9$cef8ac46$19862@TEKSAVVY.COM...
>> That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they
>> don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just
>> equalizes things for the worker.
>> Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage.
>
> When an employee can threaten to quit when they are not paid what they can
> get elsewhere, they have the upper hand. Most non-union employees have
> changed jobs many times in their career, and bettered there pay each time
> (not just cost of living increases). I have gone back to work previous
> employers, each time at significantly higher pay.
>
> Employees who cannot get the same or higher pay elsewhere are generally not
> worth what they are paid.
>
> The main reason that everything is made in China these days (with the
> exception of cars, but that is probably coming) is primarily because of
> labor unions.
>
>

It is primarily because they will work for rice.

Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1b21f$494d5149$cef8ac46$22835@TEKSAVVY.COM...
>> So what do you want the UAW/CAW worker to do? Take less than the non-union
>> worker so that these benifits can be paid to retired workers?
>> If they expect UAW/CAW workers to cost the same amount to the company as
>> non-unionized workers, then they better just determine the cost of the
>> current workers and project their pension and healthcare costs and leave
>> out current retirees' costs from the formula.
>> Don't blame the worker because the company didn't plan correctly.
>> By the way, the same thing is happening with our national retirement
>> plans.
>
> It is simply not true that workers at the Big 3 get paid the same (or less)
> than the other auto-workers in the US. They get paid more. That is
> irrespective of any pension or health care obligations that the Big 3 have
> for their retired workers. When I say they get paid more, I mean salary,
> pension accruals, and health care accruals for current employees.
>

No, but that is what they will be asked to do if the calculations about
hourly cost include health benifits and pensions of retired workers. You
will have to take less to account for the money spent on retirees.
Some non-union auto workers make the same or more than UAW workers when
considering only hourly rates. It depends on the factory.
There are some auto workers making less than $15/hour and some making
around $30/hour. And that is for non unionized import factories.

"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>
>
> That's nice. But when an employer can threaten to fire individuals if they
> don't take what they are offered, they have the upper hand. This just
> equalizes things for the worker.
> Wouldn't make sense to have every employee getting a different wage.

Employees can quit too. Years ago I worked for a company with a union (I was
not a member). We paid the employees about $1.50 over the contract rate.
That was the labor market we were in. When the company next door needed
people, he'd pay a little more than us and a few guys would jump ship. If we
needed them back, all we had to do was offer them a bit more.

As for the union, all they did was collect dues. That was the business they
are in.

"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:4655$494d5a31$cef8ac46$19862@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and
> including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since
> they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense?

Pension fund accounting is a complex subject, but a company must deposit
cash into the pension fund in advance each year based on the number of
employee hours worked that year to cover what the future projected pension
benefits are. That is the law regarding pension funds and the rules
regarding Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

If the investments in the pension fund are doing well, they may be able to
skip funding for a year, if the investments are doing poorly they make have
add additional funds, irrespective of the number of employee hours worked
that year. The Pension Fund is in a separate set of accounts from regular GM
accounts and are not affected by a bankruptcy (unless the fund is
underfunded for some reason in which case the difference is made up the US
government which has an insurance plan for such pension funds, sort of like
the FDIC for bank accounts).

At the end of 2007 the GM pension fund's assets were worth $104 billion,
more than enough to cover its projected obligations of $85 billion for
retired and current workers (based on the number of years a current employee
has worked so far). We do not know for sure what will happen when they
close the books for 2008 and look at their investments (which may have taken
a hit due to the market crash).

Health care is a different story.

Mark A wrote:
> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:4655$494d5a31$cef8ac46$19862@TEKSAVVY.COM...
>> How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and
>> including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since
>> they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense?
>
> Pension fund accounting is a complex subject, but a company must deposit
> cash into the pension fund in advance each year based on the number of
> employee hours worked that year to cover what the future projected pension
> benefits are. That is the law regarding pension funds and the rules
> regarding Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Who says this $70/hour is based on GAAP? It is just a number they have
given the media. Why don't they break out the details?

>
> If the investments in the pension fund are doing well, they may be able to
> skip funding for a year, if the investments are doing poorly they make have
> add additional funds, irrespective of the number of employee hours worked
> that year. The Pension Fund is in a separate set of accounts from regular GM
> accounts and are not affected by a bankruptcy (unless the fund is
> underfunded for some reason in which case the difference is made up the US
> government which has an insurance plan for such pension funds, sort of like
> the FDIC for bank accounts).
>
> At the end of 2007 the GM pension fund's assets were worth $104 billion,
> more than enough to cover its projected obligations of $85 billion for
> retired and current workers (based on the number of years a current employee
> has worked so far). We do not know for sure what will happen when they
> close the books for 2008 and look at their investments (which may have taken
> a hit due to the market crash).
>
> Health care is a different story.
>
>
>

"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5c2dc$494d5ce9$cef8ac46$28325@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business?

I doubt that the Big 3 will go out business, but it is possible. Bankruptcy
does not usually mean out of business, it usually means reorganization.
Every major airline has declared bankruptcy except for AA and Southwest, but
only a few have actually disappeared.. The unions forced a shut down of
Eastern Airlines instead of negotiating a reasonable union contract. Other
airlines bought the Eastern planes, repainted them, and increased their
routes.

What will happen is that other automakers will take over and increase
production in the US. But there will invariable be more auto imports. I
doubt that it will affect my job much, because I am not associated with the
auto business, even indirectly.

When I lost my job in the mid 1980's because the price of oil hit $8 (that
was in 1986 dollars), I don't recall anyone in the northeast worrying about
my well-being.

"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5a10c$494d5d51$cef8ac46$28325@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> It is primarily because they will work for rice.

So what do you think they were working for before everything was made in
China? Half as much rice as they make now.

Actually, you have been brainwashed. China is a rapidly growing economy and
your would surprised how many millionaires and billionaires there are in
China.

Everyone said the same about Japan 25 years ago, and now Japanese have a
much higher standard of living than in the US. If you went to Tokyo, I doubt
you could even afford to get out of the airport.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:21:42 -0500, Tim <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Mark A wrote:
>> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4655$494d5a31$cef8ac46$19862@TEKSAVVY.COM...
>>> How do you know that GM is not taking that money from the trust and
>>> including it in the calculations? It might already be paid for but since
>>> they are paying it out now, they are using it as a current expense?
>>
>> Pension fund accounting is a complex subject, but a company must deposit
>> cash into the pension fund in advance each year based on the number of
>> employee hours worked that year to cover what the future projected pension
>> benefits are. That is the law regarding pension funds and the rules
>> regarding Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
>
>Who says this $70/hour is based on GAAP? It is just a number they have
>given the media. Why don't they break out the details?
>
The number is bullshit. You would have to have an uninterested party
look at the books.
GM's bullshitting with these numbers has come back to bite them in the
ass when they have hat in hand.
When I was UAW at IH in the late '60's there was a short strike.
The Chicago Tribune published we were making $30 an hour.
I was making about $6 and probably in the top 20%.
Believe me, benefits wouldn't even get them close to $10.
Of course the Trib and IH were joined at the hip.
Actually, the only guy I believe on costs is Corker, though I don't
necessarily agree with his solutions.
There should be an open public forum with him and the UAW head
thrashing it out.
There's so much BS out there it's stinking up everything.

--Vic

"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1ba84$494d5eff$cef8ac46$22774@TEKSAVVY.COM...
> No, but that is what they will be asked to do if the calculations about
> hourly cost include health benifits and pensions of retired workers. You
> will have to take less to account for the money spent on retirees.
> Some non-union auto workers make the same or more than UAW workers when
> considering only hourly rates. It depends on the factory.
> There are some auto workers making less than $15/hour and some making
> around $30/hour. And that is for non unionized import factories.''

The calculations do not include the retirement benefits of retired workers.
Pensions are funded in advance. Health care is a different issue, but they
could change the health care provisions if the union agreed (unlike the
pensions for retired employees, which cannot be changed by law).

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:27:24 -0500, "Mark A" <someone@someone.com>
wrote:

>"Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:5c2dc$494d5ce9$cef8ac46$28325@TEKSAVVY.COM.. .
>> What happens to your job if Ford goes out of business?
>
>I doubt that the Big 3 will go out business, but it is possible. Bankruptcy
>does not usually mean out of business, it usually means reorganization.
>Every major airline has declared bankruptcy except for AA and Southwest, but
>only a few have actually disappeared.. The unions forced a shut down of
>Eastern Airlines instead of negotiating a reasonable union contract. Other
>airlines bought the Eastern planes, repainted them, and increased their
>routes.
>
>What will happen is that other automakers will take over and increase
>production in the US. But there will invariable be more auto imports. I
>doubt that it will affect my job much, because I am not associated with the
>auto business, even indirectly.
>
If they go bust along with the union, there's nothing to keep the
transplants here. The industry is intricately interwoven, and once
it starts unraveling, it could end in tatters.
But it won't happen because of that.
IMO.

--Vic