|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | From:  Bellelettres (Original Message) | Sent: 11/29/2008 6:03 PM |
On "Countdown," Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World" for November 26 was Andrew Ross Sorkin and The New York Times for starting the myth that the average worker at General Motors earns an average of $70 per hour.
This falsehood has been perpetuated mainly by right-wing commentators, who are always ready to condemn labor unions and the workers they represent but have little to say about skyrocketing CEO salaries, along with fat bonuses that are rewarded no matter how poorly industries perform. In the case of the auto industry, it wasn't the workers who made the poor business decisions to keep producing gas guzzlers and ignore the need for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Olbermann cites the Center for Automotive Research, which states that the average salary for an auto worker at GM, Chrysler and Ford is actually $28 per hour. The outlandish $70 per hour is arrived at by adding the current hourly wages plus the health benefits and pensions of current and retired workers plus money paid to surviving spouses of deceased workers, then dividing the total by the number of active workers. The number derived is $70–clearly a distorted way of reaching an average salary.
Even if one adds in health benefits and pension, one does not reach $70 per hour from a wage of $28. This distortion, however, serves the needs of those who want to continue weakening the labor movement in America.
|
|
 First
Previous
2-12 of 12
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
Seems to me the a glance at an average Auto worker's annual income would show he/she isn't making any $70 bucks an hour! |
|
Reply
| |
Wages (not salary) plus all benefits would be the correct way to state it. The pensions/health/survivors' benefits enjoyed by those no longer working in the industry are part of the wages + benefits at the time they were employed, not now. |
|
Reply
| |
Thank you, ma'am. They switched the videos. Anyway, I suspect that, from the manufacturer's point of view as a cost item, $28/hour is probably as inaccurate as the $70. I will verify it if possible, though. |
|
Reply
| |
I was, for a number of years the trade union representative for around 600 employees and as such was involved in being champion of members who t'other side decreed had transgressed (stimulating) local negotiations (sometimes interesting) and local annual wage negotiations (deadly boring). In the latter we used to set out to prove (with figures) that our members were actually worse off than their Forebears and with a bit of sleight of pocket calculator we used to 'prove it'. They in their turn could conclusively 'prove' that the cost of us the great ubermensch (coupled of course, to their humane enlightened attitude) was the factor preventing the company from scaling the very heights of profitability. When I tell you that even the annual free towel issue and fortnightly issue of a bar of soap (including the cost of issue) not to mention (supposedly) canteen meals subsidy all figured on the list you should get the picture as to why it was such a boring waste of everyones time. But like prayer I assume it satisfied some inner need for someone somewhere. |
|
Reply
| |
Joe, You're great! No doubt about it. You "satisfy" my time. No doubt. However, I'm trying to sift through your British translation........ So basically, you're saying that British workers are willing to sustain what they do, and keep going forward, without the help of a union? Is this right? Nacho! |
|
Reply
| |
I read it as "both sides were bullshytting but somebody must have felt good about it". |
|
Reply
| |
Very close Oskar. The point was that both sides knew just about where they were going to be in the final wage settlement (ie within about half of one percent of the going rate for the country that year) so the negotiations were largely rituals. |
|
Reply
| |
Joe, in this country we have "right to work" states, which means people can work in union shops in those states without being members of the union. In negotiations companies can use the threat of moving to one of those states if they don't like the union's demands. I worked in a union shop (the composing room of a daily newspaper) in a right to work state. The company broke the contract right and left, with impunity. |
|
Reply
| |
Belle, among the hourly paid we had 100% union membership in spite of there being no compulsion. The company recognised the union and ecouraged membership and provided basic facilities for its officials. This was not simply altruism but good sense as it meant that there were well understood procedures for dealing with issues. The 100% membership was a recognition of the value of this system to the individual especially the availability of free legal advice and/or representation should such be needed. This almost always was in the pursuit of claims for injury as neither the company or the union had any taste for legal contracts believing instead in the more flexible negotiated agreements. This is or was pretty commo right across British industry. On the subject of unions generally when the Japanese car manufacturers moved into Britain they were at great pains to avoid the appalling industrial relations of our home auto industry. They did not however attempt operate without unions but instead insisted that they would recognise only one union. These companies have a excellent track record of industrial peace. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-12 of 12
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General