Unions

[Victoria Raverna]

GM sold around 6 million vehicles in a year and made $156.7B in revenue.

Toyota sold around 10.5 million vehicles in a year and made $277.1B in revenue.

GM's CEO was paid around $30 million a year.

Toyota's CEO was paid around $7 million a year.

[LordMortis]

I won't defend GM's CEO salary but according to ZIP Recruiter

As of Sep 11, 2023, the average hourly pay for a Toyota Production Worker in the United States is $16.64 an hour.

As of Sep 11, 2023, the average hourly pay for a Gm in the United States is $30.95 an hour.

Salary dot com actually estimates wages at over $40 per hour to say nothing of benefits packages, which I've seen estimated at multiple sources for total compensation at $55 - $65 per hour. Add in overtime, which many jump at.

Then look at downstream wages, which also aren't generally union, and when all is said and done they don't compare and concessions are demanded of labor to keep on paying OEM employees.

I got nothing against wage increases in this inflationary environment but 40% increase in four years is laughable and making that concurrent with a 32 hour work week, essentially making adding that much more overtime, when the industry needs to get more lean to move into EV space is going to be brutal. As bloated as Stellantis is, I think they are done at least in the US. I fear Ford may be feeling the early signs of a death knell as well as, quite frankly, precisely because they are the most labor friendly of the Detroit 3.

[Victoria Raverna]

I won't defend GM's CEO salary but according to ZIP Recruiter

As of Sep 11, 2023, the average hourly pay for a Toyota Production Worker in the United States is $16.64 an hour.

As of Sep 11, 2023, the average hourly pay for a Gm in the United States is $30.95 an hour.

Salary dot com actually estimates wages at over $40 per hour to say nothing of benefits packages, which I've seen estimated at multiple sources for total compensation at $55 - $65 per hour. Add in overtime, which many jump at.

Then look at downstream wages, which also aren't generally union, and when all is said and done they don't compare and concessions are demanded of labor to keep on paying OEM employees.

I got nothing against wage increases in this inflationary environment but 40% increase in four years is laughable and making that concurrent with a 32 hour work week, essentially making adding that much more overtime, when the industry needs to get more lean to move into EV space is going to be brutal. As bloated as Stellantis is, I think they are done at least in the US. I fear Ford may be feeling the early signs of a death knell as well as, quite frankly, precisely because they are the most labor friendly of the Detroit 3.

So Toyota did much better than GM with lower worker pay and still their CEO got paid much less than GM's CEO?

As for 40% increase in four years is too much? How about 34% increase in four years which was what the GM's CEO got.

[disarm]

A 40% increase for GM's share of 145,000 UAW employees is a whole lot more money than 34% for one CEO.

I'm not going to argue whether the CEO pay is appropriate or not, but the amount of money going to the CEOs is a drop in the bucket compared to other employee costs. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you could take the combined income of all the Big 3 CEOs last year, divide it among all their UAW employees, and do you know roughly how much each union worker would receive? A one time payment of about $500.

People can keep citing the CEO pay numbers all they want, but that is not the issue. The money has to come from somewhere, and you can't cover the pay for all those workers by decreasing CEO pay even if you didn't give the executives a single penny. Hence my previous assertion that constantly referring to CEO pay is a straw man argument. People need to start talking and thinking more about where the rest of the billions of dollars in profits are going.

[GreenGoo]

It just shows to me that they are more than willing to overcompensate their employees. The union just wants their share. More power to them, I say.

[malchior]

A 40% increase for GM's share of 145,000 UAW employees is a whole lot more money than 34% for one CEO.

I'm not going to argue whether the CEO pay is appropriate or not, but the amount of money going to the CEOs is a drop in the bucket compared to other employee costs. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you could take the combined income of all the Big 3 CEOs last year, divide it among all their UAW employees, and do you know roughly how much each union worker would receive? A one time payment of about $500.

People can keep citing the CEO pay numbers all they want, but that is not the issue.

You keep saying this last bit but that isn't true. To reiterate again how you this framed wrong you have to expand to how CEO pay is structured. Much of it is aligned to delivering profits by driving down labor costs. They have direct incentives to drive down wages and they keep a percentage in effect. Often in cash and stock bonuses. CEO pay and worker pay are almost always linked. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is weird to argue they aren't part of the issue.

The money has to come from somewhere, and you can't cover the pay for all those workers by decreasing CEO pay even if you didn't give the executives a single penny. Hence my previous assertion that constantly referring to CEO pay is a straw man argument. People need to start talking and thinking more about where the rest of the billions of dollars in profits are going.

I talked about this above. The company is making huge profits right now. There are definitely paths here that could figure out how to allocate those profits including to workers. They could perhaps work out a profit sharing or stock plan for the workers to align incentives. But the fact remains that these companies are making good money and the workers can see that.

[Kraken]

In my management career the unspoken standard negotiating buffer was understood to be 20%. Ask for 20% more than you expect; offer 20% less than you can afford.

My first salary/wage offer to a new hire was always 20% under my budget. Nobody ever pushed back. Granted, I hired mostly hourly employees who were not familiar with negotiating, but every one of them could have enjoyed a 20% increase if they had only counteroffered.

If the UAW is asking 40% they're probably happy with 32%. If Stellaris is offering 20% they probably expect to go to 24%. That 8% difference is where they will end up; 28% should be the sweet spot, give or take 2 points. That uncertainty cone is where negotiating skill and pain tolerance come into play.

It's been a long time since I used to play that game and I never played for high stakes, so maybe my baseline is invalid. And of course the non-monetary factors complicate the math. We'll see where they end up. In my frame of reference, labor wins if they get more than 28% and management wins if they give less.

[malchior]

That back of envelope math makes sense. It's a little hard to valuate since it get complicated with negotiations including non-cash items which may not have straightforward value and "soft stuff" sticking points that typically lurks around like promotions/steps/etc.

[Blackhawk]

My first salary/wage offer to a new hire was always 20% under my budget. Nobody ever pushed back. Granted, I hired mostly hourly employees who were not familiar with negotiating, but every one of them could have enjoyed a 20% increase if they had only counteroffered.

Most hourly jobs don't allow negotiation. With (most) hourly employment, what it says on the paper is the best you're going to get, and 'bargaining' can often get you passed over as potentially troublesome.

[LordMortis]

I won't defend GM's CEO salary but according to ZIP Recruiter

As of Sep 11, 2023, the average hourly pay for a Toyota Production Worker in the United States is $16.64 an hour.

As of Sep 11, 2023, the average hourly pay for a Gm in the United States is $30.95 an hour.

Salary dot com actually estimates wages at over $40 per hour to say nothing of benefits packages, which I've seen estimated at multiple sources for total compensation at $55 - $65 per hour. Add in overtime, which many jump at.

Then look at downstream wages, which also aren't generally union, and when all is said and done they don't compare and concessions are demanded of labor to keep on paying OEM employees.

I got nothing against wage increases in this inflationary environment but 40% increase in four years is laughable and making that concurrent with a 32 hour work week, essentially making adding that much more overtime, when the industry needs to get more lean to move into EV space is going to be brutal. As bloated as Stellantis is, I think they are done at least in the US. I fear Ford may be feeling the early signs of a death knell as well as, quite frankly, precisely because they are the most labor friendly of the Detroit 3.

So Toyota did much better than GM with lower worker pay and still their CEO got paid much less than GM's CEO?

As for 40% increase in four years is too much? How about 34% increase in four years which was what the GM's CEO got.

I repeat, I won't defend GM's CEO salary

[malchior]

My first salary/wage offer to a new hire was always 20% under my budget. Nobody ever pushed back. Granted, I hired mostly hourly employees who were not familiar with negotiating, but every one of them could have enjoyed a 20% increase if they had only counteroffered.

Most hourly jobs don't allow negotiation. With (most) hourly employment, what it says on the paper is the best you're going to get, and 'bargaining' can often get you passed over as potentially troublesome.

This depends a lot on what type of hourly work:

*Restaurant or retail - no room for negotiation.

*Hourly work at a non-union company - usually room for negotiation. Especially non-union manufacturing or transportation where I'd even say you can always negotiate. My experience there was very similar to Kraken's. My wife is upper management in cosmetic manufacturing and there is lots of hourly and non-hourly salary negotiation there.

* Hourly work at a union company - welcome to the payscale.

[Kraken]

My first salary/wage offer to a new hire was always 20% under my budget. Nobody ever pushed back. Granted, I hired mostly hourly employees who were not familiar with negotiating, but every one of them could have enjoyed a 20% increase if they had only counteroffered.

Most hourly jobs don't allow negotiation. With (most) hourly employment, what it says on the paper is the best you're going to get, and 'bargaining' can often get you passed over as potentially troublesome.

This depends a lot on what type of hourly work:

*Restaurant or retail - no room for negotiation.

*Hourly work at a non-union company - usually room for negotiation. Especially non-union manufacturing or transportation where I'd even say you can always negotiate. My experience there was very similar to Kraken's. My wife is upper management in cosmetic manufacturing and there is lots of hourly and non-hourly salary negotiation there.

* Hourly work at a union company - welcome to the payscale.

As a bookstore manager, I had access to a higher grade of poor people, since being an avid reader was important. I was the only person who didn't have a master's degree in one store, and two of my employees had PhDs. (A PhD in modern Irish literature qualifies one to be a bookstore clerk. Or did back in the day.) Most of these jobs started at a little over minimum wage, so I offered new hires the minimum. They could have gotten an insta-raise if they had just asked. On the plus side, starting them low gave me room to offer better raises for performance.

[LawBeefaroni]

Tesla and foreign automakers have much higher margins because their labor costs are lower. Total comp for Tesla is like $45/hour. F and GM are around $65. The UAW wants to move F and GM to $130? It's insane. Talk about killing the golden goose.

[LordMortis]

Tesla and foreign automakers have much higher margins because their labor costs are lower. Total comp for Tesla is like $45/hour. F and GM are around $65. The UAW wants to move F and GM to $130? It's insane. Talk about killing the golden goose.

That was my original point with those same numbers. Though I put F and GM at around $100 but for a 32 work week instead of a 40 hour work week as a base, so that might be where your numbers come out higher.

[GreenGoo]

Tesla and foreign automakers have much higher margins because their labor costs are lower. Total comp for Tesla is like $45/hour. F and GM are around $65. The UAW wants to move F and GM to $130? It's insane. Talk about killing the golden goose.

If only there was some form of negotiation they could attempt.

[stessier]

My first salary/wage offer to a new hire was always 20% under my budget. Nobody ever pushed back. Granted, I hired mostly hourly employees who were not familiar with negotiating, but every one of them could have enjoyed a 20% increase if they had only counteroffered.

Most hourly jobs don't allow negotiation. With (most) hourly employment, what it says on the paper is the best you're going to get, and 'bargaining' can often get you passed over as potentially troublesome.

This depends a lot on what type of hourly work:

*Restaurant or retail - no room for negotiation.

*Hourly work at a non-union company - usually room for negotiation. Especially non-union manufacturing or transportation where I'd even say you can always negotiate. My experience there was very similar to Kraken's. My wife is upper management in cosmetic manufacturing and there is lots of hourly and non-hourly salary negotiation there.

* Hourly work at a union company - welcome to the payscale.

That's interesting because in my non-union manufacturing experience, hourly wages are set by job grade. There is some onboarding period where wages can start lower and ramp up as you get 30/60/90 day experience (for example), but each job grade is a number, not a range and job grades have defined skill requirements so the progression is clear.

[malchior]

It varies by industry. Much of the local industry in NJ/Eastern PA/NY is either union or some variant of chemical/pharma/heavy industry which is sometimes and sometimes not union. The only structure I've seen with graded pay like that here are union shops here. Much of the manufacturing here doesn't require certifications. For example, in the cosmetic manufacturing space you don't see much certification at all in the non-management/professional ranks.

You start by filling bottles, doing QA on the line, and a few move up into compounding (measuring ingredients/adding them to tanks/cooking/mixing/etc.). Compounding and other supervisory roles come with pay increases as you move up but there isn't any set progression and it's all on-the-job training.

[stessier]

That is the same in my industry - all on the job training. There is no where else to learn what we do. But you have to acquire the skills at Job Grade 1 before you are eligible to learn about Job Grade 2, etc.

[LawBeefaroni]

Tesla and foreign automakers have much higher margins because their labor costs are lower. Total comp for Tesla is like $45/hour. F and GM are around $65. The UAW wants to move F and GM to $130? It's insane. Talk about killing the golden goose.

If only there was some form of negotiation they could attempt.

At half the UAW ask they're still more than doubling the spread.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Fuck it. I'm just in a bad mood.

[LawBeefaroni]

So what? First you think they are insane, now you want to criticize their negotiating skills.

Huh? I think the original ask is insane. In part because even halved it's going to cripple the big 3.

I didn't say anything about how they're negotiating.

These things are thrown into the public eye not to inform but to have public opinion help decide what people should be paid. Like you are worth whatever the local dollar store employees decide is appropriate as they bitch about how unfair it is that line workers make more. Or investors who think they aren't getting enough of a return on their holdings because American workers are greedy and entitled.

This whole thing is particularly vexing because the unions have been all but gutted in the US, with workers' rights being some of the lowest in the western world.

Something is wrong when people want more money and strangers criticize them for it.

If manufacturing leaves America, it's not because companies can't make profit. It's because they will go wherever they can screw over people the most.

Your country is supposed to be the richest in the world. Can you blame people for wanting a bigger slice of the pie as they toil daily to make it richer? If your answer is yes, then you're part of the problem.

Non union auto workers make far less. It's as simple as that. You're reading way roo much into it. If the union really cared about auto workers, they'd be unionizing more auto workers.

edit: I'm just sick of rich or even just well off people complaining that others make too much money and should make less. North American work culture is such that you're aren't even supposed to discuss salary with co-workers, but somehow we all get to be upset by what strangers in another state working for a different company make. Like armchair quarterbacking but worse, because these are peoples' actual lives.

I grew up in auto country. I knew and know plenty of unuon auto workers. Hell, I worked in Dearborn making auto parts. UAW workers are not poor, downtrodden wage slaves. They have pensions and 401Ks and retiree healthcare.

I'm not passing judgement on them. I'm saying the math doesn't work. The Big 3 will be hamstrung by what the UAW is asking. Even half of what they're asking.

[LordMortis]

I grew up in auto country. I knew and know plenty of unuon auto workers. Hell, I worked in Dearborn making auto parts. UAW workers are not poor, downtrodden wage slaves. They have pensions and 401Ks and retiree healthcare.

I'm not passing judgement on them. I'm saying the math doesn't work. The Big 3 will be hamstrung by what the UAW is asking. Even half of what they're asking.

+1 to all of that, except I worked in Plymouth. Even with GM's profits being waved, they are cyclical business who was on the verge of bankruptcy less than 15 years ago. And none of this is to deny the companies are miss managed. GM did buy backs not too long ago and threw their hats in against California's energy initiatives and CAFE standards. Stellantis has been a nonstop management dumpster fire ever since Chrysler allowed Daimler to buy them for about the price of the cash in their coffers so top level executives could take countless millions in cash out of the coffers as a parachute, going from one bad company offering their brand to another. Ford were dragged kicking and screaming into the new millennium, even as they constantly teased at being ahead of the game, and they may not recover.

UAW based wages aren't terrible. Asking to keep ahead of inflation from when they were falling behind over the last decade isn't a terrible ask. Asking for 20% decrease in base hours along with 40% over four years increase in compensation when the businesses need invest in modernizing is going to cause fundamental shifts in all three companies. I don't have great faith Detroit/Rustbelt/UAW based auto will survive at this point, barring joining the carpetbaggers and transplants and leaving the Rustbelt behind. Though I don't think they'll move to Texas, the Carolinas, and Alabama for $17 or $20 jobs. I think they'll go head south of the border. Mexican auto is already growing by leaps and bounds.

[LawBeefaroni]

Ford and UAW reach tentative contract agreement.

Looks like first to post will be good for Ford.

UAW leaders announced late Wednesday, Oct. 25 that a tentative contract agreement was reached with Ford that is four times more valuable than the union’s last agreement made in 2019. In addition to an agreed upon 25% wage increase -- which will be increased even more by a restored cost of living allowance -- the deal also includes a significant starting wage increase, wage increases for temporary workers, the end of wage tiers for some workers, the right to strike plant closures, and more.

They also report earnings today so I'm sure there will be some detailed insight on the conference call.

[Kraken]

Ford and UAW reach tentative contract agreement.

Looks like first to post will be good for Ford.

UAW leaders announced late Wednesday, Oct. 25 that a tentative contract agreement was reached with Ford that is four times more valuable than the union’s last agreement made in 2019. In addition to an agreed upon 25% wage increase -- which will be increased even more by a restored cost of living allowance -- the deal also includes a significant starting wage increase, wage increases for temporary workers, the end of wage tiers for some workers, the right to strike plant closures, and more.

They also report earnings today so I'm sure there will be some detailed insight on the conference call.

If the UAW is asking 40% they're probably happy with 32%. If Stellaris is offering 20% they probably expect to go to 24%. That 8% difference is where they will end up; 28% should be the sweet spot, give or take 2 points.

I was pretty close. I could've saved everybody a lot of time if they'd hired me to mediate back in September.

[LawBeefaroni]

The starting wage increase is pretty substantial, hopefully it brings more talent to the industry.

The tentative deal, which was first reported earlier by CNBC, includes 25% pay increases over the terms of the agreement and will cumulatively raise the top wage to more than $40 an hour, including an increase of 68% for starting wages to over $28 an hour.

[Blackhawk]

Those numbers (just from my perspective) seem crazy.