You wanted cheaper prices, right?

[MountainRigged]

Ah, wasn't me then - we were up in Asheville, NC this weekend with the Jeep parked snugly in our garage in Weatherford. But yes, the blue jeeps look nice.

Cheers!

In all fairness to my memory it could have been anytime in the last weekend or week before haha. You ever come around south fort worth/burleson?

Sponsored

 

[Strommen95]

We have been discussing the cause of work being moved away from UAW controlled areas to outside the country. That directly relates to the labor cost of UAW workers. It does not have anything to do with the pay of the CEO. Trying to draw comparisons and shift the discussion in that direction doesn't change the core concept that started this topic. Besides the fact that CEO pay is not near the cost to the company by comparison.

Nobody changed the core concept that started this topic. I asked a simple one sentence question to you that resonates with the topic at hand. For this forum to justify CEO pay as it's what they negotiated, to turn around and say the union is overpaid despite also negotiating for their current pay, is extremely hypocritical. You know this, which is why you conveniently ignored the pointed question.

The big 3 absolutely did know that it was going to be this bad, and that is why they offered realistic compromise on pay and benefits before the contract ended. Mr. Fain and his group rejected those proposals which may have kept more of these jobs in the US if foresight would have been his ally. Instead they have been forced into a contract that suited no one. Yes the workers make more, until they no longer have a job to work at.

Those aren't UAW jobs. Fain's responsibility is to the union. Should we criticize a hypothetical President for not protecting jobs in Canada that have nothing to do with the United States? You're really reaching.

It's comical that you paint the billion dollar companies as victims while denouncing the common man. No company was forced to do anything. Only an idiot would think the companies would agree to a contract they knew would be unprofitable in the long term. In fact, it would be downright negligence on their part.

The profit margin is very tight right now.

Yeah, that's just speculation. You don't actually know this, why is why you haven't shared anything demonstrating so. Every company inherently has motive to overstate their costs to the public.

 

[TheRaven]

You're convinced that securing shelter is easier (or as easy as it has been) because of technological advancements, while also acknowledging that's it's much more expensive relative to income, than it has ever been. To me, that's obvious cognitive dissonance, but it doesn't matter because I don't think either of us is moving their position.

That's because all your focus is on the cost of things. Cost isn't the end-all evaluation of quality of life...it's just one factor. Really what matters is this - how much work is necessary to achieve a given lifestyle? And my point is that the level of work necessary for a "comfortable" lifestyle is lower than its ever been, and that's largely thanks to technology. Costs are higher than they've ever been, but the avenues with which to make money are orders of magnitude more plentiful. "Selling pictures of your ass online" is now a career option...and a very lucrative one at that. That's hilarious...and I can't think of a better example to prove my point.

This is why I said it looks different - for my dad, it was all in his physical skills and physical ability...he just had to physically work his ass off. For me, it was a combination of physical skills and mental skills...I didn't have to physically work as hard as my dad, but I did have to know a lot more, which also meant hard work. But I had it easier than he did - I was able to put in less work and end up with a better life. Really the biggest challenge for me was competition...there were a lot like me vying for the same opportunities. Kids today don't have to work nearly as hard as me or my dad to achieve even better lives, and the competition they face is FAR less. It seems like that fact stems at least partly from the "someone needs to do something about this" mantra they all apparently have.

I'm late Gen-X, almost a Millennial, and I totally see why Boomers complain about the younger generations...they do have some valid points.

 

[NWJeepr]

Nobody changed the core concept that started this topic. I asked a simple one sentence question to you that resonates with the topic at hand. For this forum to justify CEO pay as it's what they negotiated, to turn around and say the union is overpaid despite also negotiating for their current pay, is extremely hypocritical. You know this, which is why you conveniently ignored the pointed question.



Those aren't UAW jobs. Fain's responsibility is to the union. Should we criticize a hypothetical President for not protecting jobs in Canada that have nothing to do with the United States? You're really reaching.

It's comical that you paint the billion dollar companies as victims while denouncing the common man. No company was forced to do anything. Only an idiot would think the companies would agree to a contract they knew would be unprofitable in the long term. In fact, it would be downright negligence on their part.



Yeah, that's just speculation. You don't actually know this, why is why you haven't shared anything demonstrating so. Every company inherently has motive to overstate their costs to the public.

https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases

It seems Stellantis is holding it together. And PHEV sales are up 79% year over year. BEV sales are up 8% in Q1. Revenue is down for the quarter but they are anticipating a profitable remainder of the year as they were gearing up for new model launches.

Damn. Those are some good BEV and PHEV numbers.

 

[Wbino]

UAW is not a bread and butter worker. They make much more than many skilled labor positions, which was the point he was making.

Their average salary is around 30 dollars an hour, which is about double the 17 dollar hourly wage that a production worker makes at a factory here in Texas. And the reason they were trying to shorten the work week was to get one of their work days counted as overtime.

But where it gets really ridiculous is all the benefits.
https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-l...ctually-cost-the-big-three-automakers-70-hour

In 1980 fresh barely out of H.S. I got a job stocking shelfs overnights at a union supermarket.
I was 17 making $10 dollars an hour and on Sundays you got double time.
I got my first apartment on that.

 

[NWJeepr]

In 1980 fresh barely out of H.S. I got a job stocking shelfs overnights at a union supermarket.
I was 17 making $10 dollars an hour and on Sundays you got double time.
I got my first apartment on that.

One of my first jobs in high school was working at a dealership as a lot attendant. $10/hr, non union. Compared to friends making minimum wage (5-something back then?) I felt like I was “well compensated”. Lol. There was overtime, and it felt like “serious money”.

That was… 24 years ago, 20 years after you, Wbino, got your $10/hr job as a shelf stocker.

 

[jeepingib]

In 1980 fresh barely out of H.S. I got a job stocking shelfs overnights at a union supermarket.
I was 17 making $10 dollars an hour and on Sundays you got double time.
I got my first apartment on that.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the text you quoted.

Not all unions are bad. But UAW has absolutely gone to excess and gotten greedy. And we the consumer should be pissed. It's not like the corporations are going to pay the increase in labor. We the consumer are the ones footing the bill. The cost of goods and services are directly paid by the consumer, which provides the capital to pay employees.

 

[jeepingib]

Nobody changed the core concept that started this topic. I asked a simple one sentence question to you that resonates with the topic at hand. For this forum to justify CEO pay as it's what they negotiated, to turn around and say the union is overpaid despite also negotiating for their current pay, is extremely hypocritical. You know this, which is why you conveniently ignored the pointed question.

You are so blindly focused on how the CEO of a company is paid that you fail to realize that his compensation is a small blip on the budget compared to the labor cost for hundreds of thousands of workers. There is a considerable pay gap, absolutely. But irregardless of how you feel about it, it can't be done cheaper. Laborers who have entry-level skills and training however, those jobs absolutely can be performed cheaper.

Those aren't UAW jobs. Fain's responsibility is to the union. Should we criticize a hypothetical President for not protecting jobs in Canada that have nothing to do with the United States? You're really reaching.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/b...ker-layoffs-in-the-coming-months/73427205007/

Not UAW eh? This is only the beginning. And the union will go along with the company and allow these layoffs. Because they need the business to survive. After all, the needs of the many outweigh the few.

It's comical that you paint the billion dollar companies as victims while denouncing the common man. No company was forced to do anything. Only an idiot would think the companies would agree to a contract they knew would be unprofitable in the long term. In fact, it would be downright negligence on their part.

We the consumer are the victim. I'd have traded for a newer Wrangler, but I can't justify the increase in the cost since I bought mine in 18.

The companies absolutely agreed to the labor deal knowing that they couldn't justify it long term. The strikes stopped production. Which is essentially negotiating at gun point. So they absolutely agreed to the deal, in order to buy them time to find a profitable solution to the problem.

Yeah, that's just speculation. You don't actually know this, why is why you haven't shared anything demonstrating so. Every company inherently has motive to overstate their costs to the public.

Click the link above. Sales are down and costs are up. Publicly traded companies are required by law to publish their financial statement. The SEC ensures that its accurate. What you are suggesting is speculation based on emotions not facts.

 

[Strommen95]

You are so blindly focused on how the CEO of a company is paid that you fail to realize that his compensation is a small blip on the budget compared to the labor cost for hundreds of thousands of workers. There is a considerable pay gap, absolutely. But irregardless of how you feel about it, it can't be done cheaper. Laborers who have entry-level skills and training however, those jobs absolutely can be performed cheaper.

Actually, it's true that the CEOs salary means nothing in the big picture for these companies. As I said before, it's bad optics but nothing more. I have never claimed differently. CEOs were only brought up to point out the absurdity that is CEOs are worth "what they negotiate."

To suggest a reasonable subordinate or akin couldn't be CEO for lets say 5 million, even 10 million, rather than 20 million +, quite frankly is a moronic take. While your last sentence isn't wrong, it's exactly what's wrong with the American labor market in the 21st century. Way too many race to the bottom.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/b...ker-layoffs-in-the-coming-months/73427205007/

Not UAW eh? This is only the beginning. And the union will go along with the company and allow these layoffs. Because they need the business to survive. After all, the needs of the many outweigh the few.

The link you provided are indefinite layoffs. They have not been fired. While I appreciate posting something of substance, it's not exactly what you're suggesting, either.

The companies absolutely agreed to the labor deal knowing that they couldn't justify it long term. The strikes stopped production. Which is essentially negotiating at gun point. So they absolutely agreed to the deal, in order to buy them time to find a profitable solution to the problem.

Speculation based off emotion and your bias. They had plenty of inventory building up at that time and finally a reason to go to war with their "dreaded" union. They also knew for years this was coming when the contract was over. If things would be as bad as you're suggesting they will be or if the union was so shitty for the Big Three, they would've never agreed to their demands. Ultimately, actions speak a lot louder than words.

Click the link above. Sales are down and costs are up. Publicly traded companies are required by law to publish their financial statement. The SEC ensures that its accurate. What you are suggesting is speculation based on emotions not facts.

The above link does not go into their financials in any way. Costs are obviously up with increased salaries of the UAW. That does not mean they're unprofitable.

If you think companies are inherently honest with their financials and don't have motive to justify their prices as much as possible, I question you having real world experience whatsoever.

 

[Strommen95]

But UAW has absolutely gone to excess and gotten greedy. And we the consumer should be pissed. It's not like the corporations are going to pay the increase in labor. We the consumer are the ones footing the bill. The cost of goods and services are directly paid by the consumer, which provides the capital to pay employees.

Despite my pro-union stance, you're not wrong. This sentiment is exactly why I can't help but post in this thread, though.

When car manufacturers sent prices through the roof in 2020, 2021 and 2022, where was this anger? Why is it that the UAW threads, including those last fall, cause so much angst but little was said about the manufacturers in the COVID years?

 

[Whaler27]

To be clear, I don't have an issue with CEO pay despite the poor optics it provides. I do have issue with taking a blind eye to it while criticizing the masses for trying to do their best, too. While none of your posts may have directly supported CEO pay, there have been many(in all of the UAW related threads) that have done so but vilified the UAW for doing the same. It's an extremely hypocritical position to take. "You are what you're paid" is suddenly thrown out the door when we're talking union members.

American CEOs are paid a tremendous amount of money, typically a much larger multiple of the average line-worker pay than a Japanese or South Korean CEO managing similar responsibility and assets. I don’t know why that is or why managing boards/bodies believe that kind of money is necessary to attract that talent.

I’m similarly befuddled by $100 million dollar sports contracts. I have to assume that teams/companies are willing to pay that kind of money because they believe the deal they are making will earn the team/company some multiple of what the contract cost. Even that is amazing to me, but I’m not privy to the kind of money professional sports teams generate.

Athletes like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, and Lebron James aren’t fungible assets. They are extraordinary and unique. Are the CEOs that end up running enormous companies similarly unique and valuable? The Japanese, South Koreans, Germans, and Norwegians don’t seem to think so.

I suspect the pool of people capable of competently serving as CEO at Ford is a lot smaller than the pool of people who could be trained to do a good job on the Ford assembly line.

 

[Whaler27]

They knew for years this was coming when the contract was over. If things would be as bad as you're suggesting they will be or if the union was so shitty for the Big Three, they would've never agreed to their demands. Ultimately, actions speak a lot louder than words.

I think both side of this contract knew it would drive price pressure up and eventually cost American jobs, but that’s not the priority concern for either group, unfortunately. I have no inside knowledge, and I may well be wrong, but I suspect the Big Three were concerned primarily with restoring short term production pending a strategy to outsource more of the labor market.

I suspect the UAW was primarily concerned with securing a short term win they could use to recruit more non-union shops.

On it’s face, the contract appears to be a HUGE win for UAW — much more money for even less work. I will be very surprised if the boardrooms don’t find a way to get all of that cost differential and more back through outsourcing over the next ten years. I guess we’ll see…

 

[2nd 392]

Despite my pro-union stance, you're not wrong. This sentiment is exactly why I can't help but post in this thread, though.

When car manufacturers sent prices through the roof in 2020, 2021 and 2022, where was this anger? Why is it that the UAW threads, including those last fall, cause so much angst but little was said about the manufacturers in the COVID years?

Who Cares ? … That was
Like 4 Years Ago …. Right ?

what an attention span we have.

 

[Strommen95]

Who Cares ? … That was
Like 4 Years Ago …. Right ?

what an attention span we have.

 

[2nd 392]

? except the last sentence

Sponsored