Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $19.95 Sample get a free issue—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » UAW Labor

1 2

Jan. 26, 2009 2:53 p.m. P71 HalfDork

"GM factory workers who get laid off typically get "sub pay," in which they receive unemployment benefits, and GM pays the difference, up to most of their salary, for 48 weeks.

After unemployment pay runs out, the laid-off workers would go into the jobs bank, where the company pays laid-off workers most of their pay and benefits while trying to find them jobs elsewhere.

The United Auto Workers union, however, has said that it would work to eliminate job banks at all three Detroit automakers as a condition of the companies' receiving billions in bridge loans from the federal government."

From - http://www.yahoo.com/s/1021083

So let me make sure I have this straight, if a UAW worker gets let go, he gets unemployment and pay in order to equal his/her normal salary, for nearly a YEAR, then they get a job bank where they get pay and benefits until they find work?

No wonder the Big 3 are having such a tough time with labor costs! I think the UAW should be disbanded because that's ludicrous.

(Remember that I was the biggest supporter of the Big 3 in the infamous thread...)
Jan. 26, 2009 3:01 p.m. Kramer Reader

UAW workers also get a day off if they want to donate blood (blood bank bus comes once a year). If the worker shows up to work on the blood bank day, enters the bus, and sniffles, they can claim they're too sick to donate that day. But since they "tried" to donate, they get the day off. Paid.
Jan. 26, 2009 3:26 p.m. Tom Heath Production Editor

There are some big blankets in those statements. Local UAW chapters negotiate for their union benefits; the local UAW that I worked with absolutely did not get the day off for donating blood. (Which probably explains the low turnout at our blood drives.)

Regarding the sub pay—I'm used to seeing people receive about 50% of their base pay. They can't double-dip with unemployment, and 50% of base pay was waaaay less than their "normal" paychecks when you account for overtime.

I'm not debating that there were some pretty plush benefits in place, but the super cushy UAW myths are sometimes exaggerated.
Jan. 26, 2009 3:50 p.m. Snowdoggie Reader

Yep. Doing away with all those UAW benefits would really help the economy in Michigan. Even more people with less money in their pockets. Maybe they could close down all the Best Buy Stores next to the boarded up Circuit City stores.
Jan. 26, 2009 4:04 p.m. confuZion3 Dork

It's tough to say what is fair and unfair. What benefits the UAW employees may hurt the automakers, but it seems as if the automakers have pretty good relationships with the UAW. I read Ford's submission to Congress for access to the loan (which everyone ended up getting). Ford had nothing negative to say about the UAW - in fact, it appeared as if the UAW made some pretty hefty consessions in recent years with new-hires. While benefits did not go away for current employees (hard-working Americans with familys and retirements to plan for), new-hires will have to live with lower wages and less-plush benefits - which is fine, since they will be able to plan their lives around this and aren't going to be shocked by pay cuts and benefits going away.

Our auto industry has had a pretty good track-record for taking care of its employees - it's almost as if they care! Henry Ford vowed to pay all of his employees at least $5.00 a day back when he started Fomoco. That's not a lot today, but it helped put a car in every driveway and a few dollars in his employees' savings accounts.

Just my $0.02.
Jan. 26, 2009 4:09 p.m. Kramer Reader

Chrysler workers with 15 years of service receive 34.5 days off per year (17 holidays, 17.5 vacation). My Fortune 500 ex-employer gave a similar employee 7 holidays and 20 vacation days (after 15 years, max out at 20 days).

(The average Chrysler worker has 15.4 years service, and is 45 years old.)

I'm not saying we need to axe all the bennies that UAW employees get, but they do need to be in-line with the rest of the US.
Jan. 26, 2009 4:11 p.m. racinginc215 New Reader

As a UAW employee I'll answer P71's question first. The way the contract is now if you get laid off you collect unemployment benefits then the guaranteed income kicks in with sub pay and GM pays the difference between unemployment and hourly pay. After sub and unemployment run out the jobs bank kicks in. you get placed in your home plant and have to come in everyday and quite possibly sit in a room all day or be put out on the floor if needed. you get 90% of your pay in jobs bank unless your jobs banked and end up working for the day then you get regular pay for the day. If you get jobs banked and don't want to come in you HAVE to volunteer and GM has to approve it. you get 80% and your on call if GM needs you for the day you drop what your doing and go to work. While on Layoff or Jobs bank you get 2 chances to take a job. If GM calls and offers you another plant and you refuse it your pay drops to 70% if you refuse the second job your pay drops to 0% So in my case if I refused the first job say in Pontiac Mi and the second one was in Saginaw Mi I have to take the Saginaw. Or just be done. If I live in Detroit and pass on the 40 mile drive to Pontiac I'm driving the 100 miles to Saginaw.

Now the second one BULLE36 M3! I give blood every month when the red cross comes in it takes 15 minutes and I'm back to work we don't get the day off they come to us and set up in the parking lot. Most of the time I do it after work.
Jan. 26, 2009 4:43 p.m. Wally UltraDork

Kramer wrote:

Chrysler workers with 15 years of service receive 34.5 days off per year (17 holidays, 17.5 vacation). My Fortune 500 ex-employer gave a similar employee 7 holidays and 20 vacation days (after 15 years, max out at 20 days).

(The average Chrysler worker has 15.4 years service, and is 45 years old.)

I'm not saying we need to axe all the bennies that UAW employees get, but they do need to be in-line with the rest of the US.

I get ten holidays, and 20 vacation days, after 15 years I'll get 25 vacation days. It's not my fault you took a job that gives less. With the benefits of my job and decent pay we still had trouble filling positions until the gov't froze hiring. Almost any of you complaining that union people make too much could have had my job as long as you could pass a basic physical and drug test, but for some reason decided not to.
Jan. 26, 2009 6:15 p.m. aussiesmg Dork

Wally, the real question isn't what you get, it's what the auto makers' competition get, Japanese workers wouldn't get those days off and those companies aren't going broke, that is comparing apples with apples.

If we want to keep a US auto industry we have to match the international standards not the US. Agree or not its simple logic.
Jan. 26, 2009 7:05 p.m. P71 HalfDork

It's not the days off, it's the fact that they can go without working for a year while still getting paid!
Jan. 26, 2009 7:10 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/

yay

err

no yay
Jan. 26, 2009 7:45 p.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

aussiesmg wrote:

If we want to keep a US auto industry we have to match the international standards not the US. Agree or not its simple logic.

Just playing devil's advocate here: following that logic, are you saying the answer to reviving the american textile industry is opening up a bunch of sweatshops using child labor?
Jan. 26, 2009 7:49 p.m. aussiesmg Dork

I think comparing Toyota and Honda to a sweatshop is harsh and by the way there are plenty of sweatshops in the US. However if you find that the Japanese are using child labor to build cars I reserve the right to change my opinion.
Jan. 26, 2009 8:52 p.m. Wally UltraDork

Tim's example is taking things to an extreme, but maybe it's time to expect the foreign companies to treat their workers the same as American workers. They opened their plants here because it's cheaper than opening them at home where their workers would have health care and and retirement that they would pay for through the government rather than through insuance and pensions.. The people in the American plants are not being treated as well as the Japanese workers, or the workers in UAW plants, and they can make a more profitable product as a result. Many other instances Tims right. Should we expect people here who work on computers to live in straw huts since thats how they live overseas?
Jan. 26, 2009 9:00 p.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

Actually, my example (and remember, devil's advocate) used the textile industry.
Jan. 26, 2009 9:30 p.m. aussiesmg Dork
Wally wrote:

Tim's example is taking things to an extreme, but maybe it's time to expect the foreign companies to treat their workers the same as American workers. They opened their plants here because it's cheaper than opening them at home where their workers would have health care and and retirement that they would pay for through the government rather than through insuance and pensions.. The people in the American plants are not being treated as well as the Japanese workers, or the workers in UAW plants, and they can make a more profitable product as a result. Many other instances Tims right. Should we expect people here who work on computers to live in straw huts since thats how they live overseas?
1. Do you really think other countries care about how we feel about their workers, that's naive. Ask someone who's worked in another country, believe me the world doesn't revolve around the US.
2. Why do you think it was cheaper to open a plant and build their cars here, (a) they are non union plants (b) they get import offset points saving import duties to make it feasible to import speciality cars
3. Why do you think Japanese workers are being treated better than US workers, is it because they have pride and actually enjoy work by all reports
4. What makes you believe that Japanese workers retirements are funded by the government, I think you will find they are funded by government retirement funds which they contribute to just as you do to your 401K its just another way of doing the same thing.
5. Why do you think Japanese auto workers are living in straw huts, pretty sure they live in apartments or in rare cases houses.
The computer and textile industries(cheap clothing) hardly relate to the auto industry but again if you can find evidence of Japanese auto workers wholesale living in straw huts I'll change my viewpoint
Jan. 27, 2009 7:19 a.m. Kramer Reader

racinginc215 wrote: Now the second one BULLE36 M3! I give blood every month when the red cross comes in it takes 15 minutes and I'm back to work we don't get the day off they come to us and set up in the parking lot. Most of the time I do it after work.

The blood bank I spoke about is an actual benefit at a UAW factory in Detroit, that used to be owned by DCX (now owned by Daimler). I was a non-union salaried employee, so I didn't receive this benefit.
Jan. 27, 2009 8:33 a.m. Wally UltraDork

Wally wrote:

Tim's example is taking things to an extreme, but maybe it's time to expect the foreign companies to treat their workers the same as American workers. They opened their plants here because it's cheaper than opening them at home where their workers would have health care and and retirement that they would pay for through the government rather than through insuance and pensions.. The people in the American plants are not being treated as well as the Japanese workers, or the workers in UAW plants, and they can make a more profitable product as a result. Many other instances Tims right. Should we expect people here who work on computers to live in straw huts since thats how they live overseas?

aussiesmg wrote: 1. Do you really think other countries care about how we feel about their workers, that's naive. Ask someone who's worked in another country, believe me the world doesn't revolve around the US.
I don't think the other countries care what we think. But for the time being we still control our borders. What we could is stop allowing countries to send their products here unless their standard of living is comparable to ours.

aussiesmg wrote: 2. Why do you think it was cheaper to open a plant and build their cars here, (a) they are non union plants (b) they get import offset points saving import duties to make it feasible to import speciality cars
a) was pretty much the whole point. By not giving their workers what they would get in an American owned plant or a plant in Japan. A company sponsored pension.

aussiesmg wrote: 3. Why do you think Japanese workers are being treated better than US workers, is it because they have pride and actually enjoy work by all reports
I don't know how that matters. Are you saying the only reason Toyota gives pensions and higher wages to workers in Japan is because the workers all gather around the robots and sing songs about how great the Camrys are? The ones built by the fat drunken anti-work Americans seem to be screwed together just as well, but a bit more profitably.

aussiesmg wrote: 4. What makes you believe that Japanese workers retirements are funded by the government, I think you will find they are funded by government retirement funds which they contribute to just as you do to your 401K its just another way of doing the same thing.
You are right here. I was going of an Article I read at my dentist office. His business magazines are apparently as well done as his car magazines. After a quick search it appears most retirements are company sponsored pensions and personal investments.

aussiesmg wrote: 5. Why do you think Japanese auto workers are living in straw huts, pretty sure they live in apartments or in rare cases houses.

The computer and textile industries(cheap clothing) hardly relate to the auto industry but again if you can find evidence of Japanese auto workers wholesale living in straw huts I'll change my viewpoint

I don't think the Japanese workers are living in huts, but look to where the next round of cheap throwaway cars are going to come from. I'd but not everyone on a Cheery or Tata line has indoor plumbing.
Jan. 27, 2009 9:01 a.m. That_Renault_Guy HalfDork

Why is it that when the Detroit 3's Job Bank is mentioned, the overwhelming tone is contempt for lazy UAW workers - but when Toyota does almost the exact same thing, they are "sticking by their proud traditions"?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/8/26/toyota-refuses-to-lay-off-workers.html
Jan. 27, 2009 9:37 a.m. Clay Reader

Having worked for Toyota and GM and also having lived and worked in Japan, I can say that Japanese employees are not treated "better" than American employees. Toyota employees make very good money and with overtime can do quite well. If you compare salaries, Japan may look better, but that doesn't take into account Japan's much higher cost of living. Several young engineers I met in Japan live with their parents because it's very hard to afford a home or even an apartment. I believe the reasons Toyota builds their plants here has more to with saving money on shipping tons of cars and an effort to have them "Made in America" which they know will have an appeal to many Americans. Also, land is much cheaper, tax benefits, etc. But I don't think for a second it is because of they consider American workers in Toyota plants to be the equivalent of a sweat shop employee. At TMMK in Kentucky it wasn't uncommon for guys to work there during their Summer break from college and end up dropping out of college to work on the line as they could make more doing that than they would after they graduated college. Obviously not a great long term strategy, but it gives you an idea of how well they were compensated. One line worker I knew made more than an entry level engineer (with overtime) and lived on a golf course in a brand new home. He rented out rooms to the engineering co-ops. We had engineers come work with us after leaving the Corvette plant in Bowling Green. The stories they would tell us were just crazy.

The horror stories about the UAW job banks, etc may be exaggeration, but no worse than the claims about how "badly" American employees of foreign companies are treated. I do think they work harder than their UAW couterparts based on my experience, but that's only bad if you consider work bad.
Jan. 27, 2009 10:08 a.m. P71 HalfDork

That_Renault_Guy wrote:

Why is it that when the Detroit 3's Job Bank is mentioned, the overwhelming tone is contempt for lazy UAW workers - but when Toyota does almost the exact same thing, they are "sticking by their proud traditions"?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-inside-job/2008/8/26/toyota-refuses-to-lay-off-workers.html

That's just as crappy. That concept of job banking is just so wrong.
Jan. 27, 2009 11:25 a.m. Kramer Reader

The D3 jobs bank got out of hand, as some employees were on it for much longer than intended--I've read where some were in there for 15 years. Now it has been scaled back greatly.

I doubt Toyota will allow their version of the jobs bank to get to 2,300 employees (such as what happened in OK City a few years ago). That was at one plant, outside of Michigan. It has been much worse around Detroit.

P71, I think the concept is solid, but it shouldn't get out-of-hand. With advancements in productivity outgrowing market growth and workforce turnover, it does not make sense, though.
Jan. 27, 2009 12:17 p.m. That_Renault_Guy HalfDork

Kramer wrote:

The D3 jobs bank got out of hand, as some employees were on it for much longer than intended--I've read where some were in there for 15 years. Now it has been scaled back greatly.

I doubt Toyota will allow their version of the jobs bank to get to 2,300 employees (such as what happened in OK City a few years ago). That was at one plant, outside of Michigan. It has been much worse around Detroit.

P71, I think the concept is solid, but it shouldn't get out-of-hand. With advancements in productivity outgrowing market growth and workforce turnover, it does not make sense, though.

I agree with everything you said.

I just find it interesting that, although the scale is certainly different, almost identical policy is repeatedly used as example of UAW evil while being celebrated (if reported at all) for Toyota.
Jan. 27, 2009 12:54 p.m. aircooled Dork

Clay wrote: ...At TMMK in Kentucky it wasn't uncommon for guys to work there during their Summer break from college and end up dropping out of college to work on the line as they could make more doing that than they would after they graduated college. Obviously not a great long term strategy, but it gives you an idea of how well they were compensated...

I think this is the basis of what the bad feelings for the auto unions are. You might say, yes sure, some are jealous that they can't get the same "pot of gold". But at a higher level it's just sad. Do you really want to encourage people to become line workers rather than educated scientists? Shouldn't what you make have some other basis other then what your union can squeeze out. A union that is effectively backed by the government I might add.

Sure most would love to have such jobs. But lets face it, it's not realistic in most cases. I'm not sure it ever was for the auto industry, and it certainly isn't now.

The salaries and the job banks are both the same issue, over compensation. Now if a company wants to allow that and either afford it (great, but still a bit twisted) or drive themselves into the ground (which of course is stupid for them) that is fine. But you do that on Government loaned money, that pisses people off!
Jan. 27, 2009 1:48 p.m. poopshovel Dork

Tim's example is taking things to an extreme, but maybe it's time to expect the foreign companies to treat their workers the same as American workers.

Praise jeebus hallelujah amen. I've been screaming this for years. How the berkeley is US manufacturing EVER supposed to compete in the world market...or even our country, when we don't demand that the people we trade with have the same labor standards as the US!? If I had an army of Chinese political prisoners, chained up and welding away in my basement, I could get rich off of selling $100 turbo manifolds too!

Personally, I've started buying US made stuff as often as I can. But it's often hard to tell what the country of origin is on a lot of stuff (especially FOOD.) I'm all about forcing anyone who manufactures/exports anything into the US to have a big ole' 1 X 2" country of origin stamp right on the front of the box.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.