Give me a break...

[Jamo]

Wes ol buddy...eh...dare I repeat myself for the zillionth time...read the contract. You're simply refusing to deal with the facts. In times past, folks kept to the line that the world was flat.

Steve...the costs for retirees are NOT part of the wage/benefits being cited. You always ask for sources, so read the contract. And BTW, GM and the other two pay an excessive amount of overtime. There have been work stoppages by the UAW when the companies sought to control overtime.

I know...facts just screw up the flow of your preconceived notions.

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Wes ol buddy...eh...dare I repeat myself for the zillionth time...read the contract. You're simply refusing to deal with the facts. In times past, folks kept to the line that the world was flat.

Steve...the costs for retirees are NOT part of the wage/benefits being cited. You always ask for sources, so read the contract. And BTW, GM and the other two pay an excessive amount of overtime. There have been work stoppages by the UAW when the companies sought to control overtime.

I know...facts just screw up the flow of your preconceived notions.

Jamo,

Read the contract? That's a lot of work. Could you be more specific?
Are you asking me to passively accept $76/hr, because UAW obviously gets so many benefits besides wages, as outlined in said 2007 contract, that it must be true?

I'm basically questioning the relation of three figures in my posts.
One: is $76/hr(thereabouts) real ...or exaggerated spin?
Two: is labor cost really only 10% of a vehicle ...or exaggerated spin?
Three: if 10% labor is accurate, and $76/hr is accurate ...then one may logically derive that each auto brings in $760/hr as it moves down the line. Where does all this very significant amount of money go?
Why are we all focused on the minor $76/hr amount? Is labor the only significant fat in the plant, if at all? Or is it all we hear?
Hard for me to believe, and I think it should be hard for all of us to believe ...once we have all thought about it. How could a variation of 10% reduced to, at best half, for a total 5% cost reduction, make or break corporate OEM? Give me a break.

I'm not sure what clarity you expect me to gain by reading the contract. I'm sure it's full of minor penalties on both sides.
I'm kind of assuming that an exact total hourly figure for an average employee is not directly quoted in the contract anywhere. In many cases of benefits, not even a specific amount is mentioned. All are contingent on sets of unique circumstances. As an example, my own cash rail compensation is almost never the same from trip to trip. It's always the same per mile ...plus or minus all the minor variable BS that goes with it. Benefits such as health are based on the calendar, independent of trips. None are added nor subtracted to total, until they hit a pay stub or white sheet.

It is my assumption that the $76/hour UAW figure is a vague, yet tearful, press release from corporate OEM. There is a good chance that no explanatory pie chart ever accompanied the figure, and yet it is accepted as a cruel "self-evident truth" by just about everyone. Except me.

Part of what I'm trying to say is that I would like to see how OEM arrived at the seemingly astounding $76/hr(thereabouts) figure. It's quite possible that if we do similar creative math, within any of our employers, that forum members will find that the claimed cost of their own labor also commonly approaches 2 1/2 times actual wage, day to day. Or in the case of UAW possibly being excessively imbursed by 1/2, perhaps we only manage 2X etc.

I don't automatically think the claims of over-cost of labor has diddly to do with the imminent failure of US manufacturing. Faithful Labor is just taking the heat ...yet again.

Opportunity knocks and the exorbitantly priced, yet talented, "welfare recipients", at the top, don't miss a beat. And the majority of us buy it ...as we sign away our personal sovereignty to the fruit of our own efforts.

Well, I could be wrong, but that's my scientific theory how the top 1 percenters got on top. Unless there actually resides an undisputed fact to the contrary in the contract. Enlighten me.

The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact ...Thomas Huxley

Wes


...

[Stentor]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

Jamo,

Three: if 10% labor is accurate, and $76/hr is accurate ...then one may logically derive that each auto brings in $760/hr as it moves down the line. Where does all this very significant amount of money go?

...

I am guessing you were not a math major!? I think your "logic" and calculations are flawed.

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Wes

Three: if 10% labor is accurate, and $76/hr is accurate ...then one may logically derive that each auto brings in $760/hr as it moves down the line.

Originally Posted by Stentor

I am guessing you were not a math major!? I think your "logic" and calculations are flawed.

You are quite correct Stentor. Good catch. My bad.
I've been trying to avoid the apparent clumsy mixing of apples and oranges ever since the discord of the two opposing propogandas struck me.

It should read, "Three: if 10% labor cost of total cost is accurate per auto (by UAW), and $76/hr cost is accurate per employee (by OEM) ...then one may logically derive that each auto costs $760/hr to produce as it moves down the line."

Better? What do you calculate? No, really.

Wes


...

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

Jamo,

Read the contract? That's a lot of work. Could you be more specific?
Are you asking me to passively accept $76/hr, because UAW obviously gets so many benefits besides wages, as outlined in said 2007 contract, that it must be true?


I'm not sure what clarity you expect me to gain by reading the contract.

**********
I'm kind of assuming that an exact total hourly figure for an average employee is not directly quoted in the contract anywhere.

**********
It is my assumption that the $76/hour UAW figure is a vague, yet tearful, press release from corporate OEM.

**********
Part of what I'm trying to say is that I would like to see how OEM arrived at the seemingly astounding $76/hr(thereabouts) figure.

**********
The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact ...Thomas Huxley

Wes


...

Wes...no flame or disrespect intended, but you have essentially made yourself totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Wes ol buddy...eh...dare I repeat myself for the zillionth time...read the contract. You're simply refusing to deal with the facts. In times past, folks kept to the line that the world was flat.

Steve...the costs for retirees are NOT part of the wage/benefits being cited. You always ask for sources, so read the contract. And BTW, GM and the other two pay an excessive amount of overtime. There have been work stoppages by the UAW when the companies sought to control overtime.

I know...facts just screw up the flow of your preconceived notions.

I'd be happy to read it. I've looked for it before and have not been able to find it online. Can you post a link or send a copy? I work with the facts I have - if you can prove them wrong (a contract could certainly do that) I will be happy to say so. Try proving your case instead of trying to convince me that you know everything there is to know about everything. Show me the data that you are working from and I may come to the same conclusion that you have.

Steve

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by VRM

I'd be happy to read it. I've looked for it before and have not been able to find it online. Can you post a link or send a copy? I work with the facts I have - if you can prove them wrong (a contract could certainly do that) I will be happy to say so. Try proving your case instead of trying to convince me that you know everything there is to know about everything. Show me the data that you are working from and I may come to the same conclusion that you have.

Steve

As much as I detest the ignorance of facts, I really can't stand pure-assed laziness coupled with a willingness to put forth utterances of intense BS.

It's a freeking national labor contract...if you think you're smart enough to spout opinions about it, you certainly should be able to find it.

In other words...go fish.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

As much as I detest the ignorance of facts, I really can't stand pure-assed laziness coupled with a willingness to put forth utterances of intense BS.

It's a freeking national labor contract...if you think you're smart enough to spout opinions about it, you certainly should be able to find it.

In other words...go fish.

Typical...
I've been fishing - didn't catch the type of fish I was looking for, but I am not sure what bait to use.

Maybe labour contracts are easy for you to find - perhaps you have had some experience looking for them.

Or maybe you have some law clerk dig them up for you and you really don't have a clue where to find it yourself - that would explain your indignant response.

Basically all you have done, like me, is post your opinion. I will continue to post mine. If you think it is intense BS, well, that is your problem - either learn to deal with it or educate me.

[Ron61]

Steve,

Here is a link that will take you to the Auto Workers Contract. It is broken down by articles and there is a link to click and read the whole thing. Have a good day.

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/hro/laborrel/index.uaw.html

Ron

[jhv48]

I think we can ALL agree that there needs to be a complete overhaul of these behemouths in order for order for them to survive and competitiveness to be retained.

And that means EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is up for evaluation and review. The pork needs to be cut from the top on down. It's going to hurt and everyone is going to have to compromise somewhat.

If not, it's BK time! (Not Burger King)

[HI Cobra]

That sounds like something that should be one with our government.

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by VRM

I'd be happy to read it. I've looked for it before and have not been able to find it online. Can you post a link or send a copy? I work with the facts I have - if you can prove them wrong (a contract could certainly do that) I will be happy to say so. Try proving your case instead of trying to convince me that you know everything there is to know about everything. Show me the data that you are working from and I may come to the same conclusion that you have.

Steve

Steve,

Don't worry about reading the contract.
It isn't relevant to the original first post I made on this thread:

Originally Posted by Wes

So Labor makes up a paltry 10-15 percent of the cost of autos and this is where the deepest cuts have to be made?

I don't know where I lost Jamo, or anyone else, but rest assured that President Ron Gettelfinger didn't get his 10% from the pages of the contract. Nor did anyone get the bogus $76/hr figure from reading the contract. For a lead to the $70 "shocking earning" source, check out this appalling propoganda: http://www.uaw.org/auto/12_01_08auto1.cfm . Prepare to be shocked and appalled. Just kidding.

Or, on second thought, maybe you should worry about reading the contract ...in the possibile instance that my thread whining about the "paltryness of 10%" has been successfully, and completely legitimately, hi-jacked and has turned the thread into a contract-reading-fest. I realise these are brutal words.

For a while there, Jamo completely lost me as to why the contract was so important to my original point. And I still don't see it. Of course it's important, but not to my point.

As an example, a contract is a very basic thing. It is most often a piece of paper, with writing on it, that is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do, or refrain from doing, an act which is enforceable in a court of law. With very little stretch, a dollar bill is a contract of sorts. It's paper, it has writing on it, and promises, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Is it fair? Beats me. It's an agreement at the time.

Now, if I were discussing drug smuggling, prostitution or political bribery, I would not insist that my fellows read the dollar bill to gain insight. The writing on the dollar bill has no bearing on its destiny in moral turpitude. While the piece of paper, the dollar, is involved by anyones count, the printing on it is not paramount to where it goes in any given instance.

Steve, I hope to God that you and/or others can follow me because I haven't had much visable luck in my scientific(?) quest for truth ....except for Stentor directly questioning some rather simple math.

And, as for Jamo, should he be reading your mail...

Originally Posted by Jamo

Wes...no flame or disrespect intended, but you have essentially made yourself totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Jamo, I have never been told in such a totally pleasant manner that I was pretty much rendered a worthless poop. So I want to thank you for your kind words and apologise for my prior beating around the bush that opening the pages on the exact words on the contract weren't a big deal, at least to me. As usual, I'll assume that each side plans to spring a surprise interpretation on their opponent soon after it is signed. That accounts for the all-around wry smiles during the signing process.

I should have come right out, like a man, and said that the contract, although a minor contributing factor, wasn't directly relevant to the discussion I started with. Now if we could open the accounting books at GM, I think those would be worth reading, and very relevant, to determine if labor really cost only 10%. I highly suspect that the accounting books, not the jello-clad contract, also hold the secret to the real calculated cost, in dollars per hour, of the average employee.

So, while I fully appreciate your law degree and astute verbal comprehension, Jamo ...where's Bernie, aka Beancounter?
Not that I believe he would side with me here, or have an inside scoop.
Well, maybe an inside scoop, divulged to a sharp accountants eye in the GM etc public annual report(s).

Or maybe I should just move on from this 10% vs $76/hr thing before I dig any deeper. I'm probably the only one here that would be shocked and appalled that corporate influenced congressmen would blame 10% labor and be willing to scuttle the country over it.

Check this out: http://www.uaw.org/auto/12_16_08auto1.cfm . Yeah, I know ...lyin' liberal ba$tard$.
I have this adopted theory (from AARP) why segments of corporate America would like to go bankrupt and press politicians on both sides to bring it about. It involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), http://www.pbgc.gov/ . Hang on to your wallet, Joe six-pack.

WES


...