Will UAW Strike?

[ruffdog]

They want to pay newbies exactly the same as vets from day 1. This only helps newbies and the union bosses.

"Under the UAW’s 2019 contracts, which expired Friday, a new hire can eventually work up to the pay level of a veteran employee, but reaching parity takes eight years. (The automakers’ latest proposals would shorten that period to four years.)"

Source:

Striking autoworkers want to end a system that pays different wages for the same job

Weeks after UPS drivers won an end to a widely criticized compensation system, Detroit autoworkers want an overhaul of their own.

www.nbcnews.com

I'm thinking that you are confusing pay rate increases (getting to top rate in your classification) and tiers. There still will be the (shorter) progression scale but getting rid of different tiers will put everyone on the same "tier".

 

[5030]

Far as I can see, the only detrimental impact will be an increase in new car prices (read 900 bucks overall), not that they are affordable anyway, least not for me.

 

[ruffdog]

They are just simply turning the clock back to pre 2008 times plus cost of living. Back then, they had the progression scale to get to full pay and they had the different job classifications. What they didn't have was different tiers people were hired into. UPS also found out that tiers were bad and got rid of them.

"The UAW wants the Big Three to scrap its two-tiered wage structure. Under that system, top-tier workers — meaning anyone who joined the company in 2007 or earlier — earn an average of roughly $33 an hour. But those hired after 2007 are classified as lower tier and earn far less — up to about $17 an hour.

Lower-tier employees also aren't eligible for defined benefit pensions, and their health benefits are less generous. The UAW says that paying employees half as much for doing the same work amounts is unfair."

Why is the UAW on strike? These are their contract demands as they negotiate with the Big Three

 

[MossRoad]

I heard that part of "the deal" that was accepted, is that the tier pay system was removed. New employees, doing "the same job" get the same pay as a 25 year veteran employee. How is this a good thing, and for how long?

Think of it this way...

You get hired into a company making widgets. After about 2 years, you're making widgets just as good as everyone else, no matter how long they've been there. Why should they be making double your pay for the same exact output? Just because they've been there longer? They aren't any more valuable to the company than you are if all they do is make widgets just like everyone else. That foments bad attitudes in the lower time workers.

At my last job, the first thing they told me was that they wanted to get me up to journeyman wages within 2 years. Everyone with the same job description got paid the same amount, no matter how long they've been there. You're all doing the same job. You all get the same raises every year based on department goals and cost of living increases. It was about as fair as could be. About the only perk you'd get for longevity was increased vacation time. And even that can foment resentment.

Now fast forward 30 years. My job got outsourced, the entire production department got let go, and a bunch of 55 year old men were looking for employment. Jobs are easy to find. However, a lot of places will hire you in at starting wages, not based on your age, but at the age of a new employee. Therefore, as my father would say, "You have to go back to kid wages." So at age 55, you're making $15K less than people that are younger than you, and they get 3 more weeks of vacation than you. You'll never get up to 4 weeks of vacation again before you turn 65, let alone 5 weeks.

It doesn't bother me because I know I could quit tomorrow and be fine. But it grates on other guys that work harder than the long-term guys, yet get less compensation, only because of time, not ability or value.

That's how it's a good thing.

 

[MossRoad]

I pulled my L-4 this morning, so I am ICE’g my back!

That's no fun.

 

[Torvy]

Think of it this way...

You get hired into a company making widgets. After about 2 years, you're making widgets just as good as everyone else, no matter how long they've been there. Why should they be making double your pay for the same exact output? Just because they've been there longer? They aren't any more valuable to the company than you are if all they do is make widgets just like everyone else. That foments bad attitudes in the lower time workers.

At my last job, the first thing they told me was that they wanted to get me up to journeyman wages within 2 years. Everyone with the same job description got paid the same amount, no matter how long they've been there. You're all doing the same job. You all get the same raises every year based on department goals and cost of living increases. It was about as fair as could be. About the only perk you'd get for longevity was increased vacation time. And even that can foment resentment.

Now fast forward 30 years. My job got outsourced, the entire production department got let go, and a bunch of 55 year old men were looking for employment. Jobs are easy to find. However, a lot of places will hire you in at starting wages, not based on your age, but at the age of a new employee. Therefore, as my father would say, "You have to go back to kid wages." So at age 55, you're making $15K less than people that are younger than you, and they get 3 more weeks of vacation than you. You'll never get up to 4 weeks of vacation again before you turn 65, let alone 5 weeks.

It doesn't bother me because I know I could quit tomorrow and be fine. But it grates on other guys that work harder than the long-term guys, yet get less compensation, only because of time, not ability or value.

That's how it's a good thing.

Excellent argument to require the Right to Work. In non-union businesses, skill leads to higher wages, not just seniority. Thanks for pointing out the union hypocrisy.

 

[MossRoad]

Excellent argument to require the Right to Work. In non-union businesses, skill leads to higher wages, not just seniority. Thanks for pointing out the union hypocrisy.

Ever work piece rate jobs? Both of my in-laws would do that in their spare time. You get paid per piece that you complete. Mom worked at South Bend Toy Company making croquet sets piecework. She also did piece work assemblies at the AM General plants. Dad worked at Rayco making electrical boxes and other assemblies piece work. You can work as fast as you want. So you could make considerably more than other folks if you were good at it. At my last job, we'd sometimes do piecework assembling pre-print insert packages for the Thanksgiving day newspaper. It's kinda fun.

 

[Michiganguy]

The place I retired from had piece work until the early 90’s. Base rate for new hire’s was still lower and they had to work their way up the base rate pay scale each year.
However piece work was the great equalizer. Once a new guy was trained and up to speed he could make as much or more than an old guy with a lot of years in.
Getting rid of piece work allowed the company to eliminate “time study” jobs and also down size payroll positions. However I think it cost the company in the long run as piece work was also called “incentive pay” the harder and faster you work the more you made. When the company got rid of piece work they went to a to a flat rate pay system which took away the incentive for guys to work hard.
In order to make sure employees stayed busy the company ended up having to add low level supervision called zone leaders.

 

[CloverKnollFarms]

What are the legacy costs with retirements, pensions and healthcare? It’s not the hourly rates alone, it’s the fact you are paying for three employees while only one produces.

 

[hiddentacocatneddih]

Pensions and retirements are a huge cost and companies like to do like the gov and social security and use it for other purposes.....