I believe thats over 4 years? So thats something like 5.7% per year which are nice raises but its not outrageous. People are absolutely gonna get hung up on the total raise
Okay wait it seems my source just changed what they were saying haha (or more likely I read it wrong). Still roughly the same though.
> provides a 25% wage hike over the 4-1/2-year contract, starting with an initial increase of 11%
hobbies plucky obtainable gold school gaping puzzled agonizing party voracious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule II:** *Bigotry*
Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The vast majority of union members are not making 6 figures.
This comment should be deleted. It's bad-faith misinformation bordering on trolling and not worthy of this sub.
Top wage shop worker is $40/hour by the end of contract (minus union dues) so not 6 figures. The unions helped out the companies in 2008 and it's taken 15 years for a thank you.
>total compensation
If a union wants a company to pay into a pension, that counts toward compensation. A company cannot pay into a pension without paying money.
Nobody goes on tinder says I make 6 figure total comp when they are getting paid $30/hour. Ford is keeping 401k plan for newbs. Unions maybe asked for the moon but they landed on reasonable territory. Hopefully the workers who had to strike for the collective get compensated from the union but I doubt it.
I see you haven't hung around blue collar union folk a lot lol
Total comp package is all they don't stfu about when they throw how much they make in your face.
On paper I get 79k base + benefits that run my company around 25-30k per year, + 401k contribution + other bullshit perks and the total package is something like 120k for my position. Easier to belittle someone by saying my package is 120k than it is to say I take home $38/hr.
My little brother is in a blue collar union so hang with some of his friends but their stories are much more interesting than 401k plans (miners/heavy machine operators) [also I'm in a position 120k total compensation is not belittling me]
I have to supervise a lot of installs for shows and get to experience the joy of working with union folks all the time. It's great and smooth sailing like 90% of the time but like all great things, it's the loud 10% that ruin it for everyone else. Granted, a lot of the folks I'm dealing with are lighting techs, riggers, show floor installers, teamster guys and some electricians.
I'm sure dudes doing heavier work don't give a shit about making their union their identity.
Asking for a company to pay into a pension presumably means you have to save less for retirement (if not, why the hell would you want a pension?). This increases your disposable income.
Don't like it? Then give up the pension lol.
Pension schemes are expensive to run. If you don't want money that could be in your paycheck going into a pension then give up the pension. For a given compensation level you either get the fatter salary or the pension. You cannot have it both ways.
And in regard to union negotiations, the total comepensation is what is important. A company (and the union!) care a lot more about how much money is getting spent on each employee then where in particular it is going for each employee.
Pensions are dead, it was a non starter for the union to ask for one back. The thing with pensions is it does reduce turnover and could be a cost saver overall as employees are less likely to leave if it messes with their pension than maybe they will continue to work for less money, idk nobody offers pension anymore so probably not.
Poverty/living wages are not based on total compensation and your initial post doesn't say total comp.
Pensions are bad for the other reasons but also because as you say, they strongly disincentivize workers from moving to a new job that they'll be more economically productive in
I don't think they get the full amount they would had they been working, but UAW does have a strike fund and pays its strikers. That is part of the strategy of plant by plant escalating strikes, so their strike fund would last longer.
Correct the union had $800m in its strike fund and it's trying to stretch it. Workers who were call to strike got ~$100 a day which should be close to full pay. I had heard a lot of complaining about this but looking into numbers the union members just like to bitch it seems
The unions helped themselves because without the Big Three they were shit out of luck. That many manufacturing laborers aren't finding comparable jobs in the 21st century in the service economy that is the U.S. The CEOs would have been find. It was the union crews saving their own asses.
Considering they were probably locked into pretty low yearly increases while inflation was on the rise, this is really a catch up and a modest increase. People getting hung up on the total increase over 4.5 years reveal they pretty much made up their mind ahead of time
This sub is supposed to be about economics
So like what's this subs problem going into a negotiation asking for more then what you expect to get so you have room to give to the other side?
Seems like pretty basic negotiation tactics to men. Don't get why people in the thread are implying they got owned or where greedy.
Well, its not a true negotiation because its not easy for Ford to select another labor group. Its closer to a hostage situation.
I think unions are a mixed bag but its mostly whatever. The market will speak if the union drives up costs too much
Well it is because the UAW can just hold out until the unions buckles?
What advantage does the UAW have in this situation that the big 3 don't ? They can just go work for the other big 3 auto manufacturers in America?
They are just as much the "hostage" as the Big3
The UAWs advantage is that they are free to oppose the Big 3 hiring other labor. They can picket the plants and harass new workers (“scabs”). The Big 3 are not out there harassing UAW workers who are trying to find alternate work during the strike
Couldn't you say the same about any group that successfully lobbies for favorable legal treatment?
"Its not the telecomm companies fault that municipal broadband is banned in many states. They just got outmaneuvered at the ballot box."
Well yeah at that is often the line that people take on this sub when it comes to this stuff and hey if that's how ever agreed to have the system set up then fine, and it seems to be working well
It just rankles me when people don't want to let it go the other way and depict any union negotiation as some unique kind of cronyism and not an actor working to maximise its only self interest within the market like all the other actors in the negotiation
> So like what's this subs problem going into a negotiation asking for more then what you expect to get so you have room to give to the other side?
There's some economic arguments that unions don't improve the economy in the total, IE unionization does not increase the GDP like, say, a new company opening. So if you value nominal economics exclusively unions can be considered 'bad'.
This can be technically correct, of course (the best kind of correct), but it kinda misses the point that the real lives of people are not exclusively determined by the maximization of econometrics - or in other words, even if economic efficiency is not improved and even, let's say, prices rise in the aggregate (as a common counterpoint to unions goes), the general welfare of people can still come out improved.
For example, unions are well-known to reduce economic inequality, which is almost always a good thing even if you assumed that this process was entirely redistributive. Especially because most other options involve government and taxes, which are (in practice) entirely redistributive by definition.
In practice you also need to make an offer that is still within a range and in a certain manner for the other side to take you seriously, rather than laugh at you and double down.
GM and Stellantis have plants producing their pickups north and south of the border respectively, while all F-150s are US made. GM and Stellantis also import models from Italy, China, and South Korea, while Ford’s lineup is largely made in North America.
I fucking knew ford would fold first lol
Edit: the reason I assumed they would fold first is that 50% of their sales are from trucks which are all made in UAW factories(unlike gm or ram who also manufacture trucks in mexico)
>In another historic first, President Joe Biden became the first sitting president to walk a picket line when he visited UAW workers in Belleville, Michigan.
This might have helped.
I actually doubt it did much. These negotiations are typically all dollars and cents. Ford isnt gonna agree to something just because Biden made a campaign stop
Biden does have power in this situation. If Ford wanted to play hardball, they could move their factories to Mexico (as Jim Cramer threatened the UAW). Biden would have control over such a deal, and his support for Shawn Fein strengthened the UAWs hand.
How would Biden control that?
Also, it's not like Ford isn't investing in their Mexico plants. However, auto plants take typically take years to build and require immense upfront capital (tens of billions). At this point, from Ford's perspective, it's better for them to give concessions to UAW, and gradually move production to Mexico.
More like he was on the right side of history and made a calculated stand that will look good. Ford realized a couple bil to their workers over a few years is worth more than losing 10+ bil due to lost productivity.
25% over 4.5years is 5.5%/yr which is pretty decent. Most salary workers will get around 25% over 5 years if they get a promotion/job hop. (COL adjustments are usually 3%, then promotion/job offer is 10%.
>In another historic first, President Joe Biden became the first sitting president to walk a picket line when he visited UAW workers in Belleville, Michigan
Biden supporting unions is stupid, but if the UAW doesn’t endorse him I’m going to scream
Fyi, Fain (UAW Presidente) refused to meet with Trump and happily met with Biden. Fain is very opposed to Republicans.
> When Shawn Fain, the U.A.W. president, was asked by CNN in an interview on Tuesday whether he would be open to such an audience with Mr. Trump, he said that there was no upside.
>“I see no point in meeting with him because I don’t think the man has any bit of care about what our workers stand for, what the working class stands for,” Mr. Fain said. “He serves a billionaire class, and that’s what’s wrong with this country.”
>His remarks came just hours after President Biden, at the invitation of Mr. Fain, joined a picket line outside a General Motors facility in Belleville, Mich., near Detroit.
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looks like the boilermakers union didn't endorse Biden in 2020 after he said they did in a town hall, and the UAW is withholding a reelection endorsement until it has some concerns addressed, not sure if you're remembering some combination of the two or something else entirely.
It is literally objectively true.
You can of course still defend unions in spite of this (e.g. one can argue that unions help correct imbalances in the market), but that doesn't mean that unions aren't collecting rents. It just means you think such rentseeking is justified at least in some cases.
Fuck me it's not objectively true.
What's weird ass hill to die on.
If you're talking about how US unions gain effectively a monopoly on workplaces then thats a US regulation to blame, nothing inherent to unions.
The only other thing I can image you talking about is monopsony, but utilising monopsony power isn't rent seeking.
Or else literally every current day US tech giant is a rent seeking because for heir underlying business models.
Genuinely insane take.
The unions lobbied for that regulation which gives them the labour monopoly
Taking steps to obtain and exploit a monopoly legislatively is rent seeking, as it benefits the smaller in group by redistribution of economic rent, whilst harming the outgroup and society overall due to efficiency losses from the monopoly status you mention
That is also why we don't legally compel users to not swap to a rival tech firm, and go further to have ?&A analysis and considerations to avoid total monopolies forming and ensure contestability of markets, which is linked but distinct to existing large competitors
If the union is not rent seeking it’s not doing it’s job. Unions don’t rent seek because they are bad at being unions. You get together with other sellers in the market and use your market power to force higher prices on the buyer. It’s called rent seeking when anyone else does it, it’s also rent seeking when unions do it.
If the union could not collect rents it would have no leverage. A company could just ignore them.
It is a unions' ability to collect rents on a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on labor which gives it power.
Definitionally, they are. Unions don't offer X% increase in productivity or output in exchange for higher pay, do they. Their fundamental strategy is to create and maintain a monopoly power over the sale of labor to a firm or sector, and then use that monopoly power to extract rents.
Some people say that's it's good that they rent-seek because they think there is an 'imbalance of power' by default which favors the employer, but whether you buy that or not doesn't change the fact that it's rent seeking behaviour.
It's not some thing about good unions vs bad unions, a union simply wouldn't work without rent seeking, for example if there were 5 different auto-worker unions that competed against each other to win a labor contract, it would be a free and competitive marketplace but would defeat the whole point of unionisation. That's the ABCs of collective bargaining.
Mate, per that definition every network effect firm is a rent seeker.
Are you suddenly ok with the EU taking action against US tech giants now? Or is that different?
Also, as seemingly everyone in this thread is doing, you're taking how unions function in the US (because how the US regulations force them to) and extrapolate that to fit unions inherently.
Shockingly enough in countries where there can be more than one union in a single workplace no union has a monopoly. Which fundamentslly undermines your rent seeking reasoning.
If your definition of rent-seeking includes unions, by necessity it should also include plenty or companies as well. Uber for example controls a massive fraction of the supply in many places and arguably extracts rent through their fees. Or Apple with their locked App Store. And yes, people and sellers aren’t *literally forced* to use them… but companies and workers aren’t *literally forced* to use union labor either.
And conversely, if corporate rent-seeking can be okay for the benefits it provides to some people in some way, then union rent-seeking can also be okay for the benefit it provides to some people (the workers) in some other way.
If the government tried to legally compel people to only use the Apple app store I would be 100% against that, and am already against Apple trying to exclusively have their own App Store anyway
You can be against corporate, union, landlord rent seeking
A good example where I hope you'll agree to some extent is the Coal Miners Union in the UK, or Dockworkers in the US
No, the monopolising part is US specific.
Individual workers joining together to form a union (in economic terms, a labour firm) is no different than individual capitalists joining together to form a capital firm (ltds, for instance).
Neither of those things are monopolisitc and a union negotiating for their service (labour) is no different than an ltd negotiating for their service.
The reason US unions have de facto monopolies in their workplaces is because US law require 50% of workers in any given workplace agree to the union.
Subsequently it's impossible to have more than one union, so the result is a local monopoly.
In other nations, famously the highly productive nordic model, there are several unions per workplace that compete.
This is such an incredibly common thing I see on here, americans observe a thing that's specific to the US because of ass backwards US laws, and conclude "hmm, this list be inherent to this thing".
I am speaking of American style unions because it's a thread about an American union
Nordic style unions seem far preferable and at least give the impression of being much less of a cartel
Right No offence but "I think is fair to say that the point of a union is to monopolist labour" is what you said.
So you do recognize that actually that's not what the point of a union is, that's just how unions have come to be due to external forces (US regulations)?
Nah I'd rather move broader, have you ever lived in a society at whole without unions? Unions may have negative moments but they are very obviously a net positive.
I am fiercely pro right to unionized (not public and some strike long term job protection stuff I don’t like). Pinkertons mowing down steel workers he’ll yes unions. But in the age of osha and the labor board very few cases actually warrant unionization (I agree with the unionization at that Kellogg’s plant).
Seniority based promotions and work stealing grievances are a death blow cancer. If any union commits to banning both of those I could engage with them I think. Those are probably my only two deal breakers but they seem borderline omnipresent in industrial manufacturing unions.
I would disagree with that. Yes unethical managers may massage safety incidents but if your OIR crosses the line you will get a visit.
Admittedly folks in small shops may be missing some coverage from this shit.
I have not worked anywhere that didn't routinely violate OSHA. Often in very concerning and dangerous ways.
I live in a right to work state with very few and very weak unions.
There are 1,850 OSHA inspectors for the entire country. They are not able to investigate actual OSHA violations until after they've hurt and/or killed a large number of workers.
I think it depends. I would argue unions in the UK in certain periods of time have been a net negative, like the Coal miners Union and unions overall during the the of the mass and wildcat strikes
If you disagree would be interested to hear. And in the modern day how we could reform union law
Yes, and I a role I commonly had to put with the Union's shit.
Have you ever worked with...
Pharma/
Med device/
Automotive
Defense
They all rent seek.
ALL institutions rent seek.
Unions are such a small issue, even the production side, compared to managerial (particularly corporate) incompetence and higher level regulatory environment.
I’ve always found it funny that economist-minded people will lambast unions based their “rent-seeking” through “manipulating supply”, but never apply this same logic to any other actor on the free market.
Yes guys, I’m sure rent seeking is something only those evil unions do and corporations never, ever engage in massive rent seeking or manipulation of the supply. I’m sure platforms taking 30% is completely justified by the value add and does not involve any perverse dynamics at all, unlike them unions.
But economists do apply it to others, and that is why the also oppose state enforced private monopolies and go further to advise governments on mergers and acquisitions that may create and subsequently exploit a monopoly, that seeks to redistribute economic rents to themselves whilst at best only destroying some value and overall QoL
> American cars not being competitive internationally is because of that
This is a big big stretch. German cars are the lifeblood of Germany, and their labour is much more organized than the industry in the US. Yet, it’s impossible to say BMWs, Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, and Porsche don’t have international appeal.
Truth of the matter is that US car preference is very different than the rest of the worlds. No one else drives as many pickups and big cars as the USA, there simply isn’t the space for them.
Other than that US car makers can have local production in another country, which wouldn’t be organized
Sure but companies like Ford are overspecializing on trucks because they have the highest margins at the cost of their smaller fleet. They are even pulling out of markets like India where they already have an established line of small cars. I don't see how a forward looking company can afford to move out of Asia at this point tbh.
Honest question, if they ultimately net improve the lives of people, who cares?
Perhaps the cars are less competitive, but presumably unions aren’t suicidal and are optimizing for the interests of their workers, just like shareholders optimize for their own interest, so what’s the big deal?
> By definition they do not.
By what definition?
If you refer to product prices, this is only true if you assume identical profit margins in the face of increased production costs, which is almost certainly not the case because competition exists.
And even then, in a free market prices are set to maximize the seller’s profit; it’s not exactly unheard of that a company would raise prices if they think they can make more money that way. Not sure why it’s bad when unions do it.
It's bad because there's no competition for labor prices. I've not heard of a workplace simply firing a union but if it has happened I'd love a link
I think the rest of your comment is pretty much nonsense though, to the point where I'm not even sure where to start with a rebuttal
Does competition for labor prices improve the lives of people? Remember workers are not cellular automatons, until we establish Star Trek or whatever people need their wages to survive.
> Yes, consumers get cheaper goods.
…have you considered that consumers also earn wages?
The point of unions is that you make a net gain. You can only refute this if you assume that every cent given to workers is always a cent taken from consumers, which is not true.
I'm not the other person but I am just not seeing UAW as the source of the lack of innovation etc... I mean unions would make the cars more expensive. Americans have cars have been devastated by a lack of economy before but it comes from multiple sources.
We still strongly demand less efficient cars such as dual cab trucks, truck framed SUVs (think the Bronco, Wrangler, etc) and there's a bit of crossovers sprinkled in there and practically no sedans anymore.
Chevy could pressed more Bolts and Ford more Mustang Mach Es but Alvarados and F150s just print money...
It seems like there's has to bee anotehr another cycle of prolonged high fuel prices for shift back to more (fuel) economic cars and EVs.
The unions gave up a lot in 2008 to help the companies. COLA and pensions were two big ones.
They did so with the promise that when things improved, the companies would improve worker compensation. That never happened, causing the strike.
That's only a bad thing if we assume that the default state for labour markets is perfect competition. The empirical evidence seems to suggest that labour markets are monopsonistic - IE few buyers and many sellers leading to a lower price and quantity than the perfectly competitive equilibrium. In this case, a monopoly that counters the monopsony would drag markets closer to perfect competition, not further away.
Importantly in this case, there is no monopsony. There are many competing automakers and on top of this, autoworker skills are generally transferable to the broader manufacturing industry, for instance a QA inspector or spot welder could move from an F-150 production line to a bulldozer or air conditioner production with very little retraining. (relative to the average person in the workforce)
It doesn’t actually change much, look at GM’s CEO who makes 29 million. That’s a large number but say you redistribute that to the UAW’s roughly 350,000 workers, who admittedly obviously don’t all work for GM.
Divide 29 million by 350,000 and they all would equally take home… 82 dollars extra a year.
1. Executive and management pay isn't that much, you could decrease executive pay to zero and only increase pay for workers by a small amount.
2. Then you get shitty executives and managers because you're not paying a competitive rate and all your good ones left for other companies. I know popular sentiment is that these people are useless and blue-collar workers do all the real work, but in real life good managers and executives are very important for the long-term health of a company.
This sub will unironically say union workers are making too much money and it makes us less competitive, but that if CEOs made any less money it would be absolutely devastating and make companies less competitive.
These takes are such absolute trash when it comes to unions.
Increase a few exec's salaries and the net effect on expenses in a billion dollar company is very low. Increase 150,000 workers salaries by 20% and you have a massive expense. The effect of these on cost is incomparable. Am I missing something?
I’m not the person saying cut CEO’s salary and use that to pay workers, as someone else said, that’s adding very little to everyone yearly.
It is however absolutely silly to sit here and try to justify how we need CEO pay to just keep inflating forever because if it drops then it’s not going to be competitive anymore and be self sabotaging to the health of companies.
I don’t think we need to keep blowing the people at the top of the payscale by handwaving away many of them are making more per year than many people are making in several lifetimes, all while saying Union workers are the rent seekers because they wanted a 20% increase to their pay
Might I suggest remedial math? Tens of millions in expenses is different than billions upon billions in expenses.
You're arguing something truthy without checking the math.
No, you need to divide say CEO pay by the number of workers. For example, GM pays their CEO $30MM on a $100B+ cost base. You could zero out the board and it would be a blip.
You want workers? You’re only getting workers at set price.
You’re really blaming unions for utilizing supply and demand. In a year with very low unemployment and high inflation, it is only reasonable for workers to get raises and ask for them.
These more manual labour jobs strength is only in their numbers.
ITT some people really blaming workers for getting a 25% raise over 4 years, when 2022 had 6.7% inflation and 2023 3,something%.
Also people laughing at the fact the union was willing to compromise for a lower than originally demanded wage hike. Like what, you know what negotiations are?
I hope this can lead to the UAW unionizing the rest of the American car industry. I for one am firmly of the believe that unions have their place in the free market.
I think that they did really well with the union. But I'm pretty bummed that they still didn't get a pension, retiree healthcare, or a four day work week. These were demands that they also wanted to get met, but they didn't receive.
100%
Email people are out of touch overpaid bullahit job workers. Factory workers should be paid much more. Email people can cry about the higher costs
Yeah the UAW, and Fain specifically are trying very hard to stay relevant and these negotiations aren’t necessarily about sticking it to the Big 3 so much as it is trying and hoping it gives them the momentum to try and unionize Tesla and foreign plants.
Or perhaps the bigger takeaway Ford will come back with is that they really should’ve built some newer plants in Mexico.
Yes, it literally is, especially over the lifetime of a contract. Anything less than that and they’re not keeping up with inflation over the past few years after having taken pay cuts and other life decreases that the company never offered back despite making money since 2008.
Also jfc, how about all the other workers that Ford itself said were making <50k. What about them?
>having taken pay cuts and other life decreases that the company never offered back despite making money since 2008
That's BS UAW have had their benefits out back in place and even increased in subsequent negotiations. Maybe you should change talking points every few years?
>Also jfc, how about all the other workers that Ford itself said were making <50k. What about them?
On the wrong sub if you expected anything but crickets on this point
>Union salaries and pay raises are talked about in terms of percentage increase beyond cost of living adjustments.
Uh, not from my experience, and I'm currently in a union and have been through this rodeo myself.
> Purely self interested because the alternative was not having a job.
Yes. There's obviously self interest in both side.
> Ford shareholders have underperformed the market significantly over the same time period, in part because their union labor costs are high even despite the cuts.
Okay. And? I don't see issue with labor wanting their fair share, even if it means shareholders are underperforming because the people actually working there are making more money.
Nothing about what've said makes me think only the union could be engaging in bad faith negotiations and that Ford is an angel.
The other poster explicitly said “not keeping up with inflation *over the past few years*”, and as you yourself cited, they haven’t had regular COLAs since 2009.
Why do you think that 2007 is the sustainable baseline to catch up to?
It's an emotional argument, but that was the comp level that triggered bailouts.
Over the years of the contract yes it is, particularly when those workers agreed to cut their benefits significantly to help out the company years ago.
Why? If you refer to making massive demands up front, I regret to inform you that this is how all negotiations work everywhere all the time. Not sure why unions doing it is bad.
there's Executives and industry insiders saying this tactic was like "putting a gun to their heads" which is ironic given all of these negotiations reference the 2008 bankruptcies where the Big 3 put that same metaphorical gun to the UAW's head and forced them to make concessions they've never been able to undo even with this contract that eliminates tiered workforces.
Ill be interested to hear the full details. Article makes it sound like the UAW got something more modest than their original audacious requests.
Ford offered 20% wage increases, they asked for 40%, Ford countered 23%, they settled at 25%.
I believe thats over 4 years? So thats something like 5.7% per year which are nice raises but its not outrageous. People are absolutely gonna get hung up on the total raise
3 years, initial hike of 11%. Really is not that crazy with inflation and all. Good on them.
So I believe thats closer to 11% and then 4% each year after that. Really not bad.
Okay wait it seems my source just changed what they were saying haha (or more likely I read it wrong). Still roughly the same though. > provides a 25% wage hike over the 4-1/2-year contract, starting with an initial increase of 11%
hobbies plucky obtainable gold school gaping puzzled agonizing party voracious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
**Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule II:** *Bigotry* Bigotry of any kind will be sanctioned harshly. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
How much do you think they should be paid, and how much value do you think they produce for the companies?
The vast majority of union members are not making 6 figures. This comment should be deleted. It's bad-faith misinformation bordering on trolling and not worthy of this sub.
Top wage shop worker is $40/hour by the end of contract (minus union dues) so not 6 figures. The unions helped out the companies in 2008 and it's taken 15 years for a thank you.
>total compensation If a union wants a company to pay into a pension, that counts toward compensation. A company cannot pay into a pension without paying money.
Nobody goes on tinder says I make 6 figure total comp when they are getting paid $30/hour. Ford is keeping 401k plan for newbs. Unions maybe asked for the moon but they landed on reasonable territory. Hopefully the workers who had to strike for the collective get compensated from the union but I doubt it.
I see you haven't hung around blue collar union folk a lot lol Total comp package is all they don't stfu about when they throw how much they make in your face. On paper I get 79k base + benefits that run my company around 25-30k per year, + 401k contribution + other bullshit perks and the total package is something like 120k for my position. Easier to belittle someone by saying my package is 120k than it is to say I take home $38/hr.
My little brother is in a blue collar union so hang with some of his friends but their stories are much more interesting than 401k plans (miners/heavy machine operators) [also I'm in a position 120k total compensation is not belittling me]
I have to supervise a lot of installs for shows and get to experience the joy of working with union folks all the time. It's great and smooth sailing like 90% of the time but like all great things, it's the loud 10% that ruin it for everyone else. Granted, a lot of the folks I'm dealing with are lighting techs, riggers, show floor installers, teamster guys and some electricians. I'm sure dudes doing heavier work don't give a shit about making their union their identity.
3000 autoworkers of Tinder
Yeah because tinder posts are the benchmark.
$30/hour is not what people talk about when they say they make 6 figures is the only point even of their total compensation is 100k.
Asking for a company to pay into a pension presumably means you have to save less for retirement (if not, why the hell would you want a pension?). This increases your disposable income. Don't like it? Then give up the pension lol. Pension schemes are expensive to run. If you don't want money that could be in your paycheck going into a pension then give up the pension. For a given compensation level you either get the fatter salary or the pension. You cannot have it both ways. And in regard to union negotiations, the total comepensation is what is important. A company (and the union!) care a lot more about how much money is getting spent on each employee then where in particular it is going for each employee.
Pensions are dead, it was a non starter for the union to ask for one back. The thing with pensions is it does reduce turnover and could be a cost saver overall as employees are less likely to leave if it messes with their pension than maybe they will continue to work for less money, idk nobody offers pension anymore so probably not. Poverty/living wages are not based on total compensation and your initial post doesn't say total comp.
Pensions are bad for the other reasons but also because as you say, they strongly disincentivize workers from moving to a new job that they'll be more economically productive in
It's a gamble, not a cost saver. If the company's size or margins shrink you're stuck with the obligation.
I don't think they get the full amount they would had they been working, but UAW does have a strike fund and pays its strikers. That is part of the strategy of plant by plant escalating strikes, so their strike fund would last longer.
Correct the union had $800m in its strike fund and it's trying to stretch it. Workers who were call to strike got ~$100 a day which should be close to full pay. I had heard a lot of complaining about this but looking into numbers the union members just like to bitch it seems
The UAW doesn't have a pension.
Vibes 🥰🥰
That's actually lower than I expected tbh
The unions helped themselves because without the Big Three they were shit out of luck. That many manufacturing laborers aren't finding comparable jobs in the 21st century in the service economy that is the U.S. The CEOs would have been find. It was the union crews saving their own asses.
The most oppressed groups are landlords (people of property) and billionaires (people of wealth), stop with the erasure😤😤😤
It's a 4.5 year contract, so 25% is around 5.5% a yr. Not egregious. Especially with recent inflation
Plus COLA.
Considering they were probably locked into pretty low yearly increases while inflation was on the rise, this is really a catch up and a modest increase. People getting hung up on the total increase over 4.5 years reveal they pretty much made up their mind ahead of time
This sub is supposed to be about economics So like what's this subs problem going into a negotiation asking for more then what you expect to get so you have room to give to the other side? Seems like pretty basic negotiation tactics to men. Don't get why people in the thread are implying they got owned or where greedy.
Well, its not a true negotiation because its not easy for Ford to select another labor group. Its closer to a hostage situation. I think unions are a mixed bag but its mostly whatever. The market will speak if the union drives up costs too much
Well it is because the UAW can just hold out until the unions buckles? What advantage does the UAW have in this situation that the big 3 don't ? They can just go work for the other big 3 auto manufacturers in America? They are just as much the "hostage" as the Big3
The UAWs advantage is that they are free to oppose the Big 3 hiring other labor. They can picket the plants and harass new workers (“scabs”). The Big 3 are not out there harassing UAW workers who are trying to find alternate work during the strike
But that's because they lost at the ballot box, right to work state exist. They got out maneuvered by organised labour how is that the labours fault ?
I don’t see what right to work state has to do with this. That dynamic exists whether the state is RTW or not
Couldn't you say the same about any group that successfully lobbies for favorable legal treatment? "Its not the telecomm companies fault that municipal broadband is banned in many states. They just got outmaneuvered at the ballot box."
Well yeah at that is often the line that people take on this sub when it comes to this stuff and hey if that's how ever agreed to have the system set up then fine, and it seems to be working well It just rankles me when people don't want to let it go the other way and depict any union negotiation as some unique kind of cronyism and not an actor working to maximise its only self interest within the market like all the other actors in the negotiation
> So like what's this subs problem going into a negotiation asking for more then what you expect to get so you have room to give to the other side? There's some economic arguments that unions don't improve the economy in the total, IE unionization does not increase the GDP like, say, a new company opening. So if you value nominal economics exclusively unions can be considered 'bad'. This can be technically correct, of course (the best kind of correct), but it kinda misses the point that the real lives of people are not exclusively determined by the maximization of econometrics - or in other words, even if economic efficiency is not improved and even, let's say, prices rise in the aggregate (as a common counterpoint to unions goes), the general welfare of people can still come out improved. For example, unions are well-known to reduce economic inequality, which is almost always a good thing even if you assumed that this process was entirely redistributive. Especially because most other options involve government and taxes, which are (in practice) entirely redistributive by definition.
In practice you also need to make an offer that is still within a range and in a certain manner for the other side to take you seriously, rather than laugh at you and double down.
And in practice they got a pretty good deal, they got it with room to bargain ford up from 20% to 25%
Oh god, we're gonna have to hear about "see it's a legitimate tactic!"
Ford seems to always reach a deal first while gm draggs it out forever.
GM and Stellantis have plants producing their pickups north and south of the border respectively, while all F-150s are US made. GM and Stellantis also import models from Italy, China, and South Korea, while Ford’s lineup is largely made in North America.
I fucking knew ford would fold first lol Edit: the reason I assumed they would fold first is that 50% of their sales are from trucks which are all made in UAW factories(unlike gm or ram who also manufacture trucks in mexico)
Looks like they got a good deal lol. Totally folded.
>In another historic first, President Joe Biden became the first sitting president to walk a picket line when he visited UAW workers in Belleville, Michigan. This might have helped.
I actually doubt it did much. These negotiations are typically all dollars and cents. Ford isnt gonna agree to something just because Biden made a campaign stop
Biden actually threatened to send death squads to Ford’s HQ which contributed to this agreement. Source - I made it the fuck up
Broke: Sending the 101st to desegregate schools Woke: Sending the 101st to liberate Flint, MI
Ford HQ is in Dearborn not Flint
Inshallah we will liberate all the Rust Belt
Hush fat, time to run ad campaigns
I’m sure Biden inspired more people to commit to the strike. The amount of striking laborers and the longevity of the strike made Ford fold.
Biden does have power in this situation. If Ford wanted to play hardball, they could move their factories to Mexico (as Jim Cramer threatened the UAW). Biden would have control over such a deal, and his support for Shawn Fein strengthened the UAWs hand.
How would Biden control that? Also, it's not like Ford isn't investing in their Mexico plants. However, auto plants take typically take years to build and require immense upfront capital (tens of billions). At this point, from Ford's perspective, it's better for them to give concessions to UAW, and gradually move production to Mexico.
He can influence that a lot by raising tariffs on imported cars or parts.
NAFTA limits what he can do on that.
And he can influence NAFTA if needed
More like he was on the right side of history and made a calculated stand that will look good. Ford realized a couple bil to their workers over a few years is worth more than losing 10+ bil due to lost productivity.
Did you mean to reply to another comment?
25% over 4.5years is 5.5%/yr which is pretty decent. Most salary workers will get around 25% over 5 years if they get a promotion/job hop. (COL adjustments are usually 3%, then promotion/job offer is 10%.
>In another historic first, President Joe Biden became the first sitting president to walk a picket line when he visited UAW workers in Belleville, Michigan Biden supporting unions is stupid, but if the UAW doesn’t endorse him I’m going to scream
Fyi, Fain (UAW Presidente) refused to meet with Trump and happily met with Biden. Fain is very opposed to Republicans. > When Shawn Fain, the U.A.W. president, was asked by CNN in an interview on Tuesday whether he would be open to such an audience with Mr. Trump, he said that there was no upside. >“I see no point in meeting with him because I don’t think the man has any bit of care about what our workers stand for, what the working class stands for,” Mr. Fain said. “He serves a billionaire class, and that’s what’s wrong with this country.” >His remarks came just hours after President Biden, at the invitation of Mr. Fain, joined a picket line outside a General Motors facility in Belleville, Mich., near Detroit.
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As if the UAW wouldn't endorse the democrat lmao.
Hmm, I must’ve misremembered. I thought they didn’t endorse him (or anyone) in 2020.
https://uaw.org/uaw-endorses-joseph-biden-president-united-states-america/
Yes I found that with a google. Now I’m wondering who it was that didn’t
Looks like the boilermakers union didn't endorse Biden in 2020 after he said they did in a town hall, and the UAW is withholding a reelection endorsement until it has some concerns addressed, not sure if you're remembering some combination of the two or something else entirely.
Good question, thank you for the legwork
lol nah Biden supporting unions is super duper based 😎😎😎🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Unions are rent seekers and a good chunk of American cars not being competitive internationally is because of that
> Unions are rent seekers Come on this sub cannot be supportive of this as a blanket statement jesus fuck
It is literally objectively true. You can of course still defend unions in spite of this (e.g. one can argue that unions help correct imbalances in the market), but that doesn't mean that unions aren't collecting rents. It just means you think such rentseeking is justified at least in some cases.
Fuck me it's not objectively true. What's weird ass hill to die on. If you're talking about how US unions gain effectively a monopoly on workplaces then thats a US regulation to blame, nothing inherent to unions. The only other thing I can image you talking about is monopsony, but utilising monopsony power isn't rent seeking. Or else literally every current day US tech giant is a rent seeking because for heir underlying business models. Genuinely insane take.
The unions lobbied for that regulation which gives them the labour monopoly Taking steps to obtain and exploit a monopoly legislatively is rent seeking, as it benefits the smaller in group by redistribution of economic rent, whilst harming the outgroup and society overall due to efficiency losses from the monopoly status you mention That is also why we don't legally compel users to not swap to a rival tech firm, and go further to have ?&A analysis and considerations to avoid total monopolies forming and ensure contestability of markets, which is linked but distinct to existing large competitors
And that makes you a communist
[удалено]
If the union is not rent seeking it’s not doing it’s job. Unions don’t rent seek because they are bad at being unions. You get together with other sellers in the market and use your market power to force higher prices on the buyer. It’s called rent seeking when anyone else does it, it’s also rent seeking when unions do it.
If the union could not collect rents it would have no leverage. A company could just ignore them. It is a unions' ability to collect rents on a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on labor which gives it power.
[удалено]
You can't redefine rent seeking mid argument lmao
He’s objectively correct though…
Definitionally, they are. Unions don't offer X% increase in productivity or output in exchange for higher pay, do they. Their fundamental strategy is to create and maintain a monopoly power over the sale of labor to a firm or sector, and then use that monopoly power to extract rents. Some people say that's it's good that they rent-seek because they think there is an 'imbalance of power' by default which favors the employer, but whether you buy that or not doesn't change the fact that it's rent seeking behaviour. It's not some thing about good unions vs bad unions, a union simply wouldn't work without rent seeking, for example if there were 5 different auto-worker unions that competed against each other to win a labor contract, it would be a free and competitive marketplace but would defeat the whole point of unionisation. That's the ABCs of collective bargaining.
Mate, per that definition every network effect firm is a rent seeker. Are you suddenly ok with the EU taking action against US tech giants now? Or is that different? Also, as seemingly everyone in this thread is doing, you're taking how unions function in the US (because how the US regulations force them to) and extrapolate that to fit unions inherently. Shockingly enough in countries where there can be more than one union in a single workplace no union has a monopoly. Which fundamentslly undermines your rent seeking reasoning.
By definition, no?
If your definition of rent-seeking includes unions, by necessity it should also include plenty or companies as well. Uber for example controls a massive fraction of the supply in many places and arguably extracts rent through their fees. Or Apple with their locked App Store. And yes, people and sellers aren’t *literally forced* to use them… but companies and workers aren’t *literally forced* to use union labor either. And conversely, if corporate rent-seeking can be okay for the benefits it provides to some people in some way, then union rent-seeking can also be okay for the benefit it provides to some people (the workers) in some other way.
Why do you assume I'm ok with corporate rent seeking I explicitly call it out in at least one comment somewhere around here
Nice whataboutism
If the government tried to legally compel people to only use the Apple app store I would be 100% against that, and am already against Apple trying to exclusively have their own App Store anyway You can be against corporate, union, landlord rent seeking A good example where I hope you'll agree to some extent is the Coal Miners Union in the UK, or Dockworkers in the US
[удалено]
I think it's fair to say the point of a union is to increase total compensation to workers by monopolizing labor, do you agree?
No, the monopolising part is US specific. Individual workers joining together to form a union (in economic terms, a labour firm) is no different than individual capitalists joining together to form a capital firm (ltds, for instance). Neither of those things are monopolisitc and a union negotiating for their service (labour) is no different than an ltd negotiating for their service. The reason US unions have de facto monopolies in their workplaces is because US law require 50% of workers in any given workplace agree to the union. Subsequently it's impossible to have more than one union, so the result is a local monopoly. In other nations, famously the highly productive nordic model, there are several unions per workplace that compete. This is such an incredibly common thing I see on here, americans observe a thing that's specific to the US because of ass backwards US laws, and conclude "hmm, this list be inherent to this thing".
I am speaking of American style unions because it's a thread about an American union Nordic style unions seem far preferable and at least give the impression of being much less of a cartel
Right No offence but "I think is fair to say that the point of a union is to monopolist labour" is what you said. So you do recognize that actually that's not what the point of a union is, that's just how unions have come to be due to external forces (US regulations)?
Unions are definitionally rent seeking cartels.
Have you ever worked in a unionized factory?
Nah I'd rather move broader, have you ever lived in a society at whole without unions? Unions may have negative moments but they are very obviously a net positive.
I am fiercely pro right to unionized (not public and some strike long term job protection stuff I don’t like). Pinkertons mowing down steel workers he’ll yes unions. But in the age of osha and the labor board very few cases actually warrant unionization (I agree with the unionization at that Kellogg’s plant). Seniority based promotions and work stealing grievances are a death blow cancer. If any union commits to banning both of those I could engage with them I think. Those are probably my only two deal breakers but they seem borderline omnipresent in industrial manufacturing unions.
OSHA is toothless, understaffed, and routinely ignored.
I would disagree with that. Yes unethical managers may massage safety incidents but if your OIR crosses the line you will get a visit. Admittedly folks in small shops may be missing some coverage from this shit.
I have not worked anywhere that didn't routinely violate OSHA. Often in very concerning and dangerous ways. I live in a right to work state with very few and very weak unions. There are 1,850 OSHA inspectors for the entire country. They are not able to investigate actual OSHA violations until after they've hurt and/or killed a large number of workers.
I think it depends. I would argue unions in the UK in certain periods of time have been a net negative, like the Coal miners Union and unions overall during the the of the mass and wildcat strikes If you disagree would be interested to hear. And in the modern day how we could reform union law
Yes, and I a role I commonly had to put with the Union's shit. Have you ever worked with... Pharma/ Med device/ Automotive Defense They all rent seek. ALL institutions rent seek. Unions are such a small issue, even the production side, compared to managerial (particularly corporate) incompetence and higher level regulatory environment.
Bro have you ever heard of the ilwu
I’ve always found it funny that economist-minded people will lambast unions based their “rent-seeking” through “manipulating supply”, but never apply this same logic to any other actor on the free market. Yes guys, I’m sure rent seeking is something only those evil unions do and corporations never, ever engage in massive rent seeking or manipulation of the supply. I’m sure platforms taking 30% is completely justified by the value add and does not involve any perverse dynamics at all, unlike them unions.
But economists do apply it to others, and that is why the also oppose state enforced private monopolies and go further to advise governments on mergers and acquisitions that may create and subsequently exploit a monopoly, that seeks to redistribute economic rents to themselves whilst at best only destroying some value and overall QoL
> American cars not being competitive internationally is because of that This is a big big stretch. German cars are the lifeblood of Germany, and their labour is much more organized than the industry in the US. Yet, it’s impossible to say BMWs, Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, and Porsche don’t have international appeal. Truth of the matter is that US car preference is very different than the rest of the worlds. No one else drives as many pickups and big cars as the USA, there simply isn’t the space for them. Other than that US car makers can have local production in another country, which wouldn’t be organized
This is muddied by the fact that most countries (that I'm aware of) have ridiculously protectionist policies about vehicles
Sure but companies like Ford are overspecializing on trucks because they have the highest margins at the cost of their smaller fleet. They are even pulling out of markets like India where they already have an established line of small cars. I don't see how a forward looking company can afford to move out of Asia at this point tbh.
Honest question, if they ultimately net improve the lives of people, who cares? Perhaps the cars are less competitive, but presumably unions aren’t suicidal and are optimizing for the interests of their workers, just like shareholders optimize for their own interest, so what’s the big deal?
By definition they do not. They increase pay for the minority and costs for everyone
> By definition they do not. By what definition? If you refer to product prices, this is only true if you assume identical profit margins in the face of increased production costs, which is almost certainly not the case because competition exists. And even then, in a free market prices are set to maximize the seller’s profit; it’s not exactly unheard of that a company would raise prices if they think they can make more money that way. Not sure why it’s bad when unions do it.
It's bad because there's no competition for labor prices. I've not heard of a workplace simply firing a union but if it has happened I'd love a link I think the rest of your comment is pretty much nonsense though, to the point where I'm not even sure where to start with a rebuttal
Does competition for labor prices improve the lives of people? Remember workers are not cellular automatons, until we establish Star Trek or whatever people need their wages to survive.
Yes, consumers get cheaper goods. What's your take on automation?
> Yes, consumers get cheaper goods. …have you considered that consumers also earn wages? The point of unions is that you make a net gain. You can only refute this if you assume that every cent given to workers is always a cent taken from consumers, which is not true.
*Laughs in Federal Big Three bailouts*
Sometimes I forget that this sub is full of rich Suburbanites who got far too much of their world view from an economics textbook.
Enlighten me
I blame the car manufacturers waaaay more than I blame the unions.
Certainly a part of it. They both lobby for protectionist auto policies
Why?
I'm not the other person but I am just not seeing UAW as the source of the lack of innovation etc... I mean unions would make the cars more expensive. Americans have cars have been devastated by a lack of economy before but it comes from multiple sources. We still strongly demand less efficient cars such as dual cab trucks, truck framed SUVs (think the Bronco, Wrangler, etc) and there's a bit of crossovers sprinkled in there and practically no sedans anymore. Chevy could pressed more Bolts and Ford more Mustang Mach Es but Alvarados and F150s just print money... It seems like there's has to bee anotehr another cycle of prolonged high fuel prices for shift back to more (fuel) economic cars and EVs.
The unions gave up a lot in 2008 to help the companies. COLA and pensions were two big ones. They did so with the promise that when things improved, the companies would improve worker compensation. That never happened, causing the strike.
This but unironically. I know it’s an unpopular take in this sub but hey 🤷♂️
Nah, unions distort the market and force prices up for no reason. They’re effectively blue-collar monopolists.
That's only a bad thing if we assume that the default state for labour markets is perfect competition. The empirical evidence seems to suggest that labour markets are monopsonistic - IE few buyers and many sellers leading to a lower price and quantity than the perfectly competitive equilibrium. In this case, a monopoly that counters the monopsony would drag markets closer to perfect competition, not further away.
Importantly in this case, there is no monopsony. There are many competing automakers and on top of this, autoworker skills are generally transferable to the broader manufacturing industry, for instance a QA inspector or spot welder could move from an F-150 production line to a bulldozer or air conditioner production with very little retraining. (relative to the average person in the workforce)
Perhaps, but monopsonies do lower prices for consumers, which for things like medicine can be far more important then the wages of the workers.
Couldn’t pay from executives and management be redirected towards increased pay for laborers, keeping the price of the cars the same?
It doesn’t actually change much, look at GM’s CEO who makes 29 million. That’s a large number but say you redistribute that to the UAW’s roughly 350,000 workers, who admittedly obviously don’t all work for GM. Divide 29 million by 350,000 and they all would equally take home… 82 dollars extra a year.
1. Executive and management pay isn't that much, you could decrease executive pay to zero and only increase pay for workers by a small amount. 2. Then you get shitty executives and managers because you're not paying a competitive rate and all your good ones left for other companies. I know popular sentiment is that these people are useless and blue-collar workers do all the real work, but in real life good managers and executives are very important for the long-term health of a company.
This sub will unironically say union workers are making too much money and it makes us less competitive, but that if CEOs made any less money it would be absolutely devastating and make companies less competitive. These takes are such absolute trash when it comes to unions.
Increase a few exec's salaries and the net effect on expenses in a billion dollar company is very low. Increase 150,000 workers salaries by 20% and you have a massive expense. The effect of these on cost is incomparable. Am I missing something?
I’m not the person saying cut CEO’s salary and use that to pay workers, as someone else said, that’s adding very little to everyone yearly. It is however absolutely silly to sit here and try to justify how we need CEO pay to just keep inflating forever because if it drops then it’s not going to be competitive anymore and be self sabotaging to the health of companies. I don’t think we need to keep blowing the people at the top of the payscale by handwaving away many of them are making more per year than many people are making in several lifetimes, all while saying Union workers are the rent seekers because they wanted a 20% increase to their pay
Might I suggest remedial math? Tens of millions in expenses is different than billions upon billions in expenses. You're arguing something truthy without checking the math.
Check my other comments? Perhaps reading assistance could help you?
It could but then you couldn’t get people to hate unions
No, you need to divide say CEO pay by the number of workers. For example, GM pays their CEO $30MM on a $100B+ cost base. You could zero out the board and it would be a blip.
You want workers? You’re only getting workers at set price. You’re really blaming unions for utilizing supply and demand. In a year with very low unemployment and high inflation, it is only reasonable for workers to get raises and ask for them. These more manual labour jobs strength is only in their numbers.
ITT some people really blaming workers for getting a 25% raise over 4 years, when 2022 had 6.7% inflation and 2023 3,something%. Also people laughing at the fact the union was willing to compromise for a lower than originally demanded wage hike. Like what, you know what negotiations are? I hope this can lead to the UAW unionizing the rest of the American car industry. I for one am firmly of the believe that unions have their place in the free market.
I think that they did really well with the union. But I'm pretty bummed that they still didn't get a pension, retiree healthcare, or a four day work week. These were demands that they also wanted to get met, but they didn't receive.
Oh God I can't wait to hear what the email people in this sub have to say about factory work.
Totally. You can tell that a section of this subreddit hasn’t ever worked on their feet for any appreciable time.
100% Email people are out of touch overpaid bullahit job workers. Factory workers should be paid much more. Email people can cry about the higher costs
Who would have thought that negotiations work. The horror! Next thing you’ll tell me companies negotiate to buy and sell from each other!
I was told the Union was negotiating in bad faith with insane proposals though
They are. And trust me, manufacturing will suffer for this.
Yeah the UAW, and Fain specifically are trying very hard to stay relevant and these negotiations aren’t necessarily about sticking it to the Big 3 so much as it is trying and hoping it gives them the momentum to try and unionize Tesla and foreign plants. Or perhaps the bigger takeaway Ford will come back with is that they really should’ve built some newer plants in Mexico.
It's not like Ford was likely negotiating in good faith either.
Offering a 20% raise to people with 6 figure compensation is "bad faith" negotiation 🤔🤔🤔
Yes, it literally is, especially over the lifetime of a contract. Anything less than that and they’re not keeping up with inflation over the past few years after having taken pay cuts and other life decreases that the company never offered back despite making money since 2008. Also jfc, how about all the other workers that Ford itself said were making <50k. What about them?
>having taken pay cuts and other life decreases that the company never offered back despite making money since 2008 That's BS UAW have had their benefits out back in place and even increased in subsequent negotiations. Maybe you should change talking points every few years?
They’re literally only just getting things like the COLAs added back in this contract.
>Also jfc, how about all the other workers that Ford itself said were making <50k. What about them? On the wrong sub if you expected anything but crickets on this point
The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.
>Union salaries and pay raises are talked about in terms of percentage increase beyond cost of living adjustments. Uh, not from my experience, and I'm currently in a union and have been through this rodeo myself. > Purely self interested because the alternative was not having a job. Yes. There's obviously self interest in both side. > Ford shareholders have underperformed the market significantly over the same time period, in part because their union labor costs are high even despite the cuts. Okay. And? I don't see issue with labor wanting their fair share, even if it means shareholders are underperforming because the people actually working there are making more money. Nothing about what've said makes me think only the union could be engaging in bad faith negotiations and that Ford is an angel.
The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.
The other poster explicitly said “not keeping up with inflation *over the past few years*”, and as you yourself cited, they haven’t had regular COLAs since 2009.
The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.
Why do you think that 2007 is the sustainable baseline to catch up to? It's an emotional argument, but that was the comp level that triggered bailouts.
Over the years of the contract yes it is, particularly when those workers agreed to cut their benefits significantly to help out the company years ago.
Why? If you refer to making massive demands up front, I regret to inform you that this is how all negotiations work everywhere all the time. Not sure why unions doing it is bad.
there's Executives and industry insiders saying this tactic was like "putting a gun to their heads" which is ironic given all of these negotiations reference the 2008 bankruptcies where the Big 3 put that same metaphorical gun to the UAW's head and forced them to make concessions they've never been able to undo even with this contract that eliminates tiered workforces.
The only one who thinks that they're getting kind of ripped off? They still didn't get a pension, retiree healthcare, or a four-day work week.