Zastava_101

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/10/u...r-each-member/

There was a time when union contract negotiations centered around increased hourly wages and top benefits. Bloomberg reports that the United Auto Workers may be willing to forgo raises in favor of lump-sum payments tied to hitting profitability and productivity targets.

To help sell such a deal to the UAW rank and file, Bloomberg reports that the union could seek signing bonuses of $8,000 to $10,000 per member. On the high end, that's over three times the $3,000 Ford, General Motors and Chrysler union employees received in 2007 when they ratified their current contracts.

Signing bonuses of $10,000 per union worker would cost GM $470 million, Ford $410 million and Chrysler $250 million. Bloomberg reports that, on the automakers side of the negotiating table, "there may be resistance to such a large payout." A UAW spokesperson went on the record to say that talk of the union asking for the larger signing bonuses is "inaccurate and it creates false expectations."

The current UAW contract with the Detroit automakers expires September 14.
News Source: Bloomberg

postalworker

I'm sorry, but with all the people out of work, this just seems to be greed. The UAW should be glad that they have jobs with good wages and benefits.... just my .02.

Moosetang

Should be noted that bonus would take the place of bonuses/raises for a period of time. While a large up-front cost, it would be non-recurring during this contract period.

cdynaco

What's wrong with an ongoing incentive based percentage of profits?
Human nature says you get the 10k up front - not tied to personal performance and company success - and there isn't the same motivation to work quite as hard for the duration that the upfront 'bonus' is supposed to cover.
It would be stupid for Ford to agree.

houtex

UNIONS SUCK. And that is my *professional opinion*. Not an emotional one.

/Handy if you are *really* being hardshipped into slavery. But this is not the case here.
//Signing bonus... to, in effect, hold a pneumatic ratchet 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Nice.

bob

Or handy when the new executive board steps up, gets a bunch of common stock and decides to hit the lottery in short order by trashing benefits for everybody below and telling Wall Street how they've capped costs.

IMO Unions still serve a purpose, it would be an interesting experiment if we could get rid of them for say 10 years and see how the job market changes?

Pay doesn't change much because your average schmuck still has to pay the bills and afford to buy stuff, but benefits, man they can go right out the window. The FSLA doesn't provide for more than getting paid and what is considered compensible time. Vaction and retirments nor the number of days you work aren't regulated.

FMLA just says you cant fire somebody for so many days if they take time off for being sick or helping a family member, you dont have to compensate an employee for time off in that case.

I haven't checked healthcare, but I know in some instances it was cheaper to let the state pick up the expenses and just pay a penalty (looking at you Walmart) rather than providing healthcare for the employees.

So given a unionless environment where do you think we would stand in say 10 years with alot of companies? Especially with a 6-10% unemployment rate (which is fancy way of saying this is an employer's market and they dont need to do squat to entice people).

cdynaco

I agree that unions in the private sector provide a balance - when they are focused on collective bargaining.
That they have turned into political parties is bull crap.
That government workers have unionized - rather than have wages and benefits handled through the legislature - is double bull crap. Its the national workers party (including armed police) - aligned against the citizen taxpayer. And that's too dam close to former Germany for me.

Collective bargaining keeps a balance like the Grange Associations by farmers balanced against the railroad barons a century or so ago. They didn't form a union, but they did from cooperatives so their voice was heard. When things get out of balance, people respond some how some way.

However, your assumptions that ALL companies would throw benefits out the window, or that without unions there would be no benefits, is inaccurate.

Granted today is somewhat different when corporations have to compete against pennies a day, third world toilets; but the record shows that innumerable companies offered benefits to keep qualified employees - regardless if they were unionized or not. Retirement and health benefits were rewarded to encourage longevity & loyalty with the company and often had a vesting schedule. The longer you worked the better the benefits. Companies invest tons of money in training and establishing a productive team. The return on that investment is magnified time and time again with long term employees.

Just like there is free enterprise competition for better products at better prices, there is also free enterprise competition for high quality, dependable, skilled employees. If companies cut too much, employees look for other opportunities. And if those opportunities don't appear, many go into their own business - and compete against the company that trained them.

So there is constant pressure for companies to keep their total compensation package (wages and benefits) competitive. Sure recessions are a little different, but recessions don't last. And when the boom returns, the smart companies have done what is necessary to have a highly trained, loyal work force, ready to rock and roll and bring in the big dough - while the moron companies who were too cheap to keep their trained workforce get the 2nd and 3rd and 4th best employees from the marketplace, have to spend tons in time, money, and lost productivity to bring them up to speed. All the while losing market share and profits to the smart companies.

Regardless if there is a union or not, in the end, the marketplace determines products, pricing, wages and benefits, and profits.

houtex

Time to quit then, and prove how stupid that *** is. Union isn't required.

Also, the rest of your post? Unions aren't required there either. Personal accountability is required.. as well as the idea that you WON'T be run roughshod. Have a little dignity regarding your wrench turning, and don't help them be asses by continuing to work for pennies.

/of course, they'll just go across the border, but you'll have your dignity, yeah?
//No good answer on this one either, simply because honor isn't part of the equation on either side.
///Except the members. They're honorable, they don't cross when pickets are up.

AlsCobra

This is a strategic chess match here guys. Get the "I hate unions" out and put them aside.
1: Contract time coming up. I'll bet the big 3 push for a long contract(5 years at least) with no pay raises.
2: $8-10k in each employees pocket makes them feel like they have are getting a good deal. NOT! No pay raises for 5 years keeps the industry pay rate standard down so it's a WIN for the companies and corporations in general. The union workers only see that one time bonus and agree to a BS deal.
3: 5 years later they get the same irresistible piece of candy dangled in front of their face (big bonus just sign here). Not even looking at the fact that it will be now 10 years with no pay raises. Industry standards are even lower now but the cost of living has been steady increasing. 80% of the workers will blow that $10k within a month or two. Probably a majority of them will buy new cars from the company that just gave them the money for it. This deal is a win for the Big 3 and a setback for the union workers. If they are smart (which I doubt), they UAW will continue on the path that they have been on for many years. Negotiations should get interesting.

Flagstang

five years from now doesnt mean the big three can fight off over seas auto makers that are paying 1/10 of the pay.

some people need look at the current america and under stand that the right here and right now needs fixing before long term plans can be made.

cdynaco

That's why a performance based percentage of profits is the only way that is fair for both the (productive) employee and the company. A profit sharing based formula for compensation (for both current wages and future retirement) makes the employees and company partners rather than adversaries.
And make no mistake, if the employee's don't pay attention to the health of the company, there won't be a company, won't be jobs, won't need a union.
Of course the slacker will hate anything tied to performance.

AlsCobra

Got a lot less to do with overseas. This is America. Quit looking overseas for answers. And it's not the autoworkers I'm speaking out for. Industry in general. UAW employees have industry jobs. Maybe it's a soft industry job but still industry. Which directly includes plant workers, construction workers, etc. Like I said, all a big chess match. Big business looks at big pictures.

cdynaco

I'm not against unions and didn't say I was (if that was for me).

1. I'd be amazed if there are not COLA's tied to inflation - of course we know those government stats are tweaked. I've been griping on that for years.
2. Following your assumption, 10k/5 is 2k/yr. 2k/30k = 6.6% raise/yr. 2k/50k = 4% raise/yr.
WHO ELSE IS GETTING ANYWHERE NEAR 4-6% RAISE/YEAR??
3. What do you mean NO PAY RAISE??

Either way, I'm against an upfront bonus. Employees should EARN their money each day each year - just like the company has to do competing in the REAL WORLD.

cdynaco

So are you going to ban toy, kia, porsche, bmw, merc, etc. etc.?? Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act/Great Dep II?
The one worlders changed all that. The global economy is here now. And you have to compete or die. Whether we like it or not.
I don't buy japa euro trash for the reason of supporting US based manufacturers and their employees because I know it benefits me in return. But I'm in the minority.

Flagstang

I am not looking overseas.. I am just saying they will not be able to fight off the cheaper cars forever.

AlsCobra

That wasn't for you Charlie. I understand your position on unions. If the bonus is profit based, then those bonuses will be less than $10k for sure. 3.5-4.5% pay raises every year is realistic though. And in another 5 years, top pay will be pushing close to $40/hr. This seems like a move to keep those rates down.
Just looking at my contract here. $35 next year. Another contract after that. Our 2.5% we have now will be fought to raise. Looking at $40+ at the end of next contract. Which brings the standard to all facilities around us to the same. Union or not. Might be a good move for both parties going to the bonuses instead of raises.

AlsCobra

With the exception of maybe Kia and Hyundai, they aren't any cheaper. Have you priced Toyota and Honda lately? Build them cheaper but sell at the same prices.

cdynaco

It ultimately depends on if the company has pricing power - and that depends on the consumer. I'd say you'd be lucky to get 2.5% for the next 2 or 3 years until the consumer/economy gets expanding again. The US GDP prob won't hit 2.5 for the full year of 2011. This quarter GDP is flatlining.

AlsCobra

Yeah but we got em right now. Record profits last year and on our way to breaking it this year. They just can't argue. It will at least stay at 2.5. Last contract was 3.5. I'll be happy at 3.

cdynaco

I used to work for a sales company where we sold our paper (sales) to another 'issuing' company. The head honcho's were brilliant. They would negotiate our commissions so that if our sales hit x, our bonus would be x. But if our sales hit xx, our bonus was xxx.
Guess which number we always hit? The issuing company made up the increase they had to pay us from the increased volume.
Factory employees/unions could do the same on productivity and keeping costs down - which is what profit sharing is all about. In that case, a 4-5% raise is within reach even in this economy.
But to expect 4-5%/year 'just because' is unrealistic without a corresponding increase in performance to the company's coffers. And much of that is also dependent upon the national economy and the consumer's cash flow.