$73 an Hour: Adding It Up

[Sgent]

Source: NY Times

Seventy-three dollars an hour. That figure — repeated on television and in newspapers as the average pay of a Big Three autoworker — has become a big symbol in the fight over what should happen to Detroit. To critics, it is a neat encapsulation of everything that’s wrong with bloated car companies and their entitled workers.

<cut>

The first category is simply cash payments, which is what many people imagine when they hear the word “compensation.” It includes wages, overtime and vacation pay, and comes to about $40 an hour. (The numbers vary a bit by company and year. That’s why $73 is sometimes $70 or $77.)

The second category is fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. These benefits have real value, even if they don’t show up on a weekly paycheck. At the Big Three, the benefits amount to $15 an hour or so.

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It’s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

---

There's a lot in this article, its hard to get the entire thing into four paragraphs.

[truthisfreedom]

1. It's kind of a sad commentary on everything associated with the US Auto industry.

Sigh. I've been sighing a lot lately.

Looking back, I've owned a couple of Jeep products, a Chevy Nova, an old Chrysler station wagon, and now I own a BMW and a Mercedes. The BMW gives me no trouble whatsoever. The Mercedes is a pain in the ass, and I'm lucky it's still under warranty. It's so rare, though, and so fun, that I can't bear to give it up. Only 500 were made in 2005. I won't raise ire in this forum by naming the model.

Maybe it's time to let them die. Maybe it's time to give up the big 3 and let them sink. Maybe it's time to simply face the fact that the American economy, as constructed over the years, is a big fucking farce that needs to be reinvented so it actually works.

[Scooter24]

4. I agree.

Since I turned 16 in 1996, I've only owned cars by either Lexus, Mercedes, or BMW. Earlier this summer we bought a BMW 335i Conv.
and BMW X5 and they are a total blast to drive. I have never had a problem with any of them. I have driven several cars by the Big 3, but none of them can replicate the driving experience I get now.

I agree with the article, the Big 3 needs to take a hard look at it's portfolio and learn what the customer is wanting.

[KnaveRupe]

8. What the customer is wanting?

NEWS FLASH!

While most 16-year olds might WANT a BMW, a Mercedes or a Lexus, that's not really much of an option for them.

I mean, you do realize that you are describing an automotive life history that differs pretty dramatically from most Americans don't you? I mean, there's nothing really wrong with having money, whether you were born into it, or earned it yourself as a 16-year-old, but have a little perspective.

Most 16-year-olds have to ask their parents if they can borrow the 10-year-old minivan. Even those kids whose parents work union jobs at the big-3 automakers you are criticizing.

[Scooter24]

14. It has just been that many of the people I know think

that the cars in the Big 3's portfolio are incredibly ugly and unreliable. I might not have owned one, but I have driven a few cars by Nissan and Toyota- the Altima and Celica, and both are very nice cars and handle very well and are reasonably priced. I just don't know many people who would choose a Big 3 vehicle over a Toyota, Nissan, or other European or Asian car maker.

I might not know exactly what the customer wants, but it sure looks like it isn't a Big 3 car. Such a shame really.

[Kali]

53. ...

:thumbsup: no shit. How many of us are in a position to have bought two BMWs last summer. :wtf:
I could barely fill two vehicles with fucking gas last summer.

[Kolesar]

20. Two members of the Lexus-Mercedes set are deciding when to flush the careers of a million Americans

Every car that I bought was "just basic transportation". My last vehicle cost $22,500. So what do you get for that extra $15,000 that makes the car worth that much? They all end up in the crusher in a decade or so. There must be "something" in that leather appointments and gilded trim to make them sell so. I just don't "get it".

[LiberalFighter]

29. My last vehicle was a Cavalier in 98.

It was around $10,000 and has about 125,000 miles.

At the end of this month it would amount to $119 a month that I have paid for the vehicle based on the total payments I made to pay off the vehicle. That does not include oil changes, a bulb for turn signal, headlight lamp, muffler, transmission fluid, serpentine belt, anti-freeze, A/C recharge, govt registration fees, etc.

[LiberalFighter]

27. They know what the customer wants and are selling them

January to November sales 2007
3,472,812 GM
2,396,426 Toyota
2,191,852 Ford
1,885,227 Chrysler
1,419,750 Honda
0,978,683 Nissan
0,420,522 Hyundai
0,412,466 Volkswagen
0,281,405 Kia
0,271,177 Mazda
0,263,596 BMW
0,226,037 Mercedes-Benz
0,168,383 Subaru
0,123,089 Mitsubishi
0,097,005 Volvo
0,094,523 Suzuki
0,085,002 Audi
0,031,802 Porsche
0,029,963 Saab
0,006,606 Isuzu

[Scooter24]

37. Their footprint is large

but the numbers on my desk tell me otherwise...

Net Income- Down
Market Cap- Down
Revenue- Down
Assets- Down
Equity- Down
Operating Income- Down

Liabilities- Up (Nearly $200 Billion)
Working Capital- Down (Negative $10+ Billion)
Company Net Worth- Down (Negative $50+ Billion, a loss of $25+ Billion over the last couple years)
Credit Line- Down (Now about $4 Billion with 97% of it secured)
Credit Derivatives Market showing a 75% chance that GM will default on its debt within 5 years.

I'd like to support this bailout but I think it's just a temporary solution to a problem that is much bigger. I predict a merger in GM's future as the company is quickly becoming insolvent. There just isn't enough cash from operations to pay its increasing debt expense.

[KittyWampus]

43. And numbers are down for European auto companies too. Their numbers lasted longer

cause their economy was in better shape.

[Doctor_J]

57. This is pretty hilarious

Yes, to solve the current Detroit crisis, we should all buy only Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW. Esp you 16-year-olds who need to drive 20 mi to your $6/hr job at McD's. you should buy one of each car. Why? Because they're more fun to drive than a Malibu!

:crazy:

[MrSlayer]

2. Yes, they include the entire package in that number.

They include the employer contributions as if they are part of the take home. Our Journeyman's base rate in my union is $45.61 but if you calculate the full package including contractor contributions it's in the $70-80 range. What they are doing is classic "blame the worker, kill the union" bullshit. The real "powers that be" have been selling this country's manufacturing base off piece by piece even as it was getting into full swing. Rape it and move on. It's sickening.

[fasttense]

3. Let's calculate how much the CEO makes an hour.

I bet it's a lot more than 50. Then let's calculate all the top management's salaries. Let's see who is costing the company more.

[cstanleytech]

11. I really dont give a damn which one is costing them "more", they all make far more money

in a year then I clear in a year by a damn good bit so they all need a major cut in their pay if they want the government to bail their asses out of the hole they dug themselves into and yes I think that hard line should have been used on the banking and mortgage industry as well.

[pokercat999]

13. They don't need a cut.....you need a raise....nt

[mbperrin]

28. Right! Better wages means a better economy.

I mean, if you're going to open a large retail establishment or fine dining restaurant, which would you choose - Palm Springs CA, or Wickett, TX?

You would of course choose Palm Springs, because people there have more money; they make higher wages. In Wickett, there's one business - the Allsup's Convenience Store, and they have 6 employees who make $8 an hour with no benefits of any kind.

If low wages made a better economy, Wickett would be paradise!

In case nobody's looking, Toyota and the other foreign automakers have dropped just as much in sales as the big 3 - nothing to do with cars - everything to do with income, expectations for the future, and available financing.

[LiberalFighter]

31. The financial industry needs to be split up just like the phone company years ago.

They caused a major part of the problem.

Banks should not own anything outside their region. Banks should not sell insurance.

[No Elephants]

35. My brother in law worked for ATT then and spent two years as part of a special break up

team as ATT in house counsel. ATT did more than okay in that "break up." It got to get rid of all the expernsive local operating companies and keep only the highly profitable long distance operation. That is why, when the judge asked the government for the terms of the break up, the government attorney asked ATT's counsel to announce them to the court. Once again, the general public had the impression that the government was protecting it from big business, but big business, in the form of ATT, was the primary beneficiary of that "break up."

[On the Road]

59. AT&T *Thought* They Were Going to Do OK

What actually happened was that they chose the wrong businesses and every major corporate decision they made backfired on them.

First, the Western Electric manufacturing business went south.

Then, the long-distance business lost its profitability. First because the profits went mostly to local telco access charges. Later because the local telcos got into LD themselves. Later because of VoIP and prepaid cards.

Along the way, they lost money experimenting with National Cash Register.

Finally, while they perhaps could have been dominant in wireless if they had started in the 80s, they didn't make it a priority and their market share dropped.

The part of the industry that grew were the local telcos, who had a cash cow and benefited from the growth of telecom in the late 80s and 90s. Also Lucent (former Bell Labs), who were the only manufacturing component of AT&T that succeeded by selling switches and other network equipment to telecommunications companies.

AT&T ended up being bought out by some of the very companies they had wanted to discard in the breakup. Sad corporate story. That's what a monopolistic mindset will do to you.

[No Elephants]

81. But all of that cannot be attributed to the deal they made in the "break up."

[On the Road]

83. No, But AT&T Made a Recommendation

on how the breakup would look. They pretty much got to decide which lines of business the corporate parent would keep and which ones they would spin off. In pretty much every case, the executives chose the wrong lines of business.

The executives saw long distance as a cash cow. which it was up to that point because it subsidized local service. But the local companies ended up pocketing most of the profit in access fees imposed by the FCC and the states. In addition, long-distance was becoming competitive, margins were falling, and AT&T went from 100% to about 50% in less than a decade. When the local telcos got long distance relief, even that reduced number dropped off the map.

From an antitrust perspective, the breakup didn't make a whole lot of sense. AT&T was able to get the local phone companies broken into seven units, even though the local companies were natural monopolies and not the reason for the antitrust decision. AT&T Long Distance was not broken up, even though it was the unit that was responsible for the antitrust violations according to the Modified Final Judgment.

[annabanana]

15. Remember to add ALL the perks.. the private jet, . .stock options . ,

"vacation" apartments. All the little "extras" in the Executitve Suite. ."business" lunches, dinners, junkets. .

Tell me.. what does THAT come to on an hourly basis??

[rfranklin]

5. Why are benefits termed "generous?"

It's not like these workers are getting humongous bonuses, country club memberships, car allowances, expense accounts and use of the company jet. You rarely hear the mainstream press label those ridiculous overindulgences as "extravagant."

The mindset here is that workers deserve next to nothing for their labor while top executives are entitled to whatever they can extort from the company.

[annabanana]

16. Why is healthcare considered a "fringe" benefit?

Why are pensions considered extravagant?

[Sex Pistol]

6. Actually, I believe the $73/hr relates to all direct costs per hour of labor.

Like you said, it includes wages and benefits. But it also includes FICA, workers compensation insurance, misc taxes, etc.

Unfortunately, unions are gong to have to think outside the box if they want to save their jobs. The UAW has billions invested in their retirement funds. Perhaps they should lend the Big 3 some of that money. At least then, they would have some skin in the game.

[bulloney]

7. KO reported recently that the $70+/hr figure includes legacy costs

divided by the number of UAW members who are currently working. The average cost of a UAW employee who's still working is $40-50/hr according to figures I've seen.

[Tansy_Gold]

12. yes, let's look at what each of the people receiving "pay"

from those "wages" makes.

An acquaintance of mine is a retired Ford employee. Let's say he gets $3,000 a month in pension and benefits from Ford.

His son also happens to work at Ford. He makes about $19/hour or roughly $4,000 a month. Add in vacation, sick pay, FICA and unemployment and insurance, that makes say $6,000 a month.

So we add Dad's and Sonny's income, and we get $7,000 a month. Does that mean Sonny is making $9,000 a month?

You do the math.



Tansy Gold, who has

[Kolesar]

18. Big 3 legacy costs include huge numbers of workers from the pre-automation days

General Motors used to employ over 800,000 people for a period. Automation has caused a huge decrease in manufacturing employment: a decrease on the scale that off-shoring has caused.

The new automobile companies don't to carry medical costs for retirees from an era before automation.

[Sex Pistol]

62. Well, if x dollars must be contributed to the retirement plan for x hours worked,

those dollars are direct costs.

[TexasProgresive]

24. If it's like where I work

That figure is the "loaded work rate" which includes all wages, taxes, benefits plus overhead for the person to work which includes supervision, tools and vehicle. With us it roughly doubles the wage with office workers lower and those who use heavy equipment higher.

[LiberalFighter]

33. They have something called direct and indirect costs.

Direct costs being the labor produced to assemble the product. If the worker adds a part to the product it is direct labor.

Indirect costs would consist of an hourly worker bringing the part to the line for another worker to add it to the product. Dock workers receiving shipments of parts. Facility support and skill trades are indirect. The plant manager, clerical, floor managers, etc are indirect costs.

I wonder if they consider the electricity and heating and cooling costs of running the plant to be direct labor costs?

They refer to the percent of the vehicle that is labor cost. But what about the percent of the vehicle that is management cost, clerical, vehicle transport, etc?

[Sex Pistol]

63. No, loaded rates are not the same as direct costs.

And although material and equipment are direct costs, they are separate from direct labor costs. Supervision is also a direct labor cost; however, the supervisors wage rates are included in sum of all wages that are used to calculate the average wage rate of $72/hr.

[LiberalFighter]

36. The UAW does not have billions invested in their retirement funds!!

The pension is under the control of the employer.

Absolutely no money goes to the UAW that is for retirement purposes.

[Sex Pistol]

64. Yes, they do and the UAW will soon have control over those funds.

[LiberalFighter]

67. That money is for our retiree health care.

[Sex Pistol]

86. You're right--my bust. Nevertheless, my suggestion remains.

The UAW could lend the auto makers capital from those accounts.

[amandabeech]

73. The UAW is not the Teamsters. There's no Tony Provenzano running pensions.

If the Big 3 make their payments to the VEBA trust fund FOR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS, the UAW will have money to invest to provide HEALTH CARE BENEFITS.

If that happens, then, under the 2007 Contract, the Big 3 will have no more obligations for retiree health care.

No such deal exists for pensions.

[Sex Pistol]

87. Like I said above, my bust.

[MilesColtrane]

51. I'm sure they'd be happy to make concessions in exchange for ownership of the companies.

But, the bosses may rather go down in flames than allow that.

[Sex Pistol]

66. I agree, but it would be no different than any other loan.

The equity in the companies would be collateral for the loan. So, the UAW would in fact, have a stake in the companies. But they would have to have a 51%+ stake in order to have a controlling interest.

[amandabeech]

71. Read the 2007 UAW agreement before you post.

You, like so many here, have outdated information on what has gone on in Detroit over the past 5 years or so.

It's to the point of being pathetic.

Did you know that new workers make about $14 an hour and have lousy health benefits?

Really, you should inform yourself a bit before you make posts advocating the loss of 3 million jobs.

And the Times should footnote their stories. Their credibility dropped in the Judith Miller Iraq fiasco, at least in my opinion.

[Sex Pistol]

88. amandabeech, no where have I "advocated the loss of 3 million jobs."

You really should lighten up a bit. If you do that, you will live longer. :)

[Dr.Phool]

9. A national, single-payer health care plan would eliminate a huge chunk.

And a whole lot of legacy costs.

You know, the kind of health care plan that every other car company in the world enjoys. Employer paid health care puts the manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage right out of the box.

[madrchsod]

10. i worked at a factory that at the end of the year...

gave you a paper on how much you "cost" the company. one worker "cost" the company way over a hundred thousand dollars because his wife became ill and died. they added in their "self insured" into his "costs". needless to say he was outraged..

[LiberalFighter]

34. That employer was totally crass!!

[D-Lee]

17. WAKE UP! Traditionally, fringe was calculated at one-third of wages!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the auto worker's fringe benefits.

The problem in America is that EMPLOYERS have REDUCED fringe benefits (in percentage of wages terms), as well as real wages (in inflation adjusted dollars).

Then, having become hardened to the plight of their employees, they feel no pain when they start cutting US jobs and out-sourcing to other countries. That is followed by surprise when the purchasing power of the bulk of the US population declines ... and it is a big shock that a LOT of money is in the hands of foreign contractors and governments (yes, those ones who got those out-sourced contracts).

At least we can't blame the Big 3 for treating their workers poorly ...

[high density]

19. $15/hr in "fringe" benefits? Wow.

I just added up my employer-paid "fringe" benefits (very good health insurance, below-average 401k match, short/long disability, OK life insurance) and it's $2.50/hr or about $5200/yr.

I am not surprised the automakers are having problems. If everybody in my office made $80k in base pay + $30k in benes, it would've been out of business long before I even got here.

[Kolesar]

21. delete

[Sgent]

22. Usually fringe includes (from a corporate accounting perspective)

FICA match, unemployment, workers comp, etc. as well.

5200 seems really low though. Most health plans are $5k / yr at least for a single person, 401k match, disability, etc I think would add up to more than that.

[high density]

23. I know they want to count FICA, unemployment, workers comp...

but I don't think anybody feels that is a "benefit" except perhaps the bean counters looking at the overall cost of employing a "body." The numbers I added up do not include those things, and I took them based on the benefit statement provided by my employer (they're proud to advertise these numbers to me.)

I pay 30% of my health insurance
401k match is a crappy 1.5%

I don't really mind that, I do mind my base pay which is certainly in the bottom quartile for my field and not anywhere near $80k.

[curlyred]

38. My firm spends more than that in a month for health insurance

We have 93 employees and spend $75,000 on health insurance each month. Total employee contributions for health insurance are around $7500...so the firm's contribution is around $725 per month. You must work for a very large company to get cheap insurance like that!

FYI,it's geneally accepted accounting practices tha include things like worker's comp in "fringe" benefits. It has always irked me when something required by law is considered a fringe benefit.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Well, the company wants to make the employee think they are doing them a favor.

If they had their way they wouldn't provide it.

[high density]

49. Yep, it's a big company

We have tens of thousands of employees, and the health insurance is of the self-insured type. We have two main administrators depending on the worker's location.

Yeah I know it's GAAP to include FICA, etc, as "benefits" but I think it's a joke. That's an expense to the company, not a benefit. What next, including the water I use in the toilet at work as a benefit? :)

[LiberalFighter]

39. Base pay for autoworkers is nowhere near $80k.

They would have to work 10 hours a day 5 days a week to earn $80k. Which means foregoing all holidays and vacation time.

They don't work 10 hours a day every day and they don't work every week day either. About 20 of those work days are paid holidays and they only receive 8 hours pay. And then there is/was 2 weeks for shutdown. The employee had to use 1 week of their vacation time for that. During those 2 weeks of shutdown their pay is computed at 8 hours a day. Employees receive UP TO 5 weeks of vacation based on their years of seniority AND whether they met the criteria for weeks worked.

When I was there 2 years ago the ones that made the money either worked out back and put in more hours than the line time, worked in the paint department or had both members of their family working in the plant. The first two described didn't have much time for a life at home.

[Festivito]

54. Wait, how are you getting health care under $5000 a year???

Include sick days, vacation days, holidays, unemployment/disability/life insurance, health/dental/eye care, FICA, retirement, accountants, supervision, office space, ...

And do that for our government workers, then compare that to the auto industry and see what that looks like.

[amandabeech]

72. I have never known an unskilled guy on the line making $80 base.

That number simply is not reflected in reality back home.

If that's the yearly version of the Times number, then I should have believed everything Judith Miller said about Iraq.

[droidamus2]

25. Does it make it easier?

I see a lot of the people that are against the bailout using some form of the line 'let the Big 3 fail'. Does that make it easier for them to put blinders on and just see 3 non-personal corporate entities failing rather than 3 million jobs of everyday citizens not to mention all the ancillary services that around the factories involved? Yes, I believe a big part of this attitude is union busting but come on people you are talking about real families here. These companies failing doesn't just effect the CEO's and bigwigs (actually with the amount the stolen, uh made it will probably have little effect on them) it effects everybody down to the janitors. Don't get me wrong I have serious questions about all these bailouts and definitely think there could be more stringent requirements and tighter controls (as far as I'm concerned can the CEO's that screwed things up no matter what) over those companies that participate.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Yes! Real families. When they mention the number of workers that would be affected.

They don't include the family members that would be affected. They rely on that wage earner supporting the family. That wage earner also will have to figure out whether to pay for utilities, the mortgage or rent, car payments or repairs, feeding or clothing their family.

Many of those workers that will be affected are not auto workers with good wages. They work at supplier companies or other businesses that rely on these companies for their business. Consider that the retail industry rely on Christmas for about 40% of their sales. They are hurting now and if the Big 3 goes down it will affect the other 60% of their business.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. In 2007, GM chief Rick Wagoner was paid $15.7M.

Divided by 2080, that comes to $7,548 an hour.

$7,548 an hour!

Iow, 4 cars a day.

[KittyWampus]

45. you forgot to add in his fringe benefits. I'd love for someone to calculate that

:)

[2Design]

30. bs - they make less than that and congress critters make a lot more than they are worth n/t

[No Elephants]

32. The AVERAGE worker. When they calculated the average, did they include the highly paid execs, or

only non-management workers? What highly-paid non-management employees, like ad people, pr people, inhouse counsel, etc.? Or does the "average" worker include only union employees?

[LiberalFighter]

42. They only include the hourly union workers.

[jody]

44. "The real problem is that many people don’t want to buy the cars that Detroit makes." n/t

[Kolesar]

46. Article was diligent with the $73/hr data, but relied on anecdotes of opinions about Detroit's cars

...instead of putting up real data about quality and reliability.

No, I don't want to hear Grandpa's stories from forty years ago:

By the 1970s, though, my grandfather became so sick of the problems with his American cars that he vowed never to buy another one. He hasn’t.

[jody]

47. I've always purchased Ford or GM but the perception among my friends is that foreign cars are more

reliable and are higher quality.

[Kolesar]

48. "Inferior American products made by union workers"

We are at the climax of a decades long campaign of union bashing.

You are correct about "perceptions".

[jody]

50. Interesting point but my friends blame the companies for designing an inferior product, not the

workers.

My sample of friends are of course biased because they see quality cars produced by US workers in foreign plants in our state.

We know that it is not workers who are at fault, it is corporate management.

[Veruca Salt]

78. I think it's really dependent on the car...

In that, for example I had a mustang I traded in earlier this year and whoever made that car did the best job of their life. I have never owned a car made so well. Even the paint job... well, let's just say you could take a knife to that car and not scratch the paint.

The car itself though was getting old and I needed a car I could drive around in the winter without worry (or snow chains) so I traded it in for a new subaru. And I love the new car, but whoever did the paint job on it needs to be taken out behind a woodshed and beaten. That was really disappointing after having such a finely built mustang.

Even so, I have a friend who had a newer mustang and had the same problem with the paint that I have with my subaru. So I think a lot of the time it's dependent on the individual car and what shop it rolled out of. I think that 'reliable and higher quality' gimmick is bunk.

[JonQ]

55. I know it's anecdotal

but I've got a toyota that has nearly 300,000 miles on it, is 16 years old and excepting basic maintenance, runs just fine, and you see quite alot of them (clearly older ones as well) on the road. I haven't heard of a whole lot of american car brands that do so well.

Again, anecdotal. I haven't seen any data on the subject but if anyone has it I'd be interested. Something about the average lifespan from production to landfill of cars by company and model.

[amandabeech]

74. I think that the wage number is high by $7-8 over other sources that I've seen.

The Times is NOT friendly to unions, blue collar types and the midwest in general.

I used to live and work in New York and read the Times every day because the competition was so bad, except for the sport section. I just avoided their writing on several subjects until I could down a stiff one because their bias was so obvious.

I felt vindicated by the Judith Miller scandal on her Iraq reporting.

I'd like to see this guy's sources and check his math.

His family could afford to buy an Oldsmobile in 1933. Not exactly a son fo the working class.

[JJ]

52. $40 an hour cash payments?

Are they including lawyers in that figure?
Total bullshit.

[bain_sidhe]

56. I think they're dividing everything out over current and retired workers

that's the only way I see that they could come out at $40/hr is by dividing ONLY the current workers hours into payments to ALL present and past employees. Most auto workers make around $28-30/hr in terms of the paycheck they see every week.

[llmart]

70. Republicans won't be happy......

until workers are making $10 per hour. You can't live in the metro Detroit area and make $10-12/hour. And those of you on DU who say, "I don't make that much per hour" as if it's absurd to pay people a living wage are part of the problem. More people should unionize.

[No Elephants]

58. Without complete specifics of how the numbers were arrived at, this article is bogus.

[kudzu22]

60. It's not just what the workers make

It's overhead costs, it's retiree benefits, it's how many workers does it take to make a car. I read somewhere that $2000 of the price of a new GM car is due to retiree healthcare. Toyota/Honda don't have those costs, and therefore they make money while GM loses money selling the same number of cars at the same price.

[fascisthunter]

61. Nice Attempt to Inflate Wages and Create Public Disdain for Union Workers

Anti-Union Corporate Scumbags

[IndianaGreen]

65. Average wage is $28 an hour

You can go to any business sector and pile on the cost of retirees, benefit plans, health insurance, etc., and pretty soon you will have people making $100 an hour!

[ohio2007]

68. .you want fries with that claim ?

[amandabeech]

75. Do you have numbers that support the Times? n/t

[ornotna]

77. How about the facts

According to the Center for Automotive Research, those numbers are right on.

See post #76

[RCinBrooklyn]

69. I must have missed their investigative reporting on the Financial Services Industry salaries.

[ornotna]

76. $15 an hour is high

According to an article in The New Republic it's closer to $10 an hour in benefits.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1026e955-541c-4aa6-bcf2-56dfc3323682

[pinniped]

79. This is the number my hate talk radio listening friend keeps parroting.

I told that dummy the $78 is not hourly compensation.

[Waiting For Everyman]

80. Lawyers make $500/hr., nobody whines about them. n/t

[Endangered Specie]

84. and doctors even more...

driving up the cost of healthcare of course.

[jdog]

82. Why didn't we talk about the hourly rate of the "grunts"

when we bailed out AIG, etc.????

[Endangered Specie]

85. Some irony, a liberal website with people complaining about how much

union workers are getting paid...

Im not the biggest liberal on this site but I'll be damned before I stop supporting unions and what their workers make, wage, benefits, retirements or otherwise.

:shrug: