the increase would be over the next 4 and a half yearsimpartialobserver » 15 Sep 2023, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑ To boil it down for the lay person.. UAW wants a 36 percent boost in pay. The reason for this is that with the increased electronics in vehicles (EV or Gas powered).. there is less need for workers. Is this a risk worth taking for the UAW .. I would think not. Some of it is my confessed bias against unions. Been in a union setting once and it kinda sucked. My question (and one that does not have an answer) would be if the companies cave in and give them this massive pay raise.. will it be enough to satisfy them for years to come? Or are we going to be back at the bargaining table in 2 to 4 with UAW wanting another substantial pay raise for their workers? My guess is that the latter would come true.
The CEO's compensation is irrelevant...as well as the profits of the company. The matter at hand is what the UAW members will be paid. If it were me, I would never agree to a 32 hour week but pay for 40 hours. And I would never agree to bring back the pension. Pensions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. If the UAW wants a pension so bad, let the UAW set one up for it's members. I know of no company unwilling to deduct pension contributions via payroll and transferring the money to the union.Mrkelly » 15 Sep 2023, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑ the increase would be over the next 4 and a half years
the companies CEOs are paid tens of millions a year in salary
ford announced a 40% reduction in manpower when EVs take over the market
they better get what they can get before the Dems kill off the unions
They also want a COL adjustment factored in on top of the negotiated wage increases. **** them.Mrkelly » 15 Sep 2023, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑ the increase would be over the next 4 and a half years
the companies CEOs are paid tens of millions a year in salary
ford announced a 40% reduction in manpower when EVs take over the market
they better get what they can get before the Dems kill off the unions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE48_U4teeoConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑ They also want a COL adjustment factored in on top of the negotiated wage increases. **** them.
ConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑ The CEO's compensation is irrelevant...as well as the profits of the company. The matter at hand is what the UAW members will be paid. If it were me, I would never agree to a 32 hour week but pay for 40 hours. And I would never agree to bring back the pension. Pensions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. If the UAW wants a pension so bad, let the UAW set one up for it's members. I know of no company unwilling to deduct pension contributions via payroll and transferring the money to the union.
The unions need to be killed off, let the companies hire people that want to work.Mrkelly » 15 Sep 2023, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑ the increase would be over the next 4 and a half years
the companies CEOs are paid tens of millions a year in salary
ford announced a 40% reduction in manpower when EVs take over the market
they better get what they can get before the Dems kill off the unions
What's $60k between friends? lolRebelGator » 15 Sep 2023, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑ The unions need to be killed off, let the companies hire people that want to work.
Ford's losing $60K on every battery car they sell.
When the government subsidies die, your battery car should cost about $250K......better get that CEO job you're bitching about so you can afford it.
RebelGator » 15 Sep 2023, 4:52 pm » wrote: ↑ The unions need to be killed off, let the companies hire people that want to work.
Ford's losing $60K on every battery car they sell.
When the government subsidies die, your battery car should cost about $250K......better get that CEO job you're bitching about so you can afford it.
thanks
Then you're one sorry, inconstant son of a bitch. No one can count on your word.ConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑ I've crossed many. And I was (back before dirt was invented...or at least it feels that way) an elected official in a labor union.
It's on the company to demand a reasonable term for the contract, obviously.impartialobserver » 15 Sep 2023, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑ To boil it down for the lay person.. UAW wants a 36 percent boost in pay. The reason for this is that with the increased electronics in vehicles (EV or Gas powered).. there is less need for workers. Is this a risk worth taking for the UAW .. I would think not. Some of it is my confessed bias against unions. Been in a union setting once and it kinda sucked. My question (and one that does not have an answer) would be if the companies cave in and give them this massive pay raise.. will it be enough to satisfy them for years to come? Or are we going to be back at the bargaining table in 2 to 4 with UAW wanting another substantial pay raise for their workers? My guess is that the latter would come true.
Here's one, I think...GHETTOBLASTER » 15 Sep 2023, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑ The Biden Regime printed up tons of cash and handed it to the 90% Liberal Run Unions in order to buy votes.
On the other side of the coin....
.CAN ANYONE POINT TO A UNION LEADER WHO EVER WENT ON RECORD AGAINST UNION DESTROYING ILLEGAL ALIEN LABOR...?
Can anyone see the obviously crooked conflict of interest besides me...?
Do you disagree with this statement by the president of the UAW?ConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑ I've crossed many. And I was (back before dirt was invented...or at least it feels that way) an elected official in a labor union.
It is sometimes said that Americans are not class-conscious. A few minutes of listening to Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers, one of the country’s biggest unions, ought to put that notion to rest. “The very existence of billionaires shows us that we have an economy that is working for the benefit of the few and not the many,” he told uaw members in a recent live-stream.
To bootlickers and craven ideologues, you mean?ConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑ The CEO's compensation is irrelevant...as well as the profits of the company.
Who needs pensions when we have social security.ConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑The matter at hand is what the UAW members will be paid. If it were me, I would never agree to a 32 hour week but pay for 40 hours. And I would never agree to bring back the pension. Pensions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. If the UAW wants a pension so bad, let the UAW set one up for it's members. I know of no company unwilling to deduct pension contributions via payroll and transferring the money to the union.
Who the **** do they think they are, trying to offset inflation? They have some nerve.ConsRule » 15 Sep 2023, 3:14 pm » wrote: ↑ They also want a COL adjustment factored in on top of the negotiated wage increases. **** them.
If dems think they own that corporate dick, they've got another think coming. They need to scooch.Mrkelly » 15 Sep 2023, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑**** um
you are one of the compassionate conservatives I see
at least you are on the same page as the Dems