i keep hearing that union workers make 3 or 4 times the non-union auto workers....

[spanone]

does anyone know the truth?

[supernova]

1. I'd like to know that too. eom

[liberal N proud]

2. That is the propaganda that the talking heads want you to believe

[Sebass1271]

8. No. they don't. Actually Olberman had the show last night

showing how much workers from the big three make. If they are using this as an excuse how come the CEO and CFOs don't make any concessions?

Also, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porche are all unionized and are extremely profitable..

[liberal N proud]

15. That is what I was saying

It is only propaganda that they make so much more. I have people trying to tell me that autoworkers are making $75 - $80/hr.

I can't convince them that it is bull shit.

[spanone]

24. i just heard that this morning, and that's why i'm asking...

[merwin]

3. Wouldn't doubt that they make more, but I'm not sure about 3 or 4 times.

It probably depends on which jobs are union and which aren't. If the union jobs are the naturally higher paying ones, then that could very well be true. If they're union and non-union doing the same job then I would expect at most 1.5 to 2 times the pay.

[Blue Meany]

11. Yeah, well big organized businesses make more than

small ones too, because they have more power, can buy in bulk, and can influence legislation in their own favor. There's is power in organization for both business and labor. But for some reason unionized labor gets singled out for having a deleterious effect on the economy. In my view, it's the Wallmarts of the world--not the labor unions--that are bringing down the economy, by not paying employees enough that they can afford to buy anything. And now they want to blame the victims for the damage they have done. Maybe we should be talking about breaking up organized business instead of organized labor.

[InternalDialogue]

4. The figure I heard the other day was currently $28.00 vs. $13.70, or something like that.

Let me see if I can find a link.

[LiberalFighter]

26. Toyota pays their workers about $25 an hour for their permanent employees.

50% of that for temps.


Toyota I believe is pushing to pay 50% above the prevailing wages in the plant area for any new plants built starting in 2009.

[boobooday]

5. The right-wing talking point is based on a flawed equation

That is, they take the total employee obligation of the Big 3, including payments to retirees and the costs of retiree benefits, and divide it by the number of CURRENT ACTIVE employees.

The real cost per hour is something under $30, and I believe that only $14 or so of that is actual wages to current employees.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. I doubt they make that much more

Surely a better hourly rate, but 3-4 times? No way.

[avaistheone1]

7. GM union wages

I know that the GM union workers make $39.68 cash per hour compensation. I think they deserve that money too. Media Matters did a good expose about the media hype on auto workers wages. You can find it here. http://mediamatters.org/items/200812060002


Yikes, look at what the executives can paid. At least the workers produce something of value. I can't say the same for the executives.

[Imperialism Inc.]

19. A comment and an excerpt.

It should be noted that the even the hourly cash portion includes calculating in overtime hours. Just to show how this can distort the number,lets say it is $30/hr and the person works 50 hours. 40 @ straight pay for 1200, 10 @ time and a half for $450. So $1650 total divided by 50 hrs = $33/hr.

From your link:

In a sidebar to a September 17, 2007, article about contract talks between GM and the UAW, the Associated Press reported: "The three automakers lost $15 billion last year. Chrysler pays an average $75.86 an hour in wages, pension and health care benefits, GM pays $73.26 and Ford pays $70.51. Toyota pays U.S. workers about $48, U.S. automakers say." GM provided a media handbook in July 2007 that stated: "The total of both cash compensation and benefits provided to GM hourly workers in 2006 amounted to approximately $73.26 per active hour worked." From the GM handbook section about "GM Wages":

TOTAL COMPENSATION

The total of both cash compensation and benefits provided to GM hourly workers in 2006 amounted to approximately $73.26 per active hour worked. This total is made of two main components: cash compensation ($39.68) and benefit/government required programs ($33.58).

The average annual cash compensation for hourly employees in 2006 was $39.68 per hour. Included in average earnings are straight-time pay, Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), night-shift premiums, overtime premiums, holiday and vacation pay. In 2003, GM workers logged 41,363 (hours in 000's) in overtime hours for an average of 371 hours per worker; in 2004, 39,409 overtime hours for an average of 374 hours per worker; in 2005, 33,555 overtime hours for an average of 337 hours per worker; and in 2006, 27,265 overtime hours for an average of 315 hours per worker.

Benefit/government required programs in 2006 added an additional $33.58 for each active hour worked. These costs include: group life insurance, disability benefits, and Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB), Job Security (JOBS), pensions, unemployment compensation, Social Security taxes, and hospital, surgical, prescription drug, dental, and vision care benefits.

The handbook falsely claimed that "hourly workers" received cash compensation and benefits totaling $73.26 in 2006. The UAW noted this falsehood in its "2007 media fact book" about the negotiations, writing that the auto companies frequently cited labor costs that included benefits to current retirees (without indicating that is what they were doing):

In addition to regular hourly pay, the labor cost figures cited by the companies include other expenses associated with having a person on payroll. This includes overtime, shift premiums and the costs of negotiated benefits such as holidays, vacations, health care, pensions and education and training. It also includes statutory costs, which employers are required to pay by law, such as federal contributions for Social Security and Medicare, and state payments to workers' compensation and unemployment insurance funds. The highest figures sometimes cited also include the benefit costs of retirees who are no longer on the payroll. .

In a prepared statement for his December 4, 2008, appearance before the Senate Banking Committee, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said:

Contrary to an often-repeated myth, UAW members at GM, Ford and Chrysler are not paid $73 an hour. The truth is, wages for UAW members range from about $14 per hour for newly hired workers to $28 per hour for assemblers. The $73 an hour figure is outdated and inaccurate. It includes not only the costs of health care, pensions and other compensation for current workers, but also includes the costs of pensions and health care for all of the retired workers, spread out over the active workforce. Obviously, active workers do not receive any of this compensation, so it is simply not accurate to describe it as part of their "earnings."

[madmom]

22. $40 an hour? maybe a skilled tradesman on a weekend or holiday, and they earn every dime!

[ogneopasno]

41. Are you saying the autoworkers don't? In any case, union journeyman carpenters in the state of MN

get about $40/hr in total compensation. Base pay -- not OT, not on a weekend, not on a holiday.

[madmom]

53. I know of no auto worker who makes $40 an hour base pay. My So has

worked for GM for 40 some years, my dad worked for them, I know many auto workers and like I said NONE of them make $40 base pay!

[ogneopasno]

56. I apologize -- when you said "tradesman," I thought you were going after construction workers.

My misunderstanding, and I apologize.

[madmom]

57. No problem, we are all up set about the news these days and are

easily misunderstood about loyalties. :pals:

[ogneopasno]

58. Thanks for your generous spirit.

[LiberalFighter]

27. No they don't!!!!

That would be close to what they receive for overtime pay.

[JuniperLea]

30. That's the top tier wage... not all make that amount...

Only people who have been with the company for ages.

[mkultra]

34. where did you see the executve pay?

[tekisui]

9. What does it matter? The question should be why are non-union

workers not paid a decent wage? Why are we okay with letting people build our cars, provide us care and services, build our infrastructure and NOT get the benefits we all should be entitled to.

The unions should be looked to as the example, the higher ideal. The race to the bottom is what is crippling our economy.

[madmom]

54. YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!! Why do we want to lower our standard of

living to third world status? We need to bring everybody up. Hey my SO said that they should consider this our part of reagan's trickle down economics. It's finally making it to us.

[Imperialism Inc.]

10. It is no where near that.

Looking strictly at hourly wages union is around $29/hr and non-union is probably $24. I say probably because they don't make that info published but that is the best expert estimate. That is about 20% more. The unions will have better benefits but not by the amount that would be needed to make them earn 3 to 4 times as much. In fact I would be surprised if it is even the 1.5 level mentioned in this thread.

Don't forget, when the media was throwing around the $70/hr number they were including payments to retired workers as part of the cost of current workers, which of course is ridiculous. Who knows what shenanigans are required to get to the 3-4 times level.

[avaistheone1]

14. Yes, the $70 per hour is likely the loaded costs including benefits

I think that is fair compensation. Anyone every worked on a manufacturing floor for a major corporation? It is brutal work on many levels.

Look at what the executives make. The employees make a pittance in comparison.

[Jennicut]

49. Its about $75 hour for benefits and pay and at Toyota for instance it is $60 an hour for all of that

The problem is the legacy costs for The Big Three which someday Toyota and Honda and others will have.

[OHdem10]

12. This is pure myth the GOP repeat over and over to convnice

ordinary citizens that they(GOP) are the good guys here.
Class warfare against working people. If you are some
Jo Shmo and you hear these guys are making 3 or 4 times
as much as you do--then most likely you will not feel
sorry for those overpaid union workers.

The GOP are specialists are working words and finding
a way to attack and not making working people mad at them.

[InternalDialogue]

13. A couple of links

http://www.freep.com/article/20081211/BUSINESS01/812110408/?imw=Y

The union also has argued vigorously that once you drop legacy costs to fund health care and pensions for retirees from the equation, line workers don't make much more than their counterparts at the foreign automakers' U.S. plants.

In a best-case scenario, Ford Motor Co. presented information to Congress last week saying there was only a $4-er-our difference between workers at Detroit Three plants and those operated in the United States by foreign-based companies.

http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_edge_foreign_automakers_bonuses_boost_wages_in_us_plants_as_detroit_car_companies_struggle.aspx
(this is a 2007 story)

In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.

In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.

Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are not far behind Toyota and UAW pay levels. Comparable wages have long been one way foreign companies fight off UAW organizing efforts.

[bif]

16. Union Auto workers make $28 an hour

Or roughly $3 more an hour than non-union autoworkers in the South. They came up with the bullshit figure of $70 and hour by figuring in all health care costs plus pension payments per hour into the equation. The foreign auto companies are relatively new to this country, so they pay almost nothing to retired workers, because there aren't any. And it's rich assholes that are making a lot more than the autoworkers who bitch the loudest about wage concessions.

[mtnsnake]

20. No wonder the auto business is in such trouble

Getting paid $28/hr in addition to getting health care and pention payments? Well, maybe it's time for a little restructuring alright.

[Trajan]

44. Ah yes ....

There is always a DU twerp ready to dress down workers for 'making too much' ....

Yeah ... We should all make $5 per hour with NO other compensation ....

Geeez .....

Here the country is falling on its face because workers DONT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, and you want to drop it lower ....

Really ... I am surprised you are still here after all the CRAP from the primaries ....

[Zynx]

50. $28/hr x 2000 hours = $56,000 a year. How ruinous.

[Political Heretic]

51. Hey I have an idea.... drop dead.

1) 56k a year is hardly living large in a major city. 2) Toyota pays 25$ a hour and is profitable. 3) Those workers fucking earn every penny. 4) We democrats want to drive worker wages UP not down, jackass.

[wyldwolf]

17. Tweety had a graph up last night showing it isn't true

In all case, workers at Toyota and Nissan, etc. made comparable wages and, in one case, made more.

[wryter2000]

18. I haven't heard that exact statistic

But, the $70/hour figure is computed by adding up pay and benefits plus all benefits to retirees (health and pension) and dividing by the number of hours worked. It's utterly and totally bogus.

[spanone]

25. who else defines 'hourly wage' as ALL BENEFITS...?

[grantcart]

21. The hourly rate, the loaded rate all of these are totally irrelevant

The only relevant point of comparison is the direct cost of labor as a percentage of the final cost. Somebody may make a higher hourly wage but have much higher productivity. From a manufacturer's point of view they could care less what the hourly rate is, only what percentage of the final cost is in direct labor.

[Doctor_J]

23. This is one reason Big Media needs to be destroyed

you're hearing lies.

[LiberalFighter]

28. If union workers make 3 or 4 times non-union workers that would mean

the non-union workers make about $7.00 to $9.33 an hour. And that isn't true.

[DCBob]

29. I think the problem is retiree benefits, not current worker salaries.

There are just too many who retired too early and living too long with enormous retirement benefits. They will need to make concessions or the big three will never be profitable again.

[JuniperLea]

32. No, it's health benefits... retirement benefits don't come from the company's bottom line

They are paid through investments. If the company was foolhardy with the investments... well, that's another story.

[DCBob]

33. When I say retiree benefits I mean pensions and health care. Those costs are staggering.

There are simply too many retirees on the "payroll". There is no simple answer to this but that is the biggest part of the problem.

[JuniperLea]

35. I think the mismanagement of those funds is the problem

Not that the retirees are too abundant, or making too much, or having too many benefits. While the person is working, funds are set up, investments are supposed to be made that will grow and cover the retiree's pension. I think the problem is that the companies mismanaged those funds by taking risks when the money should have been in secure and guaranteed money market funds.

[MaineDem]

52. Remember, the foreign maufacturing plants don't have retirees yet

At least not many, if they do. They haven't been around that long. So retiree benefits, figured into the UAW figures, don't apply to the non-union foreign plants. That's a major difference. I think the non-union hourly wage may even be a bit higher than the union's.

[JuniperLea]

31. The wages are in tiers, as with all unions...

You start at a lower rate and you get increases as you remain.

Wage has nothing to do with it. We cannot compete with Japanese automakers because Japan has socialized medicine and we are paying through the nose for ours, and that is part of the compensation figures you see.

[DCBob]

36. Here is a pretty good article on this issue from NYT:

$73 an Hour: Adding It Up
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: December 9, 2008
Seventy-three dollars an hour.

-snip-

Let’s start with the numbers. The $73-an-hour figure comes from the car companies themselves. As part of their public relations strategy during labor negotiations, the companies put out various charts and reports explaining what they paid their workers. Wall Street analysts have done similar calculations. The calculations show, accurately enough, that for every hour a unionized worker puts in, one of the Big Three really does spend about $73 on compensation. So the number isn’t made up. But it is the combination of three very different categories.

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.

The third category is the cost of benefits for retirees. These are essentially fixed costs that have no relation to how many vehicles the companies make. But they are a real cost, so the companies add them into the mix — dividing those costs by the total hours of the current work force, to get a figure of $15 or so — and end up at roughly $70 an hour.

-snip-

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

[spanone]

37. here's a good forbes article someone else posted....

If GM Collapses, Don't Blame The Union
Joann Muller, 12.05.08, 6:00 AM ET
Unionized autoworkers are a favorite scapegoat for the problems facing U.S. automakers. Their job security guarantees and gold-plated benefits have surely cost General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler a bundle over the past few decades. Indeed, the domestics' historically high labor costs are among the reasons they haven't been able to compete with Japanese rivals, and why Detroit CEOs were back on Capitol Hill again Thursday asking for $34 billion in taxpayer loans to survive.

But the U.S. automakers probably would have collapsed by now if not for the concessions made by the United Auto Workers union over the past three years.

Once bitter enemies, the Detroit Three and the UAW have long since buried the hatchet and are now working together to close the wage gap with Toyota, Nissan and Honda through various productivity improvements and more flexible work rules, for instance.

The union has made some major concessions. Two biggies last year: The UAW agreed to cap the cost of retiree health care through creation of an independent trust fund and agreed to cut wages in half, to $14 an hour, for new hires in non-assembly jobs (20% of the workforce). More concessions came this week when the union agreed to end a controversial "jobs bank" program, which pays workers even when there are no vehicles to build. The union also said it would allow car makers to extend their scheduled payments to the health care trust fund. Importantly, UAW President Ronald Gettelfinger also said the union is ready to renegotiate additional contract terms.

Now, the playing field is just about level--or will be once the economy recovers.

more....http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/04/detroit-labor-uaw-biz-manufacturing-cz_jm_1205union_print.html

[gmoney]

38. heard elsewhere that the union creates other impediments

such as preventing automation improvements that would eliminate jobs, and that GM plants overseas are much more modern and cost-effective than US plants can be, because the union protects the job of the buggy-whip polisher, etc.

I DO recall hearing that the unions at the local newspaper had a deal protecting the OLD school typesetters long after they'd been replaced by technology. Every ad that appeared in the paper had to be set by a union typesetter, but the ads actually came in as film or digital files or whatever. Still, someone created a job ticket whereby the ad would be typeset, a proof run, then the type melted down. Allegedly, they were also years and years behind schedule, so it was complete busy work because the union was protecting their jobs until they retired. That may be complete horseshit, too. I guess if it was even partially true, they'd just offer a buyout, not continue to pay them to do make work.

I dunno that unions are 100% good, but they have done lots of good for the people of this country.

A woman was calling in to Boortz this morning, talking about her chemotherapy and radiation treatments she's receiving, and how it's going well for her, blah blah blah. THEN she starts tearing into the unions... I wanted to reach thru the radio and smack her and say "lady, if it weren't for unions, do you think you could afford health care? do you think you could take sick days off work for treatment? even if you're not a union member, unions have made workplaces humane!"

[Juche]

39. According to the AFL-CIO, union jobs offer about 30% higher wages

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff4.cfm

One of the benefits of unions is that non-unionized workplaces feel compelled to offer better wages and benefits to keep the unions out. So if GM was paying 3 or 4x more than Toyota, Toyota would have a massive union drive to make up this discrepency.

[SharonAnn]

40. Corker is defending VW's desire to have a union-free plant. If the UAW is busted, then

there's no union for the VW workers to join. And then, since Big 3 employees would have radical wage cuts, VW (and Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc.) could also lower their wages.

[OwnedByFerrets]

42. Even IF it were true, and its not, what is the problem with that.....

why should we strive to the lowest common denominator?? I thought the American dream was about doing well for yourself?

[rufus dog]

43. A Rep from Michigan was on today

And she said the big three workers actually make less (just penny's) than employees of foreign automakers. She said the difference is related to Health Care costs.

Note: The other issues of including retiree benefits into a average worker wages still apply. I believe she was trying to make an honest apples to apples comparison of what John Smith gets paid at GM in the Midwest and what John Smith gets paid at Toyota in Alabama.

[marlakay]

45. not true most of it comes down to health insurance

and the foreign ones get it without a union.

[Two Americas]

46. have I got this right?

Union workers make more, so that means unions are bad?

At a time when people are losing their homes, and can't pay for medicine?

Corporate CEOs make 400 times what workers make

Corporate CEO Pay Reaches Obscene Level

Pay for the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) of large corporations has always been huge. In the 70's and 80's, they became outrageous. But even that pales in comparison to the obscene pay being received by CEOs these days. According to an analysis done by the Associated Press (AP), over half of all corporate CEOs make more that $8.3 million a year.

During the 1990's, corporate CEO compensation rose about 800%. During the same time period, the median household income only rose 8.6% in this country. Currently the average corporate CEO makes 179 times as much as a rank-and-file worker.

http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2007/06/corporate-ceo-pay-reaches-obscene-level.html

Big Paychecks

The chief executives of America's 500 biggest companies got a collective 38% pay raise last year, to $7.5 billion. That's an average $15.2 million apiece. Exercised stock options again account for the main component of pay, 48%. The average stock gain was $7.3 million.

The highest-paid boss of the 500 companies we tracked: Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) chief Steve Jobs. He drew a nominal $1 salary but realized $647 million from vested restricted stock last year.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/05/03/ceo-executive-compensation-lead-07ceo-cx_sd_0503ceocompensationintro.html

The Growing Scandal Of Corporate Executive Pay

Last year was boffo for Manpower CEO Jeffrey Joerres , whose total compensation exploded by 80%, to a munificent $8.2 million.

This figure comes from Sunday’s New York Times , which did its annual roundup of executive salaries at top public companies nationally. The story found that compensation rose by an average of 27% for executives at 200 of the largest publicly owned companies. By contrast, the pay of average workers in America went up by 2.9% in 2005, failing to keep up with an inflation rate of 3.3%.

The story suggested that the rise in CEO compensation has little to do with market forces. The main causes: Many CEOs have the whip hand because they also serve as chairmen of the board; boards usually include other CEOs who are sympathetic to their colleagues; and compensation consultants paid by the company recommend big pay days for the CEO. These factors are also at work locally.

The list of 200 included seven Milwaukee companies and CEOs. In addition to Joerres and Manpower, there were Johnson Controls’ John Barth , with a total compensation of $11.9 million (down 30%); Marshall & Ilsley’s Dennis J. Kuester at $6.4 million (up 1%); Rockwell Automation’s Keith Nosbusch , with $6.3 million (up 52%!); Wisconsin Energy’s Gale Klappa at $4.4 million (up 8.5%); Harley-Davidson’s James Ziemer , with $3.3 million (no figure for previous year); and Kohl’s R. Lawrence Montgomery , with $1.6 million (up 60%). Montgomery, of course, took home some $30 million two years ago.

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/murphyslaw/default.asp?NewMessageID=11190

Pay Gap Widens Between CEOs and Workers

The United States long has had the industrialized world's largest gap in pay between chief executives and blue-collar workers. CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker's wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. CEOs' pay rose 313 percent from 1990 to 2003, UFE said. By contrast, the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index rose 242 percent and corporate profits gained 128 percent.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0412-10.htm

The income gap between corporate executives and the average worker is wider than ever and still growing. Corporate profits and executive salaries are surging, while workers are having difficulty just making ends meet. Millions of Americans must work two or even three part-time jobs to keep up with bills. Many of the jobs being created today lack benefits, the chance for mobility, and long-term job security.

- A generation ago, CEOs made 40 times more than workers; today they make 400 times more.

- If wages had risen at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990, the average worker would be making $75,000 a year - not the $27,000 a year that the average worker actually makes. Minimum wage would be $15.76 an hour.

http://www.workplacefairness.org/sc/incomegap.php

Earnings Gap Between Executives and Employees Growing

In 2007, the CEO of a Standard & Poor’s 500 company received, on average, $14.2 million, according to preliminary numbers from The Corporate Library, a corporate governance research firm. The median compensation package received was $8.8 million.

A reasonable and fair compensation system for executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, compensation for top executives has grown at an unprecedented rate in the past two decades resulting in a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and rank-and-file employees.

http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Gap-Between-Executives-and-Worker

Americans Pay a Staggering Cost for Corporate Leadership

With leading Presidential candidates turning up the heat on overpaid CEOs, a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy documents for the first time the extreme pay gaps that have opened up not just between U.S. business leaders and American workers, but between U.S. business leaders and leaders elsewhere in American - and European - society.

CEOs of large U.S. companies last year averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, over 364 times the pay of the average U.S. worker, a calculation based on data from an Associated Press survey of 386 Fortune 500 companies.

The top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers, pocketed an average $657.5 million, Forbes magazine estimates. That's 22,255 times the pay of an average U.S. worker.

Workers on the bottom rung of the economy have just received their first federal minimum wage increase in a decade. But the inflation-adjusted value of the new minimum, despite the hike, stands 7 percent below the minimum wage level a decade ago. CEO pay, in that decade, has increased over inflation by roughly 45 percent.

http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/2007/exec_excess_2007_the_staggering_cost_of_corporate_leadership

[WinkyDink]

47. THEN NON-UNION WORKERS OUGHT NOT TO BE. Why, yes, those are capital letters.

[scardycat]

48. The Rethugs are using Fuzzy Math n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. Avg. worker $30/hr.....GM CEO $8,000/hr

The truth.

[AtomicKitten]

59. Ha! They wish. Unfortunately for them it's just BS propaganda uttered by union-busters.

[guardian]

60. From GM annual report

2007 NATIONAL AGREEMENT
On October 10, 2007, the 2007 National Agreement between us and the
UAW and the related Retiree MOU were ratifi ed. The 2007 National Agreement
covers the wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment for UAW-represented
employees. The Retiree MOU has been superseded by the Settlement
Agreement executed in February 2008. The Settlement Agreement provides that
responsibility for providing retiree health care will permanently shift from us to a
new retiree plan funded by the New VEBA. Final effectiveness of the Settlement
Agreement is subject to a number of conditions as described below, but we have
already begun executing certain provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Following
are the key terms and provisions of the 2007 National Agreement and the
Settlement Agreement.

2007 National Agreement
The 2007 National Agreement established a new wage and benefi t package
for new hires (Tier II Wage) in certain non-core positions including but not limited
to material movement, kitting, sequencing, certain stampings and certain subassemblies.
New hires in Tier II Wage positions will receive base wages of approximately
$15 per hour versus approximately $28 per hour for existing employees.
In addition, Tier II Wage new hires will have higher cost sharing arrangements
for active healthcare coverage, a cash balance pension plan and receive
a $1 per hour 401(k) contribution in lieu of a defi ned benefi t postretirement
medical benefi t plan. In addition, the agreement provides lump sum payments
of $3,000 in 2007 and 3%, 4% and 3% of wages in 2008, 2009 and 2010,
respectively, for traditional employees. We will amortize each of these lump sum
payments over the 12-month period following the payment. Finally, pension
benefi t increases and lump sum payments were provided to current retirees
and covered employees of Delphi. As a result of these changes, we expect that
our average hourly manufacturing wage rate for Tier II Wage positions will be
reduced from approximately $78 per hour to $26 per hour.


Automotive Cost of Sales
Automotive cost of sales increased primarily due to increases in restructuring
and impairment charges of $2.5 billion, driven by charges for: (1) the 2006 UAW
Attrition Program of $6.4 billion in 2006; (2) net reductions in vehicle and facility
impairment charges of $1 billion; and (3) net reductions in the closed plant and
other restructuring initiatives totaling $2.8 billion.

[gizmo1979]

61. I'm a Union member

and for that to be true other Machinist's would have to be making 5 bucks an hr.We have decent benefits but nothing other worldly.The only big difference I notice is the commitment to safety,and they can't fire you for just any old reason.