- Hey DC, I heard a guy on the radio last Wednesday who was talking about the big 3 and the wages of - BackseatGM 2008-12-02 10:09:24 (65 views)
- that's odd. Because it's right in the UAW contract, you can go read it - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 10:23:51 (53 views)
- really? someone (commentators, not you) isn't telling the truth here... - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 10:46:45 (33 views)
- That's true, but current workers' benefits should be included in per worker cost
- stone 2008-12-02 11:02:12 (17 views) - do the current workers get the same benefits as those currently drawing from their pension? - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 11:11:20 (15 views)
- if you look at last year's UAW - GM agreement - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 11:20:10 (25 views)
- hmm... interesting - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 11:39:34 (12 views)
- Isn't the two tier system the new hires that Backseat mentioned? - stone 2008-12-02 10:28:19 (16 views)
- I think your post below is the right reading. It's bennies or no bennies. - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 10:36:06 (15 views)
- I've read much the same thing - but the value of their pensions should be included - stone 2008-12-02 10:23:17 (33 views)
- But you can't include them as part of their hourly compensation. Well, I guess you can if you want - BackseatGM 2008-12-02 11:08:10 (26 views)
- Definitely true that it's disengenuous. - stone 2008-12-02 11:30:52 (14 views)
- I think it's part of calculating the total labor cost. - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 11:17:38 (26 views)
- The point is that one should compare apples to apples. Generally, that means gross pay. - Starburst 2008-12-02 12:14:47 (22 views)
- IT is only disingenuous if you use it to compare to something different. - Earl j. Slick 2008-12-03 10:38:02 (11 views)
- The benefits I can agree with, but the pension? How can you put a dollar amount on a pension, - BackseatGM 2008-12-02 12:03:30 (19 views)
- I suspect this is cost to the company, not benefit to the worker - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 14:53:44 (15 views)
- Yes, I think it should be how pay is judged for all industries. - stone 2008-12-02 11:31:55 (13 views)
- you may be correct there. But why would you exclude benefits - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 10:26:01 (26 views)
- Sure, but are you implying that today's GM workers should get less than Toyota's? - stone 2008-12-02 10:35:41 (25 views)
- no. I am implying that GM's total package should be comparable to Toyota's - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 10:39:37 (25 views)
- Sure, but what about the old pensions? - stone 2008-12-02 10:45:29 (21 views)
- I think pensions by law have to be funded so that - DC Warrior 2008-12-02 11:02:46 (22 views)
- we get a lot of suits for underfunded pensions - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 11:15:01 (15 views)
- Working at a company where the suits are picking up the bill, eh? - stone 2008-12-02 11:51:20 (13 views)
- Makes sense. - stone 2008-12-02 11:06:28 (14 views)
- It's the union. Equivalent cars to the Japanese cost more, - gsw_hoops 2008-12-02 10:21:04 (37 views)
- CAFE standards apply to all car companies that sell in the US - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 10:24:57 (34 views)
- And related....
- gsw_hoops 2008-12-02 10:47:38 (23 views) - Some false assumptions there... - stone 2008-12-02 11:22:18 (23 views)
- Speak for yourself. I have a $10 a day budget. When it's used up I park and wait til the next day. - BackseatGM 2008-12-02 12:09:34 (15 views)
- Good way to manage a habit - stone 2008-12-02 12:19:05 (17 views)
- neither of these have anything to do with creating a disadvantage for american car companies - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 10:54:02 (15 views)
- Fuzzy Math on Fuel economy - gsw_hoops 2008-12-02 10:46:18 (28 views)
- Good article - though I'm not sure how it applies - stone 2008-12-02 11:04:55 (14 views)
- it still applies to everyone... you want to give them a break for not being able to comply with the - Brutus Buckeye 2008-12-02 10:51:50 (20 views)
- SUVs are more profitable. That and the house ATM allowed the long term problems to be pushed back. - Dick Nikon 2008-12-02 10:37:02 (15 views)
