LMCane said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Charpie said:

---

Each of the striking workers is getting paid $500 a day from the union. The UAW doesn't have the bankroll to pay ALL of their workers that kind of cash for long. So I anticipate that this strike won't last very long.

Each OEM has enough supply of vehicles and parts at their stores to make it through normal operations through the end of the month. After that, who knows.

---

On top of that affiliations and agreements between labor unions aren't what they used to be, and union membership is declining. It used to be if, say, UAW went on strike somewhere some of the other unions like steelworkers or coal workers would threaten a strike in support. The companies would them get pressure from multiple sides to settle so it didn't affect other industries. I don't think those relationships exist today. That is probably also why you see them striking at all of the Big Three at once. It used to be the UAW would renegotiate/threaten to strike on a rotation. They are doing this en masse because they don't have as much outside leverage as they used to.

I don't expect this to end the way UAW thinks it will.

---

although there are reports on CNBC that other unions ARE going to support UAW

like the truck drivers who move the cars across the country and the ports

and of course they deserve a 37% pay raise to drive a truck!

---

It also used to be more painful for the UAW to do a more effective general strike, because in order to cripple the OEM, they had to strike at multiple plants to shut down enough production to be impactful. That meant paying strike pay for a lot of workers. Now with distributed supply chains and plants spread all over supplying parts to other plants elsewhere, they can shut down a couple of plants that supply key parts for multiple assembly lines and it forced the OEM to shut down multiple lines while the UAW only pays strike pay to a few workers at the intermediate facility.

Absolutely insane time to strike. Auto sales are down and dropping fast with interest rates. People can't afford new cars as it is. Now they are striking and with an end result of raising the price of vehicles more? Brilliant!

I was thinking of getting a new F150 in the next year or so but they are just making it less and less appealing to do so. I'll either go used or get a Toyota. They sure work hard at trying to destroy themselves.

The crazy thing is this is so fixable. Just focus American manufacturing on vehicles people want and get rid of CAFE standards. Have these jobs be great jobs with good pay but not be completely unsustainable.

Nah, let's just force auto companies to make cars people don't want that are impossibly expensive while bankrupting the companies with employment contracts that are unsustainable. Then we can have everything made elsewhere.

Ol' Jerome Powell is trying to cool inflation with greater unemployment, less consumer spending, and higher interest rates. The labor unions and the Biden admin are making it damn tough on him.

Government is throwing our tax dollars out of helicopters and the Fed is trying to rake it all back in. This is not going to end well.

Burdizzo said:

---

Charpie said:

---

Each of the striking workers is getting paid $500 a day from the union. The UAW doesn't have the bankroll to pay ALL of their workers that kind of cash for long. So I anticipate that this strike won't last very long.

Each OEM has enough supply of vehicles and parts at their stores to make it through normal operations through the end of the month. After that, who knows.

---

On top of that affiliations and agreements between labor unions aren't what they used to be, and union membership is declining. It used to be if, say, UAW went on strike somewhere some of the other unions like steelworkers or coal workers would threaten a strike in support. The companies would them get pressure from multiple sides to settle so it didn't affect other industries. I don't think those relationships exist today...

---

Yep it's been that way for a while. SPEEA and the IAM share the same sites in the Seattle area and when one strikes the other stays on the job. The closest thing I've possibly seen to a group striking along with the IAM was in 2008 where the buses that drive around the Everett site were no longer running, but they could have also been IAM members for all I know.

When SPEEA struck in 2000 I was told that the IAM and everybody else kept working. No personal experience with that one since I was still wandering the halls of the Zachry building at the time.

The head honcho at the Arlington plant was interviewed on Fox 4 in DFW. They make SUVs and are not going on strike at this time.
He said the workers want
job security,
fair wages
and a 2 tier system.

What is this 2 two tier system?

Management and labor? Sounds like they've got it already!

Ok, I did a quick search. The 2 tier references a split in pay levels based on when hired (2007). It takes years for the lower tier to reach max pay and benefits, unlike the upper tier. The Union want this split to go away and all workers paid the same, at the higher level.

pacecar02 said:

---

At current truck prices, people ought to consider going custom and getting an older car/truck redone and customized

60k can go a hell of long way in a reasonably appointed custom car/truck

---

I've noticed a lot of older cars on the road lately that have obviously kept up maintenance. These are the types of cars that are usually traded. I think people aren't buying and it's going to get worse.

aggie93 said:

---

Absolutely insane time to strike. Auto sales are down and dropping fast with interest rates. People can't afford new cars as it is. Now they are striking and with an end result of raising the price of vehicles more? Brilliant!

I was thinking of getting a new F150 in the next year or so but they are just making it less and less appealing to do so. I'll either go used or get a Toyota. They sure work hard at trying to destroy themselves.

The crazy thing is this is so fixable. Just focus American manufacturing on vehicles people want and get rid of CAFE standards. Have these jobs be great jobs with good pay but not be completely unsustainable.

Nah, let's just force auto companies to make cars people don't want that are impossibly expensive while bankrupting the companies with employment contracts that are unsustainable. Then we can have everything made elsewhere.

---

On top of the fact that recalls and warranty costs are going up.

So you are walking to your bosses office with the following pitch:

Work less
Get paid more
All the while you are not performing as well as you should.
And you will walk off the job if you don't get it

Solid plan!

LMCane said:

---

I don't know about union labor -

but watching "Sopranos" was pretty eye opening about how things work in the real world..

---

I know I get my concepts of reality from HBO.

Yes, I know union corruption and organized crime connections have been around for a very long time.

Is it too harsh to call Shawn Fain a terrorist?

Right now their employers are reliant on their labor building gas vehicles to sustain profitability. As the manufacturers shift to electric vehicle production the head count is going to fall, many of these people are basically staring at unemployment in a couple of years and saying "I'm taking my pound of flesh while I can, and if I kill the company in the process, we'll they wanted to kill my job." EVs require, currently, ~40% less labor to produce a vehicle. I'd expect that percentage to go up over time.

They either strike now or never.

Cepe said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

At current truck prices, people ought to consider going custom and getting an older car/truck redone and customized

60k can go a hell of long way in a reasonably appointed custom car/truck

---

I've noticed a lot of older cars on the road lately that have obviously kept up maintenance. These are the types of cars that are usually traded. I think people aren't buying and it's going to get worse.

---

Guilty! Mine are reliable, I know the history of them since new, light and nimble, well maintained, switching out to something else makes no sense whatsoever.

My car is a 2016 with only 37k miles. My plan when I bought it over 7 years ago was to upgrade at 50 (this year) but I'll be hanging onto it and probably just drive it until it dies.

It's a Cadillac so I expect that death to be imminent.

hph6203 said:

---

Right now their employers are reliant on their labor building gas vehicles to sustain profitability. As the manufacturers shift to electric vehicle production the head count is going to fall, many of these people are basically staring at unemployment in a couple of years and saying "I'm taking my pound of flesh while I can, and if I kill the company in the process, we'll they wanted to kill my job." EVs require, currently, ~40% less labor to produce a vehicle. I'd expect that percentage to go up over time.

They either strike now or never.

---

I think the migration to EV is going to be severe for the UAW. A huge component of the vehicle is the batteries and the motors, both of which are probably outsourced to non-union shops. The UAW contribution to building the car becomes irrelevant at some point.

Aggies1322 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

I guess I don't understand the mentality of, "well if the CEO gets a 40 percent raise so should I." I mean, I don't what his responsibilities.

---

Yeah and I bet that CEO is working more than 40 hours a week.. probably closer to that 80.. and the UAW wants to get paid for 40 while only working 32. Embarrassing that those workers expect to be treated like men when they act like children.

---

Reminds me of the uswnt argument- we play soccer just like the men do so we should get paid the same!

Auto workers- we work at Ford too so we should get the same raise too!

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

American cars are $h!+.

---

not true actually

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Aggies1322 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

I guess I don't understand the mentality of, "well if the CEO gets a 40 percent raise so should I." I mean, I don't what his responsibilities.

---

Yeah and I bet that CEO is working more than 40 hours a week.. probably closer to that 80.. and the UAW wants to get paid for 40 while only working 32. Embarrassing that those workers expect to be treated like men when they act like children.

---

Reminds me of the uswnt argument- we play soccer just like the men do so we should get paid the same!

Auto workers- we work at Ford too so we should get the same raise too!

---

The USWNT was worse. They purposefully negotiated a contract with a salary that they got paid regularly and a lower per game amount so that they would have more steady income. Then a year or so down the line, they started the drumbeat of "oh poor us, we don't get paid as much as the men and we win more games." Never mind that the men actually have fans that show up for their games... The equivalent UAW move would be to negotiate to get the 40% raise by foregoing bonuses, then a year down the road start complaining about how their bonus was so much smaller than the CEOs.

I'm not a union fan, but this all would go over a lot better if they didn't always seem to show up, stick around for a few years making short term improvements and collecting bonuses while sacrificing long term health, then walk away with another huge check once they reap what they've sewn and things start to go to crap.

The Fife said:

---

Cepe said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

At current truck prices, people ought to consider going custom and getting an older car/truck redone and customized

60k can go a hell of long way in a reasonably appointed custom car/truck

---

I've noticed a lot of older cars on the road lately that have obviously kept up maintenance. These are the types of cars that are usually traded. I think people aren't buying and it's going to get worse.

---

Guilty! Mine are reliable, I know the history of them since new, light and nimble, well maintained, switching out to something else makes no sense whatsoever.

---

I just inherited a 2007 Toyota from my in-laws. 46K miles on it. I've got a good 150K miles to go or more!

It'd also be more digestible if the union offered something in return.

Like- we want 40% more pay but we're willing to work 45 hrs a week to get it.

But, it's never that. It's always more benefits for equal or less output.

I thought when the government bailed out GM they gave it to the union in a sweetheart deal. Must not be good enough anymore I guess.

Bubblez said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Heisenberg01 said:

---

deddog said:

---

i just realized (from the article above), the UAW wanted 40% raise over 4 years because that's what the C suite execs got.
Clearly being a worked on the assembly line, is exactly the same as the exec running a billion dollar company with 10s of thousands of workers.

If the Big3 gives the UAW the EV part of the deal, it's the end for the Big3. Can you imagine building a already ridiculously overpriced EVs, with Union workers, in a blue state. Ha ha, good luck with that.

---

Honestly, what has Ford done in the last 5 years that would warrant that kind of raise for the CEO? I get that the UAW demands are ridiculous, but people across this country are getting tired of where executive compensation has gone. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

---

While I agree that executive pay is over the top now, these workers don't deserve what they are asking for. In fact, they are way overpaid as it is. I could teach a monkey to do their jobs. It's uneducated, unskilled labor. There are 100 million adults in this country that could replace them with a few hours of training.

We would get a far better product for a lot less money if unions did not exist.

---

And workers get paid far, far less

---

And ?

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It'd also be more digestible if the union offered something in return.

Like- we want 40% more pay but we're willing to work 45 hrs a week to get it.

But, it's never that. It's always more benefits for equal or less output.

---

It was 40% raise and 32 hour work week.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It'd also be more digestible if the union offered something in return.

Like- we want 40% more pay but we're willing to work 45 hrs a week to get it.

But, it's never that. It's always more benefits for equal or less output.

---

Don't forget work rules changes above and beyond the 32 hr work week request. I guarantee you there is a laundry list of work rule changes. These are the things the public never sees.

I know. Mine was a general comment about union demands nearly always being for more benefits for less work and/or relaxed rules.

It's never, hey, our company is doing great. If you pay us more we will work more and do even better. It's rarely let us do something to help the company be successful long term

Heisenberg01 said:

---

deddog said:

---

i just realized (from the article above), the UAW wanted 40% raise over 4 years because that's what the C suite execs got.
Clearly being a worked on the assembly line, is exactly the same as the exec running a billion dollar company with 10s of thousands of workers.

If the Big3 gives the UAW the EV part of the deal, it's the end for the Big3. Can you imagine building a already ridiculously overpriced EVs, with Union workers, in a blue state. Ha ha, good luck with that.

---

Honestly, what has Ford done in the last 5 years that would warrant that kind of raise for the CEO? I get that the UAW demands are ridiculous, but people across this country are getting tired of where executive compensation has gone. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

---

Yeah. UAW's demands are asinine, but this is chickens coming home to roost in some ways. If exec pay isn't in line with performance, then why should anyone's? If you don't want to deal with this stuff, then don't overpay the handful of people at the top or give them big bumps in compensation without really good justification. UAW is stupid and will probably kill these companies, but the execs aren't entirely blameless for fattening them up.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

I know. Mine was a general comment about union demands nearly always being for more benefits for less work and/or relaxed rules.

It's never, hey, our company is doing great. If you pay us more we will work more and do even better. It's rarely let us do something to help the company be successful long term

---

There is a fundamental disconnect in understanding the purpose of companies. Socialists like these union bosses believe companies exist to funnel ever increasing amounts of money to their workers and political causes. Capitalists believe companies exist to serve the population by offering products useful to society and funneling profits back to shareholders and/or increasing market share.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Heisenberg01 said:

---

deddog said:

---

i just realized (from the article above), the UAW wanted 40% raise over 4 years because that's what the C suite execs got.
Clearly being a worked on the assembly line, is exactly the same as the exec running a billion dollar company with 10s of thousands of workers.

If the Big3 gives the UAW the EV part of the deal, it's the end for the Big3. Can you imagine building a already ridiculously overpriced EVs, with Union workers, in a blue state. Ha ha, good luck with that.

---

Honestly, what has Ford done in the last 5 years that would warrant that kind of raise for the CEO? I get that the UAW demands are ridiculous, but people across this country are getting tired of where executive compensation has gone. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

---

Yeah. UAW's demands are asinine, but this is chickens coming home to roost in some ways. If exec pay isn't in line with performance, then why should anyone's? If you don't want to deal with this stuff, then don't overpay the handful of people at the top or give them big bumps in compensation without really good justification. UAW is stupid and will probably kill these companies, but the execs aren't entirely blameless for fattening them up.

---

Is making billions a justifiable reason to increase pay or give large bonuses to the execs who make the decisions that lead to such profits?

Is it justifiable to give someone who installs screws everyday a 40% bump?

If the execs didnt get such large pay bumps or bonuses, but the company was making record profits, would the union still ask for more?



If you had a company of 100 people, 5 of which are execs making the decisions and 95 making the product, and there was records profits and you have $100 dollars surplus to distribute amongst everyone, should everyone get a dollar? Should the money be divided up by magnitude of worth to the company?

Agthatbuilds said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Heisenberg01 said:

---

deddog said:

---

i just realized (from the article above), the UAW wanted 40% raise over 4 years because that's what the C suite execs got.
Clearly being a worked on the assembly line, is exactly the same as the exec running a billion dollar company with 10s of thousands of workers.

If the Big3 gives the UAW the EV part of the deal, it's the end for the Big3. Can you imagine building a already ridiculously overpriced EVs, with Union workers, in a blue state. Ha ha, good luck with that.

---

Honestly, what has Ford done in the last 5 years that would warrant that kind of raise for the CEO? I get that the UAW demands are ridiculous, but people across this country are getting tired of where executive compensation has gone. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

---

Yeah. UAW's demands are asinine, but this is chickens coming home to roost in some ways. If exec pay isn't in line with performance, then why should anyone's? If you don't want to deal with this stuff, then don't overpay the handful of people at the top or give them big bumps in compensation without really good justification. UAW is stupid and will probably kill these companies, but the execs aren't entirely blameless for fattening them up.

---

Is making billions a justifiable reason to increase pay or give large bonuses to the execs who make the decisions that lead to such profits?

Is it justifiable to give someone who installs screws everyday a 40% bump?

If the execs didnt get such large pay bumps or bonuses, but the company was making record profits, would the union still ask for more?



If you had a company of 100 people, 5 of which are execs making the decisions and 95 making the product, and there was records profits and you have $100 dollars surplus to distribute amongst everyone, should everyone get a dollar? Should the money be divided up by magnitude of worth to the company?

---

When the company makes a lot of money, they complain that the folks at the top get big bonuses. When the company loses money they blame the people at the top and expect them to lose their jobs, but never offer to be more efficient.

I think the organization can divvy the money any way they want, but leadership would be foolish to think that keeping a big chunk for the top few won't cause resentment and other problems.

In the long run, I think corporations are going to kill this country. But that's another issue.

UAW reportedly wants $300,000 a year to work 4 days a week, per Ford, $F, CEO: pic.twitter.com/FLiLI8fnjE

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 15, 2023

For that, they could shut down their Michigan ties, move to Texas or another right to work state and probably come out better in the long term

I haven't run the numbers exactly, but if the auto makers simply shut down all operations, I estimate they could drain the union coffers in about two weeks at $500 per employee per week

Why not do that?