UAW Strike / Absurd Executive Compensation discussion

[horn4life 3753]

I come down somewhere in between on the demands and the offers.  I am hoping that this can be resolved relatively quickly or it's going to not take long to do damage to suppliers to the Big 3.  But the one thing that always sticks in my craw, with virtually every single publicly traded company.  The compensation for the CEO's is far, far beyond their value.

A good friend of mine's Dad was at one point one of the top 50 salary Corporate officers in Houston in the lates 70's and 80's.  He laughs that he would be making well over $100 million a year now for the exact same job.  He has stated that the pay is simply much greater than the replacement value.  In essence the compensation is grossly inflated when you compare the value in actual product production from eliminating line workers of equivalent salary value.

I also think that 32 hours of work for 40 hour pay, isn't a great look.  But that the 20% salary increase that would establish is not completely ridiculous when you look at the accommodations labor took to help the companies in covid and beyond.  When you look at who sacrificed and who has benefitted, from a math/productivity perspective the workers have gotten basically sort of screwed.  When compared to the CEO's compensation?  You make the call there.

In the end these things always need to come down to a compromise.   Just opening a discussion.

[Blotto 23418]

I haven't read enough about what the UAW are actually asking for and what the Big 3 have countered with to speak knowledgably on the UAW strike. But executive pay is a fucking joke in this country. Nobody can stop it except the boards it seems, and the boards are just filled with other CEOs that have no problem "setting the market" for their next pay raise. And now that Execs have realized that there is apparently no end to how much they can make through stock awards, they will do whatever is necessary to raise the price of the stock, whether its best for the long term health of the company or not. "Invest in XXXX or buy back stock?? Let me think that about that one..." 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2785]

Barring a huge jump in minimum wage law, doesn't the market just eventually take care of "32 hours of work for 40 hours of pay"? 

Seems a really silly way to frame the issue.

It's also not a salary.  It's an hourly wage.

 

[Buzzrock 14867]

I haven't read enough about what the UAW are actually asking for and what the Big 3 have countered with to speak knowledgably on the UAW strike. But executive pay is a fucking joke in this country. Nobody can stop it except the boards it seems, and the boards are just filled with other CEOs that have no problem "setting the market" for their next pay raise. And now that Execs have realized that there is apparently no end to how much they can make through stock awards, they will do whatever is necessary to raise the price of the stock, whether its best for the long term health of the company or not. "Invest in XXXX or buy back stock?? Let me think that about that one..." 

The OEMs have offered 17-20 percent, the UAW is asking for mid-30s.

I’m not a union guy and Shawn Fain seems like a dirtbag, but this strike seems a little like the actors strike in some ways. Complaining about AI and EVs is like candle makers complaining about light bulbs.

[Buzzrock 14867]

Also Shawn Fain was asked on CNBC if execs lowered their pay would he be satisfied and he said no. So it’s kinda separate issues.

[Macanudo 12922]

Union is asking for 36% increase over 4 years plus the reduction from 40 to 32 hours.   Anyone else expecting a 36% increase between now and 2027 while at the same job?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

While I'm a fan of unions, I do think they've gotten a little out of control. I work with a lot of former union guys who now work at our place which isn't unionized. Most of them are fairly young and pretty motivated, so good workers. The stories they tell about their former work places are the kind of stories that make you question how we were ever an manufacturing superpower. Now, we get plenty of benefits from being a workplace that is typically unionized but isn't, like better pay, better benefits, better all that. But there is still accountability, so I appreciate the the threat of unionization exists. The idea of unionization is a great check against corporate greed and stuff like excessive executive compensation. I think the biggest problems with unions isn't that they exist, but that they've been allowed to monopolize the trades. Just like anything else, competition needs to exist so that things don't get out of hand. We are better of as long as workers have the right to unionize, but establishing national unions that have a monopoly on the labor market is just as detrimental as having a monopoly on any other market.

[Captainant 27311]

21 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

The OEMs have offered 17-20 percent, the UAW is asking for mid-30s.

I’m not a union guy and Shawn Fain seems like a dirtbag, but this strike seems a little like the actors strike in some ways. Complaining about AI and EVs is like candle makers complaining about light bulbs.

I don't have much sympathy for any of the big 3 saying they don't have the money to pay their workers. Through 2020-2022 they went on a biggest-ever stock buyback spree which soley enriches their shareholders - NOT their hourly employees building the fucking product they sell.

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

While I'm a fan of unions, I do think they've gotten a little out of control. I work with a lot of former union guys who now work at our place which isn't unionized. Most of them are fairly young and pretty motivated, so good workers. The stories they tell about their former work places are the kind of stories that make you question how we were ever an manufacturing superpower. Now, we get plenty of benefits from being a workplace that is typically unionized but isn't, like better pay, better benefits, better all that. But there is still accountability, so I appreciate the the threat of unionization exists. The idea of unionization is a great check against corporate greed and stuff like excessive executive compensation. I think the biggest problems with unions isn't that they exist, but that they've been allowed to monopolize the trades. Just like anything else, competition needs to exist so that things don't get out of hand. We are better of as long as workers have the right to unionize, but establishing national unions that have a monopoly on the labor market is just as detrimental as having a monopoly on any other market.

You serious? Hourly wages have been stagnant relative to inflation for a fucking WHILE. Benefits are worse or more expensive. Less time off. Greater scope of work for the same pay. Executive compensation has been growing at a hideous rate that is completely decoupled from their own performance, their company's performance, and the value they bring to the company. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

And all those things happen in reverse if unions are allowed to monopolize the labor market. If unions actually have to compete against each other there is more balance. If not, we burn it all to the ground.

[Captainant 27311]

Just now, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

And all those things happen in reverse if unions are allowed to monopolize the labor market. If unions actually have to compete against each other there is more balance. If not, we burn it all to the ground.

I don't disagree with your point about labor monopolies being just as bad as market monopolies - but frankly, what other choice do wage earners have? There's no employer out there that's looking to be less shitty to their employees. That well is dry. All the money got sent to shareholders, and the PPP loans too.

The thing with unions is that they usually won't compete with each other - that's diametrically opposed to their values and why they unionized in the first place. They're more likely to collaborate to have greater leverage against management to benefit ALL workers rather than just their members - more or less exactly like we've seen with the WGA and SAG/AFTRA strike

[horn4life 3753]

I think the thing that the union guys themselves see is, they agreed to work for less to make sure the company could survive (keeping their jobs allowed them to survive as well).  But the reasoning from management was, exactly that we can't operate without you putting some skin in the game.  If you took a 20% below market rate to save the company for 3 years, then does a 30+ percent raise seem outlandish?  Or should they receive a lump sum for the amounts they saved the automaker with, via back dated stock options?  Sort of like the board gives themselves "for their salary sacrifices?"

In all honestly that might be the fairest way to reward the workers, for the prior salary sacrifices.

IN other words, it's unfair to look at worker demands only going forward, without considering prior sacrifices.  Still 200-1 or 300-1 CEO compensation multiples is really Un-American from a fairness perspective. From any publicly traded corp.

 

[gsoda3 3234]

3 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Still 200-1 or 300-1 CEO compensation multiples is really Un-American from a fairness perspective. 

 

get your bag.  seems on the nose american to me.  

[Buzzrock 14867]

You serious? Hourly wages have been stagnant relative to inflation for a fucking WHILE. Benefits are worse or more expensive. Less time off. Greater scope of work for the same pay. Executive compensation has been growing at a hideous rate that is completely decoupled from their own performance, their company's performance, and the value they bring to the company. 

All fair. But they are being compelled to shift to EVs which they are currently losing money on, and so doubling their labor costs right now is a real problem.

[Buzzrock 14867]

I’m not sure how you “fix” executive compensation. You have to assume that there are good CEOs (I believe there are some) and as long as the market will bear their compensation packages then they will continue to receive them.

If you make it illegal to make too much money then they will go do something else or take all their companies private.

But I don’t like growth-at-all-costs corporatism so maybe I’m on to something.

[Captainant 27311]

3 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

All fair. But they are being compelled to shift to EVs which they are currently losing money on, and so doubling their labor costs right now is a real problem.

They were all buying back record amounts of their stock and paying historically high dividends. 

 

The companies had the money. They gave it all to their shareholders and gutted the business.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't disagree with your point about labor monopolies being just as bad as market monopolies - but frankly, what other choice do wage earners have? There's no employer out there that's looking to be less shitty to their employees. That well is dry. All the money got sent to shareholders, and the PPP loans too.

The thing with unions is that they usually won't compete with each other - that's diametrically opposed to their values and why they unionized in the first place. They're more likely to collaborate to have greater leverage against management to benefit ALL workers rather than just their members - more or less exactly like we've seen with the WGA and SAG/AFTRA strike

They don't really have any other choice, so I don't blame the union members themselves. It's more of a systemic problem. But as far as unions collaborating goes, how exactly is that different than companies forming cartels? They're taking a resource and defacto monopolizing it, which leads to the same problems. now, I'm only speaking theoretically, this case obviously deals with different realities.

[Blotto 23418]

10 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

All fair. But they are being compelled to shift to EVs which they are currently losing money on, and so doubling their labor costs right now is a real problem.

Then stop buying back stock to the tune of $5 billion dollars in the last 12 months. Were they not aware of the shift to EVs and the profit challenges it would poise the last 12 months? Did this just realization just pop up in the last couple of weeks? 

5 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I’m not sure how you “fix” executive compensation. You have to assume that there are good CEOs (I believe there are some) and as long as the market will bear their compensation packages then they will continue to receive them.

If you make it illegal to make too much money then they will go do something else or take all their companies private.

But I don’t like growth-at-all-costs corporatism so maybe I’m on to something.

bullshit. Is Mary Barra gonna make $30 million a year sucking dick? And the  reason they all get paid so damn much is BECAUSE they get paid in stock. They aint taking shit private. 

Edit - there may a handful of execs that could find a way to make more money not being CEO's. But the vast majority of them know there is no other way they would make that much money. Its a fucking racket, and everyone knows its a fucking racket.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Blotto

[Buzzrock 14867]

I’m listening. How do you “fix” it?

[Captainant 27311]

3 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I’m listening. How do you “fix” it?

Reverting the reagan-era SEC rule that allows companies to engage in stock buybacks would be a good start. But that won't happen because of all the money in politics because of Citizens United.

 

How do you "fix" decades of neoliberal economics (read: trickle down economics) that have been slowly destroying the middle class? How do you fix a 20 year smoker's fucked up lungs?

Edited September 15, 2023 by Captainant

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

Well killing the smoker certainly doesn't fix their problem. It might make you feel better, but I'm pretty sure getting raped in prison will eventually make you feel worse.

[Bullneck 18976]

 

[Captainant 27311]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Well killing the smoker certainly doesn't fix their problem. It might make you feel better, but I'm pretty sure getting raped in prison will eventually make you feel worse.

I guess my point is, we as a society aren't like to stop doing the immediate thing that worsens this trend - change the rule back to disallow stock buybacks - so I don't see this ending any other way.

To follow the metaphor, the smoker knows they're dying but by god they won't give up their darts. I'm not saying that we should go fucking kill that smoker, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know how it's going to end.

[Neonmoon 38127]

I feel like there is reckoning coming between Labor & Corporate. 

AI is going to change the work economy 

[Blotto 23418]

6 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I’m listening. How do you “fix” it?

Thats a good question. With regards to the Big 3 auto OEMS,  I'm certainly noy saying that the UAW should get all of their demands, and they likely wont. Like most negotiations, they enter at the extremes and will likely meet somewhere closer to the middle. But in general, this country has a fucking greed problem. And the people that benefit most from the ever growing wealth disparity make sure to buy off the only people that can really fucking change things. The gap gets wider every goddamn year, its not a coincidence.

Take the most recent round of corporate tax cuts (which were a joke to begin with). For years, US companies couldn't move manufacturing out of the US fast enough, because higher margins mean the people paid to make those decisions make more money. We completely decimated our manufacturing base in the name of ever greater profits. And when we had squeezed most of the blood from that stone, these same corporations paid off the GOP to give them a huge tax break so they could keep making more money. Hilariously enough, at the same fucking time GOP politicians were constantly bemoaning the rise of China, and cheering on "buy america".

That seems like a perfect opportunity to incentivize a move back to US manufacturing by tying tax incentives to those corporations who could demonstrate they were doing exactly that. Obviously so much shit gets made in China that is doesn't happen over night, but show progress at least. But if Apple cant make all their shit in China, then they dont make Apple like profits, and the stock price looks a lot different when Iphone margins collapse. Instead we just rolled over and spread our legs and ponied up a tax break for nothing. Then Covid hits and everyone wishes all our shit didn't come from china. Its fucking idiocy. 

[gsoda3 3234]

40 minutes ago, Captainant said:

They were all buying back record amounts of their stock and paying historically high dividends. 

 

The companies had the money. They gave it all to their shareholders and gutted the business.

they fumbled the ball there.  historically low rates for borrowers, divergent technologies... they should've been investing more in growth instead of engaging in buybacks.

the idea behind buybacks though has merit.  ideally cash used for stock repurchases is surplus capital-  it's what's left over after all investment and growth options have been exhausted.  buybacks are prudent b/c they allow you future flexibility to raise capital without issuing debt.  you get into trouble when you finance buybacks using debt.  in either scenario, using that cash as a bonus pool type of idea for anyone in the company doesn't happen.  but of course you have to have a capable person in charge.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5781]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

How do you "fix" decades of neoliberal economics (read: trickle down economics) that have been slowly destroying the middle class? 

By forming Labor Unions and engaging in collective bargaining. 

[Captainant 27311]

18 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the idea behind buybacks though has merit.  ideally cash used for stock repurchases is surplus capital-  it's what's left over after all investment and growth options have been exhausted.  buybacks are prudent b/c they allow you future flexibility to raise capital without issuing debt.  you get into trouble when you finance buybacks using debt.  in either scenario, using that cash as a bonus pool type of idea for anyone in the company doesn't happen.  but of course you have to have a capable person in charge.

All of what you described as the merit of buybacks is exactly opposite of what happened with the most recent round during COVID. They took on debt with historically low rates to finance massive buybacks and bonuses. 

Capable people don't get put in charge. Leeches with MBA's and a mind for infinite growth at any cost get put in charge. 

[Blotto 23418]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

All of what you described as the merit of buybacks is exactly opposite of what happened with the most recent round during COVID. They took on debt with historically low rates to finance massive buybacks and bonuses. 

Capable people don't get put in charge. Leeches with MBA's and a mind for infinite growth at any cost get put in charge. 

I'll just assume you are talking about executive compensation here

[Captainant 27311]

1 minute ago, Blotto said:

I'll just assume you are talking about executive compensation here

infinite growth means a steady quarter over quarter growth forever with no fathering. That means that the stock price will ever inch upwards, which means executive compensation also grows as it is increasingly in the form of company shares.

That's why the stock buybacks are especially galling. They are double-dipping on top of their fat bonuses and massive salary and golden parachute. And their laborers took a haircut for years to help the business, and don't see a fucking thing in return.

[animaltobacco11 107]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Reverting the reagan-era SEC rule that allows companies to engage in stock buybacks would be a good start. But that won't happen because of all the money in politics because of Citizens United.

 

How do you "fix" decades of neoliberal economics (read: trickle down economics) that have been slowly destroying the middle class? How do you fix a 20 year smoker's fucked up lungs?

You'd just get companies shifting to paying dividends, if buybacks weren't allowed (which we are seeing this year, btw). Investors/Shareholders want a return on their capital. What is the point in investing in something that won't increase in value? Why would you want to invest your money into a company that does not return any profit, by way of stock buy back which helps stock price go up, or paying a dividend?

If you argue that you invest in the stock for long term growth, rather than a short or medium term return, how is that defined and quantified? 

I think what you don't like is the market economy and America's flavor of capitalism, but TINA. There truly isn't.

Edited September 15, 2023 by animaltobacco11

[Captainant 27311]

6 minutes ago, animaltobacco11 said:

You'd just get companies shifting to paying dividends, if buybacks weren't allowed (which we are seeing this year, btw). Investors/Shareholders want a return on their capital. What is the point in investing in something that won't increase in value? Why would you want to invest your money into a company that does not return any profit, by way of stock buy back which helps stock price go up, or paying a dividend?

If you argue that you invest in the stock for long term growth, rather than a short or medium term return, how is that defined and quantified? 

I think what you don't like is the market economy and America's flavor of capitalism, but TINA. There truly isn't.

You're completely missing the point, Chrispy. 

 

These companies claim they can't pay their workers because they don't have enough money to pay them AND keep their business afloat. That's a fucking lie. They did have enough money, but they chose to enrich themselves instead of pay their workers and fund the businesses. And you're right - I don't like this flavor of oligarchical capitalism.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Captainant

[Texas Jeff 1932]

Union is asking for 36% increase over 4 years plus the reduction from 40 to 32 hours.   Anyone else expecting a 36% increase between now and 2027 while at the same job?

Austin city council?

[Blotto 23418]

4 minutes ago, animaltobacco11 said:

You'd just get companies shifting to paying dividends, if buybacks weren't allowed (which we are seeing this year, btw). Investors/Shareholders want a return on their capital. What is the point in investing in something that won't increase in value? Why would you want to invest your money into a company that does not return any profit, by way of stock buy back which helps stock price go up, or paying a dividend?

If you argue that you invest in the stock for long term growth, rather than a short or medium term return, how is that defined and quantified? 

I think what you don't like is the market economy and America's flavor of capitalism, but TINA. There truly isn't.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Capitalism, socialism, communism, any-ism is only as effective as the structure in place to keep the system true to its goals and prevent it from being exploited. To suggest that America's current flavor of capitalism cant be tweaked or evolved to provide a more equitable economy is absolute horseshit. I'm certainly not arguing that we do away with capitalism. But I am arguing that our government shouldn't favor the corporation over the good of the people. There has to be a balance. Its why I laugh at the current  "conservative" war cry against any and all regulation. Excessive regulation can be burdensome, no regulation would be a fucking disaster. Again.....balance.

[animaltobacco11 107]

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

While I'm a fan of unions, I do think they've gotten a little out of control. I work with a lot of former union guys who now work at our place which isn't unionized. Most of them are fairly young and pretty motivated, so good workers. The stories they tell about their former work places are the kind of stories that make you question how we were ever an manufacturing superpower. Now, we get plenty of benefits from being a workplace that is typically unionized but isn't, like better pay, better benefits, better all that. But there is still accountability, so I appreciate the the threat of unionization exists. The idea of unionization is a great check against corporate greed and stuff like excessive executive compensation. I think the biggest problems with unions isn't that they exist, but that they've been allowed to monopolize the trades. Just like anything else, competition needs to exist so that things don't get out of hand. We are better of as long as workers have the right to unionize, but establishing national unions that have a monopoly on the labor market is just as detrimental as having a monopoly on any other market.

This is a good post and reminds of a conversation I had with a family member who works for Toyota, which is staunchly non-union. There is a big debate at Toyota corporate with all the white collar workers there who support manufacturing (finance, accounting, services, etc.) and they are flies on the wall to some of the internal slack channels and internal facebook group discussions. 

In order to keep unions at bay, Toyota goes above and beyond in certain things. They are known for never doing layoffs for one. When Covid-19 happened, they kept folks on and when things slowed down, they took that opportunity to clean/maintain presses and machines, re-tool, re-train on kaizen, etc. They keep wages very competitive for their sector, have great insurance and benefits, and retirement. And they do this not out of the kindness of their hearts, but to beat into their employees heads "you can't have all this with a union-- unions will cost you and we can't give you all these great things if you unionize"

Even with all that being said, people are people. Blue collar people can be short-sighted and when they see initial reports of 40%+ wage raises and initial reports of old-school style pensions, they start to think, hey-- I want that!

[gsoda3 3234]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

All of what you described as the merit of buybacks is exactly opposite of what happened with the most recent round during COVID. They took on debt with historically low rates to finance massive buybacks and bonuses. 

Capable people don't get put in charge. Leeches with MBA's and a mind for infinite growth at any cost get put in charge. 

yes that's exactly what i said in my first three sentences of that post.

[freyguy 4245]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I feel like there is reckoning coming between Labor & Corporate. 

AI is going to change the work economy 

Probably not as much as you'd expect.  Shit will just shift, and the change will be slow.

What I see is for the past 1-2 years, workers actually had the upper hand for a very short while...with demand/salary increases due to labor shortages coming out of the pandemic lock down.  So companies were spending at all costs.  Now that demand is softening, companies have the upper hand and are starting to clamp back down on costs. 

You think the Big3 are going to give back what was gained from their buyout?  Fuck no.  You want more pay?  Work longer.  World-wide layoffs are coming as demand continues to soften.  It will build upon itself.  And corporations will continue to push for higher margins throughout the "downturn" they have created.

This strike is actually well-timed from the corporations' point of view.  Strike will prolong, Big3 will cut production, suppliers will in turn cut their production, leading to rapid cost cutting and layoffs in the supplier space.

I'm sorry, but the workers ain't gonna win.  They've never "won", so why expect anything different?

[animaltobacco11 107]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

You're completely missing the point, Chrispy. 

 

These companies claim they can't pay their workers because they don't have enough money to pay them AND keep their business afloat. That's a fucking lie. They did have enough money, but they chose to enrich themselves instead of pay their workers and fund the businesses. And you're right - I don't like this flavor of oligarchical capitalism.

Stated a different way, companies chose to return value back to shareholders (of which some of the employers are, through 401ks, pensions, personal portfolios, etc.) instead of giving their employees double digit raise increases. If giving the employees double digit raise increases would have increased earnings per share, don't you think they would have done that instead?

[safe sex 11659]

Good lord, unions are the weakest they've pretty much ever been, and some are worried that they're out of control? Gtfo

[animaltobacco11 107]

Unions are much stronger today than they were 5-7 years ago. What are you talking about?

Biden just dispatched his top people in support of UAW today. Biden's administrative is super pro-union and that has trickled down.

Not commenting on if that is a good or bad thing, just saying you are wrong. Unions have turned the corner of public perception and are getting "trendy" again. Just ask Starbucks and Amazon.

[safe sex 11659]

Not even close to their power in the 50s/60s/70s. Not even close to "out of control." Getting a single union in a single Starbucks is still a monumental effort. 

Shut the fuck up and go away.

If it makes anyone feel better, I can amend my statement to include that things have improved a little from the absolute dumpster fire that they've been for decades.

 

[animaltobacco11 107]

From NYT, it looks like the updated demands:

The union’s demands include:

A 40 percent pay raise over four years, which would bring wages for many full-time workers to roughly $32 per hour. Reinstate cost-of-living adjustments, which have become a central plank in contract negotiations amid high inflation. A four-day workweek, a demand that’s grown in popularity since the pandemic scrambled workplace culture.

The political costs loom large. A 10-day strike could send Michigan into recession, according to a recent economic analysis. If the work stoppage were to last six weeks — the 2019 strike at G.M. lasted 40 — it could push the U.S. economy “close to the edge of a recession,” Mark Zandi, an economist for Moody’s, told The Times.

The strike is a big test for Biden. He often speaks of his pro-union roots, but doesn’t have a deep relationship with Fain, a relative newcomer in D.C. circles.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I feel like there is reckoning coming between Labor & Corporate. 

AI is going to change the work economy 

no shit. I just an hour ago dove into chatgpt for the first. I am having a search function added to my site and there was a communication breakdown between me and my programmer. I was speaking design-build and he was speaking code. ai bridged the gap quite nicely. i don't think anyone lost a job because of it, but it probably saved me 2-3 hours of his time to arrive at the same place, so definitely useful. but to me that is what it should be - a tool to make humans more efficient. nothing more.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

4 hours ago, Bullneck said:

 

Came here to see if this had been posted.  This guy should be beaten with a bag of oranges.

[Nivek 16808]

 

5 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Union is asking for 36% increase over 4 years plus the reduction from 40 to 32 hours.   Anyone else expecting a 36% increase between now and 2027 while at the same job?

From what I recall, there was a report about executive comp being raised by 40% which is why the workers are asking for 40% as well.  The CEO claims that 90% of her compensation being tied to performance doesn't change the situation (it can be rigged).    Of course, I didn't really look into this in too much depth, I am just reporting what I heard on TV this AM.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

2 hours ago, animaltobacco11 said:

Stated a different way, companies chose to return value back to shareholders (of which some of the employers are, through 401ks, pensions, personal portfolios, etc.) instead of giving their employees double digit raise increases. If giving the employees double digit raise increases would have increased earnings per share, don't you think they would have done that instead?

Here's the problem  As exemplified by that GE annual report from the 50s, there are numerous stakeholders in a corporation, in addition to shareholders.  

Although fiduciary duty is to the shareholders, executives and the board are sheltered by the business judgment rule from exclusively considering the short-term interests of shareholders (which is what they do, because their short-term interests align).

It is perfectly legally permissible for the board and CEO to consider and enact pay raises to the short-term detriment of shareholders.  It's good for the employees, it's good for the long-term prospects of the corporation, and for the country for that matter.  Wholesale offshoring of manufacturing/production is a classic example of short-term shareholder benefit and long-term detriment to employees, to the corporation (see the last three years and the shift away from China), and to the country as a whole.

[Bullneck 18976]

2 hours ago, animaltobacco11 said:

From NYT, it looks like the updated demands:

The union’s demands include:

A 40 percent pay raise over four years, which would bring wages for many full-time workers to roughly $32 per hour. Reinstate cost-of-living adjustments, which have become a central plank in contract negotiations amid high inflation. A four-day workweek, a demand that’s grown in popularity since the pandemic scrambled workplace culture.

The political costs loom large. A 10-day strike could send Michigan into recession, according to a recent economic analysis. If the work stoppage were to last six weeks — the 2019 strike at G.M. lasted 40 — it could push the U.S. economy “close to the edge of a recession,” Mark Zandi, an economist for Moody’s, told The Times.

The strike is a big test for Biden. He often speaks of his pro-union roots, but doesn’t have a deep relationship with Fain, a relative newcomer in D.C. circles.

Do me a favor and don't tell anyone I told you this, but in addition to setting gas prices Biden also decides how much money everyone in the US should make.  

Really.  He does.  It's part of the Presidential Records Act.  

[Neonmoon 38127]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

no shit. I just an hour ago dove into chatgpt for the first. I am having a search function added to my site and there was a communication breakdown between me and my programmer. I was speaking design-build and he was speaking code. ai bridged the gap quite nicely. i don't think anyone lost a job because of it, but it probably saved me 2-3 hours of his time to arrive at the same place, so definitely useful. but to me that is what it should be - a tool to make humans more efficient. nothing more.

I don’t mean in the short term. Like all technological advances, it’s a big splash at first. The internet will change the world! But there will be growing pains. The internet was invented in 1983. The change the world articles came out in the late 90s, and people began purchasing things over the internet in the 2000s. There’s a lot of AI talk right now. Sure, it helps a little. Bridges the gap. But 10-20 years from now, it will have changed the role of labor 

[DaysOff 7821]

Union is asking for 36% increase over 4 years plus the reduction from 40 to 32 hours.   Anyone else expecting a 36% increase between now and 2027 while at the same job?

Yes, and I'm getting it. However, prior to this agreement, I'm starting year 5 without a change in rate, so that 36% is spread out over 9 years. Just staying ahead of inflation.

[DaysOff 7821]

Unions are much stronger today than they were 5-7 years ago. What are you talking about?
Biden just dispatched his top people in support of UAW today. Biden's administrative is super pro-union and that has trickled down.
Not commenting on if that is a good or bad thing, just saying you are wrong. Unions have turned the corner of public perception and are getting "trendy" again. Just ask Starbucks and Amazon.

Sure he is. He has a D next to his name. Look at all the railway and airline strikes thwarting your dildo delivery and trip to Destin.

Some of those guys were asking for 1 damn sick day.

[TexasEd 8062]

8 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

The OEMs have offered 17-20 percent, the UAW is asking for mid-30s.

I’m not a union guy and Shawn Fain seems like a dirtbag, but this strike seems a little like the actors strike in some ways. Complaining about AI and EVs is like candle makers complaining about light bulbs.

 

8 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Union is asking for 36% increase over 4 years plus the reduction from 40 to 32 hours.   Anyone else expecting a 36% increase between now and 2027 while at the same job?

Putting the numbers in context for annual increases. 2023 to 2027

17% = 4% per year

20% = 4.75% per year

36% = 8% per year and these are without the work hour reductions.  

I think the work hour reductions are just asking for more automation of existing jobs.

22 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Yes, and I'm getting it. However, prior to this agreement, I'm starting year 5 without a change in rate, so that 36% is spread out over 9 years. Just staying ahead of inflation.

If you account for no increases for 5 years it brings this down significantly.  Using 2019 as the starting point

17% = 2% per year

20% = 2.3% per year

36% = 3.92% per year