NOHOME said:For sure the price of cars will go up, it has to to cover the cost of labour.
Prices have already gone up.
The main factor for determining prices is what the market is willing to pay based on supply and demand, not production costs.
NOHOME said:For sure the price of cars will go up, it has to to cover the cost of labour.
Prices have already gone up.
The main factor for determining prices is what the market is willing to pay based on supply and demand, not production costs.
Beer Baron said:NOHOME said:For sure the price of cars will go up, it has to to cover the cost of labour.
Prices have already gone up.
The main factor for determining prices is what the market is willing to pay based on supply and demand, not production costs.
What the market is willing to pay or what the market can be tricked into paying? I get they're the same thing to a lot of people, but they really aren't.
Few more years we might hit the cap on what the market could be tricked into paying, but they'll probably start with 10-12 year car loans so they can still fleece people into thinking they can afford it.
Beer Baron said:4cylndrfury said:alfadriver said:The real big deal is that the upper management bonuses are considerably more regular in size than the minions. So realistically, they are not bonuses. So the UAW would like to see the bonuses become fixed and not variable. Especially when the minion bonuses are largely a reflection of management decisions vs their hard work. So if someone makes a last sec cut and causes a $1B warrantee problem, we suffer when they don't. Hardly a way to motivate your work force.
so the answer is "give us an absurdly huge pay raise", not "fix the merit structure"?
It's the responsibility of C-suite management to fix systemic issues, including that merit structure. If they did that, the union members would probably be more content.
The workers can't force the C-suite to get their act together, but they can make it uncomfortable for them not to.
isnt the strike in its base design an effort by the plebs to force the C-suite to do whatever it is you say they have to do before youll return to work?
I agree, its the top of the food chains responsibility to fix things. So tell them to fix the things that are broken or you wont come back to work. Asking them to fix the symptoms will only make the problem invisible, it doesnt actually fix the problem.
4cylndrfury said:Beer Baron said:It's the responsibility of C-suite management to fix systemic issues, including that merit structure. If they did that, the union members would probably be more content.
The workers can't force the C-suite to get their act together, but they can make it uncomfortable for them not to.
isnt the strike in its base design an effort by the plebs to force the C-suite to do whatever it is you say they have to do before youll return to work?
I agree, its the top of the food chains responsibility to fix things. So tell them to fix the things that are broken or you wont come back to work. Asking them to fix the symptoms will only make the problem invisible, it doesnt actually fix the problem.
The C-suite can choose to only fix the symptoms. The C-suite can choose to also identify the root problems, and then design and implement a plan to fix them.
It is not the job of the Union or the workers it represents to figure out how the business should be structured and operate. That is what the C-suite is (supposedly) getting paid to do.
Beer Baron said:4cylndrfury said:Beer Baron said:It's the responsibility of C-suite management to fix systemic issues, including that merit structure. If they did that, the union members would probably be more content.
The workers can't force the C-suite to get their act together, but they can make it uncomfortable for them not to.
isnt the strike in its base design an effort by the plebs to force the C-suite to do whatever it is you say they have to do before youll return to work?
I agree, its the top of the food chains responsibility to fix things. So tell them to fix the things that are broken or you wont come back to work. Asking them to fix the symptoms will only make the problem invisible, it doesnt actually fix the problem.
The C-suite can choose to only fix the symptoms. The C-suite can choose to also identify the root problems, and then design and implement a plan to fix them.
It is not the job of the Union or the workers it represents to figure out how the business should be structured and operate. That is what the C-suite is (supposedly) getting paid to do.
i dont disagree with most of this save one bit - while it is not the union workers main priority to figure out how to run the business, if they have beef with the way the leadership is running things, and especially if they have identified what it is that theyd like to see be fixed, then why not ask for those corrections rather than simply wanting a raise?
4cylndrfury said:i dont disagree with most of this save one bit - while it is not the union workers main priority to figure out how to run the business, if they have beef with the way the leadership is running things, and especially if they have identified what it is that theyd like to see be fixed, then why not ask for those corrections rather than simply wanting a raise?
Because they don't know what those corrections should be. Because they don't have the training, knowledge, or experience. They don't have access to the company's full operation records. They don't have the time to forensically analyze the operations. They don't have the power or authority to change anything. Because that's not their job.
If I make a bad beer, someone can tell me it's a bad beer. I'm the brewmaster. I'm the expert. It's my job to figure out how to make it better.
The workers know there's a problem. They've told the C-Suite there's a problem. It's up to the C-Suite to figure out the best solution to the problem. That is their job. They are the experts.
If the C-Suite can't figure out how to solve systemic problems better than the union, they should all be replaced.
Are you suggesting that the union should know how to run the company better than the board and should just step in and take over operations?
Beer Baron said:NOHOME said:For sure the price of cars will go up, it has to to cover the cost of labour.
Prices have already gone up.
The main factor for determining prices is what the market is willing to pay based on supply and demand, not production costs.
Dingdingding!
The strike is affecting only 3 manufacturers, all domestic. Want to guess the 3 manufacturers that had the highest new car days supply one week ago? I'll give you a hint, the average CDJR dealer was sitting on a 6 months supply of new units. While it might hurt them if the strikes drags on for months (it won't), in the short term this is a huge win for most domestic franchises.
SV reX said:In reply to Beer Baron :
That's a very good summary of the writer's strike.
The problem is that whether they like it or not, the streaming model is here to stay. There is no resolution. So, the strike is only gonna hurt the workers.
The answer to this should probably go in a new rant, I mean thread...
Just how are the companies hosting the streaming able to do this without paying for the right to use the property?
Or is Napster having the last laugh...
In reply to Noddaz :
How are their contracts worded? The contract may screw them for streaming.
See also: companies locking up properties and refusing to stream them. In some cases it is a rights nightmare, true. But the traditional broadcast model was Darwinically simple: they broadcast the shows that they thought could get the best ratings, because they had a limited amount of broadcast time. With streaming, they literally have effectively infinite slots, so there is no reason to NOT have something available for streaming.
In reply to j_tso :
Yeah, but as the Egyptians used to say "If your piramid is upside-down, you just cant denile that you are berkeleyed"
Beer Baron said:Because they don't know what those corrections should be. Because they don't have the training, knowledge, or experience. They don't have access to the company's full operation records. They don't have the time to forensically analyze the operations. They don't have the power or authority to change anything. Because that's not their job.
The workers know there's a problem. They've told the C-Suite there's a problem. It's up to the C-Suite to figure out the best solution to the problem. That is their job. They are the experts.
I respectfully disagree with your premise.
The Union has cited things like bonus structures that dont reflect company performance. That is not something that requires forensic analysis to understand or correct. A publicly traded corporations records and finances are pretty easy to obtain. If the finances indicate merit packages for board members that are counter to company performance, then you have what you need to make changes to that structure.
And you keep going back to the fact that the workers have no authority to enact change. I will go back to my assertion that the very essence of striking is to leverage the labor you have to offer to coerce those with said authority to enact change. You may not have authority, but you have leverage. Thats the entire premise of striking.
At the end of the day, the union is upset over the pay scenario - theyre striking to get a raise, and an incredibly high one at that (at least from a percentage perspective). But what theyre seeking (a raise) doesnt fix the problem that the suite is getting big paychecks without having skin in the game from a company performance standpoint. The union strike isnt addressing the root problem (at least as they see it). Their demands only bandaid the wound, and pass the burden onto consumers.
Eventually, people vote with their wallet. Thats an argument that nearly no company can win.
Overall, the cost of cars and trucks at GM, Ford and Stellantis will have to go up to pay for the labor increase. Someone has to pay for it.
It might as well be you. Because I am not buying.
Are you suggesting that the union should know how to run the company better than the board and should just step in and take over operations?
Are they not trying to do that? " We demand a 32 hour work week at 40 hour level of pay."
The UAW and the automakers have been stabbing each other in the back for so long they both do not know how to act any other way.
4cylndrfury saidAnd you keep going back to the fact that the workers have no authority to enact change. I will go back to my assertion that the very essence of striking is to leverage the labor you have to offer to coerce those with said authority to enact change. You may not have authority, but you have leverage. Thats the entire premise of striking.
Yes. Exactly. They are exerting the leverage they have to try to make management do their job. But at the end of the day, only management can do that job.
It's management's job. Management needs to do their job.
At the end of the day, the union is upset over the pay scenario - theyre striking to get a raise, and an incredibly high one at that (at least from a percentage perspective). But what theyre seeking (a raise) doesnt fix the problem that the suite is getting big paychecks without having skin in the game from a company performance standpoint. The union strike isnt addressing the root problem (at least as they see it). Their demands only bandaid the wound, and pass the burden onto consumers.
Yes. We agree.
We can discuss details we don't know, but let's turn this to basic premises we can agree on and facts we know.
I think we can agree that it is entirely reasonable for wages to at least keep pace with inflation. We could argue about raises above the rate of inflation, but inflation should be the floor to keep quality of living from decreasing.
The last UAW contract was in 2019. Since then, we've seen a net inflation of ~20%, but UAW workers have only received a net 6% pay increase. Their pay is not keeping up with inflation. It's safe to assume that that the union has asked for larger pay increases during that time.
If this is true, management has refused to listen to really basic requests from the union that would be very easy to grant.
If management won't listen to the union asking for pay that keeps up with inflation, why would the union expect management to agree to more radical structural changes?
My big hypothesis I'm forming is: when workers are just shouting about money, it's because management has effectively communicated that is the only language they understand.
alfadriver said:SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
Eric, let's not make this a personal attack. I didn't introduce the word "childish" to this thread.
No, you just accuse the workers as being jealous. As if doing that isn't a personal attack on random uaw workers. Or the very related base engineers at Ford, which I was one of those.
I didn't introduce the word "jealous" to this thread either.
Lighten up Francis.
Noddaz said:Overall, the cost of cars and trucks at GM, Ford and Stellantis will have to go up to pay for the labor increase. Someone has to pay for it.
It might as well be you. Because I am not buying.
Exactly. That's why prices won't increase (more than they naturally do). Because if they do, people won't buy.
Auto makers already charge as much as people are willing to pay. They are not leaving potential profits on the table. If they can keep production costs flat, but get customers to pay more... they will charge more and take more profit. If cost of production goes up, but buyers aren't willing to pay more... they will charge the same and take less profit.
Workers getting a raise doesn't change how much I'm willing to pay for a new car. I'm not alone.
The result will be lower profit dividends paid out to shareholders and smaller bonuses to executives.
In reply to alfadriver :
I understand "jealous" touched a nerve, but it is not an insult or an accusation aimed at any workers with any mal intent whatsoever. It is a specific descriptive word describing the particular approach the UAW is attempting.
There are lots of ways they could frame it which I would be strongly supportive of...
"We need a raise because we haven't had one in a while". That's legit.
"We need a raise because we are not paid in accordance with industry norms". That's legit.
"We need a raise because we are overworked, or we need additional help or resources". That's legit.
It would also be legit if they were identifying a systemic issue in the merit structure they wanted addressed. "We are uncomfortable with a 40% raise for the CEO and think it is unhealthy for the company. We want the C-suite to address this problem". Yep. That's legit too. I would be fully in support of it.
Instead, the approach is "He got a big raise, we should too". With no apparent correlation identifying the reason their efforts warrant a similar raise, nor efforts to identify why his was illegitimate. It's just "We want what he has". I understand this is uncomfortable, but that's what jealousy is.
I apologize if it sounds harsh.
I am always supportive of workers efforts, and want to see them treated fairly in all circumstances. But it is really hard to support their claims when they are based on feelings that they have a claim on something solely because someone else got it.
I don't know what my boss makes. Really don't care. He pays me fairly for my efforts, and treats me with decency.
I am in support of the UAW for anything that relates to their work, their work environment, and their compensation for that work. I am not in support of large pay requests just because someone (with a totally different job and different responsibilities) got one.
Beer Baron said:Exactly. That's why prices won't increase (more than they naturally do). Because if they do, people won't buy.
Auto makers already charge as much as people are willing to pay. They are not leaving potential profits on the table. If they can keep production costs flat, but get customers to pay more... they will charge more and take more profit. If cost of production goes up, but buyers aren't willing to pay more... they will charge the same and take less profit.
Workers getting a raise doesn't change how much I'm willing to pay for a new car. I'm not alone.
The result will be lower profit dividends paid out to shareholders and smaller bonuses to executives.
Bingo. If Ford decides to charge an extra $10k for F-150s because of labor costs and Toyota doesn't do that for Tundras, Ford ain't gonna sell too many F-150s.
"The worth of a thing is the price it will bring"
SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
I understand "jealous" touched a nerve, but it is not an insult or an accusation aimed at any workers with any mal intent whatsoever. It is a specific descriptive word describing the particular approach the UAW is attempting.
There are lots of ways they could frame it which I would be strongly supportive of...
"We need a raise because we haven't had one in a while". That's legit.
"We need a raise because we are not paid in accordance with industry norms". That's legit.
"We need a raise because we are overworked, or we need additional help or resources". That's legit.
...
What makes you thinking they haven't been asking for those things already?
If you made those reasonable requests to your boss for four years strait and kept getting brushed off, would you keep asking politely, or would you eventually hit the point of, "berkeley you. Pay me."?
If you've hit "berkeley you. Pay me," after four years of being ignored, would you:
The manufacturers response has not been in line with what you would consider reasonable either. They've effectively offered that in three years from now, they will start paying them what they should be getting paid today.
The auto makers could have just paid COL increases in line with inflation (or even a tad shy - say 16% instead of 20%) for the past 4 years. If they had, it probably would have avoided most of this mess. But they didn't.
Everyone can continue to blame the workers. That's the easiest thing to do. The real tough thing to do would be to fix the economy which is what needs to be done. It's just like deferred maintenance on a Porsche. Do it now or pay more later. Wages aren't keeping up with the economy, so workers want more. If execs want to blame the workers, fine. They probably ought to address it with their friends that they send money to in order to get them elected instead. The problem isn't even hard to identify or address. The willingness to actually do is almost non existent though.
Don't get distracted by who is blaming who. Look at the big picture from a wide angle view. This is just a tiny symptom of a much larger and much more significant problem.
In reply to Beer Baron :
I don't. I have no inside info behind the scenes.
I understand it's a highball negotiation tactic. I have no problem with that. Let's not use a comparison to CEO pay. That's not relevant.
SV reX said:In reply to Beer Baron :
I understand it's a highball negotiation tactic. I have no problem with that. Let's not use a comparison to CEO pay. That's not relevant.
That's why I'm not comparing it to CEO pay.
My guess is that they've been fed lines that they couldn't give raises because money is too tight. So this is a case of, "Clearly profits aren't that slim if you're able to pay these kind of bonuses."
In reply to Beer Baron :
I'm not suggesting you did. You and I are in agreement.
But it's been mentioned many times in this thread. And the 40% number was a direct (inaccurate) reference to that.
In reply to Beer Baron :
I think we can agree that it is entirely reasonable for wages to at least keep pace with inflation. We could argue about raises above the rate of inflation, but inflation should be the floor to keep quality of living from decreasing.
No, it's not reasonable at all. Wages traditionally keep pace with built in inflation, or the average expected amount of inflation, which is in the 3% range per year. That inflation is largely caused by the very raises in wages that create the inflation in the first place. It's an exercise in a dog chasing it's tail, but it's pretty much expected within our system. That is what standard cost of living wages are based off of.
The inflation that we experienced over the last couple years is not built in inflation. It is a result of the double whammy of drastically increased money supply and extremely unbalanced supply and demand forces. Supply restricted due to shortages, while the increased money supply increased demand. It is a temporary unbalance that does not warrant raising the built in inflation to that level. So when we have a temporary outlier spike in inflation, we most certainly should not expect to raise wages to match.
One thing about executive stock compensation is that it technically doesn't cost the company money. Mr. Farley's 15M in shares is not taxed until he sells and they are only worth 15M if the stock price is the same when he sells as it was when those shares vested. If he sells all of them and the share price is the same, he gets his 15M from the market, and not Ford. Ford has to account for it on their books (GAAP) like they gave him 15M in actual real money, but they have not. It's not a bad deal for Ford, as it isn't actual liquid cash coming from their reserves. As for Mr. Farley, he is not taxed on that 15M as income, unless and until he sells the shares.
In reply to mattm :
I personally think it should be taxed as income when it is granted. He really has very little skin in the game, IMHO - that $15M in stock is house money. He can make terrible decisions, tank the stock price 75%, and still walk away with $3.5M for that year... And possibly not have to pay any taxes then.
You'll need to log in to post.
