UAW goes on Strike --- First Time in History Workers Will Picket All Big Automakers At Same Time

Not really. Ivy league schools have graduates every year. Have for decades. There's always somebody waiting in the wings wanting the job.

 

Again, I haven't claimed anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Another poster with no idea what a job entails that they are talking about.

Why do they have to hire more workers? So they can have a 40 hr. week? Why do they need a 40 hr. week? To use turtleduette's nonsense responses....can you prove they need a 40 hr. week.

I have no idea what they do for their money. Do you? I can tell you that they make 3-4 times the average salary of a UAW worker. The CEO makes 281 times more. He didn't build anything.

 

Huh, odd because Steve N just did.
Made some good points. I didn't agree but at least he addressed the issue.

 

YOU STILL HAVE FAILED TO TELL US=HOW EXECUTIVE PAY SHOULD BE SET

 

They can quit and go get another job they don't OWN the job they have no right to it.

 

The CEO oversees and protects and invest and grows the $47B stockholder equity to ensure they don't lose it.

Divide that by your 281 and that's $167M per "times" how much in the assets of the company does the average UAW oversee and is responsible for?

 

They lose bonus money if the company doesn't do well. The owners lose money if the company doesn't do well. Do the workers lose some of their income if the company doesn't do well?

 

Workers wages are not paid from profits. Wages and salaries are paid BEFORE profits. Wages are a company expense and are deducted from revenues, just like energy cost, rents, raw material cost, administrative cost and all the cost of a business, to come to profits. Workers have no claims to a penny of profit. They get paid for their labor as that expense at the rate they agreed to exchange it for. If they want to base it on profit then they will have to suffer through times of working without pay when the company doesn't make a profit. Is that what you and they want? If they want to share in the profits then BUY THE STOCK. And if you believe they are making all this huge profits then you ARE investing in them and reaping them too aren't you?

 

It's a matter of is there the money to pay them more do you REALLY think their demands are reasonable. If so should everyone in the country go on strike and demand a 40%+ increase and 40 hours pay for 32 hours? Here in the South we saw what unions got you, and closed factory where you used to work. That's why the workers in the South voted them all out or refuse to certify them at all the new manufacturing that moved in.

As I said give them 48 hours to report to work at the offered wage else they forfeit their jobs. Then call in the new workforce and have the President send in the National Guard to protect them from the violence the union thugs will bring down upon them trying to use that violence and force to intimidate them.

 

No, the argument is sound.....you just don't agree. OK
Give a counter argument or explain why I'm wrong. I gave an example of what point I'm making. Can you?
The subject at hand is simple
Labor gave up cost of living increases in 2007 to keep GM afloat and want them back. What did the CEO give up
Also:

• Eliminating wage tiers.
• A 40% wage increase over the life of the contract. The 40% signifies the increase to CEO salaries
• Defined benefit pension for all workers.
• The right to strike over plant closures.
• A reduced work week and more paid time off.
• Limiting the use of temporary workers.
• Increased benefits to current retirees

 

Maybe you could post something relevant.

 

So you believe you can hire someone with the experience and successes and capabilities to run a $47 BILLION dollar company protecting those $47 BILLION in owner equity while running that $47BILLION dollar company's factories and administration and planning and executing those plans to grow the company and the owners equity by just paying enough to put food on the table? That's all it takes to get one of those few rare individuals qualified and capable of doing such a job?

 

Pay attention, I did answer that.
Their pay is set by the board. The point is, are they really worth the amount being paid. The board also gives themselves raises. They don't give a crap about labor.

 

So how does that increase the value of their labor and productivity to cover the cost of doing that? Everytime I made more money it was because the company made more money through my management or more important my revenue generating sales to the company. The company made more money then I made more money, it didn't make that money I didn't make it. Why would any one demand they get paid the say as everyone else except for a lazy worker who did not want to put forth anymore effort to make the more money? Pay me for for me working less because THAT is the way to make a company successful!!!!!

 

No it's and never has been. You want a share of the profit then buy the stock and become an owner. You as a worker are an EXPENSE. You are ABOVE the bottom line. You want your pay to be tied to profit then agree your pay goes down if the company doesn't make and you may have to give up some if the company loses money, that what you want. An employee is only entitled to the money the company says the job is worth them and how much it contributes to their bottom line. Workers get paid BEFORE profits not after.

 

WTF
You're actually comparing the two jobs to each other like that has any significance at all?

 

I doubt it.
The banks didn't

Yeah, but they don't go broke

Yeah, they lose their jobs.

 

This is a thread about workers. If a worker doesn't like their situation, they are free to hire themselves out to a better employment situation.

 

That is the price that they can demand on the market.

 

But they have many other better jobs they can sign up for.

 

that really isn't an answer. what do you think should determine the pay of top executives. what expertise do you have that suggests your view on what is suitable compensation is superior to the board of directors-who answer to the shareholders

 

I can't reply to this because you're comparing apples and oranges in a rant.
Make a coherent argument and I'll answer

 

No, that's not what the thread is about

 

And that is what labor is doing now.