Quote:
Originally Posted by carfansince73
From what I understand, that is for new workers only, not the existing ones which make $27/hr plus full benefits. Toyota is half that. The UAW need to realize that if they want their members to have a job, they will have to renegotiate their contracts. A job pay that pays less is better than no job at all.
|
So...you'd have them all take 50% pay cuts, too?
I wonder...how might that effect the local economies where those people work? And how might you or I feel if we've suddenly been told to wipe away half our income..."or else". This "better to have a job at all..." reasoning astounds me at how callous people can be when they're talking about somebody else. Doing what you propose is simply not possible for a whole slew of reasons.
Secondly, many of the older employees close to retirement were already bought out and some replaced with the new guys at the lower wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomServo
It's my understanding that "these" consessions were based on selling 16 MILLION units per year. The industry has constricted DOWN to less than 11 MILLIONyear it may fall even lower. More consessions and LAYOFF will be needed and the UAW may have drawn a line in the sand.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the BIG 3 aren't out of the woods yet with legacy costs.
|
You're absolutely right. There are more changes that can, and ultimately should be made. But none of them can happen overnight. And ignoring the recent changes because they aren't "good enough" undermines the whole process, imo.
As for the units/pay...I have no idea. I can't imagine that hourly pay would change depending on how many units they make. But layoffs, and plant closings, etc may need to happen. Many have already been bought into early retirement, and many plants have been closed. (more examples of recent changes that the likes of Mitt Romney are ignoring)