Debunking The $70-An-Hour Auto Worker Gossip

Media Matters :

Appearing on NPR last week, Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard told listeners that the "hourly wage" of Detroit's union autoworkers had been driven up "towards $80 an hour."

Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America's automotive industry.

Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

Read the whole story: Media Matters

Comments

[PacificGatePost]

There is much creative talent hidden inside the U.S. Big 3 that has been smothered by mismanagement and the UAW. ... and they actually "make" something, .... unlike Wall Street. Detroit deserves saving.

After Romney and the rest of the rhetoric ends, there is little choice but to bail GM and company. But make it a deal that has teeth and common sense.

Here is the type of plan Congress should consider >

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/solution-for-detroit-gm-friends.html

[mamacat]

Anyone dumb enough to believe that autoworkers get $75/hr probably watches Faux News anyway. As soon as this nonsense is debunked, they'll just come up with some other lies. Which is why I seldom waste my time watching Faux News.

[elizaconnors]

And another thing... As an accountant, I am deeply disturbed by this $70/hour thing. Why describe the cost of retirees in terms of current employee wages? These costs are the result of management decisions about past employees, not about current employees.

This is all overhead, like the cost of corporate jets, box seats at sports events and the cost of management salaries and benefits.

Why not add these costs to the annual costs of management where it belongs? The costs of retiree benefits should be allocated to management, not to employees.

There. I'm done.

Disclosure - I don't know anyone who works for the auto industry.

[elizaconnors]

Oh, by the way. I spent a little time at automobile manufacturing plants ten years ago for some research. These folks definitely deserve $28 per hour for the work that they do.

[kissy kai]

THANK YOU

[elizaconnors]

What we need to know is the cost of labor plus benefits currently earned. I don't understand why this figure is so obfuscated. Certainly, the companies know this figure because it goes into their annual pension cost calculation.

The cost of benefits from retirees is a separate issue in this debate and should be presented separately.

The fact that the companies chose not to fund the pensions for past employees is a management failure and should be represented as such in the press.

Frankly, if any one of us had the energy we could take a look at past annual reports and figure this out but that shouldn't be necessary. The companies are intentionally muddying the examination.

[settlein]

Bail out wind fall?

Even if union workers at the auto industry get more than $7.00 an hour. what's the big deal? How much an hour did all those wall street folks get? I bet their "escape dollars" were in the millions.

Let's get the arguments a little more clarity.

[Baltotoast]

This is a (long winded) distinction without a distinction. The reality is, as you will discover if you slog through to the bottom of this posting, that the Big Three labor costs per hour are 60% higher than Toyota et al ($72 per hour vs. $45). This is the real story, which the author seems to painfully try to obfuscate.

[BrettnCalgary]

It seems to me that he is merely calling out the anti union types for their obfuscation of the term cost per hour for labour and the amount the hourly guys are getting paid. If a huge chunk of legacy costs are lumped in here and divided to get a per hour total labour cost it is a lie to say that is the hourly wage. The FACT that these legacy costs are the real problem is obscured by this argument. Obscuring the problem does not help to fix it, neither does the realization that both the union and the companies are to blame for creating unsustainable legacy costs decades ago.

[totalliberal]

Waiters in high-end resturants in any major city can make @ $60.00 to $70.00 per hour. What is it with all the hillb.lly losers complaining about high wages. If you can't make more than $10 or $15 an hour, move.

[FDRJFKLBJ]

There is no myth to debunk. It's a fact, the Big Three are burning, on average, $70 per hour on labor when benefits are included.

[dandypuddin]

You are delusional. They do not earn this and just because every right winger who gets in front of a camera is saying this these days does not make it true. Please do your homework before union bashing, please.

[Haditup2here]

Do you get health insurance or do you have to pay for it out-of-pocket?! You sound almost as dumb as Joe NOT "the plumber".

[Birdman]

Did you look at how the 70+ figure was arrived at? It counted the total pension health benefits of everyone including all the retired people, but did not count them as employees they only counted the active employees. So the figure is invalid as an hourly wage the reality is around 35 or so WITH benefits. That is if you only count the actual benefits of the active employees. Benefits for retired individuals should not have been counted and applied in this fashion, but in order for the right wingers to make it sound worse they have to compare apples and oranges. Worst part is 90 percent of America gobble it up without checking the numbers. Granted the burden of the corporation is the larger figure but lets not place it at the feet of the current working stiffs as if they were making bank at 70+ an hour, it is simply not true.

[tippy6]

Other automakers who build in the U.S. such as Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, actually don't pay much less per hour in wages and benefits than their Big 3 counterparts. The difference is that the Big 3 are saddled with hefty retiree costs in pensions and health insurance. The other non-domestic automakers do not have these burdens (at least not at the same level),.

[Birdman]

good point and the reason these japenese plants do not have this burden is most have little or no retirees since most of these factories have been open fewer than 15 years.

[SwingingFromCenter]

Even if they were making 70 bucks an hour--why is that so outlandish or horrible? I guarantee you I charge a darn sight more than 70 bucks an hour for what I do. Why is it we have this perception that workers should make 10 bucks?

[FDRJFKLBJ]

We should pass a law requiring everyone to be paid a salary of $1 million dollars. Then we'd all be rich!

[Hawka]

No, because that would create hyper-inflation and make all our money virtually worthless. Take a business class already.

[Plank]

It never ceases to amaze me how progressives repeat the propaganda, started by right wing outlets, without any fact checking. Never mind that the CEO of citigroup made over $200 Million or the equivalent of 4000-5000 UAW salaries, last year.

[SailFree]

It may have been a misspeak or misquote:

I think the correct statement was that the total cost to GM per worker-hour was $71, which would include not only wages, but benefits.

[antenna123]

Why can't you include benefits when calculating total EE cost?

[BrettnCalgary]

If you actually read the article you would see that the per hour cost of labour they are specifying includes benefits to retirees, they are just taking all costs devoted to labour from any source, and dividing by the number of hours it takes to build their products. A very important accounting measure, highly relevant to decision making, but NOT at all reflective of actual wages paid.

[Birdman]

No it was an intentional distortion of the facts, this is how the misinformation becomes fact in this country, poeple say "I seen it on TV or read it in a newspaper so it must be fact." Kind of like how 30 percent of the poeple in this country still Think Obama is a muslim, or is not a US citizen, or is a real terrorist.