The Media Myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour Autoworker

Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue regarding supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there issues of class in play? Because honestly, I've had trouble escaping the not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through the media's misinformation on the topic; i.e., "These autoworkers get paid that?!"

And why has there been so little media interest in the salaries pocketed by AIG and Citibank employees at a time when the government has moved in quickly to bailout those white collar giants?

Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It's also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Comments

[batman3]

Even if the $73/hr includes health benefits and pension expenses, the fact remains that the corresponding figure for Honda and Toyota (about $45/hr) is a great deal less. If Detroit is going to compete, it must cut benefits.

[canow]

Thanks for the fact checking! I linked back to this in a post on the CA NOW blog, "Economic Catch-22"
http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/12/economic-catch22.html

[Michale32086]

johnie2xs

}}}}
Exactly the Point. Like anything else we hear in the news, there has to be some skepticism. Didn't $70 sound a little high to you? It did me. Fact is this was a fact brought out by a Repuglican think tank and is a bona fide figure, of sorts. If you take all monies paid to employees, their health insurance, retirees and their pension costs, and survivirs of retirees, and a couple of other associated groups, and then divide it by the active work force, you get $70 per hour. Figures may sometimes lie, but liars (Republicans) always figure. Got it?
}}}

According to the UAW's own figures, the actual average hourly rate amongst UNION Represented workers is about $55-$60 per hour... That's NOT including retiree benefits, which actually SHOULD be included because they ARE Labor Costs and they WERE obtained by the UAW..

Regardless of all that, the simple fact is, no one is blaming the Unions solely.. The Unions, however, DO share some responsibility in running the companies into the ground..

You don't see any commentaries here on HuffPo excusing the excesses of the CEOs and Management, do you??

Yet, we see dozens of commentaries excusing the excesses of the Unions.

Why is that??

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

"According to the UAW's own figures, the actual average hourly rate amongst UNION Represented workers is about $55-$60 per hour... That's NOT including retiree benefits, which actually SHOULD be included because they ARE Labor Costs and they WERE obtained by the UAW.."

First, you've been complaining that the union had presented no figures, and now you're coming out with THIS???

Second, the unions figures come up to $28-$35/hr for wages, and then benefits on top of that! You're STILL reaching to try to claim $70/hr!!

From the UAW website:
In 2006 a typical UAW-represented assembler at GM earned $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. A typical UAW-represented skilled-trades worker at GM earned $32.32 per hour of straight-time labor.

[kstuff]

As long as it's not their precious 5 year olds....

[kstuff]

Try $28.00 per hour, plus benefits. That is, if you haven't already been laid off. Michigan's unemployment rate around 9%, not counting those whose benefits have run out.

[Michale32086]

According to the UAW's own information, the average STRAIGHT TIME salary is between $28 and $32 p/h. If you discount retiree benefits (which really SHOULD be added because they are Labor Costs) the benefits package tacks on another $10-$20 p/h. Finally, because it is prevelant, you can add about $20-$30 for overtime, double time, holiday pay, etc etc..

So, using the UAW's ***OWN NUMBERS*** the average hourly wage, sans retiree benefits, is anywhere from $58 p/h to $82 p/h...

Sounds kinda excessive to me...

This doesn't even take into account the excesses of the Jobs Bank programs that pay workers $30+ per hour to do absolutely nothing...

Given these facts, I am at a loss to understand how ANYONE can say that the Unions are completely blameless in this matter..

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

You're claiming that you can add another 20-30 dollars per hour for OT?????? First, that's ONLY if you make it past 40 hours in a week, which means that the AVERAGE including OT is FAR less!

Second, and once again, if you insist on adding in the RETIREE benefits (which were EARNED with labor, but are not being PAID to labor!!!!) then you might as well add in the electricity cost, since the workers cannot work without electricity, so that probably puts us up over the $200/hr figure!!!

Come on Michale, you are not using logic here. I GUARANTEE that no worker works enough OT/holiday/double time to bring the average up to ANYWHERE near that figure you quote!!!

[IllinoisTexan43]

I remember when the union tire plant I worked for(plant closed a year ago) went on strike to keep healthcare for the retirees, the local paper and stations all reported our hourly wages at around $62/hr.
BS!! Even when averaging in the benefits costs, our wages never approached that amount. The anger and class warfare that the false statements fomented I will never forget. I guess everybody will be happy when EVERYONE is making $8/hr. Feel better now?

[Michale32086]

@LeftRight

When all the health care costs, benefits package and retirement benefits are considered, the hourly "wage" is quite close to the $70 an hour mark..

If you have any factual evidence to show otherwise, I'll be happy to see it.

But simply making the claim it's not true, when there is empirical evidence to show that it IS true, won't sway many people.

You might also research the JOBS BANK Program that the Unions have.

Workers are paid over $30 an hour to do absolutely nothing..

No one is claiming that the Unions are solely to blame for the running the car companies into the ground.

But it is undeniable that the Unions DO share a measure of responsibility...

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Do you REALLY think that Detroit is paying $42/hr on pensions and health insurance for CURRENT workers?????? It's not happening! I have a health insurance plan that's almost as good as the UAW negotiated (though I have to pay part of it) and it works out to be $2.05/hr worked. Add in my pension that the company pays and they have another $3.75/hr. Add in the taxes that they pay (payroll taxes for OASDI and Medicare) and you are looking at $2.43. Then there's the life insurance that they pay for me. It works out to be $0.11. This adds up to a grand total of $8.34/hr on top of my hourly wage of almost exactly what an upper tier worker makes at a Detroit factory. The fact of the matter is that those numbers that you keep bandying about are BUNK!

And as for the JOBS BANK that you are claiming here. Sometimes the company must do work on a line or the whole factory, and I know that YOU wouldn't like to be told that you will not be allowed to work for a period while this is done.

[Michale32086]

Actually the $70 an hour figure has been reported from GM themselves and, taking into account all the benefits and such, it IS an accurate figure..

At least, no one has been able to provide any FACTUAL evidence to dispute it..

Let's be clear..

The failure of the Big 3 does not rest SOLELY on the Unions..

But, it is equally undeniable that the Union greed (along with the CEO and Management greed) is part and parcel to the same problem.

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

Really? You think that after benefits someone who is getting paid $28/hr costs the company $70/hr????? Cause if so your math skills are off, and I've got a bridge I'd LOVE to sell you!!

[LeftRight]

By the way, if you go read the rest of the article you will see the explanation:

"The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers."

Not to mention the fact that you are trusting the executives when they say the union needs to make concessions and they "claim" how much money it costs them already!

[johnie2xs]

Michael; The computation below comes from an online inflation calculator, which at this point relates its calculations only to 2007, so allow a little for what has happened since and you'd be pretty close. I used 1966 for anecdotal reasons. At that time I was 18 and when friends of mine were looking for summer work, if they happened to have an in with someone in the construction trades (i.e. father, brother, uncle etc.), they could expect to make 3.25/3.75 as unskilled labor. Now you do the math. Thirth dollars an hour is not an exorbitant amount of money, especially in an industrial city. So as far as I'm concerned using this factoid against these unions is bogus.

What cost $30.00 in 1966 would cost $189.75 in 2007.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1966,
they would cost you $30.00 and $4.74 respectively.

Do you want to do another calculation?

If you liked the Inflation Calculator, you might enjoy my new web site, Smugopedia: Pretend you know better. I'd love to hear what you think of it!

[Michale32086]

If it IS bogus, then doesn't it behoove the UAW to put out figures that SHOW the "reality"??

Because, as much as this figure has been called a "crock" or worse, the simple fact is, there is absolutely NO hard figures that dispute the claim.

In the absence of that, what is the average Joe to assume???

Michale.....

[bigironal25]

If the republican party had their way ,5 year old kids would still be working in sweat shops and coal mines!They would be tickled to death if they could recreate the middle age economy as in -serfs and lords!

[Chbronze]

The entire cost of employment almost never is disbursed to the employee, the 70.00 per hour includes training, benefits (over the lifetime) of the employee, the ridiculous job bank, safety issues and Osha compliance. I don't blame the unions, I blame the idiots in management at the big three for agreeing to contracts which saddled them with these costs.
As far as the name calling of conservatives above I guess that can stand on its own, I'll consider the source.

[Sumocat]

Such sloppy reporting. I've never gone beyond very low-level management positions, and even I know wages comprise only a portion of expense per employee. Even if that $70 figure was wages + benefits, it still wouldn't be accurate to say that's what workers get paid. Not like you can spend your benefits on food and shelter.

[dexxjones]

you dont understand. its a lie too big to debunk.

[jsgaetano]

It's the typical conservative War on Organized Labor.

Conservatives hate allowing people to have a voice. That's why they supported the overthrow of democracies in Latin America, the murder of labor leaders, and corruption throughout the world.

If you want to see examples of "conservative paradise", look at either Saudi Arabia or Columbia. Both are shining examples of what the conservative movement would love to bring home to the USA.