$19 figure comes from BT this morning...

http://www.motorauthority.com/fiat-in-talks-with-chrysler-confirms-500-for-us.html

man.. a $19 pay cut.. hard to imagine many people taking a $38,000 per year pay cut and still being able to survive.

I wonder what they make per hour that $19 would seem reasonable....

It's about time someone stood up to the CAW/UAW and told them that to make it through this recession, wages will have to be part of the concession along with product line cuts. What is the highest payout by any company but wages and if the employees and the union say no to this then it will be much more than a $19.00/hour wage decrease, they will be unemployed as Fiat will walk away from the table and the doors will close on Chrysler.

according to a post I read somewhere.. wages make up barely anything at all in the price of a car..... anyone care to elaborate with some details?

...and I've heard that it's about $3K + per car.

JTF wrote:...and I've heard that it's about $3K + per car.

so at 71 dollars per hour a mere 42 human hours goes into every car?

For a perspective from a LARGE Canadian manufacturer that is not one of the big three...

When we used to budget staff hires we always factored in 15% over and above wages for benefit and wage related costs. And there were no legacy costs.

That works out to almost 100% for Ford. Yikes. I believe GM and Chrysler are higher.

Is it any wonder a) the US product is not profitable and b) their prices are high? Imagine what the selling prices could be if there were normal benefit and related costs...

$29 per hour? That's $60K /yr to screw in a bolt.

"That's $60K /yr to screw in a bolt."

before I take that job, I want to know how much leg room there is in this Bolt model car...

Ain't reality a b1tch... But this is the fault of the manufacturer. The employees and the union have played no role in this...

ceeerist!.. and that was in 2006...

I do not believe any of the figures! If $71 per hour is not accurate .
Legacy costs are bullcrap! Retirement funds are seperate, as they were put away as the workers were working years ago. To charge it as a current cost to the todays workers cost is not reasonable. If the company screwed around without putting the money away to support the retired people, then call in the RCMP, Schreiber, and Mulroney to set it straight.
If I have people working for $25 per hour, and I have a seperate retirement fund, who would say the retirees are costing $16 per hour?
Remember , statistics don't lie, statisticians do!

Reagan fired AT controllers when they went on strike. Why are employers afraid of unions?

Deank wrote:$19 figure comes from BT this morning...

http://www.motorauthority.com/fiat-in-talks-with-chrysler-confirms-500-for-us.html

man.. a $19 pay cut.. hard to imagine many people taking a $38,000 per year pay cut and still being able to survive.

I wonder what they make per hour that $19 would seem reasonable....

As far as I'm concerned they should get $19.00 per hour. Lets see if they can make ends meet like I do.

It seems like Rosen is the only one that get's it.

[dripping sarcasm] And it's for that reason grumpyrom that we are eternally grateful there are people like you around to educate us ignorant peeps. Thank you ever so much.

And we are also ever so grateful for the CAW for keeping things in perspective while negotiating because clearly management does not know how to run a business. I don't understand why all automotive companies are not run by these extremely knowledgeable union executives. [/dripping sarcasm]

Cause then they would really have to work

Just fire unionized peeps. Kill off the CAW. Start fresh. There's plenty of hungry peeps willing to work for reasonable compensation.

grumpy old man wrote:[dripping sarcasm] And it's for that reason grumpyrom that we are eternally grateful there are people like you around to educate us ignorant peeps. Thank you ever so much.

And we are also ever so grateful for the CAW for keeping things in perspective while negotiating because clearly management does not know how to run a business. I don't understand why all automotive companies are not run by these extremely knowledgeable union executives. [/dripping sarcasm]

Well in the big 3's case management doesn't know how to run a business or they wouldn't be in this mess!

If the unions got their members $71 per hour than the unions are responsible for killing the company. That wage, and remember that 71 is bullcrap in my opinion, would make any company not competitive to cars being made elsewhere, and would probably cause job loss to countries like Mexico, Japan, or any country other than Canada!
That hasn't happened has it?
The unionized workers do not earn $150,000 per year, or do they?
Does anyone on this forum have any first hand information? All what is being published is so non believable!

CAW does not even wait for talks to resume.. tells them that they will not agree to $19... no matter what.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090420/business/cbusiness_us_autos_canada_union

I'm glad we don't own any north american cars anymore, as it doesn't look good for them guys.

The government should do the same thing to the unions that they did with the businesses that paid out bonuses after getting a handout. In that case the US gov't passed a law that taxed those bonuses at 90%.

I say that if an automaker like GM or Chrysler goes under because the union won't agree to wage cuts, then the union should be taxed or fined at a rate equal to 90% of the e.i. benefits that will be paid to the employees out of work. Why should taxpayers foot the e.i. bill because the unions are greedy?

The CAW should give there collective heads a shake a job is better then no job, and the chance that the auto makers could walk away from Canada . After all the Free Trade agreement would let them as long as they left some no skill jobs here like warehouse work .