# Way to go, UAW! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 12, 2008, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855 "2008-12-12T09:01:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/141 "2008-12-14T03:08:05Z")
Also, I think there’s a certain amount of “way to go Republicans!” to be thrown around here, but not in the way you might think. The Republicans actually got a pretty decent compromise bill on the table, which, rhetoric to the contrary, included some big concessions from the UAW, and then scuttled the bill anyway. In 60 days, there are going to be 7 or 8 more Democrats, and a Democratic president, and a much more UAW-friendly bill will almost certainly pass. This seems to be a prime example of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/142 "2008-12-14T03:22:23Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > Also, I think there’s a certain amount of “way to go Republicans!” to be thrown around here, but not in the way you might think. The Republicans actually got a pretty decent compromise bill on the table, which, rhetoric to the contrary, included some big concessions from the UAW, and then scuttled the bill anyway. In 60 days, there are going to be 7 or 8 more Democrats, and a Democratic president, and a much more UAW-friendly bill will almost certainly pass. This seems to be a prime example of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. As far as I can tell there are no concessions at all by the UAW in the bill that passed the house. It’s give them money, and have them come back in March with a plan. Unfortunately, in my mind that looks like “change nothing and waste the money we gave you”. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/143 "2008-12-14T03:26:00Z")
That’s not true of the bill that went up for a vote in the Senate. From [here](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122903816924599853.html): > [@](#): > > But those talks fell apart after Republicans insisted that wages reach parity in 2009. Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), who emerged as a pivotal player this week in negotiations over the industry’s future, said negotiators were close to striking a bipartisan compromise. > > **Democrats were willing to reach parity** , but not on such a swift timetable. Mr. Reid declared talks at an impasse. “We have not been able to get this over the finish line,” he said. “We have worked and worked…that’s just the way it is.” ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/144 "2008-12-14T03:41:04Z")
Fair enough. I don’t think the Big 3 can wait until '11, or whenever, but it’s at least a concession. I’d point out that the Republicans do at least have some bargaining position. The new congress comes in in late January, and it doesn’t sound like GM is going to make it that long without some sort of help. I guarantee that bankruptcy wouldn’t be very favorable for the UAW, and they likely would end up below the foreign automakers in total wages+benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/145 "2008-12-14T05:38:50Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’m not trying to be a dick here, but so what? The point of the bailout is to save the Big 3, not ensure the continued existence of the UAW. The foreign automakers pay their employees a very good wage. The Big 3 workers have nothing to cry about if they end up making that much. Workers at the Big 3 already make less, or at least around the same. It’s not the wild disparity that you and the GOP claims, and I already pointed that out, despite you claiming it’s on me to prove otherwise (I provided two links, you chose not to believe them, and just believed yours. A rep from a Japanese automaker disagrees with you, the UAW disagrees, the Big 3 disagree. Bully for you. For the record, Ford’s wage average might be higher then the UAW’s overall average because maybe they have more long-term employees than GM or Chrysler right now, and so they skew higher. I didn’t realize you didn’t understand how averages worked. I apologize.) Anyway, where are the demands for concessions from middle management or upper management or the board of directors or the exempt non-management employees or name licensing of things like Ford Field? Or selling off of unnecessary property like GM’s downtown skyscraper HQ or the acres of undeveloped Ford property? Why is the focus solely on the union workers? These aren’t all unskilled workers, and they’re not just drooling idiots who deserve to take an immediate pay cut to save the company. So why the intense focus on only making \*them \*give money back? Because it’s a way to weaken organized labor, which, in the eyes of people like you and the GOP senators, is a completely necessary thing. In my eyes, this weakens the middle class. So on this, I guess we’ll have to just disagree. > [@](#): > > The new congress comes in in late January, and it doesn’t sound like GM is going to make it that long without some sort of help. (For the record, the new Congress comes in on Jan. 6, not “late January.”) > [@](#): > > A step in the right direction, but the Big 3 need wage reductions now. They don’t have decades to wait for the overpaid workers to retire and be replaced. The Big 3 have repeatedly given buyouts to make room for new (lesser-paid) employees. It’s not like the UAW and the employers are simply sitting on their hands with thumbs up asses waiting for people to retire. Despite what you say, if the only demand of the automakers is for the _organized labor to make immediate concessions_– and then “Hey! We’ll sign off on these loans!”-- something is politically afoot. You think otherwise, you’re an idiot. The GOP desperately want unions weakened, especially with the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon. And this is political posturing, pure and simple. Whether you like unions or not, you have to see this action by the GOP senators for what it is. > [@](#): > > I guarantee that bankruptcy wouldn’t be very favorable for the UAW, and they likely would end up below the foreign automakers in total wages+benefits. “If you don’t want to get fucked in the ass AND pounded over the head with a hammer, just bend over and get fucked in the ass up front. It’s called taking one for the team guys.” At the end of the day, I don’t understand the logic of these Republicans: They argue that “Unions need to be democratic! EFCA underminds the will of the workers!” But then, the only demand that’s placed upon the Big 3 in this whole shebang is for the union contract that was actually _democratically ratified_ to be thrown aside. Talk about hypocritical. These Republican douchebags scream “Workers deserve democracy!” in one breath, but then “Fuck what the workers voted for!” in the next. It’s all nothing more than union busting. They don’t actually give a shit about the people who will be impacted, or the regions that will suffer, or the economic repercussions of their inaction. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/146 "2008-12-14T15:47:10Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Workers at the Big 3 already make less, or at least around the same. It’s not the wild disparity that you and the GOP claims, and I already pointed that out, despite you claiming it’s on me to prove otherwise (I provided two links, you chose not to believe them, and just believed yours. A rep from a Japanese automaker disagrees with you, the UAW disagrees, the Big 3 disagree. Bully for you. For the record, Ford’s wage average might be higher then the UAW’s overall average because maybe they have more long-term employees than GM or Chrysler right now, and so they skew higher. I didn’t realize you didn’t understand how averages worked. I apologize.) This doesn’t make sense at all. If the UAW workers make as much as the foreign automaker workers, then why is there such opposition to this amendment? If they make the same already, then a requirement that they make the same is meaningless. > [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Anyway, where are the demands for concessions from middle management or upper management or the board of directors or the exempt non-management employees or name licensing of things like Ford Field? Or selling off of unnecessary property like GM’s downtown skyscraper HQ or the acres of undeveloped Ford property? Why is the focus solely on the union workers? These aren’t all unskilled workers, and they’re not just drooling idiots who deserve to take an immediate pay cut to save the company. So why the intense focus on only making them give money back? Because it’s a way to weaken organized labor, which, in the eyes of people like you and the GOP senators, is a completely necessary thing. In my eyes, this weakens the middle class. So on this, I guess we’ll have to just disagree. Maybe you should read the bill. > [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > The Big 3 have repeatedly given buyouts to make room for new (lesser-paid) employees. It’s not like the UAW and the employers are simply sitting on their hands with thumbs up asses waiting for people to retire. > > Despite what you say, if the only demand of the automakers is for the organized labor to make immediate concessions-- and then “Hey! We’ll sign off on these loans!”-- something is politically afoot. You think otherwise, you’re an idiot. The GOP desperately want unions weakened, especially with the Employee Free Choice Act on the horizon. And this is political posturing, pure and simple. Whether you like unions or not, you have to see this action by the GOP senators for what it is. Maybe you should actually read Sen. Coker’s amendments because it’s clear you don’t know what is going on. ---
**Author:** ![dre2xl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@dre2xl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dre2xl)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/147 "2008-12-14T16:19:46Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Screw this blaming the UAW. Where were the GOP demands for pay cuts from the brokers on Wall Street? > > This is more typical GOP class warfare. And rather than stand up to it, and start giving it back, the Democrats will roll over and take it yet again. Because the GOP managed to successfully push through the Wall Street bailout in spite of the Democrats causing the first vote to fail… Oh, wait… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/148 "2008-12-14T16:26:22Z")
As much as I despise the man I gotta say Bush is doing the right thing here, and give him some props. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/149 "2008-12-14T19:58:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > There are several things misleading about your quote > > (1) It doesn’t give an average wage for Nissan or Honda. It simply gives a range of wages that different sites pay. The average for the company could, theoretically, be $25 or $29 depending on whether there are more sites towards the 25 or 29 range. > > (2) For the Toyota site, it is comparing (I believe) Toyota line workers vs. UAW workers. Those are different functions. The UAW workers cover things like janitors and other functions that are lower paid or sourced to contractors at Toyota’s plants. > > (3) It doesn’t include all foreign companies either. > > The cite I give does apply only to Ford, but unless I am mistaken the UAW typically negotiates with one auto maker per contract cycle, and then that is essentially what they sign with the other automakers. If you think it is different, feel free to come up with your own cite. > > I don’t believe that is true, but regardless, it’s simply putting money in different baskets. If you want to say that wages are equal, but the Big 3 pay 20% more, or whatever it comes out to, in benefits, the problem still remains. The labor costs of the Big 3 are higher than foreign makers, and that is a roadblock in competing. > > A step in the right direction, but the Big 3 need wage reductions now. They don’t have decades to wait for the overpaid workers to retire and be replaced. > > Not at all. Bringing labor costs in line with their competitors is one of the many steps the Big 3 need in order to be competitive. It is already abundantly clear that US auto workers are close to par with foreign counterparts. Since labor is 10% of the cost of a car the difference in labor costs is irrelevant and of no consequence. You can argue that foreign automakers save the cost of health insurance. I suppose to make it fair our workers should go without insurance. Foreign executives make a fraction of what their American counterparts do. But that is only right. They are important . Foreign execs are not as good as ours . ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/150 "2008-12-14T21:37:02Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > It is already abundantly clear that US auto workers are close to par with foreign counterparts. I see. so the auto workers in the Toyota plants in the US are “foreign”. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Since labor is 10% of the cost of a car the difference in labor costs is irrelevant and of no consequence. [You’ve spewed this bullshit line before and I’ve called you on it asshole.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=495872&page=2) As follows. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > Labor cost is 10 % of the price of a car. > > > [@gonzomax](#): > > > > [Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com](http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...1008/OPINION01) Sure thing. > > And this is your evidence? > > It is complete and total bullshit and one has to be a complete idiot to believe it. > > I’ve already pointed out how the labour component of parts manufacture is absent from the 10% figure. Even your cite says > > > [@](#): > > > > The auto companies pay as much for hubcaps and fenders as they do in wages. > > You think the hubcaps and fenders just materialize out of nowhere? Might not you concede they are UAW built as well? Every god damn part from nuts and bolts to complete engines have a labour component. A union labour component for the most part. > [@](#): > > You can argue that foreign automakers save the cost of health insurance. I suppose to make it fair our workers should go without insurance. What? US Toyota auto workers don’t have health insurance? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/151 "2008-12-15T00:04:09Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I see. so the auto workers in the Toyota plants in the US are “foreign”. :rolleyes: > [You’ve spewed this bullshit line before and I’ve called you on it asshole.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=495872&page=2) As follows. > > What? US Toyota auto workers don’t have health insurance? How can you call me on it when you are wrong? strange. Of course they have health insurance, but they are not union and deserve it. But you guys who can not understand that the wages are comparable are lost. The wages are the same from one foreign companies to the big 3. This is typical blue collar bigotry. If the wages are the same what concessions should they make? What else can they give you anti union folk? Factory work is hard, noisy and requires some skill. There is constant training going on. Many of the jobs are skilled labor. They are machinists,assemblers and people who keep the machinery maintained. The days of someone turning a screw for 40 years is long gone. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/152 "2008-12-15T00:27:02Z")
[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121308dnbusautopay.3e09ca7.html](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121308dnbusautopay.3e09ca7.html) Heres an article explaining it for you again. ---
**Author:** ![Miltonyz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Miltonyz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miltonyz)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/153 "2008-12-15T00:55:41Z")
The link you keep posting does say that GM and Japanese hourly wages are fairly similar. > [@](#): > > The $70 an hour figure can be reached by taking the GM’s total labor costs and dividing it by the number of active employees. But the total cost figure also includes retirement and healthcare benefits it pays to 432,000 or so retirees. > > GM also pays more for other noncash benefits to its workers, such as health care and retirement. > > Toyota, Honda and others employing American workers provide less-generous benefits for current workers and especially for retirees, putting their hourly costs under $50 an hour for labor compared with the Big Three. > > Using Ford Motor Co. as an example, its total labor cost per hour per active employee is $71. That reflects $29 in base pay, $26 in benefits such as vacations and health care and $16 for its retirees. This line points out that what your opponents are saying is true. Total compensation is much more for UAW workers then workers at Japanese owned plants. The big three are providing it’s workers over $70 worth of compensation per labor hour. Honda and Toyota provide it’s workers with sub $50 worth of compensation. In fact if Ford took out the $16 it pays it’s retirees it would still be paying more for labor then the Japanese makers, meaning that it’s not just legacy costs crippling the big three. I can’t speak about everyone else’s intentions with regards to whether their opposition is just union busting. But for me it just makes good sense to make sure that as a condition of loaning 15 billion dollars the big three should bring their labor costs in line with their competitors. If the big 3 are not made competitive on all levels and not just labor costs we might as well make a big pile with that 15 billion and set it on fire. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/154 "2008-12-15T02:19:08Z")
> [@Miltonyz](#): > > The link you keep posting does say that GM and Japanese hourly wages are fairly similar. > > This line points out that what your opponents are saying is true. Total compensation is much more for UAW workers then workers at Japanese owned plants. The big three are providing it’s workers over $70 worth of compensation per labor hour. Honda and Toyota provide it’s workers with sub $50 worth of compensation. In fact if Ford took out the $16 it pays it’s retirees it would still be paying more for labor then the Japanese makers, meaning that it’s not just legacy costs crippling the big three. > > I can’t speak about everyone else’s intentions with regards to whether their opposition is just union busting. But for me it just makes good sense to make sure that as a condition of loaning 15 billion dollars the big three should bring their labor costs in line with their competitors. If the big 3 are not made competitive on all levels and not just labor costs we might as well make a big pile with that 15 billion and set it on fire. Interesting that we both read the same article and came to opposite conclusions. Total labor costs divided by total number of workers gets the numbers that Republican Senators are working with. As I read it, that means the salaries, pensions and benefits of managers and retirees are also included. Interesting that some people think that only the UAW workers should have wage cuts, when they are less than 10 percent of the problem as the cost of labor of an American Car Company car is only 10 percent labor. Maybe the problem is that if you ignore 90 of the problem when you try to fix the problem, you will fail to fix the problem every time. Maybe this is why Republicans like George Bush and Republican Senators are so terribly bad at governing, because they only address problems that suits them and ignore the rest. The problems with Detroit are being handled much like looking for Osama bin Ladin: whether you mis-identify the problem as Al Queda being headquartered in Iraq or the weakness of the American auto industry as being centered and concentrated in the UAW, you are bound to miss more important problems. Over the years I’ve worked with automobiles, most of the business I did, I did with GM. GM has layer, upon layer, upon layer of management. They market against their other divisions and compete against themselves. They do not traditionally look to cutting fat in management (sorry about the generalization) because there is no pressure to do so. Although this has been improved somewhat in recent decades, it isn’t enough by a long stretch. Labor costs by the Japanese and German makers does not include health care benefits for any employees, labor and management. Once that is evened out, however the new Administration succeeds, American labor costs are going to be less than foreign labor costs, when the whole structure is compared. Then American companies can go after their more expensive and bloated management wages, which is where that small portion of the overall car cost is coming from. But that ship may have already sailed. American companies will not get me to buy American cars. I’ve had both American makes and Hondas. Hondas are vastly superior in every respect for just a few dollars more. ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/155 "2008-12-15T03:21:04Z")
Christ, as I stated in another thread, my father worked at Ford for 34 years. He is a good man but not book smart. He was a hard worker also. The problem is that they get payed too fucking much for what they do compared to Honda, Toyota and Nissan workers. Why is this a hard concept? Labor costs alone are killing the big three. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/156 "2008-12-15T04:29:21Z")
Yes, so I’ve heard. For years. At least forty, probably more. (Don’t know, memory isn’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, but I don’t remember…) Jokes about how lazy and overpaid union workers are have been part of the Approved Humor for oh, so long. Puppy Dopers won’t recall, but the swarthy, cigar chomping Labor Boss used to be a standard character in editorial cartoons, it was seldom needful to label. But if all this horror is true, shouldn’t the auto industry have succumbed to such proletariat greed long, long ago? If their crippling avarice is so destructive, was it only the brilliance and nimble creativity of management saved them? The Republicans hate organized labor like a cobra hates a mongoose. Like any human institution, organized labor has its faults. chief amongst them has always been a lack of education and sophistication in the rank and file, the necessity to place their trust in corruptible men. (My grandfather worked his heart out for the Teamsters, and they broke it…and so it goes.) If labor costs were a dagger in the heart of the auto industry, sure took 'em long enough to die, didn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/157 "2008-12-15T04:46:07Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Foreign execs are not as good as ours . This claim would be more believable if not for the fact that the Big Three are the ones that need bailing out. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/158 "2008-12-15T09:33:24Z")
> [@Miltonyz](#): > > This line points out that what your opponents are saying is true. Total compensation is much more for UAW workers then workers at Japanese owned plants. Utter nonsense. Only the stupid and those with an ax to grind factor in pensions and other costs for retired workers into the salary costs of current workers. Do you know what your hourly rate is when all those factors are taken into account for your industry? No. Neither do I and neither of us pay taxes on whatever this made up bloody figure is. New rule: any one in this debate claiming $70 simultaneously loses and self-labels as an imbecile. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/159 "2008-12-15T10:55:19Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Only the stupid and those with an ax to grind factor in pensions and other costs for retired workers into the salary costs of current workers. It’s a job-related cost, and one negotiated by the unions on behalf of their workers. Do you have a better way of taking into account legacy costs? Are those pensions and other benefits not really costs at all? Try a little thought experiment: I am employed for $10 an hour in a country with a mandatory final-salary pension law and 12-month mandatory redundancy pay. You are employed for $10 an hour in a country with no pension law, and at-will employment. Which of us costs more to employ? Do we cost exactly the same? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855/160 "2008-12-15T11:19:49Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > It’s a job-related cost, and one negotiated by the unions on behalf of their workers. Do you have a better way of taking into account legacy costs? Are those pensions and other benefits not really costs at all? Try a little thought experiment: > > I am employed for $10 an hour in a country with a mandatory final-salary pension law and 12-month mandatory redundancy pay. > > You are employed for $10 an hour in a country with no pension law, and at-will employment. > > Which of us costs more to employ? Do we cost exactly the same? Irrelevant. Workers are paid what is in their pay packet. What costs the employer incurred as part of the hiring terms of others in the past are not the responsibility of current workers and it is disengenuous to say they are paid ‘$70’ per hour. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/way-to-go-uaw/476855.md?page=9)