American Axle, UAW edge closer to contract deal

Chip wrote:

<quoted text>
If wages are such a winning point for union shops then why are they losing so much $, while non-union shops are making $? If everyone would be slaves or die on the job without unions, why is there a minimum wage, OSHA, etc.
I see you are willing to accept some overhead cost but not others, lets see how long you will work when there is nobody to process your payroll, pay the bills, raise capital, purchase equipment, pay vendors, organize work flow to produce final goods, design new products, design safer cars, design more efficient cars, or how much work will be available if nobody markets your product, I think you get my point that I could go on and on all day. I never said you can get rid of shop labor, if you read any of my post I specificaly said that market value should determine labor rates. If I own a company I will outsource whatever I can if it is cheaper than doing it myself, not only shop labor, I would also outsource warehousing, shipping, payroll processing, etc, if I can pay someone to do it cheaper than to do it myself I will outsource it. Its called focusing on core competencies, specializing in what you do best and pay someone else for what they do best. If you know how to run such a successfull company why don't you start your own?
Why do you pay dues to your union, what type of overhead to you classify the UAW, they don't produce any product?
I sure wish you could discuss this in a more rational manner other than using the us against them mentality.

"If everyone would be slaves or die on the job without unions, why is there a minimum wage, OSHA, etc."

BECAUSE OF UNIONS LOBBYING CONGRESS YOU FLIPPEN MORON! Like I said try doing a bit of research before flapping your "jaws". There's a saying; Start brain before driving mouth". Try it some time.

Go back to school and beat the h--l out of somebody for cheating you out of an education.

Plus, and it get sooooooo boring having to repost this over and over and over again because some people don't have the mental capacity to retain:...Chip.

In the Grand Rapids Press on Saturday, November 19, 2005 this very small article hidden in the lower right corner of the Life Styles, section E5:

"Doing The Math
Chief executive officers at 367 top U.S. corporations were paid, on average,$431 last year for every $1 paid to their companies’ average production worker, according to publicly available information jointly compiled in September by Institute for Public Studies (of Jon Hopkins University) and United for a Fair Economy. In 1990, the ratio was about $100-to$1.(If the federal minimum wage had increased since 1990 by the same rate as the multiple for CEOs' pay, it would have risen from $5.15 an hour to $23.03, but, of course, it's still $5.15)."

Seenitbefore wrote:

Plus, and it get sooooooo boring having to repost this over and over and over again because some people don't have the mental capacity to retain:...Chip.
In the Grand Rapids Press on Saturday, November 19, 2005 this very small article hidden in the lower right corner of the Life Styles, section E5:
"Doing The Math
Chief executive officers at 367 top U.S. corporations were paid, on average,$431 last year for every $1 paid to their companies’ average production worker, according to publicly available information jointly compiled in September by Institute for Public Studies (of Jon Hopkins University) and United for a Fair Economy. In 1990, the ratio was about $100-to$1.(If the federal minimum wage had increased since 1990 by the same rate as the multiple for CEOs' pay, it would have risen from $5.15 an hour to $23.03, but, of course, it's still $5.15)."

Interesting point, the numbers you present are based on 367 execs. 367 is not that many people considering the size of the work force in the US. Yet these 367 people are more than likely responsible for making sure every union employee has a job to go to every day. It bothers me that people continue to attack the CEO based on there pay. Yes they make a lot of money they also shoulder a lot of responsibility. leave the CEO out of it just because you are upset that you do not make that amount of money. Just remember a 50 cent wage increase to 600,000 union workers would result in an annual cost increase of $624,000,000 to these companies and that is just 50 cents. If you look at the real numbers of the cost of production labor you will see the effect they have on companies. I will just pose a question of these 367 CEO'S how many of them would be capable of hitting the production floor and learn the job in the same training period given any employee. I would have to believe that anyone of them could accomplish the task. yet of the 600,000 production workers how many would be able to step into the position of the CEO? I would bet many would sign up but none would be able to perform the task.

Seenitbefore wrote:

One more thing on that Mark; With the number of millionaires I personally know and have dealt with, and know how they got there, I know the real world side of it.

I like the way you try to shore up your economic knowledge by knowing multiple millionaires. Based on this statement if this is your real world experience you must of been active in there business operations on a daily basis? I know a few millionaires and know how they got to where they are. Yet I do not claim to know specific economic concerns that effect there businees. Yet in no way without being directly involved with the operation of the company are you going to see the real world economic effects that take place. This is where your so called theory becomes reality that is reflected in hard numbers on the balance sheet. I can drive down the road and see real world economics. One more question did all these millionaires you know use Union labor to make there money?

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting point, the numbers you present are based on 367 execs. 367 is not that many people considering the size of the work force in the US. Yet these 367 people are more than likely responsible for making sure every union employee has a job to go to every day. It bothers me that people continue to attack the CEO based on there pay. Yes they make a lot of money they also shoulder a lot of responsibility. leave the CEO out of it just because you are upset that you do not make that amount of money. Just remember a 50 cent wage increase to 600,000 union workers would result in an annual cost increase of $624,000,000 to these companies and that is just 50 cents. If you look at the real numbers of the cost of production labor you will see the effect they have on companies. I will just pose a question of these 367 CEO'S how many of them would be capable of hitting the production floor and learn the job in the same training period given any employee. I would have to believe that anyone of them could accomplish the task. yet of the 600,000 production workers how many would be able to step into the position of the CEO? I would bet many would sign up but none would be able to perform the task.

Just why is it that you people are so star struck?

This whole argument started out when people like you profess that people who are not CEO and/or top management level or even capable of that level do not deserve to make a decent living. That when these companies run into trouble it's the lower levels that must take the hit for these top managers not being able to do their job well enough.

It's like I said many times before. I worked for one of the largest companies in this town and they were a company that did business of a multinational level long before you probably were born. The shop made an average of $23+ dollars per hour plus benefits. At one point the entire company enjoyed profit sharing. Until, of course the founder sold the company and the new owners didn't want to profit share anymore. The point being is, as you would call it, with the outrageous wage and benefit package the shop workers got, that was still only 1%, that's ONE PERCENT, of what it cost the company to put the finished product on the shipping dock. And this was a product made from extensive manufacturing from sheet steel to the completed product all done in house.

So from my perspective of real life experience, not just sitting on my rear in some class room and reading some books, you people have absolutely no clue on what you are talking about. You are so locked into your virtual world you have no concept of reality.

So all you people are being fed a line of crap and you are eating it all up because it just sounds so good for your college degreed egos.

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
I like the way you try to shore up your economic knowledge by knowing multiple millionaires. Based on this statement if this is your real world experience you must of been active in there business operations on a daily basis? I know a few millionaires and know how they got to where they are. Yet I do not claim to know specific economic concerns that effect there businees. Yet in no way without being directly involved with the operation of the company are you going to see the real world economic effects that take place. This is where your so called theory becomes reality that is reflected in hard numbers on the balance sheet. I can drive down the road and see real world economics. One more question did all these millionaires you know use Union labor to make there money?

It makes a difference when the millionaires are in the family.

JIMMYK wrote:

<quoted text>
I like the way you try to shore up your economic knowledge by knowing multiple millionaires. Based on this statement if this is your real world experience you must of been active in there business operations on a daily basis? I know a few millionaires and know how they got to where they are. Yet I do not claim to know specific economic concerns that effect there businees. Yet in no way without being directly involved with the operation of the company are you going to see the real world economic effects that take place. This is where your so called theory becomes reality that is reflected in hard numbers on the balance sheet. I can drive down the road and see real world economics. One more question did all these millionaires you know use Union labor to make there money?

Take a look at the big 3 ceo..how many millions to do a job?
How much of a loss?..Billions
A 40% pay increase..HUH?

Home Depot Ex CEO got how many million..to quit?
Priceless

Hourly worker..50% cut..
You still don't get it?

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Take a look at the big 3 ceo..how many millions to do a job?
How much of a loss?..Billions
A 40% pay increase..HUH?
Home Depot Ex CEO got how many million..to quit?
Priceless
Hourly worker..50% cut..
You still don't get it?

Unless you are a shareholder, their compensation is not your concern.

i,m out of work because of your strike and its sad reallity about the world today but manufacturing re the auto industry is all but dead in the U.S an Canada,blame your government leaders,china ,mexico,low wages no benifits were done!their used to be a huge poster in my plant :got a forigen car get a forigen job!those days are long gone!

Batch 37 Pain is Good wrote:

<quoted text>
Unless you are a shareholder, their compensation is not your concern.

Well that's not completely true. The people who work for the company have a larger "share" than the stock holders. Stock holders will move their money around from place to place. Just look at stock graphs. All those rises and falls do not necessarily indicate the condition of the company(ies). Many times it's from profit taking.

A savvy stock holder is going to set a goal of how much they want to earn from a particular company or fund and when it reaches that point they will sell, take the profit and reinvest the principal somewhere else...or even in the same company should their stock drop to a point they believe in.

See people and businesses have a TOTALLY different outlook and way of dealing with investing than the "normal" citizen. Most are in it to make money in the (relatively) short term. Not like the "normal" citizen investing for their retirement or something else. They don't have the kind of money to play with to move their money around like high power(ed) investors.

Back to the point. The people that work for a company do have a larger "share" in that company because if that company fails they lose their lively hood and not just some money. Look at who holds the majority of stock in GM for instance. You won't find much John Q. Public in there.

Batch 37 Pain is Good wrote:

<quoted text>
Unless you are a shareholder, their compensation is not your concern.

Only a fool would think that...

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that's not completely true. The people who work for the company have a larger "share" than the stock holders. Stock holders will move their money around from place to place. Just look at stock graphs. All those rises and falls do not necessarily indicate the condition of the company(ies). Many times it's from profit taking.
A savvy stock holder is going to set a goal of how much they want to earn from a particular company or fund and when it reaches that point they will sell, take the profit and reinvest the principal somewhere else...or even in the same company should their stock drop to a point they believe in.
See people and businesses have a TOTALLY different outlook and way of dealing with investing than the "normal" citizen. Most are in it to make money in the (relatively) short term. Not like the "normal" citizen investing for their retirement or something else. They don't have the kind of money to play with to move their money around like high power(ed) investors.
Back to the point. The people that work for a company do have a larger "share" in that company because if that company fails they lose their lively hood and not just some money. Look at who holds the majority of stock in GM for instance. You won't find much John Q. Public in there.

Why don't you talk to some investment bankers and see how many people invest for short term, nearly everyone invest long term. If it wasn't for shareholders you would not have a job in the first place.

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that's not completely true. The people who work for the company have a larger "share" than the stock holders. Stock holders will move their money around from place to place. Just look at stock graphs. All those rises and falls do not necessarily indicate the condition of the company(ies). Many times it's from profit taking.
A savvy stock holder is going to set a goal of how much they want to earn from a particular company or fund and when it reaches that point they will sell, take the profit and reinvest the principal somewhere else...or even in the same company should their stock drop to a point they believe in.
See people and businesses have a TOTALLY different outlook and way of dealing with investing than the "normal" citizen. Most are in it to make money in the (relatively) short term. Not like the "normal" citizen investing for their retirement or something else. They don't have the kind of money to play with to move their money around like high power(ed) investors.
Back to the point. The people that work for a company do have a larger "share" in that company because if that company fails they lose their lively hood and not just some money. Look at who holds the majority of stock in GM for instance. You won't find much John Q. Public in there.

Still, the compensation to a CEO is not dictated by the workers. It is done by the board of directors at the behest of the Shareholders. If the workers do not like the package, they are free to leave. It is nice to "feel" like you have a stake in the company by working for them but the reality is the worker has no say. You and I both know there is no loyality in business.

Union All The Way wrote:

<quoted text>
Only a fool would think that...

Good luck in your Professional Development....

Batch 37 Pain is Good wrote:

<quoted text>
Good luck in your Professional Development....

Best of luck in your personal life too

Batch 37 Pain is Good wrote:

<quoted text>
Still, the compensation to a CEO is not dictated by the workers. It is done by the board of directors at the behest of the Shareholders. If the workers do not like the package, they are free to leave. It is nice to "feel" like you have a stake in the company by working for them but the reality is the worker has no say. You and I both know there is no loyality in business.

Agreed. So why is everyone so shook up about those who are union and making so much money. As long as there's going to be no loyalty why not make as much as possible for as long as possible. Good old Corporate America. Si?

Seenitbefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. So why is everyone so shook up about those who are union and making so much money. As long as there's going to be no loyalty why not make as much as possible for as long as possible. Good old Corporate America. Si?

I think we are closer to the same page than we think. What no one is talking about is the consequences of corporations moving out of country. Who will their market be.

Batch 37 Pain is Good wrote:

<quoted text>
I think we are closer to the same page than we think. What no one is talking about is the consequences of corporations moving out of country. Who will their market be.

Re read your quote..the answer is there..