3 ms·

40% over 4 years isn't as crazy (especially when you consider that they had some concessions back in '08). typical clickbait when you consider this is a high va

40% over 4 years isn't as crazy (especially when you consider that they had some concessions back in '08). typical clickbait when you consider this is a high value for negotiation and they're likely looking for anywhere between 20-30% over 4 years when it's all said and done. barely above inflation YoY.

dmitrygr 3y ago
> they're likely looking for anywhere between 20-30% over 4 years when it's all said and done. TFA conveniently points out to you that 20% has been offered to them and was rejected.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  TFA conveniently points out that the average offer between the three automakers is less than 20-30% :), and 20% is the low-end of 20-30% btw
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  Good. As it should be. Record profits deserve record contracts.
  - wang_li 3y ago
    Only if the contracts automatically follow profits. Profits are not a ratchet, while contracts typically are. Also they are asking for more than pay raises and shortened work week. They're also demanding health benefits for retirees and defined benefit pensions among other things.
    - mplewis 3y ago
      All of these things are good for workers, their quality of life, and the quality of their work, and American workers deserve those things.
      - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
        Defined benefit plans?? The only defined benefit plan left is social security , which is fast going into insolvency in exactly a decade, and where it will automatically be cut 25% once that happens!
        smugma 3y ago
        “contrary to a common misunderstanding. In 2035, if nothing else is done, the program could pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits, mostly out of workers’ ongoing contributions, a figure that would slip to 74 percent in 2096” https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-is-not-bankrupt https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-is-not-bankrupt
        IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
        Thanks for the 5% correction. I'd have to research more to be sure, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My point remains, to be in support of defined benefits, you must not be OK with unilaterally changing the de-facto definion of defined-benefit for SS? How is it OK to literally pull the rug under people that paid - all their lifes - with the promise to get X on retirement, and will now get X-Y instead ?
        IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
        actually, you are not correct either. The exact figure is 77.5% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States...
    - throw0101b 3y ago
      > Only if the contracts automatically follow profits. Profits are not a ratchet, while contracts typically are. Are they? When concessions are given they should also be removed: there are some elements in the contracts that date back to the hard times of 2008 that the unions are still putting up with.
  - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    which automaker had record profits, when? all of their stocks are underperforming the index poorly on a 5 year timeframe
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      Stock price is not profit.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    GM had $10b in earnings, but I think Ford is still in the hole with a $2b loss last reported in 2023. I'm not going to even try to figure out Chrysler's health, since it is mixed in with a bunch of European auto makers (Fiat among others).
mr_toad 3y ago
It’s not entirely on the media for using these headline numbers. The Unions like these numbers being used. It sounds better to their members that they’re getting a 40% pay rise.
- foogazi 3y ago
  > It sounds better to their members that they’re getting a 40% pay rise. When they get it - right now every reports that they are asking for 40%
r00fus 3y ago
Shawn Fain (UAW President) has outright rejected a 20% offer. Not to say they won't agree to 30% but for context - UAW workers gave up a LOT of pay and rights in the 2010 auto bailout - the workers essentially helped to bail out management in that case along with the USG. 40% is table stakes.
burnte 3y ago
40% over 4 years is PREPOSTEROUS.

dmitrygr 3y ago

> they're likely looking for anywhere between 20-30% over 4 years when it's all said and done. TFA conveniently points out to you that 20% has been offered to them and was rejected.

endisneigh 3y ago
TFA conveniently points out that the average offer between the three automakers is less than 20-30% :), and 20% is the low-end of 20-30% btw
l33t7332273 3y ago
Good. As it should be. Record profits deserve record contracts.
- wang_li 3y ago
  Only if the contracts automatically follow profits. Profits are not a ratchet, while contracts typically are. Also they are asking for more than pay raises and shortened work week. They're also demanding health benefits for retirees and defined benefit pensions among other things.
  - mplewis 3y ago
    All of these things are good for workers, their quality of life, and the quality of their work, and American workers deserve those things.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
      Defined benefit plans?? The only defined benefit plan left is social security , which is fast going into insolvency in exactly a decade, and where it will automatically be cut 25% once that happens!
      - smugma 3y ago
        “contrary to a common misunderstanding. In 2035, if nothing else is done, the program could pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits, mostly out of workers’ ongoing contributions, a figure that would slip to 74 percent in 2096” https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-is-not-bankrupt https://www.cbpp.org/blog/social-security-is-not-bankrupt
        IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
        Thanks for the 5% correction. I'd have to research more to be sure, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My point remains, to be in support of defined benefits, you must not be OK with unilaterally changing the de-facto definion of defined-benefit for SS? How is it OK to literally pull the rug under people that paid - all their lifes - with the promise to get X on retirement, and will now get X-Y instead ?
        IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
        actually, you are not correct either. The exact figure is 77.5% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States...
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > Only if the contracts automatically follow profits. Profits are not a ratchet, while contracts typically are. Are they? When concessions are given they should also be removed: there are some elements in the contracts that date back to the hard times of 2008 that the unions are still putting up with.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  which automaker had record profits, when? all of their stocks are underperforming the index poorly on a 5 year timeframe
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    Stock price is not profit.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  GM had $10b in earnings, but I think Ford is still in the hole with a $2b loss last reported in 2023. I'm not going to even try to figure out Chrysler's health, since it is mixed in with a bunch of European auto makers (Fiat among others).

mr_toad 3y ago

It’s not entirely on the media for using these headline numbers. The Unions like these numbers being used. It sounds better to their members that they’re getting a 40% pay rise.

foogazi 3y ago
> It sounds better to their members that they’re getting a 40% pay rise. When they get it - right now every reports that they are asking for 40%

r00fus 3y ago

Shawn Fain (UAW President) has outright rejected a 20% offer. Not to say they won't agree to 30% but for context - UAW workers gave up a LOT of pay and rights in the 2010 auto bailout - the workers essentially helped to bail out management in that case along with the USG. 40% is table stakes.

burnte 3y ago

40% over 4 years is PREPOSTEROUS.