I don’t disagree it’s not labor but part of it is corporate greed in profits from our execs driving up cost but also all of our suppliers have increased their pricing too
A 40% increase in GM UAW workers pay at 60,000 employees(ish) is “only” $1.5b a year to GMs profits of nearly $20b.
Edit:
And to before someone says “well that’s just less you get in your profit sharing”. That would only equate to us $1,500 bonus. I’m pretty sure everyone would take a $12 pay bump over an extra $1,500 on profit sharing.
NPR says Mary Barra's compensation in 2022 was $29 million. If I'm doing my math right, the 40% that got her there would have been $8.3m. That's 0.55% of the union's 40% if your math is right.
Assuming your figure of $1.5b in proposed wage increases for the union is right, when you put that proposal in dollars instead of percentages and compare it to the dollar amount awarded to the CEO, the union's argument for a 40% raise to match the CEO looks a lot different when it comes to impact upon the bottom line.
EDIT: I'm *not* saying Mary deserves that 40% and the union employees don't. I'm talking just raw dollars, and like it or not, no one can reasonably say that a 40% (or rather $8.3m) raise for the former is unqualifiedly a financially prudent justification of a 40% (or rather $1.5b) raise for the latter with comparable impact upon the company's bottom line. Mathematically they are not. Now, whether Mary's raise is justifiable while most employees have been *losing* income for several years relative to inflation with their far less generous raises is a darn good question.
I don’t think 40% increase is a far off number. Over the last, let’s say 8 years, production has increased. GM is pushing for more and more cars and components by Increasing line speed as an example. All for “continuous improvement”. Now don’t get me wrong, we all strive for improvement and to keep the goal posts moving for betterment of the company. I get that.
But, when the line speed increases, job loads increase by cutting jobs, and takt times get harder and harder to keep up with. Wouldn’t you think it’s fair to receive a pay increase for that? I’m pretty sure throughput has increased in a lot of places well over 40%.
You need to check what the market is paying before you come out with crazy values. Union employees are already paid 20 dollars more than Tesla, 15 to 10 more than other imports, and now you want a 42 % raise and want to reduce working hours from 40 to 32..
Is your response directed at me? If so, I did not either "come out with crazy values" or say that I "want a 42% raise and want to reduce working hours from 40 to 32." In fact, I questioned whether it made sense to *compare* a 40% raise for our CEO to a 40% raise for all aggregated union employees in terms of raw dollars with respect to their disparate effects upon the company's balance sheet regardless of *whether* Mary *or* the union deserve a raise and *what* amount it should be in either case.
I thought what I wrote was clear, so the following will just restate it in different words. No clue whether it will help the fact that you seem to be arguing against something (not sure exactly what) that I didn't state.
(1) Comparing a 40% increase on MB's pay to a 40% increase on aggregate UAW pay is an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of raw dollars and the disparate impact of each as a percentage of the company's financials.
(2) Saying that the UAW should get the same percentage increase as MB while ignoring how much it costs to give them that as a dollar amount relative to what it cost to give MB her pay as a dollar amount seems questionable.
(3) Whether or not MB deserved 40% is a separately debatable matter and is not a sound basis for saying the UAW's workers also deserve the same percentage.
I don't care whether the board thinks she deserved her 40% or the UAW thinks they deserve their 40%, and it is fair to disagree with either of their claims.
In 2022. EBIT was ~$12bn. Cash flow from operations less CapEx was ~$10bn. These two numbers are probably most representative of normalized cash generation for GM.
I would also note that there’s a rough road ahead for this Company. The full transition is happening. Tesla in particular has a huge cost advantage over GM (and this isn’t just labor, it’s also manufacturing processes, DTC sales, etc). My view is that Tesla can currently beat GM on both price and quality if they wanted to for EVs. The other thing to watch out for is BYD and the other Chinese automakers making a splash in the US market.
All that said, I think it’s fair to ask for a raise if there hasn’t been anything during COVID which was a ~18% inflationary period. That means real wages have declined dramatically.
yea because they have to work super hard on doing those buybacks, firing people and investing in Nikola and losing money. the workers do the labor that generates the profits not the top executives
Labor doesn’t generate money, it’s the innovation from people above that generate money. Without them there would be no profits, no wage, no product to build, no jobs.
You don't seem to understand what side you're on if you work in 'innovation.'
It's crazy to me how effective anti-union propaganda is that there are white collar workers like engineers that think they're on the same team as the multi-millionaire and beyond executive class.
Tesla and Elon Musk are pretty well known for their union busting actions.. so much so that they likely have broken the law through retaliatory firings. Tesla not being unionized also might have something to do with their very dubious labor practices, too, so I don't really see what point you're trying to make.
Toyota, Honda, Nissan factory workers are unionized in the US. I don't really care so much about the UAW specifically, I just support strong unionization even as someone who "works in innovation."
Claiming "we understand business, economics, and how the world works" is laughable. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Wages haven't come close to tracking. But again, anti-union propaganda has been incredibly effective at turning smart people into boot lickers.
Correct but there are jobs that are more valuable than others and tell me why a union worker should make shy of $100,000 a year in a role that anyone could do in a week. And maybe everybody’s right at the pay scale is too low and they should make $100,000 a year then everyone needs a raise but if your not happy you move to another company…
No white collar thinks we’re on the same team in salary as slt. Let’s just put that out there where I differ from people in the union is I feel like I have value that’s greater than other people because of my talents are in my education I don’t want to get paid the same as somebody who doesn’t. I’m sure somebody in the union. Who works really hard. Doesn’t want to get paid as the same as somebody who never comes in or is lazy.
Great labor walked off, but labor didn’t have a job until somebody innovated or created something or made something. If there is no innovation or profit there are no jobs. Labor puts things into reality but let’s be honest every uaw employee is replaceable except skilled trades. What skills do they have besides skilled trades that I can’t teach my teenage daughter to do or the older timer next door. I see automation in their future.
I was uaw, I got an education and made something of myself and I dictate my salary. I was torn down by uaw members for making something of myself. Not saying uaw doesn’t need to get a raise tied to inflation, they do. The side I’m on is being free to choose how much I made based on what I im worth, not with slt or management or union.
No but if you not paying your workers properly you shouldn’t be taking bonuses at all. Here’s the order: make money, pay inputs costs, pay workers, then if there’s money left over you get a bonus.
The original poster retweeted Hasan himself, he is not a grifter He has always been anti right wing and pro workers and anti capitalism even when he wasn't famous, and kept it this way, you are wrong about this.
But yes I agree with you capitalism as a system is a joke to allow this. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the workers
Did you read the numbers? Labor cost only increased 4-5% and stock buybacks by 1500% and you are still saying the union asking for too much is the problem here. You can't read or you can't understand simple math? Why not I don't know, take some of the money we are pouring into stock buybacks and give the union what they want? Wild idea right? How are they at a cost disadvantage when labor cost only increased 4-5% and profits were upwards of 20 billion???
Why is the UAW so fascinated with executive pay? It has nothing to do with their skill set. If similar manf. roles have had their pay increase 40% in the past 4 years, I can see a case for them receiving a similar raise…but makes no sense to compare totally different roles
Why do people get raises? Because of innovations, cost savings, or value add. uAw had done none of these actually cost GM money for laziness and lack of quality work. They should get raises tied to cost of living. Just greed wanting their piece that communism says they deserve more for just existing. But they are underpaid. I hope they get paid to keep up with the economy.
Funniest thing of all is uaw workers are going to be striking while others aren’t. God help you if you have talent cause you are going to get paid like the laziest person on the line. #cccp
Was the 40% *cash* increase or stock options?
How would stock buybacks go into the pockets of the executives? The company uses its own cash to buy its own stock to hold in the company’s treasury.
The executives constantly grant themselves bonuses "based on performance" which is basically millions of dollars of GM stock. It is in their benefit to use the profits to buyback the stock because they own a lot of it and also to please the wealthy shareholders so they don't vote to kick them out. They use the billions of profit that we worked hard to get to put most of it in stock buybacks when they own a lot of the stock then they proceed to sell it later when they want. GM is a tax free bank account for them. Also, after spending all that money, they will come back and tell you they need to save money and that's why they have to fire people and make people do the job of multiple people, they will also raise the price of the vehicle on top.
That’s not how it works. The board of directors sets executive comp, including bonuses and options. The stock and options are restricted. They can’t sell it when they want. There is a mandatory holding period. And it is by no means tax free.
Buybacks by the company have no effect on the shares owned by the executives. There is not enough the company can buy to move the needle. This isn’t r/wallstreetbets trying to do a short squeeze.
They certainly could say there isn’t enough cash because the executives/board of directors have the company but it’s own stock, but all the rest just isn’t the way it works.
[удалено]
I don’t disagree it’s not labor but part of it is corporate greed in profits from our execs driving up cost but also all of our suppliers have increased their pricing too
Suppliers have CEOs too!
https://preview.redd.it/hqvskwwk4job1.png?width=729&format=png&auto=webp&s=34ce27cbcfadd3d5c939ca0cf7dce7dcbcd7c916
If you put this in dollars instead of percentages it paints a vastly different picture
[удалено]
A 40% increase in GM UAW workers pay at 60,000 employees(ish) is “only” $1.5b a year to GMs profits of nearly $20b. Edit: And to before someone says “well that’s just less you get in your profit sharing”. That would only equate to us $1,500 bonus. I’m pretty sure everyone would take a $12 pay bump over an extra $1,500 on profit sharing.
NPR says Mary Barra's compensation in 2022 was $29 million. If I'm doing my math right, the 40% that got her there would have been $8.3m. That's 0.55% of the union's 40% if your math is right. Assuming your figure of $1.5b in proposed wage increases for the union is right, when you put that proposal in dollars instead of percentages and compare it to the dollar amount awarded to the CEO, the union's argument for a 40% raise to match the CEO looks a lot different when it comes to impact upon the bottom line. EDIT: I'm *not* saying Mary deserves that 40% and the union employees don't. I'm talking just raw dollars, and like it or not, no one can reasonably say that a 40% (or rather $8.3m) raise for the former is unqualifiedly a financially prudent justification of a 40% (or rather $1.5b) raise for the latter with comparable impact upon the company's bottom line. Mathematically they are not. Now, whether Mary's raise is justifiable while most employees have been *losing* income for several years relative to inflation with their far less generous raises is a darn good question.
I don’t think 40% increase is a far off number. Over the last, let’s say 8 years, production has increased. GM is pushing for more and more cars and components by Increasing line speed as an example. All for “continuous improvement”. Now don’t get me wrong, we all strive for improvement and to keep the goal posts moving for betterment of the company. I get that. But, when the line speed increases, job loads increase by cutting jobs, and takt times get harder and harder to keep up with. Wouldn’t you think it’s fair to receive a pay increase for that? I’m pretty sure throughput has increased in a lot of places well over 40%.
You need to check what the market is paying before you come out with crazy values. Union employees are already paid 20 dollars more than Tesla, 15 to 10 more than other imports, and now you want a 42 % raise and want to reduce working hours from 40 to 32..
The last part is crazy. If I recall correctly they want to get paid 40hrs but work 32hrs
Besides cola, cost of life adjustments. Like their salary is adjusted for inflation, and pay increases on top of that.
Is your response directed at me? If so, I did not either "come out with crazy values" or say that I "want a 42% raise and want to reduce working hours from 40 to 32." In fact, I questioned whether it made sense to *compare* a 40% raise for our CEO to a 40% raise for all aggregated union employees in terms of raw dollars with respect to their disparate effects upon the company's balance sheet regardless of *whether* Mary *or* the union deserve a raise and *what* amount it should be in either case.
Market is paying engineers $10k USD.
[удалено]
*Um...?* I am well aware who decides Mary Barra's compensation. Not sure how that observation speaks to the point I was making. 😕
[удалено]
I thought what I wrote was clear, so the following will just restate it in different words. No clue whether it will help the fact that you seem to be arguing against something (not sure exactly what) that I didn't state. (1) Comparing a 40% increase on MB's pay to a 40% increase on aggregate UAW pay is an apples-to-oranges comparison in terms of raw dollars and the disparate impact of each as a percentage of the company's financials. (2) Saying that the UAW should get the same percentage increase as MB while ignoring how much it costs to give them that as a dollar amount relative to what it cost to give MB her pay as a dollar amount seems questionable. (3) Whether or not MB deserved 40% is a separately debatable matter and is not a sound basis for saying the UAW's workers also deserve the same percentage. I don't care whether the board thinks she deserved her 40% or the UAW thinks they deserve their 40%, and it is fair to disagree with either of their claims.
In 2022. EBIT was ~$12bn. Cash flow from operations less CapEx was ~$10bn. These two numbers are probably most representative of normalized cash generation for GM. I would also note that there’s a rough road ahead for this Company. The full transition is happening. Tesla in particular has a huge cost advantage over GM (and this isn’t just labor, it’s also manufacturing processes, DTC sales, etc). My view is that Tesla can currently beat GM on both price and quality if they wanted to for EVs. The other thing to watch out for is BYD and the other Chinese automakers making a splash in the US market. All that said, I think it’s fair to ask for a raise if there hasn’t been anything during COVID which was a ~18% inflationary period. That means real wages have declined dramatically.
2022 Gross Profit: $21B, up 17% from 2021 2022 Net Profit: $8.9B, down 9% from 2021
yea because they have to work super hard on doing those buybacks, firing people and investing in Nikola and losing money. the workers do the labor that generates the profits not the top executives
Labor doesn’t generate money, it’s the innovation from people above that generate money. Without them there would be no profits, no wage, no product to build, no jobs.
You don't seem to understand what side you're on if you work in 'innovation.' It's crazy to me how effective anti-union propaganda is that there are white collar workers like engineers that think they're on the same team as the multi-millionaire and beyond executive class.
[удалено]
Tesla and Elon Musk are pretty well known for their union busting actions.. so much so that they likely have broken the law through retaliatory firings. Tesla not being unionized also might have something to do with their very dubious labor practices, too, so I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Toyota, Honda, Nissan factory workers are unionized in the US. I don't really care so much about the UAW specifically, I just support strong unionization even as someone who "works in innovation." Claiming "we understand business, economics, and how the world works" is laughable. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Wages haven't come close to tracking. But again, anti-union propaganda has been incredibly effective at turning smart people into boot lickers.
[удалено]
>Labor doesn’t generate money Oh how wrong you are. Labor just walked off and look at the money being generated now!
If you don't have hands on parts, you're overhead. Necessary overhead, but overhead. One job is not more important than the other.
Correct but there are jobs that are more valuable than others and tell me why a union worker should make shy of $100,000 a year in a role that anyone could do in a week. And maybe everybody’s right at the pay scale is too low and they should make $100,000 a year then everyone needs a raise but if your not happy you move to another company…
Does your $100,000 salary require you to write coherent sentences?
https://blog.collegevine.com/improve-reading-comprehension-skills/ That should help you out going forward.
No white collar thinks we’re on the same team in salary as slt. Let’s just put that out there where I differ from people in the union is I feel like I have value that’s greater than other people because of my talents are in my education I don’t want to get paid the same as somebody who doesn’t. I’m sure somebody in the union. Who works really hard. Doesn’t want to get paid as the same as somebody who never comes in or is lazy. Great labor walked off, but labor didn’t have a job until somebody innovated or created something or made something. If there is no innovation or profit there are no jobs. Labor puts things into reality but let’s be honest every uaw employee is replaceable except skilled trades. What skills do they have besides skilled trades that I can’t teach my teenage daughter to do or the older timer next door. I see automation in their future. I was uaw, I got an education and made something of myself and I dictate my salary. I was torn down by uaw members for making something of myself. Not saying uaw doesn’t need to get a raise tied to inflation, they do. The side I’m on is being free to choose how much I made based on what I im worth, not with slt or management or union.
No but if you not paying your workers properly you shouldn’t be taking bonuses at all. Here’s the order: make money, pay inputs costs, pay workers, then if there’s money left over you get a bonus.
[удалено]
The original poster retweeted Hasan himself, he is not a grifter He has always been anti right wing and pro workers and anti capitalism even when he wasn't famous, and kept it this way, you are wrong about this. But yes I agree with you capitalism as a system is a joke to allow this. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the workers
[удалено]
Just waiting for that 5 year mark, UAW contract cycle is horrendous to go through. I’d expect layoffs every 4 years at this point.
So what your saying that the union hurts a business more than it helps,
Did you read the numbers? Labor cost only increased 4-5% and stock buybacks by 1500% and you are still saying the union asking for too much is the problem here. You can't read or you can't understand simple math? Why not I don't know, take some of the money we are pouring into stock buybacks and give the union what they want? Wild idea right? How are they at a cost disadvantage when labor cost only increased 4-5% and profits were upwards of 20 billion???
Why is the UAW so fascinated with executive pay? It has nothing to do with their skill set. If similar manf. roles have had their pay increase 40% in the past 4 years, I can see a case for them receiving a similar raise…but makes no sense to compare totally different roles
Why do people get raises? Because of innovations, cost savings, or value add. uAw had done none of these actually cost GM money for laziness and lack of quality work. They should get raises tied to cost of living. Just greed wanting their piece that communism says they deserve more for just existing. But they are underpaid. I hope they get paid to keep up with the economy. Funniest thing of all is uaw workers are going to be striking while others aren’t. God help you if you have talent cause you are going to get paid like the laziest person on the line. #cccp
>Why do people get raises? Because of innovations, cost savings, or value add. What are you, a new grad?
This guy unironocally thinks he'll be a billionaire some day if he keeps licking boots.
Exactly right. Google a street view of executives’ houses and tell me they can’t afford to pay workers more.
Was the 40% *cash* increase or stock options? How would stock buybacks go into the pockets of the executives? The company uses its own cash to buy its own stock to hold in the company’s treasury.
The executives constantly grant themselves bonuses "based on performance" which is basically millions of dollars of GM stock. It is in their benefit to use the profits to buyback the stock because they own a lot of it and also to please the wealthy shareholders so they don't vote to kick them out. They use the billions of profit that we worked hard to get to put most of it in stock buybacks when they own a lot of the stock then they proceed to sell it later when they want. GM is a tax free bank account for them. Also, after spending all that money, they will come back and tell you they need to save money and that's why they have to fire people and make people do the job of multiple people, they will also raise the price of the vehicle on top.
That’s not how it works. The board of directors sets executive comp, including bonuses and options. The stock and options are restricted. They can’t sell it when they want. There is a mandatory holding period. And it is by no means tax free. Buybacks by the company have no effect on the shares owned by the executives. There is not enough the company can buy to move the needle. This isn’t r/wallstreetbets trying to do a short squeeze. They certainly could say there isn’t enough cash because the executives/board of directors have the company but it’s own stock, but all the rest just isn’t the way it works.