Good Bye Detroit: The Final Nail in Big 3's Coffin

[Pexster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

$ 70.00 an hour is the "loaded wage" - the total cost of an hour including benefits, employer SSA, and retirement. In other words every burden payed by the employer, but not by the employee.

To include the retirement costs of people who are not even on the payroll is deceitful. To include the employer SSN and unempoyment insurance contributions, along with the employer health care and retirement contributions is deceitful when the figure is portrayed to the world as the hourly wage of an auto worker.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

To include the retirement costs of people who are not even on the payroll is deceitful. To include the employer SSN and unempoyment insurance contributions, along with the employer health care and retirement contributions is deceitful when the figure is portrayed to the world as the hourly wage of an auto worker.

I knew what they were talking about. It's standard lingo in management...

The cost of hiring you is your cost to the company, benefits and BS included. That's just the way it is, and it isn't deceitful. I don't know why more employers don't show it on pay stubs. Could be illegal? I don't know.

But they should have used the word "loaded" so people would ask what it means and they can say "You've got to be kidding me! The government is taking that much?"

And that's probably why they don't....

[sharder8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

I knew what they were talking about. It's standard lingo in management...

The cost of hiring you is your cost to the company, benefits and BS included. That's just the way it is, and it isn't deceitful. I don't know why more employers don't show it on pay stubs. Could be illegal? I don't know.

But they should have used the word "loaded" so people would ask what it means and they can say "You've got to be kidding me! The government is taking that much?"

And that's probably why they don't....

Exactly!!!

When I went to work for Boeing, Heatmor, Adobe, Intel, etc., the salary offer showwed the to of actual wage + bennies, and based on a 40 or 48hr hour week.


Harder

[Ed_S]

The figure the media uses all depends upon the image they wish to portray. To make the worker look bad, include all the cost of employment & don't forget unemployment ins, workers comp ins, etc. All is added in to jack up the total.
On the other hand, if they choose to make the employer look bad, include nothing other than simple wages.
Then, to make the first example look REALLY bad, compare it to the second example.
That's what I'd bet was done in the earlier comparison of college proffessors...

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

The figure the media uses all depends upon the image they wish to portray. To make the worker look bad, include all the cost of employment & don't forget unemployment ins, workers comp ins, etc.

I don't agree. I think the problem is the media has gone to hell and is run by lazy people who breeze through the internet and make twists on other's stories and call them their own.

"It's like $ 75.00 hr? Sound good to me?" with no back up research.

True news reporting and the "grunt work", like checking facts and sources, is pretty much dead.

They aren't smart enough to create an image. They just throw it and see what sticks.

[Pexster]

They could also "load" the cost by including each and every thing involved in a new hire and any re-occurring run rate costs; say a desk or a PC. I agree that it may be standard practice for management discussions, but it is certainly not standard practice in popular discussions about one's wages.

[zen]

It doesn't matter how you look at it, they are overpaid, period.

$27.00 an hour for unskilled assembly line work? That is way too much. I don't know what planet Disley is living on. Plus, it's complemented with a very good pension and insurance package.

I remember a few years ago the paper ran an article at how well off the workers at a GM plant in Janesville, WI were. Most had second homes, boats, etc and were retiring in their mid 50's.

Dana INC, in Reading, PA used to make truck frames for Ford. It was a union shop. Welders made anywhere from 24.00 to 30.00 an hour. They could take unlimited sick days, get special heat passes to go home, make double time after 40, etc. Guess what? Plant closed 2 years ago. Gee, i wonder why.

Todays unions kill businesses. See any steel foundries prospering in the US? You can count em on 1 hand. There used to be thousands.

[brandon184]

Unions suck... unless you work for one!

[Ed_S]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon184

Unions suck... unless you work for one!

You STILL don't get the point, do you. We had this debate a few years ago!

Doesn't matter if you're working in a union job, an office, fast food, or bagging groceries for minimum wage. Your employer MUST have customers or else you are not neccessary. Those customers, or possible their customers, are very likely union workers!

For an area to prosper, you MUST have a large number of people making decent wages. People who can afford to shop at good stores that in turn employ more people at fair wages. Those stores also sell better products made by decently paid people.

Now, cut the wages of enough workers, and you've got a bunch of people shopping at Wal-Mart for crap made by near-slave labor somewhere in the world!

Another thing, the labor union wage sets the standard for an industry. Do you really think those non-union workers in other plants would be getting more than minimum if not for this? For that matter, do you think ANY company would pay YOU decently if they didn't have to in order to keep people? And there ARE a lot of people that could fill your slot, no matter who you are or what you do.

Well, I used to say these things in the hope that people like you would wake up before it's too late. Sadly I'm afraid that ship has sailed...

[brandon184]

Do you work in a union?