Leaving CEO pay aside, that means the median salary I'd $80k. And we're talking Rust-Belt, not Silicon Valley. That's a pretty good salary for the region, plus the benefits they get.
Not seeing how the demands are in any way reasonable.
Not seeing how the demands are in any way reasonable.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/21/american-workers-are-demandi... ("American workers are demanding almost $80,000 a year to take a new job")
[2] https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor... ("Why labor shortages could be here to stay")
[3] https://www.marketplace.org/2022/01/24/how-much-labor-force-... ("How much of our labor force has been lost to COVID-19?")
[4] https://archive.ph/sKeyE | https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp... ("Are Older Workers Propping Up The U.S. Economy?")
(scholar of systems)
That is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess where companies post record profits year after year and employee pay does not increase.
These employees are generating billions of dollars of extra profit for the company, and they want a bigger share of that.
How much they are earning is utterly irrelevant, they want a bigger share of the enormous profits they are generating. That is the end of the story
This is the UAW's way of making the same point.
Cute phrase, though maybe you can spend some time working in the mines. Most all trades are hiring. It's enlightening how different life/culture/America is, particularly underground.
2. Since the concessions the union made in '00 (?) there has been a two tiered pay rate system. Essentially, 1/2 the wages for new hires (was like $28/hr for vets and $15 for newbies in '00). This has caused the big 3 to lean on newbie wages and sometimes do required work 6/7 days a week for >10 hrs a shift. So the new union boss is trying to make a point that equal pay needs to come back along with work/life balance even for factory workers.
3. I did some off the cuff math, GM+Ford+Stellantis did stock buybacks of AT LEAST 9 Billion to shareholders in '22. Estimates of the current kinda crazy opening bid at 40% raises + other incidentals is a cumulative 80Billion split between the big 3 from september of '23->september of '27 so 4 years or ~20Billion a year. A big number but remember the big 3 made something like 50 billion in profit, even subtracting that stock buyback first. So effectively the union is asking for 2/5ths of profits, or 1/3rd if you add in the stock buyback.
tldr; the money is there. The big 3 offerred a 10% raise, union wants 40%. My guess is they meet somewhere around 25%. Or about a year of profits over a 4 year contract. Big 3 would be stupid not to agree they are making money hand over fist and this still leaves them plenty of room to stay nimble. In addition they are losing billions a week with this strike.
You'd need a scatter plot of pay vs experience in this cohort to really say that the demands are unreasonable.
We dont know how much buearocracy/middle mgmt there is in these companies, and how much they make, and how much value they contribute, vs extract.
I dont see how any lay person can pass judgement about whether the strike is fair or not without access to a lot more facts than just ceo pay or median pay.
Not saying that the strike is justified, just that the over confident tone that its not is unwarranted.