GM pays veteran employees $60,000 to
retire
February 20, 2016
|
Home
Directory
|
GM wants so much to rush veteran
production workers out the door that it is offering them $60,000 to
retire before May 1. It's not that GM doesn't need workers or
that they don't value experience. It's that their replacements will cost so much
less.
To retire, workers
must meet age and service requirements: 30 years of credited
service, 85 points of combined age and credited service, or 60 years
of age and 10 years' credited service.
Apparently, lots of workers
continue working past retirement age. Maybe it is because they are
earning over $70,000 a year.
In 2007, the UAW and all domestic
automakers agreed to a wage of $14 per hour for newly-hired
workers while existing workers continued to earn $28 per
hour. New workers were referred to as "second-tier" while veterans
were "first-tier." The starting wage for second-tier workers
has increased over the years to $15.78.
The 2010 contracts were signed when GM
and Chrysler were coming out of bankruptcy and included no wage
increases for first-tier workers. Even so, as I reported in a
July 2014 story, annual earnings exceeded $66,000 for the next 4
years.
The 2015 contracts were negotiated when the industry was
thriving and UAW members felt they deserved compensation for past
sacrifices. They also wanted to reduce the wage gap between new and
veteran workers. Following is my breakdown of total annual earnings
for what are now referred to as "traditional" (formerly, first-tier)
GM production workers from September 2015-September 2019. The figures come from a
summary on the UAW website of the 2015 GM contract. I
calculated base salary as hourly rate times 2080, the number of
hours in a year figuring 40 hours a week and 52 weeks.
That number is probably high, but is offset by not including
overtime and shift differential. For hourly rate, I increased $28 by 3% for years 1-2 then increased the resulting figure by 3%
for years 3-4, as the provided in the contract. We don't know the profit sharing amounts for 2017-2019,
but car sales are expected to increase in the next year, then drop
off gradually (source),
so we can reasonably expect profit sharing to average $10,000.
|
Signing Bonus |
|
Base Salary |
|
Quality/ Performance Bonus
|
|
Profit Share |
|
Lump Sum |
|
Total |
|
Year 1 |
$8,000 |
+ |
$59,987 |
+ |
$1,500 |
+ |
$11,000 |
|
|
= |
$80,487 |
|
Year 2 |
|
|
$59,987 |
+ |
$1,500 |
+ |
*$10,000 |
+ |
**$2,400 |
= |
$73,887 |
|
Year 3 |
|
|
$61,787 |
+ |
$1,500 |
+ |
*$10,000 |
|
|
= |
$73,287 |
|
Year 4 |
|
|
$61,787 |
+ |
$1,500 |
+ |
*$10,000 |
+ |
**$2,471 |
= |
$75,758 |
|
|
*Estimated **4% of base salary |
|
|
|
Total: |
$303,419 |
|
Now let's compare that to what a new
employee hired just after the contract was signed will earn during those same 4 years. New workers,
along with the current workers formerly known as "second-tier," are now termed
"in-progression" workers. Hourly rates are from the chart
at the top of page 3 of the
contract summary.
|
Period |
Hourly rate |
Calculation |
Earnings
|
|
|
9/15/2015-4/3/2016 |
17.00 |
202 days/7 = 28.9 weeks; $17 x
40 = $680 x 28.9 = |
$19,652 |
|
|
4/4/2016-9/18/2016 |
18.00 |
168 days/7 = 24 weeks; $18 x
40 = $720 x 24 = |
$17,280 |
|
|
9/19/2016-9/17/2017 |
19.50 |
364 days. $19.50 x 2080 = |
$40,560 |
|
|
9/18/2017-9/16/2018 |
21.00 |
364 days. $21.00 x 2080 = |
$43,680 |
|
|
9/17/2018-9/15/2019 |
22.50 |
364 days. $22.50 x 2080 = |
$46,800 |
|
|
|
|
Total
earnings from wages: |
$167,972 |
|
This new worker will get the same
yearly $1,500 quality/performance bonuses as traditional workers as
well as the profit sharing, but not the $8,000 settlement bonus and
not those 4% lump sum payments in the 2nd and 4th years. Here's what
he'll get over the 4 years:
|
Wages (from above) |
$167,972 |
|
|
Quality/performance bonus
($1,500 x 4) |
$6,000 |
|
|
Profit share (same as
traditional workers) |
$41,000 |
|
|
Total: |
$214,972 |
|
So the newly-hired worker will earn a
total of $214,972 over the 4 years of the contract while the
traditional worker will earn $303,419, a difference of $88,447.
That's why it makes sense for GM to pay workers $60,000 to retire.
Driving jobs to Mexico
The UAW obtained substantial gains for
its members in the 2015 contracts with domestic auto makers, but as
a result, manufacturing of some smaller cars will move to Mexico. A
December 9, 2015 Bloomberg News story says that
By the time the contracts expire
in 2019, the three automakers will have added an estimated
320,000 vehicles worth of production there and cut U.S. output
by a collective 120,000, according to a forecast from IHS
Automotive, a research firm in Southfield, Michigan. Ford will
add the most, boosting its Mexican production to 631,000 from
433,000, IHS said. . . .
Ford will move two compacts, the
Focus passenger car and C-Max hybrid, to plants in Mexico,
according to a person familiar with the matter. Fiat Chrysler
will assemble a compact Jeep sport utility vehicle there
starting in early 2017, according to IHS. GM said a year ago it
is investing $5 billion in Mexico and will import the Buick
Envision sport utility vehicle to the U.S. from China. . . .
Ford also is investing $2.5
billion to build new engine and transmission plants in Mexico. .
. .
UAW leadership was well aware that
excessive demands could cost jobs. As they told members in the GM
contract summary:
The biggest challenge for your
bargaining committee was to balance the competing demands of
higher wages and job security . . . We know from experience that
without product investments there is no job or income security
and no future growth. . . . We won investments in 12 different
sites and created or retained 3,300 jobs.
According to the
Bloomberg
story, however, those investments in 12 sites and those 3,300 jobs weren't
much of concession for GM:
GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler did
pledge billions in investment for their American factories. But
most of this will prepare for new models of vehicles the plants
already assemble, according to Art Schwartz, a former GM labor
negotiator and president of consulting firm Labor and Economics
Associates in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
UAW president Dennis Williams seemed
surprised by reports of production moving to Mexico.
According to the Detroit Free Press, "Williams said [on February
5 that] none of the automakers said they would move production to
Mexico because of labor costs during contract discussions."
Apparently, it didn't come up.
Lower wages and lack of unions are not
the only reason Mexico is drawing auto manufacturers. This is from "Why
Auto Makers Are Building New Factories in Mexico, not the U.S.",
a March 17, 2015 story in the Wall Street Journal:
Mexico has 10 free-trade
arrangements encompassing 45 countries--counting EU members
separately--plus other trade deals in Latin America and the
Asian Pacific, according to the government’s trade office. In
contrast, the U.S. has free-trade agreements with 20 countries,
mostly smaller economies such as Chile, Jordan and Panama . . .
Free trade means no tariffs, which add
to costs and cut into profits. U.S. unions typically oppose free
trade, fearing competition from lower-paid foreign workers.
During the 2015 contact negotiations,
the UAW membership did not share the leadership's concern about
losing jobs to Mexico. They were concerned only for their own
pocketbooks.
The UAW's first proposed contract
with FCA [Fiat-Chrysler America] was resoundingly rejected by
members . . . It was the first national agreement rejected by
autoworkers since 1982 and a historic low point for the UAW. The
two sides returned to the table and reached a second contract
which passed. (Detroit
Free Press, November 28, 2015)
UAW-GM negotiators struggled to come
up with an agreement acceptable to the membership and Ford workers
approved theirs by only 51.4%. If the agreements had not been approved,
a strike would have been a strong possibility. The last major UAW
strike was in 1998 against GM in Flint:
Only 9,200 workers participated in
this 54-day strike, but it reverberated throughout GM and the
American economy. The strike stopped production at 30 GM
assembly plants and 100 parts plants across North America. Some
193,000 non-union workers were laid off at GM and the company's
parts suppliers. GM and the UAW eventually reached an agreement
where the automaker pledged to reinvest in American factories
while the workers promised a 15 percent increase in output. But
the damage was done. GM was crippled to the tune of 500,000
vehicles and lost $2.3 billion in profits. Production of newer
models had to be pushed back months. GM was so large that
the strike shaved one
percent off America's gross national product. (source:
autoblog.com, March 12, 2015)
In
today's dollars,
that $2.3 billion in lost profits would be $4.61 billion, so you can
see why the automakers didn't put up much of a fight this time
around. They just quietly move to Mexico.
Send comments, questions and
tips to
stevenrharry@gmail.com. If
you'd like to be notified by email when I post a new story, let me
know.
Previous stories:
-
Eliminating the payroll tax
-
February 2, 2015
-
Big funeral for bad
lieutenant - November 16, 2015
-
A source of extra revenue for Michigan
cities - November 4, 2015
-
Campaign reports from the Lansing city
council
race - October 26, 2015
-
Bernero campaign fund grows by $20,354
in first half of 2015 - October 15, 2015
-
Government compensates survivors
unequally - October 3, 2015
-
Campaign reports from the Lansing city
council
primary - September 26, 2015
-
No ordinary motorcycle death
- September 9, 2015
-
Legislators: Please fix this!
- August 29, 2015
-
Replacing Lansing's
mayor with a
city
manager - August 15, 2015
-
God's servant pays ultimate price,
parents get $400,000 - July 27, 2015
-
How to
oust Bernero - July 20, 2015
-
Eight years on the job gets you a
pension - July 15, 2015
-
Lansing's "structural deficit" may exceed
$16,000 per household - July 9, 2015
-
Lansing's UAAL may require selling the
BWL - June 25, 2015
-
Is placement of FOIA exemption
unconstitutional? - June 9, 2015
-
Stop special tax treatment of capital gains and
dividends - April 16, 2015
-
Plan B: If road funding proposal
fails, increase income tax - April 6, 2015
-
A cloud over Sunshine Week
- March 16, 2015
-
Civil asset forfeiture: Justice, or revenue
enhancement? - March 9, 2015
-
It's time to revisit the National Labor
Relations Act - February 19, 2015
-
High pay of "elite" auto workers causes low pay,
unemployment elsewhere - February 13, 2015
-
Bernero's City Administrative Account takes in another
$8,500 in last half of 2014 - February 7, 2015
-
Problems with J. Peter Lark seen as
early as 2009 - January 22, 2015
-
Who killed Deputy Grant Whitaker?
- January 13, 2015
-
Support of collective bargaining is
immoral - November 15, 2014
-
See what military equipment your local
law enforcement agency got - December 11, 2014
-
New IAFF contract cuts pension benefits for
new Lansing firefighters - December 6, 2014
-
80% of
contributions to police union PAC goes to telemarketer -
November 30, 2014
|