UAW kicks off talks with 'Detroit Three'

[Scooter]

Does the UWA have a mandatory retirement age. I work at a Polytechnic institute in Facilities. Its Union. I could work till I am 70 if i wish. Maintaining my insurance and benefits. Interesting they are asking for more benefit's for retiree's. I can see that in the US when you have to be insured for medical. I have worked in the private sector most of my working life. Its sure different in a Union. Where I work it would be hard to get rid of an under performing worker. Private sector you would be let go. Nice to be paying into a pension. The more years I work the better the pension.

Sponsored

 

[Wags]

Does the UWA have a mandatory retirement age. I work at a Polytechnic institute in Facilities. Its Union. I could work till I am 70 if i wish. Maintaining my insurance and benefits. Interesting they are asking for more benefit's for retiree's. I can see that in the US when you have to be insured for medical. I have worked in the private sector most of my working life. Its sure different in a Union. Where I work it would be hard to get rid of an under performing worker. Private sector you would be let go. Nice to be paying into a pension. The more years I work the better the pension.

This is 100% true, I work for the government, it's very hard to get rid of people

 

[Raynger24]

Does the UWA have a mandatory retirement age.

The current contract between Ford and the UAW goes on forever about retirement and COMPLICATED retirement rules. You can leave at age 50 (or 55 depending on job classification, or even what plant you work at) with increasing monetary and health benefits paid by Ford up to age 62. However, retiring from Ford Motor before age 59-1/2 can present a tax problem, since taking money out of the retirement plans may trigger a 10% tax penalty.

I see nothing about an actual mandatory retirement age in the literally the longest retirement agreement I have ever attempted to read. According to an older (2011) Associated Press article Ford does not have a mandatory retirement age.

My take away is I see no benefit working past the age of 62. Below is a link of the soon to expire contract if you wish to bore oneself to death! And, of course much of this will most likely change after this contract expires September 14th, 2023.

Current contract link (warning...long, complicated and boring!)
https://uaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/volume-2.pdf

 

[EcoRanger]

When the CEO of Ford makes $ 21 million dollars a year and the company made 23.66 billion dollars last year I would damn sure want in on the money being made.

 

[Deleted member 6764]

When the CEO of Ford makes $ 21 million dollars a year and the company made 23.66 billion dollars last year I would damn sure want in on the money being made.

Just for perspective, if they paid the CEO $0, that would be ~$368 per year that Ford could give to each of their UAW workers, if it were passed on directly to just them.

That's why for many CEOs that take "no salary" it is more for publicity, or really tax purposes, than anything else.

That doesn't touch the argument about the gross profits you mentioned, and that is a bigger discussion. With recession likely and past experience of beating the other two to loans before needing a bailout, and having to invest with new loans on EV related initiatives, those profits may be well needed the next few years.

It makes it complicated for all sides.

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

Just for perspective, if they paid the CEO $0, that would be ~$368 per year that Ford could give to each of their UAW workers, if it were passed on directly to just them.

Love this perspective when people think talking about a CEO's wage is a "gotcha". Yeah pay the CEO $0 and then split the wage he would have gotten so that each worker gets an extra $25 annually. You've solved poverty bro the workers rise again

 

[ssjx7squall]

Just for perspective, if they paid the CEO $0, that would be ~$368 per year that Ford could give to each of their UAW workers, if it were passed on directly to just them.

That's why for many CEOs that take "no salary" it is more for publicity, or really tax purposes, than anything else.

That doesn't touch the argument about the gross profits you mentioned, and that is a bigger discussion. With recession likely and past experience of beating the other two to loans before needing a bailout, and having to invest with new loans on EV related initiatives, those profits may be well needed the next few years.

It makes it complicated for all sides.

why is it always extremes with you guys? No one is saying pay them 0. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

Bailouts will keep coming as they always have and history has shown they are just used in stock buy backs. I get wanting a realistic discussion on this but quite honestly the weird simping people do for billionaires and multi billion dollar companies is weird. When workers do better we all do better in every industry. Demanding better is pretty much a foundational principle of the United States. EVs will make money soon when the infrastructure catches up (and when states stop triple taxing ev owners).

 

[Deleted member 6764]

why is it always extremes with you guys? No one is saying pay them 0. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

Bailouts will keep coming as they always have and history has shown they are just used in stock buy backs. I get wanting a realistic discussion on this but quite honestly the weird simping people do for billionaires and multi billion dollar companies is weird. When workers do better we all do better in every industry. Demanding better is pretty much a foundational principle of the United States. EVs will make money soon when the infrastructure catches up (and when states stop triple taxing ev owners).

I'm not saying the extreme is realistic or called for. And don't ever call me "you guys" when you clearly have no idea who I am, where I'm coming from, or what I mean. I used the example to show that it isn't simple numbers as often gets thrown out. It is a very complex issue no matter how anyone tries to simplify it. I don't think we need to advocate for millionaires and billionaires, that isn't the point at all with what I said, and you obviously missed it completely.

 

[ssjx7squall]

I'm not saying the extreme is realistic or called for. And don't ever call me "you guys" when you clearly have no idea who I am, where I'm coming from, or what I mean. I used the example to show that it isn't simple numbers as often gets thrown out. It is a very complex issue no matter how anyone tries to simplify it. I don't think we need to advocate for millionaires and billionaires, that isn't the point at all with what I said, and you obviously missed it completely.

who knew "you guys" was so insulting.

you're using an extreme example literally no one has called for or expressed.

What I saw was someone give an example of something no one said, and yes advocated for millionaires when claiming a company couldn't exist without the CEO, which is also not something anyone said. Again, if you want to have an actual conversation about this with people at least do so in good faith, something people on this sub seem to lack when it comes to this subject.

If all you were saying it's more complicated than what you believe other's have said you could simply have said that instead of reframing what others have said or intended to say.

 

[Wags]

I just want say I like Tacos, best food ever!!

 

[Deleted member 6764]

who knew "you guys" was so insulting.

you're using an extreme example literally no one has called for or expressed.

What I saw was someone give an example of something no one said, and yes advocated for millionaires when claiming a company couldn't exist without the CEO, which is also not something anyone said. Again, if you want to have an actual conversation about this with people at least do so in good faith, something people on this sub seem to lack when it comes to this subject.

If all you were saying it's more complicated than what you believe other's have said you could simply have said that instead of reframing what others have said or intended to say.

Because you were insulting, to a group, that you put me, and I'm not.

You have no idea what I said and it is right there for anyone to read. I literally quoted someone using their salary as example and gross profits.

I never advocated for either side, because I don't. It isn't and can't be one sided.

No matter how I say it you don't listen or care, so there is no point in this exchange.

 

[ssjx7squall]

Because you were insulting, to a group, that you put me, and I'm not.

You have no idea what I said and it is right there for anyone to read. I literally quoted someone using their salary as example and gross profits.

I never advocated for either side, because I don't. It isn't and can't be one sided.

No matter how I say it you don't listen or care, so there is no point in this exchange.

Well you are in the group of you and the guy who commented after you....

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

A group of people who realize that talking about a CEO's wage of $21million means absolutely squat when you extrapolate that amount to all workers at FoMoCo. Yeah I guess i'm in that group.

No one's simping for millionaires, you just don't have a point when you bring up someone else's salary like that.

 

[rwolfcastle]

People need to stop being snippy with each other on here. I really don't want this thread nuked because it's the only place I'm staying up to date on the Ford manufacturing/impending union strike news.

 

[goalieThreeOne]

People need to stop being snippy with each other on here. I really don't want this thread nuked because it's the only place I'm staying up to date on the Ford manufacturing/impending union strike news.

Even though I disagree with many of the viewpoints in this thread, I can agree with this one. Ultimately this is a negotiation between employees and employer. This is frankly none of our business. I’m sure any of us would be none too happy if our employment and salary negotiation was to be made public. As with any negotiation, what both parties come to the table with is usually unrealistic. Ford will have to give some. UAW will have to give some. They’ll meet somewhere in the middle. All we can do is watch.

We should keep this thread clear of opinions, critiques, judgments, and name calling. Let’s keep it limited to objective discussion of the events. I don’t want to see anyone get banned for politics either.

Sponsored