| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| $56,000 a year entry level, no education needed jobs "Gone with the Wind" |
| 2009-05-29 |
| NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- There was a time, not very long ago, when getting a job on the production line at a big automaker meant an instant ticket to the American dream, even for someone with little formal education. Not anymore. "The minute you signed the paper, you were instantly vaulted into the middle class," said Mike Smith, director of Wayne State University's Walter P. Reuther Library in Detroit, named for the founder of the United Auto Workers, the union that represents auto workers. A shrinking paycheck. As the auto industry undergoes a sea change, the government has demanded that Chrysler and General Motors (GM, Fortune 500) bring their labor costs in line with foreign competitors operating non-union factories in the U.S. Today, an entry-level auto-worker will be making $14 an hour, compared to the $28 "base rate" the job had earned before, according to a summary of Chrysler's contract agreement. Worker's benefits have also taken a hit. "Workers coming in will have good benefits and a good wages but not necessarily what they were 20 or 30 years ago," said Smith. Anemic healthcare. New UAW employees will pay a much larger portion of their healthcare expenses and once they retire carmakers won't be paying for their healthcare, according to information from the Center for Automotive Research. Fewer medical procedures and drugs will be covered and, under new agreements, Chrysler and GM employees won't have dental and vision care covered. Eroding unemployment benefits. As GM and Chrysler restructure, the UAW has agreed to give up salary protections that had cushioned laid off autoworkers. These protections had allowed factory workers to get their full pay, or close to it, even after they had been laid off. Workers could stay in the so-called "jobs bank," with pay, until they'd either returned to work or turned down job offers from the automaker. Under new deals with GM and Chrysler, factory workers will receive much less money when they're laid off. Senior workers will only be protected for up to one year, according to a summary of recent UAW contract changes. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #14 #7: I'm searching for my nanoviolin - really, I am. Posted by: Barbara Skolaut| I found mine, Barbara, but the F-string is broken. I plan to replace it when I win the lottery. Nanoviolin strings are EXPENSIVE! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-05-29 14:43 |
| #13 WHAT? I thought the UAW now owned 65% of GM. They trying to make sure that NO "Young upstarts", get on "THEIR' Gravy train |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-05-29 13:33 |
| #12 Pay is commensurate to skill. If your job can be replaced by a robot, you deserve less then |
| Posted by: bigjim-ca 2009-05-29 13:29 |
| #11 About EFFING time! |
| Posted by: Angeatle Sproing9224 2009-05-29 13:20 |
| #10 Among liberals, there is this idea that jobs create themselves, and that good things can be simply brought into existence with the wave of a legislative wand. This particular illusion has been exceptionally long-lived. Of course, there is one part of me that says if a megacorp is making megabucks, then the workers who create that value should receive benefits. If the market will pay $14/hour for your job, and yet you're creating something worth $100/hour, I don't agree that all that money should go towards the executives. And don't give me any B.S. about stockholder dividends, everyone knows those are a waste of the company's money. |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-05-29 13:11 |
| #9 A big problem I see is that Ford is competing with 2 federally backed entities. Support your Non-Federally funded auto maker. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-05-29 12:55 |
| #8 Wow! For once I agree with the Zero administration, make the big three competitive. Of course the UAW will blame the cuts on big brother government. This will get interseting, workers pay cut by the Dems. Oportunity knocks for the GOP, lets see if they can play this one. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-05-29 12:31 |
| #7 I'm searching for my nanoviolin - really, I am. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-05-29 12:24 |
| #6 I've just thought up this thing I call "E Koh Nom Icks" It reckons that price controls create shortages and artificially upping wages creates unemployment. Do you think it will catch on? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-05-29 11:52 |
| #5 The base rate for an experienced Toyota USA production worker is about $26 an hour, as I recall. Health care and other benefits push that into the low 40s. For the UAW it was about $28 and low 70s by the time you figured in their better benefits. $14 is for an entry level worker; if they stick they get moved up. If the UAW had been smart they would have, a couple years back, offered the Big 3 a deal: we keep our base pay and most of our benefits, our retirees keep most of theirs, and in turn we eliminate all the work rules not directly related to safety, and we give up the 'job bank'. That just might have saved the situation then. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-05-29 11:49 |
| #4 Amazingly they all got let go at around 56 days. And then got brought back in. Sorta like ACORN |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-05-29 11:35 |
| #3 This has actually been going on for some time. I do know that Chrysler was bringing in temps at greatly reduced wages and NO bennies to cover the shortfalls in vacation schedules. They could keep them for up to 60 days then they were required to hire (the standard probationary period was 60 days but health care did not kick in for one year). Amazingly they all got let go at around 56 days. And then got brought back in. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2009-05-29 11:18 |
| #2 Pay is commensurate to skill. If your job can be replaced by a robot, you deserve less then $14 an hour. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2009-05-29 10:32 |
| #1 $14 an hour, eh? I thought Toyota was paying their guys $20. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-05-29 10:26 |