• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Port Workers are Set to Strike Tuesday 10/1

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Hmmm...appears they opted to kick the can down the road until after the election and after the holiday season, and they're returning to work for 3 months on the same contract they were already on which now extends until the week right before inauguration day. That's some coincidental timing.

Sounds like maybe a certain someone got some calls from some other certain someones...

They changed their tune from "we'll crush them" to "okay, we'll come back to work at our original rate for 3 more months while negotiations happen" pretty quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think all of our disagreements can be wrapped up by saying that our concepts of “normal” wages just differ from each other, irrespective of industry.

To me, "normal" should be predicated on the natural laws that suggest that scarcity creates value.


A good "test"/"exercise" one could run through to highlight that would be to imagine a game of what I like to call "career H.O.R.S.E." (for those familiar with the game H.O.R.S.E. ...the idea is to be able to replicate all of your opponents shots, while also being able to make ones that they can't replicate).

If you have a chemical engineer and a guy from the mailroom, who's more likely to be able to do the other ones task effectively? The obvious answer is, the chemical engineer could easily accomplish the mail sorting tasks, the mailroom guy likely wouldn't even know most of the vocabulary and "lingo" being used in a chemical lab.

That's why the chemical engineer makes a lot more and has a more buying power in the market.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
29,419
29,102
Baltimore
✟752,559.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
To me, "normal" should be predicated on the natural laws that suggest that scarcity creates value.

If we do that, then the folks in the "easier" jobs wind up competing with each other until they make almost nothing. That's why we have minimum wage laws; that's part of why we allow organizing.


A good "test"/"exercise" one could run through to highlight that would be to imagine a game of what I like to call "career H.O.R.S.E." (for those familiar with the game H.O.R.S.E. ...the idea is to be able to replicate all of your opponents shots, while also being able to make ones that they can't replicate).

If you have a chemical engineer and a guy from the mailroom, who's more likely to be able to do the other ones task effectively? The obvious answer is, the chemical engineer could easily accomplish the mail sorting tasks, the mailroom guy likely wouldn't even know most of the vocabulary and "lingo" being used in a chemical lab.

That's why the chemical engineer makes a lot more and has a more buying power in the market.
Yeah, I get all that. But I also think there are other factors that ought to be considered, like what it costs to pay rent/mortgage or take care of kids within a reasonable commute of a workplace. Around here, which is pretty middle of the road as far as COL goes, $80k will cover most housing if you've got a partner who's also working, but if you add kids into the mix, forget it. The argument that "$80k is enough" essentially says "you can be a dockworker, but if you want to be a dockworker with kids, you have to live paycheck-to-paycheck". I reject that. There's enough money in this economy to not need that.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,711
5,628
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟357,315.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If we do that, then the folks in the "easier" jobs wind up competing with each other until they make almost nothing. That's why we have minimum wage laws; that's part of why we allow organizing.



Yeah, I get all that. But I also think there are other factors that ought to be considered, like what it costs to pay rent/mortgage or take care of kids within a reasonable commute of a workplace. Around here, which is pretty middle of the road as far as COL goes, $80k will cover most housing if you've got a partner who's also working, but if you add kids into the mix, forget it. The argument that "$80k is enough" essentially says "you can be a dockworker, but if you want to be a dockworker with kids, you have to live paycheck-to-paycheck". I reject that. There's enough money in this economy to not need that.
This is off topic. However, it's kinda crazy that the cost of living appears to be insanely high in various different places across the country.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I get all that. But I also think there are other factors that ought to be considered, like what it costs to pay rent/mortgage or take care of kids within a reasonable commute of a workplace. Around here, which is pretty middle of the road as far as COL goes, $80k will cover most housing if you've got a partner who's also working, but if you add kids into the mix, forget it. The argument that "$80k is enough" essentially says "you can be a dockworker, but if you want to be a dockworker with kids, you have to live paycheck-to-paycheck". I reject that. There's enough money in this economy to not need that.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "locations that cost more"-centric arguments.

If these guys are working loading/unloading jobs in NY and NJ, where they claim that $74-80k isn't enough...why haven't they moved to a state like mine? Dayton Freight and Pitt Ohio have unionized dockworker jobs that pay $58-65k, that goes a lot further in Ohio that $74k does in those other two states.

In all honesty, I don't even see the "I deserve to be able to make a living wage" rationale, alone, as over-entitlement. I think that's a reasonable request in many cases.

However, when the clause gets added on of "in the specific city/area I want to live in", that's when it gets into the realm of over-entitlement in my opinion.


If I make the choice to move to/live in Aspen Colorado (where the median home price is over 2M dollars), the businesses within reasonable driving distance of there don't "owe me" a $600k/year salary to be a software guy so that I can make a "living wage for the place I want to live" when I could easily apply my trade in thousands of other places and easily get by.

Likewise, one can say "I should be entitled to a living wage where I can cover housing/food/bills" and they can likely make a case with me and win, as soon as a specific location requirement is tacked on (that's very high-priced) to that request (due to that scarcity=value thing I mentioned) that's where they lose me.

It's not like there's electric fences keeping people inside of these overpriced cities and making them live there.


To put it in more blunt terms. If someone has the skillset and aptitude to be a Target Stock clerk, and they're choosing to live in an expensive area of NY or Cali, we should be having the "find a cheaper locale" conversation before having the "Target should have to pay me enough to afford an apartment in the city where I've chosen to live" conversation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
29,419
29,102
Baltimore
✟752,559.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If these guys are working loading/unloading jobs in NY and NJ, where they claim that $74-80k isn't enough...why haven't they moved to a state like mine? Dayton Freight and Pitt Ohio have unionized dockworker jobs that pay $58-65k, that goes a lot further in Ohio that $74k does in those other two states.

In all honesty, I don't even see the "I deserve to be able to make a living wage" rationale, alone, as over-entitlement. I think that's a reasonable request in many cases.

However, when the clause gets added on of "in the specific city/area I want to live in", that's when it gets into the realm of over-entitlement in my opinion.

Seriously?

If the dockworkers in NJ moved to OH, who would work the docks that are in NJ?

This isn’t a tech job you can do from a laptop in any cafe anywhere. You have to be on site, which means you have to live somewhere close to the dock.

Perhaps if the port in the expensive city doesn’t like paying its workers enough to live in the expensive city, the port should pack up and move to some place cheaper. We should move NY harbor to Kansas; that’ll make everybody happy, right? The ports will get cheap labor; the workers will get cheap houses; and there will be a bunch of prime waterfront real estate in NYC opened up for development.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Seriously?

If the dockworkers in NJ moved to OH, who would work the docks that are in NJ?

This isn’t a tech job you can do from a laptop in any cafe anywhere. You have to be on site, which means you have to live somewhere close to the dock.

Perhaps if the port in the expensive city doesn’t like paying its workers enough to live in the expensive city, the port should pack up and move to some place cheaper. We should move NY harbor to Kansas; that’ll make everybody happy, right? The ports will get cheap labor; the workers will get cheap houses; and there will be a bunch of prime waterfront real estate in NYC opened up for development.
There'd be plenty of able-bodied people who'd be willing to work the docks for $80-100k a year in NJ/NY
(for instance, thousands of target retail associates in those states who are only making $17/hour)

Remember, this started because the ILA suggested the $90k/year + handsome benefits offer was "not good enough".

I'm simply saying if they feel the situation is so bad, they should go elsewhere. There's no rule that says that a person has to live in New York.

This idea that "I should get a living wage, doing the specific job I want, in the specific city I want to live in" is beyond a reasonable ask.

3 factors:
Preferred Wage
Specific Task
Specific City

You can pick two of the three...

If you want a living wage doing a specific task, you may not be able to do it in your preferred city
If you want to do a specific task in a specific city, you may not get a living wage doing it
If you want a living wage in a specific city, you may not be able to do it via the specific task you wanted to do


The truth is, with regards to the ILA, they knew their demand was beyond reasonable, which is why they folded and agreed to work under the previous agreement for an additional 3 months. If it was something they felt that strongly about and had that strong of a case, they wouldn't have caved after 48 hours. The UAW guys under Shawn Fain didn't cave that easily....because they knew they had a stronger case.

The reality is, you can make it living in NJ on a 90k salary in an area that's a reasonable commute to work...a lot of these guys were already well over the median income levels for the areas they lived in.


C'mon, let's be honest here. A group of workers (half of which were already making near or over six figures with their OT which puts them in the top 10% of earners) threatening to disrupt the supply chain "cuz we're getting ripped off!" wasn't going to resonate with Americans the same way as the much more valid complaints that the UAW workers had. Combine that with the fact that their Union head was/(probably is still) mobbed up...let's just be real here...the dude was brought up on RICO charges and the key witness disappeared and then they found the body 2 weeks later in a dumpster... That's some Goodfellas stuff.

Even though I have my fair share of disagreements with some of the concepts underpinning some of the concepts, I can still at least have some respect for Sean O'Brien and Shawn Fain, they're strong in their convictions, and I think they have some valid points. This ILA leader is a different story.

You said it yourself earlier in this thread...and I quote:
"In poking around for stats for the argument (because I do love arguing with data), I found a report describing how the NYC longshoreman union had something like 1/3 of the workers making over $200k/yr, which isn't necessarily horrible in NYC if a bunch of old-timers are regularly putting in 100 hr/wks, but the report showed many of them making well over that and concluded that the "overwhelming majority" of those were low-show patronage jobs given to individuals who were "white males" with connections to either union bosses or organized crime."
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm seeing reports the dockworkers are considering a 62% raise over 6 years.


Anyone want to help me try to understand why unions don't protect working class Men and women?
Were you aware of some of the specifics about that particular Union's operations and the contracts they already had?
(I covered a lot of it in this thread, but I'll provide the readers digest version below)

They were already being protected better that most (even most union workers) even under the previous contract.

Their current top tier rate was already above what the new UAW contract is slated to pay. (the one that Shawn Fain negotiated that was considered "historic" and "unprecedented win for organized labor"...yeah, the one the ILA had was already better than that before all this.

-Their current base rate (before all this) was already $81k/year + OT

-The typical ILA workers made over $100k/year (with that OT)

-About one-third of local longshoremen made $200,000 or more a year per recent records.

-They were demanding a 77% raise on top of what's mentioned above.

-The USMX originally offered a 40% raise, they said no, USMX upped it to 50% + Tripling the 401K contributions, they called that offer "insulting".


As I elaborated on for the other poster in there, this wasn't the same dynamic (compensation imbalance) the UAW was dealing with (where there were CEOs and executives for the Automakers getting north of $15M, while production workers were getting $18/hour)

In this case, you were dealing with CEOs making 675k-5M, and most longshoreman in that union already making six figures. (in the upper 5% of earners)

The leaders of ILA (Daggett and his son) are both making almost a million per year. (to put that in perspective, that's 5x the salary of Shawn Fain and Sean O'Brien), and Daggett has mob ties, and was brought up on RICO charges a few years back until the body of a key witness was found full of holes in a NJ dumpster behind a diner.


This one felt more like a shake-down than a labor negotiation.

While one can maybe make an argument for why they think the longshoreman need to make even more than 100k (again, a third of them were already clearing 200k/year)... To suggest that they were "getting ripped off" like the UAW workers were would be laughable.

I posted the USMX executive team salaries before
1728048906309.png


So the labor leaders were making more than the USMX CEO, and about one third of ILA members were making almost as much as other members of the USMX executive team.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,189
15,905
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟445,356.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Were you aware of some of the specifics about that particular Union's operations and the contracts they already had?
(I covered a lot of it in this thread, but I'll provide the readers digest version below)

They were already being protected better that most (even most union workers) even under the previous contract.

Their current top tier rate was already above what the new UAW contract is slated to pay. (the one that Shawn Fain negotiated that was considered "historic" and "unprecedented win for organized labor"...yeah, the one the ILA had was already better than that before all this.

-Their current base rate (before all this) was already $81k/year + OT

-The typical ILA workers made over $100k/year (with that OT)

-About one-third of local longshoremen made $200,000 or more a year per recent records.

-They were demanding a 77% raise on top of what's mentioned above.

-The USMX originally offered a 40% raise, they said no, USMX upped it to 50% + Tripling the 401K contributions, they called that offer "insulting".


As I elaborated on for the other poster in there, this wasn't the same dynamic (compensation imbalance) the UAW was dealing with (where there were CEOs and executives for the Automakers getting north of $15M, while production workers were getting $18/hour)

In this case, you were dealing with CEOs making 675k-5M, and most longshoreman in that union already making six figures. (in the upper 5% of earners)

The leaders of ILA (Daggett and his son) are both making almost a million per year. (to put that in perspective, that's 5x the salary of Shawn Fain and Sean O'Brien), and Daggett has mob ties, and was brought up on RICO charges a few years back until the body of a key witness was found full of holes in a NJ dumpster behind a diner.


This one felt more like a shake-down than a labor negotiation.

While one can maybe make an argument for why they think the longshoreman need to make even more than 100k (again, a third of them were already clearing 200k/year)... To suggest that they were "getting ripped off" like the UAW workers were would be laughable.

I posted the USMX executive team salaries before
View attachment 355441

So the labor leaders were making more than the USMX CEO, and about one third of ILA members were making almost as much as other members of the USMX executive team.
Perhaps I misunderstand the arrangement but it seems that the USMX is a representative at the table for DOZENS of companies (many with CEOs making in the multimillions) and NOT the source of financing for these negotiations.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to strike at in comparing the union with those guys as if the compensation of USMX executives should bare ABSOLUTELY ANY consideration to the negotiations. IT seems more that the member companies could be paying the USMX more.

Maybe the board should join a union ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps I misunderstand the arrangement but it seems that the USMX is a representative at the table for DOZENS of companies (many with CEOs making in the multimillions) and NOT the source of financing for these negotiations.

So I'm not sure what you're trying to strike at in comparing the union with those guys as if the compensation of USMX executives should bare ABSOLUTELY ANY consideration to the negotiations. IT seems more that the member companies could be paying the USMX more.

Maybe the board should join a union ;-)

The highest paid CEO of the member company of USMX was the CEO for Kirby (who made a total of ~$5M per year; 40% of which was in the form of stock options)
Iluvatar before found one of the higher paid foreign members from Europe, that CEO was making around $3M (in USD equivalent)

The reason why CEO:Worker ratios are often cited is because that's often times an indicator that the top brass is hoarding all the money to themselves and not sending enough of it down the chain.

For instance when UAW struck, and Shawn Fain negotiated a new contract, you had CEO's making 500x what the production workers were making. And a sizeable number of the production workers were only making $18-20/hour. The CEO:Worker salary ratios were definitely a talking point during that labor dispute.

The same imbalance didn't exist for ILA workers.

As noted, the baseline salary (even if they worked no OT) was in the 80's
Most were clearing over 100k
One third were clearing over 200k
The union bosses are making nearly 7 figures (and owned yachts)


If we take the aspect off the table that there was a union vs. corporate management dispute, and just look at the numbers and merits.

If you heard that here was a manual labor job (that required no post-secondary education, no previous training, no specialized certifications)
That job was already being represented by a union
The job paid $84k + time and half OT + Double time for extra shifts after 3 years
The majority of workers were clearing six figures
The top third of workers were making almost a quarter of a million per year

Would your gut instinct tell you "hey these are guys that are getting ripped off and need more aggressive labor representation"?...or would you say "This is an example of some manual laborers who are already being treated pretty well"?


I touched on it before:
The average salary for a Physician General Practitioner is $248,290 per year in New York

A third of these guys were making almost as much as GPs to load and unload crates. I don't think that's the same exploitative environment that was happening in big-3 auto plants, would you agree?


I think that's the problem when identity politics gets injected into these situations. When people hear there's a "organized labor vs. management dispute", they rush to their battle stations before hearing all of the details.

There's a lot more grey area in some of these matters.

You have situations like at the auto plants where a large percentage workers were making less than 50k while the CEOs at the top were cleaning up, and they struck and said "We'd like our guys to make $70-90k by the end of this 4 year contract". That's not unreasonable.

But then you have cases like this one. Where it's a bunch of guys making six figures (some well into the six figures) demanding 77% raises on top of those six figure salaries, with their mobbed up union boss using rhetoric like, and I quote, "we'll crush them". That is unreasonable.

While one could say "Hey, it's a physically demanding job, even though I made $110k last year, given the circumstances, I think it could be a little more" reasonable people could disagree on that. However, a person making that much, portraying themselves as if they're being exploited in the same way as fast food workers, to the point where it's "I strike, I demand a 70% raise, or I'll crush your business"...again, that's not reasonable, that's strong-arming.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Strike is off.

This is great news for the Harris campaign which could have suffered under the economic effects of a prolonged stoppage.
I have a hunch that some non-publicized phone calls were made. Obviously I have no proof for that...

But they did a 180 and went from "we'll crush them" to "okay, strikes over after 2 days, we'll come back to work under the original contract for 3 months until after the election and holiday shopping season is over" pretty quickly.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,382
19,095
Colorado
✟526,556.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I have a hunch that some non-publicized phone calls were made. Obviously I have no proof for that...

But they did a 180 and went from "we'll crush them" to "okay, strikes over after 2 days, we'll come back to work under the original contract for 3 months until after the election and holiday shopping season is over" pretty quickly.
100% the White House was working overtime to put out this fire.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
100% the White House was working overtime to put out this fire.
USMX also did file a complain to the NLRB board for review, citing unreasonable negotiating practices on the part of the ILA (since Daggett was refusing to come back to the negotiating table after 2 attempts)

Perhaps ILA got wind that they weren't going to win that case. It's unusual for the corporate side to file with the NLRB, it's usually almost always the labor side that goes that route.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,189
15,905
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟445,356.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
The highest paid CEO of the member company of USMX was the CEO for Kirby (who made a total of ~$5M per year; 40% of which was in the form of stock options)
Iluvatar before found one of the higher paid foreign members from Europe, that CEO was making around $3M (in USD equivalent)

The reason why CEO:Worker ratios are often cited is because that's often times an indicator that the top brass is hoarding all the money to themselves and not sending enough of it down the chain.

For instance when UAW struck, and Shawn Fain negotiated a new contract, you had CEO's making 500x what the production workers were making. And a sizeable number of the production workers were only making $18-20/hour. The CEO:Worker salary ratios were definitely a talking point during that labor dispute.

The same imbalance didn't exist for ILA workers.

As noted, the baseline salary (even if they worked no OT) was in the 80's
Most were clearing over 100k
One third were clearing over 200k
The union bosses are making nearly 7 figures (and owned yachts)


If we take the aspect off the table that there was a union vs. corporate management dispute, and just look at the numbers and merits.

If you heard that here was a manual labor job (that required no post-secondary education, no previous training, no specialized certifications)
That job was already being represented by a union
The job paid $84k + time and half OT + Double time for extra shifts after 3 years
The majority of workers were clearing six figures
The top third of workers were making almost a quarter of a million per year

Would your gut instinct tell you "hey these are guys that are getting ripped off and need more aggressive labor representation"?...or would you say "This is an example of some manual laborers who are already being treated pretty well"?


I touched on it before:
The average salary for a Physician General Practitioner is $248,290 per year in New York

A third of these guys were making almost as much as GPs to load and unload crates. I don't think that's the same exploitative environment that was happening in big-3 auto plants, would you agree?


I think that's the problem when identity politics gets injected into these situations. When people hear there's a "organized labor vs. management dispute", they rush to their battle stations before hearing all of the details.

There's a lot more grey area in some of these matters.

You have situations like at the auto plants where a large percentage workers were making less than 50k while the CEOs at the top were cleaning up, and they struck and said "We'd like our guys to make $70-90k by the end of this 4 year contract". That's not unreasonable.

But then you have cases like this one. Where it's a bunch of guys making six figures (some well into the six figures) demanding 77% raises on top of those six figure salaries, with their mobbed up union boss using rhetoric like, and I quote, "we'll crush them". That is unreasonable.

While one could say "Hey, it's a physically demanding job, even though I made $110k last year, given the circumstances, I think it could be a little more" reasonable people could disagree on that. However, a person making that much, portraying themselves as if they're being exploited in the same way as fast food workers, to the point where it's "I strike, I demand a 70% raise, or I'll crush your business"...again, that's not reasonable, that's strong-arming.
It may seem like I'm challenging but I'm just trying to understand cause I'm not super familiar with details here.

But if there are 20 CEOs each making 3-5 million, why wouldn't that total be used as the ratio if the money is coming from all those sources?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
28,189
15,905
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟445,356.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
USMX also did file a complain to the NLRB board for review, citing unreasonable negotiating practices on the part of the ILA (since Daggett was refusing to come back to the negotiating table after 2 attempts)

Perhaps ILA got wind that they weren't going to win that case. It's unusual for the corporate side to file with the NLRB, it's usually almost always the labor side that goes that route.
OF course. Because it's usually the corporate side that is acting out of maleficence.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,006
16,936
Here
✟1,455,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It may seem like I'm challenging but I'm just trying to understand cause I'm not super familiar with details here.

But if there are 20 CEOs each making 3-5 million, why wouldn't that total be used as the ratio if the money is coming from all those sources?
$5M was the highest. Most were in the 3-4M range.

So if 20 CEOs were collectively making $70million... that's still less than the CEOs of the Big 3 automakers combined. (Barra was getting almost 30M, Tavares was getting $40M, Jim Farley was getting $26M)

A substantial number of UAW workers were getting less than $50K/year

A substantial number of ILA workers were getting $100k-$225k/year

$100M CEO : $48K/worker (across 3 companies)
vs
$80M CEO: $100k-$225k/worker (across 20 companies)

One is certainly a less-exploitative ratio, correct?



But like I said, if we take the "there's a dispute between labor and management" backdrop out, and just discuss the numbers on their merits.

Is a $100k-225k pay range (with a third making toward the top end of that) an unfair compensation package for the task being discussed? Is it even exploitive? And if so, are those kinds of numbers in the realm of "so exploitive, that it warrants and strike and a demand for a 77% raise"?


Just anecdotally, if you had a friend or family member who had a manual labor job of loading and unloading crates, and was already making, say, $130k/year doing it. If they told you their boss gave them an offer to increase their pay by 40-50% and triple the 401k match, and then told you "That's BS, I'm going to march into his office and demand a 77% raise or I'm walking!"

What would your honest reaction be?

I'm just going to suggest that even the starting amount they were already making before the strike wasn't "exploitative".
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,496
4,257
82
Goldsboro NC
✟259,016.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
$5M was the highest. Most were in the 3-4M range.

So if 20 CEOs were collectively making $70million... that's still less than the CEOs of the Big 3 automakers combined. (Barra was getting almost 30M, Tavares was getting $40M, Jim Farley was getting $26M)

A substantial number of UAW workers were getting less than $50K/year

A substantial number of ILA workers were getting $100k-$225k/year

$100M CEO : $48K/worker (across 3 companies)
vs
$80M CEO: $100k-$225k/worker (across 20 companies)

One is certainly a less-exploitative ratio, correct?



But like I said, if we take the "there's a dispute between labor and management" backdrop out, and just discuss the numbers on their merits.

Is a $100k-225k pay range (with a third making toward the top end of that) an unfair compensation package for the task being discussed? Is it even exploitive? And if so, are those kinds of numbers in the realm of "so exploitive, that it warrants and strike and a demand for a 77% raise"?


Just anecdotally, if you had a friend or family member who had a manual labor job of loading and unloading crates, and was already making, say, $130k/year doing it. If they told you their boss gave them an offer to increase their pay by 40-50% and triple the 401k match, and then told you "That's BS, I'm going to march into his office and demand a 77% raise or I'm walking!"

What would your honest reaction be?

I'm just going to suggest that even the starting amount they were already making before the strike wasn't "exploitative".
"Loading and unloading crates" doesn't begin to describe it--or the long, irregular shifts in all kinds of weather. I doubt you could do the job, college boy, or would want to for any money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0