I work in HR and I guess it was 3 or 4 years back

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

Raises and bonuses were lowered, and we started preparing statements for the employees of their ACTUAL salaries. An ACTUAL salary includes the cost of benefits, i.e. health insurance, life insurance, 401k matches, if they had some classes paid for, etc. At the bottom of the statement there was a cost PER HOUR of what each employee cost the company. So a person making maybe 15 or 16 an hour was given this statement that it was costing the company like 40 or 45 an hour. This was to make them feel better when they didn't get a bonus and got an absolute suck of a raise.

I keep wondering if this is what the folks are doing with the automobile workers. Are they showing us these puffed up hourly statements and calling them what these workers earn?

I hated them because I don't care if it cost the company $100 an hour. If I don't make enough to eat or pay my mortgage, it's meaningless.

[madeline_con]

1. Yep, when I found out I'm a $20 an hour employee, I freaked.

Gimme the money, and I won't need to dole out for helath care every week. I can afford a doctor!

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. I've heard rightwing radio host argue that incomes have really gone UP under Bush, they include the

cost of benefits as a rationale for their argument.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

20. I just googled "Total Compensation Statement"

There are tons of new companies that prepare these statements. Very noticeable was how much design is involved to make them colorful and splashy. Cause we employees are stupid and will be taken in with self-importance by the flashy colors and glossy paper.

More interesting reading was this from one firm that preps these statements:

Sometimes, total compensation statements can actually decrease salary satisfaction, rather than boost morale. A handful of employees may gripe, “Why can’t you just increase my salary instead?” That’s especially true for legally required benefits (like workers’ compensation) and low-profile benefits such as term life insurance. Two fixes that work:

List “government-required benefits” as a section of the statement. Avoid the term “mandated,” since many employees are unfamiliar with it, and
Consider adding a section that shows employees how much it’d cost them to line up their own coverage instead.

[old mark]

41. The costs of doing business have gone up, and employers

have to pay more for the same employee benefits, so in a twisted kind of way you could say incomes have gone up. Problem is they are not talking about disposable income, which has gone down while the cost of living has gone up.

Most people in this country are overworked and paid shit, and that has certainly not changed.

mark

[Trajan]

3. That is what they are talking about ....

I think it is called the 'Labor Rate', and it is significantly higher for auto workers, but here is the rub ...

1) The Big 3 have had some very good years profit wise, and so the cost of labor is not a singular detriment to a successful auto industry ...

2) Auto workers CAN buy cars ... The rest of us cannot ....

Food for thought ....

[SharonAnn]

39. No it's not. They're taking their total cost of past and current labor forces

and averaging them per current employee. It's not the "current labor cost per employee" which, by the way, would include their wages, employer Social Security and Medicare contributions, health insurance, and any other benefits. The only part that the employee would actually receive per week would be their wages after all deductions.

Their misleading numbers come from an analysis like this:
For example:
Cost of current retirees (former employees) pensions
Cost of current retirees (former employees) health coverage
Cost of surviving spouses of former employees/retirees
Cost of current employees (wage rate, insurance, contribution to retirement, Social Security, etc.)


Then, take all this and divid it by the number of current employees and express it as a ratio. Magically, it's a huge "Cost per Employee". Of course, this is not what an employee gets paid, it's just the total costs of all the company's previous and present labor divided by the number of current employees.

You could also take the cost of all buildings and capital equipment and express it as a "Cost per Employee" though it would be best to be more specific and describe it as "Building and Equipment Cost per Employee".

"Figures Can Lie".

[rucky]

4. Why don't they compute an employees value that way?

How many cars do they make in an hour, and how much are those cars worth to the company?

[Trajan]

6. Good question ...

What is the PROFIT PER HOUR of an auto worker ...

Not fair using recent numbers ....

[mondo joe]

13. Agreed! I think it's fair and decent to be clear about all of it.

[mondo joe]

5. I think it's fair to know the entirety of your compensation.

Knowing it doesn't mean you don't know what you need to pay your bills.

But the entirety of your compensation is not your salary.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

7. That's it, exactly

It's not your salary. It's head cost to accounting. Period.

[mondo joe]

8. But benefits vary from company to company. It's not like it hurts to know your

total benefits.

If I were looking at a job I'd want to know the full benefits package and its value.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

9. True, but

But this information, at least where I worked, was used to justify lower raises and no bonuses.

[Trajan]

12. According to 'free market' philosophy ...

Workers could instead migrate to employers that provided GREATER incentives and compensation ...

That is how it used to work ... That is why auto workers get paid so well ....

I dont agree with union rules that allow dead weight (lazy) employees to keep their jobs, but collective bargaining brought them great pay AND great compensation ....

If other workers had such options, they would be buying cars left and right ... as well as everything else .... Good Pay = Good economy ....

[Idealism]

27. Auto workers average $28 per hour, they aren't getting rich

They work tremendously hard aswell, manual tough labor, which most people in this country seem to have a phobia against.

[Trajan]

33. I am totally behind the UAW workers ....

I know most of them work hard, and earn every penny ...

I also know that union rules protect some that dont work so hard ....

Why do I know this ? .... I was a UAW member for 24 years (proudly), and I knew a few employees that should have been excessed outside of hire date seniority ...

I was on the aerospace side, not the automotive ...

[Idealism]

34. The same can be said of every company in the world honestly

Theres always some "fat" to be cut, I just hate all these people trashing the workers and citing figures of compensation that are way blown out of proportion as the reason why Detroit is burning money.

[Trajan]

36. My point was about seniority rights

Nevetheless: You are correct ...

I just tonight calculated the PROFIT made by each FORD worker for the company in 1997 (a good year for Ford)

Ford made 2.53 BILLION in one quarter, and one quarter is 520 Hours (40 hour week) ...

Ford now employs some 90,000 employees ... I am going to estimate they had 100,000 employees then ....

100,000 x 520 = 52,000,000 Man/hours

2,530,000,000 / 52,000,000 = $48.65 average profit per hour per worker ...

That is AFTER accounting the labor costs and other costs and expenses from revenues ...

%48.65 per hour profit from each worker ....

And the benefit snowballed into the community when auto workers spent that money ....

THAT is stimulus we can all get behind ....

[Idealism]

38. Problem is aggregate demand

Its dropped way off. Another problem is Japanese automakers gaining popularity. In 1997, Toyota was just before the Camry became the top selling car in its class in the US and there weren't really any other competitors to domestic markets outside of Europe. Remember the days when if you drove an import you were looked at oddly? It was unpatriotic and was enough to draw thoughts of being a communist for supporting a foreign company. Those days are long gone

[Trajan]

40. I seem to recall ...

That imports were available long before 1997 ..... Many many years before ...

In any case: My point is that auto companies made oodles of profits even when they paid their employees with such excellent compensation packages ...

Without decent wages ... We are not going to buy many more cars of any kind ....

[Idealism]

43. They were available, but they didnt yet take over top sales number

97 was probably one of the best years in Ford history, as it was for all domestic automakers if i'm not mistaken. You've hit the real problem here however: wages. Real wages for the average worker has actually lost ground, when adjusted for inflation, since the late 70s. Cost of living has gone through the roof, as have commodities, yet wages didn't

[The Doctor.]

25. Next they'll be telling employees what they're 'compensated' for the

light over their desk, the internet connections they use, the water they flush in the bathroom...

"We don't have to provide our employees with air to breath... we could tell them to bring it themselves. That's another $5/day in ventilation costs."

[mondo joe]

31. I tend to think of employment as an exchange of $ for work.

I like to know the $ value for my exchange. That includes all benefits.

But that compensation should not be described as salary.

[RoyGBiv]

10. That is exactly what they're doing ...

Ya know, these people are human beings. They can speak. They can be asked how much they make per hour and what they take home and what their benefits are.

How many of these $70+ per hour claims are being accompanied by such things?

<crickets>

[exboyfil]

11. I like the fact that the employer lists everything

Just like I want disclosures on food items and my bills (you know telephone charges like 911 service and state and federal taxes). More information is always better.

Health insurance, Medicare and Social Security match, 401(k) match, and tuition are all costs associated with your employment with the company. It is a very good thing for you to understand what you cost the employer and measure it against what you produce for the employer. It is also good to understand what other folks capable of doing your job are getting compensated.

It can also be useful for negotiation. In the event a single payer plan comes about with payroll withholding for example, you can use the health insurance number which the employer claims they pay ($12K in my case) to argue for an increase in salary if the percentage withholding is coming out of your pocket or the total amount of the percentage is less than the employer is currently paying for your health care. I got to think that employers would suddenly change their tune about how much the health care actually was costing.

[Imalittleteapot]

14. A company here includes Federal payroll taxes

in the ACTUAL employee salary statements. As a self-employed person who pays 100% of those taxes for myself, I think it's legitimate for employers, who pay a good percentage of the employees Fed. taxes, to include that amount in the statements.

Yes, actual salary statements are a method of making the employee feel good and for the employer to justify small pay increases.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. It's worse than that.

They add in the benefits given to the retiree who used to do the job in the calculation. Thus, $80/hr.

[mondo joe]

17. That was a complete outrage. The NYT should issue an apology.

I'm all for people knowing in detail the value of their compensation.

But describing that in total, plus a lot of other things, as salary is a lie.

[Ilsa]

16. KO talked about it tonight. Said that they

added in the health benefits an pensions of people who were retired and dividing it by the total number of hours worked to come up with number. They were comparing apples and oranges.

But your point is the best: it doesn't matter what that number is if it is insufficient for a decent and safe life.

[rurallib]

18. the $73/hr that is being bandied about is a bullshit number

the actual wages + benefits for an auto worker is @$35/hr. The inflated figure comes form adding in pensions + health care for retirees or widow(er)s of retirees. They took TOTAL wages and benefits for ALL employees past and present and divided it by current active employees.
It is like saying on average Bill Gates and I have $25 billion each.

[PeaceNikki]

19. There must have been some HR memo that went out that year.

My company did 3 years ago and the following. People FREAKED. Myself included. I told them that rather than that statement, I want a breakdown of what my contributions added to the company's total bottom line. I assured them that my number would be larger than theirs and that I was appalled that they had the nerve to tell us what we "cost" them. They stopped doing it.

[jmm]

23. I pointed out the same thing when my company started that.

Some people weren't too happy when I gave examples of thousands of dollars I had saved the company that month alone but at least I don't get any more you're so lucky speeches.

[OHdem10]

21. In the hearing it was explained that the salaries mentioned

included every benefit. The actual pay is much much less.

[eilen]

22. As a nurse, I would also like

an itemized list of what the hospital charged the patients (or their insurance) that I took care of for the 80 hours I worked, the percentage of reimbursement they gained by my excellent documentation as well as knowledge of process and policy when the state inspectors come, and the estimated savings in lawsuits I prevented by calling the Dr. and asking him about an order rather than letting a transcription error/typo stand or documenting clearly and concisely what was done so accusations to the contrary can be easily shot down. I find that a good part of my documentation in the hospital is of the CYA variety (yours or the hospitals)- ie: not directly beneficial to the day to day bedside care-- otherwise why document the same thing 4 different places?

And when I pursue and obtain a certification in my specialty, paying my membership and testing fees, the hospital gets to advertise this as a draw for patients. In this job, there are many areas where it is not an option to "phone it in" so to speak. Even within the profession there is a bias on nurses who work in higher tech or cost centers than others. They usually complain about cutbacks in government reimbursement preventing a pay raise but keep their advertising budgets up, buy the latest techno gizmo, and pay big bonuses to the CEO--- unless there is a union and the contract requires a COLA.

I guess I would like to point out that employees are not the company's children, they provide value, and the nickel and dime-ing can go both ways. If they have meet and/or exceed their goals, they deserve a raise or bonus. If the company is doing things right, the employees are motivated for their goals not their bonuses and when you shift that by playing the "we already pay too much for you" it is distracting from their work and employees --the good ones, will start looking elsewhere.

People behave as if auto workers don't know how to do anything but operate a hydraulic screw driver. There are specialized factory jobs and they are not interchangeable --it requires training. Factory work is difficult on the body and the ears-- hearing loss is not uncommon. I saw an entire office building empty out because of the fumes of the tar that was being spread on the roof. The construction workers who's job it was to spread the tar on the roof were not given emergency medical relief because of their "chemical exposure" and they were working with it. These same guys were not permitted to use the public bathrooms in the building nor eat in the open cafeteria owned by the company. People often have a skewed sense of what a person's labor is worth, often devaluing blue collar workers. I used to see this with nurse's aides. People would say, they shouldn't make that much ($15/hr --with seniority at some State Hospitals)-- I ask them, how much would you charge to clean feces off adult strangers? Naturally, most places don't pay this much for this difficult and thankless job and I am surprised at the arrogance of those who are in askance- the nursing home is charging $3000 or more a month per resident and paying the aides $8.00/hr to care for 8-12 or more residents on their shift (40 bed unit, usually 4 aides scheduled, sometimes 5 or 3) and they have the nerve to give them a hard time about OT.

All I know is that I don't want to buy a vehicle that has been built by people making minimum wage. A hamburger is one thing, the car that I have to trust to safely transport me and my family in all kinds of weather and road conditions is another. I have seen what cheaply paid undocumented hiring practices has done to housing and it isn't pretty. End Rant.

[Laelth]

44. Excellent rant--very informative. Thanks. n/t

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kikiek]

24. And if McCain had his way we would be taxed on the benefits amount not our wages only.

[Skink]

29. Right these statements were anticipating the Mccain health care plan.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

42. I hadn't thought of that

Maybe those statements were actually precursors.

[leftofthedial]

26. not only the employees, but every retiree, retiree's surviving spouse,

pensions, benefits, life insurance obligations, and every benefit they've ever paid anyone,


all divided by the number of current active employees.

Their number is an outright lie and as meaningless as a number can be.

[TahitiNut]

28. Louder. It doesn't seem to be getting through shit-impacted ears.

Taking all retiree benefits and LOADING them onto some calculation of current employee costs is total bullshit. They might as well take those costs and divide by shares of stock outstanding and say that's the cost of owning stock.

If the company didn't set aside a RETIREMENT RESERVE from which those costs are paid, then they failed to properly account for CONTRACTUAL retirement benefits that clearly reduced the wages of THOSE employees when they were active.

[leftofthedial]

30. and don't forget the snacks in the lobby

and the costs for all the flight attendants past, present and future on the corporate jets. And what about the future? Why aren't the *future* costs of union benefits loaded in there too? Pikers.

[8 track mind]

37. I agree

That is total bullshit. It's fucking demeaning.

[rug]

32. When I was a vice president of my union, the rule of thumb was benefits equals 30% of salary.

The measure was what workers actually got, not what workers "cost" the company.

[upi402]

35. thank you op

i feel like we are fools to have our fingers in the dike sometimes. but i try to fight the power. i nearly salivate at the thought of the group-think HMO staff being next to me in the unempoyment line.

i wil eat them alive in the real world of capitalism - as opposed to the corporate welfare world.