I guess this sums it up...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vZqNHR1X65k

 

Yes and no, while what this guy said is true as to hourly wages, the point the "worst person" was making was NOT how much the auto worker was making and hour, but the cost that went into each car per hour and that boils down to each and every worker, per hour. So like any other "study" the commentator twisted the facts to make his point, or another "worst person".

 

$70 x 10 hours for the car to roll off the line = $700. This is the problem? How much did you pay for a new car?

 

LOL, I would have shot and killed people to keep my job when i worked for GM if they paid me ...or anyone else there I knew who wasn't "unclassified" $70 per hour. LOL, ask anyone who actually makes $140,000 to trade their job for one in a stamping plant or on an assembly line...and see if the numbers work out then. I doubt you find any takers.

 

Keith Olberman has to be one of the most bias commentators from the most secular novel bias communist (MSNBC)network on the air. He is totally an unbelievable persons of the day and every day some conservative republican always makes his worst person of the day list.

 

Is it Olberman? I didn't look at it but if it is, 'nuff said. No need to look at all






Goose

 

I read somewhere that GM sets aside more per vehicle to deal with litigation costs than the steel costs...Gettelfinger pointed out in December that that union workers could work for nothing now and that wouldn't make GN solvent. Why? Because all those legacy costs can't go away unless GM kills off all its retirees, or files Chapter 11 and leaves all those costs behind.
I have a pension from a company I never worked for (figure that one out) and in the annual report it tells me that there are 22000 'members' in the scheme, and 1200 still contributing to it. Think there'll be anything in it by the time I get to collect it in 20 years time without the company putting a ton of cash in to cover expected costs?