Working Life

« Gross Domestic Product: Misleading the People | Main | 15th District in PA Has A Race »

October 08, 2005

At $10 An Hour, Why Not McDonald's?

    So, what good is an "expanding" economy and a growing Gross Domestic Product when workers are going to see their pay cut from $27 an hour to $10 an hour? Or, at least that's what the Delphi Corporation is demanding from UAW workers to avoid bankruptcy. I saw one quote from a worker that makes you want to scream: "I know some people who work as managers at McDonald's that make $10 an hour."

    Today's Wall Street Journal article (subscription required...so I've got an excerpt below) makes another point--if Delphi goes belly up, once again people will get screwed because the company's pension funds will get taken over by the federal government's pension rescue agency, which is already groaning with a huge deficit mainly because of the collapse of airline industry pension funds. I've been sounding the Chicken Little alarm for a long time--we're looking at a Savings and Loan-scale type bail-out for that agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which every taxpayer will pay for.

    Last point: can we scream any louder that part of the problem facing industry is the lack of a single-payer national health insurance program? Delphi, and the rest of the auto industry, are teetering because of hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs (and a good dose of mismanagement, too)--health insurance that workers deserve and should not give up. But, it's over, done, finished: private employer health insurance is a complete failure. Forget morality: national health insurance is an issue of economic competitiveness.

Delphi Bankruptcy Filing Expected
U.S. Auto Industry Faces
The Painful Restructuring Seen in Aerospace and Steel

By JEFFREY MCCRACKEN, LEE HAWKINS JR. and KRIS MAHER
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 8, 2005

The traditional unionized American auto industry resisted for years the painful restructuring forced on steelmakers and airlines by new forces of competition in a globalized, deregulated economy. Now, it appears Detroit's turn has come.

Delphi Corp., the country's largest auto-parts company, is expected to file under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, possibly as soon as today. Delphi's approximately 33,000 union workers and 12,000 union retirees will experience the large-scale job cuts, slashed medical benefits and uncertain retirements that the traditional U.S. auto industry has largely been able to avoid.

The Delphi board is scheduled to meet Saturday to decide about the filing.

Unless a Delphi filing is averted, the already-stressed Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a government agency, could wind up administering Delphi's pension plan, which is underfunded by $4.3 billion.

Coming on the heels of the recent bankruptcy-protection filings at Northwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines, Delphi's plans reinforce how companies with aging work forces in old-line industrial sectors like aerospace, auto, steel and rubber find themselves unable to respond to the shifting realities of the global economy, and cut legacy costs, including pensions and retiree health benefits to stay competitive.

Ripple effects from a Delphi filing could shake former parent General Motors Corp., where management is seeking substantial concessions from the United Auto Workers union to reduce a $1,500-a-vehicle cost disadvantage against Japanese auto makers such as Toyota Motor Corp. Toyota has been steadily gaining in its quest to overtake GM as the world's No. 1 auto maker by late this decade.

The United Auto Workers union, which over several decades crafted a wage-and-benefit package of about $65 an hour -- the undisputed gold standard for U.S. industrial workers -- would find its position weakened in court. The labor and benefits package could be renegotiated if the union and the company fail to reach a deal and most likely the package would be reduced. It is also easier to close plants under the court's protection."

October 8, 2005 in Economy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8342548bd53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At $10 An Hour, Why Not McDonald's?:

» The Bankrupt Oracle of Delphi from Labor Blog
Reprinted from Confined SpaceThe lament that if [Delphi Chairman Steve] Miller gets his way, auto-parts workers won't be able to buy the cars that they help build. Guess what? Boeing workers can't buy airplanes, either.The blogosphere has been remarkab... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 14, 2005 9:48:02 AM

Comments

And the beat, as Republican Congressman Sonny Bono would have said, goes on. I think Capital is nervous about this period in which they're systematically destroying employer-based health insurance and employer-based pensions. But I doubt that they're nervous because of any moral concerns for workers, or even for any worries about economic consequences or "competitiveness". They're worried that workers will respond to these attacks by organizing and directly threatening the interests of Capital.

Whether Capital decides to support universal, government-sponsored health care depends on their view of the alternative. If the alternative is a sick, poor, but compliant workforce, they won't see the need to pay a penny more in taxes. If the alternative is massive industrial unrest, anti-Capital populism (ranging from Rainbow Coalition to Huey Longism to Buchananism), and increasing class consciousness, they might be willing to cut their losses and offer universal Medicare or strenthened public pensions.

Posted by: bigfall | Oct 8, 2005 11:01:00 AM

Delphi has threatened to close all its US plants and increase production in Mexico, where they can pay $2.70 per hour, and China, where they can pay 27 cents per hour.

Once again, it is clear that no matter how well organized and militant US workers might be, there is no way to stop the downward spiral in our wages and benefits without an organized and militant response from Mexican, Chinese and other workers. Trade protectionism has failed as a response to this reality, and it is time we woke up to that fact and began in earnest to build an international labor movement.

I realize there will be the cynical "it can't be done" response to this idea. Why does the labor movement cling to the demonstrated failure of trade protectionism, while never really trying the alternative of working class internationalism?

Posted by: Joe Hill | Oct 8, 2005 11:47:25 AM

I don't know what the answer is. All the time when folks find out I work for a -GASP- UNION, I get the usual "well, it is all the union's fault that all these companies are declaring bankrupcy because of the OUTRAGEOUS collective bargaining contract these workers get. That UAW workers shouldn't be paid $65 an hour or that retirees don't need healthcare and this is what is forcing corporations into their dire financial straights. So I always say, that should the workers just lose their jobs to Mexico and China where they work for $2.00 an hour? That what is so BAD that unions fight for good pay and benefits for their members? That don't YOU wish you had a good contract to make sure your pay and benefits are protected? That airline and auto workers have already TAKEN huge concessions while the CEO's are still making zillions? How would you feel if you didn't have any health insurance??
Of course THEN they don't know what to say back to me.
because they know I am right. National, portable healthcare AND retirement is part of the answer I think. But I'm no expert.

Posted by: Jan | Oct 8, 2005 12:04:36 PM

Perhaps big labour (those within big labour who control the purse) could take a serious look at what part labour monies aid and abet the bastard companies to do what they do. In our struggle to keep our heads above water we've not examined our investment priorities - at least not to members' knowledge.

As an example, here in Canada, it's common practice for union pension funds to be invested in corporations which support war. I'm sure folks here understand the trickle down. I'm also quite sure that if it's happening to Canadian labour funds then it's happening elsewhere. I would think that we either better manage our money or we futilely continue to chase corporate tail.

If we fear an alternative economy - where people come before profit - then how do we ever get there? Of course I'm assuming that social justice is our ultimate goal.

Posted by: siggy | Oct 8, 2005 12:59:17 PM

Yes, another reason we need a national single payer health insurance plan paid for by increasing ALL employers' medicaid tax rate and hopefully the UAW will be at or near the front on this. And we need the buying power of a national group plan to rationalize the pharma industry. I'm one of more than 10,000 people in WI alone that lives with one medical condition. The med I take for treatment now costs $1,580 PER MONTH, which is $100 more than what it cost last month. 4 years ago, the drug cost $970 per month. And every week my mailbox is filled with another pharma company trying to sell me stuff I don't need (and my union health plan is paying for this so if you're in the plan, this hits you. And it hits you if the plan you're covered by is paying for drugs from a pharma company that is now trying to sell those drugs to me.) Sorry if this is rambling. I have the television on and I got distracted by the thought that my insurance plan, paying for one of my brothers' and sisters' meds, just helped buy the drug ad warning about the unpleasant side effects of some drug that I hope I never need that the ad says I should ask my doctor about. We need a national single payer health insurance plan.

Posted by: scott | Oct 8, 2005 1:34:56 PM

Can I make a terminological suggestion? "Single Payer" is one of the worst names given to a good idea EVER. In 1994, when the "Single Payer" Proposition 186 was on the ballot in California, polling revealed that people weren't sure why married people wouldn't be covered by it. Seriously. The insurance industry also ran attack ads aimed at seniors screeching "Prop 186 will take away Medicare! Booga booga booga!"

Let's call it "Medicare for All" -- it's an accurate name and Medicare is still considered a success by most Americans.

Posted by: bigfall | Oct 8, 2005 1:45:14 PM

Just because alot of Californios are dumb (some voted for SSchwarzenegger...) doesn't mean we abandon using single payer to describe a system of health insurance funding that uses a single payer. It makes sense and folks can be educated, and when they learn to see thru the corporate lies, they'll join us. Also, when we defeat Arnold next year we can hopefully elect a new Gov who will sign the Single Payer bill that has been moving thru the CA State Senate and Assembly and will be reintroduced next year. Then we can export the plan to more states.

And hopefully more folks will wake up and see that all these bankruptcies are happening in large part due to mismanagement by extremely obscenely overpaid CEOs. Delphi, United Airlines, Northwest, etc all continue to fund lavish lifestyles of incompetent executives who are guaranteed excessive salaries and retirement incomes. We need a campaign to enact a maximum wage as well as to start rounding up the fat cats, arresting them and re-educating them. They could work on Hurricane Katrina rebuilding projects for the minimum wage.

Posted by: pablo | Oct 9, 2005 5:38:27 PM

McDonalds at $10, are you kidding? I can't even get by order right by that simple job. Try doing the jobs at at Delphi plant and you will really see some bull. Cancer causing toxins, long hours because management can't figure out how to do things the right way from the start. Discrimination, abuse, civil rights violations from both parties, harassement and these are just a few. Charges filed with the federal agency the EEOC and the DOJ looked the other way beacuse of the sorry excuse of a president, Bush, who policies are to allow these type of violations to take place. If you don't believe this, file a charge and see what happens, you find out exactly what Bush's policies are real fast. Paid execs bonus for beig inept and incompetent and then have the nerve to claim bankruptcy. Talking about crooks. And they are all crooks and liars we are talking about. The 1999 Delphi spin off agreement between the UAW, Delphi and GM was an agreement that gave former GM UAW parts workers LOANED OUT TO DELPHI the right to flow back to GM in the event of financial crisis or bankruptcy. THE PENSION WAS GUARANTEED IN WRITING BY GM IF DELPHI WENT INTO FINANCIAL CRISIS, ALL LIES FROM DELPHI, GM AND THE UAW. Former GM workers, now Delphi workers were lied to by these three parties. Their word means nothing. Delphi wages and benefits were also agreed by these these corrupt parties. Delphi knew what type of wages and benefits they going to have to honor but then again you have to have honor to begin with. None of applies to these three parties. That would require character that doesn't apply to these three. Delphi knew the risks involved prior to the spin off, they knew the business risk yet here they are blaming others for their incompetency and greed. Yes greed for Battenberg and Dawes lied to the valve of Delphi to steal money for their own good. They weren't worth one red cent paid to them, they were just plain corrupt. What happened to the SEC investigations of Delphi and GM? After all Delphi and GM were apart of the spin off agreement as was the SEC. The SEC had to clear Delphi to ensure everything was proper before the IPO. So did the IRS. Is Battenberg in jail? No. Dawes? No.Has anyone been charged with any crime? No. Delphi's exit has the right name, CROOKS ROAD. To the uaw union members, you are next. To the Delphi workers, don't listen to the UAW, they lied to us in 1999 spin off, the 1999 and 2003 contracts, the UAW will lie to us again. DON'T LISTEN. VOTE NO, VOTE DOWN ANY UAW PROPOSAL, VOTE STRIKE, STRIKE , STRIKE. WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. THEY COULDN'T BE TRUSTED BEFORE, THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED NOW. THEY ARE ALL GOING TO LIE. STRIKE, STRIKE, STRIKE. LET DELPHI GO BANKRUPT. LET GM GO BANKRUPT. WHO CARES ABOUT THEM, THEY CARE NOTHING ABOUT THE DELPHI WORKERS. STRIKE, STRIKE, STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: STU | Oct 15, 2005 6:23:22 PM

i agree strike when unions dont fight they always get screwed

Posted by: Pipefitter | Oct 15, 2005 9:12:08 PM

In the long run what's killing the UAW is the rise of Toyota plants here in the U.S. that hire cheap non-union labor. Same as the airlines with Southwest. The non-union new company is taking over the market with lower prices. In the long run, if businesses are better off without a union, the non-union companies will take over the market. The only long-term successful union is one that makes a company more profitable. Otherwise in the long run their non union competitors will make cheaper and better products and take over the business.

And what's up with the disdain for McDonald's employees? Why are mechanics so much better than cashiers? If you make $27 an hour and don't care about the $10 (more like $7) an hour guy at McDonalds how do you expect him to care about the union. What can the union do for the guy working at the Gap? Nothing? In that case forget the unions, we need something better. Free college, a GI bill for those who put in four years working behind a cash register.

Posted by: Trip | Oct 18, 2005 2:57:16 AM

Peaple who eat at McDonalds Queef a lot.

Posted by: Colin | Nov 2, 2005 10:16:00 PM

1. International labor movement is DOA: A chinese guy that can live on 27c/hr will take a doubling in salary and standard of life rather than strike and have some peace of mind that he's part of some pie-in-the-sky international brotherhood. Closer at home: if someone that works at McD's for $8/hr will get $15/hr to work non-union for Toyota, he'll do it without blinking twice, EVEN IF he were to know the consequences to overpaid UAW workers.
2. Single-payer healthcare (or whatever you call it) is DOA: it will never get past the "millionaires club" (i.e. US Senate), or for that matter, past any GOP Congress or White House (not that I have a lot of confidence in the New Democrats either). Better start moving close the US-Mexico border and/or get more credit cards folks!
3. Unions are ghosts of the past in an economy that pits the hungry $1/hr foreign worker against the overpaid $5+/hr American worker. The higher your income is, the faster is going overseas, union or not (current exceptions: top execs, politicians/lawyers, prison guards, police/firemen, hospital workers, teachers, etc).

Summary: Global competition to the bottom will estinguish whatever is left of the US middle class in a few decades tops. Welcome to the 21st Century! Do you want fries with that?

Posted by: Ionel | Nov 25, 2005 7:25:38 PM

I agree national health care is an issue and something must be done to improve situations so we dont have to deal with health care problems as millions lack coverage.

Posted by: Blue Cross of California | Nov 30, 2005 2:16:14 PM

What a mess thugs have created! Organized crime knew a while back its days were numbered. Government tracking of every penny/transaction via computer - can't hide anymore. I mean the seriously/powerfully organized crime elements, not the wannabes. Buy into legitimate business; Ivy League educated, the 'arm twisting' literally, the quiet murders, and buying of congressmen (state and fed). They wear business suits and preside over board rooms. They live lavish lives mostly in secret just as their conterparts did. The sacred triangle of investor, company officers, and labor is being broken. The 'bottom line' they say is the reason for breaking labor, you'd think they really cared for the investor. However, the investor is screwed by long term failures in stock value while short term strawman goals are met by the executives. Hard to gain control through courts by investors - nearly impossible. The real Bottom Line is executives are in control and they intend to stay there!

Posted by: differnet angle | Jan 18, 2006 12:03:40 PM

Post a comment