Are UAW Union Bosses Abusing Their Positions for Pay?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
336 replies · 38K views
BobG said:
How are you heating the incoming air? How efficient is your heater?
With an electric car, the heater is a 100% efficient electric coil. On a car with an internal combustion engine, the car is heated with waste heat, so there is no relevant measure of efficiency. You might say, though, that a 100W fan (estimate) can give you 4 kW of heating, or a COP of 40:1 (kinda like 4,000% efficiency).
In fact, how efficient is the motor driving the car and how are you getting rid of excess heat? I really don't know how efficient the electric motors used on vehicles are, but, generally, finding a way to dispel excess heat is a bigger problem than generating it.
Getting rid of the excess heat is done with a fan and that fan doesn't use much energy. There is much more energy rejected by the fan/radiator than is input into the fan.
I think air conditioning is going to be a bigger electrical load than heating.
It's a bigger load for a gas powered car because the energy for heating is free. For an electric car, the energy for heating comes out of the battery. In general, though:

-An electric heater gives you 1 kW of heating for every 1 kW of input power.
-An electricity powered air conditioner gives you 2.3 kW of cooling for every 1 kW of input power.

Now for an air condiitoner, that's highly dependent on the conditions: run an air conditioner out of it's ideal operating range and you decrease it's efficiency substantially.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are numerous vendors who manufacture and supply parts for the big three. Will bankruptcy mean the smaller companies will be left out in the cold??
Probably one of them will need financing and will not be able to get it.
It's a long time to wait, (March 31), with no income and with fixed expenses.
Probably someone will be forgotten and you will be buying a car with no left door handles or something.
I'm not expecting very many assembly plants to re-open.
jal
 
russ_watters said:
With an electric car, the heater is a 100% efficient electric coil. On a car with an internal combustion engine, the car is heated with waste heat, so there is no relevant measure of efficiency. You might say, though, that a 100W fan (estimate) can give you 4 kW of heating, or a COP of 40:1 (kinda like 4,000% efficiency). Getting rid of the excess heat is done with a fan and that fan doesn't use much energy. There is much more energy rejected by the fan/radiator than is input into the fan. It's a bigger load for a gas powered car because the energy for heating is free. For an electric car, the energy for heating comes out of the battery. In general, though:

-An electric heater gives you 1 kW of heating for every 1 kW of input power.
-An electricity powered air conditioner gives you 2.3 kW of cooling for every 1 kW of input power.

Now for an air condiitoner, that's highly dependent on the conditions: run an air conditioner out of it's ideal operating range and you decrease it's efficiency substantially.

if you're going to put in an air conditioner, then why bother with resistive heating? why not use a heat pump and get better than 100% efficiency for the heater, too?
 
Proton Soup said:
if you're going to put in an air conditioner, then why bother with resistive heating? why not use a heat pump and get better than 100% efficiency for the heater, too?
For an electric car, yes, a heat pump is probably a better option. It'll raise the upfront cost, but reduce the energy cosumption considerably. When it is very cold outside (perhaps 20 F), you might get a COP of 2 - a little wamer (say, 40F) and you might get a COP of 4. But because the efficiency drops with temperature, you still need resistance heating backup.
 
russ_watters said:
For an electric car, yes, a heat pump is probably a better option. It'll raise the upfront cost, but reduce the energy cosumption considerably. When it is very cold outside (perhaps 20 F), you might get a COP of 2 - a little wamer (say, 40F) and you might get a COP of 4. But because the efficiency drops with temperature, you still need resistance heating backup.

sure, and resistive elements are a common feature in heat pumps for homes.
 
Heading vaguely back in the direction of the topic

Even Toyota is having a bad year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7794888.stm
The interesting part is that they are predicting losses of 150BnYen for next year, but last year made a profit of 2.2Trillion Yen. So next years loss is going to be around 3weeks of profit!
I would have thought that any company that doesn't have one month of profits in the bank deserves to be in trouble. Toyota of course do and don't seem to be in any trouble.
 
Senator Corker's plan seemed rational to me; the only thing on the table that qualifies as such. It had a great deal of support but the wage parity issue hung it up.
* It would have required the two firms closest to bankruptcy, General Motors and Chrysler, to reduce their debt by two-thirds. Bondholders would have “plenty of incentive to make sure that the debt is reduced by two-thirds” or risk losing even more if the firms go into Chapter 11, where their bonds might be further discounted, Corker said. “We’re going to force them into bankruptcy if they don’t do this,” he said bluntly.
* He also would have required that the Voluntary Employee Benefit Association, the entity created by the car firms and the UAW to handle retiree health care benefits, accept stock in lieu of half the cash payments due. The carmakers had agreed to fund VEBA but can no longer afford to do so. “If a company goes bankrupt, these future payments are never going to happen anyway,” he said.
* Finally, Corker’s bill would have forced the UAW to lower its members’ wages to the level of employees at Honda and the other foreign-owned car manufacturers operating in the United States.
The actual amendment:
http://wdef.com/system/files/Corker+Alternative+Amendment.pdf

In the last point, wage parity, there are obviously many factors that would come into play in measuring parity; Corker recognized this and left it up to the Sec. of Labor (in the new administration) to approve a wage plan.

Edit:Sen. Corker's new conference the day after the amendment
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-13370
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even the mighty Toyota Prius has fallen victim to economic chaos and plunging gas prices: Toyota said today it was postponing its plans to build the Prius at a new factory under construction in Blue Springs, near Tupelo, Mississippi—indefinitely.

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/toyota-kills-us-built-prius-25346.html

It is a bit troubling that the government is trying to push the big three into building hybrids in the USA when Toyota has called it quits.

I smell big oil involvement on this one.

The big three shells out a lot of money for retirees and retiree health care.

I see an advantage that Toyota Nissan and Honda America may have. They haven't been here long enough to have retirees.
 
Last edited:
edward said:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/toyota-kills-us-built-prius-25346.html

It is a bit troubling that the government is trying to push the big three into building hybrids in the USA when Toyota has called it quits.

I smell big oil involvement on this one.

The big three shells out a lot of money for retirees and retiree health care.

I see an advantage that Toyota Nissan and Honda America may have. They haven't been here long enough to have retirees.

how do they fund retirement, anyway? the old fashioned way, or through private retirement accounts.? if they'd put employees on 401K plans, they'd never have to worry about paying out benefits, and the employees wouldn't have to worry about the company borrowing (stealing) from it.
 
mheslep said:
?Oil companies want the government to make Detroit build hybrids?

The oil companies always want gas guzzlers. The government wants the big three to invest in hybrid technology at the same time Toyota just bailed out of building hybrids in the USA.

With the price of oil down there is no incentive to buy hybrids. The price of oil will come up when big oil wants it to come up. Admittedly big oil probably got a big surprise from the sudden economic crisis.

On the other hand they have plenty of money to weather the storm, and the last thing they want is economical automobiles.
 
Last edited:
This isn't necessarily anything to do with Hybrids - they haven't announced opening a pickup plant instead.
It might be that they;
Don't want to lay out a lot of cash right now
Think they can get a better real estate/state subsidy deal in 6months
Think they can buy a chrysler plant for 25c in 6 months.
Are waiting to see what strings the Detroit bailout might have.
Are waiting to see what the new government's attitude to foreign investors might be.

Abit announced today they are getting out of the motherboard business - this doesn't mean computers are a thing of the past.
 
Proton Soup said:
how do they fund retirement, anyway? the old fashioned way, or through private retirement accounts.? if they'd put employees on 401K plans, they'd never have to worry about paying out benefits, and the employees wouldn't have to worry about the company borrowing (stealing) from it.

The big three have switched to 401ks for new union hires. It will obviously take a number of years to completely make the switch. They still have the health care issue.

Toyota, Nissan, and Honda America use 401k's along with a spartan health care plan.

401k's have their downside. Just ask anyone who wants to retire in the near future. The 401k's lost a lot of money recently.
 
mgb_phys said:
Heading vaguely back in the direction of the topic

Even Toyota is having a bad year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7794888.stm
The interesting part is that they are predicting losses of 150BnYen for next year, but last year made a profit of 2.2Trillion Yen. So next years loss is going to be around 3weeks of profit!
I would have thought that any company that doesn't have one month of profits in the bank deserves to be in trouble. Toyota of course do and don't seem to be in any trouble.

I find 71 staight years without a loss to be pretty incredible. That extends back to the 30's - meaning they were recording profits straight through World War II. The Japanese auto companies didn't suffer much direct damage from bombings, but the entire Japanese nation was running into some serious resource problems by the end of the war. I would have thought that would make it real hard to make a profit by the end of the war.
 
BobG said:
I find 71 staight years without a loss to be pretty incredible. That extends back to the 30's - meaning they were recording profits straight through World War II.
It's always a bit tricky to compare, you don't really know what accounting standards applied.
Japan's oldest company went bust a few years ago, a builder - they had been in business for 1500years!

What is more interesting is their attitude - they are blaming themselves! Even though the loss is really only due to currency differences. They said they need to look at their strategy for managing money and to re-examine their line of cars. That's a slightly different attitude to spending $100K on a WSJ ad praising the managers of a bankrupt chrysler.
 
edward said:
Toyota, Nissan, and Honda America use 401k's along with a spartan health care plan.

At Nissan we still have a pension plan in addition to a 401k plan. That will probably change very soon. Our management is using the big three predicament as an excuse to squeeze us.
I think to say the health care plan is spartan is being generous.
Honda also has a pension and 401k. I don't know about Toyota.
 
montoyas7940 said:
At Nissan we still have a pension plan in addition to a 401k plan. That will probably change very soon. Our management is using the big three predicament as an excuse to squeeze us.
I think to say the health care plan is spartan is being generous.
Honda also has a pension and 401k. I don't know about Toyota.
Montoyas - care to comment the correctness of published salary averages? GM supposedly paid ~$69/hour including benefits versus $48/hr at Toyota including benefits. Benefits here include pension and health care costs.
http://www.manufacturing.net/News-GM-Vs-Toyota-Wages-And-Benefits.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have heard recently $52.00 an hour for production labor. That number would include all costs. That number is expected to drop to $48 in 2009 and then again to $44 in 2010.

I think the cost per hour for an employee can be misleading however. Something that matters just as much is man hours per unit.
 
The Japanese big three also have another advantage. At their assembly and parts factories in Japan the workers have a national health care plan.
 
edward said:
The Japanese big three also have another advantage. At their assembly and parts factories in Japan the workers have a national health care plan.

how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.
 
montoyas7940 said:
I have heard recently $52.00 an hour for production labor. That number would include all costs. That number is expected to drop to $48 in 2009 and then again to $44 in 2010.

I think the cost per hour for an employee can be misleading however. Something that matters just as much is man hours per unit.
$52/hr what? Average of all salaries? Or is that the top end? Does that include the benefits (pension/health)?
 
edward said:
The Japanese big three also have another advantage. At their assembly and parts factories in Japan the workers have a national health care plan.
Yes GM pays more for health costs than foreign based competitors, but the difference is more complicated than 'they have nation health care.' Japan does have a National Health Insurance system, but that is only for the unemployed or self-employed. The employers still fund the other medical system called SIS, along with premiums paid by the employees - somewhat similar to the way its done here. Japan keeps its costs down in part because the government sets the price for most everything in the medical system - that has other consequences. Most importantly they don't fund their health care through the tax system as the US unfortunately does.
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInJapan.html.
http://www.coph.ouhsc.edu/coph/HealthPolicyCenter/Pubs/1992/chpr9202j.pdf
A better comparison for auto makers to my mind is the foreign owned auto makers located here, which operate under the same US health care system but are doing relatively well.

Proton Soup said:
how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.
The US health care system is very expensive, highest in the world ($/head). Also US corporate tax rates are higher, 35% in the US to 30% in Japan, though with loop holes it can go lower in the US. Detroit can't lean on that excuse either, as again the foreign owned companies in the US have the same problem.
 
mheslep said:
$52/hr what? Average of all salaries? Or is that the top end? Does that include the benefits (pension/health)?

That would be hands on "direct labor" for a "topped out" production tech.

There are many different roles as you might imagine. In the broad classification of production tech the "topped out" pay including all direct employee costs is about $52. That would include pay and all payroll taxes paid by the company. It also includes pension, health care, vehicle purchase discount, lease vehicles, 401k match, uniforms, educational reimbursement...

All of the production techs have topped out as there have been no new hires in many years. And it is not a skills based progression. Pay is based on years of service and tops in about three years I think. Vacation continues to increase until ten years of service.

The company ended the pension for new employees about five years ago; so as time goes on that cost will decrease. It also decreased health coverage for current and future retirees.
We expect that the pension will be frozen for all hourly employees soon. It depends on what the UAW and big three do.
 
Proton Soup said:
how is that an advantage if they have to pay taxes to support it? maybe it costs more.

Big corporations have ways of avoiding taxes. :rolleyes: If it costs more why would Japan be doing it ?
 
russ_watters said:
Didn't you know? Nationalized means free! :rolleyes:
Yep, Michael Moore said so.
 
russ_watters said:
That's even funnier than your last one!



Nice one liner I hope you had a good laugh, now let's look at the numbers.

USA Health care; $6,102 per ca-pita. 15.3% of GDP. Japan $2249 per ca-pita. 8.7 of GDP.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

After Japanese workers including auto workers retire there is no legacy system. At age 65 they go on the national health care system. The Japanese companies don't have retiree health care benefits hung around their neck.

Traditionally The big three have been saddled with enormous retirement health care costs. Albeit they are struggling to change that. If they do change the health care costs will be picked up by medicare and we know who pays for that.

General Motors Corp. will seek relief from its $68-billion post-retirement employee health care obligation in contract talks with the United Auto Workers union, according to an annual report filed with federal regulators.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/16/business/fi-gm16

I simply stated that the Japanese auto companies in the USA had a cost advantage by manufacturing parts in Japan for cars made in the USA.

Some how we have diverged into the good or bad of health care system scenario and that was never my intention.

I made no inference as to which health care system was better. That seemed to be your presumption, as in your post, #323,
Didn't you know? Nationalized means free!

However the Japanese have done it cheaper since the 1990's.

Having a home country health care cost savings advantage also gave the Japanese auto makers a big edge in funding global expansion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edward said:
I simply stated that the Japanese auto companies in the USA had a cost advantage by manufacturing parts in Japan for cars made in the USA.

I think you would find it interesting to take a walk through a Nissan dealership and look at the U.S part content stickers on most models. Many, such as the Quest, Altima, Maxima, Frontier, Titan, Armada and Pathfinder are/were over 90%. I say were because we are losing some models back to Japan.

I can't speak about Toyota, Honda, Suzuki and all the other foreign makers. Certainly they meet similar part source challenges in similar ways.