Re: Manhours per car

I am intrigued by the fact companies will pay their non-exempt employees MORE, and give them better benefits, than their represented employees. Their exempt employees get paid even more than their non-exempt employees and are given even better benefits, yet the company points to the cost of union employees LOL

>>> discontinued in Dec of that year). According to the Harbour Report >>>
formatting link
it took 15.68>>> hours. Quote: "Among vehicle assembly plants, GM's Oshawa #2 plant,>>> which assembles the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and Buick>>> Allure, set the individual plant benchmark for labor productivity with>>> a measure of 15.68 hours per vehicle, followed closely by its>>> adjoining Oshawa #1 plant that produces the Chevrolet Impala and Monte>>> Carlo, Oshawa #1 posted a 16.34 HPV performance.>>> >>> "GM Oshawa historically has had one of the best work forces of any >>> assembly plant in the industry and the data proves that," Harbour >>> said. "The total site builds 20% of GM's North American volume and >>> does it well." " >> >> OK, so if these workers take $5/hour less in wages, it will amount to >> less than $100 per car. >> Is that really a significant amount or do we expect them to work for >> $10/hour less which is still only $160 per car? > > Are we counting all the labor? Does that include assembling just the car > or does it include the assembly of the transmission, engine, alternator, > etc.? > > It is not just the guy on the line being paid too. Include the warehouse, > truck drivers, expediters, payroll, billing, janitors, etc. Not all are > UAW, but most will have some parity with union wages. >
Reply to
Mike Hunter
Loading thread data ...

They value brains over brawn?

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

I doubt that. Many of my highest paid union techs had associate or degrees in electronics and earned over 100K annually. My non-exempt shop foreman and exempt managers worked on salary/commission, based on the net shop outcome.

After my shops unionized I had smarter better paid employees that reduced come backs for me, as well as down time for our customers, that helped grow my business. Everybody benefited by making the shop more profitable. Those that did pull their share of the load were let go union, non-exempt and exempt alike. Being a union member could not prevent me from firing anybody who could not or would not do the job at which they were qualified

I had to buy out my partner because he thought the Union would ruin our business. He told me after I sold the business that grow from six shops in two eastern states to twenty six in six states that he really screwed up. Any body who says different does nto know what they are talking about.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

You missed the point of my post. I said the auto manufactures talk about the 'cost' of a union employee but they VOLUNTARY give better benefits and pay to non-exempts. Obviously they do so to dissuade the non-exempts from joining a union. An exempt is likely to be worth more to an employer but do you really think a file clerk, or time keeper, is worth more to an employer than an assembler?

When the steel >>> I am intrigued by the fact companies will pay their non-exempt employees

Reply to
Mike Hunter

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.