The article points out how union members are still affected by concessions they made in 2008 to help auto companies then. It would therefore be inappropriate to use "relative to the last contract period" as the baseline.
If it were about simple disparity, that disparity has grown for far longer than the most recent contract period. Back in the 1960s the average ratio between CEO pay and average worker pay was 20x, and now it's close to 400x.
Extending your argument to the longer baseline, if the CEO's pay were reduced by 20x and the worker pay increased to 20x, retroactive to 1970, then I'm pretty sure they would agree.
But the point isn't simply that the CEO made X% more since the last contract so union workers should get X% more too. If it were, then consider GM CEO Mary Barra, who made nearly $29 million in 2022. She could cut her income by 30% and still make good money - Ford CEO Jim Farley "only" makes $21 million.
Cutting her compensation wouldn't justify cutting the salary for everyone at GM by 30% for the next contract period.
"The Big Three CEOs saw their pay increase by 40% over the last four years, while our pay only went up by 6%," UAW President Shawn Fain said at a news conference last week.
As of Tuesday, the UAW is proposing an approximately 40% compounded wage increase over the course of a four-year contract, a tad lower than its opening bid of 46%.
Also, as an indication of how looking only relative to the recent contract period isn't enough:
The average hourly wage for workers manufacturing motor vehicles and parts, adjusted for inflation, has dropped by more than 20% in the past two decades, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
0.8 * (1 + 0.4) = 1.12 so what the union wants would be about a 10% gain since 2000.
Would you prefer the term "sacrifice"? That's how GM described it. ("Importantly, the Plan requires considerable sacrifices from all stakeholders—unions, bondholders, dealers, suppliers, retirees, active employees and executives." - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/00009501520900... )
Switching to GM's preferred term seems only a surface detail. Compare "Time to make up for 15 years of concessions" with "time to make up for 15 years of sacrifice".
Given the decades of "it's your fault! no it's your fault!" in the antagonistic corporate/union relationship, do you really think it can be resolved in an HN comment?
In any case, my point is the imposition of an arbitrary date means asserting without evidence that the relevant parties will accept that as a fair starting point.
You’re missing the point entirely. I said I wouldn’t call them that, and the reasoning behind that is the important part. Get your head out of the pedantic sand.
My point is that mjevans's proposal would not work.
You jumped in with a personal opinion about one word choice, in what I believe is a tangential point making a jab at the union.
That personal opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight as 1) many others refer to it as "concession", 2) using GM's term of "sacrifice" doesn't affect the logic behind my point, 3) you haven't explained your reasoning, making it hard for me to understand how it has anything to do with my point.
Comments
No. Why should it?
The article points out how union members are still affected by concessions they made in 2008 to help auto companies then. It would therefore be inappropriate to use "relative to the last contract period" as the baseline.
If it were about simple disparity, that disparity has grown for far longer than the most recent contract period. Back in the 1960s the average ratio between CEO pay and average worker pay was 20x, and now it's close to 400x.
Extending your argument to the longer baseline, if the CEO's pay were reduced by 20x and the worker pay increased to 20x, retroactive to 1970, then I'm pretty sure they would agree.
But the point isn't simply that the CEO made X% more since the last contract so union workers should get X% more too. If it were, then consider GM CEO Mary Barra, who made nearly $29 million in 2022. She could cut her income by 30% and still make good money - Ford CEO Jim Farley "only" makes $21 million.
Cutting her compensation wouldn't justify cutting the salary for everyone at GM by 30% for the next contract period.
BTW, this sort of question works better with actual numbers. From https://www.npr.org/2023/09/13/1198938942/high-ceo-pay-inequ... :
Also, as an indication of how looking only relative to the recent contract period isn't enough:
0.8 * (1 + 0.4) = 1.12 so what the union wants would be about a 10% gain since 2000.
UAW were a huge reason Detroit was in such bad shape in 2008. I wouldn’t call those concessions.
Hmm, who to trust - an HN commenter or an NPR reporter.
Or the NYT reporter at https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business/04auto.html . Or the WSJ reporter at https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122832097499675993 .
Would you prefer the term "sacrifice"? That's how GM described it. ("Importantly, the Plan requires considerable sacrifices from all stakeholders—unions, bondholders, dealers, suppliers, retirees, active employees and executives." - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40730/00009501520900... )
Switching to GM's preferred term seems only a surface detail. Compare "Time to make up for 15 years of concessions" with "time to make up for 15 years of sacrifice".
Given the decades of "it's your fault! no it's your fault!" in the antagonistic corporate/union relationship, do you really think it can be resolved in an HN comment?
In any case, my point is the imposition of an arbitrary date means asserting without evidence that the relevant parties will accept that as a fair starting point.
You’re missing the point entirely. I said I wouldn’t call them that, and the reasoning behind that is the important part. Get your head out of the pedantic sand.
No wonder you don’t understand.
My point is that mjevans's proposal would not work.
You jumped in with a personal opinion about one word choice, in what I believe is a tangential point making a jab at the union.
That personal opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight as 1) many others refer to it as "concession", 2) using GM's term of "sacrifice" doesn't affect the logic behind my point, 3) you haven't explained your reasoning, making it hard for me to understand how it has anything to do with my point.