The company's UAW-represented workers will get profit-sharing checks of $11,750 on Feb. 23
this is because their workers are still unionized. good for them. profit sharing agreements used to be pretty normal before we killed labor unions.
But they did pay it back, with interest, well ahead of schedule. I grew up in a Ford family and even I knew that.
the industry as a whole only paid back 88.8%, but it you read the timeline, GM repaid the full amount it borrowed.
So this is nothing new then. Just the usual yearly profit-sharing checks but it's clearly be spammed to suggest this is somehow tied to something the Trump administration has done IE: "Tax cuts"
"General Motors made $12.8 billion in pretax profits in 2017 while reporting a net income loss for the year. The company's UAW-represented workers will get profit-sharing checks of $11,750 on Feb. 23.
The figure equaled what the Detroit automaker earned in 2016 and came as the automaker changed its global footprint by completing the sales of its Opel and Vauxhall brands and leaving south and east Africa and India."
What would be nice is if they paid me back for that government bail out.
Every union employee gets the same $11,750 check.
The company's UAW-represented workers will get profit-sharing checks of $11,750 on Feb. 23.
Every fortune 500 (and one fortune 1000) company I have worked for has had some form of profit sharing, sometimes it was tied to your annual bonus, if you met your personal requirements you get your bonus and up to 1000% increase depending on the companies financial outcome for the year, others gave profit sharing into your 401k even if you weren't contributing... Never worked for a union...
My brother worked for 3 different unions and never got any profit sharing.
They're also part of the reason their employees made a living wage. It's a double-edged sword.
UAW Contractual Profit-sharing. All UAW workers who work for the big three have them. Ford UAW Workers will get probably around 9-10K Bonus.
Salaried Auto workers will likely get much much less.
Lack of appropriate compromise on both sides is what killed labor unions.
Labor unions are part of the reason GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in the first place and probably the only reason the government intervened to bail them out
Actually, it's more a result of those cars being poorly made in comparison to Japanese and Korean cars. They don't last as long, are harder to maintain, use more fuel, and are generally more expensive to purchase. Union pensions are a drop in the bucket compared to not being able to sell 10 million vehicles in China.
The bailout had very little to do with unions and everything to do with the 3 million jobs that would have been permanently lost should the U.S. auto industry go under and not be able to recover. It would decimate a hugely significant piece of our manufacturing sector as well. You think all those companies machine every part themselves? No sir, they source those widgets, nuts, and bolts elsewhere.
so I guess we could say they're good for their members a mixed bag at best for the rest of us.
Statistically unions are good for everyone, including non-union workers.The study summarized here states if unions today were as strong as they were in the 1970s, non-college educated men--unionized and non-- would be making 9% more income than they currently do.
Unions are responsible for the 40-hour work week, 401ks, pension plans, employer-provided insurance, paid vacation, sick leave, and so many more benefits most people take for granted.
The other side of unions is really that corporations are fueled by a constant desire to increase value; this simply isn't possible. There's a point at which value will no longer increase. We've probably reached it in our economic development. You can't have persistent, permanent growth in an economy; resources are finite. The way to "create" growth in this situation is to cut the workforce, cut benefits, destroy unions, lower wages, and reduce taxes on the wealthy. It enables them to do exactly what happened after the recent tax cut--pump money back into repatriating stock and artificially inflating stock value for investors.
As noted in the thread this profit sharing check was for the unionized workers only. This is a contractual payout that is based on revenue tied to US operations. This has nothing to do with the tax break.
I can also confirm that the non-union salaried employees did not get a bonus tied to the tax break as well.
Losing money =/= not being paid back.
GM employees received up to 11k in profit sharing checks in February of 2017 and 9,000 dollars the year before. Looks like this is good union collective bargaining and has very little to do with Trump's tax cut.
No it isn't. There is no profit to be shared in communism.
Yes it wasn't because they kept making awful cars
Vs people who demand ridiculous pay despite the company not being able to afford it.
A successful union must have reasonable expectations. When profits are plummeting, forcing pay raises is a quick way to drive away your job.
you do know that all the bailout money has already been repaid and the government even made a decent profit.
up to 1000% increase
I feel like "%" isn't the right symbol you're looking for.
Uh no. A union's main goal is fair employment and job security. A corporation's main goal is to make the most money for the least amount spent. Do shitty unions exist? Of course. So shitty people find their way to the top in a union? Sometimes. The biggest part of a job that affects quality? That would be the bosses. A good boss can get his people to help him run the area and maintain quality on an individual level. A terrible boss just helps forge more terrible employees.
UAW for almost 10 years now.
Remember when GM paid back the US taxpayers for bailing them out in 2008? Yea, me either.
Either we nationalize them and stop pretending they are businesses, or we allow them to fail. We need to stop privatizing gains while subsidizing losses.
"We deeply regret the necessity of today's decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike," said CEO Gregory Rayburn in a statement.
Teamsters voted for their pay to be cut, Bakers did not:
The Teamsters union, which represents 6,700 Hostess workers, issued a statement blaming mismanagement by Hostess executives for the company's problems. But it also was critical of the decision of Bakers' union, although it did not identify the union by name. "Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive," said Ken Hall, the Teamsters' Secretary-Treasurer. "Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess."
Nah, let's say... the 'bonus-structure' gives something like a $500 bonus annually if you make your targets.
if you met your personal requirements you get your bonus
So, person gets their $500 bonus check for meeting that.
and up to 1000% increase
100% of $500 = $500. 1000% of $500 = $5,000
So you can earn an annual bonus of $500 PLUS up to $5,000 on top, total of $5,500 maximum range.
depending on the companies financial outcome for the year
Company discretion to payout anywhere beyond the $500 in the labor agreement for meeting the bonus requirements.
When did this ever happen?