quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
That sounds about right, and $70,000 is not a huge salary. I make more than that as a 1LT.

A 70K salary equals somewhere from 50 to 60 in actual take home after SSI, federal, and state taxes.

A 50 to 60K take home income is a decent middle class salary.

Dang!! you make 70 grand as a Lt. are you adding your BAH, special duty pay, BAS, deployment bennies? Are you prior enlisted with like 15 years of service?

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Yeah, no kidding. The Lt must be a mustanger with 20 years of service stationed in DC to even come close to 70K with BAH, BAS, COLA, etc.

quote:

http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2848236

When I retired eight years ago as a GS-12-8 my pay and benefits were over $100K, with pay somewhere around $70K. Most of my coworkers are now equivalent to GS-14, due to some changes in the pay grade stuff. From what I have been told by old friends the average Fed pay is over $70K; that is after the Communists were elected.

looks like someone got outed as a poser

O-2 earns monthly $3,058.80 first year, $4,233.30 after 10 years. So an O-2 would be earning about $51,000 salary at 10 years. However counting benefits from military/naval service, Federal employment and private sector is hard to compare.

quote:

So an O-2 would be earning about $51,000 salary at 10 years.

I'd think that after 10 years as an 0-2 with no advancement he would probably be getting shown the door.

One thing to consider in this conversation, at least I think, is that most of the Federal Agencies have Journeyman levels at GS-12 or GS-13.

What that means, if you don't already know, is that say a person is hired as a GS-7. In one year, if they have met all their quals and performed well, they will get promoted to GS-9. A year later, the same with a promotion to GS-11, then 12 a year after that and with many agencies, agents go to GS-13 a year after GS-12.

Once you reach your Journeyman level, it is then that you would have to compete for the next promotion.

The Journeyman 12 or 13 is for job series that are primarily law enforcement/investigations.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by 21yrsUSCGUSCS:
One thing to consider in this conversation, at least I think, is that most of the Federal Agencies have Journeyman levels at GS-12 or GS-13.

What that means, if you don't already know, is that say a person is hired as a GS-7. In one year, if they have met all their quals and performed well, they will get promoted to GS-9. A year later, the same with a promotion to GS-11, then 12 a year after that and with many agencies, agents go to GS-13 a year after GS-12.

Once you reach your Journeyman level, it is then that you would have to compete for the next promotion.

The Journeyman 12 or 13 is for job series that are primarily law enforcement/investigations.

Don

It works that way if you get into an internship program, otherwise you have to compete for each promotion.

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:


It works that way if you get into an internship program, otherwise you have to compete for each promotion.

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.

I was hired as a GS-7, Customs Marine Enforcement Officer. I never had to compete until I was a GS-11 MEO going for a GS-12, Senior Marine Enforcement Officer.

By "compete", there wasn't any tests, it was what you wrote on your application for the position. They looked at your experience level and chose from there.

By chance, are you talking about other areas of work in the Federal Government?

Still sucking down coffee and trying to catch up.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by 21yrsUSCGUSCS:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:


It works that way if you get into an internship program, otherwise you have to compete for each promotion.

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.

I was hired as a GS-7, Customs Marine Enforcement Officer. I never had to compete until I was a GS-11 MEO going for a GS-12, Senior Marine Enforcement Officer.

By "compete", there wasn't any tests, it was what you wrote on your application for the position. They looked at your experience level and chose from there.

By chance, are you talking about other areas of work in the Federal Government?

Still sucking down coffee and trying to catch up.

Don

Typically in the federal service if you start at 7 and go to a targeted grade of 11 or 12 it is considered an internship program. There could be several names, but it is basically an internship or training program to a journeyman level. I am also not referring to any law enforce positions....they are a horse of a different color.

quote:

As for government state and local levels pay. MOST ARE OVERPAID! and not counting the bennies, purks and other sweet things. OVERPAID? YOU BET.

As a PA state employee working in Philadelphia I have to call bullschidt on that claim.

I work for the PA Department of Public Welfare as an intake caseworker. My workload and that of my fellow workers is staggering--each one of us for the past year has processed an average of over a hundred applications for benefits a month. My caseload is in better shape than most, but that's because I take things like case narratives and income calculations home to work on (it's difficult to do that in an office where you are constantly subjected to loud, argumentative clients, screaming babies, unsupervised toddlers and disconnected but meddlesome managers). I do the latter without pay, of course, but it normally makes my day in the office easier--I get fewer badgering calls from irate clients than my coworkers.

Now here's the kicker. As anyone who lives in PA knows, the budget for fiscal year 2010 has not yet been approved and might not be approved until sometime this fall. The governor (be grateful I'm not going to go off on a rant about what I think of him--hide the children when I do) wants certain things and is in a position to hold out for them without damaging himself politically in PA (he's a lame duck with sights on Washington; PA is already in his rear view mirror and fading away fast), so this impasse, which began officially at midnight on 30 Jun 09, might last a few months--during which state employees like myself won't be paid.

I'll get a paycheck on the 17th, and there are rumors that I'll get half of one on the 31st. After that, I get to come to work each day and ask myself, "So how does it feel to work more than full-time and still make less than a welfare recipient?" The state promises to pay us retroactively once this is resolved and I might be able to cut a deal with my landlord, but I ******* guarantee the utility companies will not accept even a well-intended IOU.

Now, who wants to trade places with me? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Yeah, I thought as much....

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
He may be using the same formula used by the right-wingers to rant about all the 80/72/63 dollar an hour GM assembly line workers.

If you take a base wage, add approximately 28 percent for matching FICA, unemployment, workman's comp....add the cost/value of health insurance and other non-taxed bennies...then add the liability to the employer for retiree health care...you can get to that number quite easily--which is the 'cost' of the employee, not the employee wage or salary. As for the average actual paycheck...probably 35 to 50 percent lower.

Auto workers make $14 to $30 an hour. Skilled trades will make more. Some non union shop workers actually make more in take home than union shops.

If you've ever worked an assembly line, you wouldn't say they were overpaid.

Auto workers on the line in China might make $14/hr but not here in the US. Go ahead show me the newspaper clipping where a line worker in the auto industry makes $14/hr. and then show me what that same auto worker makes 90 days later.
Fuuuucking auto union workers have rapped this country for years, got bailed out and now if they had a second chance would do it all over again. Sorry buddy but we are Trillions of dollars in debt now. We can never pay it back and deals will have to be made. Get ready to go without and say hello to ration cards. Once you make it to the top of the hill (like we did) there is only one way to go. Down.

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler: 1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Certainly true for 1LT US military types. But no evidence so far contradicts the $70K/year average cost of a federal employee. In fact, from other comparisons and info from reliable organizations, it seems quite possible that $70K+ could be the average.

++http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/13/federal-worker-pay-blasts-off/++: "The new data show that the 1.8 million federal civilian workers earned an average wage of $77,143 in 2007, which is 61 percent higher than the $48,035 average in the U.S. private sector. That 61 percent pay advantage has increased from a 34 percent advantage in 2000.
"Looking at total compensation (wages plus benefits), federal workers earned an average $116,450 in 2007, which is more than double the $57,615 private sector average. The federal compensation advantage increased from 68 percent in 2000 to 102 percent today. Federal workers not only earn much more than private sector workers, their earnings advantage is getting more pronounced every year.
"Federal compensation rose quickly during the 1990s, but even faster during the 2000s. I call this the “Bush Bounce” because it appears that the Bush administration has caved into federal union demands for expanded pay year after year. [The jackasses whining about Bush wastefulness were surely correct in this regard, and it points out why many of us conservatives were irate at the flaccidity of the Bush administration so far as needless bureaucratic spending growth was concerned.] Between 2000 and 2007, average federal compensation increased at an annual average rate of 6.3 percent, which compares to the private sector increase of 3.5 percent. During the 1990s, average federal worker compensation increased at an average rate of 5.1 percent. The charts below illustate the “blast off” in federal wages and compensation."

---------------------------------------------
++http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf++: "The average federal worker earned $100,178 in wages and benefits in 2004, which compared to $51,876 for the average private-sector worker, according to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data.1 Looking just at wages, federal workers earned an average $66,558, 56 percent more than the $42,635 earned by the average private worker."

-----------------------------------------------

Above is a big part of the reason the cost to do anything in the federal sector is so heavy. This is why contractors are often a far better option for effectiveness per dollar spent.

It shows, too, why if Obama's options for "healthcare" rely on federal workers, we will unequivocally see costs grow excessively for the performance obtained. There is no way around it. I know the collectivists with their feelings and intentions don't like to confront hard numbers by which to gain accurate perspectives, but eventually the hard figures cited above drive what happens. Accept it and decide business alternatives on its basis, or the situation will decide for you, like it or not.

Civil servants aren't our opponents. Although there's always concerns of nepotism in shady appointments, I resent illegal immigrants getting a complete fee ride in medical, dental, Sect 8 housing, food stamps, education, and more. Legislature should investigate freeloaders not governmental workers.

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

First lieutenants are generally new members of the military compared to Dave Barker who's an experienced employee with over 25 yrs of service to his agency.

Surely many years of dedication should translate to wage increases and promotions. And nobody joins the military or gov't service to get rich. We're rewarded by other influences; dedication and pride come to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
That sounds about right, and $70,000 is not a huge salary. I make more than that as a 1LT.

A 70K salary equals somewhere from 50 to 60 in actual take home after SSI, federal, and state taxes.

A 50 to 60K take home income is a decent middle class salary.

Dang!! you make 70 grand as a Lt. are you adding your BAH, special duty pay, BAS, deployment bennies? Are you prior enlisted with like 15 years of service?

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Yeah, no kidding. The Lt must be a mustanger with 20 years of service stationed in DC to even come close to 70K with BAH, BAS, COLA, etc.

There is no COLA for DC. An O2E with over 14 years (no increase after that) stationed in DC with dependents makes something like $58,827.60 in base pay, $28,320 in BAH, and $2676.48 in BAS. Totals out to $89,824.08 without any special pay. Cut the BAH in half for being somewhere other than DC and you're looking $75,664.08 instead. Don't know how many years the LT above has in already or if he was issued dependents, but I do know from other posts that he's prior service.

You guys should try crunching the numbers before deciding someone's full of it.

quote:

Originally posted by TaxmanJim:

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
That sounds about right, and $70,000 is not a huge salary. I make more than that as a 1LT.

A 70K salary equals somewhere from 50 to 60 in actual take home after SSI, federal, and state taxes.

A 50 to 60K take home income is a decent middle class salary.

Dang!! you make 70 grand as a Lt. are you adding your BAH, special duty pay, BAS, deployment bennies? Are you prior enlisted with like 15 years of service?

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Yeah, no kidding. The Lt must be a mustanger with 20 years of service stationed in DC to even come close to 70K with BAH, BAS, COLA, etc.

There is no COLA for DC. An O2E with over 14 years (no increase after that) stationed in DC with dependents makes something like $58,827.60 in base pay, $28,320 in BAH, and $2676.48 in BAS. Totals out to $89,824.08 without any special pay. Cut the BAH in half for being somewhere other than DC and you're looking $75,664.08 instead. Don't know how many years the LT above has in already or if he was issued dependents, but I do know from other posts that he's prior service.

You guys should try crunching the numbers before deciding someone's full of it.

PSSTT... look at the comment above in Green. I kinda figured that out already!

quote:

Originally posted by TaxmanJim:

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
That sounds about right, and $70,000 is not a huge salary. I make more than that as a 1LT.

A 70K salary equals somewhere from 50 to 60 in actual take home after SSI, federal, and state taxes.

A 50 to 60K take home income is a decent middle class salary.

Dang!! you make 70 grand as a Lt. are you adding your BAH, special duty pay, BAS, deployment bennies? Are you prior enlisted with like 15 years of service?

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Yeah, no kidding. The Lt must be a mustanger with 20 years of service stationed in DC to even come close to 70K with BAH, BAS, COLA, etc.

There is no COLA for DC. An O2E with over 14 years (no increase after that) stationed in DC with dependents makes something like $58,827.60 in base pay, $28,320 in BAH, and $2676.48 in BAS. Totals out to $89,824.08 without any special pay. Cut the BAH in half for being somewhere other than DC and you're looking $75,664.08 instead. Don't know how many years the LT above has in already or if he was issued dependents, but I do know from other posts that he's prior service.

You guys should try crunching the numbers before deciding someone's full of it.

LOL How many O2E are there in Washington DC or in the military for that matter?

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by TaxmanJim:

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
That sounds about right, and $70,000 is not a huge salary. I make more than that as a 1LT.

A 70K salary equals somewhere from 50 to 60 in actual take home after SSI, federal, and state taxes.

A 50 to 60K take home income is a decent middle class salary.

Dang!! you make 70 grand as a Lt. are you adding your BAH, special duty pay, BAS, deployment bennies? Are you prior enlisted with like 15 years of service?

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Yeah, no kidding. The Lt must be a mustanger with 20 years of service stationed in DC to even come close to 70K with BAH, BAS, COLA, etc.

There is no COLA for DC. An O2E with over 14 years (no increase after that) stationed in DC with dependents makes something like $58,827.60 in base pay, $28,320 in BAH, and $2676.48 in BAS. Totals out to $89,824.08 without any special pay. Cut the BAH in half for being somewhere other than DC and you're looking $75,664.08 instead. Don't know how many years the LT above has in already or if he was issued dependents, but I do know from other posts that he's prior service.

You guys should try crunching the numbers before deciding someone's full of it.

LOL How many O2E are there in Washington DC or in the military for that matter?

1LT or LtJg with at least 4 years prior service on active duty? I'd imagine there's a pretty good number worldwide. With the Pentagon, Ft McNair, Ft Belvoir, Ft Myer, Washington Navy Yard, Anacostia Naval Station, Bolling AFB, Andrews AFB, and the Marine Barracks at 8th & I as the military installations I can come up with off the top of my head, in the immediate vicinity of DC, I'd expect at least a few of those LTs to be stationed in the DC area where they make almost 90k without any special pay.

quote:

I'd expect at least a few of those LTs to be stationed in the DC area where they make almost 90k without any special pay.

Yes a few, but as a portion of the total population of O2's my guess is it is a pretty small number. That is all I am saying.

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

I'd expect at least a few of those LTs to be stationed in the DC area where they make almost 90k without any special pay.

Yes a few, but as a portion of the total population of O2's my guess is it is a pretty small number. That is all I am saying.

It probably is a small percentage of LTs who make about 90k based on their years of service and BAH location. I was just trying to show that the 70K+ that the LT said he made isn't really that shocking. Someone suggested that the LT would probably need to have 20 years in and be stationed in DC to make close to the 70k. I was showing that with only 14 years and a day he could make almost 90k instead, and that was without any sort of special pay. Someone else had said that someone had been outed as a poser; I'm assuming he was referring to the LT since he hadn't come back to the discussion. Of course, the LT could just post his social and mypay pin here so we could examine his LES for ourselves...but I don't see that happening. Maybe if we all promise not to redirect his paycheck or do anything else silly? Till then I'll take his word for it since what he said is well within the realm of possibility.

Also, I'm sure that there are other locations with even higher BAH amounts which also come with COLA so the numbers can go even higher than that 90k.

quote:

First lieutenants are generally new members of the military compared to Dave Barker who's an experienced employee with over 25 yrs of service to his agency.

Surely many years of dedication should translate to wage increases and promotions. And nobody joins the military or gov't service to get rich. We're rewarded by other influences; dedication and pride come to mind.

To clarify the point, I am not a federal employee. I am employed by the AMVETS, Department of Ohio. My salary as AMVETS SSO is far less than $70,000, far less. Fortunately I have my retirement as well to live on.

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by TaxmanJim:

quote:

Originally posted by Kegler300:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by samh32:

quote:

Originally posted by nspreitler:
That sounds about right, and $70,000 is not a huge salary. I make more than that as a 1LT.

A 70K salary equals somewhere from 50 to 60 in actual take home after SSI, federal, and state taxes.

A 50 to 60K take home income is a decent middle class salary.

Dang!! you make 70 grand as a Lt. are you adding your BAH, special duty pay, BAS, deployment bennies? Are you prior enlisted with like 15 years of service?

1LTs do not make 70K and nor does the average federal worker.

Yeah, no kidding. The Lt must be a mustanger with 20 years of service stationed in DC to even come close to 70K with BAH, BAS, COLA, etc.

There is no COLA for DC. An O2E with over 14 years (no increase after that) stationed in DC with dependents makes something like $58,827.60 in base pay, $28,320 in BAH, and $2676.48 in BAS. Totals out to $89,824.08 without any special pay. Cut the BAH in half for being somewhere other than DC and you're looking $75,664.08 instead. Don't know how many years the LT above has in already or if he was issued dependents, but I do know from other posts that he's prior service.

You guys should try crunching the numbers before deciding someone's full of it.

LOL How many O2E are there in Washington DC or in the military for that matter?

I ran into more than a couple at every base I was at. There actually was three (out of 5 LTs) in the squadron I was in at Andrews. I do not know about other services, but the USAF used to push commissioning programs for enlisted.

I retired from the Federal Government as a GS-12 step 6 in 2002 and I was making around that figure. ( I retired as a step 6 in Sept of 02, was suppose to go to step 7 that Dec)

However, the bottle neck is with the GS-11's trying to make it to 12. Most spend their carrers as GS-11's for higher up the ladder you go the less the positions there are.

Also keep in mind that the first 3 steps are yearly, then they start speading out further before each next step to around 4 yrs apart unless you get an award that bumps you up a step.

Then there is Pay banding (New thing) in were I don't think steps are counted anymore ( I retired before it went into effect at where I worked) and they can either give you more money at the end of the year (however only maybe 2 out out of 20 can get it) or you stay the same pay or if your bad, they can reduce your pay.

I really didn't get into the rules of it, for one I was retiring and two from what I heard it really sucks, if the boss don't like you he/she can cut your pay or maybe after 100 atta boys you get one ah shi* and there goes your pay..

So to base an average, I would guess maybe somewhere around GS-11, step 5 would be a good over all avg. Now if you take the Navy into concern with the GS scale I would scale that back to GS-9, the Navy is very, very cheap in grades and promotions toward the civilian sector, (I work for them for 5 yrs) Our highest GS grade was a 13 and that was the Director, and I have been to other Navy areas in Nevada where a GS-11 is the Base commander. Up there above the Reno area, I forget the name of the place, I was job hunting as a GS-11 and they said the highest grade there was a GS-11 and he was the boss!!!

And I work on the Navy Command Supply Inspection Team as a GS-9 where the Army grades for the IG (same as the navy's) was GS-13's.

So it would be hard to "AVG" the Federal Grades for pay...

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by Mom2APAJ:
There is no "average" for Federal Employees. There are so many different "pay schedules/pay bands/ pay scales" as to make an "average" pretty close to unattainable, there are just too many variables. Some, like Engineers, Fire Fighters, Scientists, etc., have totally different scales than "regular" Federal employees.

First your link is to an article talking about a Median not an Average.
Plus a LOT of the lower and middle paying federal jobs have been contracted out (often at a higher cost unfortunately) leaving a higher % of supervisors and professionals as actual federal employees.

I didn't have a "link" of any kind. Finding out what DoD civilian employees make is VERY simple. Its by grade, profession and shift differential.
And NO most of the WG jobs have NOT been contracted out.

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:

quote:

Originally posted by 21yrsUSCGUSCS:

quote:

Originally posted by DMarkUhler:


It works that way if you get into an internship program, otherwise you have to compete for each promotion.

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry.

I was hired as a GS-7, Customs Marine Enforcement Officer. I never had to compete until I was a GS-11 MEO going for a GS-12, Senior Marine Enforcement Officer.

By "compete", there wasn't any tests, it was what you wrote on your application for the position. They looked at your experience level and chose from there.

By chance, are you talking about other areas of work in the Federal Government?

Still sucking down coffee and trying to catch up.

Don

Typically in the federal service if you start at 7 and go to a targeted grade of 11 or 12 it is considered an internship program. There could be several names, but it is basically an internship or training program to a journeyman level. I am also not referring to any law enforce positions....they are a horse of a different color.

Sorry Orator, they are not "intern" jobs. They are target grade jobs with yearly promotion potential based on job performance. Start at a 7, then 9, then 11, or 5 target 11. Expect to work hard each year till you get to your 'target' grade, then expect to work harder because if you are good at your job, your work load will increase expenintially. Competition only starts for 12 and up after you reach full promotion potential (and have the education to back it up).

Intern jobs are a whole different kettle of fish.

Federal employees are NOT overpaid... most are well paid (if you include good benefits and reasonable health insurance costs) and work 50+ hours a week for those benefits. My work day begins at 7 or 7:15 and will last any where from 4 to 6:30 depending on work load, meetings per day (that keep me from getting real work done), putting out fires (er, emergency - HOT - work assignments) and my desire to finish a project before going home.

Is it fair to consider benefits with salaries? Yes I enjoy a good medical, dental, and retirement plan. However I don't think that should be added on-top of my salary as much as an airline worker taking free trips during their off time doesn't get charged for their benefits.

I don't drink, smoke, and eat healthy. I also run 40-50 miles a week, so fortunately my health is very good. There's times I don't see a doctor in years. Should my health plan count the same as somebody who neglects their health or has diseases? Maybe this was a silly example, but my contractual benefits should not be lumped in with pay.

quote:

Sorry Orator, they are not "intern" jobs. They are target grade jobs with yearly promotion potential based on job performance. Start at a 7, then 9, then 11, or 5 target 11. Expect to work hard each year till you get to your 'target' grade, then expect to work harder because if you are good at your job, your work load will increase expenintially. Competition only starts for 12 and up after you reach full promotion potential (and have the education to back it up). Roll Eyes

You work DoD, I work Title 5 (horse of a different color). I know how it works. We are talking about veterans coming into federal service which are generally starting positions where the applicant wants a career. I came in on such an internship as nine target 12. See EO 13162, it is a very large program and a good fit for vets.

Oh and my name is not "orator" so please refrain from calling me that. Your snot is not welcome.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DMarkUhler,

quote:

Originally posted by Duster6:

quote:

Originally posted by Thud357L:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
He may be using the same formula used by the right-wingers to rant about all the 80/72/63 dollar an hour GM assembly line workers.

If you take a base wage, add approximately 28 percent for matching FICA, unemployment, workman's comp....add the cost/value of health insurance and other non-taxed bennies...then add the liability to the employer for retiree health care...you can get to that number quite easily--which is the 'cost' of the employee, not the employee wage or salary. As for the average actual paycheck...probably 35 to 50 percent lower.

Auto workers make $14 to $30 an hour. Skilled trades will make more. Some non union shop workers actually make more in take home than union shops.

If you've ever worked an assembly line, you wouldn't say they were overpaid.

Auto workers on the line in China might make $14/hr but not here in the US. Go ahead show me the newspaper clipping where a line worker in the auto industry makes $14/hr. and then show me what that same auto worker makes 90 days later.
Fuuuucking auto union workers have rapped this country for years, got bailed out and now if they had a second chance would do it all over again. Sorry buddy but we are Trillions of dollars in debt now. We can never pay it back and deals will have to be made. Get ready to go without and say hello to ration cards. Once you make it to the top of the hill (like we did) there is only one way to go. Down.

I'm definitely not gonna show you a newspaper clipping. You can google it up like I did. It's not the unions that killed the Big Three, it was the companies themselves who engaged in decades of bad management that finally caught up with them. They rode a bad business model into the grave. The auto industry was started with an adversarial relationship between worker and employer and there was a reason that workers fought and died for a union. The tradition continued with each side trying to beat the other into submission and they both lost.

Since management knew that the total labor costs of a car was less than 9%, they didn't mind the labor contracts because they were still miles ahead and no senior manager was going to have to lose a condo on the Riviera or a Learjet. The companies also place the autoworker's value contribution at around $260 per hour which is a lot more than the $70 they actually cost in total so from management's perspective, the company was still winning and would always win.

Since foreign workers are covered by government pensions and health care, these automakers don't have to bear those costs which are included into the $70 per figure that that the right likes to whine about. Since US auto companies have been in business for a century, they have a lot of retirees who are still due a pension which amounts to about $10 per. Foreign companies don't have that burden. Many of the hard core clueless actually think a UAW worker actually takes home $70 per hour.

Today, a new hire will enter a UAW shop making $14 per with reduced benefits. A worker on the higher tier system will make $28/30 which averages to around $58,000 gross. The right wing, even poor azzed right wingers, think this is too much for a working man to make and would like to see a wage cap of around $28,000 which was probably what their pappy made and he raised a family of eight on it.

Now you take one of these azzholes that actually managed the industry into the ground, putting short term profit ahead of long term investment and you're looking at an average salary of $5,000/10,000 an hour but all you millionaires on this forum think that's OK, don't you?

A closed plant still costs money and by the time you include unemployment, welfare, Medicaid, etc., you're approaching or exceeding the costs of the bailout.

I worked with a guy in a union shop who hated the union. He was always *****ing about dues, and not getting his petty grievances addressed with the pomp and circumstance he thought he deserved (wanted to pass out religious and political literature that nobody wanted to read) and loudly stating that his shop steward was an azzhole. But this guy would never quit and start his own union-free business. Instead he bad-mouthed the union until he retired with all his bennies. He wrecked a company truck at 0300 (no company trucks out after 0000 without a pass) and was drunk as a skunk. The union got him his job back but he had to forfeit some pay and go to counseling and he *****ed about that too.

Now he has a decent retirement and still hates the union that gave it to him. It all makes sense since the guy is a blue collar Republican.

Thud, I worked with a guy who was a boss hater. He was anti-work and an arrogant slug. During a hectic day, a great boss said please drop your admistrative duties right now and get out of the office and do some field work. The slug responded he wouldn't because he was going home sick.

The guy I worked had a series of such decisions. He never made it to retirement.