"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.


I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.

Then he goes on to inform everybody that the *real* UAW labor rate is about
28-30 something bucks per hour *when* you substract all the contractual
benefit costs. He's an idiot. He should have stayed with color
commentary of baseball games.

Eisboch

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.


I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.


In some cases, that is absolutely correct, although the difference is
around $1 an hour, or less.

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.

I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.


In some cases, that is absolutely correct, although the difference is
around $1 an hour, or less.

What?

When deciding to open up a position to hire a new person you do not look
at the salary you are going to pay the person. You look at the fully
burdened cost of hiring that person. Most companies have a fixed cost
they use for each job classification, managers 200K, sr. engineers 200K,
mid-level engineers 150K, sr. technicians 120K, technicians 90K, admins
100K.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:34:10 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.

I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.


In some cases, that is absolutely correct, although the difference is
around $1 an hour, or less.

What?

When deciding to open up a position to hire a new person you do not look
at the salary you are going to pay the person. You look at the fully
burdened cost of hiring that person. Most companies have a fixed cost
they use for each job classification, managers 200K, sr. engineers 200K,
mid-level engineers 150K, sr. technicians 120K, technicians 90K, admins
100K.

I guess the term, "pay increase" is beyond your comprehension. It
refers to the actual wages paid being raised.

Do you have similar difficulties with the difference between the price
of a 75 watt light bulb and a 100 watt light bulb? What if they raise
the price?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.

I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

Well, let's put it this way - in simple terms. The average Ford
Taurus, new off the lot, is about $19,000 comforbably equipped. What
the UAW wants you to believe is that the labor cost for building that
car is $1,900.

Sure it is.

By the way, when was the last time a major manufacturing industry had
a 10% labor cost to make it's goods? When was the last time ANY
industry had a 10% total labor cost?

Bull**** - and we're going to pay for it right up the old pooper.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think...

Olbermann is a total ass. He was when he was at ESPN and I have that
on a very good source - one of his former partners lives here in
Woodstock and is a associate member of the FD.

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.
I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

Well, let's put it this way - in simple terms. The average Ford
Taurus, new off the lot, is about $19,000 comforbably equipped. What
the UAW wants you to believe is that the labor cost for building that
car is $1,900.

Sure it is.

By the way, when was the last time a major manufacturing industry had
a 10% labor cost to make it's goods? When was the last time ANY
industry had a 10% total labor cost?

Bull**** - and we're going to pay for it right up the old pooper.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think...

Olbermann is a total ass. He was when he was at ESPN and I have that
on a very good source - one of his former partners lives here in
Woodstock and is a associate member of the FD.


snerk

On Dec 13, 6:38*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:54:46 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:0ca6k4pc4t9fnvracmb8fo7rvd2ftqd443@4a x.com...

Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.

I've been watching this. * It's a creative way of accounting for costs.. *And
it's not *pay*. *It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

Well, let's put it this way - in simple terms. *The average Ford
Taurus, new off the lot, is about $19,000 comforbably equipped. What
the UAW wants you to believe is that the labor cost for building that
car is $1,900.

Sure it is.

By the way, when was the last time a major manufacturing industry had
a 10% labor cost to make it's goods? *When was the last time ANY
industry had a 10% total labor cost?

Bull**** - and we're going to pay for it right up the old pooper.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think...

Olbermann is a total ass. *He was when he was at ESPN and I have that
on a very good source - one of his former partners lives here in
Woodstock and is a associate member of the FD.

Like I said before, he sets off my gaydar.. I can't even watch him at
half time on Mondays. Every once in a while I flip by him on MSNBC and
all he does is cry about Fox and O'Reilley... Oh, and call republicans
names. Matthews is almost as bad.

Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
Another fallacy is this whole bit about labor being 10% of the total
cost per car.

That is total bull****.


I've been watching this. It's a creative way of accounting for costs. And
it's not *pay*. It's burdened labor rates, which determine cost.

If you listen to jerks like Olbermann, you'd think, (in fact he *said* this
the other night) that in order to obtain parity with Toyota, Honda, etc.,
the UAW workers would need a pay *increase*.

Then he goes on to inform everybody that the *real* UAW labor rate is about
28-30 something bucks per hour *when* you substract all the contractual
benefit costs. He's an idiot. He should have stayed with color
commentary of baseball games.

He could have been a great CFO in the mid to late 90's.