[lbo-talk] A hundred grand a year???

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Nov 4 16:39:04 PST 2005



> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >Why so much difference between this estimate from 2004 and the
> >figure that Doug cites from this year (which can't be accounted for
> >by COLA, etc.)?
>
> Ok, a BLS guy explained the difference to me. The Current
> Employment Statistics (CES) - the numbers that come out in the
> monthly employment report - includes overtime and incentive pay in
> its definition of wages; the OES, just base pay.
>
> The page for motor vehicle manufacturing, a more comparable
> classification, is at <http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
> naics4_336100.htm#b51-0000>. Note that the median production worker
> wage is actually higher than the mean, oddly enough.
>
> Doug

The median higher than the mean? Maybe I still haven't gotten to the bottom of the thing. But the main mystery got solved -- thanks for asking the BLS guy. Even based on the base pay at <http:// www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#b51-0000>, the gap between it and the wage estimate that includes overtime and incentive pay is really big. The gap, in my view, shows the weakness of the UAW's bargaining power. (Is there some section in the BLS site where I can get a time series of OES and CES estimates? I'm assuming that the union didn't always so heavily depend on overtime and incentive pays to keep its members' wages up.)

This reminds me of a proposal that Sam Gindin put out last April:

<blockquote>Reduced work time can’t be addressed without also taking on overtime. This has been difficult when workers have based their living standards on overtime and when future insecurity suggests taking the work when it’s there. But no trade unionist can defend working overtime when fellow workers are on layoff. We should be insisting that overtime be suspended until layoffs end.[2]

2. Since the companies have no intention of coming out of this recession with the same number of workers — downturns are always a vehicle for restructuring work to make do with fewer workers — layoffs will persist and therefore, so should the ban on overtime (An alternative of course is to fight the nature of the corporate restructuring of the workplace; we don’t want to ignore this since we consider it crucial. But, without setting it aside, it will be harder to mobilize workers internationally around the variance in workplace conditions than in a general demand for reduced work-time). A minority of workers — perhaps 15%-25% — loudly oppose any such infringement on their "right" to overtime and in the absence of mobilization the other way (the majority being silent), they sway the leadership. A way of dealing with is to do some internal education followed by an in-plant survey asking directly whether overtime should continue when other workers are laid off (or sons, daughters, neighbours can’t find work). The result, based on a number of experiences with this, is generally that the ratio of those acknowledging the importance of limiting overtime is 2/1. The leadership can then argue, in the face of that aggressive minority, that it has a mandate: the membership, not the leadership is responsible for the decision.

<http://www.web.net/~sclstpjt2003/documents/the_auto_industry.html></ blockquote>

This as well as "A Continent-wide Auto Parts Organizing Campaign" also in the article sounds good, but until autoworkers overcome the present crisis (Delphi bankruptcy and GM concession demands, on the latter of which UAW members are voting now), they may not be able to even consider it.

Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org> * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/07/mahmoud- ahmadinejads-face.html>; <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/07/chvez- congratulates-ahmadinejad.html>; <http://montages.blogspot.com/ 2005/06/iranian-working-class-rejects.html>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list