John Deere strike imminent?

[GrindingAway]

I started reading that feed a couple days before the strike because there was a lot more info than was coming out from the local media. It became clear pretty quick to me he’s more of a propaganda spreader than a reporter. Still some interesting tidbits in there but you have to weed through a lot of garbage to get to it.

I’ve been following him about the same amount of time. While he does share some interesting nuggets it’s also clear he personally benefits financially when strikes occur so I take everything with a grain of salt.

A fair amount of his information he posts from salaried people I really question. I’m not saying Jonah is making it up but it’s also pretty easy for anyone to anonymously DM him saying they are salaried and say “oh this work is so hard I can’t believe we are asked to do this”.

I do know one of the guys feeding Jonah a lot of information and he’s not someone I’d trust for much at all

 

[mramseyISU]

I’ve been following him about the same amount of time. While he does share some interesting nuggets it’s also clear he personally benefits financially when strikes occur so I take everything with a grain of salt.

A fair amount of his information he posts from salaried people I really question. I’m not saying Jonah is making it up but it’s also pretty easy for anyone to anonymously DM him saying they are salaried and say “oh this work is so hard I can’t believe we are asked to do this”.

I do know one of the guys feeding Jonah a lot of information and he’s not someone I’d trust for much at all

I really think he’s cherry picking the information he’s leaking because it does benefit him if it looks like a massive disaster. I suspect that the experience is going to vary wildly between sites. The parts depot I would expect to be really busy right now because harvest is in full swing. They’re probably working what I consider normal hours for this time of year. The hours that he’s reported us working does not match what we’re being told in Waterloo at all. From what I understand it’s basically the same people going in that would normally be in the factory and they’re working their normal hours. Design engineering is working remote just like most of us have been doing for the last 18 months. If it’s still going on at the first of November they’re pulling us in to work the line and what we’re being told is we’re working 10 hr days with no weekends or off shifts planned. Most of the guys I know in design are looking forward to a break from our regular jobs for a while and at least half of us have experience doing that sort of work. For everyone else the process is so locked down it shouldn’t take long to get them up to speed.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Whoever that is should be ashamed of that tweet.

 

[usedcarguy]

Mr. Jonah "class warfare" Furman. Who gives a F what the CEO is pulling down. They do away with the CEO position that is not in any way going to benefit the production worker. You want to go on strike to bargain for better pay and benefits......fine. But not because of this "get the man" BS.

I ran the numbers on $15M per year, and the net benefit would be just over 10 cents per hour.

 

[BCClone]

I ran the numbers on $15M per year, and the net benefit would be just over 10 cents per hour.

Does that include extra fica taxes, contributions to pensions,401ks,and anything else that goes up along with raises?

 

[Stormin]

I ran the numbers on $15M per year, and the net benefit would be just over 10 cents per hour.

No shortage of CEO’s. Can’t make money if you have no tractors or parts manufactured to sell. Reallocate money from all management to production workers. Cut management costs to increase worker pay. The problem is John Deere has constantly rewarded management instead of workers. Time to rebalance things.

 

[Clonehomer]

No shortage of CEO’s. Can’t make money if you have no tractors or parts manufactured to sell. Reallocate money from all management to production workers. Cut management costs to increase worker pay. The problem is John Deere has constantly rewarded management instead of workers. Time to rebalance things.

Then eventually there would be nothing to build for those workers as new designs wouldn't be developed and people will stop buying their tractors. But, it'll be good in the short term at least. Cause, of course, that management doesn't serve any purpose.

 

[tman24]

No shortage of CEO’s. Can’t make money if you have no tractors or parts manufactured to sell. Reallocate money from all management to production workers. Cut management costs to increase worker pay. The problem is John Deere has constantly rewarded management instead of workers. Time to rebalance things.

I think thats how all of america works? very few companies pay production workers well compared to management workers.

 

[agcy68]

No shortage of CEO’s. Can’t make money if you have no tractors or parts manufactured to sell. Reallocate money from all management to production workers. Cut management costs to increase worker pay. The problem is John Deere has constantly rewarded management instead of workers. Time to rebalance things.

Here's an honest question for you. What should a good wage starting salary be? From what I saw on the UAW site, they are proposing $20/hr starting up to $30/hr with good experience. If you consider 1.5X for overtime (based on what I am reading here there is some/lots of that), you could easily make $50K+. (full disclosure: I might be all wrong on that)

Starting salary for 4 year degree engineer is $60K maybe? (specifically at JD) Maybe less or more?

So, from a strictly investment thought, you might be better off, starting at least, to forgo college and start on the line at JD?

 

[KidSilverhair]

I don’t have the answers here, but let’s consider - manufacturing line workers were once paid enough so that one worker could provide a comfortable living for his family, both parents didn’t need to work outside the home, and that job allowed for that worker to send his kids to college and save for retirement. All while the upper levels of management/CEO were compensated 20 times more (in 1965) or 58 times more (in 1989).

While costs of life in general have continued to rise over the years (especially for higher education and housing), employee pay has not kept pace. It’s very, very difficult for a line worker to be the sole money earner for a family these days, especially if they have any hopes of sending their kids to college. And CEO pay is now over 220 TIMES that of their employees.

Again, I don’t know the answer to fix everything. Sure, just having the CEO give his salary back isn’t going to make every worker rich. But come on - there’s absolutely no justification for saying one top management executive is worth 250 line workers … *that’s* a real problem throughout American industry, the increasing gap between the guys who build the products & create the things to sell vs. the guys making the calls in the management suite. Isn’t making 60 or 70 (or heck, even 100) times more than the median employee enough? Why is it 220, 250, 275 times more?

 

[Rabbuk]

Here's an honest question for you. What should a good wage starting salary be? From what I saw on the UAW site, they are proposing $20/hr starting up to $30/hr with good experience. If you consider 1.5X for overtime (based on what I am reading here there is some/lots of that), you could easily make $50K+. (full disclosure: I might be all wrong on that)

Starting salary for 4 year degree engineer is $60K maybe? (specifically at JD) Maybe less or more?

So, from a strictly investment thought, you might be better off, starting at least, to forgo college and start on the line at JD?

My thought is that engineers can realistically work 35-40 years but that time line is significantly shorter for working a physically demanding job so retirement planning and a relatively high starting wage is important. I could be wrong but a lot of laborers in my friends and family circle start having chronic knee and back issues at like 50-55. I feel like air traffic control would be a good blueprint.

 

[agcy68]

My thought is that engineers can realistically work 35-40 years but that time line is significantly shorter for working a physically demanding job so retirement planning and a relatively high starting wage is important. I could be wrong but a lot of laborers in my friends and family circle start having chronic knee and back issues at like 50-55. I feel like air traffic control would be a good blueprint.

Looks like, per the contract posted at UAW.ORG documents age 65 as the 'normal' retirement age and pension is reduced for every year retired before 62...

 

[khardbored]

I don’t have the answers here, but let’s consider - manufacturing line workers were once paid enough so that one worker could provide a comfortable living for his family, both parents didn’t need to work outside the home, and that job allowed for that worker to send his kids to college and save for retirement. All while the upper levels of management/CEO were compensated 20 times more (in 1965) or 58 times more (in 1989).
more?

I agree with your general sentiment, but not so sure about ALL of that.
- "Comfortable living" is probably right if you mean above poverty level, one car, small house, no fancy vacations.
- Doubt a single income John Deere family could send their kids to anything other than community college, maybe, for a couple years. If you mean a true single income family. (mom doesn't work at all)

My only source is personal experience, my dad worked at JD starting in the 60's, put in his 30 years. For all but about 5 years, my mom also worked full time and it was tough to send my sister and I to college. They paid about half and we worked for half. I don't think that would have happened if mom didn't work at all.

Again, not trying to bash the ideal, I want that for America. I pine for the Leave it to Beaver or Dennis the Menace lifestyle where dad works a low-stress 9-5 job and mom takes care of the home and kids, and still can do all the "things." I'm just not 100% sure it ever really existed for factory workers, at least not to that ideal.

 

[wxman1]

I don’t have the answers here, but let’s consider - manufacturing line workers were once paid enough so that one worker could provide a comfortable living for his family, both parents didn’t need to work outside the home, and that job allowed for that worker to send his kids to college and save for retirement. All while the upper levels of management/CEO were compensated 20 times more (in 1965) or 58 times more (in 1989).

While costs of life in general have continued to rise over the years (especially for higher education and housing), employee pay has not kept pace. It’s very, very difficult for a line worker to be the sole money earner for a family these days, especially if they have any hopes of sending their kids to college. And CEO pay is now over 220 TIMES that of their employees.

Again, I don’t know the answer to fix everything. Sure, just having the CEO give his salary back isn’t going to make every worker rich. But come on - there’s absolutely no justification for saying one top management executive is worth 250 line workers … *that’s* a real problem throughout American industry, the increasing gap between the guys who build the products & create the things to sell vs. the guys making the calls in the management suite. Isn’t making 60 or 70 (or heck, even 100) times more than the median employee enough? Why is it 220, 250, 275 times more?

A huge factor as well is delivering for investors above all else. The workers, especially the lowest levels are regarded as expendable compared to management/exec income and investor return. My employers former CEO got a $30M bonus for "seeing through" the company's buyout to a conglomerate that returned a lot for investors and nothing for employees.

 

[keepngoal]

A huge factor as well is delivering for investors above all else. The workers, especially the lowest levels are regarded as expendable compared to management/exec income and investor return. My employers former CEO got a $30M bonus for "seeing through" the company's buyout to a conglomerate that returned a lot for investors and nothing for employees.

My very small experience with this sort of thing was in 1997... I was offered $5k to be the last supervisor left on staff during a merger (essentially the firing manager for my co-workers). I declined, took the 8 week severance, then hired back on two weeks later in a different dept, same title and 10% more in pay. Weird.

 

[AuH2O]

A huge factor as well is delivering for investors above all else. The workers, especially the lowest levels are regarded as expendable compared to management/exec income and investor return. My employers former CEO got a $30M bonus for "seeing through" the company's buyout to a conglomerate that returned a lot for investors and nothing for employees.

This is always the challenge, Deere included. It's hard to look at Deere's recent performance by the metrics a public company is judged, and say their decisions on where to invest were the wrong ones. However, it's not like they can run an effective control case in that experiment, so there's a lot more of an "if it ain't broke..." approach.

The companies I worked for in retail distribution (very large public company) and manufacturing (large private company) both had similar approaches. Pay the workers on the floor above market, avoid strikes for union shops, avoid the desire to unionize in those that weren't union, have high standards for reliability and professionalism, and attract and retain the best people. I saw two union drives and both failed pretty easily, but you have to compensate people well, and you have to constantly work to make a good work environment. That means getting rid of people in management that don't do a great job.

 

[Clonehomer]

A huge factor as well is delivering for investors above all else. The workers, especially the lowest levels are regarded as expendable compared to management/exec income and investor return. My employers former CEO got a $30M bonus for "seeing through" the company's buyout to a conglomerate that returned a lot for investors and nothing for employees.

Well that's the key for all of this. The glory days that everyone is pining for all existed before ownership of these corporations moved to investors rather than family owned or small group owned companies. Now, those investors only have a financial investment for as long as they make their ROI. There's no sense of loyalty to the workers they hire. So the days of a company paying any more than they absolutely have to are gone. The pensions and Cadillac health plans are gone as well and they're not coming back. At some point, the workers in the union need to recognize that and demand better pay and short term gains to match what the company is going to do as well.

Perhaps rather than pensions, the workers need to tie 401k contributions to company profits. It's a lot easier for an employer to agree to increases in the high times if they know that those aren't going to continue when they hit the next low spot.

 

[NorthCyd]

I agree with your general sentiment, but not so sure about ALL of that.
- "Comfortable living" is probably right if you mean above poverty level, one car, small house, no fancy vacations.
- Doubt a single income John Deere family could send their kids to anything other than community college, maybe, for a couple years. If you mean a true single income family. (mom doesn't work at all)

My only source is personal experience, my dad worked at JD starting in the 60's, put in his 30 years. For all but about 5 years, my mom also worked full time and it was tough to send my sister and I to college. They paid about half and we worked for half. I don't think that would have happened if mom didn't work at all.

Again, not trying to bash the ideal, I want that for America. I pine for the Leave it to Beaver or Dennis the Menace lifestyle where dad works a low-stress 9-5 job and mom takes care of the home and kids, and still can do all the "things." I'm just not 100% sure it ever really existed for factory workers, at least not to that ideal.

Agree. Where I grew up I knew lots of factory workers and none of those households were single income households. Actually in some cases both parents worked at the factory. They made good livings, but single income and sending kids to college hasn't been true for at least 40 years, and probably not the case for decades before that either.

 

[agcy68]

Well that's the key for all of this. The glory days that everyone is pining for all existed before ownership of these corporations moved to investors rather than family owned or small group owned companies. Now, those investors only have a financial investment for as long as they make their ROI. There's no sense of loyalty to the workers they hire. So the days of a company paying any more than they absolutely have to are gone. The pensions and Cadillac health plans are gone as well and they're not coming back. At some point, the workers in the union need to recognize that and demand better pay and short term gains to match what the company is going to do as well.

Perhaps rather than pensions, the workers need to tie 401k contributions to company profits. It's a lot easier for an employer to agree to increases in the high times if they know that those aren't going to continue when they hit the next low spot.

Some companies provide their own stock as the matching funds for the 401K - a good way to keep employees pushing for the company to do well.

 

[CYEATHAWK]

I ran the numbers on $15M per year, and the net benefit would be just over 10 cents per hour.

So $4 dollars more "net" on a regular 40 hour week? That is $208 "net" over a 52 week year and more than likely around $175 "gross" over that same period. Quite the windfall.