QOTD: Skin In The Game

by Derek Kreindler

Published: May 22nd, 2014

With negotiations between the UAW and the Big Three set to open next year, FCA head Sergio Marchionne has already fired the first shots, calling for an end to the two-tier wage system and a new pay structure, tied to profit-sharing.

Speaking to Reuters, Marchionne discussed his plan to eliminate the two-tier structure, replacing it with a yet-untested system

“The way you do this is you grandfather the Tier 1s,” Marchionne said of the veteran workers. “You make them a dying class and you build a Tier 2 structure that sets the wage mechanism for the next generation.

“When you have a bumper year, you pay them as much as a Tier 1 would make if not more,” he added of the lower-tier wage scale. “But if I’m in the toilet because the markets are down or GM is successful, or Ford, and then we go down in earnings, then I think at the end of the day you share the pain with the company.”

While the UAW did not comment on Marchionne’s proposal, the UAW has historically been against two-tier wages as well. In my view, Marchionne’s proposal is interesting, in that it lets the hourly workers have some “ skin in the game” when it comes to their own financial success, as well as a feeling of pride and accomplishment when FCA succeeds. Given that FCA’s American units like Jeep and Ram are practically carrying the company, the intangible elements would be a strong motivator – of course, it also leaves workers exposed to managerial incompetence, the prospect of other business units dragging down overall performance or both. Let us know what you think in the comments.

#Chrysler #Fca #SergioMarchionne #Uaw #Union #Wages

Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Comments

Join the conversation

13 of 58 comments

Big Al from Oz on May 22, 2014

As I've stated I like what Sergio has done, he's appears to be good at business. Trying to entice the blue collared workers to accept risk with the UAW will be hard. I don't think the UAW will buy into Sergio's plan and there will be problems. Imagine a person working and earning more or less to how productive they are? The reality is the blue collared workers must realise the risk that the UAW has presented to them. A simple way to look at his is by the use of evidence that is credible and verifiable. I would use the foreign manufacturers in the US for this. If we use them we will see that the model they are using has less risk. The foreign manufacturers didn't require a bailout and they do maximise the socialist pandering and protectionism as well as the Detroit manufacturers. But I do think overall that the blue collar workers at these 'foreign' plants do accept more risk and manage it better. The UAW tries to impose anti-risk policies and guidelines thinking it is protecting it's workers, but at the end of the day look at the city of Detroit and the Detroit manufacturers and tell me who has the best business model for managing vehicle production in NA. To me the UAW promote the most destructive form of capitalism. That is to want what a 'captialist' has. But they want this without taking any risk. To the UAW clowns out there. To improve you lives you must take risk and when you screw up it isn't the general populace that has to pickup the pieces. This ideal you have only encourages more failure with less productivity and progress. You are the luddites of the modern world.

Like Reply
TW5 on May 22, 2014

If union workers want more than basic wage, they need to buy stock like the rest of us or negotiate for stock awards/options. We can't coddle these union people from cradle to grave, and bail out their pensions and healthcare, while giving them SS checks and MED benefits as well.

Like Reply
- See 7 previous
- Tonycd on May 22, 2014
  
  We used to be able to "coddle" the vast majority of working Americans with a living wage throughout their careers, healthcare from cradle to grave, and a pension. What changed? Contrary to popular belief, it's not that our nation and our employers no longer have the money to do all this as they did for generations, and remain successful. It's that today's successors to the Robber Barons of a century ago have collectively decided that they no longer WANT to do this. Which is why we're now told, by both political parties, that we still have money for fighter planes and aircraft carriers and missiles to be buried in Utah mountainsides, but not enough money to keep bridges from collapsing or babies from going malnourished or public schools from being shuttered for the enrichment of profiteers. As a society, we have collectively decided that our only overriding priority now is that it is absolutely intolerable for billionaires to pay the level of taxes they paid in our nation's most prosperous era ever, the middle of the 20th century. We will sacrifice absolutely anything else to make sure this abomination never happens again. I predict the future will continue to go well... for them.
  
  Like
- Baggins on May 23, 2014
  
  @tonycd I immediately ignore any poster who uses the word profiteers. I paid nearly 50% of my earnings last year to taxes. How about you?
  
  Like
- 05lgt on May 23, 2014
  
  @baggins I provided value to the economy for my wages, are you in the financial sector by chance?
  
  Like
- Thelaine on May 23, 2014
  
  @baggins Forgive them Mr. Baggins. Part of your tax money was used to send them to college, where you paid college professors to teach them that you were evil.
  
  Like
- TW5 on May 23, 2014
  
  @tony We've cut military spending in half since the 1960s. We don't have money to take care of the working class because Grandma and Grandpa are busy bankrupting the nation by taking advantage of the largesse and spendthrift in Social Security and Medicare. Sounds cruel, but if you look at the budget, the numbers are undeniable, and as poverty rates for the over 65 demographic have plummeted, the poverty rates for the under-24 demographic have soared. We are cutting discretionary spending for vital services to cover FICA spending and stealth Medicare spending in the Medicaid budget. Corporations are not designed to insure domestic tranquility or promote the general welfare, nor do they have sufficient legal power to do so. Government is supposed to pursue those lofty goals, yet they spend most of their time trying to make Corporate America do their work so they can get back to the job of wasting our money and damaging our economy in the process. Nobody wins when the government puts younger middle-class workers in poverty to take old people out of poverty, yet the government has labeled this arrangement as a "solution" for over 30 years. Who protects this system? You can be damn sure it's not corporations. They want federal spending to be focused on workers, and we'd be lucky if they found a way to make it happen.
  
  Like
- FormerFF on May 23, 2014
  
  @TW5 If you want to know where the money is going, look at what has happened to the income distribution in this county since the 70's. Social Security tax rates haven't changed in a long time.
  
  Like
- Danio3834 on May 23, 2014
  
  @TW5 It's no coincidence that the percentage of the population over the age of 65 is now the largest and is growing faster than any other demo. Seniors also vote in the highest numbers. None of this bodes well for those of us 1-2 generations below.
  
  Like
- TW5 on May 23, 2014
  
  @FF FICA tax is not a matter of rates, but of the FICA income threshold. In the 1960s and 1970s, the FICA tax threshold was roughly equal to 100% of median household income. Today, FICA tax is more than 200% of median household income. You've been taught to scapegoat the rich, but if you looked at the US systems of public administration, particularly for Social Security and Medicare, you'd soon realize that the US is brazenly stupid regarding matters of public admin. Uncle Sam spends more and delivers less than any developed nation.
  
  Like
Hillman on May 22, 2014

I don't see how profit can be a performance metric when the line worker is not making decisions that affect profit. I understand basing bonuses on quality control or other areas where the guy on the line can control. This will likely have no impact on performance and could lead to resentment.

Like Reply
- Victor on May 23, 2014
  
  The idea is that the individual productivity affects the company as a whole, almost like a butterfly effect. And by doing so, it affects generation of profit. This works just fine when everything is doing great, but it all falls to pieces in recession, for example. But it is no precise science. Every company establishes internally its own "metrics" for sharing profit, and the first issue is how fair those metrics seem for the average Joe. No easy thing to do. So, yes, it can generate a state of border line paranoia among staffers, and a lot of resentment. Guys like Paulo Lehmann say it is a good way to filter true talent and to get rid of the also-rans. It is in fact the most cruel and realistic way to compensate workers, if done right. To me these are inevitable, bad news to the workers involved.
  
  Like
DIYer on May 23, 2014

http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do?id=11054 For the record, here's what the old Chrysler (Iacocca, Eaton, the Germans, LaSorda, and Nardelli) paid out in the way of profit sharing during 25 years from 1986 to 2010. I don't think anyone got rich off this: UAW-Chrysler Profit Sharing History Plan Avg. BU Percentage Year Payment Factor 1986 $500 Flat $500 1987 $500 Flat $500 1988 $720 2.3% 1989 $0 0.0% 1990 $0 0.0% 1991 $0 0.0% 1992 $429 1.1% 1993 $4,300 10.5% 1994 $8,000 17.9% 1995 $3,200 7.0% 1996 $7,900 17.3% 1997 $4,600 10.2% 1998 $7,400 14.9% 1999 $8,100 15.9% 2000 $375 0.7% 2001 $0 0.0% 2002 $460 0.8% 2003 $0 0.0% 2004 $1,500 2.5% 2005 $650 1.1% 2006 $0 0.0% 2007 $0 0.0% 2008 $0 0.0% 2009 $0 0.0% 2010 $0 0.0% 1986-2010 (25 Years)=> Total Payments $49,384 Average Payment $1,975 Notes: 1) In 1985 negotiations, Chrysler and the UAW agreed to $500 payments for the 1986 and 1987 plan years and to negotiate a profit sharing agreement for the 1988 plan year. The plan negotiated in 1988 was designed to share a portion of profits (referred to as Total Profit Share) with eligible participants based on Chrysler’s Return on Sales (ROS). The plan allows employees to share in Chrysler’s U.S. operations profits upon the generation of the “first dollar of profits." 2) In 2010 there was no profit sharing payment; however, Chrysler paid a $750 discretionary bonus to its employees.

Like Reply