A friend of mine (yes, I have friends) recently told me he took umbrage with comments made last Tuesday in Ranger Rick’s column titled, “The Economic Times They are a-Changing.”
He was so outraged by Rick’s assertion about purported high costs of union dues payments that he produced his own pay stub from Dec. 5, 1982, to back up his point.
He also asked that because Ranger Rick writes his column under an assumed name, he should be given the courtesy of rebuttal under a nom de plume. I chose the pseudonym George L. Deemer, which I used myself a couple of decades ago in an effort to avoid detection and trouble.
Ranger Rick posited, “I worked for a UAW company early in my career. In almost five years, I received a 7 cent raise in base pay and they helped drunk, drugged and chronically absent fired employees return to their jobs. The only thing they did for me is take money for union dues — I was never fired and rarely missed work, being on the job on time day after day. I didn’t need the union, but it sure needed my $40 a month ($40 was a huge portion of my earnings in those days).”
Mr. Deemer, also a member of the UAW, showed me his pay stub from 34 years ago, approaching the third year of the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
He took issue with the assertion that Rick paid $40 a week in union dues. His stub showed gross pay of $557.60 for 40 hours. His dues were listed at $27.88.
After being docked for federal and state taxes and social security as well, his take-home pay was $380.41.
The stub also reported he was making $11.81 per hour at his job, so his union dues amounted to a little more than two hours of work.
Mr. Deemer spent virually an entire career at this job before retiring. To this day, he says he is grateful for the living wage he was paid and the benefits he received as a union member and he wishes today’s employees were accorded the same respect.
He added that he still pays union dues, though a smaller amount, in his retirement.
Mr. Deemer also maintained that employees who were members of the UAW were not saddled with such outrageous paltry wage increases as 7 cents that he had to wonder about Rick’s veracity or his quality of work.
Mr. Deemer confessed to not being a wordsmith and very politely asked me to pass along his rebuttal in this form. I politely granted his request in the interests of equal time.
I have to question your math on Mr. Deemer’s pay results. Just looking at the numbers you present reportedly on Mr. Deemers pay statement:
Gross Pay: $557.60 divided by 40 hrs. = $13.94 per hr.
Net Pay (take home): $380.41 divided by 40 hrs. = $9.51 per hr.
Mr. Deemer evidently didn’t know what he made hourly. It was greater than the reported $11.81 per hr. Maybe he was paid on piecework? Maybe he had a shift premium? Maybe he had an hourly bonus?
Please report math accurately if it can be corrected by someone with a calculator.
So, according to Mr. Deemer’s pay statement, he paid $27.88 a month, which I’m sure varied depending on year he started to time he retired. Now he’s given a retirement check from GM or UAW (whoever is in control of retirements for GM workers now) of a certain amount per month which you state he still pays union dues. I challenge Mr. Deemer and everyone else with this type of retirement to look at what those union dues and a few more hours of pay invested in a 401K would return much more than what he is receiving now in a retirement check. And there’s no guarantee he will keep receiving this if the company fails in the future (bankruptcy). And don’t say it won’t, it has filed bankruptcy before.
The information was taken directly from the pay stub. For me, it was not a matter of math, it was a matter of reporting accurately what was on the pay stub. I had a 401k and lost half of it in the 2008 crash.
And you took all of it out after losing half? If you did, you missed out on the uptick and growth from that time on. If you wouldn’t have touched it, you would have all of your 2008 amount before the crash and probably doubled by now. Investing is for the long haul, not for the timid and those wanting security and growth without risk. If you want 100% security and no risk, it doesn’t exist, unless you’re willing to invest in annuities and give your money away. The paltry sums you get in return and management fees make the annuity manager rich and you at subsistence level. One way to invest but very poor growth usually. You get SS from the government, so be satisfied with the crumbs they throw your way.