[Jamo]

To be honest, and as much as I hate unions, I read it the same way Wes does. In collective bargaining jargon, "labor costs" implies something more than pure wages, but would include only direct labor cost items...health and retirement benefits, shift premiums, etc., and not any non-labor costs such as a portion of facility overhead.

Given that the two parties are making statements to the press, I would assume they are being very specific about the terms they are using given probable NLRB oversight of their dispute.

That being said, you can also assume that the cuts, even though they are referred to as "wage cuts" are likely being proposed in such a way where the company is saying it wants a $14 reduction and suggesting that the union figure out where those cuts can come from...insurance premiums, lower shift premium rates, etc., but that the workers/union are feeding it to the press as money out of their paycheck.

Very common terminolgy...

I agree...competition in this day and age is worldwide. You can argue about politics, NAFTA, outsourcing or anything else all you want...it does not matter. Just be damn happy our buck ain't worth much on the world stage right now or we would have even more of a problem selling our products beyond our borders or competing against goods coming in. But given the references made in the article by the employer, it would seem that the UAW has been whipsawing them within their own industry...employment suicide for their own members.

Wes...not sure I understand your reference to a lockout, given the offensive strike action. Depends on whether permanent replacements are hired rather than a closure.