Fun with numbers

Here we have GM vs Toyota: By the Numbers, as presented by NPR. One set of numbers in particular has been bandied about, particularly by anti-union folks:

Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker
GM: $73.73
Toyota: $48

This, we are told, is evidence that the unionized workforce at GM is extracting far too many concessions that they don't deserve and dragging down the company with their outrageous demands. The largely nonunionized (only a quarter of Toyota's North American plants are unionized, while all of GM's plants are) workforce at Toyota plants are much cheaper.

However, that NPR link also contains this statistic:

Average Hourly Salary for Non-Skilled, Assembly Line Worker
GM: $31.35/hour
Toyota: $27/hour

What's the deal here? If the average worker at GM isn't making all that much more per hour than his counterpart at Toyota, why is the average labor cost per hourly worker so high? Well, that larger number factors in benefits like health care and, importantly, retiree (pension) benefits being paid out to retired employees (spreading out the costs of retiree benefits over currently active workers). Now take a look at this statistic from the NPR link on the North American workforce of each company:

GM:
White collar: 36,000
Production: 106,000.
Retirees: 460,000

Toyota:
White collar: 17,000
Production: 21,000
Retirees: 1,600

The ratio of retirees to active workers is substantially different between the two companies. Indeed, GM has more retirees than it does active workers. Thus projecting the costs each company is incurring through its responsibilities to retirees onto the active work force makes it look like active workers at GM are getting much, much more than their Toyota counterparts. The reality is that it isn't clear--at least from these numbers--that the differential is as large as that "Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker" figure makes it appear.