Their hourly wage is what?

Well, at least the Times qualifies the statement, but isn't this $74/hr claim still wrong?

Currently, the average U.A.W. member costs G.M. about $74 an hour in a combination of wages, health care and the value of future benefits, like pensions. Toyota, by comparison, spends the equivalent of about $45 an hour for each of its employees in the United States.

Base wages between the Big Three and the foreign companies are roughly comparable, with a veteran U.A.W. member earning $28 an hour at the Big Three compared to about $25 an hour at Toyota’s plant in Georgetown, Ky. (Toyota pays less at its other American factories.)

But the gap in labor costs becomes larger when health care, particularly for thousands of retirees and surviving spouses, and job security provisions are considered.

I'm unclear -- genuinely so -- how health care provisions for "thousands of retirees and surviving spouses" considered part of a current UAW worker's hourly wage. I won't argue that the union won't need to make concessions on retiree benefits and it sounds like they've already agreed on changes to the job security provisions, but the implication is that workers take home $75/hr gross, and that's wrong and misleading.

Are you smarter than a fifth grader? If so, please explain. Or lets all be fourth graders and agree it's all the union's fault.