Maislebandit

Like many other models that never become available in the states, I think there would definitely be interest. Additionally, this type of hybrid technology as a whole should be the next step instead of jumping right to fully electric. Beyond the obvious benefits, it would also allow customers to warm up to the transition instead of the flat reception it’s getting currently. Sadly, I believe it’s mostly politics that are driving this.

There is a fundamental difference between apprentices and in progression production and that’s the safety factor. Apprentices are never to be used as manpower and only work independently in rare circumstances and even then it’s a judgement call by a journeyman who they are working under.

Congratulations and good luck on your journey. These times certainly do add to the stress of your situation. On the bright side however, if the contract results in any kind of layoffs they usually follow the 10:1 journeyman to apprentice ratio, so it may afford you some protection and seeing that you just came on that may allow you to weather the storm.

Post war everything was booming. An era of great prosperity where a blue collar worker could support a family well and have a spouse at home for the kids unlike today. Autoworkers should’ve been no exception, so forgive me if I fail to follow your logic there. As far as the imports go, they stepped into the game with zero legacy costs and benefited from technology and an infrastructure that the big three had already developed. Trolling? Idk how you figure anything I stated equates to that but ok?

Absolutely. Not any reason to turn down any apprenticeship!

I don’t know exact current scale numbers, but I can tell you that the big 3 trades were very close to being on par 20 some years ago and the gap has widened since with the big 3 lagging behind.

How can they control 100% of the market and skyrocket above the rest of it at the same time? It’s my contention is that the big 3 is what suppliers and manufacturing in general have historically based their pay scale on and the transplants did the same when they arrived on scene. I agree worker pay and CEO pay are nothing to do with each other directly but a bell weather that should be a constant ballpark X times the amount. When CEO pay outpaced a line workers pay by some %1000 in the past 4 decades, there an obvious imbalance. I don’t know why you feel this is a pointless debate. It’s literally what the whole thread is about. You contribute to it then say you’re done and it’s not worth it. Just because you, me and some others may be unmovable on the subject, it doesn’t mean that others including non contributors won’t be subject to differing viewpoints.

You can call collective bargaining whatever you’d like, I think extortion is a bit extreme. The lowest common denominator shouldn’t dictate what a fair wage is. Is it really a closed market or is just that UAW are the ones that have blazed the trail? Foreign companies, suppliers and down the line set wages based on what the UAW garners for the membership. If they accepted lower wages to match foreign autoworkers you can bet the foreign autoworkers drop their pay accordingly and so on down the food chain.

Lol. Having the lower tier since the late 2000s is the leverage and excuse that has been used to deny legacy workers any type of raise that even remotely would’ve kept up with inflation. Older workers gave back a negotiated raise. They also agreed to suspend cola. I’d say the older workers have been greatly affected. Decades later with the reaping of the benefits of these concessions, record profits, exorbitant raises, perks for upper management and you want older workers to give up already stagnated pay to help out newer workers. That’s rich. ?

He is the first president that is directly elected by the membership and has to regain trust as those that preceded him were less than honest and transparent. I think it’s more about making a solid first impression that he is holding their interests above anything else.

The argument isn’t so much about taking concessions when times got hard, or opening contracts midway to save the company. The gripe is that these things were not returned as promised when prosperity was realized and contracts secured thereafter were subject to a less than credible representation of the union’s membership. Not the company’s fault there, you give a dog meat it’s going to eat it. Just saying that’s the general consensus among the rank and file. Profit sharing and other benefits are absolutely entitled to employees, it’s all whether it’s agreed upon in the contract. I agree about having no signing bonus. Any contract worth accepting should stand on its own merits and a signing bonus is nothing more than dangling the carrot.

Any issue with differing viewpoints is worthy of debate. Isn’t that a fundamental function of this forum? As long as it’s civil discussion, I don’t see the issue. Anyone should be free to engage, withdraw or just agree to disagree. Suggesting otherwise has the hint of recommending silence and that’s a step towards censorship.

I enjoy a spirited debate and believe discourse is a healthy element to further different viewpoints. I certainly have no desire to resort to personal attacks so I’m not sure why you believe that was the direction it was heading. Again, have a good one.

As I said you are entitled to your opinion, I think I made my point as well. You are also free to reply or not reply. There is no requirement for participation in discourse nor the need for an explanation to withdraw. Have a good one!

That’s your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to it. However, market wages are fluid, decided completely on what they will bear and traditionally patterned off government scale and UNION wages, so how it can be above that is an interesting question. Pleas to open a contract and wrest concessions to keep the business alive with the promise of reinstating them when prosperity returns and then reneging on that promise passes the sniff test as unfair business practices to me. Labeling that as extortion is dramatic, over the top sensationalism. You do know actual extortion is a crime, yes?

I don’t think it’s an outrageous question. Obviously they both have a cards in their hands but it’s company who has the ultimate trump card. There may have been a time when the tail was wagging the dog, but I don’t believe that’s what’s happening currently. Just IMO.

There certainly are some less than desirable qualities of the union and a small percentage of members that take advantage of liberal policies. That said…. As far as outrageous demands and extortion tactics go…. Take into account the raise given back decades ago that was never reinstated as promised when prosperity returned, along with the other concessions to keep Ford out of bankruptcy and then the concessionary contracts that followed. The tier system that pitted employees against one another and made possible the prosperous executive pay and benefits over the same period of time. When you account for these details, the demands become not so outrageous. Exercising a legal and legitimately accepted act such as striking when negotiations breakdown is a far cry from extortion. Again, where would the UAW membership need to be to just break even from concessions and inflation adjustments from 15 years ago?

Isn’t it common practice to ask for the maximum and settle somewhere in the middle? I would like to pose a simple question to those who think the demands are over the top. Taking into account the raise that was “given back” and not repaid as promised when things got better and the elimination of COLA, where would the hourly wage need to be increased to today to just break even? Take that number and subtract it from what is being demanded. Then ask yourself if the demands are really that outrageous.

Sterling had the capacity when it supplied all the axles for the previous ranger and bronco.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-ceo-mark-fields-sticks-up-for-muslims-224349618.html I do not wish to discuss the main story here or do I intend to be political. My sole interest is in the generalized presumption that Ford leadership has taken about its employees. It seems Mr Fields has received some "notes" about how much pride "our employees" have. What employees is he referring to? The ones in Mexico? China? Because from what I've seen on the good ole USA, it is at an all time low. Ford has divested in its US employees for quite some time, so it should be no surprise. This is not my opinion, this is what I and many others have witnessed in the last couple decades. Does anyone remember the "equity of sacrifice?" Me Fields, I know thousands of "our employees". I have met not a one of them that you have ever spoke to. If you want to speak for us, maybe you should come to our run down facilities and have a chat. If you honestly believe in the "notes" you are getting, I invite you to come see for yourself.

Sterling

Dude, I'm sort of agreeing with you here.

Right, it wouldn't make sense to go whole hog here. That kind of investment is reserved for places like China or Mexico.

Not true at all locations

It torques me off that our contract details are front page news. No one else has their business aired like this. On top of that they state that all members now have a path to top pay. This is just a flat out lie. So where's the accountability with the media? I think the IUAW has a direct link to the media and they LIE!