udontkno

Those with high speed internet access can watch SICKO for free along with many other good documentaries. Here is the link. http://freedocumentaries.org/index.php

I'll tell you the freedoms that I have lost. 1.) I now have to strip down to my boxers to board an airplane, shoes, belt, everything in pockets! Good thing Bush is gone or he would have next asked for a cavity check! 2.) Now my drivers lic. has a national hologram so I can be put into a national database. This was also done before Bush left! 3.) I can no longer enter Mexico without my passport. This is a bunch of BS also, why would an illegal be trying to cross the boarder in his car without a vaild drivers lic. with a hologram? He wouldnt therefore Bush pushed this through to restrict me and my freedoms. I could go on but what does it really matter, we all know "The New World Order" which was announced by daddy Bush will hurt all working Americans in favor of the wealthy. I really hope a single payer health care system is in place before my children and grandchildren suffer without health insurance. The wealthy Republicans do not want single payer system because after the wealthy move all of our jobs outside of the country they will be the only ones paying the taxes to provide us x-autoworkers with health care. Hell this might even prevent the wealthy from moving our jobs overseas because they dont want to have to pay more in taxes.

Why would a tradesman give up their skilled rights for a temp. unskilled job? I could understand when some of the laid off trades from Atlanta assy. plant give up their skilled classification to go to an unskilled permenant job. They knew they would have a job even if it was not in a skilled classification. But when your temp. unskilled opening is finished will you only have recall rights to unskilled openings? Those tradesmen from Atlanta that gave up their skilled classification no longer have a right to go to a skilled opening in their trade. I doubt the union would allow a double standard to exist. After all the union is only strong because they require the company to treat everyone the same.

Wow I sure am glad this article was posted, I was going to buy a new Taurus. If Ford sells the Taurus as a police car they will hurt the brand as they did when they sold 50% of the Taurus production as rental car. This will pretty much prevent me from buying a new Ford because I dont want a small car Focus, wont buy a Mexican car Fusion, Milan, Z wont spend $40k on a MKS and will not hurt my status (as good or bad as that may be) with the neighbors by buying a police car. If Ford was savy, they would have continued to produce the last gen. Taurus as rental fleet/ the current gen. C. Vic as police fleet and the current gen. Focus as a price point entry car and produce them in the same plant. While this may not be possible today, if Ford retools into flex plants it could be possible in the future. On a side note, its amazing to me that Ford would ask for more concessions. I dont recall Toyota, Honda, or Nissan taking away from its employees. Maybe that is because those corporations managers are running their businesses better and want to maintain some form of employee relations. If Ford is so worried about GM and Chrysler, maybe the writing is on the wall and they will go belly up in the U.S.? I recently read GM didnt include its S. American or Asian operations in the bankruptcy, maybe thats because GM was using US profits and leverage to invest overseas as a means to escape from a large US manufacturing presence. While this wont happen today, when the economy picks up and GM's US plants need retooled, they will already have capacity overseas, the eye of the US govt off of them and they will walk away from some of the US plants. Ford did this with Atlanta, they promised Atl. Fusion, then took it to Mexico, Atl was then promised the Edge and Ford took it to Canada. Then Ford announced too much N. American capacity and they needed to close assy. plants. Oct. 2006 Atlanta closed. fast forward to the summer of 2008 Ford announces $3 billion investment in Mexico to build a new assy. plant and create 4500 jobs in Mexico with better then 80% of the cars to be shipped to the US and Canada (what happened to overcapacity?) Fords 2008 announcment was less then 1 yr since the 07 contract that allowed them to hire 2nd tier workers that would top out at $15 an hour with reduced benefits. Why did the union agree to that? To keep manufacturing jobs in the US, but the company spit in the UAW and workers face when they turned around and announced the Mexican expansion. While our union means well, they are getting taken advantage of and are losing the PR battle with Fords employees. The best thing Bob King could do is mandate Ford bring one of the two assy. plants production in Mexico back to the US or not only will Ford not get a No-Strike clause, they will be the target for the 2011 negotiation and the only way the union will not strike will be for Ford to bring that work to the US. Many will say thats crazy to strike, but I think Bill Ford would be crazy to let us go on strike and face the potential of the Ford family losing control of the company (bankruptcy) over 1 Mexican assy. plant, that my friends would be crazy. We the union workers have shown good faith in our givebacks and 2nd tier language with Ford but Ford has done nothing to show its workers that they are appreciative. So now its up to the union to level the playing field.

If the USA wasnt the bully on the block Canada would have more problems then they could imagine, it is the threat of the US protecting Canada that keeps Canada out of problems. Just like China protects N. Korea from the bully. If the US didnt spend the $1 trillion a year on "defense" or should I say offense purposes and spent maybe $100 billion to keep a National Guard in the US, then Americans could easily have health care for all. America spends around 4% (over $700 billion) of its GDP on military yearly, Canada spends around 2% (less than $18 billion) yearly. Why is it the US has to spend so much money on military? Canada seems to think they can defend themselves on less than $18 billion a year. Its because its about money and our military budgets are created by politicians so yes its political. I have nothing against Canada or Canadians but America use to be a great country until the wealthy corporations started pushing its agenda for profits. Well enough is enough and we shouldnt be protecting these corporations that want to move overseas for cheap labor. We shouldnt be spending $700 billion a year on bases around the world and weapons we dont need. Americans are no more protected then the Canadians but we spend 50 times more on military every year. Yes I will say it the Republican party is the problem when it comes to how much we spend on military. They want to keep the military corporations well funded at the Americans expense. Lets cut the budget 50% a year until we spend $100 billion or less on our military. Use that money to pay off the national debt or fund SS or Medicare, education, hydrogen vehicle research, health care. Until we get the greedy defense corporations off of the payroll we will continue to decline as a nation!

Yea we are divided and its because my tax money is protecting Japan, Germany, S. Korea and YES CANADA. You guys need to fight your own battles and not depend on my taxes to protect your nation!

There are two thoughts in our govt. one is held by Republicans that believe we should open our markets to the rest of the world (except Cuba, N. Korea and Iran) even if they dont open theirs. We should spend most of the tax money on our military (even if we dont need more bombs or tanks and not increase in military pay or benefits for soldiers). In exchange for other countries allowing us to maintain a military presence in their countries (Japan, Germany and S. Korea to name a few) we give those countries the ability to sell vehicles in the U.S. without allowing the U.S. to ship vehicles to those countries. Its a give and take negotiation and the Republicans in our govt. would rather give our tax money to Haliburton, Lockheed, Electric Boat, GE and the list goes on because this is BIG Money and BIG campaign contributions. The Democrats would rather have "fair trade" with labor and environmental agreements as conditions of trade. As Clinton did by shutting down military bases, most Democrats would rather spend money on education, health care, services and infrastructure rather then bombs to kill people. Lets not get this confused the U.S. spends more per year on military then the next 10 countries combined. I recall a few years ago a U.S. military man was accused of rapeing a minor Japaneese girl, the Japaneese people protested to have the military base closed in Japan. They dont want us their but if they want to keep shipping their cars to the U.S. they must allow us to keep our base. The goal is quoted as being "national protection" but the real issue is money. Our govt. wants to police the world on my dime, I want our military to protect American people, not American profits overseas. If Ford invest money overseas and the govt takes the plant then its Fords loss, they should have invested the money in the U.S. We need to demand that our govt close all of the bases in Japan, Germany, S. Korea and all of the other countries and start worrying about Americans on American soil.

Unfortunatly management throughout Fords system is acting like this. Yet they want the hourly employees to be team players. If Ford really wanted to improve its operations, they would rid the company of this group of supervisors and keep the team players. I really doubt Toyota or Honda supervisors are trying to screw their co workers, they are too busy trying to build team concepts and forge relationships that are inclusive and beneficial to the company. Ford could easily become the number one auto manufacturer in N. America if they got the lower level managers to work together.

As I have said not all Democrats are left. Bill Clinton was an example of this. Anti union Ron Reagan was the first Pres. to think of NAFTA, Republican G. Bush negotiated NAFTA but because the Dems. controlled the Senate could not get it passed. Bill Clinton who owed his election to Labor unions and enviro's went against both and pushed NAFTA. If you remember correctly, this was one of the big issues that cost the Dems control of the Senate in 1994 and put Newt in position to run a bigger game on workers. Yes the moral Newt Gingrich who gave his wife divorce papers when she was in the hospital with cancer. I will repeat myself Mr. Bill Gates (because you cant be a working person if you support anti worker candidates) "Not All Democrats Are Left of Center". It is these Democrats along with the Republicans that are pushing for the "Cash for Clunkers" to include all vehicles regardless of where the vehicle is produced. The left of center Democrats wanted only US built vehicles to qualify. The left of center Democrats also wanted all stimulas money to be spent on goods made in America, not China, Mexico ect... So you can cling all you want to Clinton but at the end of the day Clinton was not a left of center Democrat and his actions along with the Repblicans are hurting working class Americans today. NAFTA was the start, Clinton allowing China into the WTO was an even bigger mistake then NAFTA. Now Ford, GM and all of the other multi nationals love this because they can escape labor and enviro. laws but for working people it has been a disaster!

Any thing is possible but I dont see Ford opening up or building new plants in the USA when GM is moving outside of the country to escape, labor cost, environmental restrictions and taxes. Until our government makes all importers pay their fair share, companies will continue to take advantage of moving overseas. I hate to get political but the Republican agenda is the main contributor but there are some Democrats that believe in free trade without restrictions. Republicans are financed by the wealthy and corporations and therefore are obligated to them. Labor unions, poor people and working people have supported Democrats in huge numbers and will be given a better shake by them. I dont consider the Democrats to be big time left, I think in todays time they are very center. Its just the Christian Cons. Republicans are so far right the center Democrats seem left of center. Until trade agreements benefit working people and the poor, companies moving outside of the country only to ship product back to the US and health care for all is addressed, working people will be at the mercy of the multi nationals. Yes even white collar jobs are working people!

I could understand why the auto task force wants the health care benefits. Maybe this will help push a single payer or national health care bill. The way I see it is over the years the vast majority of UAW workers never supported a single payer system or national health care. They said I have insurance why should I push for national health care. Now the hen has come home to roost and the auto companies cannot afford to pay for our health care plus the poor people who have no health care but get services and those with insurance make up the difference through raised medical cost. If the union workers were more active and pushed for health care for all then they would not have to worry about losing their benefits. Maybe those of us who are more fortunate and have good benefits should stand up for those who may have never caught a good break and worked in a union shop that negotiated benefits. Working people are all in the same boat and we can either strool though life or we can become united and help others.

I understand what the new hires will be getting but if Ford becomes very profitable by 2013 as is projected, the union will hopefully push for new hires to be folded into a pension plan other then a 401k. 401k's are not good retirement plans for blue collar workers, they were designed for executives that made big salaries and bonuses as a tax shelter. Once the courts ruled that all workers would be entitled to 401k's, big businesses decided to take the pension monkey off of their backs. I would say that over 99% of blue collar workers have little understanding of how investments work and thus are at a disadvantage in a 401k. Unions traditionally recognized this and have avoided the loss of pensions in favor of 401k's. If you dont believe me do a little research and find out how PE's are calculated and then go ask those you work with if they can explain how a PE (price to earnings) ratio is figured. Its not that blue collar workers are dumb, its just that traditionally working people have made enough to get by and save for a rainy day. Now they are being put in the position to invest for retirement when the hot shots at big companies like Ford couldnt invest well enough to cover Ford's pension obligations or health care obligations and now both are short. The UAW bailed them out by allowing a VEBA based on 50% of the future obligations which the company is now allowed to fund half of that with stock. I consider the pension to be the second best benefit behind health care and we all know we wont vote to pay for our own health care.

I hope your right! I have thought exactly what you said until I read the benefits book it made me question what they were trying to say. I called an IUAW benefits rep and he said my pension would be reduced if I retire before I was 62 yrs of age. As I said page 173 of the benefits book says that upon hitting 62 yrs of age and drawing SS, my SIB will drop off and my Life Income Benefit will be reduced by the percentage next to my age of retirement on page 173. I still couldnt believe it so I called the NESC and talked to a retirement specialist, who said I will take the hit as described in the benefits book. I still do not believe it though and I called another IUAW rep who wasnt sure. If it is as you describe could someone please try to explain what pg. 173 refers to? This language will force me to stay until 62 yrs of age or death.

That will result in a big no vote from this camp with the possibility of a strike if Ford wants to push us in a 401k!

What does page 173 of the new benefits book refer too? This is the early retirement benefit reduction? Your life income benefit would have increased each year that you work per the chart on page 173 but when you retired it was frozen at that level. I dont want to burst your bubble but you are either misinformed or you do not have all of the data to your disposal.

I thought it sounded wrong also so I called an IUAW benefits rep and he said that it was exactly how I explained it. Finding it hard to believe, I called the NESC and the retirement specialist said it was exactly how I explained it to you. Maybe you guys should double check, I double and triple checked and was told it was exactly how I explained it. Now if the book is wrong, the IUAW benefits rep is wrong and the NESC retirement specialist is wrong, please enlighten a brother!

Look at page 173 in your current "Your Employee Benefits" book. It clearly states Your life income benefit rate multiplied by your years of credited service multiplied by "the percentage of your life income benefit payable". This is the amount you are paid when your supplement drops off at age 62. If you are 50 yrs of age with 30 yrs of service your "percentage of life income benefit payable is 38.3%, if you are 51 yrs of age it is 41.5%, 52 yrs of age 45% and so on. Many people are not aware of this but it is a drastic cut in pay when you hit 62 yrs of age and your supplement drops off. Thus a person who makes between $28.16 and $28.44 per hour would be Class code B. This would amount to $53.80 Life Income Benefit. If this person is 50 yrs of age with 30 yrs of service you would take the $53.80 and multiply it by 30 (yrs of service) = $1614 per month times 38.3% = $618.16 per month when he turns 62 yrs of age. If he is married it will be even less. I dont know about you but it would be tough to live off of SS plus $600 a month. Can it be done? Yes but I would perfer to have emergency money or travel money ect.. you get my point. A person would be crazy to retire at age 50 with 30 yrs unless they inherited big money or was beyond fortunate in the stock market.

It is not reasonable for a person under the age of 60 yrs old to retire. Most people do not realize that if you are 50 yrs old with 30 yrs of service, you will only get approx. $600 a month pension from Ford when you hit 62 yrs old. Plus your SS benefit will pay only 80% since you would be drawing SS early. This really dosnt make much sense for most people. I have worked and been careful with my money saved in TESPHE but because of the hit I took in my 401K and the hit early retirement will take I will not be able to retire at 50. I understand your frustrated about layoffs but dont take it out on the seniority workers most would leave if they could afford to. But as I have said why should I put in 30 yrs of my life and only expect $600 a month when I hit 62 yrs of age. If you want the older workers to retire push for the union to honor years of service X Lifetime benefit with no age reduction!

The Milan and MKZ that I saw at the dealership last weekend said the trans was made in Japan. But we are still only talking about less than 1000 jobs total in the US that build engines and soon to be 6 sp trans for the Fusion, Milan and MKZ. When you look at the number of jobs that Ford employs to assemble these cars, I would gladly give up the 1000 jobs to gain the over 6000 assembly jobs. 6000 assembly jobs would have kept Atlanta, Norfolk and possibly Twin Cities open. The new Fiesta is creating over 4500 jobs in Mexico even though the UAW gave Ford a two tier wage that could have dropped the labor cost dramatically if the vehicle was built in the US. As I have said before you guys justify buying vehicles made overseas how ever you want, I refuse to buy into the corporate line because Ford is just waiting for GM to screw the workers over so they can demand the same! I will look out for my union brothers and sisters jobs and hope one day they become educated enough to do the same for me!

The I4 powertrain for the Fusion, Milan and MKZ are built in Mexico, the 5 sp auto trans is built in Japan. How many engines do you build per hour? Unless you only have a couple hundred workers, that engine goes in more then the listed Mexican cars. The Mexican plant that assembles those cars employ over 6000 workers. While I dont want to see anyone in the US lose their job, if this is the only way we can make a statement then we need to do what is right. My plant also deals with Fusion, MKZ and Milan parts but I will never support or talk that product up! If Ford outsources your engine will you be able to transfer to Mexico? http://www.azstarnet.com/altsn/snredesign/...darticles/88336

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/ar...40&Symbol=F Why do so many union workers support Ford products in Mexico? GM is putting the screws to its hourly workforce and if we purchase Ford products made in Mexico then we are asking for the same from Ford. I have had local union reps argue that the Fusion, Milan, MKZ and soon to be Fiesta is a good purchase because it makes Ford more profits. I say who cares! If the only way Ford can make a profit is by selling Mexican cars to US autoworkers then we are in a world of trouble. If the Mexican vehicles did not sell in the US, the US automakers would not close our plants and open new plants in Mexico. The best thing that could happen to US autoworkers is if GM cant sell any of these non US vehicles. As far as I am concerned they can go into a liquidation if they want to do this! At least our union gets it!

I cant see how the union would agree to ILO. If the plant is getting retooled and there is an estimated rtw date, they should be placed on a tlo. But in todays environment who knows what is being agreed on!

Not true the company has the right to send you home if you have any alcohol in your system. We had a guy who drank a couple of beers around 2 am and at work the next morning 6:30 am they tested him he blew a .02 and was sent home.

Hate to burst your bubble but the executives and engineers at Ford have been driving and breaking down all the competitions vehicles for years. In 1995 I was at the new product development center in Allen Park and Fords engineers had a competators vehicle in there measuring and inspecting it. Ford also has a facility with I believe every wiring harness ever made for all brands of automobiles. We really dont know the half of this companies operations.

This offering makes Ford have 2.9 billion shares outstanding. Friday at the shareholder meeting Ford will be asking for the right to print 20% more shares then the current outstanding shares. Lets say they go with roughly 20% this would make Fords outstanding shares at 3.5 billion. If Ford made its all time record profit of 9 billion dollars, this would result in around a $2.50 per share profit. Auto stocks tend to have a lower P/E than most industries, I assume Ford would trade at 8 times earnings which would make Ford stock be valued at $20 per share. This is with Ford making record profits. Shareholders should be irate at the new stock offerings because if Ford maintained its roughly 2 billion shares and profited $9 billion this would equate to roughly $4.50 per share with an 8 P/E resulting in a share price of $36.00. This is getting out of hand and the shareholders should raise high holly hell this Friday. I for one will wait till I am at break even and then I will be selling all of my shares, never to buy again. The only other stock I would avoid besides auto is airline!