scmustang

you really enjoy throwing those high priced words around. i prefer to base my remarks upon the facts, not biased newspaper articles or union officials hoping to be reelected. on my next visit to cleveland, i will be sure to look you up. then we will see just how brave you are.

is there any possibility that you can divulge the sources of your information. here in dearborn, the final decision for all engine work other than the 20k ecoboost to cleveland is still up in the air. bids from all competing sites are still under review. to answer your cost statement, the current data is all that is being considered. lep has not had temporary employees since 2007. other sites in the running for the i4 are in similiar state.

the worst kept secret here in dearborn is that there are three reasons for the reopening of cep1. they are: for publicity for the corporation in these trying times in order to distance ourselves from our competition, in order to fulfill the requirements of the 2007 contract and to prove just how inefficient and incapable the cleveland complex is. the last is the reason that you have the manager in place that you do. she is there to review and report to corporate any and all data as to the value of the site. negotiations have been completed with the airport facility and the fact that cep1 is reopened only serves to raise the price of the property. there are a number of sites in the running for new work(dearborn engine/essex engine/lima engine) all of which are far superior in all metrics than the cleveland site. we have finally arrived at the place where we can effectively run the company according to dollars, not idiotic politics that drain the company coffers. the days of corporate welfare are gone now that we have superior leadership in place.

a memo forward just today from an early morning meeting states that 6 to 8 different catagories of current employees are under consideration for enhanced buyout packages. one of those enthusiastically discussed were those(approx. 8-900) who have had a break in service. understandably it would be a take it or leave it situation that reflects the previous requirements. minimum of 1 year of service prior to the break and meeting the growth package(28-30 years within calendar year 2008)

investigated this issue a bit and discovered that the story is indeed true. the entourage from cep was visiting lep without proper access. during their visit in a machining area they stated that they only agreed to the imt(or whatever terminology) in order to obtain new work and that they had no intention at cep to keep their word. a sufficient amount of drama was created and mr. farley performed as to his position.

i am with powertrain

an additional package is under review pending the outcome of the sign up window. that item being considered involves those with a break in service. that item, which has not been finalized, would involve those who achieved a minimum of 12 mos with the company prior to their break in service. those who meet that criteria would then be awarded an additional 10 years. then those individuals who qualify can enlist in the program which covers those employees who have at least 28 years but not yet 30. again the package is merely under consideration pending the outcome of the sign up window.

corporate here in dearborn has formulated a business case for buyouts and is putting the final touches on all possible variations. as always all business cases are based upon statistic probability. however, it is uncertain as to just how many employees will opt for the standard buyouts which greatly affect the possibility of usage of the break in service avenue. there will most likely be changes for the 2008 buyouts verses the 2007 version that primarily being a 90 day window of acceptance

it almost appears certain that if corporate does not achieve the desired 12k number of buyouts that additional measures will be taken. those measures include the offering (without lump sum incentive) of 30 year recognition for those employees who had a break in service. it will not be without requirements. there will be no age limitation but it would require that a minimum of 12 full months of service prior to the break be achieved. a window of 90 days is anticipated.

it is a variation of the d35-can and will be built along side and with any and all other variations of the current engine. sourcing has not yet confirmed whether lep or cep will be selected to build the rear drive applications of the program. proposals and counter proposals are in the works.

that work has been sourced to lep-job one is 3rd quarter 2009

the d37 lima product is for the mks that is being built at chicago/future assignments include the lincoln version of the flex and combined with the d35-18 different variations

the real fact of the matter is that every facility in powertrain has bid on every diesel project and every other project as well. brook park is not alone in the running-i have seen bids from everyone from cologne to lima to chihuahua and back. dearborn has yet to decide where to place not only the diesel but the other projects as well. everything is waiting upon the contract

was informed by committee today that a formula exists that could create a window of opportunity for those who have had a break in service. contributions to the formula would require a few but very important bits of data. 1)it would affect those hired in 1976-1979 2)those individuals would had to have worked a minimum of 12 full months and have achieved full employee status at that time and during that particular contract 3)they could not have had any break during those 12 months(medical/disciplinary/etc) 4)returned to work within a designated time period--that time period seems to indicate a return date(not yet verified) of no later than 09/1992(do not understand the calculations-just passing on what i have received thus far)

kitting has already been outsourced at lep by an outside vendor

it is interesting to note that the same verbage applies to lima and also that the d37 is being launched there as we speak-the engines are going down the line

its nice to see some logic and sanity. the contract will be what it is-some of it require some adjustment-some of it has been coming for a very long time-time to pay the piper-change or die

there is much discussion going around about this topic-are there provisions in the gm or chrysler contract that give time back towards retirement for those employees who have had a break in service? cannot seem to find a defintive answer from anyone on the subject. this involves those who hired in 1977-1979, laid off 1980-1981, then rehired 1991-1993. any data will be helpful. thanks.

if only for once we could see the data or a link that would provide the data-then these remarks would carry some weight-once again-without verifiable data-words are nothing more than opinion my opinion is that there will be no strike-veba will be funded at an agreeable rate-full disclosure of the remaining plants to be closed will be given-additional buyouts and time returned for those with gaps-stricter attendance policies-no reduction in wages-possible loss of cola to health benefits-workplace rule changes corporately to match those that have voted in a coa-it is all for the future of the company that we work for and the union that we support-change or die is no threat-it is reality

i absolutely know who you are-never said that my reputation was a poor one-lets respond with data and not just emotion and drama

sorry for the delay in my reply-the data is available if you know who to ask/and you do-i never stated that there wasn't enough work for mach. repair or electricians-personally know toolmakers and other trades who are grateful for the imt program so that they are not on the outside looking in-i am on the floor every day and i know who you are-we both have quite a reputation

according to my documentation-there are 3 facilities on the short list for sourcing this product in the u.s.-selection will be made based upon successful implementation of necessary pilot programs(coa/imt).

i am curious to know in which decade did lep have nearly 500 trades? the facility did have almost 4800 employees in 1979 when they produced a v8/the i6 and the ohc 4cyl. the reason for piloting a program is to work out the details on the plant floor. a number of trades(toomakers/cutter grind/pipefitters)with low seniority were in the gen pool. this pilot program gave them the opportunity to continue working as a ford employee as those trades were deemed no longer necessary. the data proved that it was inefficient to continue to pay employees 8-12 hrs daily while receiving 2-4 hrs of work. the local at lep has all of the data for anyone to see and the company has produced quite a convincing case. once again it is a brave new world--change or die.

very well said. thank you for speaking out for ALL responsible hard working ford employees

what an incredible grasp of the english language you seem to have. did you learn it in all of your alleged years of schooling? i have 30 years with this company and have spent every one of them on the shop floor.