daytrader millionaire

National Ford Council May 26, 2011 The National Ford Council met on Thursday May 26, 2011. The first topic of business was the Equality of Sacrifice Grievance. Darryl Nolen reported that the grievance is moving forward again with both the company, and the UAW back meeting at World Headquarters. The UAW has made it very clear that this grievance will be resolved by the time contract negotiations begin. Darryl introduced William (Bill) Karges who works as a lawyer for the UAW at Solidarity House. Bill gave an overview from the beginning, and talked about how the arbitrator was named. David Grissom from the National Academy of Arbitrators was requested by the UAW and the company agreed. The UAW is very pleased with this arbitrator. Bill talked about the two dates that were requested by the UAW for information. He has stayed in contact with Steve Kulp from the Ford Legal Department discussing what the information that the UAW was requesting. During this time of communication with Mr. Kulp, he replied to one of Bill’s notes that he would no longer have the authority to make any decisions concerning the grievance, and from that pint on it would be at UAW President Bob King and Ford Executive Vice President John Fleming’s level. President King gave Mr. Karges the direction to move forward to which Mr. Kulp basically said that he did not care what direction was given to Mr. Karges, but he was directed to not make any decisions concerning the grievance or any information dealing with it as well. The Arbitrator subpoenaed the desired info from the company, and finally the company agreed to meet. The first available date was May 12, 2011. Once the meeting took place the company spent the first three hours of the meeting arguing over the confidentiality agreement. Before they could come to terms on the agreement, the financial person for the company left the meeting because he had another meeting to attend. By the time that the UAW had a chance to even look at the information there was no time to discuss any questions that the UAW had. At that point the UAW took the information to review and came up with several questions for the company. The information that the company gave was very general and the UAW has asked for more detailed facts and figures and also has asked the company for another meeting. The UAW is waiting for the company to respond on the next meeting. Currently, it is felt that we have two options. The first option is; if the company does not provide the detailed info, the UAW would take the case to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). This is not the option that the UAW really wants to go. The second option is; the UAW would sue the company for the detailed info that has not been provided as of yet. If the company provides the info then neither option will be necessary. This information brings us up to date with the grievance. The International UAW has committed that this will be resolved by contract negotiations. UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles Report- The first thing that Vice President Settles talked about was the importance of the upcoming strike vote. This brought strong support from the council. Jimmy talked about the future of the UAW, and the importance of organizing. He reminded the council that 30 years ago we were 160,000 strong. He gave a lot of credit to President Obama for what he has done for the automobile industry. He told us that it is very important for our future to keep Obama in office. At this point he talked about the upcoming negotiations and how proud he is of the National Negotiators. He has great confidence that they will do a great job for our memberships. In closing, he talked about the Equality of Sacrifice Grievance. The mentioned the crazy money that Alan Mulally has received and the sacrifices that the hourly workforce has made. He said that the company has made many delays, and the reason why is they are concerned with the grievance. He said: “they should be”. He told the council that originally the company wanted to work something out on the grievance, and VP Settles told them that he wanted Ford Motor Credit back into the Profit Sharing formula. The company refused to do it. So, Jimmy said there will be no deal! Our National Negotiators will officially begin on July 18, 2011 with the kickoff handshake on July 28, 2011

Everyone just needs to quit paying union dues until they represent everybody! We need to contact Teamsters see if they would be more fair to all members not just certain locals/select few!!!!

I want someone to explain how we are not getting at least $10000 in 2000 we received 8800 on average made less in an hourly wage (we received 5 raises since year 2000) and the company is going to make more this year then in 1999. Also there is only 42000 employees now insted of 115000 then to pull from the total profit set aside.

Well said that is around the figure I was coming up with to.

I don't know where you get your info from but its all wrong! Here is the formula, Company Benefits – Profit Sharing Plan Profit Sharing Plan The Profit Sharing Plan was first negotiated between Ford and the UAW in 1982. It provides a source of income for employees which allows them to share in the growth and success of the company resulting from: • Increased efficiency • Improved product quality • Operating competitiveness In the past 24 years: • About $5.3 billion has been paid to Ford hourly employees under the plan. • An eligible employee would have received, on average, a total of $48,439 over this period (see page 25). Eligibility Full-time U.S. hourly employees are eligible, including certain employees who are terminated during the year. Total Profit Share Determination Total profit share is paid from the first dollar of profits and is determined by summing the following: • 6% of profits up to 1.8% of sales, plus • 8% of profits between 1.8% and 2.3% of sales, plus • 10% of profits between 2.3% and 4.6% of sales, plus • 14% of profits between 4.6% and 6.9% of sales, plus • 17% of profits that exceed 6.9% of sales Profits and Sales: • Include only those applicable to defined U.S. operations. • Profits are before-tax (except Ford Credit) and before management bonuses and profit sharing. Employee's Profit Share Determination Individual profit sharing amounts are determined as follows: (1)Hourly Allocated Profit Share = Total Profit Share x Number of Eligible Hourly Employees Number of Eligible Hourly and Salaried Employees (2)Profit Sharing Percentage Factor = Hourly Allocated Profit Share / Total Eligible Pay Of All Eligible Hourly Employees (3)Employee's Profit Share = Profit Sharing Percentage Factor x Employee's Eligible Pay Distribution is made not later than two and one-half months following the end of the Plan year. Here is a article explaining how much was paid out total divided by total employees which was 160000 at the time. We have only 40589 employees on the rolls today which would divide the pot and they made more profit this year!!! T Profit-Sharing Record at Ford Special to the New York Times Published: February 22, 1988 DETROIT, Feb. 21 — The Ford Motor Company said Friday that it would distribute $635 million to its United States employees in what it said was the largest profit-sharing payout ever made by an American company. About 160,000 workers who are eligible will receive an average of $3,700 each, up from last year's record $2,100, the company said. Skilled workers with substantial overtime could receive as much as $5,000, said Tom Foote, a Ford spokesman. ''Over all, it's larger than most people expected,'' he said. Last Thursday, the company reported a net income of $4.6 billion for 1987, the largest ever for an American automobile manufacturer.

The cuv thats built on the b platform is the Ford Fiesta Trail or Ford Ecosport they already build them in BRAZIL not the kuga that is built on c platform "focus"

Looks like there will be a announcement tomorrow. Ford adding 1,200 workers to build Explorers at Torrence Ave. By: John Pletz Jan. 25, 2010 (Crain’s) — Ford Motor Co. plans to add 1,200 jobs when it begins making the Explorer sport-utility vehicle at its Far South Side factory on Torrence Avenue later this year, Crain’s has learned. Gov. Pat Quinn is due to join Ford executives when they announce the Explorer production at 9 a.m. Tuesday at the plant near 130th Street. Plans to bring the Explorer from Louisville, Ky., to the under-utilized Chicago plant were first reported by Crain’s nearly a year ago. The move was helped by recent tax credits approved by Mr. Quinn. Adding the Explorer probably will mean bringing a second shift back to the Torrence Avenue plant, which has been down to one shift for the past year. The factory now employs about 1,400 workers. Ford’s parts-stamping plant in Chicago Heights, which employs about 750 workers, also would be helped by the arrival of another vehicle at Torrence Avenue. Ford is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Illinois on launching the new Explorer model that will be built here. It has been retrofitting the plant for months. The Explorer, one of Ford’s most popular vehicles, has been redesigned for a smaller, more fuel-efficient car platform that’s produced at the Chicago plant. The new Explorer is expected to go on sale in the new model year starting in August or September and likely would be the plant’s highest-volume vehicle. It’s the latest good news involving the Torrence Avenue plant, which last year began making a redesigned Taurus. The new Taurus has been selling better than previous models, as Ford benefits from domestic buyers spooked by the bankruptcies of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler.

Ford Motor Co. could report a surprise third quarter profit when it reports earnings at the end of this month, JP Morgan analysts said today during a presentation to investors. Advertisement JP Morgan automotive analyst Himanshu Patel said today that he estimates Ford will report a profit of 16 cents per share for the three-month period ending Sept. 30. He credits improvements in pricing and sales volume in the United States, as well as gains in residual values and profits in Europe, for the forecast. However, Patel’s expectations stand in contrast to a consensus estimate from Wall Street analysts, who are expecting a loss of 24 cents per share. Patel acknowledged that his outlook is optimistic compared with other analysts but said he is confident that Ford is on track to outperform expectations. “The quarter does look really good,” Patel said. In North America, Patel said Ford is benefiting from a surge in Ford F-150 pickup truck sales and reduced incentive spending. He further forecasts that Ford is on track to report a $200 million pre-tax profit for the North American division. “This would be the first time North America is not in the red in recent memory,” Patel said.

Everyone knows that she only posts union min. going into a local election that she running in! Now that she lost you won't see any minutes until maybe 6 months before the next election, just like your typical elected official a bunch of false promises.

I think you need to do some research yourself! Here's a start for you some facts! Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago. Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration. Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s. I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily. Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited. Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins. The most thorough has been done by John Taylor, a respected economist from Stanford University who served during most of the Bush administration as the No. 3 official at the Treasury Department. In his book, Getting Off Track, he puts most of the blame on the Federal Reserve for holding interest rates down too low for too long. While the Fed does bear much responsibility for sowing the seeds of recession, it’s commonly treated as an institution independent of politics and even the government itself. But the Federal Reserve Board consists of governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Because the president appoints the board, he has primary influence over its policies. This is especially the case for chairmen of the Fed appointed by Republicans because they often have ties to Republican administrations. Chairman Ben Bernanke was originally appointed as a member of the Fed in 2002, serving until 2005, when he became chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House, a position that made him Bush’s chief economic adviser. As early as 2002, a majority of the seven-member Federal Reserve Board was Bush appointees, and by 2006 every member was a Bush appointee. While many critical decisions about monetary policy are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, the board’s position always prevails. The Treasury secretary also has had breakfast with the Fed chairman on a weekly basis for decades. Consequently, most economists generally believe that every administration ultimately gets the Fed policy it wants. Therefore, one must conclude that if there were errors in Fed policy that caused the current downturn, it must be because the Fed was doing what the Bush administration wanted it to do. To the extent that there were mistakes in housing policy that contributed to the recession, those were necessarily committed by Bush political appointees at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other agencies. To the extent that banks and other financial institutions made mistakes or engaged in fraudulent activity, it was either overlooked or sanctioned by Bush appointees at the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and elsewhere. But in a larger sense, the extremely poor economic performance of the Bush years really set the stage for the current recession. This is apparent when we compare Bush’s two terms to Bill Clinton’s eight years. Since both took office close to a business cycle trough and left office close to a cyclical peak, this is a reasonable comparison. Throughout the Bush years, many conservative economists, including CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, extravagantly extolled Bush’s economic policies. As late as December 21, 2007, after the recession already began, he wrote in National Review: “the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.” In a column on May 2, 2008, almost six months into the recession, Kudlow praised Bush for having prevented a recession. But the truth was always that the economy performed very, very badly under Bush, and the best efforts of his cheerleaders cannot change that fact because the data don’t lie. Consider these comparisons between Bush and Clinton: • Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real GDP grew 34.7 percent. Between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the fourth quarter of 2008, it grew 15.9 percent, less than half as much. • Between the fourth quarter of 1992 and the fourth quarter of 2000, real gross private domestic investment almost doubled. By the fourth quarter of 2008, real investment was 6.5 percent lower than it was when Bush was elected. • Between December 1992 and December 2000, payroll employment increased by more than 23 million jobs, an increase of 21.1 percent. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it rose by a little more than 2.5 million, an increase of 1.9 percent. In short, about 10 percent as many jobs were created on Bush’s watch as were created on Clinton’s. • During the Bush years, conservative economists often dismissed the dismal performance of the economy by pointing to a rising stock market. But the stock market was lackluster during the Bush years, especially compared to the previous eight. Between December 1992 and December 2000, the S&P 500 Index more than doubled. Between December 2000 and December 2008, it fell 34 percent. People would have been better off putting all their investments into cash under a mattress the day Bush took office. • Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs. Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history. According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history. Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth. On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes. I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits. But there is yet another dimension to Bush’s failures—the things he didn’t do. In this category I would put a health-care overhaul. Budget experts have known for years that Medicare was on an unsustainable financial path. It is impossible to pay all the benefits that have been promised because spending has been rising faster than GDP. In 2003, the Bush administration repeatedly lied about the cost of the drug benefit to get it passed, and Bush himself heavily pressured reluctant conservatives to vote for the program. Because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan. By not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan. Instead, Republicans have opposed Obama's initiative while proposing nothing themselves. In my opinion, conservative activists, who seem to believe that the louder they shout the more correct their beliefs must be, are less angry about Obama’s policies than they are about having lost the White House in 2008. They are primarily Republican Party hacks trying to overturn the election results, not representatives of a true grassroots revolt against liberal policies. If that were the case they would have been out demonstrating against the Medicare drug benefit, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and all the pork-barrel spending that Bush refused to veto. Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting. Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders, helping draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, he was a leading Republican economist. He now considers himself to be a political independent. He is the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy . His latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, will be published by Palgrave Macmillan in October.

I don't care who he lied to just that he's supposed to represent us and or interests not the companys, i'm just saying that IUAW had the information about which plants are getting what and they gave us mis-information just cause they think we can't handle the truth.

Exactly looks like bob king lied too you guys!

No ford will build it and smith electric would put the electric battery/engine in it then ship to final destination. Ford does this now with econoline vans ford builds them then sends them out to be retro fitted for natural gas engines.Which is done in berea ,ohio 20 miles away from the plant. AT&T IS buying 8000 thousand of these vans these are the same as every other van that goes down the line. Ford just doesn't do the natural gas engines some outside company does,who knows why, we used to make the engines and install them back in 2001.Ford probably couldn't afford the r&d so the outsourced it just like the battery smith makes they already retrofit these in vans overseas in europe.

You ship transmissions to all ford plants, so what trannys come from overseas too, what the fuck does that have to do with shipping whole vehicles.I'm done trying to explain this I really don't care who's builds it. I was more upset that iuaw would lie to us just to get us to vote for concessions that was the whole point of the first post!!!!!! sorry if I offended you kalu that was not my intention.

Lets see the econoline gets re-fitted for multiple commercial uses and all contractors are with in 50 miles, the super duty trucks at ktp get re-fitted for commercial use all contractors are within 50 miles to cut down on shipping cost.Makes NO SENSE to ship from ohio to kc to get electric powertrain then possible back to the east coast for final destination.All you have to do is use a little common sense.