Ford Survival

[FLORIDA RETIREE]

From some of the posts I read in the past (before BlueOvalForums crashed), it appears that a significant number of the Rank and File employees would rather see Ford go under than be forced to give up any pay or benefits. Some wrote about "Working to the Rule" if unenforced rules that have been in the contract for years start becoming enforced and others talked about ways to slow things down so that the bosses "can't do anything about it." Working with that attitude toward the company may have been necessary back in the days when my grandfather and dad were alive and working as proud and loyal union men. However, in 2005-06, it could very well sound the death knell for Ford.

 

Since I'm a retired "salaried" employee and not a member of the UAW, I'm not really up to date on the how those of you who are union members feel about Ford's future and wonder if you would be willing to share your opinion and/or straighten me out about a few thoughts I have about this mess we are all in.

 

If Ford is ever to recover financially so that everyone's future is secure over the long term, there's some belt tightening that is going to have to take place by everyone including hourly employees, salaried employees, management and retirees. There's no if's an's or but's about it.

 

Do I like to see continued erosion of my retirement benefits. Of course not. At the same time, I fully realize that Ford's legacy costs that accumulated during the "good times" must be reduced substantially if the Company is to survive and thrive over the long haul.

 

Sitting around worrying about the future, finger pointing and crying is not going to put food on anyone's table if Ford fails to recover.

 

If Bill Ford fired every other Vice President and reduced all management salaries by 50%, would that make the complainers happy? I think not. Even though misery loves company, wallowing in it won't change reality or solve any problems.

 

Ford is in a war for its very survival and everyone needs to be focused on TODAY's enemy and it isn't Ford Management or even GM. They have enough problems of their own. Ford and GM's market share have been taken away by foreign manufacturers who operate under a different set of rules and who have set up shop and are expanding right here in the good old USA.

 

When the Big 3 WAS the automotive industry in North America, we could get by with just about anything and keep on trucking. We were like the old phone company when AT&T was a monopoly and could afford to be as arrogant as we wanted to be. I'll give you one example of my own misreading of the future.

 

When I called on a Ford dealership several years ago, the service manager started talking about a new import the Chevy dealer was starting to sell so he and I went out to look at it. It was small and plain looking. There were "cheap looking" toggle switches on the dash and there were even switches on the turn signal switch. We both agreed that it was a piece of junk and would never sell. Beside's neither of us had even heard of the company that built it so we were certain we wouldn't be seeing to many "Hondas" on the road. It wasn't too long after that a lot of Ford people left the company and moved to Torrence, California to staff and build up another unknown brand of car called "Toyota." One of our first responses to the import challenge was to print up and hand out bumper stickers that said "Remember Pearl Harbor - Buy American." That happened when we were in the "denial" stage regarding competition from Asia.

 

That was then and today is today.

 

Does anyone really think the UAW is going to unionize the competition? It would be nice if that happens because then the playing field would be levelled a bit but I won't count on it. Whenever the UAW tries to recruit at Honda, Toyota, etc., all the management at those companies has to do is refer their workers to the daily articles published in the Detroit News and Free Press and pose the question, "do you want to end up like Ford and GM"?

 

The reality is that the competition will never be burdened with Ford and GM's legacy costs. For that reason, if the Us vs Them mindset that has governed the Company vs UAW relationship for decades continues, the competition will get even stronger.

 

Today is not about a "battle for an overpass" but a battle for survival - everyone's survival. It's well past time for everyone to pull together. If the rank and file truly believe that 'In Union - There Is Strength" as I do, why not also understand that there would be tremendous strength in a working partnership between Company Management and the UAW working together to defeat the real enemy - the foreign competition?

 

Like it or not, it is you, the current UAW represented employee who has the most control over Ford's future. It's your choice whether or not you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Unlike myself and other retirees who are merely onlookers at this point, you are in a position to be a driving force to change the culture from Us (UAW) versus Them (Ford Management) to Us (UAW and Ford) versus Them (the competition).

 

Quite frankly, based upon my many years of Ford experience, I have greater confidence in the men and women working on the shop floor than I have in many of those working on the top floor.

 

That's about all I have to say on this subject. I look forward to hearing from anyone who cares to comment.

 

 

P.S. If there is any UAW official reading this, I would be especially interested in your comments since you have more individual influence on what happens in the future than anyone.

[dark270]

As a rank and file member, let me comment on just this small part of your rant.

 

I do not mind giving up part of my wages/benefits. 10 to 15% to me sounds like a reasonable and fair number, if the top level management agrees to at least twice that.

 

If you think I would agree to anything like what Delphi is proposing, I will do my best to take the company down with me. Management created the problems we have today. They are the ones that engineered and produced the vehicles that is giving Ford the black eye. They are the ones that pressured the suppliers to cut costs so badly, that the quality has gone into the toilet. They are the ones that wasted capitol on such expensive products (Quik Fix, Jaguar, Land Rover for examples), that they have little capital left over to invest in their core business.

 

 

took the words out of my mouth!!!...i dont even like the givebakcs..do you think we will ever get them back..NO....is the company going to lower car prices??? NO! they are going to packet this money.....RICH DO GET RICHER

[Len_A]

took the words out of my mouth!!!...i dont even like the givebakcs..do you think we will ever get them back..NO....is the company going to lower car prices??? NO! they are going to packet this money.....RICH DO GET RICHER

Are they going to lower car prices? Are you kidding? They can't make money at the prices they have now.

[dark270]

Are they going to lower car prices? Are you kidding? They can't make money at the prices they have now.

 

 

well i was referring to our 50% wage cut......where is that supposed to go?? in their pockets?

which i wont TAKE....i will quit and sell my ford that i have!!! LOL

[Imawhosure]

Pioneer, sounds about right, might even be less than that. Really think it is going to be more about the retirement package and Gen.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dark, my-my.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Retiree,

 

 

The hourly knows who they can trust in low and middle management, just as the management knows who is worth a damn in hourly; and there are some very good people in hourly as I am sure your aware. Eventually, the "doorslammers" are going to be on their own, you can already see it coming.

[FLORIDA RETIREE]

I certainly cannot envision anyone being asked to accept a 50% wage cut or anything near that. However, until the Delphi situation plays out, who knows what's going to happen in our industry. In addition to the plant closings, I think the major emphasis is going to be on productivity and accountability at every level. For many of the rank and file employees, this should mean doing what he/she has always done in the past as efficiently as possible and without abusing the work rules in place. For the deadbeats, malingerers and other assorted non-producers, the bell is about to toll and that's where the union will play a pivotal role. From what I've seen and heard, many salaried employees who have relied on the "it's not my job" ploy to get by with doing as little as possible have already been targeted in past cutbacks with more to follow.

 

I have to agree with 'pioneer" that top management should lead by example when it comes to any pay or benefit cuts. When I first read about Bill Ford bringing in his brother-in-law, my first thought was that the upper echelon execs may no longer be able to escape future actions. Over the years, whenever the company suspended management bonuses due to poor profitability in North America, it was usually the lower level "bonus roll" level managers who were hurt financially. The higher level managers who made the decision to suspend bonuses always found a way to exempt themselves.

 

imawhosure,

 

The "low and middle management" who the hourly "can trust" have usually been those stepped on the most and have never had much of a voice in policy making decisions. That's why I feel the Union can become a major player in determining future company policy if done so in a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation. If the UAW and Ford Management cannot find a way to work together for the good of everyone, the ultimate winner will be Toyota, Nissan and our other foreign competition.

 

Pioneer, sounds about right, might even be less than that. Really think it is going to be more about the retirement package and Gen.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dark, my-my.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Retiree,

The hourly knows who they can trust in low and middle management, just as the management knows who is worth a damn in hourly; and there are some very good people in hourly as I am sure your aware. Eventually, the "doorslammers" are going to be on their own, you can already see it coming.

[methos]

As far as helping, sure, I am open to any reasonable suggestions. As far as suggestions, did anyone read the Free Press this morning and the ridiculous $76 an hour at Delphi headline? Delphi -- "said a new study it commissioned shows it pays its unionized workers $76 an hour including benefits, double what its competitors pay, and $11 an hour more than workers received in 2004."

 

Reading further I see where some of the extra costs from are coming from --

 

"According to a study Delphi commissioned, in part to thwart claims that it is being unfair to workers, Delphi pays its workers $76.46 per hour, up from the previously reported wage of $65 an hour. That breaks down to a wage of $26.97 an hour for a first-year employee, $26.86 an hour for benefits such as health care and vacation days and $22.63 in legacy costs, which include retirement health-care costs and costs past the obligation of workers compensation." "According to a study Delphi commissioned, in part to thwart claims that it is being unfair to workers, Delphi pays its workers $76.46 per hour, up from the previously reported wage of $65 an hour. That breaks down to a wage of $26.97 an hour for a first-year employee, $26.86 an hour for benefits such as health care and vacation days and $22.63 in legacy costs, which include retirement health-care costs and costs past the obligation of workers compensation."

 

When the reporter gave the UAW an opportunity to comment, the official, who by the way is head of UAW communications declined to comment, go figure? What, was something like "ridiculous" to hard to say? Was he caught off balance, or ill? If we have learned anything from Republicans, is that reality means little, it's all about perception and for the record he should have responded on how ridiculous the figures are. Instead, we get gomer responding on how easy his job is and how overpaid he is, go figure.

[methos]

Unfortunately, the UAW never comments on stuff like that.

 

 

They are making a huge mistake. Miller is clearly positioning himself and Delphi in the event things get really ugly. Without disputing ridiculous figures like that, the next time a journalist needs info on a story and googles or uses LexisNexis the $76 figure might be used again. The UAW needs to be more proactive in spin-control, and the best way is not to wait - attack first.

[Len_A]

They are making a huge mistake. Miller is clearly positioning himself and Delphi in the event things get really ugly. Without disputing ridiculous figures like that, the next time a journalist needs info on a story and googles or uses LexisNexis the $76 figure might be used again. The UAW needs to be more proactive in spin-control, and the best way is not to wait - attack first.

I'm curious - why is the figure "ridiculous"?

[Richard Smith]

From some of the posts I read in the past (before BlueOvalForums crashed), it appears that a significant number of the Rank and File employees would rather see Ford go under than be forced to give up any pay or benefits. Some wrote about "Working to the Rule" .............

 

Current employee, retiree, salaried or hourly we have a choice - "Be part of the solution or be part of the Problem". If you are not part of the solution or you support those that are part of the problem you are the same and need to GET OUT and SHUT UP.

 

 

signed- 27 year Salaried employee - retired for 14 years.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Richard Smith

[methos]

I'm curious - why is the figure "ridiculous"?

 

 

How do they translate $26 an hour into $76? After benefits the total cost is roughly $35 an hour according to my calculations and the benefit summary given to me at the end of last year. I do not work at Delphi, however, the pay structure is close. In the above number, they are adding in to the hourly wage legacy costs, wtf? Maybe they ought to add a portion of the utilities to our hourly wage - hey why not, lets make our hourly figures even more ridiculous.

[Len_A]

How do they translate $26 an hour into $76? After benefits the total cost is roughly $35 an hour according to my calculations and the benefit summary given to me at the end of last year. I do not work at Delphi, however, the pay structure is close. In the above number, they are adding in to the hourly wage legacy costs, wtf? Maybe they ought to add a portion of the utilities to our hourly wage - hey why not, lets make our hourly figures even more ridiculous.

You know, I don't know whether you guys crack me up or piss me off. Go back and reread the article. The cost of the benefits is a bit higher than you have, and the legacy costs are billed against the active work force. You get billed for the costs for the retirees.

 

Plus one other thing: The average annual cost are are divided by the number of hours worked. You guys always take the annual costs, divide by 52 weeks and by 40 hours. You're WRONG. All paid time off, vacation, personal days, and paid holidays are billed against hours worked. It doesn't mean dick that you earned so many weeks vacation, or so many paid days off. Those are a cost against your production. That includes any increases in legacy costs, whether it's increases in medical expenses, or whether the actuaries say average life spans are up, which means whatever was already set aside for pensions needs to be added to. All those costs are billed against production.

 

Try taking your annual figures that you have, and divide by 46 weeks and by 40 hours and you'll probably find that you got closer to the figures in the paper. You're still not going to match, because you, yourself, don't have access to the pension expense figures, nor the retire medical expense figures.

 

You can try argue with me until you're blue in the face. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP, must be followed by all companies, and as far as collective bargaining is concerned, by all unions. Not only that, but the International itself has to follow GAAP when doing their own books. All labor figures are billed against hours of production, not against a 52 week year divided by a 40 hour work week.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Len_A

[iluvnascar]

There are certainly a lot of people here in denial. And somehow it seems that the closer an individual gets to retirement......or the more years of seniority an emplyee has.....the more they tend to ignore reality.

 

The UAW (AND the CAW) need understand that there is a crisis in the companies that they represent. They need to understand that HUGE sacrifices will be necessary to restore the competitive balance between the "Big 3" and the companies that are taking over the industry (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and many other smaller importers such as Hyundai). They need to start working in concert with Company management - and they need to start working together as an industry - Ford is not competing with GM. And GM is not competing with Ford. Rather, both are competing against a group of companies who have the support of mainstream media; who have a far lower cost structure due primarily to the fact that they are latecomers to the industry and make common sense decisions unburdened by the mantra "but will the Union support the decision?"; versus companies that have been around for many years, that have an increasingly older and increasingly costly retiree base to support, that have lived with the burden of contractual niceties for many many years, and that have limited options in ensuring their survival.

 

If I was in management today, I would be establishing a joint "War Room" with the UAW and CAW; and with high-ranking management (VP's and above) from Ford, GM and Chrysler. And I would be negotiating agreement on a wide range of cost reduction actions; while undertaking a thorough and public analysis of the comparative cost structure between the "Big 3" and the "Toyota-Honda-Nissan" triumvirate. There MUST be some level of comparable cost structure established if the Big 3 are to survive long-term.

 

It can be done.....but no more bandaids. Cut....and cut deep......and sacrifice.....and sacrifice deep.....in the hourly ranks....AND the salaried ranks.....AND the top management ranks......AND the retiree ranks. Things are not going to change unless there is some forceful, courageous, and demanding leadership exhibited....on all sides. I am not real hopeful that it will happen.....but all it takes is a couple of true leaders to emerge from the morass and miracles can happen. Above all.......all Big 3 employees must remember that they need to accept and even promote difficult change. Because "If you always do what you've always done; you'll always get what you've always got; and that's a prescription for eventual unemplyment and bankruptcy!"

[jdima43558]

One thing that the papers have not reported is what the cost of labor per vehicle is. The harbour report say's it only takes 25 to 30 hours per vehicle to build. At $65 to $75 per hour, this is only $1625 at the low end to $2250 at the high end. So cutting our wages 10% will save on average $162 to $225 per vehicle. If we cut our wages by 50% the savings are only $812 to $1125. Cutting our wages and benefits will not save the company. What will save the company is asking the government to make the playing field even. They allowed the foreign countries to dump steel so we now have no steel mills and we are now paying the highest price ever, but we did get rid of all those high paid union steel workers. The government is allowing the same thing to happen to Ford and at the same time getting rid of union jobs. At Michigan Truck we have lost 400 jobs due to new technology in the last two years and in January we are going to mass relief which will eliminate another 200 to 300 jobs. What we need is to demand that any car sold in the USA will have 100% USA made parts and be made in the USA. When these foreign companies can sell a car with only 30% USA made parts thats unfair. We can't sell our vehicles in their countries. We also have way to many people in this country making $8 to $12 per hour and no benefits, so when our wages are reported at $27 per hour and full health care and pension, I can see why they say to hell with those overpaid union workers. I have never talked to a Republican who is for the working man. Their excuse is we are in a global economy. So we must adjust our wages and standard of living to a third world country, I will not work for $40 per week.

[methos]

You know, I don't know whether you guys crack me up or piss me off. Go back and reread the article. The cost of the benefits is a bit higher than you have, and the legacy costs are billed against the active work force. You get billed for the costs for the retirees.

 

Plus one other thing: The average annual cost are are divided by the number of hours worked. You guys always take the annual costs, divide by 52 weeks and by 40 hours. You're WRONG. All paid time off, vacation, personal days, and paid holidays are billed against hours worked. It doesn't mean dick that you earned so many weeks vacation, or so many paid days off. Those are a cost against your production. That includes any increases in legacy costs, whether it's increases in medical expenses, or whether the actuaries say average life spans are up, which means whatever was already set aside for pensions needs to be added to. All those costs are billed against production.

 

Try taking your annual figures that you have, and divide by 46 weeks and by 40 hours and you'll probably find that you got closer to the figures in the paper. You're still not going to match, because you, yourself, don't have access to the pension expense figures, nor the retire medical expense figures.

 

You can try argue with me until you're blue in the face. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP, must be followed by all companies, and as far as collective bargaining is concerned, by all unions. Not only that, but the International itself has to follow GAAP when doing their own books. All labor figures are billed against hours of production, not against a 52 week year divided by a 40 hour work week.

 

You miss my point dumbass. Do you think anyone really gives a fuck about the GPAA or the fine print on how it all breaks down? All the general public sees is that our hourly wage and benefits as reported here add up to $76 and hour. They never really explain in any detail how it breaks down, and most folks will remember nothing except that they make $76 an hour. What do you think I am wrong here? Hell no. In the end, I don't give a fuck how the company disseminates it legacy costs. The union official like always and that was and is my point here blew it. Perception is everything, he could have come back with something like we make 20 something an hour, and I only wish I made that much!

 

It matters, you don't want the public coming away from that artilcle thinking we make 76 an hour. The union PR guy should have took the initiative and gave the reader a better figure, hopefully using humor or something. Anything so as when the reader finishes the perception is hopefully a lot less than a $76 an hour figure.

[Len_A]

You miss my point dumbass. Do you think anyone really gives a fuck about the GPAA or the fine print on how it all breaks down? All the general public sees is that our hourly wage and benefits as reported here add up to $76 and hour. They never really explain in any detail how it breaks down, and most folks will remember nothing except that they make $76 an hour. What do you think I am wrong here? Hell no. In the end, I don't give a fuck how the company disseminates it legacy costs. The union official like always and that was and is my point here blew it. Perception is everything, he could have come back with something like we make 20 something an hour, and I only wish I made that much!

 

It matters, you don't want the public coming away from that artilcle thinking we make 76 an hour. The union PR guy should have took the initiative and gave the reader a better figure, hopefully using humor or something. Anything so as when the reader finishes the perception is hopefully a lot less than a $76 an hour figure.

I agree - as always the unions officials blew it. You're right, perception is everything, and as usual, the perception is that the union officials are always at a loss to explain anything to the media.

 

In the end, however, the figures quoted in the paper are pretty accurate, and they usually do a good enough breakdown showing what the actually wage is, that I'm not terribly worried about the occasional moron who misinterprets the article's figures. Those people usually have an anti union chip on their shoulder anyway in my experience. That fact is, with Delphi, is that the existing wage and benefit package is not only higher than the average in manufacturing these days (which of itself, is a pretty sad fact), but it's way higher than the UAW wage and benefit packages at a lot of UAW represented Tier One suppliers like Lear and Borg Warner, and it's higher than the second tier wage structure the union negotiated at Delphi and Visteon.

 

The whole situation is pathetic, and it's far from over. When this all shakes out, there's going to be a hell of a lot of people who aren't going be making what they're accustom to making, and a whole hell of a lot of people no longer working for a Detroit based auto maker.

[methos]

I agree - as always the unions officials blew it. You're right, perception is everything, and as usual, the perception is that the union officials are always at a loss to explain anything to the media.

 

In the end, however, the figures quoted in the paper are pretty accurate, and they usually do a good enough breakdown showing what the actually wage is, that I'm not terribly worried about the occasional moron who misinterprets the article's figures. Those people usually have an anti union chip on their shoulder anyway in my experience. That fact is, with Delphi, is that the existing wage and benefit package is not only higher than the average in manufacturing these days (which of itself, is a pretty sad fact), but it's way higher than the UAW wage and benefit packages at a lot of UAW represented Tier One suppliers like Lear and Borg Warner, and it's higher than the second tier wage structure the union negotiated at Delphi and Visteon.

 

The whole situation is pathetic, and it's far from over. When this all shakes out, there's going to be a hell of a lot of people who aren't going be making what they're accustom to making, and a whole hell of a lot of people no longer working for a Detroit based auto maker.

 

Unfortunately, I agree. At this point it's almost inevitable. Yet, there are a number of things that might not turn the tide, but it may slow it a little and all I was trying to do was point out one of the blunders. The UAW needs to be more proactive in public relations - in my opinion, they are terrible. If an individual is looking at some vehicles, my point is while they're comparing who wants that 76 figure floating around.

 

I really do not see any practical alternatives, at least none that are attractive, but I really do not think the troubles can wait until 2007, all parties should get together now and do what needs to be done. Like I have said before, It's better to take some pain now while there's still light at the other end of the tunnel. Wait to long and there is only cuts as you're spiraling down a big black fucking hole without a shred of light.

[Len_A]

Ford does not have the same number of retirees as GM/Delphi. Therefore, the $76 quoted in the article does not apply to us.

You know, that's very true. I'm glad you pointed that out. That's a big part of these discussions is that the end labor rate is really varying widely from one company to another. It makes you wonder how anyone can get a handle on it.

[electr]

You know, I don't know whether you guys crack me up or piss me off. Go back and reread the article. The cost of the benefits is a bit higher than you have, and the legacy costs are billed against the active work force. You get billed for the costs for the retirees.

 

Plus one other thing: The average annual cost are are divided by the number of hours worked. You guys always take the annual costs, divide by 52 weeks and by 40 hours. You're WRONG. All paid time off, vacation, personal days, and paid holidays are billed against hours worked. It doesn't mean dick that you earned so many weeks vacation, or so many paid days off. Those are a cost against your production. That includes any increases in legacy costs, whether it's increases in medical expenses, or whether the actuaries say average life spans are up, which means whatever was already set aside for pensions needs to be added to. All those costs are billed against production.

 

Try taking your annual figures that you have, and divide by 46 weeks and by 40 hours and you'll probably find that you got closer to the figures in the paper. You're still not going to match, because you, yourself, don't have access to the pension expense figures, nor the retire medical expense figures.

 

You can try argue with me until you're blue in the face. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP, must be followed by all companies, and as far as collective bargaining is concerned, by all unions. Not only that, but the International itself has to follow GAAP when doing their own books. All labor figures are billed against hours of production, not against a 52 week year divided by a 40 hour work week.

So what your suggesting is that the end of year statement That ford funishes us about the total cost to them for our (with employee specific info) employment which includes the cost of ALL of our benefits, overtime, EVERYTHING, understates our true cost to the company. Well I believe that there are those outside the companies that have an interest to spin our compensation to meet their own agendas. The media needs to report outrageous compensation to insight passion for or against us. Conflict sells papers, tv veiwers, etc. Having said that I know I'm WELL compensated, and thet some benefits are excessive (Job bank et..) But it seems I get a raise everytime I read a new story, or see a spot on TV, I just don't see in My paycheck or anywhere else.

[electr]

There are certainly a lot of people here in denial. And somehow it seems that the closer an individual gets to retirement......or the more years of seniority an emplyee has.....the more they tend to ignore reality.

 

The UAW (AND the CAW) need understand that there is a crisis in the companies that they represent. They need to understand that HUGE sacrifices will be necessary to restore the competitive balance between the "Big 3" and the companies that are taking over the industry (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and many other smaller importers such as Hyundai). They need to start working in concert with Company management - and they need to start working together as an industry - Ford is not competing with GM. And GM is not competing with Ford. Rather, both are competing against a group of companies who have the support of mainstream media; who have a far lower cost structure due primarily to the fact that they are latecomers to the industry and make common sense decisions unburdened by the mantra "but will the Union support the decision?"; versus companies that have been around for many years, that have an increasingly older and increasingly costly retiree base to support, that have lived with the burden of contractual niceties for many many years, and that have limited options in ensuring their survival.

 

If I was in management today, I would be establishing a joint "War Room" with the UAW and CAW; and with high-ranking management (VP's and above) from Ford, GM and Chrysler. And I would be negotiating agreement on a wide range of cost reduction actions; while undertaking a thorough and public analysis of the comparative cost structure between the "Big 3" and the "Toyota-Honda-Nissan" triumvirate. There MUST be some level of comparable cost structure established if the Big 3 are to survive long-term.

 

It can be done.....but no more bandaids. Cut....and cut deep......and sacrifice.....and sacrifice deep.....in the hourly ranks....AND the salaried ranks.....AND the top management ranks......AND the retiree ranks. Things are not going to change unless there is some forceful, courageous, and demanding leadership exhibited....on all sides. I am not real hopeful that it will happen.....but all it takes is a couple of true leaders to emerge from the morass and miracles can happen. Above all.......all Big 3 employees must remember that they need to accept and even promote difficult change. Because "If you always do what you've always done; you'll always get what you've always got; and that's a prescription for eventual unemplyment and bankruptcy!"

 

VERY WELL SAID!!! One thing I've noticed with too many co-workers is this sense of denial. Too many are living in the past. Many have never worked anywhere else. Thay are comparing all these problems with the problems of the past. Things have to change. This is a new world. Free trade is hear to stay. There is no support for protecting the middle/working class anymore. The new attitude is either "I've got mine-to hell with everybody else" or "I don't have mine so why should you". There is no political support for a fight against "GLOBALIZATION". So we all better learn to adapt or else.

[FLORIDA RETIREE]

There are certainly a lot of people here in denial. And somehow it seems that the closer an individual gets to retirement......or the more years of seniority an emplyee has.....the more they tend to ignore reality.

 

The UAW (AND the CAW) need understand that there is a crisis in the companies that they represent. They need to understand that HUGE sacrifices will be necessary to restore the competitive balance between the "Big 3" and the companies that are taking over the industry (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and many other smaller importers such as Hyundai). They need to start working in concert with Company management - and they need to start working together as an industry - Ford is not competing with GM. And GM is not competing with Ford. Rather, both are competing against a group of companies who have the support of mainstream media; who have a far lower cost structure due primarily to the fact that they are latecomers to the industry and make common sense decisions unburdened by the mantra "but will the Union support the decision?"; versus companies that have been around for many years, that have an increasingly older and increasingly costly retiree base to support, that have lived with the burden of contractual niceties for many many years, and that have limited options in ensuring their survival.

 

If I was in management today, I would be establishing a joint "War Room" with the UAW and CAW; and with high-ranking management (VP's and above) from Ford, GM and Chrysler. And I would be negotiating agreement on a wide range of cost reduction actions; while undertaking a thorough and public analysis of the comparative cost structure between the "Big 3" and the "Toyota-Honda-Nissan" triumvirate. There MUST be some level of comparable cost structure established if the Big 3 are to survive long-term.

 

It can be done.....but no more bandaids. Cut....and cut deep......and sacrifice.....and sacrifice deep.....in the hourly ranks....AND the salaried ranks.....AND the top management ranks......AND the retiree ranks. Things are not going to change unless there is some forceful, courageous, and demanding leadership exhibited....on all sides. I am not real hopeful that it will happen.....but all it takes is a couple of true leaders to emerge from the morass and miracles can happen. Above all.......all Big 3 employees must remember that they need to accept and even promote difficult change. Because "If you always do what you've always done; you'll always get what you've always got; and that's a prescription for eventual unemplyment and bankruptcy!"

 

 

Well said iluvnascar.

 

I fully agree with your diagnosis of the situation and that it will take drastic action to return Ford to a competitive position in the global economy. I especially agree that it will take full cooperation between the union and management to retake some of the ground lost to the new Big 3 - Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

 

Your "war room" suggestion is right on target since we are at war against an experienced, economically strong and determined enemy that is sweeping across this country. We are in a war for our very survival and the only question I have is who are the "true leaders" you wrote about and "when" will they "emerge" so Ford can stop retreating and go on the offensive.

 

Quite frankly, one of those leaders has to be Bill Ford. Just as it was the case when Henry Ford II took the helm more than 50 years ago, with his family name on the building and every car and truck that leaves the line, Bill Ford will do whatever it takes to save the company his great grandfather started. Failure is not one of his options.

 

My primary concern and the reason I began this thread was to see if the rank and file would understand the need for cooperation and encourage their UAW leaders to join forces.

 

Old habits are hard to break and that question has yet to be answered.

[the_wizard]

Well said iluvnascar.

 

I fully agree with your diagnosis of the situation and that it will take drastic action to return Ford to a competitive position in the global economy. I especially agree that it will take full cooperation between the union and management to retake some of the ground lost to the new Big 3 - Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

 

Your "war room" suggestion is right on target since we are at war against an experienced, economically strong and determined enemy that is sweeping across this country. We are in a war for our very survival and the only question I have is who are the "true leaders" you wrote about and "when" will they "emerge" so Ford can stop retreating and go on the offensive.

 

Quite frankly, one of those leaders has to be Bill Ford. Just as it was the case when Henry Ford II took the helm more than 50 years ago, with his family name on the building and every car and truck that leaves the line, Bill Ford will do whatever it takes to save the company his great grandfather started. Failure is not one of his options.

 

My primary concern and the reason I began this thread was to see if the rank and file would understand the need for cooperation and encourage their UAW leaders to join forces.

 

Old habits are hard to break and that question has yet to be answered.

 

 

this shows what you people know, we have had a war room for YEARS only the company doesn't like the term "war room " since is considered politically incorrect so it's called an energy rooom. as to war gaming we do that as well. look just relax the companies plan will be out in the first quarter of 2006 and as to the UAW they are already part of this plan. Look go back to playing bingo in Florida and enjoying your retirement instead of asking UAW members what they are willing to give up so you can enjoy that lifestyle. I'm already playing medical cost of retires without that ever having been voted on.

 

I'll add one thing; here is what gets me about everyone asking for cuts. Why has not one of these companies taken the high ground and simply ask for across the board cuts from the top ( and i mean the very top ) to the shop floor . now that would be a team effort I don't think most would care if they said 3% from all but no we still have top execs at this company making mutimillion contracts asking hourly to take the hit. Take the case of Delphi raises for the top and drastic cuts for hourly. I mean good God keep it simply if were really a team make it across the board cuts.

Edited November 28, 2005 by the_wizard

[Glory_dayzd]

Here's a radical idea; leave the retirees alone! We voted for them (and ourselves) by accepting employment at Ford when we were hired in. WE ALL want to retire one day... Retirees do not make anywhere near as much as we do, that is one reason why some over 30 year folks do not retire. Retirees do not get COLA increases, so their spending power goes down as they age, due to inflation. Retirees EARNED their retirement through seemingly endless years of hard work, and under worse envirionmental conditions than we have today. Retirees, in general, do not live for extremely long times after they retire, if they are fortunate enough to make it to 30 years, (case in point, Bo Marlow, president of local 882, died this past weekend with 29 years,) and cost to our pension plan goes down if a retiree lives to reach social security age (another unreliable resource). If we think our retiree costs are high, I wonder how much we are spending for government retirees?? This is one cost that is overlooked in GAAP requirements. "We come into this world helpless, and helpless we will surely go out of it." They took care of us, there comes a time when it is our turn to take care of them, just as we do our children, which is how it should be... As for me, I will vote against any loss to retirees, including medical expenses. Someone has to stand up for them, as they ARE HELPLESS already in this; they can't vote.

[the_wizard]

You know looking at your date for joining and Florida's are very close why do you guys go get multiple names to write on this board with and the think the rest of us are to stupid to see thru it ?

Edited November 28, 2005 by the_wizard

[Len_A]

Here's a radical idea; leave the retirees alone! We voted for them (and ourselves) by accepting employment at Ford when we were hired in. WE ALL want to retire one day... Retirees do not make anywhere near as much as we do, that is one reason why some over 30 year folks do not retire. Retirees do not get COLA increases, so their spending power goes down as they age, due to inflation. Retirees EARNED their retirement through seemingly endless years of hard work, and under worse envirionmental conditions than we have today. Retirees, in general, do not live for extremely long times after they retire, if they are fortunate enough to make it to 30 years, (case in point, Bo Marlow, president of local 882, died this past weekend with 29 years,) and cost to our pension plan goes down if a retiree lives to reach social security age (another unreliable resource). If we think our retiree costs are high, I wonder how much we are spending for government retirees?? This is one cost that is overlooked in GAAP requirements. "We come into this world helpless, and helpless we will surely go out of it." They took care of us, there comes a time when it is our turn to take care of them, just as we do our children, which is how it should be... As for me, I will vote against any loss to retirees, including medical expenses. Someone has to stand up for them, as they ARE HELPLESS already in this; they can't vote.

That will never happen. What you're seeing start to happen to hourly retirees, starting with GM, has been going on for about twelve years or so with the salaried retirees, and with union retirees in other industries for about the same amount of time. Precedent, legal and other-wise, has been established. They're not going to back off now.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Len_A