Wow, people hate ALL auto workers....

[akirby]

the non union companies are competing with the union.

 

Not really. I don't see any UAW plants in Alabama, Kentucky, or South Carolina. Those auto workers don't have the option of working at a UAW plant. They're only competing with other jobs in the same area, and their compensation is market driven.

 

if you were working for a company, and the owner told you he needed to reduce your salary to help the comany survive because profits are low, and then showed up to work with a 150,000 dollar car and started talking about the new 1 million dollar house he was buying. how would you feel?

then a moth later said he needed to reduce your medical because another person would do it for less. how would you feel?

 

Been there, done that. No salary reduction but a salary freeze, no bonuses, 10%-15% annual layoffs. My out of pocket medical costs go up each year because the cost to the company goes up. If you were paying for your own health insurance you'd see the same thing. When this happens then you have to decide if you want to stick it out and wait for a turnaround (which happened in my case) or if you think you can do better somewhere else then you leave the company (which a lot of folks did either voluntarily or involuntarily).

 

Welcome to the 21st century.

[ViperPilot]

Welcome to the 21st century.

Just because you decided to roll over doesn't mean everyone else has to.

 

So you made your choice in life and have "to live with it" because that's what you feel is necessary to "live in the 21st century". So you're content to pay and pay and pay so that others can line their pockets at your expense? And you feel that because others don't roll over as easily that it makes them "unreasonable"?

 

There are at least 4 teams that I can think of in the NHL that are hurting terribly at the moment. On the verge of collapse. Do you think that the owners can go back and ask their superstars to give back part of their contract-negotiated salary to sustain the team? It's happened, but not too often.

 

But that's what the company and the public wants the autoworker to do. Take the brunt of bad decisions made by owners.. And while we want to be reasonable, at the same time we don't intend to roll over.

 

And PS. Kentucky Truck is a UAW plant in....Kentucky.

Edited September 13, 2007 by ViperPilot

[akirby]

So you made your choice in life and have "to live with it" because that's what you feel is necessary to "live in the 21st century". So you're content to pay and pay and pay so that others can line their pockets at your expense? And you feel that because others don't roll over as easily that it makes them "unreasonable"?

 

There are at least 4 teams that I can think of in the NHL that are hurting terribly at the moment. On the verge of collapse. Do you think that the owners can go back and ask their superstars to give back part of their contract-negotiated salary to sustain the team? It's happened, but not too often.

 

But that's what the company and the public wants the autoworker to do. Take the brunt of bad decisions made by owners.. And while we want to be reasonable, at the same time we don't intend to roll over.

 

The NHL teams will do what any team does when it can't afford to pay it's salaries - it will trade the players to other teams that are willing to pay them or it will simply wait until their contracts are up and not resign them. They may or may not be able to get as much money with another team.

 

 

I guess it boils down to this: you think that an employer owes it's workers a certain level of pay and benefits based on the product they produce or how much revenue the company brings in or what you think the job is worth. I think the employer has the right to decide what they're willing to compensate for a particular job and the free market will determine what a particular job is worth.

 

What you don't realize is that 99% of private sector jobs have worked exactly this way for decades. That's the way it works in the real world. If you don't like your job then go find another one. Nobody is forcing you to keep the one you have. How much a CEO makes has no bearing on how much my job is worth - totally different skill sets.

[TRUCK]

I have nothing against people making money. I have nothing against autoworkers in general. And I don't need to know anything about an auto factory to know whether you're overcompensated (that's a LOT more than just wages). All you have to do is look at other very similar industries and benchmark them. Show me another manufacturing industry that

 

So you admit you know nothing about the auto industry. When auto manufacturers hire new people most quit after the first day. They have to pay higher wages to keep people working.

 

a) keeps people on the payroll at 90+% pay when there's no work for them to do.

B) gives their workers above average salaries AND almost free health care

AND (here's the kicker)

c) threatens to strike every 3 years if they don't get MORE something or other

 

You are miss-informed on all three points.

 

And you still wonder why people don't like UAW autoworkers.

IT architect. Let's just say it's WELL over $100K. 5+ weeks vacation, cash balance pension, 401K w/company match, stock options, flex hours, no dress code. Is that honest enough?

 

If this is true way are you so jealous and concerned about auto workers. You have issues you need to deal with. Also before you come to a FORD EMPLOYEES FORUM get your facts straight before you start bashing us. Theres no point in trying to explain something to someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.

[TRUCK]

I do think executive pay is out of control. So are sports salaries. Why don't I complain about those? Because those salaries are set by the free market. If Mulally leads Ford from a $12B loss to profit in 3 years - how much is that worth? Mulally makes that kind of money for ONE SIMPLE REASON: other companies are willing to pay him a similar salary.

 

Last year Ford paid Mulally $28 million. Toyota's top guy get $830,000 last year. Where's the benchmark?

 

How can you even defend a jobs bank where GM closed a plant in California and had to keep paying some workers for 15 years for doing absolutely nothing? Don't you think that's ridiculous?

 

Again missinformed....Job banks as you call them are funded by UAW employees not Ford, GM, or Chrysler. Again get your facts straight before you go spouting off. I thought you IT guys were suppose to be smart. I guess we know who is over compensated.

[TRUCK]

Just because you decided to roll over doesn't mean everyone else has to.

 

So you made your choice in life and have "to live with it" because that's what you feel is necessary to "live in the 21st century". So you're content to pay and pay and pay so that others can line their pockets at your expense? And you feel that because others don't roll over as easily that it makes them "unreasonable"?

 

There are at least 4 teams that I can think of in the NHL that are hurting terribly at the moment. On the verge of collapse. Do you think that the owners can go back and ask their superstars to give back part of their contract-negotiated salary to sustain the team? It's happened, but not too often.

 

But that's what the company and the public wants the autoworker to do. Take the brunt of bad decisions made by owners.. And while we want to be reasonable, at the same time we don't intend to roll over.

 

And PS. Kentucky Truck is a UAW plant in....Kentucky.

 

 

Great post.

 

Some people don't have the back bone to stick together with their fellow employees. That's why they feel they have to roll over. This country was not built by people who rolled over!!

[Trimdingman]

If car companies wanted to pay lower wages, they would. They would have to endure a strike, but that would give them the opportunity to clear inventories without paying any wages. After that, they would be selling fewer cars because other companies would follow suit and pay lower wages also. If car company wages were to get into the ballpark of other manufacturers, then half of them would quit. To run a line efficiently, every station has to be manned by a qualified trained operator. Trying to run the line otherwise is a horrendous disaster. I know. I have seen it. They pull anybody off the street, double up the jobs (two people each getting full pay each doing 1/2 of a job), and get crap quality. Repairmen are working 24/7 for premium wages. Bad quality cars make it to the customer. The company gets a black eye. Paying $100 an hour would be preferable to that. You are not going to see wage cuts, no matter what you read leading up to the strike deadline.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Trimdingman

[akirby]

Again missinformed....Job banks as you call them are funded by UAW employees not Ford, GM, or Chrysler. Again get your facts straight before you go spouting off. I thought you IT guys were suppose to be smart. I guess we know who is over compensated.

 

Maybe you should get your facts straight.

 

About 7,500 GM workers are now in the Jobs Bank, more than double the figure a year ago. The bank added 2,100 workers last month when the company closed a truck-assembly plant in Oklahoma City. Each person costs GM around $100,000 to $130,000 in wages and benefits, according to internal union and company figures, meaning GM's total cost this year is likely to be around $750 million to $900 million.

 

http://www.rovianconspiracy.com/2006/03/st...nsequences.html

[akirby]

If car companies wanted to pay lower wages, they would.

 

They do now.

 

They would have to endure a strike

 

extort

One entry found for extort.

Main Entry: ex·tort

Pronunciation: ik-'stort

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE

 

: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

[Pioneer]

: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

How is collective bargaining illegal?

 

Does this mean that every time somebody negotiates any contract, it is considered extortion?

 

Your "logic" is flawed.

[akirby]

Some people don't have the back bone to stick together with their fellow employees.

 

I don't need to stick together with anybody. If I don't like my job I'll go get another one with a different company making the same if not more money with the same benefits. It's not that hard to do out in the real world and millions of people do it every year. That's the beauty of the free job market.

 

You're just jealous because there's no place you can go where you can make anywhere close to what you make in your UAW job.

 

What pisses me off is that it's keeping Ford from being able to compete head to head with Toyota and the rest of the imports. It's like they're running a 100 yard dash with a bowling ball chained to one foot.

[Trimdingman]

They do now.

extort

One entry found for extort.

Main Entry: ex·tort

Pronunciation: ik-'stort

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Latin extortus, past participle of extorquEre to wrench out, extort, from ex- + torquEre to twist -- more at TORTURE

 

: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

 

 

If you read my post, you would see that I said that a strike would be good for the company to clear inven.... Sorry, I must have lost you there. It would allow the dealers to sell all of their cars on their lots, and because the workers would be on strike, the company would not have to pay them. I hope that you don't have to look up the meaning of any of these words. They are pretty straightforward. That means obvious. That means a first grader should be able to understand (learn) them.

 

Now what do you not comprehend (understand) about the remainder (rest) of my post? I was writing about the relativity between efficiency and lowering wages. At what point does lowering wages end up costing more? I say very quickly in the auto industry. If you disagree, what is your argument? If you have to look up the meanings of any words, spare me. Do not post them. I already know them.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Trimdingman

[tcap for now]

millions of people every year wouldnt have to find a new job and start over if they had a union to improve their working conditions and make sure safety and discrimination laws are followed. if they had a voice to speak for them they wouldnt have to worry about getting fired or shunned for speaking up.

yes people might still leave for more money, but millions more would be happy with their current jobs.

 

there are arent so many jobs to go in general. industry is leaving this counrty at an unbelievable rate. in the 70s and 80s a hell of a lot more people went to work after high school. and that was considered normal. there were decent jobs that did not require a degree. here we are in the year 2007. all of those jobs are leaving. leaving more poeple than jobs for positions that do not require a degree much less jobs with similar pay. and in most cases the moves were not to benefit consumers it was to increase corporate profits. especially in the automotive industry.

 

fords problems are not due to autoworkers pay and benefits. the out of control medial fees are only a portion of their costs.

 

here are a few of the root problems as i see them and are no fault of autoworkers or their pay.

 

leaving the subcompact car market as oil prices were rising.

not investing in fuel efficient engines for the focus and ranger. atually both base engines were hurt looking for more power. even with optional engines.

choosing to leave models unchanged for too long. as in the ranger, taurus, explorer, windstar/freestsar, econoline, and even the f-series.

buying other companies that took investment dollars away from ford. for example jaguar and land rover.

being completely blind to the fact that rising fuel costs would eventually affect the market and start a trend towards efficient cars again.

even after truck sales slipped after 9/11 ford still has not invested in compact cars and trucks. 6 years later no changes. and none on the horizon.

paying management bonuses for having one of the worst years ever.

allowing problems with dealers to get out of hand and waiting way to long to start correcting it.

 

basically ignoring trends and not having a plan for the future. ford especailly seems to wait to see what the market does and tries to respond. only comig up with new cars takes longer than current trends last. its as though ford is trying to copy waht others find success in. only the other companies are finding success because they did something different and did it first.

 

also executive pay at toyota and the other imports is nowhere near what they get at ford. combine that with less executives, and that makes up a huge part of the difference. plus toyota was working on fuel economy while ford was looking for every bit of power they could get. toyota pays their hourly and salaried people less across the board. and have less management. they aslo charge a lot more per vehicle than ford. one thing to give toyota credit about, instead of making mangement richer, they put more money into research and development of their vehicles.

[Furious1Auto]

I don't need to stick together with anybody. If I don't like my job I'll go get another one with a different company making the same if not more money with the same benefits. It's not that hard to do out in the real world and millions of people do it every year. That's the beauty of the free job market.

 

You're just jealous because there's no place you can go where you can make anywhere close to what you make in your UAW job.

 

What pisses me off is that it's keeping Ford from being able to compete head to head with Toyota and the rest of the imports. It's like they're running a 100 yard dash with a bowling ball chained to one foot.

What do you mean they can't compete, as far as profit? both companies us and imports charge what the market will bare. If Toyota has a 30% assembly cost advantage then why don't their products cost 30% less! Being that they don't set pricing based on the assembly cost but rather by what the market will bare, any disparity between our (import and domestic automakers) wages is irrelevant from the customers perspective! They don't buy a car based on whether or not it is union built, but rather features, styling, and price period!

Edited September 14, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[DearbornDerek]

They don't buy a car based on whether or not it is union built, but rather feature, styling, and price period!

 

I hate to break it to you, but there are A LOT of people in this country that don't buy from the big three because of the UAW. Just take a look at the detroit news auto forum or the free press forum...They still hate us the most.

[akirby]

How is collective bargaining illegal?

 

Does this mean that every time somebody negotiates any contract, it is considered extortion?

 

Your "logic" is flawed.

 

Collective bargaining is fine. Threatening to strike just because your employer doesn't give you what you want is extortion. That's about as simple and clear cut as you can get.

[akirby]

If you read my post, you would see that I said that a strike would be good for the company to clear inven.... Sorry, I must have lost you there. It would allow the dealers to sell all of their cars on their lots, and because the workers would be on strike, the company would not have to pay them.

 

The dealers don't have an inventory problem. Dealer inventory is so low right now that Ford decided NOT to have a labor day sale for the first time in recent history.

 

There is no way that a strike is good for either side.

[akirby]

What do you mean they can't compete, as far as profit? both companies us and imports charge what the market will bare. If Toyota has a 30% assembly cost advantage then why don't their products cost 30% less! Being that they don't set pricing based on the assembly cost but rather by what the market will bare, any disparity between our (import and domestic automakers) wages is irrelevant from the customers perspective! They don't buy a car based on whether or not it is union built, but rather feature, styling, and price period!

 

Profit? You mean Ford wants to make a profit on every car it sells? Shocking! Alert the media!

 

Having a $2K-$3K cost advantage over your direct competitors is a huge advantage for the imports. If your product is selling well then you get extra profits that can be used to expand production or develop new products, etc. If your product isn't selling as well as you'd like then you'd be able to lower the price to the point where you can still make a profit but your competitors can't. Either way it impacts Ford negatively.

[Furious1Auto]

Profit? You mean Ford wants to make a profit on every car it sells? Shocking! Alert the media!

 

Having a $2K-$3K cost advantage over your direct competitors is a huge advantage for the imports. If your product is selling well then you get extra profits that can be used to expand production or develop new products, etc. If your product isn't selling as well as you'd like then you'd be able to lower the price to the point where you can still make a profit but your competitors can't. Either way it impacts Ford negatively.

Uh 2K to 3K, try $800 hundred to $1,200 in labor cost per unit. Now a 30% disparity would represent $240 to $360 per unit! Once again it doesn't matter if Toyota saves $240 to $360 per unit because their prices don't reflect it, they charge more for their products period! Lastly if you follow the link in the lead post on this thread Toyota workers are also being assaulted by by the public for what they make, and their benefits!

Edited September 14, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Trimdingman]

The dealers don't have an inventory problem. Dealer inventory is so low right now that Ford decided NOT to have a labor day sale for the first time in recent history.

 

There is no way that a strike is good for either side.

 

If supply is low, then demand, by default, is high. That puts upward pressure on prices. The main point that I was trying to make is that if the auto companies cut wages, then it will end up costing them money instead of saving them money. They know that. It is the same thing as the government raising taxes. They end up with less revenue because raising taxes stifles growth.

[akirby]

If supply is low, then demand, by default, is high. That puts upward pressure on prices. The main point that I was trying to make is that if the auto companies cut wages, then it will end up costing them money instead of saving them money. They know that. It is the same thing as the government raising taxes. They end up with less revenue because raising taxes stifles growth.

 

Wrong. Ford has cut back production to meet demand in a lot of cases (Fusion, e.g.). There is some increased demand but it's more about managing production levels and not overproducing like they've done in the past.

 

And why do you keep focusing on wages being cut? I said they need to cut compensation - that's more than just wages. It includes jobs bank, health care and other benefits that cost the company money. Frankly I think they should just freeze wages, not cut them.

[Furious1Auto]

Wrong. Ford has cut back production to meet demand in a lot of cases (Fusion, e.g.). There is some increased demand but it's more about managing production levels and not overproducing like they've done in the past.

 

And why do you keep focusing on wages being cut? I said they need to cut compensation - that's more than just wages. It includes jobs bank, health care and other benefits that cost the company money. Frankly I think they should just freeze wages, not cut them.

I agree with the first half of your post. But as far as GEN it is beneficial to the company to keep this program! That's not to say that it is not in need of reform!

Edited September 14, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[akirby]

Uh 2K to 3K, try $800 hundred to $1,200 in labor cost per unit. Now a 30% disparity would represent $240 to $360 per unit! Once again it doesn't matter if Toyota saves $240 to $360 per unit because their prices don't reflect it, they charge more for their products period! Lastly if you follow the link in the lead post on this thread Toyota workers are also being assaulted by by the public for what they make, and their benefits!

 

Where did I say the $2K-$3K cost difference was due strictly to labor cost? I didn't, but that's a big part of it as you just admitted. Sharing platforms globally will also reduce cost. It all has to be looked at.

 

The difference with Toyota is that Toyota voluntarily agreed to those wages and benefits without having the employees threatening to strike or going through some convoluted bargaining process.

 

And I think you need to re-read those comments. They aren't complaining about the Toyota workers making more than they do. They're complaining about the Toyota workers complaining about having to pay more for health insurance when they're still getting a better deal than most other workers in the area. In other words - be grateful for what you have.

[akirby]

But as far as GEN it is beneficial to the company to keep this program! That's not to say that it is not in need of reform!

 

GEN is only beneficial to the company if it allows trained employees to be reused instead of having to hire untrained people and only if the reuse happens within a reasonable amount of time - a few months to a year maybe. After that the cost of carrying someone on the payroll that isn't producing product becomes too great. All major companies do this to some extent provided they aren't downsizing.

 

And if the company is permanently downsizing then there is absolutely no benefit at all to the company. Look at what happened to GM in California 20 years ago. They closed the only plant in that area so there was nowhere for the workers to transfer. The workers there remained on GEN for as long as 15 years. 15 years of paying them not to do any work whatsoever.

 

How about a 6 month limit? Either find another job within the company or retire or get some type of severance package. Maybe even up to 1 year.

[Furious1Auto]

Where did I say the $2K-$3K cost difference was due strictly to labor cost? I didn't, but that's a big part of it as you just admitted. Sharing platforms globally will also reduce cost. It all has to be looked at.

 

The difference with Toyota is that Toyota voluntarily agreed to those wages and benefits without having the employees threatening to strike or going through some convoluted bargaining process.

 

And I think you need to re-read those comments. They aren't complaining about the Toyota workers making more than they do. They're complaining about the Toyota workers complaining about having to pay more for health insurance when they're still getting a better deal than most other workers in the area. In other words - be grateful for what you have.

If you were correct than 2K to 3K is the total per unit cost to Ford, and not the disparity between the per unit labor costs from import to domestic automakers! Only 4% of the MSRP on our products goes to the work force for labor! If it did represent 2K to 3K(which it does not) than the disparity would be $600 to $900 dollars! Once again Toyota's MSRP does not reflect the supposed 30% labor costs advantage! The facts are Fords are cheaper!

Edited September 14, 2007 by Furious1Auto