Furious1Auto Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Take your pity party back to the employee forum. You're not being asked to pay for anybody's mistakes. You're being asked to accept fair market compensation - period. In fact they were doing exactly that - giving their customers what they wanted: SUVs and trucks. That's where the volume was and that's where the profits were. Where they failed was in predicting high gas prices and a huge decline in the demand for large trucks and SUVs and they failed to diversify the product portfolio to lessen the impact of such market swings. In other words - they put all their eggs in one basket and the basket broke so now they're playing catch-up. And their trying to do it by forcing concessions on their workers while not asking the same of their management! You can paint it with any brush you want but the picture still comes out the same! They lacked foresight and want the hourly's to pay for their mistakes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Just a few things I would like to add. As mentioned previously, YES there was a recent article in Detroit News stating Toyota had the highest R&D this year. Also, Ford's R&D wouldn't be so high, if they were able to trim down the development cycle on certain items, such as the Cyclone V6...How many years was that sucker in the making? Same with the Boss engine...First it goes, then they decide to stop it and meditate for awhile, now they are wanting to continue it, etc.etc. When a company cannot stick to their plans, and is all over the place, that pushed these costs to rediculous amounts. They need to stay the course when they make these decisions. Instability causes these things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 My point is that if they hadn't lost sight or concern for what their customers wanted, than they would not have waited until they where almost out of business to do something about it! Now they want us to pay for their mistakes! did Ford really lose sight? or did they just pass the buck? beancounters get too much clout? market trends change? or did they just have a bunch of Morons in their consumer clinics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 And their trying to do it by forcing concessions on their workers while not asking the same of their management! You can paint it with any brush you want but the picture still comes out the same! They lacked foresight and want the hourly's to pay for their mistakes! If I give you $100, then take back $50 - did you make $50 or lose $50? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) If I give you $100, then take back $50 - did you make $50 or lose $50? You lost out on the $200 you could have pulled in and essentially didn't improve your position. Taking from your overhead whether it be through your labor or material may sustain profitability in the short term, but if there is not an increase in volume than you will continue to lose profitability in the long run and continue asking for concessions! Edited October 10, 2007 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) You lost out on the $200 you could have pulled in and essentially didn't improve your position. Taking from your overhead whether it be through your labor or material may sustain profitability in the short term, but if there is not an increase in volume than you will continue to lose profitability in the long run and continue asking for concessions! Thats incorrect. Lower volume will mean fewer jobs, less overhead, and profitability. The only concessions will be the fewer jobs. Edited October 10, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) Thats incorrect. Lower volume will mean fewer jobs, less overhead, and profitability. The only concessions will be the fewer jobs. If you weren't following I was suggesting that without product improvement, and gaining customers, just reducing the your costs and inventory is not a formula for long term success and I am correct! Edited October 10, 2007 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 If you weren't following I was suggesting that without product improvement, and gaining customers, just reducing the your costs and inventory is not a formula for long term success and I am correct! Why not, a steady income is all that is needed, not a growing one. We have to stabilize the company before it can start to grow. Unfortunately, the best way to stabilize it is to cut the excess and get smaller. The entire market is contracting anyway. Perhaps the restructuring is a blessing in disguise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) How else do you expect them to report record losses in order to force their employees to concede, while they could have their books reflecting a profit? The record loss had nothing to do with R&D spending. The record loss had everything to do with high fixed costs coupled with writing off of a lot of assets. Basically, Ford knew it was going to be closing plants and that the size of their loss in 2006 was going to be large - so why not write off as much as possible. $10 billion isn't that much different from $12.6 billion. R&D is a cash transaction often reported on a 10-Q if I'm not mistaken and not part of their profit loss statement. R&D is a depreciating investment, however, so Ford will write off its assets used in R&D over time. The UAW must concede for Ford to achieve cost parity with the Asian manufacturers. It doesn't necessarily mean that you will earn less in dollars per hour (although it is likely over time - and a more meaningful entry-level and experience pay scale is needed), however it does mean that the UAW workers must become flexible and accept things like bonuses when the company does well, but nothing when the company isn't. Sharing of increases in health care costs. 401ks instead of pensions. No retiree health care. And performance based assessments that can lead to disciplinary action. Basically, it's time to work and live in the ups and downs of a company like the rest of us. White collar workers have already taken the brunt of the cuts because Ford can cut there without people striking (just quitting - they don't get pensions or retiree health care). However, you need the white collar workers as much as they need you. I'll assume, though, that you mean Mulally, Fields, Leclair. Talent costs money. Most auto companies would be lucky to have that team in place at the top right now. There are other higher level execs that I am less confident in, but cream rises, and will especially now that Mulally is in charge. But at the end of the day, they have a hell of a hole to dig out of that is not entirely any one person's fault except maybe Jacques Nasser and Bill Ford who no longer have a salary from Ford. So yes, hourly workers are part of that equation, because they can't squeeze anywhere else. Ford is not wholly against you. That type of attitude is exactly what is wrong with the union. Edited October 10, 2007 by focus05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Why not, a steady income is all that is needed, not a growing one. We have to stabilize the company before it can start to grow. Unfortunately, the best way to stabilize it is to cut the excess and get smaller. The entire market is contracting anyway. Perhaps the restructuring is a blessing in disguise. It looks more likely to be a posturing for huge future gains at the loss of wages for our employ, rather than a gain through growth! More like income redistribution only for the executives to enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The record loss had nothing to do with R&D spending. The record loss had everything to do with high fixed costs coupled with writing off of a lot of assets. Basically, Ford knew it was going to be closing plants and that the size of their loss in 2006 was going to be large - so why not write off as much as possible. $10 billion isn't that much different from $12.6 billion. R&D is a cash transaction often reported on a 10-Q if I'm not mistaken and not part of their profit loss statement. R&D is a depreciating investment, however, so Ford will write off its assets used in R&D over time. The UAW must concede for Ford to achieve cost parity with the Asian manufacturers. It doesn't necessarily mean that you will earn less in dollars per hour (although it is likely over time - and a more meaningful entry-level and experience pay scale is needed), however it does mean that the UAW workers must become flexible and accept things like bonuses when the company does well, but nothing when the company isn't. Sharing of increases in health care costs. 401ks instead of pensions. No retiree health care. And performance based assessments that can lead to disciplinary action. Basically, it's time to work and live in the ups and downs of a company like the rest of us. White collar workers have already taken the brunt of the cuts because Ford can cut there without people striking (just quitting - they don't get pensions or retiree health care). However, you need the white collar workers as much as they need you. I'll assume, though, that you mean Mulally, Fields, Leclair. Talent costs money. Most auto companies would be lucky to have that team in place at the top right now. There are other higher level execs that I am less confident in, but cream rises, and will especially now that Mulally is in charge. But at the end of the day, they have a hell of a hole to dig out of that is not entirely any one person's fault except maybe Jacques Nasser and Bill Ford who no longer have a salary from Ford. So yes, hourly workers are part of that equation, because they can't squeeze anywhere else. Ford is not wholly against you. That type of attitude is exactly what is wrong with the union. Uh no, the management is not conceding, and because they labor costs only represent 8.6% of the MSRP they do have 91.4% other places to look to cut costs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 The UAW must concede for Ford to achieve cost parity with the Asian manufacturers. When will American CEO's achieve parity with the compensation of Asian manufacturers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) When will American CEO's achieve parity with the compensation of Asian manufacturers? Pioneer you have a new jacket I almost didn't recognize you, I agree with you 100% Their is a $10,100,000 annual wage gap between GM's CEO and Toyota's CEO. When they close the gap I won't mind that the hourly's do the same! Edited October 10, 2007 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Uh no, the management is not conceding, and because they labor costs only represent 8.6% of the MSRP they do have 91.4% other places to look to cut costs! Yes but they have. They have cut warranty expenses and many other expenses making up billions of dollars. The problem exists in FNA, and the UAW is part of the problem. Other areas are being trimmed as well, but everyone has to do their part, and don't reply with some remark about CEO salaries. You are not a CEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Yes but they have. They have cut warranty expenses and many other expenses making up billions of dollars. The problem exists in FNA, and the UAW is part of the problem. Other areas are being trimmed as well, but everyone has to do their part, and don't reply with some remark about CEO salaries. You are not a CEO You answered for me, they also are not being paid according to the market in line with their foreign rivals. The wage gap is even more predominate in the hierarchy! Don't tell me what arguements I can use, it is the same weapon they have turned on us. If you point a gun on me , it is you who will get the wound from it! I didn't start this war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 You answered for me, they also are not being paid according to the market in line with their foreign rivals. The wage gap is even more predominate in the hierarchy! Don't tell me what arguements I can use, it is the same weapon they have turned on us. If you point a gun on me , it is you who will get the wound from it! I didn't start this war! I wasn't aware there was a war....at least on NA soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 They have cut warranty expenses and many other expenses making up billions of dollars. Of course they cut warranty expenses. We're selling almost half as many cars as we used to. :rolleyes: And another thing. America is not at war with anybody at the moment. Not on our soil, not anywhere in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Of course they cut warranty expenses. We're selling almost half as many cars as we used to. :rolleyes: And another thing. America is not at war with anybody at the moment. Not on our soil, not anywhere in the world. America is at war. There are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is a war on terror, the war in Iraq is a war on... :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) Of course they cut warranty expenses. We're selling almost half as many cars as we used to. :rolleyes: And another thing. America is not at war with anybody at the moment. Not on our soil, not anywhere in the world. Admit it, the product is better. Costs have been trimmed other places besides the UAW workers. They are finding any savings they can to keep the company going and to return to profitability. Edited October 10, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 America is not at war. Keep saying it is if you want, but we are not. Ever heard of the Constitution? Read Article 1, section 8. People keep arguing with me about this, and I keep proving people wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_o...e_United_States Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 America is not at war. Keep saying it is if you want, but we are not. Ever heard of the Constitution? Read Article 1, section 8. People keep arguing with me about this, and I keep proving people wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_o...e_United_States Well, maybe your not at war, but your fighting a conflict which has been characterized as a war. There we can both win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 When will American CEO's achieve parity with the compensation of Asian manufacturers? Maybe never because American CEOs don't live in Japan and Asian CEOs don't live in America. Why do pro basketball players in America make so much more than their pro counterparts in Italy? Different markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Maybe never because American CEOs don't live in Japan and Asian CEOs don't live in America. Then no matter how hard Alan tries, Ford will never be like an Asian manufacturer. Funny. It just shows how much he is a hypocrite. I have no respect for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Then no matter how hard Alan tries, Ford will never be like an Asian manufacturer. Funny. It just shows how much he is a hypocrite. I have no respect for him. Did he say he wanted to turn Ford into a Japanese company? No. All he said is that there is much we can learn from them as far as processes and engineering go. If you want him to follow through with his plan of being more Japanese, would you be willing to find work elsewhere, since there would be no more UAW at Ford either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 You answered for me, they also are not being paid according to the market in line with their foreign rivals. The wage gap is even more predominate in the hierarchy! Don't tell me what arguements I can use, it is the same weapon they have turned on us. If you point a gun on me , it is you who will get the wound from it! I didn't start this war! Ford's CEO works in the U.S. and therefore is affected by the labor market predominantly in the U.S. He is paid with decent parity to others in industrial companies and probably slightly less. His salary is $2 million. His bonus this year will probably be a couple million as well. Japan's CEO works in Japan. Jim Press who came from Toyota NA probably didn't make less than $1 million a year and he wasn't CEO. The market would have grabbed him a long time ago otherwise. You work in the U.S. along side Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai workers who earn much less than you for performing similar tasks who have no pension and share higher burdens of health care costs. The goal is not to bring Ford's UAW labor costs in line with China or even Japan. The goal is to bring labor costs in line with other workers at transplant factories in the U.S. who do similar jobs. And there is a large disparity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.