S.Knight Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) After reading a post by one of my union brothers who was in fear of losing some overtime to workers transferring to his plant. I decided to finally write what I have been thinking for sometime. Why would upper management not flood locations with skilled trade workers before offering this round of packages? They wonder why the skilled trades take rate is so low and why such a large backlog of workers has been created. Has anyone in the “glass house” stopped to look at how much these workers make with overtime? It just seems to me that the buyout program they are offering now, is half assed and bound for failure. Increasing the dollar amount offered to skilled trades won’t alone increase the amount of people who opt to leave via retirement/separation packages. Offering packages like this, will do a fine job at getting the skilled workers of retirement age, holding on in GEN pools with no desire to transfer, to call it quits. But it will do nothing to encourage workers in plants to leave. The irony is that these workers would have accepted the $35 thousand and needed no extra inducement. If the company were serious about getting skilled workers in plants to leave, they would need to shrink the divergence between what workers make with overtime and how much they draw with their pensions. Reducing this gap is what is needed to create incentive for an exodus. Why would the company not immediately send workers wanting transfers to locations, and after they arrive offer packages? When I look at their decisions, it seems to me, they are operating more by the skin of their teeth, than* by some deliberate master plan. Which begs the question; does this management team have what it takes to pull this company out of the hole that has been created? Time will tell. *- edited by request of user(gunnut69) Edited March 14, 2008 by S.Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) After reading a post by one of my union brothers who was in fear of losing some overtime to workers transferring to his plant. I decided to finally write what I have been thinking for sometime. Why would upper management not flood locations with skilled trade workers before offering this round of packages? They wonder why the skilled trades take rate is so low and why such a large backlog of workers has been created. Has anyone in the “glass house” stopped to look at how much these workers make with overtime? It just seems to me that the buyout program they are offering now, is half assed and bound for failure. Increasing the dollar amount offered to skilled trades won’t alone increase the amount of people who opt to leave via retirement/separation packages. Offering packages like this, will do a fine job at getting the skilled workers of retirement age, holding on in GEN pools with no desire to transfer, to call it quits. But it will do nothing to encourage workers in plants to leave. The irony is that these workers would have accepted the $35 thousand and needed no extra inducement. If the company were serious about getting skilled workers in plants to leave, they would need to shrink the divergence between what workers make with overtime and how much they draw with their pensions. Reducing this gap is what is needed to create incentive for an exodus. Why would the company not immediately send workers wanting transfers to locations, and after they arrive offer packages? When I look at their decisions, it seems to me, they are operating more by the skin of their teeth, then by some deliberate master plan. Which begs the question; does this management team have what it takes to dig this company out of the hole that has been created? Time will tell. Good Knight.... and I give you an A on sentence structure, and punctuation Edited March 13, 2008 by nvsked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Ford likes to work people overtime. It's cheaper to pay it than pay another person per hour and benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Good Knight.... and I give you an A on sentence structure, and punctuation What I am certain would be construed by my past English teachers as a victory, has left me wanting. No points awarded for content? Edited March 13, 2008 by S.Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
objectsinmirror Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The skilled workforce in this company (and this country) is it's life blood. There are projections of a serious skilled trade shortage in North America come 2011. The company Knows this and needs to retain as many in the "target senority or age" range that fit into thier production scheme. Now the 30+ year people are just not in the plans. There has never been a better time to retire. (I know, health care worries and such), but still. Ford only works it's skilled overtime when it's a must. Due dates are VERY important to the company's bottom line and skilled is the most valuable when it comes to new products. Everyone likes overtime, UNTIL...it's forced on them....12 hours 7 days...DO MORE WITH LESS!! That's what they've been saying from the start of this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Most of the tradesmen that the company are targeting aren't the overtime workers. They're the workers that work 40 hours that are senior and just filling in a seat until they retire. For the most part, the health care and benefits are the same for a worker whether they work 40 hours or 80 hours. While you may save a little in wages, there isn't a great deal of difference between paying one guy 80 hours with overtime and paying 2 guys 40 hours because with 2 guys you pay twice the benefits. However, when things get slow, you don't have to lay off anyone with the guy working overtime -- you cut back the OT. With two people, you either have 2 workers making 40 hours or you have one worker and one laid off person getting SUB. Two people draw twice the pension of one worker working overtime. Two people have twice the vacation. Like I said, the ones that the company wants to get rid of are the ones that don't want the overtime, not the ones that do. Of course, the Union wants the opposite... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 Ford likes to work people overtime. It's cheaper to pay it than pay another person per hour and benefits. While that may be true in some cases, I think in this particular instance, it does not apply. The people transferring to the facilities would be coming from situations in which Ford was already paying them. The GEN/JSP has been, and is currently, paying full pay and benefits (something Ford normally hopes to limit by use of overtime) and receiving no utility. Also, when these surplus workers began arriving at facilities they would immediately reduce the amount of overtime that plant was forced to use. So I think in this case there is a lot of money to save Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
objectsinmirror Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 While that may be true in some cases, I think in this particular instance, it does not apply. The people transferring to the facilities would be coming from situations in which Ford was already paying them. The GEN/JSP has been, and is currently, paying full pay and benefits (something Ford normally hopes to limit by use of overtime) and receiving no utility. Also, when these surplus workers began arriving at facilities they would immediately reduce the amount of overtime that plant was forced to use. So I think in this case there is a lot of money to save I am skilled and on voluntary TLO...with 60 some others...Those "left" are working overtime..it's called have your cake and eat it too...(on both sides) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 I am skilled and on voluntary TLO...with 60 some others...Those "left" are working overtime..it's called have your cake and eat it too...(on both sides) Exactly what I am talking about. The company, instead of creating incentive for you embrace their buy-out package, is creating a disincentive for you to accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Roboto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 S. Night, Good content. As well as punctuation. Sometimes you have to wonder if big business and big government has lost the ability to use common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 S. Night, Good content. As well as punctuation. Sometimes you have to wonder if big business and big government has lost the ability to use common sense. Ahh... my ego has been satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Bennet Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Thanks This is the best thread in a long time Great points, intelligently made. I am a bit scared for the economy as a whole, with the Babay Boomers retiring. I am nost so worried about the turnover of my tradesmen becuase I have faith in the training programs in place. I must give kudos to UAW skilled trades programs. I still find the notion of UAW-Skilled Trades a paradox, its a union formed because everyone considered them UNskilled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
objectsinmirror Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Exactly what I am talking about. The company, instead of creating incentive for you embrace their buy-out package, is creating a disincentive for you to accept it. There is no disincentive for me...a few weeks before the layoff, the Union and the company were wrangling over what to do with the surplus people, while we hit this "slump" period between the last program and the next (which is due in May/June). The Company is "right sizing" to to match sales...there's no way around that. I'm middleish in senority...I want to work every day (M-F please) If I, and others didn't take a TLO, they would have laid off from the bottom up...to GEN,JSP or on the street. The older, more senior employees would still be there no matter what...because of senority, there's no way around that either. I would bet there isn't many 30 plusers in GEN or JSP "Riding out" the storm here...They're in the plants cozying up to the coffee pot or working thier A** off with body parts that don't do what they used to do, some thumbing thier nose at a buyout of 100 plus grand...let them carry the load for a while...maybe that's the way to get 'em bought off...During this buyout period, tensions will get high...I'll stay home and let it pass, thank you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 There is no disincentive for me...a few weeks before the layoff, the Union and the company were wrangling over what to do with the surplus people, while we hit this "slump" period between the last program and the next (which is due in May/June). The Company is "right sizing" to to match sales...there's no way around that. I'm middleish in senority...I want to work every day (M-F please) If I, and others didn't take a TLO, they would have laid off from the bottom up...to GEN,JSP or on the street. The older, more senior employees would still be there no matter what...because of senority, there's no way around that either. I would bet there isn't many 30 plusers in GEN or JSP "Riding out" the storm here...They're in the plants cozying up to the coffee pot or working thier A** off with body parts that don't do what they used to do, some thumbing thier nose at a buyout of 100 plus grand...let them carry the load for a while...maybe that's the way to get 'em bought off...During this buyout period, tensions will get high...I'll stay home and let it pass, thank you... You’re right; I didn’t mean “you” specifically. I should have referred to the plant. The workers “ who are cozying up” are the ones who are receiving the disincentive. Your absence from the workplace is creating the climate for them to stay. If the sixty of you currently on TLO were working the need for overtime would be removed. I would imagine some of the workers using the overtime earnings, as their reason to stay, would leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktpworker69 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 You’re right; I didn’t mean “you” specifically. I should have referred to the plant. The workers “ who are cozying up” are the ones who are receiving the disincentive. Your absence from the workplace is creating the climate for them to stay. If the sixty of you currently on TLO were working the need for overtime would be removed. I would imagine some of the workers using the overtime earnings, as their reason to stay, would leave. If the 60 or so people wasn't on TLO, wouldn't they just lay off from the bottom up in seniority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) If the 60 or so people wasn't on TLO, wouldn't they just lay off from the bottom up in seniority? Sometimes what is best for you in the short run doesn’t create good long-term results. In this case Ford will be rewarded handsomely for eliminating as many workers as possible. With this round of buyouts they must entice twenty percent of the production workforce to leave and shrink the persistent backlog of tradesman. Wall street will continue to punish them for delivering less. If Ford is truly interested in returning the company to profitability, it must not undermine its own initiatives. During the last few months I have watched in utter amazement as they have haphazardly thrown this buy-out initiative together. It seems they have done so with no deliberate planning. How else could offering a performance bonus during your open window be taken? I mean are we trying to get people to go, or to stay? If they are trying to get people to go, they should weave each of the factors they can control, into an atmosphere of acceptance. They should take the temporarily inefficient step of increasing manpower (via transfer from JSP program) , to reduce plant overtime. This will serve to encourage workers “on the fence” to leave. They should resist the urge to reward workers for negative performance, and if you must reward them (to keep them inline with restructuring efforts), do it after their open window. There are a litany of other examples… Edited March 14, 2008 by S.Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Okay, I've been reading all the post, and I guess its time to add my opinion. A) Part of the buyout program is a carefully crafted program to shrink the company, without loosing all of its people, hoping for that rebound. B) The company is not going to cut it's way to profitability, yes its necessary to keep cost down when cash flow is limited, but no one ever cut it's way to profitability; its in the product. C) Announcing new product, or making major investment during the buyout period is not going to happen. The buyout thing, again my opinion. D) The company is eager for the buyouts to end, so they can get on with the business of making cars, which requires making investment into the company; so trying to make sense on working people overtime, or bringing people back, or hiring new, during the buyout period is futile. In closing, it is a shame that more of the senior people are not taking advantage of the buyout packages, not to get rid of them, but for their own benefit. If a person is of retirement age, how many more years would it take to save the amount of money being offered? With full benefits? But I guess if your not prepared to retire, physically or mentally you're not prepared, and it's not my call to make..... Good luck to all.. whether you stay or go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I still find the notion of UAW-Skilled Trades a paradox, its a union formed because everyone considered them UNskilled Much like the paradox that anybody named Harry Bennet had anything worthwhile to read, crawl back under your rock. You can always troll the salary links ....enjoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) Okay, I've been reading all the post, and I guess its time to add my opinion. A) Part of the buyout program is a carefully crafted program to shrink the company, without loosing all of its people, hoping for that rebound. B) The company is not going to cut it's way to profitability, yes its necessary to keep cost down when cash flow is limited, but no one ever cut it's way to profitability; its in the product. C) Announcing new product, or making major investment during the buyout period is not going to happen. The buyout thing, again my opinion. D) The company is eager for the buyouts to end, so they can get on with the business of making cars, which requires making investment into the company; so trying to make sense on working people overtime, or bringing people back, or hiring new, during the buyout period is futile. In closing, it is a shame that more of the senior people are not taking advantage of the buyout packages, not to get rid of them, but for their own benefit. If a person is of retirement age, how many more years would it take to save the amount of money being offered? With full benefits? But I guess if your not prepared to retire, physically or mentally you're not prepared, and it's not my call to make..... Good luck to all.. whether you stay or go! Ultimately you are correct, there is nothing more important than getting back to building quality vehicles and earning profits. However, the effects of doing this attrition program wrong are disastrous. If the program is undersubscribed the company will not be able to reap the full benefits of the newly crafted contract., and will be forced to waste more resources doing it again. If you follow the news at Chrysler, there is already talk of having to revisit their attrition program. And Chryslers open window hasn’t even closed. Edited March 14, 2008 by S.Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Most of the tradesmen that the company are targeting aren't the overtime workers. They're the workers that work 40 hours that are senior and just filling in a seat until they retire.Like I said, the ones that the company wants to get rid of are the ones that don't want the overtime, not the ones that do. Really ?? So where is the package that targets workers only working 40 hrs ? Or is it only offered in Canada ? I understand what you're saying about 40 hrs vs. $70k and pension, but I do not see it as targeting. Not all trades make $150k. I know many that are under $100k. And $36k/yr is not an incentive. Even with the $70k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnut69 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Good Knight.... and I give you an A on sentence structure, and punctuation the first paragraph should be one sentence.commas are overused throughout.the last paragraph has "then" where "than" should be.thats at a glance. its a better effort than i usually give,but doesnt deserve an a. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 the first paragraph should be one sentence.commas are overused throughout.the last paragraph has "then" where "than" should be.thats at a glance. its a better effort than i usually give,but doesnt deserve an a. Critique accepted. Although if "I" were you, I would edit your post and capitalize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Knight Posted March 14, 2008 Author Share Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) In an effort to provide full disclosure; I would like to admit to the forum that in English Composition II I received an A-. The major flaw in my writing was and is... the misuse of commas. I was instructed to go back and review comma usage... and as it is clear to see, I did not. Edited March 14, 2008 by S.Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 the first paragraph should be one sentence.commas are overused throughout.the last paragraph has "then" where "than" should be.thats at a glance. its a better effort than i usually give,but doesnt deserve an a. Comma use was not the main focus of the edit. Punctuation, spelling, and sentence structure overall, was a quality job. Not to mention I have the right to grade as I see fit, I'd give yours a B+. In the sentence above "commas are overused" is a bit clumsy you are switching between present and past tense. IMO but B+ is a good effort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
level Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) Much like the paradox that anybody named Harry Bennet had anything worthwhile to read, crawl back under your rock. You can always troll the salary links ....enjoy Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! Ditto! Edited March 15, 2008 by level 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.