Do laid off workers still get 95% pay?

[Pioneer]

Hey, Ranger. Where do you work, and what do you get paid?

[RangerM]

Hey, Ranger. Where do you work, and what do you get paid?

Nonya

[Pioneer]

Nonya

 

 

See! You do get it! :happy feet:

[RangerM]

See! You do get it! :happy feet:

 

But, I didn't ask you...you asked me. (first)

 

Regardless, I have no problem with you, or the guys working the line (including their payrate).

 

My biggest problem is with the JOBS Bank, and the fact that there are three times the number of retirees/surviving spouses as there are workers trying to support them as well as themselves. The Union Bosses and the manufacturers' CEOs are equally at fault for their short-sightedness.

 

Whether the workers who ratified such contracts plead innocence or ignorance, the net result is the same. The obligations totally outnumber the options.

[ANTAUS]

To add...

 

LINK

 

"Wages and benefits for second-tier workers will average $27 per hour, compared with the average $73 per hour of current workers, the sources said."

 

"• Gettelfinger said the agreement includes modifications to the controversial jobs bank, which provides unemployed workers with full pay as they wait for job openings. The modification includes an expansion of the area in which workers would be required to move for a different assignment or lose their income. Currently, workers are not required to move for jobs farther than 50 miles from their previous plants."

 

---Sound like they still get their full pay .

 

"Analysts estimate that foreign automakers with U.S. manufacturing operations pay an average of $20 less to $30 less per hour than GM. The costs are said to put U.S. manufacturers at a $1,500 to $2,000 disadvantage to the foreign automakers."

 

A bit outdated, but at one time showed 12K in the job banks, making average of $31 Per Hour.

LINK-DetNews

 

 

I've found a few others, but ti's the same basic info repeated by each media outlet over and over.

Seems to be the pink elephant no one wants to talk about.

[Pioneer]

My biggest problem is with the JOBS Bank

 

 

I am currently in the "jobs bank". (even though Ford doesn't call it that. )

[Pioneer]

"• Gettelfinger said the agreement includes modifications to the controversial jobs bank, which provides unemployed workers with full pay as they wait for job openings.

 

 

I am in the "jobs bank", and I can assure you, I am NOT receiving full pay.

[RichardJensen]

I am in the "jobs bank", and I can assure you, I am NOT receiving full pay.

From what I read, you only get one year in the Ford 'job bank'. Regardless of what the compensation is to job bank employees.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/05/details...d-uaw-contract/

 

Also, in the prior agreement (the 2003) contract, Ford agreed to kick in $944M to their 'job bank', which included Visteon employees. This would suggest that 'job bank' benefits are tied to the number of employees in the job bank.

 

Additionally, $944M over 4 years is $236M/year, or $59M/quarter. A sizable sum, but all-in-all, not a catastrophically large one.

 

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0.../A01-351179.htm

 

Yes, each jobs bank program is different. No, nobody likes to talk about what employees are paid hourly. Yes, some people are wasting the time they spend in the job bank. No. Not everyone is wasting their time--some are taking advantage of educational benefits, some are volunteering.

Edited November 17, 2008 by RichardJensen

[RangerM]

I am currently in the "jobs bank". (even though Ford doesn't call it that. )

 

Then I hope you are using the time wisely ( , as in bettering yourself), and I wish you the best of luck.

[jafo]

From what I read, you only get one year in the Ford 'job bank'. Regardless of what the compensation is to job bank employees.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/05/details...d-uaw-contract/

 

Also, in the prior agreement (the 2003) contract, Ford agreed to kick in $944M to their 'job bank', which included Visteon employees. This would suggest that 'job bank' benefits are tied to the number of employees in the job bank.

 

Additionally, $944M over 4 years is $236M/year, or $59M/quarter. A sizable sum, but all-in-all, not a catastrophically large one.

 

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0.../A01-351179.htm

 

Yes, each jobs bank program is different. No, nobody likes to talk about what employees are paid hourly. Yes, some people are wasting the time they spend in the job bank. No. Not everyone is wasting their time--some are taking advantage of educational benefits, some are volunteering.

 

 

It may not be catastrophically large number, but it is 1/5 of what ford paid to develope the new 6 speed transmissions. That same money would have mad improvements to several plants. It would have gone into other things that would have better ford, but instead it was wasted on idle labor. And this has been going for close to 30 years now.....

[RichardJensen]

instead it was wasted on idle labor

Wrong: Ford has been, and continues to be, one of the largest investors in R&D.

 

$56M/quarter is not chump change, but it is not the difference between a profit and a loss most quarters either. Furthermore, it's not as big a cost as health care expense on a quarter to quarter basis.

 

Blaming Ford's poor performance on something that runs about .25% of Ford's quarterly NA revenue is wrongheaded.

 

Should there be a jobs bank? In an ideal world, no. However, does the jobs bank make or break Ford? Absolutely not.

 

But, please, feel free to ignore everything written here in order to characterize my beliefs according to your own misguided prejudices.

Edited November 18, 2008 by RichardJensen

[jafo]

Wrong: Ford has been, and continues to be, one of the largest investors in R&D.

 

$56M/quarter is not chump change, but it is not the difference between a profit and a loss most quarters either. Furthermore, it's not as big a cost as health care expense on a quarter to quarter basis.

 

Blaming Ford's poor performance on something that runs about .25% of Ford's quarterly NA revenue is wrongheaded.

 

Should there be a jobs bank? In an ideal world, no. However, does the jobs bank make or break Ford? Absolutely not.

 

But, please, feel free to ignore everything written here in order to characterize my beliefs according to your own misguided prejudices.

 

 

You miss the point Richard. The jobs bank is an opportunity cost and they got idle labor instead of something tangible(like a updated ranger, or taurus or a global small car). Also realize that the jobs bank has an unhealthy effect on automation. This means ford can only automate things that pay off big time as, they still have to pay for displaced labor in the jobs bank. Realize that automation also tends to increase quality or at the very least make quality very consistent. The jobs bank has hurt the big 3 far more in this area far more thant he lost capital used to buy idle labor.

 

And that post I made no attempt to characterize your beliefs, I was only pointing the lost opportunity cost that the big 3 have with the jobs bank setup.

Edited November 18, 2008 by jafo

[RichardJensen]

Also realize that the jobs bank has an unhealthy effect on automation.

 

And that post I made no attempt to characterize your beliefs, I was only pointing the lost opportunity cost that the big 3 have with the jobs bank setup.

1) Do you have any proof of this? Anywhere? Are you aware of which NA plant was most efficient on the 2008 Harbour report?

 

http://car-reviews.automobile.com/news/200...fficiency/5733/

 

2) You did plenty of 'characterization' over on the Dow thread. Didn't bother to read a thing I wrote--just assumed you knew it all already.

 

----

 

BTW, thank you for assuming that I miss the point. In fact, I get the point: the jobs bank is an expense that the union auto makers could do without.

 

However, its comparatively low cost means that it's hardly responsible for the unionized auto makers' ills.

 

----

 

Under guise of tough love, you, jafo, are promoting the same kind of 'excuses excuses' thinking that has hobbled Detroit for years.

 

Ford, however, has not bought into that. Neither Bill Ford, Jr., nor Alan Mulally look at the jobs bank or the number of dealers as being 1) insurmountable obstacles to profitability or 2) excuses for failing to invest in product.

 

The fact is, everything Ford has done, GM has been able to do. They have, however, justified their own mediocrity by referring to the number of dealers ('we can't get good prices because we have too many dealers'), or by referring to the UAW ('we can't build good cars because the UAW won't let us')

[jafo]

1) Do you have any proof of this? Anywhere? Are you aware of which NA plant was most efficient on the 2008 Harbour report?

 

http://car-reviews.automobile.com/news/200...fficiency/5733/

 

 

I never said all US plants were at the bottom. They should however alll be near the top, which they are not. The harbour reports show big 3 behind the inports in most aspects. THe big 3 have done much to catch up in those reports, but they still remain behind. When they do finally catch up and pass the imports, then it will be time to celebrate, until more work has to be done.

 

 

2) You did plenty of 'characterization' over on the Dow thread. Didn't bother to read a thing I wrote--just assumed you knew it all already.

 

----

 

I did read what had to write, but thanks for making that assumption.

 

 

BTW, thank you for assuming that I miss the point. In fact, I get the point: the jobs bank is an expense that the union auto makers could do without.

 

However, its comparatively low cost means that it's hardly responsible for the unionized auto makers' ills.

 

It may be low cost, but it is also an opportunity cost and cost that distorts the cost of labor.

 

 

Under guise of tough love, you, jafo, are promoting the same kind of 'excuses excuses' thinking that has hobbled Detroit for years.

 

 

 

Ford, however, has not bought into that. Neither Bill Ford, Jr., nor Alan Mulally look at the jobs bank or the number of dealers as being 1) insurmountable obstacles to profitability or 2) excuses for failing to invest in product.

 

This will come as a shock to you, but I think Bill Ford Jr did a good Job as CEO and was only ousted because it was taking too long to turn the ship. Mulally was lucky enough to be able to inherit his progress and appears to be building on it.

 

The problems the big 3 face are not insurmountable, but they are many l unneeded obstacles in their way.

 

The fact is, everything Ford has done, GM has been able to do. They have, however, justified their own mediocrity by referring to the number of dealers ('we can't get good prices because we have too many dealers'), or by referring to the UAW ('we can't build good cars because the UAW won't let us')

 

 

Those are factors to profitability and success. Money wasted in one area, is money not invested in another.

[akirby]

This will come as a shock to you, but I think Bill Ford Jr did a good Job as CEO and was only ousted because it was taking too long to turn the ship. Mulally was lucky enough to be able to inherit his progress and appears to be building on it.

 

That may be true in some areas, such as quality control, but the biggest change that AM brought was forcing North America, Europe and Australia to work together and share global resources. If Bill had done that 10 years ago Ford wouldn't be in this position. When AM took over it was like managing 3 separate companies that only worked together if it suited them. That's why the mustang and focus have their own individual, non-shared platforms.

 

AM also challenged Ford to be class leading - as witnessed by the fuel economy of the 09 F150 and 2010 Fusion/Fusion Hybrid. Bill never mandated best in class fuel economy. Yet another example of getting individual groups to work together towards a common corporate goal rather than individual accomplishments.