Union turns to Ford after GM and Chrysler talks stall

[gary112]

SOUTHFIELD, Michigan: Ford Motor became the focus of United Auto Workers negotiations over the weekend after talks with General Motors and Chrysler stalled.

 

The union objected to GM and Chrysler proposals to modify a retiree health-care fund that Alan Reuther, a UAW lobbyist, said went beyond the requirements of the U.S. Treasury loans that the two automakers are relying on to survive. The U.S. government requires signed preliminary labor agreements by Tuesday, though it has not said what the consequences would be for missing the deadline.

 

Ford continues talking with the union, said the company spokesman, Mark Truby, who declined to characterize the talks.

 

"What this reflects is that the UAW has a better relationship with Ford and feels that an agreement that suits both sides can be reached and can then be spread to the other automakers," said Harley Shaiken, a labor professor for the University of California, Berkeley.

 

The terms of the Dec. 19 loan agreements from the U.S. Treasury require GM and Chrysler to convince the UAW to accept half of scheduled payments into a union-run retiree health-care fund next year in equity instead of cash. The automakers are also seeking to eliminate supplemental unemployment pay and to change plant work rules to trim labor expenses.

 

Today in Business with Reuters

Europe's economic slump deeper than expectedU.S. House approves $787 billion stimulus billWithout a cure for toxic assets, credit crisis will persistFord had said it expected to receive whatever concessions the UAW granted GM and Chrysler, and Ron Gettelfinger, the union's president, said last month that Ford would likely get similar concessions.

 

The GM and Chrysler proposals on the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association "contradict the explicit terms of the Treasury loan agreements, and would severely hurt retirees," Reuther said in an e-mail message. "These proposals are a non-starter as far as the UAW is concerned."

 

In GM's case, the union must sign off on a cash contribution of $10.2 billion to the fund instead of $20.4 billion, GM said last month. The UAW already agreed to accept reduced cash payments into the health-care fund, which was established under the 2007 contract that let automakers pay new workers half as much as traditional union employees.

 

Gettelfinger said in 2007 that the union was confident the fund could pay the health-care benefits of retirees for the next 80 years. He has said he is willing to make additional sacrifices to help the automakers avoid bankruptcy if auto executives, debt holders and others also sacrifice.

 

Lori McTavish, the Chrysler spokeswoman, and Tony Sapienza, the GM spokesman, declined to comment over the weekend on the status of the talks. Sapienza said Friday that GM was committed to meeting the Tuesday deadline. Chrysler, 80.1 percent of which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, said it also planned to meet the deadline.

 

The automakers are also asking the union to end a 54-year-old benefit that ensures almost full pay during layoffs.

 

The so-called "supplemental unemployment benefit" gives laid-off workers most of their take-home wages. Automakers and the UAW were discussing the future of the program, said people familiar with the talks, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations were private. The UAW was not negotiating cuts in core wages or benefits, the people said.

 

If GM cannot win agreement from the UAW and creditors to reduce its debt, analysts say the Obama administration will face a politically tough choice: either pump billions of dollars more into the automaker or steer it toward bankruptcy as some critics of the bailout have urged. Under Rick Wagoner, its chief executive, GM has resisted suggestions that it would be better able to restructure under a court-supervised bankruptcy. Wagoner and other executives have argued that consumers would shun GM cars and trucks if it were in bankruptcy, sending already weak sales into an irreversible tailspin.

 

Gettelfinger has balked at saddling retired workers with additional risk by taking devalued GM stock instead of cash. GM has received $9.4 billion from the U.S. government and has been pledged another $4 billion if it can show it can be viable at a time when U.S. auto sales are near 30-year lows.

 

A bankruptcy filing would allow GM to rework its contracts with creditors, the UAW, dealers and its suppliers. But it would also mean even steeper job losses. GM, Chrysler and Ford have cut 250,000 jobs since the start of the decade and are looking to cut more. GM and Chrysler are offering buyouts for most of their 91,000 UAW workers.

 

Chrysler has been given $4 billion in emergency funding from the U.S. Treasury and is seeking another $3 billion.

[MichiganTruck_Mafia]

So if Ford and the UAW come to agreement, will that agreement stick, no matter what GM/Chrysler get? I mean what if Ford/UAW sign an agreement, and later GM/Chrysler get bigger concessions from the UAW. Will Ford have to deal with GM/Chrysler getting deeper concessions and stick to the agreement they signed?

 

Of course not. Ford will get whatever concessions GM/Chrysler get. This is a waste of time.

[sterling joe]

So if Ford and the UAW come to agreement, will that agreement stick, no matter what GM/Chrysler get? I mean what if Ford/UAW sign an agreement, and later GM/Chrysler get bigger concessions from the UAW. Will Ford have to deal with GM/Chrysler getting deeper concessions and stick to the agreement they signed?

 

Of course not. Ford will get whatever concessions GM/Chrysler get. This is a waste of time.

We'll get boned twice I"LL BE VOTING "NO" I URGE ALL TO DO THE SAME ! we should not even be talking to the company right now anyway we have an agreement an they should honor it ! They should start at the top this time , if we work for "FREE" the company will still be losing "BILLIONS" so why are we even in meetings with the company ? I'll be holding my current "LEADERSHIP" accountable for this BULLSHIT and I'll be urging all on this forum to do the same.

[lovelincolns]

SOUTHFIELD, Michigan: Ford Motor became the focus of United Auto Workers negotiations over the weekend after talks with General Motors and Chrysler stalled.

 

The union objected to GM and Chrysler proposals to modify a retiree health-care fund that Alan Reuther, a UAW lobbyist, said went beyond the requirements of the U.S. Treasury loans that the two automakers are relying on to survive. The U.S. government requires signed preliminary labor agreements by Tuesday, though it has not said what the consequences would be for missing the deadline.

 

Ford continues talking with the union, said the company spokesman, Mark Truby, who declined to characterize the talks.

 

"What this reflects is that the UAW has a better relationship with Ford and feels that an agreement that suits both sides can be reached and can then be spread to the other automakers," said Harley Shaiken, a labor professor for the University of California, Berkeley.

 

The terms of the Dec. 19 loan agreements from the U.S. Treasury require GM and Chrysler to convince the UAW to accept half of scheduled payments into a union-run retiree health-care fund next year in equity instead of cash. The automakers are also seeking to eliminate supplemental unemployment pay and to change plant work rules to trim labor expenses.

 

Today in Business with Reuters

Europe's economic slump deeper than expectedU.S. House approves $787 billion stimulus billWithout a cure for toxic assets, credit crisis will persistFord had said it expected to receive whatever concessions the UAW granted GM and Chrysler, and Ron Gettelfinger, the union's president, said last month that Ford would likely get similar concessions.

 

The GM and Chrysler proposals on the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association "contradict the explicit terms of the Treasury loan agreements, and would severely hurt retirees," Reuther said in an e-mail message. "These proposals are a non-starter as far as the UAW is concerned."

 

In GM's case, the union must sign off on a cash contribution of $10.2 billion to the fund instead of $20.4 billion, GM said last month. The UAW already agreed to accept reduced cash payments into the health-care fund, which was established under the 2007 contract that let automakers pay new workers half as much as traditional union employees.

 

Gettelfinger said in 2007 that the union was confident the fund could pay the health-care benefits of retirees for the next 80 years. He has said he is willing to make additional sacrifices to help the automakers avoid bankruptcy if auto executives, debt holders and others also sacrifice.

 

Lori McTavish, the Chrysler spokeswoman, and Tony Sapienza, the GM spokesman, declined to comment over the weekend on the status of the talks. Sapienza said Friday that GM was committed to meeting the Tuesday deadline. Chrysler, 80.1 percent of which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, said it also planned to meet the deadline.

 

The automakers are also asking the union to end a 54-year-old benefit that ensures almost full pay during layoffs.

 

The so-called "supplemental unemployment benefit" gives laid-off workers most of their take-home wages. Automakers and the UAW were discussing the future of the program, said people familiar with the talks, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations were private. The UAW was not negotiating cuts in core wages or benefits, the people said.

 

If GM cannot win agreement from the UAW and creditors to reduce its debt, analysts say the Obama administration will face a politically tough choice: either pump billions of dollars more into the automaker or steer it toward bankruptcy as some critics of the bailout have urged. Under Rick Wagoner, its chief executive, GM has resisted suggestions that it would be better able to restructure under a court-supervised bankruptcy. Wagoner and other executives have argued that consumers would shun GM cars and trucks if it were in bankruptcy, sending already weak sales into an irreversible tailspin.

 

Gettelfinger has balked at saddling retired workers with additional risk by taking devalued GM stock instead of cash. GM has received $9.4 billion from the U.S. government and has been pledged another $4 billion if it can show it can be viable at a time when U.S. auto sales are near 30-year lows.

 

A bankruptcy filing would allow GM to rework its contracts with creditors, the UAW, dealers and its suppliers. But it would also mean even steeper job losses. GM, Chrysler and Ford have cut 250,000 jobs since the start of the decade and are looking to cut more. GM and Chrysler are offering buyouts for most of their 91,000 UAW workers.

 

Chrysler has been given $4 billion in emergency funding from the U.S. Treasury and is seeking another $3 billion.

I have read an article by an accountant that stated if pension funds are kept in a trust it can not be touched during bankruptcy filings and will stay solvent. Does anyone know if the auto pension fund is kept in a trust?

[Skilled1]

We'll get boned twice I"LL BE VOTING "NO" I URGE ALL TO DO THE SAME ! we should not even be talking to the company right now anyway we have an agreement an they should honor it ! They should start at the top this time , if we work for "FREE" the company will still be losing "BILLIONS" so why are we even in meetings with the company ? I'll be holding my current "LEADERSHIP" accountable for this BULLSHIT and I'll be urging all on this forum to do the same.

[/quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a lower seniority Tradesperson. We need investments with products in our plants. Without product we are all doomed. If I were retirement elegible I would be as brave as you. I talk to my nieghbors and friends and half of them are losing their jobs and have to choose between food and heat. This country is a mess.

 

I will be voting yes on lower wages and benefits if there is new work coming to our plants.

 

I trust the leadership and bargaining is a 2 way street (if we are giving something up we will get something in return). We will and I will always question my union leadership, and always support them during these tough times.

[fordworker]

I have read an article by an accountant that stated if pension funds are kept in a trust it can not be touched during bankruptcy filings and will stay solvent. Does anyone know if the auto pension fund is kept in a trust?

No there gone if they file bankruptcy. And the VEBA trust is not funded yet either.

[iluvnascar]

We'll get boned twice I"LL BE VOTING "NO" I URGE ALL TO DO THE SAME ! we should not even be talking to the company right now anyway we have an agreement an they should honor it ! They should start at the top this time , if we work for "FREE" the company will still be losing "BILLIONS" so why are we even in meetings with the company ? I'll be holding my current "LEADERSHIP" accountable for this BULLSHIT and I'll be urging all on this forum to do the same.

 

The economy - and car sales - fell off a cliff long after Ford and the UAW signed their last contract. Times have changed. A responsible union would immediately move to make the Company viable in an era of much-reduced sales.......but concessions need to be accompanied by shared responsibility among all stakeholders. In other words.....it makes good sense to cut SUB pay when workers are laid off.....but the entire salaried Ford workforce (including management and Executives) should be signing up for comparable concessions. There is no reason why Ford salaried, mgmt, and executives should not immediately agree to a 10% wage cut........with further cuts equivalent to any SUB reductions agreed to.

 

It is imperative for Ford to cut costs across the board in order to remain viable while sales slumber along at 10 million annually (33% less than the Company is structured to build).

 

No sense sticking your head in the sand....suffer now....and share in the good news if/when recovery is apparent.

[kel25]

The economy - and car sales - fell off a cliff long after Ford and the UAW signed their last contract. Times have changed. A responsible union would immediately move to make the Company viable in an era of much-reduced sales.......but concessions need to be accompanied by shared responsibility among all stakeholders. In other words.....it makes good sense to cut SUB pay when workers are laid off.....but the entire salaried Ford workforce (including management and Executives) should be signing up for comparable concessions. There is no reason why Ford salaried, mgmt, and executives should not immediately agree to a 10% wage cut........with further cuts equivalent to any SUB reductions agreed to.

 

It is imperative for Ford to cut costs across the board in order to remain viable while sales slumber along at 10 million annually (33% less than the Company is structured to build).

 

No sense sticking your head in the sand....suffer now....and share in the good news if/when recovery is apparent.

If we take a pay cut now we won't enjoy the benefits later. They won't bump our pay up once they are making money. For years they have screwed up money. Why did they have people in GEN for 9 monthes or more and have temps working in plants. Thats a waste of money. Why don't don't they offer something to people that don't take their health care. You would be surprised how many people are married and on two seperate health care plans or their spuse that doesn't work for the big three has better health care . How many management are in a plant and don't do anything but pay you and give your check to you. Because they have team leaders who are now doing eveything management use to do. Their is so many ways to cost save and they don't..

[dwford]

I would love to see Ford and the Union be able to come together when GM and Chrysler can't, if for no other reason than to show how dysfunctional GM and Chrysler are.

 

Am I wrong to think that the negotiations are over benefits, PTO time and the Jobs Bank, or are actual wage cuts being discussed? I would think that some reduction in benefits could be tolerated, since you guys have it pretty good overall. If actual wage cuts are being considered, could they be offset by lump sums of Ford stock? If you took stock in an equal amount to any annualized wage cut, it wouldn't take much if a stock increase for everyone to make out like bandits. It's not like the stock can go much lower.

 

I wouldn't feel too comfortable betting the VEBA on a stock for cash trade off, though. Even as a shareholder, I think Ford needs to put cash in so that it is secure as negotiated.

 

I like that Ford has committed new product to most of its US plants, so everyone has next gen products coming. It's not like GM and Chrysler that have alot of old designs in production with nothing scheduled after they expire. Once the One Ford integration is done in a couple of years, all these redone plants will be better able to export production overseas as needed, which will help.

[Makeastand]

I read this morning in a news article (don't remember which one) that the UAW was NOT discussing wage cuts but were negotiating benefits cuts, mainly ending the jobs banks and reducing sub pay to 70%.

[Pioneer]

I read this morning in a news article (don't remember which one) that the UAW was NOT discussing wage cuts but were negotiating benefits cuts, mainly ending the jobs banks and reducing sub pay to 70%.

 

 

I would rather take a pay cut then lose JSP or SUB.

[whiteford]

I would rather take a pay cut then lose JSP or SUB.

 

I'm with you Pioneer.

[Makeastand]

I would rather take a pay cut then lose JSP or SUB.

I just want to make sure the cuts are across the table. We have been making cuts for a while now, I would like to see upper management make some serious concessions. I would also like to see the wasteful spending come to an end. They say if we conceded all of our pay and benefits the big 3 would still lose money which tells me that the duration of this depression, recession, economic downturn, or what ever it is being called, will determine the fate of our jobs. Not the concessions we make. Good luck to us all.

 

In Solidarity

[Furious1Auto]

So if Ford and the UAW come to agreement, will that agreement stick, no matter what GM/Chrysler get? I mean what if Ford/UAW sign an agreement, and later GM/Chrysler get bigger concessions from the UAW. Will Ford have to deal with GM/Chrysler getting deeper concessions and stick to the agreement they signed?

 

Of course not. Ford will get whatever concessions GM/Chrysler get. This is a waste of time.

 

 

It seems as though the big three are looking for input from all of the UAW depts to get ideas on more ways to screw us all?

If they complete bargaining with one dept and we take a standard pattern they may miss other screwing opportunities. While if they negotiate with all the depts at once more options will be forthcoming.

 

I hope GM doesn't sign off on another tentative agreement they didn't get an opportunity to read!

[Marginal Economist]

The economy - and car sales - fell off a cliff long after Ford and the UAW signed their last contract. Times have changed. A responsible union would immediately move to make the Company viable in an era of much-reduced sales.......but concessions need to be accompanied by shared responsibility among all stakeholders. In other words.....it makes good sense to cut SUB pay when workers are laid off.....but the entire salaried Ford workforce (including management and Executives) should be signing up for comparable concessions. There is no reason why Ford salaried, mgmt, and executives should not immediately agree to a 10% wage cut........with further cuts equivalent to any SUB reductions agreed to.

 

It is imperative for Ford to cut costs across the board in order to remain viable while sales slumber along at 10 million annually (33% less than the Company is structured to build).

 

No sense sticking your head in the sand....suffer now....and share in the good news if/when recovery is apparent.

 

15% of the salaried staff were let go on an involuntary basis in August 2008. And additional 10% were laid off by Jan 31. If they tried to do a 10% paycut accross the board, the most talented will leave. GSR and LL+ positions were affected. If the economy does not turn, expect another 10-15% of the salaried folks to be shown the door later this year.

[Furious1Auto]

15% of the salaried staff were let go on an involuntary basis in August 2008. And additional 10% were laid off by Jan 31. If they tried to do a 10% paycut accross the board, the most talented will leave.

And go where? Let them go if they wish, just as the lineworkers have to hear "Go find a better paying job!" There are people with masters degrees unemployed, take a pay cut Mr. talent or prove to us you can do better outside. Unfortunately there are no jobs to be had, and every industry in this country is doing the same downsizing, and laying off even skilled & educated employees!

Edited February 16, 2009 by Furious1Auto

[the prisoner]

ask all the old timers about givebacks in the 80's and what the company promised happy days gone raises gone and ford promised not to raise the price of cars and what happened before the ink was dry they raised car prices. promises of products for concesions is a lie ford cannot meet there promises now on 07 contract for product or veba . so until they reduce salary costs and reward us back for previous cuts meaning if we risk then we deserve equal reward. not giving the tan man mark fields millions are retiree's will take a fucking and guess what people some day you will be the retiree and what comes around goes around ie the 80's the 2000's ford and the uaw are to damn dumb to learn so tink before you act or react.

[whiteford]

15% of the salaried staff were let go on an involuntary basis in August 2008. And additional 10% were laid off by Jan 31. If they tried to do a 10% paycut accross the board, the most talented will leave. GSR and LL+ positions were affected. If the economy does not turn, expect another 10-15% of the salaried folks to be shown the door later this year.

 

The special interest are lobbying our government for an unlimited number of visa's. If this happens the most Talented will be getting replaced by someone from another country for a lot less money.

[propain]

I would rather take a pay cut then lose JSP or SUB.

 

Absolutley agree 100%. What I need is a reliable steady paycheck, it can be a bit smaller as long as its stable.

[iluvnascar]

Absolutley agree 100%. What I need is a reliable steady paycheck, it can be a bit smaller as long as its stable.

 

 

I totally agree. And it's important to get out in front of this before something REALLY bad happens. If employees want to save the Company AND their jobs, now is the time to say so and start the ball rolling.

[Fatso]

I am reserving my final absolute stand on the issue of concessions until I see the details of the plan.I have 23 years seniority.We need to all stick together,no one is secure.I brought up this issue of concessions back when the 'First Crisis' occurred and the Big Three went to Washington D.C. I have read many of my fellow employees say 'NO' to the idea and I recognize their right to have an opinion.All I am asking is this;Vote No and what then?A strike is entirely out of the question.Layoffs?Plant Closings?Bankruptcy?More bad publicity?We have some political friends in Washington D.C..The President, The Senate and The House.I say we cooperate within reason and get past these miserable times.It is really simple,customer`s buy Ford Vehicles and then we have food on the table.Remember the UAW and the Automobile Industry are not the only ones facing hard times and economic uncertainty,this recession is Global.The United Stress of America!

Edited February 16, 2009 by Fatso

[jm2607]

I am reserving my final absolute stand on the issue of concessions until I see the details of the plan.I have 23 years seniority.We need to all stick together,no one is secure.I brought up this issue of concessions back when the 'First Crisis' occurred and the Big Three went to Washington D.C. I have read many of my fellow employees say 'NO' to the idea and I recognize their right to have an opinion.All I am asking is this;Vote No and what then?A strike is entirely out of the question.Layoffs?Plant Closings?Bankruptcy?More bad publicity?We have some political friends in Washington D.C..The President, The Senate and The House.I say we cooperate within reason and get past these miserable times.It is really simple,customer`s buy Ford Vehicles and then we have food on the table.Remember the UAW and the Automobile Industry are not the only ones facing hard times and economic uncertainty,this recession is Global.The United Stress of America!

Just let me ask you this Fatso, and you have been on here since the beginning of all this saying you would be willing to give up, what, to you, is "within reason"?

[Hard Driver]

But...look at all we have given up the last 3 contracts and what sacrifices top management has made to help (anything?).

I don't have our "concessions" in front of me right now (that doesn't mean they don't exist) but I remember that there have been many. Some of them are higher prescription and medical co-pays, cost of living adjustment, lower wage and new benefits new hires (I hope they are given higher wages soon!), many emloyees off the payroll by taking buy outs, elimination of education reimbusement.

I know that their are people crying about our compensation who receive much more than we do and I could say "they don't deserve it" too. Their company may be next!

[Fatso]

Just let me ask you this Fatso, and you have been on here since the beginning of all this saying you would be willing to give up, what, to you, is "within reason"?

Hello Jim,Well what I am about to say is out of total ignorance,okay?Meaning I have no idea what give backs amount to what dollar savings to Ford.Myself,I could live with a $3-4 dollars an hour pay cut if necessary and not without something negotiated in return.Maybe something along the lines of Good &Welfare to help make the plants more comfortable.FREE HOT DOG DAY!Hahaha,,now back to seriousness.That is still better than standing in line with two hundred other people begging for unemployment or standing in line with two thousand other people waiting to apply for three job openings.I understand there has already been 'give-backs'.Things have happened in the USA and Globally,namely the damn financial institutions in co-hots with the corrupt politicians robbing us blind,threatening to shut down the banking system.Is that a problem?The War in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.etc.This is not Ford`s own doing.We still got it pretty darn good right now.Keep in mind,,,,,,,other employee`s,,,working for other companies,,,,,are having their wages scaled back too.The Democrats trying to push through 'card check' right now.That will make it easier for other places to unionize.Maybe better days lie ahead we just need to get over this current crisis.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Fatso

[jm2607]

Hello Jim,Well what I am about to say is out of total ignorance,okay?Meaning I have no idea what give backs amount to what dollar savings to Ford.Myself,I could live with a $3-4 dollars an hour pay cut if necessary and not without something negotiated in return.Maybe something along the lines of Good &Welfare to help make the plants more comfortable.FREE HOT DOG DAY!Hahaha,,now back to seriousness.That is still better than standing in line with two hundred other people begging for unemployment or standing in line with two thousand other people waiting to apply for three job openings.I understand there has already been 'give-backs'.Things have happened in the USA and Globally,namely the damn financial institutions in co-hots with the corrupt politicians robbing us blind,threatening to shut down the banking system.Is that a problem?The War in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.etc.This is not Ford`s own doing.We still got it pretty darn good right now.Keep in mind,,,,,,,other employee`s,,,working for other companies,,,,,are having their wages scaled back too.The Democrats trying to push through 'card check' right now.That will make it easier for other places to unionize.Maybe better days lie ahead we just need to get over this current crisis.

It's jm, not Jim, but thats ok. I understand your arguments, Fatso, I just respectfully disagree. And as for the better days ahead, I hope so brother.