Pioneer Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 http://wot.motortrend.com/6500069/industry...ndex.html\ Sources told The Detroit News that the UAW concessions alone will save Ford a good chunk of change, as the new deal lowers Ford's labor costs below $50 an hour, on par with foreign competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 http://www.detnews.com/article/20090330/AU...ompetitive+edge http://sanfranciscoflmblog.cimasystems.biz...mpetitive-edge/ Pretty amazing the facts you can find when you actually look for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Pretty amazing the facts you can find when you actually look for them. That comes from letting others think for you. Guys like Boss L. And the new Conservative party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 That comes from letting others think for you. Guys like Boss L. And the new Conservative party. Let's see if he changes his posts or admits his mistake. If not, he has no integrity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpc655 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Mulally announced that Ford's "all-in" numbers are down to around $50 an hour now, so get your calculator out and edit your post. you listed the same article twice. that must make it twice as true..right? "Sources say those concessions will cut Ford’s labor costs to less than $50 an hour" Who's "sources"? Mullaly didn't say it. And when is "will"? Maybe he's talking about new hires? of which there are virtually none because Ford is still unable to fire the deadweight. Your post is incorrect. Regardless, I know the numbers and 50 per hr is incorrect. Perhaps for political reasons he can't be 100% truthful. He probably got a kickback from the UAW to support the contract for pattern bargaining. Thanks in advance for retracting your incorrect statements. Edited April 17, 2009 by kpc655 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/12/fords-n...own-to-55-hour/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/12/fords-n...own-to-55-hour/ Thanks for the link. I like this quote the best: Intriguingly, it was remarked that "Ford's deal with the UAW appeared to meet the cost savings targets set out by the Treasury Department for its aid to GM and Chrysler," yet Ford is the one that didn't take government money and so, technically, is the one automaker not compelled to meet those targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I like this quote the best: I think its Ford just covering their asses just in case they do need aid next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I think its Ford just covering their asses just in case they do need aid next year Even if covering their asses is the end result, it's still a sound business decision to reduce labor costs, regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 "Sources say those concessions will cut Ford’s labor costs to less than $50 an hour" Can't find your calculator, or just so stubborn that you refuse to admit your wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I think if you surveyed most TRUE "middle class" workers across the country and showed them UAW benefits, they would be shocked. I'm betting a lot of over educated people would quit their jobs to get one with the UAW emptying trash cans just for the pay and benefits. I know I'd quit my job for one of these. http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/15908257/index.html "...Over educated..." :shades: Is that possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpc655 Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Can't find your calculator, or just so stubborn that you refuse to admit your wrong? Mullaly didn't say it. "sources say" is hardly a factual statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 "sources say" is hardly a factual statement. More factual than yours. I have numerous articles that back my figure up. Where are yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Even if covering their asses is the end result, it's still a sound business decision to reduce labor costs, regardless. I agree, but it also means they can get the loans if they need them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpc655 Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 More factual than yours. I have numerous articles that back my figure up. Where are yours? Your sources don't back up what you say. You should read them thoroughly before posting. My source? Ford's 10-k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Why the blanky-blank blank-blank on trying to figure out a scheme for "appropriate pay?" The US is, theoretically, a free-market. And as such, the labor market already has a mechanism for that. It's called the "pricing" system, for which in the labor market is called the "wage rate." For you folks you apparently skipped day 2 of high school micro economics it works like this: If the employer can't fill all of its open reqs it's not paying enough and needs to raise the offers. Conversely if it is getting too many qualified applicants for each open position it's over paying for the positions and needs to lower the pay. From the employee's perspective they need to consider the value of their time and desirability of different employment oppertunities. Which ever offers the highest return of utils (this is a fuzzy concept, but think about what makes you the most content or happy overall) on time investment is the one to take. We call this "supply and demand" (in the order I described them it's actually demand and supply) for labor. Of course unions screw this up as a form of cartel (like OPEC or DeBeers) as a monopoly for the firm's labor input and try to selfishly minipulate the market to get more then the market otherwise entitles them and this entails lots of inefficiencies. But we'll leave that lesson for day 4 of high school micro. Point being we already have a system for determining efficient compensation levels for labor. It's the market clearing level for the labor market. You need not spin your wheels trying to devise some elaborate system for that. (That's what the Polit-Bureau does in a communist system, after all.) We here know that the market figures that out all by itself. good points.. pay and benefits for all should be based on skill and responsibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) I think if you surveyed most TRUE "middle class" workers across the country and showed them UAW benefits, they would be shocked. I'm betting a lot of over educated people would quit their jobs to get one with the UAW emptying trash cans just for the pay and benefits. I know I'd quit my job for one of these. http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/15908257/index.html in all fairness, government employees get more for doing less and they do not even contribute to GDP Edited April 22, 2009 by J-150 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.