BrewfanGRB Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 This is interesting. I thought the CAW HAD already agreed to renegotiated contracts? I can't see Ford allowing this for long---they have to look for Canada to at least have parity with the US. LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Oh dear, this sounds like the Canuks are being lined up for the whipsaw. Ford will dutch auction contract conditions back and forth between UAW and CAW all day and all night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Ford will dutch auction contract conditions back and forth between UAW and CAW all day and all night. They don't have to go that far. Ford Canada want what GM Canada is getting. Just like Ford US wants what GM and Chrysler US are getting. It is called "being competitive". Without it, you can write Ford off. Edited October 4, 2009 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Why even stop at the US, can they go to Mexico and get an even better deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Why even stop at the US, can they go to Mexico and get an even better deal? Let's not go there ! IMHO, Ford has made a huge commitment to the US by turning Michigan Truck into the new Michigan Assembly Plant. (Of course the government is helping with that) True, WAP will be closed, but I believe this will only be temporary until Ford decides exactly what should be built there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 They don't have to go that far. Ford Canada want what GM Canada is getting. Just like Ford US wants what GM and Chrysler US are getting. It is called "being competitive". Without it, you can right Ford off. Both the Union and Ford know what the labour cost is going to be. You are right, it will be the same as GM. What they need to negotiate is the Jobs or lose of Jobs at the St. Thomas plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 If you want to know where production will eventually be going, just get out your ECON 101 book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Both the Union and Ford know what the labour cost is going to be. You are right, it will be the same as GM. What they need to negotiate is the Jobs or lose of Jobs at the St. Thomas plant. IIRC, the % of production in Canada and the St. Thomas plant are major points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) If those employment costs are true then it may be cheaper to import Falcons from Australia than continue with St Thomas. I think Ford is definitely playing regions off against one another. The guys in AUS didn't want to budge on two tier wages and wage freeze for 9-12 months so maybe Ford is now looking at more US manufacturing, maybe even Mexico too. Edited October 4, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Fair labor wage for a persons' skill and responsibility. :stats: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 The guys in AUS didn't want to budge on two tier wages and wage freeze for 9-12 monthsso maybe Ford is now looking at more US manufacturing, maybe even Mexico too. If your selling cars in North America, the cheapest place to build them, by far, is Mexico. Brazil has cheaper labor costs, but quality is better in Mexico than Brazil and shipping is much less. Like I said before, I'm very happy to see Ford's commitment to building the new Focus at MAP ! Hopefully more C sized car will be built in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) This could change over night. Canadian wages dollar to dollar have always been higher then in the U.S. This was never an issue when our dollar was much lower in value compared to the U.S. But now that the Canadain dollar is closer to par (and looks like it going to remain that way) the labour costs of course rise as well in USD. This is a bit of a white wash sob story from Ford. Only a few models are built here. That are sent states side. But there are many more built State side and in Mexico that are sent here. And we buy more high margin vehicles per capaita than in the states (mostly trucks) And belive me we pay a whole pile more for new vehicles here than in the states several times more the dollar exchange. For example A base Fusion 3.5L AWD sport MRSP's at $28,755 USD Just across the border in Montana. Tha same vehicle just across the border in Alberta bases at $35,299 CAD or $32,548 USD Exchanged at current rates. The Unit sold in Canada brings in an addtional $3,793 USD for Ford based on the MRSP. Do you think Ford is making 3K profit off this vehicle in the states At MRSP ? Well here it would be closer to $7K Yes Ford may be paying more for labour at the end of the day here but they are also seeing way more net profit per unit here compared to vehicles sold in the U.S. And the price differance is even greater once you move up in to higher end vehicles Vehicle prices here are not lower now that our dollar is closer parity than when we had a near $0.60 dollar. The price differance spread is about the same. Yes it is costing Ford more now in labour costs in USD here due to the higher Canuck Buck but they are also seeing more USD profit due to the higher average transaction prices here and the more valuable Canuck Buck (compared to the USD). Ford is making way more profit per unit with Canadian sales and Ford's sales are very strong here and are setting sales records in Canada. The CAW in this instance is right for digging their heels in and wanting job security for reduced wages from Ford Canada. Ford Canada is demanding higher transaction prices with much higher profit margins with more market share than Ford has in the U.S. I look at it this way if they want to cut the wages of the CAW line workers to be on par with the UAW line workers wages in the U.S then they better bloody make sure they cut vehicle pricing to par as well. Then again our dollar could drop back to $0.70 USD over night and the whole point could be moot. Matthew Edited October 4, 2009 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE OWNER Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Also Canadians buy more flat screen t.v.'s per capita and Korea really does appreciate the CAW love for flat screens go Canadians lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperPilot Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Labour costs are higher in Canada because 1) Oakville Assembly is operating at less than 75% capacity and 2) St Thomas is working on 1 shift. Labour costs are the same whether the plant works at 50% or 100% but the COST PER VEHICLE changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triton-boy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 no commitment to jobs in canada,but want wage concessions to built plants in mexico and china..screw you iam a retiree and ill lose all,so f-you ford and i know when iam being played......ill buy the first honda or toyota and so will all my kids NO MORE FORD LOYALITY.... And i can tell you this not too many folks driving HONDAS are going to buy a ford so keep pissin off the hand that feeds.buys your product....wake up......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) no commitment to jobs in canada,but want wage concessions to built plants in mexico and china..screw you iam a retiree and ill lose all,so f-you ford and i know when iam being played......ill buy the first honda or toyota and so will all my kids NO MORE FORD LOYALITY.... And i can tell you this not too many folks driving HONDAS are going to buy a ford so keep pissin off the hand that feeds.buys your product....wake up......... So no concessions for Ford, but concessions for GM and Chrysler are ok?? --- Oh, and this is my 12,000th post. Edited October 5, 2009 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperPilot Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 So no concessions for Ford, but concessions for GM and Chrysler are ok?? GM and Chrysler concessions were made as a condition of receiving government money, to which the government also received guarantees of maintaining certain levels of employment. Seems Ford wants the best of all three worlds -- the benefit public approval by saying "we don't need government money", concessions from workers and no guarantees of employment levels. We aren't comparing apples to apples then, are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 GM and Chrysler concessions were made as a condition of receiving government money, to which the government also received guarantees of maintaining certain levels of employment. Seems Ford wants the best of all three worlds -- the benefit public approval by saying "we don't need government money", concessions from workers and no guarantees of employment levels. But also at the same time, since Ford is at an unfair disadvantage with labor costs vs the other two, why should they suffer because of it? I'm sure that given Ford's history with the UAW they are looking for something fair vs what was given to GM and Chrysler..not a wholesale give up of benefits. From what I've seen in the past about this I think they are looking for a nostrike clause for a couple years and prob something with benefits modification. And where is it spelled out that GM and Chrysler have maintain certain levels of employment as part of their bailout? I still see them closing plants etc. The bailout was done to prevent the auto industry from imploding and taking everything else down around it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 GM and Chrysler are required to maintain 20% of capacity in Canada. Ford doesn't want to sign such an agreement with the union, so the union says go to hell. I can certainly see their side of things. Ford says they want the same deal, and yet they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperPilot Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) And where is it spelled out that GM and Chrysler have maintain certain levels of employment as part of their bailout? I still see them closing plants etc. The bailout was done to prevent the auto industry from imploding and taking everything else down around it. Please take a second to peruse the topic. The topic at hand (as mentioned a number of times in the thread) is Ford talks with the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), and yes, the money given to Chrysler and GM by the Canadian government was conditional on employment footprint. 20% as stated by SUV Guy. When St Thomas closes in 2011 Ford will have less than 9% in Canada. Hell, to make 20% Ford would have to keep St Thomas and INCREASE product here by about 7%. Edited October 5, 2009 by ViperPilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 GM and Chrysler are required to maintain 20% of capacity in Canada. Ford doesn't want to sign such an agreement with the union, so the union says go to hell. I can certainly see their side of things. Ford says they want the same deal, and yet they don't. No company should be held hostage to such demands. A company should be allowed to pay market wage scale, hire who they want, and be allowed to have their product produced IAW the National law. For an organization (labor) to hold a company hostage to demands is extortion. Pay an benefits should be based on a persons' skill and responsibilities. Anything above market value is a huge liability for any company and stock holder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 It looks to me like the only solution is for Ford to promise some product for St. Thomas thus keeping it open. In return Ford gets same concessions given to GM and Chrysler. I don't blame CAW for doing this...they are looking out for their members. Ford can't really expect to close down plants and get concessions also. Ford has a lot of new stuff coming and it's not a stretch to expect two assembly plants in Canada. In fact, if the North American market bounces back at all like it has for Ford in Canada, Ford will need the capacity of two plants in Canada. Ford is still studying the Crown Vic Police car problem, and maybe something can be worked out. Ford has always had at least two Canadian assembly plants, and even smaller companies than Ford have two. Why rile up Canadian customers that are buying Ford products and our neighbors in general. Two plants in Mexico and just one in Canada is not going to sit well with our neighbors to the North. Canada anyway is a better ally than Mexico. And a plant so close to Michigan helps out the midwest also. Ford is trying to keep all its plants in close proximity to Midwest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No company should be held hostage to such demands. A company should be allowed to pay market wage scale, hire who they want, and be allowed to have their product produced IAW the National law. For an organization (labor) to hold a company hostage to demands is extortion. Pay an benefits should be based on a persons' skill and responsibilities. Anything above market value is a huge liability for any company and stock holder. What your missing Met is the CAW here are making MARKET wages here. Ford asking them to accept wages below market standards with no gaurenteed level of empoyment. This is not the UAW and the CAW workers are making wages in line with similar jobs across the nation. And to be honest Ford CAW wages are below market the value in large parts of the country. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 What your missing Met is the CAW here are making MARKET wages here. Ford asking them to accept wages below market standards with no gaurenteed level of empoyment. This is not the UAW and the CAW workers are making wages in line with similar jobs across the nation. And to be honest Ford CAW wages are below market the value in large parts of the country. Matthew And if ford goes under, they wont have any jobs and will have no money. Which is better? Job with less money or no job and no money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 And if ford goes under, they wont have any jobs and will have no money. Which is better? Job with less money or no job and no money? By closing St. Thomas permanently, Ford is taking away jobs and also wants concessions. CAW wants jobs with concessions. What's wrong with that? Canadians are buying Ford products in record number. Loyalty is a two way street. 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.