rmc523 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 According to Bob King at the Sunday meeting/vote we are supposed to get the Transit. Not the small one but rather the large one. So then what goes to the Econoline plant (Avon Lake, is that right?) ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pissedKCpainter Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Mercury Mariner, Lincoln, and CX-5. Obviously you are not from KC, or didn't go to the meeting sunday. The only way that it's possible for us to get these products would be to remove the 150's from us and that would mean that the Transit will be going over on the truck side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pissedKCpainter Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 So then what goes to the Econoline plant (Avon Lake, is that right?) ?? The only plants he would discuss with us was Wayne Assembly which is getting the C Max and Focus and Louisville Assembly which is getting the Escape and Kuga. After being told that KC was getting the Transit and that there WOULD be 2 vehicles produced here, he was asked about Ohio..... That's where HE drew the line and said he COULD NOT tell us what product would be installed at Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The only plants he would discuss with us was Wayne Assembly which is getting the C Max and Focus and Louisville Assembly which is getting the Escape and Kuga. After being told that KC was getting the Transit and that there WOULD be 2 vehicles produced here, he was asked about Ohio..... That's where HE drew the line and said he COULD NOT tell us what product would be installed at Ohio. Gotcha. Maybe someone else somehow knows? I'm still wondering if Ford will actually go through with merging the Econoline and Transit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 According to Bob King at the Sunday meeting/vote we are supposed to get the Transit. Not the small one but rather the large one. how big is the paint shop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Weren't we supposed to get the next-gen EcoSport or some sort of b-SUV anyway? interesting how esculating costs are making manufacturers slot in a new "cheaper" lineup when costs rise prohibitively....witness even BMW bringing in the "0" because the "1" has become too spendy....and in Fords case...the Fiesta will slot in where the Focus used to preside price wise.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Obviously you are not from KC, or didn't go to the meeting sunday. The only way that it's possible for us to get these products would be to remove the 150's from us and that would mean that the Transit will be going over on the truck side. Well Fords plan is to make their plants flexible after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Well Fords plan is to make their plants flexible after all. Unfulfilled promises from 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Unfulfilled promises from 2007. Yeah, and by gum, you're going to make them pay, aren't you! Surest way to force them to invest in the US is by making US labor costs uncompetitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Unfulfilled promises from 2007. Even heard of a recession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 The CAW sees reason; maybe they can move the production to STAP if the Gettelfinger gormless just won't change. Check out Pete's take: http://www.autoextremist.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Even heard of a recession? [sARCASM] But the recession wasn't the UAW's fault so why should they have to suffer? [/sARCASM] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) [sARCASM]But the recession wasn't the UAW's fault so why should they have to suffer? [/sARCASM] Now THAT'S the way to think!! This reminds me of that Michael Keaton movie, "Gung Ho," where the Japanese executives come in and are astonished at how....let's just say "different" the American workers are compared to Japanese workers.... Edited October 28, 2009 by rmc523 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Yeah, and by gum, you're going to make them pay, aren't you! Surest way to force them to invest in the US is by making US labor costs uncompetitive. Our current agreement keeps us on par with GM and Chrysler, and gives us all-in labor costs comparable with the transplants. The tenative agreement doesn nothing to change that. There are empty promises still on the table from the last agreement. Why should we agree to anything that doesn't address that? I have no problem doing anything to help the company be more competitive, but when is enough enough? GM executives had their pay reduced this week. By all rights, since Ford wants us to agree to everything that GM and Chryslersbunion did, shouldn't Ford's executive pay be reduced as well? Sorry for any errand spelling errors. My Pre doesn't auto correst spelling on web pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Our current agreement keeps us on par with GM and Chrysler, and gives us all-in labor costs comparable with the transplants. The tenative agreement doesn nothing to change that. There are empty promises still on the table from the last agreement. Why should we agree to anything that doesn't address that? I have no problem doing anything to help the company be more competitive, but when is enough enough? GM executives had their pay reduced this week. By all rights, since Ford wants us to agree to everything that GM and Chryslersbunion did, shouldn't Ford's executive pay be reduced as well? Sorry for any errand spelling errors. My Pre doesn't auto correst spelling on web pages. Mulally has been doing a great job and brought Ford anyway from the brink. He deserves every penny he gets. Ford Jr already gave up his salary. Just to add, Mullaly's pay is a drop in the bucket when you even compare the pay for just one Ford plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I have no problem doing anything to help the company be more competitive, but when is enough enough? GM executives had their pay reduced this week. By all rights, since Ford wants us to agree to everything that GM and Chryslersbunion did, shouldn't Ford's executive pay be reduced as well? I'm sure if the Government didn't own parts of GM and Chrysler, their Executives wouldn't be losing pay either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Mulally has been doing a great job and brought Ford anyway from the brink. He deserves every penny he gets. Ford Jr already gave up his salary. Just to add, Mullaly's pay is a drop in the bucket when you even compare the pay for just one Ford plant. All-in labor accounts for less than 10% of the price of a car. Parity only counts when it is done by bith sides. Just a drop in the bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 The tenative agreement doesn nothing to change that. Yeah, and if GM & Chrysler have no-strike clauses and Ford doesn't, guess who's getting struck in 2011? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm sure if the Government didn't own parts of GM and Chrysler, their Executives wouldn't be losing pay either... You judt summed up my argument. Thabk you, and goodnight. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 You judt summed up my argument. Thabk you, and goodnight. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Your sinus infection is affecting your typing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 You judt summed up my argument. Thabk you, and goodnight. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. I'm sorry, what was your argument again, and how did that comment sum it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 He's saying that because the top guy doesn't have to take a wage cut as a result of not taking government money, the union shouldn't have to give anything up either. As much as I disagree with him on the grounds that such a position could result in Ford's demise, I think there actually is some logic to it. If the workers have to be competitive with GM and Chrysler, maybe the executive pay should be too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Your sinus infection is affecting your typing. Keys are really small, no spell check, and the whole reply field doesn't show up on the screen at one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Keys are really small, no spell check, and the whole reply field doesn't show up on the screen at one time. What? Are your fingers the size of bratwursts, or are you typing on a PC-Jr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 He's saying that because the top guy doesn't have to take a wage cut as a result of not taking government money, the union shouldn't have to give anything up either. As much as I disagree with him on the grounds that such a position could result in Ford's demise, I think there actually is some logic to it. If the workers have to be competitive with GM and Chrysler, maybe the executive pay should be too. Well, I honestly think that if that were true, Mulally wouldn't be there.....and Ford would be up a creek without a paddle... Keys are really small, no spell check, and the whole reply field doesn't show up on the screen at one time. I don't use spell check.....the first and last points I'd find very annoying, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts