mettech Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Autoextremist Read "Rants 28 Oct 09". IMHO, a "No Vote" is a vote for no more products at that plant. :reading: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Move some of 'em to STAP for 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weiweishen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Move some of 'em to STAP for 2012. As a scientist in Medical Scient, I see everyday how cancer cell proliferated and eat up all other healthier cell. But finally, when every cell dead out, cancer cell can not avoid deceased too. I believe Ford really need some chemotherapy. A very strong one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David The Bruce Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Autoextremist Read "Rants 28 Oct 09". IMHO, a "No Vote" is a vote for no more products at that plant. :reading: I just can't figure it out, higher costs and more uncertainity will lead to fewer jobs for the uaw. It's called sourcing. the negative press this will create may lead to fewer ford products being purchased which would lead to fewer jobs for the uaw. Don't they realize that a labor union's strength comes from numbers? 40k now, how many in 2 years? 35k? 30k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
povertyknob Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Autoextremist Read "Rants 28 Oct 09". IMHO, a "No Vote" is a vote for no more products at that plant. :reading: It's the same sort of anti-union invective I've come to expect from the mouth breathers in the comments section of the Free Press. The guy seems bright enough to have done some research on the subject so he obviously chose to ignore any facts that didn't support his conclusions. The "No Strike" provision seems overkill and caused exactly the knee jerk reaction amongst the rank and file that the negotiators should have expected. To the best of my knowledge there were no real commitments to new products at any facility. Enthusiasm for new product was tempered by reading the fine print and finding that each one would be tied to "market conditions". The union was being asked to guarantee their end of the deal while the company could whisk away their commitments at any time, needing only to cite "market conditions". The rank and file members aren't so foolish as to not understand that Ford needs to remain competitive. Had the company asked for a reasonable modifications package I believe it would have passed. Given the amount of egg on the faces of the Ford and I-UAW negotiators one has to question why they risked taking such an ill-conceived and ill-timed mod package to a vote at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Given the amount of egg on the faces of the Ford and I-UAW negotiators one has to question why they risked taking such an ill-conceived and ill-timed mod package to a vote at all. Don't know about the egg-on-the-face, but Ford has new product coming and it has to be built somewhere, and the time-line requires answers NOW, not when you think it might be a good idea. So, it is important for Ford to know that their future production will not be affected by "the British Disease" of obstreperous labor conditions and attitudes. Otherwise, Ford's future is hostage to the UAW. Capice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 while the company could whisk away their commitments at any time Would you think this through please? If the market recovers Ford will need to build more cars. They will build these at UAW plants. If the market doesn't recover, Ford would be foolish to build more cars just to keep UAW plants going. Hence the 'market conditions' qualification on Ford's side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Would you think this through please? If the market recovers Ford will need to build more cars. They will build these at UAW plants. If the market doesn't recover, Ford would be foolish to build more cars just to keep UAW plants going. Hence the 'market conditions' qualification on Ford's side. That's true, but at the same time, while Ford has been promising work to specific plants, over the last two years, none of that work ever materialized. Complicating things even more for Ford, that no one is considering here, is how tired these people are of voting on concessions. The 2003 contract was reopened in twice for "Competitive Operating Agreements" that outsourced a lot of non-production jobs. The 2007 national contract created the VEBA to take the retiree health costs off the company's, created a two tiered wage structure for the first time in the unions history, and outsourced even more jobs, with entry level employees paid half what the seniority employees have, no pensions and no post retirement healthcare. 2008's problems led to the hearings last fall, and then in March of this year the 2007 contract was reopened, the terms of funding the VEBA was changed in Ford's favor, and increasing the risk to the eligible seniority employees and retirees, more skilled trades jobs were eliminated, and COLA and other lump sum cash payments to the employees were eliminated. The jobs bank was also completely eliminated in that negotiation. All of those were passed. Now, it appears that they, the hourly union employees, are fed up. This is the fifth contract vote in five years. The second this year. That can lead to a lot of frustration and anger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Ford is gonna survive with or without the UAW, and after reading the negative bantor in the employee section, Ford might be better off without the UAW. The number of childish insults and personal attacks against the union leadership and Ford management are mindboggling. I guess they really don't realize just how close this entire industry was to collapse. I am a Ford customer and a Ford stock holder so I want Ford to succeed.......I just don't know how it will as long as they have to fight these labor battles. You know, the best quality cars Ford makes are already manufactured in Mexico, and the sad truth is, the majority of the US car buying public could give 2 shits where their car was made. So if I were a UAW member I might want to look a little more at the big picture.........but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrballsonya Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Would you think this through please? Did any of you naysayers even read the proposed contract revisions? The new product guarantees, were almost completely worthless. I understand Ford needing the latitude to put "market condition" stipulations in the language, but then it's not really a REAL "product and job guarantee" is it? How many legally binding contracts include easily defined benefits for one party, and highly exploitable, easily manipulated details for the other? If there are any, I bet they're few and far between. Would you sign a 2 year lease on a house that guaranteed the bank $3000 a month, but then had contractual stipulations in which the bank reserved the right to change terms at any time... "due to market conditions"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 That's true, but at the same time, while Ford has been promising work to specific plants, over the last two years, none of that work ever materialized. Complicating things even more for Ford, that no one is considering here, is how tired these people are of voting on concessions. The 2003 contract was reopened in twice for "Competitive Operating Agreements" that outsourced a lot of non-production jobs. The 2007 national contract created the VEBA to take the retiree health costs off the company's, created a two tiered wage structure for the first time in the unions history, and outsourced even more jobs, with entry level employees paid half what the seniority employees have, no pensions and no post retirement healthcare. 2008's problems led to the hearings last fall, and then in March of this year the 2007 contract was reopened, the terms of funding the VEBA was changed in Ford's favor, and increasing the risk to the eligible seniority employees and retirees, more skilled trades jobs were eliminated, and COLA and other lump sum cash payments to the employees were eliminated. The jobs bank was also completely eliminated in that negotiation. All of those were passed. Now, it appears that they, the hourly union employees, are fed up. This is the fifth contract vote in five years. The second this year. That can lead to a lot of frustration and anger. The market and the competition have changed quickly. A non union company has the flexibility to adjust its labor force according to the current market conditions. Most companies over the past 24 months have made adjustments to its labor force due to the current recession. Employee workforce, work hours, benefits, bonus have been reduced in most companies because of the economy. If the contract that Ford has with its labor force puts it outside of the current labor cost and flexibility, the company has two choices: 1. Adjust overhead. 2. Move product to a new location. :stats: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 That's true, but at the same time, while Ford has been promising work to specific plants, over the last two years, none of that work ever materialized. Yeah. The market tanked. The auto market is 2/3rds what it was in '07. --- And as far as 'job guarantees' go, what kind of guarantees do you want? A guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen? A guarantee that you will be insulated from all the negative effects of an economic downturn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 Did any of you naysayers even read the proposed contract revisions? The new product guarantees, were almost completely worthless. I understand Ford needing the latitude to put "market condition" stipulations in the language, but then it's not really a REAL "product and job guarantee" is it? How many legally binding contracts include easily defined benefits for one party, and highly exploitable, easily manipulated details for the other? If there are any, I bet they're few and far between. Would you sign a 2 year lease on a house that guaranteed the bank $3000 a month, but then had contractual stipulations in which the bank reserved the right to change terms at any time... "due to market conditions"? Adjustments in taxes and/or interest rates have always been the variable in a mortgage agreement. No one can predict what the future holds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Would you sign a 2 year lease on a house that guaranteed the bank $3000 a month, but then had contractual stipulations in which the bank reserved the right to change terms at any time... "due to market conditions"? Not similar. You are comparing the bank with employees (guaranteed $3000/month = your pay), and you are comparing the bank with Ford (bank has the right to change the terms). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 The market and the competition have changed quickly. A non union company has the flexibility to adjust its labor force according to the current market conditions. Most companies over the past 24 months have made adjustments to its labor force due to the current recession. Employee workforce, work hours, benefits, bonus have been reduced in most companies because of the economy. If the contract that Ford has with its labor force puts it outside of the current labor cost and flexibility, the company has two choices: 1. Adjust overhead. 2. Move product to a new location. :stats: Very true, except that: 1) In March, when those contract modifications were approved, Ford said that it saved them a half a billion dollars a years, and was competitive with the rest of the industry. 2) Standard & Poors stated, that for the life of the 2007 contract, with the March 2009 modifications, this now rejected contract modification did little to nothing to aid Ford's bottom line. Have you seen the terms - nothing in this contract would have cut Ford's cost this year or next year. Zip, zero, nada. 3) Since the March, 2009 (that's this past March), the car market has not deteriorated any worse for Ford. While Ford's sales are off from last year, until this past September, month-to-month,Ford's sales and market share have been improving. What this contract did do was freeze wages for the second tier, entry level workers for six years, so that regardless of any improvements in the market, they're frozen at about $14 an hour. Furthermore, a "no strike" clause for 2011 negotiations was put in place, with the further stipulation that all wage and benefit disputes go binding baseball-style arbitration, that is no meeting the parties in the middle. The arbitrator has to pick one side or the other. That was unacceptable to the rank-and-file. I can't say that , after five contract votes in five years, I can blame them for being fed up and tired of it all. One way or the other, Ford's costs are not going to change this year or the next. As far as moving product to a new location, Ford has to tread very carefully here. They took $5.9 billion in low interest loans from the DoE, to develop and build more fuel efficient cars. The terms of those loans specifically restrict the work to the USA. Michigan and several other states gave some tax breaks that are specifically in exchange for keeping work here. And it's expensive to just up and move work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Len: Why aren't you discussing the interest costs of Ford's higher debt load? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Whatever happened to contract parity? For decades, the UAW insisted on a one-contract-fits-all format (with some local adjustments). Back during the Big 3 glory years, Ford, GM and Chrysler all hoped to be the initial UAW strike target so as they could draft an agreement best suited to their specific company. The other companies went along with whatever contract was drafted because they had no choice. Now it seems that it's every man for himself. Fine, but if the UAW rank-and-file walk away from contract parity, they better realize that Ford can walk away from building vehicles, or parts, in the U.S. Nobody says they have to build stuff here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Did any of you naysayers even read the proposed contract revisions? The new product guarantees, were almost completely worthless. I understand Ford needing the latitude to put "market condition" stipulations in the language, but then it's not really a REAL "product and job guarantee" is it? How many legally binding contracts include easily defined benefits for one party, and highly exploitable, easily manipulated details for the other? If there are any, I bet they're few and far between. Would you sign a 2 year lease on a house that guaranteed the bank $3000 a month, but then had contractual stipulations in which the bank reserved the right to change terms at any time... "due to market conditions"? Isn't Ford retooling WAP and LAP plant for future products? Some aren't even announced yet that will be going to those two plants. TCAP shuts down in 2011, and I would guess Ford had plans to build a new global Ranger in Kentucky. Where do you think Ford will build that now? Ford also had plans to build the TC here, but where will that go now? There was even talk of a second Fusion plant here. I think you can forget that now. The big loser here it seems to me is UAW short term in losing $41 million in bonuses and long term in less new product coming here. And that is loss for for MI especially as it will hurt the state economy even more if Ford builds less new product here because they aren't competitive with GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Whatever happened to contract parity? For decades, the UAW insisted on a one-contract-fits-all format (with some local adjustments). Back during the Big 3 glory years, Ford, GM and Chrysler all hoped to be the initial UAW strike target so as they could draft an agreement best suited to their specific company. The other companies went along with whatever contract was drafted because they had no choice. Now it seems that it's every man for himself. Fine, but if the UAW rank-and-file walk away from contract parity, they better realize that Ford can walk away from building vehicles, or parts, in the U.S. Nobody says they have to build stuff here. You think it would dawn on UAW members that Ford will now have to offshore more parts and product in general in order to stay competitive with GM. I don't think Chrysler is a player right now, so I don't include them in argument. Ford UAW are now going to lose thousands of more jobs over the coming years as compared to the agreement being ratified. The way I see it, UAW loses more short term and long term than Ford. I find it very tragic in that I want to see more jobs in the states, not less. Very sad indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Len: Why aren't you discussing the interest costs of Ford's higher debt load? It's a consideration, but nothing in this contract was going to help Ford pay that debt load this year or next. All actual pay cuts were approved in March. While Ford's debt load is higher than GM's, and I also don;t think of Chrysler as much of a player at present, Ford's sales and market share have improved over the last six months, while GM;s has dropped. Yes, Ford's debt load is higher, and yet per unit of sales, Ford's cash burn has dropped, while GM;s has only leveled off, and hasn't yet shown signs of improvements. Even with Ford's higher debt load, Ford is no further from operational profitability than GM, with no debt load, and probably closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I would like to point out that this "NO" vote does not put Ford at any cost disadvantage compared to GM/Chrysler, and when VEBA takes over in 01/10 we will be cost competitive against most transplants. Don't believe me? Read the modifications. The only thing in the modifications that is realistically different than the modifications passed in March is the no-strike clause for the 2011 contract negotiations. Ford hasn't had a strike since 1976. The givebacks have been one sided from the beginning. We gave in 2005, 2007, and in March of 2009. As soon as management gives, come back to us and we'll talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 You think it would dawn on UAW members that Ford will now have to offshore more parts and product in general in order to stay competitive with GM. I don't think Chrysler is a player right now, so I don't include them in argument. Ford UAW are now going to lose thousands of more jobs over the coming years as compared to the agreement being ratified. The way I see it, UAW loses more short term and long term than Ford. I find it very tragic in that I want to see more jobs in the states, not less. Very sad indeed. With the news leaking Friday that Getrag was getting read drive units from Ford, that was work that salaried nonunion plant engineering personnel at Ford Sterling swore, up one side and down the other, was the fulfillment of the promised work under both the 2007 National and Local agreements and the March 2009 contract modification, both approved by the union members I might add, (March 2009? Wasn't that just six months ago), and the word from Kansas Assembly that upgrades to the plant, in advance of promised work, stopped months ago, the UAW members haven't been in a trusting mood. And I used to be a prototype parts supplier to Ford, calling on PDF at the Research Center. I something about how long it takes to prototype and test new parts - Getrag was getting that work regardless of how this contract went. If the UAW members feel like they've been sold out, they have valid reasons to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I would like to point out that this "NO" vote does not put Ford at any cost disadvantage compared to GM/Chrysler, and when VEBA takes over in 01/10 we will be cost competitive against most transplants. Don't believe me? Read the modifications. The only thing in the modifications that is realistically different than the modifications passed in March is the no-strike clause for the 2011 contract negotiations. Ford hasn't had a strike since 1976. The givebacks have been one sided from the beginning. We gave in 2005, 2007, and in March of 2009. As soon as management gives, come back to us and we'll talk. And it would have froze the entry level employees at about $14 an hour for six years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 The 'no strike' clause is essential for Ford because they become an incredibly inviting strike target in 2011 otherwise. UAW can return to pattern negotiation, select Ford as a strike target, and then hit them between the eyes. "No strikes since 1976" will be a thing of the past, I can just about guarantee, if Ford doesn't get a 'no strike' clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 As soon as management gives, come back to us and we'll talk. You UAW drones need to listen to yourselves sometime. You want 'management sacrifices', well management hasn't gotten a payraise in three years. And don't you DARE bring up 'bonuses' in the form of stock options issued in 2007 that are worthless at present. 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.