Len_A 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. No, they can't not return to pattern bargaining in 2011. That's how wrong you are - GM & Chrysler have a "no strike" clause and mandatory arbitration in 2011, under the terms of the bankruptcy influenced contract modification they negotiated after Ford's March 2009 modification was ratified. Yes, they still could strike against Ford, but the UAW members and leadership are very well aware of what that would do to sales, especially in light of the fact that GM & Chrysler have to stay on the job. The union membership at Ford isn't reckless - they haven't struck Ford since the mid 1970's. Either way, there will be no pattern bargaining in 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 the UAW members and leadership are very well aware of what that would do to sales Could've fooled me, based on the palaver I've seen on this site, showing this bizarre idea that Ford should invest hundreds of millions in factories build cars even if there's no market for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) 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. Blame it on Mulally. When, nearly a year ago, at the congressional hearings that he attended, along with Gettlefinger and the other two CEO's, he was asked by one of the Senators or Congressman if he would agree to a pay cut. His reply, "No, I'm good where I'm at", became a rallying cry by the UAW members against this contract. Keep in mind, the Senators and Congressman were citing the example of Lee Iaccoca, who took a $1 a year until Chrysler paid back the 1970's loans. These guys have precedent, in expecting further sacrifice from the executive ranks. Edited October 31, 2009 by Len_A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Could've fooled me, based on the palaver I've seen on this site, showing this bizarre idea that Ford should invest hundreds of millions in factories build cars even if there's no market for them. Heat of the moment anger, nothing more. Five concessionary contract votes in five years makes people upset. For you not to understand and acknowledge at least that much, is unfortunate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) These guys have precedent, in expecting further sacrifice from the executive ranks. Why? Seriously: Mulally hasn't gotten a raise in 3 years, despite keeping Ford out of bankruptcy by 'sealing the deal' on that $24B loan package. And if Iacocca had done for Chrysler what Mulally, and the other C-levels have done for Ford, Chrysler wouldn't be where it is today. Edited October 31, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Heat of the moment anger, nothing more. Five concessionary contract votes in five years makes people upset. For you not to understand and acknowledge at least that much, is unfortunate. I don't care how angry you are. Lord knows you don't go grocery shopping when you're hungry and you don't make life-changing decisions when you're angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I don't care how angry you are. Lord knows you don't go grocery shopping when you're hungry and you don't make life-changing decisions when you're angry. Then it looks to me like you don't much about dealing with factory workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Then it looks to me like you don't much about dealing with factory workers. What? That factory workers are idiots, tools, prey to their own emotions, incapable of making rational decisions in their own best interests? If they are, who has made them that way? The UAW? The UAW has screwed itself and the rank and file over. I have little respect for the way most of the AFL-CIO unions have conducted themselves over the past thirty years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Why? Seriously: Mulally hasn't gotten a raise in 3 years, despite keeping Ford out of bankruptcy by 'sealing the deal' on that $24B loan package. And if Iacocca had done for Chrysler what Mulally, and the other C-levels have done for Ford, Chrysler wouldn't be where it is today. One, Chrysler was in decent shape when Iacocca left. Chrysler's fall came well after he left. In fact, they were in a good cash position when Daimler took them over. No, Mulally hasn't had a raise in three years, but then Ford has improved to operational profitability either. It has improved significantly under his leadership. Still, he's making eight figures a year. The UAW member have agreed to four concessionary contracts in a row, four in five years, a fact you refuse to even acknowledge. Four times, what Ford wanted, Ford got. Four times, the UAW members approved it. Mulally is still making eight figures a year, although last year was twenty percent lower than the year before. Now, the UAW membership is being asked, for the second time in six months, another fact you refuse to even acknowledge, to approve more contract changes that unquestionably have no positive financial impact for Ford this year, or next year, and possible not until after the 2011 contract is negotiated, but is a contract that definitely has provisions that will lead to a serious divide with in the UAW, that could result in the lower tier employees retaliating against the seniority employees in 2015, plus does nothing to address the concerns of the hundreds, if not thousands of skilled trades people on indefinite layoff, while they would accept a return to production jobs. Production jobs that Ford wants to disregard seniority and recall rights, and fill,with the UAW's blessing if they could, with temps or lower tier employees. This contract would have no immediate positive financial impact on the company, but if it had passed, would have set up a division in the union between seniority employees and the lower paid second tier. Tell me, how does a continuing morale problem aid the company in building quality cars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 What? That factory workers are idiots, tools, prey to their own emotions, incapable of making rational decisions in their own best interests? If they are, who has made them that way? The UAW? The UAW has screwed itself and the rank and file over. I have little respect for the way most of the AFL-CIO unions have conducted themselves over the past thirty years or so. I'll have to remember to tell my dad,my uncle, and two cousins, plus several of my neighbors that's what they are, or were prior to retiring. No, then again, I learned, in business school, to have more respect than that for any employee, whether I worked with them or they were on someone else's payroll. Your attitude is pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) One, Chrysler was in decent shape when Iacocca left. Chrysler's fall came well after he left. In fact, they were in a good cash position when Daimler took them over. No, Mulally hasn't had a raise in three years, but then Ford has improved to operational profitability either. It has improved significantly under his leadership. Still, he's making eight figures a year. The UAW member have agreed to four concessionary contracts in a row, four in five years, a fact you refuse to even acknowledge. Four times, what Ford wanted, Ford got. Four times, the UAW members approved it. Mulally is still making eight figures a year, although last year was twenty percent lower than the year before. Now, the UAW membership is being asked, for the second time in six months, another fact you refuse to even acknowledge, to approve more contract changes that unquestionably have no positive financial impact for Ford this year, or next year, and possible not until after the 2011 contract is negotiated, but is a contract that definitely has provisions that will lead to a serious divide with in the UAW, that could result in the lower tier employees retaliating against the seniority employees in 2015, plus does nothing to address the concerns of the hundreds, if not thousands of skilled trades people on indefinite layoff, while they would accept a return to production jobs. Production jobs that Ford wants to disregard seniority and recall rights, and fill,with the UAW's blessing if they could, with temps or lower tier employees. This contract would have no immediate positive financial impact on the company, but if it had passed, would have set up a division in the union between seniority employees and the lower paid second tier. Tell me, how does a continuing morale problem aid the company in building quality cars? 1) Chrysler was on its knees again three or four years after Iacocca left. He didn't fix anything, he merely applied enough ductape and baling wire to hide the problems until a few years after he left. 2) I don't care how many consecutive concessionary contracts the union has had to vote on. Know what? The economy sucks. That means price pressure, that means downward pressure on compensation. If the UAW was quite willing to share the largesse during the good times, then they'd damn well be ready to sacrifice in the hard times, and like I said, I don't care how many consecutive concessions they've been asked for, it comes down to this on every single one of them: Do you want your job or not? Besides, I'd LOVE to see how many auto workers have lost their homes, had to relocate to cheaper housing, have had their standard of living impacted in the slightest by these 'concessions'. 3) As far as a divide in the UAW employees, sorry, that's a fact of life. If you think that new hire wages are ever going up to where they were a few years ago (adjusted for inflation), sorry. That ship sailed. It's gone. You can thank the short-sighted, narrow-minded, bigoted, egocentric, corrupt, greedy, grasping, selfish, loud, unapologetic members of the UAW for that. The UNION (collectively, but certainly not individually) screwed up every chance it had to organize the transplants, by their "thumb in your eye" attitude toward the rest of the US. Maybe if the union would've realized, years ago, what was on the line, they wouldn't've screwed themselves over the way they have. Two tier wages aren't going away. Edited October 31, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Your attitude is pathetic. Me? You're the one who said that the UAW members can't make rational decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 You want to see a company with no care for it employees? Then watch GM carve through all of its remaining good will. All of this will pale if GM ever starts downsizing plants and personnel like it needs to...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Me? You're the one who said that the UAW members can't make rational decisions. Yea, right. Sure I did. Not. I said a lot of the negativity posted on line was talk that was coming from being angry - I didn't say they couldn't make a rational choice. In their place, I'd have voted "no" as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Yea, right. Sure I did. Not. I said a lot of the negativity posted on line was talk that was coming from being angry - I didn't say they couldn't make a rational choice. In their place, I'd have voted "no" as well. And how is 'no' a rational choice? Setting up Ford for a strike in 2011, and giving Ford a cost disadvantage for the subsequent 3 years? That's being rational? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Besides, I'd LOVE to see how many auto workers have lost their homes, had to relocate to cheaper housing, have had their standard of living impacted in the slightest by these 'concessions'.I've seen two in my subdivision lose their homes, not that it means anything statistically significant. And everyone's standard of living, in the auto industry, has had their standard of living drop, hourly and salaried alike, except for the execs at the very top level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) I've seen two in my subdivision lose their homes, not that it means anything statistically significant. And everyone's standard of living, in the auto industry, has had their standard of living drop, hourly and salaried alike, except for the execs at the very top level. How did they lose their homes? Were they living so close to the margin that higher co-pays forced them into foreclosure? And as far as execs at the top level are concerned, well, what yardstick would you measure that by? No obscenely large stock option bonuses? Because I'd bet Mulally's 2007 options and grants have pretty much expired as worthless. Edited October 31, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 How did they lose their homes? Were they living so close to the margin that higher co-pays forced them into foreclosure? And as far as execs at the top level are concerned, well, what yardstick would you measure that by? No obscenely large stock option bonuses? Because I'd bet Mulally's 2007 options and grants have pretty much expired as worthless. Not to forget that he gave up something like $14 million in Boeing stock options to come to Ford, given the price fall of stock, I doubt he was ever able to exercise the right to sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 Not to forget that he gave up something like $14 million in Boeing stock options to come to Ford,given the price fall of stock, I doubt he was ever able to exercise the right to sell. Agree. + Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
povertyknob Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 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? Ford can ,and does, build product all over the World. They don't ask for my input. They asked the UAW for certain considerations and offered the possibility of new work in return. By signing on the dotted line the UAW would be committed to living up to the contract. By contrast, Ford could simply say that market conditions weren't favorable to making new product in U.S. facilities. I think the average assembler understands that Ford needs to have competitive labor costs. He or she also believes that a contract modification ought to be at least somewhat reciprocal in nature. Yes,Ford needs some answers now about their labor costs going forward and they may be in no position to make promises about product sourcing. What they are asking for are essentially the same terms forced upon their bankrupt domestic competition by the Feds. Maybe that's what they need. But ,absent bankruptcy, they need for the union to agree to it. Throw out the No Strike clause and it may have passed. Or guarantee work for a few plants. It's fair to say that concessions should be made but it isn't realistic to expect the rank and file to accept severe concessions with zero reciprocity. Not when they see what Mr. Mullaly makes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 By contrast, Ford could simply say that market conditions weren't favorable to making new product in U.S. facilities. Yeah. They could opt to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, to build a greenfield factory somewhere else, as opposed to building it in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len_A Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 How did they lose their homes? Were they living so close to the margin that higher co-pays forced them into foreclosure? And as far as execs at the top level are concerned, well, what yardstick would you measure that by? No obscenely large stock option bonuses? Because I'd bet Mulally's 2007 options and grants have pretty much expired as worthless. One spouse losing their job due to a plant closure, a child with a medical condition constantly going to the doctor and the repetitive two week layoffs, and with one family, the bills just goo much. From the age of the cars they drove, they weren't blowing their money there. The other one had an adjustable rate mortgage that adjusted higher than they could afford on one pay check, again because one spouse lost their job (and the union gave up the jobs bank, a move I agreed with). I have no idea if Mulally's stock options expired. Were his stock options in addition to the eight figure salary quoted in the press, or part of it? Either way, I doubt if his finances are hurting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
povertyknob Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 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. Oh, I understand that. The problem is that Ford is asking the UAW to voluntarily agree to a contract similar to what was forced upon their domestic competition by the Federal government. To have a reasonable chance of that happening they needed to offer something in return. I'm not suggesting they commit their product plans for the next half decade, they require more flexibility than that. But I'm not sure why they thought the rank and file would accept what seemed to be a very one-sided agreement. They could have made it more acceptable by announcing a couple of projects that were probably "no-brainers", anyway. Or they could have left out the "No Strike" clause. That's why I feel like it was ill-conceived. Believe me, I want to see a healthy Ford Motor Company. This particular effort at contract modification seemed like a poor effort given the risk of bad P.R. we were going to get if it failed. I wish they'd come up with something more acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 in addition to the eight figure salary quoted in the press he doesn't get an 'eight figure salary'. He gets $2M a year (seven figures) plus assorted perks that are a couple hundred thousand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 The other one had an adjustable rate mortgage that adjusted higher than they could afford on one pay check, again because one spouse lost their job (and the union gave up the jobs bank, a move I agreed with). Well, as I recall, the buyouts weren't voted on, which means the first instance wasn't a result of concessions, and the second instance was at least in part due to an ill-advised ARM. announcing a couple of projects that were probably "no-brainers", anyway nothing's a 'no-brainer'--the market isn't stable now, and I don't know when/if it will be stable/predictable again. What would you prefer? Promises Ford can keep or promises they can't? 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.