The union argument pig pen

[Len_A]

he doesn't get an 'eight figure salary'.

 

He gets $2M a year (seven figures) plus assorted perks that are a couple hundred thousand.

No, he got $8.5 million in stock options that didn't expire, and have some value now, because the stock is higher than it was when those options were awarded earlier this year.

[Pioneer]

And how is 'no' a rational choice?giving Ford a cost disadvantage for the subsequent 3 years?

 

I'm not here to fight.

 

That being said, besides the no-strike clause, you can point to any stipulation in the contract modifications and I can show you how Ford is not disadvantaged. None of them would have saved Ford any money, and there will be no cost disadvantage from not passing it.

[Len_A]

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.

I am pretty sure that buyouts were negotiated with the union leadership, but I don't know, right now, if they were part of a contract that was voted on. That said, I'm certain the plant closure was part of concessionary contract that was voted on.

 

My wife & I never took an ARM, and I hope never will.

[Len_A]

I'm not here to fight.

 

That being said, besides the no-strike clause, you can point to any stipulation in the contract modifications and I can show you how Ford is not disadvantaged. None of them would have saved Ford any money, and there will be no cost disadvantage from not passing it.

And earlier this week, that was the conclusion of Standard & Poors. The rest of this is the usual anti union/anti factory worker elitism. Anyone who looked at this defeated contract would see no cost advantage for Ford for at least two, maybe two and a half years. In fact, if Ford doesn't get the amount of seniority employees retiring, or car sales rise enough to high second tier employees, or some combination of both, then Ford would have received no cost advantage this contract. Or do I understand that wrong, Pioneer?

[povertyknob]

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.

 

I'm not going to argue with folks who know a lot more about the industry than I do. I was only trying to opine about why I sensed this modification wouldn't fly from the perspective of the hourly folks. I felt the author was unfair because he made no effort to understand why union voters could object to it. Or didn't care. I try to look at it from the perspective of Ford because it's important for me that Ford is successful. I can also provide an hourly employee's perspective on voters mindsets after 40 years of interacting with them. My thought was to suggest ways to construct a modification that enabled the company to get healthy and could give the voters a reason to vote "yes" to concessions. I think part of a successful negotiation is learning the art of listening to see what it's going to take to get an agreement that's acceptable to a majority of voters. I don't think that happened this time. For what it's worth, I appreciate only being subjected to sarcasm on this forum. If I'd voiced these opinions on the employee forum I'd probably have had less civilized responses.G'night all

[Pioneer]

And earlier this week, that was the conclusion of Standard & Poors. The rest of this is the usual anti union/anti factory worker elitism. Anyone who looked at this defeated contract would see no cost advantage for Ford for at least two, maybe two and a half years. In fact, if Ford doesn't get the amount of seniority employees retiring, or car sales rise enough to high second tier employees, or some combination of both, then Ford would have received no cost advantage this contract. Or do I understand that wrong, Pioneer?

 

Concerning new employees, Ford would only be at a cost disadvantage if they hired more than 9,000 people at all American plants, excluding people hired at Sterling or Rawsonville which are exempt from the 20%.

 

I don't see 9,000 people retiring in the next 6 years, and the jobs that were "promised" (and I use that word loosely) would not have amounted in many new hires because they replaced product that is currently being produced, and was not guaranteed to begin with.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Pioneer

[RichardJensen]

No, he got $8.5 million in stock options that didn't expire, and have some value now, because the stock is higher than it was when those options were awarded earlier this year.

Source for the strike price and the vesting period of the options?

[RichardJensen]

no cost advantage for Ford for at least two, maybe two and a half years

Yeah. And a truculent union that is going to try and prove a point in 2011.

 

Mark my words, there are people in the UAW that would love to replace Gettlefinger & co. with a more militant and aggressive leadership, and if that happens, it'll go down hard for the one company in Detroit WITHOUT a no-strike clause.

 

Kill the goose that laid the golden eggs? Sure, why not, her production's way down, so we might as well get rid of her and see if we can find another one.

[Len_A]

Yeah. And a truculent union that is going to try and prove a point in 2011.

 

Mark my words, there are people in the UAW that would love to replace Gettlefinger & co. with a more militant and aggressive leadership, and if that happens, it'll go down hard for the one company in Detroit WITHOUT a no-strike clause.

 

Kill the goose that laid the golden eggs? Sure, why not, her production's way down, so we might as well get rid of her and see if we can find another one.

That's no doubt true, but to do that, they'll need to do several things. The union members do NOT elect the union leadership directly. They only elect the local leaders. They don't do that until next year, if I'm not mistaken. In addition to the Ford workers throwing out the majority of their local leadership, the GM & Chrysler employees have to do the same thing - right now, this kind of anger does NOT exist over there, and this I know for a fact. I have extended family actively involved in the UAW at GM & Chrysler, and right now, the militancy had died down considerably at GM & Chrysler, so a more militant leadership in the future? Not likely, not the way the UAW is structured. Before all this crap, it was the GM portion that was so militant (where the lame Soldiers of Solidarity anachronism started). Now that the union's strength at GM & Chrysler has been compromised until at least 2015, it's the Ford portion of UAW that plays the militancy game. Yawn. Been there, done that. Never changes a thing at the UAW. Probably never will. The GM & Chrysler portion of the UAW isn't militant now, they're desperate for GM & Chrysler to succeed, so the GM & Chrysler VEBA's can sell the GM & Chrysler stock as soon as they go public. Otherwise, they're terrified that their respective VEBA's will go broke.

 

Militant changes at the UAW? Unlikely. Not impossible, but very improbable.

[RichardJensen]

So your thinking is that Ford will get the same deal as GM & Chrysler in 2011?

 

I'm sorry. I'm not buying it.

 

I see one of four scenarios taking place:

 

1) Ford's market position deteriorates so noticeably that they're able to extract concessions similar to GM & Chrysler in 2011

 

2) Ford's rank & file reject a pattern contract in 2011 for the same reasons this round of concessions was rejected, rank & file rejection leads to a strike of some sort.

 

3) Somehow or another the rank and file that rejected a pattern today accepts a pattern in 2011, despite GM & Chrysler remaining weaker players in the overall market.

 

4) By some bizarre miracle, GM and Chrysler actually start making sound decisions regarding product planning, market research, and execution and are able to close the gap with Ford in terms of product fitness and this translates into better health for all three Detroit auto makers, thus eliminating the need for concessions.

 

----

 

BTW: Ford's negotiators are probably plenty irked by the slim reward that they've been given for the effort that they put into doing things the right way as far as COAs went.

 

Ford, if you'll recall, painstakingly negotiated those COAs on a plant by plant basis, only to have GM & Chrysler get better terms by judicial fiat in a bankruptcy court.

 

It's not unlike the debt Ford's carrying because they actually borrowed money privately and didn't default on it.

 

Nice to know that no good deed goes unpunished.

[Pioneer]

Nice to know that no good deed goes unpunished.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Mark8LSC CE0464]

Seriously, Ford has shed many white collar jobs. The UAW preachers want to say that they are always getting hosed and Mullaly and his bunch are always immune. Note to all UAW blue collar workers: If you have the ability, walk off your assembly line job, march into Bill's office, show that you can do it better than Alan, and YOU get the 8 digit salary. I am surprised that all of these people work at Ford and do not recall his greatest quote:

 

There are two kinds of people. Those who think they can and those who think they can't. And they are both right.

 

If you don't have the talent or will to succeed to the level of Mr. Mullaly, then kindly stop your bitching and let him run the company. If he asks for concessions, he needs them. If you don't like it, please quit.

 

I run a small business and employ 8 people. I have not taken home a check in 8 months. My employees have made the choice to scale back their hours so I don't have to let anyone go. That is teamwork, it looks like Ford could use a little more of it from the UAW.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Mark8LSC CE0464

[Pioneer]

Seriously, Ford has shed many white collar jobs.

 

And they have shed even more blue collar jobs. And, IMO they have not shed enough white collar jobs. When they have too many blue collar, they lay us off. There are so many floor supervisors in my complex that they have to shift them around periodically to hide them, and they have little responsibility.

 

For example, we were doing some maintenance work a couple of Saturdays ago. We had maybe 15 skilled trades brought in on my shift. Why they had to bring in the afternoon Shift Manager, the Maintenance Superintendent, two production Supervisors and three Maintenance Supervisors is beyond me. They only needed one person to hand out job assignments and paperwork.

 

That is teamwork, it looks like Ford could use a little more of it from the UAW.

 

I guess it wasn't teamwork the last three concessionary contracts? (2005, 2007, March 2009) If it was teamwork, there would have been concessions on both sides of the aisle.

[RichardJensen]

Why they had to bring in the afternoon Shift Manager, the Maintenance Superintendent, two production Supervisors and three Maintenance Supervisors is beyond me.

Heck, Pioneer, all those jobs are exempt!

 

They probably didn't want to be there, and it didn't cost Ford a dime to have them there.

[xr7g428]

Mullaly is in the business of selling cars, not so much building them. His question to management was why do we not make money on small cars? He did not ask why Ford builds them, or whether there was a better way to build them, he wanted to know why they sold anything they did not make money on. This is an important distinction that I think is lost on many. I don't think he is interested in any sacred cows.

 

If the UAW chooses not to partner, then he may well take that into consideration and move production where it is price effective. There are lots of choices. I do not believe Ford will build anything, anywhere, any more just because it has always been done a certain way. If it comes down to building F150's in the US and importing everything else, or even not selling anything else in the US, in order to make a profit, then that may be the best choice. We heard many times that Ford would have been better off to shutter all of the US operations for much of the past few years. That needs to sink in a bit.

 

Perhaps it would be good exercise to consider exactly what the situation would have been without the government intervention. Ford would have likely been sucked into the vortex along with Chrysler and GM. Most of the supplier chain would be gone. With all three in real bankruptcy, minus the government financing, it is pretty certain that Chrysler would be gone. GM would at best be trying to resurrect Chevrolet. Chances are there would be no UAW right now.

 

I was told a long time ago by a very seasoned investor to stay away from the US automakers. He told me one thing that sticks with me to this day. He said that the UAW had its hands around the throat of the MFG's and would never let go. They might let up once in a while, when all the life seemed to be leaving the companies faces, but as soon as the slightest hint of pink returned to their cheeks, they would tighten the grip once again. I argued that the UAW if faced by a really grim situation, would act in its own best interest. Obviously, I was wrong.

 

I absolutely do not understand how the UAW can be an owner of a competitor (GM) and be a supplier at the same time. The conflict of interest is staggering.

Edited November 1, 2009 by xr7g428

[RichardJensen]

Well, the UAW isn't really a supplier to GM. The paychecks all have the GM logo on them.

[Pioneer]

Mullaly is in the business of selling cars, not so much building them. His question to management was why do we not make money on small cars? He did not ask why Ford builds them, or whether there was a better way to build them, he wanted to know why they sold anything they did not make money on. This is an important distinction that I think is lost on many. I don't think he is interested in any sacred cows.

 

If the UAW chooses not to partner, then he may well take that into consideration and move production where it is price effective. There are lots of choices. I do not believe Ford will build anything, anywhere, any more just because it has always been done a certain way. If it comes down to building F150's in the US and importing everything else, or even not selling anything else in the US, in order to make a profit, then that may be the best choice. We heard many times that Ford would have been better off to shutter all of the US operations for much of the past few years. That needs to sink in a bit.

 

Perhaps it would be good exercise to consider exactly what the situation would have been without the government intervention. Ford would have likely been sucked into the vortex along with Chrysler and GM. Most of the supplier chain would be gone. With all three in real bankruptcy, minus the government financing, it is pretty certain that Chrysler would be gone. GM would at best be trying to resurrect Chevrolet. Chances are there would be no UAW right now.

 

I was told a long time ago by a very seasoned investor to stay away from the US automakers. He told me one thing that sticks with me to this day. He said that the UAW had its hands around the throat of the MFG's and would never let go. They might let up once in a while, when all the life seemed to be leaving the companies faces, but as soon as the slightest hint of pink returned to their cheeks, they would tighten the grip once again. I argued that the UAW if faced by a really grim situation, would act in its own best interest. Obviously, I was wrong.

 

I absolutely do not understand how the UAW can be an owner of a competitor (GM) and be a supplier at the same time. The conflict of interest is staggering.

 

1. Ford's all-in labor prices are on par with GM/Chrysler. As of 01/10 they will be on par with transplants when the VEBA takes over.

 

2. Voting down the modifications did not change #1.

 

3. Having to explain #1 and #2 is realling getting old.

[jsh0071]

Heck, Pioneer, all those jobs are exempt!

 

They probably didn't want to be there, and it didn't cost Ford a dime to have them there.

I work at STAP and our ass is in a wringer, I DON'T WANT UAW WORK , I HAVE A UAW CARD AND AM PROUD OF IT.

 

JIM HALONEN , KAWASAKI LINE, ST Thomas Assembly Plant.

[RichardJensen]

I work at STAP and our ass is in a wringer, I DON'T WANT UAW WORK , I HAVE A UAW CARD AND AM PROUD OF IT.

 

JIM HALONEN , KAWASAKI LINE, ST Thomas Assembly Plant.

Welcome to the recession.

 

Not much any of us can do about it.

[jpd80]

Two years is a long time in the auto business and a lot can happen between then and now.

Too many people are reading too much into recent events, time now for cool heads, let the

economy keep recovering and manufacturers like Ford might see a better, more humane plan.

[Len_A]

Seriously, Ford has shed many white collar jobs. The UAW preachers want to say that they are always getting hosed and Mullaly and his bunch are always immune. Note to all UAW blue collar workers: If you have the ability, walk off your assembly line job, march into Bill's office, show that you can do it better than Alan, and YOU get the 8 digit salary. I am surprised that all of these people work at Ford and do not recall his greatest quote:

 

There are two kinds of people. Those who think they can and those who think they can't. And they are both right.

 

If you don't have the talent or will to succeed to the level of Mr. Mullaly, then kindly stop your bitching and let him run the company. If he asks for concessions, he needs them. If you don't like it, please quit.

 

I run a small business and employ 8 people. I have not taken home a check in 8 months. My employees have made the choice to scale back their hours so I don't have to let anyone go. That is teamwork, it looks like Ford could use a little more of it from the UAW.

I feel for you not taking a paycheck home for eight months, but that lends itself to proving the UAW members point. Front page of the Detroit Free Press put is well: UAW - If Mulally's pay's OK, so is ours. The on-line article link: Ford's mantra of difference was taken to heart by its UAW workers (headline is the link)

 

Politically, it's hard to have executive compensation in the millions of dollars and ask the employees to continue to sacrifice. You said it yourself, on the small business level - you're making a huge sacrifice yourself as your own business's CEO. Then the rest of your staff is making sacrifices. It's teamwork - your own words. Where's Ford's teamwork?

 

I'm not saying that Ford shouldn't eventually meet the pattern set by GM & Chrysler, or should I say the pattern shoved upon GM & Chrysler. But good, bad, or indifferent, their execs also had "sacrifice" shoved upon them. Ford wants to beat the drumbeat of "We're in a different place" than their cross town rivals, but expect the employees to do all the sacrificing in the name of maintaining the pattern. Politically speaking, that dog don't hunt. Period. I don't give a good "G*d Damn" if Mulally's or any other execs pay fell from last years level. When you're blue or white collar, and your pay is in the five figure range, it's hard to see the equity in sacrifice, or feel anything, for people making well over the high six figure range. It's especially hard to stomach when they insist that you make sacrifices for the good of the organization.

 

As far as Ford shedding white collar jobs, they over did the shedding of white collar jobs in the product development side, they over did it in the product distribution side (with the consolidation of sales zones, and merging the vehicle sales zones with the parts & service sales zones), and yet they are still too heavy, as Pioneer stated, in the plant supervision side, not that I want to see anyone lose their jobs. Since guys like Pioneer don't see what's happening else where in the company, and guys like him are who voted on the contract, that what they see Ford doing with their own eyes, in their plants only. That perception, incorrect as it may be, isn't their fault - it's Ford management's for making the white collar cuts in the way they did.

UAW___If_Mulally__s_pay__s_OK__so_is_ours.pdf

Edited November 1, 2009 by Len_A

[mettech]

Is there any way that Ford can separate from the UAW? :reading:

[Pioneer]

Is there any way that Ford can separate from the UAW? :reading:

 

Declare bankruptcy. That would sole a lot of problems, but the family would lose control.

 

EDIT: Of course, that brings up the question of why they would want to. Even without the contract modifications, UAW all-in compensation is on par with GM/Chrysler, and when VEBA takes over retiree health care takes over on 01/10, they will be on par with transplant compensation.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Pioneer

[jlsaylor]

Is there any way that Ford can separate from the UAW? :reading:

 

Yes, move all domestic production to right to work states. At that point the union could complain all it wants regarding Ford's future plans, but their real weapon would be gone. Effectively, if they went on strike, Ford could simply fire the lot of 'em.......sure would solve a lot of problems. You would find out in a hurry who wants their job and who doesn't.

 

Like we used to say back when I worked in management.....United Against Work will find a way to screw it up every time. I think the real nail in the coffin is when Ford's most productive and highest quality facility in North America became a Mexican facility, kinda difficult to explain those UAW wages when I can erect a facility in a third world nation and get a better result even if you don't consider the lower wage. I hate to see any family hit dire times, but the UAW isn't getting anything they haven't been begging for for decades.

[Pioneer]

worked in management

 

 

That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Pioneer