RichardJensen Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Yes, move all domestic production to right to work states. Build 30 new facilities at $1B apiece---sounds like a great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Build 30 new facilities at $1B apiece---sounds like a great idea. Not to mention that Atlanta Assembly and Norfolk Assembly were in right to work states and Ford closed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 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? Of course. That's all the UAW wants--gimme, gimme, gimme. Until they were embarrassed to the point of silliness over the Job Bank, it was "gimme money for not working", it was "gimme low cost health care", "gimme ridiculous hourly wages and tons of overtime". Now most of those things have gone away and Ford is STILL at a competitive disadvantage. The "gimme, gimme, gimme" has cost 1/2 of the UAW their jobs. So now they are sitting at home, doing nothing, but fortunately not getting paid anything either. I understand that at some point, the union has to say "enough is enough"---that's the point of collective bargaining. But a profit built on basically accounting tactics in the 2nd quarter and a small profit in the 3rd quarter built on the glimmer of the beginning of a turnaround is not the end of Ford's problems. Keep it up, UAW--your goal is obviously to eliminate the remaining 1/2 of the UAW membership. 5-8 years from now, every Ford vehicle will be built in Mexico, Alabama or Mississippi. Note: This is NOT a bash on the individual UAW worker---every indication is the build quality of the Taurus is top notch. The UAW membership is largely, but not entirely, a skilled and prideful workforce, I think. But, they will be their own undoing if they aren't careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Ford is STILL at a competitive disadvantage How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David The Bruce Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Of course. That's all the UAW wants--gimme, gimme, gimme. Until they were embarrassed to the point of silliness over the Job Bank, it was "gimme money for not working", it was "gimme low cost health care", "gimme ridiculous hourly wages and tons of overtime". Now most of those things have gone away and Ford is STILL at a competitive disadvantage. The "gimme, gimme, gimme" has cost 1/2 of the UAW their jobs. So now they are sitting at home, doing nothing, but fortunately not getting paid anything either. I understand that at some point, the union has to say "enough is enough"---that's the point of collective bargaining. But a profit built on basically accounting tactics in the 2nd quarter and a small profit in the 3rd quarter built on the glimmer of the beginning of a turnaround is not the end of Ford's problems. Keep it up, UAW--your goal is obviously to eliminate the remaining 1/2 of the UAW membership. 5-8 years from now, every Ford vehicle will be built in Mexico, Alabama or Mississippi. Note: This is NOT a bash on the individual UAW worker---every indication is the build quality of the Taurus is top notch. The UAW membership is largely, but not entirely, a skilled and prideful workforce, I think. But, they will be their own undoing if they aren't careful. awww c'mon, they gave up the monday after easter for the good of the company. I'm curious, other then the auto industry do any of the posters on this mb get the monday after easter off? I'd never heard of that one. I suppose you need to offer that to attract folks to the jobs. sooner or later ford is going to find a way out of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The U.S., Ford, and the UAW members would be better off without the UAW. What a terrible organization; it has done so much damage to the U.S. economy. The thinking shown by the recent contract rejection is why Michigan is in the dire straits it is in. I hope the days of the UAW are numbered. Maybe then we can start to rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Ford can send some work to CAW, and re-tool St Thomas instead of closing it. The days of UAW expecting executive pay are long over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) How? I know, I know. You've been saying all along in this thread that the new labor deal would have saved Ford nothing. That implies Ford, GM and Chrysler are all on-par vis a vis labor costs. So then why would Ford have asked for concessions? You're honestly expecting me to believe that Ford doesn't know something YOU DO? Please. To me, it would royally suck to be a new autoworker on a Tier 2 wage and have that wage frozen for 5 years. But those folks have a choice: Take the job or don't---nobody was busting down an existing worker to $14/hr. I don't believe for a second that Ford is on par with GM and wanted concessions that are bound to rile up the base just for shits and giggles. Face it: Mulally knows more than you or I ever will. Don't like it? Do what every other dissatisfied worker does: QUIT. Oh wait, no, I forgot, you're protected because kept the beloved strike hammer hanging over Ford's head. Go ahead, strike or even threaten to. See how buyers come flooding into showrooms. Sounds like a good way to destroy a nascent recovery. You ever wonder why the UAW and workers collectively are generally disrespected? Because of the Jobs Bank, the Monday after Easter....I mean think about it: In good times, you got tons and tons of time off and because demand was still there, you could turn around and work tons of OT. I don't know about you, but an auto assembly worker making $80k/yr leaves me scratching my head a lot more than a CEO of a massive industrial organization making $8M/yr. Edited November 2, 2009 by BrewfanGRB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Ford can send some work to CAW, and re-tool St Thomas instead of closing it. The days of UAW expecting executive pay are long over. Plus the gang get provincial healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 If the UAW went on strike, wonder what the Fusion sell numbers would be like? :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 2, 2009 Author Share Posted November 2, 2009 Build 30 new facilities at $1B apiece---sounds like a great idea. Today they just got the first billion for a new plant. I hope Ford keeps all of the CAW plants however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Fusion transmission and Fusion engines are made in UAW plants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictor Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 The U.S., Ford, and the UAW members would be better off without the UAW. What a terrible organization; it has done so much damage to the U.S. economy. The thinking shown by the recent contract rejection is why Michigan is in the dire straits it is in. I hope the days of the UAW are numbered. Maybe then we can start to rebuild. Makes you wonder if states with lower union numbers weathered the current recession better than those states with high union numbers. I don't have the data but it feels that way to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David The Bruce Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) Makes you wonder if states with lower union numbers weathered the current recession better than those states with high union numbers. I don't have the data but it feels that way to me. So you're saying with recessions comes reality? Edited November 2, 2009 by David The Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsaylor Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) That is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. C'mon, we both know I wasn't just standing around wasting time, if I had done that I would have been taking one of the many valuable tasks performed by a union employee away from them, thereby endangering his or her job. Hey, I understand, standing around looking stupid has value too, all we have to do is ask the union. And as we all know, if there is one thing the union wont stand for it's somebody else doing the work their employees don't do. Edited November 2, 2009 by jlsaylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 C'mon, we both know I wasn't standing around wasting time because that would have been taking one of the many valuable tasks performed by a union employee away thereby endangering his job. Hey, standing around looking stupid has value too, ask the union. And if there is one thing the union wont stand for it's somebody else doing the work their employees don't do. Okay, that's enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 So then why would Ford have asked for concessions? Don't know. You're honestly expecting me to believe that Ford doesn't know something YOU DO? I just admitted I don't know everything management does. I don't believe for a second that Ford is on par with GM and wanted concessions that are bound to rile up the base just for shits and giggles. Read the newest modifications that were given out. In today's market, not one of those will give the competition any competitive edge. Post any of them, and I can show you why not. Go ahead, strike or even threaten to. Nobody has threatened to strike. You're the first person to bring it up. You ever wonder why the UAW and workers collectively are generally disrespected? Because people like you go off half cocked not knowing all the facts? I don't know about you, but an auto assembly worker making $80k/yr leaves me scratching my head a lot more than a CEO of a massive industrial organization making $8M/yr. $28 per hour * 2080 hours does not equal $80k. And he makes more than $8 Million a year. Thank you, and goodnight America! :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Mulally gets $2M/year cash, and assorted perks worth about another $500k, give or take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 $28 per hour * 2080 hours does not equal $80k. And he makes more than $8 Million a year. Thank you, and goodnight America! :happy feet: and apparently, that is the going market rate for a capable CEO that can turn the company around. I suppose you could fire Sir Alan and hire a $100,000k/a CEO but then you'd be out of a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 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. This is really the point though of the contract modifications; no strike clauses. Ford wants to build a profitable manufacturing operation, and wants to get guarantees about basic things like working, for a contract term. That's not a challenge in places like Turkey and Brazil. Boeing incidentally, a very different manufacturer, wants the same thing and recently elected to build a plant (for 787's) in SC rather than Washington because their respective union laborers in Washington wouldn't agree to such a no strike term. The reliability of the labor/workforce is a BIG deal now even more than the salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) Read the newest modifications that were given out. In today's market, not one of those will give the competition any competitive edge. Post any of them, and I can show you why not. Well, perhaps the goal wasn't to get a competitive EDGE...now or later. It was for parity. Again, we can go around and around on this--for your argument to be right, it means you know something Ford doesn't---that they asked for a contract modification for no reason. Apparently, the Executive Leadership Team at Ford doesn't know this--but you do. Interesting. You should have let them know all their effort in developing the modification was wasted. Nobody has threatened to strike. You're the first person to bring it up. Wow, this conversation is very weird. Your argument against the modification was that it took away the right to strike in certain situations and being upset about this because the union hasn't struck Ford since the mid-70's. Get real: The desire to keep the right to strike IS a threat to strike. If you don't want to strike or even threaten to, you don't need the right in the first place. $28 per hour * 2080 hours does not equal $80k. And he makes more than $8 Million a year. What part of my quote that referenced the overtime didn't you understand? It's widely known that many senior assembly workers made/could have made nearly 80k in the rich times w/ lots of OT. $28/hr is 58k/yr. It doesn't take much OT at $42 (or even $56/hr) to get you to OT. And as Richard has pointed out, I was wrong on the high side for Alan...so I guess I'm not the only one going off half-cocked without all the facts. I'm still stunned that people think a CEO making 2M (or 8M or 18M or WHATEVER) is the problem...not 30,000 people making $60k each. The way I see it is the UAW IS tired of conceding. Fine. Just put another plant in Mexico (or hell, Canada, for that matter), cut another 5000 jobs in the US and poof!, save yourself $300M/yr (simplified math). Edited November 4, 2009 by BrewfanGRB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The U.S., Ford, and the UAW members would be better off without the UAW. What a terrible organization; it has done so much damage to the U.S. economy. The thinking shown by the recent contract rejection is why Michigan is in the dire straits it is in. I hope the days of the UAW are numbered. Maybe then we can start to rebuild. I'm obviously not to bright, which is exemplified by responding to this post, but please explain the damage that the UAW has caused to the economy? They (UAW) caused housing bubble to burst? And, if you could support your wild assertions with some credible source like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap Also in September American International Group (AIG) required a federal bailout because it had been excessively selling CDS protection without hedging against the possibility that the reference entities might decline in value,.... Yeah, the UAW was behind all this, I remember now...Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm obviously not to bright, which is exemplified by responding to this post, but please explain the damage that the UAW has caused to the economy? They (UAW) caused housing bubble to burst? And, if you could support your wild assertions with some credible source like:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap Also in September American International Group (AIG) required a federal bailout because it had been excessively selling CDS protection without hedging against the possibility that the reference entities might decline in value,.... Yeah, the UAW was behind all this, I remember now...Thanks The UAW forced the Detroit 3 to have high legacy cost and inflated non skill labor overhead (not limited to cost/hr). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm still stunned that people think a CEO making 2M (or 8M or 18M or WHATEVER) is the problem...not 30,000 people making $60k each. The way I see it is the UAW IS tired of conceding. Fine. Just put another plant in Mexico (or hell, Canada, for that matter), cut another 5000 jobs in the US and poof!, save yourself $300M/yr (simplified math). Okay, I get it, what is a reasonable wage for the people in the plant? Or is there a thing called reasonable customary. I'm lost, the general public should determine the wage, what is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The UAW forced the Detroit 3 to have high legacy cost and inflated non skill labor overhead (not limited to cost/hr). I love catch phrases..."Legacy Cost". Is the legacy cost hurting their market share? Veba Las Vegas Still waiting to hear.... What should the labor be paid? 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.