Ford workers reject contract changes

[Anthony]

Link to MSNBC article

[ANTAUS]

Well it doesnt look like they wish to work, is there a Mexican plant that is willing to pick up the slack? I'm sure they want to work.

[ZanatWork]

Unions are outdated as the sundial. If you can't be accountable on your own merit, you're unfit anyway.

[Pioneer]

Well it doesnt look like they wish to work, is there a Mexican plant that is willing to pick up the slack? I'm sure they want to work.

 

All Mexican plants, when the Fiesta goes into production, will be fully utilised.

 

And there is nothing about a "NO" vote that says we do not want to work or have the company succeed. Read my previous posts.

 

EDIT: Whoops. Wrong Union bashing thread. Click THIS link to read the posts I am referring to.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Pioneer

[Pioneer]

Unions are outdated as the sundial. If you can't be accountable on your own merit, you're unfit anyway.

 

It's been a long time. And, your opinion is just that.

[Edstock]

STAP starts to look better and better . . . .

[Pioneer]

STAP starts to look better and better . . . .

 

Why? Because they are also Unionized, and with all due respect to my CAW brothers, have a higher labor cost than a U.S. plant?

 

EDIT: You do realise that the last time the CAW was asked to vote on concessions that STAP overwhelmingly rejected them, right?

 

Is the Union hatred so great that people don't know all the facts and blindly take the other side of the argument at all costs when the UAW is involved?

Edited November 1, 2009 by Pioneer

[RichardJensen]

Oh shut up Pioneer: you're as guilty of hiding facts, employing stereotypes, and inciting angry ripostes as any union hater.

[Pioneer]

Oh shut up Pioneer: you're as guilty of hiding facts, employing stereotypes, and inciting angry ripostes as any union hater.

 

My questions are not valid?

[Mark8LSC CE0464]

Am I to understand that the UAW will NOT match the deals they gave to GM and Chrysler? Since the UAW owns part of GM it is OK to give them concessions but not Ford that is standing without union ownership. WOW! The union is really showing favoritism to GM. I thought the UAW used to bargain with one of the big three and then use that deal as a pattern for the other two of the big 3. Looks like Ford, the Big 1, may need to kick a few butts.....

[RichardJensen]

My questions are not valid?

No.

 

You can't play in the mud and then complain because your clothes are dirty.

Edited November 1, 2009 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Am I to understand that the UAW will NOT match the deals they gave to GM and Chrysler? Since the UAW owns part of GM it is OK to give them concessions but not Ford that is standing without union ownership. WOW! The union is really showing favoritism to GM. I thought the UAW used to bargain with one of the big three and then use that deal as a pattern for the other two of the big 3. Looks like Ford, the Big 1, may need to kick a few butts.....

For the record:

 

1) Contract modifications at GM & Chrysler were not put to vote.

 

2) The rank and file are rejecting concessions approved by the UAW leadership.

 

3) Ford's UAW employees gain absolutely nothing from concessions granted to GM & Chrysler.

[Pioneer]

No.

 

You can't play in the mud and then complain because your clothes are dirty.

 

I'm not complaining about anything.

 

EDIT: Take away all of the stigma and negative feelings toward me. Are my questions valid then?

Edited November 1, 2009 by Pioneer

[RichardJensen]

blindly take the other side of the argument at all costs when the UAW is involved?

Asserting that your opponent in a debate is irrational is morally equivalent to complaining about dirty fighting.

[Pioneer]

Asserting that your opponent in a debate is irrational is morally equivalent to complaining about dirty fighting.

 

Sorry. Didn't mean it that way. I just found it odd that he would source product to a plant that at last concession request did the same thing that the UAW just did.

[RichardJensen]

Are my questions valid then?

I don't think so.

 

I don't think it's rational to insert tangential matters into a discussion of employee costs.

 

I don't think that seething discontent with the executives that have kept Ford's nose above water is in the best interests of the rank and file.

 

If Mulally can be accused of being tone deaf for saying, "I'm fine with where I'm at", then the rank and file who voted to reject these concessions is just as guilty of tone-deafness toward the broader stretch of Middle America.

 

And if the rank and file doesn't realize that its future is intimately connected with its public perception, then it's in for a rude awakening.

 

Industrial America is, historically, better off with unions. I say historically because when the union's focus shifted from growth to job protection it failed its membership and it failed the industrial base of the U.S.

 

There will always be jobs with union potential. It is the shame of the unions that they are, with few exceptions, too blind to see this.

Edited November 1, 2009 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Now that the UAW members have rejected these contract changes, what will Ford do,

will they retaliate by say, sweet talking the CAW by moving some product to Canada?

I can see them going back and forth between UAW and CAW seeking better deals....

 

I read a lot about excess capacity in Ford USA plants, could that now be on the table?

 

Or will Ford possibly come up with a better alternative plan?

Edited November 1, 2009 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Sorry. Didn't mean it that way. I just found it odd that he would source product to a plant that at last concession request did the same thing that the UAW just did.

I think we all collectively need to take a few days off on this subject.

 

As said above, I believe that the unions need to be concerned with more than just job protection. That is, believe it or not, a rather late addition to the union mission (going back only to the late 70s/early 80s).

 

Ultimately (IMO), Ford is still better off, in toto over the course of its existence, for having a union work force, even if this current round of concessions was voted down.

[Bob Rosadini]

Bad news. Looks to me like this is a case of UAW leadership at the top recognizing the situation Ford and its employees are in, while most of the local leadership is still stuck in the past. Plain and simple. And if Ford does post decent quarterly numbers I can only imagine the screaming. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hardplace!

 

It looks like Ford stood a good chance of coming out on top for the long haul- a good deal for stockholders, the Company and its employees.

 

Let's hope the rank and file comes to its senses and cooler heads prevail.

[Pioneer]

I read a lot about excess capacity in Ford USA plants, could that now be on the table?

 

Could be. But, one way or another, I see at least one more assembly plant, one stamping plant, one engine plant, and one transmission plant to be closed in the 2011 contract negotiations. I saw this before the modification vote, and even if all of the product "promises" were fulfilled.

[7Mary3]

If Ford were to declare backruptcy, their negotiating position with the UAW would be quite a bit better, wouldn't it? Otherwise, Ford will somehow have to come up with other competitive advantages to make up for their current uncompetitive labor costs, compared to GM and Chrysler. Hold on, 2010 is going to be interesting to say the least.......

[ANTAUS]

I just find it rediculous how a group can hold a company financially hostage. And then like in the case of GM I was hoping they would all crash and burn and MAYBE lessons would be learned. But as we see, lessons have NOT been learned. I say build a factory elsewhere and be done with it. Let's remember, a Job is not a requirement, it's a privilege in this economy, be greateful because many others are losing theirs. If someone is looking for excuses not to work, then just quit. Someone else will do it and probably for less. Competition makes good workers, better

[Ovaltine]

Asserting that your opponent in a debate is irrational is morally equivalent to complaining about dirty fighting.

 

What? Say it isn't so! People acting irrationally in a debate? Impossible!

 

And btw, Pioneer has a point above, about removing his involvement from the statement and then examining it. Even if he's guilty-as-charged, his argument stands on its own.

 

"A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions."

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

 

 

The question in debate then IS:

 

"Is the Union hatred so great that people don't know all the facts and blindly take the other side of the argument at all costs when the UAW is involved?"

 

Yes or no, and why?

 

-Ovaltine

Edited November 1, 2009 by Ovaltine

[David The Bruce]

I just find it rediculous how a group can hold a company financially hostage. And then like in the case of GM I was hoping they would all crash and burn and MAYBE lessons would be learned. But as we see, lessons have NOT been learned. I say build a factory elsewhere and be done with it. Let's remember, a Job is not a requirement, it's a privilege in this economy, be greateful because many others are losing theirs. If someone is looking for excuses not to work, then just quit. Someone else will do it and probably for less. Competition makes good workers, better

 

There is no such word as quit in the uaw dictionary. Why would someone quit a job that has been valued at $14 an hour yet is paid at $28 an hour?

 

and I say valued in reference to what the uaw has stated new hires can make to the do the same jobs current members are doing

 

That's what ticks me off here, the uaw came right out and said, "you're right, the jobs could easily be filled by people making half the wages they currently make"

 

I feel like everyone who bought a ford should get a rebate for having to pay double for assembly wages.

[Ovaltine]

If Ford were to declare backruptcy, their negotiating position with the UAW would be quite a bit better, wouldn't it? Otherwise, Ford will somehow have to come up with other competitive advantages to make up for their current uncompetitive labor costs, compared to GM and Chrysler. Hold on, 2010 is going to be interesting to say the least.......

 

How does the Ford family retain effective control in a bankruptcy? THAT is a question that needs answered.

 

If no legal apparatus exists that can be constructed to allow for that, then bankruptcy will only occur after (IF) the company was to spin completely out-of-control and render their (Ford family) opinions and input moot. That doesn't appear to be a likely scenario at this point, from the postive news/info that we're being fed here on the outside.

 

Thus, I suspect that Ford *will* have to start contemplating a little less heavy handedness with the UAW, otherwise I would assume that a wholesale corporate-wide strike could potentially occur at some point. Remember.... Ford can't *overnight* replace EVERY North American plant with another in some other country. The logistics are impossible.

 

My neighbor told me that his assembly plant was voting last week on a contract where the *TOP* hourly pay would be $14 an hour for any new hires, and that the health care was being pared down to only catastrophic coverage. And if they voted 'YES' for it, they got a nice little $1,000 brib- ah, I mean bonus for doing so. But ONLY if they voted YES. I'm not sure if that was as a collective vote or individual vote.

 

Can anyone verify how accurate my description above is?

 

At some point, if that is essentially true, what would paying union dues for the new hires even be buying them? Someone to sit with them during grievance hearings? If the above is true, the UAW is starting to sound more and more like the ineffective grocery store workers union I remember from my younger days.

 

BTW: $14 per hour = $29,120 per year. That's not much dough these days, based on what it takes to get by at even a basic level of sustenance. I haven't ever worked in an auto factory, but my Dad did as well as many friends and family members. From the stories I hear them tell, most jobs in factory deserve to be paid *something* more than that!

 

-Ovaltine

Edited November 1, 2009 by Ovaltine