GM moving away from UAW?

[RichardJensen]

do you no understand that labor costs factor in to the cost structure of a company?

yes. I also understand that GM's labor costs are currently about the same as Toyota's.

 

Your point being?

[kpc655]

yes. I also understand that GM's labor costs are currently about the same as Toyota's.

 

Your point being?

 

 

read the rest of the post

 

i.e. they're not. both in terms of actual costs and flexibility.

 

i'm guessing you've not spent much time working in automotive plants. do you have any first hand experience at a GM (or ford) plant?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

GM has been moving away from employing anyone Stateside for years they used to employ 700,000 at the end of the 70's how many do they employ today Stateside?

 

In the 1950's they used to have the Motorama's that a few million folk used to attend some years, do they still have them today just interested..

 

If Chevy had a Motarama in the UK today nobody would turn up, maybe the odd person out walking his dog might get dragged into one against his will is about as good as it gets these days with their dull boring bland ex Korean Daewoo junk they sell in the UK that nobody has got the slight bit of interest in here.

 

Those were the days no Lutz around to cock the cars up.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RichardJensen]

read the rest of the post

I read the rest of the post and didn't figure it deserved a response, but since you insist:

 

1) There's no jobs bank anymore. Laying off workers doesn't mean paying them 66% of their base pay or whatever it was

 

2) Ford's COAs are on a par with conditions generally at the transplants. Their workforce is sufficiently flexible.

 

3) If you think that hiring/firing is easy at Toyota, I've got a bridge to sell you. Hiring and firing is NEVER easy for a big corporation. Wrongful termination lawsuits are more expensive than grievance hearings.

 

The ONLY advantage Toyota has is that they cram temp workers into the factories and the domestics can't. But I don't know that Toyota is better served, long term, by that practice.

 

I question the benefit you've derived from your putative hours spent in factory environments if you think that a company will be better served by throwing plant workers out on their ears, or randomly reassigning them, because Ford's work rules & compensation are on par with the transplants.

Edited February 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[kpc655]

I read the rest of the post and didn't figure it deserved a response, but since you insist:

 

1) There's no jobs bank anymore. Laying off workers doesn't mean paying them 66% of their base pay or whatever it was

 

2) Ford's COAs are on a par with conditions generally at the transplants. Their workforce is sufficiently flexible.

 

3) If you think that hiring/firing is easy at Toyota, I've got a bridge to sell you. Hiring and firing is NEVER easy for a big corporation. Wrongful termination lawsuits are more expensive than grievance hearings.

 

The ONLY advantage Toyota has is that they cram temp workers into the factories and the domestics can't. But I don't know that Toyota is better served, long term, by that practice.

 

I question the benefit you've derived from your putative hours spent in factory environments if you think that a company will be better served by throwing plant workers out on their ears, or randomly reassigning them, because Ford's work rules & compensation are on par with the transplants.

 

you obviously don't work in the industry.

 

sufficiently flexible? by who's standards, yours? i don't think your qualified to make that judgment. you've still not told me..when's the last time you stepped foot in an automotive plant? do you even work in the industry?

 

every year ford cycles through layoffs at the beginning of the year. work rules require 2 weeks of layoff before unemployment can be paid. but this only has to be done once per year. so they do this at the beginning of the year, that way throughout the year, anytime someone goes on layoff (for a day here, a week here, doesn't matter), they go on unemployment. and collect sub pay. and still get benefits. ford is still unable to trim down the work force as needed. ford figures that they need to downsize/reposition somewhere around 41,000 additional hrly workers. I'd say that's a big problem.

 

you sure do make a lot of assumptions though. which I'm sure partially explains some of your incorrect views. i said nothing of "throwing workers on their ears" or "randomly reassigning them".

 

ford's work rules are not on par. which should be plainly obvious, if nothing else, by the simple fact that the recent contract modifications to bring them in line with their domestic counterparts was rejected. and as far as the transplants..they have largely avoided unionization. so I'm not sure what work rules you're using for comparison.

 

you've quickly turned this into a "bash toyota" thread. so congrats on that.

[jpd80]

ford is still unable to trim down the work force as needed. ford figures that they need to downsize/reposition somewhere around 41,000 additional hrly workers. I'd say that's a big problem.

 

 

 

I think you have been misled because according to Ford's 2008/9 sustainability report, they have already cut those figures from 100,000 down to about 52,000. What you propose would mean nearly all of Ford's hourly employees would be gone.....

 

I believe ACH is no longer on the books so Ford's hourly workers are now closer to 48,000. I recall that last year, Ford wanted the Hourly workforce reduced to around 41,000 and were disappointed with the response to the last buy out offer. That means they were looking for around 7,000 or so leaving - not the 41,000 you suggest.....

 

 

LINK

Over the last three years, we have reduced employment levels in our Ford North America business unit by about 60,500. As of December 31, 2008, our Ford North America business unit had approximately 22,400 salaried employees and 52,800 hourly employees (including 3,200 at our Automotive Components Holdings facilities), compared with approximately 35,600 salaried employees and 100,100 hourly employees (including 13,900 at our ACH facilities) on December 31, 2005. Most of our hourly worker reductions were the result of early retirement offers and voluntary separation packages to U.S. employees, including Ford employees at our ACH plants.

Edited February 15, 2010 by jpd80

[kpc655]

I think you have been misled because according to Ford's 2008/9 sustainability report, they have already cut those figures from 100,000 down to about 52,000. What you propose would mean nearly all of Ford's hourly employees would be gone.....

 

I believe ACH is no longer on the books so Ford's hourly workers are now closer to 48,000. I recall that last year, Ford wanted the Hourly workforce reduced to around 41,000 and were disappointed with the response to the last buy out offer. That would mean they were looking for around 7,000 or so leaving - not the 41,000 you suggest.....

 

 

nope

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2125243620091221

 

ford's recent buyout offer (the third if i'm not mistaken) was to 41,000 employees. that means they want some portion of that 41000 to leave and not be replaced, and some portion to be replaced by cheaper entry level workers.

 

with 10+% unemployment, there are a lot of very eager workers around the country (esp. michigan) who would gladly compete for factory jobs.

[rn4]

you obviously don't work in the industry.

 

sufficiently flexible? by who's standards, yours? i don't think your qualified to make that judgment. you've still not told me..when's the last time you stepped foot in an automotive plant? do you even work in the industry?

 

every year ford cycles through layoffs at the beginning of the year. work rules require 2 weeks of layoff before unemployment can be paid. but this only has to be done once per year. so they do this at the beginning of the year, that way throughout the year, anytime someone goes on layoff (for a day here, a week here, doesn't matter), they go on unemployment. and collect sub pay. and still get benefits. ford is still unable to trim down the work force as needed. ford figures that they need to downsize/reposition somewhere around 41,000 additional hrly workers. I'd say that's a big problem.

 

you sure do make a lot of assumptions though. which I'm sure partially explains some of your incorrect views. i said nothing of "throwing workers on their ears" or "randomly reassigning them".

 

ford's work rules are not on par. which should be plainly obvious, if nothing else, by the simple fact that the recent contract modifications to bring them in line with their domestic counterparts was rejected. and as far as the transplants..they have largely avoided unionization. so I'm not sure what work rules you're using for comparison.

 

you've quickly turned this into a "bash toyota" thread. so congrats on that.

 

 

Looks to me like you are trying to turn this into a bash the UAW thread.

[Maislebandit]

Looks to me like you are trying to turn this into a bash the UAW thread.

 

 

Sure looks like that to me too.

 

It is obvious that kpc655 believes that Ford hourly / UAW is detrimental to the success of Ford. That's funny because the UAW has been there all along during the good times as well as the bad.

 

My question is, what would kpc655 deem to be an ideal workforce?

 

Minimum wage? Offshore the rest of our jobs?

 

I'm sick of people discounting what we do day in and out. We are paid well because the jobs are not easy, inherently dangerous and some are less than sanitary.

Do you know how long the average autoworker lives after retirement?

 

Oh, and if Ford was to get rid of 41,000 hourly , guess who would be next in line?

[kpc655]

Looks to me like you are trying to turn this into a bash the UAW thread.

 

nah,

 

start from the beginning.

[David The Bruce]

What's going on right now in the auto industry has gone on with a lot of labor intensive industries over the years.

This isn't a fault of organized labor from the past. They got what they could for their members, good job. But the leaders of labor today need to see and react to the realities of today.

These are public companies in what's becoming a very competitive market.

With more competition should come smaller margins and possibly lower production numbers to distribute overhead across.

Naturally companies are going to look at places they can save and labor is one of those places. What's labor, 5 percent of the product right?

What percentage of North American Fords are assembled in Mexico now? It's over fifteen percent right?

Would anyone be surprised to see that number double over the next 10 years?

What happens to US labor leverage when 30 percent of North American product is assembled out of Country?

Everyone knows where this is heading. I would hope we have learned from the past and can make the adjustments now to keep this work in the US.

[Maislebandit]

What's going on right now in the auto industry has gone on with a lot of labor intensive industries over the years.

This isn't a fault of organized labor from the past. They got what they could for their members, good job. But the leaders of labor today need to see and react to the realities of today.

These are public companies in what's becoming a very competitive market.

With more competition should come smaller margins and possibly lower production numbers to distribute overhead across.

Naturally companies are going to look at places they can save and labor is one of those places. What's labor, 5 percent of the product right?

What percentage of North American Fords are assembled in Mexico now? It's over fifteen percent right?

Would anyone be surprised to see that number double over the next 10 years?

What happens to US labor leverage when 30 percent of North American product is assembled out of Country?

Everyone knows where this is heading. I would hope we have learned from the past and can make the adjustments now to keep this work in the US.

 

Well said.

[RichardJensen]

ford's work rules are not on par. which should be plainly obvious, if nothing else, by the simple fact that the recent contract modifications to bring them in line with their domestic counterparts was rejected. and as far as the transplants..they have largely avoided unionization. so I'm not sure what work rules you're using for comparison.

1) The ONLY significant aspect of the contract that Ford did not ALREADY have in place was the no-strike agreement:

 

For example, many local competitive operating agreements the UAW already has with Ford allow the automaker to outsource many of the same sort of jobs covered by the two-tier wage component of the GM deal.

http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/AUTO01/709280400/1148#ixzz0fdCnZT8q

 

2) If you think that there aren't de facto work rules in place at the transplants, I've got some lovely real estate with a view of the ocean up in Harding County you might want to buy.

 

3) The buyout option was extended to 41,000 employees. You would be a fool to think that Ford expected 41,000 takers.

[Ralph Greene]

Up front....I will state I have no experience dealing with Unions in the auto industry.

 

But I do have experience dealing with them in other industries.

 

If I were going into business today building auto's or auto related parts, for the sake of surviving and prospering, It would have to be without any union interference. I wouldn't mind having my total hourly labor costs the same as the union....that's not a problem....the problem is their work rules. It would require me to have workers I didn't need. These work rules are designed to make my work force inflexible, and to create more jobs, not get more work done. (though things have improved a lot lately for management....the rules are a lot more relaxed) ) These same work rules would not allow me to shift my work force around to my best benefit....I couldn't take someone off a machine and put them to unloading trucks, or cleaning floors, or bathrooms, as an example. The down time due to having to discuss all these stuff all the time is costly and time consuming to management. You can bet Honda and Toyota know this. I would only build plants in a right to work state also.

 

Basically.....I would know I couldn't compete with a well run non union shop forever. Their days are past. Both Ford and GM will continually move work to where it is cheaper to produce (ECON 101). I'm not anti union per se, my relatives a generation ago were union men, I would just know the reality of today. So I'm sure GM is moving away from union work as soon as contracts expire, and economics warrant. No doubt state tax inducements will help keep them around a while, but the future is clear. Ford and GM won't just attempt to bust their unions, I believe Ford cares for it's workers, but they will continue to shift work away from the unions. They just won't talk about it much. Business is business.

[RichardJensen]

I couldn't take someone off a machine and put them to unloading trucks, or cleaning floors, or bathrooms, as an example.

People love to use those kind of examples, but aside from loading dock work, I don't think that kind of stuff happens in non-union shops. At least not shops past a certain size (the size where collective bargaining starts to be a useful tool in worker relations). When you've got, say, 800 people working on a factory floor, I think the jobs are in general so specialized that you can't reassign someone, except--maybe--doing grunt work on the loading docks (but not necessarily operating forklifts, etc.) Janitorial is probably contracted out at that scale anyway.

Edited February 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[kpc655]

1) The ONLY significant aspect of the contract that Ford did not ALREADY have in place was the no-strike agreement:

 

 

http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/AUTO01/709280400/1148#ixzz0fdCnZT8q

 

2) If you think that there aren't de facto work rules in place at the transplants, I've got some lovely real estate with a view of the ocean up in Harding County you might want to buy.

 

3) The buyout option was extended to 41,000 employees. You would be a fool to think that Ford expected 41,000 takers.

 

 

do you intentionally only read portions of posts?

 

"ford's recent buyout offer (the third if i'm not mistaken) was to 41,000 employees. that means they want some portion of that 41000 to leave and not be replaced, and some portion to be replaced by cheaper entry level workers.."

 

are you comparing ford to GM? the post is really about uaw vs non uaw shops. suggest to go back to the beginning. additionally, transplants do not conform to UAW labor laws. they conform to US labor law and nothing more. why is that so hard to understand?

 

since you seem to like sarcasm and taking things to illogical extremes, i'll use a page from your play book..

 

if you really don't think the UAW plays any role in the competitiveness of GM (since that was the topic of the thread), or ford, i've got some lovely ocean front property in Omaha that I'd love to sell you.

[RichardJensen]

transplants do not conform to UAW labor laws.

They do not have de jure work rules, but the level of specialization required and the number of outside contractors means that they have de facto work rules.

 

Toyota ain't taking $20/hour 10+ year veteran line workers and putting them to work swabbing men's room toilets, when that job's being done by $8/hour outside contractors.

[kpc655]

 

Toyota ain't taking $20/hour 10+ year veteran line workers and putting them to work swabbing men's room toilets, when that job's being done by $8/hour outside contractors.

 

you're right on that

 

and when GM and other domestic's enjoy that level of freedom as well, the playing field may truly be level.

 

Until my job today, i've never before worked at a company where i'm not allowed to relocate my own computer.

 

where i can't carry a piece of hardware from my car to my desk.

 

all because "that's someone's job".

 

that type of inflexibility is strangling the domestics.

[Ralph Greene]

People love to use those kind of examples, but aside from loading dock work, I don't think that kind of stuff happens in non-union shops. At least not shops past a certain size (the size where collective bargaining starts to be a useful tool in worker relations). When you've got, say, 800 people working on a factory floor, I think the jobs are in general so specialized that you can't reassign someone, except--maybe--doing grunt work on the loading docks (but not necessarily operating forklifts, etc.) Janitorial is probably contracted out at that scale anyway.

 

 

You make a good point, but basically I would want to run my shop the way I wanted to. I would own the jobs. I would want to promote and pay for excellence. Give bonuses to those who deserve them, etc. Share profits with only those who help make them, etc. I just don't see how you do that in a union shop.

 

Now I know unions have given up on many of the traditional things they were firm on, and in many cases are siding with management to get production done. Things have improved (from my point of view), but still....Why have them? Why not move south and not have to deal with them? I will say.....I (personally) would not start a business to sell stuff to Americans or American manufacturing, and then offshore the production. I don't see why you can't empower American workers to compete and do it here. Apparently the southern auto producers think so also.

 

My wife feels so strongly about doing business at home....she doesn't even like to spend money outside of our comminity . She wil buy a Honda made in Ohio before she will buy a Milan or MKZ made in Mexico. And she owns stock in both Ford and Honda.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Ralph Greene

[Deanh]

you're right on that

 

and when GM and other domestic's enjoy that level of freedom as well, the playing field may truly be level.

 

Until my job today, i've never before worked at a company where i'm not allowed to relocate my own computer.

 

where i can't carry a piece of hardware from my car to my desk.

 

all because "that's someone's job".

 

that type of inflexibility is strangling the domestics.

Agreed or could it also be to curtail certain trade "secrets " from being shared with competitiors.....

[RichardJensen]

when GM and other domestic's enjoy that level of freedom as well, the playing field may truly be level.

Speaking of not reading posts...

[RichardJensen]

You make a good point, but basically I would want to run my shop the way I wanted to. I would own the jobs. I would want to promote and pay for excellence. Give bonuses to those who deserve them, etc. Share profits with only those who help make them, etc. I just don't see how you do that in a union shop.

I think you'd find that at any factory past a certain size, you wouldn't be able to deal with individual employees that way.

[Ralph Greene]

I think you'd find that at any factory past a certain size, you wouldn't be able to deal with individual employees that way.

 

 

We weren't in manufacturing, but I retired from a company with 80,000 employees that treated everyone like they had a stake in the success of the company. From the executives to the secretaries, everyone shared in the profits (though I admit....maybe not anywhere near equally) . Every person in our company had the opportunity to retire well if they worked hard, and contributed to the company's success. That was the culture. No one was just a "worker" putting in his time. I don't see why that won't work in manufacturing. But of course....we didn't have a union. We could run the company that way.

[rn4]

you're right on that

 

and when GM and other domestic's enjoy that level of freedom as well, the playing field may truly be level.

 

Until my job today, i've never before worked at a company where i'm not allowed to relocate my own computer.

 

where i can't carry a piece of hardware from my car to my desk.

 

all because "that's someone's job".

 

that type of inflexibility is strangling the domestics.

 

 

That has nothing to do with the union or that it is someone elses job, that is company policy mostly for inventory puposes.

[mettech]

I think you'd find that at any factory past a certain size, you wouldn't be able to deal with individual employees that way.

 

 

Why is the issue any diffrent for the "white collar" workforce?