How to stop plant closings

[Gravedigger]

Any chance here that we could discuss Solidarity action to keep all our plants open?

 

Seems like it's a conversation long overdue.

[mettech]

The company should make the decision on what plants to close or keep. Not the employees.

[rkisler]

The company should make the decision on what plants to close or keep. Not the employees.

 

+1

 

And it's Ford's responsibility to develop products that appeal to consumers, and it the consumers who will dictate production based on their acceptance of the products. To keep plants open just for the sake of keeping them open, or to assume that hourly labor is "fixed" because it iwas essentially guaranteed is a big reason the U.S. automakers got into the trouble they did.

 

Never again. Never again.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Austin

[RangerM]

It's certainly appropriate that the employees might be involved in ways to insure a plant remain open; assuming the reason for eliminating shifts or products is not market-based.

 

Nothing should ever prevent the low-level worker from providing feedback on better (read: more efficient) ways he might accomplish his task or ways to incrementally improve quality. This is positive reinforcement, and promotes goodwill and success.

 

However, insisting that a company intentionally keep operating a money-losing plant (or producing a dying widget) under threat of reprisal is not appropriate. This is negative reinforcement, and only begets ill will and (ultimately) failure.

Edited December 9, 2010 by RangerM

[povertyknob]

Any chance here that we could discuss Solidarity action to keep all our plants open?

 

Seems like it's a conversation long overdue.

Would you mind being a little more specific?

[aneekr]

Any chance here that we could discuss Solidarity action to keep all our plants open?

 

Seems like it's a conversation long overdue.

What hasn't Ford Motor Company already discussed about this? Also, why is it desirable to "keep all our plants open"?

[mettech]

The data I've seen suggest that Ford still has over capacity.

[NickF1011]

The data I've seen suggest that Ford still has over capacity.

 

Sure, when you take plants like St. Thomas and Twin Cities into account. Take out the ones already slated to be closed and the capacity utilization picture looks far better.

[akirby]

When the UAW employees stop trying to "keep plants open and save jobs" and start trying to help the company figure out how to build better products more efficiently then they become part of the solution not the problem.

 

I believe UAW leaders already recognize this and that's why they've made concessions and agreements the last 2 years.

 

Recognize that jobs may be lost and try to negotiate the best possible severance package.

 

Get rid of rules and culture that protect bad workers and put in a reward system for workers who excel at their jobs.

 

Ask the company what it takes to compete for new work. Current facilities and workers will always have a slight advantage over building something new or going offshore so take advantage of it.

 

Recognize that what you got in the past is meaningless in today's new marketplace. The rules and the competition is totally different.

 

Ford, Chrysler and GM are no longer monopolies controlling 90% of the market. They must compete with other mfrs to stay in business and they can't do that by keeping plants open unnecessarily or paying people way more than the competition.

 

 

The GM deal for the new B car plant in the U.S. is a prime example where this works. They protected the majority (if not all) of the existing employees who wanted to stay while allowing GM to bring in new hires at lower wages to keep costs in line with the business case. GM gets a U.S. plant with a large trained labor force, new workers get jobs making more than they could make at most other jobs, the local economy gets new jobs, the older workers keep their jobs at their current salary and GM meets their expense goals.

 

Sounds like a win/win/win/win/win to me.

[akirby]

Also, why is it desirable to "keep all our plants open"?

 

It's only desirable to the people working at those plants and the local economy. Which is understandable. But most don't like the answer as to how to keep the plants open (see above).

 

Striking and making demands just won't work.

[Noah Harbinger]

It's only desirable to the people working at those plants and the local economy. Which is understandable. But most don't like the answer as to how to keep the plants open (see above).

 

Striking and making demands just won't work.

 

You don't get more milk by beating the cow - you just get sour milk. That applies to all parties involved.

[FordBuyer]

I would like to see a day come when a state or municipality doesn't have to offer tax incentives to an auto company in order get them to locate there. Buying jobs with money they don't have to begin with. Forcing states to bid against each other with money they don't have. Corporate welfare in the extreme as they make billions/quarter from it and pay each other huge bonuses. I understand the need for it now in this economy, but if economy ever takes off I would like to see an end to corporate welfare. Shifting property tax base from big corporations to individual homowners and apartment owners is another example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. No wonder every government entity will see its tax revenues fall for next decade or so even as econommy improves. Huge corporations are sitting on $2 trillion of free cash while the rest of us struggle to pay bills. And they ask for more corporate welfare!!

[J-150]

A solidarity action will occur as a national action or a plant level action.

 

 

A plant level action would happen without the support of the union and pretty much guarantee its clusure because of the action.

 

A national action would never happen. Those working at plants that are staying open would not join the picket line and jeopardize their employment.

[mettech]

I would like to see a day come when a state or municipality doesn't have to offer tax incentives to an auto company in order get them to locate there. Buying jobs with money they don't have to begin with. Forcing states to bid against each other with money they don't have. Corporate welfare in the extreme as they make billions/quarter from it and pay each other huge bonuses. I understand the need for it now in this economy, but if economy ever takes off I would like to see an end to corporate welfare. Shifting property tax base from big corporations to individual homowners and apartment owners is another example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. No wonder every government entity will see its tax revenues fall for next decade or so even as econommy improves. Huge corporations are sitting on $2 trillion of free cash while the rest of us struggle to pay bills. And they ask for more corporate welfare!!

 

 

No different than a city bidding on a pro team to move into a city. Bring in new business, new technology, and new skilled people into a community is vital for growth.

 

Countries, States, Cities, Business and workers must progress and continue to lean new skills... or get left behind. Nothing in this universe is static.

 

I view this in the same light as the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. In 99 weeks, a person should have learned a new skill and/or moved to an area that can use their skills.

[aneekr]

No different than a city bidding on a pro team to move into a city. Bring in new business, new technology, and new skilled people into a community is vital for growth.

Both scenarios often result in a Pyrrhic victory for the states and municipalities who "win" these siting arrangements with huge tax abatements, deferments and other incentives, whether a sports franchise, a corporate HQ, or another project.

 

In my hometown of Indianapolis, the debacle involving the United Airlines maintenance center at IND, and more recently, the failure of the Lucas Oil Stadium to generate net economic benefits for the city demonstrate that such "bidding" is actually gambling, plain and simple.

[ausrutherford]

The data I've seen suggest that Ford still has over capacity.

 

Ford NEEDS some over capacity. What happens when the market goes back to 15m or 17m a year. Ford could be caught with their pants down.

[akirby]

I would like to see a day come when a state or municipality doesn't have to offer tax incentives to an auto company in order get them to locate there. Buying jobs with money they don't have to begin with. Forcing states to bid against each other with money they don't have.

 

Stop and ask yourself why a local government would offer a tax break to a large company in the first place.

 

Because they create new jobs that didn't exist before. With new jobs come new homes and new taxpayers (or at least it allows the current ones to keep their home and keep paying taxes). With new jobs comes more business for gas stations and restaurants. This is one example where a tax break directly and positively affects the local economy.

 

Now I agree that just giving corporations tax breaks without guarantee of new job creation may or may not work. But there is no such thing as a tax on corporations. Corporations are middlemen - they produce goods and services and sell them to others for a profit. If you increase their cost of doing business (by raising taxes or cutting tax breaks) then they simply pass that on to the consumer.

 

The rich may get richer in some cases but they also expand businesses creating new jobs. The more money you take away from businesses the harder it is for them to provide jobs and stay competitive.

 

What we really need to do is just stop all the unnecessary government spending - period. Do what a business would do - go through the budget and draw a line at what you can safely spend. Then start moving things around based on necessity and whatever falls below the line is no longer funded. I honestly don't see where we have a choice.

[jpd80]

Any chance here that we could discuss Solidarity action to keep all our plants open?

 

Seems like it's a conversation long overdue.

 

I think the action was taken several years ago when the UAW convinced Ford to use funding ear marked for the UAW

to provide new products for American plants instead of closing them and cutting even more employee numbers.

 

What you're seeing now is a far less radical solution compared to what was envisaged without UAW cooperation.

Edited December 9, 2010 by jpd80

[nvsked]

When the UAW employees stop trying to "keep plants open and save jobs" and start trying to help the company figure out how to build better products more efficiently then they become part of the solution not the problem.

 

Get rid of rules and culture that protect bad workers and put in a reward system for workers who excel at their jobs.

 

Ask the company what it takes to compete for new work. Current facilities and workers will always have a slight advantage over building something new or going offshore so take advantage of it.

 

Recognize that what you got in the past is meaningless in today's new marketplace. The rules and the competition is totally different.

 

Ford, Chrysler and GM are no longer monopolies controlling 90% of the market. They must compete with other mfrs to stay in business and they can't do that by keeping plants open unnecessarily or paying people way more than the competition.

 

 

The GM deal for the new B car plant in the U.S. is a prime example where this works. They protected the majority (if not all) of the existing employees who wanted to stay while allowing GM to bring in new hires at lower wages to keep costs in line with the business case. GM gets a U.S. plant with a large trained labor force, new workers get jobs making more than they could make at most other jobs, the local economy gets new jobs, the older workers keep their jobs at their current salary and GM meets their expense goals.

 

Sounds like a win/win/win/win/win to me.

 

Which rules specifically .... please define bad worker? Seriously I'm lost what a bad worker is, our roles are carefully scripted now by IE's, JSA's not any wiggle room, ...lean manufacturing. As to the rest of your comments

 

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/capitalism_wages.htm

 

We often see "capitalism" defined as a system based on the private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is about much more than this however. One of the major defining features of capitalist economy is the use of wage-labor and the existence of labor markets. Understanding the role of labor markets in capitalism is critical, and this is best achieved by understanding the historical development of capitalist economy.

 

What sets prices of labor under capitalism?

The same system that sets prices. Not any particular businessman, but the free-market. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down…..

 

The result of capitalism is that labor went from being seen as the source of property rights to being a commodity, and instead capital ownership became seen as the source of rights to newly created property. With the capitalist system, labor is a commodity, no different than raw materials. It's one more thing that capitalists factor into their budget as a part of the cost of production. Just like other raw materials, the price of labor becomes market driven.

 

Labor markets and other commodity markets are two separate and distinct markets. By separating the cost of labor from the value of labor, capitalists are able to increase profits. Profits are generated in part by the difference between the cost of labor and the value that the labor has created….. The members in the partnership evaluate the justice of their compensation not on market principles, but on the perceived value of their relative contributions…..This type of evaluation is an attempt, by the parties involved, to match compensation with contribution.

 

This difference in types of compensation, market determined vs. contribution determined, is critical to understanding capitalism.

What capitalists try to do is promote competition in the labor markets and limit competition in the commodity markets, which of course is why industry is opposed to collective bargaining. Today's neoclassical economic view simply calls this "good business practice", or "entrepreneurial ability".....An important method of increasing the discrepancy between labor markets and commodity markets is the fragmentation of labor markets across trading boundaries and regions, such as between nations and across currency boundaries..

 

Capitalists seek to maintain the ability to hire wage laborers across boarders, while limiting markets within boarders. In this way consumer markets are more restricted than labor markets, leading to relatively higher prices for goods at a lower cost of labor to produce those goods. This is really what so-called post-modern "free trade" is all about. Free trade, as it was initially envisioned by men like John Locke and Adam Smith, was about the freedom of merchants to exchange goods with merchants in other regions that had commodities and raw materials that were not available locally, without having to pay taxes and tariffs to kings just to be able to do business.

 

Today, however, what is really being traded is not goods, but labor. American companies mainly want "free trade" with other countries, not because they have things that we don't have, but because they want access to "cheaper labor". It's not just about gaining access to "cheap labor", however, it is also about labor market fragmentation and the separation of labor markets from commodity markets. So, my access to Chinese-made goods, directly at Chinese prices, is virtually impossible as an American consumer, but American capitalists do not have these restrictions and in fact work through the American government to ensure that there is an imbalance of restriction placed on consumers so that American consumers can only get access to products through "official" avenues of trade.

 

The UAW is just representing a collective group of Americans working towards fairness in the global economy,...... It's not free trade,it's fair trade. My 2 cents..... Have a great discussion

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Close the boring Mondeo plant down, give us the awesome Aussie Falcon instead with a powerplant that European fuel price friendly.

 

It will kick BMW RWD sales in the nuts where it hurts.

 

BMW 3 Series is always in the top half of UK top 10 sales every month, the Mundane never makes the UK top 10 best sellers every month anymore.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

Which rules specifically .... please define bad worker? Seriously I'm lost what a bad worker is, our roles are carefully scripted now by IE's, JSA's not any wiggle room, ...lean manufacturing. As to the rest of your comments

A bad worker is one who hides behind a system of carefully scripted roles. If a person is capable of performing a given task, and won't even for the welfare of the company or coworkers, he is a bad worker.

 

As someone who has heard more than once "Not my job" I have a question; who demands the carefully scripted roles?

[akirby]

Which rules specifically .... please define bad worker? Seriously I'm lost what a bad worker is, our roles are carefully scripted now by IE's, JSA's not any wiggle room, ...lean manufacturing. As to the rest of your comments

 

Workers who routinely make mistakes or don't follow the rules or simply don't try. Workers who would have been long since fired in a non-union job for non-performance. Unions in general tend to protect these types of employees too often, although I suspect it's a lot better than it used to be.

 

As an example - if a police officer was facing action from the police department because they didn't follow procedures and put someone's life in danger, the police department would probably fire them and you know what the police union would say? Good riddance! They would make sure the officer received whatever was coming to him but they would not try to protect that officer's job and prevent them from being dismissed. Their job is simply to ensure officers are treated fairly, not to protect the officers and their job at all costs.

 

I'll address the other part in a separate post.

[akirby]

A bad worker is one who hides behind a system of carefully scripted roles. If a person is capable of performing a given task, and won't even for the welfare of the company or coworkers, he is a bad worker.

 

As someone who has heard more than once "Not my job" I have a question; who demands the carefully scripted roles?

 

Precisely. Not allowing workers to do work outside of the "carefully scripted roles" is another big problem. A friend of mine used to run the old copiers that took 5 minutes to warm up. He started work at 7:30 am but would come in at 7:25, flip the switch on the copier and go get coffee so by the time he returned at 7:30 it was ready to go. He was turned in by his fellow workers who filed a grievance because he was doing work outside normal work hours.

 

I also heard a former Ford engineer talk about a technician who installed a piece of equipment with 20 bolts. When they turned it on it started to leak, so instead of fixing the leak (he was standing right there with the wrench) he told them he was only the installer and they had to call and request a repair. They took the wrench and fixed it themselves at which point the technician promptly filed a grievance. In fact they were sure he left them loose on purpose. There is no way he could have not known they were loose.

 

That type of conduct would never be allowed to continue outside of a union contract.

[ausrutherford]

Close the boring Mondeo plant down, give us the awesome Aussie Falcon instead with a powerplant that European fuel price friendly.

 

It will kick BMW RWD sales in the nuts where it hurts.

 

BMW 3 Series is always in the top half of UK top 10 sales every month, the Mundane never makes the UK top 10 best sellers every month anymore.

 

Mondeo was #7 in September in the UK.

 

+ Shut a plant down just because you dont like the product? Drink much

 

That plant has to serve all of Europe, except for Russia and also major parts of Africa, Middle east, Australia, and Argentina. Not only just for the Mondeo but also the S-max and Galaxy.

[akirby]

Which rules specifically .... please define bad worker? Seriously I'm lost what a bad worker is, our roles are carefully scripted now by IE's, JSA's not any wiggle room, ...lean manufacturing. As to the rest of your comments

 

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/capitalism_wages.htm

 

We often see "capitalism" defined as a system based on the private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is about much more than this however. One of the major defining features of capitalist economy is the use of wage-labor and the existence of labor markets. Understanding the role of labor markets in capitalism is critical, and this is best achieved by understanding the historical development of capitalist economy.

 

What sets prices of labor under capitalism?

The same system that sets prices. Not any particular businessman, but the free-market. It is competition between businesses for labor that pushes wages up; it is competition between laborers that pushes wages down…..

 

The result of capitalism is that labor went from being seen as the source of property rights to being a commodity, and instead capital ownership became seen as the source of rights to newly created property. With the capitalist system, labor is a commodity, no different than raw materials. It's one more thing that capitalists factor into their budget as a part of the cost of production. Just like other raw materials, the price of labor becomes market driven.

 

Labor markets and other commodity markets are two separate and distinct markets. By separating the cost of labor from the value of labor, capitalists are able to increase profits. Profits are generated in part by the difference between the cost of labor and the value that the labor has created….. The members in the partnership evaluate the justice of their compensation not on market principles, but on the perceived value of their relative contributions…..This type of evaluation is an attempt, by the parties involved, to match compensation with contribution.

 

This difference in types of compensation, market determined vs. contribution determined, is critical to understanding capitalism.

What capitalists try to do is promote competition in the labor markets and limit competition in the commodity markets, which of course is why industry is opposed to collective bargaining. Today's neoclassical economic view simply calls this "good business practice", or "entrepreneurial ability".....An important method of increasing the discrepancy between labor markets and commodity markets is the fragmentation of labor markets across trading boundaries and regions, such as between nations and across currency boundaries..

 

Capitalists seek to maintain the ability to hire wage laborers across boarders, while limiting markets within boarders. In this way consumer markets are more restricted than labor markets, leading to relatively higher prices for goods at a lower cost of labor to produce those goods. This is really what so-called post-modern "free trade" is all about. Free trade, as it was initially envisioned by men like John Locke and Adam Smith, was about the freedom of merchants to exchange goods with merchants in other regions that had commodities and raw materials that were not available locally, without having to pay taxes and tariffs to kings just to be able to do business.

 

Today, however, what is really being traded is not goods, but labor. American companies mainly want "free trade" with other countries, not because they have things that we don't have, but because they want access to "cheaper labor". It's not just about gaining access to "cheap labor", however, it is also about labor market fragmentation and the separation of labor markets from commodity markets. So, my access to Chinese-made goods, directly at Chinese prices, is virtually impossible as an American consumer, but American capitalists do not have these restrictions and in fact work through the American government to ensure that there is an imbalance of restriction placed on consumers so that American consumers can only get access to products through "official" avenues of trade.

 

The UAW is just representing a collective group of Americans working towards fairness in the global economy,...... It's not free trade,it's fair trade. My 2 cents..... Have a great discussion

 

2 issues here - free/fair trade with other countries and labor competition within the U.S.

 

I totally agree we need fair trade policies. Don't allow products to be imported here unless we're allowed to export products to them. Put us on a fair and level playing ground regarding labor costs.

 

If you want to know why corporations are using more and more cheap labor - look no further than your local Wal-Mart and the people who shop there. They want the absolute lowest cost for the stuff THEY buy and they don't give a rats behind where it comes from. And I'm sure there are some UAW workers and other union members in that bucket. And if that's what the people want to buy and that's where they're spending the money, how can you blame other companies for trying to compete with Wal-Mart by doing the same thing? They either have to compete or get out of the business altogether. What choice do they really have?

 

 

As for collective bargaining - that's ok as long as there are no extortion tactics such as threatening to strike over wages and benefits and no restrictive contracts that handicap the company's ability to compete. But what's wrong with compeitition for labor setting the labor rates? It seems to work just fine. Companies will pay market rates because if they don't then employees will leave and go elsewhere. If the market goes up for a particular skill then companies raise the compensation to keep employees. If the market goes down then maybe they lower it - maybe not.

 

It's like selling produce - what makes watermelons at the supermarket worth $4? Did somebody arbitrarily decide that watermelons were worth $4? Things are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. A rare 60's muscle car may have only cost $3K new but now might be worth over $1M. Why? Because someone is willing to pay that much for it.

 

 

The problem with the UAW is that they got fat during a time when the entire automotive market was controlled by Detroit and everyone in Detroit played by the same rules (UAW contracts). So it didn't matter what wages were paid or what rules were put in place (like the jobs bank) as long as the Big 3 were all doing the same thing. That works fine until they no longer control the market and these companies have to start competing with people who don't have the same rules.

 

It's like the housing market - people were buying houses that suddenly went from $100K to $250K for no good reason. Now the value of those houses are slowly returning to where they should have been all along. Just because my house was worth $250K last year doesn't mean it has to be worth $250K next year. It's called a market correction and that's what the U.S. auto mfrs have been going through for years. They're trying to adjust from the monopoly driven extortion derived non competitive employment arrangements back to what the current market can sustain.

 

Back to the original question - if you want to keep plants open then make it financially feasible for the company to keep it open - which may not be possible due to the infrastructure even if labor costs are ok. In that case get the best deal you can for the displaced employees. Just don't think you can strike or somehow force the company to keep open a plant that it doesn't need because it won't happen.