jpd80 Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 Ford's expansion in the USA over the next two years contrasts heavily with GM's current position with over production and high inventory levels. Are we about to see Ford change gears and step up the sales pace against GM and their higher inventory levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Ford's expansion in the USA over the next two years contrasts heavily with GM's current position with over production and high inventory levels.Are we about to see Ford change gears and step up the sales pace against GM and their higher inventory levels? There are industry insiders that expect by late decade that Ford will out sell GM in the United States and come 2025 Ford/VW/Toyota will be the world big three. That being said people in that same group said that DaimlerChrysler would be a top 3 Auto company by 2010. I don't think you'll see Ford have higher inventory levels, they control that pretty tight now - the US market is going back to a 15/16million selling rate and Ford will need more product just to maintain share - Ford isn't happy with the share loss this past year and couldn't really do anything to avoid it as they don't have production capacity. Ford has big plans for the Fusion in the US and expects it will hit 300k in the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 There are industry insiders that expect by late decade that Ford will out sell GM in the United States and come 2025 Ford/VW/Toyota will be the world big three. That being said people in that same group said that DaimlerChrysler would be a top 3 Auto company by 2010. I don't think you'll see Ford have higher inventory levels, they control that pretty tight now - the US market is going back to a 15/16million selling rate and Ford will need more product just to maintain share - Ford isn't happy with the share loss this past year and couldn't really do anything to avoid it as they don't have production capacity. Ford has big plans for the Fusion in the US and expects it will hit 300k in the next few years. It would be interesting to know what alliances could in fact be forged between Ford and other makes, the JVs with GM transmissions and Toyota truck hybrid seem promising Ford starts off 2013 with a controlled inventory level and outside of F150, practically no 2012 stock left. That has to be the best gift a motor company can give itself. There was mention last year that Ford was too conservative with its build numbers and that actually hurt their sales but I have a hunch that it tradd on higher ATPs.. I get the feeling that this year is about making good on promises to deliver vehicles to dealerships more quickly in greater volumes, maybe while things are quiet, Ford could roll out more patches for MFT and MLT and square away all remaining issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Yes, but it's the one commonly used in neutral reports. The only people I've ever heard refer to it as "right to work (for less)" are partisans in the fight. I certainly won't argue with that, but the point of their slogan is to demonstrate that the widely used term was pushed into the public narrative for political reasons. When you frame an issue so that its very name suggests a fundamental right, you go a long way towards circumventing rational discourse about its pros and cons. If they were really trying to turn that around, they would be pushing something like "right to bargain" or "worker fairness" or "job rights" (I'm no good at coining such terms) - something which would again be one-sided and meant to push a political narrative rather than a rational dialog, but from the opposite perspective.. Edited January 4, 2013 by Noah Harbinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 But it's not "right to bargain". It's the right of an employee to work without being required to join a union. It doesn't prevent the employees from forming a union or the company for bargaining with a union. It just means the employee has the right to choose whether to join such a union. GA is a right to work state and we have tens of thousands of union represented jobs in GA and all employees are covered by the union contract. But employees in GA have a choice of whether they want to join the union and pay union dues or not. The only more accurate term I could think of is "right to not join a union". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante hicks Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) The only more accurate term I could think of is "right to not join a union". -- and enjoy the benefits fought for through collective bargaining and the work of the union. Edited January 4, 2013 by dante hicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 -- and enjoy the benefits fought for through collective bargaining and the work of the union. ...and enjoy not having to support other work of the union you might not agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I certainly won't argue with that Quite frankly, I don't care about "right to work" or "right to work (for less)" as concepts, only that, in this context, one invites/provokes political discourse and one does not. If he'd asked "I wonder if this has anything to to with the 'right to work' legislation?" that would have been answered, "no, it did not, it was in the contract," and it would've been over and done. If I wanted to read or participate in a debate on "right to work" or "right to work (for less)," I'd go to the off-topic area where it belongs. It's not that I'm opposed to a good political debate, mind you, but I get enough of that elsewhere. I'm here for the bickering about cars, not the bickering about politics... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 -- and enjoy the benefits fought for through collective bargaining and the work of the union. As already pointed out this is not the place for political barbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 -- and enjoy the benefits fought for through collective bargaining and the work of the union. I've never understood why non-union-members don't have to bargain individually, and magically get the same agreement as the union members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I've never understood why non-union-members don't have to bargain individually, and magically get the same agreement as the union members. Most would prefer to bargain individually and not be stuck with stupid union rules like promotions based on seniority not performance and getting in trouble for doing extra work. My wife was in a union job for 14 years and hated it. She did twice as much work as any of her peers but got the same pay and could not be promoted because there were others who would get the job who had 30+ years even though she was already doing the work. She's doing far better now as a manager where performance is rewarded. And there are PLENTY of non-union jobs in industries where there are no strong unions who give their employees similar pay and benefits. It's called market compensation and it works without unions and negotiators and strike threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 This thread needs to be closed. It's not about Ford anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Pioneer is correct. Edited January 7, 2013 by twintornados Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Pioneer is correct. x2 ...or edit out the off topic mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I think the original topic is done anyway. Just let it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Ford is showing that you don't need extreme employment measures to grow Jobs, working with the UAW, they have found a way to increase US workers by 12,000 over the next few years, that has to be cause for celebration as this production increase could have gone elsewhere. Forget right to work, if Ford had been that anti UAW and CAW, they would have more than Fiesta, Fusion and MKZ built in Mexico. The fact that Ford brought all F Truck manufacturing back to the USA and is adding Fusion production at Flat Rock speaks volumes. Edited January 7, 2013 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan36 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 The sword swings both ways if you're going to do away with union shops then Corporations who use dirty tricks to try to attack unions and divide employees unjustly should be criminally prosecuted. Thats the reason union shops were formed in the first place because of corporations relentless unjust attacks on employees and unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Yeah, we're done here. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts