UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

sounds almost similar to Flex vs explorer type differences here

No it’s far more radical from what I’ve heard here.

[Harley Lover]

11 minutes ago, akirby said:

No it’s far more radical from what I’ve heard here.

 

Listen to what ExplorerDude wrote (I realize that doesn't read very well), he's seen it. And it ain't pretty.

[akirby]

31 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

 

Listen to what ExplorerDude wrote (I realize that doesn't read very well), he's seen it. And it ain't pretty.

I know.  That’s who I heard it from.  ?

[SoonerLS]

21 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I did what I needed to do and got into the apprenticeship program, I’m not your example here. 

So, you're bustin' it to get ahead. That's excellent (and I mean that sincerely). Let's roll the clock forward to a time after you finish the apprenticeship and become a fully-fledged electrician, makin' them big electrician bucks. When the next contract rolls around, should the company then reduce your pay to increase the pay of the guy who took your place in the body shop?

 

If not, then why should they reduce the CEO's pay to increase anyone else's?

[silvrsvt]

59 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

sounds almost similar to Flex vs explorer type differences here

 

53 minutes ago, akirby said:

No it’s far more radical from what I’ve heard here.

 

Well depends on what you consider radical...but your more or less saying the same thing...

 

And I'm guessing Ford is trying for a 1986 Taurus styling reach here too. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

42 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

So, you're bustin' it to get ahead. That's excellent (and I mean that sincerely). Let's roll the clock forward to a time after you finish the apprenticeship and become a fully-fledged electrician, makin' them big electrician bucks. When the next contract rolls around, should the company then reduce your pay to increase the pay of the guy who took your place in the body shop?

 

If not, then why should they reduce the CEO's pay to increase anyone else's?

I never seriously said they should. When I said that I was playing devils advocate and I thought I made that clear.

 

My whole argument is why has the 1 percent had their pay go up so much while the rest of us stayed stagnant? That’s the core issue. 

[akirby]

7 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I never seriously said they should. When I said that I was playing devils advocate and I thought I made that clear.

 

My whole argument is why has the 1 percent had their pay go up so much while the rest of us stayed stagnant? That’s the core issue. 

Same reason NFL QB pay went up and running back pay went down. 
 

Not very many people can do what the 1% do.  And most of their money comes from investments - stocks, bonds, real estate, private businesses.  Actual salaries are much lower.  Barra and Farley are in the $1M -$1.5M range IIRC.  Gates got rich off Microsoft stock not his CEO salary.

[fordmantpw]

15 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

My whole argument is why has the 1 percent had their pay go up so much while the rest of us stayed stagnant? That’s the core issue. 

 

Supply and demand.

 

As the number of manufacturing plants has decreased, the number of workers necessary to fill that role has gone down.  Manufacturing has moved overseas, so we need fewer Americans to fill those jobs, hence the lower (comparatively) pay for those still in those jobs.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

Well depends on what you consider radical...but your more or less saying the same thing...

 

And I'm guessing Ford is trying for a 1986 Taurus styling reach here too. 

This is far more radical than flex or Taurus.

 

[slemke]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

Well depends on what you consider radical...but your more or less saying the same thing...

 

And I'm guessing Ford is trying for a 1986 Taurus styling reach here too. 

From the pictures posted and not doing well in focus groups, more like a 1996 Taurus styling.

I don’t remember how the ‘86 did in research clinics, but I do recall analysts being surprised at how well it did in the market.  Maybe it would be more popular than we think.  Put me down as it will be a failure based on the profile akirby posted.

[Willwll313wll]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

This is far more radical than flex or Taurus.

 

 

When the heck are we gonna see this thing??? 

I know no one knows, just wanted to yell into space.

[rmc523]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

No it’s far more radical from what I’ve heard here.

I wasn’t suggesting a Flex shape.

 

I was meaning the styling is more controversial /polarizing styling (Flex) vs a more traditional looking counterpart (Explorer).

 

we saw how the market reacted to Flex -those that had them loved them but many didn’t like them styling wise.

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, slemke said:

I don’t remember how the ‘86 did in research clinics, but I do recall analysts being surprised at how well it did in the market.  Maybe it would be more popular than we think.  Put me down as it will be a failure based on the profile akirby posted.

 

The original 1986 Taurus didn't clinic well.  They even came up with a more conventional front-end design that incorporated a grille.  William Clay Ford decided to be bold and went with the design we know today.

[ice-capades]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Well depends on what you consider radical...but your more or less saying the same thing...

 

And I'm guessing Ford is trying for a 1986 Taurus styling reach here too. 

 

The introduction of the "Jellybean" 1986 Taurus was an interesting time to be in the business with its at the time radical design. It was an instant success with demand outstripping supply for quite some time while the competition raced to design and introduce their own versions that could be considered suitable competition. Ford pushed further with updates and then totally alienated the market with the "Oval" extensive design introduced years later and sales were impacted tremendously. 

 

Volume was the name of the game then and Ford had two plants dedicated to production, later supported by volume fleet sales to offset the retail sales decline as evidenced by the sales decline after the extreme "Oval" design generation. The follow-up generation was much more conservative but by then the damage had been done to retail sales volume and fleet sales were utilized to support production at two plants dedicated to the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable models.

 

There's nothing wrong with considering designs considered radical at the time but they must be visually attractive. You never get a second chance to make a first impression!     

 

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

The introduction of the "Jellybean" 1986 Taurus was an interesting time to be in the business with its at the time radical design. It was an instant success with demand outstripping supply for quite some time while the competition raced to design and introduce their own versions that could be considered suitable competition. Ford pushed further with updates and then totally alienated the market with the "Oval" extensive design introduced years later and sales were impacted tremendously. 

 

Volume was the name of the game then and Ford had two plants dedicated to production, later supported by volume fleet sales to offset the retail sales decline as evidenced by the sales decline after the extreme "Oval" design generation. The follow-up generation was much more conservative but by then the damage had been done to retail sales volume and fleet sales were utilized to support production at two plants dedicated to the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable models.

 

There's nothing wrong with considering designs considered radical at the time but they must be visually attractive. You never get a second chance to make a first impression!     

 

The Atlanta plant was 100% rental fleet when Mulally shut it down.  The original chick-fil-a restaurant was nearby and lots of factory workers ate lunch there.  Ford gave (or sold) the last Taurus off the line to Truett Cathy in appreciation of his support.

[Bob Rosadini]

51 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

The introduction of the "Jellybean" 1986 Taurus was an interesting time to be in the business with its at the time radical design. It was an instant success with demand outstripping supply for quite some time while the competition raced to design and introduce their own versions that could be considered suitable competition. Ford pushed further with updates and then totally alienated the market with the "Oval" extensive design introduced years later and sales were impacted tremendously. 

 

Volume was the name of the game then and Ford had two plants dedicated to production, later supported by volume fleet sales to offset the retail sales decline as evidenced by the sales decline after the extreme "Oval" design generation. The follow-up generation was much more conservative but by then the damage had been done to retail sales volume and fleet sales were utilized to support production at two plants dedicated to the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable models.

 

There's nothing wrong with considering designs considered radical at the time but they must be visually attractive. You never get a second chance to make a first impression!     

 

 

I read that Trotman was the guilty party that ruined the Taurus.  He was shown original designs and rejected them with instructions to make them ..."more Ovoid" or words to that effect.  Anyone confirm that?

 

Only Ford that I would ever asmit in spite of my prejudice...."just plain ugly"!

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

I read that Trotman was the guilty party that ruined the Taurus.  He was shown original designs and rejected them with instructions to make them ..."more Ovoid" or words to that effect.  Anyone confirm that?

 

Only Ford that I would ever asmit in spite of my prejudice...."just plain ugly"!

 

There was a book written in the 90's that contrasted Ford and Nissan.  I read it years ago, so this is from memory.  The oval Taurus was talked about.  My recollection was that Ford Design wanted the "oval" design, which also required complex and expensive stampings.  Trotman was asked to approve the funding for the stampings, which he did.  

[Oac98]

17 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:

The Lincoln version looks okay, pretty decent in an evolution of Lincoln’s styling. The sleek look works well for Lincoln. I’m not worried about the Lincoln if it comes out how it currently is.
 

My biggest concern is the Ford variant. It’s just not attractive. I don’t know how it got so far without someone saying hey let’s remember that actual buyers have to want to buy this.

 

It’s radically different. I’m sure it will sell some but I don’t know how they can sell a lot of them every year in a plant that will be building just these two crossovers.

 

If they sell 50,000 units a year combined it would be a miracle.

So why would they release something that’s looks like crap??? This is why I’m skeptical about this project. I can see a lot of downtime sorry to say. It’s too early to talk but they project 200000 units per year. Seems far fetched to me.

[fuzzymoomoo]

33 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

So why would they release something that’s looks like crap??? This is why I’m skeptical about this project. I can see a lot of downtime sorry to say. It’s too early to talk but they project 200000 units per year. Seems far fetched to me.

Not to worry you more, there’s talk out of Dearborn of going to 1 shift come February at REVC where the Lightning is built. 

[jpd80]

14 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Not to worry you more, there’s talk out of Dearborn of going to 1 shift come February at REVC where the Lightning is built. 

Wow, that like basically building Lightning to orders…

[jpd80]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

Huh?  Lincoln already has unique top hats and the BEVs are apparently radically different.

The devil is in the detail, while the Lincoln version gets different skin panels and interior,

the frames of the top hat is shared with the Ford progenitor to keep costs under control. 
 

In this situation, I think the Lincoln is a good fit with aesthetics and customer expectation,

the issue is that Ford buyers prefer the boxy or chunky 3- row utilities that Ford has been

pushing for the last five years or so……maybe they should be listening to customer feedback?

[tbone]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:46 AM, fuzzymoomoo said:

You bring up a great point. I’m glad I’m starting my apprenticeship now so my kids will be able to see the sacrifices I’m making to provide for them, at least the older two. The youngest being 3 probably won’t understand until I’m nearly finished. 

The best of luck to you on this new endeavor.  I’m glad to see you making a move to better yourself and it will certainly pay off. 
 

You had previously stated you feel you guys need a raise, and I agree with you, but the difference it seems is that you are reasonable person and don’t have the ridiculous expectations that Fain has.  Perhaps you should be running the negations.

 

I don’t know you personally, but I have always felt based on your comments that you cared about the products you were building and wanting to do a good job.  I would argue that if you weren’t confined by collective bargaining you likely would be making a better income based on your performance.  Nevertheless I’ve always appreciated your commitment to building a quality product.  

[Bob Rosadini]

34 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The devil is in the detail, while the Lincoln version gets different skin panels and interior,

the frames of the top hat is shared with the Ford progenitor to keep costs under control. 
 

In this situation, I think the Lincoln is a good fit with aesthetics and customer expectation,

the issue is that Ford buyers prefer the boxy or chunky 3- row utilities that Ford has been

pushing for the last five years or so……maybe they should be listening to customer feedback?

 

saw an ad today for a new Lexus...highlighting 3 row seating.  Look very Ford like to me!

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, tbone said:

  I would argue that if you weren’t confined by collective bargaining you likely would be making a better income based on your performance.  

That’s what the union advocates don’t understand.  They think employers take advantage of  non union workers but it’s completely the opposite.  Right to work also means the right to leave,  if my employer mistreated me I would have a new better job within 2 weeks.  Or you threaten to leave and get what you want to stay.  
 

OTOH if you’re in a union job that pays higher than market wages they know you can’t go anywhere else and make the same money.

[T-dubz]

I’d like to know more about these vehicles too. It’s been a few months now since that photo came out. I’m surprised we haven’t seen more spy shots yet.

 

Boxy off road designs are the “in” thing right now. I’m a big fan of the new Lexus GX. I wish ford would come out with something similar.