Ford to Rethink Where It Builds Its Vehicles.

[tbone]

7 hours ago, Footballfan said:

That may be true, but most engineers and designers never spent a day on the line- they were hired right out of college.  

and your point is?  

[tbone]

7 hours ago, iamweasel said:

 

Many of them do rotations on the line as part of the program.  (As I did right out of college....worked on the line at Michigan Truck Plant.)

 

 

I think this is highly valuable so the engineer understands the impact of design on the manufacturing process, and the workers building them.  
 

[tbone]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

It’s legal extortion thanks to labor laws and to think otherwise is just not being honest.  And if that pisses off some people I don’t care.  It’s the truth.

I 100% agree with this. This isn’t situation of forced labor.  People have free will to work for Ford or leave. They are not compelled to be there.  If the actions of the union lead to more Fords being built in Mexico, I will continue to buy them even though I try to buy products made in United States, because at least know that Ford historically has tried to maintain a US base manufacturing footprint, and the loss of that manufacturing will likely be as result of unfair labor negotiation practices by the union. 
 

One of the contentions of the negotiations at KTP; UAW said, "Ford's continued attempts to erode the skilled trades at Kentucky Truck Plant."  Ford has proposed that skilled trades maintenance workers perform multiple tasks across different types of work. The UAW has resisted as a threat to jobs, people familiar with the bargaining said.  If this is anything like the union plant, I used to work at, where the skilled trades would only work on whatever that specific trade was, and nothing else, and then sat around until something came about.  I’ve also witnessed this same behavior at the McCormick place in Chicago with the different labor unions that were supporting its operations, 

 

The question is, why wouldn’t Ford want to try to maximize efficiency by having people that are sitting there doing nothing do something productive? Does that really sound unreasonable? Why would they want to hire somebody new when they have man hours that are sitting there being unused?

Edited February 17 by tbone

[Bob Rosadini]

9 hours ago, tbone said:

I 100% agree with this. This isn’t situation of forced labor.  People have free will to work for Ford or leave. They are not compelled to be there.  If the actions of the union lead to more Fords being built in Mexico, I will continue to buy them even though I try to buy products made in United States, because at least know that Ford historically has tried to maintain a US base manufacturing footprint, and the loss of that manufacturing will likely be as result of unfair labor negotiation practices by the union. 
 

One of the contentions of the negotiations at KTP; UAW said, "Ford's continued attempts to erode the skilled trades at Kentucky Truck Plant."  Ford has proposed that skilled trades maintenance workers perform multiple tasks across different types of work. The UAW has resisted as a threat to jobs, people familiar with the bargaining said.  If this is anything like the union plant, I used to work at, where the skilled trades would only work on whatever that specific trade was, and nothing else, and then sat around until something came about.  I’ve also witnessed this same behavior at the McCormick place in Chicago with the different labor unions that were supporting its operations, 

 

The question is, why wouldn’t Ford want to try to maximize efficiency by having people that are sitting there doing nothing do something productive? Does that really sound unreasonable? Why would they want to hire somebody new when they have man hours that are sitting there being unused?

More Fain bullshit...my favorite word.."reasonable"..something Fain doesn't understand...if the leadership of a union doesn't get it, the rank and file are screwed in the long term.   The smart guys get it (Fuzzy?)..unfortunately the dumb ones follow the leadership like sheep.

 

In my 44 years I learned if you could not get the union leadership on board, you could not count on the guys in the unit who DID get it to carry the vote.  Peer pressure is a bitch.

 

[Footballfan]

11 hours ago, tbone said:

I love it when people castigate the CEOs for their pay. Im relatively certain that you would switch jobs with the CEO if you could to receive that pay.  Maybe not though, considering they’re responsible for the entire company, and whether it goes in the right direction, or the wrong direction and implications of those decisions. CEO gets paid with the market will bear for that type of position. If you don’t like it, go put yourself in a position to become a CEO.

 

I respect anybody willing to work from the janitor to the CEO, but people make choices that put them in a position to work a given job. Some people have an easier time making those choices based on their life circumstances, but that’s life and sometimes you have to work harder than others to put yourself in the best position.

 

 

I have no problem with the pay provided the company is successful.  However, when companies are run into the ground and poor decisions after poor decisions are made, the pay is not warranted.  In Ford's case, the company's quality and launch issues are well documented and we have a CEO ripping the hourly employees in the media which is never a good thing to do.  If Farley did not like the contract he should not have signed off on it. 

 

Incidentally, I would not switch jobs with the CEO based on pay.  I worked hard and am financially comfortable.  I do know if I messed up as some of the CEOs have, I would have been out of a job years ago. 

Edited February 17 by Footballfan

[Footballfan]

10 hours ago, tbone said:

and your point is?  

Many have no idea of the process.  They are brilliant when it comes to theory and book smarts, but some lack common sense and the humility to learn.  When mistakes are made on the floor it is the operators and management to fix their mistakes.  

[Footballfan]

20 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I was gonna say something mean, but I didn't want to be petty. So I'll just say if you think being an engineer is easy because they have air conditioning and chairs, then you've never really had a quality conversation with an engineer. There were so many sleepless nights that my grandfather, and other Boeing engineers had when trying to create things like the original 747, because they were having to solve problems no-one knew even existed, because no-one had tried to engineer a civilian airliner at that scale before. Boeing has nice offices, and good benefits, that didn't mean his job was easy. 

 

It's not just physical discomfort that makes a job uncomfortable, and if it is, well then hell, my grandfather has you beat there as well. There were times where they'd have to hike through miles of mountainous terrain to get to a crash site. Pretty sure that's gonna give you some aches and pains.  

I would venture to say there is a bit of difference in the work ethic from your grandfather's time 55 years ago compared to today.  

[tbone]

42 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

 

 

I have no problem with the pay provided the company is successful.  However, when companies are run into the ground and poor decisions after poor decisions are made, the pay is not warranted.  In Ford's case, the company's quality and launch issues are well documented and we have a CEO ripping the hourly employees in the media.  If he did not like the contract he should not have signed off on it. 

 

Incidentally, I would not switch jobs with the CEO based on pay.  I worked hard and am financially comfortable.  I do know if I messed up as some of the CEOs have, I would have been out of a job years ago. 

I really don’t disagree with anything that you have said here, however, unless I missed it, I don’t think I saw any quotes of him specifically ripping hourly workers within the union, and it was more about the unions approach to the negotiations. At this point, I wouldn’t care if he openly criticized Fain though.  Ford and UAW are a partnership whether people like it or not, and how would you feel if your partner publicly treated you that way and did things to damage you?
 

Every day a strike continues the cost is mounting, so how long as a reasonable time to let a strike continue? Until the company is buried? Until the union is broken? at some point a corporation of that size has to come to some kind of agreement or close the doors. This is beside the fact that the individual union employee on strike is losing income every day it goes on.  

 

I personally would like to see more visible accountability at the CEO level, but a massive corporation doesn’t change in a day and leadership deserve some time to turn things around. You can talk about how much they’re paid and that they’ll be OK if they get fired, but they are human, and most people don’t like to fail and have their name associated with that. The the issues you have mentioned above are real, and somebody does should be held accountable for them, but I venture to say that there are quite a number of people throughout the structure of this manufacturer that have a hand in those failures from top to bottom.  Let’s get rid of them, from the managers that aren’t managing effectively, to the line worker that is routinely doing poor quality work.

 

Edited February 17 by tbone

[DeluxeStang]

48 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

I would venture to say there is a bit of difference in the work ethic from your grandfather's time 55 years ago compared to today.  

I know people working for Boeing today, and who work as engineers in other fields. So I'm gonna have to agree to disagree. Most of the engineers I've met are obsessed with their work. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

Many have no idea of the process.  They are brilliant when it comes to theory and book smarts, but some lack common sense and the humility to learn.  When mistakes are made on the floor it is the operators and management to fix their mistakes.  

This is 100 percent true. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard the phrase “it works on paper” over the years when something is FUBAR on the line, I could probably retire comfortably today. IDGAF what your paper says when the real world says it doesn’t work. 

[ice-capades]

13 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

This is 100 percent true. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard the phrase “it works on paper” over the years when something is FUBAR on the line, I could probably retire comfortably today. IDGAF what your paper says when the real world says it doesn’t work. 

 

So true in many industries, professions, etc.!

[akirby]

3 hours ago, Footballfan said:

 

 

I have no problem with the pay provided the company is successful.  However, when companies are run into the ground and poor decisions after poor decisions are made, the pay is not warranted.  In Ford's case, the company's quality and launch issues are well documented 

So you support a big pay cut for the CAP employees based on the problems and ongoing quality issues?  
 

I don’t disagree that failed CEOs do t deserve golden parachutes.  But it’s a little hypocritical to call that out when the union contract protects bad workers the same way.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

This is 100 percent true. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard the phrase “it works on paper” over the years when something is FUBAR on the line, I could probably retire comfortably today. IDGAF what your paper says when the real world says it doesn’t work. 

Back when I first started coding we had designers who would give us logical designs on paper as to how something should work.  The difference was their paper design never had to be compiled and could t be physically tested like our code.  So many times they gave us logic that just didn’t work and when you tried to argue with would just say fix it in the code.  So frustrating.  One time my mentor threatened to actually code it the way they wrote it.

[Footballfan]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

So you support a big pay cut for the CAP employees based on the problems and ongoing quality issues?  
 

I don’t disagree that failed CEOs do t deserve golden parachutes.  But it’s a little hypocritical to call that out when the union contract protects bad workers the same way.

No.  One of the principles of TQM and Demmings is that management is ultimately responsible for quality.  If it goes out the door the onus is on management to fix it

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

No.  One of the principles of TQM and Demmings is that management is ultimately responsible for quality.  If it goes out the door the onus is on management to fix it

So you want the people building the cars to be paid extremely well, but you don't want them to be held responsible for the quality of the products they're making. Where much is given, much is expected. 

[jpd80]

The biggest advance in vehicle quality came from better designs in the first place coupled with a standardised build process where each station did a similar or the same operation across Ford’s plants. That improved line training and skills required to do jobs properly.

 

If you give line workers vehicles that are easier to assemble, then of course the quality of the build must go up

and everyone is happy, Ford gets a better product they can charge more for and workers get better bonus checks.

[jpd80]

Under normal production conditions, Ford has three main F Series plants working at three shifts,

they are worked hard and are very efficient but prone to strike action which is why for the longest

time, Ford had no Union worries as they were happy to buy the peace.

 

Since the last contract negotiations, Ford has seen the folly of being so reliant on UAW good will

an I think that it would serve them better to go back to more Mexican plants out of the UAW’s reach….

[Footballfan]

36 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

So you want the people building the cars to be paid extremely well, but you don't want them to be held responsible for the quality of the products they're making. Where much is given, much is expected. 

No.  Those who are not doing their jobs or comes to work need to be disciplined, however that is management's job. People only get away with what they are allowed to.

Edited February 17 by Footballfan

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

Those who are not doing their jobs or comes to work need to be disciplined, however that is management's job.

Doesn’t matter. 9 times out of 10 they’ll have their jobs back after 90 days, often times with back pay and almost always with no loss of seniority. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Footballfan said:

No.  Those who are not doing their jobs or comes to work need to be disciplined, however that is management's job. People only get away with what they are allowed to.

Are you that naive?  The union won’t let bad workers be fired or disciplined.  That’s the problem.  In a non union shop bad employees would be warned then fired,  the union contract prevents that in all but the worst cases.

[Footballfan]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Are you that naive?  The union won’t let bad workers be fired or disciplined.  That’s the problem.  In a non union shop bad employees would be warned then fired,  the union contract prevents that in all but the worst cases.

Of course not, I know how the system works.  But if they wanted to get rid of the loafers bad enough they would find a way.  Weak management allows these people to come back time and time again.  They need to draw a line. 

[Footballfan]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Doesn’t matter. 9 times out of 10 they’ll have their jobs back after 90 days, often times with back pay and almost always with no loss of seniority. 

 The problem is the entity that allows them to come back in the first place.b 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Often the problem is managers who let their friends get away with stuff while they get obsessed with trying to fire the workers they have a personal beef with. As for attendance, if the company has a legal policy and enforces it fairly those are easy cases for management to win- Either the worker was there or they weren't, either they had leave or they didn't.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

 The problem is the entity that allows them to come back in the first place.b 

The entity is the UAW contract and UAW management.  Not because it’s a union but because of how this particular union and contract operate.

[akirby]

55 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Often the problem is managers who let their friends get away with stuff while they get obsessed with trying to fire the workers they have a personal beef with. As for attendance, if the company has a legal policy and enforces it fairly those are easy cases for management to win- Either the worker was there or they weren't, either they had leave or they didn't.

My wife was in a union job for years and I’ve seen first hand how difficult it is for the company to do anything about bad workers unless they do something illegal or against code of conduct.   And Fuzzy - who lives it every day - agrees.  I think some of you just love the idea of the union taking as much as possible from the corporations and do t have a clue how this type of co tract works in the real world.