STEVE WILSON IS NOT A FRIEND!

[udontkno]

You and I are at the bottom of the totem pole. The people who run the company are near the top. If your name is Ford, then you are at the top, regardless of your smarts. Disgruntled auto-workers are to the top, as ants are to a picnic. Know your place. Stop tilting at windmills. They control everything. If they screw up, then the worst case scenario for us is job loss; not the end of the world. They lose much more. If you work for the auto industry, then you have to have something else going on the side. Your employment is tentative. The union will get you high wages and good benefits, but what good is that if your employer disappears?

 

The CAW has been trying to unionize Michelin workers in Nova Scotia. Michelin says that if the workers unionize, they will close the plants. The CAW does not care about that. If the plants close, the CAW does not lose anything. Why doesn't the CAW do what Ford is doing? Offer Michelin workers $100,000 each if the plants close because they go union.

 

I dont get it. On one hand you say "the union will get you high wages and good benefits" and on the other hand you say the CAW should promise the workers $100,000 if the plants close because they go union.

The unions negoitiated $100,000 for plants that are closing, without the union, you would get $0 and your last check would probably bounce.

If your argument is you wont have a job because the union organized, than you should go work for Mickey D's. They dont have union pressure.

Michelin probably pays decent and gives some benefits because they are trying to keep the union out. Just as Honda, Toyota and Nissan are in the U.S. when/if the unions go bust in the auto industry, pay will drop to $10 or so an hour with no benefits and no future at this point, who would really give a shit if they are open or not? I dont see the anti union people saying look how good the fast food workers or Wal Mart has it and they dont have a union.

In Atlanta, Delta employees always threatened organizing and than Delta would give them a crumb to not sign up. When Delta's management screwed up the business, they didnt have to negotiate with a union (outside of the pilots) they just cut the pay and benefits and you had a choice of accepting it or quiting. I for one could care less if Wal Mart goes out of business and I would bet a majority of the employees could care less also. So check yourself before you wreck yourself, the threat of unions prop up everyones wages, not just their membership.

[Trimdingman]

Hey Slap,

 

What is your opinion on channel 4 reporting on the members who sat in the bar and drank for hours?

 

My point is, the Media is trying to destroy Ford...........

 

Any body?............Lets praise channel 4 also...............They are the almighty news media, as Steve is....

 

What good came out of that?..........just a thought Dude.

 

My opinion is that, for me, it was not good. Let Ford worry about the conduct of its employees. They are not government employees....yet.

 

If the auto companies keep on taking money from the government, some day maybe the government WILL own them. The same goes for shareholders.

 

You and I are at the bottom of the totem pole. The people who run the company are near the top. If your name is Ford, then you are at the top, regardless of your smarts. Disgruntled auto-workers are to the top, as ants are to a picnic. Know your place. Stop tilting at windmills. They control everything. If they screw up, then the worst case scenario for us is job loss; not the end of the world. They lose much more. If you work for the auto industry, then you have to have something else going on the side. Your employment is tentative. The union will get you high wages and good benefits, but what good is that if your employer disappears?

 

The CAW has been trying to unionize Michelin workers in Nova Scotia. Michelin says that if the workers unionize, they will close the plants. The CAW does not care about that. If the plants close, the CAW does not lose anything. Why doesn't the CAW do what Ford is doing? Offer Michelin workers $100,000 each if the plants close because they go union.

 

I dont get it. On one hand you say "the union will get you high wages and good benefits" and on the other hand you say the CAW should promise the workers $100,000 if the plants close because they go union.

The unions negoitiated $100,000 for plants that are closing, without the union, you would get $0 and your last check would probably bounce.

If your argument is you wont have a job because the union organized, than you should go work for Mickey D's. They dont have union pressure.

Michelin probably pays decent and gives some benefits because they are trying to keep the union out. Just as Honda, Toyota and Nissan are in the U.S. when/if the unions go bust in the auto industry, pay will drop to $10 or so an hour with no benefits and no future at this point, who would really give a shit if they are open or not? I dont see the anti union people saying look how good the fast food workers or Wal Mart has it and they dont have a union.

In Atlanta, Delta employees always threatened organizing and than Delta would give them a crumb to not sign up. When Delta's management screwed up the business, they didnt have to negotiate with a union (outside of the pilots) they just cut the pay and benefits and you had a choice of accepting it or quiting. I for one could care less if Wal Mart goes out of business and I would bet a majority of the employees could care less also. So check yourself before you wreck yourself, the threat of unions prop up everyones wages, not just their membership.

 

 

As far as we are concerned, the union and the company are the same. They both want something out of us. The CAW does not care if the Michelin workers in Nova Scotia have to risk losing their jobs if they go union. The CAW tells them to go union anyway. Maybe they should offer them some insurance.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Trimdingman

[J-150]

the threat of unions prop up everyones wages, not just their membership.

 

 

 

they prop up those wages all the way to China Taiwan and Singapore

 

As far as we are concerned, the union and the company are the same. They both want something out of us. The CAW does not care if the Michelin workers in Nova Scotia have to risk losing their jobs if they go union. The CAW tells them to go union anyway. Maybe they should offer them some insurance.

 

 

 

I think Buzz is a little busy these days. He's too involved with the politicking. I guess he figures he's in line for an abassadorship or senate seat if Bob Rae becomes Prime Minister.

[fishinguy]

My opinion is that, for me, it was not good. Let Ford worry about the conduct of its employees. They are not government employees....yet.

 

If the auto companies keep on taking money from the government, some day maybe the government WILL own them. The same goes for shareholders.

As far as we are concerned, the union and the company are the same. They both want something out of us. The CAW does not care if the Michelin workers in Nova Scotia have to risk losing their jobs if they go union. The CAW tells them to go union anyway. Maybe they should offer them some insurance.

 

 

You are missing my point slap,

I am sick and tired of the news media trying to destroy ford motor.........This is our company they are trying to bring down.

[hi-lo feva2]

You are missing my point slap,

I am sick and tired of the news media trying to destroy ford motor.........This is our company they are trying to bring down.

our;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[Ovaltine]

Being a whistle-blowing snitch is not an honorable profession. When I snitched on my brother, when I was a kid, he got punished, but I got punished double for snitching. Some day, he may blow the wrong whistle.

Hey Trim:

 

I'd like to hear your opinion on Woodward and Bernstein's role in Watergate.

 

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/woodstein/

 

Or were their actions "okay" because they were taking down a Republican?

 

-Ovaltine

Edited November 24, 2006 by Ovaltine

[Trimdingman]

Hey Trim:

 

I'd like to hear your opinion on Woodward and Bernstein's role in Watergate.

 

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/woodstein/

 

Or were their actions "okay" because they were taking down a Republican?

 

-Ovaltine

 

 

I am a Nixon fan. He was a very good president. I was in my 20s at the time, and even then, I was a Conservative. W&B, in my opinion, were a couple of rats. I remember, I had to go for a root canal. The dentist and his assistant were talking about it. It took everything that I had not to bite his fingers.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Trimdingman

[Ovaltine]

I am a Nixon fan. He was a very good president. I was in my 20s at the time, and even then, I was a Conservative. W&B, in my opinion, were a couple of rats. I remember, I had to go for a root canal. The dentist and his assistant were talking about it. It took everything that I had not to bite his fingers.

 

I must say then, that I *do* admire your consistency. I am a bit younger than you, and having grown up in a Democratic blue-collar home, I was exposed incessantly to the evils of Nixon and the whole Watergate issue. The malaise of Watergate coupled with the ineffectiveness of Carter, set the stage for many Democratic-household people like myself to embrace the ideals of the Republican party with the advent of the Reagan era.

 

Looking back.... while exposing Nixon was probably the *right* thing to do, was it the *best* thing for the country long term? Watergate set the stage for Carter's election, and his lack of backbone in dealing with the Ayatollah in Iran. Had the Iranian Revolution been effectively shut down at that key point in time, would some of the issue's we're dealing with today NOT have occurred? What would have happened if Ford or Reagan had gotten in earlier, and would have been open to a Libyian-like response to the hostage taking? We'll never know.

 

In any case, I do appreciate people who are consistent in their viewpoints, and your reply to my initial question essentially proves that. So now that you've proven yourself to not be a Republican-hater,.... the BIGGER

test would be to hear your opinion(s) on Linda Tripp! B)

 

-Ovaltine

Edited November 24, 2006 by Ovaltine

[objectsinmirror]

"The best thing Clinton could do – I think I wrote him a letter about this, but I'm not sure – is to shut up.... He has no discipline."--- Barry Goldwater

 

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."

Barry Goldwater--After the Impeachment Trials, 1975

 

Let us henceforth make war on all monopolies--whether corporate or union. The enemy of freedom is unrestrained power, and the champions of freedom will fight against the concentration of power wherever they find it.---Barry Goldwater, founder of the Conservative movement...

 

Now talk about fair and balanced...we just don't get politicians like this anymore...

Edited November 24, 2006 by objectsinmirror

[Trimdingman]

I must say then, that I *do* admire your consistency. I am a bit younger than you, and having grown up in a Democratic blue-collar home, I was exposed incessantly to the evils of Nixon and the whole Watergate issue. The malaise of Watergate coupled with the ineffectiveness of Carter, set the stage for many Democratic-household people like myself to embrace the ideals of the Republican party with the advent of the Reagan era.

 

Looking back.... while exposing Nixon was probably the *right* thing to do, was it the *best* thing for the country long term? Watergate set the stage for Carter's election, and his lack of backbone in dealing with the Ayatollah in Iran. Had the Iranian Revolution been effectively shut down at that key point in time, would some of the issue's we're dealing with today NOT have occurred? What would have happened if Ford or Reagan had gotten in earlier, and would have been open to a Libyian-like response to the hostage taking? We'll never know.

 

In any case, I do appreciate people who are consistent in their viewpoints, and your reply to my initial question essentially proves that. So now that you've proven yourself to not be a Republican-hater,.... the BIGGER

test would be to hear your opinion(s) on Linda Tripp! B)

 

-Ovaltine

 

She is just another rat, trying to make it by getting dirt on someone else. I never liked Clinton. I kind of took a shine to him, though over his sexual prowess. Deep down, I do not think that he believes all of the crap that he spews. Maybe I do like him. He is a good old boy. However, I do not want to have a good old boy running the country. He has a marriage of convenience to a ????. What do you expect him to do?

 

America showed its respect for minorities by electing a hayseed president. I hope that they do not get carried away and elect a gay woman president. I would rather see a black woman president. You know who I am talking about. Maybe put her on Rudy's ticket.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Trimdingman

[Roadrunner]

Roadrunner @ Nov 16 2006, 04:58 PM)

 

... for an investigative report, sometimes (hiding your identity) ... is necessary.

 

But, on a journalist ethics level, going into a forum initially as a "member" when you are really looking to generate friendly sources as a reporter is not very ethical. (...)

 

There's no ethics issue here, IMHO. I cleary said I was a reporter looking for the perspective of working people inside the Ford organization. What SHOULD I have done? Called up Ford and asked them to put me in touch with a few Ford workers?

 

When I go to investigate filth at a restaurant, should I walk in and say, "Hey, I'm Channel 7's chief investigative reporter. I'm here to check how filthy your kitchen is." Oh yeah, that leads right to the truth, doesn't it?

 

Believe me, I take my responsibilities to be ethical as seriously as I try to be entirely accurate. You think that be part of the reason the Society of Professional Journalist conveyed upon me one of its rare Award For Ethics a few years back. I believe, at the time, I was the fourth or fifth person EVER to receive it.

 

I certainly don't mind honest criticism--and I'm far from perfect--but you might do at least a LITTLE rsearch before you start slinging sh*& at me, don't you think Roadrunner?

 

Steve,

 

I can understand your umbrage. I also said I would respond a few weeks ago, but I never got back to you.

 

Let's get a few things straight:

1) I understand your needs to conceal your identity when conducting an investigation. It is a part of what one needs to do if one wants to poke around a sensitive topic.

2) I agree with you that it would be asinine to walk up and say, "hey I'm here to investigate your restaurant." However, there are many options that you can take through public records to conduct an investigation of that type. You can FOIA stuff; indeed every reporter should have some sort of FOIA request going on at all times. Of course, with the Ford story, it is different because you are looking into the perks of CEOs.

3) I applaud your ethical investigation into bovine growth hormones in ~1998, while fending off both bribes from the cattle industry and pressure from within your television station.

4) And no, it would be stupid to contact a PR flack thinking you would get any sort of straight information.

 

As well, from following this investigation, I agree that for almost the whole investigation you took logical steps that were ethical.

 

However, here is my beef: You did come on to the forum initially without identifying what you were doing.

 

I quote, from 29 September, you first post (boldings mine):

Ford workers are being told over and over that there's penty of sacrifice needed to turn our company around. I'd like to know if this pain is really being shared up and down and all across the board like we're told it is.

 

What about the union guys? What kind of give backs is the company really getting when theres signed contracts still in place. and for those of us without union benefits and signed contracts, to what extent is everybody in teh salaried ranks sharing the heavy lifting, money-wise?

 

I still get the feeling that the old culture is alive and well and some at the top are still doing well and cashing in on all they can. I'd like to see it another way but sometimes I get the feeling that those who can are stealing the silver even while the titanic goes down. One of the TV stations mentioned this when they reported all the millions given to Mulalley but I never heard any more about it. Who can fille me in here or privatly?

 

A similar post from the same day is here: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...ic=7047&hl=

 

From reading these posts, it looks like you are posting as if you are someone who works in a plant, not someone who is looking to report on Ford. Your first post that identifies you as a reporter is on 1 October 2006. That's where my beef about ethics comes from.

 

Believe me, I took consideration and put myself in your shoes about how I could have approached the forum looking for information. However, I could not see any solution that makes sense without full disclosure considering where you went from there.

 

The rest of it seems logical and ethical, but I really do have a problem with this initial part of the investigation, and feel it was unethical, especially since it reads like you were posting as a fellow Ford employee when you are not.

 

Please do not hesitate to respond if you feel these are groundless arguments.

[Steve Wilson WXYZ Detroit]

There's no ethics issue here, IMHO. I cleary said I was a reporter looking for the perspective of working people inside the Ford organization. What SHOULD I have done? Called up Ford and asked them to put me in touch with a few Ford workers?

 

When I go to investigate filth at a restaurant, should I walk in and say, "Hey, I'm Channel 7's chief investigative reporter. I'm here to check how filthy your kitchen is." Oh yeah, that leads right to the truth, doesn't it?

 

Believe me, I take my responsibilities to be ethical as seriously as I try to be entirely accurate. You think that be part of the reason the Society of Professional Journalist conveyed upon me one of its rare Award For Ethics a few years back. I believe, at the time, I was the fourth or fifth person EVER to receive it.

 

I certainly don't mind honest criticism--and I'm far from perfect--but you might do at least a LITTLE rsearch before you start slinging sh*& at me, don't you think Roadrunner?

 

Steve,

 

I can understand your umbrage. I also said I would respond a few weeks ago, but I never got back to you.

 

Let's get a few things straight:

1) I understand your needs to conceal your identity when conducting an investigation. It is a part of what one needs to do if one wants to poke around a sensitive topic.

2) I agree with you that it would be asinine to walk up and say, "hey I'm here to investigate your restaurant." However, there are many options that you can take through public records to conduct an investigation of that type. You can FOIA stuff; indeed every reporter should have some sort of FOIA request going on at all times. Of course, with the Ford story, it is different because you are looking into the perks of CEOs.

3) I applaud your ethical investigation into bovine growth hormones in ~1998, while fending off both bribes from the cattle industry and pressure from within your television station.

4) And no, it would be stupid to contact a PR flack thinking you would get any sort of straight information.

 

As well, from following this investigation, I agree that for almost the whole investigation you took logical steps that were ethical.

 

However, here is my beef: You did come on to the forum initially without identifying what you were doing.

 

I quote, from 29 September, you first post (boldings mine):

A similar post from the same day is here: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...ic=7047&hl=

 

From reading these posts, it looks like you are posting as if you are someone who works in a plant, not someone who is looking to report on Ford. Your first post that identifies you as a reporter is on 1 October 2006. That's where my beef about ethics comes from.

 

Believe me, I took consideration and put myself in your shoes about how I could have approached the forum looking for information. However, I could not see any solution that makes sense without full disclosure considering where you went from there.

 

The rest of it seems logical and ethical, but I really do have a problem with this initial part of the investigation, and feel it was unethical, especially since it reads like you were posting as a fellow Ford employee when you are not.

 

Please do not hesitate to respond if you feel these are groundless arguments.

 

Okay, one at a time:

 

<<Ford workers are being told over and over that there's penty of sacrifice needed to turn our company around. I'd like to know if this pain is really being shared up and down and all across the board like we're told it is.>>

 

I think you're reading this way too literally. If I'd meant to pose as a member of the "Ford worker family"--which, BTW, would not be unethical, IMHO--I could have done so far more clearly than I did. Saying ""turn our company around" referred to exactly what Ford execs have been saying for some time. It might have been clearer for me to put "turn our company around" in the quotes I intended to convey, not that I intended to say it was my company, too.

 

The same is true of my saying "like we're told it is." We're told refers to not only Ford employees but outsiders, too. Again, no intention to try and fool anybody into thinking I'm working on a line or in a Ford exec office somewhere.

[J-150]

I would rather see a black woman president. You know who I am talking about. Maybe put her on Rudy's ticket.

 

 

she's too qualified for the job... meaning she should move to the private sector. Maybe Mulally could use a good right hand... one without a mullet

Edited December 10, 2006 by J-150

[Xerxes12]

Can't you guys figure this out? This is red herring, and you have been had.

 

Quotes from Steves own story:

 

 

 

The use of the plane is in Fields contract. It is a part of his compensation. He could have asked for more money and flown commercial. (If Ford would even allow it.) He could have asked for an allowance for a second household in Michigan. He could have asked for extra donuts... It is between Ford and Mr. Fields.

 

Steve Wilson knows this. If he had written that Fields was over compensated, that would be one thing, HIS OPINION. And nobody would have cared.

 

But he didn't do that, instead he chose to present two unrelated facts in such a way as to spool up the auto workers. He spun up a story that equated the cost of air travel to the lost wages of a Ford hourly employee. The idea was to make you guys feel cheated. Seems like it worked.

 

Finally, some sanity!! :happy feet:

 

 

 

So lets say that you spend some of your earnings on a boat. In Steve's world, he could write a story that you were wasting Ford money on weekend boat trips. I mean after all, if you can afford a boat, you must be over paid.

 

By the way, benefits like this are taxable, it is just a part of his total compensation package.

 

The reason that no one else is picking this up is because there is no story.

 

Thanks for an intelligent appraisal! :reading: