duh? the union OWNS THE COMPETITION. The union actually would do better if Ford went bankrupt and shed thousands of union jobs because then either 1) the union owned firms would profit or 2) in another Obama backed 'bailout' the union would get to own another company.

Whatever good to government intervention has done to stabilize credit markets, industrial policy has been a disaster between buy american non-sense and letting the inmates run the asylum in Detroit.

You know, I don't remember the last story that was American workers gaining benefits. They are all stories about what rights and pay American workers must lose.

Bimalc

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you, respectfully. Why is it when a company is in trouble, the ones with the lowest wages have to concede? Why doesn't the management offer to cut their salaries, benefits by 50%?

The Auto Industry's problem has always been bad management. The reason why so many people by foreign cars is because marketing and management fail to understand the need of the consumer. They want a car that gets good gas millage and will last a long time.

Ford management, to their credit, developed a strong diverse line that wasn't dependent on gas guzzling SUV for profit. And their union had given up to save their jobs.

If you had read the article, the Union had already made concessions three times before. As a result, Ford is posting profits. While it is not out of the woods. To give up the right to strike for six years is asinine. To ask the new workers to forgo any pay increase for six years is stupid.

If the company wants to cut cost, they should fire half of their management. Half of their IT department. If you don't directly do something to building or designing a car, which is their product, then you go count beans, practice IT somewhere else.

It' not "the union" who rejected the contract, dude. It was the WORKERS. I doubt THEY would feel a sense of victory if the loss of their jobs forced Ford to accept bailout money.

Ford is privately owned, and rejected bailout money the first time around because they wanted to stay private. I gather the Ford family would rather scale back operations and remain private -- which is why I think the workers are doing the right thing.

It's a pretty farked up state of affairs when the workers are taking the blame for the loss of jobs. They'e saying "We won't eat the shiat sandwich just so you can stroke your family's ego", Ford's response is "well then we'll stop feeding 7000 of you".

GAT_00: You know, I don't remember the last story that was American workers gaining benefits. They are all stories about what rights and pay American workers must lose.

hey, we gained unemployment. And we're all getting MORE unemployment with each passing month!

so you see, it's not all bad.

fnorgby: Ford is privately owned

Ford is a public company, dude. Ford shares are traded on the NYSE.

Erp my bad. The majority of Ford's shares are owned by the Ford family. There's a big difference, of course.

Darth_Lukecash:
The Auto Industry's problem has always been bad management. The reason why so many people by foreign cars is because marketing and management fail to understand the need of the consumer. They want a car that gets good gas millage and will last a long time.


You have it there, and the UAW could not build a quality car if it cost a million dollars each.

Shotty craftsmanship is the reason Ford, GM, and Chrysler cars suck.

Good for Ford, They should close every Union Plant and open non-union ones up

Darth_Lukecash: I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you, respectfully. Why is it when a company is in trouble, the ones with the lowest wages have to concede? Why doesn't the management offer to cut their salaries, benefits by 50%?

The CEO's compensation was cut by 37% last year and a further 30% this year. He has also agreed to a 30% cut next year (meaning his salary will be decreased by about 70% overall).

jfsimpson: Darth_Lukecash: I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you, respectfully. Why is it when a company is in trouble, the ones with the lowest wages have to concede? Why doesn't the management offer to cut their salaries, benefits by 50%?

The CEO's compensation was cut by 37% last year and a further 30% this year. He has also agreed to a 30% cut next year (meaning his salary will be decreased by about 70% overall).

What would be so wrong about not letting the shareholders get more money?

Uh... No thanks.

At least the American Axle workers accepted the contract when they knew jobs would be lost. So much for the UAW's concept of "brotherhood"...

Words of wisdom from my father 20 years ago.

"Son, you better do well in school, learn a valuable skill. The world is globalizing and the days of getting $30/hr on a factory line are going to come to an end."

If you have the education level and skill level of your average service sector employee, expect to be paid like one. Unions inflated their wages and benefits when there wasn't much competition and a lot of tariffs etc to protect them. Those days are over. Period.

/Well at least until we have to hyper inflate our way out of our national debt and our currency collapses making it again cheaper to manufacture here.

/hot

Fursecution: Uh... No thanks.

www.bugmenot.com

aneki: Words of wisdom from my father 20 years ago.

"Son, you better do well in school, learn a valuable skill. The world is globalizing and the days of getting $30/hr on a factory line are going to come to an end."

If you have the education level and skill level of your average service sector employee, expect to be paid like one. Unions inflated their wages and benefits when there wasn't much competition and a lot of tariffs etc to protect them. Those days are over. Period.

/Well at least until we have to hyper inflate our way out of our national debt and our currency collapses making it again cheaper to manufacture here.

And that same brain trust you are fawning over conceived of the low cost leasing programs which were treated as full on sales in their performance bonuses, but left the company holding how much unsold inventory over the years?

I ran into that warped mentality at my last job, where management ranks quadrupled in the last ten years while the number of people who actually performed the work SHRUNK. Remember that each of the new managers had to hire support staff to look good.

The last straw was being told by one of the new support staff that we as field workers were nothing but wasted cost to the company. That the Clerical staff were much more important, since they generated the bills that actually earned the company money.

One of these days the suits will wake up to the basic concept that now that everyone is on poverty wages to improve the company's bottom line, no one can afford the farking product.


How's that P/L sheet looking now?

The article if you get the subscription thingy:

Ford's Plan to Cut Costs Falls Short in Union Vote


By NICK BUNKLEY
Published: October 31, 2009

DEARBORN, Mich. - Union workers at the Ford Motor Company have refused to help the company make more cuts to its labor costs.

Changes to the workers' contract that would have allowed the cuts appeared headed for certain defeat Saturday after about 72 percent of workers voted to reject the deal, according to a tally compiled by The New York Times from results at separate plants.

Ford needed 9,000 more votes for passage, with fewer than 7,000 votes outstanding to be either cast or counted through Sunday.

Ford, which said it needed the changes to reduce some advantages the union gave to General Motors and Chrysler as those companies headed into bankruptcy in the spring, is not expected to seek a new deal.

The Ford proposal, which was supported by the union's leadership, would have frozen the pay of newly hired workers and banned the union from striking in order to demand higher pay or benefits until 2015. Some job classifications also would have been combined, giving Ford more flexibility to shuffle workers around.

In return, Ford promised to pay each worker a $1,000 bonus in March 2010 and to guarantee the assignment of new products to some plants, creating or saving a total of about 7,000 jobs, according to calculations by union leaders.

A person with knowledge of the private negotiations said Ford had already achieved most of the savings it needed in a deal the union approved in the spring. Ford said that earlier deal would save it about $500 million a year. The changes proposed in the latest vote would have saved far less.

A Ford spokesman, Mark Truby, said the company would not comment until the union released official results. That is expected by Monday, when Ford also plans to report its third-quarter earnings. Ford posted a $2.3 billion profit in the second quarter, although it remains deeply in debt.

The president of the United Auto Workers union, Ron Gettelfinger, told reporters Friday that he did not plan to seek a revote.

The workers' refusal to accept what would have been a third round of concessions since 2007 shows that, despite their industry's troubles, there is a limit to how much they are willing to sacrifice, said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at the University of California, Berkeley.

"It's a hard sell in this environment," he said. "You've got the Ford paradox, where they are hailing how successful they are in the marketing, and that's obviously paying off for them, but they're asking more from their workers."

Many workers interviewed before the vote said they had yet to see benefits they were promised in the March deal even as they were being asked to change their contract again.

The deal's failure means Ford retains the right to contract some work to other companies or to plants in other countries with lower labor costs.

That worries Marvin Shine, a union official at the U.A.W. Local 600, which represents workers at Ford's sprawling Rouge manufacturing complex in Dearborn, Mich. About 93 percent of workers at the pickup truck assembly plant there voted against the deal, based on the early results.

"A lot of people are voting it down, and I can't understand why because there's no giveaways in it," Mr. Shine said. "It's a shame that there's a possibility we could lose these jobs for no reason."

But Dave Baran, who has a maintenance job at the Rouge complex, said he was unmoved by Ford's argument that it needed to follow the lead of its domestic rivals, even though Ford was the only Detroit carmaker to avoid bankruptcy and a federal rescue.

"The company's doing good," said Mr. Baran, a 30-year employee at Ford. "Why do we have to be on the same plateau as Chrysler and G.M.? We're different now."

It sounds like union leadership was on board with the contract. It's that the workers didn't want to take a pay cut after hearing about how well Ford was doing following their rejection of the government bailout. Add in an earlier pay cut, and the workers voted it down.

AngryDragon: At least the American Axle workers accepted the contract when they knew jobs would be lost. So much for the UAW's concept of "brotherhood"...

Here NJ by Atlantic City they were bargaining on behalf of dealers for two of the casinos. The dealers are currently on strike (iirc, it was the UAW that walked away, but don't hold me to that), and they've got posters all over the area telling people to stay away from those casinos. "Everyone loses at Bally's and Ceasar's". Makes me wonder what those dealers are going to think if they get this mess resolved to find they don't have any players from all the bad press.

job number one of any business is to STAY IN BUSINESS! That's what is best for the employees if they want to keep a job.

But i'm biased on Unions cause I have a really good company who treats me very very well so if I belonged to an asshole company like walmart i might feel differently.

Elvis Da King: And that same brain trust you are fawning over conceived of the low cost leasing programs which were treated as full on sales in their performance bonuses, but left the company holding how much unsold inventory over the years? *snip*

QFT. Also earliest signs of fatal corporate cancer. Run away. You don't have the power to change it.

Tingle007: job number one of any business is to STAY IN BUSINESS! That's what is best for the employees if they want to keep a job.

But i'm biased on Unions cause I have a really good company who treats me very very well so if I belonged to an asshole company like walmart i might feel differently.

Please RTFA. Ford is profitable and really doesn't NEED what they asked for this time. They just wanted the same deal their less successful competitors got. any action they take against te workers is pure greed.

/Been in Fords for 25 years. Never a reliability problem. But I will reconsider if they send production outside North America

Elvis Da King: Tingle007: job number one of any business is to STAY IN BUSINESS! That's what is best for the employees if they want to keep a job.

But i'm biased on Unions cause I have a really good company who treats me very very well so if I belonged to an asshole company like walmart i might feel differently.

Please RTFA. Ford is profitable and really doesn't NEED what they asked for this time. They just wanted the same deal their less successful competitors got. any action they take against te workers is pure greed.

/Been in Fords for 25 years. Never a reliability problem. But I will reconsider if they send production outside North America

They were profitable this quarter... that doesn't mean they will be profitable forever. What happened this quarter.... something about clunkers. The Union is shooting itself in the foot.

Guntram Shatterhand: What would be so wrong about not letting the shareholders get more money?

That's what happened at GM. Once share value drops to essentially zero the company has nothing to borrow against and they go kaput. Shareholders didn't buy the stock with the expectation that they would get no return at all.

Good for them! Getting paid nearly six figures a year to snap (poorly at that) door panels on cars is NOT ENOUGH!!!

frequently Unions bankrupt their companies. Zenith anyone? "greed" is a problem for unions too. the long term goal needs to be keeping the company alive so they can have good jobs or jobs AT ALL for as long as possible. That's not always possible and Unions sometimes hurt that or make it unable to compete with Mexican products. Not that they should ban imports Some people can only afford the cheap stuff.

Ford Union, the people who aren't smaaaart, and they love to faaaaaart!

Greedy bastards, seriously.

MyRandomName: Elvis Da King: Tingle007: job number one of any business is to STAY IN BUSINESS! That's what is best for the employees if they want to keep a job.

But i'm biased on Unions cause I have a really good company who treats me very very well so if I belonged to an asshole company like walmart i might feel differently.

Please RTFA. Ford is profitable and really doesn't NEED what they asked for this time. They just wanted the same deal their less successful competitors got. any action they take against te workers is pure greed.

/Been in Fords for 25 years. Never a reliability problem. But I will reconsider if they send production outside North America

They were profitable this quarter... that doesn't mean they will be profitable forever. What happened this quarter.... something about clunkers. The Union is shooting itself in the foot.

I'm sure that the guys understand that many of them have voted themselves out of a job. Maybe Ford should close these plants to level out production. But if this is about moving production offshore, maybe we should inform Ford that we won't be buying under those circumstances.

My dealer knows how I feel.

Elvis Da King: Please RTFA. Ford is profitable and really doesn't NEED what they asked for this time. They just wanted the same deal their less successful competitors got. any action they take against te workers is pure greed.

Ford also has $133 billion in debt, which is more than five times what the company is worth. Without a crapload of revenue growth, any profit they make will go solely towards servicing debt. They've got a huge warchest (over $25B), but they need to hang onto it as long as possible, since they don't really have any other options for raising new capital.

Darth_Lukecash:
The Auto Industry's problem has always been bad management. The reason why so many people by foreign cars is because marketing and management fail to understand the need of the consumer. They want a car that gets good gas millage and will last a long time.

The hordes of trucks I deal with every day would serve to disagree.

Mind you, the imports are ALSO selling large numbers of trucks.

People by and large don't care about fuel economy, other than a handful of people who want to feel good about themselves.

If you can afford a new vehicle, you can afford $5/gallon fuel. If you can't afford a new vehicle, then who cares?

Ford management, to their credit, developed a strong diverse line that wasn't dependent on gas guzzling SUV for profit. And their union had given up to save their jobs.

If you had read the article, the Union had already made concessions three times before. As a result, Ford is posting profits. While it is not out of the woods. To give up the right to strike for six years is asinine. To ask the new workers to forgo any pay increase for six years is stupid.

If the company wants to cut cost, they should fire half of their management. Half of their IT department. If you don't directly do something to building or designing a car, which is their product, then you go count beans, practice IT somewhere else.

Elvis Da King:
And that same brain trust you are fawning over conceived of the low cost leasing programs which were treated as full on sales in their performance bonuses, but left the company holding how much unsold inventory over the years?

Neat thing about leasing. If it's closed-end, you get the car back and can re-finance it to someone else. If it's open-end, then you either get the car back and can re-finance it, or it works out to be just like a regular sale (possibly with refinancing).

I have heard stories of dealerships selling the same car four or more times, first as a lease, then as a used car.

Mister Peejay: Darth_Lukecash:
The Auto Industry's problem has always been bad management. The reason why so many people by foreign cars is because marketing and management fail to understand the need of the consumer. They want a car that gets good gas millage and will last a long time.

The hordes of trucks I deal with every day would serve to disagree.

Mind you, the imports are ALSO selling large numbers of trucks.

People by and large don't care about fuel economy, other than a handful of people who want to feel good about themselves.

If you can afford a new vehicle, you can afford $5/gallon fuel. If you can't afford a new vehicle, then who cares?

Ford management, to their credit, developed a strong diverse line that wasn't dependent on gas guzzling SUV for profit. And their union had given up to save their jobs.

If you had read the article, the Union had already made concessions three times before. As a result, Ford is posting profits. While it is not out of the woods. To give up the right to strike for six years is asinine. To ask the new workers to forgo any pay increase for six years is stupid.

If the company wants to cut cost, they should fire half of their management. Half of their IT department. If you don't directly do something to building or designing a car, which is their product, then you go count beans, practice IT somewhere else.

Uhm...okay. You do realize that many car companies use computers and software to digitally design, right?

Mister Peejay: Elvis Da King:
And that same brain trust you are fawning over conceived of the low cost leasing programs which were treated as full on sales in their performance bonuses, but left the company holding how much unsold inventory over the years?

Neat thing about leasing. If it's closed-end, you get the car back and can re-finance it to someone else. If it's open-end, then you either get the car back and can re-finance it, or it works out to be just like a regular sale (possibly with refinancing).

I have heard stories of dealerships selling the same car four or more times, first as a lease, then as a used car.

And it sits on someone's books as a cost until it sells.

The point I was trying to make is that upper levels at all of the companies were playing games on the balance sheet.

Large numbers of returns lowered the value of all of them on the used lot. As well, they were competing with the new leases, which were eventually leased out at bargain basement prices in order to show increasing "sales" figures, further lowering the value of the used inventory.

At least the fake sales figures kept upper management swimming in fat bonuses

ToxicMunkee: Mister Peejay: Darth_Lukecash:
The Auto Industry's problem has always been bad management. The reason why so many people by foreign cars is because marketing and management fail to understand the need of the consumer. They want a car that gets good gas millage and will last a long time.

The hordes of trucks I deal with every day would serve to disagree.

Mind you, the imports are ALSO selling large numbers of trucks.

People by and large don't care about fuel economy, other than a handful of people who want to feel good about themselves.

If you can afford a new vehicle, you can afford $5/gallon fuel. If you can't afford a new vehicle, then who cares?

Ford management, to their credit, developed a strong diverse line that wasn't dependent on gas guzzling SUV for profit. And their union had given up to save their jobs.

If you had read the article, the Union had already made concessions three times before. As a result, Ford is posting profits. While it is not out of the woods. To give up the right to strike for six years is asinine. To ask the new workers to forgo any pay increase for six years is stupid.

If the company wants to cut cost, they should fire half of their management. Half of their IT department. If you don't directly do something to building or designing a car, which is their product, then you go count beans, practice IT somewhere else.

Uhm...okay. You do realize that many car companies use computers and software to digitally design, right?

Not to mention the fact that any company worth its weight in salt probably has a lot of computerized manufacturing too. At a company where I interned a lot, many of the workers not dealing in QA/QC were just operating computers and moving rolls of material from point A to point B.

The company used Toyota's system of manufacturing (it's called "just in time" IIRC). The system is very efficient.

/ Kanban rules

russkie247: ToxicMunkee: Mister Peejay: Darth_Lukecash:
The Auto Industry's problem has always been bad management. The reason why so many people by foreign cars is because marketing and management fail to understand the need of the consumer. They want a car that gets good gas millage and will last a long time.

The hordes of trucks I deal with every day would serve to disagree.

Mind you, the imports are ALSO selling large numbers of trucks.

People by and large don't care about fuel economy, other than a handful of people who want to feel good about themselves.

If you can afford a new vehicle, you can afford $5/gallon fuel. If you can't afford a new vehicle, then who cares?

Ford management, to their credit, developed a strong diverse line that wasn't dependent on gas guzzling SUV for profit. And their union had given up to save their jobs.

If you had read the article, the Union had already made concessions three times before. As a result, Ford is posting profits. While it is not out of the woods. To give up the right to strike for six years is asinine. To ask the new workers to forgo any pay increase for six years is stupid.

If the company wants to cut cost, they should fire half of their management. Half of their IT department. If you don't directly do something to building or designing a car, which is their product, then you go count beans, practice IT somewhere else.

Uhm...okay. You do realize that many car companies use computers and software to digitally design, right?

Not to mention the fact that any company worth its weight in salt probably has a lot of computerized manufacturing too. At a company where I interned a lot, many of the workers not dealing in QA/QC were just operating computers and moving rolls of material from point A to point B.

The company used Toyota's system of manufacturing (it's called "just in time" IIRC). The system is very efficient.

/ Kanban rules

Actually, Ford pioneered the Just in time process (new window). Toyota just worked with it.

A person with knowledge of the private negotiations said Ford had already achieved most of the savings it needed in a deal the union approved in the spring. Ford said that earlier deal would save it about $500 million a year. The changes proposed in the latest vote would have saved far less

To be fair, that $500 million was all but eaten up by executive bonus packages. And the CEO's birthday party was a real blowout!
Of course the workers have to sacrifice.

Seriously, what good is collective bargaining if you give up the right to strike? That sort of leaves one in what I like to call a piss poor bargaining position.

dstrick44:
Seriously, what good is collective bargaining if you give up the right to strike? That sort of leaves one in what I like to call a piss poor bargaining position.

dstrick44: To be fair, that $500 million was all but eaten up by executive bonus packages. And the CEO's birthday party was a real blowout!
Of course the workers have to sacrifice.

Seriously, what good is collective bargaining if you give up the right to strike? That sort of leaves one in what I like to call a piss poor bargaining position.

They also gained some stability in the deal. Ford said, if you offer us a reliable work-force, we'll offer you a reliable job.

We promise to build lines x, y, and z, at your plants, if you promise not to strike.

They said they want the right to strike through 2015... which makes their work-force not as reliable. They might just have to build plants elsewhere in order to gain a monetary safety net... since they don't have a production safety net.

If they get laid off, f*ck 'em. They voted against a deal that would help save their jobs.

Darth_Lukecash: Why doesn't the management offer to cut their salaries, benefits by 50%?

Because if their pay were reduced by 50%, they would just quit and get a job somewhere else.

Running a corporation like a democracy does not work because the workers keep wanting more for less while the company is run into the ground. Pay your employees what they're worth to the company. If that's to low for some people, then nobody has a gun to their head forcing them to work, they can leave. If it's a good salary for others, then great they will stick around and be happy employees. This whole thing about everyone voting on pay and benefits is ridiculous.

They chose freedom over tyranny. I'm buying all Ford products now on.

Ever notice that the people who scream "class warfare!!!" Are the first ones to complain about workers making too much money?

Cubansaltyballs 2009-10-31 09:35:33 PM
dstrick44: To be fair, that $500 million was all but eaten up by executive bonus packages. And the CEO's birthday party was a real blowout!
Of course the workers have to sacrifice.

Seriously, what good is collective bargaining if you give up the right to strike? That sort of leaves one in what I like to call a piss poor bargaining position.

They also gained some stability in the deal. Ford said, if you offer us a reliable work-force, we'll offer you a reliable job.

We promise to build lines x, y, and z, at your plants, if you promise not to strike.

They said they want the right to strike through 2015... which makes their work-force not as reliable. They might just have to build plants elsewhere in order to gain a monetary safety net... since they don't have a production safety net.

If they get laid off, f*ck 'em. They voted against a deal that would help save their jobs.

Management has already shown it can't be trusted.

"Many workers interviewed before the vote said they had yet to see benefits they were promised in the March deal even as they were being asked to change their contract again."

They bargain in bad faith.

dstrick44: Seriously, what good is collective bargaining if you give up the right to strike? That sort of leaves one in what I like to call a piss poor bargaining position.

And what good is continuing to hire people who will bend you over at any given opportunity, regardless of the realities of the marketplace?

I see absolutely no reason why a company should hire US workers that can't be fired, but who can bring your company to a complete halt at will, when there are plenty of capable, hard working human beings in other nations that need the jobs FAR worse.

This is the most boring fark Union thread ever.

dstrick44: Management has already shown it can't be trusted.

"Many workers interviewed before the vote said they had yet to see benefits they were promised in the March deal even as they were being asked to change their contract again."

They bargain in bad faith.

If 20% of the people in the country are without jobs, and CAN'T AFFORD to buy a car, at what point does a company get to say "you know what, we'd love to keep paying you ass-kicking wages and top notch benefits, but no one can afford to buy the shiat you make right now"?

MyRandomName: This is the most boring fark Union thread ever.

Getting harder to post from the dumpster, the shelter or the assembly line at McDonalds

MyRandomName: This is the most boring fark Union thread ever.

Given the absurd positions taken by union reps and corporate executives alike, I can never tell if stories like this are satire or if these people really are that stupid.

Mostly I just read and watch.

Weaver95: MyRandomName: This is the most boring fark Union thread ever.

Given the absurd positions taken by union reps and corporate executives alike, I can never tell if stories like this are satire or if these people really are that stupid.

While the UAW seems to be an exception, since most of the senior union execs came from the same schools as the Company Execs, and are running the unions on the same P&L model, I'll go with stupid.

Elvis Da King: ran into that warped mentality at my last job, where management ranks quadrupled in the last ten years while the number of people who actually performed the work SHRUNK. Remember that each of the new managers had to hire support staff to look good.

LOL....I wonder if we had the same employer.

/ this behavior is rife within the semiconductor industry...

fnorgby: Erp my bad. The majority of Ford's shares are owned by the Ford family. There's a big difference, of course.


Uh not even that. Please don't spout off when you don't know what you are talking about.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=F (new window)

The Ford Family as a whole owns 7-8M shares. Ford had 3.2B shares outstanding. The low end of the institutional owners own more than 30M shares, the top end 171M. The Ford family owns less than even a % point. Owning a majority would be owning 51% or more of the stock.