Auto Union Looks to Recover Concessions From Ford During Contract Talks

[TrainTrac]

Wow. Ford is just starting to get back on their feet, and the UAW starts up with the same crap that was a large part of the reason the Big Three found themselves in deep trouble a few years ago.:banghead:

Auto Union Looks to Recover Concessions From Ford During Contract Talks



Published March 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com



Now that Ford is back in the black, the United Auto Workers union wants to recover the perks it gave up over the past few years as the auto giant teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.



Rhetoric is flaring ahead of negotiations this summer for the UAW's next four-year contract. More than 1,000 delegates from the union are meeting in Detroit this week to strategize for those negotiations.



The talks will encompass labor agreements with the Big Three automakers, but Ford's impressive profits may make the company a target for union representatives looking for a bigger share of the wealth. Union members also have more leverage with Ford, since Ford workers did not agree to the no-strike clause approved by employees at General Motors and Chrysler.



Bill Johnson, who represents workers at a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that if Ford does not restore "everything" to the union, "the membership is going to knock it down."



Of Detroit's Big Three, Ford is doing the best. The company did not have to declare bankruptcy and did not accept a federal government bailout. Last year, the company earned $6.6 billion and it has since awarded millions in bonuses to senior executives.



General Motors recorded a $4.7 billion profit. Chrysler lost money in 2010, though it is expected to turn a profit this year.



Marcey Evans, a Ford spokeswoman, said the company's focus in the negotiations will be on "ensuring that all parts of our business are operating as competitively as possible." She would not comment on what past concessions could be back on the table.



"We have a history of working collaboratively together with the UAW to find solutions to critical issues, and we look forward to our discussions with them later this year," Evans said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.



UAW President Bob King has said the union will press the automakers for expanded benefits.



"All the sacrifices that our members made to turn these companies around were part of the process that's really led to this amazing turnaround," he told Bloomberg in January, claiming members gave up between $7,000 and $30,000 since 2005. "We want our membership to share in a very meaningful way in the upside of these companies."



The auto union has made a series of concessions over the past several years as the industry's financial woes became increasingly more dire. They agreed to pay higher premiums and higher co-payments for health care in 2005. In the last four-year contract in 2007, they set up a second-tier wage for entry-level workers starting at $14 an hour, or about half the wage for current workers. They also approved several other changes, though union members received a $3,000 bonus in exchange for the agreement.



In 2009, workers went further and agreed to suspend bonuses and cost-of-living increases, among other concessions.



But with executives getting hefty bonuses and union workers now looking for their share, one Michigan economist warned that the industry could be drifting toward the habits that originally made it less competitive against leaner foreign automakers.



"All the bad habits are going to be on the table for restoration," said David Littmann, a senior economist with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Though union workers have made concessions, total pay and benefits are still better for American auto workers than their Japanese counterparts -- the average GM worker earns $57 an hour in pay and benefits compared with $51 an hour at Toyota, according to an August estimate Littman cited from the Center for Automotive Research.



Littmann said health care benefits will probably be the biggest provision union negotiators will be after this summer. He said that in light of the epic battle over collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, UAW representatives may feel obligated to press hard for better benefits.



"They're kind of duty-bound to show clout," he said.



The UAW contract expires in September. A representative for UAW could not be reached by FoxNews.com for comment.



One UAW official told the Free Press that while members want their concessions back, they're also committed to product quality and mindful of job security.



FoxNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.



<A HREF="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/21/auto-union-looks-recover-concessions-ford-contract-talks/?test=latestnews">Auto Union Looks to Recover Concessions From Ford During Contract Talks</A>

 

[Kevin Lang]

Bill Johnson, who represents workers at a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that if Ford does not restore "everything" to the union, "the membership is going to knock it down."

What kind of idiots run this union? If the union destroys Ford, then won't they ALL be jobless?



Remember that video here about Ford's Brazil plant with the robotics, and it was said that Ford can't implement that kind of innovation here because of unions? I do.



Right now the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/in-early-2010-somewhere-high.ars">trend</a> is to bring manufacturing back to America due to high fuel costs, customs, and the third world countries screwing up the works. Not to mention actual decreases in production costs and response time on changing a product. But no, the Unions are going to force Ford to continue making its cars in Brazil, May-he-Coh, and Turkey because they want a free ride.



I am glad that I managed to avoid joining unions at the unionized jobs I worked. Can't deal with the hypocrisy then, nor now. Lost a job because of it, but I can live with myself in return.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Of Detroit's Big Three, Ford is doing the best. The company did not have to declare bankruptcy and did not accept a federal government bailout. Last year, the company earned $6.6 billion and it has since awarded millions in bonuses to senior executives.

This is why the UAW wants their fair share. If you got millions to give to the big shots, you should have some for the ordinary guy that took the loss to help make it happen.



We can not say that the employees wages hurt the company more than engineers knowingly releasing a component that was not the best it could be. Nasser was known for cutting every thing he could to build a product that was sub-par to what it should have been.



Senion managment is as much to blame, if not more, to the demise of the auto industry than the UAW did.



This is my opinion as a person in the quality industry for the past 16 years. I have seen my fair share of "we need to get it done no matter what" mentality that has killed many businesses resulting in the loss of jobs for the sake of getting the product out instead of a quality product going out.



My favorite comment from an auto industry supplier was "We are only building parts for a Ford, who cares if it is any good!".





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

You can kill the cow or you can drink the milk. If wanting food for a lifetime, which is smarter?



Everyone should have their fair share, to that I agree. That is why I feel that the free market should define the wages. That way, everyone is more likely to prospers. The most prosperous companies will always tend to pay higher wages if competition for attracting and retaining world-class employees is high. If there is no competition due to a closed workforce, or if the nature of the job is such that so very many can do it, then it will likely not pay as well as it otherwise might. If either of those are the case, then forcing an employer to pay more really doesn't help the overall situation, and only tends to inflate compensation to a level that is artificial.



TJR

 

[Les]

But with executives getting hefty bonuses and union workers now looking for their share, one Michigan economist warned that the industry could be drifting toward the habits that originally made it less competitive against leaner foreign automakers.

This is the heart of the problem. You can't ask one side to give up wages and benefits and continue to pay bonuses to executives.

Bill Johnson, who represents workers at a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that if Ford does not restore "everything" to the union, "the membership is going to knock it down."

Knee-jerk comment that may come back to bite him in the a$$.

One UAW official told the Free Press that while members want their concessions back, they're also committed to product quality and mindful of job security.

Hopefully this is true and cooler heads prevail.

 

[Tom Schindler]

This is the heart of the problem. You can't ask one side to give up wages and benefits and continue to pay bonuses to executives.

Les "get's it".



If I am willing to make sacrifices, then I expect everyone else will too. If you got money to reward the upper management for doing a good job, then you can afford to give the little guys something too.



Goodyear begged their employees to take concessions. They claimed this would save the company. The employees (the union) agreed and took a pay cut along with cuts in other benifits. Th top 4 execs in the company shared a $12 million dollar bonus.



Seriously? You really expect the hourly workforce to be OK with this?



It seems like TJR thinks "the help" should be willing to work at minimum wage and be perfectly happy if the senior managment give themselves big bonuses for doing what they should do. There should be a balance.



If I am asked to take a 10% pay cut, then EVERYONE should also take a 10% pay cut. If I am asked to give up a bonus, then everyone else should also agree to the same thing.



Fair is fair.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

What kind of idiots run this union? If the union destroys Ford, then won't they ALL be jobless?

If the parasite kills the host, both will die.



Ford mortgaged everything to avoid taking the government money. However, paying big bonuses to the executives was a very stupid move. They should have been paying off debt instead. Of course, greed kicks in and overrides common sense at all levels...:fire:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les, Caymen,



Though I agree that executives shouldn't continue to make enormous pay, especially pay increases, when the majority of workers are making concessions, I think by and large your issue shouldn't be with the CEOs and their pay, but in our country's prevalent approach to capitalism in general, and the short-term view of corporation profitability.



Sure, it's nice to hate the CEO, or to look at the CEO that takes the fat bonus while there are layoffs as somehow evil. But, my friends, like the old saying goes, "Don't hate the player, hate the game."



The game for most large, publically trades corporations is quarter-by-quarter profitability. Corporations are judged, by Wall St and the investors, according to their profitability and it reflected in the company's stock price. During times of recession and times of market maturation where there is little to no profitability, corporations and their stock price is at the mercy of the magnitude of company loses - the smaller the losses, the more favorably the market and investors respond. During bad times companies can increase, or lessen the decrease of their stock price by simply cutting overhead.



This quarter-by-quarter view of profitability and cost cutting is what drives most large companies today. Servicing customers, deliverying products, research and development, building and growing a company to last, for most large corporations, are all secondary points of focus for most CEOs today. Instead, they are focused each and every day on increasing (or slowing the decrease) of their stock price.



So, you can say that it isn't fair when a CEO gets a big bonus, but there are workers that are laid-off and have pay/benefit cuts. But, the reality is, that CEO is essentially playing by the "rules of the game." He or she is paid based on performance, and if he or she can make the stock price go up, or keep it from dipping down quite so much, then they are doing their job. It is besides the point, and not a part of the game, whether or not good, talented people are retained and compensated well. Work towards new, better products and services takes a back seat.



So, again, don't hate the player, hate the game.



And, if you really hate the game, and you are an investor, try to invest only in companies that have proven that they are "in it for the long haul", and that historically pay very good dividends. Focus your wealth creation in the stock market on hold stock for decades, not quarters or months, and building wealth through dividends. This is how people, especially the self-made rich, used to make their millions.



Playing the stock market like a roullette wheel, and expecting companies to show quarter-by-quarter profitability is a relatively new thing. It starts with the investors, NOT with the corporations. They are just dancing to the music we are all playing.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Doh! Dupe!

 

[Kevin Lang]

Th top 4 execs in the company shared a $12 million dollar bonus.



Seriously? You really expect the hourly workforce to be OK with this?

Yes. I expect that the hourly workforce can perform basic math and realize that 12 million dollars distributed evenly to all of Ford's huge "common man" workforce is chump change. Last I heard Ford's hourly workforce was about 38,000 men in the USA.



12,000,000 / 38,000 = 315.79 (rounded) dollars.



On the other hand, if all it takes to beat back the union Hun and placate "the masses" at Ford is a measly 315.79 dollars a year, that's worth the investment, especially with the effing union head threatening to tear down Ford. Knee-jerk reaction or not, that belligerent statement expressed his true sentiment.



We can't dissolve the unions, and we can't negotiate with them (as seen here), so we have only one option, and that is to steal their thunder by placating their membership with this token payout, and spinning it as though the executives are taking a pay cut.



The Atlas Shrugged movie can't come soon enough.

 

[zaffo oxnard]

The guys and gals (college educated smarties) who kept Ford out of benkruptcy shoudl be rewarded by the UNIONS. This management team kept then UNION contracts from being VOIDED! Don't worry about a fre million in bonus money. All the line guy has to worry about is showing up and doing a good job. His salary, healthcare and pension are still there. The same can not be said for the employees of the former GM and Chrysler.



How hard is this to understand?

 

[TrainTrac]

Th top 4 execs in the company shared a $12 million dollar bonus.

The majority of which is directly tied to the performance of the company in the form of shares of stock and other performance-based options. If the company doesn't do well, the nits leaders don't get the bonus.

The guys and gals (college educated smarties) who kept Ford out of benkruptcy shoudl be rewarded by the UNIONS.

Not sure what you mean by this statement. Can you please clarify? Exactly how do you suggest that this should be done? The execs don't work for the unions. They work for the company, and are beholden to its stockholders to lead the company successfully.

His salary, healthcare and pension are still there. The same can not be said for the employees of the former GM and Chrysler.

Au contraire. When GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection and the accepted gov't bailouts, their employees' salary, pension, health care were paid for by the American tax payer. Not only that, but President Obama took care of the UAW at the expense of the companies' other investors (shareholders, bond holders); and the UAW ended up with a 55% ownership of Chrysler and a significant ownership of GM as well:

In the past, to be secured meant an investor was first in line in the event of a bankruptcy and non-secured creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid, Mr. Mourdock says. In the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, secured creditors received $.29 on the dollar even as non-secured creditors [the UAW] received higher values and ended up with a 55% ownership of the new company, which is fundamentally wrong and a dangerous precedent to the capital markets.



The government is now doing the same thing at General Motors, giving much of the companys stock (plus $10 billion in taxpayer dollars) to the UAW while refusing to make good on GM bonds, which were purchased by some people to put their kids through college (and by some non-union employees to help fund their own retirement).



<A HREF="http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/21/retirees-taxpayers-ripped-off-to-subsidize-uaw/">Retirees, Taxpayers Ripped Off to Subsidize UAW</A>

 

[EddieS'04]

I agree with Tom. This normal when managment starts getting their big bonuses. I may not agree when unions do put a choke hold on corp. But unions are not the problem with this country.

It is total mismanagement from the top. For those of you that are blamers and union haters. Im sorry you had a bad experiance. It seems the bad experiances are most of the time in the north east. You need to see how unions down south work in the right to work staes.

No corporation has to give in to anything they dont want to or can aford to. That includes super bonuses to upper managment(IMO they cant afford and needs to be stoped). Their over six figure salaries should be enough for what they do. Just as the saleries of labor.



WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO BE A NEVER ENDING, HATE AND BLAME UNIONS ON THIS BOARD? It gets really old.



There will always be the need for unions. For fair treatment if anything. Not all jobs need to be unionized. Some corporations have a method of fair treatment to labor. Others would work labor @ minimum wage 7 days a week 10 to 12 hours a day and lay you off because you had runny nose. I have sat in negotiations. Sometimes what the union was asking for was a little out there. Most of the time the hate and crappy attitude came from the company side.



As I said, for you haters and blamers. Let the unions die out and see what happens to your own non-union job. You wont like it.!

 

[TrainTrac]

Sure Ford earned ~$6.6 billion in net profits last year, but their profit margin was only 5.4%. And remember, to avoid bankruptcy they mortgaged pretty much everything, including the Blue Oval trademark itself. They're using a good deal of that profit to pay down that mountain of debt, as well they should.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie,



All great points. I'm not blaming unions for anything. A certain amount of reversal of concessions is fine. Employees should be well compensated. I just don't like to feed into this whole "worker drone" vs "corpororate fat-cat" mentality. Pitting boss against worker won't solve things in the long-haul. At a certain point, some of the concessions made by unions the past few years could be viewed as "right sizing", taking benefits to where they are more aligned with the non-unionized sectors. I expect that is a hard pill to swallow, but may be what is needed for the long-haul to keep these companies profitable for decades to come.



Of course, said concessions are really hard to swallow when the execs at the top are making ridiculous salaries and positioning the company into tactical positions. Still, as I said above in my lengthy post, don't HATE the player (CEO), hate the game (defined by stock market investors of today).



TJR

 

[zaffo oxnard]

I have been on both sides of the fence. I am a college educated smatrie and have had to restrain people who hear "we just made 6.6 billion" from giving out 10% raises because "we made a ton of money". We didn't make a ton of money, and neither did Ford. The people who are guiding Ford did and are doing a great job. They are doing a better job than any other auto maker, let them tell the Unions what they can afford. They know better than anyone else and they have proved it. Do they get paid well, yes they should.



The quotes from the Union leadership make me dizzy. I can't help but see these guys sitting on a bar stool sucking on a pickled pigs goot and drinking old style, then getting in their new f-150 and heading home. They are the great cursaders out to protect the $30-40 dollar an hour manufacturing jobs with full benefits. "gett it al back / knock dowm ford". Is this just rehtoric? Or do they believe this?



This is exactly why Obama made the UAW a co-owner of the GM turd. Now, they have a vested interest in making it work better, or their retirement, tiied up in new GM stock, is in a world of hurt. Whether the rank and file get this, I have no clue. That the people working for Ford who get cash contributions to healthcare and retirements funds - not stock - make these kinds of comments is stunning.



I want the UAW to reform and keep salaries / benefits good and on par with what the rest of of the country gets. Uneducated workers making $57 an hour (yes, all in, count all the dollars)? Are you kidding me? Coal miners, heck yes. They die all the time. Working on a line, come on man!

 

[TrainTrac]

I just don't like to feed into this whole "worker drone" vs "corpororate fat-cat" mentality. Pitting boss against worker won't solve things in the long-haul.

True. It's nothing more than simple class warfare.

At a certain point, some of the concessions made by unions the past few years could be viewed as "right sizing", taking benefits to where they are more aligned with the non-unionized sectors.

According to the original article that I posted, they're already better compensated than their private-sector counterparts:

total pay and benefits are still better for American auto workers than their Japanese counterparts -- the average GM worker earns $57 an hour in pay and benefits compared with $51 an hour at Toyota,

So if a GM worker earns more than a Toyota worker, and Toyota has surpassed GM as the world's #1 automaker, it would seem to me that the Toyota workers, aren't getting their "fair share", not the GM workers.



I don't "hate" unions. I really don't "hate" anything. "Hate" to me is such a strong, powerful word, conjuring up a deep strong emotion. So I find it really disingenuous when someone accuses those with whom they disagree on something to "hate" that particular subject or to be a "hater". It's really reduced the word to being almost insignificant, much like how loosely the accusation of "racist" or "racism" is thrown around nowadays, more often than not in situations where it isn't even relevant.



As has been previously stated by myself and others, much, if not all of what unions "fought for" back in the day now falls under some sort of Federal, State, or Local gov't oversight/regulations. So I simply think that unions don't really have much relevance anymore modern society. If this is not the case, then what's the explanation for the fact that private-sector union membership is down from 20.1% in 1983 to 12.3% in 2009 and further to 11.9% last year?



Moreover, if belonging to unions is such a good thing for the American "worker", then why aren't said Americans given the free choice whether or not to join a union, or whether or not to pay dues, rather than making membership mandatory (by law) in some states/professions, and having dues automatically deducted from their paychecks instead of giving the membership the choice/responsibility of stroking a check each month/pay-period, etc?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac,



All very thoughtful points in your post above, especially your thoughts on "hate."



I agree with those, especially. There are those that say they can't stand political correctness in one breath, but then they call others "haters" for simply voicing a dissenting opinion. It isn't "hate" to question the value of something. It isn't "hate" to think critically about things.



I've seen many a flame war break out on this board, and others on the Interweb. People will be quick to say that you shouldn't talk about religion or politics, etc, because it leads to hurt feelings.



Well, I say BULLSH!T to that. We need to become a nation of people that CAN talk about potentially polarizing topics. Unions are just one such topic, especially because (IMHO) they blur the lines of politics and religion. Yes, I said it, unions are much like a religion. Think about it. There is indoctrination, there is tithing, there is the notion of working towards the greater good, etc. These are all things that are part of many (most) religions.



We need to get better at being able to discuss things critically, and working towards a common ground.



We need to NOT confuse being critical of something that another holds dear as a sign of hate, or disrespect. I think in our PC, "please don't offend me" world that we live in today, so many people can't take criticism, or discuss things critically.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

Im not offended, but. I used the word haters 'cause when this subject comes up. There are many that ready to say and use their experiances, to proove that unions are destroying our economy. I dont believe it or never will. Do I think some unions pushed too much, yes I do.



I dont know about those on this board that are union discenters(nicer word, spelling maybe). Those in my world here that are. Are most of the time mangment or as my B-inlaw(same age and yrs of service as me).. He works for a chemical division of Celenese. They pay very well, including benifits. "No union involved". If it wasnt for the no kin clause. I would have used my instrument skills there. We tried.



FYI, I worked for a Chemical division of Mobil. My whole package was about $40perhr when I retired. Had to strugle through negotians for it. Mobil is a large company. I was a full service tech. Educated in all areas of proccess control and enviromental. Not just one, as some techs are.



My B-inlaw as a general mechanic(OJT, no ED required. His package was always $15 to $20 more perhr. His retirement package almost twice mine. One of those companies that apreciated labor, I suppose. Intresting fact is. His last few years. He took a managment planing posistion. Now he hates unions. He didnt until then. What I said in second paragraph.



I could have moved on I suppose. By the time I realized there was better pay out there. I had too much senority and vacation time to flush, IMO. Didnt want to start over. My bad.



I probably would have quit if we didnt have a union in "my plant". You can say I should have moved on. It was my shoes though. Im just showing a comparison of 2 major corporations in the chemical industry and job types.

 

[gary s]

today, be thankful you have a job.