Ford: Cut labor tab 30%

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This seems to be a case of who will blink first, Ford or the Union.



Based on Ford's financial and market share numbers they may be willing to take a temporary hit by letting union workers go or suffering through a strike to get their labor costs reduced.



The union workers have to realize that their good paying jobs could be gone forever if they do not work something out. Who is going to hire them? Based on what I see, GM/DC/Toyota are not ramping up their labor forces either.



Regardless of who you blame for the mess Ford is in, if they go out of business the jobs go with them. The union workers will have a harder time than the white collar workers finding comparable employment.

 
Workers have the right to unionize by a vote. The company cannot stop or interfere with that vote. If the workers unionize the company has no choice but to negociate with the union on salaries, pensions, and benefits, etc. If they do not agree, the workers have a right to go on strike.



Under most conditions the company will not try to hire non-union workers to replace the workers on strike, but occassionally it does happen. President Reagan fired all the striking Air Traffic Controllers back in the 1980's and hired all new ATC's. He reasoning was that the strike was illegal based on the existing contract for all government employees.



Often times the unions will make some consessions in pay and benefits for a company trying to get back on it's feet. This has happened many times with the airlines and many companies. The union workers realize that demanding their higer salaries coulld force Ford to go bankrupt, and they may all be out of work and their union can't help them if that happens.



Unions can be a double edged sword. It can help get better wages and benefits for workers, but it can also become too greedy and drive the employer out of business and put themselves out of work.



I personally do not think unions are as necessary as they once were. They were needed in the days of sweatshops and before OSHA and other labor laws. Now I think too many unions are just a crutch or hedge against technology. Many workers/labor jobs are being replaced by technicians and specialist. If you have technical skills, your skills are in demand and you do not need a union to negociate you salary or benefits.



...Rich



 
I do not think Police are needed anymore. Mobsters from the 20's are gone. No need for police now.



Think without a union around, things will stay the same or actually improve?



Think without the police, the crime will go down?



Nope. The unions are like police. As long as that threat is there, things will improve to keep the unions out. Without the unions, there is no threat of a union coming in. Just like the police. Without a police force, you can't get arrested by the police.





Tom
 
The Police had little if any effect on organized crime. The Mafia was shut down primarily by the efforts of the FBI. The police were deliberately kept out of it because of the amount of corruption in many cities.



The Police actaually have very little impact on crime, it's economy and the environment that increases or decreases crime. When the neighborhood says they don't want anymore crime, it leaves. When crime is no longer profitable or too risky in one area it moves. Notice that I said "It leaves or it moves" It doesn't stop, it just changes locations or the nature of the crimes change to fit the location or environment. In that sense, police don't really have that much effect. All their drug raids have little effect on drug trafficing. However, when the neighborhood decides it does not want drugs in their neighbothood anymore, then the police can be effective in working with the citizens to get the drug dealers out of their neighborhood.



The police do not have the money or manpower to take on organized crime on a national scale or even locally.



All of the benefits of the union can be obtain by yourself if you are educated, training, have skills and experience in the up to date technological advances in your line of work. If you have that, your skills will always be in demand along with the apropriate salary and benefits.



The vast majority of the union exist in manufacturing, or other occupations that require little or no prior skills or education. The limited knowledge and skills required to do the union jobs are easily acquired in a few weeks of OJT (on the job training).



My biggest grip with unions is that they start out doing a good thing, but soon they get out of hand an greedy. Over time they drive the labor/pension cost so high that the company starts to crumble. That's the same as biting the hand that feeds you, and the only one who profits from this is the unions.



...Rich
 
OK, lets eliminate the FBI. Same difference. You got the point.



Yea, yea. A good education will help you get a good job, but money talks and BS walks. Someone else will do your job for less. When they do, all the education in the world will not stop someone willing to work for less.



My biggest grip with unions is that they start out doing a good thing, but soon they get out of hand an greedy. Over time they drive the labor/pension cost so high that the company starts to crumble. That's the same as biting the hand that feeds you, and the only one who profits from this is the unions.



If these same companies actually took care of their employees, the union would have never been there in the first place. The companies are ultimatly to blame.





Tom
 
Caymen,

People willing to work for less do not posses the same level of skills or experience. The employer is only getting what he is paying for. Yes, many companies do hire people fresh out of school, but they are getting an unknown quality. Someone with skills that have been honed over the years may require a little more money, but the employer gets a better worker who can hit the ground running and will often have highly developed leadership skills.



If you let your skills fall behind or don't keep up with the technological updates to your job, then yes, someone else can and will take your place at a lower salary.



Also, Unions contribute to this by demanding such lucrative pension plans for their members. The companies don't want to pay all that money for someone who may retire in a few years, so they hire a younger person and pay them less. They will eventually train them to do a good job. If that person developes good skills, they will often move on to another job that pays more for their skills and the employer does not have to pay all that retirement.



Now the union only helps subsidize marginal workers who don't have skills or their skills are no longer in demand.



As for companies not taking care of their workers. that is now more myth than fact. There are enough agencies that monitor labor, safety, etc that those are not real issues anymore except for a few industries. Henry Ford used to pay $5 a day for auto workers when he first started his plant building model "T's. That was a lot of money back then and it was more money than most unskilled workers could make anywhere else. Later, the unions got involved and the greed for more money by the unions and their members has artifically inflated the UAW pay scales.



Quality is never out of style or overpriced. Unions have driven up the cost of manufacturing in this country so that most companies must go to China, Bangeladesh, Indonesia, etc to get cheaper labor....Of course quality suffers, but even these countries continue to improve the quality of their work and products.



Germany has one of the highest salary ratings in the world but they continue to manufacture many things there because they have a highly skilled and educated work force and people will pay a premium price for those skills and the quality products they produce.



The real problem in the US is that we have a wide range of skiled and educated people in our work force. The people who do not have the skills and education want the same salaries and company benefits as those who are highly skilled and highly educated. To exist in the US you need some level of skills and education to succeed and be part of the middle income taxpayers. Unions help prop up some of the less skilled, but even they can't help everyone. If you depend on the unions or the government for your living you will sorely be disappointed. The US is moving away from manufacturing and shifting jobs to Service and Technology jobs. More and more unskilled manufacturing jobs will continue to be exported to countries that has a large pool of cheap labor.



While we are loosing manufacturing jobs, we are creating many more jobs that require technology skills, be it medicine, mining, or computers. They are all hiring highly skilled technicians and if we fail to make those technology shifts, the unions or the government will not save us.



...Rich

 
The real problem in the US is that we have a wide range of skiled and educated people in our work force. The people who do not have the skills and education want the same salaries and company benefits as those who are highly skilled and highly educated.

I essentially hire entry-level people at my company, primarily women. Ever since Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act, which means 5 years and out, also 20 hours of work to qualify for child care and some other things, many people that I interview ask if they'll get 20 hours per week. Sure, but that's a red flag because almost anyone I've hired in that situation will call off the rest of the week as soon as they hit their 20 hours. OTOH, if someone wants to make a decent buck for an unskilled job and 30 to 40 hours, then come aboard. But if all they need is their precious 20 hours for welfare, then go find a job standing at a cash register someplace.

The Catch-22 I run into is that my employees often make too much money and lose health benefits, food stamps, housing allowance, etc.
 
Man-O-Man, I have looked at this site in months....so I drop in and lo and behold, the very same discussion is going on as last time. I guess I didn't miss a thing. Jim:D
 
Gavin said:
Yeah, except now the illegal immigrants are lining up to take the jobs, and they will soon form their own union.



It's already happening.



Whenever one says:



"Ez not my yob, man",



What they mean is that it is "not a union job"...because "yob" is how you pronounce "UAB"....United Association of Beaners.



Okay, fine...call me a hater, I don't care. If Carlos Mencia can say it so can I.



TJR
 
If illegal immigrants are lining up to take those UAW jobs it should be easy enough to load them on buses and send them back across the border...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets not start pinting fingers. Both parties are to blame. Anyone remember the 2002 UAW/Ford contract? The company gave them everything they wanted, I mean everything. Now just 4 short years later and the tables are turned. The union has nothing to leverage, nothing to negotiate. It takes years of neglect for a company and union to perform so miserably. It never happens overnight. Ford will get better (profitable) when they start relying more on out of country production, see Mexico, unfortunately. That will be highly contentious this round of negotiations. 30% cuts could look good 6 months from now.
 
Top