Ford set to close plants, cut jobs in revamp

[Nelson Atwell]

I guess we'll learn more tomorrow about this.

 

[Bart Adkins]

My Grandfather worked at the stamping plant in Walton Hills(Cleveland area), Ohio for over 40 years. I wonder if that plant will be on the list for closures? I'll always buy Fords, but I've said for awhile American auto makers gotta step it up if they want to compete. If Suzuki and Hyundai can give a 100,000 mile warranty why not Ford? You can't tell me Suzuki makes a better car. Maybe if Ford's hands weren't tied by the greedy UAW...don't get me wrong, unions aren't all bad, but all those workers indeffinately laid off with full pay is excessive. If YOU were the one signing the paychecks, would you want to pay 1500 guys $70,000 a year to do NOTHING?:blink:

 

[EddieS'04]

Hey Bart what about greedy CEO's and top tier managment that never takes a pension cut or pay cut...and continue to get outragous bonuses and benifits that the UAW cant even dream about...get real man and stop blaming the working man....dont fall in love with Hillary she will only disapoint you ...

 

[TomT]

At least it takes education to be a CEO. UAW workers earn more then most of us and the job takes virtually no training or education. That and the fact that more money goes into their benefits per vehicle then the steel. And I agree with Bart. I have been saying for a long time that the 36 month, 36K warrant is way outdated. It was fine 30 years ago when we could buy a new vehicle for 5 grand but not at todays prices. American manufacture need to put their money where their mouth is and offer at least a minimum 5 year warranty.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

A 20 year warranty is worthless if the company doesn't honor it. Heck, we see posts every week where a service manager refuses warranty repairs for whatever reason they can dream up.



The problems are much bigger than the unions or the warranty. Ford and the other US companies need to remake their entire product, including the vehicles they offer, the service given after the sale, and the warranty. They also need to kill of some unprofitable makes, such as Mercury, Buick, and Pontiac. There's no reason to keep all these clones with different nameplates.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Since when does a UAW worker make $70,000/year base pay.



BTW, the average CEO makes 431 times the average worker. 20 years ago, it was 40 times the average worker.



What is wrong with that picture.



Bart, I bet my dad knows your dad.





Tom

 

[Wes Davis]

Suzuki makes a better car. The only reason I bought American is because it is American. I knew I would loose in quality before making my decision to trade in my Hyundai and buy American. I don't regret my choice but I am frustrated that American automakers can't get it right like the Asian automakers clearly have.

 

[EddieS'04]

Caymen..it amazes me how brainwashed the public is nowdays, when they play the blame game and dont know there facts....

 

[Tom Schindler]

The problem is, we live in a corporate society. Corporatins can buy anything they want. They buy the media and they buy the Politician's.



We are spoon fed our news. We are told the damage the unions do to the company, but they fail to say that a CEO making $20 million+ a year could take a pay cut and invest alot of it back into the company. Research alternative fuels, research new designs. They would rather lay off people and and close plants and blame it on the unions.



Why not take money away from CEO's when they make bad decisions? I forgot, they went to college so they deserve that money...give me a break!!! Who the heck needs more then $1 million dollars a year to live on? If you can't make ends meet on $1 million, you need to re-evaluate your lifestyle.



Take the easy route. Blame the unions. Yup, a UAW employee makes $70,000/year and sits on his butt. Just ask your grandfather, Bart. I am sure he made that money. (Forget the fact that to make good money, you have to work 7 days a week, 12 to 16 hours a day)





Tom

 

[TrainTrac]

The problem is, we live in a corporate society. Corporatins can buy anything they want. They buy the media and they buy the Politician's.



We are spoon fed our news.

I don't think that most of the major news media outlets are controlled by the "corporations". Most of the time, they're running stories about how "evil" big corporations are and how they're sticking it to the "workers". Just more of the media's left-leaning class warfare. If you look at it, you can see many examples... Just about any story involving an oil company, the recent story about the state of Maryland passing mandatory health-care legislation specifically targeted at Wal-Mart, stories about the airlines, drug companies, and many others.



I'm not saying that in a company like Ford or GM that management isn't at fault for their current state of affairs. They should without a doubt bear part of the responsibility. And saying that they don't deserve their salaries and/or compensation packages "just because they went to college" is not a valid arguement. Because at the end of the day, it is the CEO, not the assembly line worker, who is ultimately responsible for the company's actions and profit. It is the CEO, not the assembly line worker, who has to answer to the stockholders. That's a huge responsiblity. They're accountable for billions of dollars and thousands of people, and the direction of a worldwide company like GM or FoMoCo can have a hugely significant impact on the American and worldwide economy.



If they don't "need" salary paying "a million dollars" for a job that bears that kind of responsibility, then what is a "fair" compensation?:huh:



Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations, makes a much larger salary that I do as an E-6, but I don't begrudge him that salary. He has a helluva lot more responsibility than I do, and has to answer to his "stockholders", the American people as represented in the Congress.



I think that the CEO's and management of Ford and GM have just misjudged the market over the last 25 years and severly misunderestimated the competition from Japan and Europe. And now, even the Korean car companies are nipping at their heels. And even China is poised to release cars in the U.S. soon.



At the same time the unions should bear part of the blame and responsibility as well. A large amount of UAW members are Baby Boomers, and that generation is now beginning to entire retirement. That's an extremely large amount of people. The compensation and retirement packages that they receive are a huge cost to the companies. And with people living much longer now that in decades past, the company has to pay out on these compensation retirement packages for a much longer time than ever before. I believe the figure is about $1500 per car. And what about the employees who are not actually working, but still on the payroll? You can't say that the unions haven't had any impact on the state of the American car companies. Otherwise, why did they move some assembly plants to Mexico? And several Japanese, Korean, and European car companies have assembly plants here in the U.S., but they're non-union plants and they're doing well.



There are many other reason that the car companies' problems. They have to comply with a ton of federal standards and regulations. This incurs a huge cost that is passed on to the consumer. There are corporate taxes that are passed on to the consumer.



Bottom line is that there's not just one single reason for the state of Ford or GM today. There are many, many reasons they're in rough straits today.

 

[TrainTrac]

Another opinion on the car industry. He brings up an interesting point: Does GM really need eight different brands? Could Ford benefit from dropping the Mercury brand? I think that they need to simplify their offerings to the marketplace.

The myth of the level playing field

By Dave Cloud



Jan 20, 2006



In an early December Wall Street Journal opinion page article General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner explained his plans for righting the troubled automaker. Mr. Wagoner was forthright in his assessment of GM’s troubles while taking the opportunity to set the record straight on several issues: In spite of perceptions to the contrary, no car company offers more high mileage cars than GM. And, even when compared to the foreign-owned operations, the most efficient car plants in the country belong to GM.



But GM does face a litany of vexing challenges. The company is saddled with outsized wages for current workers and sky-high health care costs for both current and former employees. With only a 25% share of the world auto market, GM’s eight car brands makes little sense. The company faces brutal competition from established rivals, and an emerging threat from Chinese car manufacturers. To add insult to injury, GM shares are trading at their lowest level since the early 1980s. The once unthinkable idea of bankruptcy has become very thinkable.



But the wheels really fall off for Wagoner when, in the article’s last paragraph, he tosses in the obligatory call for a “level playing field.” The term is cliché, but it is an extremely misleading one. The sports analogy implies that everyone should be required to play by the same rules; that all competitors should have approximately the same equipment for the contest. Who could object to that? Well, anyone who understands that this is simply not how the world works.



If Mr. Wagoner is interested in a level playing field, he should take up tennis, football or some other sport in which the rules of the game decree equal access to resources. Business is not that way. But for that matter, neither is sport. Does anyone believe that when Tiger Woods is playing his best golf any other golfer playing his best game will win? Were the 1980 Soviet and U.S. Olympic hockey teams equally matched? We don’t refer to the U.S. victory as a miracle just for the heck of it.



Mr. Wagoner knows there is no such thing as a truly level playing field. Each competitor has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Sam Walton wasn’t competing on a level playing field when Wal-Mart first went up against discount king K-Mart. Tiny Microwave Communications, Inc. (MCI) wasn’t in a fair fight in 1969 when it began to offer long distance telephone service between Chicago and St. Louis, putting it in competition with mighty AT&T. Would we better off if these and other challengers had insisted on waiting until the odds were evened out before taking on the established order?



When a business leader, politician or pundit calls for a 'level playing field', he or she is exposing either a startling ignorance of real world economics or, more likely, displaying a truly disingenuous attitude toward the facts. My home state of Indiana is at a terrible disadvantage to Hawaii in attracting tourists. Should Hoosiers insist that Uncle Sam provide a level playing field? We could limit the number of people who can go to Hawaii each year or make airlines charge more to fly people there. It sounds stupid, but then so do quotas and tariffs.



If a truly level playing field is set as a prerequisite before competition can begin the result will be an economy that resembles that of France: little innovation, stagnant wage growth and virtually no job creation… all on a very level playing field. This of course will lead to more calls for government intervention in the economy. Before long you’re enacting idiotic ideas like France’s mandatory 35-hour workweek in an a

 

[Tom Schindler]

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations, makes a much larger salary that I do as an E-6, but I don't begrudge him that salary. He has a helluva lot more responsibility than I do, and has to answer to his "stockholders", the American people as represented in the Congress.

Does he make 431 times the average Naval worker?

I think that the CEO's and management of Ford and GM have just misjudged the market over the last 25 years and severly misunderestimated the competition from Japan and Europe. And now, even the Korean car companies are nipping at their heels. And even China is poised to release cars in the U.S. soon.

I could not agree more. Also the CEO's of many companies chose not to invest properly into the retirement account, therefore, causing a deficit in the pension plan. They relied on the fact that they could take the money as they made it to pay the pension responsibilities.



People begrudge many union workers for having a pension plan. We need to remember, when you get a job, not only is your salary part of your compensation, but your benefits are too. You benefits are retirement plan, 401(k), insurance, time off, holidays, and any other perks such as an employee discount.



You could make $30.00/hr working for one company, but you choose to work somewhere else for $20.00/hr. That $20.00/hr job includes a retirement account, 401(k), insurance, 11 paid holidays, and 1 week of vacation. The $30.00/hr job does not include anything. You made your choice and took the $20.00/hr job because of the additional benefits it included.



30 years later, you are put down because you are stiull on the payroll because you were promised those incentives to work at a lower hourly pay. What is wrong with that picture?



The government themselves has alot to blame too. As you mentioned, the regulations such as OSHA, EPA, tax's, etc. are a huge burdon on a company. I am glad OSHA is here to keep us safe and the EPA is trying to keep the environment clean. It is still a burdon on the business.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

I agree with Tom that the CEOs and managers are way overpaid. That is obcene what they make.



I also agree that the Big 3 need to continue to trim models and build a core group of good, nicely-styled vehicles with excellent quality. That is how the Japanese and Korean automakers are cleaning our clocks. They do it by building high-quality vehicles with long warranties that are designs that customers want.



The UAW workers are just getting what they can get when they can get it. Soon, the market will squeeze them out and they will have to accept jobs working for the Japanese and Korean automakers who are very successful opening new plants in the US every year.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Gavin,



Put the Japanese and Korean automakers ahead in the future 40 years and let's see if they will be in any better position then the US Auto Makers are. The Korean and Japanese have new, young shops will little to no retirees. If they offer a retirement package, lets hope they are paying into it properly.



Social (in)Security is in the same boat. They paid out to people that did not deserve it and the funds are running a little lean. With the baby boomers starting to retire, it is going to be even worse.



Maybe it is the baby boomers fault. Yea, thats it, the baby boomers. Blame them.





Tom

 

[Johnny O]

I agree with Tom that the CEOs and managers are way overpaid. That is obcene what they make.

True, but I think it's also obscene that 12,000 UAW workers get paid $31 an hour to do nothing.

WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.

"We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat."

I need to tell my ex-wife about this so I don't have to pay her so much money every month. Better Ford or GM pay her to sit on her ass instead of me.

 

[TrainTrac]

Tom,

People begrudge many union workers for having a pension plan. We need to remember, when you get a job, not only is your salary part of your compensation, but your benefits are too. You benefits are retirement plan, 401(k), insurance, time off, holidays, and any other perks such as an employee discount.



You could make $30.00/hr working for one company, but you choose to work somewhere else for $20.00/hr. That $20.00/hr job includes a retirement account, 401(k), insurance, 11 paid holidays, and 1 week of vacation. The $30.00/hr job does not include anything. You made your choice and took the $20.00/hr job because of the additional benefits it included.

Since when did it became such an accepted standard that it was the employer's responsibility, not the individual employee's to be responsible for things like retirement or health care? It hasn't always been that way. When the union reps negotiate a contract that calls for the company to provide things like a pension plan and health insurance, those are huge costs incurred by the company. It costs them a ton of money just to manage those programs, rather than the individual workers having to be responsible for their own retirements and health care management. By taking the burden off of the individuals and placing it on the employer, that places a major financial burden on the employer when it's a company as large as GM or Ford. If they didn't have this, they could pay better salaries.



Imagine if, decades ago, this hadn't become an accepted practice. It seems like this was a bad move on the unions' part years ago. Look at what a mess the pensions and other benefits are in industries like the automotive and airline industries. And they're that way because workers relinquished responsibility and control over that aspect of their lives to someone else. Imagine that each individual worker was managing their own retirement and health care. GM and Ford might not be in the situation they're in right now. Then again, they still might be, because they could still be marketing products that can't compete as well.





It just seems like every time one of these discussions arises, union members jump on the party line: Corporations are evil, Suits/CEO's are bad, and the unions are never, ever part of the problem.

 

[TrainTrac]

BTW, the average CEO makes 431 times the average worker. 20 years ago, it was 40 times the average worker.

Where are you getting these figures from? And are you talking about salaries, or a combination of salaries and other compensation?



Some CEO's, such as Bill Ford for example, opted not to take any salary at all. They opt instead for a compensation package. That way, how much they make is tied directly to how the compay performs. I'd say that's a pretty good incentive.

 

[TomT]

I certainly don't dispute the fact that CEO's are way over paid and it really pisses me off when a company is having a bad year, such as american auto manufactures, and the top executives are still paid an inflated salary. I'm just saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When a company is failing, everyone needs to do their part to keep it together instead of just pointing fingers.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Train Trac,

Since when did it became such an accepted standard that it was the employer's responsibility, not the individual employee's to be responsible for things like retirement or health care?

Since employers put it as part of your compensation package. Once you make that part of my salary, then it is your responsibility. Pay me $20.00/hr with full benefits or pay me $30.00/hr with no benefits. Either way, I make the same money.



It is against the law to bait and switch prices, but it is legal for a company to pay you one thing and then drop half of it. Give me a break.



Competition. Employers know that if they do not offer other perks, they will not have any employees. So they must offer other things.



Union negotiated contracts are just that. They are negotiated benefits that fits the majority. Don't want to offer health care? Fine, pay me extra per hour and I will get my own. Dont want to give me a pension plan? No problem. Since my hourly rate is based with pension included, give me more per hour. I will make my own pension plan.



I know we would prefer, the union members at my place of employment, to not be part of the companies retirement fund. We would prefer to be on the Boilermakers pension plan. The company would have to give up control of our pension plan. They do not want to let that happen.



When an emplyer includes your benefits as part of your compensation package, then it becomes thier responsibility.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

While I don't agree with everything that Tom (Caymen) said, I do agree that Corporate CEO's are over paid. I also feel that the poor business decisions of these CEO's etc are creating the problems that lead to layoffs and plant closings.



Most of those issues lead back to the Corporate board of directors, and the share holders. As soon as the CFO annonces that the company will not be making as much profit in the quarter as originally projected, their stock value drops and the company starts contimplating layoffs. It's the greed and need for "Instant Gratification" that drives the economy.



It was not all that many years ago when good blue-chip stocks were held for 10 or 20 years because their growth was slow and steady, but reliable. Now if the company has a bad quarter, their stock is dumped immediately.



That has what has lead us to all the stock market scandals like Enron, and the .coms etc. It didn't matter if the company was doing good or bad, just as long as looked good on paper.

Most of the overnight jumps in the Oil prices are all based on speculators thinking there will be some oil shortage because some Arab farted! It's getting rediculous. I think there is a small group of powerfull investors who tend to control the stock market and shift the direction on a whim for their own profit.



...Rich