Ford set to close plants, cut jobs in revamp

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Train Trac, I can get you a few more if you want.



http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/



http://www.atsnn.com/story/167664.html



http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2335/



http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/alanreynolds/2005/12/15/179165.html





Tom
 
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.



You keep referring to the actions of the employers... Your statements give the impression that union officials are completely powerless in the contract negotiation process. I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended, but that's the way it appears. So it still gives the impression that your point of view is that it's all the employer's (specifically the suits/CEO's) fault when a company encounters fiscal difficulties, and that the union's actions had no impact whatsoever.



If you want to have a larger salary in lieu of a pension plan in order be able select your own pension plan and/or other benefit options, then shouldn't you be communicating this to the senior union officials that you empower to negotiate on your behalf? That's what you're paying their salaries for out of your union dues, right?



By the way, how much do senior union officials make? I don't know about your union or the UAW, but take the National Education Association (NEA) for example:



We already knew that the NEA's top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union's president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you're better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.



Do those union employees deserve a six-figure salary?:huh:



The fact of the matter is that decades ago, senior union officials sold the rank and file members on how great it would be for the employers to pay for pensions and other benefits such as health care, thereby relieving the members of personal responsibility of this aspect of their fates and lives. This in turn made the senior union officials look like saints in the eyes of the members, who continue to sell this snake oil to the members in order to retain their jobs and power.



It's sad that today more and more people are willing to relinquish control of aspects of their own lives, giving that responsibility to someone else in return for comfort and security.



Edit: Thanks for the info, Tom.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many times that was brought into negotiations. The company will not even discuss it. There is not anyone can do if 1/2 of the party will not negotiate on one thing, but everything else.



As for union officials getting paid too much. They might be, but then again, they are not making bad decisions for a big corporation. I, as a union member, decide on my contract. If I am not happy with it, I vote no. If more people are happy then those that arent, it passes. The Union execs do not make that decision for me. I make it.





Tom
 
Didn't Bill Ford miss I years salary because he was commited to building a solid foudation. Doesn't sound like corporate greed. Their are many cases but Ford isn't one of them. A union neighboor jokes about putting things together wrong because he hates the environment. He's a Ford employee and a idling plant. He also jokes about making 150K a year on the line for 29 years. Guess what, he doesn't drive own a Ford. All the kids drive Honda's and Toyota's.
 
OK, I read through all of the references you listed, Tom. From just the headlines alone, you can tell the direction all but Alan Reynolds' column are headed:



1. CEO pay: Sky high gets even higher

A new report shows top-dog pay bites shareholders, and alleges war profiteering among some CEOs.



2. Average CEO Now Receives 431 Times the Average Worker's Wage
(It should be noted that this isn't even a news article, it's a blog that references an excerpt from a news article. And, it's a blog on that's part of AboveTopSecret.com, which bill's itself as "The Internet's Most Popular Conspiracy Discussion Forum"---I'd say that makes it's credibilty suspect...)



3. Alls or Nothings

The U.S. class divide deepens under Bush



4. A phoney pay comparison



And this "study" was conducted by the research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies, which even CNN described as liberal in their article. "United for a Fair Economy"? That very name is anti-capitalist and free-market. The only type of "fair" economy is a Communist economy, and history has proven how successful they are/were.;) So it's pretty clear that this "study" was anti-capitialist, and designed to incite class warefare from the get-go. It even tries to compare CEO salaries and their rate of increase to the minimum wage!:huh: And it doesn't even give a clear-cut definition of the term "average worker". Just what is the salary of the "average worker" that they used to compare to a CEO's salary? If it's miminum wage, that was would make the study extremely slanted. Minimum wage was never something that was intended for a person to be able to make a living on long term support a family on anyway.



One of the articles even makes a reference to that good ole' tried and true example of corporate greed and government corruption, Halliburton:lol:



Only Alan Reynolds's column breaks down the study and the math to put the article in a little better perspective.



Many times that was brought into negotiations. The company will not even discuss it. There is not anyone can do if 1/2 of the party will not negotiate on one thing, but everything else.



As I said before, I didn't think you intended to give this impression, but you're still leading me to believe that unions bear no responsibility whatsoever when a company suffers and that they're powerless at the negotiating table, subject to whatever management offers. I thought the whole point of unions was "strength in numbers"... What happened to going on strike if you don't get what you want? Do the UAW and other unions employed by Ford and GM bear no responsibility at all for the state of those companies today? I'm not saying it's all the unions' fault, and I'm not saying it's all management's fault. I believe that all parties involved are to blame, and I'm just trying to understand all points of view.
 
Big Al,



Those are the scum bags that deserve to loose thier jobs. Most union employees do not feel that way.





Tom
 
Big Al,

Bill Ford giving up one years salary was probably a big tax break for him. If FoMoCo makes a profit he stands to make more money than his salary would have paid him, after all he is the Chairman of Ford not the CEO



...Rich
 
The problem with Ford and GM is that they have too much labor and retirement burden. That's a fact independently of what execs are ripping off. Both companies have employment banks which are costing them a bundle. The foreign companies do not have the retired union pension to burden them down as much. In the 70's and 80's the company management sold the future with the lucrative pension and benefit plans. They were rolling in money and morgaged the future. Well...the future is here.



It is difficult to make a competitive product when the labor costs and pension/retiree benefits soak up so much of the product price. The unions arechoking the golden goose and it is having a hard time breathing.
 
If the pension account was properly funded in the first place, they would not be in that situation either.



There is no choking going on. The retired members are only asking for what they were promised. Nothing more.



You tell me that if I work for you, when I retire you will pay me $500.00. We sign a deal. Year later when I retire, I did my part. I worked for you. It is not my fault you did not put $500.00 into a bank account to pay me when I retired.





Tom
 
As for union officials getting paid too much. They might be, but then again, they are not making bad decisions for a big corporation. I, as a union member, decide on my contract. If I am not happy with it, I vote no. If more people are happy then those that arent, it passes. The Union execs do not make that decision for me. I make it.



When UPS struck in the late 1990's, did Jim Hoffa Jr. loose any of his salary or benefits, paid for by Teamsters (of which, UPS makes up approx 40% of the membership)? nope. Did many of my unions brothers and sisters give up their salaries? You betcha. They did get a mininscule $50/week out the strike fund (compare that to nearly $1000/week in pay). That was a bad decision that lead to a lot of people switching from UPS to FedEx, Airbourne (now DHL), USPS, etc.



In the mid 90's, the MLBPU (Major League Basball Player's Union) struck, causing an early end to the season, no World Series, etc. causing cities to loose millions in tax revenue (used for just about everything) and causing inmeasurable harm to the public opinion of professional atheletes by the average joe.



In 1999, the American Airlines pilot's union had a "sick out". This caused all kinds of havoc in the air travel system as other carriers along with American struggled to get the paying customers from being stranded at their destinations. This also caused people like me (I was working for AA at the time) to wonder where our jobs were going to be going and if we were going to get paid. This caused undue heartache for thousands of passengers, union workers in other jobs and other AA employees.



Nope, the Unions are not making bad decisions for corporations.... hell no. The Unions and their "Leadership" are PERFECT LITTLE ANGELS.



Teamsters is a business. I reluctantly don't call it a corporation, because if it were a corporation, their stock would be classified in the "junk" category and they would be required to clean up their act. They are just as taxing as the IRS and OSHA on a business.



The MLBPU is a business. They set minimum salary. They set minimum standards the owners must adhere to in travel (ie what categoy hotel the players stay at, what MLB and the owners can punish for etc). They are just as taxing as the IRS and the FCC.



The ALPA (Air Line Pilots Association) are a criminal organization, as stated by the judge ruling on the sickout and other issues the Union has initiated. They are as taxing as the IRS and the NTSB are.



 
Caymen, I think you misunderstood the meaning of my statements. I am not blaming the unions for wanting what was promised. They deserve that. My statement was to infer that the company sold the future and now is paying for it. The companies can no longer sustain the labor overhead that they got themselves into.
 
Another take on Ford's situation that discusses a combination of reasons for their dire straits:



Tuesday -- January 24, 2006



WHAT COULD HAVE SAVED 30,000 JOBS?



The news from Ford Motor Company's CEO hit hard across the country yesterday. Ford is going to cut from 25,000 to 30,000 jobs and will close 14 Ford plants over the next six years. The plant in Atlanta is one of those that will close. This is going to hurt a lot of people. That's sad. It's also sad that this could have been prevented.



Blame can be spread, though not equally shared, to Ford management, the workers and the federal government. No doubt management made mistakes in design, innovation and marketing. The workers made mistakes because they forgot who was actually providing them with paychecks, and the federal government takes a huge share of the blame for our punishing corporate tax code.



Let's talk unions for a moment. I saw some clips on TV this morning from plant workers who were understandably upset over losing their jobs. One woman was saying that Ford gave her everything she had. It wasn't a gift, she worked for it. Another woman was saying that McDonalds just can't absorb all these workers. How's that for ignorance? She actually thinks that those are the choices? Build cars for Ford or flip burgers? There's a woman whose knowledge of the job market is practically nonexistent. The fact is, however, that the United Auto Workers have played a huge role in making Ford and other American auto manufacturers non-competitive in the worldwide automobile market.



Have you been around a major union auto plant lately? Look at the bumper stickers on the cars. You'll see many more bumper stickers that say "UAW" than you will that say "Ford." Watch the workers as they arrive or leave on a chilly day. They're wearing UAW jackets, not Ford or Chevy jackets. Many of these people have far more loyalty to their union than they do to the company that is actually writing their paychecks. The financial burden that has been on these automakers by inflated union contracts has been crippling. Many years ago the UAW developed a game plan for bleeding the automakers dry. They would pick one of the big-three, either Ford, Chrysler or General Motors. They would then hit the target automaker with a demand for huge pay and benefit increases. That automaker would balk, and the UAW would go out on strike. Finally, after huge loses, the automaker would cave. A new contract would be signed, and the unions would then force that contract on the other automakers. Over the years these contracts created a burden on the automakers that could not be sustained. In some cases these automakers can't even lay off employees without having to continue their paychecks years into the future.



Now .. the government. Do not for one moment discount the effect our onerous tax code has on companies like Ford The United States has perhaps the most crushing tax burden of any major player in the industrialized world. Our politicians, eager for money to spend on vote-buying programs, long ago figured out that they could hide the tax burden of the American working man and woman behind the illusion of corporate taxes. These politicians would play on the economic ignorance of the American people -- an ignorance fostered by our system of government education -- by pretending to shift a good portion of the tax burden from the people to those evil, greedy corporations. Some Americans are waking up to this ruse. More Americans have now learned that these corporations don't actually pay taxes, they merely collect the taxes from their customers, their shareholders and their employees and pass them off to the government.



Several years ago Chrysler Corporation merged with Daimler Benz. After the merger was announced the bean counters and lawyers started to work out the details. One detail would be just wh
 
Top