UAW Has Ford in its Sights

Status
Not open for further replies.

tbone

New member
UAW Has Ford in its Sights

"If they don't restore everything [union workers] gave up, the membership is going to knock it down. The bonuses that were just announced are just ridiculous."
-- Bill Johnson, leader of the United Auto Workers Local 900 at the Ford Focus plant in Wayne, Mich., talking to UPI.

The United Auto Workers now has an ownership stake in two of America’s Big Three automakers, and at union’s meeting in Detroit this week to discuss the pending expiration of the industry-wide contract there is little love being heard for the third member. Ford’s Blue Oval is looking more like a bull’s-eye these days.
The Obama administration inserted no-strike clauses into the labor contracts of GM and Chrysler during the 2009 government takeover and reorganization of the bankrupt carmakers. As part of the bailout package, the unions agreed not to go on strike against the companies when the current contract expires.
But since Ford remained an independent company, it has no such protection.
All three automakers won considerable concessions from the unions when the current contract was negotiated three years ago – shifting bonus payments to cover reducing the starting wage for new workers and freezing wages at the $28-per-hour average for existing employees.
Under those terms and with a series of sales successes like its new Explorer, Ford has roared back to profitability. Despite carrying massive debt that its competitors saw wiped out as part of the Obama-UAW deal, Ford has been a marked success story.
The union, though, is moving this week toward the end of all of the givebacks in the previous contract and the restoration of the wages and benefits deemed unaffordable before. Citing executive pay and growing profits, labor leaders are particularly angry at Ford’s success.
This sets up some interesting questions: Can a union that partially owns two car companies shut down a competitor without violating anti-trust laws? Can a federal government that is in partnership with the union in owning two car companies be trusted to resolve a dispute at a competitor’s operations?
And the biggest question of all: can Ford endure a strike without following its competitors into bankruptcy and federal control?


When will the unions ever learn their lesson and leave a profitable, job producing company alone? They won't be happy until Ford is ruined too and under their thumb. Unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
If Ford was smart they would start automating everything.

It'll probably be another 100 years before robots can strike.
 
The best thing that happened to the UAW was the Nationalization of GM and Chrysler.

The UAW will try to get Ford Nationalized.
 
The best thing that happened to the UAW was the Nationalization of GM and Chrysler.

The UAW will try to get Ford Nationalized.

"Nationalizing" . . .

I guess that's one way of putting it.


I'm not against unions as a way to protect abuse of workers and unfair pay, but I'm against unions that use their muscle to get unrealistic benefits and the union members that abuse the system.
 
...And people blame the businesses that move their operations overseas...

Mullaly should hire Gov Chris Christie to negotiate with the unions.
 
From Wikki -"Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the process of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated by or owned by the state.
The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of 'state socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people or working class to allow for rational allocation of output, consolidation of resources, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of distributing output to benefit the public at large, and a means for providing public finance."
 
...And people blame the businesses that move their operations overseas...

Mullaly should hire Gov Chris Christie to negotiate with the unions.

The blame falls with the managers who were solely interested in their short term stock options and what affect a strike would have. Good Management would have not signed off on what the UAW asked for.
 
I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.
 
I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.


Executives are paid to perform - if they don't they get canned.

Union workers are the opposite. (overpaid and impossible to fire)

If you are good prove it. (Executives can - UAW doesn't have to)
 
I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

However in this instance, and I may be wrong, the union gave up nothing for Ford. Ford did not ask, want, or receive a bail out, and now that they can get a cush deal with GM and Chrysler, ofcourse they'll try and put the screws to Ford.

There have been times were unions were a necessity, especially to protect fair pay and labor rights. But with the litigious society we live in today, and the politically correct world, there are plenty of aveneues to pursue workers rights and Fair pay, which makes unions just another racket. They collect your money as "dues" and then occassionally launch a strike for what? More Money.

Imagine being a small business owner, say in a lumber store, and you want to start delivering throughout the state to increase your footprint. So you hire a driver, offering $14/hr plus vehicle expenses.

Oh but wait, you have to get a teamster driver which means you now need to sign a union contract. And in that contract it will require you to have a driver, and a ride along supervisor. Per their contract, they will unload the truck, but will move the lumber no where but the dock. If it is home delivery it will ahve to be left at the curb. Of course now you'll need to hire a laborer to move the lumber off the dock, and since it's a union dock you will have to pay an 8 hr minimum.

Oh and by the way, the driver you hired at $14, well the union is going to take care of his benefits (an additional 36%) and his pension and vacation (an additional 7%) and that driver will now cost $23 hr. Oh, you need him to start at 6am? well for any hours worked between 12a and 8a, it's double time, so for the first 2 hours, gotta pay him $46/hr, and don't forget about his ride along supervisor, as a Supervisor, he makes $3 mor an hour.

And now, as a small business owner, you can't afford delivery, making it more difficult to grow your business.

PS, Actual situation listed above, some things have been changed to protect the innocent, but I lived a situation very similar.

Unions did a lot of good back in the day, but their day of being good mostly is done. Lone exception might be in construction in order to protect fair bid practices.
 
Last edited:
I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

Do you know what bonuses Ford is currently giving out that are so "reprehensible"?
 
I know what you guys are saying here but I can't fault the UAW here for trying to get back what they gave up for their members. When executives are giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses I think there should be enough pie to feed everyone at the table.

So because a company is successful, the unions need to reach into that companys pockets and get more money for the "workers"?
 
The blame falls with the managers who were solely interested in their short term stock options and what affect a strike would have. Good Management would have not signed off on what the UAW asked for.

Bingo!! Like 25 years ago. When times were good was the time for managemnt to say no. Now, we get to bail them out of their mess. I have no beef with Ford paying out whatever they want to whomever they choose. They didn't take my money "un-voluntarily."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top