Ford workers vote on strike
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Ford workers vote on strike
Less than two weeks after UAW workers rejected modifications to a national labor contract with Ford Motor, workers in Claycomo, Mo., are voting to authorize a strike.
Voting began Thursday at UAW Local 249 and is expected to conclude Saturday.
"This doesn't mean we are going on strike," said UAW Local 249 President Jeff Wright. "This is just one step in the process. We are continuing to talk with Ford."
UAW Local 249 represents 3,737 workers who build the F-150 pickup and the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner SUVs at Ford's Kansas City Assembly Plant.
Wright said Ford is in the middle of rebalancing production at the plant, a process that typically occurs annually. During a rebalancing, job requirements are adjusted. But the rebalancing isn't going well. The number of disciplinary actions at the plant has increased and workers are concerned about job cuts.
"They are getting more efficient," Wright said. "We want the work loads to be fair and equitable."
Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans said members of Ford's management team and national UAW representatives were at the plant Thursday.
"Ford is currently working jointly with the union to address the concerns that have been raised," Evans said.
The strike authorization vote gives the UAW leadership the ability to call a strike, but that does not mean a strike will occur. It has been more than 20 years since a strike authorization vote has resulted in a work stoppage, according to Ford.
"On the other hand, I think it's a strong sign of frustration, and this is the second recent sign of frustration," said Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "They can't understand why they have to give up more from a company that continues to do better."
On Nov. 2, Ford reported a third-quarter profit of $997 million, beating Wall Street's expectations. That same day, the UAW announced that 70% of production workers and 75% of skilled-trades workers had voted to reject changes to Ford's national labor contract.
The proposal included a clause that would have required binding arbitration, or a no-strike clause, for matters related to wage and benefit improvements, as well as several other provisions.
Opposition to the national contract was strong at UAW Local 249, where 92% voted no. At the time, Wright said workers at the Kansas City Assembly plant voted against the national contract changes in part because they were frustrated with the changes Ford was pushing for at the plant.
Voting began Thursday at UAW Local 249 and is expected to conclude Saturday.
"This doesn't mean we are going on strike," said UAW Local 249 President Jeff Wright. "This is just one step in the process. We are continuing to talk with Ford."
UAW Local 249 represents 3,737 workers who build the F-150 pickup and the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner SUVs at Ford's Kansas City Assembly Plant.
Wright said Ford is in the middle of rebalancing production at the plant, a process that typically occurs annually. During a rebalancing, job requirements are adjusted. But the rebalancing isn't going well. The number of disciplinary actions at the plant has increased and workers are concerned about job cuts.
"They are getting more efficient," Wright said. "We want the work loads to be fair and equitable."
Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans said members of Ford's management team and national UAW representatives were at the plant Thursday.
"Ford is currently working jointly with the union to address the concerns that have been raised," Evans said.
The strike authorization vote gives the UAW leadership the ability to call a strike, but that does not mean a strike will occur. It has been more than 20 years since a strike authorization vote has resulted in a work stoppage, according to Ford.
"On the other hand, I think it's a strong sign of frustration, and this is the second recent sign of frustration," said Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "They can't understand why they have to give up more from a company that continues to do better."
On Nov. 2, Ford reported a third-quarter profit of $997 million, beating Wall Street's expectations. That same day, the UAW announced that 70% of production workers and 75% of skilled-trades workers had voted to reject changes to Ford's national labor contract.
The proposal included a clause that would have required binding arbitration, or a no-strike clause, for matters related to wage and benefit improvements, as well as several other provisions.
Opposition to the national contract was strong at UAW Local 249, where 92% voted no. At the time, Wright said workers at the Kansas City Assembly plant voted against the national contract changes in part because they were frustrated with the changes Ford was pushing for at the plant.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 940
From: Southern Indiana
I hope they strike and Ford closes the plant. **** 'em. They are trying to screw over the only major American car company that has thus far made it without bankruptcy by making the cars cost more than the rivals. This is exactly what the import non-union companies did to the big 3...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 957
From: Berkley, MI
No one said they were asking for a 'fair cut' of the profits. The union is disappointed with Fords request that they be singled into making sacrifices that have traditional been taken by all employees in an organization during the period when the company is not meeting expectations. Now that Ford is making a profit, it takes a lot of gull for them to be asking someone to make more sacrifices. Had they asked earlier this year, the story would have been different however they are a day late and a dollar short.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 940
From: Southern Indiana
No one said they were asking for a 'fair cut' of the profits. The union is disappointed with Fords request that they be singled into making sacrifices that have traditional been taken by all employees in an organization during the period when the company is not meeting expectations. Now that Ford is making a profit, it takes a lot of gull for them to be asking someone to make more sacrifices. Had they asked earlier this year, the story would have been different however they are a day late and a dollar short.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
(2) Ford is at a worse position than GM and Ford because their debt was never "wiped clean". Their position continues to be perilous.
Ford may have been able to a show a "profit" by means of bringing in more money than is spent on a short term basis - but the company is still billions and billions in debt. This "profit" is already long since gone and spent. There isn't any more money for workers at this point in time. Anyone high up in the company or just paying attention to the details realizes that "profit" nonsense was all about trying to get the general populace to get more faith in the company.
AND Ford wants similar deals to GM and Chrysler- which from a competitive and fair point of view I can understand why they want it.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,503
From: BFE, Ohio
Registered User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,738
From: Charleston, SC
I wonder if the rest of the country understands the dislike fo Unions?
Being in airline stuff and some recent job fair stuff, alot of things were brought up about Boeing. They have had Union issues I think one strike cost them billions, and delayed the start of 2 new airlines do to their strike.
They are now opening a new plant in South Carolina, even though based out of Seattle. Some talk is because there are not really unions in SC.
Funny thing is being in a school that has people from all over the country, but alot of the southeast. Some people didn't want anything to do with Boeing because they did not want anything to do with Unions. I see where they are coming from but common thing brought up.... "I don't want some lazy ****s taking a chunk of my paycheck then telling me if I should be working or not in tough economic times"
First time I really saw people NOT want a job due to Unions.
Being in airline stuff and some recent job fair stuff, alot of things were brought up about Boeing. They have had Union issues I think one strike cost them billions, and delayed the start of 2 new airlines do to their strike.
They are now opening a new plant in South Carolina, even though based out of Seattle. Some talk is because there are not really unions in SC.
Funny thing is being in a school that has people from all over the country, but alot of the southeast. Some people didn't want anything to do with Boeing because they did not want anything to do with Unions. I see where they are coming from but common thing brought up.... "I don't want some lazy ****s taking a chunk of my paycheck then telling me if I should be working or not in tough economic times"
First time I really saw people NOT want a job due to Unions.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,688
From: Middle of Kansas
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Funny thing is being in a school that has people from all over the country, but alot of the southeast. Some people didn't want anything to do with Boeing because they did not want anything to do with Unions. I see where they are coming from but common thing brought up.... "I don't want some lazy ****s taking a chunk of my paycheck then telling me if I should be working or not in tough economic times"
First time I really saw people NOT want a job due to Unions.
First time I really saw people NOT want a job due to Unions.
Which is pretty funny since the sterotype for the south is pretty much summed up by Peter Griffin when he said "Isn't that the place where lazy white guys complain about lazing black guys not doing any work" or something along those lines
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 242
From: Newton, KS
man, unions do good for people, but they can also do just as much bad.
I work in the aircraft industry, while its worlds different than the auto industry, we both have large unions.
if not for the unions we'd make nowhere NEAR what we make now, say good by to the great benifits/vacation time we get.
but at the same time, the union tends to push their members into thinking they deserve more than what they currently get, which is sometimes true.
personally i would elect to have a pay freeze, but if the managment see a bonus in their checks, i damn well better too. the upper managment doesnt do ALL the work to keep a company afloat. you gotta reward the people who take time away from their families to reach the goals set by management, fair is fair.
I work in the aircraft industry, while its worlds different than the auto industry, we both have large unions.
if not for the unions we'd make nowhere NEAR what we make now, say good by to the great benifits/vacation time we get.
but at the same time, the union tends to push their members into thinking they deserve more than what they currently get, which is sometimes true.
personally i would elect to have a pay freeze, but if the managment see a bonus in their checks, i damn well better too. the upper managment doesnt do ALL the work to keep a company afloat. you gotta reward the people who take time away from their families to reach the goals set by management, fair is fair.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
So many points to answer.
(1) Ford isn't showing a profit.
Don't watch very much news, do we? Ford made a pre-tax operating profit of $1.1 billion the last quarter.
(2) Ford is at a worse position than GM and Ford because their debt was never "wiped clean".
Basically not much more than a myth. Fact is that while the majority of GM's debt wound up left behind with the old GM (which became the Motors Liquidation Company), given a choice where GM is at and where Ford is at debtwise, Ford's in a much better position. While GM holds a $6.7 billion loan from the taxpayer, the Feds kicked in $50 billion to own 61% of General Motors(http://www.financialstability.gov/im...nsactions.html) which is intended to be repayed when the Government starts selling off it's shares. Meanwhile, Ford is still fully owned by the Ford family and it's investors. Ford is the only US based car company that can borrow money (GM is cut off from any additional loans from the Feds, and is incapable of gaining loans from the civilian sector as long as the Feds own it). The economy tanks before the auto world gains traction, GM is a goner. Ford, on the other hand, still has the potential of borrowing.
Their position continues to be perilous.
True. But Ford has alot going their way. Ford is first out the gate with revamping their entire product line & quality is better than the Japanese, the large debt that Ford has is long term debt (what sunk GM was large short term debt and absolutely massive liabilities) while Ford's short term debt is now 15 billion and has NO current liabilities (GM had $63B in liabilities in April... while the new GM currently has NO real liabilites and just under 7 billion in short term debt). Ford is currently worth at least 5 times what GM is worth, and that stock increase made their assets more valuable... the more valuable the company and it's assets become, the more debt they can either renegotiate or convert to stocks therefore erasing much of their long term debt by growing in value instead of handing over cash (which, infact a large part of Ford's plan...using increased company value to pay off a sizable portion of their long term debt).
Ford may have been able to a show a "profit" by means of bringing in more money than is spent on a short term basis - but the company is still billions and billions in debt. This "profit" is already long since gone and spent. There isn't any more money for workers at this point in time. Anyone high up in the company or just paying attention to the details realizes that "profit" nonsense was all about trying to get the general populace to get more faith in the company.
Utter nonsense.
Imagine you buying a home right now (say at an auction price). while you are working a good paying job. You are making more money than what you spend and what your bills (including your house payment) are.... that means you are making money. That's what profit is.
It's unrelated to your bills as long as you're making payments on time. If you got a 30 year loan on your house, you aren't going to say every bit of money you make on the job till it's payed off is spoken for if you're putting chunks of it away in your bank account.
Now, in your spare time, you make improvements in the house. You're increasing the value of your house. The housing market rebounds, and the value of your house bounds even higher. When your assets becomes far more valuable than the loans on it not only does your debt as a percentage drops, but then you have a whole list of potential options on how to "renegotiate" that debt including part ownership (stocks) that might be worth the same or more than the cash owed while no money need to exchange hands, and the seller gets out spending far less than what the debt was originally worth.
AND Ford wants similar deals to GM and Chrysler- which from a competitive and fair point of view I can understand why they want it.
Ford DOES NOT want or is trying to get the same labor deals GM and Chrysler has. The reason why Ford wants to reopen and renegotiate contracts is to improve rules, efficiency, and flexability. While GM and Chrysler forced the UAW into some gut wrenching pay and benefit cuts, Ford's focus is on "No Strike" clauses, more flexability in manning (ie: hiring Temps, layoffs, job descriptions, etc...), not pay cuts. Ford took care of labor costs when they wiped out a massive number (roughly 50% of their entire workforce by the time the dust settled!) of both white and blue collar workers nearly 2 years ago when they initated worker buyouts. By the time GM and Chrysler wound up in court, Ford was (by huge margin) the US car maker that had the best handle on their labor costs and efficiency.
Don't watch very much news, do we? Ford made a pre-tax operating profit of $1.1 billion the last quarter.
(2) Ford is at a worse position than GM and Ford because their debt was never "wiped clean".
Basically not much more than a myth. Fact is that while the majority of GM's debt wound up left behind with the old GM (which became the Motors Liquidation Company), given a choice where GM is at and where Ford is at debtwise, Ford's in a much better position. While GM holds a $6.7 billion loan from the taxpayer, the Feds kicked in $50 billion to own 61% of General Motors(http://www.financialstability.gov/im...nsactions.html) which is intended to be repayed when the Government starts selling off it's shares. Meanwhile, Ford is still fully owned by the Ford family and it's investors. Ford is the only US based car company that can borrow money (GM is cut off from any additional loans from the Feds, and is incapable of gaining loans from the civilian sector as long as the Feds own it). The economy tanks before the auto world gains traction, GM is a goner. Ford, on the other hand, still has the potential of borrowing.
Their position continues to be perilous.
True. But Ford has alot going their way. Ford is first out the gate with revamping their entire product line & quality is better than the Japanese, the large debt that Ford has is long term debt (what sunk GM was large short term debt and absolutely massive liabilities) while Ford's short term debt is now 15 billion and has NO current liabilities (GM had $63B in liabilities in April... while the new GM currently has NO real liabilites and just under 7 billion in short term debt). Ford is currently worth at least 5 times what GM is worth, and that stock increase made their assets more valuable... the more valuable the company and it's assets become, the more debt they can either renegotiate or convert to stocks therefore erasing much of their long term debt by growing in value instead of handing over cash (which, infact a large part of Ford's plan...using increased company value to pay off a sizable portion of their long term debt).
Ford may have been able to a show a "profit" by means of bringing in more money than is spent on a short term basis - but the company is still billions and billions in debt. This "profit" is already long since gone and spent. There isn't any more money for workers at this point in time. Anyone high up in the company or just paying attention to the details realizes that "profit" nonsense was all about trying to get the general populace to get more faith in the company.
Utter nonsense.
Imagine you buying a home right now (say at an auction price). while you are working a good paying job. You are making more money than what you spend and what your bills (including your house payment) are.... that means you are making money. That's what profit is.
It's unrelated to your bills as long as you're making payments on time. If you got a 30 year loan on your house, you aren't going to say every bit of money you make on the job till it's payed off is spoken for if you're putting chunks of it away in your bank account.
Now, in your spare time, you make improvements in the house. You're increasing the value of your house. The housing market rebounds, and the value of your house bounds even higher. When your assets becomes far more valuable than the loans on it not only does your debt as a percentage drops, but then you have a whole list of potential options on how to "renegotiate" that debt including part ownership (stocks) that might be worth the same or more than the cash owed while no money need to exchange hands, and the seller gets out spending far less than what the debt was originally worth.
AND Ford wants similar deals to GM and Chrysler- which from a competitive and fair point of view I can understand why they want it.
Ford DOES NOT want or is trying to get the same labor deals GM and Chrysler has. The reason why Ford wants to reopen and renegotiate contracts is to improve rules, efficiency, and flexability. While GM and Chrysler forced the UAW into some gut wrenching pay and benefit cuts, Ford's focus is on "No Strike" clauses, more flexability in manning (ie: hiring Temps, layoffs, job descriptions, etc...), not pay cuts. Ford took care of labor costs when they wiped out a massive number (roughly 50% of their entire workforce by the time the dust settled!) of both white and blue collar workers nearly 2 years ago when they initated worker buyouts. By the time GM and Chrysler wound up in court, Ford was (by huge margin) the US car maker that had the best handle on their labor costs and efficiency.
Last edited by guionM; Nov 16, 2009 at 02:18 AM.
Registered User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 210
From: Cincinnati, OH
(1) Ford isn't showing a profit.
(2) Ford is at a worse position than GM and Ford because their debt was never "wiped clean". Their position continues to be perilous.
Ford may have been able to a show a "profit" by means of bringing in more money than is spent on a short term basis - but the company is still billions and billions in debt. This "profit" is already long since gone and spent. There isn't any more money for workers at this point in time. Anyone high up in the company or just paying attention to the details realizes that "profit" nonsense was all about trying to get the general populace to get more faith in the company.
AND Ford wants similar deals to GM and Chrysler- which from a competitive and fair point of view I can understand why they want it.
(2) Ford is at a worse position than GM and Ford because their debt was never "wiped clean". Their position continues to be perilous.
Ford may have been able to a show a "profit" by means of bringing in more money than is spent on a short term basis - but the company is still billions and billions in debt. This "profit" is already long since gone and spent. There isn't any more money for workers at this point in time. Anyone high up in the company or just paying attention to the details realizes that "profit" nonsense was all about trying to get the general populace to get more faith in the company.
AND Ford wants similar deals to GM and Chrysler- which from a competitive and fair point of view I can understand why they want it.
Please google Accounting 101.