Ford Workers Reject Contract changes

Ford Workers Reject Contract changes

formatting link
DETROIT ? Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs, leaving Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues its struggle to return to profitability.

The United Auto Workers union had given local unions until Monday to complete voting. But a person briefed on the voting said Saturday that the contract changes have been rejected by large margins. The person asked not to be named because the UAW hasn't announced the results yet.

The UAW and Ford agreed to the contract changes several weeks ago, but Ford workers needed to ratify them. Ford has 41,000 UAW-represented workers.

Two large union locals in Kentucky and Ford's home city of Dearborn rejected the contract Friday, sealing its fate. Those unions together represent 13,000 Ford workers. Exact tallies weren't available, but at least 12 UAW locals representing about 27,500 workers so far have vetoed the deal, many overwhelmingly. Only about four locals with a total of

7,000 members favored the pact.

Ford sought the deal to bring its labor costs in line with Detroit rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co., both of which won concessions from the union as they headed into bankruptcy protection earlier this year. Under pattern bargaining, the three automakers usually match pay, benefits and other contract provisions.

But workers weren't convinced they should make more concessions, since Ford avoided bankruptcy and is considered healthier than its rivals. At least two Wall Street analysts are predicting that Ford could report a profit Monday when it announces third-quarter earnings.

Rocky Comito, president of UAW Local 862 in Louisville, said Friday that workers felt they were being asked to sacrifice more than the company's executives. Ford CEO Alan Mulally made $17.7 million last year, although that was down 22 percent from the year before.

"Some want to see management give more at the upper level," Comito said. Story continues below

Ford was offering workers a $1,000 bonus if they ratified the contract. But the contract also would have frozen entry-level pay, changed some work rules and limited workers' ability to strike.

A message seeking comment was left Saturday for the UAW. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said Friday that there wouldn't be a revote if the contract changes failed.

"If it fails, there would be no reason to go back to the bargaining table," Gettelfinger said at a community event in Detroit. "We have a democratic process in place. People have a right to express themselves. We recognize there's a lot of misinformation about it out there, but that is what it is."

Factory-level union leaders have known for several days that the deal would be defeated, said one Detroit-area official who asked not to be identified because the voting is not completed.

The union did a poor job of explaining the need to preserve jobs and keep Ford competitive with GM and Chrysler, the official said.

He doesn't believe members will approve any more changes until the 2011 contract, which will leave Ford at a disadvantage and has the potential to knock the company from its position as the strongest financially of the Detroit Three.

"Our goal should be to keep Ford Motor Co. going in the right direction," he said.

Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., said the vote was a slap to UAW leadership. It's extremely rare for union members to oppose the union's recommended vote.

Chaison said the vote damages the reputation of UAW Vice President Bob King, the chief Ford negotiator, who has been mentioned as a successor to Gettelfinger when the union elects a new president in 2010.

"The sign of a good leader is that you can agree to something and then sell it to the membership," Chaison said.

Chaison said Ford asked for too much too soon after workers already agreed to concessions earlier this year. He also said Ford lacked credibility because its financial situation wasn't as dire as GM's or Chrysler's.

"They made such a strong case about not going to bankruptcy court and turning the corner, so they couldn't go to the workers and say, 'We need this to turn the corner,'" he said.

The no votes came even as Ford reached a similar cost-cutting agreement with the Canadian Auto Workers union Friday. The CAW has agreed to cuts in benefits in exchange for product guarantees, but that agreement must be ratified by Canadian workers.

In addition to the plants in Louisville and Dearborn, workers at factories in Chicago; Claycomo, Mo.; and Livonia, Plymouth, Sterling Heights, Flat Rock, Ypsilanti Township, Mich., rejected the deal. Locals in Wayne, Mich.; Cleveland; Indianapolis and St. Paul, Minn., voted in favor.

Reply to
Jim_Higgins
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
>

Solution is pretty easy. Start going offshore and closing plants.

Let the hammer fall on a couple of more militaristic plants to demonstrate. Shouldn't take too long to ge the point across.

I don't know why they even try to run domestic plants. Makes no sense, too costly and too much nanny hand holding. I hear Ford Brazil can make econo vehicle for 1/2 price, tell them to ramp up.

Reply to
Canuck57

formatting link
>>

Ford will start moving offshore and GM will match them. Chrysler doesn't count for anything anymore.

Reply to
Jim_Higgins

Perhaps the UAW noticed what happened to the American steel workers. The USW Union agreed to big wage and benefits cut several times, but the steel companies still when bankrupt.

Competition from foreign steel companies, that received huge supplements from their governments and over regulation buy the US government, drove the US companies into bankruptcy. It made no difference what the Union did to help the companies stay in business and save American jobs.

All one need do is look back at what happened to our manufacturing base after the EPA was enacted. in effect we "EXPORTED" our pollution and our jobs along with it.

Now Bo and the Dims in Congress want to enact a carbon tax, to save the world, that will export the rest of the jobs of you children and grand children.

formatting link

Reply to
Mike Hunter

But, but, but will you be able to afford to buy one on your McDonalds salary, or will you continue to buy the used cars you buy that someone else no longer wanted? ;)

formatting link
>> DETROIT ? Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract >> changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs, leaving >> Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues its struggle >> to return to profitability.>>

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Agreed. The auto workers could give up all benefits, work for free, and Ford / GM / would still manage to squander any benefit derived by the elimination of labor expense.

Reply to
Michael Golden

LOL. You wish. But I did once a long time ago start out with a job that was at the social/pay status of McDonnalds, good learning experience. Today I could buy a franchise if I wanted too.

If you think like a GM or a union slug on the dole, that is all you will become.

formatting link
>>> DETROIT ? Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract >>> changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs, leaving >>> Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues its struggle >>> to return to profitability.>>>

Reply to
Canuck57

Literally millions of people buy cars and pay for repairs with a salary from McDonalds, WalMart, and Taco Bell.

These may not be the people who by Avalanches and Lucernes and suchlike, but they are the very bedrock of the American working environment.

Reply to
hls

Ford is reporting a profit as we speak, but you are correct in that labor costs are not necessarily reflected in the amount of profit an auto makers earns.

Toyota pays it employees in the US lower wages, offers less desirable benefits and does not offer a defined pension plan, yet their cars cost the customer 20% to 30% more to drive home than comparably sized and equipped domestics. Even with that Toyota has been operation at a lose for almost a year.

A companies profits are a result of its economies of scale.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I guess we can assume you have no idea what it would cost to buy a dealership. LOL

formatting link
>>>> DETROIT ? Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract >>>> changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs, >>>> leaving Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues >>>> its struggle to return to profitability.>>>>

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Perhaps but if the do they need a 72 month 26% interest contract, from a finance company to do so. Wal-Mart pays a lot more than minimum wage however, generally twice that amount.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

As one would suspect, you do not know what you are talking about, again. The USW were taking cuts since 1985, years or more before the US government forced the steel companies out of business..

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Agreed. And it is unfair that Obama will eventually saddle them with the huge bailout-debt-spend-corruption going on. I don't see how these workers were responsible for GMs demise, and don't see why non-auto now has part of their taxes going to corrupt corporations of America.

Hopefully fewer of them will vot for the likes of BO in the future.

Reply to
Canuck57

Who would want one? I like investments that return cash back to daddy.

The price is what people are willing to pay. Nothing more or less.

While 3 years ago a dealership might have fetched millions, today they can find buyers.

Reply to
Canuck57

Nope, that is inferance by bullshit.

People working at Toyota have more jobs left and 98% of Americans don't have to support them likes of GM. Toyota contributes to the society around it. GM pricing is low because of brand damage, corporate welfare, its paracitical nature and crappy quality.

Toyota during good time paid down debt, GM on the other hand stiffs people who lend them money or sell them parts. Toyota looses a small faction compared to GM which gushes loses.

If you were a supplier, had $10M in parts, 1/2 good parts and 1/2 fair parts. And GM and Toyota came to buy them, would you send the good parts to GM after they shafted you on paying for parts in bankruptcy? Hell no, GM is a second rate customer after screwing so many. Good customers that pay their bills get good parts.

Reply to
Canuck57

The US governemnt didn't force any steel company out of business. Crappy corporate management, corrupt old boys club boards and militant unions drove them into the ground.

Because while everyone was blood sucking the companies in question, the foreigners were building modern more efficient steel making plants and blew he US out of the water. They could make it faster, better, cheaper and just crushed the larders. There was even a point were US makers couldn't make what the market wanted because their plant and equipment was far too old. They could raise the salaries and they were paying big bonuses and big salaries but were not making money.

So down they went. No loss, didn't cost the US taxpayer like GM is costing them.

Reply to
Canuck57

But, but, but, GM still out sells Toyota in the US. Apparently your opinion is still that of a minority.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

You obviously do not know much about the subjects on which you choose to comment do you? Indeed counties like Germany, India and China have steel mills that are more modern than most in the US. The American taxpayer built them in those countries for them after WWII under the Marshal Plan, dummy.

In the mean time US steel companies had to settle with the mills they built after WWI because of the overly restrictive and burdensome EPA regulations were eating up most of their capital to clean up the WW1 equipment they were using. Bethlehem Steel Company alone spent a half BILLON dollars in 1974, on non-productive equipment required by the EPA. That wasted money caused BSCO a delay of ten years in building its first BOF.

As with automobiles, if the government had allowed enough time to install the newer BOF furnaces and Continuous caster that were developed in the US, rather than setting days certain to meet the regulations, they could easily have competed with the government subsidized foreign companies.

As it was the BOF furnaces and Continuous Caster technology was sold off to foreign manufactures to get the capital they need to try to clean up 75 year old technology. As with autos, if the government had allowed the engineering to catch up the technology we would have had the safe fuel efficient vehicles we have today, ten to fifteen year sooner, as well as the clean more efficient ways to make steel, dummy

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Greedy UAW workers shoot themselves selves in their fetid feet!

Would someone please inform these uneducated, low-skilled buffoons that the days of union strikes are over?

Reply to
God'sLittleAnus

While Ford is better off than GM, they too are on the knife's edge. 8:1 debt to equity, big debt payments, competition getting stiffer, expenses out the wazoo, low sales to historical averags...

Ford can't afford a mistep. If the union causes trouble, fire them all who walk the line. If enough go on strike, close the whole plan permanently. Make an example of one, say Deerborn. Put it to them straight, here is the new rate, take it or leave it.

Reply to
Canuck57

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.