Ford May Close 5 North American Plants

DETROIT (AP) -- Ford Motor Co. workers and local officials said Friday they'll do everything in their power to keep plants open after a report suggested Ford is considering closing five North American plants as part of a major restructuring. Lawmakers and union officials said they would pile on tax breaks or change plant work rules to encourage Ford to stay. In Minnesota, House Speaker Steve Sviggum, the Legislature's top Republican, said he wouldn't rule out pushing for a special session to consider incentives for keeping a plant in St. Paul.

"We're not going to let this go without a fight," he said. "We're going to give every incentive we can to make sure these jobs are maintained."

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the nation's second biggest automaker is likely to close assembly plants in St. Louis, Atlanta and St. Paul under a still-evolving restructuring plan. It cited two unidentified people familiar with the automaker's product plans.

The newspaper said an engine-parts plant in Windsor, Ontario, and a truck-assembly plant in Cuautitlan, Mexico, also are slated for closure.

If Ford closes the plants, it would deal another blow to U.S. autoworkers, already reeling from a plan announced last month by General Motors Corp. to close 12 North American facilities and cut 30,000 jobs. The nation's car manufacturers are suffering from declining sales, especially of sport utility vehicles, even as the cost of labor and health care rises.

Ford shares rose 5 cents to close at $8.15 on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday.

Together, the Ford plants cited in Friday's report employ around 7,000 people, according to Ford's Web site. Ford had a total of 122,877 North American employees at the end of last year. The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker has around 324,000 employees worldwide.Ford has been struggling with declining U.S. market share, high labor costs and excess plant capacity. The company reported a $1.2 billion pretax loss in its North American automotive operations in the third quarter.

Ford Chairman and CEO Bill Ford has said the company is working on a restructuring plan and will reveal details in January. Bill Ford said in October the plan will include "significant" job cuts and plant closures.

Ford is only using around 86 percent of its North American assembly plant capacity, compared to 107 percent at rival Toyota Motor Corp. Ford has 23 assembly plants in North America.

"Obviously, we've indicated we will address our excess capacity," Ford spokesman Oscar Suris told The Associated Press Friday. "We've been pretty consistent in saying we'll share these plans in more detail in January. Nothing is finalized."

The United Auto Workers refused to comment on the report, saying it is speculation.

At the Ford plant in Cuautitlan, just north of Mexico City, said rumors about downsizing have been floating around for some time, and the 750 workers there are willing to discuss labor changes to keep the plant open.

"We believe that we represent a good business opportunity for Ford," said Juan Jose Sosa, the national representative for the Ford workers union in Mexico. "We are open to considering reasonable alternatives ... and a better use of labor," he said.

Danny Sparks, head of the local union at the Ford plant in Hapeville, Ga., near Atlanta, said the report of a possible closure came as a surprise.

"We're one of the most efficient plants Ford has. The Atlanta employees have a long history of stepping up to the task at hand," Sparks said.

Chuck Moore, director of the Detroit-area restructuring firm Conway, MacKenzie and Dunleavy, said the plants are the subject of speculation in part because of the products they make.

The Atlanta plant makes the Ford Taurus sedan, which is scheduled to be phased out next year. The St. Louis plant makes the Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer, two vehicles which have been struggling. Explorer sales were down 30 percent in the first 11 months of this year despite an extensive redesign, according to Autodata Corp.

The St. Paul plant makes the Ford Ranger pickup, which also saw sales fall nearly 25 percent between January and November, and the Cuautitlan plant makes the F-150 and Super-Duty trucks that could be consolidated elsewhere, Moore said. Ford has four other plants that make the F-150.

GM's announcement got little reaction from Wall Street, in part because many of the changes won't take place until after GM and the UAW negotiate a new contract in 2007. Moore said Ford could get the same reaction unless its restructuring plan takes effect sooner, although Ford also is locked into a UAW contract that won't be negotiated until 2007.

Moore said Ford also has to make clear how it plans to stem its market share losses. Ford's U.S. market share fell to 17.4 percent in the first 11 months of the year, down from 18.4 percent the year before.

"Without stabilization of the market share, it's just going to require additional cost cuts and additional closures," Moore said.

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @

formatting link

Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III
Loading thread data ...

UAW, Ford, GM and Chrysler must sit down and find a way to stop the bleeding.

Time for UAW to establish strict workplace standards.. spend less time defending workers from charges of drug use / dealing, more educating how they are all in danger.

Time to kick the MBA's out of Automotive middle management and establish "Quality as Job1 !" ethics.

- Still signs of 'quota management' in plants, which ignore rework rate

Time to figure out a way to pay into a joint benefits fund from cars/vehicles sold.. regardless of origin.

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

I been buying Ford for 20 years. I took my Ranger in for a transmission overhaul. $2000. 6 months later I had to have it done again. Another $2000. I took my Aspire in for a head gasket. Cost $1500 and it still needs a head gasket. I needed a new car. I watched the Ford ads for months. Never able to buy one at the advertized price. So I bought a Toyota. Maybe Ford should die.

Reply to
Pat

Americans should buy American cars. It's not complicated.

Every time we have a layoff at work people are shocked. They gather up their stuff in a box and walk out to the parking lot and drive off in their Toyota wondering "How could this have happened to me?".

The fault isn't just with consumers either. The car companies better get their ducks in a row and build in some quality and value. A lot of people bought GM/Ford/Chrysler junk back in the 70's and 80's and haven't forgotten. It's not easy to get these buyers back.

Reply to
Mort Guffman

I might ... agree with this (GM & Chryco too). It's time the government figured out the cost/benefits of having the US design and assemble it's own vehicles. US workers are too valuable to spend their time screwing nuts onto studs. The US should be computerizing the world that's where the money is at the moment.

Focus on the future, allow the past to die (or at least move to China/Mexico). Subsidize the future, not the past.

Reply to
joe schmoe

Actually, it kinda is complicated. If you look at the build sheet for a new "American" car, the engine or tranny could be built in France, Mexico, Canada or even China. Yet the "foreign" cars have their plants in the good 'ol USA. A Ford hybrid is about 50% foreign parts. A Chevy Equinox has an engine built in China. A Mazda pickup is built by Ford. Older Isuzus may have a GM engine. A Chevy car may have had an Isuzu engine. A Chevy could have been a joint venture between Toyota, Daewoo or who knows whatever. Dodge has their parts from who-knows-where. Where does it stop and how can the "American" car companies bitch about the foreign invasion when they have jumped in bed with the foreigners?

Reply to
Kruse

Sounds more like your mechanic was ripping you off.

Reply to
Brent P

And perhapse pay CEOs and such only $4 million a year instead of $8 million and make a "profit rainy day fund." Yeah I'm all for profit and free trade and such and I am definately not a Socialist, but any mildly intelligent person must agree that some CEO salaries are far beyond outrageous.

Reply to
WindsorFox

Don't you DARE even try to lay just one tiny bit of blame for Ford and GM losing money on me! Chrysler is half owned by Daimler, and if the Big 3 are such wonderful American companies Why are so many models made in Canada and Mexico? My "Japaneese" truck is engineerd and built in Canton Mississippi and is in my opinion superior to it's competiton. If they worried less about profits and more about the product that causes the profits they would make more. Lastly, Call me a Socialist if you want, but if you owned a bakery and you were $10,000 short AND your salary as owner CEO was $60K, would you settle for a $50K salary to save your business? Of course. Now tell that to the people that run Ford and GM.

Reply to
WindsorFox

OMG holy crap! I didn't know that. Where did you gleen this info? I want to know more. My opinion of China is at an all time low these days.

Back in the good old days the Chevy Luv, Ford Courrier and Dodge D50/Plymouth Arrow were Isuzu, Mazda and Mitsubishi. I owned a 73 Ford Courrier in highschool and you should have seen the look on this 15 yearolds face when I read the little metal tag on the firewall that said built in Japan by Mazda, Toyo Kogyo Corp.

Reply to
WindsorFox

CEO compensation is only outrageous when executives are rewarded for poor performance. If they make their company billions, why shouldn't they receive their cut ? Given a good CEO is very hard to replace. However, there are plenty of examples of poorly performing (ceo)s making way too much.

CEO G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. of GM made $4,817,020 last year. John M. Devine Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of GM made $4,223,650. These figures are small compared to after tax income of 2.1 billion last year.

William C. Ford, Jr. Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer made $12,185,696 in long term compensation last year (no salary or bonuses) and $21,477,502 in options. James J. Padilla President, Chief Operating Officer, Director; Chairman - Automotive Operations made $7,250,625 last year (only one million in salary) with $1,994,724 in options. Again, these are small compared to the 3.9 billion ford made last year in income after taxes.

By comparison, WMT CEO H. Lee Scott, Jr. earned $12,593,493 plus $4,537,582 in options. And John B. Menzer, Vice Chairman of the Board, earned $5,390,386 plus $5,630,359 in options. One could argue that these figures are fair, considering Wal-Mart made 10.5 billion after taxes last year.

Here are the top 10 highest paid (CEO)s. First colunm is this year's compensation in thousands, and the second column is compensation over the last five years.

1 Terry S Semel Yahoo 230,554 258,291 2 Barry Diller IAC/InterActiveCorp 156,168 239,846 3 William W McGuire UnitedHealth Group 124,774 342,284 4 Howard Solomon Forest Labs 92,116 294,895 5 George David United Technologies 88,712 210,793 6 Lew Frankfort Coach 86,481 154,087 7 Edwin M Crawford Caremark Rx 77,864 93,563 8 Ray R Irani Occidental Petroleum 64,136 127,447 9 Angelo R Mozilo Countrywide Financial 56,956 96,914 10 Richard D Fairbank Capital One Financial 56,660 226,268

It's also interesting to note that Ellison of Oracle made ovre 867 million over the last five years!!

Here are the wost performing CEOs : Notice the high compensation despite the negative return.

Peter Cartwright Calpine Tenure: 21 years Annualized return during tenure: 4%* Relative to S&P: 96

6-year annualized return: -7% 6-year average compensation: $13.0 million

Steven R. Appleton Micron Technology Tenure: 11 years Annualized return during tenure: 1% Relative to S&P: 91

6-year annualized return: -13% 6-year average compensation: 9.3 million

Thomas A. Renyi Bank of New York Tenure: 8 years Annualized return during tenure: 6% Relative to S&P: 100

6-year annualized return: -2% 6-year average compensation: 13.8 million

Martin G. McGuinn Mellon Finl Tenure: 6 years Annualized return during tenure: -1% Relative to S&P: 98

6-year annualized return: -2% 6-year average compensation: 5.5 million

Lee R. Raymond ExxonMobil Tenure: 12 years Annualized return during tenure: 15% Relative to S&P: 104

6-year annualized return: 11% 6-year average compensation: 22.8 million

Data found at

formatting link
and
formatting link

Reply to
fclaugus

We are witnessing the equalization of wealth that a "global economy" brings about. Decades from now most everyone will be somewhere between a UAW autoworker at his or her peak and the poor dirt farmer in a third world country.

Reply to
John

but if you owned a bakery and you were $10,000 short AND your

If shareholders owned the bakery, and you already had put away more money than you could spend in your lifetime, what possible incentive would you have to cut your salary.

Howard

Reply to
Howard Nelson

Except in this case Ford And GM are loosing hundreds of millions of dollars and the (CEO)s are earning just a few million. However that is still a few million too much. Although, who would run GM on peanuts when you can make much more $ at a more profitable company ? Meaning, we can only cut executive compensation so much before the executive look for work elseware. Although, mane executives have significant amounts of stock in the companies they run, so they should be motivated to stay and make the company more profitable. (In theory)

Fred

Reply to
fclaugus

WindsorFox wrote: Chrysler is half owned by Daimler, and if the

IMO (and maybe my opinion only) Chrysler is NOT American owned at all. Period. Within two months of the Chrysler-Daimler merger, 8 of the top 10 American executives had been fired or quit and were replaced by people from Daimler. There was also a big lawsuit from stockholders about this "merger". I don't know how it was resolved, if it was resolved or maybe still in litigation. I guess I don't really care, either.

Reply to
Kruse

I'm not so sure they can do anything to stop their decline. They are likely in a no-win scenario. If they become more efficient then they will need fewer workers (i.e. layoffs required) or if they are paid more then the cost of domestic cars won't be competitive with foreign competition. It is ever more affordable goods and services that support our relatively high standard of living. We all make choices every day that cost someone a domestic job somewhere. Whether it be a car, underware, toothpaste, a wrench etc. we all usually choose the least expensive item that gets the job done. Same goes for businesses. If everyone decided to buy nothing but domestically made goods from tomorrow forward we would all have less disposable income and many goods we would have to do without because they are no longer made here in the USA. This, in turn, would effect the overall health of our ecomony and standard of living.

IMO, the USA's work force is returning to a state that puts more responsibility on the individual for their economic well being. There are plenty of jobs available but not enough qualified people to fill them. Today too many people see a college education as optional and jobs that require good math and technical skills as too much of a hassle to get qualified to fill. People that refuse to educate themselves and work to become skilled in a technical field will suffer the economic consequences. The days of making $40/hour to spray paint bumpers are rapidly fading. Just like buggy whip makers had to reinvent themselves a 100 years ago so do many workers today. IMO, it is the flexibility to reinvent ourselves when needed that really gives us a great economic advantage over many other countries. It is good that we let the market determine employment needs and not let markets be overly influenced by government control. We have some good examples over the last 100 years (i.e. Socialism, Communism) that show that too much government control is a very bad thing.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

That's a load of baloney. I'll buy the car that meets my needs at a price I want to pay. Why should I help keep the fatcat union bosses temporarily employed as they suck more dollars out of the government in the form of tax concessions and from their constituents in the form of union dues?

If you can't make a product that people want and at a price that they're willing to pay, you will go out of business. "Coherent action" will just delay the inevitible. Better to spend that money on something that will benefit the economy in the long-run rather than use it to prop up an inefficient company/industry.

Cheers,

Reply to
Ritz

Very good points, IMO.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

You don't know what you're talking about. American cars aren't even american. These days toyota's are more American than Ford Dodge or Chevy. What needs to happen is that the big three should kick the asses of the old boys who think building boring mediocre cars is the way to go. Refreshed styling and rock solid quality is what is needed. Don't outsource your plants either. A modern automated plant doesn't need many people so the cost benefit of doing it in mexico isn't there. I think GM is the worst of all of them. Most models bore me to death and the quality is still sh*t.

Reply to
RT

It's simple; their salaries/bonuses would be directly related to the sales numbers.

Reply to
RT

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.