30% salary cut at Ford

[souldoubt88]

Talk about getting religion and sending a message to Washington.

Tuesday afternoon Ford [F 2.11 0.11 (+5.5%) ] took another huge step in showing it's committed to cutting costs and "sharing the pain".

The company agreed to cut the salaries of Chairman Bill Ford and CEO Alan Mulally by 30% for the next two years, waived cash compensation of the board of directors, and is eliminating performance bonuses for global salaried employees and senior executives for 2009.


more at http://www.cnbc.com/id/29385456

[Roadkill]

It seems someone actually has a clue as to where to trim the fat to begin with. Way to go Ford!

[bmacsys]

Alan Mulally is the real deal. Unlike the buffoons who run Chrysler and GM. He was a bigwig at Boeing before he came to Ford.

[Evan]

That's not going to do much for the company. In the grand scheme of things it's a small amount of money. It's an attempt to get public support. They need to cut line workers' pay and benefits by 30% or more to actually get back on track.

[AKBroncoII]

Are you kidding me. Yeah let's cut the man that is at the lower end of the pay scale. How would you like it to have your benefits and pay cut by 30 percent.

[Dar70]

Are you kidding me. Yeah let's cut the man that is at the lower end of the pay scale. How would you like it to have your benefits and pay cut by 30 percent.

Exactly. Not only that if line workers were paid zero dollars and no health care it wouldnt affect the pricing of their vehicles much.(about $500) Which in turn wouldnt increase sales.

[ex91]

cut fat at top and work down and line works??? come on not all but lots make 35 plus and hour plus health care i make 17.50 and work out side hard work 6 days a week im not saying cut them in half but some would help but most of the cuts should be at the top:icon_cheers:

[Dar70]

cut fat at top and work down and line works??? come on not all but lots make 35 plus and hour plus health care i make 17.50 and work out side hard work 6 days a week im not saying cut them in half but some would help but most of the cuts should be at the top:icon_cheers:

Actually the line workers make just over $28 an hour. Skiled tades a few more. I dont think any of us would like a pay cut no matter what we do. We would all complain as well.

[Evan]

Are you kidding me. Yeah let's cut the man that is at the lower end of the pay scale. How would you like it to have your benefits and pay cut by 30 percent.


Actually, I wouldn't mind it if I knew I was being payed a unionized inflated wage. Their current wages are NOT sustainable. They either need to take a substantial wage/benefit cut, or they'll loose their jobs. Eventually the government (defined as our tax dollars) will stop bailing them out, and they'll loose the jobs completely if they don't take a cut. Those jobs will go overseas, forever, just as all union-destroyed jobs do.

The average cost for a line worker including wage, pension, medical, etc. is $70. Toyota and other non-union companies have a cost near half of that.

Cuts at the top do NOTHING, because that's such a small cost overall.

[Evan]

Exactly. Not only that if line workers were paid zero dollars and no health care it wouldnt affect the pricing of their vehicles much.(about $500) Which in turn wouldnt increase sales.


Let's assume your number is correct, even though it's not....it would still translate into $500 more profit per vehicle sold. Which is substantial.

And much of the labor cost comes from legacy union pension plans and medical benefits for retirees. Eliminate those and it goes up to thousands of dollars per car.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Exactly. When the guy who barely graduated high school (no offense to those in this position) standing on a line bolting parts together is getting the same hourly rate and benefits as the salaried guy who toughed it out through 4 years of engineering school, you know the union guy is making an unsustainable wage and the company can't operate like that.

It sucks because so many workers have relied on union wages for their livlihood for so long and it's hard to take a cut. But the unions have to realize that they're simply not worth what they're currently making. If they want to have a job at all in five years they better take a cut now.

As for executive pay, I agree they shouldn't make more than a low base salary when the company is losing money. When the company has a good year and makes lot of money, then by all means they deserve a nice bonus. But big bonuses and salary for the people running a failing company is not right.

['95 ranger]

Actually, I wouldn't mind it if I knew I was being payed a unionized inflated wage. Their current wages are NOT sustainable. They either need to take a substantial wage/benefit cut, or they'll loose their jobs. Eventually the government (defined as our tax dollars) will stop bailing them out, and they'll loose the jobs completely if they don't take a cut. Those jobs will go overseas, forever, just as all union-destroyed jobs do.

The average cost for a line worker including wage, pension, medical, etc. is $70. Toyota and other non-union companies have a cost near half of that.

Cuts at the top do NOTHING, because that's such a small cost overall.

i agree with you on most points, BUT if you are talking about ford taking bailout money you would be wrong they have borrowed money from a secure line of credit, not the government, they say they can make it through 2009 without borrowing money from their secure credit line but if they cant then they will borrow more, i think if more Americans heard this they would by ford vehicles so they should make it

its simple, if you just hand out money with no consequences they will think they can just take money as much money as they want, throwing money at something cant solve the problem, they wont change what they are doing

[Will]

I saw a PMI commercial dishwasher plant go to Mexico after a UAW dispute in 1995. That was in Troy, Ohio. My wife was an engineer at PMI before she went back to grad school and that was one of the plants she did things at. The workers were nice to her and made her neat things on the laser cutter. Then they were all laid off and the plant closed and production moved to Mexico. By law, the building couldn't be used for anything after that so last I heard it was still empty.

I do not like unions. They had a part to play in our history. We don't need it anymore. Sure, if I were making $30/hr to sit in a chair and stand up once in a while to tighten a screw, I wouldn't want to take a cut. I watched the old Plant One at Cummins one day and it made me want to heave. Any one of us could build the whole darn engine in an hour. These guys have rules that you wouldn't believe. I'm sure they were disgusted too. It seriously cobbles production. It's retarded. In the past the unions represented the workers competing with industry. Now they are hampering our country's ability to compete in the world. If you aren't disgusted by stupendous inefficiency watching a union production line will add that experience to your repetoire. It did mine.

It's not going to get better for the worker. You better get your education.

And about executives. These guys deserve their money. That 30% cut isn't anything. That's their salary. They make 10x more in other ways besides their salary. Getting stock is a major way. But it's a tough, tough job to be a high executive. The hardest part about doing anything is the thinking. Just like these forums, you plan and decide what you are going to do to your truck--at least I do. You get all the info you can--what has worked and hasn't worked--and then you put together a plan and you do it. The doing it for me goes by so fast I don't even remember it. Once the plan is in my hand the work is done. I don't sit there with the torch in my hand and start thinking. I do it on my computer for days before and then do it in a methodical way. DO you have any idea how many steps there are between the dragline scraping up ore to the car in the dealership? The CEO of Ford does. He frets every detail. To get into his seat you need mental talent and organizational skills beyond imagination. There is no go home and drink a beer. My wife's boss is a VP and she is on the phone or getting emails from him up until 9 or 10 at night and then again starting at 5am. They have about 200 people that design engine controls for future engines--things that aren't possible now HAVE to be working in three years when the EPA says you need to have your emissions down to here. They have to come up with ideas out of thin air, use their experience and science to pick the best ideas, get people developing it--is it possible to make these parts even? Can we control the system once it's made? You put millions toward something without being certain of the outcome. These things keep you up at night. I know. It always comes down to the wire. That's just a small part of a whole car--let alone a whole car company. The CEO of Ford has to worry about every level of it--frontal crash, OSHA in his plants, the friggin UAW, steel prices, tire manufacturers, faltering suppliers. The list is crazy and endless. He desrves millions and if you are a worker that is responsible for simply putting a damn bolt in a hole, you should be kissing his aas, not complaing about his salary. WIthout the executives, there's no Ford. Your job depends on the business success of the company.

[thegoat4]

Googling, Ford has about 45,000 UAW employees. Average pay is $28 per hour. At 2k hours per year, a UAW employee makes $56,000 gross.

Mulally's pay cut amounts to about $6.5 million per year, which is the equivalent of 116 UAW workers' gross pay.

Some folks advocate dropping UAW workers' pay across the board. Let's say $8.40, which is also a 30% cut. $16,800 per worker per 2k-hour year. $756 million for Ford's estimated 45,000 UAW workers together. So, yeah, cutting pay cross the bottom would amount to more savings to Ford than cutting pay at the top.

But, there is something to consider. Ford isn't the only one broke. So are the workers and their families. Remember, we're on the tail end of years of factory layoffs--may of those UAW workers are supporting their spouses, kids, parents, in-laws, etc. And all of these people live in broke communities, so if you go that route instead of taking $6.5 million from wherever Mulally spends his money, you'll be taking $756 million from broke communities all over.

So it's a lot more complex that just what's best for Ford's books.

To Ford's credit, they're one of the better balanced companies out there. Before the economy started crashing there were firms that were staffed with millionaires and billionaires at the top, and phone banks in India at the bottom.

The fact of the matter is that for decades now we've been concentrating wealth in the most stagnant part of the economy--the rich. That money had to come from somewhere, and it came out of the hands of the rest of the economy, which is the part that moves things. The economy isn't stagnant because the billionaires are strapped for cash. The economy is stagnant because the rest of us are strapped for cash.

You can argue endlessly about who deserves what and bla bla bla--none of that crap matters. Numbers matter, and the numbers are with the poor and middle class. One rich guy, no matter what, simply cannot consume as much food as 116 regular people's families and will not employ as many farmers as a result. One rich guy can't raise as many children, build as many houses, pave as many roads, or screw in as many bolts as 116 of the poor and middle class.

One $6.5 million pay cut doesn't amount to squat compared to 45,000 $8.40 pay cuts over 2,000 hours because no matter what one man won't do as much work and make as much of an impact as 45,000 people. One $60 million pay cut still wouldn't hold a candle to it.

Likewise, paying one guy an extra $6.5 million isn't as worthwhile as paying 45,000 people an extra $8.40 per hour, or even just saving 116 jobs.

Ford doesn't build expensive cars just for the rich because that market is too small. They build cheap and medium cars for the rest of us. And the workers don't owe shit to Ford or the execs. If Ford weren't around, cars, buyers, assembly lines, and workers would still exist--they'd all just have different logos.

And the point during all of this restructuring is not to mindlessly cut costs all over the place. That's what the economy has been doing for the last 30+ years and we wound up with all of our factories in China, Japan, Taiwan, and Mexico. The point during all of this is to move the money back into the part of the economy that will make use of it. Otherwise, who will Ford sell cars to?

For those of you terrified of communism, yes, this is wealth redistribution. It gets used because it works when the economy is this far out of balance. Look at the recovery from the great depression--they taxed the hell out of the most wealthy and practically gave money away to the lower and middle class. And you know what the economy did as a result? It grew. We all raised and educated a bunch of kids, built a bunch of industries, invented a bunch of technology, and created a bunch of artwork all at the same time. Among other things, that gave rise to a generation wise enough to deal with civil rights.

One of the worst things to come out of the republican party is the religious belief that only the wealthy drive the economy and all of the rest of us are a bunch of damned parasites. That's bull. The most basic economies function just fine with no wealthy people at all. Hell, many of the small economies don't even use money--they're strictly barter. OTOH, there are no economies anywhere that consist of only wealthy people.

The guy that owns my company didn't create my job--the customers who need their trucks repaired created my job. Rich people didn't create their truck-driving jobs--shippers needing to move goods created their jobs. Rich people didn't create the shippers' jobs--the customers buying all of that crap created the shippers' jobs. Some people simply got rich on the way; good for them, but they're the cart, not the horse.

I don't know of any rich people who can eat 40,000 pounds of onions, but I know of hundreds and even thousands of regular people who go to my local HEB and buy onions each day.

Pay cuts need to start at the top. I'm sure Mr. Mulally will survive just fine on his remaining $15million per year.

[Will]

What's his motivation to put up with the bullcrap? He could have retired before that job?

Anyone but me ever read Atlas Shrugged?

[Evan]

Average pay is $28 per hour. At 2k hours per year, a UAW employee makes $56,000 gross.

You also need to include pension, health, etc. Once you do the average rate (of legacy workers) goes up to almost $70/hour.

[daniel3507]

dad just got layed off from ford credit this morning. 20 some odd years and ranked number one in the state apparently isnt enough to keep a job. they decided to keep a guy that only has 8 years with the company and a lady who hasnt been there as long as him. (my guess is they kept her because she is a minority and female. just speculation though)

[Evan]

dad just got layed off from ford credit this morning. 20 some odd years and ranked number one in the state apparently isnt enough to keep a job. they decided to keep a guy that only has 8 years with the company and a lady who hasnt been there as long as him. (my guess is they kept her because she is a minority and female. just speculation though)

Probably let him go cause he was the highest paid, due to his seniority and performance.

[thegoat4]

You also need to include pension, health, etc. Once you do the average rate (of legacy workers) goes up to almost $70/hour.

That's called the "burden cost." A pay cut will not affect that, meaning it's irrelevant to what I was talking about. So, no, I don't need to include all of that.

Also, that burden cost is a little misleading because it often will include the cost of some management although they are not actually hourly. I don't know if your $70/hour number has that problem since I don't know where your number came from. Google isn't helping because way too many people have thrown it around.

[Evan]

That's called the "burden cost." A pay cut will not affect that, meaning it's irrelevant to what I was talking about. So, no, I don't need to include all of that.

Also, that burden cost is a little misleading because it often will include the cost of some management although they are not actually hourly. I don't know if your $70/hour number has that problem since I don't know where your number came from. Google isn't helping because way too many people have thrown it around.


Correct. They need their pay AND benefits cut dramatically to get down to a reasonable level.

Cut the pay down to $14/hour starting, with a 401(k) matching plan. Kill the pensions and everything else, except include a barebones health plan that has a high deductible. I think this is a very generous pay package for someone who has only a high school diploma at best. And Ford would be back on the field to compete.

And the pensions and medical of retirees needs to be cut. That's a HUGE cost, and it was forced unfairly on Ford by the unions in the 80s.

I know that this sounds extreme, but the other alternative is that all the jobs are lost. The current pay/benefits package simply isn't sustainable...it's not even close.

[v-8power]

Where i work they tried to tell us that out compensation package was worth 25.oo/hr.
We were in negotiations at the time. We called their bluff and said we would take a 13.00/hr raise and do away with ins. and 401k.

Needless to say they backed off.

I don't care what you say, the unions are not the sole blame for the big three demise.

[AKBroncoII]

I agree with some of what you said. I do agree that retiree medical should be cut entirely. I do not however agree that the pension should be cut. What about raising the age for full pension? What is it now? Partial pay cut. Honestly, I'd take a pay cut but if you start talking about cutting my benefits I'd have a new job already. $14 an hour isn't very much. Especially if you cut everything else.

I don't think anything ford does cut wise is going to make a damn bit of difference. No one is buying right now. Take money out of 45,000 workers pockets and there will be even less. Everyone is in the same boat, not just the auto industry. I refuse to buy new, why lose 5-10K on a vehicle value just by driving it off the lot.

I was curious, what do you think is fair for a mechanic then? Shouldn't it be based off of what the going rate is in the area? Percentage?

[Evan]

Where i work they tried to tell us that out compensation package was worth 25.oo/hr.
We were in negotiations at the time. We called their bluff and said we would take a 13.00/hr raise and do away with ins. and 401k.

Needless to say they backed off.

I don't care what you say, the unions are not the sole blame for the big three demise.

I'm sure you could find some other factors that negatively affected the big three. Nobody disagrees with that. But we're talking about the MAIN factor here.

The fact remains: with the current inflated union wages, benefits, and legacy costs the big three can't survive. There is absolutely no chance. They've been borrowing money for years to stay afloat, and when no sane private bank would lend to them anymore, they turned to taxpayers. But taxpayers will only put up with this crap for so long.

[Evan]

I was curious, what do you think is fair for a mechanic then? Shouldn't it be based off of what the going rate is in the area? Percentage?


Yes, it should be based on the going rate, i.e. market price, i.e. what employers are willing to pay and what employees are willing to work for.

It would be nice to pay all line workers $28/hour. But the reality is we live in a world with limited resources and therefore limited money. The money simply isn't there anymore to pay $28/hour. It hasn't been there for years, and the big three have been financing their payrolls.

In my mind, $14/hour is the best case scenario. The capital and borrowing power of the big three is now so depleated from paying these rediculous wages and benefits, that they may only be able to afford $0/hour, which is bankruptcy. The jobs will go to a right-to-work Republican state in the south if we're lucky. Chances are they'll go overseas, never to return.

[skippy]

Yes, it should be based on the going rate, i.e. market price, i.e. what employers are willing to pay and what employees are willing to work for.

It would be nice to pay all line workers $28/hour. But the reality is we live in a world with limited resources and therefore limited money. The money simply isn't there anymore to pay $28/hour. It hasn't been there for years, and the big three have been financing their payrolls.

In my mind, $14/hour is the best case scenario. The capital and borrowing power of the big three is now so depleated from paying these rediculous wages and benefits, that they may only be able to afford $0/hour, which is bankruptcy. The jobs will go to a right-to-work Republican state in the south if we're lucky. Chances are they'll go overseas, never to return.

GM and Ford Assembly plants are closed in Atlanta,Ford plant torn down.

[igiveup]

Hello

dad just got layed off from ford credit this morning. 20 some odd years and ranked number one in the state apparently isnt enough to keep a job. they decided to keep a guy that only has 8 years with the company and a lady who hasnt been there as long as him. (my guess is they kept her because she is a minority and female. just speculation though)

My G/F works for Ford Credit in Canada and she is watching things here. Some of them are retiring some are not being replaced when they leave. Ford credit up here has been cutting the fat for the last 6-7 years. That might help for up here.

igiveup

[thegoat4]

Correct. They need their pay AND benefits cut dramatically to get down to a reasonable level.

Cut the pay down to $14/hour starting, with a 401(k) matching plan. Kill the pensions and everything else, except include a barebones health plan that has a high deductible. I think this is a very generous pay package for someone who has only a high school diploma at best. And Ford would be back on the field to compete.

And the pensions and medical of retirees needs to be cut. That's a HUGE cost, and it was forced unfairly on Ford by the unions in the 80s.

I know that this sounds extreme, but the other alternative is that all the jobs are lost. The current pay/benefits package simply isn't sustainable...it's not even close.

Every dollar Ford does not pay the working class is a dollar that is effectively removed an already weak economy. If Ford and all other employers do as you suggest and mindlessly push costs down by slashing wages and benefits, all of the working class will sink even further into poverty and there will be no one left to purchase Ford's products. So Ford's decision to cut workers' pay is ever-so-slightly more complex than what will save the company the most money up-front.

As far as the dead-horse argument that unions are the problem, quit repeating that crap you hear on TV. If unions are really the problem, why is Toyota struggling too?

The harsh reality is that nobody sitting in a job interview somewhere else cares what Evan of the TRS forums thinks is fair compensation. Employers are trying to argue pay down while employees are trying to argue pay up. Unions successfully argued their pay up through force of sheer numbers of workers. Yeah, higher education is nice, but a degree won't make you sprout an extra set of hands. You'll have to hire manual labor at some point for some jobs, and if you want a functional economy you have to pay them a living wage. To refuse to do so leads to the mess we have now: nobody has the money to purchase the goods those companies want to produce, so those companies are failing. None of that has anything to do with anyone's arbitrary notion of fairness.

Does it strike anyone else as a catch-22 that because you do not have any higher education you don't deserve benefits and wages that may make such education affordable? College isn't free, you know.

I'm curious. You said, "Ford would be back in the field to compete," if they did as you said. What do you mean? How much do they need to save on benefits and wages to compete? Compete vs. who? What are their wages and benefits? The 401(k) matching plan you specified, match up to what percentage? What's your vestment schedule? Hell, what investments could you make with the employees' plans in today's market that would pay off at all? Where would you cut it off, and how much money do you expect to save that way? So, you start employees off at $14/hour, but how do you doll out raises? Is there a cap? Will you cap vacation and sick days? If so, how do you determine what these caps ought to be? You thought this out, right? You didn't just list off some arbitrary "solutions" you heard on TV, did you?

How does a union go about forcing things unfairly? If the employers have the right to withhold pay raises and benefits because they think it's necessary, do the employees not also have the right to withhold their labor for their own reasons? If the employers don't want to deal with the unions' demands they do actually have the right to cut all of them loose and do the work themselves.

[v-8power]

THEGOAT4, lets face it, there are a couple of folks on here that blame the unions for everything.

[Evan]

Every dollar Ford does not pay the working class is a dollar that is effectively removed an already weak economy.


Right. But once you're out of money, you CAN'T pay any wages. And rediculous, inflated wages and benefits are one of the major factors that have caused the big three to run out of money. Pay/benefit cuts and job cuts suck, but when there is no money, there is NO other option. Right now, the UAW has a choice: accept substantial pay/benefit cuts or loose the jobs compeletly.

Of course, nobody cares what Evan on TRS thinks a fair wage should be. But the free market and available capital are the deciding factors. The big three have next to 0 capital. It's not rocket science here: if you don't have money, you can't pay people money. The only way they are making payroll right now is by borrowing money at scary interest rates. It's like us putting rent and utilities on our credit cards...


V8-power, nobody is blaming the unions for EVERYTHING. Don't be rediculous. The economic downturn is to blame a little...it has caused the union-death of these companies to come sooner than it would have.

[skippy]

Correct. They need their pay AND benefits cut dramatically to get down to a reasonable level.

Cut the pay down to $14/hour starting, with a 401(k) matching plan. Kill the pensions and everything else, except include a barebones health plan that has a high deductible. I think this is a very generous pay package for someone who has only a high school diploma at best. And Ford would be back on the field to compete.

And the pensions and medical of retirees needs to be cut. That's a HUGE cost, and it was forced unfairly on Ford by the unions in the 80s.

I know that this sounds extreme, but the other alternative is that all the jobs are lost. The current pay/benefits package simply isn't sustainable...it's not even close.

Dang,maintenance men around here make $18 per hour,do you want a car made by $14 hr employee?

[Evan]

Dang,maintenance men around here make $18 per hour,do you want a car made by $14 hr employee?


If it's a good quality car, sure. Hourly wage does not dictate quality. In fact, quality generally declines with the advent of a union. Why? It's much more unlikely for someone to get fired for crappy work in a union environment.

There's a reason why only 9% of the private sector is unionized: most companies that get a union shoved down their throat go out of business in the long run. The list is endless. It includes airlines, steel companies, retail chains, and soon...the big three.

When I interviewed for my jobs, the first question I asked was if the company was unionized. If they were, I got up and left because I wanted to work for a company that had a future and encouraged competition and innovation. I also wanted to be paid what I was actually worth. Now, that decision has paid off. My company is making it through the recession just fine, as they have reasonable payroll costs and hard workers.

[thegoat4]

Right. But once you're out of money, you CAN'T pay any wages. And rediculous, inflated wages and benefits are one of the major factors that have caused the big three to run out of money. Pay/benefit cuts and job cuts suck, but when there is no money, there is NO other option. Right now, the UAW has a choice: accept substantial pay/benefit cuts or loose the jobs compeletly.

Of course, nobody cares what Evan on TRS thinks a fair wage should be. But the free market and available capital are the deciding factors. The big three have next to 0 capital. It's not rocket science here: if you don't have money, you can't pay people money. The only way they are making payroll right now is by borrowing money at scary interest rates. It's like us putting rent and utilities on our credit cards...


V8-power, nobody is blaming the unions for EVERYTHING. Don't be rediculous. The economic downturn is to blame a little...it has caused the union-death of these companies to come sooner than it would have.

You keep hammering this union thing. If the unions are really the cause of Detroit's woes, why are Toyota and other foreign makers who do not have to operate under the iron fist of the UAW also struggling? For that matter, why were the unions not destroying the auto market two years ago, but the very same unions who have since made many concessions in both pay and benefits now causing the problems?

I don't think you can give an honest answer to those questions that ends up blaming the unions.

Now, if you want to say unions are part of the problem, OK, you can argue that. But so far 100% of your theory about the fall in auto sales revolves around union labor. No wonder v8power had the impression people around here were blaming unions for EVERYTHING. It wasn't ridiculous at all.

And you keep ignoring the fact that Ford cutting wages and benefits to their workers could have repercussions that will bite Ford in the ass later. It is in Ford's (and other companies') own best interest to strike a balance, even if that means taking on a loan.

[Evan]

You keep hammering this union thing. If the unions are really the cause of Detroit's woes, why are Toyota and other foreign makers who do not have to operate under the iron fist of the UAW also struggling?


What are you talking about? Toyota will likely post a small net profit in 2008. GM LOST 9 billion in the 4th quarter alone. Toyota did not need (and will not need) to suck money out of taxpayers in the form of bailouts (GM, Chrysler) or mortgage all their assets (Ford).

Toyota is strongly capitalized. GM is beyond broke. The big three have spent all their money and maxed out all their credit. You haven't looked at the balance sheets and cash flow statements. I have.

Ford will need a bailout any day...they're burning through 1 billion (of borrowed money) a month.

[rangerguy1996]

did you look at fords 2010 line up they will be back on top soon. then there will be no money problems. with cars like the new sho and svt rapter and the new ecoboost motors. the SHO has 365hp thats more than the mustang gt.

[Dar70]

did you look at fords 2010 line up they will be back on top soon. then there will be no money problems. with cars like the new sho and svt rapter and the new ecoboost motors. the SHO has 365hp thats more than the mustang gt.

Agreed. Doomsayers will be proven wrong. Thngs will bounce back.

[powa ranger]

Cuts at the top do NOTHING, because that's such a small cost overall.

did you know that when airline companys cut back on how many olives they served with their meals they saved more money than i could hope to ever make or spend in my lifetime. also about the whole 500$ per unit sold every ford you see on the road i want you to tally and take the total tally and multiply that by 500. trust me thats alot of money they could be saveing.

[68Mercury250Ranger]

I can't speak for the US but here in Ontario, Toyota pays basically the same hourly wages as the unionized automakers. they expect a lot more from their employees and those who work hard are well paid . They do not pay rediculous benefits or excessive sick days. A job there is not guaranteed if you are lazy

is there something wrong with that? it couldn't happen in a unionized plant!

I have a neighbor across from us who is a Toyota Exec. and he is verywell paid, but he works his ass off.

I have never worked for a unionized shop and will never. I am a truck/coach mechanic lisenced since 1992, worked my way up through the Ford heavy truck system since starting as an apprentice. when they sold the division off to Daimler/Freightliner, I stayed about a year and then moved on.

I have friends in the same trade that work in a unionized environment, there is no way they would keep their jobs in the "real world" ..
I also have friends in the same trade who like myself have never worked unionized, and they excel if they are worthy and fail if they not.

My workplace is slow some days but we are still getting 36-40 hours a week every week. If we were a unionized shop we would no longer exist.
Truck Sales are declining but better than most.

The unions have been killing the auto/autoparts industry here for many years, I noticed this as soon as I got into the trade, realizing people building cars with no marketable skills were making more than the skilled tradespeople repairing them.

If the big three go down, all the pension funds/benefits/unions will go down with them.

Cut/Cut/Cut across the board same % or say goodbye to all the jobs .

hey Canadians are just as scared.:dunno:

If we are lucky the unions will learn when GM falls:icon_confused:, if not maybe after Chrysler.:sad:
personally I hope it doesn't need to do that far.:icon_cheers:

[hades]

Uh-oh... I just feel bad for the employees of Ford. I bet they are already thinking of resigning too.

__________________
automotive parts (http://www.usautoparts.net/)

[tempforce]

"(("For those of you terrified of communism, yes, this is wealth redistribution. It gets used because it works when the economy is this far out of balance. Look at the recovery from the great depression--they taxed the hell out of the most wealthy and practically gave money away to the lower and middle class. And you know what the economy did as a result? It grew. We all raised and educated a bunch of kids, built a bunch of industries, invented a bunch of technology, and created a bunch of artwork all at the same time. Among other things, that gave rise to a generation wise enough to deal with civil rights."))"

that policy actually caused the u.s.'s depression to last twice as long as in Europe. what got us out of the depression was ww2.
as mentioned above, legacy deadbeats sitting around all day drawing pay doesn't happen in non-union shops. lazy people are let go as well.
cut the corporate taxes to 20% and companies would start returning their business operations back to the states. cut wages 10% and get rid of all income taxes and you would actually get a income boost of 25%.
a national sales tax of 1% would take care of all federal constitutional obligations.
a import tax of 20-25% would force companies to make products locally.
the import tax could take care of all non-constitutional federal obligations.
cc

[Frank The Tank]

Am I the only person that also took a pay-cut? and couldn't afford a new vehicles payments if it was reduced regardless of make or model?

I don't think awesome cars.... are gonna mean awesome sales numbers.
I'm working 2 jobs, and saving every dime i can...... i'm investing in the future (the future of cash) like that's gonna hold it's value if things keep going downhill, maybe I'll invest in more guns while I'm at it.

Frank

[Trollbait]

While they were willing cash in on, and hoped to expand more into, the lucrative SUV market, Toyota didn't rely on it like the american companies. Forget the Prius, when gas prices spiked up last summer, they had the Yaris and Corolla to sell. The Focus is a good car, but Ford didn't have B class car available. GM's answer was to rebadge a Daewoo that didn't get much better fuel economy than their next segment car up. Toyota is doing better because their management planned for the future. Unions may have caused problems, but they don't call the shots on what the company sells.

I've read Atlas Shrugged. I believe Ayn Rand was deeply traumitized growing up in a totalitarion state calling itself communist. At its basic core, her philosophy called for the formation of a new aristrocracy. One unburdened by the nobel obligation held by others in the past. A king may think he is descended from the gods, but it's the peasants that grow the food.

[Blueranger99]

i think a big part of the problem is that the union workers who start right out highschool are able to retire at such a early age, and they could live another 30-40 years after retiring. i dont think the big three should have to pay people for nothing when they could still be working till they are 65. im a drywaller, the company thati work for does all scale work (prevailing wages), but we all bust our asses, and we see union guys on the same jobs sitting around reading magazines and newspapers for hours on end. then they wonder why the unions get kicked off these jobs, its because tha general contractor is paying them the same amount and getting half the production. i think unions are a cancer in this country and need to be cut out. im not saying all union workers are bad, but a good number of them are lazy and overpaid. and we dont need redistribution of wealth, we just need some of the lazy ass people to get jobs and stop suckin the system dry.

[347 Ranger]

It depends on how bad you want to have a job ,If the ford workers don't take the same cuts that GM and Chrysler workers did ford won't be able to compeat with the market . The workers won't have a job at all if Ford goes under . Remember GM and Chrysler are Goverment subsidised so they already have an advantage like 0 % financing that the people pay for .Ford dumping on the market like they do is hurting the resale value of our trucks and hurting sales as well Example MY son bought a F-150 in December 2007 for $52000.00. 9 months later my sister bought the same truck For $38000.00 this makes my son's truck worth about $32000.00. A 20000.00 hit in 9 months is t enough that it forces guys to buy a Toyota that will hold its value won't lose that much in 3 years. This loss is caused buy Ford alone how can our trucks hold there value when Ford devalues them at the end of every year.

[347 Ranger]

It depends on how bad you want to have a job ,If the ford workers don't take the same cuts that GM and Chrysler workers did ford won't be able to compeat with the market . The workers won't have a job at all if Ford goes under . Remember GM and Chrysler are Goverment subsidised so they already have an advantage like 0 % financing that the people pay for .Ford dumping on the market like they do is hurting the resale value of our trucks and hurting sales as well Example MY sone bought a F-150 SC in December 2007 for 452000.00. 9 months later my sister bought the same truck For $ 38000.00 this makes my son's truck worth about $32000.00. A 20000.00 hit in 9 momths is to enough that it forces guys to buy a Toyota that will hold its value won't lose that much in 3 years. This loss is caused buy Ford alone how can our trucks hold there value when Ford devalues them at the end of every year.

[tempforce]

in japan, the top wage earners may not receive more than 10 times the amount of the lowest paid worker in the company.
if the company requires a pay cut. all workers take a pay cut, at the same percentage. same thing when pay raises come around, everyone gets one.
now merit pay and long term pay increases are done as a employee stays long term with a company. if you start working for a company in japan, it is as assumed that you will retire with the same company. only problem is, that due to the cost of living, most lower waged people must work two jobs to afford to live in japan.

[li7in6]

The average cost for a line worker including wage, pension, medical, etc. is $70. Toyota and other non-union companies have a cost near half of that.

Where do you get you're information? fox news?

That "$70 per hour" bullsh*t has been disproved time and time again.

That $70 per hour figure is not what is payed to autoworkers in wages and benefits. IT encompasses current workers AND past workers retirement benefits currently being paid out. The assertion that a single autoworker is getting $70 in compensation per hour is a blatant falsehood and a magical made up number used to point the a finger at the autoworkers instead of the mismanagement at the top.

Please stop perpetuating misinformation.

[_Kyle_]

Where do you get you're information? fox news?

That "$70 per hour" bullsh*t has been disproved time and time again.

That $70 per hour figure is not what is payed to autoworkers in wages and benefits. IT encompasses current workers AND past workers retirement benefits currently being paid out. The assertion that a single autoworker is getting $70 in compensation per hour is a blatant falsehood and a magical made up number used to point the a finger at the autoworkers instead of the mismanagement at the top.

Please stop perpetuating misinformation.

The costs that the Big 3 pay out are still much larger than the rest of the auto companies. Like you stated, the employee themself isn't getting $70/hr compensation, but the total cost per employee still is $70/hr. While a company like Toyota has a much small per employee cost. I wish I could find the source, but isn't like $2000-$3000 of the cost of a NEW car wrapped up in stuff like retirement benefits and stuff for previous employees? The figure might include health care too, I can't remember at this time.

[4x4fun]

i think its funny some of the points being brought up. as far as pay.
im in the my pay check is comming from the US NAVY. iv been here for a lil over 4 years. im making 54K a year and gettinf fully bennys. there are plenty of retards and people that sit o there ass. im not losing my job anytime soon. infact i cant even quit if i wanted to. unions are not the problem they look after the employee someone has to. iv worked in shops were i volunteered to do 14-16 hour days for three weeks to help get out of a hole and got shit when i asked for a day off after the three weeks, some one needs to look after bosses. the big issue is in my mind is that the union thinks every one is equall and that is not the case. shitty people need fired, i tell my guys (half joking) after a sucky long day. "congrads you earned the right to come back to work tom" a job more so a good paying one is not a right. its earned

[li7in6]

The costs that the Big 3 pay out are still much larger than the rest of the auto companies. Like you stated, the employee themself isn't getting $70/hr compensation, but the total cost per employee still is $70/hr. While a company like Toyota has a much small per employee cost. I wish I could find the source, but isn't like $2000-$3000 of the cost of a NEW car wrapped up in stuff like retirement benefits and stuff for previous employees? The figure might include health care too, I can't remember at this time.

the cost per employee is not $70 an hour.

The $70 an hour figure comes from the total amount spent/budgeted on employee compensation per year divided by the number of man hours worked in a given year. The dollars spent includes current benefits for all employee's past AND present. Saying a single UAW worker "makes $70 an hour" is complete nonsense as the actual amount of money earned in pay and benefits per employee is much lower.

If you're beef is with the pension plans for previous employee's, then make your argument about the UAW's pension plans. Stop the nonsensical "UAW workers make $70 an hour so they need a huge pay cut" line of thinking because it simply is not based on fact.

[Jspafford]

Good gawd... Everyone whining about the unions taking a paycut. Screw them. I work two jobs so I can keep a roof over my head. One I make less than $12 a hour (40) hours, the second I make $8 (20) hours a week. I work 60 hours a week all month just so I can break even at the end of the month.

I would LOVE to have a union job, even if it came with a 30% paycut. I would still be making twice what I do now, and then, maybe I would be able to have a life outside of working, coming home, keeping up on the house, and starting all over in the morning.

The world is screwed.

Oh yeah, my name is Justin and I drive a 1989 Bronco II with 167K because I can't afford anything newer!

[li7in6]

Good gawd... Everyone whining about the unions taking a paycut. Screw them. I work two jobs so I can keep a roof over my head. One I make less than $12 a hour (40) hours, the second I make $8 (20) hours a week. I work 60 hours a week all month just so I can break even at the end of the month.

I would LOVE to have a union job, even if it came with a 30% paycut. I would still be making twice what I do now, and then, maybe I would be able to have a life outside of working, coming home, keeping up on the house, and starting all over in the morning.

The world is screwed.

Oh yeah, my name is Justin and I drive a 1989 Bronco II with 167K because I can't afford anything newer!

I don't understand you're line of thinking. Because UAW workers make more money than you means they should get a pay cut? I have no idea of your situation but simple job training, maybe 6-12 months at a community college could put you in a better occupational position. Because you either aren't qualified or cannot get a better job doesn't mean UAW workers are overpaid and under worked. I've worked 40 hours a week making $15 an hour in California(with its ridiculous costs of living), granted i don't have a spouse or any kids, but it was survivable. He'll i saved enough to have a project car at the time and helped my brother and girlfriend out when they were having trouble. Assuming you're making almost $2500/month nearly $30k a year. That puts you solidly in middle class income. You're obviously overworked but if you're broke its more likely due to mismanagement of money, than lack of earning it (unless of coarse, there is circumstances i don't know of bearing down on your financial situation).

Given the state of the economy and American car companies financial problems, IMO it would be better for the majority to take a substantial cut in wages, or much better, benefits/pension instead of the alternative of massive layoffs and potentially hundreds of thousands more relying on unemployment. But I'm a firm believer in cutting at the top. The fat ass, overpaid, millionaire executives that are running these companies into the ground should get laid off, replaced, or take hugely substantial pay cuts before the workers that are struggling by at the bottom with mouths to feed get laid off or reduced pay.

[_Kyle_]

the cost per employee is not $70 an hour.

The $70 an hour figure comes from the total amount spent/budgeted on employee compensation per year divided by the number of man hours worked in a given year. The dollars spent includes current benefits for all employee's past AND present. Saying a single UAW worker "makes $70 an hour" is complete nonsense as the actual amount of money earned in pay and benefits per employee is much lower.

If you're beef is with the pension plans for previous employee's, then make your argument about the UAW's pension plans. Stop the nonsensical "UAW workers make $70 an hour so they need a huge pay cut" line of thinking because it simply is not based on fact.

I thought my wording clarified that but I guess not. By total cost, I mean whatever they pay out divided by the total employees employed comes up with $70 or whatever figure it may be.