Union Looks to Recover Concessions From Ford

[Kestas]

It's hard for Union workers to sit idly by when top management award themselves salaries and bonuses that are out of this world. The wage disparity between Union worker and management has been the highest it's ever been in history.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Kestas

It's hard for Union workers to sit idly by when top management award themselves salaries and bonuses that are out of this world. The wage disparity between Union worker and management has been the highest it's ever been in history.

What bonuses? Do you mean the stock options Mulally was given when he signed on that were worth just over $1 a share at the time? He reaped the benefits of turning the company around, big deal.

 

[unDummy]

I hate the Unions. But, until corporate pay is legislated, then keep 'em. Maybe we should get department stores and fast food places unionized too??? Sorry, but I've seen higher ups walk away with 100's of millions of dollars while the workers didn't have health insurance. Stock options and severance packages are grossly excessive to management that did nothing but puff-up the stock value with lies and lay off the workers or cut their pay/benefits. http://www.cnbc.com/id/38643836/High_Profile_CEO_Exit_Packages?slide=1

 

[ted s]

nice way to get move production moved to mexico

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: ted s

nice way to get move production moved to mexico

You are forgetting the part that the Company is profitable and the executives are getting bonuses. So if a company is profitable and wants US workers to work for less than fair market rate or they'll move to Mexico that's kind like extortion. Besides, accepting lower pay will not necessarily prevent outsourcing.

 

[wallyuwl]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Originally Posted By: ted s

nice way to get move production moved to mexico

You are forgetting the part that the Company is profitable and the executives are getting bonuses. So if a company is profitable and wants US workers to work for less than fair market rate or they'll move to Mexico that's kind like extortion.

Extortion? Are you serious? It is called the market. If unions demand salaries and benefits that will lead to the company not being profitable, then the company's only recourse is to move operations to somewhere with lower labor costs so the ycan continue to produce their product and do business. The UAW is the most greedy private union there is, only outdone by the public employee unions. I see the trend of the "big 3", especially Ford and Chrysler, moving production to Mexico conting. The UAW reaps what it sows.

 

[Kestas]

If a company decided not to move production to a low cost country, their competitor will, and the competitor will undercut prices. Either way, business is lost for that company.

 

[mechanicx]

That is a big problem and the outsourcing competitor only has to undercut prices by pennies to take customers, and the quality doesn't necessarily have to be as good. In reality though with Mexico assembled cars there's not even a real price saving passed on. In that scenario everyone really loses except the outsourcing company. That is the reasoning some call for tariffs but I don't want to start that debate. My point was to say, "IF the UAW is causing the company to be unprofitable.." is a big if, and that other countries isn't really THE market but another market from the US with different cost structure. The US worker can't and shouldn't compete with that. Now if some US state wants to give subsidies and choose to work non-unionized for less, one might have a market argument there.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Kestas

It's hard for Union workers to sit idly by when top management award themselves salaries and bonuses that are out of this world. The wage disparity between Union worker and management has been the highest it's ever been in history.

Bill Ford Jr took absolutely zero salary for almost three years....at the same time he was investing his own personal wealth into Ford stock. It's clear to me he is a man who puts his money where his mouth is. He supported the stock while it was down and will reap a big reward for taking that risk. I have no class envy and have no problem at all with these large pay offs. As for Mulally, he was paid a reasonable salary, IMO. The stock options have value sure, but they could have been worthless. Ask yourself, how many UAW employees of Ford do you think would have been willing to take the same risk. Lets say, cut their pay in half and give them stock options as compensation for the other half. My guess is you would get very few UAW workers willing to take that same risk, you tell me who is more "company man" and who is more "me, me, me, me"

 

[LS2JSTS]

Article describing Bill Ford Jr's salary and recent retroactive pay. He drew no salary at all in part of 2005, all of 2006 and 2007. In 2009 he was put back on salary as the board decided the company was once again profitable, as Ford Jr had said, he would draw no salary until profit goals were met. "In 2005, when Bill Ford was chairman and chief executive, he stopped taking a salary or bonus as the automaker floundered and racked up record losses. The following year, he stepped aside as chief executive and hired former Boeing Co. CEO Alan Mulally for the job. Mulally has been widely credited with streamlining the company and turning its operations around. In 2008, Ford's compensation committee ruled that Bill Ford could be paid from the beginning of 2008 on once the company's automotive operations returned to profitability. The committee recently decided those conditions have been met. Ford made $2.7 billion in 2009, its first annual profit in four years." http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2010/08/after_five-year_pay_freeze_bil.html

 

[mechanicx]

Quote:

Ask yourself, how many UAW employees of Ford do you think would have been willing to take the same risk. Lets say, cut their pay in half and give them stock options as compensation for the other half. My guess is you would get very few UAW workers willing to take that same risk, you tell me who is more "company man" and who is more "me, me, me, me"

I agree with a lot of things you say, and have a lot of respect for Bill Ford but how could someone without any real wealth take $14 hr and then the equivalent of $14/hr in stock options. I'd probably take it but we are talking about just barely scraping by with a very low standard of living for a risk of a pay off that is not very big. It's just not the same thing. I still see the risk Bill Ford take and agree there are probably a lot of average workers that would rather take what they can immediately and wouldn't take the risk no matter the pay off. But still it's easy to risk say 10% or even 50% of your income when you still have millions. Also I could be wrong but Bill Ford is not particularly anti-union. IMO Mulally is maybe being paid a bit more than necessary and might be getting more credit than he deserves, but if the company is profitable and believes it can afford it I don't begrudge his pay at all.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Agreed, it would be a much higher risk propostion for people in that economic category. But that begs the question, why is $14/hr cash and $14/hr Stock option such a bad wage? AFAIK, the people making $28/hr have no problem expecting the new hires to live on that wage. If the UAW is about brotherhood and raising the lot of the entire group then why dont they make this proposal. Remember there are roughly three times the people making the bigger wage than there are at the new hire wage. So assuming a zero sum game for the company, if the larger group were to drop their wage just $2/hr, that would allow the lower wage to be raised to almost $20/hr. A better living wage for all concerned.

 

[mechanicx]

Yeah I don't think the 2 tier wage rate is good or fair, especially the difference. That flies in the face of "solidarity". While its hard to cut the income you've been relying on and that is probably the reasoning, your suggestion -$2 +$6 seems like a lot more reasonable and better. Your point is taken that the average worker, or consumer for that matter, is all about grabbing the most they can as quick as they can without considering the long term and big pictur, although many CEO and executives fit that description too.

 

[morris]

before you put down the unions ask this Q have i ever worked for someone that miss treated me so much that you thought you needed help i couldnt do my self? also when unions were started it was to take care of safety troubles. stock to the workers? bad idea. if the co goes down the tube then you got stock worth nothing AND you dont have job. owning stock in the same industry you work is NOT a good idea.

 

[ffl]

I think Bill Ford could live EASILY on 1/2 of his income unlike most plant/ manf. workers!

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ffl

I think Bill Ford could live EASILY on 1/2 of his income unlike most plant/ manf. workers!

So how much personal wealth someone has is relevant in a discussion of fair compensation? I'm sure Bill Ford could live the rest of his life off the interest earned on his wealth, does that mean he should work for nothing? Would you hold anyone to that same standard? Where would you draw the line for "enough"? The retiree working down at McDonalds probably thinks the same about what you earn. Why dont you give him part of your salary, you make enough to live right?

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: morris

before you put down the unions ask this Q have i ever worked for someone that miss treated me so much that you thought you needed help i couldnt do my self? also when unions were started it was to take care of safety troubles. stock to the workers? bad idea. if the co goes down the tube then you got stock worth nothing AND you dont have job. owning stock in the same industry you work is NOT a good idea.

So, the risk that the executives take is too risky for the guys on the floor? In the proper proportions, I think it would be a wise investment and good for overall morale/quality. But like any investment, all the eggs in one basket is always a bad thing. The point was never to try and pay half the going wage as stocks, but to point out that the pay packages for the white collar worker carry risks that the others dont have, or want.

 

[stodgey]

What's good for the goose is definitely good for the gander. Considering that the management especially the top management have now received huge bonuses it is only proper that the rank and file employees also reap the benefits of THEIR efforts, don't you think?

 

[morris]

to: LS2JSTS what you said has NOTHING to do with what i said. dont put words in my mouth. what i said has NOTHING to do with executives in any way.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Sorry, I don't think I ever said you did. What I did try to say is that I agree, the risk would be greater...and then made the example/comparison that the risk in question is exactly the same risk involved with the bonus packages being brought into question.