Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Ford Piling On?  
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Piling on while its domestic competitors are hurting?

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ain-Report/articleshow/4605221.cms


Quoting a company official, the report stated, "Ford, the only one of Detroit's Big Three that did not need a bailout from the federal government, plans to increase production of cars and trucks in the third quarter by about 10 per cent from the level of a year ago."


But according to Ford leadership.....

"I feel for my competitors. It's got to be very, very difficult," Ford's president of the Americas Mark Fields had said on Sunday.

"This is not a case of 'Gee, let's stick to them.' We have been watching our inventory levels and we've seen our market share grow. This is really just us working our plan, Fields had said.


It will be interesting to see how things play out. One company is still run by auto executives. A second company will now be run by the UAW (which begs the question aren't they competeing against their union brothers and sisters?) and the government, while a third has become foreign owned.

Personally I hope Ford's plans work out. Nice to see a company that has executives that know what they are doing.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineA332 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

With respect to it's unionized workforce, I certainly hope that Ford is able to level the playing field with it's assembly line workers/etc so their wages are the same as those received by those working for Chrysler & GM. I don't believe it's unreasonable to expect such concessions from the UAW @ Ford.

After all, unions are all about equality... why should Ford UAW members receive better pay than those at GM.

Bring on the cuts... and further cement Ford as the revitalized player of the US automakers.



Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7784 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1437 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
"I feel for my competitors. It's got to be very, very difficult," Ford's president of the Americas Mark Fields had said on Sunday.

"This is not a case of 'Gee, let's stick to them.' We have been watching our inventory levels and we've seen our market share grow. This is really just us working our plan, Fields had said.

Its been mentioned in the press in months prior but the failure of either GM or Chrysler would be catastrophic for the entire global auto industry. So there is no reason for FoMoCo, Toyota, Renault-Nissan, PSA, Daimler-Benz, etc to get excited about the failure of either GM or Chrysler. Simply for the fact that there are only a small handful of suppliers of major components to the auto industry. Only so many ppl making transmissions, ABS control modules, air bags, struts, etc.... With those suppliers already being impacted due to the overall industry downturn the failure of an automaker would likely lead to the failure of many suppliers. Which would in turn lead to production slow downs or freezes as other automakers scrambled to find other parts sources, validate parts, rework assembly processes etc....


That said Ford is in an interesting position vis-a-vis GM or Chrysler. Ultimately I think Ford made some very savvy moves over the past 10 years or so that put it in the position it is today. The dissolution of the premium automotive group (including the sale of Jaguar to Tata), getting serious about the development of a really good 2-mode hybrid system (see the 2010 Fusion/Milan hybrid), the long-term development of good product (product that in many segments is near the top or class leading now), and the benefit of having only 2 distribution channels. For people that know the history of Ford know that it is a company that survives. They've never always had the best product or been the most innovative, but they've been able to periodically redirect themselves back to success.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1432 times:



Quoting A332 (Reply 1):
why should Ford UAW members receive better pay than those at GM.

My God...did you read what you wrote?

While Ford's union employees may need to make concessions in order to help the automaker (and themselves) they most certainly should not do it in order to be equal to GM's and Chrysler's employees.

If Ford can afford to continue to pay better wages, then more power to them and they should ignore what the new government employees at GM are getting.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineA332 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1426 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 3):
My God...did you read what you wrote?

While Ford's union employees may need to make concessions in order to help the automaker (and themselves) they most certainly should not do it in order to be equal to GM's and Chrysler's employees.

If Ford can afford to continue to pay better wages, then more power to them and they should ignore what the new government employees at GM are getting.

Yeah, and then newly restructured GM & Chrysler have an unfair advantage when it comes to labour costs.

It would be different if Ford's UAW members were part of another entirely separate labour union, but they are not, and as such, Ford should demand concessions to bring labour costs in line with their competitors.



Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

For selling a product that people actually want? Not at all.

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1371 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
It will be interesting to see how things play out. One company is still run by auto executives. A second company will now be run by the UAW (which begs the question aren't they competeing against their union brothers and sisters?) and the government, while a third has become foreign owned.

the UAW has stated that they will sell their stake at the earliest time they can and have stated that they do not want to be "in the management" of the automakers. So I expect the union to sell its shares sometime in the near future, the question is how near is that future and what will the union consider a fair value to be?

Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
But according to Ford leadership.....

"I feel for my competitors. It's got to be very, very difficult," Ford's president of the Americas Mark Fields had said on Sunday.

"This is not a case of 'Gee, let's stick to them.' We have been watching our inventory levels and we've seen our market share grow. This is really just us working our plan, Fields had said.

I strongly suspect that this has less to do with Ford's plan and more to do with consumers non-confidence in buying cars from bankrupt companies. And when you think of it a 10% bump when the two domestic competitors are being left for dead isn't all that great. There are many people that want to "Buy American" (which is tough to figure out nowadays) and Ford is the only solid choice right now.

Quoting A332 (Reply 4):
Yeah, and then newly restructured GM & Chrysler have an unfair advantage when it comes to labour costs.

Question, is the cost advantage that much better than what the airlines have faced recently? I mean AA has still not filed, are their costs that much more horrible than UA's? Just curious.

Quoting A332 (Reply 4):
Ford should demand concessions to bring labour costs in line with their competitors.

They will. And they will probably get them. But not to an extreme.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1353 times:



Quoting A332 (Reply 4):
It would be different if Ford's UAW members were part of another entirely separate labour union, but they are not, and as such, Ford should demand concessions to bring labour costs in line with their competitors.

And so dies the free market.

If the market requires concessions, and I imagine it will, then they should be asked for and granted. But, to say that Ford must demand concessions simply on the basis that GM and Chrysler will be paying their employees less is ridiculous. Ford may emerge from this mess as the market share leader and the profit leader. The employees should be compensated as such.

Union membership is not about equality, it is about fairness.

It is unfortunate what is happening in the auto industry. The US government now makes cars. So, who is the government going to buy its cars and trucks from?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1310 times:



Quoting A332 (Reply 4):
It would be different if Ford's UAW members were part of another entirely separate labour union, but they are not, and as such, Ford should demand concessions to bring labour costs in line with their competitors.

Then why does the UAW negotiate with each individual auto maker and have a separate contract with each?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineA332 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1264 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 7):
If the market requires concessions, and I imagine it will, then they should be asked for and granted. But, to say that Ford must demand concessions simply on the basis that GM and Chrysler will be paying their employees less is ridiculous. Ford may emerge from this mess as the market share leader and the profit leader. The employees should be compensated as such.

You make it sound like Ford is this vastly profitable manufacturer, and that is hardly the case. Ford may be better positioned out of the Big 3... but they are hardly out of the woods. How is Ford to be competitive with it's domestic counterparts once the two emerge from bankruptcy?

It's obvious that labour/legacy/health costs are what ended up crippling GM & Chrysler... adjustments/restructuing of these costs give GM & Chrysler an unfair advantage over Ford, and therefore it would be only fair that Ford receives concessions from it's unionized staff to level the field.

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 7):
Union membership is not about equality, it is about fairness.

Of course, when it comes to labour unions, fairness IS equality.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 8):
Then why does the UAW negotiate with each individual auto maker and have a separate contract with each?

More importantly, why does the UAW look at the contractual obligations of other individual auto makers when it comes time to demand more?



Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1201 times:



Quoting A332 (Reply 9):
You make it sound like Ford is this vastly profitable manufacturer, and that is hardly the case.

Correct, they are in better shape, but still deep in the woods.

Quoting A332 (Reply 9):
adjustments/restructuing of these costs give GM & Chrysler an unfair advantage over Ford

Yes, restructuring the agreements may give an unfair advantage, but it's up to Ford and its union to decide if they want to go down the road of concessions, not some outside entity.

As I said earlier, just because Chrysler and GM will be slashing wages and beneifts does not mean Ford has to follow suit to be 'fair' or 'equal'. If the conditions warrent it, then so be it...but just so that the UAW at the big-3 are all equal...nope.

Quoting A332 (Reply 9):
Of course, when it comes to labour unions, fairness IS equality.

And it's up to a strong management team and philosophy to show that what is fair is not necessarily equal.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is Fred Phelps On The Down Low (Part II) posted Wed May 16 2007 07:22:57 by Blackbird
I Was Wrong.....The Flamegate Is Now Open On Me posted Wed Nov 8 2006 21:41:15 by Speedbird747BA
My Brain Is Playing Tricks On Me Again posted Thu Jun 22 2006 21:50:51 by Rolfen
Is It "on It's Way" Or "on Its Way"? posted Mon Jun 12 2006 12:57:40 by ZakHH
Airport 1979 Is Being Shown On ITV NOW posted Sun Jan 15 2006 17:00:23 by Tmatt95
LHMark Is Getting Married On The 16th Of July! posted Tue Jul 12 2005 17:55:43 by Cumulonimbus
What Is Your Take On This 'BM' On A Diet? posted Fri Jul 8 2005 07:32:03 by JCS17
What On Earth Is This Bump On My Arm? posted Tue Mar 29 2005 22:37:51 by FSPilot747
What Is Ford And Lincoln Thinking? posted Mon Mar 21 2005 02:16:11 by 747400sp
Is Fahrenheit 9/11 On TV In The US Today? posted Mon Nov 1 2004 21:45:13 by Andz