Ford reaches tentative UAW contract.

You had me going for minute with GOA: I was trying figure out what the Portuguese had to this with topic until I remembered Larry...

Dadoffourgirls wrote:

SidecarFlip wrote:

Dadoffourgirls wrote:
I just hope that all the local UAW members now support all the Union Teachers in getting pay raises and no increase to their health care as well. The Teachers gave back and froze salaries just like the UAW members.

I disagree.

Especially here in Michigan with MTA as a negotiator in contracts. Considering the quality of students educators are turning out here, they need a pay cut not a raise.

Just voted NO on the local bond issue. They get enough of my tax money as it is. Show me you can actually educate students to become productive member of society and I'll consider compensating you accordingly.

as it stands, Michigan teachers aren't showing me anything but terrible SAT scores and a poor product.

I'd like to have had a job where I worked 1/2 the year and got paid for the entire year. Talk about cushy.

I wish you would educate yourself on education in Michigan. There are many issues within the education process. Slamming teachers shows me exactly what type of retired union person you are.

Hopefully all of those non-productive youngsters do not take advantage of the old guy in the neighborhood.

I have more than once. You see almost my entire family on my wife's side are all Michigan educators, except her 2 brothers who are engineers, one at GM, one a Fords. and the rest, I'm surprised they can tie their shoes and all have their Masters and Doctorates in various disciplines.

Far as neighborhood goes, I don't. I'm a farmer and live in a very rural setting. nearest neighbor is 3/4 mile away. I don't worry about kids anyway. My flagpole out front flies an American Flag, under that is an NRA flag and below that is a GOA flag. You'd have to pretty dumb or high not to know better than mess around here. I think the big black Chow in the yard is a good deterrent as well.

I live just close enough to Toledo and Detroit to get a whiff of their stink when the wind blows right.

They say you can always tell an autoworker, retired or working, but the number of toys in their yard. Guess I fit right in. Lots of toys here.

SidecarFlip wrote:

Dadoffourgirls wrote:
I just hope that all the local UAW members now support all the Union Teachers in getting pay raises and no increase to their health care as well. The Teachers gave back and froze salaries just like the UAW members.

I disagree.

Especially here in Michigan with MTA as a negotiator in contracts. Considering the quality of students educators are turning out here, they need a pay cut not a raise.

Just voted NO on the local bond issue. They get enough of my tax money as it is. Show me you can actually educate students to become productive member of society and I'll consider compensating you accordingly.

as it stands, Michigan teachers aren't showing me anything but terrible SAT scores and a poor product.

I'd like to have had a job where I worked 1/2 the year and got paid for the entire year. Talk about cushy.

I wish you would educate yourself on education in Michigan. There are many issues within the education process. Slamming teachers shows me exactly what type of retired union person you are.

Hopefully all of those non-productive youngsters do not take advantage of the old guy in the neighborhood.

goducks10 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
You know who loves unions? The non union workers that do the same work in the same town as union workers.
When unions leave wages drop.

A side note to this is that right to work states generally have lower cost of living and higher employment rates. It is a fact based on US data that on average non-RTW states have considerably more unions and a much higher the cost of living. A higher salary is needed to cover the higher cost of goods because the producers of those goods had to increase the salaries of their workers. It is a perpetual and never ending cycle. Another thing that increases the cost of living is taxes and regulations which most unions give to the political side that generally likes to increase these things whenever they can.

So just because the average salary is higher, does not necessarily mean they are better off when you consider all things.

Not saying that all union are bad. I am just saying that you have to take all things into account when weighing the pros and cons of it all. You can't just look at one single thing and say one is better(or worse) than the other.

Ask those non union workers if they're getting the same benefits as their union counter parts. Earning lower wages when things are cheaper is fine except when it comes time to save for retirement.

This is true and is another aspect to look at. Unfortunately, that is data neither of us have so we cannot say for 100% certain. We can make assumptions, but nothing factual with actual numbers like you can with cost of living and earnings. Although, if you continue to stay in that higher cost of living state then your cost of living will still be higher so you will need more money to compensate. That is unless you move to a RTW-state to take advantage of lower cost due to not having heavy union presence.

ShinerBock wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
You know who loves unions? The non union workers that do the same work in the same town as union workers.
When unions leave wages drop.

A side note to this is that right to work states generally have lower cost of living and higher employment rates. It is a fact based on US data that on average non-RTW states have considerably more unions and a much higher the cost of living. A higher salary is needed to cover the higher cost of goods because the producers of those goods had to increase the salaries of their workers. It is a perpetual and never ending cycle. Another thing that increases the cost of living is taxes and regulations which most unions give to the political side that generally likes to increase these things whenever they can.

So just because the average salary is higher, does not necessarily mean they are better off when you consider all things.

Not saying that all union are bad. I am just saying that you have to take all things into account when weighing the pros and cons of it all. You can't just look at one single thing and say one is better(or worse) than the other.

Ask those non union workers if they're getting the same benefits as their union counter parts. Earning lower wages when things are cheaper is fine except when it comes time to save for retirement.

ShinerBock wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I have spoken with many people about this. Almost every one of them said that they think the UAW is getting too greedy especially asking for benefits that most others do not get or have to pay for themselves. Most also felt that this greed was a large reason why we (the taxpayers) had to bail out these companies not to long ago. All of this on top of the current corruption scandals in the UAW's top executives are not helping their cause. They may have won this battle, but it appears they are loosing the war in the eyes of most people in my region because most are starting to view them unfavorably where they didn't just a few years ago.

Ford did not take the bail out. They had already done what they had to do to avoid it. GM who went bankrupt after wards, and Chrysler who was sold to Fiat, took the bailout.

I will never forget what the Ford CEO told the Congressional committee when they ask if he would work for a dollar ay year if they gave them the money. He said "No, I'm good". GM, and Chrysler CEOs on the other hand said, YES PLEASE.

I don't think I mention Ford once in my post. Someone is a little testy. Ford was actually in good standing during this crisis for various reasons and one of them was because they were awarded the $6 billion dollar loan from the Department of Energy in September of 2009. Because of this other government loan that preserved thousands of jobs, they did not need to take part of the other bailout loan.

FORD
Loan Programs Office

Not really. It is just that the subject of the thread is Ford, and the UAW. so when you said "these companies". it appeared to include the thread subject as well.

Many people are under the mistaken idea that Ford did indeed take the bailout because they have Gov loans. However in truth nearly every large company in the US has Gov loans. It is easier to use Gov money that company capital.

Ford took many measures to cut costs, including closing many dealerships. Which in my humble opinion has hurt their sales. Several towns near us have no Ford store, but do have GM, and Fiat Chrysler stores. The nearest Ford store is more than 20 miles away. lots of people like to buy close to home, so they settle for a Chevy, or Ram instead of driving 20 + miles to buy.

It is the opposite where I live. More Ford dealers than anything else. Also, I do believe that Ford would have taken the bailout of they knew that they were not going to receive the other loan from the Department of Energy. Alan Mulally, Ford's CEO at the time and a man who I admire, actually touches on this in one of his books.

But it worked out better for them not to. They are the only ones that can brag about not taking the bail out. and in truth. The bail out was not a real success, as many think it was. after all. GM went bankrupt AFTER the bail out, and never did pay back all the loans. As I remember they left some 25 million unpaid. plus they NEVER fulfilled their end on the agreement. They were to develop and build their own axle plant for their SUV, and cars. They did not. They did try, but couldn't do it, and came back to GETRAG begging to have them to build their axles again. We did. But they were not the big dog in the plant any more.

And the only thing that save Chrysler was that it was sold to Fiat. Then shortly after. Fiat put them on the market again. But couldn't find any takers, and got stuck with them.

That is not exactly how it went down with Fiat and Chrysler.

The Story Behind Chrysler And Fiat, And Why The Stock Is So Cheap

In short, the president at the time sold out Chrysler in promises of whoever buys their stock would make more efficient vehicles. Fiat was able to buy it for pennies on the dollar because of this. Chrysler was essentially sold out, unconstitutionally might I add, because of the president at the time own agenda to a company that contributed to his campaign via their PAC's.

Ford received billions of dollars in loans that same year to make more efficient vehicles. Now, if you look at which side of the isle each of these companies spend their money in lobby efforts and getting people elected, it will start to make sense as to why it all went down this way.

Now Ram and Jeep are the only two brands that are making FCA as a whole(not just FCA US) profitable. If the President at the time would have kept the shares and sold them at a higher value later on so, the people would have gotten all their money back and then some just a few short years later when Ram and Jeep were making money hand over foot.

Yep it was a bad deal all around. and to be honest. When Fiat Chrysler was put up for sale so soon after it was bought. it really kind of scared us at GETRAG. We made a lot of axles for Chrysler. But since no one wanted it. We are still making axles for Fiat Chrysler. A lot of Jeep stuff. And we were already making axles for Maserati that Chrysler owned at the time. that has fallen way off. Still make a few hundred a month. but nothing like it was. And you ought to see the tiny gearsets that go into the Fiats, and Jeeps. not sure I'd want to take them off road.

BTW. GETRAG is no more. It was bought by GKN, over taken by Melrose and is now for sale again.

goducks10 wrote:
You know who loves unions? The non union workers that do the same work in the same town as union workers.
When unions leave wages drop.

A side note to this is that right to work states generally have lower cost of living and higher employment rates. It is a fact based on US data that on average non-RTW states have considerably more unions and a much higher the cost of living. A higher salary is needed to cover the higher cost of goods because the producers of those goods had to increase the salaries of their workers. It is a perpetual and never ending cycle. Another thing that increases the cost of living is taxes and regulations which most unions give to the political side that generally likes to increase these things whenever they can.

So just because the average salary is higher, does not necessarily mean they are better off when you consider all things.

Not saying that all union are bad. I am just saying that you have to take all things into account when weighing the pros and cons of it all. You can't just look at one single thing and say one is better(or worse) than the other.

You know who loves unions? The non union workers that do the same work in the same town as union workers.
When unions leave wages drop.

ShinerBock wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
Ford took many measures to cut costs, including closing many dealerships. Which in my humble opinion has hurt their sales. Several towns near us have no Ford store, but do have GM, and Fiat Chrysler stores. The nearest Ford store is more than 20 miles away. lots of people like to buy close to home, so they settle for a Chevy, or Ram instead of driving 20 + miles to buy.

It is the opposite where I live. More Ford dealers than anything else. Also, I do believe that Ford would have taken the bailout of they knew that they were not going to receive the other loan from the Department of Energy. Alan Mulally, Ford's CEO at the time and a man who I admire, actually touches on this in one of his books.

Ford still has a better presence in the NW compared to FCA. I have three good Ford dealers and one marginal FCA dealer within 20 miles of me. If my Ram were to give me any type of major trouble, I would have to take it 100 miles to find a good dealer and would have passed many more competent Ford dealers. If I were to just count the number of dealerships, Ford easily has two to three for every FCA in my area.

I do believe the unions make products more expensive and see it with Boeing being right outside my door. I also see unions protecting jobs that are not that difficult to master but are highly specialized. This means that the current workers may have few cross skills to work elsewhere but it would be easy to back fill them with new employees without the union in the way.

Terryallan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Terryallan wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I have spoken with many people about this. Almost every one of them said that they think the UAW is getting too greedy especially asking for benefits that most others do not get or have to pay for themselves. Most also felt that this greed was a large reason why we (the taxpayers) had to bail out these companies not to long ago. All of this on top of the current corruption scandals in the UAW's top executives are not helping their cause. They may have won this battle, but it appears they are loosing the war in the eyes of most people in my region because most are starting to view them unfavorably where they didn't just a few years ago.

Ford did not take the bail out. They had already done what they had to do to avoid it. GM who went bankrupt after wards, and Chrysler who was sold to Fiat, took the bailout.

I will never forget what the Ford CEO told the Congressional committee when they ask if he would work for a dollar ay year if they gave them the money. He said "No, I'm good". GM, and Chrysler CEOs on the other hand said, YES PLEASE.

I don't think I mention Ford once in my post. Someone is a little testy. Ford was actually in good standing during this crisis for various reasons and one of them was because they were awarded the $6 billion dollar loan from the Department of Energy in September of 2009. Because of this other government loan that preserved thousands of jobs, they did not need to take part of the other bailout loan.

FORD
Loan Programs Office

Not really. It is just that the subject of the thread is Ford, and the UAW. so when you said "these companies". it appeared to include the thread subject as well.

Many people are under the mistaken idea that Ford did indeed take the bailout because they have Gov loans. However in truth nearly every large company in the US has Gov loans. It is easier to use Gov money that company capital.

Ford took many measures to cut costs, including closing many dealerships. Which in my humble opinion has hurt their sales. Several towns near us have no Ford store, but do have GM, and Fiat Chrysler stores. The nearest Ford store is more than 20 miles away. lots of people like to buy close to home, so they settle for a Chevy, or Ram instead of driving 20 + miles to buy.

It is the opposite where I live. More Ford dealers than anything else. Also, I do believe that Ford would have taken the bailout of they knew that they were not going to receive the other loan from the Department of Energy. Alan Mulally, Ford's CEO at the time and a man who I admire, actually touches on this in one of his books.

But it worked out better for them not to. They are the only ones that can brag about not taking the bail out. and in truth. The bail out was not a real success, as many think it was. after all. GM went bankrupt AFTER the bail out, and never did pay back all the loans. As I remember they left some 25 million unpaid. plus they NEVER fulfilled their end on the agreement. They were to develop and build their own axle plant for their SUV, and cars. They did not. They did try, but couldn't do it, and came back to GETRAG begging to have them to build their axles again. We did. But they were not the big dog in the plant any more.

And the only thing that save Chrysler was that it was sold to Fiat. Then shortly after. Fiat put them on the market again. But couldn't find any takers, and got stuck with them.

That is not exactly how it went down with Fiat and Chrysler.

The Story Behind Chrysler And Fiat, And Why The Stock Is So Cheap

In short, the president at the time sold out Chrysler in promises of whoever buys their stock would make more efficient vehicles. Fiat was able to buy it for pennies on the dollar because of this. Chrysler was essentially sold out, unconstitutionally might I add, because of the president at the time own agenda to a company that contributed to his campaign via their PAC's.

Ford received billions of dollars in loans that same year to make more efficient vehicles. Now, if you look at which side of the isle each of these companies spend their money in lobby efforts and getting people elected, it will start to make sense as to why it all went down this way.

Now Ram and Jeep are the only two brands that are making FCA as a whole(not just FCA US) profitable. If the President at the time would have kept the shares and sold them at a higher value later on so, the people would have gotten all their money back and then some just a few short years later when Ram and Jeep were making money hand over foot.