Ford reaches tentative UAW contract.

[WVcampground]

Who would of thunk?

How would you like to get a $9000 ratification bonus on top of your raise along with no healthcare cost increases or changes in coverage? And $3500 if you're a temp?

Anyone wanna bet the price of that $74000.00 F350 is soon to be $79,000.00? :B

[ShinerBock]

pjgoeman wrote:
No one forced the auto companies to agree to these contract terms but somehow it's the greedy union's fault? Based on the multi multi million dollar salaries and bonuses paid out to executive management there's obviously plenty of money to go around and we're the knuckleheads who keep giving it to them.

So if they don't sign the contract then what happens? Can they still make cars? Can they just hire different workers who will agree to work for the old terms. What if they are in a state that forces unions? So saying their hands aren't forced is a little farce.

In order to hire good CEO's, you have to pay them well. A good CEO will actually make the company and it's shareholders way more than what he is paid. This is the reason why they are paid like they are. For example, I save my company over $15 million a year while many of the executives above me like my direct VP saves the company way more from his ideas on improvement and efficiency. Things that many of the other workers would not even think of. These types of savings and gains more than justify our salaries and bonuses. Of course I have to continuously justify my position year over year and I can't just rest on what I did last year. The same goes for many people on the executive level that has to answer to the board.

CEO's and other executives are just like anything else. You get what you pay for in many circumstances. A good will be worth his salary and bonuses. Of course a bad one will not, but then again they will not get their bonuses either and will generally not be in their position for very long if they keep showing a loss without improvement.

[delwhjr]

colliehauler wrote:
They will just put in more automation and get rid of more people. Or start farming more parts out to suppliers. They might of won the battle and lose the war.

I have two friends that work for GM and they have been prepping for the loss of their jobs to automation for a few years. They are convinced the new contract will spell the end for them before this one expires. Luckily, the ratification bonus helps them toward their goal to be ready in time.

[pjgoeman]

No one forced the auto companies to agree to these contract terms but somehow it's the greedy union's fault? Based on the multi multi million dollar salaries and bonuses paid out to executive management there's obviously plenty of money to go around and we're the knuckleheads who keep giving it to them.

[ShinerBock]

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.

[ShinerBock]

JIMNLIN wrote:
Jeez..... here we go again with 'nother bash the union topic. How many gets posted per year on average on forums.

One was just closed so now we have the same ol' same ol' 'nother one going with the same members making the same old tired blather about their versions of the same union...... and someone like me complaining about the complainers.
Now where's the beat the dead horse with the mighty stick picture.

Actually, no one here is bashing union in general. We, both union and non-union members, just think a specific union(the UAW) is being greedy. Sorry if you can't handle people criticism of the UAW, but we have every right to speak our minds about the topic.


I am guessing you are getting mad because you are in a union and you don't like anyone talking bad about a union. Although, I will point out that I have worked for Cummins and how many people talk bad about them? Do I get to tell people to stop talking about them because that is a company I worked for? No. I also work for a dealer group that has dealers for several brands including Ford. Does that mean I should step in when people bash any dealer and tell them not to talk about them? No.

This is a free country and it should no be forbidden to discuss such things just because it triggers some people.

[Terryallan]

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.

[JIMNLIN]

Jeez..... here we go again with 'nother bash the union topic. How many gets posted per year on average on forums.

One was just closed so now we have the same ol' same ol' 'nother one going with the same members making the same old tired blather about their versions of the same union...... and someone like me complaining about the complainers.
Now where's the beat the dead horse with the mighty stick picture.

[ShinerBock]

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 they knew they were going to receive this other government loan, they did not need to take part of the bailout loan. Without this Energy Department loan, I believe they would have probably needed to taken the bailout loan.

FORD
Loan Programs Office

[Lwiddis]

UAW leaders need to think longterm, not short term. But so do their members.

[midnightsadie]

and there pricing the buyers right out of the market, I drive a 2005 truck ,won,t buy a new one because of price.

[midnightsadie]

there was a time unions were needed but now they just rip the companies off ,

[Groover]

danrclem wrote:
Not all UAW workers get the big pay and benefits. I retired about 2 1/2 years ago from a supplier and we were UAW. I would bet money that when wages and benefits were totaled up that we didn't make half of what the big 3 do and that would be before their last contract. The UAW puts the big 3 in the spotlight to make them look good and they don't care what most of the suppliers make. They just wanted our money and we got very little in return.

The last contract negotiations that I went through were a joke. They would shift things around a little and offer us the same contract over and over. That happened several times and then the last one that passed the local president wrote a threatening letter about what would happen if we didn't take this offer. The company hired quite a few people right before the last vote and offered a sign on bonus and it passed. The new workers weren't officially in the union but they were allowed to vote.

The local said that they had to make us vote on every proposal which is a lie. UAW international didn't back us at all and even though most of us wanted to strike (up to the president's threatening letter) we weren't allowed to. The local and UAW international is in the pocket of the company that I worked for.

Screw the UAW and the horse that they rode in on!

I used to work for a large and diverse company with quite a few plants in the U.S., some of which were unionized. They took pride in the fact that their union contracts were worth less than the pay packages for the non-union plants. I believe that it was illegal for them to come out and say it but if the workforce voted in a union they not only got to pay union dues but had to do it with less income. The companies are required to negotiate in good faith but when negotiations start the current pay package goes out the window and the union has to fight for every penny and the starting point is zero dollars. But, when you listened to organizers you got the impression that they always got the hourly people at least a 50% raise.

[Terryallan]

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.

[wildtoad]

Once again the UAW forces the big two plus FCA into being the high cost producers of commodity products. This will turn out badly for the workers in the long run.

[danrclem]

Not all UAW workers get the big pay and benefits. I retired about 2 1/2 years ago from a supplier and we were UAW. I would bet money that when wages and benefits were totaled up that we didn't make half of what the big 3 do and that would be before their last contract. The UAW puts the big 3 in the spotlight to make them look good and they don't care what most of the suppliers make. They just wanted our money and we got very little in return.

The last contract negotiations that I went through were a joke. They would shift things around a little and offer us the same contract over and over. That happened several times and then the last one that passed the local president wrote a threatening letter about what would happen if we didn't take this offer. The company hired quite a few people right before the last vote and offered a sign on bonus and it passed. The new workers weren't officially in the union but they were allowed to vote.

The local said that they had to make us vote on every proposal which is a lie. UAW international didn't back us at all and even though most of us wanted to strike (up to the president's threatening letter) we weren't allowed to. The local and UAW international is in the pocket of the company that I worked for.

Screw the UAW and the horse that they rode in on!