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

[goducks10]

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.

[Terryallan]

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.

[ShinerBock]

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.

[goducks10]

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.

[Bedlam]

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.

[ShinerBock]

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.

[Terryallan]

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.

[ShinerBock]

JIMNLIN wrote:

Bash on ....you have that right to do so.

So at what point does it not become bashing to you? What if the UAW asked for $120k salaries and $15k bonuses and paying no health care? At what point would you say they are being greedy just like we are or do they get a pass simply because they are union?

[SidecarFlip]

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

Shinerbock wrote:
Actually, no one here is bashing union in general.

Oh there have been a few general bashings.... I think Fish was one of the first.

I have been a Union organizer, member and Shop steward since 1994.

I can tell you from experience, that not all Unions have it as good as the UAW, or the public sector Unions. They are the most sucessful, perhaps too suscessful for their long term good, and some of them like the UAW get a lot of press.... Some public sector Unions such as teachers enjoy good press.... In spite of the built in negotiating advantage they have as public sector Unions.

Many Unions are still fighting the battle to get their members into the middle class..... Which Unions were a prime driver of creating.

Many things that we now enjoy, and think of as a normal right came about because of Unions. OSHA, 40 hour work week, vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, greivances for unfair discipline, etc.

These things (and more) exist now in both Union, and non Union companies because of Union efforts. The non Union companies went along and provided them or were forced to by legislation to keep up with the Union standards.

The UAW has members that often do highly specialized jobs,(skills) that will not transfer easily to another company.... And the automakers have a highly cylical business that makes obscene profits in boom times. With that much money available, thay are often able to secure contracts that are unheard of in other industries.... But they usually suffer in downturns.

As for the bad actors that pop up in Unions occasionally... Whenever there is a huge pot of money available, there will be those that cannot resist partaking in it... It is part of the human condition.
I will point out that there have been PLENTY of people in the management/company side that fall into this catagory as well.

I have worked both Union and non Union, and have seen the benefits, and downsides first hand.

I believe that Unions are necessary to balance the unfettered power that companies other wise would have.
If they were to disappear from the workplace, we would see many benefits that we take for granted disappearing as well. This would go for Union and non Union workers alike.

This is false. I was fed this propaganda too until I researched it myself.

The 40 hour work week was created by Henry Ford long before his plants were unionized because he thought that his employees would buy more Model T's if they had time off to enjoy them. Henry Ford, along with Jewish(Saturday) and Christian(Sunday) religion, also played a big role in the two day weekend long before his factories were unionized.

Paid sick leave was first created in foreign countries, and is still not a law in Texas even though most companies, union and non-union, give it to their employees.

Paid vacation came about because employers in the early 1900's(long before unions) saw that their employees having time off made them more productive.

Holiday pay is not required in the US and is up the the employers discretion. Many companies offer it for the same reason they offer vacation pay, to attract workers. There have been recordings of Holiday pay in US companies long before unions were even established here.

There are many other things that unions take credit for, but had little or no impact on their implementation. Many of these things just took a natural progression as communication became more instant and the traveling time between places decreased. People were able to be more selective on where they wanted to work, and employers had to find way to entice them.

+1 on that and I'm a retired union employee.

Unions, especially the UAW and the Teamsters like to pat themselves on the back for things they had no skin in the game with.

Here in Michigan, we refer to the UAW as U Ain't Workin'

[JIMNLIN]

bock wrote:
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.

Really. Your continual bash comments every time a union thread is started sure fooled me and others.
Anywayz read what I said. My comment was toward another same thread topic that was just closed.

I am guessing you are getting mad because you are in a union and you don't like anyone talking bad about a union.

LOL....wrong as usual. Not mad here but as my reply above mentioned just more of the same old same old replies like you and same others made in the other closed thread on the same topic.
Some unions along with said companies involved are no angels IMO.

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

Works both ways. You have that right to bash a union....just like I have a right to make a point about another same old comments like the bash the same union thread that was just closed.

Just a observation here but looking back over the years at all the anti union/anti trailer brand/anti rv dealer/etc threads started on rv.net its the same members who like to bash the topic. We know what their going to say when we see their user name. But it does get old and repetitious with nothing new to learn.
Bash on ....you have that right to do so.

[SidecarFlip]

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.

[ShinerBock]

Huntindog wrote:

Shinerbock wrote:
Actually, no one here is bashing union in general.

Oh there have been a few general bashings.... I think Fish was one of the first.

I have been a Union organizer, member and Shop steward since 1994.

I can tell you from experience, that not all Unions have it as good as the UAW, or the public sector Unions. They are the most sucessful, perhaps too suscessful for their long term good, and some of them like the UAW get a lot of press.... Some public sector Unions such as teachers enjoy good press.... In spite of the built in negotiating advantage they have as public sector Unions.

Many Unions are still fighting the battle to get their members into the middle class..... Which Unions were a prime driver of creating.

Many things that we now enjoy, and think of as a normal right came about because of Unions. OSHA, 40 hour work week, vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, greivances for unfair discipline, etc.

These things (and more) exist now in both Union, and non Union companies because of Union efforts. The non Union companies went along and provided them or were forced to by legislation to keep up with the Union standards.

The UAW has members that often do highly specialized jobs,(skills) that will not transfer easily to another company.... And the automakers have a highly cylical business that makes obscene profits in boom times. With that much money available, thay are often able to secure contracts that are unheard of in other industries.... But they usually suffer in downturns.

As for the bad actors that pop up in Unions occasionally... Whenever there is a huge pot of money available, there will be those that cannot resist partaking in it... It is part of the human condition.
I will point out that there have been PLENTY of people in the management/company side that fall into this catagory as well.

I have worked both Union and non Union, and have seen the benefits, and downsides first hand.

I believe that Unions are necessary to balance the unfettered power that companies other wise would have.
If they were to disappear from the workplace, we would see many benefits that we take for granted disappearing as well. This would go for Union and non Union workers alike.

This is false. I was fed this propaganda too until I researched it myself.

The 40 hour work week was created by Henry Ford long before his plants were unionized because he thought that his employees would buy more Model T's if they had time off to enjoy them. Henry Ford, along with Jewish(Saturday) and Christian(Sunday) religion, also played a big role in the two day weekend long before his factories were unionized.

Paid sick leave was first created in foreign countries, and is still not a law in the US even though most companies, union and non-union, give it to their employees.

Paid vacation came about because employers in the early 1900's saw that their employees having time off made them more productive.

Holiday pay is not required in the US and is up the the employers discretion. Many companies offer it for the same reason they offer vacation and sick pay, to attract workers. There have been recordings of Holiday pay in US companies long before unions were even established here.

There are many other things that unions take credit for, but had little or no impact on their implementation. Many of these things just took a natural progression as communication became more instant and the traveling time between places decreased. People were able to be more selective on where they wanted to work, and employers had to find way to entice the best employees.

[SidecarFlip]

FishOnOne wrote:
GM paved the way for this agreement and FCA will be forced to follow suit as well or the union will go on strike.

And you can put me in the category that knows unions need to go away. All unions!

Keep in mind that, other than Jeeps Wranglers, most of the FCA products are built in Mexico by non union workers and if they are unionized, the wages are a fraction of what the domestic counterparts make. FCA has the largest percentage of vehicles built outside the states of any automaker. RAM pickup trucks, Toluca, Mexico...

Consequently, if FCA don't agree to the UAW they can still build and sell vehicles.

Far as the Jeep end goes, FCA is very progressive at their Toldeo Jeep plant. They are the ONLY automaker that houses sub assembly non union suppliers on the grounds the plant occupies. I ought to know, I drive past almost every day and the sign at the main entrance lists the suppliers on premises.

Don't know if they will agree and I believe the Pugeot / FCA tentative merger has everything to do with busting the union.

I could be wrong.

Far as Toyota or Nissan building a pickup truck, I didn't mean a 1/2 ton grocery / soccer mom truck, I meant a real work truck in the 3/4 or 1 ton flavor.

They can see the profit margin, they aren't stupid.

Union legacy costs are a huge part of the equation when it comes to contract negotiations. Union negotiated pensions eat up a huge percentage of the overall profit margin for unionized automotive.

[Dadoffourgirls]

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.

[Huntindog]

Shinerbock wrote:
Actually, no one here is bashing union in general.

Oh there have been a few general bashings.... I think Fish was one of the first.

I have been a Union organizer, member and Shop steward since 1994.

I can tell you from experience, that not all Unions have it as good as the UAW, or the public sector Unions. They are the most sucessful, perhaps too suscessful for their long term good, and some of them like the UAW get a lot of press.... Some public sector Unions such as teachers enjoy good press.... In spite of the built in negotiating advantage they have as public sector Unions.

Many Unions are still fighting the battle to get their members into the middle class..... Which Unions were a prime driver of creating.

Many things that we now enjoy, and think of as a normal right came about because of Unions. OSHA, 40 hour work week, vacation pay, sick pay, holiday pay, greivances for unfair discipline, etc.

These things (and more) exist now in both Union, and non Union companies because of Union efforts. The non Union companies went along and provided them or were forced to by legislation to keep up with the Union standards.

The UAW has members that often do highly specialized jobs,(skills) that will not transfer easily to another company.... And the automakers have a highly cylical business that makes obscene profits in boom times. With that much money available, thay are often able to secure contracts that are unheard of in other industries.... But they usually suffer in downturns.

As for the bad actors that pop up in Unions occasionally... Whenever there is a huge pot of money available, there will be those that cannot resist partaking in it... It is part of the human condition.
I will point out that there have been PLENTY of people in the management/company side that fall into this catagory as well.

I have worked both Union and non Union, and have seen the benefits, and downsides first hand.

I believe that Unions are necessary to balance the unfettered power that companies other wise would have.
If they were to disappear from the workplace, we would see many benefits that we take for granted disappearing as well. This would go for Union and non Union workers alike.