Ford workers in Missouri reject contract changes

[thundley4]

MSN money

Autoworkers in Missouri overwhelmingly rejected a new contract with Ford Motor Co., a sign that the automaker and the United Auto Workers union are having trouble convincing some workers to accept changes that would lower Ford's labor costs.

Ninety-two percent of workers at the Kansas City Assembly Plant voted against changes to their contract Sunday. The plant, which makes Ford F-150 pickups as well as the Ford Explorer and Mercury Mariner, employs around 3,700 people, or about 9 percent of Ford's 41,000 UAW members.
*snip*
But opponents say Ford already is healthier than GM and Chrysler, and that workers need to take a stand and stop accepting concessions.

Yeah, let's drive Ford to the point of needing a bailout and UAW take over.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Healthier than 'On life support in the ICU' is not a real strong argument.

[bkg]

If only GM and Chrysler had filed bancruptcy the first time... we would have saved billions and rid ourselves of the UAW.

[RobJohnson]

The union prez even wants them to aceept it:

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger told The Associated Press in an interview before the Kansas City vote that he's pushing the deal because it preserves jobs through product guarantees for several plants. He also believes it helps Ford be competitive and profitable in the future.

Workers would get a $1,000 bonus if the deal is ratified, but the proposal also would freeze entry-level wages and require some skilled-trades workers to do more than one job. The union also agreed not to strike Ford if the two sides disagree on wage or benefit increases, although the UAW could still strike over other issues.

Jeff Wright, president of UAW Local 249 in Pleasant Valley, Mo., which represents the Kansas City plant, said workers were upset about the wage cap, changes in work rules and the no-strike provision. But he said workers also were angered by local management issues, including a rash of disciplinary hearings in recent weeks.

"I'm sure you've heard that all politics are local," said Wright, who stayed neutral on the changes. "Management, leading up to this, was not conducive to getting a 'yes' vote from our members."

Workers elsewhere have approved the changes. Two factories in Wayne, Mich., and two more in Brook Park, Ohio, near Cleveland have approved the deal. The Wayne plant voted only 51 percent in favor despite getting commitments for two new vehicles. Sixty-one percent of workers in Brook Park supported the deal, Wolkowicz said.

   and require some skilled-trades workers to do more than one job.

How dare they???? 

[Gratiot]

The union prez even wants them to aceept it:

   and require some skilled-trades workers to do more than one job.

How dare they???? 

That's a bit misleading, but taken at face, it surely is a laughable statement 

Personally I agree with Gettelfinger and King, that it will be better for the union in the long haul to ratify this contract.  There are understandable reasons why so many are against it though.   

[thundley4]

It used to be standard practice for the UAW to settle with one of the big three, and then get that same contract with the other two.  Ford was not even asking for the same concessions that were given to  GM and Chrysler by the union. I recently read that Voting this down is going to cost some jobs for the union.

Sullivan tried to convince members to vote in favor of the deal, especially because it would have created or preserved more than 7,000 jobs nationwide, but to no avail.

http://www.freep.com/article/20091101/BUSINESS01/911010549/1320/UAW-accepts-defeat-of-plan-to-change-Ford-deal

[bkg]

I wonder how much cheaper vehicles would be if it wasn't for the UAW. Ford has wanted to duplicate their state of the art Brazil plant here, but the UAW won't let them. I hate unions.

[Gratiot]

I wonder how much cheaper vehicles would be if it wasn't for the UAW. Ford has wanted to duplicate their state of the art Brazil plant here, but the UAW won't let them. I hate unions.

They wouldn't be any cheaper, for the consumer.  Even Ford states that the actual labor cost of a vehicle is typically less than 10% of their manufacturing cost, which is now essentially at par with the Japanese manufacturers.  Auto industry analysts and their own execs have been on the record stating that reduced labor expenses aren't to reduce the costs of the vehicles or increase their profit margins, but to redirect the funds into additional features or research and development.  

I'm not sure why, or more importantly if true, how the UAW blocked Ford from investing in a new state of the art plant to be built in the states. 

[bkg]

They wouldn't be any cheaper, for the consumer.  Even Ford states that the actual labor cost of a vehicle is typically less than 10% of their manufacturing cost, which is now essentially at par with the Japanese manufacturers.  Auto industry analysts and their own execs have been on the record stating that reduced labor expenses aren't to reduce the costs of the vehicles or increase their profit margins, but to redirect the funds into additional features or research and development. 

I'm not sure why, or more importantly if true, how the UAW blocked Ford from investing in a new state of the art plant to be built in the states. 

read what I highlighted. The statement is illogical...

There's a TLC/Discovery episode on the Brazil plant.

Also, I challenge you to show that labor and legacy costs are on par between UAW and non-UAW shops.

[Gratiot]

read what I highlighted. The statement is illogical...

There's a TLC/Discovery episode on the Brazil plant.

Also, I challenge you to show that labor and legacy costs are on par between UAW and non-UAW shops.

I'm honestly not sure what was illogical about that, other than poor grammar.  However, I freely admit that I'm quite tired, having worked about 30 hours this weekend.  So I'll attempt to rephrase it a bit:

Their plans are that if they can spend a bit less on labor, they can spend a bit more on 'additional features' or 'research and development', with their total outlays per vehicle being roughly the same.  The additional expenditures being offset by the reduction in labor expenses.  In their own words, the intention of reducing labor costs is not to reduce the cost to the consumer.

I'd love to watch that documentary, thanks for the source, could be quite fascinating.  

I never stated that labor and legacy costs were the same between UAW and non-UAW shops.  

[bkg]

I'm honestly not sure what was illogical about that, other than poor grammar.  However, I freely admit that I'm quite tired, having worked about 30 hours this weekend.  So I'll attempt to rephrase it a bit:

Their plans are that if they can spend a bit less on labor, they can spend a bit more on 'additional features' or 'research and development', with their total outlays per vehicle being roughly the same.  The additional expenditures being offset by the reduction in labor expenses.  In their own words, the intention of reducing labor costs is not to reduce the cost to the consumer.

You miss the point. The additiona profit allowed by the reduced costs is what would allow them to do the R&D. If they want to do that R&D now, it much come out of their existing profit. By definition, reduced costs increases profits if the revenue is the same. What Ford CHOOSES TO DO with that profit is 100% up to them.

[Gratiot]

You miss the point. The additiona profit allowed by the reduced costs is what would allow them to do the R&D. If they want to do that R&D now, it much come out of their existing profit. By definition, reduced costs increases profits if the revenue is the same. What Ford CHOOSES TO DO with that profit is 100% up to them.

Apparently so mate, when you made this pondering...

I wonder how much cheaper vehicles would be if it wasn't for the UAW.

I mistakingly presumed you were referring to how much cheaper vehicles would be, for the consumer.
Rather than the perspective of Fords manufacturing costs, with the narrow focus of just labor.  

They wouldn't be any cheaper, for the consumer.

As my initial statement, which you followed up on, referenced.

[bkg]

It's still something worth wondering. GM has a $1500-2000 per vehicle legacy cost. If they didn't have that, would their vehicles be cheaper? Possibly - it depends on what they choose to do. Would it make it POSSIBLE for them to reduce costs to the consumer, absolutely.

[Gratiot]

It's still something worth wondering. GM has a $1500-2000 per vehicle legacy cost. If they didn't have that, would their vehicles be cheaper? Possibly - it depends on what they choose to do. Would it make it POSSIBLE for them to reduce costs to the consumer, absolutely.

You're basing your position on an argument of it being possible.  That's not something one can disprove, nor would I wish too engage in a straw/scarecrow argument.  From my initial post, I just stated that the auto execs themselves have stated that their goal is something else... not the possibility you're now bringing up.  

I'm not trying to discredit the possibility of something else happening nor argue that it couldn't.  It's neither debatable or arguable on the basis of being possible, on the other hand the likelihood... especially when they themselves deny, would be another matter.  

[bkg]

I'm basing my argument on economics.

Please cite your sources.

[Mustang]

Despite how much I hate unions, I like my new Ford.

I think they make quality vehicles. I would never join a union unless I was forced to...i.e. I would lose my benefits. And some jobs you are forced into the union upon hire and you cannot leave it until you have worked a certain amount of time, UPS-one of the world's largest employers does this. And in some cases you can lose all your benefits.

I think unions should be illegal. They were formed after the industrial revolution to protect workers...but have now become the oppressors themselves. The department of labor does today what unions were formed to do many years ago. 

Unions represent the mob rule of a democracy and not the protection of a Republic. They operate like mafia's - intimidation, political corruption, work corruption, voter intimidation, waste.