Ford Workers Reject Contract changes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/ford-workers-reject-contr_n_341181.html

DETROIT — Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract
changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs,
leaving Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues its
struggle to return to profitability.

The United Auto Workers union had given local unions until Monday to
complete voting. But a person briefed on the voting said Saturday that
the contract changes have been rejected by large margins. The person
asked not to be named because the UAW hasn't announced the results yet.

The UAW and Ford agreed to the contract changes several weeks ago, but
Ford workers needed to ratify them. Ford has 41,000 UAW-represented workers.

Two large union locals in Kentucky and Ford's home city of Dearborn
rejected the contract Friday, sealing its fate. Those unions together
represent 13,000 Ford workers. Exact tallies weren't available, but at
least 12 UAW locals representing about 27,500 workers so far have vetoed
the deal, many overwhelmingly. Only about four locals with a total of
7,000 members favored the pact.

Ford sought the deal to bring its labor costs in line with Detroit
rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co., both of which won
concessions from the union as they headed into bankruptcy protection
earlier this year. Under pattern bargaining, the three automakers
usually match pay, benefits and other contract provisions.

But workers weren't convinced they should make more concessions, since
Ford avoided bankruptcy and is considered healthier than its rivals. At
least two Wall Street analysts are predicting that Ford could report a
profit Monday when it announces third-quarter earnings.

Rocky Comito, president of UAW Local 862 in Louisville, said Friday that
workers felt they were being asked to sacrifice more than the company's
executives. Ford CEO Alan Mulally made $17.7 million last year, although
that was down 22 percent from the year before.

"Some want to see management give more at the upper level," Comito said.
Story continues below

Ford was offering workers a $1,000 bonus if they ratified the contract.
But the contract also would have frozen entry-level pay, changed some
work rules and limited workers' ability to strike.

A message seeking comment was left Saturday for the UAW. UAW President
Ron Gettelfinger said Friday that there wouldn't be a revote if the
contract changes failed.

"If it fails, there would be no reason to go back to the bargaining
table," Gettelfinger said at a community event in Detroit. "We have a
democratic process in place. People have a right to express themselves.
We recognize there's a lot of misinformation about it out there, but
that is what it is."

Factory-level union leaders have known for several days that the deal
would be defeated, said one Detroit-area official who asked not to be
identified because the voting is not completed.

The union did a poor job of explaining the need to preserve jobs and
keep Ford competitive with GM and Chrysler, the official said.

He doesn't believe members will approve any more changes until the 2011
contract, which will leave Ford at a disadvantage and has the potential
to knock the company from its position as the strongest financially of
the Detroit Three.

"Our goal should be to keep Ford Motor Co. going in the right
direction," he said.

Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in
Worcester, Mass., said the vote was a slap to UAW leadership. It's
extremely rare for union members to oppose the union's recommended vote.

Chaison said the vote damages the reputation of UAW Vice President Bob
King, the chief Ford negotiator, who has been mentioned as a successor
to Gettelfinger when the union elects a new president in 2010.

"The sign of a good leader is that you can agree to something and then
sell it to the membership," Chaison said.

Chaison said Ford asked for too much too soon after workers already
agreed to concessions earlier this year. He also said Ford lacked
credibility because its financial situation wasn't as dire as GM's or
Chrysler's.

"They made such a strong case about not going to bankruptcy court and
turning the corner, so they couldn't go to the workers and say, 'We need
this to turn the corner,'" he said.

The no votes came even as Ford reached a similar cost-cutting agreement
with the Canadian Auto Workers union Friday. The CAW has agreed to cuts
in benefits in exchange for product guarantees, but that agreement must
be ratified by Canadian workers.

In addition to the plants in Louisville and Dearborn, workers at
factories in Chicago; Claycomo, Mo.; and Livonia, Plymouth, Sterling
Heights, Flat Rock, Ypsilanti Township, Mich., rejected the deal. Locals
in Wayne, Mich.; Cleveland; Indianapolis and St. Paul, Minn., voted in
favor.

Jim_Higgins wrote:
Solution is pretty easy. Start going offshore and closing plants.

Let the hammer fall on a couple of more militaristic plants to
demonstrate. Shouldn't take too long to ge the point across.

I don't know why they even try to run domestic plants. Makes no sense,
too costly and too much nanny hand holding. I hear Ford Brazil can make
econo vehicle for 1/2 price, tell them to ramp up.

Canuck57 wrote:
Ford will start moving offshore and GM will match them. Chrysler doesn't
count for anything anymore.

Perhaps the UAW noticed what happened to the American steel workers. The
USW Union agreed to big wage and benefits cut several times, but the steel
companies still when bankrupt.

Competition from foreign steel companies, that received huge supplements
from their governments and over regulation buy the US government, drove the
US companies into bankruptcy. It made no difference what the Union did to
help the companies stay in business and save American jobs.

All one need do is look back at what happened to our manufacturing base
after the EPA was enacted. in effect we "EXPORTED" our pollution and our
jobs along with it.

Now Bo and the Dims in Congress want to enact a carbon tax, to save the
world, that will export the rest of the jobs of you children and grand
children.


"Jim_Higgins" <gordian238 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

But, but, but will you be able to afford to buy one on your McDonalds
salary, or will you continue to buy the used cars you buy that someone else
no longer wanted?


"Canuck57" <Canuck57 (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote

Mike Hunter wrote:

Agreed. The auto workers could give up all benefits, work for free,
and Ford / GM / <insert favorite company name here> would still manage
to squander any benefit derived by the elimination of labor expense.

Mike Hunter wrote:

LOL. You wish. But I did once a long time ago start out with a job
that was at the social/pay status of McDonnalds, good learning
experience. Today I could buy a franchise if I wanted too.

If you think like a GM or a union slug on the dole, that is all you will
become.

Literally millions of people buy cars and pay for repairs with a salary from
McDonalds,
WalMart, and Taco Bell.

These may not be the people who by Avalanches and Lucernes and suchlike, but
they
are the very bedrock of the American working environment.

Mike Hunter wrote:

That is usually because it s to little too late.

Survivability planning begins when times are good. If you wait until
times are bad you know it is too late and you made a stupid move.

I bet in good times they ranted for ever higher wages and not company
pension and debt buy down. Now they want to suck on the public tits
just like GM.

From a union and corrupt management perspective, when Americans win it
is competition, when foreigners win it is anti-competative. LMAO, never
have so many been so dilusional and facing the price to pay for their
stupidity.

Ford is reporting a profit as we speak, but you are correct in that labor
costs are not necessarily reflected in the amount of profit an auto makers
earns.

Toyota pays it employees in the US lower wages, offers less desirable
benefits and does not offer a defined pension plan, yet their cars cost the
customer 20% to 30% more to drive home than comparably sized and equipped
domestics. Even with that Toyota has been operation at a lose for almost a
year.

A companies profits are a result of its economies of scale.


"Michael Golden" <mgolden (AT) bkbusa (DOT) com> wrote