UAW Rejects Ford’s Bid for Concessions
A move back across the pond to Ontario, Can in the works, as Boeing moves 787 line to SC in refutation of union socialist overkill???
"Previously, the Canadian Auto Workers union agreed to changes in the collective bargaining agreement covering 7,000 Ford employees at the Oakville Assembly Complex and Essex Engine Plant, both in Ontario."
UAW Rejects Ford’s Bid for Concessions
11/0
More..2/2009
Unionized workers at Ford Motor Co. have rejected the automaker’s request for modifications to their labor agreement. "The additional modifications we sought recently were designed to honor pattern bargaining and provide Ford with similar additional efficiencies as those ratified this year for our domestic competitors," according to a Ford statement.
Ford sought wage freezes on new hires, a promise that the union would not strike until 2015, and more flexible work rules.
Previously, the Canadian Auto Workers union agreed to changes in the collective bargaining agreement covering 7,000 Ford employees at the Oakville Assembly Complex and Essex Engine Plant, both in Ontario.
The United Auto Workers’ rejection came in rank-in-file that began about a week ago. The results came the same day that Ford reported a third-quarter profit of $997 million, compared with a $161-million loss in the third quarter of 2008.
The UAW said that 70% of its members and 75% of those representing skilled trades voted to deny concessions to Ford. “The ratification process proves once again that the membership is the highest authority in our union and we are respectful of the final outcome,” according to UAW president Ron Gettelfinger and vice president Bob King in a statement.
Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors each agreed to a framework agreement with the UAW in 2007. That agreement set in place the means for the automakers to downsize their organizations and established Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations, funded by automakers, to manage workers’ benefits programs.
However, as the three producers edged toward collapse earlier this year, GM and Chrysler obtained additional concessions from the UAW as a component of their bankruptcy filings that preceded federal rescue programs. Ford rejected federal support, but later sought comparable concessions from the union.
"Ford is disappointed that the additional changes were not ratified," stated Ford group v.p. of global manufacturing and labor affairs Joe Hinrichs. "Additional modifications we sought recently were designed to honor pattern bargaining and provide Ford with similar additional efficiencies as those ratified this year for our domestic competitors."
Less..
Added: Nov 3 2009 In: news_politics
By: HydrogenEconomy 
- Views: 424 |
- Votes: 0 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 21
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
Union so so stupid
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "thebigniv" (R)
That's how they got back into the black (if they realy did or is it just rubbery accounting?), --- by building rubbish and screwing the workers as well as their very gullible customers...
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "ctiley" (R)
They got back into the black by cost cutting and managing their shit. Idiot.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Jammer7" (R)
No worries, soon we will live under a former Soviet Union style of life. Once that happends no one will be able to put comments here.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "ngc 1350" (R)
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Beinrich_Bimmler" (R)
so fire the ****ers. Unions are what ****ed up the auto ind in the first place.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Minime0Yeah" (R)
The one company which survived without bailouts and even turned a profit, and they want to kill that one too.
???
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Be more specific. I just replaced the starter on my '94 Ford and it took 10 minutes. Used part: $22. How much would that cost on a Toyota?
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Be more specific. I just replaced the starter on my '94 Ford and it took 10 minutes. Used part: $22. How much would that cost on a Toyota?
Ok. The "check engine" light usually blinks on at 50,000 miles or less. No big deal. I fixed the brakes on an old Ford Astrovan, the calipers are not even held in place by bolts, they used a wedge made of stamped steel with rubber inside to hold them on. I drive my Ford Courier work truck as if i owned it, but at 70,000 miles, it has had TWO transmissions. Maintenance and repair are problematic since the design of all of them seems to have been created by your worst enemy. I won't own a Ford, ever. After 30 years of this, at age 49 you get weary of crawling on your back on Sunday night, to fix this shit so you can get to work tomorow.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Hitler_Is_Amazing" Premium
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Be more specific. I just replaced the starter on my '94 Ford and it took 10 minutes. Used part: $22. How much would that cost on a Toyota?
Ok. The "check engine" light usually blinks on at 50,000 miles or less. No big deal. I fixed the brakes on an old Ford Astrovan, the calipers are not even held in place by bolts, they used a wedge made of stamped steel with rubber inside to hold them on. I drive my Ford Courier work truck as if i owned it, but at 70,000 miles, it has had TWO transmissions. Maintenance and repair are problematic since the design of all of them seems to have been created by your worst enemy. I won't own a Ford, ever. After 30 years of this, at age 49 you get weary of crawling on your back on Sunday night, to fix this shit so you can get to work tomorow.
That's bizarre! Mine has a Mazda transmission, so maybe that's why it's lasted so long, but I did have to replace the clutch sort of early. The only other thing that's failed has been the freeze plugs. I know what you mean about the brakes, too, but is it really a bad design? I really liked the 2 bolts on the starter, but I've only changed starters on Fords, so I don't know how it compares.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Be more specific. I just replaced the starter on my '94 Ford and it took 10 minutes. Used part: $22. How much would that cost on a Toyota?
Ok. The "check engine" light usually blinks on at 50,000 miles or less. No big deal. I fixed the brakes on an old Ford Astrovan, the calipers are not even held in place by bolts, they used a wedge made of stamped steel with rubber inside to hold them on. I drive my Ford Courier work truck as if i owned it, but at 70,000 miles, it has had TWO transmissions. Maintenance and repair are problematic since the design of all of them seems to have been created by your worst enemy. I won't own a Ford, ever. After 30 years of this, at age 49 you get weary of crawling on your back on Sunday night, to fix this shit so you can get to work tomorow.
That's bizarre! Mine has a Mazda transmission, so maybe that's why it's lasted so long, but I did have to replace the clutch sort of early. The only other thing that's failed has been the freeze plugs. I know what you mean about the brakes, too, but is it really a bad design? I really liked the 2 bolts on the starter, but I've only changed starters on Fords, so I don't know how it compares.
The design of Ford is always invariably wrong - apparently if they've seen a Toyota they didn't even open the hood. Alot of the common parts, alternator, battery, and starter, are easy to get to, on some of them. I changed the starter on an old Tempo and if i hadn't had a lift, it would have been almost impossible. Their design philosophy shows no indication of ever changing, since Henry Ford 1 himself said "I will sell the cars cheap, and the parts dear!"
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Hitler_Is_Amazing" Premium
"The United Auto Workers%u2019 rejection came in rank-in-file that began about a week ago. The results came the same day that Ford reported a third-quarter profit of $997 million"
coincidence?
But if Ford wants to send the jobs up here, there are plenty of people who need them.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "zigzag2" (R)
Why make concessions to your Boss right after they post a huge profit?
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "PH-DEE" (R)
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Be more specific. I just replaced the starter on my '94 Ford and it took 10 minutes. Used part: $22. How much would that cost on a Toyota?
Ok. The "check engine" light usually blinks on at 50,000 miles or less. No big deal. I fixed the brakes on an old Ford Astrovan, the calipers are not even held in place by bolts, they used a wedge made of stamped steel with rubber inside to hold them on. I drive my Ford Courier work truck as if i owned it, but at 70,000 miles, it has had TWO transmissions. Maintenance and repair are problematic since the design of all of them seems to have been created by your worst enemy. I won't own a Ford, ever. After 30 years of this, at age 49 you get weary of crawling on your back on Sunday night, to fix this shit so you can get to work tomorow.
That's bizarre! Mine has a Mazda transmission, so maybe that's why it's lasted so long, but I did have to replace the clutch sort of early. The only other thing that's failed has been the freeze plugs. I know what you mean about the brakes, too, but is it really a bad design? I really liked the 2 bolts on the starter, but I've only changed starters on Fords, so I don't know how it compares.
The design of Ford is always invariably wrong - apparently if they've seen a Toyota they didn't even open the hood. Alot of the common parts, alternator, battery, and starter, are easy to get to, on some of them. I changed the starter on an old Tempo and if i hadn't had a lift, it would have been almost impossible. Their design philosophy shows no indication of ever changing, since Henry Ford 1 himself said "I will sell the cars cheap, and the parts dear!"
Ford parts have been pretty incredibly cheap from my experience, so there goes that theory.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "FlibbleDeeFlobble" (R)
"Rubbish" indeed! i work on Fords, they are so full of designed-in defects i wouldn't own one for free (I drive a 2002 Toyota, and beware all the ones after 2006 are just like the Fords.)
Be more specific. I just replaced the starter on my '94 Ford and it took 10 minutes. Used part: $22. How much would that cost on a Toyota?
Ok. The "check engine" light usually blinks on at 50,000 miles or less. No big deal. I fixed the brakes on an old Ford Astrovan, the calipers are not even held in place by bolts, they used a wedge made of stamped steel with rubber inside to hold them on. I drive my Ford Courier work truck as if i owned it, but at 70,000 miles, it has had TWO transmissions. Maintenance and repair are problematic since the design of all of them seems to have been created by your worst enemy. I won't own a Ford, ever. After 30 years of this, at age 49 you get weary of crawling on your back on Sunday night, to fix this shit so you can get to work tomorow.
That's bizarre! Mine has a Mazda transmission, so maybe that's why it's lasted so long, but I did have to replace the clutch sort of early. The only other thing that's failed has been the freeze plugs. I know what you mean about the brakes, too, but is it really a bad design? I really liked the 2 bolts on the starter, but I've only changed starters on Fords, so I don't know how it compares.
The design of Ford is always invariably wrong - apparently if they've seen a Toyota they didn't even open the hood. Alot of the common parts, alternator, battery, and starter, are easy to get to, on some of them. I changed the starter on an old Tempo and if i hadn't had a lift, it would have been almost impossible. Their design philosophy shows no indication of ever changing, since Henry Ford 1 himself said "I will sell the cars cheap, and the parts dear!"
Ford parts have been pretty incredibly cheap from my experience, so there goes that theory.
I drive a toyota Camry and it is the best car i have ever owned, out of 10. (If you like toyota, 2006 and older only.) The design is splendid and almost any maintenance or work is relatively easy. What's more, i own a Kentucky Camry (they have a plant there.) If you like Ford, that is fine, my next choice is Toyota pickup or a Honda.
Posted Nov-3-2009 by "Hitler_Is_Amazing" Premium