ZED_not_zee,Mar 14 2007, 12:44 AM Wrote:I grew up in a union home my dad worked for ford for 32 yrs soI'm not an outsider looking in... we lived well from ford
When I was a kid we lived well from Ford also. My Father in middle-upper management supported a wife and five kids. We had a large sailboat,nice home,vacation and new car every year. All the fathers that worked at Ford in my area supported a wife and kids with plenty of cash to spare. Try doing that today. The price of the vehicles keep going up along with everything else, but the wages are not keeping up. We are the working poor, and the CEO's own everything.
Ford pays $1,200-$1,500 in labour per vehicle, including benefits. Even if all us union workers worked for free, Ford still couldn't compete with China.
Welcome to Walmart Nation.
Okay, rant is over. I've got to get back to work now :)
CanadaSVT,Mar 16 2007, 01:06 AM Wrote:FocusGuy7476,Mar 13 2007, 11:52 PM Wrote:OAC_Sparky or Meford, do you know if Toyota or Honda have any agree with CAW union? I do believe they have factories in Ontario.
[right][snapback]230405[/snapback][/right]
If anyone responded to this post I didn't see it.
Toyota and Honda do not have union workers, and as of today I've never heard of any line worker retiring from Yot or Ho in Canada with a company pension.
[right][snapback]230737[/snapback][/right]
right there, Toyota and Honda have the domestics beat. They don't have to put up with some of the union bulls*** that is out there. Toyota and Honda probably do have a company pension plan but it wouldn't be the same deal as Ford, DCX, or GM, it could consist of voluntary plan where the company matches your contribution or some related to the stock price of the company. Most likely along the lines of Profit and Revenue sharing with the employees to keep the happy at the end of each quarter/6months/year.
Yeah but toyota and honda pay you 12 bucks less...yet thier cars cost more then domestic.
Give it time Toyota and Honda will start to slide, and when the workers see it ...BAM youv'e got another company in the CAW.
So, to bring this back from the dead, does the fact that these workers accepted a decrease in pay less than 12 months ago and now the company has eliminated a shift at the plant change what you said earlier?
Pay decreases in an existing environment don't change the enivitable circumstance for a plant. Only when major changes come to a plant with the reduced wages are long term goals for all achieved. The company achieved savings while the workers were screwed over. Unfortunately, the union was of little help.
And Nef, directed at you. Your comment about accepting the pay cut or unemployment. Has your comment changed now that a third shift has been cut and over 1000 people are on EI? The cut in wages changed nothing IMO.
meford4u,Nov 15 2007, 09:49 PM Wrote:And Nef, directed at you. Your comment about accepting the pay cut or unemployment. Has your comment changed now that a third shift has been cut and over 1000 people are on EI? The cut in wages changed nothing IMO.
[right][snapback]252929[/snapback][/right]
It's not good, but was the money they made even with the cut more than what they would have gotten on EI? :huh:
I know that sounds mercenary, but in these times...
NefCanuck
NefCanuck,Nov 15 2007, 11:16 PM Wrote:meford4u,Nov 15 2007, 09:49 PM Wrote:And Nef, directed at you.ÃÂ Your comment about accepting the pay cut or unemployment.ÃÂ Has your comment changed now that a third shift has been cut and over 1000 people are on EI?ÃÂ The cut in wages changed nothing IMO.
[right][snapback]252929[/snapback][/right]
It's not good, but was the money they made even with the cut more than what they would have gotten on EI? :huh:
I know that sounds mercenary, but in these times...
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]252931[/snapback][/right]
You missed the point. They took the cut AND they're still on EI.
It boils down to this:
The cost of manpower and wages to build a vehicle boils down to 11-15% of the vehicles total cost. And that's including hourly, trades, engineers, management, etc. from beginning to end, from the engine and stamping plants to the assembly plant. So for a $30,000 vehicle less than $4G of it is labour.
We could all work for nothing and the best you'd do is that $4G.
So, what we make is immaterial. Wages wouldn't be an issue if your company is making something that the consumer wants.
OAC_Sparky,Nov 16 2007, 05:48 AM Wrote:NefCanuck,Nov 15 2007, 11:16 PM Wrote:meford4u,Nov 15 2007, 09:49 PM Wrote:And Nef, directed at you.ÃÂ Your comment about accepting the pay cut or unemployment.ÃÂ Has your comment changed now that a third shift has been cut and over 1000 people are on EI?ÃÂ The cut in wages changed nothing IMO.
[right][snapback]252929[/snapback][/right]
It's not good, but was the money they made even with the cut more than what they would have gotten on EI? :huh:
I know that sounds mercenary, but in these times...
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]252931[/snapback][/right]
You missed the point. They took the cut AND they're still on EI.
It boils down to this:
The cost of manpower and wages to build a vehicle boils down to 11-15% of the vehicles total cost. And that's including hourly, trades, engineers, management, etc. from beginning to end, from the engine and stamping plants to the assembly plant. So for a $30,000 vehicle less than $4G of it is labour.
We could all work for nothing and the best you'd do is that $4G.
So, what we make is immaterial. Wages wouldn't be an issue if your company is making something that the consumer wants.
[right][snapback]252941[/snapback][/right]
No, I understand that, but my question was: Did they make more money taking the cut
then and being laid off
now and on EI versus getting thrown on EI back then with no wage consession by the CAW?
Again I know that sounds bad, but I would personally keep working, making less yeah, but more than if I was out of a job altogether and relying on EI (and believe me, I do a fair number of EI calls, what you get on EI is criminal compared to what you put into it)
Thing is: Where else can Ford (or any other automaker) cut? There are certain fixed costs that they can do nothing about (capital costs are one example) so they look at the only cost where they believe that they have flexibility, that being wages.
Which is of course a fool's errand, fewer people working, fewer people available to buy their product, not the mention all of the ancillary economic activity lost as a result of the terminated jobs and the wages they spawned.
As to the desirability/affordability of the product, that comes down to decision making by people so far removed from the average consumer, are you at all surprised that there are more misses than hits? I mean when was the last time any of these decision makers ever rode in, NVM drove an entry level product like a Focus?
NefCanuck
NefCanuck,Nov 16 2007, 02:39 PM Wrote:No, I understand that, but my question was: Did they make more money taking the cut then and being laid off now and on EI versus getting thrown on EI back then with no wage consession by the CAW? [right][snapback]252959[/snapback][/right]
The result would likely have been the same. They still would have worked as long (they don't close a plant at the drop of a hat -- they're phased out) and made more money.
Quote:Thing is:ÃÂ Where else can Ford (or any other automaker) cut?ÃÂ There are certain fixed costs that they can do nothing about (capital costs are one example) so they look at the only cost where they believe that they have flexibility, that being wages.
The last I checked, Big 2.5 CEOs and their underlings still get paid 10x th amount of their Asian counterparts. Seeing that a Big 2.5 hourly worker makes 1.15x what one does at a Asian transplant factory, I would say there is plenty of room.
Quote:Which is of course a fool's errand, fewer people working, fewer people available to buy their product, not the mention all of the ancillary economic activity lost as a result of the terminated jobs and the wages they spawned.
That's only a small part of it. Considering I pay at least $70 000 a year in property, income and sales taxes a year, the money would start flowing the other way; drawing $20 000 out of the system on EI. That's a $90G cost to the taxpayer.
CEOs and top level management should take a pay cut, if your company isn't doing that well and need more cash for other things, it should be taken out of that salary.
I thought the Oakville plant was doing good??..............not to mention they will have 2 new vehicles added to the line next year, one of which they made saturday........
Wish I could say I haven't seen this happen before....
darkpuppet,Mar 14 2007, 10:11 AM Wrote:... and the second being OPSEU and the MTO (they striked for 3 months for job security and ended up having 20% of the staff laid off 2 months after the contract was signed).
[right][snapback]230452[/snapback][/right]
I guess the question this brings up is, what good is the union if they're damned if they do or don't? Even when the employees of the union voted for something they thought would guarantee some job security and then still get screwed, what are employees who are supposed to be protected by the union thinking?
In the end, this story would have had a different ending if only Chrysler had product that sells... it's not really a union issue, is it?
darkpuppet,Nov 27 2007, 08:03 AM Wrote:Wish I could say I haven't seen this happen before....
darkpuppet,Mar 14 2007, 10:11 AM Wrote:... and the second being OPSEU and the MTO (they striked for 3 months for job security and ended up having 20% of the staff laid off 2 months after the contract was signed).
[right][snapback]230452[/snapback][/right]
I guess the question this brings up is, what good is the union if they're damned if they do or don't? Even when the employees of the union voted for something they thought would guarantee some job security and then still get screwed, what are employees who are supposed to be protected by the union thinking?
In the end, this story would have had a different ending if only Chrysler had product that sells... it's not really a union issue, is it?
[right][snapback]253592[/snapback][/right]
It is a union issue when the union brings to the brothers and sisters a change to the contract, in the middle of the contract, that the union endorses. Especially if the the union says that endorsing this change will mean a stronger future for the plant and your job security at the plant. And then 6 months later your out the door.