Quantcast

Ford CEO vows to work for a dollar!

chicodude

The Spooninator
Mar 28, 2004
1,054
2
Paradise
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_go_co/meltdown_autos

DETROIT – Ford Motor Co. will tell Congress that it plans to return to a pretax profit or break even in 2011 when the Detroit Three automakers' CEOs appear before lawmakers this week to request $25 billion in government loans.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally said he'll work for $1 per year if the company has to take any government loan money.

After grilling the CEOs at hearings last month, Congressional leaders demanded plans from the automakers by Tuesday to show that they will survive if they get federal funds. The plan Ford submitted said the company will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses and will not pay any merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year.

The company also said it will sell its five corporate aircraft. The CEOs of all three Detroit automakers were harshly criticized during last month's hearings for flying to Washington in separate corporate jets.

Mulally said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that Ford will give much more detail to Congress than it did previously, and the company will emphasize the steps it has taken to cut its labor costs with the United Auto Workers union.
Hmm....
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,598
0
They were arrogant pricks at the Congress session, refusing to make CEO salary concessions at the same time that they are asking the American people for a handout. Pathetic. I think they had a dose of reality after that episode.

US auto makers are building more and more cars in Mexico. If they want the American people to invest in them, these car companies should agree to invest back in the American people and keep jobs here in the US.
 

4xBoy

Turbo Monkey
Jun 20, 2006
7,446
3,567
Minneapolis
Impressive, but they will probably resign after the deal goes through.

How about returning the stock options they used over the last few years.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,025
7,932
Colorado
I bet the UAW files a grievance.
They can file all of the greivances they want. UAW is a major part of why these companies are going out of business. How important is it to stand by your principles of getting paid more to do less, when your employer is out of business?
Unions have a place in high hazard jobs (see mining), not assembly lines where fixed labor pricing promotes inneptitude and sloth.
Basic concept: Performance = Pay. The better you perform, the more you get paid. The worse you perform, the more likely you are to get let go.
If you can't deal with that, go work a menial job.
 

I Are Baboon

Vagina man
Aug 6, 2001
32,823
11,016
MTB New England
Cut the guy some slack. He's going to have to dip into whatever is left of that $75 million or so that Ford paid him since he took the job. You try living on that. :(
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Unions have a place in high hazard jobs (see mining), not assembly lines where fixed labor pricing promotes inneptitude and sloth.
I haven't found or been presented a single piece of evidence that proves that UAW factories are significantly less efficient, can you help me out?
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,025
7,932
Colorado
I haven't found or been presented a single piece of evidence that proves that UAW factories are significantly less efficient, can you help me out?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2008/11/corker_uaw_should_not_be_paid.html?hpid=topnews
"When Chrysler plants are idled because they are not making vehicles, Chrysler is still required to pay its UAW workers 95 percent of their wages."

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-127839379.html
"Amid falling U.S. market share, shuttered plants and production cutbacks, Detroit's three automakers and largest auto supplier are paying about 10,000 hourly workers in the United States and Canada full wages and benefits not to work... "

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39803
"The Big Three automakers are forced to pay 85- to 95-percent of union wages and benefits to members of the United Auto Workers union who aren’t working – even if their plants have been closed. "

It's not less efficient per se, it's that fact that when no product is being made, that the auto manu's are forced to pay workers to be idle.
 
Last edited:

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
It's not less efficient per se, it's that fact that when no product is being made, that the auto manu's are forced to pay workers to be idle.
The UAW is removing the job bank, which I think is what the article is referring to.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,025
7,932
Colorado
The UAW is removing the job bank, which I think is what the article is referring to.
If UAW lost it's wage level contracts, US auto would spike sharply. The ~$1000/car healthcare costs are sucking the life out of US auto sales. That's $1000/car that is not going to rsch/development, comparably spec'd cars, and generally producing a better product.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
The ~$1000/car healthcare costs are sucking the life out of US auto sales. That's $1000/car that is not going to rsch/development, comparably spec'd cars, and generally producing a better product.
If anything, that is an argument for single payer healthcare, rather than telling workers to suck it up. GM spends 5.6 billion on health care, and about 8 billion on wages for assembly line workers. Wages aren't the problem, the problem is that health care costs are taxing on business and an NHS-type system should be implemented.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
22,025
7,932
Colorado
If anything, that is an argument for single payer healthcare, rather than telling workers to suck it up. GM spends 5.6 billion on health care, and about 8 billion on wages for assembly line workers. Wages aren't the problem, the problem is that health care costs are taxing on business and an NHS-type system should be implemented.
No, this is a good example for why employees should pay for their insurance, not the company. If GM employees paid for their health insurance, then the company would not be on the hook if an employee has a massive bill, the INSURANCE company would be. That's why it's called insurance, not auto sales.
 

Zark

Hey little girl, do you want some candy?
Oct 18, 2001
6,254
7
Reno 911
If UAW lost it's wage level contracts, US auto would spike sharply. The ~$1000/car healthcare costs are sucking the life out of US auto sales. That's $1000/car that is not going to rsch/development, comparably spec'd cars, and generally producing a better product.
Tell that to my G-ma who needs hip surgery and is loosing her benefits in Jan after 40 years of service. Our health system is the blame, Samirol nailed it.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,807
9
looking for classic NE singletrack
dunno, it's hard to specifically pin the blame entirely on the UAW when GM and Ford until just recently had a combined *twelve* private jets on their payrolls. and this only came to light over the recent congressional hearings, who knows how many millions (billions?) of dollars in wasteful spending is still going on. I see the negotiations going something along these lines...

GM Management said:
Dear UAW. Please voluntarily give up your great contract that you have with us and start to pay more for your healthcare. We need the money to pay for our private jets to fly our executives to Mexico to oversee production there.
It's no wonder the UAW told them to STFD and STFU. I also like how conciliatory Ford was in agreeing to cancel all of the 2009 managerial bonuses... So the 2008 bonuses for management's stellar performances this year are still on track. Awesome.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
When labor is uncompromising, it becomes a target for irrational hatred. When capital is uncompromising, it is business as usual.