7 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 8:01 am

  “The bottom line is that cutting unionized autoworkers’ pay and benefits serves no useful economic purpose. It’s not necessary for the automakers.”

  Maybe true, but being unemployed hurts the local economy even more. I just hope the local workers made the correct decision playing chicken with Ford.

  I don’t believe Ford has retooled for the new vehicle yet. The Fern Valley Road plant is always going to be at risk due to its proximity to UPS and the airport.

  Unfortunately the workers here have less leverage than a plant is say, Circleville, Ohio, because the property it sits on is marketable.

  Hey it’s America and it’s their call to vote no, I just hope the sake of the city and their families, that Ford’s future commitment to Louisville is as solid as they think it is.

• 2 EdenSprings // Nov 9, 2009 at 8:51 am

  The other thing to think about with the Ford situtation is that while they’re the only US auto maker showing a profit, due to this vote they’re also the only US auto maker that can have a UAW strike in 2011. Due to the gov. bailout provisions, UAW can’t strike against the other ‘big two’. This paints a target on Ford’s back with investors, who are likely to abandon the stock in an already-shaky sector.

  Let’s hope the union’s didn’t outsmart themselves and end up killing the goose that lays the ONLY egg, much less the golden one…

• 3 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 9:41 am

  Not to mention that Ford didn’t have the Obama administration to throw bondholders under the bus.

  Ford still has their debt, while GM and Chrysler doesn’t.

• 4 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Nov 9, 2009 at 11:05 am

  Playing chicken. Mark H, you try giving your life to a company, working your arse off, and then being asked to cut the pay you use to feed your family and pay the bills.

  Grow up.

• 5 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 9, 2009 at 11:45 am

  I guess I need to be as mature as you Steve.

  Don’t get all self-righteous.

  Please show me where I belittled their reluctance to take a cut in pay. On the contrary, having formerly worked for GE, I know the physical toll that pre-ergonomic manufacturing has left a great number of employees.

  My point is this is a very dangerous game when the stakes are this high. I hope they guessed correctly in opposing the contract change when they work in a plant that is potentially marketable and currently produces a vehicle that is in low demand.

  I agree that the wages are not a major cost component, but they are ones that Ford is fixated on. Likewise, in the big picture, neither is executive pay, but the union is fixated on it. Neither employee wages nor executive compensation moves the scale on the cost needle.

  I just think the article is kind of silly. Of course Louisville would be better off if the wages are kept higher, but that isn’t the question. What the writer didn’t address is the question if Louisville would be better off if keeping those union wages higher resulted in Ford moving their new vehicle to another plant where workers agreed to the concessions.

  I truly wish no ill on Ford workers. I just really hope they were correct in Ford’s commitment level to Louisville.

• 6 DB // Nov 9, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  The UAW is what’s wrong with the American auto industry.

• 7 EdenSprings // Nov 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  This issue came up over the weekend on NPR and part of what was said was that 1) the concessions asked from the employees wouldn’t have required any out-of-pocket $, it was mostly asking for assurances they wouldn’t strike in 2011; 2) that Ford could send several projects out of the USA & have them built cheaper, but made it clear they would stay in the USA if the unions were willing to work with them rather than against them.

  One of the plants specifically mentioned was Louisville, and I don’t think you need a crystal ball to figure out what’ll happen next.

Leave a Comment