[PREMiERdrum]

Quote

P Morgan automotive analyst Himanshu Patel said today that he estimates Ford will report a profit of 16 cents per share for the three-month period ending Sept. 30. He credits improvements in pricing and sales volume in the United States, as well as gains in residual values and profits in Europe, for the forecast.

LINK

[Pioneer]

Good thing this came out before we had to vote on the contract modifications.

I'm fine where I'm at, thanks.

[Ron W.]

Pioneer, on Oct 19 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

I'm fine where I'm at, thanks.

Some how I knew that quote would come up :shades:

[Mark8LSC CE0464]

If Ford is not profitable for the whole year, each and every year, more cuts need to be made. We also need to pay off all of our mortgaged assets before we let blue or white collar workers get any additional increases.

This post has been edited by Mark8LSC CE0464: 19 October 2009 - 08:31 PM

[Extreme4x4]

Oh no. If Ford makes .01 for the year, they need to reinstate everything that the UAW has ever had, including back pay for all lost pay increases, plus a BIG bonus, for being good sports during this troubled time.

Anything less, and Ford and Mulally are nothing but greedy, heartless bastards, who are swimming in profit, on the backs of the UAW.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, I guess I shouldn't read the employee forum. :)

[focus05]

Attitudes like the above are why the UAW is losing its relevance.

Priority #1 for a company is to lower its FIXED costs. So, you allow them to lower fixed costs through lower wages, make work assignments flexible, etc. Anything that helps keep the known cost of doing business down. Which in turn takes strain off pricing and helps a company invest wisely.

Then, you ask for a cut of profit. It becomes a variable cost that the company doesn't have to factor into the cost of every vehicle necessarily.

It's how a company like Google does business. Its employees are paid basically mid-tier wages ($60-100k/year, while their counterparts in other orgs make $100-$150k). Then, they give them bonuses based on the company's and the individual's performance. Most of my friends make close to their salary again and end up beating their cohorts because there is incentive to perform well, which results in innovation and profit, and the company has relatively low fixed labor cost so that its strategic investments aren't skewed to covering a burdensome labor.

I'm not suggesting the UAW should take a 50% pay cut and hope that bonuses make up the rest, but you need to put things in perspective. Ask for bonuses with calculations similar to executives, ask for stock options, but somehow engage yourself in helping Ford reach low fixed costs and sharing in the profitability with bonuses going to those who perform (and everyone can, it's not exclusive).

[blazerdude20]

Pioneer, on Oct 19 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Good thing this came out before we had to vote on the contract modifications.

I'm fine where I'm at, thanks.

ya because this small profit will have nothing to do with a huge surge from c4c. :redcard:


now i dont really care to know what employees make if fords making a profit, but personally i think ford should be released from their contract from the uaw as the union now has a serious conflict of interest in that they own large portions of fords direct competitors. there is bound to be some kind of clause in the contract about that being a no no

[FordBuyer]

PREMiERdrum, on Oct 19 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

LINK

That is a prediction, not a fact. Ford hasn't even announced its conference call for third quarter earnings yet. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford did make a profit during the C4C quarter, but Ford will lose money again this coming quarter. Ford is going to have to make a lot of profit over next few years in order to pay back over $30 billion in loans by 2013. I wouldn't blame the UAW for turning down latest agreement, but paying back that much money certainly gets your attention and means Ford has to get consistently profitable quickly.

[mustang84isu]

focus05, on Oct 19 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

It's how a company like Google does business. Its employees are paid basically mid-tier wages ($60-100k/year, while their counterparts in other orgs make $100-$150k). Then, they give them bonuses based on the company's and the individual's performance. Most of my friends make close to their salary again and end up beating their cohorts because there is incentive to perform well, which results in innovation and profit, and the company has relatively low fixed labor cost so that its strategic investments aren't skewed to covering a burdensome labor.

That's exactly how my firm does it. Salaries are on par with the market and pay raises and bonuses are almost entirely merit-based. The more you give to the company through skill, creativity, or innovation, the more you get back in return. Not only does it reward the most creative people, but it pushes others to hone up in areas they may not be as skilled in. We have been quite successful in the last 5 years by implementing this model, and it has allowed us flexibility to stay profitable throughout the economic downturn.

[stpatrick90]

focus05, on Oct 19 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

It's how a company like Google does business. Its employees are paid basically mid-tier wages ($60-100k/year, while their counterparts in other orgs make $100-$150k). Then, they give them bonuses based on the company's and the individual's performance. Most of my friends make close to their salary again and end up beating their cohorts because there is incentive to perform well, which results in innovation and profit, and the company has relatively low fixed labor cost so that its strategic investments aren't skewed to covering a burdensome labor.

Yep that is how the company that I work for conducts business. It really creates an incentive to do your best and bring something to the table.

As for this alleged profit, if this bit of news is accurate I would be extremely impressed. I mean it isn't out of the realm of possibility given C4C this last quarter. All the same I still see FMC being in the red for the year. Granted these quarters of profit are reassuring, we can't forget that FMC has a ton of debt to repay. Hopefully the upcoming products (thankfully there is no shortage of new product) will really give the needed boost to sustainable profitability.

[mackinaw]

Note that this JP Morgan analyst stands alone. From today's Detroit Free Press, "However, Patel's expectations stand in contrast to a consensus estimate from Wall Street analysts. The consensus estimate of 13 analysts tracked by Thomson One analytics is for a loss of 16 cents per share. While Patel acknowledged his outlook is optimistic, he is confident that Ford is on track to outperform expectations."

http://www.freep.com/article/20091020/BUSI...-quarter-profit

[atvman]

Ford may very well have made an operating profit this quarter. HOWEVER, I would bet that Ford will use some creative accounting (writing down assets) to make it so it shows a loss for the quarter. Moves like this are used to create leverage with labor organizations and aren't unprecedented.

[kpc655]

Pioneer, on Oct 19 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

Good thing this came out before we had to vote on the contract modifications.

I'm fine where I'm at, thanks.

Ford should get the exact same terms as GM and Chrysler, that's how pattern bargaining works.

Otherwise the uaw is showing favoritism and is demonstrating a real conflict of interest by offering superior terms to the companies which they have a stake in.

Ford should then be able to walk away from the union.

[Harley Lover]

Pioneer, on Oct 19 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

Good thing this came out before we had to vote on the contract modifications.

I'm fine where I'm at, thanks.

If the prediction of the analyst in the link is wrong, and Ford loses money in the third quarter, will you be willing to give back more?

This post has been edited by Harley Lover: 20 October 2009 - 08:27 AM

[Pioneer]

kpc655, on Oct 20 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

Ford should get the exact same terms as GM and Chrysler,

Then they should have filed for bankruptcy.

[Pioneer]

focus05, on Oct 19 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

Attitudes like the above are why the UAW is losing its relevance.\

The "I'm fine where I'm at" quote was from Alan Mulally.

[Pioneer]

Harley Lover, on Oct 20 2009, 09:26 AM, said:

If the prediction of the analyst in the link is wrong, and Ford loses money in the third quarter, will you be willing to give back more?

Will Ford declare bankruptcy and wipe out it's debt load like GM and Chrysler did?

If the answer to that question is "yes", I will vote yes for the same concessions.

[kpc655]

Pioneer, on Oct 20 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

Then they should have filed for bankruptcy.

yeah, great solution

[Versa-Tech]

Pioneer, on Oct 19 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

Good thing this came out before we had to vote on the contract modifications.

I'm fine where I'm at, thanks.

Going for the bare minimum eh? Sounds like the type of position a union member would take :stirpot:

[old_fairmont_wagon]

And, likely, be out of a job as Ford gets cut up even more than they currently have been and wind up shedding a load more people. See, currently, the UAW isn't a stakeholder in Ford, unlike their current situation with GM and Chrysler. And, while Ford has a great deal of public ownership, there is still a lot tied up in the Ford family. A bankruptcy for Ford would go a very different direction from the ones that GM and Chrysler did, likely being terminal to the company. But, that's none of your concern, is it? You'd just rather hold a revolver to the head of the goose that's been laying your golden eggs and tell them "Lay more golden eggs than these other geese, and I refuse to do any more to help you do so." Brilliant thinking. Wait, our attitude is just reinforcing the stereotype that many have of UAW members, that they don't think. See, aside from bone headed management decisions about where they think the general car market is going, a large part of the reason that detroit failed is an uncompetitive cost balance with their overseas competiton. Well, now, you not only want a cost balance that is not competitive with the overseas, you want one that's not even competitve with the people across the street. Let me guess, when Ford isn't making a profit in a few years under the existing labor agreement when the guys across the street are, you'll be the one on here shouting from the rooftops that its the boneheaded, overpaind management types that can't find a way to build, market and sell a vehicle like the competition's vehicles and still make a profit.

As for Mullaly's statement, while it was a bit light on the PR, it was certainly warranted as Ford had shown very good executive decision making leading up the the crash of the economy and DIDN'T have to go on the till, unlike his competitors where were basically ratling a can in front of congress for money. Those executives made poor decisions and deserved, as a result of their performance, to suffer pay cuts. And lets recap, how long was GM shutdown for? Under bankruptcy protection, I doubt that even their UAW workers received a dime from GM while they were off-line. Same goes for Chrysler. If they did, then that's an even bigger indicator of how screwed up the system in place is. You're upset that you might have to part with a little more money out of your paycheck, welcome to an economic recession. A lot of us on here have had to do so. Heck, I'm facing a round of layoffs myself in a couple weeks and frankly my finances still scuk as a result of hurricane Katrina. You're upset about Ford's debt load at the moment? You do know a portion of that debt load went to the rather nice buy-out offers that many of your co-workers volunteered to take right? PArt of being in a union is standing together to protect each other from a predatory industry, but to also help each other out when things get rough. It was ok to give some of that money to your co-workers, but god forbid you need to experience some pain to help them out.

I am so sick of this Us vs. Them cr*p with the rank and file against management. Yes, in some situations, it is the height of rediculousness. Yes, they earn a lot. They earn what the company is willing to pay them. Just like you earn what the company is willing to pay you (through the CBA). Up until this most recent round of cuts, for your level of experience and education (And I'm generalizing to the average UAW worker in similar positions to yours as I have no way of knowing if you are some exception to the rule) you were also compensated well above the national average, especially considering the general field of employment you are in. And, no, I'm not going to bother scouring the internet for hours finding sources to site to back up that statement. Its rather common knowledge and was really exposed during all the media frenzy around the bankruptcies.

So, you just go on sitting on your little high horse, spouting off your little quote and platitudes. Vote no to anything that might seem to harm your compensation package. Do the exact same kind of short sighted thinking that you all claim management did to get you into this mess. But don't take any of the blame for any of it. After all, I'm sure that those auto companies voluntarilly and without coercion compensated you all well above the foreign competition all those years and deserve every bit of what's happened to them. You obviously share none of the blame for what's happened over the years.