The only way I see anyone on assembly lines making 70 or 80 dollars an hour is if they work maybe a holiday. I have a friend who works at Ford and if they work on a holiday they get triple time. He made $24 an hour last I checked, so he ended up making $72 an hour over a holiday.

That sounds reasonable .

The hourly figure includes benefits such as healthcare.

 

When people start throwing those huge hourly numbers around I believe they are also apportioning the cost of existing retirees. It is a very misleading number. Don't get me wrong, UAW workers have been well paid, but the numbers are nothing like what gets tossed around.

When people start throwing those huge hourly numbers around I believe they are also apportioning the cost of existing retirees. It is a very misleading number. Don't get me wrong, UAW workers have been well paid, but the numbers are nothing like what gets tossed around.

 

I've done several divorces for Ford employees and have never seen hourly wages that high. I HAVE seen $45/hr for very long-time employees (exclusive of benefits) and there is also some weird thing at Ford regarding opting our of certain taxes that I don't quite understand, but I've never seen anything approaching $72/hr-$80/hr.

I heard people crediting CFC for this profit. I don't think that can be true. Most dealers have a 45 to 60 day supply of cars on average. The program was only for about 30 days, right? So Ford had already "sold" the cars to their dealers before the program started so the subsequent success of the CFC program could not have had much of an impact on Ford.

 

I'd say its due to them being more efficient and cutting jobs and other expenses.

I heard people crediting CFC for this profit. I don't think that can be true. Most dealers have a 45 to 60 day supply of cars on average. The program was only for about 30 days, right? So Ford had already "sold" the cars to their dealers before the program started so the subsequent success of the CFC program could not have had much of an impact on Ford.

 

I'd say its due to them being more efficient and cutting jobs and other expenses.

 

 

Most likely.

I heard people crediting CFC for this profit. I don't think that can be true. Most dealers have a 45 to 60 day supply of cars on average. The program was only for about 30 days, right? So Ford had already "sold" the cars to their dealers before the program started so the subsequent success of the CFC program could not have had much of an impact on Ford.

 

I'd say its due to them being more efficient and cutting jobs and other expenses.

 

I agree, and they are building better cars.

 

There is now no comparison betwen Chrysler, Chevy, and Ford products. Ford is now on par or better than Asian companies.

We have to realize that with this good news comes bad news. Companies, in order to survive, have to let people go.

I heard people crediting CFC for this profit. I don't think that can be true. Most dealers have a 45 to 60 day supply of cars on average. The program was only for about 30 days, right? So Ford had already "sold" the cars to their dealers before the program started so the subsequent success of the CFC program could not have had much of an impact on Ford.

 

I'd say its due to them being more efficient and cutting jobs and other expenses.

 

Dealers sales are down the last 60 days because of a CFC hangover. Ford was profitable because they sell to the dealers. Its the dealers responsibilty to sell to the public.

I was present at a speech by Bill Ford, a few weeks ago, he said the profit was to a few factors, namely:

 

1) The fact that the average man on the street is rooting for Ford because the government owns GM now

 

2) Cutting personnel and expenses

 

3) Most importantly, because of the R&D that Ford has been doing for years, especially in the market for environmentally-friendly cars. When Bill came back to Detroit from Princeton in the early 1970's preaching about environmentalism, they called him crazy and no one listened. However, now his warnings (and his devotion to it) are paying off.

 

I'm the last person to be coined an "environmentalist"- not because I don't care about the environment, but because I'm not willing to harm the rest of the economy for burdensome regulations based on flawed data. However, I give all the credit to Bill Ford and FMC for recognizing the shift in consumer trends. My biggest problem is that the government is rewarding GM's shortsightedness on environmental issues, which apparently is a big cause for President Obama's administration, by propping them up.

The last quote really gets to me, the UAW should be brought in-line and HAVE TO make the same deal that GM and Chrysler have........by the government.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_ford

 

Heck with em, if they won't bring let Ford bring their labor costs into line with GM and Chrysler, blow the union out of there and offer the jobs to out of work people. Think they would have any trouble filling the positions?

The only way I see anyone on assembly lines making 70 or 80 dollars an hour is if they work maybe a holiday. I have a friend who works at Ford and if they work on a holiday they get triple time. He made $24 an hour last I checked, so he ended up making $72 an hour over a holiday.

 

You are correct, triple time on certain holidays is fairly standard. I do not necessarily have a problem with the OT pay or the regular pay I do with the controls that the union have... Specifically termination of an employee you just can't rid the company of the "bad apples".

It not starting employees that will make more it's the ones that have been there a while, which I agree does merit some pay but some of these people are making 80 to 100 dollars an hour on an assembly line.

 

AND ? ? ? ? ? ?:confused:

Money well spent...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091209/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailout_extension_15

 

Taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $31B for giving more power to the UAW... Another reason I refuse to support any sort of tax increases proposed by the left or the right in D.C. because they prove time and time again to be amongst the worst money managers of all time. Until they prove otherwise, I think I can decide how better to spend my hard earned dollars, then giving a larger slice of my income to the government so they can make those decisions.