Ford Going Away, what to do now

dmaxstang · Sep 14, 2006

So when Ford goes under or becomes a private company again, then that group says it would be better to shut her down than to continue losing umpteen billion every quarter, who can i trust to fix my car, not that i so trust them now.
Maybe i should look on the bright side, then parts would be cheaper and the guy fixing it will probably know what he is doing, like all the good mechanics at the private shops that work on multiple brands. Just a thought, what is going to be in the news bad about them tomorrow, any guesses?

Jenns01TA · Sep 14, 2006

Only tomorrow will tell. 7am witching hour. Anytime you see a major executive (Ann Stevens - CFO Americas) who is in charge of restructuring leave prior to an announcement like this it spins drama. I am not so worried since she was slated to be CEO and with Mullay coming over from Boeing, I am sure her panties are in a wad at the moment and to quit now under emotions would lead me to believe she was working it for drama and not true concerns.

The UAWs offer of buy outs and early retirement packages valued between $35,000 and $150,000 based on tenure did not help. Taking control away from Ford in advance preparation of plant closures and layoffs, again, put a spin in the mix.

No worries. Ford will be around. They will sell off portions of their luxary divisions Jaguar & Land Rover before they close down.

GM just went through this. It happens. It will come down to Unionized Workers or outsourcing to foreign plants. At the end of the day, we will all need to ask ouselves, are Unions still a viable structure in America today. I know my answer if it means sending jobs outside our boarders. I once valued the Union establishment, but I have to seriously consider the alternative. Lose jobs entirely, or lose an establishment that controls and dictates. Not sure guys. Just not sure.

As for privatization of Ford. Private companies are not bad. The ability to control fluctuations in capital because the major directors and principals hold the stock is a necessary evil in a society that day trades and where corporate financials are directly tired to economic conditions the CFO and board has no control over.

I work for a privatley held corporation and thank God daily for that. We have succession plans and people who have a true invested interest in the success and failure of the company running it. There is methodical planning and the principal owners would lay down their homes and personal investments and retirement to ensure the company is around for decades to come.

I will see you here after the announcements.

Jenn

srothfuss · Sep 15, 2006

Well it happened:

1/3 of white collar employee's to be "trimmed"

all UAW workers offered a "severance package"

Plant closings accelerated to 2008 (previous time line 2012)

There were a few other small things, but those right there are the key hitters. I'd expect Ford stock to take a tumble after this announcment, but you know what they say about a wounded animal. Ford will not go under, the new managment should be setup to return to profitablilty by the end of this decade....

(crosses fingers) they don't nix the "new" engine / mustang program.

Edit: Here is a link to the story

dhjones · Sep 15, 2006

Doesn't surprise me a union buyouts. The retirement/health care costs are killing GM and Ford. This is what is happening to American Industry. Defined pension plans are being phased out , each person will be responsible for their own retirement. It has been going on for yrs now. Ford and GM have to return to profitability or they are finished. Doesn't help when the market shifts to fuel efficient cars and your bread and butter is still SUV's.

Doug

srothfuss · Sep 15, 2006

Also just saw this over on TCC.com

www.tcc.com said:
UAW Agrees to 75,000 Ford Buyouts

The next installment in Ford Motor Co.'s turnaround plan got a turbocharged boost on Thursday, as the United Auto Workers agreed to a plan that will lead to the company offering buyouts to the company's 75,000 blue-collar workers. The agreement also extends to the Automotive Holding Company, which is made of up former Visteon Corp. plants Ford has been trying with little success to sell for nearly a year.

Workers will be able to choose from eight different packages ranging from straight buyouts for the most junior Ford workers to special retirement packages for workers with more than 28 years of service with the company, union officials said after the agreement was announced. Workers with 28 years service are eligible for two years' leave at 85 percent of their regular wages and then can retire with their full pension and healthcare benefits, union officials said.
Union officials, however, also said Ford's management must do more to ensure that the company has viable future.

"The UAW has made a significant contribution to the turnaround plan," said UAW president Ron Gettelfinger. "Now, it's Ford Motor Company's responsibility to lead this company in a positive direction - which means using the skills, experience and dedication to quality that UAW members demonstrate every day in order to deliver quality vehicles to customers," Gettelfinger said.
Eligibility for various buyout and incentive packages will depend on length of service and other factors.
The deal also asks workers to start signing up for the buyout and retirement packages on Oct. 16. Workers, however, actually have until Nov. 27 to accept the buyout offers, UAW officials said. The deal calls for workers to begin leaving Ford's payroll Jan. 1 and all of the workers accepting to be off Ford's payroll by Sept. 1, 2007.

Ford and the UAW also have completed work on more than two dozen plant-level competitive operating agreements.-Joseph Szczesny

Mustang Militia · Sep 15, 2006

They are gonna get rid of UAW workers then shortly after, they'll hire 75,000 temps. Won't let them have benefits and will pay them $7.50 per hour. Hide and watch.

Jenns01TA · Sep 15, 2006

I cannot state the importance of this fundamental shift in unionized employment versus hourly wage at-will contract employment.

If we look at the 11 distinct periods of unionized employment starting WAY back in 1700s to the current period, we see that unions have had both positive and negative impacts in our society.

It is not so easy to simply look at the news stories and hold the opinion that companies that have historically used unionized contract employment are evil for their paradigm shift away from it now.

When you also compare this to the influence in economic sectors of employment; services, manufacturing, consumer goods, health care, etc. you will see that although there are VERY GOOD intentions behind labor unionization, you will also see that there is a hidden agenda to continuing this labor structure because of the “dues” that these unions receive.

Economically, we are against the wall. Unless union agendas are aligned with economic factors influencing labor shifts to outsourcing, we are all screwed. We will continue to lose more jobs and we will be thrown into another economic depression.

Look at the history. ALL THINGS are cyclical. We have come full circle and we are standing at a pivotal and monumental moment in economic history.

As for the Defined Benefit Pension Plans, there is a shift away from them at the highest level of plan participation. The PBGC (Public Benefit Guaranty Corporation) is in crisis. We just had 3 regulatory and law changes passed to prevent the inevitable loss of retirement income to those who are covered under these plans. Again, unionized plans have been granted a payback period extension for funding deficiencies that has NEVER been seen on this scale. If this was not done, you and I as taxpayers would have to pick up the mess and pay for it in the form of higher federal employment taxes.

I have not seen a shift away from the DBPP for small to medium sized employers where the principals (Highly Compensated Employees versus Non-highly Compensated Employees) are near retirement age and the plan design is operationally matched to the demographics of the plan participants. The large PBGC covered DBPP in crisis because previous laws dictated the interest rates, mortality tables, coverage and maximum benefit that a plan ran under. With an inversion in interest rates and the last 10 years of economic conditions investments fell short of these projections and left HUGE deficiencies in required contributions that companies could not pay. When they cannot make these contributions, they are taxed again under the excise taxation laws. This compounds the problem and has put us where we are.

Hold tight, this will get no better and we all had better plan for some interesting times. Am I worried about retirement? No. I worry about tomorrow. Retirement is the least of my worries.

Mustang Militia · Sep 15, 2006

Jenns05Stang said:
I cannot state the importance of this fundamental shift in unionized employment versus hourly wage at-will contract employment.

If we look at the 11 distinct periods of unionized employment starting WAY back in 1700s to the current period, we see that unions have had both positive and negative impacts in our society.

It is not so easy to simply look at the news stories and hold the opinion that companies that have historically used unionized contract employment are evil for their paradigm shift away from it now.

When you also compare this to the influence in economic sectors of employment; services, manufacturing, consumer goods, health care, etc. you will see that although there are VERY GOOD intentions behind labor unionization, you will also see that there is a hidden agenda to continuing this labor structure because of the “dues” that these unions receive.

Economically, we are against the wall. Unless union agendas are aligned with economic factors influencing labor shifts to outsourcing, we are all screwed. We will continue to lose more jobs and we will be thrown into another economic depression.

Look at the history. ALL THINGS are cyclical. We have come full circle and we are standing at a pivotal and monumental moment in economic history.

As for the Defined Benefit Pension Plans, there is a shift away from them at the highest level of plan participation. The PBGC (Public Benefit Guaranty Corporation) is in crisis. We just had 3 regulatory and law changes passed to prevent the inevitable loss of retirement income to those who are covered under these plans. Again, unionized plans have been granted a payback period extension for funding deficiencies that has NEVER been seen on this scale. If this was not done, you and I as taxpayers would have to pick up the mess and pay for it in the form of higher federal employment taxes.

I have not seen a shift away from the DBPP for small to medium sized employers where the principals (Highly Compensated Employees versus Non-highly Compensated Employees) are near retirement age and the plan design is operationally matched to the demographics of the plan participants. The large PBGC covered DBPP in crisis because previous laws dictated the interest rates, mortality tables, coverage and maximum benefit that a plan ran under. With an inversion in interest rates and the last 10 years of economic conditions investments fell short of these projections and left HUGE deficiencies in required contributions that companies could not pay. When they cannot make these contributions, they are taxed again under the excise taxation laws. This compounds the problem and has put us where we are.

Hold tight, this will get no better and we all had better plan for some interesting times. Am I worried about retirement? No. I worry about tomorrow. Retirement is the least of my worries.

Your words? You sound edumacated!

Jenns01TA · Sep 15, 2006

Mustang Militia said:
Your words? You sound edumacated!

My words are always too big. I find I cannot speak/type in easy language. Just know that I am not trying to "show off" or come across like a know-it-all. I simply have a hard time finding simple words to express what I want to say. This is a flaw I am working on daily.

JENN = "Work in Progress".

srothfuss · Sep 15, 2006

It is just too bad that any of the former FoMoCo. CEO's were unable to lay-off this many people without taking flack from the general public.

Ford will be a smaller, more "nimble" company once this happens, but that is only if they reorganize the work force to handle additional tasks of engineering, development and manufacturing. Currently it takes about 3 1/2 years to get a new car designed from scratch and out to the dealers... That alone needs to change.

Build something people want to purchase, and there won't be any problems....

Jenns01TA · Sep 15, 2006

Yep,

And the redesigned Mustang is a prime example. Here is a vehicle that when first released was in great demand. Supply could not meet demand and dealers asked astronomical mark-ups. Now we have an over abundance of pre-owned daily rentals. Excess inventory slows production/assembly as they monitor sales.

Unfortunatley, with the EPA's CAF, emissions and MPG requirements, as well as safety requirements from the government, the design to production/assembly process gets bottlenecked. It is as quick as pitch coming out of a pine tree.

There are so many factors that come into play here. It boggles the mind and sends most seasoned microeconomists into a tail spin.

cowtown · Sep 15, 2006

I think you see a big shift in this philosophy right now in regards to engineering and development. It's often far more benefical for Ford to enlist types like Shelby on a project hire basis to quickly develop new products that otherwise would take forever in the corporate climate. It's far easier to receive a final product and look it over and go yes, or go tweak this and we're good than it is to do it all.

I see that at work right now, we hire out a lot of private firms to handle special projects for us because the political BS inside the organization cripples projects before they even get going and over the term of the project extend it 3 fold.

Ford isn't going anywhere, this is a necessary blood letting. Ford will live on in some fashion and often major problems like this are a big benefit in the long run.

Mustang Militia · Sep 15, 2006

Jenns05Stang said:
My words are always too big. I find I cannot speak/type in easy language. Just know that I am not trying to "show off" or come across like a know-it-all. I simply have a hard time finding simple words to express what I want to say. This is a flaw I am working on daily.

JENN = "Work in Progress".

No no. I don't think yer a show off. I like it!

Infinity · Sep 15, 2006

Mustang Militia said:
No no. I don't think yer a show off. I like it!

I agree. It is refreshing to see someone on the internet who prefers NOT to speak with LOLLEROMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!1111 and emoticons. Thank you for also typing with an eloquence that doesn't sound haughty, but does emit education. Glad you're back, Jenn.

stanmckinney · Sep 15, 2006

I'm glad you're back too. Remember there are lots of guys on this site who are in love with you. And absence makes the heart grow fonder or something like that.
Anyway, glad you're back.

351CJ · Sep 15, 2006

Jenns05Stang said:
The large PBGC covered DBPP in crisis because previous laws dictated the interest rates, mortality tables, coverage and maximum benefit that a plan ran under. With an inversion in interest rates and the last 10 years of economic conditions investments fell short of these projections and left HUGE deficiencies in required contributions that companies could not pay. When they cannot make these contributions, they are taxed again under the excise taxation laws. This compounds the problem and has put us where we are.

You're forgetting one very important item. In the 1990s when the stock market had incredible gains, many companies decided that ther DBPPs were "over funded" and were allowed to remove huge sums of money from those plans and were allowed to operate under the assumption that 15% / year market gains would continue forever. This has created many of the underfunded pension problems today.

Jenns01TA · Sep 15, 2006

351CJ said:
You're forgetting one very important item. In the 1990s when the stock market had incredible gains, many companies decided that ther DBPPs were "over funded" and were allowed to remove huge sums of money from those plans and were allowed to operate under the assumption that 15% / year market gains would continue forever. This has created many of the underfunded pension problems today.

I was going to call for you earlier in one of my posts, CJ. But, I knew you would be around to comment without my female calling. Thanks for chiming in.

I respectfully disagree CJ. There is an actuarial maximum under IRC Section 404. When there are excess investment returns it creates an excess nondeductible 404 contribution that can be carried forward to the next tax year. In a plan year that there is an excess contribution that excess over the 404 maximum is taxable on a 5330 under section 4972 at 10%.

Actuarial assumptions are mandated under portions or law applicable to defined benefit plans. It is not something the plans make up. Under EGTRRA we were told what the actuarial interest rate assumption is. This is not an random number selected from a hat. It cannot be deviated from. The plan requires an enrolled actuary to evaluate the plan and to certify the trust and plan specifications.

If there is anyone to blame, it is the federal government for dicking around in places they have no reason to be.

I right now am looking at a hill of work thanks to portions of EGTRRA becoming permanent and 2 more legislative laws being enacted.

And thank you for the kind words fellas. It is but the "Essence of Jenn" and I am honored that some of you actually missed me!

OH and isn't this about Ford and cars? Where did we derail to pensions? Oh that was me. Sorry

timeless2 · Sep 15, 2006

I think the under-funded plans we see today are a result of several factors:

faltering stock market after the dot.bomb slide (companies were investing in open securities because they were hot at the time)
the resulting over-funding often times drove qualified DB plans into a cascading overflow and supplemental DB plans started to become popular for highly compensated workers....this would prove a mistake later on when expense outweighed benefits of investment choices
buyouts were popular (more drafting from a plan bleeding already)
and last but not least....the aging workforce (more plan participants cashing in on their annuities and taking distributions where applicable........this will only make matters worse as baby boomers enter retirement

*This list is not exhaustive, but are a few that I feel are significant.

This is StangNet right? What are we doing talking about this stuff?

rmays06 · Sep 16, 2006

Or you could just sell your stang and not worry about it. You know I heard the earth will one day come to an end too....... :Zip2:

dmaxstang said:
So when Ford goes under or becomes a private company again, then that group says it would be better to shut her down than to continue losing umpteen billion every quarter, who can i trust to fix my car, not that i so trust them now.
Maybe i should look on the bright side, then parts would be cheaper and the guy fixing it will probably know what he is doing, like all the good mechanics at the private shops that work on multiple brands. Just a thought, what is going to be in the news bad about them tomorrow, any guesses?

gp001 · Sep 16, 2006

dmaxstang said:
So when Ford goes under or becomes a private company again, then that group says it would be better to shut her down than to continue losing umpteen billion every quarter, who can i trust to fix my car, not that i so trust them now.
Maybe i should look on the bright side, then parts would be cheaper and the guy fixing it will probably know what he is doing, like all the good mechanics at the private shops that work on multiple brands. Just a thought, what is going to be in the news bad about them tomorrow, any guesses?

I think Henny Penny and Cocky Locky are planning a franchise of Ford repair centers

Ford Going Away, what to do now

dmaxstang

New Member

Jenns01TA

Active Member

srothfuss

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

dhjones

srothfuss

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

Mustang Militia

New Member

Jenns01TA

Active Member

Mustang Militia

New Member

Jenns01TA

Active Member

srothfuss

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

Jenns01TA

Active Member

cowtown

Mustang Militia

New Member

Infinity

stanmckinney

351CJ

New Member

Jenns01TA

Active Member

timeless2

Vi Veri Veni Versum Vicus Vici

rmays06

New Member

gp001

Similar threads

Ford Going Away, what to do now

New Member

Active Member

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Last night I stabbed the same guy 7 times in a row

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Vi Veri Veni Versum Vicus Vici

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency