...but puts forward a couple of rather refreshing moves at the same time.


Phila Inquirer Article here

Quote:The great-grandson of founder Henry Ford will not receive a salary or bonus for this year. He will receive some stock options, so "if the company does well, then I will."

Now, the man hardly needs the money, but I appreciate the symbolism.

Also, this quote is pretty frank:

Quote:"The great success that we enjoyed may have caused us to underestimate the growing strength of our competitors. Our success may have also caused us to underestimate the effect of the economic downturn. We also had some well-publicized issues that diverted our resources, and I think more importantly, our attention," he said.

Basically he's saying, yep, we were patting ourselves on the back and took our eye off the ball.

I know that feeling, just on a much smaller scale.

Anybody else find his statements on the refreshing side, or, am I just a sucker for a good P.R. agent?

Andrea

I was in Detroit the day Ford took over and was shocked by the media attention. This was at the height of the war in Afghanistan and stations there spent five minutes at the top of the hour talking about Ford company and people. One lead referred to Ford as coming from America's "best known and most powerful" family, a claim the Kennedys could reasonably argue against.

Does Ford believe it all himself? I think so. There were indications even before the tire episodes that showed he wasn't happy with Nasser.

The factory closings are typically auto slow. I think St. Louis still has three years and Ontario has two. The four models being phased out were interesting - particularly the Continental.

What will undoubtedly haunt Ford is how much cash the company started 2001 with and the public relations beating it took throughout the year.

Actually, I'd rather have top executives take a salary and receive no stock options.

That tempts them to do short-term things that jockey the stock price around without regard to the long-term issues of the company.

You can have no doubt the Enron top executives all had stock options they were using up to the bitter end.

Wasn't Quality Job #1 with these folks?

When does Quality get laid off?

Oddly enough, Ford fixed Jaguar's quality problems. Frankly, I think most of the problem is a perception of quality, not actual quality.

As a driver of two Ford products (namely a '97 Taurus and a '99 Taurus, and unfortunately, soon to be an '02 Taurus), I can tell you without a doubt that the "Quality" is something perceived by Ford themselves.

My first Ford came from the factory missing some minor parts, didn't get the wheels balanced from the factory, had the alternator installed backwards, and was plagued with electrical problems. This vehicle was towed into various Ford dealerships 13 times before I was finally able to trade it.

My second Ford lost its transmission at 49,000 miles. It came from the factory with no air cleaners whatsoever in the engine or the intake into the passenger cabin. It came without a windshield washer reservoir.

Before you think me stupid for buying yet a third Ford, these are company cars and the only sayso I have in the matter (aside from saying "No thanks" is a choice of color).

Jeff
who was really hoping the Taurus/Sable would show up on the cutting room floor.

Fleet sales make the Taurus one of the best selling vehicles in US auto history. It ain't going anywhere.

Quote:Originally posted by joubert
Fleet sales make the Taurus one of the best selling vehicles in US auto history. It ain't going anywhere.

That's 'cause fleet managers get kickbacks. The Taurus is a true POS. Always has been.

Having read the first five posters, I'd like to say a few things that have been unsaid:

I will pray for those laid off and their families.

I empathize with those laid off and their families.

I hope they will get good jobs soon.

We've been there three times. Maybe that's why I find it hard to understand how five people could post without stating the obvious.

Quote:Originally posted by frazzledspice
Maybe that's why I find it hard to understand how five people could post without stating the obvious.

Fraz,

It's probably because that's something that is closer to your heart due to your situation, and it's obviously something that you'd like to see in words. I'm sure all of us hope that the laid off get jobs elsewhere and their families don't undergo true hardship.

On another note, someone at Ford is going to have to continue to make parts for the five models that are discontinued. Sometimes, like at Ford or GM or Chrysler, you can continue on your business because other models, which are basically the same car, will continue.

For example, when GM shut down production of the Oldsmobile Intrigue (Michelle's car), parts are still being made. Why? Because it's the same car as the Pontiac Bonneville. Some of the trim is different, but the sheet metal is identical and so are most of the major components.

Unfortunately, one of the cars Ford has decided to discontinue is the Lincoln Continental. It's not like there's a Ford or Mercury sister model to the car. So, they're either going to have to modify a plant to continue production of the part (so there are replacement parts on the market for repair), or they're going to have to partially keep open the plant that makes the parts, or their going to have to sublet out the work (which still costs money).

I didn't mean to be grouchy last night.

I had just come home from a youth retreat (where the band played off and on all weekend), having slept on narrow little bunkbeds with noisy teenagers all around, and not having slept too much.

And it's true that there might be some people who stay on to make parts for the discontinued parts.

On the other hand, there are lots of people who work in companies that supply parts to Ford for their cars, so when Ford cuts its workforce and production 10%, 10% of their workers are laid off, too.

35,000 jobs lost in Ford might mean 50,000 jobs in the greater auto industry.

Quote:Originally posted by frazzledspice
35,000 jobs lost in Ford might mean 50,000 jobs in the greater auto industry.

I think that's a leap of faith not based on anything factual. There might be 50,000 jobs in the auto industry lost, but I'd doubt very seriously if it has to do totally with Ford laying off 35,000 people worldwide. GM is also closing plants (announced earlier this year) -- say goodbye to the Trans Am, Camaro and El Dorado as three of the more famous models. I doubt they'll have anything to do with the Ford layoffs.

On top of that, suppliers will still be needed and parts will be in more demand since they'll be less prolific in the marketplace.

Without diminishing the pain these people may or may not be going through, I will say that getting laid off from Ford (or any of the big three) is often less painful than getting laid off from other companies. The people in these factories have a two to three year notice (more than most people get from any job in these days of a highly instable work force). Ford (and all of the Big Three) is incredibly good about providing training and retraining to their workers. If history is any indication, all of these people will get decent severance packages that will help them for a long period of time. It's also likely that many of these people will get called back to newly opened jobs before their severance package runs out.

There's a good reason why jobs with the Big Three are highly sought after. In my state, at least, there is no better employer.

I work in a profession where I often get announcement a year or two in advance that there's going to be a reshuffle/downsize/job elimination.

It is never fun, no matter how much warning or how much retraining is offered. For those who like stability and go to work for major firms like this because of the likelihood of greater stability, this is a blow. Plus, I don't want to be part of thousands of people all looking for jobs at the same time from the same firm with (roughly) the same skills in the same location. Not fun.

In Bloomington, when one of the major factories closed (RCA) there were thousands of people unemployed, and it had a ripple effect very severe out into the rest of the community, that years later has still not been fully restored.

I was thinking about Ford as I was driving past the now-vacant lot that had for many decades been one of the major employers in the town. Ironic that the large service roads, smoothed through hillsides and widened to accommodate trucking and rail shipping simultaneously without disrupting traffic, at great expense to the community, was finished just as the last employees were let go.

While I understand the economic forces at work here and by and large agree with the general principles of capitalism, it makes me sad for the people.

I chose not to discuss qualitative feelings about the workers receiving severance packages and their layoffs because we were having a quantitative discussion about the actions that Mr. Ford and the Ford Company took. Being a thread in the business forum, that was an appropriate on-topic assessment.

The 10% number being bandied about is not my experience after nearly two decades in and around the automotive industry.

In fact, 2002 production is scheduled to be among the top 5 years of all time in terms of nominal production runs. That means Ford and others will be taking advantage of idle capacity, optimizing operations and making logistical changes to become more profitable.

That's Ford's job. Mr. Ford is in serious trouble (legally and professionally) should he decide to make decisions that do not optimize shareholder value. And lest anyone think that Ford (or any other major company) does so out of sheer greed, take a look at your own investments, retirement plans, 401(k) plans and the like. Chances are that the balance of funds are spent on some big names - Ford included.

You want them to be profitable because millions of people depend on them to be so.

Happy workers are more productive workers.

Insecure workers are unhappy workers.

They spend huge amounts of time jockeying for position, stabbing other people in the back, shifting blame for mistakes they're responsible for to others so that they don't get blamed for it. Office politics becomes the main "product" produced at companies with unhappy workers.

They write resumes and jobhunt on company time.

When workers are unhappy and insecure, they feel no loyalty to their company.

They get sick more, increasing medical insurance costs.

The new lean, mean American corporation is one of the great tragedies of our time, both for the people who work there and the "disposable" workers they discard.

It is one of the most dysfunctional elements in our society.

If you permit me to add one more feeling comment, it's about the workers in the smaller companies that rely on Ford for business.

Auto union workers are generally well treated (although not so well as in the past--there are no longer medical benefits for retired auto workers, I understand.)

The people in these smaller companies who lose their jobs will have much smaller safety nets.

I know that most of you are younger than I am, and weren't in the workforce in the 1980's, but we had a wonderful life in the 1980's until it was sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.

I was not only in the workforce in the 1980s, but a manager at a company in the auto business.

Sorry to burst the bubble here, but economic and finance theory converge pretty well on this topic. It's not about employees except and only insofar as the impact they have on profitability.

Cite an economist or financier showing otherwise, and I'll buy the argument. Otherwise, the notion of Theory Z human resources-oriented management died with all the other management fads of the 1980s.

Quote:I know that most of you are younger than I am, and weren't in the workforce in the 1980's, but we had a wonderful life in the 1980's until it was sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.

And yet Ronald Reagan was so horrible... yet it was Reagan's policies that allowed companies to thrive out of the disaster that was Jimmy Carter's Misery Index.

Companies have learned that in order to simply survive, they need to cut back. While it is a nice pipe dream to say that companies should be very generous to their employees, that isn't really possible nowadays.

As competition gets more and more fierce, and the stock market gets more and more prevalent (how many people 20 years ago were trading stocks versus today?) in our society, companies are going to have to do unfortunate things just to survive.

Remember the airline layoffs you were so concerned about last year? I asked you then if you'd be happier seeing the airlines go under and everyone be unemployed versus having to let some people go so that most people could continue working.

This is the same thing. While we can bemoan the notion that Ford is being nasty and not caring about anything more than the bottom line, it isn't unheard of for automobile manufacturers to go out of business. When a company goes out of business, all the employees are terminated. Think a big company won't crash and burn quickly? Look at Enron.

Ford is a huge worldwide corporation with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees. To sacrifice relatively few jobs in order to survive is not a bad thing. Henry Ford III (or is it IV?) has a fiduciary responsiblity to his stockholders to make the company profitable. If he is lax in that duty, he and the Board of Directors can be held legally liable and subject to lawsuit by the stockholders.

Remember... a business is generally in business to make money. If they cannot make money, they cannot stay in business. If they cannot stay in business, they cannot employ people.

Jeff

Living in South Dakota and Arkansas has given me a graphic education about real ugliness in the business world.

The upside of this is that, when I saw how appallingly people all over the country were being treated by businesses, I stopped feeling sorry for me.

The downside (for you all) is that I feel compelled to speak up for the downtrodden whenever something bad happens to them....

Met a lady at water aerobics a few weeks ago. She lives in a small town about 40 miles from here. Works in a factory that makes scooters. Was taking her vacation time to learn how to be a dog groomer and start her own kennel/grooming place in her little town.

The factory she works for makes large toys--scooters, etc. In the summertime it's 140 degrees. They get a 10 minute break every 4 hours. The company refused to buy air conditioning because "the machines run better in hot conditions." WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN BEINGS?????????

Their union got the company to supply Gatorade and fans. One day this lady lost sixteen pounds in a day. She'd get dry heaves and cramps all the time. She said most people quit once they experience the summer, because they can't stand it.

In South Dakota, I knew people who worked for small businesses and were put "on salary" for about $240 a week (purportedly $6 an hour...) They'd have to work overtime all the time, but because they were "salaried" employees, there wasn't any law that could stop their employers from violating the spirit of the law.

I have seen things that make Dickensian characters seem humanistic.

No doubt one of the posters here will have some econobabble to defend these psycho-capitalists, but I, for one, will never get snowed by it.

Quote:One day this lady lost sixteen pounds in a day.

Why? Did she lose an arm?

I find that exceedingly difficult to believe... and if this were true, the company should bring in people on a weight loss program and make millions.

It's called severe dehydration from working in 140 degree conditions. That's why she gets the dry heaves and muscle pains.

Severe dehydration occurs when you lose more than 10% of your body weight in lost fluids. I wouldn't recommend it.

The word is economics, not econobabble. It's a social science, as well, and one that can't be ignored because people don't like to make hard decisions.

Like laying off tens of thousands to save the jobs of tens of thousands and the retirement savings of millions.

The anectdotes are cute, but meaningless in a macro discussion.

I also have a certain amount of discomfort in Ford accepting stock options instead of bonuses. It's a good PR move and I certainly think his motives for doing so are sound. However, after the whole Enron fiasco, I have to wonder if putting too much emphasis on short-term stock gains might be bad for the overall health of the company. It certainly was for Enron. As someone who is relying on a 401K, I know I'd certainly rather have stock prices soar over a five or ten year period than over a given quarter.

On a purely sentimental note--I'm sorry to see the Escort go. It's probably a good decision, but boy I have a lot of good memories about that car (not that I ever owned it, but Rick owned one back before we were married and were still teenagers).

I've also always thought that the Mercury line was among the best that Ford had to offer.

Fix
Or
Repair
Daily

or, if you choose, you can spell it backwards.

Driver
Returns
On
Foot

Have I mentioned how much I dislike Ford products?

It's true, the Escort did need a lot of repairs, but boy it was a fun car. And it was a great car for learning how to do repairs. Unlike most cars made today, it was possible to get under the hood and make sense of what was there. Things were put in a logical place to fix them. Heck, even oil changes were easy.