Ford's Plant in Brazil - video.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by dom_105

If Ford tried to build that plant in the US, the UAW would have a fit. This, incidentally, is what is holding back any Ford products which roll off the Broady line making their way to the States.

Unions have their place, but not to the detrement of the employers or the industry, and eventually the employees, in which they operate.

Originally Posted by Kieron

Have a read of this about the Camacari plant and what this pro union bloke is saying -

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008...orate-welfare/

Underneath are some response from what appear to be auto workers/UAW members.

Well I was gonna say if Ford is smart enough they would use the credit crisis to take the huge amount of power the unions have. But I can understand the employees wanting to keep their pension plan, cause all the money that they would have paid for social security (government pension) has been spent by the government.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Mark351

Once again, the US unions are shown to be the major roadblock to innovation in the auto sector there with regards to assembly. There will be no auto workers left before they get to a plant model like Brazil or even Australia.

You are close, very close.


This Brazil plant is not just about JIT, it is about the suppliers building the vechicle. Watch the video again and listen when Bryce (I have exchanged a number of emails with him, very good reporter) states that 7 different vendors assemble the underbody and yet another vendor installs the engines and suspension.

Do you see where this is going? Did the Ford workers assemble the underbody? No. Did Ford workers install the engine? No. Did Ford workers assemble the front suspension on the chassis? No. The VENDORS are performing this work. Who is building the car? You decide.

Anyone here work at Broadmeadows or any other Oz Ford plant? Think about this please......when does it go from JIT and just "vendors in the plant" to vendors building the vehicle and you looking for another job?

It used to be the vendors dropped the parts off at the door.

Then the vendors bring the parts to the line.

Now, in some cases, you have the vendors installing their parts or sub-assemblies.

What will the Ford worker be doing? Driving them off the line? Nah, they can hire car porters that can do that for much less pay.





Please be careful when paying attention to where the line is......where there is progress and advanced assembly techniques, and where your job as a Ford worker is being eliminated while all those suppliers "install their parts" on the vehicle. Why will Ford, or any auto manufacturer for that matter, need its own employees?


Steve

[metalmania]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

I think it's about time the union's are bought down a peg or too. You should hear the things the American workers receive.....

- Health insurance for life
- College degree if retrenched
- Full pay for a period if unable to find another job after being retrenched

So you think it is only the the unions that need to be " brought down a peg or two".
There are always two sides to a story, remember that. Don't you think that Corporations, CEOs and Politicians need to be brought down a peg or two with their expectations. When is profit going to be enough profit.
Ask yourself this question ,If Ford is making a profit in Australia why should it stay in Australia when it can go to another country with much cheaper labour and running costs and substantially boost its profits.When is it enough?
Answer, never . These companies along with their greedy CEOs and shareholders will never be satisfied. What might seem as a reasonable profit % wise today may seem unreasonable in the future.

[Gobes32]

I think everyone needs to come down a peg or two, everytime the proverbial hits the fan, who is the first person to feel the pain? The employee on the shop floor. It needs to stop and people at the top need to pull their heads in and be responsible for their decisions.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

You are close, very close.


This Brazil plant is not just about JIT, it is about the suppliers building the vechicle. Watch the video again and listen when Bryce (I have exchanged a number of emails with him, very good reporter) states that 7 different vendors assemble the underbody and yet another vendor installs the engines and suspension.

Do you see where this is going? Did the Ford workers assemble the underbody? No. Did Ford workers install the engine? No. Did Ford workers assemble the front suspension on the chassis? No. The VENDORS are performing this work. Who is building the car? You decide.

Anyone here work at Broadmeadows or any other Oz Ford plant? Think about this please......when does it go from JIT and just "vendors in the plant" to vendors building the vehicle and you looking for another job?

It used to be the vendors dropped the parts off at the door.

Then the vendors bring the parts to the line.

Now, in some cases, you have the vendors installing their parts or sub-assemblies.

What will the Ford worker be doing? Driving them off the line? Nah, they can hire car porters that can do that for much less pay.





Please be careful when paying attention to where the line is......where there is progress and advanced assembly techniques, and where your job as a Ford worker is being eliminated while all those suppliers "install their parts" on the vehicle. Why will Ford, or any auto manufacturer for that matter, need its own employees?


Steve

Vendors only deliver sub assemblies like seats etc to Broadmeadows on conveyors from adjacent plants, they don't ever fit anything on line. The AMWU would go off their heads if the company tried to change that, thank god, but in saying that a lot of part production is being farmed out to contractors if it means the company can save money. The Barra cylinder head for example, it was cheaper to have it cast in Mexico and sent over here for machining rather than Aluminium Casting make it themselves on site.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by metalmania

So you think it is only the the unions that need to be " brought down a peg or two".
There are always two sides to a story, remember that. Don't you think that Corporations, CEOs and Politicians need to be brought down a peg or two with their expectations. When is profit going to be enough profit.

CEO's are working for the shareholders, it's their job to make as much money as possible for them. Check out what Mullaly will do if the US government loans (not gives) them 9 billion - he will reduce his salary to $1 and urges others to do so, he also drove to Washington rather than fly in the corp jet recently.

Ask yourself this question ,If Ford is making a profit in Australia why should it stay in Australia when it can go to another country with much cheaper labour and running costs and substantially boost its profits.When is it enough?
Answer, never . These companies along with their greedy CEOs and shareholders will never be satisfied. What might seem as a reasonable profit % wise today may seem unreasonable in the future.

The other side to that is Ford are increasingly having to compete with cars built in cheap labour countries and thats just Ford Aus. The Accord is built in Thailand for instance.

Imagine in the US, Ford having to compete with Hyundais etc, they are saddled with higher labour costs, pension plans and the militant UAW etc. There's endless cheap labour in the likes of China and India and these people value their jobs because they know they can be replaced at the drop of the hat, no pensions plans, no job assistance schemes etc




Its all about return on invetsment and thats the way the whole world works. If you making a widget here in Aus and making $1 on a $3 widget, then another company starts selling a competing widget thats made in in China for $2.50, you have to half your profits to compete.

Might then be worth pulling out of Aus and investing those $$'s elsewhere for a better return and it will be your shareholders pushing you.

[JerseyVics]

do any australian Ford plants offer assembly line tours???

I've been to the Panther Platform Plant (Saint Thomas Assembly Plant) near London, Canada and had a helluva time there. Would be neat if I could do the same on my possible visit to Australia.

--Russ

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Vendors only deliver sub assemblies like seats etc to Broadmeadows on conveyors from adjacent plants, they don't ever fit anything on line. The AMWU would go off their heads if the company tried to change that, thank god, but in saying that a lot of part production is being farmed out to contractors if it means the company can save money. The Barra cylinder head for example, it was cheaper to have it cast in Mexico and sent over here for machining rather than Aluminium Casting make it themselves on site.

But when the UAW resists this it is that "militant, inflexible frigging union".


My point exactly. See how fast this went from being a detriment to Ford that the UAW is causing and killing the company, to thank god for the AMWU who does the exact same thing?

So to those that said the American UAW is the dagger in Ford's heart, I am just glad that BOTH of these unions are here. You see you have the exact same condition in Australia. This is another reason the unions need to be there.


Think Ford wouldn't have vendors build parts of the vehicle on the assembly line in a Ford plant? Did you watch this video? What is the only difference there? NO UNION to prevent it. Wouldn't not having your own employees save on cost?

How many people here would be willing to give up their jobs so that their company can be more profitable? How many times will you do that?



Steve

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by JerseyVics

do any australian Ford plants offer assembly line tours???

I've been to the Panther Platform Plant (Saint Thomas Assembly Plant) near London, Canada and had a helluva time there. Would be neat if I could do the same on my possible visit to Australia.

--Russ

They used to, but due to cost cutting they no longer do it.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

But when the UAW resists this it is that "militant, inflexible frigging union".


My point exactly. See how fast this went from being a detriment to Ford that the UAW is causing and killing the company, to thank god for the AMWU who does the exact same thing?

So to those that said the American UAW is the dagger in Ford's heart, I am just glad that BOTH of these unions are here. You see you have the exact same condition in Australia. This is another reason the unions need to be there.

Actually I don't believe we do. It's my understanding that when a Ford employee retires/leaves in Aus, they don't get company pensions, health plans etc, your on your own.

From what I read of the US auto industry, the big three have huge nooses around their necks with these health/pension plans.

Think Ford wouldn't have vendors build parts of the vehicle on the assembly line in a Ford plant? Did you watch this video? What is the only difference there? NO UNION to prevent it. Wouldn't not having your own employees save on cost?

How many people here would be willing to give up their jobs so that their company can be more profitable? How many times will you do that?
Steve

If the vendors come in and assemble the vehicle, this is essentially outsourcing, exactly what many other businesses do. However, those outsourcing companies still need to employ labour in order to do the assembly.

What Ford in the USA would do is broker a deal with the outsourcing companies that would say you will take xxx number of Ford employees for component assembly and probably redeployment, tell the workers the deal, some will accept and others won't and would probably get redundancy.


Yes there will be job losses if Ford did this in the USA, but maybe some are close to retiring age anyway.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Actually I don't believe we do. It's my understanding that when a Ford employee retires/leaves in Aus, they don't get company pensions, health plans etc, your on your own.

From what I read of the US auto industry, the big three have huge nooses around their necks with these health/pension plans.

All Australian employers are required to provide Compulsory Superannuation payments at a minimum 9%. The difference is US employers have more flexibility in how they provide "pensions" Some firms invest heavily in their own stock using "employee pensions" which creates greater problems in the long run. I'm no expert but what it all boils down to is US companies have the same employee overheads in terms of costs as Australian employers, its just structured vastly different.

[Kieron]

I'm not sure you could say they have the same employee overheads. We don't know what auto workers actually get compared to our 9%.

Ohio XB may be able to throw some light on this?

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Actually I don't believe we do. It's my understanding that when a Ford employee retires/leaves in Aus, they don't get company pensions, health plans etc, your on your own.

What I was talking in regards to is that both the AMWU and the UAW resist having vendors coming into the Ford plants and assembling the vehicle on the assembly line. As Bossxr8 said, the AMWU would go off their heads if the company tried this so this notion of resistance to this practice is already known in Australia and is understood. My point is that when the UAW does this exact same thing (since some think the way things are done in the video should be done in the US with vendors installing parts) they are admonished as backward, militant obstacles to progress and the cause for the demise of the company.

From what I read of the US auto industry, the big three have huge nooses around their necks with these health/pension plans.

The healthcare cost for the retirees is a huge, monumental burden that will be removed after December 31, 2009. As of January 1, 2010 this cost will be handled by the Union and will be off of the companies books. This is called a VEBA account, was approved by the government, and was a landmark agreement of the 2007 contract. All the Big3 were happy to get this agreement and are excited for when it kicks in. This eliminates most all of the total labor cost difference between the Big3 and the foreign auto makers in the US.

The reason for the time frame for this to take place is due to the enormity of the money involved. To set this up is an undertaking of billions and billions of dollars.

If the vendors come in and assemble the vehicle, this is essentially outsourcing, exactly what many other businesses do. However, those outsourcing companies still need to employ labour in order to do the assembly.

What Ford in the USA would do is broker a deal with the outsourcing companies that would say you will take xxx number of Ford employees for component assembly and probably redeployment, tell the workers the deal, some will accept and others won't and would probably get redundancy.


Yes there will be job losses if Ford did this in the USA, but maybe some are close to retiring age anyway.

There are many that are close to retirement age, and also a lot of those took the buy-outs already.

There may be a difference of outsourcing between the US and Australia based on your explanation. In the US outsourcing assemblies is where the assembly of multiple parts is made up by the vendor supplying it to the company as a finished unit. Outsourcing assembly of the vehicle would not entail vendor employees assembling parts on the Ford assembly line. This would be a vendor performing Ford work that is done by UAW Ford employees.

Contrary to a lot of commonly accepted notions, Ford is now insourcing more work at this time. Ford claims with the latest contract details they are finding it more cost effective to insource work that was previously performed by vendors. Case in point, the front wheel assemblies for the Econoline (Steering knuckle, brake rotor, caliper bracket, caliper, wheel bearings, brake pads) have come into the plant already assembled by the vendor. It has been this way for years and years. Ford just had a new assembly line built and installed for the build-up process of this component. It is now cheaper to perform this work in house than have the vendor assemble this component. This is an example of how far the latest contract has come and this practice is occuring through out Ford.


Steve

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Kieron

I'm not sure you could say they have the same employee overheads. We don't know what auto workers actually get compared to our 9%.

Ohio XB may be able to throw some light on this?

I'll try.

Explain exactly what this 9% is, where it comes from, where it goes to, and the employees eligibilty to receive it.


Steve

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

I'll try.

Explain exactly what this 9% is, where it comes from, where it goes to, and the employees eligibilty to receive it.


Steve

9% of an employees total wage must be contributed to an approved superannuation fund. This is paid on top of normal salary, so someone on 40,000 a year is recieving 40,000 and 3,600 a year into a retirement fund. However you cant touch it until age of 55

I think its similar to 401k.

[Green X]

I'm not a unionist but i do believe in what the unions do and have done, sometimes they just go overboard.

Why is taking production off-shore so popular, Exchange rates and No Union YET! and the bonus of employing people who are used to low wagers and having very little, company moves in pays the workers a good wage compared to what they are used too but still nothing compared to what they would have to pay a worker on there home soil!

I have done service work overseas with my previous employer where we had equipment operating, in some of these placers i walked into workshops or yards that looked like they haven't had a upgrade in 50 years!! Then you see how easy it is for a big company to come in Build a nice new facility pay the workers a few $ more and thease guys are stoked.

My point is if you've got a CEO getting payed 2,4,10 or 20 million a year why should the skilled employees who are the ones making the company money be exspected to work for bugger all.

Like i said to my Engineering boss at my last job before i quit, Why should i keep working hard hear and take risks just so the CEO's stock can go up and he can drop 3 million on another boat when i can hardly afford to buy a house.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

I'll try.

Explain exactly what this 9% is, where it comes from, where it goes to, and the employees eligibilty to receive it.

Steve

All companies in Aus have to provide 9% superannuation to employees.

If a person is on $50K gross, company pays $4,500 into a employee nominated superannuation scheme. Full remuneration for that employee is $54,500.

Schemes are typically run by some sort of financial company, some companies may have their own schemes although i'm not sure about Ford/Holden.

BTW, your postings on the issue are quite informative, thanks for sharing your inside knowledge its certainly changing my point of view to a degree.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Kieron

All companies in Aus have to provide 9% superannuation to employees.

If a person is on $50K gross, company pays $4,500 into a employee nominated superannuation scheme. Full remuneration for that employee is $54,500.

Schemes are typically run by some sort of financial company, some companies may have their own schemes although i'm not sure about Ford/Holden.

BTW, your postings on the issue are quite informative, thanks for sharing your inside knowledge its certainly changing my point of view to a degree.

You also have to add in Workers Compensation Schemes (insurance based premium) sick leave and holiday pay. So a typical worker in Australia earning 50k has a package closer to 60-65k. Just for comparison to the US workers

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

9% of an employees total wage must be contributed to an approved superannuation fund. This is paid on top of normal salary, so someone on 40,000 a year is recieving 40,000 and 3,600 a year into a retirement fund. However you cant touch it until age of 55

I think its similar to 401k.

401k would be the closest thing.

Originally Posted by irlewy86

You also have to add in Workers Compensation Schemes (insurance based premium) sick leave and holiday pay. So a typical worker in Australia earning 50k has a package closer to 60-65k. Just for comparison to the US workers

For every dollar a worker gets pain in Australia it costs a minimum of 40c (or 40%) extra for the employer.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

You also have to add in Workers Compensation Schemes (insurance based premium) sick leave and holiday pay. So a typical worker in Australia earning 50k has a package closer to 60-65k. Just for comparison to the US workers

I left those out as we were essentially discussing retirement plans.

For reference though, Aus co's provide 10 days annual sick leave and 20 days annual leave.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by vztrt

401k would be the closest thing.



For every dollar a worker gets pain in Australia it costs a minimum of 40c (or 40%) extra for the employer.

That figure probably includes Payroll tax though.

[vztrt]

Yes, that's correct.
Just saying how much it costs a company to employ someone.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

9% of an employees total wage must be contributed to an approved superannuation fund. This is paid on top of normal salary, so someone on 40,000 a year is recieving 40,000 and 3,600 a year into a retirement fund. However you cant touch it until age of 55

I think its similar to 401k.

This sounds pretty cool. I would be for it.


In the US a 401K cannot be touched until a certain age (perhaps 55 as you mention) but the money that goes into it comes out of the worker's current wages paid. So if you want to contribute 9% to your 401K and get paid $40K this means that the worker will receive $36K of their pay. No money will be given to them on top of their regular pay for this, so it is not equal to a your 9% fund.


Your 9% fund sounds exactly like a pension that the UAW gets lambasted for having. Money is put into the pension fund by the company based on what you earn. This really does not correlate with what you actually get though. It is very likely that you will only ever collect a portion of what gets paid into this on your "behalf". Many auto workers die within 2 years of retiring. I bet you haven't heard that one?


Steve

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Green X

I'm not a unionist but i do believe in what the unions do and have done, sometimes they just go overboard.

Why is taking production off-shore so popular, Exchange rates and No Union YET! and the bonus of employing people who are used to low wagers and having very little, company moves in pays the workers a good wage compared to what they are used too but still nothing compared to what they would have to pay a worker on there home soil!

I have done service work overseas with my previous employer where we had equipment operating, in some of these placers i walked into workshops or yards that looked like they haven't had a upgrade in 50 years!! Then you see how easy it is for a big company to come in Build a nice new facility pay the workers a few $ more and thease guys are stoked.

My point is if you've got a CEO getting payed 2,4,10 or 20 million a year why should the skilled employees who are the ones making the company money be exspected to work for bugger all.

Like i said to my Engineering boss at my last job before i quit, Why should i keep working hard hear and take risks just so the CEO's stock can go up and he can drop 3 million on another boat when i can hardly afford to buy a house.

Nice post.


How much is a certain amount of work worth? How much is working on the assembly line worth? UAW wages have been cut in half for new hires. They will get paid $14 per hour. Is that fair to get this work done? I continue.....


In 2007 the workers at Ford of Mexico were earning $2.50 USD per hour. They agreed to a 50% wage cut to $1.25 per hour in order to be competitive with China. The workers said they were willing to do this because it is what's needed.

Since when is $2.50 an hour just TOO MUCH to pay to have a vehicle assembled? This is basically what Ford said when they demanded this wage cut. You are getting paid too much.

This demonstrates that the companies will pay as little as they can with no consideration to what is fair. So, a 50% wage cut by the UAW I think is pretty fair to the company. Personally, I was making $13.50 an hour when I hired in 1992. I would not do that work NOW for $14 an hour, not on principle but rather because the work is worth more than that for what happens to your body on that job.



Steve

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Kieron

All companies in Aus have to provide 9% superannuation to employees.

If a person is on $50K gross, company pays $4,500 into a employee nominated superannuation scheme. Full remuneration for that employee is $54,500.

Schemes are typically run by some sort of financial company, some companies may have their own schemes although i'm not sure about Ford/Holden.

BTW, your postings on the issue are quite informative, thanks for sharing your inside knowledge its certainly changing my point of view to a degree.

Thanks for that sentiment. I only want people to have the correct perspective of what's going on over here. The media is really not getting it, nor is our government. Being on the inside I have all kinds of resources to be able to keep up with what's been going on. I am trying to get out the info that many people never get an opportunity to know and let them make their own decisions.


I already explained the difference between the 401K and your 9% benefit in a previous post. Your benefit is equal to a pension and is not in line with a 401K which is contributed to out of the worker's regular pay. The advantage of the 401K is that the money put into it is done before taxes is applied to the earnings so that money is not taxed until it is collected. This enables it to grow faster because the amount that would have been paid in taxes on that money is in the 401K instead of the various government's pockets.


Steve

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

This sounds pretty cool. I would be for it.


In the US a 401K cannot be touched until a certain age (perhaps 55 as you mention) but the money that goes into it comes out of the worker's current wages paid. So if you want to contribute 9% to your 401K and get paid $40K this means that the worker will receive $36K of their pay. No money will be given to them on top of their regular pay for this, so it is not equal to a your 9% fund.


Your 9% fund sounds exactly like a pension that the UAW gets lambasted for having. Money is put into the pension fund by the company based on what you earn. This really does not correlate with what you actually get though. It is very likely that you will only ever collect a portion of what gets paid into this on your "behalf". Many auto workers die within 2 years of retiring. I bet you haven't heard that one?


Steve

Combined with Workers Compensation Insurance the average non-union worker in Australia is a lot better off benifits wise than a UAW.

What really drives me up the wall is the US government wants to run the auto industry, yet time and time again nationalised companies never perform as well as private ones. Good luck to you.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Combined with Workers Compensation Insurance the average non-union worker in Australia is a lot better off benifits wise than a UAW.

What really drives me up the wall is the US government wants to run the auto industry, yet time and time again nationalised companies never perform as well as private ones. Good luck to you.

"Combined with Workers Compensation Insurance the average non-union worker in Australia is a lot better off benifits wise than a UAW. "


What??? Someone doing better in compensation than the UAW workers?? That's IMPOSSIBLE!! We all know that the UAW workers are vastly over compensated so how can ANYONE be compensated more?

Well, I'm sorry, but those non-union Aussie workers are just going to have to take a pay cut, eliminate some benefits and get their compensation down to at least the UAW compensation.......which is supposed to be reduced down to what the foreign car makers here pay their people which is what??? 8 bucks?


The citizens of Australia must be outraged at these non-union workers receiving such absorbitant compensation packages causing the cost of their products to be too expensive. How criminal!!!!

:


Thanks for the well wishes. I am glad I am working for Ford!

Steve

[phoon]

Getting back to the Supplier employees working within the Ford plants, correct me if Im wrong, but Ford Australia already does this in a round about way. All of the plastic components for the Ford assembly plant are done by a company called Venture Industries (not Ford Owned). Now I know its a different company but Venture are located on the Ford premises at Broadmeadows and its a hole in the wall arrangement, whereby the Venture factory moulds all of the Ford assembly plants requirements and virtually forklifts it or conveyers it through a hole in the wall to the Ford assembly plant. This is how I understand it but am happy to be corrected if this is wrong.

Cheers

Jeff

[Ohio XB]

If that is just how they are delivering parts I see nothing wrong with it. If Venture Industries employees install the parts on the vehicles then I would worry.


Steve

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

If that is just how they are delivering parts I see nothing wrong with it. If Venture Industries employees install the parts on the vehicles then I would worry.


Steve

But wouldnt it come back to ..... no job at FORD for that person but an opening at Venture Ind.? It may be a pain in the very short term for the empoyee but in the end jobs are transfered from one to another.

It all comes down to skilled workers ..... not just a cheaper rate. Those able or technically capable of doing the work will be a priority over the non skilled



| [/url] |