 |
Today's Show » Ford vs GM
|
marnesdad 7 months, 1 week ago |
Wilkow's lame argument pitting GM against Ford, or the government against Ford, or Ford against the UAW, or GM-UAW-government against Ford is laughable... For starters, Ford already pays the highest hourly wages in the industry... better than GM, Chrysler, and all the foreign makers... so the lame argument that someone is trying to drive Ford's wages up to drive them out of business is nonsensical. Second, each union contract is independently negotiated with each manufacturer, and while it is possible for the UAW to try to gain leverage by bringing up what was signed with GM and Chrysler, all three will ultimately be different -- which is how Ford got to be the highest in employee wages. Also, Ford doesn't begrudge GM or Chrysler for receiving the bailouts... in fact, they applauded the decision to do so -- noting that if the government hadn't stepped in, the giant sucking hole caused by the GM/Chrysler demise would have swallowed them as well. Finally, Wilkow's belief that Ford is so much 'healthier' financially, so much so that he said Ford could 'buy them two times over', is also laughable... GM has higher sales, more income, almost three times the sales growth, and is valued at only about $6B less than Ford as a company. So, wrong there too.... |
|---|---|
|
nav68 7 months, 1 week ago |
Well, I'd say that the bottom line is the $6 billion less than Ford, despite the other stats. GM is a massive thing; you'd think that they'd outperform Ford. They don't. Also, unless things have changed drastically, whatever contract is agreed on by one car company with the union is pretty much (with minor variations) what the other auto makers can look forward to. |
|
marnesdad 7 months, 1 week ago |
The point was that a $41B Corp is hardly going to "buy and sell" a $35B Corp. And, yes. GM is very much outperforming Ford in regard to sales. Also, the contracts with the big three are independent of each other. That's how Ford has higher average wages than the rest of the industry. |
|
nav68 7 months, 1 week ago |
I know they're independant of each other, but the basic contracts are not very different. As I understand it, new car sales aren't the sole determinant of the Big Three's performance. GM would necessarily sell more vehicles because they market numerous brands/styles. In Michigan at least, Ford is held in higher esteem than Gm, for a number of reasons. |
|
marnesdad 7 months, 1 week ago |
Again, the point with the contracts is that they are each negotiated independently -- the UAW with each automaker. Bonuses, starting wages, and increases (and many other things) are all different between the automakers... Wilkow's 'argument' was that the deals at GM and Chrysler (giving bonuses) were meant to 'hurt' Ford in their own negotiations with the UAW... That's nonsense. Ford ALREADY pays more for their labor. On the performance side of things, I have no idea what you're talking about... GM has higher sales. Period. |
|
nav68 7 months, 1 week ago |
My point is that higher sales are relative. GM is larger than Ford, markets more vehicles. Its sales are good currently, but it seems to be valued at less than Ford. Given the problems that GM has had with inept management for many years, they seem to have been in more trouble than Ford and they are still rebounding. The fact that all three automakers sign a seperate agreement doesn't negate the fact that a contract signed with one is used in negotiations with the others. The contracts ultimately are not radically different from each other. |
|
marnesdad 7 months, 1 week ago |
Yes, GM is larger than Ford... GMs sales are good... and GMs past is not exactly rosy... HOWEVER, none of this supports Wilkow's inane theory that Ford could "buy and sell" GM and that GM is 'driving up the cost of Ford's labor'... What's 'radically different' to you? Ford pays higher wages already... is that radically different? I would assume that all the contracts with all three automakers could be called 'similar'... but, that would stand to reason considering that it's the same union in the same industry in the same country...wouldn't it? Again, nothing in any of what we are saying supports the nonsense Wilkow is spewing about Ford being hurt by GM or Chrysler.... |
|
marnesdad 7 months ago |
The arguments CANNOT be broken....... LOL. |
Post a Reply
Please login to post a reply.