Slashdot Mirror


Ford To Cut North America, Asia Salaried Workers By 10 Percent (reuters.com)

Ford is planning a major round of layoffs that will cut up to 20,000 jobs around the world, according to reports published Monday. From a report: Ford plans to shrink its salaried workforce in North America and Asia by about 10 percent as it works to boost profits and its sliding stock price, a source familiar with the plan told Reuters. A person briefed on the plan said Ford plans to offer generous early retirement incentives to reduce its salaried headcount by Oct. 1, but does not plan cuts to its hourly workforce or its production. The move could put the U.S. automaker on a collision course with President Donald Trump, who has made boosting auto employment a top priority. Ford has about 30,000 salaried workers in the United States. The cuts are part of a previously announced plan to slash costs by $3 billion, the person said, as U.S. new vehicles auto sales have shown signs of decline after seven years of consecutive growth since the end of the Great Recession.

129 comments

  1. Trump! Trump! Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    #MAGA

    1. Re: Trump! Trump! Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away

    2. Re: Trump! Trump! Trump! by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has always had the best trolls even if they cut & paste the same stuff. I feel like they are under-appreciated. I for one enjoy the chuckle.

  2. Ugh... by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    "as it works to boost profits and its sliding stock price,"

    Ugh... why can't businesses go back to the model of taking care of their employees and figuring out how to build better products to increase profits and their stock instead of always going for the short-term solution of axing payroll....

    1. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might not see a good way to do that, or the existing employees don't have said skills.

      Presumably, you have rose colored glasses of the past as well?

    2. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the companies that followed that model all went out of business. The ones that are left are the ones that were willing to make the hard decisions to increase the value to the owners.

    3. Re:Ugh... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because consumers have to pay the wages. Auto makers have to hold onto employees well-beyond their usefulness because of union contracts, and you have to pay the charity that keeps those people benched instead of out working other jobs making stuff you're buying with the money you're not spending on cars.

    4. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      figuring out how to build better products

      Ford.

      Do you want them to manufacture wheelbarrows?

    5. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes diversify into wheelbarrows.

    6. Re:Ugh... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Because greedy shareholders.

    7. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Ford's most sold model is a pickup truck made of 70's technology, why should they still invest into R&D? Just let the engineering teams go and leave the marketing geniuses who can sell that junk to Americans.

    8. Re:Ugh... by imgod2u · · Score: 2

      Not every business is able to "build better products to increase profits". A lot of things are out of one individual business' control. For instance, the overall health of the economy has a huge impact on consumer spending. And things like government trade policy are, for the most part, out of the control of Ford.

      Companies that are able to weather such changes are ones who are willing to cut workforce when the going gets tough and hire when the going is good.

      Companies that stick to a myopic "gotta take care of every employee" went out of business long ago. Even during the Great Depression, Ford laid people off. Of course, the ones he kept around, he took care of because he knew things would get better and he's better off having loyal employees.

    9. Re:Ugh... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      So. Become a shareholder (along with millions of other people who, like you know better) and then have a say in how the company works.

      One million people like you who put in a dollar a day into such a great fund could do wonders. You could change the world. You could be the change you're looking for.

      Carpe Diem muthaf**ker.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    10. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The hard decisions to increase value to owners" is more often than not increasing short-term gains at the expense of the company's long-term future. Look at the current slow disintegration of Sears/KMart as it's being slowly gutted instead of finding new ways of making long-term profits or keeping Americans employed. Granted, brick-and-mortar has seen its day, but the really important decisions would be the ones that steered them towards newer growth, not shambling like a zombie until finally all the bits have rotted off and the whole thing collapses forever.

      It might be remembered that incorporation is not some sort of inalienable right. Corporate charters are granted by governments, and governments themselves are not supposed to be money-making entities, but rather for the profit of their citizens in many ways, not all of them recordable in dollars and cents. At the moment, a corporate charter can be granted for virtually any legal activity, profit-making or not, but when corporations begin to act to the detriment of their grantors, perhaps it might be advisable to re-think the chartering process.

      When you can get a charter that allows you to employ people at rates that make them a drain on your own resources - for example, Wal-Mart's Welfare Employees - or the many cases where a company demands major tax concessions, then outsources, then perhaps the charter should be re-considered.

    11. Re:Ugh... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      This meme needs to stop, they've made pretty fucking good cars for at least the past 10+ years. All of the major brands (domestic, Asian -- even Korean) have pretty much reached parity in quality.

    12. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because consumers have to pay the wages. Auto makers have to hold onto employees well-beyond their usefulness because of union contracts, and you have to pay the charity that keeps those people benched instead of out working other jobs making stuff you're buying with the money you're not spending on cars.

      Or that keeps them on welfare, because whatever jobs remain pay so poorly that they cannot themselves spend money on cars, Assuming that they can find jobs at all.

      Wealth doesn't trickle down as we've had 35+ years to see, but poverty bubbles up very quickly indeed. If the workers are unemployed, not only are they not going to go out and buy cars, they're not going to be buying much of anything else. They're going to be in arrears on their debts. They'll neglect their discretionary medical expenses (this is the "choice" that TrumpCare is going to offer them) and when conditions go untreated until they are dire, the unemployed turn up in expensive emergency care that has to be paid for on your dime or dollars. The automakers lose the money they would have recouped from the laid-off employees and the community at large loses, since there go the meals from local eateries, trips to the hardware store, and virtually all discretionary spending.

      People who have no direct connection at all to the major industry in industry towns can tell you what happens when the money churn stops churning.

    13. Re:Ugh... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, maybe the answer is to stop pretending that companies can - or should - 'take care' of their employees any more. A good start would be to adopt universal health and unemployment insurance, so that companies aren't dragged down by a government expectation that they will provide those things - when their foreign competitors can rely on their governments to provide them. Of course that ignores your bit about loyal employees - which are certainly worth something...

      Still, if you're 'pro business' in this country you're also expected to be 'anti government'. The two don't add up. The best way to have a strong middle class is to have good, well-paying jobs and secure benefits. And the best way to have healthy companies is to have a strong middle class to buy their products. But in this country at this time, we have the worst of both. And a weak middle class produces a viscous circle of need for government safety net programs to deal with the carnage.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    14. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha! Found On Road Dead, Ford sucks!

    15. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean they all got corporate raided back in the 80's to get broken up for the cash they were holding, because they were profitable. The ones that were left had to pay danegeld, or had to dig themselves out of leveraged buy outs (where the raider uses YOUR assets as collateral for a loan to buy your company, in order to squeeze all the cash out).

      Is it any wonder that there are few publicly held companies left which actually care about consumers or employees anymore?

      "Activist" investors are just corporate raiders who rebranded themselves. They're still after the same thing - money, at any cost. Kill the golden goose and move on. Why do you think they're building themselves fortresses in New Zealand? Because they know that at some point, people are going to figure it out and come for their heads.

    16. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My 2016 F-150 has a navigation system, trailer anti-sway control, 360 degree cameras, anti-lock brakes, airbags everywhere, aluminum body panels, v6 engine with 460 ft-lb of torque, automatic windshield wiper control, automatic headlight dimming control, an lcd multi-function display, heated and cooled seats, etc, etc. Hardly 70's tech.

    17. Re:Ugh... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The biggest examples of that are the car companies which are now under crushing debt from legacy pension plans. Why, it's almost as if that model was unsustainable pipe dreams pushed by the Union bosses and CEOs, and all of the responsible parties on both sides of the equation having got theirs and retired.

    18. Re:Ugh... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, in a nutshell because the effective discount rate for expected future performance is high for stocks.

      Now it doesn't mean that people don't invest in assets that they hope to make a killing on after a few years, but GM stock ain't that kind of asset. It's supposed to pay quarterly dividends so if you're a stockholder you're very interested in how much cash GM has on hand next quarter, probably more interested than whether it will be doing well four years from now. For investors, timing is everything.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh... why can't businesses go back to the model of taking care of their employees and figuring out how to build better products

      If Ford knew how to build better products, it would have done that when Honda and Toyota started eating Detroit's lunch.

      Fix Or Repair Daily
      Found On Road Dead

    20. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This meme needs to stop, they've made pretty fucking good cars for at least the past 10+ years. All of the major brands (domestic, Asian -- even Korean) have pretty much reached parity in quality.

      Ford has gotten better and GM is really trying but they're still not quite there yet. Chrysler still is as unreliable as ever and the last rental I had from them (a 300C) had a lot of dumb design decisions that annoyed me.

      As for the Koreans? They are anywhere near Japanese quality yet it's going to take another decade of statistics to prove it considering how many Hyundai and Kia models I've see suffering breakdowns long before you'd see them in a Honda or Toyota. as the saying goes "you're going to need every mile of that warranty and be ready to replace it after 100,000."

    21. Re:Ugh... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The ones that are left are the ones that were willing to make the hard decisions to increase the value to the owners.

      I'm sure it doesn't hurt that the people making those hard decisions will (I'm sure) get big bonuses at the expense of others.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    22. Re:Ugh... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      "as it works to boost profits and its sliding stock price,"

      Ugh... why can't businesses go back to the model of taking care of their employees and figuring out how to build better products to increase profits and their stock instead of always going for the short-term solution of axing payroll....

      One word... Unions .

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    23. Re:Ugh... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      While incorporation charters perhaps grant too many advantages today compared to individuals, private organizations really have no obligation to provide welfare for a population. So whether or not they're interested in long-term profitability or just short-term pilfering of what's left (before the house collapses) is really their own decision.

      That being said, incorporation should probably be rethought as it grants incorporated organizations far too many legal and tax preferential treatment compared to individual (real) people.

    24. Re:Ugh... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I here ya... My base model 150 is quite a bit better than 70's technology. The engine, body weight all contribute to make the small v6 perform yet still get reasonable gas mileage, even for a huge truck. Had this been built with 70's components, I'd be getting half the mileage and have half the performance.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    25. Re:Ugh... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      If you really believe that the secret to success is having lots of employees and paying them well, then you should be able to get rich by starting such a business. Or you can invest in companies that do that, while shorting companies that focus on automation, streamlining and outsourcing. Good luck. So far the evidence is not on your side.

      Your "short term" vs "long term" argument is also not backed by evidence. Walmart has been lean and paid low wages for 55 years. They aren't bankrupt yet. Meanwhile, plenty of companies that procrastinated at cutting the bloat are dead and gone.

      Ford is smart to try to be more like Toyota and less like GM.

    26. Re:Ugh... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Shesh... You haven't seen today's Fords I guess... They had worked most of the kinks out way back in the late 90's (Yes I owned a 2000 Expedition that went 150K before it got totaled w/o much fuss...) My current 2016 F150 shows no signs of being a problem yet either...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:Ugh... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I agree. But it's quite a big step to go from corporate welfare to decoupled government welfare + market economy. There's just too much ideology in the US to make that happen.

      There's also the argument that corporate welfare is more efficient than government welfare -- that is, the benefits of "taking care of people" provided by private companies can be better than that provided by government for the same price. There can be some merit there.

      I like Australia's model where the government provides a basic safety net with regards to healthcare and unemployment pay. That's a good way to cap the spending spiral that would result from open-ended welfare programs.

    28. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "governments themselves are not supposed to be money-making entities, "

      That may have been true in a pre-Trump world.
      Now it's supposed to be:
      'Grab them by the pussy^h^h^h^h^hwallet.

    29. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So. Become a shareholder (along with millions of other people who, like you know better) and then have a say in how the company works. "

      Hardly. You might get a free meal once a year at the shareholder meeting, but you need only 1 share for that.

      With 365 shares of different companies, you could eat all year long.

    30. Re:Ugh... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      All of the major brands (domestic, Asian -- even Korean) have pretty much reached parity in quality.

      In terms of customer satisfaction, Tesla is out in front. Considering the price, they ought to be. Fiat is the worst. Ford does pretty well.

      I have a Honda Odyssey Minivan, and I am very happy with it. My wife has a Tesla and is very happy with it.

      Here are the rankings:

      1 Tesla 91%
      2 Porsche 84%
      3 Audi 77%
      4 Subaru 76%
      5 Toyota 76%
      6 Honda 75%
      7 Mazda 74%
      8 Chrysler 73%
      9 Chevrolet 73%
      10 Lexus 73%
      11 GMC 73%
      12 Lincoln 73%
      13 Hyundai 73%
      14 BMW 72%
      15 Ford 72%
      16 Mini 71%
      17 Ram 70%
      18 Kia 70%
      19 Mercedes-Benz 69%
      20 Volvo 69%
      21 Buick 68%
      22 Cadillac 68%
      23 Dodge 66%
      24 Volkswagen 64%
      25 Jeep 60%
      26 Acura 58%
      27 Infiniti 58%
      28 Nissan 58%
      29 Fiat 53%

    31. Re:Ugh... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > maybe the answer is to stop pretending that companies can - or should - 'take care' of their employees any more.

      That's good in theory, but in practice who is going to pay for it?

      I'm not say it is not doable -- but we need to face reality here.

      Still, we need to start having these discussions and figure out realistic compromises because the existing system isn't working.

      > Still, if you're 'pro business' in this country you're also expected to be 'anti government'. The two don't add up.

      That's incorrect. Pro-Business typically entails zero (or minimal) legislation. The mind set is: "We don't need no stink'n gov'nment interfering with our profits and expenses! Especially taxes."

      i.e. It is why we have environmentalists -- some company abuses the natural resources and won't lift a finger so the ONLY way to get them to change is to enact more laws.

      Capitalism and Free Enterprise is about companies wanting the freedom to do what they want without having to face the consequences. There MUST be a balance:

      * Too much freedom and companies abuse the hell out of everything with zero accountability.
      * Too much bureaucracy and nothing productive is done -- everything is so focused on the red tape of crossing every t and dotting every i that businesses say "Fuck It" and move elsewhere.

      > And a weak middle class produces a viscous circle of need for government safety net programs to deal with the carnage.

      It is actually much worse then that. The middle class can't _afford_ to save _anything._ They are basically living paycheck-to-paycheck and in turn are basically forced to rely on the tit of the government.

      The other problem is that Social Insecurity is dead BROKE. The people expect the government to look after but how can that happen when the government itself is so far in debt it isn't funny??

      America is completely fucked in 20 years.

    32. Re: Ugh... by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      That is the stupidity behind direct democratic voting. In a sufficiently large system (e.g. The US) special interests and factions (parties) will control the options, robbing all power from the populace. It applies equally to stock ownership. Special Interests (read: activist investor groups) and the company board (parties) control the debate and more importantly, the available options. Democracy is overrated bullshit at scale, just like every prior system of governance (e.g. Communism works great on the small scale).

    33. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Tesla ranks very low on reliability.

      http://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability/car-brands-reliability-how-they-stack-up/

    34. Re:Ugh... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well you're jumping a bit from microeconomics to macroeconomics there. In microeconomics you assume that it's an open system, you can pick whatever products, services, markets and employees etc. you want and the rest will go somewhere else and do something different. In macroeconomics you have - except for a marginal immigration and emigration - a closed system. If you create a system only for the best and the brightest, the rest won't just "disappear" they'll be unemployed, welfare recipients, criminals or vagrants. It's not unusual in these circumstances that what you're doing is actually damage control. It's better to spend $100k on a $100k loss that would otherwise become a $500k nightmare.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    35. Re:Ugh... by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      I guess you never heard these:

      Had One, Never Did Again
      Horribly Overpriced, Needing Dad's Assistance
      Hang On, Not Done Accelerating

      The one you ought to avoid
      This One You Oughta Tow Away

      And you missed the best one,
      First On Race Day

      Personally, a Ford has never stranded me, Honda and Toyota has.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    36. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh... why can't businesses go back to the model of taking care of their employees and figuring out how to build better products to increase profits and their stock instead of always going for the short-term solution of axing payroll....

      A company is just the extension of its owners. If you want a company that is based on sunshine and puppies you just have to start your own and make it follow your wishes.
      Unfortunately we have a system in place that assholes benefits from so the top level will just see you as a wage slave that shouldn't have rights and the middle level takes pleasure in seeing you suffer.

    37. Re:Ugh... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      A good start would be to adopt universal health and unemployment insurance, so that companies aren't dragged down by a government expectation that they will provide those things

      Businesses have to pay for for it one way or another. If the government provides it, then it will be cheaper overall, but will still be paid for out of taxation. That means either taxes directly on the business, or taxes it indirectly has to pay through higher wages etc.

      Businesses need to stop thinking about tax as something to dodge at all cost, and start working with government to make sure that they get what they need in return, i.e. educated, healthy workers and infrastructure.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Ugh... by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      You're demonstrating why having government take care of everything is a bad idea. "Hey, health care is expensive so lets bury it in a government budget so we don't have to think about it! Problem solved!"

      This eventually comes back to bite you. Government has little incentive to do things efficiently or effectively since there are no real corrective forces short of catastrophic failure.

    39. Re:Ugh... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the answer is to stop pretending that companies can - or should - 'take care' of their employees any more.

      Why?

      Because competitors in other countries do it? Are these countries that you would rather live in? Maybe there is a connection between those things?

      We need to stop having competition on uneven playing fields. Of course some child in Bangladesh can undercut your hourly rate. That's because it's a child, there's no workplace safety at all, you can get a meal for one dollar and a flat for a hundred, and a dozen other reasons.

      But instead of all of us going to the lowest common denominator, maybe we should go to the highest? There is nothing wrong with outsourcing work to other countries - if you do it right. When the hourly rate in country A is $10 and in country B is $1, you can contract the work out for $2. Yes, $2, not $1. You will pay very good for country B standards, allowing them to increase their standard of living and spending the additional money on education, clean energy and innovation. And you can sell the product still cheap for country A standards. But your effect on the job market there is much lower (productivity needs to be 5 times higher, not 10 times) and you still make a lot of profit.

      But no, we need to ruin both countries for that additional $1 in profit.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    40. Re:Ugh... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually there is plenty of evidence that good wages and long term employment benefits companies. Japan has more old (50+ year) companies than any other country. Western investors often undervalue them because they see high wage bills and too many employees, but Japanese companies consider those things to be assets.

      Those businesses survive for all those decades because they invest in people. They consider employment to be one of their primary functions. Their employees are more loyal and willing to pitch in when things get tough, instead of just jumping ship.

      Walmart can get away with it because retail is low skill, and high turnover doesn't really hurt them too much.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Ugh... by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Because consumers have to pay the wages. Auto makers have to hold onto employees well-beyond their usefulness because of union contracts, and you have to pay the charity that keeps those people benched instead of out working other jobs making stuff you're buying with the money you're not spending on cars.

      No, no, no and no. It's simple Ford can't compete in the market. Look around and see what brands vehicles people are driving. Consumers are choosing the competition. It's the free market at work.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    42. Re:Ugh... by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Costco. Living wages and benefits... and still growing.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    43. Re:Ugh... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No, wrong problem. The question was:

      why can't businesses go back to the model of taking care of their employees and figuring out how to build better products to increase profits

      "Taking care of their employees" means keeping people on payroll ("instead of always going for the short-term solution of axing payroll"), paying higher wages, paying increased benefits, and so forth.

      You point out that Ford can't compete in the market. Remember 2004? Remember when Ford tried to close 10 factories due to a lack of demand for cars, and the UAT forced them to bench the workers? Ford was trying to run a round of layoffs, and was legally-obligated to instead have ten factories which opened up, marched workers in, sat their asses down to chatter and produce nothing, and pay them to stand around playing with their dicks. That is a historical fact.

      All of that "taking care of their employees" business means money. Pay them more. Keep them on payroll even if you don't need them. Pay for expensive benefits. Pay them after they stop working (pensions, severance). Where do you think the money comes from?

      Who do you think needs to pay for employers to keep people on payroll when people aren't buying their stuff, or when they've figured out how to make their stuff better and with fewer hands?

    44. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's quite a big step to go from corporate welfare to decoupled government welfare + market economy.

      You can't have it both ways. Government welfare doesn't work without government market intervention, either in price controls or with government companies whose objective is not maximizing profits.

      Otherwise each dollar that goes to welfare WILL be funnelled to corporations by inflation of prices.

    45. Re:Ugh... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I like the taxes approach because it affects profits, not revenue. Meanwhile, having to provide healthcare for every full-time employee is a large drain on revenue. So a business can be in the negative and still have healthcare be a drain on their bottom line.

      Taxes also work as a distribution of wealth from large, successful businesses to small struggling businesses. Basically, the government is providing a baseline and everyone who is successful goes above that baseline.

    46. Re:Ugh... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      The same could be said of many private markets, including the current US healthcare market. In some markets, there's simply a lot of collectivism. Utilities fall into this category. And with current must-treat-if-sick laws, so does healthcare.

      Private markets tend to work pretty poorly for industries that need collectivist actions. Healthcare (at least basic healthcare, not specialized research) is one of them.

    47. Re:Ugh... by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      No, wrong problem. The question was:

      why can't businesses go back to the model of taking care of their employees and figuring out how to build better products to increase profits

      Same answer: not competitive. Taking care of employees requires money meaning positive cash flow. Better products (read more marketable products) are required to do that because products are exchanged for money. Business 101. Your problem is you start with "taking care of employees" you don't start with the foundation required to support the company. Anything not built on a solid foundation will fail regardless of the merits of the idealism it may have been founded on. Idealism doesn't keep companies from going under.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    48. Re:Ugh... by xession · · Score: 1

      I like where you are headed with that idea. Put in a more succinct way, companies that choose to "go public" should be required to operate in the best interest of the public rather than investors.

      Investors should be investing in companies where they feel comfortable putting their money at risk. Requiring companies to operate in a way to mitigate that risk or to operate in a way that intends to apply the maximum benefit to these investors has always seemed silly to me. Companies should be operating in a way to apply the maximum benefit to their long term business plan and investors should be investing in that business plan, rather than as a blind siphon with their interest in the company extending only as far as their bank account.

    49. Re:Ugh... by ThePawArmy · · Score: 1

      Sears was dead to me the Sunday I needed a new car battery but the "Auto Department" was now closed on Sundays. It was infuriating to see the exact battery I needed sitting on a shelf but not being able to buy it because the department is now closed on Sunday.

  3. Nerd news? by TWX · · Score: 0

    I'm not exactly sure how this is nerd news. There's no mention of advanced technology drivetrains, or self-driving vehicles, or even robots taking our jerbs.

    This is a pretty typical corporate strategy to reduce expenditures, and if it's based on things like wilful retirement bonuses and severance bonuses for those not eligible for retirement yet, then it's pretty benign and almost a non-story even in business circles. It's a way to reduce the number of top earners without generating a lot of ill-will, people get to retire early, they get some bonus for it, generally most employees aren't unhappy with the arrangement.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Nerd news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet here you are blathering on about it...

    2. Re:Nerd news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not exactly sure how this is nerd news.

      Anti-Trump click-bait. That is all.

    3. Re:Nerd news? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      It's not really tech significant. But it is a significant economic indicator of the auto industry. The boom of car buying seems to be coming to a halt.

    4. Re: Nerd news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a safe space, snowflake?

    5. Re:Nerd news? by TWX · · Score: 1

      New cars have at least kept-pace with the inflation in personal income, and on top of that there's a lot more other competing things that people feel they have to have. In the late seventies you had electricity, phone, rent or mortgage, possibly natural gas, municipal utilities like water and sewer, and probably some insurance. Now you still have all of those, plus pay-TV, Internet, cell phone in addition to or replacing regular land line phone. You've added 20% more expenses, it makes sense that somthing's gotta give, and that may well be replacing vehicles.

      It's further exacerbated by competition in the auto market forcing quality to improve. More European brands appeared, Japan joined the party, and then Korea showed up with their own offerings. Cars used to be lucky to reach 100,000 miles, now a car that doesn't reach 200,000 miles is a bad car. Given that a moderately-priced car is close to $30,000 it's not unreasonable to expect cars to last a long time, so new car buyers don't need to buy them as often as they might once have.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Nerd news? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I'm not exactly sure how this is nerd news.

      Shouldn't nerds take an interest in things going on in the world? And is it not natural then to discuss these things in whichever forums attract many people like yourself? Despite the sort of comments you come across on /. from time to time, most of the readership is above average intelligent, and intelligent people are also interested in what happens in the world outside their narrow interest.

      This is a pretty typical corporate strategy to reduce expenditures, and if it's based on things like wilful retirement bonuses and severance bonuses for those not eligible for retirement yet, then it's pretty benign and almost a non-story even in business circles. It's a way to reduce the number of top earners without generating a lot of ill-will, people get to retire early, they get some bonus for it, generally most employees aren't unhappy with the arrangement.

      I don't think it is a good thing for society, pushing people into what is effectively early retirement. Those top-earners are often in their 50es, which is when most skilled employees are at the top of their game in terms of experience and understanding of their trade; because most companies don't want to hire older people, they will find it hard to find a job - they will either be considered too old or too overqualified. This means that companies are depleting their knowledge- and skills base, and society gets the burden of having a growing population of unproductive, highly skilled people, who could still be contributing to economic growth. IOW, companies that do this are hurting society's overall productivity and themselves in pursuit of short-term profit. Is that wise?

    7. Re: Nerd news? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Hah, says the trollflake.

      Hey, I like that... "trollflake".
      (checks google)
      Aw crap, I wasn't the first to think of it.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  4. US Companies have to lay off people everywhere now by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they want to avoid the ire of our President when they only lay off Americans. It sounds like I'm joking but I'm not - this is the type of perverse unintended consequences that government intervention brings.

  5. winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so much winning

    1. Re:winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all I'm hearing from the WH is whining actually

  6. they will be joined by other car makers by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    So, ICE sales are dropping all over the world,but EVs, esp Tesla, are rising fast.
    I have to wonder if the car makers executives will understand that they really have to jump on this and make changes NOW.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:they will be joined by other car makers by Rob+Lister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like the C-Max Energi, the Focus Electric and the Fusion Hybrid?

    2. Re:they will be joined by other car makers by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      and 2 junk EVs, combined with a gas burning hybrid has what to do with good EV sales rising, while gas burners go down?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of our president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The move could put the U.S. automaker on a collision course with President Donald Trump, who has made boosting auto employment a top priority.

    Comrade Trump wants to plan the economy, but the poor guy is nearly a century late for the Bolshevik revolution. People are probably wondering why Republicans nominated what would turn out to be the furthest-left president since FDR. It started like this...

    Republicans used to try to trick voters into thinking they were conservatives, because Democrats were trying to establish the liberal brand. It was sort of working out (for Democrats, though less so for Republicans) until 2008. That year, a Republican named Obama infiltrated the Democratic party and won the presidential election. A small number of voters got upset (remember those "Occupy Wall Street" losers, who would perform protests but not a single one of which could be bothered to campaign for elections, or even vote in them?), but mostly, people didn't notice.

    This caused a problem for Republicans, though. They had a conservative Democrat president, whom they had to oppose, and they didn't have any candidates as far to the right, who could mock Obama's "liberalism" with their superior conservativism.

    There was only one thing to do. They switched to left -- mock Obama's conservativism with their superior liberalism. Trump shined with his New Deal. He was going to Make America Great Again, like his forebears in 1933.

    I get why they did it, but does anyone know why all the right/left voters still swear allegiance to the same parties they used to? Lefties now vote for right-leaning candidates, and righties now vote for left-leaning candidates. It's a strange situation and nobody can explain the voter perspective. Why did people with gunracks vote for a communist? Why did people in tie-dye vote for The Man (Hillary)? It's so weird!

  8. Exec Salaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who wants to bet the execs aren't also taking a 10% cut.

  9. Fire some managers by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    When I hear of cases like this (people getting fired but production being kept the same) I always want to hear about some of the management being fired too. Not only because heartless nature. Management has let the company get overstaffed and have been doing nothing about it. I know that Ford is a large company but surely managers must have noticed having too many people on the shifts or in the offices. Either that or the systems for monitoring don't exist or aren't working.

    But by having these extra 20,000 workers on for the past while the company has wasted money paying them when their services weren't needed and now the company is going to pay out a lot more money in packages to get rid of them. If the management didn't let the headcount get that high in the first place then all that money wouldn't have been wasted.

    I've seen it at high tech companies too where they grow because they are expected to grow. One place the manager's level was determined by the number of people under them so they hired and grabbed as many projects as they could to get promoted automatically. You aren't doing anyone any favours just to hire them in order to make up numbers. If you have meaningful work that will last a long time then hire them. Otherwise if you have the work make it a temporary job. And if you don't have work then don't hire them at all.

    1. Re:Fire some managers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Salaried workers generally indicates management/support tier employees.

  10. It's OK by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry, they'll all get jobs as game developers and social media apprentices.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Government Grants by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they are going to cut jobs at plants that got grants in exchange for keeping so many jobs. If so I want some of the grant money back.

  12. I don't think there ever was a car buying boom by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    there was a very modest uptick from a decade of horrifically bad sales. But every article I've read has said new car buying is way, way down. I just bought a used car and had to pay damn near new because there's not a lot of inventory. Nobody buying new, so nobody selling used (unless you count stuff that's 10+ years old).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: I don't think there ever was a car buying boom by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      If it was actually as close to new price as you bullshit, buy new and vote your pocketbook into the economy, otherwise shut the fuck up.

      The used car market is awesome because it's 30-60% the price of new and the reliability has skyrocketed.

  13. Re:Ford - Quality is Job Two by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Isn't there a general auto slump? There was pent up post-recession demand, but now things are settling back to normal demand. Other car makers are cutting also.

  14. because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the CEO's bonus check will go down if they take your advice. hence, layoffs are the solution to all business problems. slice....slice....slice

  15. 'Salaried workforce'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I take it that Ford also has employees who are not paid a salary?

    1. Re:'Salaried workforce'? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Most engineers (software, mechanical etc) are salaried. People 'on the line' are hourly where wages, positions and promotions are "protected" by unions.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re: 'Salaried workforce'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. Some employees are 'salaried' and others are 'hourly', but both get a salary (I presume) and both get paid based on the number of hours tgey work (I presume). Is this distinction some local legal concept? I've never heard of it before.

    3. Re: 'Salaried workforce'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theoretically salaried is not paid based on number of hours, but based on doing the job. These tend to be the non manual labor jobs. So instead of paying you to crank out widgets at a constant pace you are paid for your brainpower, which is more difficult to meter.

      I work in the aerospace industry and the engineers are salaried, while most of the people working in the production/test labs are hourly. We all fill out timecards though. And if a salaried worker does fewer hours but charges a full day they are fired for timecard fraud. So as a salaried worker you can work more hours without being paid for them but if you work fewer hours you get in trouble. On the other hand they are quicker to lay off hourly workers as the work fluctuates because those jobs are viewed as less skilled and therefore easier to fill.

      Salaried is also referred to as "exempt". Which basically means exempt from most labor laws. So yes it is a legal distinction. If we do get paid overtime (which isn't required and they make us jump through hoops to get it) we don't get time and a half or anything. In theory we are "highly compensated" already so we don't deserve those types of protections. Yes, it's a scam.

  16. Re:Ford - Quality is Job Two by lactose99 · · Score: 0

    Agreed, so long as Honda exists I'll never buy another Ford. The quality isn't even on the same level.

    --
    Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  17. Re:Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of our preside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brand loyalty.

    It's easy because I don't have to use my brain to decide things

  18. Re:Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of our preside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia isn't communist numb nuts.
    Fuck off with the neo-mccarthyist bullshit.

  19. the i have no credit street walkers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last summer was so awesome for me. Who knew trying to walk east across washington state because i could not afford to pay for the whole trip would be so fun. As the amtrak employee on the train told me if I did not use my cell phone to call the 800 number I could not extend my ticket. The employee made sure i got off the train at leavenworth while fully knowing I had no money. The days of walking were fun out there. I made it pretty far. Did not die. Good for me I guess right.

  20. Starve the Beast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the government is an excellent model for private industry. Cut until your services are so inefficient that people are demanding that you shut down. It worked great for HP and Sears, they're almost small enough to drown in a bathtub now.

  21. the asian ryan killeen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get you some, fagot. sure you work at starbucks.

  22. Alternate idea. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Get state governors to give Ford tax breaks to keep the employees and (effectively) let the employees pay for their own jobs - like Pence did in Indiana for Carrier. Problem solved. /sarcasm

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  23. Re:Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of our preside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all his hyperbole he is making some good points.
    The political landscape now has been turned upside down.

    No, you couldn't call Obama a liberal, more like a centrist Democrat.
    What can you call Trump?

  24. Re:US Companies have to lay off people everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this is the type of perverse, unintended, but perfectly predictable consequence that electing a fucking sociopathic narcissistic discusting mororic mentally unstable piece of shit as your fucking president brings.

  25. Re:Gee thanks by bobbied · · Score: 1

    'president' Trump for all your hard work at divulging Top Secret information to the Russians.

    Trump is a traitor and anyone who voted for Trump is also a FUCKING TRAITOR!

    First.... No he didn't. The National Security Adviser was in the meeting and didn't agree that anything classified was inappropriately disclosed to the Russians... Second, this is all based on an "anonymous source" who blabbed to the press for reasons we don't know (It could have been made up even). Third, the president has the authority to disclose any classified information he chooses to whomever he chooses because all of the authority to classify information flows to the holder of the office.

    So calm down, take a deep breath and relax.

    BTW.. Did you hear about the DNC staffer who was murdered in DC about a year ago? Looks for all the world like this DNC staffer was the source of the DNC E-mail dump to WikiLeaks who offered a reward for information about who killed him ($20K).... This is a MUCH bigger story...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  26. Re:Ford - Quality is Job Two by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

    And too many years on the subsidized lease booze wagon. All the lease returns stacking up in the used inventories are killing sales.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  27. Re:US Companies have to lay off people everywhere by TimSSG · · Score: 1
    FYI: Hillary Clinton lost the election. Tim S.

    No, this is the type of perverse, unintended, but perfectly predictable consequence that electing a fucking sociopathic narcissistic discusting mororic mentally unstable piece of shit as your fucking president brings.

  28. Re: Ford - Quality is Job Two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, there's a glut of late model low mileage used cars out there - I bought a 2016 with 17K miles for a little over half of the sticker price and I couldn't be more thrilled. Lease new or buy used and let some chump take the depreciation.

  29. Re: Gee thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go back and re-read what the NSA said, because that's not it, dipshit.

  30. But but but by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    But Trump said he'd make all those big companies keep their jobs here! Don't tell me he was fibbing!

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  31. Re:Ford - Quality is Job Two by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

    Yep, combined with the glut of used cars after the dearth of them from that pile of shite that was Cash for Clunkers. Since people bought many more new cars than normals and/or leased them, the amount of used cars currently on the market in decent shape is higher than it would otherwise have been.

  32. Re:US Companies have to lay off people everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI: Hillary Clinton lost the election.

    Tim S.

    No, this is the type of perverse, unintended, but perfectly predictable consequence that electing a fucking sociopathic narcissistic discusting mororic mentally unstable piece of shit as your fucking president brings.

    HRC isn't moronic or mentally unstable.

  33. Fewer jobs, lower wages. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, Obama.

  34. Re: How much is George Soros paying you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dance, every time I tell you to. You're a good slave. I'll make you dance some more, probably tomorrow. Master is weary.

  35. Go away you SICK loony asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You're a demented SICK little fuck - go away, whacko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Fucking weirdo freak... apk

    1. Re:Go away you SICK loony asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent, insane weird fat fuck APK is really upset now, awwwwww.

  36. Re: US Companies have to lay off people everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is exactly why you now have this dangerous idiot as a president.

  37. Re:US Companies have to lay off people everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, you seriously don't think Trump fits the description? Do you think he is sane?
    Like, not being mentally capable is probably the way he will escape treason charges.

  38. Re:Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of our preside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What can you call Trump?

    Almost anything, but namecalling doesn't change anything.

    Anyone following the healthcare discussion knows that the Republicans aren't even close to going more to the left.
    Their party line have switched from being conservative to "Fuck you, you're not one of us so you should die!"
    More taxes for the poor, less taxes for themselves. Tax funded healthcare for themselves, not for anyone else.

    Obama being conservative didn't cause Republicans to shift left or right, they just went off the chart instead.

  39. what happened ? by Tom · · Score: 1

    What happened to the world that layoffs became equivalent with increasing profits? One generation ago, layoffs were a sign that a company was in serious trouble, profits were down and growth was negative. Layoffs were what the directors did if the alternative was to file for bancruptcy. They would be a bad message for investors and stock price would drop. Mass layoffs were a typical sign of a company about to fold.

    Today, by the logic of investors, you should fire all your workforce to increase profits to infinity!

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  40. Re:US Companies have to lay off people everywhere by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    A top-poster?

    I thought those died out with usenet.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  41. Re: Ford - Quality is Job Two by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    If leasing companies don't roll the depreciation into the monthly payments wouldn't they be running at a loss?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  42. Typical by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

    Ford Exec A to Ford Exec B: "Hey, let's give even more money to people who do no work for us at all, by getting rid of people who actually do work for us!" Exec B to Exec A: "Brilliant! That should help our stock price temporarily, until reality sets in, and we have to find people to do the actual work again." Exec A to Exec B: "We'll just outsource those jobs to low-wage countries, further undermining the US economy, but who cares?!? Some trust-fund brats will make EVEN MORE MONEY DOING NOTHING!!" Exec B to Exec A: "And us suits too! Don't forget that we'll come out ahead in all this too!" Exec A to Exec B: "A toast! To fucking over the US economy for our own short-term gain!" Exec B to Exec A: "Cheers!"

    1. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

  43. Ah, the stalking loon is projecting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You constantly stalk & harass me on this forums - is that the best you can do w/ your wasted life weirdo?

    * No small wonder you're one of SOROS' little punks...

    APK

    P.S.=> Grow up & get yourself psychiatric help - you need to do both ... apk

  44. Re:Gee thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'president' Trump for all your hard work at divulging Top Secret information to the Russians.

    Trump is a traitor and anyone who voted for Trump is also a FUCKING TRAITOR!

    Putin's bitch isn't a traitor for giving that information to the Russians, as POTUS he's actually allowed to do that.

    Putin's bitch is a traitor for colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election.

  45. The growth in automobiles by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Was due to the fact Obama had that stupid "cash for clunkers" program. People traded in cars that were destroyed, eliminating the used (sorry pre-owned) car market. In a few years, people traded in cars, boosting the used car market, and propping up the new car market. Now, people are starting to hang onto their cars for 6,7 years or more. Plus, the NEW cars, even the so called "cheap" ones, are in the 20,000 dollar range! My dad was a car salesman for over 30 years. In the sixties, you could by a BRAND NEW Truck for 2,000 dollars, a "hot rod" for less than 4,000 dollars. Now, a "pick up truck" will run a minimum of around 30,000 (full size). Vehicles are overpriced, thanks in part to the greedy corporations, unions, and government regulations.

    1. Re:The growth in automobiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, sure, you could buy a truck for $2,000 in 1960. Of course, in 1960 the minimum wage was $1/hour.

      Today, fed. minimum wage is $7.25, so equal pricing for that pickup truck would be $14500. But that's for a 1960-model pickup truck! What about seat belts, airbags, antilock brakes, an engine that can burn unleaded gasoline, crumple zones to reduce injuries in the case of a collision, air conditioning, a CD player in the radio...all that stuff costs extra money. You're getting a lot more truck when you buy today -- not simply paying extra protection money to Ford and the union.

      Government regulations do inflate the price, I'll grant you that. Air bags and seat belts wouldn't be standard on vehicles without them, though -- personally, I'm okay with *that* tradeoff.

      Sorry, did I mess up your antigovernment rant?

  46. Re:Vladimir Lenin would be so proud of our preside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia isn't communist numb nuts.

    Why are you bringing up modern Russia? Oh right, because the president got caught with Putin's cum all over his chin yet again.

    Dude. I was just commenting on the president's communist-colored attitudes and ideals and behaviors. Why are you telling me that Russia is no longer his model? Tell the president. He is the one that thinks sucking Putin off somehow makes him a "good communist" following in the footsteps of Lenin and Stalin.

    Is it my fault that he hasn't kept up with history and doesn't yet know the USSR broke up? Direct your "numb nuts" label at appropriate target. I'm with you and Putin, laughing at the guy who sucked the wrong dick.

    All that aside, my real issue, though, is why Republican voters supported Trump and why Democrat voters supported Clinton. All you people got your votes exactly opposite from what you always say you want. As another poster said, you're suffering from brand loyalty. So I'm laughing at you too. You deserve your president.

  47. Where is Trump? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Or did the media events on how he saves jobs lost their mojo?