 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2006Ford throws hissy fit for employees driving competitor's vehicles
Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm?cnn=yes If their own factory workers get a better deal on other manufacturer's vehicles, how can anyone else expect to do any better? > Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and > is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If their own factory workers get a better deal on other manufacturer's > vehicles, how can anyone else expect to do any better? Well considering that a company needs to be self supporting in order to be successfull. It's about time Ford started such a policy. Can you imagine it? Troops fighting for a country that they don't believe in - instead owning houses in the enemy territory? Sure many would quickly say it's an unfair comparison but keep in mind here that this is what it all comes down to. Ford is competing with Toyota. Toyota is competing with Honda. And on and on and on. East- >> Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and >> is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >it all comes down to. Ford is competing with Toyota. Toyota is >competing with Honda. And on and on and on. To me it's pathetic that Ford has to have this policy. If they can't even sell cars to their own employees they should realize how bad their products or reputation is. Dave >>> Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share >>> decline and is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Dave Perhaps the Ford employees know something about their products construction/design that prompts them to buy other makes of vehicles?  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > To me it's pathetic that Ford has to have this policy. If they can't > even sell cars to their own employees they should realize how bad > their products or reputation is. > > Dave BINGO! With an attitude like this, I expect Ford to go bankrupt soon. You don't strong-arm people into buying Ford products. You produce products that people want to buy and the problem (dwindling profits) will solve itself. With the approach that Ford has embraced, it is clear that the company WANTS to go bankrupt, and the quicker the better. A smarter approach would be to interview all employees who drive NON-Ford vehicles to work. Interview them IN DEPTH. Find out what motivated them to buy a Chrysler or Toyota or Nissan or whatever. Then design vehicles and marketing strategies to compete with whatever makes those non-Ford products so attractive to buyers. And when Ford is more profitable, kick back part of the profits to the employees who were smart enough to purchase non-Ford vehicles and help to make Ford profitable again. -Dave > > To me it's pathetic that Ford has to have this policy. If they can't > > even sell cars to their own employees they should realize how bad [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of the profits to the employees who were smart enough to purchase non-Ford > vehicles and help to make Ford profitable again. -Dave That's simply far too sensible to appeal to the suits. Graham > A smarter approach would be to interview all employees who drive NON-Ford > vehicles to work. Interview them IN DEPTH. Find out what motivated them to > buy a Chrysler or Toyota or Nissan or whatever. Then design vehicles and > marketing strategies to compete with whatever makes those non-Ford products > so attractive to buyers. Naw. Much easier to do as they taught in MBA-school and hold lots and lots of focus groups. Of course, the only thing focus groups are good for is providing "evidence" that your pre-made decisions were correct ones, but that's what they teach to do in MBA-school, so it *must* be right. The problem is *obviously* those traitorous, rogue employees who dare to buy the best car for their needs, just like their fellow members of society who don't happen to work for car companies. This idiotic, pointless decision by Ford smacks of the same kind of dumb decision by DC last year, and of GM's antics in practically giving Pontiac Azteks to employees with long commutes on busy roads, so as to create the illusion of market acceptance. >Well considering that a company needs to be self supporting in order to >be successfull. It's about time Ford started such a policy. Can you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it all comes down to. Ford is competing with Toyota. Toyota is >competing with Honda. And on and on and on. I hear Jeff Foxworthy is going to start a new skit based on your life, called "you must be a liberal." ************************* Dave > Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and > is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If their own factory workers get a better deal on other manufacturer's > vehicles, how can anyone else expect to do any better? Isn't this an annual event with each automaker taking turns ? Ford has some pretty steep employee discounts last I heard. >> Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and >> is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ford has some pretty steep employee discounts last I heard. Yet they still choose to buy based on quality. ************************* Dave > Yet they still choose to buy based on quality. > > ************************* > Dave Of course. Spending less for a piece of junk that will fall apart in a few years is penny wise and pound foolish. The discount would have to be 100% before it would make sense, financially, to buy a Ford. -Dave > http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm If I were unlucky enough to work at Ford and they tried to pull this crapola on me, I would go right out and buy a rusty, whipped Pinto with a heavily oil-burning engine, a defective muffler and lots of other visible and audible faults, take it to a body shop and have "FORD PINTO" lettering applied prominently on both sides and the hood, and have a reverse flame-job applied (flames from the rear of the car forward, rather than the other way round). I'd then take to driving that car to work and getting there early enough to reliably get a parking spot plainly visible from adjacent roads. As an aside, the quote from the lamebrained yutz who supports the company's decision ("You buy what you build; that just makes sense") is pathetic. What kind of stupid illogic is that? Oh wait, we're talking about the results of a Deet-riot public education here. Never mind, in that context it makes sense. >Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and >is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If their own factory workers get a better deal on other manufacturer's >vehicles, how can anyone else expect to do any better? No wonder Ford is in a tizzy. Ford employees can purchase just about any vehicle Ford sells on an employee purchase program called A-Plan (a little below true invoice price). The fact that a Ford employee would ignore that opportunity and pay MORE for a competitor's product speaks volumes. Of course, the way Ford chooses to handle this situation says even more. Kinda like the parent saying to the child "I'll BEAT you until you love me!!" Watch for that bankruptcy announcement any day now... SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > Ford employees can purchase just about any vehicle Ford sells on an > employee purchase program called A-Plan (a little below true invoice > price). The fact that a Ford employee would ignore that opportunity > and pay MORE for a competitor's product speaks volumes. I thought about this some... Knowing Ford, there is probably some sort of restriction on choice. >> Ford employees can purchase just about any vehicle Ford sells on an >> employee purchase program called A-Plan (a little below true invoice [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I thought about this some... Knowing Ford, there is probably some sort of >restriction on choice. The only restrictions are special vehoicles like the Ford GT. Even SVT vehicles like the Cobra are eligible (however you need to find a dealer who will cooperate, which can be difficult). SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>> Ford employees can purchase just about any vehicle Ford sells on an >>> employee purchase program called A-Plan (a little below true invoice [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > vehicles like the Cobra are eligible (however you need to find a > dealer who will cooperate, which can be difficult). That was my point... the dealers. Ford has a tendency to make anything worth buying at the mercy of dealer wallet rape..... Fewer and fewer people are playing that game. > >Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and > >is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > price). The fact that a Ford employee would ignore that opportunity > and pay MORE for a competitor's product speaks volumes. You forget about new employees to Ford who aren't in the market for a new vehicle. Are they to drop everything they own and suddenly but a new Ford, whether they need it or not? This is a non-story. I worked at Chrysler from 97-99 at the tech center, and they had the same policy. I took a SHUTTLE from the parking lot! > Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and > is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If their own factory workers get a better deal on other manufacturer's > vehicles, how can anyone else expect to do any better? This is outrageous. Isnt this discrimination? I hope someone sues the plant! >> http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm?cnn=yes > This is outrageous. Isnt this discrimination? I hope someone sues the > plant! Erm...no, it's not "discrimination". It's stupid and punitive and small-minded and pointless and counterproductive if what they're trying to do is get their employees to build better cars*, but it is not discriminatory, per se. *-Remember what happened in the '70s when auto factory workers felt agrieved at punitive and/or degrading treatment by management? They started building defects into cars. Coke bottles welded into frame sections to create permanent and unsolvable rattles, pennies dropped with similar effect into box sections of interior compartments later to become inaccessible, that sort of thing. Oh yeah, quality is job one! >>> http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm?cnn=yes > >> This is outrageous. Isnt this discrimination? I hope someone sues the >> plant! > > Erm...no, it's not "discrimination". It is discrimination. The plant managers are treating the employees differently using a criterion that has nothing to do with their job performance or workplace conduct. Imagine that they'd ban muslim, or gay employeess, from using the plant parking lot. Why would that be discrimination and this is not? > >>> http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm?cnn=yes > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > differently using a criterion that has nothing to do with their job > performance or workplace conduct. These employees build Fords, not Chryslers. If the worker(s) have so little pride in the products that the company that pays them manufactures, they might not really care how good a job they do for that company. Ford isn't firing them, or demoting them, they just don't want people to see a lot of Chryslers (or whatevever) parked in the lot at a Ford plant. It sends the wrong message to potential Customers and to fellow workers. > Imagine that they'd ban muslim, or gay employeess, from using the plant > parking lot. Why would that be discrimination and this is not? Chrysler owners are not a protected group (although I suppose they could fall into the mentally chllenged category). Regards, Ed White > http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm?cnn=yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > might not really care how good a job they do for that company. Ford isn't > firing them, or demoting them, they just don't want people to That's essentially a communist, collectivist argument: workers have to take 'pride' in their product (or else). >> These employees build Fords, not Chryslers. If the worker(s) have so >> little [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > take 'pride' > in their product (or else). Thank you. Besides which, it is bizarre logic to state that you can't do a good job of building cars that you wouldn't buy yourself. If I'm working at a truck plant, and I have NO NEED FOR A TRUCK, it would be stupid for me to buy a truck, regardless of who makes it. For commuting use (say, getting to the Ford TRUCK plant and back home again), a small car would be better. Ford doesn't make any decent small cars, so I'd probably be driving a Honda Civic. But the fact that I'm driving a civic doesn't mean that I can't take pride in my work of building Ford trucks. For that matter, it doesn't mean that I can't take pride in my work of building Ford CARS, either. It boils down to work ethic, which is something that can't be mandated by any company policy. Either you do a good job because you are PERSONALLY motivated to do so, or you don't do a good job, period. Being forced to drive a car you hate isn't going to change that, either way. That is, unless you now have a lot of pissed-off Ford employees making "mistakes" because well, they are PISSED. -Dave > If the worker(s) have so little pride in the products that the company > that pays them manufactures, they might not really care how good a job > they do for that company. Here's a clue: For most of the people on the line, it's just a job. Just a paycheque. Not their source of identity and fountain of self-esteem...just a job. People who would buy a Ford out of your brainwashed little notion of "Ford employee pride" when they would rather have a different make, for whatever reason, are not using the brain they were born with. Company executives who enact petty measures such as the one that started this thread are likewise not thinking things through. Here's another clue: Making "company traitors" who dare to purchase a non-Ford park in a more distant lot will not increase their pride, and if they don't care enough to do a better-than-required job without punitive parking restrictions, they *certainly* won't care enough to do a better-than-required job with such restrictions in place. "Gracious goodness me! I decided that even with the substantial employee discount, the Chevrolet was a better deal than the Ford, but whoah, now that I have to park in "B" lot instead of "A" lot, gosh, that's got me thinking. Y'know, I haven't taken enough pride in being a Ford worker. Darn it all, that's going to change! I'm going to be the best Ford worker I can be...and I owe it all to the parking restrictions!" Yeah, right. > Ford isn't firing them, or demoting them, they just don't want people to > see a lot of Chryslers (or whatevever) parked in the lot at a Ford > plant. It sends the wrong message to potential Customers and to fellow > workers. It reflects nothing more than the truth, which some people find ugly and inconvenient. "Everything's cool! Nothing to see here! Parking lot full of Fords! We buy 'em so you should buy 'em! It's OK! No crisis! Ha ha! No red ink! Keep on driving! La la la!" Yeah, right. >> Ford isn't firing them, or demoting them, they just don't want >> people to see a lot of Chryslers (or whatevever) parked in the lot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > We buy 'em so you should buy 'em! It's OK! No crisis! Ha ha! No red > ink! Keep on driving! La la la!" It's the same mentality certain politicians have when they invite only people they know will kiss their a.s to a "townhall" meeting. > It is discrimination. The plant managers are treating the employees > differently using a criterion that has nothing to do with their job > performance or workplace conduct. > > Imagine that they'd ban muslim, or gay employeess, from using the plant > parking lot. Why would that be discrimination and this is not? While they're both discrimination, one is legally binding, and the other is not. >> Apparently Ford is unsatisfied with their rate of market share decline and >> is trying innovative new tactics to really cause sales to plummet... http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/27/news/companies/ford_parkinglot/index.htm?cnn=ye s >> If their own factory workers get a better deal on other manufacturer's >> vehicles, how can anyone else expect to do any better? >This is outrageous. Isnt this discrimination? I hope someone sues >the plant! What's the big deal? They are not telling the employees what to buy. They are just providing closer parking for those that buy company cars. If you want to park closer, get a company car. ------------- Alex > What's the big deal? They are not telling the employees what to buy. > They are just providing closer parking for those that buy company cars. > If you want to park closer, get a company car. It's petty, punitive, pointless and pathetic. That's the problem. >> What's the big deal? They are not telling the employees what to buy. >> They are just providing closer parking for those that buy company cars. >> If you want to park closer, get a company car. > > It's petty, punitive, pointless and pathetic. That's the problem. It's discrimination against their smartest employees. THAT'S the problem. I'm not calling someone who buys a Ford stupid, but there ARE smarter choices to make . . . especially for commuter use! People who were smart enough to buy a non-Ford vehicle THAT SUITED THEIR PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS BETTER are not welcome to work at Ford plants. That's the message that is being sent, and it really sucks, to put it bluntly. I don't know if these particular Ford plants had any good people left working there, but they surely have gone a long way toward the further dumbing-down of their human resource pool by implementing this idiotic policy. -Dave >>> What's the big deal? They are not telling the employees what to buy. >>> They are just providing closer parking for those that buy company cars. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's discrimination against their smartest employees. THAT'S the problem. That is, of course, relative. The smartest employees don't work for Ford in the first pace. >I don't know if these particular Ford plants had any good people left >working there, but they surely have gone a long way toward the further >dumbing-down of their human resource pool by implementing this idiotic >policy. Any smart ones that are left will be dusting off their resumes right about now... SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>I don't know if these particular Ford plants had any good people left >>working there, but they surely have gone a long way toward the further [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Any smart ones that are left will be dusting off their resumes right > about now... My point exactly. Ford is shooting themselves in the foot, in many ways, with this policy. -Dave > My point exactly. Ford is shooting themselves in the foot, in many ways, > with this policy. -Dave If the UAW contains thugs who will vandalize other people's cars, I'm sure Ford management regards the company as being similarly forced to have the policy. But the people who are shooting themselves in the foot are the union members. The effect of their demands is simply to move the auto manufacturing industry (and likewise other manufacturing industries) to lower-wage countries. The important question that remains is how long it will take for American politicians (and similarly those of western European countries) to realize that they are the problem and that it can only be cured by abandoning their present over-regulation of business, especially the minimum wage. >It's discrimination against their smartest employees. THAT'S the problem. >I'm not calling someone who buys a Ford stupid, but there ARE smarter >choices to make . . . especially for commuter use! People who were smart >enough to buy a non-Ford vehicle THAT SUITED THEIR PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION >NEEDS BETTER are not welcome to work at Ford plants. That's the message >that is being sent, and it really sucks, to put it bluntly. Mazda makes some very nice commuter type cars. The smart person who does not to walk as far would pick the car that can achieve both of their goals, good commuter and close parking. >I don't know if these particular Ford plants had any good people left >working there, but they surely have gone a long way toward the further >dumbing-down of their human resource pool by implementing this idiotic >policy. -Dave Not really that dumb. There are much dumber things they can do. ----------- Alex >> I don't know if these particular Ford plants had any good people left >> working there, but they surely have gone a long way toward the further >> dumbing-down of their human resource pool by implementing this idiotic >> policy. > > There are much dumber things they can do. The existence of greater stupidity does not excuse the exercise of lesser stupidity. > Mazda makes some very nice commuter type cars. The smart person who does > not to walk as far would pick the car that can achieve both of their goals, > good commuter and close parking. Something tells me the dim bulbs who came up with this policy wouldn't realize that ford owns mazda. Of course maybe one could just put a ford blue oval badge on whatever they drove to work :) >> Mazda makes some very nice commuter type cars. The smart person who does >> not to walk as far would pick the car that can achieve both of their goals, >> good commuter and close parking. > >Something tells me the dim bulbs who came up with this policy wouldn't >realize that ford owns mazda. I've heard the UAW will vandalize and/or destroy Japanese cars found in a US manufacturer's parking lot, so you'd lose even if management realized Ford controlled Mazda. >> Mazda makes some very nice commuter type cars. The smart person who does >> not to walk as far would pick the car that can achieve both of their goals, >> good commuter and close parking. > >Something tells me the dim bulbs who came up with this policy wouldn't >realize that ford owns mazda. They are not as stupid as you think they are. They thought of it. Volvo, Aston Martin and Mazda all get the same preferential treatment as Ford. ------------- Alex > Not really that dumb. There are much dumber things they can do. > ----------- > Alex Name one. > > What's the big deal? They are not telling the employees what to buy. > > They are just providing closer parking for those that buy company cars. > > If you want to park closer, get a company car. > > It's petty, punitive, pointless and pathetic. That's the problem. So you think it would be OK for me to wear my Burger King uniform to McDonalds to eat lunch? Or, if I worked at McDonalds, to go across the street to Burger King, pickup a Whopper and walk back to the McDoanlds and eat it in the dining room? Potential Customers who ride by the Ford plant and see a lot full of Chryslers might rightly assume that even the Ford workers don't think they can build things petter than the crap Chrysler pumps out. That would be really sad. It sends the wrong message. If I was running the Dearborn Truck plant, I'd like to see a parking lot full of nice shiny new F150 owned by my pride filled workers. Ed >> It's petty, punitive, pointless and pathetic. That's the problem. > > So you think it would be OK for me to wear my Burger King uniform to > McDonalds to eat lunch? Although the analogy is not valid, yes, I do think that would be just fine. > Potential Customers who ride by the Ford plant and see a lot full of > Chryslers might rightly assume that even the Ford workers don't think > they can build things petter than the crap Chrysler pumps out. In that case, Ford needs to work on the problem, not waste time trying to hide the symptom. > If I was running the Dearborn Truck plant, I'd like to see a parking lot > full of nice shiny new F150 owned by my pride filled workers. Worker pride is not encouraged or increased by punitive parking restrictions. >> If I was running the Dearborn Truck plant, I'd like to see a parking lot >> full of nice shiny new F150 owned by my pride filled workers. > >Worker pride is not encouraged or increased by punitive parking >restrictions. Ford is like the husband who says to his wife "I'll beat you until you love me!!" SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > Potential Customers who ride by the Ford plant and see a lot full of > Chryslers might rightly assume that even the Ford workers don't think they > can build things petter than the crap Chrysler pumps out. That would be > really sad. It sends the wrong message. Having driven by different auto plants I've usually thought oh, there's the so-and-so-plant. But never thought that the mix of vehicles in the lot made one difference. Why not break it down further... they have to drive the model the plant they work at turns out, like it or not! >> > What's the big deal? They are not telling the employees what to >> > buy. They are just providing closer parking for those that buy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you think it would be OK for me to wear my Burger King uniform to > McDonalds to eat lunch? Yes.Smart people realize that you can't eat the same stuff day after day,nor change clothes to go eat on a short lunch break. I often see workers from one restaurant eat at other ones,they even give each other "comps". > Or, if I worked at McDonalds, to go across the > street to Burger King, pickup a Whopper and walk back to the McDoanlds > and eat it in the dining room? I was in a Winghouse restaurant(breastaurant,like Hooters),and a customer come in wearing a Hooters sweatshirt,and management made him switch to a Winghouse t-shirt.Of course,he was free to leave and eat elsewhere. An employee,while being "free" to get a job elsewhere,should be able to buy and drive what they want. > Potential Customers who ride by the Ford plant and see a lot full of > Chryslers might rightly assume that even the Ford workers don't think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ed Too bad,that's the USofA. Now,if they offered to exchange a Ford product for the other brand,than that's different. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >Potential Customers who ride by the Ford plant and see a lot full of >Chryslers might rightly assume that even the Ford workers don't think they >can build things petter than the crap Chrysler pumps out. Anything wrong with Potential Customers knowing the truth? SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > So you think it would be OK for me to wear my Burger King uniform to > McDonalds to eat lunch? Or, if I worked at McDonalds, to go across the > street to Burger King, pickup a Whopper and walk back to the McDoanlds and > eat it in the dining room? YUP!!! You got it. It's been many decades since I worked at McDs (god what I wouldn't give to be a teenager again), but it wasn't unusual at all to see McCustomers wearing uniforms from other fast-food places, including other burger joints like BK and Wendy's. They were treated the same as all other customers. Nobody seemed to notice or even care that they were working for the "competition". Not the McEmployees, and not the McCustomers, either. That was many decades ago (unfortunately). In today's anything goes type of world, who really gives a sh.t what you drive to work, even if your work is building a certain brand of car? -Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.