Talk:The Way Forward

Ford/UAW letter

The following was posted by Captinamerica1 (talk · contribs):

I have come across a letter that might result in a change of direction for the UAW and America’s auto industry.

This is the main body of a letter that was sent to the UAW’s Ford locals:

I am not a current employee of ford but I am an employee of a company under a union. However I do share concerns about how ford is hurting the future of its workers. I have been reading about how new Mazda models including CX-7 and CX-9 as well as others are being introduced onto the American market and imported from Japan. With Ford's controlling interest in Mazda, why are they continuing to hurt North American workers when I hear that Ford is having trouble at home? The Mazda CX-7 (and also spy photos of the CX-9) that I saw and Mazda 5, all imported from Japan, are UGLY PIECES OF CRAP that have no benefit to American workers.

At one time I heard that the CX-9 might be built in North America BUT now I hear that a decision has been made to import the CX-9 from Japan along with CX-7 and Mazda5.

When your current contract expires, maybe you can use your bargaining position to change this. For example, your Union can refuse to make any concessions to Ford until Ford promises not to allow any more Japanese import introductions from Mazda. Or at the very least maybe include in your next contract a limit on how many models Ford will allow Mazda to Import from Japan. You should require Ford to promise this before you agree to any concessions. If Ford is truly in trouble but is still allowing Mazda to introduce new (imported from Japan) models, then is Ford really telling the truth when it says the company is in trouble?

Please let me know what you think. I believe the time has come again to make a stand! And if you like my ideas maybe pass them on to your members for their ideas.

Ford has no right to ask for ANY concessions when Mazda is introducing new Japanese import models onto the American market!!

_____

If the UAW and its Ford locals decide to use this letter in their contract negotiations with Ford then it could have a major impact on America’s auto industry. Union locals representing workers at other automakers in America might use the Ford case as an example of ways to protect their security as well.

Automakers operating in America that do not have an assembly plant in the United States will probably also be affected as well. At this time Volkswagen does not have an assembly plant in the United States. However, Volkswagen must have a logistics/distribution network to be able to operate in America. They probably also have warehouses to store replacement parts (maintenance will be extremely expensive on Volkswagen vehicles if they do not have these American warehouses). If employees of these logistics/distribution networks as well as parts warehouses start to join Unions (some might have already done this but at this time I am not sure) then they will have the same collective bargaining power as Union employees at Ford now have. If Unions are organized at Volkswagen’s distribution networks and American parts warehouses, a possible strike can bring Volkswagen’s American operations to a complete halt and Volkswagen will not have the ability to sell any of its vehicles in America for as long as the strike lasts. I am using Volkswagen as an example to show that even automakers that do not have assembly plants in the United States will probably be affected just as much as Ford (if the UAW and its Ford locals decide to use proposals in this letter that has been sent to them).

This might be the early beginnings of a new direction for the American auto industry that has the potential to add more power to the security of America’s autoworkers.

I have removed this content from the article. Until this campaign is more real (for example if it is documented by a news article, web site, organization, etc) I feel that it does not merit mention. It appears to me that Captinamerica1 is attempting to use these Wikipedia articles to start this movement rather than to report on it. I have no problem with it being mentioned here in talk, of course. --SFoskett 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Way Forward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060503164430/http://media.ford.com:80/article_display.cfm?article_id=22465 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=22465

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)