Ford Will Cut 7,000 White-Collar Jobs (cnn.com) 115
Ford is cutting 7,000 white-collar jobs, or about 10% of its salaried staff worldwide, as part of a cost-cutting effort it says will save the company about $600 million a year. From a report: Ford says workers will begin to be notified of cuts starting Tuesday, and the terminations will be completed by the end of August. About 2,400 of the jobs cuts are in North America, and 1,500 of the positions will be eliminated through a voluntary buyout offer. The move is an effort to cut bureaucracy within the company and flatten the management structure in addition to its desire to cut costs, according to a letter CEO Jim Hackett sent to employees Monday morning. Ford's layoffs are similar to white-collar job cuts rival General Motors announced in November, but GM's cuts were deeper. GM eliminated about 8,000 non-union jobs, or 15% of its salaried and contract workers. It also closed five North American factories as part of that announcement.
Top? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
So they are doing top down instead of bottom up as they should!
Well, yes. In this particular industry, it becomes exceedingly difficult to actually deliver product if you do the traditional bullshit move of eliminating the people who make the product.
Re:Top? (Score:4, Interesting)
So they are doing top down instead of bottom up as they should!
Well, yes. In this particular industry, it becomes exceedingly difficult to actually deliver product if you do the traditional bullshit move of eliminating the people who make the product.
They've already done as much as they can to eliminate the people who actually make the product.
Unfortunately, "flattening the management", in my experience, usually means keeping the mostly-useless top layers, and eliminating the people at lower layers who actually run the business.
That's always the case. (Score:1)
* Despite what you proles think, being high up in a company is a very tenuous, volatile position. There is enormous churn up there; climbing to the top is like climbing to a mountain peak, where there's little room for everyone making their way to the same spot, and there's the danger of a rapidly forming maelstrom for which there is little shelter.
* Not only is pulling a lever repeatedly like a robot an easier and safer job than managing an organization, but it's also therefore a lower-paying job; ergo, to
Depends (Score:5, Interesting)
No telling since the article doesn't say. It's more or less a press release from Ford.
Re:Depends (Score:4, Insightful)
They mean they know they can't get away with laying of the unionized staff so they are going for salaried non-union employees. One would hope that america would learn something from this tactic and more employees would unionize, but that is never going to happen.
Re: Depends (Score:2, Interesting)
When almost an entire company is unionized, the only thing left to cut in response to normal economic fluctuations is the company itself. Then all of the executives, managers and laborers are out if a job instead of just a few.
It doesn't just apply to companies, either. It applies to entire industries. That's what happened to various American manufacturing industries in the highly-unionized "Rust Belt" area.
Re: (Score:2)
Except unions accept cutbacks all the time to save the company they work for, as the existence of the union is dependent on the company. What they don't like to do is have their workers bend over and take it up the ass so management can go on enjoying their annual 20% increase in com
They've been laying off Union staff for ages (Score:2)
If I may digress a bit, this is BAU ever since Reagan legalized stock market manipulation by allowing stock buy backs. The pattern is simple: Fire a ton of people to raise cash for stock buy backs so you can boost your stock price during a recession.
Sure, your quality goes to shit because you don't have enough employees to run the company, but at least the CEO (who's pay is based on stock price) and the share
Re: (Score:2)
the share holders (who are overwhelmingly in the top 1%)
Actually, the biggest shareholders are middle class pension funds.
Re:Depends (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Ford's most recent annual report [q4cdn.com] the stated that they had about 200,000 employees worldwide. This means that it's really only about 3.5% of their total workforce that was part of these layoffs, so probably not as scary as the article might lead you to believe.
Unnecessary overhead (Score:5, Interesting)
on what they mean by "White Collar".
White collar jobs in this context are primarily the folks not actually on the assembly line building cars. Engineering, IT, management, marketing, sales, or anyone else whose salary would fall into SG&A on the income statement is probably white collar.
Do they really have 7,000 unnecessary management positions?
I don't know about management but I work with Ford and they almost certainly have 7000 unnecessary jobs that don't involve actually putting parts on cars. Some of those almost have to be management but some in other areas too. Most very large companies have a significant amount of labor that isn't involved in the stuff that is really important to the bottom line of the company. Ford isn't going to specify who they are cutting immediately because it gives them flexibility. That said, announcing cuts puts a cloud over the head of everyone who then starts wondering if their job is gone and so they start sending out resumes just in case.
Or are these things like IT folks, engineers and Sales Reps (e.g. the folks you need to run the company)?
You need a certain number of those folks to run the company. It's not uncommon for large companies to have more of them than they actually need. Ford has over 100,000 employees in North America alone. Not hard to believe that some of them might not be truly vital to the company.
Re:Depends (Score:5, Funny)
White Collar, as in Lion Food.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ha! Good one.
Lion food is a myth (Score:2)
Re:Depends (Score:4, Interesting)
Now as people voluntarily leave or retire, they aren't filling the jobs.. well except the executive positions. It's stupid, we have levels of management who spend 90% of their time simply reporting what others told them to the next rung up the ladder.
I feel like 'Office Space' has become a reality here.
Re: (Score:2)
given how often "unnecessary" blue collar jobs are let go (without a buy out) and management seems to think that if only they had "skills" they'd keep their job. How's that working for you?
It actually also bothers me every time politicians do the exact same things. During previous downturns, when plenty of "people with fancy degrees and skills" were getting laid off, and having trouble finding employment, all the politicians still seemed to talk as if it was really just blue-collar folks who simply needed more education to re-enter the world of gainful employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm or clueless? Only the AC poster knows (Score:2)
Of course. It's very difficult to wander around a factory floor and figure out what is valuable. On the other hand, you can walk around an office and ask people questions directly and it's pretty clear what's working and what won't work.
I have to assume that this post is intended to be deadpan sarcasm, but, honestly, I really can't tell.
Re: Top? (Score:2)
Yes/ no they are cutting out middle managment.
That really isn't top down or bottom up but a liposuction off the fat in the middle.
Personally people keep saying how great the economy is doing Hut we are getting store closures manufacturing cut backs. Etc in a never ending line.
At first I thought it was just routine business shuffling but it has been consistent across all companies for the last 2 years
At the moment such cut backs are what keeps the bull market going.
Re: Top? (Score:1)
Crush managers ! (Score:2)
" flatten the management "
Crush the suckers! That's the way to go.
Re:Top? (Score:4, Informative)
An $85k salary is WELL above average. Median HOUSEHOLD income in the US is $56,516. Many of those households have more than 1 earner.
Re:Top? (Score:4, Informative)
An $85k salary is WELL above average. Median HOUSEHOLD income in the US is $56,516. Many of those households have more than 1 earner.
That's an old figure, use the current data. [stlouisfed.org] For 2017 (latest available), "Real Median Household Income in the United States" is $61,372.
For 2016 (latest available) "Real Median Personal Income in the United States" is $31,099. That's somewhat misleading, as it includes teens and others working part time by choice. The $85k average of those affected isn't particularly high for salaried white-collar work.
"Fred" is a great source for economic info about the US.
Re: Top? (Score:5, Informative)
Working part time by choice.
You are adorable.
For those unclear on the concept, there will always be a non-trivial percentage of workers who are students, or prefer not to outsource their child care, or who otherwise have a higher priority in life than full time work. Usually someone else in he household has the "real job" in these cases (though not for college students). This used to be far more common than today, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Any idiot... (Score:2)
... can temporarily balance the books and maybe move back into profitability by cutting costs and firing staff. But most of those staff did something useful and this will soon be noticed. It takes someone with vision to increase profit by improving the product.
Re: (Score:3)
most of those staff did something useful and this will soon be noticed. It takes someone with vision to increase profit by improving the product.
Did you read the summary?
"The move is an effort to cut bureaucracy within the company and flatten the management structure"
Re:Any idiot... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess as long as you ignore the 9 BILLION dollars they got in government loans during that time. Sure, they didn't specifically request TARP funding, but they still got rescued by the Fed.
Re: (Score:2)
The should flatten the Ford CEO with a boot up the ass. Holy fuck do their cars suck now.
They should literally fire everyone in the company, is you sell shit it is still shit.
Not here in Europe. In Europe Ford are among the best on the market (Fiesta and Focus).
I read the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
If we had real investigative journalism somebody would look into who Ford is actually firing. If we had white collar Unions we'd have a press release from the Union too. But we've got none of that. All we've got is the word of a company with a history of mass layoffs and shoddy cars.
Same work - less people (Score:2)
"The move is an effort to cut bureaucracy within the company and flatten the management structure"
Which is probably a fancy way of companies saying that some people are going to have a lot more work in their inbox in the near future.
Re:Same work - less people (Score:5, Interesting)
I love my manager and our middle management is surprisingly competent but dear god our upper management are morons.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... can temporarily balance the books and maybe move back into profitability by cutting costs and firing staff. But most of those staff did something useful and this will soon be noticed. It takes someone with vision to increase profit by improving the product.
Not necessarily. Companies tend to get bloated over time and need to cull the herd. Its a normal cycle. Nothing new here.
Just never to upper management (Score:2)
Yeah, let us know when a bunch of VP's are laid off (without golden parachutes) and top positions are switched from eight to six figure salaries.
Color me unsurprised (Score:1)
Much like Tesla, Ford is dying. Demand is plummeting, costs continue to rise due to tariffs and contango.
Stick a fork in them.
AI has arrived (Score:2)
Even a stupid AI could do those jobs.
Whoop! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Our neighbor was like that. She didn't have a pension, but she was about 64. Worked for a regional sports network involved in a recent merger. She knew her division would have to be sold to meet the media ownership rules, and figured at some point in this there would be layoffs and buyout options.
Turned out she was right, and she got a nice payout that carried her into age 65.
Lackluster design (Score:2)
They need to beef up the design front. I really liked that Bronco prototype they dug up for the Rampage movie. It is also easier to cut non union jobs. Less of a fight I'm sure.
Where Hackett comes from (Score:5, Informative)
If you look up the CEO, you'll find that his background is Sales & Marketing and Management at Proctor & Gamble and Steelcase (where he cut 12,000 jobs).
He had no automotive experience before joining Ford a few years ago.
I believe that Ford is making a profit.... but their stock price is down and, apparently, stock price is the primary concern of the.... stockholders.
Is it a good situation where a stock price is depressed, but a company is profitable? (I really don't know)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the company should use its profits to do a stock buyback.
The job of a CEO is not to make a profit.... (Score:1)
The job of a CEO is not to make a profit. It is to maximize the long term profit and financial stability of the company.
I know people like cribbing concepts, but these are two rather important details in a company president/responsible CEO's job description.
Good quarterly earnings are important, but long term investments in the stability and future of the company are even moreso. Particularly if there are no bigger companies with a buyout plan, or government's willing to bail you out when your short term
Re:Where Hackett comes from (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit more complex than that. Demand for autos in general is on the decline. If you're a company, you start preparing for leaner days beforehand.
Yes, most of the current profits will still be pilfered by investors. But that doesn't mean layoffs aren't a smart idea to try and survive through to the next cycle.
Probably not a good situation (Score:3)
1) They seem to very behind in the electric car game, although they are ahead of Chrysler-Fiat, so they aren't dead freakin' last there.
2) They seem to devalue car markets outside of the USA and Canada. That can't be a good business strategy going forward. GM doesn't do that. The Germans, Japanese and Koreans don't do that.
3) They are s
Re: (Score:3)
I think the emphasis on SUV's/trucks gets down to profitability of the individual product. The margins on those are much higher than on small cars (where most/many shoppers are price buyers).
If you are going to make sales on, say, 1000 vehicles, and some models have a (making this up) 25% margin and some have a 40% margin, you're really gonna want to sell a lot of the 40% margin models. 25% of a $20,000 model is $5K. 40% of a $60,000 model is $24K. (again, just making up figures for illustration purposes) 1
Re: (Score:2)
1) They seem to very behind in the electric car game, although they are ahead of Chrysler-Fiat, so they aren't dead freakin' last there.
FCA can just license that stuff, like they are licensing Mild hybrid technology. At least two first tier suppliers have stick-on mild hybrid solutions for sale. But then, so can Ford.
They are sort of betting the company on the idea that nobody in the USA + Canada wants to buy anything that isn't an SUV or truck.
Not really. They can make cars again if they want.
They will make a few Mustangs because they can't stop making the car because it would destroy their image, but I think I read that there is only one other non-SUV/non-truck they will make, but I forgot what it is.
Some shitty subcompact. Makes sense. There are really only a handful of vehicles anyone wants to buy anymore. Subcompacts for the poor, Sports cars for people with extra money, Pickup trucks or SUVs for families and/or for towing, Vans for hauling stuff. Sedans lack utility, and
Everyone assumes lay offs. What about early ret? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them were voluntary redundancies. Payout terms are fairly standard, depending on which country you are in.
The intention was to get a flatter structure, so it was actually mid level management who got the offers.
Somebody on fark.com made a good point (Score:5, Informative)
The lesson here is this: Companies don't hire because they have more money, they hire to meet demand.
News for Nerds? (Score:2)
Okay, I rarely pick on Slashdot for this. But really? Are they replacing those "white collar workers" with automation?
I fail to see the "nerd" angle of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I rarely pick on Slashdot for this. But really? Are they replacing those "white collar workers" with automation?
I fail to see the "nerd" angle of this.
First they came for the white collar workers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a white collar worker.
Then they came for the automation, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not automated.
Then they came for the "nerds" —and there was no one left to speak for me.
Thanks, Trump! (Score:2)
Is that all? (Score:2)
Am I the only one who read this and was surprised to find Ford's total salaried payroll is only 70,000 people?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised it's that at all. Remember, "salaried" means non-Union, not assembly-line workers. So that means R&D, IT, management, sales, etc.
For a car company, that shouldn't be the bulk of the workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it should. Factories should be crewed by two men and a dog.
Ford is too far gone... (Score:1)
Sad to see great American companies like Ford and GM reduced to this state. I would try to support them as a consumer, but their cars are shit. There's a reason why I stick to JDM!
It's the economy... stupid (Score:1)
More than 50% of Americans can't afford the cheapest new car and people wonder why GM and Ford and firing thousands of employee's. They build cars nobody can afford, the idiots. Car sales are now down by 7%, which is just further proof that this auto market is a bubble waiting to burst. Also, how is our economy doing well when people are losing jobs left and right and people can't afford to buy a new car?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it because they cant affored the cheapest cars, or they simply dont want them?
lets look at my own personal situation.
Back in 2006 i wanted to buy the girlfriend a mazda cx7.. she didnt want anyhting "japanese" and got a uplander.
I got myself a 2007 mazda 6, she got a 2007 chevy uplander. Both cars are roughly the same age, drivin in the same general area.
The uplander repairs/problems
Broken front stearing component (forget what it is called ) X3
broken seats
runs rought
wont shift into 1st at times
power ste