Ford Posts $750M 2Q Profit

[BoogyMan]

Lily, aren't you in Michigan? Are you seeing any signs that this is happening in the local economy?


Source: Link (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070726/earns_ford.html?.v=10)

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Ford Motor Co. surprised Wall Street Thursday with second-quarter earnings of $750 million, its first profitable quarter in two years.

The company also confirmed it is exploring the sale of its Jaguar and Land Rover subsidiaries and said its U.S. market share rose during the quarter.

The profit of 31 cents per share compares with a net loss of $317 million, or 17 cents per share, in the same quarter of last year.

The company attributed the gains to significant year-over-year improvement in all of its automotive operations, and to cost cuts due to restructuring and positive special items that totaled $443 million. That includes a $206 million gain related to sale of its Aston Martin unit. Even its struggling North American division showed progress.

Fifteen analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected the company to lose 35 cents per share excluding special items.

Ford shares rose about 2.9 percent in premarket trading to $8.20 after the earnings news.

Ford said it is exploring the potential sale of Jaguar and Land Rover based on discussions with parties that have expressed interest in the British units. And the company said it is conducting a strategic review of Volvo "that likely will conclude prior to year end."

Despite the quarterly earnings, the company said it still doesn't expect to post an annual profit until 2009, although it is burning cash at a slower rate than the $17 billion through 2009 that the company had predicted.

Even without the positive special items, the company still made money in the quarter, posting a profit of $258 million, or 13 cents per share. That compares with a loss of $118 million, or 6 cents per share, in the year-ago quarter.

"Our team is very encouraged by the significant progress we are making. We recognize the challenges that lie ahead and remain fully committed to delivering our plan," Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally said in a statement.

Dearborn-based Ford reported revenue of $44.2 billion for the quarter, a 5.5 percent gain over the $41.6 billion reported in the year-ago period.

Ford said its automotive sector made $378 million for the quarter, compared with a pretax loss of $716 million during the second quarter of last year.

Although its core North American operations showed improvement, they still posted a pretax loss of $279 million. That compares with a pretax loss of $789 million a year ago.

The company reported cost reductions of $600 million for the quarter, or $1.1 billion for the full year, primarily due to health-care cost concessions negotiated with the United Auto Workers, the departure of 27,000 U.S. hourly workers who took buyout or early retirement offers and reduced warranty repair costs.

It also reported that its U.S. market share reversed its decline, rising to 15.6 percent for the quarter from 15.1 percent in the first quarter. It was 16.7 percent in the second quarter of 2006.

Ford's Premier Automotive Group, which includes Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo, reported a pretax profit of $140 million for the quarter, an improvement over the pretax loss of $162 million for the same period in 2006. The company said all brands advanced. The profit comes at a time when all three are under consideration for sale as Ford tries to raise cash needed to fund its restructuring plan.

The automaker's Asia Pacific and Africa unit made a pretax profit of $26 million, and Ford made $255 million pretax in South America. In Europe, Ford made $262 million, and its financial services arm turned a pretax profit of $105 million, down from $425 million in the same quarter last year.

[Mayberry]

Glad to see they're turning things around. Where was Lee Iacocca when they needed him? :P

[lily]

Lily, aren't you in Michigan? Are you seeing any signs that this is happening in the local economy?

In the local econonmy, no. I honestly can say I've never seen it as bad here since the recession. No one has money to spend. I posted an article a few months ago, houses are cheaper to buy here than cars and no one is bying them either. Home improvement is pretty much at a standstill.

Ford has consistantly been the lowest profit margin out of the Big Three, so this is really big news here.

The company reported cost reductions of $600 million for the quarter, or $1.1 billion for the full year, primarily due to health-care cost concessions negotiated with the United Auto Workers, the departure of 27,000 U.S. hourly workers who took buyout or early retirement offers and reduced warranty repair costs.

This is how they are making their money and the other two have pretty much followed along. Get rid of all the employees who have worked their way up the ladder to make a decent living and then hire in young kids at cheaper pay and with less benefits. Contract negotiations are now going on, to take away some of the benefits that the retirees have worked their whole lives for. On a personal note, they hired a company to see if workers or their spouses that have high medical bills can get disability insurance and medicare, so it will cut down on what they have to pay out.

Also, Ford closed tons of plants, then turned around and built new ones in Mexico. Chrysler and GM also have done this, but not to the extent Ford has.

Unions are not what they used to be and if Hoffa had a grave......he'd be spinning in it. All consessions have been made in favor of the Big Three and not the workers.[hr]
Glad to see they're turning things around. Where was Lee Iacocca when they needed him? :P


I agree. Uncle Lee took that loan, turned around Chrysler and paid it back in record time!

[Cobra]

Concerning the unions, without those concession the businesses might just close down and move elsewhere. Then nobody would have a job. You already said they were moving to mexico, no reason to make it faster with unions making hopeless demands.

[lily]

Concerning the unions, without those concession the businesses might just close down and move elsewhere. Then nobody would have a job. You already said they were moving to mexico, no reason to make it faster with unions making hopeless demands.



.........and without unions, people would still be making a buck an hour with no benefits.

Seriously, do you think it's right for a person to work all their lives, doing manual labor at jobs that are so boring you'd lose your mind, thinking all the time, I have to do this, I want to relax when my time is up........only to find that when your time is up, they want to take away what you've worked for?

As for car prices........they've been moving the plants for years.......is your car cheaper?

[NortheastCynic]

Interesting question, Lily. Do you think it's fair for someone not to have complete control over something that only exists as a result of THEIR paying for it? There is no proof to back up the assertion that people would be making a dollar per hour for manual labor without unions.

-NC

[Cobra]

.........and without unions, people would still be making a buck an hour with no benefits.
It's quite possible, unions have done a lot to combat workers abuses in the past by companies only looking for profit. But times have changed, the companies don't need American workers if they can get them cheaper in Mexico without the union hassle. Unions in our current situation will just drive companies out of the states with their demands. Which will just mean no jobs instead of slightly lower paying ones.

[lily]

Interesting question, Lily. Do you think it's fair for someone not to have complete control over something that only exists as a result of THEIR paying for it?

I'm not sure what you mean.

There is no proof to back up the assertion that people would be making a dollar per hour for manual labor without unions.

-NC

Well of course it was an exageration, but not by much. Unions have done a hell of a lot for the US worker.[hr]

It's quite possible, unions have done a lot to combat workers abuses in the past by companies only looking for profit.

Key word in there Cobra, in the past..........as for companies making a profit, I'm not against that. What I am against is working long hours without overtime pay, un-safe working conditions, being fired with no recourse, making sure you have your proper breaks, proper benefits, the list is endless what the union has not only gotten for their members, but for making non-union live up to some of their standards.

But times have changed, the companies don't need American workers if they can get them cheaper in Mexico without the union hassle. Unions in our current situation will just drive companies out of the states with their demands. Which will just mean no jobs instead of slightly lower paying ones.

It is already doing that with NAFTA and CAFTA.....the unions don't have much to do with companies moving their plants. As I said, they are already making them there.......the price of a car hasn't changed.

[NortheastCynic]

Essentially, I meant that unions take away complete control over a company from its owners...The very people without whom, the company/business would not exist.

-NC

[lily]

I haven't seen that. Sure they try to get the best deal for the workers, that's how they earn their money and it's the workers that are paying them.

[Mayberry]

What I am against is working long hours without overtime pay, un-safe working conditions, being fired with no recourse, making sure you have your proper breaks, proper benefits, All this still happens. I was a Petroleum Inspector. I was not paid overtime, we were paid a "sliding scale", which basically meant you got less per hour the more hours you worked. They got away with it because you were guaranteed 40 hours a week whether you worked or not. In 2 years, the shortest week I had was 36 hours. My average was 60 hours. Once, I worked 76 hours straight. I think that qualifies as unsafe working conditions. A lot of times, after working 16 to 18 hours, I'd get home and go to bed for an hour or two and the phone would ring again! It was a cool job, I got to go offshore on tankers to transfer cargo, I got to meet people from all over the world. But after 2 years I just got burnt out by the hours and the phone ringing at 3 AM. To this day, my dog still runs and hides when the phone rings :P So I went to work for a power plant. My ticket to the sweet life, right? Wrong. The pay was excellent, but the working conditions were horrible. My boss was a "biker", and he hired all his biker buddies. He conveniently put one on each shift to snoop for him. The staff was pretty much divided right down the middle, Sloppy Joe's (the boss) cronies, and the rest of us. Those who weren't "with the program" (me for one) were picked off one by one. If they couldn't make you quit, they set you up and fired you. I was fired because I had been involved in a push to unionize the plant. I fended off the wolves for 5 years, but finally just gave up. My wife would have killed me if I quit, so I let them fire me instead. It sure sucked losing a $75,000 a year job, but the money just wasn't worth it. Neither one of those jobs had "proper breaks". As a matter of fact, the only job I've ever had that did is the one I have now, working for the State. So my opinion of unions is slightly jaded as you might imagine, as they haven't really done a damn thing for me.[/i][/quote]

[lily]

Neither of those jobs were union, Mayberry. If they were they wouldn't have gotten away with it.

[Mayberry]

Well the premise here seemed to be that unions made everybody's job better. That is not the case.

[preservanation]

So let me understand this...
Everybody who is not in a union is being used and have lousy jobs?
IMO the unions are the biggest users of them all.
Huge sums of money go to the organizers and their cronies and your dues go to the Dems weather you agree with them or no?
Sounds like freedom of choice is taken completely out of the equation.
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$2,819,953
Operating Engineers Union
$2,792,545
Laborers Union
$2,686,750
Carpenters & Joiners Union
$2,294,673
United Auto Workers
$2,229,740
American Federation of Teachers
$2,116,748
Teamsters Union
$2,094,481
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees
$2,069,338
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union
$1,965,850
International Assn of Fire Fighters
$1,872,105
National Air Traffic Controllers Assn
$1,870,150
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
$1,761,484
Air Line Pilots Assn
$1,737,250
American Postal Workers Union
$1,634,000
Communications Workers of America
$1,595,280
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
$1,575,455
National Assn of Letter Carriers
$1,567,300
Sheet Metal Workers Union
$1,543,200
Ironworkers Union
$1,485,900
Service Employees International Union
$1,477,392
AFL-CIO
$1,376,827
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn
$1,328,866
Painters & Allied Trades Union
$1,297,665
United Steelworkers of America
$1,189,100
United Transportation Union
$1,144,985

This is some of the money donated to the Dems by unions. If you are a republican, this money is going to finance a left wing agenda and if you don't like it, quit you job, go home take a government supplied "Soma", watch the walls close in and SHUT the F### UP!

[lily]

Well the premise here seemed to be that unions made everybody's job better. That is not the case.



If that's the way it came across, I'm sorry. That's not how I meant it. What I wanted to say was they set standards and if other companies wanted to compete, they would have to try and keep up with what the unions were doing to attract workers. Of course all companies couldn't or wouldn't give what a union would, but then that's why they are there.

I was fired because I had been involved in a push to unionize the plant. I fended off the wolves for 5 years, but finally just gave up.

As was my son in law recently. There is a reason why some places don't want unions in and it's not because of their profits, it's because they can't do to their workers what was done to you.[hr]
So let me understand this...
Everybody who is not in a union is being used and have lousy jobs?
IMO the unions are the biggest users of them all.
Huge sums of money go to the organizers and their cronies and your dues go to the Dems weather you agree with them or no?
Sounds like freedom of choice is taken completely out of the equation.


There is no ___________ you have to sign on that says are you a Republican or Democrat. Yes the unions give money to the Democrats, why wouldn't they? They support some of the same ideals. If you think all union dues goes to campaigns to support the Democrats, then I don't know what to tell you, without embarrassing you.

[preservanation]

preservanation Wrote:
So let me understand this...
Everybody who is not in a union is being used and have lousy jobs?
IMO the unions are the biggest users of them all.
Huge sums of money go to the organizers and their cronies and your dues go to the Dems weather you agree with them or no?
Sounds like freedom of choice is taken completely out of the equation.

lily Wrote:
There is no ___________ you have to sign on that says are you a Republican or Democrat. Yes the unions give money to the Democrats, why wouldn't they? They support some of the same ideals. If you think all union dues goes to campaigns to support the Democrats, then I don't know what to tell you, without embarrassing you.

Not all the dues lily, and I even mentioned that.
Just all the dues that go to a political party go to the Dems.
The problem is that as a worker you don't have a choice. Not giving people a choice is the bedrock of liberalism.[hr]The picketers marching in a circle in front of a downtown Washington office building chanting about low wages do not seem fully focused on their message.

Many have arrived with large suitcases or bags holding their belongings, which they keep in sight. Several are smoking cigarettes. One works a crossword puzzle. Another bangs a tambourine, while several drum on large white buckets. Some of the men walking the line call out to passing women, "Hey, baby." A few picketers gyrate and dance while chanting: "What do we want? Fair wages. When do we want them? Now."

Although their placards identify the picketers as being with the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, they are not union members.

They're hired feet, or, as the union calls them, temporary workers, paid $8 an hour to picket. Many were recruited from homeless shelters or transitional houses. Several have recently been released from prison. Others are between jobs.
Isn't it obvious that someone should create a union for picketers?
http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/6619-Is-it-Time-for-a-Picketers-Union.html

This can't be!
Non-union exploitation of the American worker.
Shameless

[lily]

[quote=preservanation]
Not all the dues lily, and I even mentioned that.
Just all the dues that go to a political party go to the Dems.
The problem is that as a worker you don't have a choice. Not giving people a choice is the bedrock of liberalism.[hr][quote]

Well, most not all believe the Rublicans are union busters, why would they want to send their money to people that don't support the union?

I wouldn't wan my money sent to some orginaztion that didn't support part of what I am paying for.

[preservanation]

As usual, you make good points, lily.

But let me try anyway

So I guess the unions just care about Dem workers, not all of them.
Unions mainly exist for the perpetuation of the union. Union begets Union.


The days of the sweatshop and child labor are gone and so has he relevance of the Big Union in America.
They have become an arm of the libs and a de facto Democrat fund raising machine.
Most of the things they fought for, and rightly so, has become fed law anyway.
The glory-days of the labor unions have come and gone.

They loved it when the min wage went up because a lot of their base pay rate is computed up from that base point so it gives them stronger bargaining position when it comes time for demanding raises and thus more money for the union and the Dems.

Their membership has dropped precipitively from 70% to 14% (? not absolutely sure re those #s, but it's close) and that is a reason they lobbied for that insulting amnesty bill from congress.
They want to get the illegals into the union, drive up wages

...and uh, oh, what's this?! We'll need a whole nother batch of cheap labor from across the boarder to do the jobs unionised illegals won't do.

Illegals voting legally is next and the unions would love that too.

[quiet man]

sounds like a lot of mustangs and trucks to me?

[preservanation]

I drive Pontiacs but my wife has a pos Ford and we also have an old F350 with a plow. Sucks gas like Monica sucks...
at journalism.

C'mon, you guys, get your minds out from under the desk!
jeez...

[lily]

So I guess the unions just care about Dem workers, not all of them.
Unions mainly exist for the perpetuation of the union. Union begets Union.

This statement makes no sense, preservation. The union doesn't care if your Demorcat or Republican, they are still getting your dues and trying to make your work time beneficial to both you and your employer. Without workers, there would be no union.



...and uh, oh, what's this?! We'll need a whole nother batch of cheap labor from across the boarder to do the jobs unionised illegals won't do.

No we won't. As I explained they offered early retirement, or buyouts to the employees that have worked their way up the pay and benefit scale and hire in workers at less pay and more benefits.

For the record.........I've never worked union in my entire career. On the other hand, my husband has so I think I can see both sides of the coin on this issue. If I'd have had my druthers........I'd take a union job any day of the week.

[preservanation]

Lily, you're right rep $ spends just as well as dem. But the reps are not being represented. How is that fair? Why can't the worker decide (pro-choice) what political party their $ goes to or opt out of political donations all together. If I [i]had[/] to pay, I would rather they sent my $ to lepers in Borneo than to the dems.

True, with workers there would be no unions, but without unions there would still be workers. The big unions are obsolete, they did good back when they were needed and abuses are now against fed law. They are nothing more than a scam and have deteriorated into political shills for the dems. That is not fair.
People are no longer looking to work for unions everything is seniority and cronyism. They actually stifle individual achievement, productivity, efficiency and innovation.
The American car companies are no longer in the business to make cars, but they make cars in order to supply healthcare and retirement. When people stop buying cars because they are to expensive or crappy, how will that help workers? No cars, no jobs, no food, rent, health care or retirement. They are quickly progressing towards the law of "no returns".
Most people don't want to be in a union when given the choice, the crooked union bosses know this and that is why they support amnesty for illegals. A new batch of suckers.

[lily]

Lily, you're right rep $ spends just as well as dem. But the reps are not being represented. How is that fair?

Who said life is fair? You don't see me complaining about the money big oil donates to the Republicans, do you?

I don't want my tax dollars going to fund this war, but it's the price I pay for living in this country and I guess the price you'd have to pay for joining a union, would be to support the party that supports and gets the things done that you want. You seem to be focused on the money they donate, rather than the other things they do.

Why can't the worker decide (pro-choice) what political party their $ goes to or opt out of political donations all together. If I [i]had[/] to pay, I would rather they sent my $ to lepers in Borneo than to the dems.

Oh why stop there, preservation? I have a feeling you'd rather burn your money than to donate it to the Democrats.:P

The big unions are obsolete, they did good back when they were needed and abuses

Which has been my running complaint throughout this thread.


People are no longer looking to work for unions everything is seniority and cronyism. They actually stifle individual achievement, productivity, efficiency and innovation.

Spoken like a true Republican!

The American car companies are no longer in the business to make cars, but they make cars in order to supply healthcare and retirement.

Wonder what the state of healthcare would be like if the unions didn't fight for it for their members? I wonder if any company would even offer it unless the unions started it?

I've given up on trying to convince you that the car that is made in Mexico is the same price as the car made right here in the good old USA........so, let's try another country. The auto plants have been unionized in Canada for decades. National healthcare........same price car. As for retirement........isn't that what every person works for? One last time..........early retirement and buyouts, so they can hire in cheaper labor and less benefits.


Most people don't want to be in a union when given the choice, the crooked union bosses know this and that .

I don't know about you, but here union jobs are in high demand.....why do you think people get fired for trying to get them in?

is why they support amnesty for illegals. A new batch of suckers.

That is just laughable. The union is going to get the same pay for women, men or legal immigrants. See Dearborn Michigan for reference.