Firm's Dearborn Truck Plant will require employees to drive a Ford or park across the street.
January 27, 2006: 10:53 AM EST


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Employees at Ford's Dearborn Truck Plant in Dearborn, Mich., will have to drive Ford Motor Co. vehicles to work or park across the street, the plant manager announced earlier this week.
The new parking policy, which is scheduled to take effect Feb. 1, was instituted by plant manager Rob Webber just as Ford reported losses of $1.6 billion from its North American auto operations in 2005 and Monday announced plans to close 14 plants and cut 30,000 jobs as it tries to reverse losses and respond to declining U.S. market share.
Video More video
Ford Motor is closing plants across North America and cutting thousands of jobs. CNN's Ali Velshi reports (January 23)Play video


The Dearborn Truck Plant, which represents one portion of the Rouge facility, has 2,600 union employees and makes the F-150 pickup truck, the best selling vehicle in the United States.
A Ford spokesman told CNNMoney the company supported the move, although it had not been extended to the other North American manufacturing facilities.
Officials with UAW Local 600, who backed the announcement, are scheduled to conduct talks with management next week to finalize the details and discuss expanding the ban across the entire Rouge facility, union president Jerry Sullivan told CNNMoney.
"There has to be something put in place to grab people's attention and to make a statement that this is a serious thing," said Sullivan, whose union represents approximately 8,000 workers at the larger Rouge complex. "It's up to us to stand up and do what is right and to drive a vehicle from the company you work for."
The Dearborn Truck Plant parking policy will allow vehicles made by non-U.S. Ford brands such as Mazda, Volvo and Land Rover, Sullivan said.
The Detroit News, which first reported the story Friday, said the new parking policy in Dearborn was embraced by factory employees at a meeting to discuss the auto manufacturer's latest restructuring plan,
But one plant employee, who did not want to be quoted, told the paper he wasn't happy he would no longer be able to drive his Chrysler to the factory.
"They can't tell you how to spend your money," said one veteran tradesman. "It's still a free country." He said he got a better deal on his Chrysler than he could on a Ford.
"I got to go where I can get the most bang for my buck," he said.
Another Dearborn Truck employee told the newspaper he approved the move, though.
"You buy what you build," said Rufus McWilliams. "That only makes sense."
The Detroit Truck Plant opened in 2004 as part of the $2 billion renovation of the company's 1,100-acre Rouge facility, the paper reported.

 

I have heard of that at other plants, and I think one of them was a Chevy plant that had a similar parking policy. Chevys could park up close, anything else had to park out in the boonies. That seems kind of harsh to me, these are your employees you are dealing with! I work at an insurance company, should I have to park on Jupiter because I don't insure anything with my company? I see this as a desperate time and desperate measures from the American car companies.

 

i like GM, but Ford sucks. sorry. hehehe.

 

I wonder if that lot across the street is filled with broken glass, nails and screws. Just to really get the point across.

 

I think those "other" cars are a bitter reminder of why Ford (and Detroit in general) are in so much trouble.

I wonder how many of those plant workers own MINIs?

 

they should just quit and work for toyota.

oh man, now im in trouble, right C4? jk

 

What an evil post for your 6,666th...but I agree with you.

 

When I was contracting into Ford in Dearborn, probably 97% or more of the cars in the parking lot were Ford owned brands. The Ford employees got great deals on cars (like 35% off if they ordered the car) at any dealership in town, it was pretty near impossible to get a better deal from another brand.

I, of course, was driving my Eagle (Chrysler) Talon turbo 5-speed.
It's different in the actual factory though. No contractors.

I think it's reasonable to give preferred parking to the people who support their employer. Ford didn't say "You can't buy a different car", only that they weren't allowed in the parking lot.

It's a marketing thing too I think. If I go by a Ford factory and see a bunch of Chevys in the parking lot, I'm going to think "These guys know exactly how good or bad these cars are, and they're buying something else..."

 

Exactly. If they could come up with a nice sporty and economical car, they might start making some money. Everything here in the US is still "If it doesn't weight 5000 lbs, it's not big enough." Too bad most new concepts are just bigger versions of current SUV's. Detroit is going to keep going down if they don't change something.

 

Yes you are. Don't provoke me as I am a master black belt.

 

Maybe Ford is thinking that if their employees are all driving Pintos, it could reduce its future liability for pension payments.

 

shishh, im a master black belt Ninja. im looking for a car with roof rack for my katana.

 

it's their business and a little walk never hurt anyone. I still can't fathom why anyone would complain about such a decision.

 

Thats been a policy at certain GM plants forever.It makes sense to me after all you cant complain that the company does not support you when you dont support them.

 

If I worked for Ford (ugh) I'd buy an old rusted-out oil-burner beater of a Ford, that could barely make it to the plant, and make sure to park it in a very visible spot in the parking lot...

 

I'd say any Ford older than an 04 would do the trick.

 

When I was out for a drive, I saw an interesting thing. I was passed by a Chevy Suburban (or whatever the current name of their ginormous SUV is). It was painted with the ensignia of a local Cadillac dealership. Upon closer inspection, I saw that it was one of their roadside helper vehicles . What's up with that, they can't spare an Escalade for the repair guys? The Porsche dealershop uses a Cayenne and I've heard euro Lotus dealerships use Exiges . I guess Caddy is selling well...

 

It's funny how some laws in the U.S. do so little to protect a worker. In fact, what most people don't realize is that technically you could even fire an employee or choose not to hire them if they don't drive a Ford (or Chevy as the case may be). This is just a cheap tactic to weed out the "less" faithful employees.

I think in situations where the company funds your purchase, fine. For instance, if Ford was paying me as a salesperson and providing me a car, I would expect to drive a Ford. But what I choose to drive on my own time is a matter of personal choice and features that I desire.

Where this treads on dangerous ground, however, is that this creates a "hostile" work environment. Imagine what would happen if someone was car jacked in the remote lot...I'm sure the lawsuit would blame the policy as a contributing factor.

It's risky business when corporations do anything to venture into personal lives of their employees and customers. With so much going wrong at Ford, it disappoints me that they would even have time for something like this. People who work from Ford will drive a Ford if they are passionate about where the company is going. A parking policy is just a demotivator.

 

This really isn't anything unusual. When I worked for DaimlerChrysler, only DaimlerChrysler products were allowed in certain lots and parking structures at the Technology Center. People who already had a Mercedes were suddenly able to park closer when the *cough* merger happened.

 

Again, Ford isn't telling people what to buy, just that they only allow Ford products on their property. I'm sure you wouldn't find IBM computers in the homes of many Apple employees or vice versa. The only difference is that you have to use your car to get to work, so it's much more visible.

 

When Chevy Had a plant in Van Vuyes CA the managment lot was restricted to only GM products. I don't know it that policy extended to the main work force or not.

John

 

I am thinking now that maybe I should restrict my employee parking to MINIs only. They take less space and I can then have lower capital expenditure on parking or open up more space for customer parking. Maybe I can then used the freed up space to lease a chunk of my property off to someone else.

 

Exactly what I was going to say. This isn't really anything new. I've had quite a few people come up to me to talk about my MINI and say that they'd get one but they work at Ford or GM or DCX and couldnt drive a foreign car to work.

 

Isn't the G5 processor made by IBM . Back on-topic, I agree with hoopi. Giving a nice price break is fine with me but forcing other cars out of the lot is bad business. The same thing happened back in the 70's with the oil shortage. American carmakers had to find ways to prevent the superior Japanese cars from littering their lots. Sounds like the same thing is happening all over again

 

All these people worrying about infringing on others personal rights.Shake your head and look at the situation.They are providing a free parking space for your convenience, and are not charging you for it! What about the rest of us that work or travel to downtown.Should we expect free parking.Are our rights being infringed on.Talk about self centered,this is why many companys are having problems.Theres too many" me first" people.The first question out of their mouths are "what in it for me. "