PDA

View Full Version : The Cheek of Ford


Tyburn
10-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Ford Motors being a United States based company had been subject to something known under Federal Law as The Equal Pay Act, which came into force thanks to Congress in 1963.

Of course...what is very interesting about this law...is that is seems only to effect companies based on US Soil. That at first sounds reasonable. But Ford Motors in the 1960s was an International Company, which meant that it had working plants across the world....and whereas Federal Law applied to Ford Motor employees in America, the same cant be said for Ford Motor Employees outside of the physical boundaries of the United States Soverignty.

This meant that where Ford Motors were forced to pay Male and Female workers doing the same job, or employed by the same company at the same rate of pay...it didnt need to apply this to workers in other countries.

I find this fascinating, because its the first time ive heard of a U.S company effectively getting away with Slave Labour. Worse still, many of those Employees were based in England, where Ford Motors were expanding. During this period of time Ford were enjoying underpaying Women because there was no law passed by a British Parliament to say otherwise...despite the fact that it was enforced on the other side of the Atlantic, Ford Motors must have actively chosen not to pay the same ammount for Labour. Effectively enslaving British Women doing the same job as the Men who were paid more.

Imagine their horror when in order to pay even less, Ford Motors brands Women Labourers at a plant in London as non skilled, and the Women for the first time in English History went on Strike.

Ford Motors naturally did what Big Companies always do, and basically ignored the problem. making idle promises they had no intention of keeping. So the Women decided to go permanently on Strike, and a week later Ford Motors was forced to halt production when surplus supplies ran out

The Counter ballence to the British Government not making these obvious laws about Employment was due to something known as Trade Unions. Now the United States has never seen what Trade Unions can really do, they are mostly a De-Unionized Country, with very little in the way of Employment Law beyond largely vaugue and all encompassing Congressional Statements. Trade Unions in England, these days are very much to Companies, what the Media is to the Government. A huge pressure group. But the Trade Unions of the 1960s were something entirely different. These groups of people were pseudo-political, and moved a great deal of financial wealth from a-b. They deeply encouraged strikes, something that would eventually bring the whole Country to a three day working week during the Winters of Discontent, whereupon afterwards Margaret Thatcher would break their backs, and in so doing distroy whole sections of the workforce, whole industries would dissapear overnight, as she steered the whole country away from the coal industry. Very few large scale powerful Unions survived, although a number are still around, particularly governing the transportation industry.

These Unions were of course mainly socialistic, and mainly male dominated, and had to come to terms with the fact that male breadwinners were forced out of work by what was quickly becoming the best part of a months strike at Ford Motors. As the Factory stopped producing, so to did the Male labour needs

The Americans on the other hand, behind Ford Motors were quick to remind the Government of how big a contribution the motor industry was to the British economy, and how they could of course choose to take their business elsewhere, should the Government think of forcing them into Equal pay...the irony is, that this event in England took place in 1968

nearly FIVE YEARS after Ford had been forced to do exactly the same on their own turf. It is increadibly ironic, dont you think, that an American Company would threaten the British Government for considering applying the SAME LAWS as the Federal Government of its own Nationality? It would appear that there is one thing that stops the American ideology of Freedom...thats when Bondage gives them a better profit. There is no other way to explain the companies actions, considering its standing with Congress had already been determined. Getting things cheaper elsewhere is a good profit builder...but at the expense of women workers?? when the alternative to paying a high cost is effectively slave labour, then from an American point of view, all things considered, it is a moral violation.

The Government caved to pressure after three weeks of industrial action at Ford Motors, and with the wavering support of some Unions, the women were given a pay rise to bring them within ten percent of Equality.

Two years later the British Parliament passed their own Equal Pay Act, and from there, most of Europe were to follow. Ford Motors continued to work in the British Economy despite their threat...but it makes you wonder, what companies are in less developed areas of the world, and what moral boundaries they are crossing in order to make a profit. Some forty years later, with almost no Unions, and with Employment Law still lacking in the United States, one wonders just how far a company is prepared to go, to exceed its profit margine...and when the whole pile of cards that prop up such a business in a marginalized country far from home will crack and bring the whole executive to their knees.

TexasRN
10-05-2010, 11:04 AM
You are bringing this up now and it happened in the late 60's early 70's? :blink:

There is still a gender gap in pay here in the US. It isn't considered slave labor though, that's taking it a bit far. I don't agree with paying women less, I think it sucks. Luckily, I work in a field where I get paid based on how much experience I have, not on whether or not I have a uterus.


~Amy

Tyburn
10-05-2010, 12:10 PM
1)You are bringing this up now and it happened in the late 60's early 70's? :blink:

2) There is still a gender gap in pay here in the US. It isn't considered slave labor though, that's taking it a bit far. I don't agree with paying women less, I think it sucks. Luckily, I work in a field where I get paid based on how much experience I have, not on whether or not I have a uterus.


~Amy
1) well I only just found out about it

2) so do you deny the possibility that there are still countries in the third world which might be making multinational companies millions of pounds...and being paid tuppence all because local laws do not require a set minimum?

The Women in England were the top of a slippery slope that leads right to child labour in the south pacific. Thats why in England we have something called "Fair Trade" which is when a company pays its workers a proper wage for a proper job, and yes, to cover costs, consumers must pay that little bit extra

Is that not in essence, exactly the same thing? as a rule, is it not true that companies pay their employees as little as absolutely possible, so they keep a profit margine...and whilst national laws NOW protect people like you and me regardless of our gender...they dont yet cover places in the Orient or Asia do they...where, when the companies are left to decide what they pay completely...they pay something dumbass like the equivilent of a few dollars for very long hours.

How much of what we use everyday, was made in these countries, and sold to us by morally bankrupt companies, that we think nothing of. I for one, would be mortified, if I discovered that something I use, or buy, in my life, was carefully constructed by a foreign child who has not been paid an adequet wage by a company in the greatest country on the planet. I would feel terribly guilty, as if I were apart of this exploitation, because I paid, and my money has thus supported companies who would...in essence, violate workers for nothing but capitalistic greed.

It was never that bad in England, because since America existed, we have always been a first world country, there is only so much Ford Motors could get away with...but it does illustrate their mindset...and where oter governments are less concerned with human rights, it is not hard to see what companies could get away with...and me thinks a lot of them do.

I personally think its a big deal.

TexasRN
10-05-2010, 12:30 PM
1) well I only just found out about it

2) so do you deny the possibility that there are still countries in the third world which might be making multinational companies millions of pounds...and being paid tuppence all because local laws do not require a set minimum?

The Women in England were the top of a slippery slope that leads right to child labour in the south pacific. Thats why in England we have something called "Fair Trade" which is when a company pays its workers a proper wage for a proper job, and yes, to cover costs, consumers must pay that little bit extra

Is that not in essence, exactly the same thing? as a rule, is it not true that companies pay their employees as little as absolutely possible, so they keep a profit margine...and whilst national laws NOW protect people like you and me regardless of our gender...they dont yet cover places in the Orient or Asia do they...where, when the companies are left to decide what they pay completely...they pay something dumbass like the equivilent of a few dollars for very long hours.

How much of what we use everyday, was made in these countries, and sold to us by morally bankrupt companies, that we think nothing of. I for one, would be mortified, if I discovered that something I use, or buy, in my life, was carefully constructed by a foreign child who has not been paid an adequet wage by a company in the greatest country on the planet. I would feel terribly guilty, as if I were apart of this exploitation, because I paid, and my money has thus supported companies who would...in essence, violate workers for nothing but capitalistic greed.

It was never that bad in England, because since America existed, we have always been a first world country, there is only so much Ford Motors could get away with...but it does illustrate their mindset...and where oter governments are less concerned with human rights, it is not hard to see what companies could get away with...and me thinks a lot of them do.

I personally think its a big deal.


There are child labor camps with little slave children in other countries. There have been huge exposes on them here in the news media in the past. I'm not denying that. But to call it slave labor that a woman in England in the 60s was paid less than a man is silly. I don't knowingly buy products made by slave children. I try to buy American as much as possible, actually and we have very strict child labor laws here.

I dunno. I'm just not getting worked up over this. Sorry.


~Amy

VCURamFan
10-05-2010, 01:11 PM
Dave, you realize that back in the 60s & 70s EVERYBODY paid woman less than men, right? I mean, it wasn't just Ford.

Neezar
10-06-2010, 05:50 AM
You are bringing this up now and it happened in the late 60's early 70's? :blink:


~Amy

Oh! The cheek of those bastards!

:angry:








:laugh:

Tyburn
10-06-2010, 07:18 AM
Dave, you realize that back in the 60s & 70s EVERYBODY paid woman less than men, right? I mean, it wasn't just Ford.

Well Yes...Ford Motors was oneof reasonably few companies who DID pay women equal in one country, and actively chose not to in another though. Thats what I find most telling