|
PCOLA
 |
Here's when Ford customers Breana Noble Ford Motor Co. customers waiting to purchase a vehicle this summer could be in store for higher prices if President Donald Trump's tariffs remain unchanged. Andrew Frick, president of vehicle divisions Ford Blue and Model e, alerted dealers Wednesday that if trade policy continues as has been outlined, the company could make adjustments to the manufacturer's suggested retail price on May production, according to a memo obtained by The Detroit News. Those vehicles would arrive at dealerships in late June or early July, according to dealers who saw the memo and a Ford spokesperson. Trump's 25% tariff on vehicles imported to the United States went into effect earlier this month — the same day the Blue Oval announced a new "From America, For America" campaign that offers customers discounts of thousands of dollars typically reserved for its employees. That is set to end on June 2, and Frick reiterated the company's commitment to that. “We will not increase the MSRP for any vehicle currently in inventory with our Ford and Lincoln dealers, and our employee pricing offer will remain in the market through June 2, 2025, as advertised,” Frick wrote in the letter. “However, in the absence of material changes to the tariff policy as articulated to date, we anticipate the need to make vehicle pricing adjustments in the future, which is expected to happen with May production.” Despite Trump stating that the auto tariffs are "permanent, 100%" when he announced them, the president this week suggested he could provide some help with respect to auto parts and give companies extra time to move manufacturing to the United States. The 25% duty on certain vehicle components is set to take effect on May 3. Ford imports a few products from outside the United States: The Maverick small pickup, Bronco Sport SUV and electric Mustang Mach-E crossover are built in Mexico, and the Lincoln Nautilus comes from China. About 80% of the products it sells here, however, are made in the United States, and it makes more vehicles in the country than any other automaker. Ford overall finished March with 64 days of supply on the ground at dealers ahead of announcing the discounts. "We are 100 percent committed to our From America, For America employee pricing commitment through June 2, and we are not changing the price of any of our existing inventory," the automaker said in a statement. "Customers will have a lot of choices, and we have plenty of inventory to choose from through June 2. "The tariff situation is dynamic," the statement continued, "and while we continue to evaluate the potential impact of tariff actions, we will not change the price of any vehicle currently in inventory through June 2." Ford also offers price protection on consumer retail orders, so whatever price vehicles are when retail customers factory order a model, they are guaranteed that price, though they can take advantage of deals that may come up until delivery too. Ford Vice Chair John Lawler on Wednesday at the Bank of America Securities Auto Summit emphasized that Ford is "positioned really well" with respect to the tariff situation because of its strengths in U.S. manufacturing and its balance sheet. Eddie Stivers — Ford national dealer council chairman and president of E.M. Stivers Inc., which has five Ford dealerships in states like Alabama, Georgia, Arizona and Iowa — was one of the dealers who saw the memo. He said it means that the vast majority of pricing for models is protected into the summer. Since the employee discount rates were announced, vehicles have been selling "at a clip," he said, with his days of supply falling from around 120 days to closer to 100 days. "We're having a great April," he said, noting even usual Tax Day slump seems to have been skipped. "We haven’t had that mid-April pause this year. We don’t know how much is pull-ahead until we get there, but we have not seen a dramatic drop in consumer sentiment. We’re very bullish on May and June." Rhett Ricart, CEO of Ricart Automotive Group in Columbus, Ohio, that has a Ford store, said the discount program offers fair margins to retailers. He's already paid for the vehicles on his lot, so Ford can't change the price on those, he added. "But it looks like on June 2," he said, referring to the end of the "From America, For America" campaign, "prices will start going up." |
Ford recalls over 120,000 Story by Michelle Del Rey April 21, 2025 Ford is recalling more than 148,000 vehicles in the US as part of two separate recalls, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced. Approximately 123,611 vehicles are being recalled due to a fluid leak that could reduce braking performance and increase stopping distance, Reuters reported. The impacted models are the 2017-18 Ford F-150, Expedition and Lincoln Navigator.
|
Tariffs prompt Ford to adjust Breana Noble Ford Motor Co. has adjusted shipments to China from the United States as a result of retaliatory tariffs, the Dearborn automaker confirmed. Citing anonymous sources, The Wall Street Journal first reported the Blue Oval this week halted shipments completely of F-150 Raptor pickups, Mustang muscle cars and Bronco SUVs built in Michigan, as well as Lincoln Navigator SUVs made in Kentucky in response to tariffs as high as 150%. “We have adjusted exports from the U.S. to China in light of the current tariffs,” Ford spokesperson Robyn Jackson said in a statement, without stating which models have been affected. Ford does import the Lincoln Nautilus SUV into the United States from China. Shipments of that vehicle, however, continue, Jackson confirmed. The United States and China have traded tariff escalations. China has raised its duties on imported U.S. goods to 125% from 84%. Meanwhile, the United States has imposed a 125% "reciprocal" tariff, though that number was imposed initially by the United States; a 20% tariff imposed over the fentanyl drug trade; and tariffs under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act on certain goods between 7.5% and 100%. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff policy in general has prompted automakers and suppliers to scramble to learn the latest information and limit fallout. Analysts and auto executives have said the increased costs from the import taxes will cut into profits, risk supply chain disruptions, and increase vehicle prices. "This is the shot across the bow to the White House: They're saying, 'We don’t know the rules of the game, and this is what we have to do for our business,'" said Daniel Ives, analyst at wealth advisory firm Wedbush Securities Inc. "They had to make this move because the tariff situation is untenable. I’d expect GM and others could follow suit. It’s just the beginning. Ford is being preemptive, and it's smart to be cautious in these unprecedent times." GM spokesperson Kevin Kelly said the Detroit automaker on Friday didn't have any changes to report on its business in China. Last year, Ford shipped about 5,500 Broncos, F-150s, Mustangs and Navigators to China. These "passion products" of Ford's lineup represent small volumes in China's highly fragmented market, but because it's the largest market in the world, those sales add up on profitable nameplates, Ford executives have said. "They probably decided it’s too cost prohibitive right now and they are probably hoping a tariff deal gets worked out," David Whiston, analyst at financial services firm Morningstar Inc., said in an email. "The vehicles they ship over there are primarily more for wealthy Chinese consumers due to their high-end price points and not a core part of their China strategy." The automaker sold 400,000 vehicles in China last year, which represents falling sales as the market has become more competitive from domestic players. Ford does manufacture there with partners Changan Automobile Co. Ltd. and parent Jiangling Motors Co. Ltd. But it uses those factories mostly for exports to southeast Asia and South America. "The best days for China and Ford are in the rearview mirror," Ives said about the effect halting shipments could have on the company's business in China. "It's already been a challenging market. China is a lose-lose situation for Ford, just given tariffs, retaliation and just the Rubix cube they're trying to figure out in the U.S." Ford Vice Chair John Lawler this week said operating profit from China was about $900 million last year, and he emphasized the company's commitment to remaining a global player. “Because of the competitive nature of where the Chinese are heading, they're looking to dominate around the world," he said. "And if we get pushed back into just operating here in the United States and being a U.S. automaker, you know, large profit, but where does that put us as a company in 10 to 15 years? “We have to compete,” he continued. “And we have to learn to compete globally against the best that are out there, and that's what we’re doing.” |
Canada will match Trump’s Story by Saba Aziz and Uday Rana Canada is imposing counter-tariffs that will match U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs on vehicles while trying to incentivize automakers to stay put and promising more aid for auto workers, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Thursday. Carney said Canada will respond by matching the U.S. approach, with 25 per cent tariffs on all vehicles imported from the United States that are not compliant with the CUSMA free trade agreement, and on the non-Canadian content of CUSMA-compliant vehicles from the United States. Carney said the shared Canada-U.S auto sector that was created over decades since the signing of the Auto Pact in 1965 had been disrupted with Trump’s announcement. “In the year I was born, Canada and the United States signed the Auto Pact, an agreement that ended auto tariffs between our nations and began a 60-year period of close cooperation, partnership, job growth and prosperity. And that era has now ended unless the United States and Canada can agree on a new comprehensive approach.” Carney said whoever is Canada’s prime minister after the April 28 federal election will meet with Trump to hammer out the details of Canada’s new economic and security relationship with the United States. “As President Trump and I agreed last week, he and the prime minister of Canada will sit down immediately following the election to find areas of common ground and agreement in a new economic and security partnership,” he said. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Ottawa should adopt a “Build Canadian, Buy Canadian” approach to navigating this trade war. He added that the NDP was proposing bringing in "victory bonds," the kind Canada had during the Second World War. “A victory bond would be a guaranteed investment where you would purchase a bond, a five-year or a 10-year, and if you hold it to maturity, you would get all the revenue tax-free,” he said. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is likely to take the biggest hit from Trump’s auto tariffs, said U.S. booze is going to stay off the shelves at LCBO stores. A new round of U.S. tariffs hitting Canada’s auto sector is now in effect as President Donald Trump escalates his global trade war that has rattled markets and threatened industries across the world. At the same time, automaker Stellantis announced that it is halting production on its Windsor, Ont., manufacturing facility for two weeks. “Please be advised that production for the weeks of April 7, 2025 and April 14, 2025 are cancelled. Production employees must not report to work unless directed by their supervisor,” said a notice from Stellantis to employees, posted to social media by Unifor Local 444. Stellantis said the primary driver behind the decision is the announcement of tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump, the union said in a Facebook post. As of Thursday, a 25 per cent tariff will apply on all imports of foreign-made vehicles, trucks and auto parts going into the United States. The U.S. has so far imposed 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian goods, as well as an additional 25 per cent on steel and aluminum imports and a 10 per cent levy on Canadian energy imports. According to the executive order signed by Trump last week, the auto tariffs will not apply on U.S.-made parts in foreign-made vehicles. The White House says Trump is taking action to protect the American automobile industry, which it claimed is “vital to national security and has been undermined by excessive imports.” The auto tariffs come a day after Trump unveiled global “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries and territories, announcing a baseline 10 per cent duty. Canada is not included in that list. Prime Minister Mark Carney has previously called Trump’s auto tariffs a “direct attack” on Canadian workers and has vowed to respond. As the Liberal leader, Carney had to pause his election campaign for a second time in less than a week Wednesday, to coordinate a response to Trump’s announcement on what the U.S. president dubbed as "Liberation Day." Carney met with the Canada-U.S. business council on Wednesday. He convened the federal cabinet committee on Canada-U.S. relations and also virtually meeting with Canadian premiers Thursday morning. Canadian industry groups are reacting cautiously to Canada not being on Trump’s list of reciprocal tariffs so far. “This chain reaction of tariffs and counter-tariffs will have a real and distressing economic impact on Americans, Canadians and the global economy. We hope that today’s positioning regarding Canada by the U.S. is part of a path to real negotiation, ultimately leading to long-term partnership focused on continental economic security and resilience,” Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said. Dennis Darby, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said the threat to Canada’s economy had not passed. “The unjustified 25 per cent tariffs on automotive, steel and aluminum products remain in effect. These unfair measures continue to harm manufacturers, workers, supply chains, investment decisions, and overall business confidence,” he said. The White House has said if the sweeping 25 per cent tariffs imposed on Canada along with Mexico end, then a 12 per cent reciprocal tariff rate would apply. Economists are warning that Canada is “not out of the woods yet.” Tu Nguyen, economist at RSM Canada, said Canada’s absence from Trump’s global tariff list was “a small consolation prize.” “Economic uncertainty remains firmly entrenched, and more tariff announcements could be in the picture in the upcoming months. Businesses should consider strategic investments in areas such as infrastructure and technology to diversify trade partners and bolster their resilience,” she said. Trump’s trade war that has seen multiple rounds of tariffs on Canadian goods, energy, aluminum and steel has so far dominated the federal election campaign. All the main federal parties have proposed counter measures to fight back against the U.S. trade actions and repeated threats to make Canada a 51st U.S. state through “economic force.” The North American auto sector, which is already reeling from Trump’s metal tariffs that were imposed last month, is concerned about the impact these new tariffs will have on workers and the industry at large. The Global Automakers of Canada has warned the auto tariffs will drive up costs for consumers and impact workers on both sides of the border. Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, told Global News in an interview Wednesday that Trump’s tariffs will be “very damaging” for the North American industry, which she said is interlinked between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. “Potentially what will occur in the auto industry could be the linchpin of a continent-wide recession,” Payne said.
|
Ford Responds to Trump Tariffs Story by Joe Kucinski The sweeping tariffs signed into existence by President Donald Trump over the last week have sent shockwaves through the auto industry. Several automakers have suggested they may need to or will raise prices to counter the effects of the levies. The Ford Motor Company, however, is responding in a very different way: by offering their employee pricing program to everyone. According to reports by The Detroit Free Press and Reuters, Ford will offer its so-called A-Plan pricing on most Ford and Lincoln vehicles to all buyers, not just those who work for the company, through June 2. A separate program that offers a free home charger and complimentary installation to those people who purchase or lease an all-electric vehicle has also been extended through June 30. A new ad campaign called “From America, For America” has been launched to announce this new program. But the campaign does more than just communicate the discount program; it lets people know Ford employs more hourly workers and assembles more vehicles in America than any other automaker, according to the Free Press. Ford's A-Plan pricing is calculated by using the following formula: dealer invoice – holdback – advertising assessment + administration fee = the final price. The savings can be significant; the Free Press cited the example of a F-150 XLT PowerBoost with a sticker price of $65,000, which would cost $55,000 under the employee pricing plan. While the plan is wide-ranging, there are a few notable exceptions among the vehicles the plan is available on. The Ford vehicles not included in the program are the 2025 Expedition, the Super Duty trucks, and all Raptor family vehicles, as is the Bronco Stroppe Editions; specialty Mustang models such as the Dark Horse and GTD are also excluded. Many commercial-grade and fleet vehicles, such as the F-450, F-550, F-650 and F-750, chassis cabs are also not eligible for the program. Meanwhile, all Lincoln models are eligible except the 2025 Navigator. Ford says it's able to offer this program because it still have plenty of dealer inventory around. “We’re in a very competitive position in our stock. And the auto sector, and overall public, has seen a lot of uncertainty in the market right now especially in the automotive space. So, we feel by providing this message in ‘From America, For America,’ we’re providing some security,” Rob Kaffl, Ford's director of U.S. sales, told the Detroit Free Press. |
UAW president applauds DeJanay Booth-Singleton United Auto Workers union President Shawn Fain, who has been critical of President Trump in the past, says the 25% tariffs on foreign-made cars is a step to "end the free trade disaster." Mr. Trump announced on Wednesday that he would impose tariffs on automobiles and light trucks imported into the United States. The tariffs, he said, would go into effect on April 2, and the U.S. would start collecting the duties the following day. Mr. Trump said he believes the new import duty could raise between $600 billion and $1 trillion in revenue over the next two years. White House officials predicted roughly $100 billion in revenue. "This will continue to spur growth like you haven't seen before," Mr. Trump said from the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon. "We'll effectively be charging a 25% tariff. But if you build your car in the United States, there is no tariff." Fain's response to tariffs on foreign-made cars "We applaud the Trump administration for stepping up to end the free trade disaster that has devastated working-class communities for decades. Ending the race to the bottom in the auto industry starts with fixing our broken trade deals, and the Trump administration has made history with today's actions." "But ending the race to the bottom also means securing union rights for autoworkers everywhere with a strong National Labor Relations Board, a decent retirement with Social Security benefits protected, healthcare for all workers including through Medicare and Medicaid, and dignity on and off the job. The UAW and the working class, in general, couldn't care less about party politics; working people expect leaders to work together to deliver results. The UAW has been clear: we will work with any politician, regardless of party, who is willing to reverse decades of working-class people going backwards in the most profitable times in our nation's history. These tariffs are a major step in the right direction for autoworkers and blue-collar communities across the country, and it is now on the automakers, from the Big Three to Volkswagen and beyond, to bring back good union jobs to the U.S." Fain has been in conflict with automakers for allegedly attempting to move production out of the United States. Last year, the union filed federal unfair labor practice charges, accusing Stellantis of proposing to move production of the Dodge Durango out of the country. Fain was critical of Mr. Trump during the 2024 election, even calling the now-president a "scab" during the Democratic National Convention and linking him to the closures of auto plants during his last term. However, he backed Mr. Trump earlier this month after he announced proposed tariffs against Mexico and Canada. On Wednesday, the union said the tariffs could help bring back thousands of more automotive jobs across the U.S. "The UAW has encouraged the Trump administration to take clear, aggressive action to bring back good, union auto jobs," the union said in a news release. "We are heartened by the significant measures they have announced today, and we urge the administration to take similar action to protect and reshore the heavy truck sector. Beyond tariffs, a continued, dramatic shift in our country's trade agreements and economic policies will be necessary to end the free trade disaster." Lawmakers react to Trump's auto tariffs Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who recently spoke of tariffs and the auto industry on CBS' "Face the Nation," issued the following statement Mr. Trump's auto tariffs: "Today's announcement appears to be a step toward on-shoring supply chains and bringing manufacturing back to our country. Tariffs, when applied strategically, are a valuable tool to support American manufacturing and competitiveness, and I will work with anyone to support these goals. We need to remember we must allow the auto companies and suppliers the time they need to adjust - production changes can't take place overnight. Our domestic auto industry relies on a closely integrated North American supply chain, which is why it's important this includes exceptions for USMCA-compliant imports. However, it is time to renegotiate USMCA." Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens also issued a statement: "The Michigan auto industry and our best-in-class workforce are the crown jewels of the Midwest industrial economy. We need smart trade policy that supports jobs in Michigan and tariffs are critical to how we compete globally with countries like China that don't play by the rules. Stronger protection for American-made cars and trucks is long overdue. I welcome that, but we need to fully understand the details. Over the next few days, I will do what I always do: listen to the people. I am eager to hear more from autoworkers, suppliers, and auto companies. I plan to continue to stand alongside Michiganders and the drivers of our economy while navigating this new trade policy. And I will keep pushing in the Congress to invest in innovative tech, our workforce, and manufacturing infrastructure, so we can win the mid-21st century and beyond."
|
The electric-vehicle revolution Nicolás Rivero Republican plans to scrap nearly all federal support for electric vehicles could kneecap the nascent industry, auto industry experts say, just when more Americans are considering buying an EV and car companies are planning big investments. “Everything that’s happening politically couldn’t have happened at a worse time from the point of view of EV adoption,” Ed Kim, president and chief analyst at the car market research firm AutoPacific, said in an interview. Ending federal EV tax credits, weakening tailpipe pollution rules and slashing funding for charging stations — as President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed — would slow EV sales and trigger a wave of factory shutdowns and canceled investments, according to energy policy and auto industry researchers. It would also lead to higher planet-warming emissions, they added. The biggest source of greenhouse pollution in the United States is transportation — mostly from light-duty cars and trucks, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Experts say switching from gas and diesel engines to electric vehicles is the best way to limit the damage from climate change, which is expected to make people sicker, farms less productive and countries poorer if left unchecked. These moves would delay, but not prevent, the gradual shift from gas-powered cars and trucks to EVs in the United States. Even without any government support, analysts say electric vehicles will continue to eat away at sales of gas-powered cars. But the tipping point when EVs break into the mainstream U.S. car market is moving further away, experts say, and could have far-reaching effects on the economy and environment. Emissions up, jobs down The Trump administration has already signaled that it will scrap carbon regulations on car and truck pollution, and Republicans in Congress are considering axing federal tax credits for Americans who buy or lease electric vehicles. Those policies alone could shrink U.S. EV sales 40% in 2030 and eliminate the need for all planned EV assembly factories and put up to half of existing EV factories at risk of shutting down, according to a recent analysis from Princeton University. Between one-third and two-thirds of battery factories running by the end of this year would be at risk of closure. Most of those plants are concentrated in Republican-led districts in the South and Midwest. “If you pull the rug out from under the industry, things are going to collapse, and a lot of those investments are going to be canceled,” said Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor of engineering at Princeton University and the author of the report. Automakers were already pulling back on EV investments in response to slower-than-expected sales last year. Tesla Inc. killed its plans for a new, cheap EV model after sales slumped in 2024. And as Tesla CEO Elon Musk leads the Trump administration’s mass firing of federal workers, protesters are picketing and sometimes violently attacking Tesla dealerships. General Motors Co — the second-biggest U.S. electric automaker, which has vowed to sell only electric light-duty vehicles by 2035 — delayed plans for a new EV factory, sold its stake in one of three battery factories it built with LG and delayed the release of a new electric Buick last year. Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and Volkswagen AG have also cut spending and delayed or canceled EV releases, and Volvo Cars and Mercedes-Benz AG abandoned plans to sell only electric cars and trucks by 2030. Meanwhile, Trump has also frozen funding for building charging stations through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program and other electric-vehicle funding through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. If Trump and Congress permanently abolish that funding — in addition to ending tax credits for EV sales, charging and battery manufacturing and blocking California’s ability to set its own vehicle emissions rules — cars and trucks would emit 49 million extra tons of carbon pollution in 2030, according to a separate recent analysis from Harvard University. That’s about as much pollution as 115 gas power plants emit in a year, according to the EPA. “Slowing EV adoption increases emissions,” said Elaine Buckberg, a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability and former chief economist at GM, adding that it makes it harder “to forestall climate change and its effects.” Although the two reports consider slightly different scenarios, they reach similar conclusions: Jenkins predicts that by 2030, there could be 8.3 million fewer EVs and plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads than there would be if federal EV policies were left in place, while Buckberg predicts 9.9 million fewer EVs would be in use. Neither analysis factored in the impact of tariffs, which are expected to raise the price of buying a car by thousands of dollars. It’s hard to predict the effect on the EV industry, Jenkins said, in part because Trump’s tariff threats keep changing. Higher prices would probably make Americans think twice about buying any type of new car — but since EVs are more likely to be assembled in the U.S. than gas-powered cars, they might not be hurt as badly by trade barriers, Jenkins said. Existing trade barriers with China — set by Trump and raised by former president Joe Biden — are already keeping cheaper Chinese EVs off American roads and raising the price of going electric. Falling off the ‘S-curve’ Countries where EVs catch on — such as Norway, China and Iceland — usually follow a pattern called the “S-curve.” Sales start slow, but eventually they hit a tipping point and take off after the industry switches from reaching a small group of early adopters to breaking into the mass market. Auto industry experts have been looking for signs that the U.S. market is reaching that tipping point. Last year, EVs made up 8.7% of new car sales, according to Kelley Blue Book. It’s hard to say if the market was set to take off: Although EV sales have risen steadily, their momentum slowed in 2024. Either way, experts say that tipping point will be further away in the United States if the federal government pulls its support for the industry. EV leaders such as Norway and China helped their electric-car industries get off the ground with subsidies and incentives. “It is clear based on the evidence that there is no inflection point, no significant market growth, without strong policy support,” said Gil Tal, director of the Electric Vehicle Research Center at the University of California at Davis. He added that U.S. EV sales will probably continue to grow “because of the huge investment done in the last couple of years, but it’s not going to be an S-curve in any way.” Killing the federal tax credit for buying or leasing EVs would be the single biggest blow to the industry, according to the Harvard analysis. The credit is especially important as EV sellers try to break into the mass market, where car buyers are more price sensitive. “That’s the time when you need stronger incentives,” said Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at Edmunds, a car shopping and review website. Early adopters buying luxury EVs might be willing to pay higher prices, she said, “but the second wave of buyers needs more convincing.” |
Trump's looming tariff Breana Noble Detroit — U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin warned Monday the Trump administration could be risking a "self-inflicted recession" if reciprocal tariffs slated for April 2 take effect. "If it were working for our economy, I would be interested," the Holly Democrat said during a panel at Wayne State University's Industry Innovation Center. "But to me, the economic indicators are going the wrong way, and we cannot stay silent as a state that would be most affected. And certainly for me, as an elected representative, the risk of recession is so much more important than anything else I do, then we have to speak clearly about that risk." Tariffs are a credible tool, Slotkin said. There's particular interest in them among her colleagues in response to national security concerns with China, she said, but added it makes no sense to impose them on longtime allies like Canada. President Donald Trump's administration earlier this month imposed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico and then a 25% levy on aluminum and steel on all countries. Trump also imposed a combined 20% tariff on China. "If people aren't buying cars, if people are being laid off, if the price of groceries is going up and not down," Slotkin said, "it doesn't give consumers confidence to be active in the economy." Jim Runestad, Michigan Republican Party chair and a state senator from White Lake, told The Detroit News the ideas that tariff automatically would lead to a recession is "ridiculous." "Things are in a state of flux. The president is trying to make decisions that he knows a certain amount of time to follow through on the promises he made," he said. "Economics isn't so pinpoint with respect to recessions. Any economist will say there are many facets that go into a recession. He’s trying to make sure the businesses here in the United States are protected." He added that the United States' neighbors who are supposed to be allies aren't cooperating when it comes to border security and stopping drug trafficking until they are forced to cooperate. Both Canada and Mexico in February announced additional border protections last month in a deal with the United States to delay tariffs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's GDPNow model estimated on Monday that real gross domestic product would decline by a seasonally adjusted 2.1% in the first quarter. That's improved from its estimate of -2.4% on March 6 but far below full-year economic growth of 2.8% in 2024. Exemptions to the tariffs have been granted on some of the new levies. Following a conversation with top executives of General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Stellantis NV, Trump announced exceptions to the Canadian and Mexican duties for goods like vehicles and their components that are compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Trump signed into law in 2020. Some agricultural goods like potash, which is used in fertilizers, also received an exception. But not all companies have the resources to advocate for those kind of benefits, Slotkin said. "The first time Trump was in the White House, he had a process, and I think it was the Department of Commerce where you could apply and try and get some exceptions," she said. "And we did get some exceptions for some of our agricultural things, etc., etc. "Right now," she continued, "it's a bit of a free-for-all, and it's kind of like people are doing anything they can to get those exceptions. I don't blame them, but what it means is that the people who have the big government affairs programs, who have the big, well-known CEOs are going to get in those rooms, and the mom-and-pop, who depend on the tiny widget from somewhere else that isn't made anymore in the United States, are going to get screwed." The Detroit News on Monday morning emailed a request for response to the U.S. Commerce Department but did not immediately receive a reply. Colin Bird, consul general of Canada in Detroit, emphasized the USMCA deal is working — as both the United States and Canada have seen "record-breaking investments" after years of offshoring. The Mexican minimum wage has doubled, too. "We don't see a lot of value to rehash issues that we negotiated with the first Trump administration," Bird said. "Let's have a conversation and see what we can do better to compete better with the rest of the world. But fundamentally, the agreement is working." He cited Canada's imposing 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles last year, plus additional duties on their aluminum and steel as an example of collaboration to strengthen North American manufacturing. He noted advancements in green manufacturing, artificial intelligence and other areas of manufacturing and technology are other spaces to examine with respect to trade policy. For businesses, the biggest issue is the uncertainty created by the on-again, off-again tariffs, said Sandy Baruah, CEO of the Detroit Regional Chamber, likening the situation to the COVID-19 pandemic. "We have built this 100-plus years of having this unified, predictable trade relationship," Baruah said. "If that goes away, then how are we as the Western industrialized world, how can we be expected to effectively combat China? Because that's where we have real trade challenges, where we have real unfair trade practices, where we have the real threat from fake drugs, even fentanyl and others." Baruah raised some concerns about state governors and economic development agencies indicating an openness to welcoming and even incentivizing a Chinese automaker to manufacture their vehicles in the United States. Slotkin pushed legislation she introduced during her time in the U.S. House of Representatives — and which she says she is about to reintroduce in the Senate — to ban Chinese vehicles from being sold in the United States. "I will lay my body in front of the border before I let Chinese electric vehicles come inside the United States," said Slotkin, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst. "We have to be bipartisan in favor of that, because that is like a walking, driving collection unit for their intel. It's all our data, all our full-motion video, all our mapping, all our lidar. No, no, no, no, no." Michigan automakers like GM and Ford do build vehicles for the U.S. market in China, including the Buick Envision and the Lincoln Nautilus. Slotkin said ultimately whether a vehicle can be sold in the United States should depend on who has access to the information its computer is capturing. "The future of warfare and threats is who controls amalgamated data, and so I don't like those parts in American vehicles that can send back video or mapping to the Chinese," she said. "Same thing with an American car built in another country. Who controls the data is the whole game." Runestad responded: "She can lay there and block the Chinese electric vehicles. I’ll lay there to block the fentanyl, child traffickers and cartels from coming over." |
Why America's biggest auto union Unifor calls the United Auto Workers' position 'naive' Emma Loop · CBC News March 19, 2025 Trump's tariffs. Here's a look at why If you're an auto worker, how you feel about tariffs, may depend on which side of the border you're on. In Canada, the union representing auto workers has come out strong against tariffs. But on the American side, the union is pro-tariffs. The CBC's Emma Loop looks at this great divide and how it's come to be. On the surface, it seems like a surprising split for two powerful unions with decades of shared history and interests. The United Auto Workers, or UAW, representing thousands of American auto workers, has thrown itself behind U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs against Canada and Mexico. "We are glad to see an American president take aggressive action on ending the free trade disaster that has dropped like a bomb on the working class," the union said recently. It's a sharply different position than the union's Canadian counterpart, which has denounced the tariffs and called the UAW's stance "naive," given the impact experts say tariffs will have on the auto industry and U.S. autoworkers. "To think that Canada could just suffer and eat up these kinds of tariffs and it not to have an impact is completely naive in my opinion," Unifor National President Lana Payne said last Thursday. Labour and automotive experts say tariffs are very unlikely to bring legions of manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., citing the potentially devastating damage to the North American auto sector's deeply integrated supply chains. Regardless, experts say the UAW's position is emblematic of decades of job losses, shifting politics and new leadership. "U.S. auto workers have not had a great three decades," said Wayne Lewchuk, professor emeritus in the School of Labour Studies and Department of Economics at McMaster University. "They've lost a lot of jobs, they have lost a lot of salary, they've lost a lot of benefits." The split is also remarkable when you consider that the two unions used to be one. It wasn't until the 1980s that Canadian autoworkers broke off from the UAW to form their own union: the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), which eventually became Unifor. "It's a very, very serious breach of international solidarity because it's an acceptance, almost, of some of the ideological B.S. that's coming from Trump," said Herman Rosenfeld, a retired CAW staffer who worked in the union's education department for 15 years. Payne said there have been discussions at the staff level between unions about the UAW's stance on tariffs, and that the Canadian side is "not shy about making [its] position known." Many of Unifor's leaders, who met last week in London, Ont., to discuss the ongoing tariff threat, have also "expressed their anger with" the UAW's position, Payne said. The UAW did not respond to repeated interview requests. But it's not the first time tensions have bubbled up between the unions, the experts said. In fact, past tensions are the reason why the unions splintered in the first place. A shared history In the early days, autoworkers in Canada and the U.S. were both represented by the UAW, which formed during the 1930s amid a broader push to unionize industrial workers. The UAW's Canadian regional office, as it was called, grew out of Windsor, Ont., still known as Canada's automotive capital. "From the beginning, the UAW was an international union, but there were always tensions, and the tensions had to do with, 'This is a different country'," said Rosenfeld, who now writes about labour issues and politics from a socialist perspective. For one, the Canadian side of the union had a more militant reputation, which some research attributes in part to the lack of collective bargaining rights in Canada until the mid-1940s. ays ago While U.S. President Donald Trump this week paused a host of tariffs on Canadian goods and auto for 30 days, the episode had had residents in Windsor bracing for the possible impact on a border city economy that depends on automotive and manufacturing jobs. The CBC's Jacob Barker went to Sterling Heights, Mich., where Ford and Stellantis, two major employers in Windsor, also have plants, to hear what residents there are thinking this week. Other differences arose over the years, but the unions also fed off of each others' victories, securing additional rights and benefits for their memberships. Tensions swelled in the 1980s amid a growing debate over strategy, when the American leadership of the union shifted toward a less aggressive position while the Canadian side wanted to maintain firm pressure on the auto companies. Rosenfeld called this the start of the era of "concession bargaining," when the American wing of the union, seeing competition from the Japanese auto industry, accepted concessions for promises of job security. "It was seen as a fundamental change, and here in Canada, we rejected that," he said. It was ultimately this difference in opinion that drove the creation of the Canadian Auto Workers by the mid-1980s. The North American Free Trade Agreement of the early 1990s provided fresh opportunities for tension between the two unions, Rosenfeld and Lewchuk said, by forcing workers in the U.S., Canada and now Mexico to compete against each other for work. Drawn to its cheaper labour, automotive manufacturers shifted some production south to Mexico, leading to job losses in the heavily unionized Rust Belt, while advancements in automation and robotics replaced people on assembly lines. UAW membership now sits at just under 400,000, a sharp decline from its peak of 1.5 million in the '70s. Big changes at the UAW In recent years, several UAW union leaders were convicted in corruption cases that included bribes from auto union executives and embezzlement of union funds. It was in the fallout of that scandal that the union changed its rules to give the rank and file more say in who becomes president. Each member now gets a vote, instead of a smaller group of officials electing the leader. The result was the election of Shawn Fain. Under his leadership, the UAW launched a historic simultaneous strike against the Big Three automakers in 2023, securing new contracts with sizable pay increases for members. Fain also wielded significant power during the 2024 presidential race, ultimately throwing the union's support behind Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. But Harris lost, particularly in traditionally Democratic strongholds like Michigan, where thousands of autoworkers live. America's shifting politics As job losses continued to mount after the 2008 financial crisis, blue collar workers who were historically reliable Democratic voters started to shift to the right – a shift that resulted in the partial collapse of the "Blue Wall" during Trump's first presidential win in 2016, and again last year. His campaign promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the American midwest have resonated with autoworkers in swing states like Michigan, which remains the country's automotive capital. "A lot of workers were sick and tired, and they were looking for some kind of alternative, even if it's a terrible right wing alternative," said Rosenfeld. "I'm just assuming that the leader of the UAW is cognizant of a lot of his members' perspectives on this." Still, Peter Frise, an automotive industry expert at the University of Windsor, said it's unclear exactly why the UAW has come out in favour of tariffs. "It's a little puzzling to see the UAW aligning itself with far-right Republican policy and sort of throwing their union brethren under the bus," Frise said. "But I guess you have to look at it from several different ways." Fair trade, not free trade: Unifor Lewchuk, the McMaster professor, says the UAW's position to support Trump's tariffs should be seen less as anti-Canada, and more "as a way of breaking the free trade paradigm," which "has not served workers anywhere." The UAW in its March 4 statement said the manufacturers should bear the brunt of tariffs. "The working class suffered all the pain of NAFTA, and we won't suffer all the pain of undoing NAFTA," their statement reads. Frise, whose background is in engineering, argues that free trade has been good for the continent, saying the agreements of the past few decades "have been absolutely incredible at bringing stability, prosperity and good things to the North American marketplace." "There's no question about it ... there have been problems and some people have gotten hurt," he said. "But in the main, for the large swath of North American industry and North American workers, free trade has been exactly the right thing." Frise and other industry experts have repeatedly noted that trying to disentangle the deeply interconnected supply chains would imperil both economies. "It would take years to do that, many years and cost countless hundreds of billions of dollars," Frise said. Frise also said the manufacturers don't have the profit margins to absorb tariffs at 25 per cent or more – especially since parts can cross the border several times before the car is finally assembled. At a certain point – some say it could be a matter of days – that cost becomes too much for the companies, especially smaller parts suppliers, leading to plant closures and job losses. Unifor says it would like to see issues hammered out during the mandated renegotiations of the USMCA – NAFTA's successor that was signed during Trump's first term – next year. Payne, the union's president, said she would like to focus on "fair" trade rather than free trade. "If that is your lens, then you will get a trade agreement that lifts the living standards of workers," she said. "I agree with the UAW, that is not what we got out of many of these trade agreements. But the reality is, that trade will still happen. So how do we make sure that that works for working people?" Lewchuk and Rosenfeld expressed support for "managed" trade agreements, such as the original Auto Pact between Canada and the U.S. in the 1960s. Rosenfeld says he would also like to see Canada move away from its closely intertwined economic relationship with the U.S. where possible. Lewchuk said "the real problem in the United States, to be frank, is the increasing inequality of distribution of what's produced." "The rich have made out like bandits in the United States, and they've left everyone else behind," he said. "I'm not seeing Trump reversing that trend. But there is a reason for optimism, he says. "We're at a moment where things are coming unraveled, and that's the moment when you can make progress," he said. |
German labor union accuses Breana Noble A German labor union warned Tuesday that Ford Motor Co.'s German subsidiary could face insolvency following an announcement of financial investment if economic conditions in Europe don't improve. The move is a "dirty trick" by management to pave the way for job cuts, according to a news release issued by David Lüdtke and Frank Koch, IG Metall chair shop stewards, and Kerstin Klein, chairwoman of IG Metall Köln-Leverkusen. They wrote that the company is terminating a "letter of comfort" that has existed since 2006. "Without it Ford Werke GmbH could face insolvency in the next few years if the economic situation does not improve and the parent company in the USA no longer covers the losses," they wrote. "This is supposed to put pressure on the works council in the most despicable way possible, in order to agree to the planned operational changes." Ford declined Tuesday to respond to the IG Metall statement. Since the end of November when Ford said it would cut 4,000 jobs in Europe by the end of 2027, it has planned to eliminate 2,900 positions in Cologne, according to IG Metall. Cologne is a city in the western part of the country where Ford has a body and assembly plant with 4,090 people, a transmission plant with 1,280 people, an engine plant with 810 people and a forging site with 410 people, according to Ford's website. An agreement between the company and the union, however, protects workers from layoffs until the end of 2032, according to IG Metall, which said it wouldn't discuss further job reductions without a future concept for the site. The Dearborn automaker on Monday said it's investing up to $4.8 billion (4.4 billion euro) in Ford Werke to address debt and fund a multi-year business plan to improve the automaker's competitiveness in Europe. The move, the company said, enables the retirement of a financial support letter, which has been in place since 2006, and aligns Ford’s support with its affiliates around the world. A challenging economic environment, bumpy road to electric vehicle adoption and increasing competition are complicating automotive sales in Europe. Ford's share of the passenger car market there dropped to 3.3% in 2024 from 4% in 2023, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association The automaker has focused its efforts on the commercial sector in Europe, where it has been the top-selling CV brand for 10 years with its Ford Pro division. Company leaders have promised to double down on that market. The union leaders added that the financial changes is a signal that the Cologne plant "is in acute danger" and said the union has initiated preparations for collective bargaining before Christmas. "Now there is no way around a collective dispute," they wrote. "We are determined and ready for battle!" Ford in its announcement of the investment this week said it has made $2 billion in investments in its Cologne plant for EV passenger vehicle production, including the Ford Explorer and Capri.
|
Why automakers' short Alexa St. John Detroit – President Donald Trump's short reprieve for U.S. automakers from stiff tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada isn't likely to allow enough time for those companies to make the changes necessary to minimize the damage from Trump's intensifying trade war. Trump granted a one-month exemption to 25% tariffs on vehicles and auto parts traded through the North American trade agreement USMCA after speaking with leaders of automakers Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the White House said Wednesday. Trump then broadened the exemption beyond autos for Mexico on Thursday. In response to concerns about the short timeline for auto companies, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt noted that Trump told the companies to “start investing, start moving, shift production here.” It's just not that simple Automakers “will be hit differently based on exactly where their supply chain is,” said John Paul MacDuffie, professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania. In particular, "GM and Ford have shrunk back from a formerly much more global footprint, but they still are global companies. “Of course, if the goal is to move a lot of production to the U.S.,” he added, “I guess you could. But I don’t see those changes happening quickly.” Automakers responded to Wednesday's news graciously. Ford said in a company statement: “We will continue to have a healthy and candid dialogue with the Administration to help achieve a bright future for our industry and U.S. manufacturing.” Both GM and Stellantis thanked Trump for the exemption in statements. Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council, which represents the three automakers, said he applauds the president "for recognizing that vehicles and parts that meet the high U.S. and regional USMCA content requirements should be exempt from these tariffs.” But with only a monthlong grace period, automakers know challenges lie ahead. Why is this so hard for auto companies? To be sure, as automakers spent decades expanding around the world, they frequently battled supply-related woes and policy changes that hindered production – and their bottom lines. A disaster halfway across the globe impacting one tiny component, with no easy or obvious supply alternative, can take down a vehicle's production for weeks. Contentious labor negotiations and work stoppages have put significant pauses on automaking for the domestic car companies. The COVID-19 pandemic also interrupted global supply chains and sent new and used vehicle inventory to disastrous lows on dealer lots, causing prices to skyrocket. “At least automakers have seen some version of this uncertainty,” said Hovig Tchalian, assistant professor at the University of Southern California. “I think this uncertainty is actually higher. But they’ve had some practice doing it.” Working in the favor of automakers are normalized, and in some cases, high levels of inventory of vehicles at dealerships; a healthy number of cars yet to be sold provides a buffer to any slowdown in production. But for years, automakers and their suppliers have kept a strategic amount of parts on hand – enough to account for disruptions but not so much that too much capital is tied up in components just sitting in warehouses. “What the 30 days will allow them to do is to analyze what kind of work in progress they’ve got, what kind of parts stock that they’ve got,” Martin French, partner at consultancy Berylls by AlixPartners, said of automakers and their supply companies. He noted that, generally, there has been a lot of progress in U.S. manufacturing. “But the reality is that just does not happen in the space of a couple of weeks,” he added. Compounding impact Those disruptions and others throughout the business's history have made it clear that automakers can only respond so quickly. The tariff exemption is no exception, given the ever-increasing complexity of assembly lines and manufacturing. Plants can't be moved, factories can't be built and product lines can't be changed overnight. And even with this pause, steel and aluminum tariffs are still expected to go into effect on March 12. Then, on April 2, Trump is expected to set broad “reciprocal” tariffs to match the taxes and subsidies charged by other countries on imports. Those would disrupt the automotive industry quickly and dramatically, said Sam Fiorani, an analyst at AutoForecast Solutions. “A substantial change in automotive free trade will hurt stock prices of all automakers because their profits will take a hit and consumers will face higher prices on vehicles, further diluting sales going forward,” he said. Not only do companies have to decide whether immediate changes in production are realistic, but if they’re unable to do that meaningfully, they might produce or sell fewer vehicles – sending new car buyers to other brands or the used market – and, ultimately, make less money. “The uncertainty that’s being created for the auto industry is going to inhibit investment as firms try to assess what the future looks like,” said Brett House, a professor at Columbia University’s business school, “and they have very little clarity on it.” |
Ford sales drop ahead of potential Breana Noble Ford Motor Co. on Monday said U.S. sales in February fell 8.9% year-over-year as it sees lower rental demand from a year ago, unloads older product and its largest plant in Kentucky is retooled for the next-generation Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator. The report from the Dearborn automaker comes as analysts expected the auto industry's February U.S. sales would recover from a slower January and send the seasonally adjusted annual rate of vehicles sales between 16.1 million and 16.3 million. It also comes on the eve of a deadline to place 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico if a deal is unable to be reached between the neighboring nations and the Trump administration — an event Ford CEO Jim Farley has said would "blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we have never seen." “Though we are still optimistic about market growth in 2025," Charlie Chesbrough, senior economist at vehicle information services firm Cox Automotive Inc., said in a statement, "policy changes regarding tariffs and battery electric vehicle credits by the new Trump administration could have significant negative effects on the current outlook.” Ford's February results reflect lower demand from daily rental companies compared to the higher sales rates a year ago, said Erich Merkle, Ford sales analyst. "Automakers have a daily rental channel that they sell to that is volatile from month to month depending on the timing on the orders," he said. "We do expect that to increase this year as we get into the second quarter, because the daily rental in the second quarter was lower last year." Ford started 2024 with a higher percentage of models on dealer lots at the start of the year compared to competitors as well as the discontinuation of the Edge crossover. To retool for new models, Ford also paused production of its popular Super Duty trucks and full-size SUVs at its Kentucky Truck Assembly plant. The company said in 2023, when the United Auto Workers struck the plant, that it generated about $25 billion a year — a seventh of Ford's global revenues that year. Expedition sales fell 48%, and the Navigator was down 17%. Its key profit-driving F-Series trucks, however, were up 14%, including a 7% increase in Super Dutys. That contributed to a best February and year-start for Ford pickups since 2004 as demand remains robust from commercial and retail customers, Merkle said. Ford's all-electric vehicle sales rose 15%, and hybrids increased 28% for a best-ever start to the year for electrification and a record February. But models with internal combustion engines, which represented 86% of deliveries, fell 13%. SUVs were down 24%, trucks rose 7.7% and the Mustang coupe was down 32%. Despite refreshes last year, Bronco Sport sales fell 6.3%, Explorer declined by 23% and Maverick dropped 23%. Escape rose 5.5%, and Bronco was up 20%. The electric Mustang Mach-E rose 13%. Ford is covering the cost of a Level 2 home EV charger and its standard installation through the end of the month for EV buyers. "It's been very successful for us," Merkle said about the Ford Power Promise program. "It's one of those obstacles. 'Where do I get it charged and how do I do this?' It's an objection a consumer might have. We've taken that away from them. We'll come in and install it at no cost. That really helps consumers make that choice to say, 'Yeah, an EV might work for me.'" Still, F-150 Lightning truck deliveries were down 15%, while the hybrid F-150 was up 32%. Sales of the E-Transit commercial van more than doubled as a part of the 3.5% increase overall in Transit vans, marking a record February. Ranger midsize truck sales totaled 4,448 after selling none last year from inventory depleted by the UAW's 2023 strike and the launch of an updated model. Lincoln sales fell 21% with all models down: 3.2% for the Corsair, 27% for the Nautilus and 30% for the Aviator. Ford builds several models in Mexico, including Maverick, Mach-E and Bronco Sport. Ford builds engines in both Canada and Mexico and has an electric powertrain center in Mexico. It's also expanding production starting next year of Super Dutys to its idled Oakville Assembly Complex in Ontario. Farley last month on an earnings call said Ford's wholesales are down 20% quarter over quarter, and the goal in the first half of the year is to get days of supply to below 60 days. Half of the company 's first-quarter sales are expected to be 2025 models, Chief Financial Officer Sherry House said. "We'll be in good shape after the first quarter," Farley said, adding about inventory: "It actually gets leaner after the second quarter." General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV will report first-quarter U.S. sales next month. Subaru Corp. on Monday said its February sales rose 4.1%, Hyundai Motor Co. achieved a record February sales month with a 3% increase and Kia Corp.'s were up 7.2%. |
Windsor on 'pins and needles' Trevor Wilhelm U.S. President Donald Trump makes good on his promise to impose punishing tariffs on Tuesday, billions of dollars in trade and thousands of jobs in Windsor-Essex alone will almost immediately be in peril. With additional tariffs on automotive, aluminum and steel products stacked on top, are expected to start taking effect Tuesday. As of print deadline Monday, tariffs were looming though, either way, Trump’s tariff threats keep adding stress in border towns like Windsor. “Everyone is sitting on pins and needles,” Ryan Donally, CEO of the Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce, told the Star. “The nervousness is there. We’ve got to hope that calmer heads prevail and that the folks that have the ear of Mr. Trump identify that this is not a positive situation for his own residents. “Not only does this majorly impact Windsor-Essex. This significantly disrupts the entire U.S. economy.” To deal with the fallout of a North American trade war and act as a unified voice for the region, the local chamber of commerce and Invest WindsorEssex created the Windsor-Essex Economic Trade Task Force. A recent study by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce found that Windsor could be the third-hardest hit city in Canada by U.S. tariffs, next to Calgary and Saint John, N.B. The demand in Windsor-Essex for goods and services from outside the region totals $62.6 billion annually, according to Invest WindsorEssex. The region also sends $42.1 billion in exports to outside jurisdictions every year, most of it to the U.S. Invest WindsorEssex lists 775 businesses in the region that export to the United States. The agency said Windsor-Essex motor vehicle manufacturing exports are worth about $9.8 billion a year. Automotive parts add another $4.5 billion. Local farms, particularly greenhouse operations, export nearly $4 billion worth of products. Metalworking machinery manufacturing accounts for more than $2.4 billion in exports. Other “general-purpose machinery manufacturing” exports are worth more than $1.2 billion. Those industries alone provide more than 20,000 local jobs. “We’re talking tens of thousands of jobs in Windsor-Essex that are tied to the export industry,” said Donally. “If all the tariffs come into force, including on the automotive industry, experts identify that within two weeks to three weeks post-tariff, a complete shutdown of the automotive industry. It might even be shorter. If that happens, we’re looking at thousands of people that could be laid off.” Trump announced 25 per cent tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico as of Tuesday. The Canadian government has stated it will impose tit-for-tat retaliatory tariffs. Trump initially planned to implement the tariffs against Canada on Feb. 4. He postponed them to March 4 following last-minute negotiations with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. But those tariffs are not the only problem. On Feb. 9, Trump announced a plan for 25 per cent tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports from any country. The White House has said those levies will be on top of the other across-the-board tariffs. That means steel and aluminum imports from Canada — the world’s largest exporter of those products to the U.S. — could be hit with 50-per-cent tariffs. Trump’s administration is also threatening a further 25 per cent tariff on automotive imports, which would be catastrophic for Windsor-Detroit, where parts cross the border multiple times during the manufacturing process. Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley has said such a move will “blow a hole” in the sector. General Motor chief financial officer Paul Jacobson warned that permanent tariffs could force auto companies to move operations out of Mexico and Canada. The White House has also confirmed reciprocal tariffs — essentially imposing the same levies on goods from any given country that imposes levies on U.S. imports — also go into effect on April 2. “Let’s make sure that the messaging comes loud and clear from us or within the U.S. population as a whole, for any of your American readers, that is not going to be good for any of us on both sides of the border,” said Donally. |
Ford hit with $2.5B verdict in Jozsef Papp Ford Motor Co. owes more than $2.5 billion to the family of a couple killed in a 2022 rollover crash in one of the company’s Super Duty trucks, a Georgia federal jury found, marking the largest verdict in Georgia history. The automaker now holds the dubious honor of having itself on the wrong end of the two largest verdicts in Georgia history, both of which were awarded in recent years. A jury in Columbus, Georgia, found that Ford was mostly at fault for the deaths of two people after their truck rolled over in an accident that occurred just days after a separate state court jury issued a $1.7 billion verdict against the automaker in a similar suit. That verdict was the previous record-high award in Georgia. Herman Mills, 74, and Debra Mills, 64, were driving in Decatur County on Aug. 22, 2022, in their 2015 Ford F-250 Super Duty truck when it rolled over and the roof crushed down on them, according to the suit. Debra Mills was driving the truck with Herman Mills in the passenger seat when the truck struck a driveway drainage culvert, causing the vehicle to go airborne for about 81 feet before smashing into the ground and flipping over, according to filings in the case. “It was only a half roll, yet the roof catastrophically collapsed into the passenger compartment,” James E. Butler, the lead attorney for the Mills family, said in a news release. Attorneys for the Mills’ children, James “Dusty” Brogdon, Ronald “Rusty” Brogdon and Jason Mills, had argued that the roofs of all 1999-2016 Super Duty trucks were “indisputably weak” compared to their F-150 models and said the roof on the Mills’ other F-250 from 2002 was similar but not the same. Ford argued that the deformation of the roof in the crash did not cause the couple’s death. “While our sympathies go out to the Brogdon family, the verdict is impermissibly extreme and not supported by the evidence,” a spokesperson said. The company noted that juries in other cases found that the roofs of the “Super Duty” trucks were not defective, and said Ford will appeal. The motor company also argued that Debra Mills suffered a cardiac attack as she was driving the vehicle, which Ford says caused her to crash in the first place. Butler, the attorney for the family, said that Debra Mills died on the scene but that it took first responders 26 minutes to pry Herman Mills out from under the collapsed roof and he died in a Florida hospital later. The jury, in the verdict form, assigned 85% of the fault for the Mills’ death to Ford with the remaining 15% given to Debra Mills. Dusty Brogdon, executor of the Mills’ estate, along with brothers Rusty Brogdon and Jason Mills, filed the lawsuit against Ford on May 23, 2023, in Harris County, but the case eventually wound up in federal court in Columbus, court records show. Dusty and Rusty were Debra’s children, while Jason was Herman’s child. “Ford has known for 26 years that people were getting killed and hurt by these weak roofs,” Butler said. “Ford has constantly refused to admit the danger or warn of the risk.” The jury rendered the verdict in two phases, one for compensatory damages on Thursday awarding $30.5 million and the other for punitive damages on Friday awarding the other $2.5 billion. The Mills crash happened just days after a Gwinnett County jury awarded a $1.7 billion verdict against Ford in a wrongful-death lawsuit stemming from a 2014 rollover crash involving another F-250 that killed Voncile and Melvin Hill. The Hills were driving from their Macon County home to Americus to pick up a tractor part when a tire blew out on a Sumter County highway in 2014 and their 2002 Ford F-250 Super Duty pickup rolled over. Butler also represented the Hill family in their trial. The verdict was later wiped out by the state’s Court of Appeals after the court found that the Gwinnett County judge improperly prevented Ford from arguing in the second trial that it was not liable in the deaths of the Hills. The whopping verdict on Friday comes as Gov. Brian Kemp pushes for an overhaul of Georgia’s legal system, including a proposal to reduce the amount juries can award and limit certain lawsuits. His proposal would limit when businesses can be sued for some injuries that occur on their properties, regulate how damages are calculated in personal injury cases, allow juries in some cases to consider whether someone was wearing a seat belt in determining awards and restrict outside groups from bankrolling litigation. Kemp said he believes some of the lawsuits have gotten out of hand in recent years, resulting in massive jury payouts. Neither the Hills’ nor the Mills’ families have been paid yet based on the awarded jury verdicts in the Ford cases. Kemp’s proposed legislation wouldn’t impact federal cases like the Mills’ case. Before the verdict awarded $1.7 billion to the Hills, Georgia’s largest verdict was from 27 years ago, when another Gwinnett jury imposed $457 million against Time Warner and affiliates in a contract dispute involving Six Flags Over Georgia. |
Ford offers $2,500 deductible Breana Noble Ford Motor Co. on Tuesday said it's offering up to $2,500 for one year on the latest gas and hybrid F-Series truck models with the Ford Security Package if the vehicle is stolen and not recovered or found with damage to cover insurance deductibles. Vehicle thefts have increased since the start of the pandemic as automotive prices and parts have risen and thieves have gotten access to better equipment. Reported U.S. incidents rose 25% over the past few years to 1.021 million in 2023, costing $8 billion, and carjackings were up in Michigan, as well, though data from the first half of 2024 suggests the thefts slowed, according to the Council on Criminal Justice. F-Series pickups typically are among the top 10 most-stolen vehicles. “Our vision for security at Ford is to one day build an un-stealable vehicle,” Christian Moran, general manager of safety and security services at Ford, said in a statement. “Thieves are using increasingly sophisticated methods to steal vehicles, and it’s important that our system simultaneously introduces physical, electronic, and communication-based barriers to a thief’s success. And if the worst happens to your vehicle, we’ll be there with insurance Deductible Reimbursement to make it right.” The most common vehicle insurance deductible is $500. Ford's security package is available on 2024-2025 F-150 (excluding the all-electric F-150 Lightning) and Super Duty trucks. They come with an initial one-year free trial, and enrollment is $7.99 per month after that. Thefts starting Feb. 3 are eligible for the insurance deductible reimbursement in 40 states, including Michigan, as well as Washington, D.C., but not in Canada. Customers must have a connectivity plan and the FordPass app with notifications turned on. Also new for retail customers with the package is "Start Inhibit." The feature allows owners to disable their vehicle in the FordPass app, preventing it from being started, even by someone with a key. The Dearborn automaker cites the ease of mind this can offer customers who leave a vehicle at the airport, have a rebellious teenager or desire additional security. The security package also includes theft and tampering notifications as well as a 24/7 hotline with agents who work with police to recover stolen vehicles. Ford plans to offer it on additional vehicles in future model years.
|
Ford cutting number of middle Breana Noble Ford Motor Co. is instituting a new structure for stock awards where roughly half of some middle managers eligible for the incentive aren't expected to receive it for 2024. The same population of more than 3,000 people globally is eligible for the awards, but fewer — about half of that number — are expected to receive grants of shares in March based on annual performance reviews under the new structure, according to two sources familiar with the matter who were not permitted to speak publicly on the topic. It's part of an effort to reward and retain high-performing employees, they said. Mid-level managers outside of this group are unaffected by the change. The legacy automotive industry is undergoing major changes in adapting to electrified and connected vehicles and facing disruptions from new competitors with new ways of doing business. It calls for cultural changes, different ways of thinking and the talent that can steer 100-year-old-plus companies under a transformative vision. General Motors Co. also has made changes around underperforming employees based on its performance management system and evaluations, including letting people go. At Ford, changes are being implemented to incentivize employees as the Dearborn automaker competes with other corporations for talent, the company said in a statement: "We are focused on driving a high-performance culture that recognizes and rewards employees for their business contributions." Ford reported net income in 2024 of $5.9 billion, up 37% year-over-year, but the Blue Oval is forecasting an up to 31% decrease in adjusted operating profit for 2025. Its shares are down about 25% from a year ago at about $9.25 as the automakers struggles with a bloated cost structure. Ford CEO Jim Farley, on an earnings call earlier this month, emphasized having the "best talent and best culture" at the company in its strategy to grow and improve financial results. Stock bonuses are seen as a method to help retain talent, as they vest over three years, though they are only part of a larger performance-evaluated compensation system that also includes cash payments. Ford has about 75,000 salaried employees globally. "My cynical reaction is this could be a way to get some people to quit given the focus is on middle managers," David Whiston, analyst at investment research firm Morningstar Inc., said in an email. "It’s also Farley sending a message that performance is not good enough and he’s trying to push managers to improve their respective areas. With continued profit underperformance versus GM, Farley probably does not want to say the status quo of continued stock awards for all managers is acceptable." Ford is planning another $1 billion in cost reductions in 2025, but the two sources said the changes to the stock grants are not a part of those efforts to decrease expenses. It was unclear how the value of the stock grants expected to be distributed for 2024 would compare to previous years. Reuters first reported the stock award changes. “They’re trying to adjust to a changing environment,” said Daniel Ives, analyst at financial services company Wedbush Securities Inc. “They’re prioritizing software developers, engineers and building out the next line of small EVs for 2027. It’s a shot across the bow, but these are small changes. I still believe Ford has a lot of growth ahead of itself.” Hourly U.S. Ford employees will receive profit-sharing bonuses of approximately $10,208 for 2024, though payments being distributed March 13 to the individual 57,000 eligible workers could be above or below that depending on compensated hours. |
Trump tariffs will 'blow a hole' Story by Brad Reed Ford CEO Jim Farley is warning President Donald Trump that his proposed 25 percent tariffs on Mexico and Canada are going to cause absolute havoc with the American auto industry. As reported by Wards Auto, Farley told a Wolfe Research investment conference this week that the auto industry so far has only seen "a lot of cost and a lot of chaos" from Trump in his second term, including not just his big proposed tariffs on America's two largest trading partners but also the tariffs he's already enacted on foreign steel and aluminum. He also said that a prolonged trade war throughout the entire North American continent would cause incalculable damage. "There’s no question that tariffs at a 25 percent level from Canada and Mexico, if they’re protracted, would have a huge impact on our industry, with billions of dollars of industry profits wiped out and an adverse effect on the U.S. jobs," he said. "Let's be real honest: Long term, a 25% tariff across the Mexico and Canada borders would blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we've never seen." He also said it would paradoxically be a win for the foreign auto companies that Trump has also vowed to target. "Frankly, it gives free rein to South Korean, Japanese and European companies that are bringing 1.5 million to 2 million vehicles into the U.S. that wouldn't be subject to those Mexican and Canadian tariffs," he said. "It would be one of the biggest windfalls for those companies ever."
|
Trump steps up his 2018 tariffs Josh Boak Washington — President Donald Trump on Monday removed the exceptions and exemptions from his 2018 tariffs on steel, meaning that all steel imports will be taxed at a minimum of 25%. Trump also hiked his 2018 aluminum tariffs to 25% from 10%. “We were being pummeled by both friend and foe alike,” Trump said as he signed two proclamations changing his orders during his first term. “It's time for our great industries to come back to America.” The moves are part of an aggressive push by the president to reset global trade, with Trump saying that tax hikes on the people and companies buying foreign-made products will ultimately strengthen domestic manufacturing. But the tariffs would hit allies as the four biggest sources of steel imports are Canada, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. The tariffs are expected to have major implications for the auto industry, which is a major consumer of aluminum and steel. In 2018, tariffs and materials cost increases represented roughly $1 billion in additional expenses for the likes of General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. The duties could increase the price of vehicles by hundreds to thousands of dollars, according to experts. Trump also intends this week to reset U.S. taxes on all imports to match the same levels charged by other countries. All of that comes on top of the 10% tariffs he already put on China, China's retaliatory tariffs that started Monday and the U.S. tariffs planned for Canada and Mexico that have been suspended until March 1. The tariffs carry inflation risks at a moment when voters are already weary of high prices and fearful that price increases will eclipse any income gains. Trump maintains that the tariffs will level the playing field in international trade and make U.S. factories more competitive, such that any pain felt by consumers and businesses would eventually be worthwhile. “'Fairness' is in the eye of the beholder, but the more fundamental question is whether the U.S. actually benefits from such new tariffs,” Benn Steil, director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based nonpartisan think tank, said in an email. “The costs to the U.S. will include higher prices to U.S. consumers, retaliatory tariffs abroad, and the loss of U.S. jobs and competitiveness in firms hit by higher input costs.” Steil noted that other countries are already adopting Trump's approach from his first term as the president imposes tariffs on the premise that the imports create national security risks. That's because national security-related tariffs are legally unchallengeable at the World Trade Organization, meaning that so far Trump's approach has encouraged other countries to increase trade barriers. “Not surprisingly, everything from ‘door frames’ to ‘alcoholic beverages’ have of late been subject to new import barriers in the developing world on the grounds of national security,” Steil said. Of the roughly 29 million net tons of steel imported into the United States last year, a little under 2% came from China. But the White House maintains that exemptions to the tariffs provided over the previous four years by the Biden administration enabled steel and aluminum from China and Russia to go through other nations to reach the United States. While the tariffs could help the finances of steel mills and aluminum smelters, they could also increase costs for the manufacturers that use the metals as raw materials to make autos, appliances and other products. Glenn Stevens Jr., executive director of MichAuto, said that the auto industry would likely need to raise prices in response to the tariffs. In turn, higher prices would decrease sales and hurt company's bottom lines, leading to fewer factory jobs. “If you look at sudden tariffs to a system, there isn’t a lot of good that comes out of that,” said Stevens, his remarks challenging Trump's own statements that his policies would stimulate massive gains in auto industry jobs. Light vehicle production in the United States largely uses North American-sourced aluminum and steel, but tariffs could allow U.S. producers to increase their prices, said David Whiston, analyst at financial services company Morningstar Inc. After Trump introduced tariffs in March 2018, automakers adjusted their profit guidance for the year. With the aluminum tariff larger this time, that could especially impact vehicles like Ford F-Series pickups with aluminum bodies. “Are they going to do something right away or during first-quarter earnings?” Whiston said. “They might be thinking the tariffs will go away. I don’t think these will. They’re not tied to fentanyl or illegal immigration or any other topic.” Ahead of Trump announcing the tariffs on Monday, the Detroit Three automakers didn't have comment on the expected duties. Any limitation on raw materials such as steel and aluminum could quickly slow vehicle production and limit availability at dealerships, said Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions Inc. "You can’t quickly replace imported steel and aluminum," he said. "You can't get (materials) production up and running very fast. You need millions of dollars for hiring extra people and pulling plants out of mothballs to get the capacity up to replace all the lost volume. In the meantime, it's less expensive to raise the price (of vehicles) and absorb the tariff." The White House has yet to fully counter economic analyses showing that tariffs would hurt growth and intensify inflation, only saying that such analyses are incomplete without including the full extent of Trump's planned income tax cuts and regulatory curbs. But Trump has yet to propose a budget plan that would flesh out his policies so that economists can judge them. Consumers already appear to be anticipating that inflation will become a bigger problem. On Friday, the preliminary February results from the University of Michigan Survey of Consumers found that year-ahead inflation expectations jumped to 4.3% from 3.3% a month prior. The government inflation report scheduled to be released on Wednesday is expected by economists to show consumer prices rising at 2.8%, which would suggest that the public sees tariffs as a major risk to their financial wellbeing. The stock prices of steel companies climbed sharply on Monday as investors assumed the tariffs would increase their profits. Cleveland-Cliffs, which wants to buy Pittsburgh’s U.S. Steel, close up 18%. U.S. Steel climbed 4.8%. Nucor increased 5.6%, and Steel Dynamics rose about 5%. But companies that rely on steel and aluminum saw their share prices decrease, since tariffs mean that the cost of their raw materials could increase. For example, shares in General Motors fell 1.7%, which could ultimately signal trouble for a manufacturing sector that Trump has promised to revive. “We have far more steel and aluminum-consuming businesses, think construction, machinery and equipment manufacturing, auto manufacturing, than we do steel and aluminum producers, so the advantage created for the producers comes at a much greater cost to downstream users,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the right-leaning Tax Foundation. Trump reiterated as he signed the proclamations that more tariffs would be coming on computer chips, autos and pharmaceutical drugs. But the president said that the import taxes would eventually enable more steel mills and aluminum plants to open in the U.S. to avoid the tariffs. “You're ultimately going to have a price reduction because they're going to make their steel here,” said Trump, adding that there would also be more jobs. Howard Lutnick, Trump's pick to be commerce secretary, said that the original 2018 tariffs created 120,000 jobs. It wasn't clear how he reached that number. The primary metals industry added roughly 14,000 jobs during the first 12 months the steel and aluminum tariffs were originally imposed, though gains were quickly erased by the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Panos Kouvelis, a professor specializing in supply chains at Washington University in St. Louis, co-wrote a research paper last year finding that the 2018 tariffs did not deliver as Trump had promised. “Simple economics will tell you if prices go up then demand will go down,” Kouvelis said, stressing that what was needed instead were incentives that were specific to advanced technologies, national security needs and pharmaceutical needs. “It requires smart, targeted industrial policies,” he said, "instead of general tariffs on everything.” |
GM, Ford shares are cheap for Esha Dey General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. are among the cheapest stocks in the S&P 500 Index. But that doesn’t make them buying opportunities, say Wall Street analysts, who are rapidly souring on the century-old carmakers’ shares as risks around their outlooks grow. The share of sell recommendations from analysts covering GM and Ford is currently at the highest level in at least a decade. More than 9% of analysts covering GM have a sell rating on the stock, the largest share since 2015, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. For Ford, 27% analysts recommend selling, the highest since 2010, which is as far back as the data goes. Both companies reported earnings recently — Ford on Wednesday, and GM last week — with Ford warning of sharply reduced profit this year on lower vehicle prices and costs from new-model launches, and GM unveiling an improved outlook profit that failed to cheer investors. Weighing on the shares of both, though, are worries about the potentially damaging effect of tariffs under President Donald Trump, which has sparked a slide in the stocks. The auto industry is widely considered to be one of the most vulnerable to tariffs, given carmakers’ sprawling global supply chains. But their problems go deeper than that. There’s also the longer-term challenge that traditional automakers face as they seek to transform their businesses to compete in an industry moving toward electric vehicles and self-driving cars — areas where competitors such as Tesla Inc., China’s BYD Co. Ltd and Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo are far ahead. “We are not a buyer here because the traditional automotive business, which is a tough business to begin with, is about to get disrupted,” said Ivana Delevska, chief investment officer at Spear Invest. Shares of GM traded at 4.3 times its 12-month forward earnings as of Thursday’s close, while Ford traded at six times. The average price-to-earnings multiple for the S&P 500 Index is 22. Both stocks closed down Friday: GM off 1.1% to $47.39 per share and Ford off 0.2% to $9.24 per share. “There might be the risk of a value trap,” Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Steve Man and Peter Lau said. “The stocks are cheap but fundamentals are not looking good, the industry is getting a shake-up and the businesses are low margin.” Analysts’ profit and revenue growth expectations for the two companies are dismal as well. After a 38% climb in annual profit for 2024, GM’s adjusted earnings per share are projected to rise just 4.5% in 2025, and revenue is seen falling more than 3%, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. For Ford, the picture is gloomier. Adjusted EPS this year is expected to drop 18% on a 0.8% dip in revenue, the data show. For the time being, though, the tariff headlines will likely roil these stocks the most. Shares of GM and Ford have remained depressed even after Trump delayed his plan to implement 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods. A new 10% levy against China did go through this week. The trade problems have reappeared for U.S. automakers at a time when they have already been grappling with slowing demand for electric cars in which they had invested heavily as well as higher development costs and warnings from industry watchers that prices of U.S. vehicles have climbed so much that consumers will soon find it hard to afford them. If the tariffs proposed by Trump against Canada and Mexico are actually imposed, they will further raise the cost of making cars, with Bloomberg Intelligence estimating a jump of at least $3,500 in cost per vehicle. Companies typically pass on these higher costs to the buyers. “While the delayed implementation of the tariffs gives carmakers additional time to plan their responses, the prolonged uncertainty complicates the U.S. autos sector from an investment standpoint,” Bernstein analyst Daniel Roeska wrote in a note this week. Given the lack of clarity on the issue right now, it would be best for investors to wait until there’s information on policy negotiations, he added. |
Ford posts profit increase in Breana Noble Ford Motor Co.'s net income increased 37% year-over-year in 2024 to $5.9 billion, with the automaker reversing a fourth-quarter loss in the fourth quarter of the prior year and beating Wall Street expectations. For the full year, the Dearborn automaker recorded a $10.2 billion adjusted operating profit, a 5.5% margin, on revenue of $185 billion, which was up 5% from 2023 and marked Ford's highest revenue year. Although the operating profit fell 1.9% and margin was down from 5.9%, Ford still finished above its $10 billion forecast and surpassed average analyst predictions, according to Yahoo Finance." Analysts were expecting revenue of $175 billion and earnings of $1.79 per share. Ford recorded adjusted earnings per share of $1.85 for the year. Market conditions, however, have resulted in Ford forecasting a less profitable year in 2025 as pricing competitiveness and high interest rates affect consumers. Policies related to tariffs and tax credits face changes under President Donald Trump, but that is not reflected in the guidance for adjusted operating profit of $7 billion to $8.5 billion. That would be a 17% to 31% decrease from 2024. The Blue Oval also forecasted first-quarter operating earnings to be break-even because of lower volumes and unfavorable product mix related to launches at Kentucky Truck and Michigan Assembly plants. “In 2025, we expect to make significantly more progress on our two biggest areas of opportunity— quality and cost — as we enter the heart of our Ford+ transformation," CEO Jim Farley said in a statement. "We control those key profit drivers, and I am confident that we are on the right path to create long-term value for all our stakeholders.” Ford achieved a $1.8 billion net income in the last three months of 2024, reversing a half-a-billion-dollar loss from the year prior on $48.2 billion in revenue, which was up 5%. Adjusted operating income for the quarter was up 91% to $2.1 billion. Last year, Ford Blue, the company's internal combustion engine and hybrid vehicle business, posted operating income down 29% to $5.284 billion and a 5.2% operating margin. The automaker had predicted $5 billion in earnings from Ford Blue after decreasing the outlook twice last year. It expects $3.5 billion to $4 billion in operating earnings from Ford Blue in 2025. Ford Pro, the commercial vehicle business, reported $9.015 billion in operating income, up 25% year-over-year, and a 13.5% operating margin. Ford has predicted $9 billion in earnings from the division. The outlook is between $3.5 billion and $4 billion from Ford Blue in 2025. And the loss posted by Ford Model e, the business unit dedicated to electric vehicles, was $5.076 billion compared to $4.701 billion in 2023. The company said it expected to lose $5 billion on Model e in 2024 after idling its plant in Dearborn producing unprofitable F-150 Lightning trucks from mid-November to the end of the year to preserve earnings. The company expects another $5 billion to $5.5 billion loss from Model e in 2025. Ford Blue posted operating income of $1.581 billion in the fourth quarter. Ford Pro's was $1.629 billion, and Model e lost $1.389 billion. Ford will pay a 15-cent regular and 15-cent supplemental dividend on March 3 to shareholders of record on Feb. 18. Beating expectations last week, crosstown rival General Motors Co. made $6 billion in net income on revenue of $187.4 billion. Stellantis NV will reports second-half and full-year 2024 financial results on Feb. 16 before markets open in Europe. Ford profit sharing: Here's Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday it will pay profit-sharing bonuses of approximately $10,208 to hourly autoworkers in the United States for 2024. The total amount for employees could be above or below that depending on compensated hours for the 57,000 eligible employees. The amount is just below the $10,400 average checks for Ford workers last year. Autoworkers can expect to receive the payouts on March 13. The Dearborn automaker recorded an adjusted operating income of $10.2 billion in 2024, which was down 2% year over year. That figure is plugged into the profit-sharing formula negotiated in 2023 during contract talks with the United Auto Workers. Since the Dearborn automaker no longer reports financial results for North America, the formula calculates the payout based on the company's global earnings figures, including Ford Credit. The negotiations also made temporary employees eligible for profit sharing. Last week, crosstown rival General Motors Co. said it would pay its 48,000 eligible hourly workers up to $14,500 in profit sharing, a record in the payments. Stellantis NV will report its 2024 financial results and profit sharing for U.S. employees on Feb. 26. |
Ontario PCs net first-ever Feb 2, 2025 Unifor Local 1285, representing auto workers in Brampton, say the Ford Conservatives will stick up for Ontario's auto workers Bryan Passifiume Unifor Local 1285 – representing workers from various industries in Brampton, including city automotive workers – issued an endorsement of Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives on Saturday, the first time a Unifor local has publicly declared support for the party. “With the expansion of Ontario’s electric vehicle industry and investments in the Stellantis Brampton Assembly plant and the Windsor Assembly plant, we are protecting good-paying jobs and securing the future for all our members and workers across the province,” said Vito Beato, president of the local representing over 8,000 workers. “Along with the continued support and investment to our action centre and our members at local 1285, Doug Ford and his government have shown strong dedication to protecting our auto industry in Ontario, workers and their families.” In a statement, Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford said he’s honoured to have the local’s support. “With the support of Ontario workers and a strong, stable mandate for the next four years, our Ontario PC team will continue to invest in the skilled trades and create new jobs and opportunities for workers here in Brampton and across the province,” he said. Northumberland-Peterborough South PC Candidate David Piccini, who served as labour minister in the Ford government, told the Toronto Sun that Local 1285’s endorsement is a sign the party’s message is resonating with unions. “We’re growing our labour coalition in a big way,” he said. “The NDP have abandoned workers in these automotive towns, they’re focused on issues that just aren’t core to the fundamental concerns of workers, which os affordability, and ultimately their jobs and job protection – and that’s where Premier Ford squarely is, when you look at the global threat that Donald Trump’s tariffs pose.” Samia Hashi, Unifor’s Ontario regional director, told the Sun the union as a whole routinely doesn’t endorse any one party in elections, but instead will remain focused on protecting workers. “Trump’s tariffs have just thrown our economy into a crisis, putting millions of workers’ livelihoods at risk,” she said. “We will engage with all parties to push for commitments that will protect Canadian jobs in the face of punishing tariffs, defend our economy, and deliver much needed improvements to health care, child care, and other key social services.” Other unions and locals who’ve tossed their support behind the PCs include the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA,) the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB.) |
They should have listened by Judy Rebick Almost 40 years ago, the Left was warning about the consequences of tying Canada economically to the US. The election of Donald Trump is showing just how accurate those warnings were. It’s a delicious if painful irony that it was the Left that warned about the dangers of economic integration with the U.S. decades ago. In 1987 a broad coalition of organizations formed to fight Prime Minister Brian Muroney’s free trade agreement with the U.S. Realizing that integration with the American economy would lead to lost jobs and less political autonomy, they invited a broad spectrum of groups into the Pro-Canada, later Action Canada Network. Unions, churches, the Assembly of First Nations, the newly formed Council of Canadians and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women united across serious differences to jointly oppose Free Trade. The free trade agreement with the U.S. was the beginning of implementing neo-liberalism in Canada. Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher had done the job in the U.S. and England, but Canada remained a more social democratic country. Brian Mulroney set out to change that. The co-chairs when I got involved were Maude Barlow, the leader of the Council of Canadians and a former Liberal and Tony Clarke who was at the time a senior staff person with the Conference of Catholic Bishops. This was during the pro-choice struggle and yet we managed to build a coalition against free trade at the same time as we were fighting each other in the streets over abortion. It was an extraordinarily diverse coalition that included nationalists who believed Canada was already too dependent on the US, labour who were most concerned with job loss in the manufacturing sector, feminists who focussed on female job loss and what would be a downward pressure on our social programmes, and I think it’s fair to say at the time none of the non-Indigenous groups were very educated on Indigenous issues. The divisions between the international and national unions was very deep but they managed to overcome them to unite against free trade “We said then – and now are proven right- that integrating our economy into that of a super-power ten times our size was a mistake. In the 1970’s, manufacturing accounted for close to 25% of our GDP, now it’s down to 10%,” Maude told me recently. “Make no mistake president Donald Trump’s tariff threats are really about Canada’s resources, especially rare minerals and water.” Marjorie Cohen, a feminist economist who was on the employment committee of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, NAC, did the work to show not only that women’s jobs, for example in the textile industry, would be lost but also that there would be pressure to cut back on our social programmes to be in line with the U.S. In retrospect, she had a clearer analysis of the impact of neo-liberalism than almost anyone else. NAC, the largest feminist coalition at the time, was actively involved in the free trade fight from the beginning. The Coalition against Free Trade in Toronto that preceded the ACN often met in the NAC offices in Toronto. It was easier to build a coalition in those days both because there were more national organizations, the unions were more militant, and Maude Barlow was brilliant at dealing with differences at the table. But also, the differences were greater. One of the biggest divisions was between the Canadian Labour Congress unions that included many American unions, like the Canadian Auto Workers who later broke from the US union and is now Unifor, and a strictly Canadian labour movement organized by progressives in Quebec and English Canada that didn’t want to be part of big U.S. unions. But also, we were a little more enthusiastic about big debates, many of which happened but didn’t break up the coalition. Nevertheless, we all opposed free trade knowing that it would make us too dependent on the United States for everything. The 1988 election became known as the Free Trade election because it was by far the dominant issue. During the leaders debate in 1988, John Turner, then Liberal leader said, “We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.” With both the Liberals and the NDP opposing free trade, we won a majority of votes against the Free Trade Agreement in the 1988 election, but the free trade Tories won because of our undemocratic electoral system. By the time the Liberals came to power in 1994, Mulroney had just signed NAFTA, including Mexico in the free trade deal. The Liberals supported NAFTA even though they had opposed free trade in 1988. The coalition we built against free trade morphed into the anti-globalization movement a decade later. Unions and young activists mobilized around the world against the institutions of corporate globalization. They argued that those institutions were taking power away from the nation state. While the target of corporate globalization was a good one, the nation states in the global north maintained their power and now we see a far right-wing president who seems intent on crashing the current system of international capitalism to suit his own quest for power and the interests of his billionaire bros. And as we see in the U.S. and European countries where far-right governments have come to power, we can’t really rely on the government to lead us out of this crisis. There is no doubt that neo-liberal capitalism is in crisis, combined with the crisis of world governance through the continued insistence of most Western governments to support Israel despite the international courts’ charges of genocide. We are in the worst global crisis since the 1930’s. These are revolutionary times, but my fear is like in Germany and Italy in the 1930’s, it’s the fascists and alt right who will benefit because the Left is so weak. With the rapid transformation of the economic system into what Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis calls techno feudalism, the Left has been left behind, unable to envision a different future that could provide a decent living for everyone and divided by purist politics and in Canada by the ability of the Justin Trudeau government to co-opt most opposition from NGO’s. Now that our economy is so integrated into the U.S. economy, Trump’s tariffs could be catastrophic both for Canadian and American workers. Jim Stanford, who was part of the anti-globalization movement as a researcher for the Canadian Autoworkers now Unifor, is writing some important pieces on how Canada can resist the tariffs. And Premiers, the federal cabinet and the soon not to be Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are holding emergency meetings and consulting with a special committee that includes business and labour. But we cannot rely on government, whoever is in government, to resist the changes that Trump is pushing. We need another cross-sectoral, intersectional coalition of groups that can organize against the rise of fascism in the United States and possibly here in Canada. And a vision for what the future should look like. The Green New Deal was a good start but we need more. |
GM profit sharing: Here's the Breana Noble General Motors Co. will deliver record profit-sharing payouts of up to $14,500 this year to about 48,000 eligible hourly workers, according to the company's financial results released Tuesday. The previous record of up to $12,750 for about 42,300 eligible hourly employees was set in 2023. Last year, GM paid roughly 45,000 workers up to $12,250. United Auto Workers Vice President Mike Booth said in a letter to members the payments would be distributed on Feb. 28. The payouts will amount to $640 million in cost for the company, GM CEO Mary Barra said in a letter to shareholders. "That’s a record payout of up to $14,500 per person," she wrote, "equal to more than two months of extra pay on average for our UAW-represented team." For every $1 billion GM makes in North America, the automaker's hourly U.S. employees receive $1,000, according to the Detroit automaker's agreement with the United Auto Workers. GM made about $14.258 billion in North America in 2024, up 18% year-over-year. "Our membership performed beyond all expectations," Booth wrote. "It is our members' skillfulness that made this profit possible, as they produce the finest products in the world., right here in the U.S.A." During the UAW talks with the Detroit Three automakers in 2023, the union retained its profit-sharing formula with GM and negotiated profit-sharing payouts for temporary employees. In the 2019 agreement, the parties removed a $12,000 cap on profit sharing, paving the way for higher payments like those for 2025. Barra's letter also noted global salaried employees will receive "strong performance bonuses" and that investors earned a 50% total return for 2024. Ford Motor Co. reports its earnings, including profit sharing, after the market closes on Feb. 5. Stellantis NV reports before markets open in Europe on Feb. 26. |
You could owe taxes on federal Story by MTL Blog Staff Tax season is creeping up again, and if you received federal benefit payments in 2024 — like the GST/HST Credit, Canada Child Benefit, Employment Insurance and more — you might be wondering how they'll affect your income tax return. It's important to know that while some government payments are tax-free, others need to be declared on your 2024 tax return — and not knowing the difference could lead to a surprise when it's time to file with the Canada Revenue Agency. The good news? Some credits might even reduce how much tax you owe or help you snag a refund! Canadians can officially start filing their 2024 returns online on Monday, February 17 this year, with the deadline for most people set for Wednesday, April 30. This is also the deadline to pay any taxes you owe, so make sure to note the date to avoid facing penalties. Here's the full breakdown of which federal benefit payments are tax-free and which ones you'll need to claim on your 2024 income tax return. GST/HST Credit The GST/HST Credit is like a little bonus that comes every quarter. It's a tax-free payment designed to help individuals and families with low or modest incomes offset the cost of GST or HST. Think of it as a way to ease the pinch from everyday spending. The good news? You don't need to include this payment on your tax return because it's not taxable. However, if you want to get this credit, you have to file your tax return. The Canada Revenue Agency automatically checks your eligibility when you file, so skipping your taxes means missing out on these payments. Canada Pension Plan The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension is a monthly benefit that helps replace a portion of your income when you retire. Unlike most government payments, this one is taxable, so you'll need to include it as income when you file your taxes. The CRA will send you a T4 or NR4 tax slip to use when filing your return. It's important to note that taxes also aren't automatically deducted from your CPP payments. If you'd prefer to avoid a larger tax bill down the line, you can ask to have federal income tax deducted from your monthly payments online in your My Service Canada Account or by mailing in a form. Otherwise, you may have to make quarterly tax payments to the CRA to stay on top of your income tax obligations. Planning ahead can make it easier to manage the tax side of your retirement income, so it’s worth looking into your options for tax deductions. Canada Child Benefit Raising kids isn't cheap, and that's where the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) comes in. This monthly payment is designed to help eligible families cover the costs of raising children under 18. The best part? CCB payments — including any related Child Disability Benefit amounts in your payment — aren't taxable, so you won't get a tax slip for them and you don't need to include them on your tax return. But here's the catch — to keep those payments coming, you and your partner need to file your tax returns on time every year, even if your income is tax-exempt or you didn't make any money. Miss the deadline, and your CCB payments could stop until you get things sorted out. So, if this benefit helps cover the cost of little ones in your household, make sure tax time is on your radar! Old Age Security The Old Age Security (OAS) pension is a monthly payment available to Canadians aged 65 and older. Eligibility depends on how long you've lived in Canada after turning 18, not on your work history. You can receive OAS even if you have never worked or are still working. Like with the CPP, OAS payments are considered taxable income, and taxes aren't automatically deducted each month. If you want to avoid a larger tax bill later, you can request federal income tax deductions from your monthly payments through your My Service Canada Account or by sending in a form. Without this, you may need to make quarterly tax payments. At the beginning of each year, you'll receive a T4 slip (for those living in Canada) or an NR4 slip (for recipients outside of Canada) showing the amount you received the previous year. Be sure to include this slip when you file your income tax return. Canada Workers Benefit The Canada Workers Benefit (CWB) is a refundable tax credit that gives a financial boost to individuals and families earning a low income. This means that not only can it reduce the taxes you owe, but if the credit exceeds what you owe, the extra amount is refunded to you. If you're eligible for a refund through the CWB, you'll get half of your credit when you file your return, and the other half will be split into three advance payments throughout the year through the Advanced Canada Workers Benefit (ACWB). You don't need to apply for these advance payments, but you do need to file your tax return so the CRA can assess your eligibility. If you're entitled to the CWB, you'll see it on line 45300 of your tax return. The CRA will handle the rest, ensuring any advanced payments reach you without additional paperwork. Employment Insurance If you received Employment Insurance benefits in 2024 — including maternity or parental leave payments — you'll get a T4E tax slip. This slip outlines the total benefits you received, the income tax already deducted and any repayments toward an overpayment, if applicable. It's important to know that EI benefits count as taxable income for the year they're paid. For instance, if your claim began in late 2023 but payments only came through in 2024, that income is taxable for 2024. Some federal and provincial taxes are deducted at the source, but your final tax owed is calculated when you file your tax return. If you're concerned about owing taxes at the end of the year, you can request that more tax be deducted from your EI payments by contacting ESDC or visiting a Service Canada Centre. |
Feds expand probe into Ford Grant Schwab Washington — The federal government is expanding an investigation into Ford Motor Co.'s driver assistance technology after two fatal crashes involving BlueCruise-equipped Mustang Mach-E vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration initially opened its investigation in April 2024 to assess BlueCruise, Ford's partial driving automation system available on certain vehicles. "System limitations relating to the detection of stationary vehicles while traveling at highway speeds and in nighttime lighting conditions appear to be factors in collisions under investigation and several apparently similar near-miss, non-crash reports," NHTSA found. The findings of the next investigative stage will be of great interest to the Dearborn automaker, owners of the 2.5 million Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with tech inside the scope of NHTSA's probe, and other companies that have rolled out automated driver features in recent years. The regulator's analysis will determine if a safety recall is necessary and could help influence the development of driver assistance features across the industry. Ford describes BlueCruise as a hands-free driver assistance feature to "help make driving easier, more enjoyable, and less stressful." It is available on 130,000 miles of divided highways across North America, per the company. Most BlueCruise-enable vehicles also have lane-centering assist technology. Those vehicles, according to NHTSA, use a combination of camera and radar sensing technologies to detect and classify objects as part of adaptive cruise control and pre-collision assist features. BlueCruise-equipped vehicles also use a camera-based monitoring system to make sure drivers remain attentive to the roads. NHTSA noted that Ford, which has cooperated with the investigation, designed its adaptive cruise control feature to "inhibit any response to reported stationary objects when the subject vehicle’s approach speed is at or above 62 mph. Additionally, system performance may be limited when there is poor visibility due to insufficient illumination." Those design choices were purposeful, Ford told the regulator, to avoid the "false detection of stationary objects at long distances." In both of the fatal collisions that NHTSA looked into, the subject Mach-E vehicle was "traveling over 70 mph on a controlled-access highway during nighttime lighting conditions with hands-free BlueCruise engaged when it collided with a stationary vehicle." The regulator continued: "Analysis of data imaged from the vehicles’ event data recorders demonstrates that in each incident, the driver did not apply the brakes or take evasive steering action, and no deceleration was initiated by either the BlueCruise system or PCA prior to impact." NHTSA's preliminary investigation also identified four other frontal collisions wherein Ford vehicles, including two Mach-E vehicles, collided with a stopped or slow-moving object in a travel lane. One of the fatal crashes, which occurred in Philadelphia in March 2024, happened with an intoxicated driver at the wheel. Investigators at the National Transportation Safety Board said they believe the other fatal crash, in San Antonio, Texas, in February 2024, occurred when a Mach-E struck a Honda CR-V that was stopped in the middle lane with no lights on. "We are working with NHTSA to support this investigation," Ford spokesperson Amy Mast said in a Tuesday statement to The Detroit News. The findings of the initial NHTSA probe and justification for a full engineer analysis, opened Jan. 17, are available on the agency's website. |
US agency sues two automakers, Story by Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Friday sued two large automakers, accusing General Motors and the United Auto Workers of age discrimination and the Stellantis unit that includes Chrysler of subjecting female employees to sexual harassment. GM and the UAW were accused of having since October 2019 maintained a sickness-and-accident benefits policy under their collective bargaining agreement that reduces payouts to older employees who receive Social Security benefits. The EEOC said the policy, covering at least 50 GM facilities nationwide, discriminates against employees ages 66 and older, violating the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Stellantis' FCA US unit, meanwhile, was accused of having since December 2020 tolerated pervasive sexual harassment of female employees at a Detroit assembly plant, and routinely ignored their complaints about male supervisors and co-workers, some of whom were placed in leadership roles. The EEOC said the alleged harassment included inappropriate touching and sexually charged comments, and together with FCA's failure to discipline male harassers created a hostile work environment that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. GM had no immediate comment, having yet to review its complaint. FCA and the UAW did not immediately respond to requests for comment about their respective cases. The GM and UAW lawsuit seeks to recoup benefits that workers ages 66 and older deserved but never received, while the FCA lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for female employees at the Detroit plant. Both lawsuits also seek permanent injunctions against further wrongful conduct. GM and the UAW were sued in the federal court in New Albany, Indiana, while FCA was sued in Detroit federal court. The lawsuits are part of a string of enforcement actions by several federal agencies in the final days of the Biden administration. It is unclear how EEOC enforcement priorities will change after President-elect Donald Trump enters the White House. |
Ford Closes German Factory This Story by Camilla Jessen After 57 years, Ford is shutting down its car factory in Saarlouis, Germany. This closure not only halts the production of iconic models like the Escort, Capri, Fiesta, and Focus but also leaves thousands of workers facing an uncertain future. The Saarlouis factory, which has been a cornerstone of Ford’s operations since 1968, will stop producing cars by November. The final vehicle to roll off the line will be the Ford Focus, marking the end of an era for the plant, which currently produces about 600 cars daily. Ford’s attempts to find a buyer for the factory last year were unsuccessful, leaving the company no choice but to close the facility. This decision is part of Ford’s strategy to shift its focus toward electric vehicles, SUVs, and larger pickup trucks made primarily in the U.S. As a result, other Ford plants in Europe, including those in Spain and the UK, are also seeing cuts. While Ford exits Saarlouis, the factory won’t remain empty for long. Pharmaceutical company Vetter is set to take over the site. Vetter plans to create up to 2,000 jobs, giving many former Ford workers a chance to transition into a new industry. “We aim to provide new career opportunities in a future-focused industry,” said Udo J., as reported by Automobilwoche and Boosted. However, the new jobs won’t cover all of the 4,000 positions lost at Ford, leaving many workers in limbo. The closure hits Saarland, a region with deep ties to the automotive industry, especially hard. With thousands of families depending on jobs linked to Ford, the loss creates widespread uncertainty. For decades, the Saarlouis factory played a key role in Ford’s success, producing some of the brand’s most popular models. It started with the Escort, moved on to the Capri and Fiesta, and more recently, the Focus. But as Ford pivots to electric vehicles, the production of the new electric Capri will take place in Cologne, leaving Saarlouis behind. |
Uncertainty over Trump's Damian J. Troise New York — Electric vehicle demand is expected to keep rising this year, but uncertainty over policy changes and tariffs is clouding the forecast. S&P Global Mobility expects global sales of 15.1 million battery electric vehicles in 2025, which would mark a 30% jump. Battery electric vehicles are expected to make up 16.7% of the market share for light vehicles. Tesla Inc., BYD Auto Co. of China, and other manufacturers face big unknowns in 2025. Donald Trump's presidency could mean big policy shifts in tax and other incentives for both electric vehicle makers and consumers. The threat of tariffs on imports and retaliatory tariffs globally, could further complicate production and sales for electric vehicles. “There's just a lot of uncertainty in the air,” said Stephanie Brinley, associate director of auto intelligence at S&P Global Mobility. “It's not an environment where you want to necessarily go gangbusters.” In the U.S., consumers can currently claim a federal tax benefit of up to $7,500 for certain new electric vehicles. Carmakers also benefited from some federal support for electric vehicle production and infrastructure. It's possible for all of that to get cut under President-elect Donald Trump. Overall sales are expected to grow modestly in the United States in 2025. Automotive digital services provider Cox Automotive Inc. recently projected this year will see 16.3 million sales in the U.S., which would be the best year since 2019 Trump condemned the federal tax credit for electric vehicles while campaigning for the presidency. He called it part of a “green new scam” that would would hurt the auto industry. Still, the incoming administration is expected push for broader deregulation of industries, which could potentially help carmakers. Some of the larger electric vehicle makers had a mixed 2024 even with benefits for consumers and manufacturers. Tesla sales slipped 1.1%, its first annual sales drop in more than a dozen years. Rivian Automotive Inc.'s deliveries rose 2.9%. Tariffs are another threat to the industry. Production takes place globally, with parts getting imported and exported throughout the process. Trump has threatened to tax imports from Mexico, Canada, China and elsewhere, which would likely result in retaliatory tariffs. China is the largest market for electric vehicles, followed by the U.S. Within the U.S., Tesla is the dominant electric vehicle maker, with about 50% of the market share. Automakers are in a wait-and-see position along with many other industries to see whether Trump carries out the threat of rescinding tax credits and implementing tariffs. The broader auto industry is proceeding with caution. Overall, S&P Global Mobility expects that light vehicle production will have slid 1.6% in 2024 and will fall another 0.4% in 2025. That's a result of automakers better matching production and demand. Overall light vehicle sales are still expected to rise 1.7% in 2025. The ongoing transition to electric vehicles also plays a role in more tempered production. Companies like Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. are shifting production capacity to electric vehicles in some cases instead of adding more capacity. |
Canada Pension Plan Jan 6, 2025 Union retirees receiving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) have a reason to celebrate a little, a 2.7% increase in the CPP payments is set to begin in January 2025. This annual inflation adjustment is designed for purchasing power of retirees remains somewhat stable, a feature in safeguarding retirement income against the rising cost of living. The impact of this adjustment depends on your current CPP payment. If you receive $1,000 per month, your new payment will rise to $1,027 per month, an extra $324 annually. Old Age Security benefits are adjusted quarterly (January, April, July, and October) to account for inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For 2025, this adjustment ensures that OAS payments continue to reflect the rising cost of living. Specific adjustments will be announced at the start of each quarter. The maximum monthly OAS payment for the fourth quarter of 2024 is $727.67. It is expected that similar quarterly increases will carry forward into 2025. Additionally, seniors aged 75 and older receive a 10% boost to their monthly OAS payments, as introduced in July 2022. As we are now in a federal election year it is important to understand the policy of the Conservative Party, in 2012, they increased the age of eligibility for Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) from 65 to 67. That move would have forced workers to work an additional two years past their expected retirement age, and loose $26,000 in retirement benefits. Pierre Poilievre has not committed in not reintroducing these policies and has suggested that may not maintain other government programs union retirees enjoy. Read more - Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security 2025 Dates (info) - Benefits payment dates - Canada.ca |
Here are some of Ontario’s Some new laws and regulations for Ontarians in the province took effect on January 1. Here is what you need to know moving forward. By Rianna Lim, The Canadian Press A new year means new laws and regulations in Ontario, ranging from caps on child-care fees to tougher penalties for immigration fraud. Here are some of the rules and changes coming into effect as of Jan. 1: Childcare The government is capping child-care fees at $22 per day for families with children in centres that are enrolled in the national $10-a-day program. The fees have already come down about 50 per cent to an average of $23 a day. Next year, they will fall to an average of $19, and capped at $22 – a 59 per cent reduction compared to 2020 rates. Those rates will be cut further to an average of $10 a day by March 2026, a date pushed back from an earlier pledge of September 2025. Officials have said the new funding formula, first announced in August, will ensure no childcare operators in the $10-a-day program will experience a loss. Starting in the new year, operators will get a main pool of funding based on several factors, such as how many spaces they operate, how many children they serve in each age group and the region in which they’re located. On the roads Ontario is amending a regulation under the Highway Traffic Act to raise the total threshold to report a collision that involves property damage to police from $2,000 to $5,000. The province says the move aims to reduce the “administrative burden” on drivers, commercial vehicle operators and police services. Financial benefits Amendments to the province’s tax law will extend eligibility of the Ontario Child Benefit for six months for families who have lost a child, matching the federal government’s Canada Child Benefit eligibility extension. Health care Ontario is amending regulations to enact the voluntary mergers of these nine local public health agencies into four new ones: – Brant County Health Unit and Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit – Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit and Peterborough County-City Health Unit – Hastings and Prince Edward Counties Health Unit, Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Unit and the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit – Porcupine Health Unit and Timiskaming Health Unit The province says these mergers will “address long-standing issues” in its public health sector, such as capacity limitations and staffing challenges. Also as of Jan. 1, all long-term care homes are required to have sprinklers. The province says it’s extending the compliance deadline to July 1, 2026, for some homes to allow for additional infrastructure work. Earlier this year, at least two long-term care homes said they would be closing in part because they couldn’t meet the sprinkler requirement deadline. Immigration Changes to the Ontario Immigration Act will “crackdown” on fraudulent immigration representatives that exploit newcomers, the province says. The changes include new standards for these representatives that could include providing proof of registration or licence and having a written contract with applicants. The changes also impose tougher penalties on those who violate these standards, including bigger fines and multi-year or lifetime bans for those convicted of serious offences. Municipal affairs and housing New changes to the province’s planning laws remove land use planning responsibilities from Durham and Waterloo regions, which the province says will give primary land use planning responsibility to local municipalities within those regions. It says these changes are part of its effort to streamline planning approvals and build homes quicker. Ontario has also made a new regulation under its building code law to increase harmonization with the National Construction Code, eliminating at least 1,730 technical variations between the provincial and national requirements. The new code comes into effect on Jan .1, with a three-month grace period until March 31, 2025, for some designs already underway. Education The province will require every publicly-assisted college and university in Ontario to establish clear policies to support student mental health, as well as address and prevent racism and hate on campus. Earlier this year, the province announced it would invest $23 million to enhance mental health supports in post-secondary schools. On the job The province is requiring the construction sector to provide menstrual products for on-site crews of 20 or more workers and for construction projects expected to last three months or more. The province says the changes are part of an effort to support women in the skilled trades. |
The scientific reason years get Story by Helen Coffey As I sit here, contemplating the fact that we’re about to enter the year of our lord 2025, I feel a bone-deep weariness settle upon my ageing frame. Perhaps it’s hitting that quarter-century mark, but the very notion of “2025” – twenty twenty-five! – sounds absurd. It can’t possibly be a real year, happening in real time – it’s the stuff of time-travelling tales; films set in a space-age future; dystopian novels that paint a bleak picture of societal breakdown in decades to come. It can’t possibly be happening now. Yet the calendar doesn’t lie. It is about to turn 2025, whether I believe it temporally possible or not. The passage of time seems to be playing pesky tricks – for surely the pandemic was a mere couple of years ago? The London Olympics were five years ago, weren’t they? And the millennium was a decade ago, tops – I’m certain of it… It’s not just me who experiences the sensation of the years shooting by at an ever-increasing pace the older I get. While Albert Einstein popularised the concept that time is relative – an hour spent with someone you fancy passes in a moment, a moment spent with your hand on a burning hot plate stretches out endlessly – research consistently shows that our perception of how quickly time passes really does speed up as we get older. According to a recent study by Liverpool John Moores University, the vast majority of people in the UK felt like Christmas approached more rapidly every year, for example, while people in Iraq felt like Ramadan came sooner. “Physical time is not mind time,” as mechanical engineering professor and author of Time and Beauty: Why Time Flies And Beauty Never Dies, Adrian Bejan, puts it. “The time that you perceive is not the same as the time perceived by another.” One side of the equation in explaining this phenomenon is physiological. Remember as a kid when the summer holidays felt elastic, a never-ending wad of chewing gum that kept on extending as hours melted away on lazy afternoons? There’s an actual science behind that. “The brain receives fewer images than it was trained to receive when young,” argues Bejan. He theorises that the rate at which we process visual information slows down as we age; as the size and complexity of the networks of neurons in our brains increase, the electrical signals must travel greater distances, leading to slower signal processing. The result? We perceive fewer “frames-per-second” as we get older, and therefore time feels like it’s passing quicker. It’s like a flipbook – the fewer the number of pictures, the quicker you flick to the end. “People are often amazed at how much they remember from days that seemed to last forever in their youth,” he said. “It’s not that their experiences were much deeper or more meaningful, it’s just that they were being processed in rapid fire.” Plus, the less time we’ve experienced, the greater a proportion of our lives a set period of time actually is. For a four-year-old, a year is a much bigger percentage of their overall lifespan thus far than it is for a 40-year-old – so no wonder it feels longer and more significant. While there’s not much we can do about these physiological elements, there are other important factors at play that we do have some control over. Another reason that time feels longer when we’re younger is that the brain is programmed to hang on to new experiences, says Bejan – and when we’re young, we’re having new experiences all the time. There’s so much for a child encountering the world afresh to absorb and digest each day. After all, in the beginning, everything we do is the first time we’ve ever done it. The older we get, the more likely it is that we’re clocking up fewer and fewer new experiences with each year that passes. This is partly because, naturally, the more stuff we experience, the less new stuff there is to experience. But part of it is due to human nature; with age, we can become increasingly stuck in old habits, overly comfortable with the familiar and unwilling to pursue novelty or challenge ourselves to step into the unknown. Even trying a new food can feel like a bridge too far. If we’re doing the same things week-in, week-out though, we’re not presenting our brains with anything juicy or remarkable to hang on to. With few fresh memories made, weeks blend into months, blend into years, with little to differentiate them. Time has, to all intents and purposes, sped up. Conversely, when we remember a period packed with events, it “makes it seem like time stretches out... and it feels very long”, according to Cindy Lustig, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan. With few fresh memories made, weeks blend into months, blend into years Routine is the enemy of expanding your time; shifting things up, whether it’s simply walking a new way to the shop, dabbling in a new hobby or branching out and listening to a different kind of music, could be the key to elongating each year rather than looking back on an increasingly ill-defined blur. “Slow it down a little more, force yourself to do new things to get away from the routine,” says Bejan. “Treat yourself to surprises. Do unusual things. Have you heard a good joke? Tell me! Do you have a new idea? Do something. Make something. Say something.” And then there’s that dreaded word: “mindfulness”. If time is all a matter of perspective, then ensuring we spend some of it living in the moment – and being intentionally present in the present – is fundamental to living the longest life we can in the time we’ve got. “None of us know how much time we have, but, interestingly, we do actually have a lot of control over how we experience that time,” as Lustig says. Constantly dwelling on past mistakes or fretting over future potential problems guarantees you’re missing out on the most important bit of your life so far: right here, right now. As I sit here, contemplating the fact that we’re about to enter the year of our lord 2025, I feel a bone-deep weariness settle upon my ageing frame. Perhaps it’s hitting that quarter-century mark, but the very notion of “2025” – twenty twenty-five! – sounds absurd. It can’t possibly be a real year, happening in real time – it’s the stuff of time-travelling tales; films set in a space-age future; dystopian novels that paint a bleak picture of societal breakdown in decades to come. It can’t possibly be happening now. “Physical time is not mind time,” as mechanical engineering professor and author of Time and Beauty: Why Time Flies And Beauty Never Dies, Adrian Bejan, puts it. “The time that you perceive is not the same as the time perceived by another.” One side of the equation in explaining this phenomenon is physiological. Remember as a kid when the summer holidays felt elastic, a never-ending wad of chewing gum that kept on extending as hours melted away on lazy afternoons? There’s an actual science behind that. “The brain receives fewer images than it was trained to receive when young,” argues Bejan. He theorises that the rate at which we process visual information slows down as we age; as the size and complexity of the networks of neurons in our brains increase, the electrical signals must travel greater distances, leading to slower signal processing. The result? We perceive fewer “frames-per-second” as we get older, and therefore time feels like it’s passing quicker. It’s like a flipbook – the fewer the number of pictures, the quicker you flick to the end. |
Here are the top holiday By Afua Baah Be vigilant so that you don’t become a victim. Afua Baah speaks with experts who are warning Canadians about some of the top holiday scams happening across the country. Some of the scams at the top of the list during this festive time of the year include fake merchandise and individuals who promise to sell goods or services online. “Just a reminder to try to stick with merchants that you’ve maybe used in the past. And if you haven’t used them, then do your research on the company before providing your personal information or credit card information,” says Jeff Horncastle, a communications officer with the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. Phishing emails and text messages that appear to come from a recognizable source and ask you to submit or confirm your information also happen frequently during the holidays. “Charity scams are big around the holiday season: crypto investment fraud, romance scams. It could be a lonely time of year for many people,” said Horncastle. It is also gift giving season, meaning gift card scams are high on the scam list. “What fraudsters do is that they place stolen gift card barcodes on ones that are not purchased in the store. And when the next person comes to activate it, they’re actually activating the gift card that’s in the fraudsters’ possession,” explained Horncastle. Experts suggest that shoppers looking to buy a gift card should take their finger and rub it over the back of the card to check if there is a duplicate barcode. According to Toronto police, there were more than 16,500 total fraud reports in the city this year, with total damages amounting to $365 million. Officials say that’s a 20 per cent increase compared to 2023. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, as of October 31st of this year, over 40,000 fraud incidents were reported and over 28,000 victims of fraud, totalling a loss of over $500 million. It is estimated though that only 5 to 10 per cent of victims report this to law enforcement. “Iif they have been victimized, they’re going to hesitate to report because they may be embarrassed based on that attitude that, oh, it’s just a scam, right? We hear that all the time,” Horncastle added. “It’s not just a scam because it’s beyond the numbers that you know, beyond that financial impact, a lot of victims are affected emotionally.” Authorities say getting back these funds is another hill to climb. “It’s a significant challenge for any of those funds to be recovered, especially now you’re talking about the majority of those funds being sent off, cryptocurrency as well, which just adds to the layer of complexities,” says Detective David Coffey with the Toronto Police Financial Crimes Unit. Advocates say it never hurts to triple, even quadruple-check sites and deals to confirm their accuracy. “Fraudsters just prey on vulnerabilities, and they know that it’s a busy time for most people, and it makes us more vulnerable,” Horncastle explained.
|
2024 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2023 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2022 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2021 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2020 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2019 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2018 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2017 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2016 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2015 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2014 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2013 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2012 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2011 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2010 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2009 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||
2008 MONTHLY ARCHIVES |
|||