The writer, a Los Angeles freelancer and former Detroit News business reporter, writes a blog, Starkman Approved.
By Eric Starkman
Illustration (Chat GPT)
Even by the media standards of Detroit—the source of some of the most astonishing “believe it or not” news stories in the nation—the linked report is one for the ages.
Dearborn’s finest have arrested a presumably former Ford employee accused of stealing millions of dollars’ worth of new vehicle parts straight off the assembly lines at Detroit-area plants where the automaker builds its most profitable trucks and the gas-powered versions of its iconic Mustang.
The employee, whose name has yet to be released, reportedly transported the stolen parts to a third-party auto shop, where they were then sold on eBay. Authorities said three other people have been implicated in the scheme.
Ponder this: The thefts allegedly occurred FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS and involved high-value components such as hoods, taillights, and bumpers.
Hard as I try, I can’t imagine how an employee managed to divert millions of dollars in auto parts from multiple plants without detection for two full years. Ford, it seems, has serious issues with its inventory control and management systems, despite paying CEO Jim Farley $107 million over the past five years.
I’m still trying to figure out Farley’s supposedly superior skills and accomplishments that would justify his largesse.
Ford’s normally loquacious PR team didn’t immediately respond to a Fox2 Detroit request for comment. I, too, would be tongue-tied.
Theft from Detroit-area plants is a major ongoing problem for Ford, GM, and Stellantis. Typically, though, local thieves typically prefer finished vehicles, not parts. There have been numerous reports over the years of vehicles being stolen from storage lots where automakers park their finished inventory.
Ford proudly builds its electric Mustang in Mexico, which has fewer components than its gas-powered counterpart that can potentially be stolen. Unfortunately for Ford, President Trump has imposed tariffs on that vehicle—a cost the company promptly moved to pass on to consumers, despite publicly stating that it wouldn’t.
