My colleage is writing a letter and a sentence he used caught my eye.
It doesn’t read right to me. He comparing the policies of two companies and wrote: (I’ve changed the company name)
"Ford are much more generous"
Why doesn’t that parse correctly me for?
I can identify any specific error but it seems really awful to read.
It’s the word ‘much’ but I don’t know why.
It may also be because it’s describing the company, not the policy.
That is merely due to the fact that the English have adopted the barbaric practice of pretending that collective nouns are in fact plurals.
It should say “Ford IS much more generous.” “Ford” is a singular proper noun.
I’ve heard that practice from the BBC since the '60s, though. (E.g., “The crowd are going wild. . .”)
Since he’s comparing the policies themselves, I would advocate:
“Ford’s is much more generous.”
Linguistic differences are not “barbaric”.
I agree with friedo and Diogenes. Ford is a collective noun and so it is used singularly. I find the practice of this to be increasingly, and it’s frustrating because it adds unnecessary ambiguity and it just irks my inner grammar Nazi. The whole point is you’re refering to a group or, in this case, a company, so it is singular.
If you’re ever not sure because the sentence sounds weird, try putting an indefinite article in front of the word in context. For instance, you can have a class, so you would say “The class is…”. Of course, that rule of thumb fails if you’re using the word “people” because it can be both a plural and a collective noun, so don’t depend on it.
In the context, it’s not clear whether he’s talking about Ford or Ford’s policy. I don’t think the distinction is necessary as either could be described as generous, and both are singular. If he is typing a letter, and considering he was addressed as a colleague, I’d be more formal and just say “Ford’s Policy is…”, since formal letters should always prefer clarity over brevity.
They are if they make you want to climb a clocktower with a rifle every time you see them in print.
Stoopid Brits. :mad:
Actually, they are. Our word barbarian is derived from the Greek word meaning “someone who doesn’t speak Greek.”
They are a group.
Ford are a group.
Ford is a group.
They is a group.
Silly American 
Treating collective nouns as plurals is entirely standard in British English. You may not like it, but arguing about it is pointless.
So go ahead and climb your clocktower – you’ll never hit us from that dist
“They” is a nominative plural pronoun (although not always plural, such as when using it to refer to a single person of indeterminate gender.)
Ford (when referring to the company) is a proper collective noun, like NASA or The Beatles. They are singular, because they refer to a single group which may or may not contain multiple items.
Some British genius, no doubt after gorging himself on bangers and mash, decided that he just couldn’t live with this perfectly sensible arrangement and convinced a bunch of bloody tossers at the Beeb to start pretending that collective nouns were plurals, and here we find ourselves today, in a world fraught with famine, war, disease and Paris Hilton.
Draw your own conclusions.
It’s a perfectly fine English sentence, nothing wrong with it.
First off, we’ll accept that we have normal British usage, with “Ford” properly construed as plural, and that there are no actual errors.
That said, I’m going to guess that the word “Ford,” having one fairly sharp syllable, conveys a feeling to the subconscious of being singular, and that this results in its not seeming right, even though technically it is right.
Now, you’ve said you changed the name for this illustration, so that may or may not apply to the name in the original sentence.
If that’s the meaning of “barbaric” in English, then all English usage is barbaric, except perhaps that of those whose first language is Greek.
I really don’t get the depth of feeling that some people have about this usage. Yes, formally, “Ford” is singular, and it stands for something like “the Ford Motor Company”, which is still formally singular. However, the British see behind the corporate facade, and note that the Ford Motor Company is/are comprised of thousands of individual people, so it feels like a plural entity to them. The usage doesn’t obscure meaning or lead to any confusion, so I don’t find it a problem. But I lived in England for about 8 years, so obviously my linguistic sensibilities are tainted 
Bolding added
The colleage I was attempting to correct just highlighted the errors I’ve just marked. The Irony.
It wasn’t my first thought, but changing it to "Ford is more generous does feel better for me!
This ambiguity arises only in the context of British English. In American English, if you have been speaking about company policies, then “Ford’s is …” clearly implies “Ford’s policy is …” Americans aren’t in the habit of referring to “Ford” the company as “Ford’s” or “Fords,” as is common in Britain.
I Are[sup]*[/sup] unhappy with it.
*[sub]Being Composed of mulitple organs and cells, that is everybit as legitimate.[/sub]