The auto industry is history as we know it today - and the CAW is also history as we know it today! Wouldn't it be lovely to end up with a completely new - NON-UNIONIZED auto industry in this country? Maybe Kenny Lewenza would want to apply to work on the assembly line!
CAW defiant in face of Chrysler's demands
- Thread starter rafterman
- Start date
You're talking absolute nonsense. Nowhere has anyone—who's not just making stuff up—said CAW workers book $70 an hour or even $50.Dark Chimera said:
Even if you're opinions are foolish, don't make it worse by being miles off on easily Googled facts.
What the worker books is not the issueoldjones said:
Its the total cost to employ that worker
These companies are out of cash & all the cost have to be paid
If take your family of 4 to a hockey game, pay for parking, eat dinner before hand & buy a program & a sweater for your son. Whats that night cost you?
(A whole lot more than the $100 per ticket). More like $700-$800.
But the scalper will tell you its only $400
Hey....most construction unions don't protect the lazy and useless! No seniority there. If you are a lazy and/or useless fucking hand...you get laid off. Go back to the union hall and get on the list. They either quickly starve off and disappear or quickly adjust their attitude towards working in the trade when this happens a couple times in a row.
Hospitals have been undefunded forever and laying off nursing staff, etc. Nobody ever gave the hospitals over $500k per worker to keep them employed, and I think one might say that they are more valuable to the taxpayers than an employee of a failing company that sells junk that nobody wants and even if you are one of the few that want one.....you are scared to death to buy...because you don't know if they will be around in a few months to honour their warranty.
It's crazy to ask us to finance a make work project of building cars that nobody wants.
And our crack GOVERNMENT wants them to demonstrate their viability in order to get the bailout.....well what kind of viability are they seeking when they cut out more than half of their sales via leasing. Most companies that purchase vehicles for their employees or independent business people...lease vehicles. These crack companies have done away with leasing. And I get that statement from a car salesman I know at GM.....more than half of his sales were through leasing!! Now with leasing a thing of the past at Chrysler and GM....they are pushing these people to Toyota and BMW to still be able to lease.
And can somebody tell me how the CAW members top up their EI benefits when everyone else gets their EI slashed if they have extra income?
Hospitals have been undefunded forever and laying off nursing staff, etc. Nobody ever gave the hospitals over $500k per worker to keep them employed, and I think one might say that they are more valuable to the taxpayers than an employee of a failing company that sells junk that nobody wants and even if you are one of the few that want one.....you are scared to death to buy...because you don't know if they will be around in a few months to honour their warranty.
It's crazy to ask us to finance a make work project of building cars that nobody wants.
And our crack GOVERNMENT wants them to demonstrate their viability in order to get the bailout.....well what kind of viability are they seeking when they cut out more than half of their sales via leasing. Most companies that purchase vehicles for their employees or independent business people...lease vehicles. These crack companies have done away with leasing. And I get that statement from a car salesman I know at GM.....more than half of his sales were through leasing!! Now with leasing a thing of the past at Chrysler and GM....they are pushing these people to Toyota and BMW to still be able to lease.
And can somebody tell me how the CAW members top up their EI benefits when everyone else gets their EI slashed if they have extra income?
Another guy who doesn't know the difference between the companies' labour costs and worker's pay. Who presumably doesn't drive, and thinks auto executives build the cars and trucks.vsailor said:
KBear's posted the Canadian payrate, If anyone else has and I missed it, you could post a link instead of screaming and cussing.
John I am amazed, you really have gotten it, now please spread the word among the other worker-slanging hysterics who haven't. CAW (and UAW) pay is not extreme, and not the cause of the American carmaker's woes. Nor, for that matter is it all that much different from the non-union transplants.JohnLarue said:
It's all the other stuff they committed to, just like they committed to bad designs and product, because they 'thought they could make them work". They're incompetent and should be left to stew in their own juices. But the workers should not. All they did was their jobs, and it'll cost taxpayers way less to tide them over than to rescue the Detroit Dinosaurs. If they can be rescued, which is dubious.
Don't read much do you . The low to mid $70 "all in" cost has been in every major newspaper several times over the last week. I think your beloved CAW leader is even quoted talking about it and the enormous sacrifice the members will be making to give up 10%.oldjones said:
I'm not against unions in principle, like some of you on this board, but the CAW's attitude in the face of the impending collapse of their industry is pretty fucking retarded. Even if it's just rhetoric, it's impolitic to put on display their entitlement mentality in this environment. Manufacturing cost competitiveness in this province is scratching the bottom of all NA jurisdictions in various surveys already: CAW has NO leverage.
Jeffrey Simpson's take on Ontario's prospects are right on the money. We better get our act together soon, but I think we're sleepwalking to genteel decline;
Pink Mausoleum blues - what hurts Ontario hurts Canada
JEFFREY SIMPSON
March 13, 2009
It might shock - and will offend - many Canadians to learn that what happens at Queen's Park, the centre of Ontario's government, is more consequential for the country than it has ever been.
For decades, Ontario just rolled along, because its economy rolled along, encountering the odd bump or pothole but producing affluence that could be spread across Canada.
The country's equalization program ran off Ontario's affluence, and that of Alberta. Federal programs were quietly designed to provide more money, per capita, to other provinces than Ontario because, well, Ontario could afford it. All other regions disliked Ontario, or thought the province too rich, so no federal government saw a political downside to this jigging of federal programs.
Ontario had banks and financial services, universities, big manufacturing industries (auto being the leader), high technology, cultural industries, lots of immigrants, and growth. Would other regions not have died for more?
Starting imperceptibly several decades ago, however, Ontario's economy began to lose steam. Now it's come to a stop. The consequences for province and country are immense.
Alberta's economy has nose-dived, in a way; tough times are undoubtedly at hand. The B.C. economy has hit the skids. And no sooner did the happy day arrive for Newfoundland to escape equalization than the recession struck. But these provinces (and Saskatchewan), struggling today, can look forward to brighter days when the recession ends, because commodity prices will recover, especially fossil fuels.
Quebec has its precious hydro. But as Ontario slumps, Quebec will have to further intensify its political efforts to keep Ottawa siphoning money from Ontario to Quebec. Without the billions transferred to the province from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers, Quebec's budget would be a mess - as would Manitoba's and the four easternmost provinces'.
So how Queen's Park responds to Ontario's crisis - a word that should be used sparingly - will affect all Canadians.
Ontario's deficit is set to explode beyond anything elsewhere in Canada. We can easily forget that, even in the fat years, Ontario almost always ran deficits, too, albeit much smaller ones than those that now beckon.
The province's fiscal underpinnings were weakening even though, superficially, it appeared they were strong. The health-care budget, in particular, was growing so fast it enfeebled the rest of the budget.
Ontario's auto industry is almost beyond saving, at least the North American companies. Some shrivelled portion of it can only be rescued at exorbitant cost to taxpayers.
It was argued in this space six weeks ago that demanded bailouts were only forestalling bankruptcies. The companies and union can argue about pension liabilities and a host of other factors to explain their agonies. What they do not say - because it would be too painful to admit - is that their products are inferior, and have been for a long time.
Check the market shares over time for North American and imports in almost all categories. More tellingly, check consumer magazines that rate cars. In almost every category, imports capture most, if not all, of the top 10 models. The market, over time, hasn't lied.
The idiocy over whether Ontario cabinet ministers drive locally made or imported cars illustrates the classic case of political diversion away from painful realities. The consumers will continue to speak.
So the industry, Ontario's staple, is in its death throes, with dire consequences for suppliers and retailers. Forestry, the mainstay of the north, is writhing; mining has been hit by commodity price declines and high costs. Universities are buckling under the reduced value of endowments and revenue shortfalls.
High technology has collapsed in Ottawa and elsewhere; the collapse of Nortel was devastating to the Ontario economy. The cost of energy must soar, because the province is betting on expensive renewables and hugely costly (and unpredictable) nuclear.
The fixed costs of government - municipal, school board and provincial - remain very high. Cutting those costs, politically, is impossible.
All of which means that, after years of focused attention on Ottawa and Quebec City, the government that really counts today sits in the Pink Mausoleum at Queen's Park.
Jeffrey Simpson's take on Ontario's prospects are right on the money. We better get our act together soon, but I think we're sleepwalking to genteel decline;
Pink Mausoleum blues - what hurts Ontario hurts Canada
JEFFREY SIMPSON
March 13, 2009
It might shock - and will offend - many Canadians to learn that what happens at Queen's Park, the centre of Ontario's government, is more consequential for the country than it has ever been.
For decades, Ontario just rolled along, because its economy rolled along, encountering the odd bump or pothole but producing affluence that could be spread across Canada.
The country's equalization program ran off Ontario's affluence, and that of Alberta. Federal programs were quietly designed to provide more money, per capita, to other provinces than Ontario because, well, Ontario could afford it. All other regions disliked Ontario, or thought the province too rich, so no federal government saw a political downside to this jigging of federal programs.
Ontario had banks and financial services, universities, big manufacturing industries (auto being the leader), high technology, cultural industries, lots of immigrants, and growth. Would other regions not have died for more?
Starting imperceptibly several decades ago, however, Ontario's economy began to lose steam. Now it's come to a stop. The consequences for province and country are immense.
Alberta's economy has nose-dived, in a way; tough times are undoubtedly at hand. The B.C. economy has hit the skids. And no sooner did the happy day arrive for Newfoundland to escape equalization than the recession struck. But these provinces (and Saskatchewan), struggling today, can look forward to brighter days when the recession ends, because commodity prices will recover, especially fossil fuels.
Quebec has its precious hydro. But as Ontario slumps, Quebec will have to further intensify its political efforts to keep Ottawa siphoning money from Ontario to Quebec. Without the billions transferred to the province from Ontario and Alberta taxpayers, Quebec's budget would be a mess - as would Manitoba's and the four easternmost provinces'.
So how Queen's Park responds to Ontario's crisis - a word that should be used sparingly - will affect all Canadians.
Ontario's deficit is set to explode beyond anything elsewhere in Canada. We can easily forget that, even in the fat years, Ontario almost always ran deficits, too, albeit much smaller ones than those that now beckon.
The province's fiscal underpinnings were weakening even though, superficially, it appeared they were strong. The health-care budget, in particular, was growing so fast it enfeebled the rest of the budget.
Ontario's auto industry is almost beyond saving, at least the North American companies. Some shrivelled portion of it can only be rescued at exorbitant cost to taxpayers.
It was argued in this space six weeks ago that demanded bailouts were only forestalling bankruptcies. The companies and union can argue about pension liabilities and a host of other factors to explain their agonies. What they do not say - because it would be too painful to admit - is that their products are inferior, and have been for a long time.
Check the market shares over time for North American and imports in almost all categories. More tellingly, check consumer magazines that rate cars. In almost every category, imports capture most, if not all, of the top 10 models. The market, over time, hasn't lied.
The idiocy over whether Ontario cabinet ministers drive locally made or imported cars illustrates the classic case of political diversion away from painful realities. The consumers will continue to speak.
So the industry, Ontario's staple, is in its death throes, with dire consequences for suppliers and retailers. Forestry, the mainstay of the north, is writhing; mining has been hit by commodity price declines and high costs. Universities are buckling under the reduced value of endowments and revenue shortfalls.
High technology has collapsed in Ottawa and elsewhere; the collapse of Nortel was devastating to the Ontario economy. The cost of energy must soar, because the province is betting on expensive renewables and hugely costly (and unpredictable) nuclear.
The fixed costs of government - municipal, school board and provincial - remain very high. Cutting those costs, politically, is impossible.
All of which means that, after years of focused attention on Ottawa and Quebec City, the government that really counts today sits in the Pink Mausoleum at Queen's Park.
oldjones said:
Your sarcasms is noted, however again you miss the the point.
1. I posted about the difference between pay & costs months ago
You are only concerned with pay, but it is costs that really matter.
2. The pay & especially the cost is excessive for non-skilled labor with many many willing and able substitutes. This is true whether the companies are in financial difficulties or not
3. Both the unions and the management need to have a company that is financially viable or it goes out of business & both parties lose their jobs.
You have repeated indicated the the financial viability of the company is strictly a management responsibility. That is simply not the case & this view is the crux of the problem
4. What is far worse, downright shameful & absolutely mind boggling is the unions feel it is the taxpayers responsibility rather than the unions responsibility to fix the mess they & the management have made. (Thats right, the workers negotiated & signed the contract too!)
Why is it my responsibility (as a taxpayer) to ensure the workers maintain an excessive and unsustainable cost structure?
Again what workers are paid is irrelevant to the one writing the cheques, it is the cost that matters. In this case as the taxpayer I am writing the cheques.
Its high time the unions take some responsibility for their own future & do what they have to to keep the taxpayer out of this mess
Ok in case you really don't understand the $70 plus includes all holidays, pensions and other benefits. In other words this is the cost per hour to Chrysler of these workers. I assume that "book"ing per hour is a union term and not an escort term.oldjones said:
Perhaps it refers to something akin to "takehome pay" so that is the likely the source of your ignorance.Otherwise do yourself a favour and read a newspaper every once and awhile. They may get things wrong 50% of the time but they have all been 100% consistent with the cost of $70 plus per hour per worker.
Sorry you read it as sarcasm. The point you miss is that company profits and losses are management's responsibility. You might as well say Stelco or Magna were responsible as to say the unions were. Like their salesmen, the union's negociators answer to their own organizations and seek the best deal for them, not the best deal for the car company.
Where you're right is that the union, with only one customer, has more of an interest in that customer's financial well being, than Stelco, or Goodyear, or whoever. But they are NOT responsible for it. You tell who's responsible by who keeps and signs off on the books.
And you veered right back off the rails in your number four point. IT's the carmakers asking for government money, and they'll get every penny of it. The CAW will get no cheques from Ottawa, for all that they loyally showed up to support their begging employers.
So where's your righteous indignation aboiut the fat cat CEOs who feel "…it is the taxpayers responsibility rather than the [company's] responsibility to fix the mess they & the [union] have made". Unlike the guys asking for $2.3bil, in return for making cars that bake and rust unsold in factory lots at least the CAW guys did their jobs. And no one's writing them cheques they didn't earn.
Your point number two says it all and speaks for most of the spittle slingers. "They're way overpaid!" Well that's between them and the guys who agreed to pay them. For anyone else just looking on, what that comes from is envy.
As taxpayers, about to be fleeced by fast-talking car saleguys, you and I are more than just onlookers. But we no more get to manage the company than the CAW does. We do get to say, "Come to us with a rewritten contract you can sustain, one that will see you into the black", before we pony up. And that's what GM and the CAW did. Again GM's guys are responsible adults, if it was a bad deal, it's their bad deal.
What's happening now is Chrysler and Ford are saying, "Good for you maybe, but not for us". So more bargaining with them, then likely back to the table w/ GM. It's called dealmaking. It's how it works, and you and I are represented by Tony Calamity, Jim Flattery and Dalton McMinty's Minions (who so far haven't said much) Unlike at a football game, jumping up and down screaming and painting your face blue won't help. Doubt it helps at games either, but acting foolish there is fun at least
What I want to know is why you're not all hot about those socialists at Ford (who have said they're not on the edge) suckling at the public teat just because the other guys are. Isn't that pretty much as greedy as taking the juicy pension the company gives, even if it can't afford it?
Here's a deal I offer you: We agree no tax money to the car companies; they've had enough breaks over the years, it's up to them and their stakeholders—unions, suppliers, dealers, the who pack of them—to make it work or go under. Unlike banks, that we all need everyday and are stuck with supporting, we do not need a new car made every 30 minutes. And we'll each ignore the other's pigheaded stupidity in not seeing Who Destroyed theBig Three. Deal?
Then we can maybe start using our taxes to help people who really need help, who are losing homes, and going hungry, not losing corporate jets and executive dining rooms and going home to Grosse Pointe estates.
Where you're right is that the union, with only one customer, has more of an interest in that customer's financial well being, than Stelco, or Goodyear, or whoever. But they are NOT responsible for it. You tell who's responsible by who keeps and signs off on the books.
And you veered right back off the rails in your number four point. IT's the carmakers asking for government money, and they'll get every penny of it. The CAW will get no cheques from Ottawa, for all that they loyally showed up to support their begging employers.
So where's your righteous indignation aboiut the fat cat CEOs who feel "…it is the taxpayers responsibility rather than the [company's] responsibility to fix the mess they & the [union] have made". Unlike the guys asking for $2.3bil, in return for making cars that bake and rust unsold in factory lots at least the CAW guys did their jobs. And no one's writing them cheques they didn't earn.
Your point number two says it all and speaks for most of the spittle slingers. "They're way overpaid!" Well that's between them and the guys who agreed to pay them. For anyone else just looking on, what that comes from is envy.
As taxpayers, about to be fleeced by fast-talking car saleguys, you and I are more than just onlookers. But we no more get to manage the company than the CAW does. We do get to say, "Come to us with a rewritten contract you can sustain, one that will see you into the black", before we pony up. And that's what GM and the CAW did. Again GM's guys are responsible adults, if it was a bad deal, it's their bad deal.
What's happening now is Chrysler and Ford are saying, "Good for you maybe, but not for us". So more bargaining with them, then likely back to the table w/ GM. It's called dealmaking. It's how it works, and you and I are represented by Tony Calamity, Jim Flattery and Dalton McMinty's Minions (who so far haven't said much) Unlike at a football game, jumping up and down screaming and painting your face blue won't help. Doubt it helps at games either, but acting foolish there is fun at least
What I want to know is why you're not all hot about those socialists at Ford (who have said they're not on the edge) suckling at the public teat just because the other guys are. Isn't that pretty much as greedy as taking the juicy pension the company gives, even if it can't afford it?
Here's a deal I offer you: We agree no tax money to the car companies; they've had enough breaks over the years, it's up to them and their stakeholders—unions, suppliers, dealers, the who pack of them—to make it work or go under. Unlike banks, that we all need everyday and are stuck with supporting, we do not need a new car made every 30 minutes. And we'll each ignore the other's pigheaded stupidity in not seeing Who Destroyed theBig Three. Deal?
Then we can maybe start using our taxes to help people who really need help, who are losing homes, and going hungry, not losing corporate jets and executive dining rooms and going home to Grosse Pointe estates.
The $70 per hour is now based on supporting 3 or so retirees per worker. There will be 5 retirees per worker in a couple of years, which is why the company can’t survive without continuous bailouts unless something changes.
Found a US union article that talks about pay at suppliers, strikes, and controlling who the auto makers can deal with. Looks like the unions do have an influence on how the cars are built.
Interesting how the union controls the automakers, pay rates.
http://www.labornotes.org/node/1205
Found a US union article that talks about pay at suppliers, strikes, and controlling who the auto makers can deal with. Looks like the unions do have an influence on how the cars are built.
Interesting how the union controls the automakers, pay rates.
http://www.labornotes.org/node/1205
I have worked in the automotive industry for 20+ years now, and a line worker, as management, and now as a consultant and have seen first hand all sides of what is going on here. More than this, I have watched for years the events leading up to this crisis, and have seen the errors from all parties involved. I myself recommended change 10+ years ago, but being a small fish in a vast ocean, nobody wanted to listen to me, (and a bunch of my counterparts who were working with me at the time).
There are about 10 MAJOR factors, each as important as the other, that have lead to the downturn in the NORTH AMERICAN auto sector.
-Unrealistic Union demands for its employees
-Management who caved in to the unions demands (for decades)
-Years of substandard quality
-Poor product designs (and products that do not reflect what the customer wants)
-High gas prices
-Current economic situation
-The high Canadian $ (of a couple of years ago)
-Inferior 'perceived' quality (not that the quality of the vehicles is almost that of the Japanese)
-The inability to react quickly to market changes
For months now on TERB I have heard the debate 'It's management fault, it's the unions fault'. Both parties are equally guilty. I do not blame the union for wanting to get the most that it is able for it's employees,both in terms of compensation and job security. That is what a union does, that is their nature. The problem lies in the fact that the union uses scare/bully tactics that threaten to stifle the company if their demands are not met. For decades the unions have viewed the companies as a bottomless pit of money that can afford to cut into their profits to pay the worker far higher than the industry standard. When one is talking about billions of dollars of profit, sometimes the 'bottom line' becomes obscured.
Management (with regards to the union) on the other hand, has conceded with just about every demand the unions have made over the years. Largely, the company has been too worried the a strike WILL cut into the profits of the company. Neither the company or the union had the vision to see what would happen if there were to be a major downturn in the economy. Add to this that the pride of both the workers, the company and the union would never even consider the possibility that the Japanese manufacturers would be able to steal such a great amount of market share.
It is a well known fact that for many, many years the Japanese companies have been producing higher quality cars than the 'Big Three'. This is the fault of both management and the union. Standard lean manufacturing processes have been in place since the end of WWII, and were the processes that helped rebuild Japan from rubble. These processes are not a new thing, they have been around for 60 years now. The problem being the Japanese have been perfecting them for over half a century now, North Americans are just starting to learn the benefits in terms of both increase in quality, and cost reduction. These 'techniques' require substantial change from the employees, and in a nutshell require 'trimming the fat' off all manufacturing and business processes. This is a direct contradiction of what the unions have been fighting for, for close to a century. I challenge anyone to find a company that has 'fat' to show me that they are anywhere as competitive as a similar company which is 'lean'.
When the union and the company finally came to the conclusion that they were getting their asses kicked, and started implementing TPS (Toyota Production System), the quality quickly arose to that nearing the Japanese organizations. Keep in mind that the union has fought this change all the way, but finally understood that a concession had to be made in order for the companies to survive. Even though North Americans are now producing vehicles that have great quality, the consumer still has it in their mind that the quality is substandard based on years of inferior products being built. Million of dollars have been spent with only limited results trying to convince the customers that the quality has improved substantially. Ford even changed their slogan to 'Quality is job one' in a marketing attempt to persuade the customer.
Management has been designing cars that they believed the customers wanted, but this belief that they have held on to is still kicking back to the 1970's. If one takes G.M. for example and looks at their product lines they will see an interesting trend.
Hummer, Cadillac, Corvette, Buick, Impala, Camaro, Enclave, Grand Am, Grand Prix, Silverado, Sierra... Most of what they consider to be their 'premier' lines have large six or eight cylinder engines. The Japanese have long known that the 'average' consumer wants an affordable car, both in terms of price, and in operating costs. The big Three have been trying to 'force' choices on consumers that are not really wanted, and their tactic is to say 'save the jobs, keep the money in America'. To survive, there must be a huge line change, and designs created that leave the 'gas guzzling' products behind, and which focus more on Corolla, Civic type of performance and cost effectiveness.
When the high Canadian Dollar hit us, coupled with the high gas prices at the same time, Canada became is shitty place to do business. About 90% of the product built is sold south of the border. If one adds the cost of labor, the par Canadian $, and the transportation costs, Canada became the most expensive country in the world to produce a car. Thankfully the dollar went down, but the whole recession hit shortly afterward. We all know the effects of that.
We all know that the auto industry is now fighting for mere survival, and at the taxpayers hands as well. If there is one time in automotive history that it would be prudent for all parties to 'suck it up', that would be now. Unions need to know that stifling a company and fighting for obscene wages and benefits will put the entire company out of business, leaving unemployment for all of its members. The companies need to realize that they must build quality products, that are affordable to operate if they wish to survive. Both the company and the union must WORK TOGETHER to do this in the most cost effective way that they are able.
I say that if either side is not willing to make these concessions, let the companies sink. Fuck the union who wants it all, fuck the company who is not willing to change. I'll keep buying my quality Japanese product and sending my money out of the country. At least THEY know what I want, produce it at a cost I can afford, at a price I can maintain, and a design I find appealing.
There are about 10 MAJOR factors, each as important as the other, that have lead to the downturn in the NORTH AMERICAN auto sector.
-Unrealistic Union demands for its employees
-Management who caved in to the unions demands (for decades)
-Years of substandard quality
-Poor product designs (and products that do not reflect what the customer wants)
-High gas prices
-Current economic situation
-The high Canadian $ (of a couple of years ago)
-Inferior 'perceived' quality (not that the quality of the vehicles is almost that of the Japanese)
-The inability to react quickly to market changes
For months now on TERB I have heard the debate 'It's management fault, it's the unions fault'. Both parties are equally guilty. I do not blame the union for wanting to get the most that it is able for it's employees,both in terms of compensation and job security. That is what a union does, that is their nature. The problem lies in the fact that the union uses scare/bully tactics that threaten to stifle the company if their demands are not met. For decades the unions have viewed the companies as a bottomless pit of money that can afford to cut into their profits to pay the worker far higher than the industry standard. When one is talking about billions of dollars of profit, sometimes the 'bottom line' becomes obscured.
Management (with regards to the union) on the other hand, has conceded with just about every demand the unions have made over the years. Largely, the company has been too worried the a strike WILL cut into the profits of the company. Neither the company or the union had the vision to see what would happen if there were to be a major downturn in the economy. Add to this that the pride of both the workers, the company and the union would never even consider the possibility that the Japanese manufacturers would be able to steal such a great amount of market share.
It is a well known fact that for many, many years the Japanese companies have been producing higher quality cars than the 'Big Three'. This is the fault of both management and the union. Standard lean manufacturing processes have been in place since the end of WWII, and were the processes that helped rebuild Japan from rubble. These processes are not a new thing, they have been around for 60 years now. The problem being the Japanese have been perfecting them for over half a century now, North Americans are just starting to learn the benefits in terms of both increase in quality, and cost reduction. These 'techniques' require substantial change from the employees, and in a nutshell require 'trimming the fat' off all manufacturing and business processes. This is a direct contradiction of what the unions have been fighting for, for close to a century. I challenge anyone to find a company that has 'fat' to show me that they are anywhere as competitive as a similar company which is 'lean'.
When the union and the company finally came to the conclusion that they were getting their asses kicked, and started implementing TPS (Toyota Production System), the quality quickly arose to that nearing the Japanese organizations. Keep in mind that the union has fought this change all the way, but finally understood that a concession had to be made in order for the companies to survive. Even though North Americans are now producing vehicles that have great quality, the consumer still has it in their mind that the quality is substandard based on years of inferior products being built. Million of dollars have been spent with only limited results trying to convince the customers that the quality has improved substantially. Ford even changed their slogan to 'Quality is job one' in a marketing attempt to persuade the customer.
Management has been designing cars that they believed the customers wanted, but this belief that they have held on to is still kicking back to the 1970's. If one takes G.M. for example and looks at their product lines they will see an interesting trend.
Hummer, Cadillac, Corvette, Buick, Impala, Camaro, Enclave, Grand Am, Grand Prix, Silverado, Sierra... Most of what they consider to be their 'premier' lines have large six or eight cylinder engines. The Japanese have long known that the 'average' consumer wants an affordable car, both in terms of price, and in operating costs. The big Three have been trying to 'force' choices on consumers that are not really wanted, and their tactic is to say 'save the jobs, keep the money in America'. To survive, there must be a huge line change, and designs created that leave the 'gas guzzling' products behind, and which focus more on Corolla, Civic type of performance and cost effectiveness.
When the high Canadian Dollar hit us, coupled with the high gas prices at the same time, Canada became is shitty place to do business. About 90% of the product built is sold south of the border. If one adds the cost of labor, the par Canadian $, and the transportation costs, Canada became the most expensive country in the world to produce a car. Thankfully the dollar went down, but the whole recession hit shortly afterward. We all know the effects of that.
We all know that the auto industry is now fighting for mere survival, and at the taxpayers hands as well. If there is one time in automotive history that it would be prudent for all parties to 'suck it up', that would be now. Unions need to know that stifling a company and fighting for obscene wages and benefits will put the entire company out of business, leaving unemployment for all of its members. The companies need to realize that they must build quality products, that are affordable to operate if they wish to survive. Both the company and the union must WORK TOGETHER to do this in the most cost effective way that they are able.
I say that if either side is not willing to make these concessions, let the companies sink. Fuck the union who wants it all, fuck the company who is not willing to change. I'll keep buying my quality Japanese product and sending my money out of the country. At least THEY know what I want, produce it at a cost I can afford, at a price I can maintain, and a design I find appealing.
Nicely written.a 1 player said:
I understood that the north American car makers wanted to make smaller cars, but they could not compete price/quality wise in the smaller car categories because of the limited markups?
You are somewhat correct. The markups or not out of line with those of the Asian competitors, but the variable costs (and some fixed costs as well), are staggeringly high. The ballpark $34/hr. wage is $14-$20 higher than other 'similar' production industries, the pensions are higher than other industries as well. Add to that a fantastic benefits package, huge amounts of time off and one can see the 'fat' that I am talking about just in terms of compensation.KBear said:
Line balancing and the speeds at which the lines run is another issue. There are jobs that take 10-15 seconds to complete when there is close to a minute to complete a job. There is waste in 'waiting', there is waste in 'rework', there is waste in 'scrap', there is waste in 'inventory' and 'processing' and countless other things.
If these costs are able to be controlled, it will lower the bottom line and the 'markups' will therefore increase adding competitiveness to the business, even if the sales volumes are not as high.
Nice to hear the opinion from an insider. BUT, expecting a full size pick up to be efficient and be able to work with a 4 or 6 cylinder engine is a not realistic. The 8 cylinder is the most efficient, because when you load it up, it barely breaks a sweat, you put a 4 or 6 cylinder in there, and it WILL cost you a fortune in fuel.a 1 player said:
