Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:12:36 GMT, Just Facts
wrote:

>> Volvo Cars Sweden Subsidiary Near-Luxury
>> Mazda
>These two are rays of hope for Ford. Smart designers. <snip>

Volvo had a lot of reliability problems back in the '70s, from which
they seem to have recovered. It seems that Ford is using Volvo as a
"brain bank," since Ford seems to not have any engineering talent of
its own anymore.

Mazda and Ford have been allied for a long time, from the days when
Toyo-Kogo and Ford teamed up on the Courier/B1600 mini truck project.
Mazda has managed to come up with a new "crossover" SUV that seems to
be selling very well, which is good for Ford, since they can't seem to
design one of their own.
 >> Stay informed about: Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch 

"Bill Putney" wrote in message

> DeserTBoB wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 14:59:32 -0700, "kmatheson@sisna.com"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Japanese manufacturers now build a lot of cars for the U.S. market
>>>on U.S. soil. They don't have to contend with the labor problems that
>>>the big three do. <snip>
>>
>>
>> ...meaning they predatorily take advantage of weak, unenforce labor
>> laws in the US to their own advantage...and the disadvantage of US
>> workers. How nice.
>
> My b.s. detector just went off.
>
> No, TrollBobSquarepants - it means that they don't do suicidal things like
> GM did years ago like sign agreements with unions that say that if a
> supplier or someone within GM comes up with an idea on a subassembly that
> will save GM money by eliminating a warm body on GM's existing production
> line, the idea could *not* be implemented, whereas a competitor could
> realize those cost savings on their line if similar types of efficiency
> improvements were identified. Search my past posts on GM's PICOS program
> which I had first-hand experience with.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

i'm new here Bill but have observed you are a prolific and informed poster
but i think you've got it wrong with this one...Toyota in particular are
known to be a brutal employer, driving their employees to exhaustion with
forced overtime and restrictive practices. there are dozens of suicides in
which employment at Toyota is implicated.

not only that, they are systematically reducing the "unseen" quality in
their vehicles to maximize profits.

i suppose you can argue that all of that is just smart business but if you
make your living as an auto worker i suspect you wouldn't agree.
 >> Stay informed about: Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch 

Simon wrote:

>> ...No, TrollBobSquarepants - it means that they don't do suicidal things like
>> GM did years ago like sign agreements with unions that say that if a
>> supplier or someone within GM comes up with an idea on a subassembly that
>> will save GM money by eliminating a warm body on GM's existing production
>> line, the idea could *not* be implemented, whereas a competitor could
>> realize those cost savings on their line if similar types of efficiency
>> improvements were identified. Search my past posts on GM's PICOS program
>> which I had first-hand experience with.
>>
>> Bill Putney
>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
>> with the letter 'x')
>
> i'm new here Bill but have observed you are a prolific and informed poster
> but i think you've got it wrong with this one...Toyota in particular are
> known to be a brutal employer, driving their employees to exhaustion with
> forced overtime and restrictive practices. there are dozens of suicides in
> which employment at Toyota is implicated.
>
> not only that, they are systematically reducing the "unseen" quality in
> their vehicles to maximize profits.
>
> i suppose you can argue that all of that is just smart business but if you
> make your living as an auto worker i suspect you wouldn't agree.

You're equating two things that are not equivalent. I don't know if
what you said about Toyota is true or not (sounds like union mentality
propaganda) - first I've heard of that. But let's assume it is true for
a moment. What does that have to do with GM allowing themselves to be
boxed in to where they can't exercise good business practices in that if
they find a more efficient way to do a process, they can take one or
more workers off that less efficient old process and put them to new
tasks that help productivity - helps the company and helps long-term job
stability.

I don't see re-assigning workers to more productive jobs as
suicide-inducing practices. I see companies not being able to compete
by exercising good business practices as being suicidal for the company.
Ultimately - yeah that is cruel to the employee when he loses his job
because the company is going bankrupt - except the employee forced them
to go to that.

OK - so you just showed up here. Great - but why are you picking up on
old discussions that stopped months ago and carrying on as if they are
current discussions. One of your recent posts starts off "lol...beat me
to it..." in response to a post in a thread that dropped off the radar
screen several months ago. Are you a troll?

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch 

Bill,

no, i'm not a troll. i actually didn't notice how old the threads were that
i was replying to and have already posted an apology for that.

as for your specific arguments below, i don't have time to respond fully
right now but my general concern is that there seems to be a general mindset
developing that auto manufacturing in the "western" world can only be
sustained by returning employees to "third world" levels of compensation and
working conditions. and before you ask, i am not a production worker nor a
union member, i own my own business, and i own two older Dodge vans, so i
have no vested interest whatsoever in the welfare of blue-collar workers.

so my question to Americans (just for the record I am British but live in
Canada) is; do you want your auto industry to survive by creating difficult
or impossible working conditions for the employees? do you want more
Wal-Mart level of employment in your country?

at the end of the day there may not be much choice but i just get the sense
that there is a bit of an "i'm all right jack, i'm a white-collar guy" kind
of mentality developing where people want "somebody else" to do all the hard
work and live in ghettos for their trouble while they (we) carry on serenely
in our suburbs.

now, i am not a "leftie" and i know society will always be somewhat
stratified but i am just concerned that we shouldn't be taking deliberate
steps to make things worse than they are.

well, that is a very simplified version of my viewpoint. it is a complex
issue for sure and the greatest minds on the planet may well not solve the
conundrum.

Have a nice day.

Simon.


"Bill Putney" wrote in message

> Simon wrote:
>
>>> ...No, TrollBobSquarepants - it means that they don't do suicidal things
>>> like GM did years ago like sign agreements with unions that say that if
>>> a supplier or someone within GM comes up with an idea on a subassembly
>>> that will save GM money by eliminating a warm body on GM's existing
>>> production line, the idea could *not* be implemented, whereas a
>>> competitor could realize those cost savings on their line if similar
>>> types of efficiency improvements were identified. Search my past posts
>>> on GM's PICOS program which I had first-hand experience with.
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>
>> i'm new here Bill but have observed you are a prolific and informed
>> poster but i think you've got it wrong with this one...Toyota in
>> particular are known to be a brutal employer, driving their employees to
>> exhaustion with forced overtime and restrictive practices. there are
>> dozens of suicides in which employment at Toyota is implicated.
>>
>> not only that, they are systematically reducing the "unseen" quality in
>> their vehicles to maximize profits.
>>
>> i suppose you can argue that all of that is just smart business but if
>> you make your living as an auto worker i suspect you wouldn't agree.
>
> You're equating two things that are not equivalent. I don't know if what
> you said about Toyota is true or not (sounds like union mentality
> propaganda) - first I've heard of that. But let's assume it is true for a
> moment. What does that have to do with GM allowing themselves to be boxed
> in to where they can't exercise good business practices in that if they
> find a more efficient way to do a process, they can take one or more
> workers off that less efficient old process and put them to new tasks that
> help productivity - helps the company and helps long-term job stability.
>
> I don't see re-assigning workers to more productive jobs as
> suicide-inducing practices. I see companies not being able to compete by
> exercising good business practices as being suicidal for the company.
> Ultimately - yeah that is cruel to the employee when he loses his job
> because the company is going bankrupt - except the employee forced them to
> go to that.
>
> OK - so you just showed up here. Great - but why are you picking up on old
> discussions that stopped months ago and carrying on as if they are current
> discussions. One of your recent posts starts off "lol...beat me to it..."
> in response to a post in a thread that dropped off the radar screen
> several months ago. Are you a troll?
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch 

Simon wrote:
> Bill,
>
> no, i'm not a troll. i actually didn't notice how old the threads were that
> i was replying to and have already posted an apology for that.

I understand now.

> as for your specific arguments below, i don't have time to respond fully
> right now but my general concern is that there seems to be a general mindset
> developing that auto manufacturing in the "western" world can only be
> sustained by returning employees to "third world" levels of compensation and
> working conditions. and before you ask, i am not a production worker nor a
> union member, i own my own business, and i own two older Dodge vans, so i
> have no vested interest whatsoever in the welfare of blue-collar workers.
>
> so my question to Americans (just for the record I am British but live in
> Canada) is; do you want your auto industry to survive by creating difficult
> or impossible working conditions for the employees? do you want more
> Wal-Mart level of employment in your country?

Under existing union rules, their jobs will not survive. If you
maintain the existing rules, they will be worse off than if they had to
work under *reasonable* conditions like everybody else. I'm not
proposing coal mine working conditions - just some reasonable rules, not
elitist union rules.

So you think a company ought not to be allowed to move its people around
within a factory for the most efficient operation, profitability, and
protection of jobs? That's all I was pointing out, yet you seem to be
taking issue with that. A strange philosophy for anyone who understands
economics to even a basic level, especially someone who owns their own
business.

> at the end of the day there may not be much choice but i just get the sense
> that there is a bit of an "i'm all right jack, i'm a white-collar guy" kind
> of mentality developing where people want "somebody else" to do all the hard
> work and live in ghettos for their trouble while they (we) carry on serenely
> in our suburbs.

If you think the typical U.S. auto worker has been living a ghetto
lifestyle, then you are ignorant of what you are discussing.

> now, i am not a "leftie" and i know society will always be somewhat
> stratified but i am just concerned that we shouldn't be taking deliberate
> steps to make things worse than they are.
>
> well, that is a very simplified version of my viewpoint. it is a complex
> issue for sure and the greatest minds on the planet may well not solve the
> conundrum.

I disagree. I think some intelligent and honest economists *could*
solve it, but, unfortunately we have some of the biggest idiots in the
world working on it in Washington as we speak and doing everything they
can to make it worse.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: Big 3 blows it again, Japs eating their lunch