No help or wrong help for Detroit?

Brent P wrote:
>
>
> Considering the union contracts, they are basically running a
> welfare/entitlement government operation.

Actually, no. They are trying to sell a product and have a skilled
workforce to accomplish that goal.

The unions did not design and build the turds the marketing departments
try and polish.

The unions did not decide to build big station wagons on truck bodies
and milk them for all they were worth and not design drivable smaller
cars.

The unions did not force the companies to slavishly follow the next
quarter's earnings forecasts.

The unions don't decide to cut corners and make unreliable cars.

The Germans and the Japanese in their home markets get pretty good pay
and bennies for their work in the auto plants. Heck, even the Koreans
do pretty well. And yet, these folks don't seem to have any problem
making cars folks in the U.S. would buy.

If Ford and GM want people to buy their cars, they have to make their
cars BETTER than the competition, and sell them at the same price, or
the same as the competition and sell them cheaper. If the union
contracts stand in their way, lock them out and hire on scabs. But
what really stands in their way? They *make crappy cars.*

Will never buy domestic again,

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>> Considering the union contracts, they are basically running a
>> welfare/entitlement government operation.
>
> Actually, no. They are trying to sell a product and have a skilled
> workforce to accomplish that goal.

While they pay union workers to sit on their asses.

> The unions did not design and build the turds the marketing departments
> try and polish.

You didn't read what I wrote then. The vehicle has to be cheapened
because of the high overhead costs so it can be sold for a profit. I have
discussed the ****ups the marketeers on many occasions. It's clear you
don't understand how little power engineers have in corporations like
ford and GM. Most know it's **** but there isn't a damn thing they can do
about it.

> The unions did not decide to build big station wagons on truck bodies
> and milk them for all they were worth and not design drivable smaller
> cars.

CAFE did that.

> The unions did not force the companies to slavishly follow the next
> quarter's earnings forecasts.

That's a US mentality.

> The unions don't decide to cut corners and make unreliable cars.

No, just increased the build price significantly if the cost didn't come
out elsewhere. And often a number of problems of why domestics have a bad
rep is _build quality_. That's why one car, same make and model is
perfectly reliable and the next one is a turd. The turds ruin the sales
for the good ones. This happens with US automaker's models but so much
with the foreign makes why is that?

> The Germans and the Japanese in their home markets get pretty good pay
> and bennies for their work in the auto plants. Heck, even the Koreans
> do pretty well. And yet, these folks don't seem to have any problem
> making cars folks in the U.S. would buy.

Most of the vehicles the japanese makes have to compete with GM and
ford's standard faire are made here in the USA. Their non-union plants do
pay well as I understand, but are no where near as costly labor wise as GM's
and Ford's. Why is that? The same can be said of BMW, and every other
foreign make with non-union factories in the USA as far as I can tell.

Why is it that these non-union factories pay well and are much less
costly labor wise? Could it because they are non-union and don't have
the burdonsome costs of decades of contracts and silly nonsense?

> If Ford and GM want people to buy their cars, they have to make their
> cars BETTER than the competition, and sell them at the same price, or
> the same as the competition and sell them cheaper. If the union
> contracts stand in their way, lock them out and hire on scabs. But
> what really stands in their way? They *make crappy cars.*

Imagine you are in business making a product. You want to compete price
wise. Labor costs you twice as much as it does the other guy. You want
your quality to be the same or better. Here are your options:

1) bring down labor costs.
a) use less workers. (oops against union contract.)
b) automation. (oops against union contract.)
c) go off shore. (oops against union contract.)
2) Try to cheapen the design and hope it doesn't reduce product quality.
3) forget about profits and sell at cost/loss.

1 and 3 are immediately off the table. So it's 2.

The other option is to forget about large segments of the market that
don't have enough margin to cover your added labor costs. However
your competitors can beat you on cost in the more expensive classes as
well. They use their profits from the lower tier that you don't have to
subsidize driving you out in the markets you are selling in. Now you're
really screwed.

Again, what do you do? You aren't allowed to reduce your labor costs.

What do you do?

You do 2), you make your engineers take as much cost out of the component
side as possible. You lean on your suppliers hard. You keep going and
hope it doesn't cause problems. But oops, here's the big curve ball, your
finance guys and marketeers come up with one bad idea after another and
the good ones that engineering or even the marketeers come up with
end up making it to market as a shadow of what they should be if they do
at all to make up for labor costs and meet price point.

So, you go out of business, that's what you do.

> Will never buy domestic again,

So why all the union support?

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >

[snip excuses for poor management]

>
> > Will never buy domestic again,
>
> So why all the union support?

"Lock them out and hire scabs" sounds like union support to you?

Place the blame where it belongs - with spineless management that can't
seem to build cars that people are willing to pay for.

Unions and their contracts do have something to do with the woes of the
U.S. auto industry, but the biggest part has been 25 years of unending
crap from Detroit, with a few gems buried within. Oh, and another
thing - even *Italian* cars, and their quirky ergonomics, are more
thoughtfully laid out than the crap coming from Detroit. In an Italian
car, you think when you first climb in, "Wow, this is kinda weird", and
then get used to it in 15 minutes.

I have no idea what brain-dead designer has come up with the junk
ergonomics in most of Detroit's recent offerings. And unions have
nothing to do with that, or the crap lighting, or the lobbying to get
DRLs implemented in a depowered high beam bulb, etc, etc.

Scapegoating the unions for primarily management issues is just more
knee-jerk partisanship. Get rid of all the union workers and you'd
still have a bunch of crap cars, and would continue to have crap cars
for another five years, at least. More likely, a decade.

The American automaker is dead. Send flowers.

E.P.

Decades ago, unions were necessary in that they made management
take into consideration the needs of their workforce. But as time went
by, the unions became just another bureaucratic layer seeking to make
a fast dollar. The analogy is that of a tennis game. You either keep
your eye on the ball or the score. If the latter, you will loose. And so
the decades of ripping off the public has lead Detroit's Mo-Town to
where it is today.

It is part and parcal of our 'throw-away' society. It wasn't thought too much
about as long as it was dealing with ink pens and other small objects, but
when the same philosophy (e.g., planned obsolesence) became part of
larger, more expensive objects, the devastation became clear.

John D. Rockefeller loathed competition! Rockefellers still use your
money to stay rich, but now it's called philanthropic. Competition was
never seriously embraced; it's just the pc thing to say. Blame it on
glob-(gobble)i-zation. Globalization. Anytime you rip down the barriers
things are going to be different and not necessarily for the better.
Everyone (buyer as well as seller) wants more for less, so the game goes on.

Those enjoying living high on the hog now, will have their day. It's cyclical
unless and until the greed mentality is broken. It won't be anytime soon.

"wolfpuppy" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Helen" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Decades ago, unions were necessary in that they made management
>> take into consideration the needs of their workforce. But as time went
>> by, the unions became just another bureaucratic layer seeking to make
>> a fast dollar. The analogy is that of a tennis game. You either keep
>> your eye on the ball or the score. If the latter, you will loose. And so
>> the decades of ripping off the public has lead Detroit's Mo-Town to
>> where it is today.
>>
>> It is part and parcal of our 'throw-away' society. It wasn't thought too much
>> about as long as it was dealing with ink pens and other small objects, but
>> when the same philosophy (e.g., planned obsolesence) became part of
>> larger, more expensive objects, the devastation became clear.
>>
>> John D. Rockefeller loathed competition! Rockefellers still use your
>> money to stay rich, but now it's called philanthropic. Competition was
>> never seriously embraced; it's just the pc thing to say. Blame it on
>> glob-(gobble)i-zation. Globalization. Anytime you rip down the barriers
>> things are going to be different and not necessarily for the better.
>> Everyone (buyer as well as seller) wants more for less, so the game goes on.
>>
>> Those enjoying living high on the hog now, will have their day. It's cyclical
>> unless and until the greed mentality is broken. It won't be anytime soon.
>
> Another point to consider, Helen, is that unions are also good for a company in certain ways.
> For example, when a union and company negotiate a three year contract, prices and such remain
> fixed and the company can do accurate long range forecasting. Without a contract, the
> company cannot always do this reliably and may suffer for it. So it goes both ways. A
> contract has to be beneficial to both parties or nobody is going to agree to it. That's the
> essence of any good contract.
Agreed! Both are needed, but the third element that is too often overlooked
is the worker and/or the public (potential consumer). There are 'good' unions
and there are 'bad' unions just as is the case with management. But when they
both start playing the same game, it gets expensive because then the lawyers
(who really are the bottom line in all this) get in and must have their cut. And
so it goes.

wolfpuppy wrote:
>
>
> Lawyers have nothing at all to do with negotiated contracts between unions
> and the company. These details are all ironed out at the bargaining table.
> The companies have lawyers, of course, as any company would, but when it
> comes to union issues, 99.99% of them will be settled in arbitration. It is
> rare that a court would be involved in a dispute between a union and a
> company. As for the consumer, he has the choice to buy from that company or
> shop at their competitor, something every company is aware of far in advance
> prior to agreeing to any contract.
>
> Only about 2% of the population are union employees today.

And yet, they, and their contracts, are an exceedingly easy scapegoat
for the ills of the auto industry.

Here's a thought exercise - back in the early '80s, foreign makers made
what were then deemed "hot hatches", econobox hatchbacks with bigger
motors, uprated suspensions and better brakes, than the regular line.
They sold for a bit more, but not so much as to keep them from being
entry-level.

So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
of.

I mean, what you're trying to do is get them in early, give them a
decent car, and then as they get older and the priorities change, they
buy the models with more luxury/room/towing capacity, etc.

I can't figure out why this wouldn't work AND make money for folks who
are in desparate need for both.

E.P.

> On 3/5/2006 3:38 PM ... Ed Pirrero wrote:
> wolfpuppy wrote:
>>
>> Lawyers have nothing at all to do with negotiated contracts between unions
>> and the company. These details are all ironed out at the bargaining table.
>> The companies have lawyers, of course, as any company would, but when it
>> comes to union issues, 99.99% of them will be settled in arbitration. It is
>> rare that a court would be involved in a dispute between a union and a
>> company. As for the consumer, he has the choice to buy from that company or
>> shop at their competitor, something every company is aware of far in advance
>> prior to agreeing to any contract.
>>
>> Only about 2% of the population are union employees today.
>
> And yet, they, and their contracts, are an exceedingly easy scapegoat
> for the ills of the auto industry.
>
> Here's a thought exercise - back in the early '80s, foreign makers made
> what were then deemed "hot hatches", econobox hatchbacks with bigger
> motors, uprated suspensions and better brakes, than the regular line.
> They sold for a bit more, but not so much as to keep them from being
> entry-level.
>
> So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
> today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
> the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
> some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
> you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
> even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
> of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
> of.
>
> I mean, what you're trying to do is get them in early, give them a
> decent car, and then as they get older and the priorities change, they
> buy the models with more luxury/room/towing capacity, etc.
>
> I can't figure out why this wouldn't work AND make money for folks who
> are in desparate need for both.
>
> E.P.
>

A basic car should sell. I agree. Get rid of the speed sentitive radio
volume control, auto headlamps, the chimes that tell you when your butt
stinks and I'd go for it.

In article . com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >
>
> [snip excuses for poor management]

So, how would you compete under the conditions and support those union
contracts.


> Place the blame where it belongs - with spineless management that can't
> seem to build cars that people are willing to pay for.

You don't seem to grasp how everything is _connected_.

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
> today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
> the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
> some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
> you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
> even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
> of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
> of.

saturn redline, dodge neon R/T, ford focus SVT, chevy cobalt SS?

you meen *those* kinda cars?

SoCalMike wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
> > today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
> > the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
> > some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
> > you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
> > even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
> > of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
> > of.
>
> saturn redline, dodge neon R/T, ford focus SVT, chevy cobalt SS?
>
> you meen *those* kinda cars?

No, I do not. Those lines might be "entry level" for those particular
divisions/makers, but those *models* have the most standard features of
the line. The most decked out.

I'm talking about *base* level cars of any particular line, with a line
item option called "performance group", where the car gets the hot
engine, the manual tranny, better suspension and the better brakes, on
the bottom-of-the-line car, such that the price comes out lower to mid
range of the line.

E.P.