Well pretty much 62' GM gave Delphimostly old-outdated plants. OTOH Delphi has build hundred million dollar plants across the globe. I like I've said in the past don't mind competing with country's if they play by the rules.
No child labor, safe working conditions, etc etc. Alot of our biggest import country's are the same ones that have a closed market when it comes to buying american goods. Wheter those folks will but our products hasn't yet been figured out. I do see a wage and benefit reduction for the remaing Delphi plants. The workers know it and are flowing back to General Motors, and Delphi is losing all of it's skilled help. Do I at somepoint thin delphi will bounce back ? Well the have $25 Billion reasons why the whole company isn't going to tank. I honestly believe the Delphi Stock will be a "must buy" for those seeking a big risk. It has a good possible/risk after the 2007' Contracts Negotiations.
If Delphi is so much better than Siemens, why is Delphi headed for the toilet and Siemens making great products and profits? Are you referring to the same NASA that has lost two Space Shuttles due to poor quality control?
I think you are grasping at straws to protect jobs that are already gone. Just no one has told the workers. Your Dad got out with a pension. He is one of the smart ones. Twenty some years ago when the last TV manufacturer pulled out of the USA, Zenith. Everyone said it was the end for the American factory worker. As we speak Toyota is building a huge new factory in your state to produce full size PU trucks. I just read a report on a couple that retired after 20 or so years of working for Toyota in this country. Change is inevitable. We have to adapt or go on welfare. Sadly many people would rather do nothing than to make life changes. I spent my whole youth moving with my parents to where there was work. If that is what it takes those Delphi folks need to make a move. Plenty of room in TX as you well know. Better weather than Michigan also.
Well the have $25 Billion reasons why the whole company isn't going to tank
You keep repeating that $25 billion, like it is true. At this point it is just UAW spin. The union will use false information to incite the workers. I know that for a fact as I have done it. Remember the only thing that did not decrease for the 80,000 grocery clerks in CA after their strike, was the Union dues. Interesting side note on labor contracts. Von's cannot get people to go to work because the starting union pay is only $6.75 per hour. McDonald's pay starts at $8.50 and my daughter after 6 months makes $9.50 at Wally World.
Rocky, I think that you have to accept that the unions are under real threat, and that wage arbitrage (i.e. wage levels abroad creating opportunities for profit that will lure US firms abroad) is a competitive factor. Some posters here seem pretty thrilled about it, while others are against it, but I just see a need to accept it for what it is and adapt accordingly.
Nonetheless, the free market outlook is also a bit naive. Perhaps a reality check can be summarized as follows:
-Not many consumers care where a product is built, or who built it. If GM or Ford builds a bad product that consumers don't like or want, blaming the union won't make that product better or sell more of it. Yet on the other hand, people don't mind buying products built in the US by union labor, either, if the products serve their needs and wants. It all comes back to design, engineering and quality, combined with good marketing and service.
-It's simply unrealistic to expect thousands of assembly line workers who are older and lack skills outside of manufacturing to bounce back and become Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, etc. Yes, a few will, but most won't -- these people were hired for their ability to follow instructions, not build businesses. While the "New Economy" may be what it is, it isn't going to work out great for everyone.
-One day, many of the smug types in the white-collar classes may find themselves in the same boat as the blue-collar guys. If trained, low-cost tax preparers or lawyers can do much of the heavy lifting from Delhi or Bangalore at a lower cost than can their counterparts in Denver or Boston, then we will see competitive issues there as well. It's easy to bash on the common worker, but that's only because the impacts haven't migrated up the chain, and time will tell whether educated workers find themselves in the same boat as their union brethren.
When the next hurricane or earthquake hits remind those other countries (and US) to ask China, India, etc., to give them help. It's time for all those who moved the local businesses out to pay their fair share. Japan, are you listening? Korea?
"I'm not going to sit back and argue with you rorr. I like ya alot. We just see it so differently."
Don't sweat it rock. I think we do just see stuff differently and it's fine that we can go back and forth on this without getting our underoos all in a knot.
Wouldn't mind sharing a couple of brews with you if I ever got the chance.
Don't sweat it rock. I think we do just see stuff differently and it's fine that we can go back and forth on this without getting our underoos all in a knot.
Wouldn't mind sharing a couple of brews with you if I ever got the chance.
I like this! Let's all go out for drinks with Rocky! We would have lively discussions and have a lot of fun! - we just can't take it too seriously.
Siemens Technology is like that of Flinstones, seriously
Ummmm...I don't think so. I don't know what you're thinking of, but these are state of the art direct injection diesel units. Very high fuel pressures, in excess of 60,000 psi IIRC.
I don't think smugness has much to do with it. Personally, I could benefit tremedously in the short term if anti-trust law could make an exception for my own industry and allow collective price setting by us suppliers instead of the current state of fierce competition both in terms of innovation and price. However, I also have the foresight to ask the question "then what?" What if every other industry does the same thing? Our standards of living would be much lower if every industry were cartelized.
The argument that somehow workers are all blameless when a company like GM goes down just makes no sense. Like you said, union or non-union, consumers care not one squat . . . what consumers want are good value; i.e. high quality goods and services at relatively low price. Union tend to get itself involved with companies that fail to deliver that . . . perhaps it's just co-incidence :-)
There is nothing new about having to look for a new line of job late in one's working life. I happened to be talking to my wife's grandma over the Memorial Day weekend. She's having difficulty learning to use personal computer; turns out she became a GM worker at age 50 as a line worker, after working a half a dozen years there the plant closed and she took the buy-out, and she found job with Digital Equipment Corp and work there until her retirement. Guess what? Between her own savings and that of her husband, she is probably financially more secure than any of her baby-boomer children. If one can no longer adapt to the changing market environment, it's really time for retirment. That's what savings are for. Protecting obsolete jobs really benefits nobody. High tech companies of the 70's and 80's like DEC would have had a hard time finding staffers if the old line manufacturers were "protected"/perpetuated in the northeast; in turn, DEC probably could have been saved if the government passed law to protect networking workstation market from PC competition . . . but how would that benefit the society overall?
The line between the blue-collar and white-collar is really quite blurred to begin with. My wife's grandma made the simple switch when she jumped from GM to DEC. Most technology, medical and finance companies still need a lot of staffers who are simply office workers. It really does not take much to be an office worker, so long as one still has the work ethics intact. Union and other "protected" job policies tend to destroy work ethics for workers . . . the result is a beggar-thy-neighbor situation with no winner.
The beggar-thy-neighbor result also follows when bad economy turns the population to protectionism, and make the situation worse. Commerce is what enable specialization and division of labor, thereby engendering wealth and higher standards of living. Political boundaries are quite arbitrary lines, maintained by violence and threat thereof. When people can not improve their lives by peaceful cooperation across the lines, they resort to wars to get rid of the political boundaries constraining economic growth.
Well Delphi was voted by some magazine according to dad as the most technological advanced company in the world. Siemens has had it's fair share of finacial woes also. Ya'll can believe what ya want, but I'm going to lean torwards what the UAW found ($25 Billion) as being correct until proven otherwise. I am going to buy some Delphi stock within the next month and about a year or 2 I should make atleast 10X my investment. I think about $5-10G's is a safe investment into Delphi
Rocky
P.S. Better weather in Tx ? I guess that's a opinion I don't agree with pal. Texas isn't near a pretty, or advanced as a society outside the Megaopolis's.
I couldn't of said it better pal. It's amazing that some find it okay to live in a society where we need to get retrain every 5 years. My god how is one going to beable to afford all this education ???? It typically takes 4+ years to retrain and by the time you get your acquired skill "The Market" will send your job to India. :sick:
Globalization in my opinion is the worst thing that has ever happened to the United States economy in my opinion.
We need to start a edmunds national convention. "Where the beer is cold, and the topic is automobiles"
Sounds like a plan to me!
I don't know where all the fear of retraining is coming from. In my career as an engineer, I've had a "major retraining" about every five years when I changed fields. In between those major retrainings, I've constantly attended classes and seminars to stay on top of the changes in the industry. Yeah, it is a pain sometime, but as others have said, you must adapt or die.
I've worked with vehicles, missiles, fans, taught in a tech scool, and currently do building plans review. All vastly different, but I've enjoyed them all in different ways. I honestly can't imagine doing the same old same old every day until I retire.
But different tastes are what makes the world go around.
I am somewhat a religous type. I wasn't very much before I moved to West Texas, but my friends kinda of rubbed off on me and my wife is pretty religous. "The mark of the beast" is kinda what I was referring to and yes I believe it's going to happen. It's one thing to have a few chips in the car, but a few chips in my wrist and head is taking it to far. I working for our government will quit before they put a chip in my body, and my privacy is already half-way out the window. I know a few guys at Delphi, that need to watch your test.
Better weather in Tx ? I guess that's a opinion I don't agree with pal. Texas isn't near a pretty
You need to get out of West TX and check out your state. I have spent time now in both TX and Michigan. Michigan is nice for a short time in the summer. I retired from 36 years in Alaska and don't want to see snow ever again. Of course San Diego ain't too bad other than sharing it with billions of other people.
I am and always will be a strong supporter of labor. Labor Unions keep the wages and benefits for the workers at a higher than non union level. I think the UAW has pushed the envelope too far with forklift operator's (my first job at the phone company in 1961) making $80k to $120k per year. It takes 8 hours of classroom and behind the wheel training max to operate a forklift safely. I know several PHDs that teach at UCSD that do not make that much money.
There's a huge difference between one who's made multi-million dollar salary's over the years and takes a 50% pay-cut all the way down to a so-called $1.1 dollar salary. Jack Smith get's that in a annual retirement package he signed away for himself. So $1.1 million is sacrifice :confuse: Going from middle income to poverty like Steve Miller is asking is real sacrifice. $1.1 million will put one in the Top 1%. brightness, we are the riches country in the world, but not if you factor in what the average disposable income is for the average american.
This is pretty simple, If we're done talking about the situation with the UAW and domestic automakers, that's OK. But what we can't do is continue to spin off into global economics and all the other off topic stuff that keeps coming up.
Let's sharpen the focus here a bit please.
The hosts do NOT sit on the boards 24/7. It's up to you to stay on topic and not let this thing spin off into the ether.
It is indeed pretty simple stuff: automakers can only find customers and make money if they offer a product that is a better value (or at least comparable value) than what their compeitions offer. Likewise, workers can make a sustainable wage only if they can offer their service at higher quality and/or lower cost than alternatives (or at least comparable). Unions get in the way of that. Artificial union wage levels are just as unsustainable as industries previously protected from competition and refuse to change now.
Rocky unknowingly brought out Keynsian economics when he argued it takes demand to drive economy, even if it means artificial demand created by artificial wage levels. Our nation's experience in the 70's disproved that theory rather handily . . . so did Sweden's in the 1980's
BTW, there's some logical inconsistency in the follow statement: "You were the first person . . . your apparent rebuttal . . ." Rebuttal maker is not the first person to bring up a subtopic. In any case, let's move on.
The US automakers simply cannot afford the UAW anymore. End of story. The UAW better come to this realization real soon and start negotiating, and negotiating earnestly. A strike will not be in the UAW's interest. I think the domestics are chomping at the bit to free themselves of the unions, even if it requires a Chapter 11 to do so.
I have always respected folks who have gone to college for a college education. I however also respect folks who do jobs such as build cars for a living and as of late are greatly underappreciated.
Frankly, a college education or making cars for a living, in and of themselves, deserve no more respect than having a theological degree from a Saudi Madrasa or making buggy whip for a living . . . unless the content of the education and the specific skills involved carry special market value. Yes, every single person deserves respect for his/her humanity . . . however, that does not equate to above-average pay unless he/she can win the advantage for him/herself in a free market place . . . any other way would mean ripping off another person (the very definition of "average")
In an attempt to keep folks from responding to off-topic stuff and taking us father off track, I'm removing posts and, hopefully, the temptation to go down raods we shouldn't be going down.
4 years after the first college degree gets one a PH.D! It's inconceivable retraining would take that long unless it's a UAW Job Bank :-) Most jobs hardly need retraining at all. The mailroom job at GM works out more or less the same as mailroom at DEC, which is again more or less the same at Biogen. Most retraining takes only a few hours to a few days or at most a few weeks, mostly on the job while being paid! Either that it's just a wrong job for you.
do you see any sort of hope from the Big 2.5 yet as far as product goes?
There is hope, but it will be tough. IMO, one of the main problems is GM's and Ford's flailing efforts to sustain dead/ dying marques. Take, for example, Pontiac's latest talk of a possible RWD "strategy", which sounds about as smart as was the failed wide-track strategy.
You know what that sounds like to me? Like GM's Pontiac managers fighting to justify their jobs, because they have failed time and again to develop a coherent strategy, so they just jump from one bad idea to another. Instead of thinking holistically (what is good for GM as a whole), they think of what to do to justify Pontiac's existence, even if it harms the rest of the company, and that causes all of the overlap and excess products that hurt GM in the first place.
Among the domestics, my bets are on DCX, getting rid of Plymouth was smart, and they have been working steadily to seperate the Chrysler and Dodge identities, with the new aggressive branding seeming to be helpful. Ford has some product hope, but management is awful (please leave, Bill), and Mercury is another redundant useless badge that just sucks up marketing dollars and harms the Ford brand with badge engineering. Like GM, it needs to carry fewer nameplates, and sell more units for each of them.
Health Care Marketplace | Ford Retirees Ask Federal Judge To Reject UAW-Ford Agreement on Health Benefits [Jun 01, 2006]
Ford Motor union retirees on Wednesday asked a federal judge to reject an agreement between the automaker and United Auto Workers that would require retirees to contribute more to the cost of health benefits, the Detroit News reports (Hoffman, Detroit News, 6/1). Members of UAW in December 2005 ratified an agreement with Ford that would require union retirees to pay monthly premiums and annual deductibles for health insurance. About 51% of members voted in favor of the agreement. Under the agreement, retired UAW employees would pay monthly premiums and annual deductibles that could total up to $370 for individuals and $752 for families. UAW retirees currently pay no annual deductibles.
Pontiac "managers" do not make these decisions. The only "managers" at Pontiac work on near term projects, like getting the already approved/released model into the marketplace. They can recommend or make suggestions for where a division should go but the corporate planning group has the long term responsibility to look at all the segments and decide where should GM compete and which brand/model will be there. There are maybe 4 marketing "managers" at Pontiac.
I'm always skeptical about those "tax concessions" tailored for specific employers. If the local autority has the money to blow, why don't they just lower local tax rate so that local business can grow and hire local people?? "Industrial policies" hardly ever works. They all come down to politicians ripping average taxpayers off to pay their friends (both the favored employer and the friends/employees that get hired there).
Of course, we all know the reason why that happens: politicians are just like those Pontiac bosses that Solcal is talking about, and the union bosses as well . . . they need to justify their own job existence. The result is often shaft to the most vulnerable: e.g. the hapless retirees getting out-voted on their medical cost in order to keep current union workers and union bosses their jobs. So much for unsustainable promises. The retirees would have been much better off if they found a more robust employer a decade or two ago to hitch their wagons.
Our Teamsters Union in Alaska cut out free medical for retirees many years ago. It is an open door to bankrupting a retirement system. Now we pay our own health insurance until 65 then pay the supplemental. UAW members were lucky to get it as long as they did.
I will also agree with you that if "RWD" is the beginning and end of Pontiac's strategy, it will not work... But, insofar as RWD is associated with "performance", then this strategy is probably the smartest thing GM's done with Pontiac in a long time. By not trying to be a full-line vehicle brand (the Torrent, ugh), GM can focus its resources on only those vehicles that make sense for Pontiac - RWD, performance vehicles. Plus, Pontiac DOES stand for something that no other GM brand can fully deliver.
What do you have against Bill Ford?
Mercury is probably in a worse position than Pontiac even, in terms of brand identity. However, I still think it has potential. It sells to a surprisingly high percentage of women, and it manages (almost despite itself) to appeal to a higher income, "artsy" crowd. I think this position is unique among auto brands (whereas a "performance" division is certainly nothing to write home about). And that if Ford plays its cards right, Mercury can still offer something of value.
Where's all those non-union labor Honda and Toyota plants at ? :P I guess those lazy UAW members aren't so lazy after all according to this source. Last year I posted that union workers out perform non-union on average 2 to 1, and americans as a whole out perform the rest of the world 3 to 1, according to the Dept. of Labor.
You might have a case if the AVERAGE time to produce a car in a Union plant were less than the AVERAGE time to produce a car in a non-Union plant.
I wonder what the spread is between the most efficient Union plants and least efficient Union plants? They should all be the same since they all use Union labor, right?
Wrong. Many factors go into determining just how 'efficient' any particular plant may be. The amount of automation, the complexity of the vehicle, % of the vehicle which arrives at the plant as already assembled subassemblies, flexibility of the plant to changes, etc. etc. all impact the overall # of hours to produce a car. Saying that the difference is due to Union vs. non-Union labor is simplistic.
"I guess those lazy UAW members aren't so lazy after all according to this source."
I don't believe I ever insinuated that they were lazy. They aren't even necessarily overpaid. I just believe that their pay/benefits should be determined by the MARKET and not through extortion.
"Last year I posted that union workers out perform non-union on average 2 to 1....."
I'd like to see the evidence of that.
"...and americans as a whole out perform the rest of the world 3 to 1, according to the Dept. of Labor."
:confuse:
We outperform the rest of the world put togother by 3:1? Or our American average output is 3 times higher than the average global output? Big difference. Regardless, this higher level of performance isn't necessarily due to Unions. It is (IMO) due more to the relatively freer conditions under which businesses and individuals are allowed to operate in this country.
In other words, when operating out of pure self-interest (be it on the business level or on the individual level) IMO folks tend to be more productive. This is because higher productivity benefits them directly. But as more and more of your sweat goes to benefit others (both on the business and individual level), productivity suffers.
Hey pal my post wasn't directed at you or anyone person. We do out-perform foreign workers 3 to 1. Of course this statistic is about 10 years old, but if anything it's grown because we have the money to afford automation and other new high speed sophisticated machinery, buisness modules, etc.
The union worker on average (in a factory) will out perform a non-union worker. It's common sense and obvious. I'll explain later. Your average non-union factory worker that's paid a "so-called" market wage has neither the loyalty, long-term dedication to his employer, and is always looking to move on to something better. I was one of these type of employees and many of my co-workers were also. We worked very hard, but didn't "buy" into the company propoganda of we were being fairly compensated. My fellow non-union workers looked at their place of employment as soley a job and was putting applications in at several places to go get a career. These so called market value wages have new employees come and go. How can that be a benefitual buisnss module for a company ? You have to constantly retrain new personel to come fill the gap. It took weeks to get them up to speed, and sometimes the company would jerk them off of our line and put them somewhere else creating another open position that needed to be filled. Employees came and went and we said if this company would pay better these folks would stay for the long hual like they did for the Big 3 and their union suppliers. This is why the Big 3 factory's when on a level playing field out perform non-union workers on average because the difference being the Union workers know they have a career and not just a steping stone job.
Okay maybe Toyota and that steel plant (Nucor ?) are exceptions. I'm sure there are a few other "exceptions" people can throw at me.
Bottom Line:
If you wanted to use market value pal for everything then you can drive a few hundred miles south of the border where the market value wage is $2 an hour. OR we could go across the pacific where the avg. wage in China is $0.60 an hour. Rorr, please explain to me how americans both union and non-union are going to compete with these wages ?
We might as well send all 26% of our manufactoring jobs to China, since that's what the market value is. While we are at it we should out-source all our engineering, CPA's, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, etc, etc, out of the country also. Where do we draw the line, seriously ? :surprise:
Actually many of those plants also haven't had very much money pumped into them in years. They are simply using the same old buisness process's from the 1980's. :sick:
Rocky
P.S. Yes I also agree with you some of the products in those plants aren't selling.
We don't draw the line the market draws the line. If we the market, buy a car made in a factory that pays less than a GM factory, we are deciding the fate of that union worker. I bought Van's and Dexter shoes right up till they were the last to buckle under and close their plants in the USA. I don't think you can buy a shoe made here anymore, unless it is a custom pair of cowboy boots.
There are parts of the USA that have a labor shortage. Southern CA is below 4% unemployment. We are paying $20 per hour for kids to run the weed whackers on our property. If you don't get it done the city brings in a crew and you pay over $100 per man hour. Forget finding an electrician in a timely manner. Who in their right mind would open a factory in California and try to get people to work in it?
"The union worker on average (in a factory) will out perform a non-union worker. It's common sense and obvious."
Nope, and I'll give you reasons.
A union worker's job is protected through extortion. Deep down in their gut, they know this. You said it yourself: "..the difference being the Union workers know they have a career and not just a steping stone job."
Translation - the Union workers KNOW they have job security. To a large extent regardless of their productivity, they know they have job security.
Non-union members can't rely on protection through extortion. So, how do they ensure that they remain employeed? Their best means is Productivity. Are there companies using non-union labor that have high turn-over due to low wages/long hours? Of course there are - 10's of thousands of them. But that isn't a result of using non-union labor; that's simply a business practice.
The point I'm making is that the closer YOUR job performance (good or bad) is responsible for your wages/benefits (or continued employment), the more productive the average individual.
The ultimate example of this would be any self-employed individual. He has absolutely NO protection since he works for himself. But BECAUSE his wages/benefits are DIRECTLY tied to his performance (oftentimes on a daily basis), these individuals are typically the MOST productive. But as individuals become more and more insulated from the relationship between performance and renumeration, productivity goes down.
"Rorr, please explain to me how americans both union and non-union are going to compete with these wages ?"
If the product of your labor is the same, then they CAN'T compete based purely on wages. But why this fascination with national borders when it comes to wages?
What if (and I say 'what IF') the grand extent of your abilities was mopping floors at McDonalds. But you decided that the wages YOU needed to maintain your chosen lifestyle was $25/hour. Would you be pissing and moaning about not being able to 'compete' with those individuals willing to do the job for minimum wage? Would you be seeking the protection of a Union for FORCE the employers to pay $25/hr for that type of labor? Well, that's all fine, but where does the employer get the money to pay those wages? He's got to start charging $25 for a Happy Meal. But the employer CAN'T do that because he'll have no business.
The employer IS driven by market forces. But for some reason, you believe that the employee should be insulated from this.
What's your solution? Simply make it illegal for American companies to use labor from overseas? Fine - but then American companies begin to be UNCOMPETITIVE with foreign companies. Or maybe just those American companies JUST LEAVE. Everybody starts whining about the 'unlevel playing field'. So then what? Maybe if they can't compete with 'them furriners', they should just put up a bunch of trade barriers.
The problem with that is that it simply makes ALL products (American and imported) and services more expensive for everybody.
So maybe the solution isn't worrying about how the U.S. in general is being dragged DOWN, but to see what can be done to bring UP the economies of the rest of the world.
So maybe the solution isn't worrying about how the U.S. in general is being dragged DOWN, but to see what can be done to bring UP the economies of the rest of the world.
That is the goal of programs like NAFTA. Many hate it but any other course will not work in the long haul. We cannot stay isolated and survive. We see how our borders are for all practical purposes a sieve. If we do not try and bring the standard up South of US, they will come to US.
It only goes to show just how worthless those bought-and-paid-for "studies" are. The Soviets were publishing studies about how their Lada factories were the most productive in the world, better than US, Japanese or German automakers, all the way to the end! Never mind that nobody wanted those piles of junk. A car is a car to the paid-for "study" maker . . . only the market place can assign a relevant real value to the cars made, and thereby arriving at a reasonably accurate result on efficiency. A paid-for researcher may well arrive at the conclusion that some Matchbox factory in India or China is the most productive carmaker in the world . . . Stripped down Tauruses that don't sell, Ladas that nobody wants and toy cars, what's the difference? They are all cars; at least the toy cars are selling.
As to Americans out-perform the rest of the world 3-to-1, we'd better, in order to maintain our relative high standard of living compared to almost the entire rest of the world. The rest of the world constantly engage in counter-productive endeavors, such as militarizing the borders, wasting human resources and natural resources in the process. The productivity numbers are also heavily influenced by currency exchange, for exmple, a burrito maker in the US makes 20 burritos in an hour and sell them for $20 has a productivity of $20/hr (minus material cost) whereas a Mexican who makes 40 burritos in an hour and sell them for 40 pesos ($3.5 dollars) is only counted for $3.5 even if he is making twice as many burritos. Does such disparity make sense? Actually does. The "shirts" coming out of the offices to have lunch and patronize the slow American burrito maker are presumably more productive than the Mexican burrito makers' clients, and more than making up for the difference in their burrito-making skills.
please explain to me how americans both union and non-union are going to compete with these wages ?
The answer is very simple: by doing things that can not be done overseas. The question you are posing is similar to:
(1) cars can make 20hps now (circa 1910) and run for 20k miles without dying, whereas a horse can only make 1hp for a short time and expires after about 2k miles of heavy duty city running, how can horse cabs compete?? Shouldn't there be regulations banning cars in order to keep the souless beasts from taking jobs from the magnificent horses and their skilled drivers? Driving a car is something a housewife could lear in a day (turn of the century prejudice here, remember, women's suffrage had to wait another decade), whereas driving a horse cab takes a real man with real skills.
(2) Bow and arrow takes real skill and decades of training to get the upperbody strength whereas any donut-eater can fire a gun. Do we need to protect the jobs of archers in the military and security services?
The reality is that, it makes no difference to the end user whether carmaking is done by robots here, workers overseas or robots overseas, so long as the quality is kept up and cost is driven down. Objecting to outsourcing overseas is about as silly as objecting to automation. If it makes you feel better, you can think of overseas as a blackbox whereby raw material goes in and cars come out, at low cost. Protecting jobs is the worst policy a government can make: it means taxing and ripping off everyone else who has a productive job to support those whose jobs are obsolete. Temporary unemployment (and the risk thereof) is a tremendous motivator for people to find something productive to do. I was there myself.
Comments
No child labor, safe working conditions, etc etc. Alot of our biggest import country's are the same ones that have a closed market when it comes to buying american goods. Wheter those folks will but our products hasn't yet been figured out.
I do see a wage and benefit reduction for the remaing Delphi plants. The workers know it and are flowing back to General Motors, and Delphi is losing all of it's skilled help. Do I at somepoint thin delphi will bounce back ? Well the have $25 Billion reasons why the whole company isn't going to tank. I honestly believe the Delphi Stock will be a "must buy" for those seeking a big risk. It has a good possible/risk after the 2007' Contracts Negotiations.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
If Delphi is so much better than Siemens, why is Delphi headed for the toilet and Siemens making great products and profits? Are you referring to the same NASA that has lost two Space Shuttles due to poor quality control?
I think you are grasping at straws to protect jobs that are already gone. Just no one has told the workers. Your Dad got out with a pension. He is one of the smart ones. Twenty some years ago when the last TV manufacturer pulled out of the USA, Zenith. Everyone said it was the end for the American factory worker. As we speak Toyota is building a huge new factory in your state to produce full size PU trucks. I just read a report on a couple that retired after 20 or so years of working for Toyota in this country. Change is inevitable. We have to adapt or go on welfare. Sadly many people would rather do nothing than to make life changes. I spent my whole youth moving with my parents to where there was work. If that is what it takes those Delphi folks need to make a move. Plenty of room in TX as you well know. Better weather than Michigan also.
You keep repeating that $25 billion, like it is true. At this point it is just UAW spin. The union will use false information to incite the workers. I know that for a fact as I have done it. Remember the only thing that did not decrease for the 80,000 grocery clerks in CA after their strike, was the Union dues. Interesting side note on labor contracts. Von's cannot get people to go to work because the starting union pay is only $6.75 per hour. McDonald's pay starts at $8.50 and my daughter after 6 months makes $9.50 at Wally World.
Nonetheless, the free market outlook is also a bit naive. Perhaps a reality check can be summarized as follows:
-Not many consumers care where a product is built, or who built it. If GM or Ford builds a bad product that consumers don't like or want, blaming the union won't make that product better or sell more of it. Yet on the other hand, people don't mind buying products built in the US by union labor, either, if the products serve their needs and wants. It all comes back to design, engineering and quality, combined with good marketing and service.
-It's simply unrealistic to expect thousands of assembly line workers who are older and lack skills outside of manufacturing to bounce back and become Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, etc. Yes, a few will, but most won't -- these people were hired for their ability to follow instructions, not build businesses. While the "New Economy" may be what it is, it isn't going to work out great for everyone.
-One day, many of the smug types in the white-collar classes may find themselves in the same boat as the blue-collar guys. If trained, low-cost tax preparers or lawyers can do much of the heavy lifting from Delhi or Bangalore at a lower cost than can their counterparts in Denver or Boston, then we will see competitive issues there as well. It's easy to bash on the common worker, but that's only because the impacts haven't migrated up the chain, and time will tell whether educated workers find themselves in the same boat as their union brethren.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Don't sweat it rock. I think we do just see stuff differently and it's fine that we can go back and forth on this without getting our underoos all in a knot.
Wouldn't mind sharing a couple of brews with you if I ever got the chance.
Wouldn't mind sharing a couple of brews with you if I ever got the chance.
I like this! Let's all go out for drinks with Rocky! We would have lively discussions and have a lot of fun! - we just can't take it too seriously.
Ummmm...I don't think so. I don't know what you're thinking of, but these are state of the art direct injection diesel units. Very high fuel pressures, in excess of 60,000 psi IIRC.
Don't know anything about Delphi's units.
The argument that somehow workers are all blameless when a company like GM goes down just makes no sense. Like you said, union or non-union, consumers care not one squat . . . what consumers want are good value; i.e. high quality goods and services at relatively low price. Union tend to get itself involved with companies that fail to deliver that . . . perhaps it's just co-incidence :-)
There is nothing new about having to look for a new line of job late in one's working life. I happened to be talking to my wife's grandma over the Memorial Day weekend. She's having difficulty learning to use personal computer; turns out she became a GM worker at age 50 as a line worker, after working a half a dozen years there the plant closed and she took the buy-out, and she found job with Digital Equipment Corp and work there until her retirement. Guess what? Between her own savings and that of her husband, she is probably financially more secure than any of her baby-boomer children. If one can no longer adapt to the changing market environment, it's really time for retirment. That's what savings are for. Protecting obsolete jobs really benefits nobody. High tech companies of the 70's and 80's like DEC would have had a hard time finding staffers if the old line manufacturers were "protected"/perpetuated in the northeast; in turn, DEC probably could have been saved if the government passed law to protect networking workstation market from PC competition . . . but how would that benefit the society overall?
The line between the blue-collar and white-collar is really quite blurred to begin with. My wife's grandma made the simple switch when she jumped from GM to DEC. Most technology, medical and finance companies still need a lot of staffers who are simply office workers. It really does not take much to be an office worker, so long as one still has the work ethics intact. Union and other "protected" job policies tend to destroy work ethics for workers . . . the result is a beggar-thy-neighbor situation with no winner.
The beggar-thy-neighbor result also follows when bad economy turns the population to protectionism, and make the situation worse. Commerce is what enable specialization and division of labor, thereby engendering wealth and higher standards of living. Political boundaries are quite arbitrary lines, maintained by violence and threat thereof. When people can not improve their lives by peaceful cooperation across the lines, they resort to wars to get rid of the political boundaries constraining economic growth.
Rocky
P.S.
Better weather in Tx ? I guess that's a opinion I don't agree with pal. Texas isn't near a pretty, or advanced as a society outside the Megaopolis's.
Rocky
P.S. go to Delphi's website and look at all that they build. It's night and day seriously.
Rocky
I couldn't of said it better pal. It's amazing that some find it okay to live in a society where we need to get retrain every 5 years. My god how is one going to beable to afford all this education ???? It typically takes 4+ years to retrain and by the time you get your acquired skill "The Market" will send your job to India. :sick:
Globalization in my opinion is the worst thing that has ever happened to the United States economy in my opinion.
"I believe time will eventually prove me right"
Rocky
Rocky
Sounds like a plan to me!
I don't know where all the fear of retraining is coming from. In my career as an engineer, I've had a "major retraining" about every five years when I changed fields. In between those major retrainings, I've constantly attended classes and seminars to stay on top of the changes in the industry. Yeah, it is a pain sometime, but as others have said, you must adapt or die.
I've worked with vehicles, missiles, fans, taught in a tech scool, and currently do building plans review. All vastly different, but I've enjoyed them all in different ways. I honestly can't imagine doing the same old same old every day until I retire.
But different tastes are what makes the world go around.
Rocky
You need to get out of West TX and check out your state. I have spent time now in both TX and Michigan. Michigan is nice for a short time in the summer. I retired from 36 years in Alaska and don't want to see snow ever again. Of course San Diego ain't too bad other than sharing it with billions of other people.
I am and always will be a strong supporter of labor. Labor Unions keep the wages and benefits for the workers at a higher than non union level. I think the UAW has pushed the envelope too far with forklift operator's (my first job at the phone company in 1961) making $80k to $120k per year. It takes 8 hours of classroom and behind the wheel training max to operate a forklift safely. I know several PHDs that teach at UCSD that do not make that much money.
If you had one of those 40 mpg Civics, you could afford the gas.
Rocky
Rocky
I KNOW... a lot of thing can be related to hte topic, but we need to stick to the automotive issues here.
And if you want to discuss economics or systems of government, this isn't the place to do that either.
Rocky
Let's sharpen the focus here a bit please.
The hosts do NOT sit on the boards 24/7. It's up to you to stay on topic and not let this thing spin off into the ether.
Rocky unknowingly brought out Keynsian economics when he argued it takes demand to drive economy, even if it means artificial demand created by artificial wage levels. Our nation's experience in the 70's disproved that theory rather handily . . . so did Sweden's in the 1980's
BTW, there's some logical inconsistency in the follow statement: "You were the first person . . . your apparent rebuttal . . ." Rebuttal maker is not the first person to bring up a subtopic. In any case, let's move on.
The US automakers simply cannot afford the UAW anymore. End of story. The UAW better come to this realization real soon and start negotiating, and negotiating earnestly. A strike will not be in the UAW's interest. I think the domestics are chomping at the bit to free themselves of the unions, even if it requires a Chapter 11 to do so.
Just my .02.
Frankly, a college education or making cars for a living, in and of themselves, deserve no more respect than having a theological degree from a Saudi Madrasa or making buggy whip for a living . . . unless the content of the education and the specific skills involved carry special market value. Yes, every single person deserves respect for his/her humanity . . . however, that does not equate to above-average pay unless he/she can win the advantage for him/herself in a free market place . . . any other way would mean ripping off another person (the very definition of "average")
Pardon the dust while I clean up.
There is hope, but it will be tough. IMO, one of the main problems is GM's and Ford's flailing efforts to sustain dead/ dying marques. Take, for example, Pontiac's latest talk of a possible RWD "strategy", which sounds about as smart as was the failed wide-track strategy.
You know what that sounds like to me? Like GM's Pontiac managers fighting to justify their jobs, because they have failed time and again to develop a coherent strategy, so they just jump from one bad idea to another. Instead of thinking holistically (what is good for GM as a whole), they think of what to do to justify Pontiac's existence, even if it harms the rest of the company, and that causes all of the overlap and excess products that hurt GM in the first place.
Among the domestics, my bets are on DCX, getting rid of Plymouth was smart, and they have been working steadily to seperate the Chrysler and Dodge identities, with the new aggressive branding seeming to be helpful. Ford has some product hope, but management is awful (please leave, Bill), and Mercury is another redundant useless badge that just sucks up marketing dollars and harms the Ford brand with badge engineering. Like GM, it needs to carry fewer nameplates, and sell more units for each of them.
Health Care Marketplace | Ford Retirees Ask Federal Judge To Reject UAW-Ford Agreement on Health Benefits
[Jun 01, 2006]
Ford Motor union retirees on Wednesday asked a federal judge to reject an agreement between the automaker and United Auto Workers that would require retirees to contribute more to the cost of health benefits, the Detroit News reports (Hoffman, Detroit News, 6/1).
Members of UAW in December 2005 ratified an agreement with Ford that would require union retirees to pay monthly premiums and annual deductibles for health insurance. About 51% of members voted in favor of the agreement. Under the agreement, retired UAW employees would pay monthly premiums and annual deductibles that could total up to $370 for individuals and $752 for families. UAW retirees currently pay no annual deductibles.
Of course, we all know the reason why that happens: politicians are just like those Pontiac bosses that Solcal is talking about, and the union bosses as well . . . they need to justify their own job existence. The result is often shaft to the most vulnerable: e.g. the hapless retirees getting out-voted on their medical cost in order to keep current union workers and union bosses their jobs. So much for unsustainable promises. The retirees would have been much better off if they found a more robust employer a decade or two ago to hitch their wagons.
I will also agree with you that if "RWD" is the beginning and end of Pontiac's strategy, it will not work... But, insofar as RWD is associated with "performance", then this strategy is probably the smartest thing GM's done with Pontiac in a long time. By not trying to be a full-line vehicle brand (the Torrent, ugh), GM can focus its resources on only those vehicles that make sense for Pontiac - RWD, performance vehicles. Plus, Pontiac DOES stand for something that no other GM brand can fully deliver.
What do you have against Bill Ford?
Mercury is probably in a worse position than Pontiac even, in terms of brand identity. However, I still think it has potential. It sells to a surprisingly high percentage of women, and it manages (almost despite itself) to appeal to a higher income, "artsy" crowd. I think this position is unique among auto brands (whereas a "performance" division is certainly nothing to write home about). And that if Ford plays its cards right, Mercury can still offer something of value.
Ford's Atlanta plant and three GM facilities will be shuttered despite excellent productivity.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/AUTO01/606020394
Where's all those non-union labor Honda and Toyota plants at ? :P I guess those lazy UAW members aren't so lazy after all according to this source. Last year I posted that union workers out perform non-union on average 2 to 1, and americans as a whole out perform the rest of the world 3 to 1, according to the Dept. of Labor.
Rocky
You might have a case if the AVERAGE time to produce a car in a Union plant were less than the AVERAGE time to produce a car in a non-Union plant.
I wonder what the spread is between the most efficient Union plants and least efficient Union plants? They should all be the same since they all use Union labor, right?
Wrong. Many factors go into determining just how 'efficient' any particular plant may be. The amount of automation, the complexity of the vehicle, % of the vehicle which arrives at the plant as already assembled subassemblies, flexibility of the plant to changes, etc. etc. all impact the overall # of hours to produce a car. Saying that the difference is due to Union vs. non-Union labor is simplistic.
"I guess those lazy UAW members aren't so lazy after all according to this source."
I don't believe I ever insinuated that they were lazy. They aren't even necessarily overpaid. I just believe that their pay/benefits should be determined by the MARKET and not through extortion.
"Last year I posted that union workers out perform non-union on average 2 to 1....."
I'd like to see the evidence of that.
"...and americans as a whole out perform the rest of the world 3 to 1, according to the Dept. of Labor."
:confuse:
We outperform the rest of the world put togother by 3:1? Or our American average output is 3 times higher than the average global output? Big difference. Regardless, this higher level of performance isn't necessarily due to Unions. It is (IMO) due more to the relatively freer conditions under which businesses and individuals are allowed to operate in this country.
In other words, when operating out of pure self-interest (be it on the business level or on the individual level) IMO folks tend to be more productive. This is because higher productivity benefits them directly. But as more and more of your sweat goes to benefit others (both on the business and individual level), productivity suffers.
Hey pal my post wasn't directed at you or anyone person. We do out-perform foreign workers 3 to 1. Of course this statistic is about 10 years old, but if anything it's grown because we have the money to afford automation and other new high speed sophisticated machinery, buisness modules, etc.
The union worker on average (in a factory) will out perform a non-union worker. It's common sense and obvious. I'll explain later. Your average non-union factory worker that's paid a "so-called" market wage has neither the loyalty, long-term dedication to his employer, and is always looking to move on to something better. I was one of these type of employees and many of my co-workers were also. We worked very hard, but didn't "buy" into the company propoganda of we were being fairly compensated. My fellow non-union workers looked at their place of employment as soley a job and was putting applications in at several places to go get a career. These so called market value wages have new employees come and go. How can that be a benefitual buisnss module for a company ?
You have to constantly retrain new personel to come fill the gap. It took weeks to get them up to speed, and sometimes the company would jerk them off of our line and put them somewhere else creating another open position that needed to be filled. Employees came and went and we said if this company would pay better these folks would stay for the long hual like they did for the Big 3 and their union suppliers. This is why the Big 3 factory's when on a level playing field out perform non-union workers on average because the difference being the Union workers know they have a career and not just a steping stone job.
Okay maybe Toyota and that steel plant (Nucor ?) are exceptions. I'm sure there are a few other "exceptions" people can throw at me.
Bottom Line:
If you wanted to use market value pal for everything then you can drive a few hundred miles south of the border where the market value wage is $2 an hour. OR we could go across the pacific where the avg. wage in China is $0.60 an hour. Rorr, please explain to me how americans both union and non-union are going to compete with these wages ?
We might as well send all 26% of our manufactoring jobs to China, since that's what the market value is. While we are at it we should out-source all our engineering, CPA's, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, etc, etc, out of the country also. Where do we draw the line, seriously ? :surprise:
Rocky
Rocky
P.S. Yes I also agree with you some of the products in those plants aren't selling.
We don't draw the line the market draws the line. If we the market, buy a car made in a factory that pays less than a GM factory, we are deciding the fate of that union worker. I bought Van's and Dexter shoes right up till they were the last to buckle under and close their plants in the USA. I don't think you can buy a shoe made here anymore, unless it is a custom pair of cowboy boots.
There are parts of the USA that have a labor shortage. Southern CA is below 4% unemployment. We are paying $20 per hour for kids to run the weed whackers on our property. If you don't get it done the city brings in a crew and you pay over $100 per man hour. Forget finding an electrician in a timely manner. Who in their right mind would open a factory in California and try to get people to work in it?
Nope, and I'll give you reasons.
A union worker's job is protected through extortion. Deep down in their gut, they know this. You said it yourself: "..the difference being the Union workers know they have a career and not just a steping stone job."
Translation - the Union workers KNOW they have job security. To a large extent regardless of their productivity, they know they have job security.
Non-union members can't rely on protection through extortion. So, how do they ensure that they remain employeed? Their best means is Productivity. Are there companies using non-union labor that have high turn-over due to low wages/long hours? Of course there are - 10's of thousands of them. But that isn't a result of using non-union labor; that's simply a business practice.
The point I'm making is that the closer YOUR job performance (good or bad) is responsible for your wages/benefits (or continued employment), the more productive the average individual.
The ultimate example of this would be any self-employed individual. He has absolutely NO protection since he works for himself. But BECAUSE his wages/benefits are DIRECTLY tied to his performance (oftentimes on a daily basis), these individuals are typically the MOST productive. But as individuals become more and more insulated from the relationship between performance and renumeration, productivity goes down.
"Rorr, please explain to me how americans both union and non-union are going to compete with these wages ?"
If the product of your labor is the same, then they CAN'T compete based purely on wages. But why this fascination with national borders when it comes to wages?
What if (and I say 'what IF') the grand extent of your abilities was mopping floors at McDonalds. But you decided that the wages YOU needed to maintain your chosen lifestyle was $25/hour. Would you be pissing and moaning about not being able to 'compete' with those individuals willing to do the job for minimum wage? Would you be seeking the protection of a Union for FORCE the employers to pay $25/hr for that type of labor? Well, that's all fine, but where does the employer get the money to pay those wages? He's got to start charging $25 for a Happy Meal. But the employer CAN'T do that because he'll have no business.
The employer IS driven by market forces. But for some reason, you believe that the employee should be insulated from this.
What's your solution? Simply make it illegal for American companies to use labor from overseas? Fine - but then American companies begin to be UNCOMPETITIVE with foreign companies. Or maybe just those American companies JUST LEAVE. Everybody starts whining about the 'unlevel playing field'. So then what? Maybe if they can't compete with 'them furriners', they should just put up a bunch of trade barriers.
The problem with that is that it simply makes ALL products (American and imported) and services more expensive for everybody.
So maybe the solution isn't worrying about how the U.S. in general is being dragged DOWN, but to see what can be done to bring UP the economies of the rest of the world.
That is the goal of programs like NAFTA. Many hate it but any other course will not work in the long haul. We cannot stay isolated and survive. We see how our borders are for all practical purposes a sieve. If we do not try and bring the standard up South of US, they will come to US.
As to Americans out-perform the rest of the world 3-to-1, we'd better, in order to maintain our relative high standard of living compared to almost the entire rest of the world. The rest of the world constantly engage in counter-productive endeavors, such as militarizing the borders, wasting human resources and natural resources in the process. The productivity numbers are also heavily influenced by currency exchange, for exmple, a burrito maker in the US makes 20 burritos in an hour and sell them for $20 has a productivity of $20/hr (minus material cost) whereas a Mexican who makes 40 burritos in an hour and sell them for 40 pesos ($3.5 dollars) is only counted for $3.5 even if he is making twice as many burritos. Does such disparity make sense? Actually does. The "shirts" coming out of the offices to have lunch and patronize the slow American burrito maker are presumably more productive than the Mexican burrito makers' clients, and more than making up for the difference in their burrito-making skills.
The answer is very simple: by doing things that can not be done overseas. The question you are posing is similar to:
(1) cars can make 20hps now (circa 1910) and run for 20k miles without dying, whereas a horse can only make 1hp for a short time and expires after about 2k miles of heavy duty city running, how can horse cabs compete?? Shouldn't there be regulations banning cars in order to keep the souless beasts from taking jobs from the magnificent horses and their skilled drivers? Driving a car is something a housewife could lear in a day (turn of the century prejudice here, remember, women's suffrage had to wait another decade), whereas driving a horse cab takes a real man with real skills.
(2) Bow and arrow takes real skill and decades of training to get the upperbody strength whereas any donut-eater can fire a gun. Do we need to protect the jobs of archers in the military and security services?
The reality is that, it makes no difference to the end user whether carmaking is done by robots here, workers overseas or robots overseas, so long as the quality is kept up and cost is driven down. Objecting to outsourcing overseas is about as silly as objecting to automation. If it makes you feel better, you can think of overseas as a blackbox whereby raw material goes in and cars come out, at low cost. Protecting jobs is the worst policy a government can make: it means taxing and ripping off everyone else who has a productive job to support those whose jobs are obsolete. Temporary unemployment (and the risk thereof) is a tremendous motivator for people to find something productive to do. I was there myself.