FocusCanada Forums

And finally the union protects you so that when you do a s***ty job at attaching whatever you attach because you are pissed at your boss, They can't fire you. That's why NA cars have such low build quality. Who gives a s*** how it goes on, what are they gonna do? Fire me !! HaHaHa. I'll admit that build quality has gone up immensely but when you know the only way to get fired is to kill somone at work you're more likely to do a half assed job. I'd bet that the VAST majority of autoworkers couldn't give a s*** about what their doing or how it's done. Just as long as it's on there. When I got my guided walking tour of the Oakville assembly plant I was shocked to see how many cars were put off to the side at the end of the line to be repaired. There was hardly room to walk around let alone put any more vehicles there.

Thus ends my rant about the uselessnes of Unions in today's world.

I can't believe Nos and I agree.. Go figure.

I would not leave my house on a sunday for only 450 that poor sap would be in the elevator till monday

bluetoy,Oct 24 2006, 05:46 PM Wrote:When I got my guided walking tour of the Oakville assembly plant I was shocked to see how many cars were put off to the side at the end of the line to be repaired. There was hardly room to walk around let alone put any more vehicles there.[right][snapback]213222[/snapback][/right]

I see. Your one guided tour fully enlightened you to all that goes on at Ford.

Ask why there are repairs at the end of the line. The correct answer would be "because they don't want to stop the line". They meaning....hmmmm who do you think?

I've been to Cape Canaveral. That doesn't make me a rocket scientist nor does it make me understand everything about space missions.

And by the way. My neighbour across the street works at Toyota in Cambridge. As a full time sheet metal repairman.

Somebody better tell those non-union scum (whose pay is nearly on par with ours) to stop f***ing around and sabotaging cars. :rolleyes:

DD1,Oct 24 2006, 09:07 PM Wrote:I would not leave my house on a sunday for only 450 that poor sap would be in the elevator till monday


[right][snapback]213236[/snapback][/right]

See, that's my point entirely.

And the fact a Japanese worker makes about $1 an hour didn't come into the equation?
I am not going to do what I do for $1 an hour.
And Steve, the fact you went on a tour makes you clueless.
And we can get fired.
I have seen 3 people get fired in the last 60 days.
It is not the way it used to be.
We are the new Ford. Fawk up and your gone.

Just because I went on a tour does not make me an expert. Your right. I was making a point. I was just stating that the amount of broken vehicles at the end of the line was ridiculous.

Only a few of us realize that the insane amounts of money being paid (including benefits etc) to CAW/UAW workers IS a large contributor to the financial crisis facing NA automakers.

That's all I'm going to say

bluetoy,Oct 25 2006, 06:23 AM Wrote:Only a few of us realize that the insane amounts of money being paid (including benefits etc) to CAW/UAW workers IS a large contributor to the financial crisis facing NA automakers.[right][snapback]213269[/snapback][/right]

If that were the case then Toyota Canada would be facing the same problem. The only difference is pension obligations. This wouldn't be an issue if Ford kept its pensions funded at 100% instead of much lower than that.

So, insane amounts of money. We've already established that electricians outside of Ford make just as much as the ones inside. Even the benefits (through the IBEW) are on par.

We've already demonstrated that painters at Ford are more productive than those outside.

So what's the rub? Because you undervalue the labour? Easy since you can't do my job.

See, it's precisely your attitude that shows why we need a union. Because there are idiots with your attitude in management (usually those ones that can't organize a piss-up in a brewery) that think that we should all be making minimum wage.

I'd love to see you on the line for a week. Pay you $15 an hour, and watch the crying begin.

That's all I'm going to say.

Unless I need to counter another idiotic point. :rolleyes:

meford4u,Oct 24 2006, 10:58 PM Wrote:And the fact a Japanese worker makes about $1 an hour didn't come into the equation?[right][snapback]213248[/snapback][/right]

Very cute … but hardly accurate and not at all instructive in terms of really trying to understand what’s going on. This is not a simple situation to be condensed into one misleading statement about Japanese workers making a $1 / hour and it shouldn’t be just about the union either.

Assuming that the highly-intellectual denizens of FocusCanada.net are interested, I’ve assembled just a few facts about Ford’s situation (and auto industry in general) that both support and refute the notion that union negotiated benefits are at the heart of the problem NA manufacturers currently suffer.

1) Japanese auto workers in Japan benefit from union representation and they make a lot more than $1 / hour – generally about 85% of what NA workers make; although it is difficult to pin down a number because their system of tiered suppliers is different.

2) Because of Japan’s social structure Japanese auto manufacturers operating in Japan are not saddled with the health care and pension costs that burden their U.S. competitors – very much the same advantage we enjoy here vs. the U.S.

3) On the other hand … Japanese manufacturers pay much higher taxes in Japan than GM, Ford or Chrysler pays in the U.S. – which supports Meford and OAC’s assertion that the problem is with the way the company is run and not with union benefits.

4) But then again … more than 65% of Japanese makes sold in NA are made in NA – which means that it doesn’t really matter how much or how little an auto worker in Japan earns anyway.

5) Most foreign-owned auto plants in the U.S. are non-unionized. Their workers are not as generously compensated as Ford’s workers, but they are relatively well-paid with good benefits. And because their employers are not saddled with the uneconomic pension and healthcare costs of a UAW contract, they can produce cars at a more competitive price. Ford’s toughest competition these days is not from Japan, but from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina and Ontario.

6) As I mentioned earlier, healthcare costs alone impose an average cost of about $1,500 per Ford vehicle; and unlike most U.S. private-sector workers, Ford’s unionized workers pay low or no deductibles on their health coverage. In the U.S., hourly Ford workers pay only 7 percent of their total healthcare costs, compared to 27 to 32 percent paid by the average U.S. salaried worker. The differential (20-25%) is an added cost borne by the Company.

7) The East Asian financial crisis of ’97-98 significantly changed the labour scene there, and now the far east (especially the ASEAN-4) is generally a union-hostile environment (governments and industry together) … however the auto products made in that region are generally sold in the region.

8) Having said that … much of the profits made by Japanese companies are generated in these markets; and it is this overall profitability that helps them compete so strongly in the NA market – so there is a case to be made that Japanese makers are taking market share in NA on the backs of workers in Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philipines, Indonesia etc., etc.

9) Having said that … in these markets GM, Ford and Chrysler operate in the same anti-union way and have the same opportunity as the Japanese makers to profit from this market condition; the difference is they do not have the right product to compete successfully against the Japanese and the Koreans and therefore do not profit much at all.

10) The union’s claim that the problem is the fault of the company is supported by the fact that Toyota once operated in many ways like Ford still does. It was hierarchical, command-and-control driven, and bent on exploiting workers to the maximum legally permissible extent. But Toyota now works differently today and has a much more collaborative relationship with its workers than Ford … and it could be said that this is a significant factor in its profitability.

11) There is a recent theory in business management that says that the “shareholder-driven” business model practiced by Ford (and GM) is outdated and cannot compete with the “stakeholder-driven” business model practiced by the Japanese manufacturers.

The “stakeholder-driven” model seeks to align and serve the interests of all stakeholders – not just shareholders – and seems to generally work better because it leads to a more stable and happier work force (that also costs less), and it also lends itself to quicker responses to challenging changes in conditions that arise, often with little warning – a gasoline price crisis, for example.

Bottom line IMO: the union agreements are significant factors in creating a non-competitive environment for NA manufacturers but certainly not the only factor … and while unions may have to modify their mandates and success metrics as a part of any solution, companies like Ford and GM will also have to make significant changes to their business model if they are to survive, regardless of anything the unions do.

^^--- as usual, a great read.. thanks!

Interesting post.

I don't think Ford's problem is so much the unions but there dealership network, there dealer numbers should be chopped. There are way to many dealers and they are competing for the same clients sometimes within a short distance from each other. Ford should also be more hands on with there dealerships and take a more active role in there day to day operation to make sure that they are providing there customers with acceptable service thus making sure that they have repeat customers.

my.02

Laterz :)

K_OS,Oct 25 2006, 02:37 PM Wrote:I don't think Ford's problem is so much the unions but there dealership network, there dealer numbers should be chopped. There are way to many dealers and they are competing for the same clients sometimes within a short distance from each other. Ford should also be more hands on with there dealerships and take a more active role in there day to day operation to make sure that they are providing there customers with acceptable service thus making sure that they have repeat customers.

my.02

Laterz :)
[right][snapback]213347[/snapback][/right]

I'm this --><-- close to having no dealerships within a 20 minute drive of my place... and that sucks.

darkpuppet,Oct 25 2006, 02:50 PM Wrote:

K_OS,Oct 25 2006, 02:37 PM Wrote:I don't think Ford's problem is so much the unions but there dealership network, there dealer numbers should be chopped. There are way to many dealers and they are competing for the same clients sometimes within a short distance from each other. Ford should also be more hands on with there dealerships and take a more active role in there day to day operation to make sure that they are providing there customers with acceptable service thus making sure that they have repeat customers.

my.02

Laterz :)
[right][snapback]213347[/snapback][/right]

I'm this --><-- close to having no dealerships within a 20 minute drive of my place... and that sucks.
[right][snapback]213350[/snapback][/right]

Y'know I can't understand that logic, abandon the core of the biggest city in Canada forcing drivers to the edges of that city to get their car serviced. I mean I know the land that these downtown dealerships sit on is valuable as hell, but isn't serving your customer where they live/work more important?

I guess I'm getting my answer <_<

NefCanuck

darkpuppet,Oct 25 2006, 02:50 PM Wrote:I'm this --><-- close to having no dealerships within a 20 minute drive of my place...  and that sucks.
[right][snapback]213350[/snapback][/right]

I believe there is a limit to the distance between Ford dealerships. Although it only prevents them from being too close to each other. There was more than a few problems when Mercury dealers became Ford dealers. Some money was passed out and many Mercury dealers closed soon after being switched to Ford

Doesn't 20 minutes in your area = 1 or 2 blocks in regular traffic and 1 or 2 feet in rush hour??

bluetoy,Oct 25 2006, 05:45 PM Wrote:

darkpuppet,Oct 25 2006, 02:50 PM Wrote:I'm this --><-- close to having no dealerships within a 20 minute drive of my place...  and that sucks.
[right][snapback]213350[/snapback][/right]

I believe there is a limit to the distance between Ford dealerships. Although it only prevents them from being too close to each other. There was more than a few problems when Mercury dealers became Ford dealers. Some money was passed out and many Mercury dealers closed soon after being switched to Ford

Doesn't 20 minutes in your area = 1 or 2 blocks in regular traffic and 1 or 2 feet in rush hour??
[right][snapback]213376[/snapback][/right]

haha... 20 minutes is on traffic-less roads.. if the one downtown closes when the lease is up (it's been extended twice I've last heard, but still on their last legs), the closest one is 20 minutes across town in light traffic.

The dealership I bought from because I thought the one downtown had closed (until they called me, asking when I'd be in for my next service) is about half an hour in light traffic.

"But Toyota now works differently today and has a much more collaborative relationship with its workers than Ford … and it could be said that this is a significant factor in its profitability."


That is what is at the heart of their problem.

Amen brother for recognizing it and putting it to paper.

No company, union or non-union, will make a profit if you have no customers. As can be seen from looking at the posts in this community, not too many of us will be buying a Ford when we look for a new, or larger vehicle. Ford needs to sell it's products, and make the buying experience customer friendly.