I'll agree with the points you made. Nasser took Ford too far into outside industries. His idea to innoculate Ford from the ups and downs of the auto industry, while a very intresting idea, turned out to be a failure in the end. Gotta give the guy credit for being innovative. If it succeeded, Ford would no doubt be in better financial shape today.

But at the same time, you have to give the guy credit where it's due. I'm not a Nasser fan, but he had a pretty impressive Lincoln revival plan in place when he left Ford. He also had a global integration plan in place that would have given us some version of the Mondeo. There was a new Ranger pending. And, again focusing on Lincoln, there was the exact same uber-car in the pipeline that Bob Lutz has been trying to get through for Cadillac since he started.

Nasser was great at making money, and he walked into the CEO position with Ford already having a far bigger bank account than General Motors. When the Firestone disaster broke, he had made Ford even richer (if something as expensive as the Ford-Firestone recall-replacement hit GM, it would be years before GM recovered).

Nasser's real root to his problem was he went too far pinching pennies, and it blew up in his face. He time cut the number of hours on warranty repairs (effectively cutting the willingness of dealers to repair certain items crashing customer satisfaction with the service department). He instituted a program where bonuses based on quality centered on warranty costs effectively making Ford squrm out of every warranty issue they could (again screwing customer satisfaction). Finally, if that recipy wasn't enough for a total disaster, his management based everything on taking costs out of manufacturing, essentially putting cheaper parts (such as substandard Firestone tires... then changing reccomended air pressure to compensate for ride) or simply omiting parts (like a 50 cent battery cover for the last Thunderbird whose ommision shorted out quite a fewof them before Ford reinstalled the cover for the trunk mounted battery).


Although Bill Ford has turned the company around 180 degrees in quality (there hasn't been a botched new vehicle introduction or major quality issue with any new vehicles made on his watch), he allowed alot of people to do things to the company that destroyed it, in my view, because he liked them or they were friends.

Nasser was in many ways a disaster. But it took a multi-billion-dollar, easy-to-avoid disaster and his confrontational, unappologetic public appearences on that same subject before anyone decided to unseat him.

That says something.

 

If ever Toyota experience legacy costs in the US the size of GM's they'll just pack up and head back home... to being just an exporter to the US. Toyota isn't silly.

As far as your political comments go, I'd rather not open up a can of worms.

 

Because that's the way business works - smart decisions are rewarded in the future, while dumb ones are punished. There's not a mulligan or a do-over - at least not for those businesses that aren't in favor with the party in power - and thus suffering can occur for stupidity that's several decades old. That sucks, but blindly ignoring problems will do bad things to a company.

Look at it this way - it's taken the threat of bankrupcy (actually, a few separate threats) for GM to finally start turning out some truly world-class vehicles. Why'd it take so long? It's not like GM has more cash now than it did before (quite the opposite, in fact). It, quite frankly, was the sort of sloth that often infects large and well-established businesses.

 

It would have all come crashing down sooner or later. The whole time he was there he preached about "Maximizing shareholder value" and absolutely nothing about making good cars. He distracted the company with his boondogles while companies like Toyota and Honda actually increased shareholder value by focusing on making good cars.

 

I disagree, I know for a fact that Honda unofficially threatened employees by saying "if a union is voted in, you'll pay for ALL of you Health Coverage." I know several employees at the Marysville and EastLiberty plants.

And If it weren't for Union plants, or the fear of them, transplants wouldn't offer comparable wages and benefits.

And I wouldn't call 2-hours pay/month a "huge deduction"...

And how many "Employers", don't, use their profits to fund political candidates that their employees often do not support?
And lobby for laws that will negatively impact their employees.
At least the UAW lobbies for laws that help hard working people, especially in the lower ranks.

 

I can believe that individuals may have made threats to other individual but to assume that was done as a matter of policy by Honda as you seem to be implying is a bit difficult to believe. Even if completely true I'm not sure Honda did anyting illegal - no employer is obligated to provide group health coverage to its employees or to pay for any of it if it does offer the coverage so if Honda really intended to stop paying some or all of the health care insurance expense if a union was voted in I would say that’s their right to do so…and it’s the right of the employees voting to decided how much they really want a union.

If it was illegal then where was the NLRB? It's been my experience that the NLRB watches organization efforts very closely and if individuals were inappropriately threatened then those individuals should have been responsible enough to file complaints; if they chose not to do that then they have no one to blame but themselves for where things stand today.


There is some truth to that statement but that doesn’t translate into Honda, Nissan and Toyota needing to be unionized.

My point was that Honda, Nissan and Toyota and the rest already offer all the pay and benefits, sometimes more so, than having a union would get them…all a union would do would be to put up one more wall between management and non-management.


I would. However I doubt it’s just two hours of pay…the amounts I’ve seen were substantially more than two hours of wages.

At any rate, if it's two hours of pay a month, at $30/hour that's almost $800 a year which is not chump change; especially if they aren't really getting anything for it.


In your opinion, the UAW lobbies for laws that help; in my opinion, most of the laws I see them lobby for are primarily to help the UAW and seek artificial protection from competition…if you feel that’s “good” you certainly are entitled to feel that way but I don’t.

My point, however, was more directed to political candidates that many of the rank and file, who’s money is being used, do not support and don’t want to see elected. It should be up to the individual to support or not support whatever candidate and whatever law he feels he should; not have the union decide if for him.

As to what the companies do with their profits…so what?

It’s their money and they have a right to do with it as they choose just as you and I and every other individual should be able to do what we want with our money.

If employees don’t like what their employer is doing with its money then they should find a new employer.

 

My point on this was similar, if a Union member doesn't like who his union supports, he should likewise seek other employment.
Beyond that, Unions usually support candidates that support the Blue collar working class, which has Never been a Republican strong suit, so it stands to reason they support Democrats more. Unless the candidate is a total disaster, then they must settle for the less of the two evils.

Unions do also offer a lot on a daily basis at our shop.
They help with scheduling vacation(remember most workers can't leave the line), absenteeism issues, resolve medical insurance problems, ensure people are properly trained on a job before they are cut loose, bring issues and concerns such as quality and safety to the proper management quickly, ensure management follows procedure daily, informs employees of open jobs and files departmental job transfers, ensure those transfers are completed fairly by the rules, ensures OverTime is fairly distributed, help with workers comp. issues, and general complaints and grievences, and shows emplyees the contract language when we're wrong.....and much more I can't think of right now.
Oh, most of our Stewards hold jobs, some work everyday on them as well as perform Union duties...

 

If you think you need a union to do all those things for you that's up to you.

The vast, overwhelming majority of workers in this country get along just fine without a union...they simply aren't needed anymore and haven't been for a long time.

Toyota and Toyota's workers seem to be getting along just fine without all the great things the UAW could do for them.

 

The overwhelming vast majority of workers in the country benefit, directly or indirectly, from Unions, especially Toyota's workers...many of which parts are made by UNION workers at the same place GM parts are produced.
As the unions diminish we are already seeing erosions in pay and benefits and lost jobs across this once great country...
You can either believe Union bashing sites like unionfacts.com, or believe people who are active in one...that site's not even good for entertainment value.

 

The country is still great and the best way to ensure you have great pay and benefits is to be worth more to the company you work for; that means you never stop learning and never stop re-inventing yourself...that means you don't learn how to put on one bolt or install one seat on an assembly like and assume you are going to have the same job for 30 years at ever increasing pay/benefits while bringing nothing more to the table.

I've never heard of "unionfacts.com" nor do I care what they have to say; I would assume their "facts" are just as biased against unions as union members are biased in favor of unions.

 

Thanks for the insight, but it sounds like your still thinking of the past. Most people on the assmbly line today, have been or are going back to college, many hold degrees, always learning, always reinventing, especially on the floor...the increases in efficiency are MAINLY due to ideas and efforts of the workers. As efficiency increases, so does the numbers of Quality product, and hopefully our wages. We don't rest on our laurels and do as little as we can get by with, I told you, "this ain't our daddy's union".
Remember Kaizen, we don't call it that, but we practice it, we take pride in our work, and if they produce more here, we'll be the Best again!.

 

Yes, well the "that was in the past" line is getting pretty old...as I said in another post; we'll see just how modern and enlightened the UAW has become when they negotiate their next contract with the Detroit 2(3) in a few months.

That aside, no one needs a union (Daddy's or otherwise) to make all the things you listed above, happen.

 

Absolutely! I said it before, and I'll say it again. People in this country, are pissing it all away, on these junkpiles. These are sad times for America.