Bad News for Labour

Wild Bill · August 11, 2012

Everyone built crappy cars in the 70's. Early Honda's and Datsun's rusted before your eyes. Even VW's were rust buckets compared to anything you can buy today and early Hyundai's were crap. Competition has made everyone build better cars.

On Edit

The fact most Japanese and European auto manufacturers are unionized never prevented them from building good cars.

My VW was lightyears ahead of Chrysler for quality. It wasn't just rust. I had that VW convertible for 14 years and it was still running when I sold it. It had only cost me minimal maintenance.

As for union workers, I truly don't care if my car is union made or not. I care if it is of good quality or not. My point was simply I saw no reason why I should support a worker who made far more money than I did by buying a piece of crap that he had made!

Wilber · August 11, 2012

My VW was lightyears ahead of Chrysler for quality. It wasn't just rust. I had that VW convertible for 14 years and it was still running when I sold it. It had only cost me minimal maintenance.

As for union workers, I truly don't care if my car is union made or not. I care if it is of good quality or not. My point was simply I saw no reason why I should support a worker who made far more money than I did by buying a piece of crap that he had made!

I've had a couple of VW's as well and they were better built than North American vehicles back then but they weren't exactly trouble free. North American vehicles have come a long way. I have a 2011 Ram 3500 that hasn't been back for anything but oil changes since I drove it off the lot and the build quality is excellent, that's one of the reasons I bought it. The interior fit and finish make it hard to believe you're in a truck. Every bit as good as my 2004 VW, which had several issues that had to be corrected when it was new, including a dome light switch that shorted out the day I brought it home and some trim that had to be stuck back on properly. It also had the front strut bearings replaced and a new turbo charger on warranty. It has been very good for the last few years though, touch wood and it's a delight to drive. Not one little thing on my truck so far.

I don't know why people are so quick to crap on the people on the assembly line. The thing is, they only put it together. They didn't design it, cost each part to the 10th of a cent, pick the suppliers or make any of the decisions regarding its concept, development or manufacture. It wasn't their decision as to how many seconds were allowed to carry out each job, how it was to be done or what tools were to be used. Why is it that people are so quick to pick on the guy at the bottom of the process instead of holding to account the boys making the big bucks who are screwing up all those decisions?

August1991 · August 11, 2012

First let me start out by acknowledging my opinion that labour and capital need to have a cooperative and symbiotic relationship for the health of society and the well-being of everyone.

How quaint to divide society so neatly into two distinct groups: "labour" and "capital". Can we divide American society into "white" and "black" too? Where would you put Barack Obama?

The fact is that many Ontario teachers, for example, are both workers (labour) and shareholders (capital). The Ontario Teachers pension fund is one of the largest equity investors in the world. Indeed, many public sector labourers are among the biggest capitalists because they hold, through their pensions and other benefits, large future claims on real assets.

Cybercoma, like this American black/white dichotomy, your capital/labour dichotomy is so 19th century.

You guys are completely missing the point that people can't go, get a job, and make a living anymore. Businesses are spending less and less on wages. This means that wealth is being concentrated into the hands of those that can afford to live off investments. That's very few people in society. This will lead to serious problems, not just for those who cannot make an honest living anymore, but also for those who are hoarding the fruits of those people's labour.

Cybercoma, have you ever heard the expression: "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations."

More pertinent to your argument that "wealth is being concentrated", the world has never known a more prosperous and egalitarian time. Hundreds of millions, a billion or more, of ordinary people have left dire poverty and now live decently. The word "famine" is rarely heard.

The world has several hundred billionaires and no doubt, in a decade or two, it will have its first trillionaire.

According to you cybercoma, which is more important: stopping that trillionaire from amassing his fortune (to ensure that the world's people are equally poor) or allowing a billion or so people to live decently (even if there's a trillionaire or two)?

Edited August 11, 2012 by August1991

Patrik · August 12, 2012

Only free market capitalism in a society of free responsible individuals can give us "labor", job, and prosperity. All other types of sociopolitical paradigms (monarchy, totalitarizm, socialism etc) lead to prosperity of groups of special interests. You can easily name them.

By the way, Canada has never had a free market capitalism country and never been a country of free and responsible individuals. Results should not surprise you now.

May be this is the subject for a separate discussion on this forum....

What do you think guys?

jacee · August 12, 2012

Only free market capitalism in a society of free responsible individuals can give us "labor", job, and prosperity. All other types of sociopolitical paradigms (monarchy, totalitarizm, socialism etc) lead to prosperity of groups of special interests.

Just like 'free' monopoly capitalism does.

Patrik · August 12, 2012

Exactly: we have lots of monopolies here in Canada because market is not free and anti-monopoly law doesn't exist or doesn't work.

WWWTT · August 12, 2012

Union members speak only for their own selfishness - not the good of the country

Ya that's real ironic because that union worker was working for Chrysler!And Chrysler was probably raking in freekin millions while ripping of Canadians.

But according to you and Wild it is now a unionized plant workers fault for Chrysler's lack of concern to help their costumers.

WWWTT

WWWTT · August 12, 2012

Unfortunately a lot of people don't see it that way and go on shopping sprees with double digit interest credit cards. That's a big problem of itself.

Ya then why did your conservative buddies lower the HST???

WWWTT

WWWTT · August 12, 2012

why I should support a worker who made far more money than I did by buying a piece of crap that he had made!

And Chrysler had absolutely no say in it.It was all the workers fault right Wild?

WWWTT

Wild Bill · August 12, 2012

Ya that's real ironic because that union worker was working for Chrysler!And Chrysler was probably raking in freekin millions while ripping of Canadians.

But according to you and Wild it is now a unionized plant workers fault for Chrysler's lack of concern to help their costumers.

WWWTT

Read much history? Did you miss the time frames mentioned?

That was the time when Chrysler nearly went bankrupt from widespread loss of customers who felt as I did and voted with their feet. Lee Iacocca took over and with a massive bailout loan saved the company.

Geez, we'll be teaching you about the Korean War next.

WWWTT · August 12, 2012

Read much history? Did you miss the time frames mentioned?

That was the time when Chrysler nearly went bankrupt from widespread loss of customers who felt as I did and voted with their feet. Lee Iacocca took over and with a massive bailout loan saved the company.

Geez, we'll be teaching you about the Korean War next.

So why did you not mention that earlier???

Am I supposed to read your mind every time you write something here so I do not offend you?

Maybe you should think about some of these things when you write(think being the key word here)

You believe that after writing this comment I will now forget about how you are ignorant to the fact that it was the upper management that was responsible for Chrysler's woes???

Do you sincerely believe that insulting others will make you look or sound more intelligent???

Good luck!

WWWTT

Wild Bill · August 12, 2012

So why did you not mention that earlier???

Am I supposed to read your mind every time you write something here so I do not offend you?

Maybe you should think about some of these things when you write(think being the key word here)

You believe that after writing this comment I will now forget about how you are ignorant to the fact that it was the upper management that was responsible for Chrysler's woes???

Do you sincerely believe that insulting others will make you look or sound more intelligent???

Good luck!

WWWTT

I mentioned that it was the 70's. I'm talking common knowledge here. If you know so little about the history of domestic car companies, particularly that within living memory, how can your opinion be informed enough to be worth contributing?

It wasn't upper management who assembled the rear end diffential like a retard so that it would burn out on me prematurely. It wasn't management who assembled the heater control so that the knob would fall off!

Give me a break! You'd defend any selfish Klutz if he belonged to a union! You're entitled to your opinion. You should note however that the VW convertible I bought was also union made. Just not by a North American union worker.

Wilber · August 12, 2012

It wasn't upper management who assembled the rear end diffential like a retard so that it would burn out on me prematurely. It wasn't management who assembled the heater control so that the knob would fall off!

The differential was most likely built by Dana or some other axle manufacturer, the Chrysler employee just installed the whole assembly in the vehicle. It was management that did the specification and costing. It is management that is also responsible for designing knobs that fall off.

The North American car industry did get very complacent but it was from top to bottom.

WWWTT · August 12, 2012

I mentioned that it was the 70's. I'm talking common knowledge here. If you know so little about the history of domestic car companies, particularly that within living memory, how can your opinion be informed enough to be worth contributing?

Here's more proof that you put little thought into your comments.

Ever thought of how old I was in 77?(by the way I was fully aware that Chrysler went bankrupt or near bankrupt in the early 80's)

Is age a prerequisite to writing a good comment?From reading yours age has no bearing!

Your comments are to attack the credibility of union workers.Period.

Mine are to bring light to the fact that the quality of vehicle is primarily an upper management responsibility.Which you feel have little impact.

WWWTT

Wild Bill · August 12, 2012

Here's more proof that you put little thought into your comments.

Ever thought of how old I was in 77?(by the way I was fully aware that Chrysler went bankrupt or near bankrupt in the early 80's)

Is age a prerequisite to writing a good comment?From reading yours age has no bearing!

Your comments are to attack the credibility of union workers.Period.

Mine are to bring light to the fact that the quality of vehicle is primarily an upper management responsibility.Which you feel have little impact.

WWWTT

I was not yet born for WWI or WWII, nor was I a contemporary of Nikola Tesla. Yet I feel able to give informed opinions on those subjects.

If you started a thread about 19th century Japanese history, I would not venture an opinion, since I know little to nothing about that subject.

Although we are all entitled to our opinions, only an INFORMED opinion is worth anything!

As for attacking workers, I attacked that particular worker because he came on to me that somehow I should buy his crap products to keep his job so that he could make at least twice my wages. This after I had bought one of his products that had hurt me severely financially. I think I'm entitled to my opinion, which boils down to "Screw him and the horse he rode in on!".

Also, why do you and others think that somehow I am letting Chrysler management off the hook? I have worked on assembly lines. Like most forms of work, you can do a good job or a bad job. It is virtually impossible for management to somehow ensure that all workers will do a good job, other than by firing their asses out the door in favour of robots!

Screw the Chrysler management of the time too! I didn't care for either of them at the time and I still don't. I walked away from the entire company and bought an import, which gave me FAR more value for my money!

Since I don't work in a union environment, I have no regard for labour or management. As a customer, I only care for the value I receive for my money. If there is a problem, I have no use for finger pointing. The manufacturer can just fix it properly and politely or they too can go screw themselves!

WWWTT · August 13, 2012

The manufacturer can just fix it properly and politely or they too can go screw themselves!

That's better.

WWWTT

Moonbox · August 13, 2012

Your comments are to attack the credibility of union workers.Period.

The comments are well-deserved and the CAW has no credibility. Very few tears were shed when the CAW workers, earning $30/labour hour more than their well-paid Toyota counterparts, started losing jobs. The wages were completely unjustifiable, especially considering how lousy the cars were that they made. Saying things like the quality of the cars is management's responsibility shows, once again, how ignorant you are on the subject of running a business. Here you are again, however, flapping your mouth and gabbing about things you don't understand.

Let's do some simple math okay?

Suppose you have two companies making nearly identical cars. Suppose also the equation for the cost of making a car is: Labour + Raw Materials = Cost

One company's costs are $1000 (for labour) + 1000 (for raw materials) = $2000

The other company's are: $2000 (for labour) + 1000 (for raw materials) = $3000

When both of these cars end up in dealerships, which do you think is going to do better? The first company can sell the same car for $2700 and earn a $700 profit and a 35% margin. The second company would have to sell for $3700 to earn the same profit but only realize a 23% margin. The second company is in a position that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for them to compete in terms of value. Part of this IS management's fault for allowing it to go on as long as it did and not recognizing the market was getting fed up with their overpriced cars and overpaid employees, but the militant CAW forced them into the corner and refused to make concessions when their greed came back and bit them in the ass. Lucky for them that the government came in to help, because I would have let their pension plans vanish. The hundreds of millions the UAW spent on Obama's campaign really paid off for them, and the CAW rode that wave.

Michael Hardner · August 13, 2012

The wages were completely unjustifiable, especially considering how lousy the cars were that they made.

They don't raise wages for making a better car. Overall quality is the responsibilityi of management.

Saying things like the quality of the cars is management's responsibility shows, once again, how ignorant you are on the subject of running a business.

Ha ! I should have read ahead: yes, indeed, management is responsible for planning quality into the product.

The market was getting fed up with their overpriced cars and overpaid employees, but the militant CAW forced them into the corner and refused to make concessions when their greed came back and bit them in the ass.

That's another aspect of the problem where management can be blamed for letting things lapse. Blaming the workers used to happen in the 1980s a lot, but I thought we got past that.

Wild Bill · August 13, 2012

They don't raise wages for making a better car. Overall quality is the responsibilityi of management.

Ha ! I should have read ahead: yes, indeed, management is responsible for planning quality into the product.

That's another aspect of the problem where management can be blamed for letting things lapse. Blaming the workers used to happen in the 1980s a lot, but I thought we got past that.

Michael, are you saying that a worker cannot help but always do a job just as well as the day before, or just as well as any other worker on the line?

This is a very old socialist premise - that all workers are equally skilled and motivated, that everything is just a matter of training, which of course is the responsibility of management.

This is absolute bunk! Some people are always better than others at certain jobs. Some people give more of a damn about doing a good job. Some people are just naturally talented at some things.

Some people are just useless at certain tasks. Don't believe me? Just let me be your cook!

Michael Hardner · August 13, 2012

Michael, are you saying that a worker cannot help but always do a job just as well as the day before, or just as well as any other worker on the line?

No. I'm not sure how you could infer that from my post.

This is a very old socialist premise - that all workers are equally skilled and motivated, that everything is just a matter of training, which of course is the responsibility of management.

Integrating quality into the product is a management function. Maybe you can quote me a management practice that says otherwise ?

Some people are just useless at certain tasks. Don't believe me? Just let me be your cook!

And problems with labour are problems for management to solve.

cybercoma · August 13, 2012

That's another aspect of the problem where management can be blamed for letting things lapse. Blaming the workers used to happen in the 1980s a lot, but I thought we got past that.

It's a lot worse now than it was in the 80s, I believe.

Wilber · August 13, 2012

Good management doesn't just mean being an efficient bean counter, it also requires leadership ability. If you can't motivate your employees you are fighting an uphill battle. It seems to me that one reason the Japanese plants run so well is they give their employees more responsibility by making them part of the decision making process when it comes to how they do their jobs rather than just dictating from the top down.

Our CEO's have done a great education job. They get the big bucks because they are "indispensable" but when it goes for a crap it always seems to be someone else's fault.

Wild Bill · August 13, 2012

And problems with labour are problems for management to solve.

Michael, that is one of those things that are incredibly easy to say but almost impossible to do. I think you would have to be in such an environment to understand.

I guess we just have two different perspectives.

cybercoma · August 13, 2012

Michael, that is one of those things that are incredibly easy to say but almost impossible to do. I think you would have to be in such an environment to understand.

I guess we just have two different perspectives.

If a business has a problem with labour, who's responsibility is it to solve that problem then?

Michael Hardner · August 13, 2012

I guess we just have two different perspectives.

If you have an employee who causes a problem, then yes it's the employees fault. But you can't have an entire line of products turning out bad and not blame management for that, it just doesn't work that way.

Let's just say I have qualifications in this area, and leave it at that.