Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Brazils govt. is giving away land to manufacturers and also declaring tax free status for years to bring business in.
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
fuck the American Worker.
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Where did you hear that?
I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.
If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Where did you hear that?
I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.
If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Where did you hear that?
I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.
If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Where did you hear that?
I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.
If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
fuck the American Worker.
No kidding, you won't see any of the Brazilians posting about how lazy others are on their Employer's Dime.
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.
The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Where did you hear that?
I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.
If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
Even without these stipulations assuming the jobs bank was never ending (which it isn't now and soon won't even exist) you probably replace 3-5% yearly of your workforce through attrition (quitting, fired, retirees, promotions). I have never heard of any reluctance of management to bring automation to an operation because they'll have pay people to not work.
If fact in this particular instance Ford decided to put more US auto workers out of work by building an automated plant in Brazil. If they had built this automated plant in Detroit less Ford workers would be in the jobs bank, but they decided in this case the jobs bank was no impediment to automation.
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Is that surprising? How many companies do GM and Ford own? I'd be more interested seeing what factions in Ford and GM sold the most/least.