Toyota blames costs, not UAW, for NUMMI pullout
in [Toyota]
|
From: Michael Dobony on 3 Sep 2009 09:44 On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:02:56 -0400, Mike wrote: > You mean the Union Contracts that included "abusive waste" that Toyota > signed with the UAW? > > The only "power" a Union has over a manufacturer is to require it to abide > by their contract. > It is abusive when UAW workers push their benefits to the limit, when workers clock in, slip out the back fence, spend the day at the bar, return to clock out, and go home, without doing any work, and the union endorses this. > > "Michael Dobony" <survey(a)stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message > news:1gbfxfxrwzmby.mtse3az36qis$.dlg(a)40tude.net... >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:33:26 -0400, C. E. White wrote: >> >>> Toyota blames costs, not UAW, for NUMMI pullout >>> Hans Greimel >>> Automotive News >>> August 28, 2009 - 9:52 am ET >>> >>> TOKYO -- Toyota Motor Corp. says it plans to shut its California >>> factory because of high labor and logistics costs, not because the UAW >>> represents workers there. >>> >>> "The UAW presence does not have a direct impact on the decision," >> >> >> But union wages and benefits are a large portion of the excessive labor >> costs. My wife's uncle is UAW and the stories he told . . . deliberate, >> abusive waste totally because of UAW contracts.
From: Mike on 5 Sep 2009 14:31 Sounds to me like there is a MANAGEMENT problem in that plant, if that is what you believe. LOL My techs were members of the Machinists Union. If any of my guys did what you suggested, I would fire them and there it not a thing the Machinists Union, or ANY Union, could do to stop me, dummy "Michael Dobony" <survey(a)stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message news:1171nonnccxxo$.49ayppcvp4u$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:02:56 -0400, Mike wrote: > >> You mean the Union Contracts that included "abusive waste" that Toyota >> signed with the UAW? >> >> The only "power" a Union has over a manufacturer is to require it to >> abide >> by their contract. >> > > It is abusive when UAW workers push their benefits to the limit, when > workers clock in, slip out the back fence, spend the day at the bar, > return > to clock out, and go home, without doing any work, and the union endorses > this. > >> >> "Michael Dobony"
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 5 Sep 2009 14:37 Similar: WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat." Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union. http://fernleynews.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jobs-bank-programs-12000-paid "Mike" <mikehunt2(a)lycos.com> wrote in message news:4aa2adea$0$32219$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > Sounds to me like there is a MANAGEMENT problem in that plant, if that is > what you believe. LOL > > > My techs were members of the Machinists Union. If any of my guys did > what you suggested, I would fire them and there it not a thing the > Machinists Union, or ANY Union, could do to stop me, dummy > > > "Michael Dobony" <survey(a)stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message > news:1171nonnccxxo$.49ayppcvp4u$.dlg(a)40tude.net... >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:02:56 -0400, Mike wrote: >> >>> You mean the Union Contracts that included "abusive waste" that Toyota >>> signed with the UAW? >>> >>> The only "power" a Union has over a manufacturer is to require it to >>> abide >>> by their contract. >>> >> >> It is abusive when UAW workers push their benefits to the limit, when >> workers clock in, slip out the back fence, spend the day at the bar, >> return >> to clock out, and go home, without doing any work, and the union endorses >> this. >> >>> >>> "Michael Dobony" > >
From: Mike on 5 Sep 2009 15:00 The fact is every manufacturer is building great cars today. The only real difference is style and price. It seems to me one should be more concerned about how well the dealership takes care of them and what they charge for parts and service because they all, at some point need parts and service. Look at ANY survey of buyers and they will reveal they all make around 2% that are not up the manufacturers build quality, that is why they ALL offer a warranty even Rolls Royce. Why anyone pays more money hoping they do not get one of the 2% makes no since. "Jeff" <jeff.utz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a0babb3c-4b50-423e-8e9f-d782786e3d1a(a)j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... On Sep 1, 7:01 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote: > "Vic Smith" <thismailautodele...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:ll8r95p9iaf56vs1j55stikuv5b35t0qe0(a)4ax.com... > > > > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:57:04 -0400, "80 Knight" <nos...(a)nospam.com> > > wrote: > > >>"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > > >>> My experience was the direct opposite of yours. From 1975 through > >>> 1982, > >>> I > >>> had nothing but hideous luck with Fords & GM cars. Please tell me what > >>> factor (advertising, faith, etc) would make someone try again with > >>> products which sucked in the past. I've had things go wrong with > >>> foreign > >>> cars, but never anything so stupid that it could only have been caused > >>> by > >>> complete incompetence in the design department. > > >>If you haven't owned a Ford or GM since 1982, how can you claim newer > >>models > >>are garbage? I can *kind of* understand why you would be hesitant to > >>purchase a brand new one, based on your previous experience, but > >>seriously. > > > He's an old guy with old ways of thought. When he's gone a new > > generation of car owners will be ascendant. > > Sort of reminds me of those who remember Pearl Harbor as an excuse to > > be anti-Jap. > > Just a generation later, but the same way of thinking. > > Tells the kids, "Back in '82, when you were just a twinkle in your > > dad's eye, I had an altercation with a Chevy Citation......" > > So sad. > > > --Vic > > If you'd owned a hideous product which now costs $20K to $40K, would you > risk that money just to see if the product had improved 20 years later? > > Yes or no? Don't lie. Just to see if it's better? There are other ways to find out if a car company is making better models, like consumer reports and cars owned by friends. People do share information about cars, read reviews in the paper (although one must be careful because many of the reviews are poorly-disguised ads), and read car magazines. Car companies do get reputations for quality of cars. BTW, when I buy a Ford Fusion, I don't buy an newer version of an old Mustang, but a totally different car. Ford makes some great cars and some cars that are not so good. Ditto GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, Kia and all the rest (at least those sold now in the US - some like Yugo were never good). Jeff
From: Mike on 5 Sep 2009 15:06
Does that mean you did not know Toyota was a partner in the NUMMI contract? LOL "Jeff" <jeff.utz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:50d0ae12-ffed-4c01-b323-cdb7e6fc8862(a)d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... On Sep 1, 2:02 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > You mean the Union Contracts that included "abusive waste" that Toyota > signed with the UAW? Toyota didn't sign contracts with the UAW. NUMMI did. > The only "power" a Union has over a manufacturer is to require it to abide > by their contract. And to agree to a contract. Jeff > "Michael Dobony" <sur...(a)stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message > > news:1gbfxfxrwzmby.mtse3az36qis$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:33:26 -0400, C. E. White wrote: > > >> Toyota blames costs, not UAW, for NUMMI pullout > >> Hans Greimel > >> Automotive News > >> August 28, 2009 - 9:52 am ET > > >> TOKYO -- Toyota Motor Corp. says it plans to shut its California > >> factory because of high labor and logistics costs, not because the UAW > >> represents workers there. > > >> "The UAW presence does not have a direct impact on the decision," > > > But union wages and benefits are a large portion of the excessive labor > > costs. My wife's uncle is UAW and the stories he told . . . deliberate, > > abusive waste totally because of UAW contracts. |