From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Profits to Japan?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:34:48 GMT

In article <bob1.720901141@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>In <1992Nov4.053446.27470@EE.Stanford.EDU>
	sahul@gloworm.Stanford.EDU (Zakir H. Sahul) writes:

>>>dmarshal@Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM (Dave Marshall) writes:

>>>> For 
>>>> the "but the profits go to Japan" crowd, I say "Better there than 
>>>> to the UAW.")

>I guess I must be behind the times, since I have no patience with
>union bashers. Some of you kids seem to forget that your parents
>and grandparents helped found the union movement, and you can
>thank your lucky stars that they did.

That was then, this is now. It does not take away from the hard work of
those who formed the labour movement, to suggest that the adversarial
style of labour/menagement relations are no longer in the best
interests of either management or labour.

However, now both unions and management have power bases to protect, so
the idea of a co-operative (rather than an adversarial) way of producing
goods is still quite a foreign idea. And I don't mean Japanese.

>If there had been no unions, we would probably still have 12 year
>old children working in sweatshops and coal mines.

Thanks to the labour movement, most states and provinces have laws that
set minimum wages, prevent child labour, and set minimum standards of
working conditions. Some (I don't know about the US, but most Canadian 
provinces) insure compensation for workers who sustain on-the-job
injuries. And so on.

>Apart from a
>handfull of corporations, most businesses have had to be dragged
>kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

Absolutely true, but this does not only apply to labour relations.

>>Also, income from the big three also goes to engineers, salespersons,
>>secretaries, etc. etc. who are also making a living.  These people
>>spend that money buying other goods and services that keeps the
>>economy going.

Even if some of that money went to Japan, under a totally free
marketplace it's still possible that those Japanese engineers and
salesmen will still be buying the same American goods and services
as their counterparts on this side of the pond.

>If the domestic manufacturer sells you a product that
>does not perform - tell them. Chronic bitching about the big three
>here in r.a does little good, or do you believe that their executives
>have newsreaders :-/.

The marketplace has been telling the big three for decades that their
products do not perform. They've stopped buying the product, which is
the only real way that consumers not only complain, but put their money
where their mouths are.

This is not to say that any of the big three is listening...

I don't think there are that many people who buy foreign cars because
they're made elsewhere. The Japanese makers wouldn't be in the door if
20 years ago, the big three had been able to adequately anticipate the
market.

For years Consumer Reports has done surveys of owners to determine
reliability and owner satisfacion. Do you think there's a mystique
about Japanese cars that causes their owners to report fewer problems?
Is Consumer Reports being unpatriotic in coldly recommending the best cars?

>>Furthermore, I will agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the Accord is
>>an excellent automobile whose performace, reliability and price will

>You couldn't convince me after I saw the mess that was left when one
>ran into the back of my car $250 damage to mine >$1400 to the Honda.
>I think Bud uses thicker beer cans.

Totally irrelevant. Most rear-enders I've seen have substantially more
damage to the car with the front-end damage. Regardless of the source of
the cars. That's a pretty flimsy excuse to put down Accords.

>The really sad part is that after sitting around for ~15 years just
>collecting their pay, the GM board is now admitting that *they*
>screwed-up, but are they going to resign? Oh no, its just 75,000
>to 100,000 poor working stiffs that will wind up in the street.

And, when all is said and done, what has the union done for those
tens of thousands of workers? Short-term wealth, long-term
unemployment.

I hold the unions and management equally to blame for the problems of
the American auto industry. Both are in it to take as much profit/wages
as possible out of the system. The goal of making superior,
best-in-the-market products (which *indirectly* leads to more profits
and jobs) has fallen by the wayside.

For what it's worth, Roger Smith and a number of his management
cronies have also joined the ranks of the unemployed. And he's not
going to get a huge number of offers from other companies who see
"ran GM into the ground" at the top of his resume.

>Oh gee folks, we screwed-up, so you are fired. Oh and by the way,
>Merry Christmas. :-(

Yes, management screwed up. But the unions did too. A strike at a parts
plant which can shut down a dozen assembly plants, is a good way to
ransom the company for wages in excess of what the employees are worth.
As a tactic for boosting short-term wages it's splendid. As a way of
ensuring the long-term success of the company it stinks.

In their many years of making demands of the company, how many times
have the workers demanded a say in the *way* things were done? Maybe
demand less wage increases, but instead some input into quality issues.
It didn't happen. The short-term grab for the buck was as much on the
union's agenda as management's. And now employee and shareholder alike
are paying the price.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: rec.autos