Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Auto workers, UAW or not, should get paid in proportion to their skill and productivity. They should at least be paid enough to buy their product. They should have the job for life followed by a decent pension. Of course this applies to ALL workers not just auto guys. Let the businessmen compete, workers should not have to.
FWIW - About American Cars - GM subdivision -I owned a 1996 Buick Roadmaster Station Wagon that was the most comfortable and useful vehicle I ever owned. It cost me $2,500 with about 100k miles. It finally rusted out at 230K in 2009. I replaced it with a 2001 Buick sedan that is nice but not as handy.
They ARE paid enough to buy their product. But I don't see how that is a meaningful metric to judge their pay. I work on software that I can't afford. I don't see any correlation whatsoever between my pay and the cost of the goods I produce.
As for a job for life - why? Why should anyone have a job for life? What is the difference between a businessman and an "worker?"
They ARE paid enough to buy their product. But I don't see how that is a meaningful metric to judge their pay. I work on software that I can't afford. I don't see any correlation whatsoever between my pay and the cost of the goods I produce.
As for a job for life - why? Why should anyone have a job for life? What is the difference between a businessman and an "worker?"
Agreed.
Who has a job "for life" these days? there is absolutely no loyalty among employers anymore, none at all.
They make plenty of money to purchase their own products.
I don't see the correlation either.
What "should" autoworkers get paid? Ideally, the companies would be free to shop for labor the same way you shop for cars, shoes, groceries, gas, and everything else: pay the lowest price you can to get what you want.
NOBODY pays more than they need to, for anything. So the right wage is the lowest one that would fill all the slots with capable workers.
i don't work in a car factory, i just drive cars. over the years i've observed that Detroit vehicles are mediocre, and i need something really new and earth-shattering to change my mind about that. It may be that the problem is Detroit's big 3 also share a mangement culture that is similar, not just a shared union and its culture. I just haven't heard anyone put forth that argument.
Ford ultimately bears responsibility for the shoddy parts it used in my vehicle. That attitude that you can "blame it on the suppliers" must fly in Chicago or Dearborn.
I know Ford has new products, that they are making some profit, with some help from the government. I don't know that reliability over the car's lifetime has improved.
If Ford wants to exceed my expectations it needs to build vehicles that have fewer problems under 100,000 miles. I did not like being their guinea pig to try out new, untested technology. Even when it ran, that car would mysteriously "shut off" the fuel when I was going down the highway, and the engine would need to be turned off, and restarted, as if I was rebooting a computer.
So, reading this you have absolutely no idea why you had trouble with your engine, but still have come to the conclusion it is related to union workers?
And you think I am passing it off as not Ford's problem because I pointed out that many outsourced components are chosen by management (based on cost) and built in non union shops? Ford bears all responsibility for the product it produces, but blaming it on union workers when you are completely clueless of the root cause is rather sketchy.
You had a bad experience with a vehicle and have every right to have a sour taste. But, if you have no idea why, it might be better to withhold specific judgment. Improvement does not come about because you let one faction blame the other and assist them by taking sides.
Ford is not making profit "with some help from the government". you really need to get your facts straight. the reliability numbers are out there. consumer reports, jd power, etc etc.
i suspect that the problem may have existed between the steering wheel and driver's seat...
I think Le Roi has comprehension issues and subscribes to the theory that "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". Ignoring the fact no one is entitled to be respected for their opinion. That is earned by being well informed.
So, reading this you have absolutely no idea why you had trouble with your engine
the engine was manufactured in a unionized Ford plant in Lima, Ohio. if you want to track down the part that failed, that's your business.
as far as I'm concerned I have all the information I need to stop buying cars from Detroit.
Quote:
Ford bears all responsibility for the product it produces, but blaming it on union workers when you are completely clueless of the root cause is rather sketchy.
you approach this from such a ridiculous angle, like i ought to know the name of the guy who designed the parts, and teh guy who bolted the part into MY car, who made the mistake, whether they were in unions or not, and how all that fits into FMC, before I am entitled to my opinion that the UAW makes poor quality products.
i approach this from the top-down: all manufacturers that suck and produce mediocre products share a common theme, which is that they are heavily unionized. Whether my car's failure was due to the actions of a union member, or not, is irrelevant.
Quote:
Improvement does not come about because you let one faction blame the other and assist them by taking sides.
assuming that i care, how exactly do I exert influence upon whether Ford improves their products or not? You'll have to explain that logic in greater detail.
the engine was manufactured in a unionized Ford plant in Lima, Ohio. if you want to track down the part that failed, that's your business.
as far as I'm concerned I have all the information I need to stop buying cars from Detroit.
you approach this from such a ridiculous angle, like i ought to know the name of the guy who designed the parts, and teh guy who bolted the part into MY car, who made the mistake, whether they were in unions or not, and how all that fits into FMC, before I am entitled to my opinion that the UAW makes poor quality products.
i approach this from the top-down: all manufacturers that suck and produce mediocre products share a common theme, which is that they are heavily unionized. Whether my car's failure was due to the actions of a union member, or not, is irrelevant.
assuming that i care, how exactly do I exert influence upon whether Ford improves their products or not? You'll have to explain that logic in greater detail.
look at product recalls for all the auto manufacturers. you'll see toyota and honda up there on the list these days as well. you're assessment on quality based on 1 car you've owned is quite astounding.
look at product recalls for all the auto manufacturers. you'll see toyota and honda up there on the list these days as well.
so what? recalls aren't an apples to apples comparison of quality.
Quote:
you're assessment on quality based on 1 car you've owned is quite astounding.
who said my assessment is based on this one car?
This was the second Ford I'd owned personally, and probably the 50th or 60th my immediate family had driven; we had a new Ford every 3 months growing up. Mostly Explorers and Tauruses, but also Thunderbirds, Crown Vics, Windstars, Mustangs, F150s, Rangers, Probes, Escorts, Contours, Aerostars, Econolines, LTDs, etc.
i had the opinion that American cars were poor long-term choices before I bought that car. I just closed my eyes and pulled the trigger -- "how bad could it really be?"
i figured it would make it to 80k, at least, before it cost me anything serious. Nevermind that it depreciated from $40k brand new, to less than $10k by the time it had 25,000 miles. It needed serious repair at 30k and incured unrelated catastrophic failure at 65k.
In a way I am lucky, though, because the severity of my situation has forced me to come to terms with reality. I see some guys persist in their folly for years, buying Chryslers, watching them break down, and then watching them give every excuse in the book.
so what? recalls aren't an apples to apples comparison of quality.
who said my assessment is based on this one car?
This was the second Ford I'd owned personally, and probably the 50th or 60th my immediate family had driven; we had a new Ford every 3 months growing up. Mostly Explorers and Tauruses, but also Thunderbirds, Crown Vics, Windstars, Mustangs, F150s, Rangers, Probes, Escorts, Contours, Aerostars, Econolines, LTDs, etc.
i had the opinion that American cars were poor long-term choices before I bought that car. I just closed my eyes and pulled the trigger -- "how bad could it really be?"
i figured it would make it to 80k, at least, before it cost me anything serious. Nevermind that it depreciated from $40k brand new, to less than $10k by the time it had 25,000 miles. It needed serious repair at 30k and incured unrelated catastrophic failure at 65k.
In a way I am lucky, though, because the severity of my situation has forced me to come to terms with reality. I see some guys persist in their folly for years, buying Chryslers, watching them break down, and then watching them give every excuse in the book.
i don't know then. i'm not sure which car depreciated from $40k - $10k in 25,000 miles. but american car companies to depreciate faster, largely due to the type of pricing they are known for (msrp vs massive "discounts" and "rebates"). some hold value better than others.
but as for the quality department...my family i guess was just lucky. chrylsers, fords, chevys....all lasted us long long times. i'm not married to the concept of buying american cars. the main thing that turns me off is their obvious lack of attention to detail in their cars. trucks are usually pretty sweet, but i want a car. it just so happens that most of the nicer looking cars with nice interiors are foreign. overall, i can't really complain about the quality of any car manufacturer except volkewagon...but i've heard and read that lately, they've gotten themselves together also.
the engine was manufactured in a unionized Ford plant in Lima, Ohio. if you want to track down the part that failed, that's your business.
When you make this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
... my lincoln had an engine failure at 65,000 miles, after a litany of smaller problems. the quality of that vehicle was abhorrent.
it was made by highly paid union workers at the Wixom plant near Detroit, and its engine was made by highly paid union workers at the Lima plant in Ohio.
You are assuming it was an assembly line issue and blaming "highly paid union workers". The failure could easily have been a cheap oil pump engineered by a management employee and outsourced from China (big union problem there!).
Blaming Ford for an overall bad experience makes sense, blaming the union is completely unsupported by the information you have. Everything else is just blowing smoke.
Saying your family owned 50 or 60 crappy cars and then you decided to buy two more, suggest a certain hardheadedness that your words also convey.
You don't need to know the name of the worker or the part that failed to keep an open mind.
Last edited by shaker281; 05-09-2011 at 11:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
