Delphi Proposal to Cut Wages in Half!

Page 3 of 8  
On 10/11/05 01:30 pm David Starr tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:


Q. What's the difference between a drunk and an alcoholic? A. An alcoholic still has to go to Board meetings.
IOW, the big wheels with an alcohol problem typically got off much more easily than the "rank and file": the former got sent for counseling, the latter got fired. Maybe the "rank and file" are now getting treated more like the big wheels in that respect.
Perce
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have worked both on the floor and around middle and upper management, Bub! Believe me, a druggie or drunk is not tolerated long where he has no union protection. Another little difference... the drunk is often operating heavy machinery...IOW like being around a drunk driver for an eight hour shift.
After work, alla same.
And what's this "now"? I saw plenty of it in the sixties.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alcoholism has been ruled a disease under the Disability Act by some Federal district courts.. Employers must try to accommodate alcoholics to a degree at which they seek treatment. Companies and unions have always tried to help the more valuable experienced employees in getting straitened out. Many do, and keep their job but many still end up out of a job.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Re: Delphi Proposal to Cut Wages in Half! Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 2:22pm From: snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com (Mike Hunter)
Alcoholism has been ruled a disease under the Disability Act by some Federal district courts.<<<<<<<<<<<<
So a voluntary act is now a disease? I always thought a disease was something you got without deliberate action, like cancer.
Eric
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tell that to the federal judges in the Districts that made the rulings. My guess is the Supreme Court will need to weigh in at some point.
mike hunt
(Mike Hunter)
Alcoholism has been ruled a disease under the Disability Act by some Federal district courts.<<<<<<<<<<<<
So a voluntary act is now a disease? I always thought a disease was something you got without deliberate action, like cancer.
Eric
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Mike Hunter)
Alcoholism has been ruled a disease under the Disability Act by some Federal district courts.<<<<<<<<<<<<
So a voluntary act is now a disease? I always thought a disease was something you got without deliberate action, like cancer.
Eric
Well, some diseases are caused (or are a contributing factor) by our own actions. Diseases caused by obesity (overeating), smoking, lifestyle/occupational contributors etc.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Backyard Mechanic wrote:

I have some war stories that relate and that can shed some light:
I was an engineering manager for a second tier supplier to two of the then big three.
GM/Delphi had a scheme for dealing with suppliers called PICOS. This was part of the Lopez legacy. Here are two important observations regarding the PICOS excercise that were forever stamped in my brain from that experience:
(1) GM/DELPHI AS PREDATOR The buyers, a couple of engineers, and certain other individuals with smokey job titles and desriptions would arrange meetings with the supplier's counterparts for a couple of weeks. Many man-months were "invested" by the supplier for the whole purpose of cutting cost out of a product that was being provided by the supplier. The "promise" was that any resulting savings from these brainstorming efforts would be documented and quantified in detail, and GM/Delphi and the supplier would split the savings 50/50. Sounds great, right?
Here's the hook: At the end of the process, after all the possible savings were squeezed out of the product, Delphi purchasing would say: "Oh - by the way - did we tell you that we are going to put this part back out on the streets for global sourcing? It's part of the requirements the PICOS process." (Of course they had failed to tell us that.)
For those who haven't thought ahead to the inherent result of that, what it meant was that, to competitively bid against other suppliers, you had to slice off all the savings that you had helped them come up with regarding the part - the savings that you were promised to share 50/50 in. Oh - and the design changes that you came up with on your nickel to reduce the cost? The resulting revised drawings were going to be in the RFQ package being sent to all the bidders/potential suppliers of the part.
BTW - Lopez went to VW and ended up doing hard time in Europe - can't remember what for, but whatever it was for, I'm sure it was deserved. He had codified unethical and fraudulent practices at GM that were carried on long after he left. Whenever a supplier fell victim to those practices (such as with the PICOS process), one was said to have been "Lopezed". Don't know if they still have that phrasing in the auto industry today or not - that was 5 years ago.
(2) GM/DELPHI AS VICTIM
The other observation about the PICOS process was that the union workers were sacred. If, in our brainstorming, we identified a savings that would have made the process more efficient and thus reduced the labor required (i.e., eliminated jobs) at the Delphi or GM plant in processing that part, that particular savings could not be implemented due to unfortunate union agreements that GM had entered into years earlier. Those restrictions did not apply to Ford or Chrysler. Those bad union agreements that GM had agreed to held them back for years. One of the reasons they were less profitable than Ford and Chrysler for a couple of decades.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Each
of
a
ruled
mechanisms
No, not at all.
There have always been terrorists ever since governments have existed. A couple hundred years ago they called them "pirates"
But no terrorist organization can exist without a base of operations and funding. The terrorists today in the Mid East are quietly funded by people in places like Saudi Arabia, and by governments like Syria that have an interest in keeping areas destabilized. But, those same people in Saudi Arabia and Syria would not be funding Palestinian terrorists if they had serious business interests in those areas.
Naturally you can never eleminate the effects of one determined man with a gun who is willing to sacrifice himself. But, assassins and such have always been with us as well.
The US population right now is stuck on terrorists because for so much of the countries history foreign terrorists were a rarity due to the US's isolationist stance. But there were no shortage of domestic terrorists. Once the US became entangled in foreign affairs, foreign terrorists became common and the US public is stunned by it.
More people are killed in a year in auto crashes than by terrorists, far, far more.
Ted
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

However - the effects (on the economy and other aspects of society) from a successful terrorist act are orders of magnitude greater than the same deathtoll in auto deaths over a given time period. Example: 3000 auto deaths over a given period in 2001 vs. 9/11 - which had geater lasting impact on our country? The effect is greatly psychological - perhaps that's why they call it *TERROR*. (Thats't not to belittle the impact on individual lives of tragic auto accidents.)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

people
US's
became
far,
Only because, as I said, people in the US aren't used to it. At least right now.
During the Civil War I think it was Petersburg, was shelled so heavily under seige and for so long that people ended up paying no attention anymore to the shelling. They would duck around a corner if they heard a shell coming but otherwise completely ignored them and went about their business unaffected.
The same thing happened in Ireland and I observed the same thing in London when my wife and I went there on our honeymoon about 10 years ago. At the time there had been a number of terror bomb attacks in the underground, and literally if you left a bag sitting on the ground unattended for more and 5 minutes, a bobby would run up and grab it and run off with it. There were signs plastered all over the place regarding this. But the inhabitants completely ignored the fact that they could be blown up without warning and went about their business.
People grow accustomed to anything, even the unexpected.
911 only made history because it was the first time a major office building in the US was dropped with airplanes. But for the last 30 years the security inspection in US airports was a standing joke. Everybody said that it was inadequate and we all were waiting for something like this to happen, but we wern't really believing someone would actually do it.
It's like leaving your car unlocked on the street in front of your house. The first time you do it you are scared to death someone will steal the car. Then each time you do it you believe less and less that someone will steal it. Finally a year later it happens and your furious. Well, stupid you. Stupid us Americans for letting the airplane inspection get so lax. But it's easier to blame the terrorists and make war on them then to get mad at ourselves for being so stupid as to allow the inspections to be lax.
Anyway, the vast majority of terror attacks are not grand spectacular ones like 911. They are the low-grade car bombs and such like in Iraq today. People get used to them and then they become ineffective as instruments in affecting policy.

You assume a lot when you assume 911 had a lasting effect on the country. We are too close to 911 now. They haven't even rebuilt the twin towers. You wait 20 years after the attack when the WTC site is all rebuilt, and the 911 attack is old history, and tell me then what 'lasting effect' that 911 has had.
If you really want to look at something that has had a lasting effect on US society, look at the television. TV has had much more lasting effect.
Ted
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/11/05 05:38 am Ted Mittelstaedt tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

On a much smaller scale, Australia had this, but I think that it's been demolished to a large extent in more recent years (I no longer live there). Many, if not all, States (no matter whether the ruling party was conservative or more socialist) had State-run enterprises in competition with privately run ones. There were State banks in competition with private ones, offering checking and savings accounts and home loans; there were State insurance offices in competition with private ones, offering motor-vehicle insurance, life insurance and homeowners' insurance; there were State Housing Commissions/Trusts in competition with private builders and property developers, offering homes for sale as well as for rental. At the Commonwealth (federal) level, the Commonwealth Bank competed with all the other banks, and a government-run domestic airline competed with the only other nationwide one, which was private (there were other private intrastate ones).
The private enterprises had the advantage of being less bureaucratic but had to pay shareholders. The goverment-run enterprises had the advantage of not having to show a profit (as long as they did not lose money), but tended to be more bureaucratic: you have to have more people to keep track of how "public money" is being spent -- but these people probably got paid less anyway.
All in all I thought it worked pretty well. Each kept the other on its toes.
Perce
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote: "When we vote for politicians who sell off America's jobs in bulk to the lowest offshore bidder, then yes, that is exactly what we deserve."
Every President for the last 30 years has help sell off America's jobs. Free trade agreements without requiring them to meet better environmental issues and safety for its employees is part of the problem.
Sarge
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The consumer can stop that if that is what you believe happed. Don't buy foreign goods or product assemble in the US of foreign parts, like Toyotas etc.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sarge wrote:

What would happen if we closed our markets to imports, and required U.S. companies to keep jobs here? I am sure that other countries would do the same to us, so that we would not be able to export, unless those other countries could not buy the goods they need elsewhere. Any thoughts or ideas on this?
-Kirk Matheson
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sisna.com wrote: "What would happen if we closed our markets to imports, and required U.S. companies to keep jobs here? I am sure that other countries would do the same to us, so that we would not be able to export, unless those other countries could not buy the goods they need elsewhere. Any thoughts or ideas on this?"
You would have a global war everyone else against the US. The US has enough resources that it could stand alone for a while but other countries require our resources.
Sarge
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Sarge wrote:

...and they'd be welcome to buy our resources. What makes you think otherwise?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sure, that will not, and can not, happen under current trade laws.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
that would be revoking the nafta agreement. which i'm all for, we need to take care of ourselves first before we fix the world and by the way how can we as a free country be truly free to express our opinions to each other when we can't speak the others language (spanish) thats the beginnings of a country take over from wiithin. don't give away your guns we are going to need them
snipped-for-privacy@sisna.com wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The problem is that it's gotten too complex for a simple answer like this.
Consider a real simple example, manufacture of electrical circuit breaker panels (not the breakers, the panels that they mount into)
The businesses involved in the supply chain here are as follows:
1) Mining operations that dig the iron ore out of the ground and process it into pig iron
2) Steel mills that take the raw iron and produce sheet steel
3) The panel manufacturer that takes the sheet steel and cuts and bends it into the box
The well meaning government decides there's too much cheap sheet steel coming in and it's damaging the domestic steelmakers. So they raise tariffs on foreign steel
The panel manufacturers were buying cheap foreign steel to make panels here. Now they can't so they have to raise prices, and then become uncompetitive. Now the foreign panelbox manufacturers can undercut them and flood the market.
So the upshot is you have helped out one domestic industry but in so doing you have harmed many other domestic industries. The effect is you simply shift job loss from one industry to another.
The key in all of this is getting the consumer to buy in. If you can convince the consumers to insist on domestic suppliers, they will put pressure on those suppliers to also buy domestic, who put pressure on their suppliers to also buy domestic, and so on right up the supply chain. Unfortunately this is not a concept that has been trained into the American public since grade school, which is why there is so incredibly much low-quality junk sold in the US, since people buy so much on price only.
We ARE starting to see these attitudes change in certain markets - particularly food. People in the US are beginning to push their local grocery stores to buy from local farmers and suppliers, for example.
But, so many industries have been foreign-dominated for so long that now theres no domestic suppliers left. For example the manufacture of TV sets. Even people willing to pay more for a domestically produced TV simply cannot do it.
Unfortunately the genberal public in the US seems to be unable to retain much for very long. Every time the US goes through an economic slump, people start getting a clue about "Buy American" and we see interest in this, along with various advertising campaigns about it. But as soon as the economy starts to recover, people lose interest and are right back to ignoring everything on the product except for price.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The American consumer must lean from the Japanese once again, as the American manufacture have learn that quality counts. Japanese consumers have consistently been more incline to buy those products made in the own country rather than product made in other courtiers. They understand it is far more important to support ones own economy than that of foreign countries. Unfortunately many Americans are confused about from whom they are buying.. Toyota for instance gives the impression that many of the vehicles it sells in the US are made in the US. The fact is the majority of their vehicles are imported and those that are assembled in the US are assemble primarily of cheaper imported parts. Honda does a much better job of actually building in the US on mostly US parts. In the case of both however the profits still leave the country federal corporate tax free.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.