Car Buyers Spurn GM, Ford as Japan Brands Retain Aura (Update3)

Oh really? If that's really true (and I have *serious* doubts that it is) then part of the problem is very stupid buyers. How does a business deal with an idiot customer who's going to demand what he thinks he wants and then kill you when you deliver that very thing they demanded and then discover they aren't happy with it?

Funny. I though Ford's stock was in the low $2 range only 4 or 5 months ago. Why is this article emphasizing a blip like that and not mentioning that it has more than doubled in 4 or 5 months? Is that not just as important? Shows how statistics can be distorted/misused.

It's getting so I don't believe anything anybody says anymore for all the B.S., all backed up by "facts", that comes at us in a steady stream.

No.

When they lavished development dollars on fat union wages, health care and retirement benefits, which they had no choice but do it because they were not able to mass-fire their entire workforce and hire other people willing to work for the same pay.

Regan did the same thing with the air traffic controllers. But corporate USA can't do it because of labor laws and police who will not enforce the law and arrest picketers who block access to private property.

The japs who came to the US to build factories are almost all non-unionized. Tell you anything?

And it doesn't help that the US auto market is wide open to foreign competition and importation, especially from asia, but not vice-versa.

So why blame the big-3 for making about the only type of vehicle that is not made by a competitor in their home market for export to the US?

Japan's car market is closed to US importation, and Japan forces their citizens to turn over their cars every 3 to 5 years because of how their emissions testing works (old cars must pass *current* emissions standards). This forced obsolescense and captive domestic market insures that the jap car makers are financially healthy, and they can sell their cars in the US, even at break-even (or slight loss) and remain viable.

"Japan's car market is closed to US importation"

An old saw, as far as I know. Do cite a law.

And even if an import ban were true, it would apply to all foreign manufacturers.

From what I can recall from many years ago from a previous occasion when the US auto industry was bleating about difficulties in Japan they were trying to force unmodified vehicles onto Japanese consumers. No wonder they declined to buy when they drive on the left. And yes, I am well aware of non-tariff trade barriers, but they tend to be against everybody.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

" "It doesn't take long to lose your reputation for making reliable cars, but it takes 10 to 15 years to get that reputation back," said David Champion. "

Right. Happened to BMW (in Germany) many decades ago. But they recovered.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

"MoPar Man" wrote: "When they lavished development dollars on fat union wages, health care and retirement benefits, which they had no choice but do it"

The union does not set the wage by itself. Its called negotiations. If the Big 3 did not think they could afford what the union wanted they would not have offered the contract. They would have been willing to allow a strike and hire replacement workers.

"because they were not able to mass-fire their entire workforce and hire other people willing to work for the same pay."

So it okay to fire the union workers and replace them with non union workers for the same pay. This makes no sense at all.

"Regan did the same thing with the air traffic controllers. But corporate USA can't do it because of labor laws and police who will not enforce the law and arrest picketers who block access to private property."

This is not entirely true. Reagan did fire the air traffic controllers because it was illegal to strike against the US government or any of its agencies. He gave them 48 hours notice to return. If you ever walked a picket line, you would know that in most cases companies go to court and get an injuction setting rules for picketing. The court order usually deals with such things as limiting the number of picketing at a time, how long you are allowed to block the entrance and what entrances you can picket. Private companies do not fall under the same rules that the government or any of its agencies do. The president can shutdown any strike if the strike is of national interest. Take for instance if the USW union representing workers that fall under the oil bargaining agreement would go on strike all at once, the president probably would step in an order this workers back to work or risk being arrested or fired. The reason is almost all you major oil refineries would be shutdown or at severely reduce rates. this in turn would cause and fuel shortage.

The japs who came to the US to build factories are almost all non-unionized. Tell you anything?

Many foreign corporation do not want a union and do what ever they can to prevent one from every getting started.

Should people have the right to collectivize and form a union - Absolutely.

Should unionized workers have the right to strike if they believe their working conditions, pay, benefits, etc, are not sufficient for the job they are doing - absolutely (but only when their current contract has expired).

Should unionized workers who have gone on strike need to picket their workplace and/or prevent replacement workers from entering the workplace? No, they should not need to do that. If they believe the pay they receive for the work they do is not sufficient, then neither should anyone else. If they believe their own position, then all they need to do is stay home and sit in their sofa with a beer in one hand and a remote control in the other, and wait for the employer to agree to their demands and call them back to work.

On the other hand, if they believe that they are asking form more pay than than a free market would or should otherwise pay them, then they logically would feel threatened by replacement workers, and try would do best to stop them from attempting to do their job. And that is exactly what they do. They know they are asking for more than a fair wage, and they are preventing a free market (a job market in this case) from operating to determine just what that wage is.

If employers are not free to hire replacement workers, if replacement workers are not allowed free and unhindered access to the workplace, then a true and fair equillibrium can not be reached between what the employer wants to pay vs what people are willing to work for.

Look what it took for US automakers to keep paying the high wages and benefits that the unions extorted from them. The automakers leveraged their operations with billions in debt. This has been going on for decades. And with the credit-crisis they could no longer roll-over that debt. The result is bankruptcy.

I don't always agree with you, but you hit el nailo on la cabeza with that post.

The problem with this approach is that what typically happens is that there is no equilibrium that is ever reached, and wages spiral lower and lower indefinitely - until the government steps in and starts creating labor laws that disallow stuff like child labor, mandatory overtime, etc.

That is also why laws were passed that disallow illegal immigrants from working.

Unfortunately, those laws are routinely flouted in many areas of the country.

And laws were also passed that capped the quasi-illegal immigrants (ie: H1B visas)

Unfortunately, those are also being ignored.

Once the government ejects the illegal immigrants, and start arresting business owners that routinely employ them, and scotch the veneer of legality applied to what are fundamentally illegal immigrants (H1B) I'll be more than happy to sign on to your anti-union agenda.

But until then, if the government is going to make the business owners happy by turning a blind eye to the abuse of the system by the illegal and quasi-illegal H1B immigrants, then it is only fair for the government to make the unions happy by supporting their causes.

Ted

MoPar Man wrote: "Should unionized workers have the right to strike if they believe their working conditions, pay, benefits, etc, are not sufficient for the job they are doing - absolutely (but only when their current contract has expired)."

I guess you never been in a union. Striking is illegal in most contracts and it clear states that in its message. Beside Wildcat strikes have been deemed illegal since 1935. The law does allow the company to terminate anyone involved in an illegal strike.

"Should unionized workers who have gone on strike need to picket their workplace and/or prevent replacement workers from entering the workplace? No, they should not need to do that. If they believe the pay they receive for the work they do is not sufficient, then neither should anyone else. If they believe their own position, then all they need to do is stay home and sit in their sofa with a beer in one hand and a remote control in the other, and wait for the employer to agree to their demands and call them back to work."

And please explain how this would be profitable. Let see news media broadcast 2000 ABC union workers go on strile becuase of unfair wages. Camera crews pan to the company and no one is walking the picket line. This would be real effective way to get the company to come to terms.

"On the other hand, if they believe that they are asking form more pay than than a free market would or should otherwise pay them, then they logically would feel threatened by replacement workers, and try would do best to stop them from attempting to do their job. And that is exactly what they do. They know they are asking for more than a fair wage, and they are preventing a free market (a job market in this case) from operating to determine just what that wage is."

First and far most, most contracts are not all about wages but more about working conditions. The company will not settle on wages if they can not afford to pay them. The last contract I was sitting at the table the company initial offer to the union was a 1 percent raise each year for the 3 year contract. This is coming from a comapny that posted record profits the last 10 years. The union did not list a percentage raise on the initial offer. It just stated a yearly raise and wages was the last thing on the list. On the companies offer it was first along with a signing bonus.

"If employers are not free to hire replacement workers, if replacement workers are not allowed free and unhindered access to the workplace, then a true and fair equillibrium can not be reached between what the employer wants to pay vs what people are willing to work for."

The employer is free to hire replacement workers but if the strike is deemed to be legal by the NLRB, then one the strike is over they most likely won't have a job. Under the NLRA replacement workers can not displace llegally striking workers permanently. There has been several cases where companies have tried this and lost. Caterpillar and Kaiser Aluminum are two that come to mind.

"Look what it took for US automakers to keep paying the high wages and benefits that the unions extorted from them. The automakers leveraged their operations with billions in debt. This has been going on for decades. And with the credit-crisis they could no longer roll-over that debt. The result is bankruptcy."

You are really clueless. The entire world economy is in a collapse all because of UAW workers. Get real.

I know of no non-unionized employer, in any market sector or job classification, where salaries have fallen over time.

If you know of one, please describe it.

A job is worth what someone is willing to earn. If their work is sub-standard then product quality will suffer and so will sales and reputation. If you are a clever employer who can properly design your parts and your assembly methods such that even a monkey can put the product together reasonably well, then you can hire monkeys and pay them bananas.

Illegal immigrants should not be physically present in the country in the first place. That you must rely on employers to act as immigration police is a disgrace.

Why are you equating the right for someone, if offered, to take the job of a striking worker with that of the illegal immigration situation?

Strikers should not have the legal ability to block the workplace or hinder replacement workers from entering the workplace.

If a workforce goes on strike, then by definition they have ceased their employment with the employer of their own free will. They have in face terminated their own employment.

Any replacement workers that the employer hires are not really replacement workers - they are the new workforce of the company.

Why can't you understand that simple, fair and equitable concept? If the above situation can't happen because of labor laws, then the laws are an ass.

That is a huge flaw. What is the moral and logical reason for such a law? There can be none.

If a workforce goes on strike (for more of something, more pay, more benefits, more beneficial employment terms) then their demands can't be tested fairly unless others are allowed access to those same jobs for the same pay (or benefits, or employment terms).

You are the clueless one. I never said that the economy collapsed BECAUSE of the UAW. I said that US auto makers have been held hostage by artifically high wages and benefits given to UAW employees because how the labor laws operate. And that left the auto companies financially vulnerable to the current credit crisis (a crisis that had it's roots in the collapse of billions of dollars of worthless mortgage contracts in the US, UK and Europe). The auto companies have been financing their operations by leveraging and rolling over huge amounts of debt. That couldn't last, and the credit crisis brought down their deck of cards earlier than they ever anticipated.

Ford borrowed a huge amount of money 2 or 3 years ago and that's the only reason why they haven't declared bankruptcy yet. If credit markets haven't recovered in a year and Ford can't get access to new loans, then they'll be selling off assets and closing dealerships like GM and Chrysler have just done.

Bravo!

And immigration officials are discouraged and threatened by the government (ala Nancy Pelosi and others) if they enforce the laws on the illegals. We are experiencing anarchy within our own government.

Thats very true. Just look at what the left is doing attacking Sheriff Joe Arapio in Arizona. He's extremely popular with the Arizona citizens but the left has been trying to stop him like crazy from going after illegals and the companies that hire them.

Of course, but then you gotta remember that consumers are by-and-large STUPID. I still run into people who think "Japanese cars are better than American cars" no matter how many seized Toyota engines there are out there. But the pendulum will eventually swing the other way when enough people get burned in the pocketbook.

Ford's going to come out of this the big winner, GM the big loser. Chrysler? Who knows yet, but I give them better odds than GM right now.

Steve wrote in news:KPmdnSKYybgrKN7XnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@texas.net:

My niece just bought a Toyota Matrix. She thought it was a better car than the Pontiac Vibe since it was a Toyota. She didn't believe me when I told her they came off the same assembly line in California.

MoPar Man wrote: "Why can't you quote properly?"

Last time I looked up how to quote someone is says use quation marks " nd not greater than symbol >.

It's a question of Heducation...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

You are the only person I've ever seen, in the 20 years that I've been reading and posting to usenet, to quote previous material using "---" instead of indenting quoted material using a standard character (like >

).

You seem to be using Outlook Express. I'm sure it has the ability to properly construct usenet posts by using the > character to indicate quoted material. Why don't you use it properly?

Don't you see how you're the only one quoting in that manner?

But don't you rmember "---" from your youth?

This > indendation business has only arisen because that's what happens in e-mail replies. It's not actually a quote in the grammatically correct English sense.

If I were to quote you, say, correctly and show that your brain has been overwritten ( :-) ) by computerisation over a long period I would show the evidence like this: "You are the only person I've ever seen, in the 20 years..."

Julius Caesar said "Et tu, Brute"

not

Julius Caeser said

In German they sometimes use > if I am not mistaken, but this is not a German discussion group...

Here endeth the lesson...

Best DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"