On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> It was also necessary due to onerous obligations to the union.
Heaven forbid we should pay workers a fair wage... >Many of those agreements were made at a time when the Detroit automakers >monopolized the U.S. car market. The union would strike, and the automakers >would give them whatever they wanted and roll it into the price of the cars. >That usually meant taking quality out. Hey, don't blame the unions for the decision of the automakers to make lousy cars. They ~could~ have said, "We'll just keep making the best cars we can, whatever the price may be (or even better, at a reduced profit), because the consumer doesn't mind spending a fair price for a quality product." But no, they thought more about short term gain than long-term customer satisfaction. The consumers (not such a stupid lot after all) voted with their feet. They bought foreign quality, even well after the price gap between domestic and foreign was minimal to nil. The other thing you're not factoring into the equation is how Detroit handled the rising price of fuel in the 70's along with government enforced safety and pollution standards. (which standards wouldn't have been necessary if Detroit had "done the right thing" all along and made safe, clean cars). Detroit's downfall began when they stopped doing what they did best (front-engined rear-wheel-drive vehicles) and tried to out-Japanese the Japanese with small cars that were simply pieces of crap. Can you say "Firenza"? Those were management decisions, not union decisions. The unions didn't kill Detroit (as we once knew it), Detroit did. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
