On Feb 27, 2011, at 12:51 PM, frank theriault wrote: > 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."
Not with the added cost of the union contracts. They still had to compete with each other, and price is always a competitive point. The unions bear much responsibility for the demise of the U.S. auto industry. But they're cooperating now, at least to a certain extent. They had no choice. it was play ball or go home. > > 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. And the foreign makers were able to provide more content, because they built their cars in non-union states. Still do. It's funny that the "progressives" who tear their hair out when a governor tries to rein in public service unions, generally prefer cars made in right to work states. Hondas and Toyotas, made by non-union workers are the PC cars of choice. > > 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"? Read today's NY Times review of the Chevrolet Cruze, it puts Accord and Civic to shame. > > Those were management decisions, not union decisions. > > The unions didn't kill Detroit (as we once knew it), Detroit did. Until last year, GM was spending more for pensions and retiree health care than it was spending on product development. It had to. It was in the contract. And they were spending abotu 1000% more than Toyota or Honda. That's certain death. > > 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. -- 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.
