Consider buying American!

In article >,
Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
> > And of course what all those union bashers seem to forget is that a
> > non union low paid workforce won't have the money to spend on consumer
> > goods and services.

> When the unions demand that the guy sweeping the bathroom get paid the
> same as the guy bolting the engine into the car, that's a problem caused
> by the union.

Your unions demand this? The UK ones don't. It makes no sense. Skills
have always been recognised by unions and appropriate remuneration sought
for them. Of course if you actually mean the same *conditions of service*
for all employees, that's a different matter.

> When the union insists on a roomful of "extras" being paid the same wage
> as the guys on the line for doing nothing but sitting there waiting just
> in case some guy on the line has to go home, that's a problem caused by
> the union.

It's also a problem with management if they give in to silly demands. Not
that I'm saying having standby staff is silly - I don't know the full
facts. And neither, I suspect, do you.

If a weak management give in to silly demands from unions they'll give in
to silly demands from shareholders, etc, too. The job of management is
actually to manage things efficiently - and if they can't or won't any
company is doomed. Unionised or not.

--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

still just me > wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:18:48 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>
>>>Yup. It's nice to have a fall guy though. Saves approaching the real
>>>problems. Since I'm reading this on a BMW group the OP might like to
>>>ponder why BMW recognises unions but manages to be one of the most
>>>profitable car makers world wide.
>>
>>Because they stuck to their guns and designed cars right, instead of
>>making FWD crap?
>
>For 9999 out of 10,000 drivers, FWD makes more sense. Unless you're
>into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>advantages and some serious disadvantages.

Ever worked on a transaxle? Even worse, ever paid someone else to do it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

tater wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>
>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>
>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>> car.
>>
>
> American cars are crap. Made by unionists more worried about when their
> next coffee break is than making quality cars. They've negotiated themselves
> right out of jobs as the big auto makers cut back. It's not possible to do
> business
> that way and compete on a world wide economy.

it's not unions, it's management. as stated by others, germany is
extensively unionized, but highly productive, and mostly competitive.
and the reason is automation. robots are used extensively in production
there. lower production costs, better product, ability to pay higher
union-negotiated wages to employees.

that's exactly what we should do here - go to automation. it keeps
production capacity domestic, keeps revenues domestic, improves quality,
and most importantly of all, means we don't export our technology to the
chinese and pay for them to build, tool and staff factories that could
just as easily build tanks as well as cars.

one more time: robots and automation - keep production domestic.





>
> A couple years ago I bought a Nissan truck with 92,000 miles on it and
> didn't bat an eye. I wouldn't even think of owning an American made
> car with over 60,000 miles on it. They fall apart.
>
> When American auto makers start turning out a quality product at
> a competitive price I'll take a look at them.
>
> t
>
>

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> still just me > wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:18:48 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>>> Yup. It's nice to have a fall guy though. Saves approaching the real
>>>> problems. Since I'm reading this on a BMW group the OP might like to
>>>> ponder why BMW recognises unions but manages to be one of the most
>>>> profitable car makers world wide.
>>> Because they stuck to their guns and designed cars right, instead of
>>> making FWD crap?
>> For 9999 out of 10,000 drivers, FWD makes more sense. Unless you're
>> into throttle steer and serious performance driving, RWD has no
>> advantages and some serious disadvantages.
>
> Ever worked on a transaxle? Even worse, ever paid someone else to do it?

seems you're not very familiar with the situation yourself - there's no
complexity difference between the two. and as stated by others, there
are many advantages to fwd for normal driving - that's why so many
vehicles use it.

In article >,
> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:54:55 GMT, still just me
> wrote:
>
>>>I can't even use common fluids in the Honda. The antifreeze is 4-5
>>>times as much.
>>
>>I have difficulty believing that. Maybe your aged Ford uses the green
>>stuff on sale,
>
>I have never seen Honda antifreeze "on sale" or really for sale at all
>beyond the dealer. It is also half the strength. A gallon costs at
>least twice what a national brand costs and you need twice as much of
>it.

The Honda Type 2 coolant uses a very different anti-corrosion package
than the conventional green coolants that use silicates. It also uses
a different package than GM's DEX-COOL although it's similar.

In fact, I think it gives better protection than the green stuff in
every engine, and the added cost is made up for the fact that you don't
have to change it annually like you do with the green stuff. The Honda
stuff is also superior to DEX-COOL and won't make brown slime the way
DEX-COOL will.

If you don't like paying the Honda prices, Prestone makes an equivalent for
the Honda coolant that costs less. To be honest, though, the Honda coolant
is good stuff and I know a number of people buying it to use in BMWs. But
the Prestone equivalent is only a little more expensive than the green stuff
and ought to be fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"still just me" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:38:50 -0500, > I have difficulty believing that.
> Maybe your aged Ford uses the green
> stuff on sale, but newer Fords use a carbo-oxy as used by many other
> manufacturers. Even so, the green is about $10/gal... you're
> suggesting that the Honda coolant is $40-$50/gal.Last I checked, Honda
> used a typical no-phosphate japanese coolant. Prices are about the
> same for all, give or take a few $'s and some extra profit money if
> you buy it at the stealer.

I just bought a gallon of Toyota coolant (the premixed stuff) and it was
around $ 22. That is for a 50/50 mix that is ready to put in the car. That
makes it around the $ 40 to $ 50 price range per gallon. That was at the
local Ford/Toyota dealer. I don't mind the price so much as the feeling I
was getting ripped off.

The only brand I have bought for the last 15 years has been Toyota. That is
4 cars and one truck.

Standard joke is that the American parts are so cheep is because they are
always rebuilding them so there are plenty of replacement parts , where the
Toyotas don't break down and there are almost no recycled parts to put on
them..

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:mAftj.6887$rh.3110@trnddc02...
>> I think there is a bigger problem when the CEO gets 100x more than the
> lowest paid employee.

And even worse is when they 'fire' the CEO for poor performance and give him
about $ 20 million to go or like Home Depot, $ 120 million.

BaJoRi wrote:
>
> "swllz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Tony Harding wrote:
>>> tater wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>>>>
>>>>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>>>>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>>>>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>>>>> car.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> American cars are crap. Made by unionists more worried about when their
>>>> next coffee break is than making quality cars. They've negotiated
>>>> themselves
>>>> right out of jobs as the big auto makers cut back. It's not
>>>> possible to do business that way and compete on a world wide economy.
>>>
>>> It's hardly the workers' fault - Honda & Toyota employ American
>>> workers and turn out quality vehicles. This is a management failing.
>>
>> It is very true. The top management in GM should be blamed. GM
>> assemble line workers do not make much more than assemble line worker
>> in TOYOTA. They just assemble what have been planed and designed by
>> management. The top management in GM take home a huge salary and
>> bouns compare to TOYOTA or HONDA top management.
>
> What are the annual healthcare and retirement benefit costs for GM and
> Ford, owing to the UAW contracts, as compared with Honda and Toyota? So
> to say that those Japanese companies take care of their empoyees as well
> as the Big Three is an outright lie.

Wake up, dude, Japan, along with every other first world country with
the exception of the US, has universal health coverage and retirement
benefits, so Japanese companies, et al., have no direct health care
and/or retirement costs. Makes for quite a competitive advantage,
doesn't it?

John Q. Public wrote:
> In message m, BaJoRi is
> alleged to have said:
>
>> What are the annual healthcare and retirement benefit costs for GM and
>> Ford, owing to the UAW contracts, as compared with Honda and Toyota? So
>> to say that those Japanese companies take care of their empoyees as
>> well as the Big Three is an outright lie.
>
> My soon-to-be-father-in-law is a Ford retiree. His health plan pays
> NOTHING for office visits.

His mind's made up, don't confuse him with facts.

On 2/15/08 1:53 PM, in article ,
" > wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:25:46 -0800, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> seems you're not very familiar with the situation yourself - there's no
>> complexity difference between the two. and as stated by others, there
>> are many advantages to fwd for normal driving - that's why so many
>> vehicles use it.
>
> The main reason companies build FWD cars is simplicity of final
> assembly. The whole drive train comes in on a pallet and can be
> installed in minutes. They also tend to be a commodity item so you can
> have Buicks, Chevy's and Cadilacs all using the same basic units.
> Swapping for another engine trans combo involves minimal changes to
> the rest of the car.
>
> BTW anyone on a slippery road is using torque steer. Unfortunately in
> a FWD, once you lose one factor, you lose them all. Your life is
> hanging on the traction of 2 tires, not 4.
>
> It is a similar argument to the reliability question. Hondas may run
> longer before they need maintenance but when they do you are not
> fixing them on the side of the road. They don't "fail safe". In the
> case of the timing belt, there is one skinny piece of rubber between
> running and total destruction of your engine. That was not true in the
> American OHC motors I have owned.

Newer Hondas use a timing chain in the 4 cylinder engines. All current
Nissan engines use timing chains (and have for nearly a decade). I don't
think you can easily fix anything on the side of the road anymore, American,
Japanese or European. The complexity is the same no matter what the country
of origin.