• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ford's most advanced plant is in Brazil

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.



 
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Brazils govt. is giving away land to manufacturers and also declaring tax free status for years to bring business in.
Click to expand...

not to mention you can get in on a beachfront lot for $20K
 
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
 
That's mighty impressive.

If true, sure makes the unions look like the *bad guy*.

Kind of ironic, IIRC Henry Ford tried a similar project in Brazil, but one for manufacturing rubber (it failed). Also interesting that Ford, creator of the assembly line, now has the world's most advanced one.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.

If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
 
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.

If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.

If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Click to expand...

Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
 
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.

If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Click to expand...

Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...

It is no doubt getting better, but they still paying thousands of people to not work. This is an industry that has a shrinking workforce in good times, such practices cannot be sustained.
 
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.

If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Click to expand...

Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...

Even without these stipulations assuming the jobs bank was never ending (which it isn't now and soon won't even exist) you probably replace 3-5% yearly of your workforce through attrition (quitting, fired, retirees, promotions). I have never heard of any reluctance of management to bring automation to an operation because they'll have pay people to not work.

If fact in this particular instance Ford decided to put more US auto workers out of work by building an automated plant in Brazil. If they had built this automated plant in Detroit less Ford workers would be in the jobs bank, but they decided in this case the jobs bank was no impediment to automation.
 
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
fuck the American Worker.
Click to expand...


No kidding, you won't see any of the Brazilians posting about how lazy others are on their Employer's Dime.
Click to expand...

hehe, Irony Award! :gift:

I suspect that's more true than we really want to know.
 
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

it's an interesting video highlighting the plant, I figure the unions fear and know this is probably the future.
Click to expand...

The only thing really different about the plant is the fact that suppliers are on-site. This has been going on in the US at the suppliers for years. You just never got to the point of tier ones being allowed to take up shop in the assembly plants, but tier twos often will have tier threes on-site when it is beneficial. I wonder if anything in the last agreement will allow for this to happen? I don't see why not.

The whole live on-site, eat on-site, healthcare on-site, all wearing uniforms is just window dressing, but customers love it. We all had uniforms at the forge plant I came from because it was so dirty the company provided cleaned coveralls daily. You always looked your best when customers were touring the plant.
Click to expand...

that level of automation is discouraged in current union contracts as well. they can do it but for every job they save from automation, they have to find a new job for someone so he doesn't lose his job
Click to expand...

Where did you hear that?

I haven't heard of any union rep., union official, or wording in any contract since the 70s that discouraged automation.

If anything, automation has saved more high paying union jobs than another thing in the US in the last 30 years, and everybody in the union knows it. My own die room was able to compete favorably with people making a lot less an hour because management had the foresight and the trust in their employees to buy machinery that was at the cutting edge in the industry. The trust part comes because each machinist wrote his own programs and did his own 3 dimensional modeling. This is not typically the case. This is usually done by an engineer. The amount of flexibility and autonomy that this brought to the table was extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

The jobs bank discourages automation, as workers displaced by automation still will get paid when their jobs goes away.
Click to expand...

Because, as implemented, it was highly flawed. It had no restrictions. Once an employee entered it, they could stay indefinitely. The rules have changed though, so now if a job is available within 50 miles, the person either takes it or is no longer employed. They can also only turn down four jobs anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...

Even without these stipulations assuming the jobs bank was never ending (which it isn't now and soon won't even exist) you probably replace 3-5% yearly of your workforce through attrition (quitting, fired, retirees, promotions). I have never heard of any reluctance of management to bring automation to an operation because they'll have pay people to not work.

If fact in this particular instance Ford decided to put more US auto workers out of work by building an automated plant in Brazil. If they had built this automated plant in Detroit less Ford workers would be in the jobs bank, but they decided in this case the jobs bank was no impediment to automation.
Click to expand...


I have little doubt there are bean counters somewhere at the big 3 that do cost benefit analysis on every automation upgrade that is possible.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
Click to expand...

I'd say, that for a long time, that's been true, to a certain extent. You can't say they've ignored them, as people wanted large SUVs and trucks. The example would be Toyota and Honda, especially the former, making large large SUVs and trucks. Engines and platforms don't get produced overnight. Toyota spent a lot of time and money making their new 5.7l V8. They've increased the size of everything. How many commercials did they make stating how "big" the new Tundra was?

However, what Toyota and Honda did do correctly was not put all their eggs in one basket. They both have a much better full line of vehicles. Because of the oil spike, they were hit hard. They needed to address their current issues regardless, but they've had a lot of bad business practices that hurt them. Even with vehicles that are on par (Saturn Aura, Vue, Astra, the new Chevy Malibu and the Ford Fusion, new Taurus, heavily upgraded Focus), they have to struggle. The perception is still crap. While the economy today makes it especially hard, if Toyota or Honda are asking $25k for a car, they'll get a lot closer to it than Ford or GM asking for $25k.

Here's a review of the new Fiesta. Obviously, it is a review from Europe so the engine selection may be different, but we're still getting the car. It should be pretty soon too, as Ford already makes it close by (it's made in plant in Mexico for the South American market).
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
Click to expand...

ever hear of the sword of damocles?
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Let Ford bankrupt in America and move operations to Brazil. That way the UAW has nothing.
Click to expand...

I still wouldn't purchase their crappy cars period even if they moved all their jobs there. The problem has nothing to do with union or non-union workers. The real issue is their design philosophy and management base that thinks in a 19th century mode and pushes cars that people do not want or need because they think they know better then the average American consumer. The Japanese have a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers and when dealing with their work force both unionize and non-unionized. The Japanese use a completely different business mindset then most American corporations which so far has been a superior business philosophy. Of course this is probably way to complicated for you to understand and I guess it's better to just depend on simplified talking points right?
Click to expand...

Thankfully for American manufacturing, you sir are a minority opinion.

Here are 2006 sales figures by manufacturers
From NADA website

Chrysler 2,142,500
Ford 3,629,959
GM 4,681,782
Toyota 1,733,818
Honda 1,200,118

Also from the US Dept of Transportation website:

Sales in 2006

Retail New Passenger Car Sales
Domestics 5,436 (in thousands)
Imports 2,345 (in thousands)

If Japanese had a huge edge when it comes to understanding their customers why do domestic manufacturers outsell them by over 2:1?

I think it is you who is getting taken in by simplified talking points rather than 'complicated' facts.


 
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Is that surprising? How many companies do GM and Ford own? I'd be more interested seeing what factions in Ford and GM sold the most/least.
Click to expand...

That is marketing and sales strategy, similar to the way Toyota has Lexus and Scion and Honda has Accura.

That was not the point of my post. I was responding to BS in a post by Drift3r.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top