Car Buyers Spurn GM, Ford as Japan Brands Retain Aura (Update3)
Jim Higgins
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aw1th8uBIqps
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. automakers spent much of this decade
retooling their lineups to offer cars rivaling Toyota Motor Corp.�s
Camry and Honda Motor Co.�s Accord. Now comes the challenge of winning
over consumers.
While models such as Ford Motor Co.�s Mercury Sable got top quality
marks today from researcher J.D. Power & Associates, U.S. buyers aren�t
embracing the cars on which Detroit is staking its future. Imports held
69 percent of the U.S. car market through May, 4 points more than a year
earlier.
Ford, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC are suffering from
their sins of the past, when they lavished development dollars on trucks
and sport-utility vehicles and let their sedans languish. Building
better cars still hasn�t enabled them to overcome Asian automakers� aura
of superiority.
�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, auto test chief for Consumer Reports magazine, who dubbed
Ford�s Fusion �the best car you don�t know about� in the April issue.
Recovery plans at Ford, Chrysler and Detroit-based GM ride on cars.
Truck sales plunged 25 percent in 2008, more than twice the decline for
cars, to help drag the U.S. automakers to $62.4 billion in losses.
Quality Ratings
Bolstering the automakers� efforts are car-quality gains as assessed by
companies such as Westlake Village, California-based J.D. Power.
The Mercury Sable grabbed first place among large cars, up from second
in 2008, J.D. Power said, and GM�s Chevrolet Impala was third. GM�s
Pontiac G6 and Chevrolet Malibu ranked among the top three among
mid-sized cars, while the Cadillac CTS trailed only the Lexus IS in the
entry premium car category.
Cadillac finished third among 37 brands, beating Honda in fifth place
and Toyota in seventh. Ford and Chevrolet were eighth and ninth, J.D.
Power said.
The trick is convincing U.S. car buyers who see companies such as Toyota
City, Japan-based Toyota and Honda as the quality standard. Detroit
can�t advertise its way out of the perception that it makes shoddy cars,
said David Martin, president of the New York operations of brand
consultant Interbrand Corp.
�The Japanese have done well because they deliver the goods first before
they start talking about it,� Martin said. �Detroit historically has
believed they can just talk and they can pull the wool over our eyes.
They need some hero products that get you and I talking, and then they
can start advertising.�
Technology Focus
U.S. automakers are responding by deploying technology and fuel
efficiency that they say connote quality.
GM, the biggest U.S. automaker, plans to start selling the Chevrolet
Volt plug-in electric car next year. A redesigned Ford Taurus debuting
this month has pre-collision sensors that boost braking power to help
avoid a crash.
�People have to buy a car and live with it to recognize improvements in
reliability and durability,� said Derrick Kuzak, product development
chief for Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford. �But this is technology with
immediate appeal.�
Marketing mileage is making inroads for Ford. The new Fusion had record
U.S. sales in April and May. The Fusion�s fuel economy is the highest
among mid-size sedans, with the hybrid version getting 41 miles per
gallon in city driving.
Research shows buyers equate high mileage with high quality, Jim Farley,
group vice president of marketing, said in an interview.
�Driveway Credibility�
Fuel economy �is a proxy for trusting the company,� said Farley,
Toyota�s U.S. marketing chief until joining Ford in 2007. �It gives you
driveway credibility. You can talk to your neighbor and say, �This is
why I bought a Fusion,� and your neighbor would understand.�
Toyota and Tokyo-based Honda built their reputations on the quality and
fuel efficiency of small cars starting in the 1970s.
Ten years ago, Asian automakers� U.S. market share was 25.8 percent. In
2009, it�s 46.8 percent, compared with 44.7 percent for domestic brands,
according to researcher Autodata Corp. of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Weaning themselves from the trucks that provided profits in the 1990s,
the U.S. automakers are gearing up to add cars.
GM will reopen a U.S. factory being shut in bankruptcy so it can make
subcompacts, while Chrysler left Chapter 11 allied with Fiat SpA to get
small-car technology.
Ford, alone in shunning a U.S. bailout, is converting four truck plants
to make cars as it prepares to unveil two new small cars in 2010. The
shares fell 34 cents, or 5.9 percent, to $5.38 at 4:15 p.m. in New York
Stock Exchange composite trading.
�Critical� Year
�The next 12 months are critical,� Ford�s Farley said. �There are a
group of customers in the U.S. who have goodwill for the company, but
who are still wondering about the trust factor.�
Chrysler faces the biggest hurdle in luring buyers because it has the
lowest quality rankings among U.S. automakers, said John Wolkonowicz, an
auto analyst with IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts.
Chrysler, the U.S. automaker most dependent on trucks, is counting on
Fiat to jump-start work on new models stalled as the Auburn Hills,
Michigan-based company slid toward bankruptcy. Technology from Turin,
Italy-based Fiat will be the foundation for six Chrysler models, IHS
Global Insight said on June 11.
Limits of Quality
Sales suggest that GM and Ford�s quality gains aren�t enough to overtake
Toyota and Honda.
The Fusion and Malibu still were outsold by the Camry and Accord by
almost 2-to-1 through May. Setbacks for Toyota such as having the V-6
Camry judged �below average� for reliability by Consumer Reports in 2007
proved short-lived. The model was rated �average� last year.
�It is very hard to open minds and get people to consider a domestic
vehicle again, no matter how good,� GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said. �The
product and fuel economy deficit, reliability deficit, styling deficit
-- all those deficits have been erased. What has yet to be erased and is
going to be the biggest challenge of all is erasing the reputational
deficit.�
San Diego biochemist Keith Beatty said the Plymouths and Oldsmobiles he
owned growing up needed frequent repairs and wore out prematurely.
Beatty, a self-described baby boomer who declined to give his age, said
he began buying Hondas and Toyotas more than three decades ago and never
turned back.
�Detroit Iron�
�I�m driving a 23-year-old, 33-mpg Toyota that runs better than any new
25-mpg Detroit iron,� Beatty said in an e-mail. �I would never in my
lifetime own another Detroit automobile.�
GM stopped making Oldsmobiles in 2004, three years after Chrysler killed
the Plymouth brand.
Toyota and Honda retain a number of advantages. After three years of
ownership, a new Accord should keep 53 percent of its retail value and
Camry should have 47 percent, more than Malibu�s 45 percent and Fusion�s
44 percent, according to Automotive Lease Guide, the industry standard
for used-car prices.
Shoppers� quality impressions also show GM and Ford coming up short
compared with the findings in the J.D. Power study, based on a 2009
survey for Santa Barbara, California-based ALG.
�There�s a big lag between the actual improvement in how their cars are
screwed together to what consumers perceive as their quality,� ALG
General Manager James Clark said. �It�s frustrating for them. They
wonder, �Why don�t people get it?��
�Build Better Cars�
At Galpin Motors in Los Angeles, Ford�s biggest-selling retailer, Vice
President Beau Boeckmann said Detroit automakers can�t be content with
just matching Japanese brands.
�Ford has to build better cars than Toyota,� he said. �Why would someone
come into my showroom if they�re perfectly happy with their car? Therein
lays the big challenge.�
Compelling designs are crucial, according to GM�s Lutz, who noted that
members of President Barack Obama�s car task force lingered over a
Cadillac coupe with a 560-horsepower engine on a recent visit to GM�s
design studios.
�It doesn�t get very good gas mileage, but it got a good deal of
attention from the automotive task force,� Lutz said in a May 28 speech
in Detroit. �It doesn�t matter where you work or what you do, normal
people get turned on by great cars.�
Russ Meyer, chief strategy officer for brand consultant Landor, endorsed
that approach.
�Hammering on about quality is less important than getting people to
feel like it�s cool to own an American car,� said Meyer, who is based in
San Francisco. �They�ve got to ramp up their styling. Now is the time to
swing for the fences.�
--
Civis Romanus Sum
Bill Putney
> ...Research shows buyers equate high mileage with high quality,...
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?
> ...Ford, alone in shunning a U.S. bailout, is converting four truck plants
> to make cars as it prepares to unveil two new small cars in 2010. The
> shares fell 34 cents, or 5.9 percent, to $5.38 at 4:15 p.m. in New York
> Stock Exchange composite trading...
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.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
MoPar Man
> Ford, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC are suffering
> from their sins of the past, when they lavished development
> dollars on trucks and sport-utility vehicles
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.
Dori A Schmetterling
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"
---
"Jim Higgins" <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hNKdnVDnwc5AZ6LX...@posted.eaglecomputertechnology...
[...]
> "There's a big lag between the actual improvement in how their cars are
> screwed together to what consumers perceive as their quality," ALG General
> Manager James Clark said. "It's frustrating for them. They wonder, 'Why
> don't people get it?'"
>
> 'Build Better Cars'
>
> At Galpin Motors in Los Angeles, Ford's biggest-selling retailer, Vice
> President Beau Boeckmann said Detroit automakers can't be content with
> just matching Japanese brands.
>
> "Ford has to build better cars than Toyota," he said. "Why would someone
> come into my showroom if they're perfectly happy with their car? Therein
> lays the big challenge."
>
> Compelling designs are crucial, according to GM's Lutz, who noted that
> members of President Barack Obama's car task force lingered over a
> Cadillac coupe with a 560-horsepower engine on a recent visit to GM's
> design studios.
>
> "It doesn't get very good gas mileage, but it got a good deal of attention
> from the automotive task force," Lutz said in a May 28 speech in Detroit.
> "It doesn't matter where you work or what you do, normal people get turned
> on by great cars."
>
> Russ Meyer, chief strategy officer for brand consultant Landor, endorsed
> that approach.
>
> "Hammering on about quality is less important than getting people to feel
> like it's cool to own an American car," said Meyer, who is based in San
> Francisco. "They've got to ramp up their styling. Now is the time to swing
> for the fences."
>
> --
> Civis Romanus Sum
Dori A Schmetterling
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"
---
"MoPar Man" <Mo...@Man.com> wrote in message
news:4A403591...@Man.com...
[...]
Licker
"MoPar Man" wrote: "When they lavished development dollars on fat union
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.
MoPar Man
> The union does not set the wage by itself.
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.
Bill Putney
I don't always agree with you, but you hit el nailo on la cabeza with
that post.
Ted Mittelstaedt
"Bill Putney" <bp...@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:7adcdcF...@mid.individual.net...
> MoPar Man wrote:
>>
>> 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 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
Licker
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.
MoPar Man
> > 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 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.
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.
> That is also why laws were passed that disallow illegal
> immigrants from working.
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?
MoPar Man
Licker wrote:
> > 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.
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.
> Under the NLRA replacement workers can not displace llegally
> striking workers permanently.
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).
> > 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.
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.
Bill Putney
> ...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?
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.
miles
> 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.
Steve
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.
CopperTop
news:KPmdnSKYybgrKN7X...@texas.net:
> 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.. . . . .
>
>
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.
Licker
Last time I looked up how to quote someone is says use quation marks " nd
not greater than symbol >.
Dori A Schmetterling
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Licker" <Profl...@Lickers.edu> wrote in message
news:h217k...@enews2.newsguy.com...
MoPar Man
> > Why can't you quote properly?
>
> Last time I looked up how to quote someone is says use
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?
Dori A Schmetterling
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
> Et tu, Brute
In German they sometimes use << and >> 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"
---
"MoPar Man" <Mo...@Man.com> wrote in message
news:4A4580E3...@Man.com...
[...]
>
> 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 >
> ).
[...]
miles
Not in usenet! > is used at the start of each line to break up each
persons quoted text for clarity. Quotation marks would not be used on
the start of each line so clarity is then lost.
miles
> 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..."
Quotes would not be at the start of each line quoted and only around an
entire section. That would make multiple quotes less clear in usenet
and a quoted thread more difficult to read.
Dori A Schmetterling
Each level gets another bracket... unless one switches it off or uses rich
text (which sometimes has vertical lines)...
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:l_o1m.965$6Q3...@newsfe22.iad...
[...]
Ted Mittelstaedt
"MoPar Man" <Mo...@Man.com> wrote in message
> Why can't you quote properly?
>
> Licker wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> Under the NLRA replacement workers can not displace llegally
>> striking workers permanently.
>
> That is a huge flaw. What is the moral and logical reason for such a
> law? There can be none.
>
Simple. The union existed PREVIOUSLY.
You see it works this way.
A company starts up operations and treats it's employees fairly.
Union organizers attempt to unionize, but because the employer
is treating the workers fairly, there is no support for unionization
and the unionization effort fails.
Years pass. A new set of beancounters take over the company.
Now, the company lets working conditions go to pot and the pay
stagnate. Union organizers now find a receptive audience among
the workers. The workers vote to unionize.
Once that happens, the game is entirely changed. The company is
now subject to the NLRA. They can't just bust the union by allowing
the workers to go on strike then hiring a bunch of scabs - if they could,
there wouldn't be any point in unionizing in the first place.
If the company really and truly wants to get rid of the union then
there is a simple, obvious, and easy way to do so. They simply
start treating their employees fairly. After a number of years of doing
this, the workers will then start regarding the union as useless and
ineffective - and can then be persuaded to de-unionize.
It's happened plenty of times before. Many companies have had
working units who successfully voted to de-unionize.
> 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).
>
The striking workers aren't stupid. They know that if they make impossible
demands that the company will go out of business and they will all lose
their
jobs. Keep in mind that when the automakers tanked, the unions several
times voted in wage concessions. The fact of the matter is that BOTH
Chrysler and GM got the wage concessions from their unions that they asked
for. Neither of those companies went into bankruptcy as a result of the
unions - both went into bankruptcy as a result of SMALL GROUPS of
investors who wern't happy with what the MAJORITY of investors
agreed to give up.
If you look at companies who have historically had a lot of problems
with their unions you will, in fact, find a pattern. The pattern is that
companies with corporate cultures of exploiting the non-management
workers have the most problem with unions. This includes things like
executive salaries that are beyond all reasonable belief, utter disinterest
in employee suggestions on how to better run the company, outsourcing
workers when it makes no economic or logical sense, etc.
>> > 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.
>
> 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.
It is ALSO because of how those companies WERE MANAGED. There
have been an ENORMOUS NUMBER of auto industry observers over
the years who have repeatedly said that Chrysler, Ford and GM absolutely
must figure out how to profitably build and sell small economy cars. Toyota
and Honda can do it - but of course, their workers health insurance has been
paid for by their government. That's government subsidization of an
industry
in anyone's playbook. So, why wern't tariffs raised, as the law requires
when
it's clear that a foreign government is subsidizing a foreign competitor?
GM, Ford and Chrysler could have been beating the drum for the last 20 years
in favor of nationalized healthcare the way that Honda and Toyota get it.
But
instead, the owners of those companies have been doing exactly the
opposite -
they fund as many Republicans as they can find who vote against it, as well
as as many Republicans as they can find who delay and vote against punative
tariffing.
> 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.
No they won't because what is going to effectively happen is most of the
people buying new cars who insist on buying domestics, rather than imports,
are going to look at Ford vehicles first, precisely because they are
concerned
about longevity of the company. So, Ford will be OK. Chrysler will
gradually
end up becoming a vendor of Fiat vehicles, and what happens to GM is
anyone's guess.
Ted
miles
> Once that happens, the game is entirely changed. The company is
> now subject to the NLRA. They can't just bust the union by allowing
> the workers to go on strike then hiring a bunch of scabs - if they could,
> there wouldn't be any point in unionizing in the first place.
That makes little sense. If workers do not wish to work then any
contract is null and void. A company should be free to find someone who
will work. Companies most certainly can fire anyone who refuses to show
up for work and hire non union workers especially in right to work
states. Happens all the time where union workers who refuse to show up
for work are fired and replaced.
Ted Mittelstaedt
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> Once that happens, the game is entirely changed. The company is
>> now subject to the NLRA. They can't just bust the union by allowing
>> the workers to go on strike then hiring a bunch of scabs - if they could,
>> there wouldn't be any point in unionizing in the first place.
>
> That makes little sense. If workers do not wish to work then any contract
> is null and void.
Obviously. Since if the workers are under contract they are obligated
to work, not showing up for work is a violation of the labor contract.
> A company should be free to find someone who will work.
You are forgetting that the company is obligated under the labor
contract that they signed to negotiate with the union on these sorts
of matters. If an employee doesn't show up there's a grievance
process the management must follow and if the employee refuses
to participate then they will end up fired.
If the union is striking then it's a little different. For starters, how
do you run the company when nobody shows up?
Companies most certainly can fire anyone who refuses to show
> up for work and hire non union workers especially in right to work states.
> Happens all the time where union workers who refuse to show up for work
> are fired and replaced.
The NLRA trumps state law, as all federal law supersedes state law
under the US Constitution. I know you feel that your right, but your
quite wrong. Yes, an individual union member who doesn't show up
when a strike is not in force can be disciplined. But the reality is that
when business is booming, a company cannot replace it's entire workforce
in one day, which is why the threat of a strike, and a strike, is effective.
In a down economy the dynamics are a lot different. But you will
notice that in down economies, unions rarely strike, and those that
do frequently lose.
Furthermore, it depends on what kind of strike is in force. If the strike
is for a health issue - such as workers striking to protest unsafe
working conditions - then it's not just a contract dispute, it's illegal
for the employer to permanently replace them.
Essentially, the only way an employer can get rid of a striking union
is if they fire every employee, all at the same time, who participates
in the strike, and replace them. This is why you typically don't see
unions get much foothold in industries where the workers are basically
ignorant warm bodies, working at jobs that anyone could do. (ie: pumping
gas, flipping burgers, etc.) It's also why you don't see unions calling for
strikes where the majority of the workers in the union wouldn't support
a strike.
Ted
miles
> You are forgetting that the company is obligated under the labor
> contract that they signed to negotiate with the union on these sorts
> of matters. If an employee doesn't show up there's a grievance
> process the management must follow and if the employee refuses
> to participate then they will end up fired.
It's not open ended as you seem to feel. A company has the right to
hire workers and negotiate with the union at the same time. They can
also choose to fire any worker who doesn't show up. You seem to imply a
company must sit idle without workers indefiantly until a new contract
is agreed upon. They do not. The power of the union comes from the
belief that a company can't find enough non union workers during a
walkout strike. Sometimes thats true, sometimes its not. A risk the
union takes and sometimes fails at.
Phelps fired 100's of workers at it's mines when the union walked out in
the 70's. They refused to give into the unions demands. The mines kept
running using non union employees hired on during the failed negotiation
talks.
Bill Putney
> ...as all federal law supersedes state law
> under the US Constitution...
Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the
Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if* you're
going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these days).
erschro...@gmail.com
Bill, Bill, Article VI:
"This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
The Supremacy Clause. Quite well known.
Bill Putney
"...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding."
You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.
erschro...@gmail.com
> erschroedin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 5:48 am, Bill Putney <b...@kinez.net> wrote:
> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>> ...as all federal law supersedes state law
> >>> under the US Constitution...
> >> Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the
> >> Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if* you're
> >> going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these days).
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Putney
> >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >> address with the letter 'x')
>
> > Bill, Bill, Article VI:
>
> > "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
> > made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
> > and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the
> > constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
>
> > The Supremacy Clause. Quite well known.
>
> "...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
> notwithstanding."
>
Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the
laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence.
Problems parsing?
Bill Putney
OK - like, Wow! It wasn't a parsing problem. I actually thought the
word "notwithstanding" meant the exact opposite of what it actually
means. I admit I was wrong on this just like I would have expected you
to if you had been wrong.
Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)
Ted Mittelstaedt
Frankly, it's nothing more than an academic exercise to discuss the US
Constitution because the fact is that modern US law is based on the
Constitution PLUS the 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that
have modified..I-mean-clarified.. it's original meaning. ;-)
Such as for example the US Constitution permits states to succeed from
the Union, did you know that? Nothing in it, or it's amendments, outright
prohibits it. However we have the Civil War that tells us different ;-)
> Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
> Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)
>
If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
as a terrorist document.
Ted
miles
> If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
> as a terrorist document.
Only by around 50% of the population.
Bill Putney
There are those that believe it is still the law of the land contrary to
some who are sworn to uphold it abusing their power and violating it.
And I know that some in power now admit publicly that they don't
believe in the Constitution - yet they swore to uphold it. Maybe they
are nihilists. But if they were honest, they would not have taken their
oath.
> Such as for example the US Constitution permits states to succeed from
> the Union, did you know that? Nothing in it, or it's amendments, outright
> prohibits it. However we have the Civil War that tells us different ;-)
...secede...
I was born, and presently live, 45 miles from Appomattox Court House
(drove thru it about 2 hours ago as a matter of fact), and I do know a
little about the thing that some call "the recent unpleasantless". Just
because the Constitution has been grossly violated at times does not
negate it. The fact is that it is the law of the land, whether it is
followed or not (and I would agree that it is not followed in many
areas) does not make it not the law of the land in principle. To
believe otherwise would be anarchy.
The "precedence" thing is a crock. I wonder if I can get out of a
speeding ticket by invoking precedence. Something tells me I wouldn't
get away with it. Yet it is used to get away with how the entire
country is run.
I also am aware that the intent of certain organizations and certain
figures respected by the left have as their founding principles and
advocate using the Constitution to systematically destroy and dismantle
the Constitution itself. Yet they offer nothing that is better, and
even if they did, their own contradictions would and could be used by
their opposition to declare whatever it is that they declared as being
the law of the land to also have no authority, and so they would likely
eventually resort to totalitarianism or themselves be overthrown (IOW -
continuing anarchy unless ruling with a dictatorial iron fist).
>> Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
>> Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)
>>
>
> If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
> as a terrorist document.
And therefore what...? You often sound like another disciple of Saul
Alinsky.