My Reaction to the Reaction to the UAW Reaction
A lot has been said already in the blogosphere about the UAW's response to Ford's restructuring plan, and most of it hasn't been good. I'm going to throw out a link to Robert Farago's Between the Lines column over at Jalopnik on this one, (and by the way, here in Metro Detroit "Between the Lines" is the LBGT weekly mag...but don't confuse the two!) but its not just there that I'm seeing comments claiming that the UAW isn't being supportive of the plan. (There are also autoblog's comments, which are quite lacking in analysis) And, to be fair, Farago is pretty even-handed in the linked piece.My concern is that many in the automotive writer "intelligentsia" may be forgetting two important things while they begin their bash-fest of the UAW. First, Ford got themselves into this mess by signing on the dotted line on these contracts and should therefore bear the brunt of the responsibility for breaking said agreement if thats what it comes to.
Second, its my belief that the UAW leadership generally, and Ron Gettelfinger in specific, understand that changes need to be made at Ford. I believe also that they realize it will require belt tightening at all levels to reduce costs...but...he also bears a responsibility to his membership to limit the hit to them as much as possible. And at the very least he owes it to his membership to FIGHT to limit the hit, even if he knows its a losing battle.
But, its the first point which I think bears the most relevance here. This was a contractual agreement that was signed by Ford and its workers...and Ford broke that agreement. They broke it by not building the cars people wanted to buy. The workers made what they were told to make...and made them with fewer imperfections and higher quality than any cars Ford had previously produced. But they were not the cars folks wanted to buy. And when you really think about it, thats the real reason that production capacity isn't meeting demand.
Really, no one should be being bashed here this week. I give the Ford leadership a lot of credit for accepting the responsibility for not making the kind of cars people wanted to buy. And I give a lot of credit to Bill Ford and Mark Fields for putting together a strategy here in the "Way Forward" (an On Demand copy of the webcast from Ford can be found here) that has a great deal of potential. And specifically, the leadership of Ford has shown that they are willing to sacrifice jobs on the salaried side of the business as well as the hourly. What I would hope is that the auto writers give this plan the time to sink in and be worked through by both sides before demonizing one side or the other. This is a time that both sides need to be given the space to work out their problems and hug out.
UPDATE (3:00 PM): I posted a comment over on Farago's post on Jalopnik's site. It has a little bit more analysis than what is included here. Feel free to check it out...I like Farago and again, like I said, he doesn't attack the UAW too hard...but...I felt that it was enough of an attack that I wanted to make sure someone was pointing out the obvious; this is a problem that even the unions saw years ago, and that's why they signed these agreements -- because they didn't believe that management would be equal partners with them and make sure that if they hired too many auto employees...they wouldn't just shed them wily-nily. But that's kind of what is happening. Read more here.
UPDATE (12:10 PM - 01/26/2005): Apparently, maybe there is a better source for people to beat up on...as George Bush has now explained that the US Automakers just need "to make better cars".
posted by Ray @ 11:52 AM
9 Comments:
Very well said.
You're right. They SO need to hug out on this one! autoblog is all in a tizzy on this issue earlier today.
Very good points, but remember management and salaried workers do not have all the say in creating new products. In fact, many great and innovative ideas die on the plant floor at the hands of extremely difficult union politics. This situation is more dire than you may realize and makes it very difficult to quickly make design changes and program re-freshes. The plants have the ultimate authority on all changes. They are very far from the innocent bystanders they are portrayed to be in the product creation process. This is not to say management hasn't also played a huge part in creating vehicles nobody wants and creating the financial mess GM and Ford now find themselves in.
So the Freestyle is the line workers and negotiators fault? Somehow...I don't think so.
But, like I said...Bill agrees that its a failure of leadership, and luckily he's admitting it and wants to change it. I admire that and credit him greatly for it.
I'm disappointed that you failed to address the point I was actually making.
Well, its because the issue you address is an issue I don't have an answer to. You are correct that it needs to be addressed. Product re-freshes and design changes need to be able to be made much faster.
I don't deny that's an issue. But the bigger issue which needed to be addressed was the lack of true DESIGN innovation at the upper levels. If Chrysler is able to come up with the 300, and the Charger and the Magnum with UAW plants...why couldn't Ford or GM?
I don't see how any design is impacted by the plant floor unless the workers aren't capable of building something new and need retraining. So I think it's not really a great point to make.
Ford isn't far off and they are making money evne if not in NA. So they are able to keep going forward so to speak with this new plan.
I think the 300 and Magnum have shown GM and Ford the way that evey vehicle needs a bold design. Those cars have their problems but the looks/design draw people in.
If ford makes the Fairlane, brings the eru focus like everyone is saying, then they're going to have two more winning products. Remember the Fusion is selling well.
"keep going forward"...how PUN-ny of you! ;) Yeah, I was talking about this issue last night with a Ford senior exec who took the buyout in December.
He told me that the Fusion is by far their best shot at an "Accord-killer", and really it does have some innovative design. That front end, for all of it's discussion that it looks like a Gilette Razor Blade, it makes a vanilla-ish car look pretty smooth.
The truth is that design isn't really impacted on the floor. It sounds like another BS jab at the worker, and not those truly at fault. The biggest problem with creating new designs that inspire is the fact that the Big 3 are too cheap.
As a Metro Detroiter (the Big RO) and third generation member of the UAW (though a white collar contractor) I think I have a bit of insight. I have watched as individual car lines have become blurred into a single car offering. Look at the late 90's and 00's Pontiac offerings. The Grand Am, the Bonnie and the Grand Prix looked pretty much like the same damn car. So why is it that if I could get a Grand Am loaded for cheaper than the Bonneville, why should I buy a Bonnie? There was no real reason, the performance wasn't that dramatically different, the style wasn't that radically different, but the price sure was.
And if you looked at Chevy, Pontiac, Olds or Buick, all the offerings, all the models all looked the same, no real differences, unless you bought "cheap" like a Cav or Sunchicken (and they looked like each other). So why by an Olds Alero that is just an expensive Grand Am with different sheet metal. And even though these are a few years past now, has the amount of difference, or "branding" of the different makes and models really increased, no. The same is true at Ford with the similarities between Ford, Mercury and Lincoln models. Why buy a 500 versus a Montego?
Go back as recently as the 70's and you can find more difference in models. Back to the 60's, and find more. You could buy all sorts of different packages depending on if you were getting a Chevy, a Pontiac, Ford, Mercury, Plymouth or Chrysler. Even if some of the models had similarities, there was still something that made each distinctive, gave it an esteem that a buyer would literally buy into.
Now if you want design, you don't even go to the Germans anymore, you go to the Japanese. If I buy an Acura versus a Honda, there can be some distinctive difference that drive the purchase. I still buy American, but out of pure loyalty to my ol' man and grandfather who combined put in 72 years on the line; but if they ditch his pension as threatened, I'll never buy another as long as I live.
But here is the biggest reality that the Big 3 need to get hip to, who the Hell do you think buys your car morons. It is the person on the line. They are the only loyal buyers and your going to screw them? You want to know why market share dropped, I'll tell you. Since the 70's, the number of UAW members has gone from about 1.5 million active to just over 300,000. Part has been due to down-sizing, part retirement, but those jobs are gone, and with it the people that bought your product. And you didn't just lose the 1.2 million, you lost their families. For every worker screwed by the Big 3, you lose 2, 4, 6 10 family members who won't buy now, do the math. And retirees aren't buy your vehicles, they are too expensive and 2,500 to 4,000 off a 30-40,000 vehicle isn't working for a fixed income.
So go ahead, listen to Bawl Street, listen to share holders who truly produce nothing but take plenty of your money in dividends but probably doesn't buy your car. Lay-off the person who does make something, that makes your product and buys your vehicle. And when you are a shell, only assembling cars like AMC, don't whine to me 'cause you screwed yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home