Bill Cole wrote:

It sounds to me that Harry likes to promote "Union Made" or the Democratic
agenda unless it effects him personally. Why should he care if the
democrats tax the rich, he thinks it does not effect him. I just can't
believe anyone would say he would only buy "Union Made" and then tell
everyone he owns a non union made car.


You right-wing snots are hysterical, discussing which vehicles we have
or don't have and why. We have four motor vehicles in our household; one
of them is a Toyota truck. All four were *manufactured* by union
workers, and in one case, the "final assembly" was handled in a
non-union plant. What a yawn.

Why are U.S. automakers less profitable? Not enough investment in plant,
deliberately bad and dishonest relations with their workforces over the
years (including treating their workers as disposable), and bad management.

You get the work force you deserve.

It's especially funny to read the comments about those who work real
jobs for a living from the 30-year-old snot-nosed dentist whose mommy
and daddy paid his way through school and who lives in a cheapo,
backwater community overstocked with non-working retirees, many of them
former union members, and who is therefore scared to post with his real
name.


--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

We have four motor vehicles in our household; one
of them is a Toyota truck. All four were *manufactured* by union
workers, and in one case, the "final assembly" was handled in a
non-union plant. What a yawn.

Your Tundra was not manufactured, nor assembled, by any *American* union
workers.


Why are U.S. automakers less profitable? Not enough investment in plant,
deliberately bad and dishonest relations with their workforces over the
years (including treating their workers as disposable), and bad
management.

You get the work force you deserve.

Yep, once the unions get a foot in the door you do.

Is the Tundra the one Harry used to break the legs of someone on his property?


"Joe" wrote in message
...
We have four motor vehicles in our household; one
of them is a Toyota truck. All four were *manufactured* by union
workers, and in one case, the "final assembly" was handled in a
non-union plant. What a yawn.

Your Tundra was not manufactured, nor assembled, by any *American* union
workers.


Why are U.S. automakers less profitable? Not enough investment in plant,
deliberately bad and dishonest relations with their workforces over the
years (including treating their workers as disposable), and bad
management.

You get the work force you deserve.

Yep, once the unions get a foot in the door you do.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:34:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Nissan takes an avg of 18 hours to build a car, Chrysler takes 31 hours.

This has nothing to do with management salaries.

But trying to address the real problem is so much harder than just pointing
a finger at management!


One being a problem doesn't exclude the other from being a problem.
Over paid CEOs and inefficient production are both problems.

bb

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...


You're partially correct. Most car makers own machinery which can be set
up
for excellent tolerances. Even so, bad parts get made. At that point,
the
humans make the choice of whether to reject parts or use them. Among
other
things, this explains why the exhaust from so many relatively new
Chrysler
vans smells like they're 15 years old.


Read this article Doug. It explains a lot about "why" bad parts sometimes
get overlooked in union factories.

http://www.time.com/time/globalbusin...451002,00.html



Interesting article, but the most poignant bit was "hard-earned reputations
for quality". I owned American cars for many years. At one point, my Ford
had caused me to be late for work about 15 times in a year. Fortunately, I
had an understanding boss. When I began shopping for a new car, a Toyota, my
brother in law, who's a dumb ****, kept harping at me about how I was
putting Americans out of work. I explained to him that my American car was
going to put ME out of work. He never understood, even though the
transmission on his Buick Regal had just died after 50,000 miles.

Meanwhile, I bought an '82 Tercel, which went 220,000 miles before someone
smacked into it from behind and wasted it. The car had NO unusual problems,
and the only body rust was where I drilled an antenna hole and didn't goop
it properly. At 200k miles, the mechanic thought it might be a good idea to
check compression. It was still within spec, perfectly even across all 4
cylinders. And, I still had the same partially used quart of oil I started
with on the day I bought the car. I never needed to add more than a couple
of ounces.

If I have to pay an extra thou or two for a Toyota, it's worth it because I
know the vehicle won't waste my time.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 13:18:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The difference, for instance, between people at
Albertson's and Wal-Mart is amazing, in terms of how they do their jobs and
interact with suppliers and customers. This is no accident, either.

I would love to hear your opinion of the two chains, how they are
different, and why you think they come out that way.

bb

Even simpler: What's wrong with enriching people who make a product that's
consistently better than competitive offerings, regardless of where it's
made or whether the workers are unionized? I have nothing against unions.
But, my own work ethic says that job security should be based on providing a
good product, not from a written contract which says I can't be fired no
matter how bad my work may be.

Obviously, there will be companies which shoot themselves in the foot by
moving production out of the country, to places where workers are untrained,
so quality goes down the drain. Those companies *do* eventually get what
they deserve, based on market forces. But, that's another subject.


"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:9Ck5b.344062$uu5.68700@sccrnsc04...
Do you recommend the other big 3 American follow your lead in use Non
Union
assembly plants to put together the final assembly? Obviously, Toyota
management must be doing something right to persuade you to buy a truck
built with mostly foreign parts and assembled in the US by non union
workers.

You are beginning to sound like you support free enterprise, a world
economy
and completely borders. The workers in the countries where the parts were
manufactured appreciate your support.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill Cole wrote:

It sounds to me that Harry likes to promote "Union Made" or the
Democratic
agenda unless it effects him personally. Why should he care if the
democrats tax the rich, he thinks it does not effect him. I just
can't
believe anyone would say he would only buy "Union Made" and then tell
everyone he owns a non union made car.


You right-wing snots are hysterical, discussing which vehicles we have
or don't have and why. We have four motor vehicles in our household; one
of them is a Toyota truck. All four were *manufactured* by union
workers, and in one case, the "final assembly" was handled in a
non-union plant. What a yawn.

Why are U.S. automakers less profitable? Not enough investment in plant,
deliberately bad and dishonest relations with their workforces over the
years (including treating their workers as disposable), and bad
management.

You get the work force you deserve.

It's especially funny to read the comments about those who work real
jobs for a living from the 30-year-old snot-nosed dentist whose mommy
and daddy paid his way through school and who lives in a cheapo,
backwater community overstocked with non-working retirees, many of them
former union members, and who is therefore scared to post with his real
name.


--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:36:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I wish I could comment, but since both are customers, it might not be wise.


Thanks for the attempt. I can only wonder now which is which.

bb

Agreed. Maybe there is justice in the World, however. The ones responsible
for inefficient production have been getting laid off...and the CEO's have
been getting fined and going to jail.



"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:34:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Nissan takes an avg of 18 hours to build a car, Chrysler takes 31
hours.

This has nothing to do with management salaries.

But trying to address the real problem is so much harder than just
pointing
a finger at management!


One being a problem doesn't exclude the other from being a problem.
Over paid CEOs and inefficient production are both problems.

bb

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Even simpler: What's wrong with enriching people who make a product that's
consistently better than competitive offerings, regardless of where it's
made or whether the workers are unionized? I have nothing against unions.
But, my own work ethic says that job security should be based on providing
a
good product, not from a written contract which says I can't be fired no
matter how bad my work may be.

That view will not endear you to the Democratic base...but you're definitely
"right on" with that one.






Obviously, there will be companies which shoot themselves in the foot by
moving production out of the country, to places where workers are
untrained,
so quality goes down the drain. Those companies *do* eventually get what
they deserve, based on market forces. But, that's another subject.


Again, I can't argue with your reasoning.