"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

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

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
.net...
Does Harry believe you should only buy Union Made products? If so
I
am
sure
he must have checked the UAW web site before buying a non union
made
product. Are you sure he drive a Tundra?

Sure? How can you be sure of anything on usenet? I'm not even sure
his
name is Harry...or that he owns a lobster boat. If we take him at
his
word,
however, then he does indeed drive a non-union Tundra.


What the **** is the difference? If you want a Toyota, you buy one
whether
they're union made or not. If you want a piece of crap designed to
drive
you
mad with mickey mouse problems, you buy a Ford, GM or Chrysler
product.


Geez, Doug, you sound like a Republican here. It's Harry that is always
trying to promote the union made label...except when he buys a truck.


I'm not promoting unions. I'm saying that I doubt union/non-union is a
major
factor in the quality of Toyotas. Corporate culture encompasses more than
just one division. I see it all the time in my dealings with various
grocery
chains and wholesalers. 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 shop at both and have noticed no difference in the way the employees treat
me.

bb,
If you go back to a thread from a week or so ago, you'll know that it's
Wal-Mart that Doug has problems with. Somebody must have gotten in his ear
about his comments, because he sure wasn't holding back at that time.


"bb" wrote in message
...
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

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


Geez, Doug, you sound like a Republican here. It's Harry that is
always
trying to promote the union made label...except when he buys a truck.


I'm not promoting unions. I'm saying that I doubt union/non-union is a
major
factor in the quality of Toyotas. Corporate culture encompasses more
than
just one division. I see it all the time in my dealings with various
grocery
chains and wholesalers. 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 shop at both and have noticed no difference in the way the employees
treat
me.



Wal Mart's customer experience is highly dependent on the neighborhood. If
it's a place where kids grow up learning no manners or common sense, Wal
Mart has no problem hiring them. Neighboring retailers often will not touch
people like that. That leaves a large pool of rejects for Wal Mart to hire.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

I attribute the quality differences to several things. If you read the
article, you saw where it said Cadillac is #2 in initial quality...second
only to Lexus (toyota). They attribute it to Cadillac's recent adoption of
"flexible assembly"...things like the ability of any line-worker to stop the
line dead if he/she sees any quality issue or defect. Unions have so far
prevented this in most of the factories they have a presence in. That's the
main thing I attribute the quality differences to. It costs $300 to 500
more per vehicle to make a Chrysler, Ford, or GM car. Obviously, that
difference has to be made up somewhere...and it probably is coming off of
the quality of the parts/materials.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. ..
Sure, Don. We now have CAD/CAM milling machines that mill out a crown
in
about 15 minutes. It removes several areas of potential human error
such
as
taking the impression, blocking out undercuts, trimming a die, and
casting/firing at the right temperature and conditions. Of course, a
dentist will still need to numb your tooth and drill it to the proper
shape
before the machine can do it's job...unless you'd prefer to stick your
head
into the machine. In your case, however, it would probably have a hard
time
penetrating the solid granite you call a brain.


You sure are a mean-spirited piece of trash. Not surprising for a
conservative from Florida...

Don is a lemming. He's always around for a "yeah-what-he-said", but never
fights his own battles.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
bb,
If you go back to a thread from a week or so ago, you'll know that it's
Wal-Mart that Doug has problems with. Somebody must have gotten in his
ear
about his comments, because he sure wasn't holding back at that time.


If I recall correctly (who knows?), last week's remarks were based primarily
on my personal experiences with the store closest to my home. These
experiences have been consistently horrible.

"NOYB" wrote in message
news


I wish I could comment, but since both are customers, it might not be
wise.
All I can say is that in conversations with all the sales staff here,
every
one of us finds one of the companies a pleasure to deal with, even when
they're telling us they can't buy from us for one reason or another.
It's
a
culture of constructiveness and problem solving. The other company -
it's
like trying to sell to the federal government. Miles of red tape and
stupidity, which doesn't work when you're dealing with truckloads of
perishable groceries.

I can see where this matters with produce, meats, etc. but for
non-perishables, what's the difference? The consumers that shop at the
stores really are just interested in who has the better price on those
items. Wal-Mart should stick to what it does best...and selling meat and
vegetables ain't it.


For perishables, it matters because if a company has absurd logistical
requirements which change with the position of the moon and stars, groceries
may (and do) end up sitting in trucks under less than ideal conditions. And,
browse your own pantry cabinets and think about which so-called "dry
grocery" products would suffer if left in your automobile trunk for three
days in the summer. These things affect the consumer directly, and there are
stores which do as much as possible to minimize such situations.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
news


I wish I could comment, but since both are customers, it might not be
wise.
All I can say is that in conversations with all the sales staff here,
every
one of us finds one of the companies a pleasure to deal with, even
when
they're telling us they can't buy from us for one reason or another.
It's
a
culture of constructiveness and problem solving. The other company -
it's
like trying to sell to the federal government. Miles of red tape and
stupidity, which doesn't work when you're dealing with truckloads of
perishable groceries.

I can see where this matters with produce, meats, etc. but for
non-perishables, what's the difference? The consumers that shop at the
stores really are just interested in who has the better price on those
items. Wal-Mart should stick to what it does best...and selling meat
and
vegetables ain't it.


For perishables, it matters because if a company has absurd logistical
requirements which change with the position of the moon and stars,
groceries
may (and do) end up sitting in trucks under less than ideal conditions.
And,
browse your own pantry cabinets and think about which so-called "dry
grocery" products would suffer if left in your automobile trunk for three
days in the summer. These things affect the consumer directly, and there
are
stores which do as much as possible to minimize such situations.


I can see your point on food items. Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's
non-food items? To me, they're the same things you can buy anywhere else,
but Wal-Mart sells 'em for less...and has a very generous return policy if
they are defective or don't fit your needs. What more could you want?

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
news


I wish I could comment, but since both are customers, it might not
be
wise.
All I can say is that in conversations with all the sales staff
here,
every
one of us finds one of the companies a pleasure to deal with, even
when
they're telling us they can't buy from us for one reason or another.
It's
a
culture of constructiveness and problem solving. The other
ompany -
it's
like trying to sell to the federal government. Miles of red tape and
stupidity, which doesn't work when you're dealing with truckloads of
perishable groceries.

I can see where this matters with produce, meats, etc. but for
non-perishables, what's the difference? The consumers that shop at
the
stores really are just interested in who has the better price on those
items. Wal-Mart should stick to what it does best...and selling meat
and
vegetables ain't it.


For perishables, it matters because if a company has absurd logistical
requirements which change with the position of the moon and stars,
groceries
may (and do) end up sitting in trucks under less than ideal conditions.
And,
browse your own pantry cabinets and think about which so-called "dry
grocery" products would suffer if left in your automobile trunk for
three
days in the summer. These things affect the consumer directly, and there
are
stores which do as much as possible to minimize such situations.


I can see your point on food items. Where do you stand on Wal-Mart's
non-food items? To me, they're the same things you can buy anywhere else,
but Wal-Mart sells 'em for less...and has a very generous return policy if
they are defective or don't fit your needs. What more could you want?

An article in Inc. Magazine a couple of years ago made WM look hideous with
regard to the returns you mention. As an example, they used a company which
makes electric garage door openers. As you probably know, this is not the
kind of item that the average consumer can install easily or correctly. And,
stores like Sears & Home Depot are not going to install things purchased
elsewhere. So, WM took back quite a few of these things as no-hassle
returns. Unfortunately for the manufacturer, WM apparently doesn't inspect
returns, so the mfr received boxes containing rocks & bricks, or boxes with
major, expensive parts missing or irreparably damaged. Their contract with
WM specified that WM would reimburse the mfr for such things. In this case,
the mfr waited a year for over $100k worth of damages. The article said this
is not uncommon - quite a few companies give up selling to WM because it's
not worth the trouble.

You, the consumer, pay for this eventually, in one way or another. Perhaps
prices go up as manufacturers self-insure themselves against such losses.
Or, the better quality goods are no longer sold at WM, so if you're still
convinced to must shop there, you can choose from a smaller pool of options.

There is no free lunch.

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

I attribute the quality differences to several things. If you read the
article, you saw where it said Cadillac is #2 in initial quality...second
only to Lexus (toyota). They attribute it to Cadillac's recent adoption
of
"flexible assembly"...things like the ability of any line-worker to stop
the
line dead if he/she sees any quality issue or defect. Unions have so far
prevented this in most of the factories they have a presence in. That's
the
main thing I attribute the quality differences to. It costs $300 to 500
more per vehicle to make a Chrysler, Ford, or GM car. Obviously, that
difference has to be made up somewhere...and it probably is coming off of
the quality of the parts/materials.

NOYB,
At Ford's Romeo Engine Plant, any worker who sees a defect is "expected"
to stop the line. I work there, and the last thing we want to produce is a
faulty product. It comes down to job pride and job security. I'm an
electrician there and I can tell you that quality is job one.
Paul