A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors
decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both teams practiced
long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the
reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior
management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person
steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person
rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a
consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second
opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering
the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another
loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally
reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and
1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new
performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater
incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First
Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower There was
discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra
vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor
performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and
canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was
distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing
team was out-sourced to India.

Sadly, the End.


Sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent
the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they
can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has spent the last thirty
years building more than a dozen plants inside the US.

The last quarter's results:
Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads.

IF THIS WASN'T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY!

On May 19, 12:48 pm, "John E. Carr" <carr... (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote:

One thing to remember: The average age of the American unionized auto
worker is getting up there in years. How much does health care cost
Ford (and GM and Dodge) for these workers? Quite a bit.
Now here comes all the foreign badged factories building cars in the
states.
Who do they hire, the older workers? Of course not. They hire the kids
in their 20s and their health care costs are next to nothing. They
also don't have to pay the pension for somebody who has not yet
retired. They are also non-union. Do you now see why Ford moved their
workforce out of the country?
Now you could say that this is Ford's fault for agreeing to union
demands, but our government also helped destroy American made cars
when they agreed to have the foreign made factories sprout up without
letting Ford, GM and Dodge compete against them by having the
workforce the same age.
The comparison between American cars and American made foreign cars is
really like comparing apples to oranges. Bash Ford and GM all you
want. They are not competing with the foreign makers with the same
rules.

"Kruse" <kruse (AT) kansas (DOT) net> wrote

Perhaps this might explain why they are non-union?

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/31/t...-first-time-l/

Yes, I see why they moved their workforce out of the country. No, I
do not understand why they are still losing money. According to the
article, Toyota workers are now at parity or slightly above UAW wages.
With Ford having so much outsourced to Mexico, they should have a
-lower- wage burden than Toyota.

Nothing more than political talking points.

Right. Their rules seem to be to golden parachute all their executives.

Once you pay an exec a salary more than 500K a year, they are way beyond
the level 'needed' to live. In short, 70% of what they are spending their
salaries
on are pure luxury items. At that point the ONLY incentive they have to
do a better job and thus raise their salaries via bonuses and increased
income,
is pure greed and advarice. Most execs at that level and beyond are at
the point where they could retire tomorrow and never have to work again,
and thus how do you motivate someone like that to work for the common
good of the company?

People should be rewarded with money if they do a good job for the
company, but the company also needs to have a mechanism for identifying
the executives who cannot be motivated anymore to continue to do a
good job. Unfortunately American companies in particular seem to
stick their head in the sand on this issue - they seem to think that once
an exec breaks the half-million a year salary range, their going to remain
worth their weight in gold for the rest of their lives no matter how crappy
a job they do.

Ted

You apparently have fallen for Toyotas deceptive advertising. Actually over
half of the Toyota vehicles sold in the US in 2006 were imported or not made
in the US, while only 15% of what Ford sells in the US are not made here.
You are not factoring in Toyotas much lower labor, benefits and parts costs,
as well as the fact Toyota takes all of the profits it earns in the US, out
of the country federal tax free.

mike


"John E. Carr" <carr142 (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote


Ford has spent

Mike Hunter wrote:

Poor ole Mikey, just has to doctor the facts to fit his take.

Kruse wrote:
Actually, in a way they do pay for the retirement. They match 401k's for
the workers. The thing is that all the retirement costs and health care
costs are paid upfront. Which means that after the cars go out the door,
the car makers don't have no more retirement liabilities. The retirement
plan is fully funded. On the other hand, the Michigan 3 did not fully
fund their retirement plants and future health plans at the time the
cars were made. So they took on huge liabilities.

Ford still has a huge workforce in the country.

The Michigan 3 (especially Ford and GM) are making tons of cars outside
the country for sale outside the country. They are growing by leaps and
bonds. It is is an investment in their futures, because they should be
able to reap huge profits from countries like India and China.

So are you doing to discriminate against young workers by requiring some
companies to hire middle aged workers? Or old workers?

The problems with the pensions are the Michigan 3's fault, for not
funding their retirement pensions for their workers completely at the
time the cars were made, instead of relying on future sales.

The Michigan 3 are using their own rules.

Jeff

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Toyota also outsourced some work to Mexico (they have one plant there).

The reason why DiamlerChrysler gave away Chrysler (it actually cost over
$700 million for DimalerChrysler to get rid of Chrysler) is that
Chrysler had over $18 billion in pension liability that DiamlerChrysler
did not want to bear.

One of the big handicaps that the Michigan 3 gave themselves is that
when you buy a Michigan-3 vehicle, a big portion of the profits go to
pensions for already retired workers. Ouch.

Jeff

Mike Hunter wrote:
Why don't you file a FTC complaint? Honda had to stop calling its
lawn-mowers "Made in America" because of such a complaint.

Actually, that is incorrect. Of the nearly 3,000,000 vehicles Toyota
sells in North America, over 1,500,000 are made in North America.

So over 50% of the vehicles are made in North America. And about 1/2 the
parts for all the vehicles Toyota Sells in North America are made in
North America.

Technically, you are correct about Toyota not paying US taxes. However,
Toyota's operating subsidies in the US do pay US and state income taxes.

If I am incorrect, back up your statement.

Or learn to speak about only things you understand.

We would never hear from you again if you do the latter, but that would
be ok.

Jeff