Recent Comments
- JS said “..."Cleveland has nothing to learn from other communities’ experiences ..." Take the Drew Carey/Reason response. ...” on The value of learning from others
- John Polk said “As you know, this is a widely-used tool by many Chambers of Commerce and economic ...” on The value of learning from others
- JS said “And the link is http://www.e4s.o~ Be sure to ask business applications questions about technical nutrients, ...” on Biomimicry: Sustainable Design & Innovation
- JS said “This can be an interesting element to go into an overall picture of economic climate. ...” on Magazine thinks Ohio has the highest potential for growth
- JS said “From the dialog (sorry, monolog): "...will be important" no "here's what we did to achieve ...” on Open networks and innovation
- About BDP Comments
Meta
Ed Morrison · Learning v. contracts
December 16th, 2008
A lot of conversation in the current discussions on the auto bailout focus on labor cost comparisons between union and non-union plants. The labor rate issue should not absorb too much of our attention. It likely represents less than 1/3 of the cost difference between U.S. and Japanese manufacturers.
The real challenge comes confronting the different business models followed by the US manufacturers, compared to the Japanese. Generally speaking, in a U.S. plant, contracts define job security. In a Japanese plant, job security emerges from a continuous commitment to learning.
This difference explains why, in Indiana, U.S. manufacturers are in trouble, while Toyota, Subaru and Honda are not as severely damaged by the economic downturn.
Take a look at U.S. auto contracts.
Compare practices at Toyota’s Princeton, IN plant.
Last 5 posts by Ed Morrison
- Reason.tv's series on Saving Cleveland - March 20th, 2010
- Milwaukee measures innovation - March 20th, 2010
- Google's Eric Schmidt and his talk in Pittsburgh: Technology, innovation & the global economy - March 18th, 2010
- Good summary on proposed changes to No Child Left Behind - March 18th, 2010
- Amazing Time-Lapse of the Milky Way over Hawaii - March 17th, 2010
December 16th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Michael Barone has written a possibly relevant blog entry about the historical basis (“Taylorism” versus unionism) for the current automaker-UAW relationship.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Vince:
Thanks for the link!
December 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I agree that the wage differential isn’t the driver for US automaker’s current challenges. But US management and the UAW share responsibility for only now entering the “competitive” range (compared to the foreign transplants) in terms of time to build, quick changeover of tooling to switch from model to model, reliability, fuel economy, safety, innovative design, etc.
See this clip of Ford’s new plant in Brazil. These aren’t being built here in the US, in part due to union opposition to “insourcing” or co-location of supplier plants with Ford’s own plant:
http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189
December 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
The UAW has been bargaining for a more traditional form of insourcing — bringing component manufacturing back into the Big 3’s own plants by encouraging those plants (i.e. the union) to bid competitively against outside suppliers, with those new “insourced” jobs classified as new hires at the $14-per-hour pay level.
With work forces shrinking across the board, this is probably the only way for the UAW’s new-hire pay concessions to have a significant impact on the companies’ total labor costs. But of course it also creates competitive pressure on outside suppliers.
Also, here’s the full Detroit News article about the Camacari Ford plant which seems to have given rise to the video. Note that Camacari is a union plant — not the UAW, but the Brazilian ABC Metalworkers Union, which is not exactly a pushover.
December 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
It seems to be a topic of discussion at parties and on blogs that the foreign auto makers’ plants on American soil are non-union. Thank you for pointing out (obscurely) that this is simply not true. The UAW has contracts with nearly every automaker in America, foreign-born or not. The real difference came at the ridiculous stance Richard Wagoner, CEO of GM, took when asked about creating fuel efficient cars and hybrids, “we will not make them, America doesn’t want them!”. I don’t see how the Union holds any responsibility for Wagoner’s mentality. GM ended up spending millions on advertising and building large gs-guzzling SUVs despite his foreign competitors building smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. He paid little to no attention to the sales figures. Now he’s in trouble..go figure!