On 9 Apr 2007 15:44:13 -0700, "Fred Weiss"
papertig.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 8, 5:02 pm, Art
zilch.com> wrote:>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:05:06 -0500, Publius
>
>>>Huh? You think the Board of Ford, most of whom are or represent major
>>>stockholders whose money is at stake, are handing out free lunches to
>>>charming CEOs?
>>
>> They're all obviously a bunch of negative performers raking in far
>> more than a free lunch for negative performance. You like to talk
>> about morality. I see nothing moral in that. It stinks :)
>
>You may be right and in fact Ford stock has been clobbered. So
>investors at least aren't impressed with that performance either.
>
>However what do you think of auto workers making upwards of $75,000/
>yr, in some cases even more, from regular pay and overtime - and that
>doesn't include benefits and future pension payments. I'm mentioning
>this because a significant part of Ford's problem is their huge burden
>of uncompetitive labor costs as a result of past strikes and union
>demands. In addition they are saddled with the costs of gov't safety
>and emission regulations.
I've long thought that the historical adversarial relationship between
management and workers could have been avoided ... that the labor
union movement might have never happened if entrepenuers were really
smart. It would have been better, I think, if stock bonuses and stock
as partial compensation had been offered to all employees
right from the start. It has been my experience that upper corporate
managements are not open, honest and straightforword (to put it as
politely as I can). A friend of mine had risen to near the top of a
smaller company, and when I asked him if he aspired to top management,
he replied that he wasn't prepared to sell his soul :)
>All this may be beside the point because it is very possible that
>without tariff protection Ford would have been demolished years ago by
>Japanese competition. Ford in fact is a prime and not uncommon example
>of an aging market dominator that got complacent and was unable to
>withstand aggressive and innovative competition. The same thing btw
>happened to them in the 1920's when Henry Ford stuck intransigently to
>his slogan of "You can buy any color car so long as it is black" which
>had served him well in prior years but which was being challenged by
>General Motors under the leadership of the brilliant Alfred Sloan.
>Ford's stubborness almost put the company out of business.
Yes. I remember the Vegas and Pintos. They were crap. No wonder
many of us were buying the old VW bugs, Toyotas, and Hondas.
U.S. Auto makers missed the boat. Of course, as a engineer and
a practical person, I tend to view things in a untypical way. I never
did have any use for the big gas hogs and the insanity and waste
of tooling up endless new models by several manufactureres. In my
view, Hitler had one good idea with his singular "peoples car"
(Volkswagen). I say perfect a good quality, practical, "takes you
where you want to go" car and quit all the retooling and waste. The
"American way" has been far from the best way in many ways.
Art
