On 4/27/2015 1:45 PM, sf wrote:

>
> Ah - yes, of course, I see the light now. Unions were single handedly
> responsible for the miserable failure of *American* automobile design
> (when the same set of American designers were perfectly capable of
> designing cars for foreign manufacturers that were well engineered and
> looked great), to say nothing of poor quality control. Then there was
> their refusal to modernize, insisting on continuing the outdated
> practice of one man installing one item on a cars 8 hours a day, which
> was the equivalent of you sitting at the computer and hitting one
> single solitary key all day long. You're so right. It's all the
> unions fault.

The fault lies in both camps. Unions would not allow for many changes.
If you were assigned to one job, you could not do another. Not just
the auto industry, but in many shops. A machine would be broken but the
operator can't touch it, he has to wait for the union mechanic to come
and tighten a screw because it is not in his job description. So let
the machine sit for an hour.

In the 1950's, the economy was strong. When the unions demanded a wage
increase or they'd strike, it was easy to add it into the price of a car
rather than lose sales to the competition. They all did it and it
worked back then. There was no competition aside from the other
inefficient giants of the industry.

You recall the old saying, never buy a car built on a Monday. There was
valid reason for that and it was the worker, not the company that build
the cars like crap. Monday a lot of workers showed up with a hang over
and did not perform well. We had a brand new '59 Chevy that developed
an odor a few days after delivery. Under the back seat was the remnants
of a workers lunch.