Detroit gave up on Holden

[1TUFFUTE]

Now someone imagine a letter with even slight resemblance to that, but about ford. It just won't and doesn't exist.
The more I read the more I'm amazed at how GMH and Holden have and continue to deal!
No wonder despite a new line up GM is still loosing market share in the USA. People are catching on...albeit very slowly.
They seem to catch on slow here too....

[CyberWasp]

Soon it will be the world give up on GM.

[DreadlyST]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Instead of Ranger, Ford is replacing E series vans with a new RWD Transit complete with V6, EBV6 and 3.2 diesel.
Now, thinking laterally here, the investment into a Transit plant makes more sense than chasing a relatively small mid sized truck market.

Plus these 3 new transit models will be international models, and be marketed globally. Saw some pics in a mag in the dealers last week and it looks sweet, for a van!

Anybody else hear around the time the GMH closure was announced, GM appointed a new CEO, and it's a woman!

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

ONLY $150 million a year will save Holden? Rubbish. The Holden Enterprise Agreement is the document that has utterly sunk Holden's prospects. It defies belief that someone in the company isn't being held to account for it.


Holden's management masks a union culture beyond most people's comprehension. Employment costs spiralled way beyond community standards long ago. Neither "pay freezes" nor more money will save Holden, but getting the Fair Work Commission to dissolve the agreement and put all workers on the award wage might be a start.


In 1991, the pre-enterprise bargaining award wage of a Holden entry level process worker was $462.80 a week. In 1992, Holden began enterprise bargaining and now a worker at that same classification level has a base rate of $1194.50 a week, a 158 per cent increase, or a compound increase of 4.4 per cent year on year for 22 years. Right now, base wage rates for process workers in the Holden enterprise agreement are in the $60,000 to $80,000 per year range and in recent times, "hardship payments" of $3750 were given to each worker.


The modern award for such workers mandates base rates in the $37,000 to $42,000 range. This means that before we add any of the shift penalties, loadings, 26 allowances and the added cost of productivity restrictions, Holden begins each working day paying its workforce almost double what it should. After you add in the other employment costs, I estimate Holden's workforce costs it somewhere close to triple the amount it should.


Many people who work at Holden don't actually work for Holden; they work for the union. Occupational health and safety people are given 10 days' paid time off a year to be trained by the union. Most companies do not allow unions to train their OH&S people because the knowledge is used to control the workplace to the benefit of the union.


Union delegates are also allowed up to 10 paid days a year for union training in how to be effective union delegates and two of these delegates are entitled to an extra Holden sponsorship of one paid month off to "further their industrial and/or leadership development".


Holden's rules on hiring casuals are shocking and unheard of in today's market. The agreement forbids Holden from hiring casuals except when a "short-term increase in workload, or other unusual circumstances occurs". If this situation arises Holden has to "consult and reach agreement" with the union. Further, "Engagement of the agreed number of casual personnel will be for the agreed specified tasks and the agreed specified periods." If any of this changes, Holden must get union agreement again. After three months of continuous full-time work a casual must be made permanent. It is impossible to run a business like this.


An ex-employee from Adelaide, on condition of anonymity, consented to an interview yesterday. He described the workforce as "over-managed", with one team leader for every six workers on the production line, when one for every 25 workers would suffice.


He said "some of us workers felt it wasn't necessary to get paid what we were getting paid to do the jobs we were doing", adding that their work is probably worth about "20 bucks an hour". A few years back, mates took redundancy packages in the order of "$280k plus". Workers are "like sheep" that blindly follow the union leadership. At induction, new workers are ushered into one-on-one meetings with the union rep who heavies them into joining. "It is made clear that if you don't join the union you will be sacked," he said. Union representatives "don't actually do any work for Holden", but rather make themselves full-time enforcers of union control.


He says workers are drug tested before hiring, but "only have to stay off it for a few weeks, get in the door and then you'll be right". Workers caught taking drugs or being drug-affected at work are allegedly put on a fully paid rehabilitation program, with special paid time off of about four weeks duration, before being let back into the workforce.


Australian workplaces have a zero tolerance for drug use, with instant dismissal the remedy, but at Holden "the union won't let the company sack" any workers caught dealing, taking or being on drugs. "If they did a random drug test tomorrow they'd probably have to sack 40 per cent of the workforce," he adds.


If the Holden scenario were playing out in a privately owned business, proper cost-cutting strategies would be used. If you have the will and can hire the skill, there are many ways to cut labour costs. The workers can be given a couple of years notice of significant wage drops and can receive lump sum payouts of entitlements to help bring down family debt.


Of course, these strategies are only ever used by business people who have no one else to bail them out. It seems Holden would rather leave the country than dissolve its enterprise agreement. The union thinks members are better off jobless than on award wages. Holden's fate seems sealed.


If Holden does leave, workers will receive the most generous redundancy benefits around. Holden says leaving will cost $600m. Most of this will go to staff payouts. The fellow interviewed agrees with my calculation: the average production-line worker will walk away with a redundancy package of between $300k-500k.
This was just e-mailed to me by a mate.............

(If any of that is true) its disgusting. (If any of that is true) no wonder the current government decided to wrap things up (from their end)

[mik]

I always liked the idea of wage indexation, it is no surprise industry has been shotgun knee capped, between unions and govcos constant buggerizing around over the years with tarrifs and taxes ,it is a wonder these car makers have lasted the time they have.

[Bossxr8]

Luckily that letter is fake. Most workers will be lucky to leave with 100,000.

As had been said numerous times by Holden CEO, wages are not what killed the company. They only make up a small fraction of what it costs to build a car. Massively increased electricity, gas and water costs would make up most of the skyrocketing costs that Holden have copped over the past few years.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity prices in the world, now its one of the most expensive. No wonder companies no longer want to do business here when any chance of profit is being sucked up by this.

[happy1]

I don't think wages for employees has much impact on the car manufacturing cost at all.
Here is an example, (not sure if numbers are correct or not).
Let's assume 1500 people works within the factory walls of the Commodore assembly line.
Let's assume an average income of $ 40.000 per year, contributing 1800 hours each per year. This makes it $22 per our per worker.
Let's assume a new Commodore rolls out the factory door every 0.1 hour. ( 6 minute ).
This means 1500 people has worked in average 0.1 hour on that car, which gives a total of 150 hours labour to send it through the assembly line.
The total labour cost with $22/hour would only be $ 3300 per produced vehicle.
The gain of having the same workers slave for half the payment would only save $1500 per vehicle.
Most of the parts are made in China anyway, so labour cost on the imported parts doesn't count.
Maybe the number of people inside the Commodore factory is twice as many as I estimated, or maybe the new cars doesn't roll out as quickly as 6 minutes interval in average. Anyway I believe that this example shows that labour cost is just a very small contributing factor in manufacturing (assembling) a car along a robot assisted car assembly line.
Cheers

[mik]

perhaps , but it is not just labor cost, add all the other OHS crap, insurances, running costs, if someone offered me a car company in this country I'd pay them to take it away.

[UberKnee]

Its a bit much to say GM gave up on Holden. They were losing money continuously and were focused on a car segment thats getting smaller and smaller. GM had to do the smart thing and pull the plug, its a business, not a charity. Mnaufacturing here in Australia was on its deathbed anyway, we're far too expensive and far too small a market.

And peoples outrage at an American company not putting Australian manufacturing/buyers/employees first is ridiculous. Would we expect an Australian company that builds products domestically and overseas to put the overseas production first, or stay loyal to the home base?

Originally Posted by DreadlyST

Anybody else hear around the time the GMH closure was announced, GM appointed a new CEO, and it's a woman!

Has nothing to do with it, GM ending Aussie manufacturing would have been on the cards for a long time. Same with Ford, these aren't overnight spur of the moment decisions.

Originally Posted by happy1

Rather than the Government giving direct support to the car manufacturers, I can't understand why not instead put more taxes on imports. Best example would probably be Brazil. Brazilian authorities put sky high taxes on imported assembled products. Locally assembly and manufacturing is thereby much more popular or simply 'required'. This way Brazil has all types of manufacturing industry in country, and they are also exporting products to the rest of the world. Australia on the other hand has 'free trade' agreements with a lot of countries. Personally I don't see how it is in Australia's interest to have free trade agreements with China and others. Cheers

We've already got near on 50% taxes/tariffs on many imports. Australian manufacturing only provides niche items anyway. Would it be fair to price all 4x4 utes out of the price range of the average buyer and force them to buy a Falcodore ute that they don't want? Or force people to buy $40,000 Falcodores because all the hatchbacks cost $50,000? These Aussie made cars are very narrow minded and aren't all things to all people. $40,000 a year is pretty common yearly wage, forcing people to spend that on a basic car is not right.

[Fordman1]

I think it's fair to say most tariffs on imports are 5% not 50 %.

[Nikked]

Not even 5%...I think its below that now...

[mik]

I I think our govco is bringing import tariffs down to zero.......... if memory serves .... the order of the day ..... eliminate all car manufacturing this country ............ please line up all federal pollies in a row so we can give them all a swift kick in the bollocks !

[outback_ute]

Import tariffs are 5% except for countries with a free trade agreement, eg Thailand

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Import tariffs are 5% except for countries with a free trade agreement, eg Thailand

Yes this is correct !!!!

[castellan]

Just looking back to the first holden or fords all the way to now in 2013 without tariffs they never had a hope of being in business in the first place hear.
Am i right ?

[ebxr8240]

Sure puts a different meaning to this add..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Ic3RqPIJo

[mik]

Originally Posted by castellan

Just looking back to the first holden or fords all the way to now in 2013 without tariffs they never had a hope of being in business in the first place hear.
Am i right ?

I think they would have been alright back in those days, it wasn't until some bright sparks decided we need to be a nation of importing stuff that we are where we are..........

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Import tariffs are 5% except for countries with a free trade agreement, eg Thailand

Who in turn slap on a ridiculous tariff on imported cars with engines over 2 liters or something, as soon as an Australian company wants to export something.

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Who in turn slap on a ridiculous tariff on imported cars with engines over 2 liters or something, as soon as an Australian company wants to export something.

Like most of the disinformation spread by the car industry, that statement is very much incorrect. What thailand does is no different to what Australia does. The Australian governments dont want smoking, so they tax a $5 pack of smokes and make it $20. Thailand doesnt want alot of large engined cars on its road (for fuel import reasons, health reasons etc etc). So on large engined cars they have imposed a tax. If a large engined car gets made in Thailand, the tax is applied at manufacturing, if it is imported it is taxed then.