Skip to comments.Ford's most advanced assembly plant operates in rural Brazil
Posted on 12/06/2008 5:58:34 AM PST by From The Deer Stand
While Toyota, Honda and Nissan operate non-union plants without the hassles of the "Big 3" the Ford Motor Company builds an ultra-modern and highly efficient plant in Brazil. Check out the link and watch the short video. You'll be left with the question: why can't they do that here? The answer: unions.
Trouble is, there are all sorts of other very costly regulations, aside from Unions, we have saddled manufacturing with...not to mention the taxes.
One word answers: Lawyers.
US is so laden with regulations, lawsuits, bureaucratic red tape, etc. A company has to worry about the legal costs to build, hire, fire, speak, write, repair, and so on. All for our “protection”. Granted, some regs are necessary. But enough is enough and too much is too much.
Basically, government has figured out how to get it’s piece of the pie, and keeps wanting more.
Democrats (and some Republicans, let's be honest here) saddle businesses with unsustainable regulations that force them to either go out of business or move to more business friendly locales, then want to punish them for moving their businesses off shore, and get votes for it.
God, the American people are stupid. Sometimes I wonder if the concept of democracy is really tenable after all.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of those regulation are needed. You don't recall the time when GM sold cars that they did not treat the metal to prevent rust do you.
My parents, both born in the 1920s drove us around as kids in them in the 50s, in vehicvles made in the 40s.
Fact is, this nation (both libs and RINOs) have gone far, faroverboard with regulations for special interest groups that have driven manufacturers out of this country, not to mention the taxes.
I have never said that ALL regulations were bad...I did say that there were many, many bad ones that drive our manufacturers away.
Agreed. There are plenty of RINOs who have joined in the special interest feeding frenzy that has hurt us all.
While some regulations should be re-evaluated, the fact remains that despite all these impediments, foreign car companies seem to have no problem at all building cars in the USA. What I don't get is that the Big 3 do have plants in right-to-work states but they still are unionized.
This is an excellent example of why the nanny-state rules are the problem.
Cars rusted in the north due to the salt used on the highways in the winter. If you lived in such a place, you could pay extra and add some rust-proofing to your car. If you don't live in a such a place, you can skip it and save money.
Then, the gummint steps in with the most terrifying words in the english language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!"
Now, we all pay for rust-proofing to make the sheet metal last for 10+ years, when all the electrical systems are designed to last for about 4 years.
The same goes for a lot of the government-mandated "features" that all car have, and YOU pay for. Why do I need child safety seat anchors in my car if I don't have a child? A glow-in-the-dark trunk exit handle? Mandatory remote tire pressure sensing systems?
“Some of those regulation are needed.”
I doubt it.
“You don’t recall the time when GM sold cars that they did not treat the metal to prevent rust do you.”
Actually, I don’t recall the time when the MARKET AS A WHOLE purposely took actions over an extended period of time to hurt itself. Markets don’t do that.
Therefore, markets don’t need regulation.
Ford and GM are both making money overseas where they’ve got to compete more directly with the foreign makers. The foreign makers are losing money in the US, just like the American makers. The primary difference is that the foreign makers don’t have as big a stake in the US relative to their overall operations, and so they still make a profit while the US makers do not.
So how can this be? Because the US makers must pay the union scale here in the US, while they don’t have that disadvantage overseas.
Like I’ve said from the beginning, all of this is the fault of Congress. Congress wrote the labor laws. Blaming it on the automakers just diverts attention from the real problem.
Do we really need a new government regulation every time we have any complaint about some product?
No, really they can't. Not even in RTW states.
The master agreement that all the big three must sign, and never expires, states that any big three plant built in America will be covered by the UAW from day one, without need for a vote.
So why can’t Ford build a plant in the U.S. just like the one in Brazil, even in a state that is “right-to-work”?
The fact is the UAW years ago made it clear to the U.S. based Big Three that if there was any attempt to open a non-union plant in the U.S. they would strike and shut down their most critical sites.
And over the years the it worked to the advantage of the UAW.
They quickly learned that they didn’t have to strike the entire operation (in many states if you go out on strike you can’t claim unemployment). But, if a manufacturer is forced to close an assembly plant because it can’t get critical parts (ie axles) from a smaller plant on strike, those layed-off works often are able to get unemployment.
Just a couple of years ago a company called American Axle was hit with a UAW strike. They are a supplier to GM and other, mostly truck/SUV axles. That strike shut down GM, then GM puts pressure on the supplier to come to terms, etc., etc.
As a footnote, American Axle at one time was part of GM (Gear & Axle, Saginaw Gear). GM spun off that piece of the business 15+ years ago, as they have been doing with many on their other groups (Delphi, etc.)
None of this is working out as they had planned.
Pretty much like the unions.
Then you must have been asleep for the past six years. Rip Van Winkle !!!!
Fine, that still doesn’t explain why the government must mandate it.
What does that even mean? We need government regulations to require features that make cars last longer for the same reason we need jails?
“Actually, I dont recall the time when the MARKET AS A “WHOLE purposely took actions over an extended period of time to hurt itself. Markets dont do that.
Then you must have been asleep for the past six years. Rip Van Winkle !!!!”
That’s the second time you’ve posted an evasion instead of an answer. You wouldn’t be an official mouthpiece for the left, would you?
If not, consider accepting the job when it’s offered to you.
“Way to go newbie post BS and then run off!!”
Darn! And I was all set to take notes on the wonderful blessings of government regulation.
True. Also, why do we need those seat-belts and airbags and all that stuff that prevents cars from rolling over? Sheesh, what a waste of money? And what about safety glass in windscreesn? Who needs that? Why not use normal glass that shards? And why not bring back fins on cars? /sarc
The few ankle biter libertarians and their millions and zillions of voters are such a pain in the arss.
So you support nanny-state laws such as the one enforcing automakers to put rust-protection on their cars? This mindset is why the U.S. can no longer effectively compete in the world marketplace. Why should the government be involved in this? Let the law of supply and demand dictate whether automakers rust-proof their cars. For example, if Toyota decides to stop rust-proofing their cars and consumers feel strongly about it, then maybe they buy more Hondas and Nissans instead. This will force Toyota to rust-proof their cars again should the market demand it. Then again, maybe not having to rust-proof their cars makes Toyota more competitive in places like Phoenix, AZ and Southern California by getting to offer cheaper cars? So let the businesses decide, not the government.
Ankle biter!!! Toyota treats their cars as do all car makers.
What does that have to do with anything? The subject at hand is your support of the nanny-state and your apparent supplication to government regulating our industries. The fact that all auto-makers in the U.S. are subject to nanny-state government regulation does nothing to support your argument that it is a good thing.
In the real world it is called realism, IE, they are not going to be changed.
There are sensible safety requirements like safety glass, front impact airbags, and seat belts, because they affect all occupants of every car.
Then, there are nanny-state safety requirements like child seat anchors and glow-in-the-dark trunk releases that cost everyone money and benefit few.
Can you see the difference?
I’m not calling for anarchy where every car bursts into flames on contact. I just want to pay for the features I need.
As for “the stuff that prevents cars from rolling over”, that stuff is between the driver’s ears. It seems that some cars have more of that than others.