The New Republic

with AFA. So do right-to-life pharmacists. Just say no to alcohol, homosexuality and the day-after pill! God wants you to buy a Toyota and help us drive out the sinners! Neil

- purcellneil

January 26, 2007 at 1:55pm

Don't know about Ford but if their labor costs and production times are similar to GM's, here's the root of the problem: Production Time per Vehicle Source: 2005 Harbour Report GM: 34.3 hours, 2.5% improvement since 2003 Toyota: 27.9 hours, 5.5% improvement since 2003 Average Hourly Salary for Non-Skilled, Assembly Line Worker Source: Center for Automotive Research GM: $31.35/hour Toyota: $27/hour = cost per worker per vehicle of $73 for GM vs $48 for Toyota. Which GM (and probably Ford too) make up for by using sh*tty, cheap plastic parts instead of high-quality stell or aluminum, which causes quality and performance to royally suck vs Toyota....

- teplukhin

January 26, 2007 at 2:04pm

My car is gay!

- jeopel

January 26, 2007 at 2:17pm

For a while I drove a Ford Ranger, until I moved from the wilds of Kansas City to Manhattan. For most of that time, the "check engine" light remained illuminated. I would periodically take it in to a mechanic when I was seized by fear that the engine would fall out, and I was always told the same thing: "Oh, they all do that." Which is among the reasons that I now drive a Toyota. Also, when my fellow homosexuals put "Jump" in our latest agenda memo, Ford failed to ask "how high?".

- drdannyu

January 26, 2007 at 2:20pm

started tucking in their sweaters, and now this. I for one will not buy a Ford. I'll stick to the manly choices, such as the Mazda Miata. In addition, my sister's been considering a Ford; I'll alert her that, instead, she should go for a more Godly (i.e., straight) vehicle, such as a Subaru.

- williamyard

January 26, 2007 at 3:25pm

Cleary, the core problem isn't management processes, it's labor costs and restrictive shop rules. $73 vs $48. F***ing impossible to overcome that hurdle in an industry that is as brutally competitive, and whose products are in many ways commoditized, as the global auto industry. In other words, most of the blame lies not with the bean-counters but with the UAW.

- teplukhin

January 26, 2007 at 3:30pm

I mean the difference is $31*34 hrs (GM) vs $27*28hrs (Toyota). SOmething like a 43% disadvantage. Sorry, but there's no way that even the most brilliant management on earth could overcome that disparity in a competitive market. No wonder new CEO Alan Mullaly has already decided Ford should cry uncle and aim to be a much smaller also-ran in the US market. Don't blame Dobson; blame the UAW, mainly.

- teplukhin

January 26, 2007 at 3:46pm

These same people who pontificate about the evils of offering survivorship benefits to same-sex couples ALSO buy truckloads of cheap sweatshop-produced consumer goods at Wal-Mart. Because making an 8-year-old run a sewing machine 12 hours a day isn't icky like boys kissing, I guess.

- glacialspeed

January 26, 2007 at 3:50pm

Ford is starting to make cars in China, GM has a huge production facility in Shanghai. The people there make about $1.00 an hour. So why don't they just make all their cars there? Because the productivity is a disaster. What is the point of paying someone to produce things defectively. I don't buy Ford because Ford sucks. Simply put. Tep, American workers are also among paid the highest in the world in Computer sciences. Productivity matters first.

- blackton

January 26, 2007 at 4:59pm

It's a 43% cist disadvantage vs a first-world competitor, Cleary. A competitor whose product has superior quality in large measure due partly to that same cost advantage, partly due to less restrictive work rules, partly due to excellent manufacturing principles and techniques. Blackton, the Japanese aito workers are far more productive than ours, as my figures show.

- teplukhin

January 26, 2007 at 11:36pm

Again, you miss the point: Ford's quality suffers because they try to offset a devastating cost disadvantage with cheaper parts and components. The engineers don't design the cars to have sh*t components; it's the accountants who insist on same because otherwise, Fords would be 40% more expensive than Toyotas. If the cost differential weren't so great, Ford and GM could use better parts ie the ones their engineers recommended in the first place, and the quality wouldn't suck.

- teplukhin

January 26, 2007 at 11:39pm

I think that this debate has revealed with remarkable clarity why we need an alternative to the employer-based health care structure that the U.S. has had since WW2. Of course, that would require some thinking, and we can't let too much of that happen.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2007 at 4:34am

Kinda strange, ain't it, that so many members of the party of US labor are determined to purchase japanese cars made with non-union red state labor that earns significantly less than their UAW counterparts.... If you've given up on Ford and GM becuase of sh*tty quality, then direct your ire at the UAW, or else be prepared to see another 100,000 high-paying union jobs disappear.

- teplukhin

January 27, 2007 at 4:42am

Blaming the UAW for the failure of Ford and GM is ridiculous. Management has all of the responsibility in both cases. If we lose in Iraq, it will not be the fault of people below the rank of captain. Or do you suppose that Japanese workers figured out how to beat American automobile manufacturing? But go ahead and blame the workers - they have no power to change the way Ford is run, but they are a convenient scapegoat. Neil

- purcellneil

January 27, 2007 at 11:40am

1) Ford's labor force is much older than Toyota's (US). Thus, there health care costs per worker are higher. A universal coverage health insurance system could solve this. 2) With several retirees per active worker, Ford's pension costs are far higher than Toyota's. If Ford had properly funded their pension plan back when the company was profitable, this wouldn't be a problem. 3) Ford is also paying a considerable amount for retiree healthcare, which relates to both items 1 & 2. Because of high pension and healthcare costs, the $31 vs. $27 and $73 vs. $48 comparisons understate the labor cost advantage Toyota has in its US plants. 4) Until recently, Ford had huge profit margins on Trucks and SUV's, which probably encouraged them to excessively focus on those line at the expense of making quality small and mid-sized passenger cars. Overall, Ford's situation can be blamed on the UAW getting too greedy, poor management decisions, the structure of this country's healhcare system, and maybe some bad luck.

- davidsmith192

January 27, 2007 at 12:38pm

Having worked at Ford and knowing them intimately there is some truth to the story that AFA & their Diversity Policies are and continue to be part of the problem. Ford had a policy in place to promote Women and Minorities over White Men with equivalenet qualifications. Basically the white guys needed an MBA that the others didn't. This policy was disastrous for the company. Ford ended up with a bunch of Bookworms and outsiders who couldn't make a decision. The auto business requires constant decision making to stay competitive. In just one of many bad ideas, was their decision to use IDEAS Computer Aided Design (CAD). While everyone else was going to Catia, Ford went the wrong way at the costs of millions of dollars. And while Ford was promoting Diversity and Consideration for Alternative Lifestyles, that was not a factor for the people buying cars. People buy cars because they like the cars and the cars fufill a need. While AFA's Boycott had some effect, the truth is the Diversity Crowd really didn't a Ford in the garage to support the people that were supporting them. You can laugh at AFA taking credit for Ford's bad year, but you can't say anyone like Jesse Jackson to Andrew Sullivan is stepping up to recommend a Ford.

- CRS9TNR

January 27, 2007 at 7:07pm

I don't buy the "it's all the UAW's fault" line. Yes, the US workers make about 15% more, but the 15% is the smaller part of the 43% differential. The hours to assemble a car say it directly: GM: 34.3 hours Toyota: 27.9 hours If it takes GM 23% longer to assemble a car than it takes Toyota, that is on the engineering and production side. That's under management's control, not the UAW.

- JEFF FREY

January 28, 2007 at 12:05am

No it isn't. It's mainly a consequence of restrictive shop rules demanded by the UAW.

- teplukhin

January 28, 2007 at 12:51am

Your "blame the unions" mantra gets real old real fast. The experts disagree with you: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2 006/02/why_toyota_is_b.html IOW it has nothng to do with plant productivity. The UAW has long since bargained away most of those "work rules" you talk about (I know this first-hand). The labor cost difference is almost exclusively legacy costs, i.e., retiree benefits. Toyota has an advantage here not because they're non-union but because they've only been builing cars here for a few years- no legacy costs. Plus which they're not entirely non-union. Toyota builds the Corolla car and Tacoma truck at a UAW factory in Fremont, CA. Somehow they manage to do so profitably. I know guys like you. I run into them all the time. They're called union-busters. And they don't tell the truth.

- laborlawyer

January 29, 2007 at 11:06pm

I drive a UAW-built Cadillac SRX. Great car. Nothing cheap about it.

- laborlawyer

January 29, 2007 at 11:09pm