Worthy News: Ford to cut 25,000-30,000 jobs, close 14 plants - AFP

[apothanein kerdos]

He told the guy how much the job pays, and the guy agreed and started working there. Bernie also told him that if he wanted to learn the forklift, that there would be a raise involved.

Also, there is a way for him to make even more than that, if he learns how to do something else.

Under your theory, the man is told that there is a raise involved, and he gets it right now, but has six months to be qualified on the fork lift, or he's let go.

I actually see that both systems are viable.

What is so wrong about Bernie's?

Under a Christian view, Bernie is not helping the worker progress. Think of it this way:

Each of us as supervisors have not only a duty to the company, but a duty to those below us to make sure they become better people. In our system, all people are imperfect, thus all of us need a little kick in the rear at times. Allowing an employee stay where they are and not grow doesn't grow them and it doesn't help anyone else around them. When an employee does this, the ethical thing to do is push them to excell, or let them drop off. The thing is, as it is, we don't even know if the guy can read (I'm imagining an immigrant, legal or not, here, considering it had to be written in Spanish). If that is the case, chances are he can't read Spanish. If he can't read....how can he learn to operate a lift?

The thing to do in this situation is two-fold....teach him to read both Spanish and English so that he'll eventually leave the company for a higher paying job. See how that works? Instead of just teaching him how to do the forklift, teach him something that will apply and help him go further in life.

We get this a lot in Gov't work. Some guys will get hired, quickly figure out the best way to do the least amount of work, and then they ride the system out.

In the civilian sector, it's a little easier to boot the guy.

In our case, after the year of probation, it's very hard to fire a Gov't worker. Now, they have recently changed that, and have imposed a performance based pay system. Now, a work super visor has much more power to fire if need be, and raises are no longer automatic. Before this, workers would automatically get raises based on time, if they hadn't messed up too bad. The supervisor would have to fill out all kinds of paperwork to stop the raise, in fact.

Now, it's the opposite. People of similar wage grade levels increase in step if they are working well, and raises are based on performance, not simply time there.

I'm not advocating giving free rides to those who don't want to work. In fact, I believe, especially as a Christian, we are to do the best job we can when we're on the job. That said, sometimes we can only do as good as our abilities allow us. I, for one, couldn't opperate a forklift due to depth perception problems. The question we have to ask is, does this man we're talking about do a good job cleaning, or does he slack off on the job? If he's doing a good job, one that no one can complain about, but not studying the manuel...I would venture to say that laziness is not part of his reason for not studying. Something else is in there. Employers, managers, supervisors, etc, though, should still work as hard as they can to improve the person, even if that improvement is not applicable to that job. Good leaders replicate themselves.

We can't bring up things like "he can't read" and other similar things, because we have no way of knowing. If it was the case, I'm sure the guy would have raised that point already, if he really wanted to get passed that obstacle.

Do you realize how humiliating it would be to say, "I can't read" in a society where almost everyone can read at some level? Prideful or not, it would take some guts to come out and say it.

Anyway, I have more of a problem with his philosophy on how it should work than his action in this one case. I would still advocate what I'm saying, that Bernie, as any other manager/supervisor, should be more concerned about how the person develops and should push him towards that development. I believe this is the most biblical stand, in that it doesn't allow a person to waste their talent. It keeps them accountable as a human being.

[Marnie]

You should check out the "last" thread in the Fellowship Hall!

It's called "Is it just me...."

t.

I did....and it is...just him.

Me, I'm feelin' pretty good. Got word Dad landed safely at an undisclosed location...again. Praise the Lord. Bring him back alive.

[apothanein kerdos]

Wow....you still don't get it. You once again try and put words in my mouth that I have denied. Let's go over this again:

By posting my current situation with an employee I am in charge of, some people have shown themselves to believe that anybody they consider poor can do no wrong and those around them who are better off can do no right.

Let's go over what I said again:

No one is saying all poor are blameless. What we are advocating is that it doesn't matter. We are to take care of them anyway. I once again challenge you to bring up scripture that actually contradicts this point.

I also pointed to four business owners and explained how they get it right. So yeah....I didn't come anywhere close to saying what you're accusing me of.

It isn"t a bad thing to ask employers to pay certian people $10.00 / hr. and no less. But unless you make it a law and enforce it with a vengence, you will not get enough employers on board to make a difference. And if you did, many places will automate thier work all the more and only those fortunate enough to make the cut will have the jobs.

Once again, this is proven wrong by emperical fact and I never called for a mandatory $10 an hour. Let's go over this again:

I stated very clearly that teenagers and college students don't need high wages. Those who are older do. I pointed to the example of Chick Fil-A, Quik Trip, Alan Ross (who owns and opperates Kingdom Companies, which implies this business model), and David Hodge (president of a local bank)....all of these companies do what I'm advocating and their businesses are destroying everyone else in their field where they are located. They have the highest wages per employee, but they also have the highest customer service rate and highest gross income....your theory that this would collapse a business has been shot down by historical models.

Unfortunately though, you are right that some employers would not go for this (it would require a temporary loss in funds). That, however, would be to their disadvantage. It would be hard to get workers when the place down the street is hiring for more.

Not only this, but here in CA, labor laws forbid such discrimination. A certian job pays X amount with pay raises allowed after certian probation periods. We cannot start a one person at $7.50 / hr because he does not have a family and another at $10 becuaes he does. It is against the law here in CA.

California has absurd labour laws to begin with, and this should be challenged. What it does is it forces a forty year old who just got laid off to have to take a cut in pay to the same level of a sixteen year old, which is just absurd. Graduated beginning pay should be allowed. Since it is not in California, what I would suggest is increasing the pay significantly after the probation period.

Applying this to Ford, had Ford followed this model years ago, it would not find itself in this situation. If you build a good relationship with your employees, you don't have to worry about Unions. Look to the Ford of old, where employees were treated great. Unfortunately, around the 50's, this philosophy was turned upside down and due to this unions formed. Unions are great, but if they are left in tact, they only destroy everything around them. The job of an employer should be to get rid of Unions or prevent them from occuring (in other words, destroy their need for existance).

[apothanein kerdos]

It is still a lack of planning. It isnt really the consumer so much as it was the planning.

Look to what GM has done to Saturn. In 1995, Saturn came out with a hybrid car, well before anyone else. What does GM do, they axe it. So yeah, their planning does have a lot to do with the destruction....but so does the fact they allowed the unions to exist. Planning can be fixed...unions are harder.

[ted]

AK, I hear you. You bring up some great points, it's just that I think Bernie does, too.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with either philosophy.

The trick in leadership is to not only apply the same standard to everyone, but to treat each individual according to their strengths and needs.

I'll have to differ much of this to Bernie, as he is the one that knows the guy the best between the three of us.

Thanks.

Marnie,

Me, I'm feelin' pretty good. Got word Dad landed safely at an undisclosed location...again. Praise the Lord. Bring him back alive.

Praise God!

My thoughts and prayers are with him and you.

He'll be home soon enough.

t.

[apothanein kerdos]

It is still a lack of planning. It isnt really the consumer so much as it was the planning.

Look to what GM has done to Saturn. In 1995, Saturn came out with a hybrid car, well before anyone else. What does GM do, they axe it. So yeah, their planning does have a lot to do with the destruction....but so does the fact they allowed the unions to exist. Planning can be fixed...unions are harder.

The buying public is very fickle. Now that Gas is almost $3.00 / gal. They scream "it's a gas guzzler!" When they buy more fuel efficient models, they scream "It's gutless!" and "It's too small!"

Toyota isn't off the hook either. I recently replaced my 1975 Jeep J-10 that I was drivinh with a 99 Toyota tacoma 4X4. Parking it next to an old Datsun truck from the 60's you get an idea of how much these small pickups grew over the years. Toyota now refers to the tacoma as a Mid Size truck, it is actually closer to the older T-100!

As a result, fuel economy has suffered. An 88 Toyota 4X4 is rated at 26 MPG, My Tacoma is rated at 21MPG. If I slow down to 60, I can get 23, even 24. The 2006 Tacomas are now officially the same sizs as the T-100. The dealers assure us that engine technology has ket the fuel economy loss to a minimum in spite of the icreased vehicle wieght.

Imagine how much more fuel efficient a 2500 lb 88 Toyota Pu will get if it is backfitted wuth a modern engine. The 4X4 aslo comes with a 2.7L I4 instead of a 2.4L. This is due to consumer complaints "Its gutless!".

We shall see what happens when Scion comes out with a compact PU next year. Whats old is new again!

Agreed...but part of the other problem is that we are so utterly reliant on oil. Likewise, there are hybrid alternatives where you dont' have to sacrifice power or size. Unfortunately, Americans have become materialistic and not economically or enviromentally smart. Had we cared more for our limited resources instead of letting materialism take control, we would not have this problem.

At some point, everyone is to blame. Such is the state of the fallen world.

[RGR]

I'm happy with my 88 Olds Regency 98 with it's 3.8L engine, lol! 322K miles on it (original motor) and it still purs right along w/o a miss! Starts right off first thing-you can't kill those 3.8 engines, lol!

[MrSealedEternal]

A fickle buying public is just as much to blame as anything else. The Big 3 had plans to retire the V-8 engine. GM had plans to make the 87 Corvette the last V-8 production car.

Chrysler actually had an add where Ricardo Montoban would proclaim "Our four cylinder K-Cars! with turbo power so great, you will never go back to a V-8 again!"

Remember those adds?

Chevy introduced the S-10 pickuo ans S-10 Blazer, these early trucks came with a 2.5L I 4 or a 2.8L V-6 and were rated at 28 MPG.

Ford introduced the Ranger and Bronco 2 with a 2.3L I 4 or 2.9L V-6

Along with the Taurus, GM X cars, and Chrysler K cars, The Big 3 were ready to send the Asians back accross the pond with their tailpipes tucked between thier rear wheels.

What happened?.....Well

The GM X cars and Chrysler K cars were complete and total lemons....Period

The S-10, Ranger, Blazer, and Bronco 2's came with feedback carbs and a lot of vacume operated smog devices. As they got older vacume leaks and carb problems plagued them.

Besides, even the V-6's were gutless.

By the time the S-10, Blazer, Ranger, & bronco 2's recieved fuel injection, thier reputations were already in the tank. to make matters worse, fuel injection increased engine power but the engines were not able to take the increase in horse power. Gm's 2.8L V-6 had a weak bottom end and a weak top end. Ford's 2.9 L V-6 was known to crack heads. Gm's 2.5L I4 was a two valve pushrod operated dinosaur, it was gutless and guzzled more gas than it's Asian counterparts.

Then, the Iraq - Iran war produced an oil glut. Both nations being at war, in need of the "Three B's" (Beans, bullets, bandages) were selling all the oil they could produce in order to fund thier military. Happy days were here again! Everybody went back to full size trucks and SUV's. The Big 3 scrapped plans to scrap the V-8 and came out with new versions.

The Jeep Cherokee, originally designed to be more fuel efficient ended up with a V-8 shoehorned into an engine compartment designed for a 4L I6.

The S-10 & Ranger were fitted with 4.3L & 4.0L V-6's that could put out the power without "Grenading" The Bronco 2 gave way to the bigger, heavier, and less fuel efficient Explorer.

So here we are. OPEC has regained the foothold they lost during the Iraq- Iran War, China & India are in the demans game, Gas is now $3.00 / gallon.

The Big 3 (If you still want to include the German owned one) have a less than stellar reputation for building fuel efficient variants of their best trucks.

Toyota, Nissan, and Mitsibusi, along with other Asians are known for building economical cars and trucks that last a long time.

You mine as well of wrote half of your post in Japanese, as far as I'm concerned... , but you forgot Hondas. Does anyone know if Koreans are manufacturing any cars?

Mrs. SE

Edited February 1, 2006 by MrSealedEternal

[apothanein kerdos]

and KIA

[MrSealedEternal]

Thank You Kindly, Bernie & AK.

My mom filled my head with stories of the South Korea she left behind...the one with dirt roads, dirt floors and bicycles. When she came to the US to stay with her sister, she met my dad while working in a bakery. To hear her tell it, he had a real car, an actual bank account with some money in it(probably would make me laugh if I knew the amount , especially because of the rate of inflation ), and when he took her to Mc Donald's for hamburgers, he just seemed like he was some kind of a king . The hamburgers were so odelicious to her. She says she had never tasted anything like them before. How she grew up, she explains, is that they would have meat maybe 1 to 2 times a month, in some soup, and it was soo delicious and a very special treat. Oh, how I wish you could hear her accent...Hyundi, Dewoo, and KIA ...now that definately does sound Korean. Aye ya... !

God Bless,

Mrs. SE