American industry is failing primarily because safety standards are higher than abroad.
GM failed because they designed shoddy cars. The Unions had nothing to do with that (especially given that most of the union workers were rank-and-file factory workers who built exactly the shitty cars they were told to.)
Disagree. I've worked in that industry and the amount of union pressure to resist automation (read: loss of jobs) is intense. While Toyota, non-unionized as it is, automated the shit out of their production processes (thereby increasing reliability, IMHO the primary cause of their victory over American cars), GM was stuck with a far more manual labor force.
I've seen first-hand the failure rates between parts built by hand vs. built by machines. It's night and day (think 5-10x higher).
Bull. Toyota's mistake could have happened to anyone - all of the work relating to individual parts are done by subcontractors, and you would be surprised at how many subcontractors all of the large manufacturers share.
While the problem is certainly inexcusable, the gigantic hate-on that Toyota went through from Congress and the general public is mostly political. The anti-Toyota and andti-import sentiment is largely driven by politicians trying desperately to raise the desirability of American cars by spreading FUD about Japanese ones.
Exactly.....I've owned Toyota's exclusively for about 20 years now, with no problems. And I've never bought new, always used. Anyone that says American quality is comparable to Japanese is simply making it up. It's not that Americans can't do it, it's just that they don't.
Toyota had a massive recall, congressional hearings are standard for an issue of that magnitude and even you readily admit "the problem is certainly inexcusable."
I'm amazed you were uprated for real FUD with "politicians trying desperately to raise the desirability of American cars by spreading FUD about Japanese ones" with very little evidence, other than ill-will toward all U.S. politicians.
Pols grandstand during hearings, that's what they do -- the same American pols had zero problems grinding U.S. car makers into the dirt before the Toyota issues, in hearings. (Even Ford, which did not get a bailout was ground down in the Big 3 hearings).
I'd say any of the nationalism was driven far more by the media, who enjoy schadenfreude for ratings.
Toyota was targeted with cause as you agree, _and_ no other Japanese (or other foreign) car cos were affected although you push your FUD to the affect that Japanese carmakers were all targeted and not Toyota specifically.
Plenty of Toyotas are manufactured in the U.S. with U.S. work force http://www.autonews.com/article/20090112/ZZZ_SPECIAL/3011199..., and thus have the protection of the congress critters you deride and governors where those plants are located even wrote letters to congress in support of Toyota -- again going against your assertions of U.S. pols attacking Japanese auto-makers.
Further, the "cash for clunkers" in the U.S. did not discriminate against vehicles by company origin or manufacting location, although politicians could have tried to push real policies to affect sales by designing requirements to make U.S auto-makers more favorable....something that would hold tighter to your thesis.
Interestingly Japan did have a similar "cash for clunkers" program, but no U.S. makers qualified, b/c of the rules for fuel-efficiency http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=ar3R... . The U.S. automakers didn't qualify fair and square, However, of course they issued complaints and wanted examinations to ensure they had a shot at Japanese subsidies.
It's not the union's fault the American auto industry failed to adopt using more universal/standard parts across their range of vehicles, as opposed to favoring proprietary parts for each specific model (with the exception of engines). Only now, post-gov take-over, are they implementing these practices that should have been in place 20 years ago.
Their board also structured union benefits that favored short-term cuts over long-term costs.
And when times were good, GM placed its engineering efforts on Trucks and SUVs, and when gas was cheap. Unfortunately, they let everything from compacts to their luxury sedan lines decay.
GM's failure, to me, is more of a case of rotten corporate culture than a lesson against unions.
> GM failed because they designed shoddy cars. The Unions had nothing to do with that
If the overhead of dealing with unions adds some amount to your marginal costs, and you have to sell your vehicle for a competitive price, then you have to find a way to make a cheaper car than your competitors.
A cheaper car can happen through lower material costs, less R&D, etc, all of which lead to "shoddy cars."
I read somewhere that GM's union commitments added about $2,000 to the price of a car. Meaning that if you buy a GM automobile, $2,000 is going to union-related stuff, rather than buying extra features, better quality, a longer warranty, etc.
GM failed because they designed shoddy cars. The Unions had nothing to do with that (especially given that most of the union workers were rank-and-file factory workers who built exactly the shitty cars they were told to.)