Christ, tonight is just gut-wrenching. They've already built the last ones.

[lmfvf2ssredlineute]

You also have the privelage of going to work knowing that every possible step has been taken to ensure that your job is as safe and ergonomically comfortable as possible.

Workers have no self interst when it comes to keeping their job it would seem. Another week, another manufacturing business being held at ransom by the unions and the employees. At some point these low skilled workers need to wake up and realise they're not worth what they're being paid and the salary they are on is unsustainable in the long run.

i dont think a casual worker being unskilled and paid $21 per hr is unsustainable, most people that are casual are not even in a union
have no holiday pay no sick leave ,
to me thats a very low wage , you think thats too high?
people who have never worked in the industry have no idea of what goes on and the red tape waste,
its not a privilege to go to work and be told to use machinery thats uncomfortable and dangerous to use. built just to cover the company's ass.
i remember when workcover reps used to be inspectors old guys with years of industry experience then they changed to fresh out kids of uni with no workplace experience.
so you can imagine the things that got put into workplaces and plants that are a waste of time and money ,
people need to wake up to what to really goes on in the manufacturing industry and not believe every thing they read from there computer screen ,
i think someone here on this forum quoted $150k wages and thats simply not true
thats why companies move manufacturing overseas its cheaper, and to say the same car built here cost only $10 cheaper to build overseas is rubbish.

 

[Sabbath']

i dont think a casual worker being unskilled and paid $21 per hr is unsustainable, most people that are casual are not even in a union
have no holiday pay no sick leave ,
to me thats a very low wage , you think thats too high?

$21/hr casual isnt what we're talking about. The average salary of a production line worker in the manufacturing sector at Holden for instance, was around the $70,000 mark from memory. Which is closer to $35/hour so stop underquoting figures or bringing non-relevent info in.

Compare that to a mechanic, fully qualified where the wage can be anywhere from $19-$28 an hour, but more than usual it's under the $25 an hour mark.

people who have never worked in the industry have no idea of what goes on and the red tape waste,
its not a privilege to go to work and be told to use machinery thats uncomfortable and dangerous to use. built just to cover the company's ass.

Oh you poor little petal, uncomfortable to have to use something that makes your job easier. Try lifting 4WD tyres, installing gearboxes in FWD cars, removing straight 6 cylinder heads off diesel vehicles all with no mechanical help, in an unclimate controlled workshop.

All this, for much less than somebody who has been given all the tools to make their job comfortable and easier. And you're complaining about it. Wow, sook much?

i remember when workcover reps used to be inspectors old guys with years of industry experience then they changed to fresh out kids of uni with no workplace experience.

And we also used to think that asbestos was fine to just blow around with air guns because that's how the old guys always did it.

so you can imagine the things that got put into workplaces and plants that are a waste of time and money ,
people need to wake up to what to really goes on in the manufacturing industry and not believe every thing they read from there computer screen

Typical attitude of somebody with no idea or care for the risk that a business owner/company takes.

i think someone here on this forum quoted $150k wages and thats simply not true

Yes, one person said that.

thats why companies move manufacturing overseas its cheaper, and to say the same car built here cost only $10 cheaper to build overseas is rubbish.

Not to mention whining employees who throw back perfect job opportunities, entitlements and conditions back in their face. I'd shut the doors too on principal to teach the people who have been throwing it back in my face all this just how good they had it.

 

[lmfvf2ssredlineute]

i am talking from experience having worked in the industry, dana a component manufacturing company for the auto industry use to make parts for ford and toyota and holden yes the casual rate was $21hr casual, non union work shop
you will find that the components suppliers workers would not be anywhere near $35 hr full time
are you forgetting these people, thats why holden , ford and toyota all contracted most of there parts to be made outside
they all cut there workforces down while the components work forces grew
and gm, ford toyota really screw over the components companies on price
so when you say car workers get huge wages ect ect you have to look at the industry as a whole to understand holdens workforce is just a small part of it,
there were tens of thousands of car workers supplying holden with parts for your commodore working in the supply chain on $21hr or there abouts.
lots of people mouth off about car workers, but dont really dont have any experience or understanding of the industry except from what they have read in a arm chair.
i have another funny example form ford for you
at ford broadmeadows in the 70s management ripped out the dunny doors and replaced them with half doors
yes thats right as you walked in you could see anyone sitting having a crap
all done to shorten lost time of people in the toilets when bosses did a walk through
now thats called time in motion lol

 

[Sabbath']

i am talking from experience having worked in the industry, dana a component manufacturing company for the auto industry use to make parts for ford and toyota and holden yes the casual rate was $21hr casual, non union work shop

Mmmhm, as i said. Still a good wage for non-skilled considering the alternative for brain power is flipping burgers for a few bucks less.

you will find that the components suppliers workers would not be anywhere near $35 hr full time

And it shouldnt be, either.

are you forgetting these people, thats why holden , ford and toyota all contracted most of there parts to be made outside
they all cut there workforces down while the components work forces grew

And do you wonder why? Considering the wage difference and tooling costs to get an outside company to create something rather than doing it in house. Is any of this making sense that you're actually making a GREAT case for moving manufacturing away from Australia?

and gm, ford toyota really screw over the components companies on price

Pay less for the parts, get more profit from the final car. Not that hard to do the maths on that one.

so when you say car workers get huge wages ect ect you have to look at the industry as a whole to understand holdens workforce is just a small part of it


there were tens of thousands of car workers supplying holden with parts for your commodore working in the supply chain on $21hr or there abouts.

Do you have proof of that figure? Or is this like somebody stating that line workers were making $150k a year? Complete fabricated bullshit.

lots of people mouth off about car workers, but dont really dont have any experience or understanding of the industry except from what they have read in a arm chair.

You dont need to have worked in an industry to see that it's running itself to an untenable position financially. An outside perspective is sometimes the best.

i have another funny example form ford for you
at ford broadmeadows in the 70s management ripped out the dunny doors and replaced them with half doors
yes thats right as you walked in you could see anyone sitting having a crap
all done to shorten lost time of people in the toilets when bosses did a walk through
now thats called time in motion lol

And that's a bad thing? Or just proof of laziness in the workforce that measures like that had to be taken? Can pretty much guarantee they wouldnt have those issues in Thailand or the like.

 

[Forg]

You dont need to have worked in an industry to see that it's running itself to an untenable position financially. An outside perspective is sometimes the best.

Only if the outside perspective is allowed to see the facts, and not just the spin.

TBH I don't know what to believe. But if Rangers don't cost that much more to build here than Thailand, there's politics afoot.

 

[tml678]

While it’s definitely more expensive to build in a first-world country, the amount of that extra cost is negligible compared to what the things are sold for. $10 per vehicle is the order of magnitude you’re talking about; even in the USA that’s an insignificant amount.

Every other first world country subsidises their car industry. There is no reason why our government couldn’t have continued doing so. I’m a liberal voter through and through, but I am so gutted by the poor decisions they made in regards to our brand.

 

[Calaber]

It's true that other governments subsidise their car industry but their car makers are THEIRS. Ours was always owned by US or Japanese companies.

I think that subsidies might have continued if our car companies had been truly Australian owned but pouring money in to help overseas companies build cars here, then reap any profits to no real local benefit, no longer made sense.

And the companies had already arrived at decisions regarding the continuation of local production. It would only continue if the taxpayer kept subsidising foreign owned companies. Toyota in particular needs no subsidising. Their profits world wide are greater than many smaller economies' GNP.

 

[Forg]

I think that subsidies might have continued if our car companies had been truly Australian owned but pouring money in to help overseas companies build cars here, then reap any profits to no real local benefit, no longer made sense.

I thought that profit going to Australian component suppliers etc was still more than the subsidies?
So I think the country was coming out ahead, despite those subsidies; isn't the issue more rooted in economic theory which says that without the industry which needs a subsidy to survive, the employees there will theoretically get jobs in something that's more competitive ... and in theory, that's a greater profit for the economy than the positives resulting from subsidy?

Thing is that it does ignore everything apart from money; that's the bit I'm not sold on.

 

[426Cuda]

It's true that other governments subsidise their car industry but their car makers are THEIRS. Ours was always owned by US or Japanese companies.

I think that subsidies might have continued if our car companies had been truly Australian owned but pouring money in to help overseas companies build cars here, then reap any profits to no real local benefit, no longer made sense.

And the companies had already arrived at decisions regarding the continuation of local production. It would only continue if the taxpayer kept subsidising foreign owned companies. Toyota in particular needs no subsidising. Their profits world wide are greater than many smaller economies' GNP.

I understand why this is a common argument for not subsidising Holdsn. But I strongly disagree with it. Profits are not irrelevant, but they don't factor heavily into Govt decisions on which industries or companies to support. Unless they're so cashed up, they dont need suport, of course. Shareholders own companies, not the country or the government. The shareholders get the benefits of profits, through dividends and increased share holder value...share price. Strong company profits would reduce the need for govt subsidies... Not increase it. Even if 100% of profits remained in Australia. Which is an unrealsitic notion in itself.
Holden as a subsidiary was controlled by GM. Whether GM owned 51% or 100%, they had control of Holden. So they would make decisions that were best for the group. Best for the senior exec's, not best for Australia. If Holden was a stand alone company, it would still be listed on the ASX and would still have many, many different shareholders. The results would be the same.
The important factors are emploment of labour, consumption of materials, jobs, taxes, contribution to the GDP, all directly and indirectly, R&D, skill development, global competitiveness and the balance of payments for a big company like Holden with it's massive, but stymied export potential. Whether Holden was owned by GM, Chrysler, Ford or Australian investors. The case for Government subsidisation, to support the contribution the Company made to employment and the National wealth, directly and indirectly was still a very strong one.

Toyota closed up shop mainly because many of their suppliers were not viable, without the combined sales to Holden and Toyota.

 

[426Cuda]

I thought that profit going to Australian component suppliers etc was still more than the subsidies?
So I think the country was coming out ahead, despite those subsidies; isn't the issue more rooted in economic theory which says that without the industry which needs a subsidy to survive, the employees there will theoretically get jobs in something that's more competitive ... and in theory, that's a greater profit for the economy than the positives resulting from subsidy?

Thing is that it does ignore everything apart from money; that's the bit I'm not sold on.

I agree 100% on the subsidies being more value than other uses of the public capital Forg. It's the multiplier effect. But, many economic concepts, economic theory, rely on all other things being equal. They are not. Economics is theory. Pure and simple. If it was an exact science we'd all be studying Keynesian theory and consulting our economist. Not our accountants and finacial advisors. The GFC wouldn't have happend and employment and the economy would be quite stable. Adam Smith's invisible hand will not magically create meaningful employment in more profitable and nationally significant business for the vast majority of retrenched workers. Research the high level stats on re-emplotment of Mitsubishi and Ford workers. Into similar or equal roles. It's scary stuff, is reality.