# To all you truck plant guys



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Sorry for your loss man .. Having grown up in the 'shwa ..I know that times are going to be tough for everybody. 

Hope nobody has to sell stuff they don't want to.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

shoretyus said:


> Sorry for your loss man .. Having grown up in the 'shwa ..I know that times are going to be tough for everybody.
> 
> Hope nobody has to sell stuff they don't want to.



You think there would be more jobs in the compact car lines. If all those would be truck owners are opting for compacts instead the same amount of vehicles need to be made. I hope for the workers sake this is at least partially true.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

But unfortuneately there are no good north american car makers - once they start loosing their truck sales to the imports, the game will be over. I thought that Crysler might have had a chance for a while there, but their products don't stand up.

Maybe Toyota or Honda will open something up in the area?


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

They should have paid attention decades ago. I feel no pity for them. Especially the unions. Toyota and Honda seem to be doing fine sans unions. Sound design and engineering goes a long way.:smilie_flagge17:

CT.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

CocoTone said:


> They should have paid attention decades ago. I feel no pity for them. Especially the unions. Toyota and Honda seem to be doing fine sans unions. Sound design and engineering goes a long way.:smilie_flagge17:
> 
> CT.


Wow! I guess empathy isn't your strong point?

While its fair to level that accusation at the upper management of GM and Ford, I dont think you can really blame it on the average worker at the plant? I hate to see what this will do the local economies of Oshawa etc.


----------



## Tarl (Feb 4, 2006)

I think North American automobiles are going to go the way N.A. TVs, stereos, appliances etc have gone.....Japan, Korea, Taiwan. China....... Bad product has a history of getting rid of itself. I know N.A. cars and trucks are improving but it's too little too late.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I feel bad for anyone who is a member of a union through no choice of their own.

The overhead at Detroit Three plants is higher than at the Japanese and Korean OEMS.

They are also too strongly oriented to SUVs and trucks.

The top ten fuel efficient cars are all Toyota, Honda and Nissan, mostly hybrids. The only conventional car in the ten is the Honda Civic.


Good luck to all of the CAW guys who will lose their jobs. It could happen to any of us and it's not a laughing matter.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> But unfortuneately there are no good north american car makers - once they start loosing their truck sales to the imports, the game will be over. I thought that Crysler might have had a chance for a while there, but their products don't stand up.
> 
> Maybe Toyota or Honda will open something up in the area?


Nope.

Toyota is opening another plant in Woodstock and Honda is opeing a third plant at Alliston (an engine plant).

That will be it. There's a significant overcapacity of auto production worldwide. It's now survival of the fittest.

Watch for Chrysler to go down and be sold off piece meal. GM and Ford may survive but they will not regain their former status in our lifetimes.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> You seem to assume that the traditional American Automobile manufacturers have a valid small car design either ready to go, or in the works. I think they are a year or two away from that.
> 
> Dodge Omni / Plymouth Horizon anyone????


I'm looking at a Honda Fit to replace my old junker cavelier. I'd like to replace the Van I just bought with hybrid. I've driven GM almost exclusively for the last 20 years. But not much longer.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Hamm Guitars said:


> But unfortuneately there are no good north american car makers...


You hit the nail on the head why the industry is doomed.

Survival of the fittest.

I just hope all you working in the industry can get something decent for work :frown:

Cheers!


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Still feel sorry for the " workers".. reguardless on the economics.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

The workers will get a decent severance. Its amazing that a co. that big, can ignore the market trends for so long, and keep producing sub-standard products and then wonder what happened to them. 

CT.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2008)

It happened back in the mid 70's too.
All three were complacent and built
shoddy vehicles. Datsun and Honda
started bringing in compacts and the
rest, as they say, is history. Part of
the problem is that while NA accepts
imports, they don't encourage exports
enough.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

I was going to go on about how other countries don't buy stupid, outrageous vehicles made in North America, and then I saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnXwQbxNeGA

I especially like the "Owning a Hummer is like dating a difficult woman" part.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

We are no longer the market we once were. Internationally, GM (and the others) are looking to places like China and India where there are few cars and an inflow of money. They're shifting their production to these places because it's economical - if the bulk of your future sales will be in China and it costs half as much to make the product there as here then why the heck would you make it here?


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

It's not only the Oshawa plant that will close , you'll see a domino effect that will put others out of work at out sourcing plants as well . 

Bad times ahead I'm afraid and yes the NA auto makers have had their heads buried in the sand for too long . They should have seen change was needed several years ago and been on top of it . 

No it's not the average auto workers fault totally but high wages and benefits/pensions costs to the auto makers are part of the issue in the big picture .


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

nitehawk55 said:


> It's not only the Oshawa plant that will close , you'll see a domino effect that will put others out of work at out sourcing plants as well .
> 
> Bad times ahead I'm afraid and yes the NA auto makers have had their heads buried in the sand for too long . They should have seen change was needed several years ago and been on top of it .
> 
> No it's not the average auto workers fault totally but high wages and benefits/pensions costs to the auto makers are part of the issue in the big picture .


The general rule of thumb is that for every job lost in an auto plant, seven other jobs are lost or severely reduced a a result. Presumably this includes suppliers and service providers.

It's hard to change such a fundamental paradigm as union orientation, maybe as hard as it is to change someone's religious views.

I take NO pleasure in seeing people lose their jobs, but this is not a surprise to me or anyone else I've spoken to in the industry.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

If I am not mistaken, Honda and Toyota have sucessfully ventured into the full size truck market.


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

The days of the automobile oriented economy is over. Now it is and will be much more diversified. 
This is going to reshape the economy of Ontario and cause a lot of grief and upheaval in people's lives. I wish them all much luck. It is definitely not an easy thing to have to go through.
All in all, I wouldn't touch a GM vehicle ever again. My sister in law got shafted a few years ago on faulty head gaskets that GM eventually just said we will no long fix these. I got shafted on an engine with piston slap that GM claimed was OK for a vehilce, my fault as I did not do enough checking before I bought BUT - GM Bulls**tted their way out of owning up to a shoddy product. And now there is a faulty gasket problem with the exhaust manifold that GM will not fix under any warranty plan.
And now the closing of plants so recently after negotiating and signing a new contract with CAW rather than being honest and up front about their problems and plans. 
Doesn't dishonesty seem to be a recurring theme here with GM??
Never, never, never again will I ever spend ANY money on a GM product.
In the future when buying a vehicle I will make sure that it is manufacturered in Canada, to support Canadian workers.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

RIFF WRATH said:


> If I am not mistaken, Honda and Toyota have sucessfully ventured into the full size truck market.




Toyota has.

It's hard to call the Honda Ridgeline a full sized truck. In terms of size, it's big, but the box bed is pretty small. It's almost a mix between an SUV and a pickup.


Nevertheless, big vehicles from all Auto makers are suffering. Thos ewho haqve well respected small cars are seeing increases in requirements. Civic requirements are way up this month and more capacity is coming on line in Indiana.


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

AFAIK Canadian Auto Workers are as good as, or better than, any on the planet, not just in terms of quality but also in delivering on time and on budget.

The big problem is the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, contractors aren't working, so they aren't buying trucks.

GM has to get its head out of its ass on design, retool the plant to make vehicles the buying public actually want, at a price they can afford, and get these people back doing what we do better than anyone.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

dwagar said:


> AFAIK Canadian Auto Workers are as good as, or better than, any on the planet, not just in terms of quality but also in delivering on time and on budget.
> 
> The big problem is the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US, contractors aren't working, so they aren't buying trucks.
> 
> GM has to get its head out of its ass on design, retool the plant to make vehicles the buying public actually want, at a price they can afford, and get these people back doing what we do better than anyone.


It's not a matter of Canadian Auto workers being good or not. The overhead at CAW and UAW plants is 20% higher than at the new Big three. Design is definitely a facor, but not the only one.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

CocoTone said:


> They should have paid attention decades ago. I feel no pity for them. Especially the unions. Toyota and Honda seem to be doing fine sans unions. Sound design and engineering goes a long way.:smilie_flagge17:
> 
> CT.


Brutal, man... just brutal


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> It's not a matter of Canadian Auto workers being good or not. The overhead at CAW and UAW plants is 20% higher than at the new Big three. Design is definitely a facor, but not the only one.


Agreed - the legacy costs are huge. 

GM has to try and deal with 4x the workforce (including the retired), honoring/changing collective agreements they can no longer support and finding new purposes for old factories that were built when cars and wallets were big. Toyota et al aren't saddled with these problems - they've got new, efficient factories and tooling, the right-sized and right-paid workforce for the times and no retirees to concern themselves with.

GM lost money on every small car it sold and offset that by selling the big stuff at a profit while the foreign guys learned everything there was to know about profitably making small cars - and then handed us our hats.

It's a sad day for Rockn'Roll too. Can you imagine the Boss singing "Barefoot girl sittin on the hood of a Prius"?

Seger once proclaimed "Back in 59 we were making Thunderbirds". Today where I live, GM's down from 12,000 employees to less than a quarter of that and we're proudly running casinos, turning pillows and making wine.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Everyone needs to remember one thing before attacking the unions. They have what they have because the company gave it to them. They do not own the company and they do not make executive decisions on the path that the company chooses to take. All the gains that were made for the labour force were made during fabulous times for the big three. They were making so much money they had run out of places to put it. So when the unions hit them up for higher wages and all the benefits that they have now, the company said "no problem, we can afford it. The rest we will pass on to the idiot buyer to pay".

Decisions made by the company, or lack of... (not the workforce) got GM, Ford and DCX into trouble. That along with the natural evolution of a global economy and simply more players in the game. GM should have known years ago that their portion of the pie was going to get smaller. They should have made plans for it. They were arrogant and thought they would simply maintain their market share. 

Can't blame the unions for what is happening now. it was going to happen no matter what. How much do you want these guy's to make? The quality argument is nonsense. The 70's and 80's are well past us. The quality gap was closed years ago. Styling? thats what the kids buy... not the nameplate. I would wager that about 2% of car owners under the age of 25 even know whats under the hood of their car and could care less. Brand allegiance is dead, has been for years.

Beleive it or not, I have talked to car salesmen that did not know the powerplant in a car they were selling. I even came across one that did not know the Chevy Aveo he was trying to Lease the GF was made in Korea. So what's up folks?


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> .........GM lost money on every small car it sold and offset that by selling the big stuff at a profit while the foreign guys learned everything there was to know about profitably making small cars - and then handed us our hats....


I don't know about teaching the rest of the world about making econo boxes. I think that North America is one of the only places that has an abundance of land and a new infrastructure (Roads, highways etc).

I can think of at least a dozen countries that made small cars long before North America ever had in inkling of going that way - I think it took the gas crisis in the seventies for North America to see the comon sense in the small car. Other countries needed small cars out of necessity long before we did.

Adolf Hitler designed the first small affordable car (arguably) for the masses in 1933. GM didn't respond until the sixties with the Corvair.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Everyone needs to remember one thing before attacking the unions. They have what they have because the company gave it to them.


Yes. The alternative to not giving the unions what they want is intimidation and violence. And they just won't plaing work. And if someone tries to do the job they refuse for the money offered then more intimidation and violence.
With any luck unions will go the way of the doh doh bird.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Hamm Guitars said:


> I can think of at least a dozen countries that made small cars long before North America ever had in inkling of going that way



Well, yeah!. One of our SUVs would get stuck in between 2 buildings in most places in Europe.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Hasn't Gm been keeping the company afloat by financing profits?


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> Hasn't Gm been keeping the company afloat by financing profits?


GMAC brings in a lot of profits as does other financing by other car companies such as Ford motor credit .


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nitehawk55 said:


> GMAC brings in a lot of profits as does other financing by other car companies such as Ford motor credit .


GM sold the majority ownership in GMAC over two years ago. Another frantic move to stop the bleeding.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

nitehawk55 said:


> GMAC brings in a lot of profits as does other financing by other car companies such as Ford motor credit .


Not at 0 % .


CT.


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Brutal, man... just brutal


But factual. Can't ingore the truth can you.

CT.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

CocoTone said:


> Not at 0 % .
> 
> 
> CT.


You don't get anything for free . Financing costs are buried in the sale price .


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

While I have sympathy for anyone losing a job I have no love for unions.

Put in simple terms, if I have to use the threat of work stoppage (strike) to receive fair treatment from my employer, why in heavens name would I want to work for them?

Also, the deliberate aversion to work I have witnessed first hand in union shops in undeniable. Unions protect the weakes and worst employees because they're the ones who bellyache the loudest. 

"slow down, or you'll work yourself ou of a job" is a VERY common mindset in union shops.

Of course not all members of unions are members by choice and for those who aren't, I have even greater sympathy.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> The big party at Harmony Square this weekend is an example of what a Union or Professional Association can do. The City of Brantford initially refused to pay musicians for the street dance on Saturday night. *The sound guy is getting paid*, the security is getting paid, the guy providing portable toilets is getting paid, the clean up crew is getting paid. But for some reason, the city did not want to pay musicians. The budget for the event is close to $50 000.00. (When The Sanderson Center had it's grand opening 18 years ago, Anne Murray was paid $100 000.00, so the city is not above paying for talent.)
> 
> The Brantford Musicians Association lobbied heavily on behalf of local professional musicians, and the city is now paying musicians at the Harmony Square grand opening. Two of the five bands are BMA members, and the other three are not. ALL musicians, regardless of membership, are being paid for their services that night. That would not have happened without a professional association acting with a unified voice. Sadly, none of the non-member bands have made an effort to say thank you for the BMA standing up for the rights of musicians to be paid for their work.



FYI, the "sound guy" (me) is a private contractor and is being paid because he negotiated on his own behalf. The AFM (or BMA if you like) did not have to work on my behalf.

Had I wanted to perform instead of provide production, I would have bargained on my own or declined the show. Amazingly I have managed to play thousands of gigs over the past few decades whithout the "benefit" of collective bargaining.

Just my spin on the whole thing.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Paul said:


> Have you seen the documentary "The Corporation"? That is a fine example of how big businesses tend to work. In a perfect world we wouldn't need the protection of trade unions and collective agreements, but we don't live in that world.
> 
> My wife is a teacher, so I hear a lot of that side of the coin. Students have now figured out that to get a teacher they don't like out of the classroom all they have to do is make an allegation of abuse or inappropriate conduct of any kind against that teacher. (this may seem extreme, but I personally know 3 teachers that were suspended in the last three years for accusations that were eventually shown to be false.)
> 
> ...


As far as allegations of abuse. We are all at the mercy of that. Any kid at any time can accuse us of that falsey. I had some very bad dealings with my children in the past with inappropriate behaviour from teachers. As it was not of a sexual nature they pretty much got away with it thanks to the unions. Unions advocate on behalf of a worker at all costs without consideration of the detriment it may cause for others. 
As for the Brantford Musicians Union. Don't make me laugh. The last time I was a member of the Brantford Musicians Union was many years ago as I sat in the office while the leader of our band logged a complaint about a bar owner that did not pay us.the answer we got was "Go through your own lawyer its quicker". They basically were no help whatsoever. When the band leader asked if we had to pay the work dues on the gig. He said "Oh yes. You still have to pay the work dues". I haven't belonged to the musicians union since then. Big waste. They did once approach our band in a local bar to try and collect from us. I told them to take there grubby little paws out of my face. That was the last I ever heard from them. I have been in many bands over the years. Some belonged to the union. I told them I will not belong to the musicians union. They usually ended up just paying out of their own pocket for a work permit for me as they wanted to stay in good standing with the union. As far as I'm concerned from what I've seen over the years the Musicians union is not about what they can do for the regular bar playing musician but about how much money they can bilk out of our pockets. They may do some real good for musicians in an orchestra or that have jobs of that type but for us regular joes they are a rip off.
As for the Harmony Square thing., I'm not sure I'd say thank you for scale either. There are Unions that really get things done for their members and get them the money they deserve. The Brantford Musicians Union is not one of them. I've played the last 18 years without unions. Both full time and part time. I've never needed the musicians union and they've proven there isn't one thing they would do for me anyway. So what is the point of giving them money?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Had I wanted to perform instead of provide production, I would have bargained on my own or declined the show. Amazingly I have managed to play thousands of gigs over the past few decades whithout the "benefit" of collective bargaining.
> 
> Just my spin on the whole thing.


EXACTLY!!!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> While I have sympathy for anyone losing a job I have no love for unions.
> 
> Put in simple terms, if I have to use the threat of work stoppage (strike) to receive fair treatment from my employer, why in heavens name would I want to work for them?
> 
> ...


Again, it all comes back to what the employer will allow the worker to get away with. Case in point. I was hired by GM in 1983. Back then things were going great for the auto makers. The plant I worked in was (by today's standards) way over staffed in labour and salary staff. There were three admin staff for every two managers. On the lines they had guys to cover for the guys that were covering for the guy that had to take a piss. On afternoons and nights you had to stake out your "bed" early as to not lose it to someone else. There were literally dozens of people sleeping in the change rooms on benches and on the floor. There were makeshift beds and bedrooms all over the plant. Is that the fault of the worker or the company? Of course it's the companies fault. Do you think for one minute that all these things were going on without the knowledge of the boss? They did not care. There were enough people to get the job done and at teh end of the shift the numbers were made. That was all that counted. If you made your quota at 8:00 in the evening they could care less where you were until 11:00 p.m.

If I go through that same plant today, it is completely streamlined and there is no waste of any kind, labour or materials. The same guys I was hired with back in '83 are still there and not one of them complain. Things have changed and they know it. Change the rules and everyone changes with them. There have been no strikes at that plant since 1983 and the workforce is highly capable.

People want to work, they want to make a living and feed their family. There are always radicals in any group but the majority of these guys just want to make a living. They (the workers) have been under constant threat of losing their jobs since 1994 and they continue to do everything that is asked of them. Management continues to drill into them on a daily basis that their very survival is at risk every day. Try living under those conditions for 14 years. I left in 1994 and was glad I did. But I have many friends still there and hear first hand what goes on. It's a nightmare. 

So all the gains made in years past were what the market could bare and what the company was willing to give. The bomb has fallen and now its the worker that suffers, not the execs. Any of those that got canned walked away with millions in severance.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Again, it all comes back to what the employer will allow the worker to get away with. Case in point. I was hired by GM in 1983. Back then things were going great for the auto makers. The plant I worked in was (by today's standards) way over staffed in labour and salary staff. There were three admin staff for every two managers. On the lines they had guys to cover for the guys that were covering for the guy that had to take a piss. On afternoons and nights you had to stake out your "bed" early as to not lose it to someone else. There were literally dozens of people sleeping in the change rooms on benches and on the floor. There were makeshift beds and bedrooms all over the plant. Is that the fault of the worker or the company? Of course it's the companies fault. Do you think for one minute that all these things were going on without the knowledge of the boss? They did not care. There were enough people to get the job done and at teh end of the shift the numbers were made. That was all that counted. If you made your quota at 8:00 in the evening they could care less where you were until 11:00 p.m.
> 
> If I go through that same plant today, it is completely streamlined and there is no waste of any kind, labour or materials. The same guys I was hired with back in '83 are still there and not one of them complain. Things have changed and they know it. Change the rules and everyone changes with them. There have been no strikes at that plant since 1983 and the workforce is highly capable.
> 
> ...



Do you really think that people who are sleeping on the job really want to work? 

Regardless of your statement that management knew about it (hard to deny) the guy sleeping is the problem and he or she is protected by the union.

I'm proud to say I have NEVER slept on the job and may I be struck dead in my tracks the day I do.


See the difference between a Union plant and a non-union plant is that people would be fired or at very least written up (yup even non-union plants must use progressive discipline).

This is one of those discussions that will never resolve itself. It's as fundamental to our core values as religion and politics.

No offence intended on my part by the way. I hope those workers affected by the plant closures who deserve to work ar able to do so. Any sack of poo who sleeps while he's supposed to be working, simply because he can get away with it, has different ethics than I do.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Milkman said:


> Do you really think that people who are sleeping on the job really want to work?
> 
> Regardless of your statement that management knew about it (hard to deny) the guy sleeping is the problem and he or she is protected by the union.
> 
> ...


No offense taken at all, Mike. But you missed my point on that one. There was no work to do. The schedules and plant were set-up so that it was a numbers and quota game. The supervisors were tasked with producing x amount of product per shift. if that quota was met, they could care less what the worker did afterward. There was no incentive to do anything else. So the culture was dictated by managements own procedures. BTW, I myself prefered the poker games in the cafeteria over having a nap.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> no incentive


This should be the dictionary definition for the word "Union"


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> No offense taken at all, Mike. But you missed my point on that one. There was no work to do. The schedules and plant were set-up so that it was a numbers and quota game. The supervisors were tasked with producing x amount of product per shift. if that quota was met, they could care less what the worker did afterward. There was no incentive to do anything else. So the culture was dictated by managements own procedures. BTW, I myself prefered the poker games in the cafeteria over having a nap.


Believe it or not, I have quit jobs because there was not enough to do.

It's sort of a co-dependency thing. Management is intimidated by the union and is unable to take steps to correct staffing imbalances.

I'll be the first to say that the Detroit Three are horrendously managed in tems of inventory and production planning. Add the CAW / UAW to that and in my opinion you have a recipe for failure.

It's pretty much accepted within the suppliers of Japanese OEMs that suplying Detroit Three OEMs is undesireable for the same reasons. 

Sad but true I assure you.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

Being a past GM truck plant employee my condolences go out to the workers. But from past expierences with GM I do not believe they will mothball the truck plant. GM plants have to bargain for there models, in 87 or 88 the truck plant pulled off the changeover to the short box extended cab with little disruption in the line. This won them the contract to make them up until now.
I believe that the truck plant will reopen in the future with a new line and a streamlined workforce. The GM plants in Oshawa have been tooled and designed to change products with minimal changes.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

PaulS said:


> Being a past GM truck plant employee my condolences go out to the workers. But from past expierences with GM I do not believe they will mothball the truck plant. GM plants have to bargain for there models, in 87 or 88 the truck plant pulled off the changeover to the short box extended cab with little disruption in the line. This won them the contract to make them up until now.
> I believe that the truck plant will reopen in the future with a new line and a streamlined workforce. The GM plants in Oshawa have been tooled and designed to change products with minimal changes.


I sincerely hope you're right.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I sincerely hope you're right.
> 
> :food-smiley-004:


The truck plant could be tooled to make energy effiecient cars, hybrids, whatever. The technology in these plants could allow the making of any vehicle with the changing of the tooling and reprogramming of the process. These plants are equiped with robots, agv's and mono rail systems that can be reprogrammed for production. It would seem a waste to let it sit idle when they could start producing affordable hybrids. Honda and toyota have been doing well with there new lines and are leaning more to hybrids. Workers are in a non union enviroment and are compensated as well as the unionized ones.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

Paul said:


> The Sanderson Center has an IATSE local...


That sent a shiver down my spine! 

Years ago I was on the IA Call list - what a racket that is.


----------

