Heebeegeetee the UK car industry now produces more cars than ever.
The health service was just as bad in the 70's as it is now, if you look at some of the election posters back then, many were about waiting lists.
The unions ruined the UK's own manufactures, the Rover SD1 production was crippled by the unions and so their best product in years couldn't be sold in the numbers required at the time.
|
>>the UK car industry now produces more cars than ever.<<
All foreign owned of course, 'cept the firms that no-body wants!
And I'm sure you knew what I was referring to.;-)
No way was the health service as bad in the 70's. It may not have been as good as we naievely believed it was, but no way as bad as now. I remeber being a patient of our local general in the early 70's and it was vastly cleaner, quieter etc than now. No MRSA etc. Mum and Dad weren't fleeced every time they parked their car in the hospital car park, either.
As someone who has followed the fortunes of the Brit car industry over the years, there are only two key elements to its failure: Lack of investment, and abysmal management. Everything else was sideparts, including the unions. The workforce was just another resource that had to be managed, but they were all mismanaged. To quote one man who was there at the time, "you can't build quality into bad design."
As a keen MG man, I am of course fully aware that the well behaved staff at the excellent Abingdon plant were rewarded by being the first to get the chop. And please don't blame the workers or unions, for the fact that in 1980 they were assembling virtually 20 year-old cars together. (The MG story is quite fascinating. Those MGB's you know, had travelled the length and breadth of southern England by the time they were fully built. The miles the delivery trucks were doing, returning fresh air, is beyond comprehension.)
I see our Xsaradriver is blaming the LandRover workers for the poor quality. No doubt many of those people are working alongside robots. Are they to blame as well?! If not, why not, surely they're only doing the same job?
|
"As someone who has followed the fortunes of the Brit car industry over the years, there are only two key elements to its failure: Lack of investment, and abysmal management. Everything else was sideparts, including the unions. "
I'm sorry that is just wildly misleading.
The first main factor was that Governments of all hues used the industry as a means of regulating economic output by HP curbs. So pre election there was a boom and post a bust .. for about 20 years. Not a stable way of managing an economy... I agree UK managements were poor but some (Ford ) were very good.. and what did they get at Dagenham for all their range of good new moidels.. union intransigence and wildcat strikes.
I agree BL and Jaguar were carp.. BUT...
madf
|
"Lack of investment"????
Tell that to BMW after they put in £1,000,000 per day they owned Rover.
Exactly how much would be enough?
|
I'm sorry, I'd just typed out a long essay on why I think we are so much worse off now without unions than we were in the 70's. But thanks to Norton antivirus its all been lost. Don't ask, I can't be bothered to explain. I certainly can't type all that out again.
All other sites of this nature that I use don't log out when your PC suddenly reboots without asking.
Anyway - briefly - the 70's & unions. Put it this way. France, Germany, Italy, Holland, USA etc has strong union representation for its workers. I think the people of those countries enjoy a much higher quality of life than we do.
|
France, Germany, Italy, Holland, USA etc has strong union representation for its workers. I think the people of those countries enjoy a much higher quality of life than we do.
USA possibly ... but their approach to labour laws is radically different and would probably give leaders of European unions a coronary. As for the other countries, I have to say that is a decidedly arguable matter. A good proportion of their population probably do have a better quality of life, but at the same time there is a much larger unemployed population who do not.
I'm not saying we are all better off than those in the Continent. What I am saying (I think) is that the question is much harder to answer than might be thought.
I am certain of one thing - I do not plan to emigrate!
|
Sorry HBGT but the unions collaborated with more than their fair share to bring BL to its knees especially quasi-Trots like Red Robbo dragging the entire workforce out on strike over such important matters as the length of teabreaks.
The construction of the SD1 factory at Solihull is definitely one example of union interference including strikes deliberately designed to disrupt the launch of SD1. Also, Michael Edwardes facing down the unions over the robotisation of the Metro production line is another such illuminating episode.
A lack of investment was not a direct cause of problems in BL, it was union mistrust of introducing productivity measures like robotisation that meant these investments were delayed. Most of the design were good designs, innovative and foresighted. Their implementation though and poor quality had a lot more to do with antiquated manufacturing process and a poorly trained and motivated workforce.
The Thatcher Government legislation to diminish union power could not come too soon. The unions continually dragged their heels to improvements in production methods despite some excellent products, Range Rover, Land Rover, Jag XJ40, SD1, Austin 1100s, Triumph 2000, Rover 2000.
Mismanagement was a key problem, the problem being the awful overlap of cars in the BMC/BLMC/BL range. Jaguar were at Rover's throat, Rover were at Triumph throat, Austin competed directly with Morris. The arguments with Jaguar representatives on the BLMC board in the late 1960s probably had the biggest impact as it allowed foreign competitors in the premium sector. A sector that they had a pretty unassilable market lead. Don't believe me, look at some of the Triumph and Rover designs from the era. As far as Austin/Morris there were some absolute howlers including not replacing the Mini and the terrible introduction of the Allegro and Marina that had been in development for far too long and diluted by a design by committee approach.
I really wish some keen motoring historian and TV would commission a TV series on the demise of the British car industry. Not only would it dispel a few myths it would finally lay the truth bare about what really happened. Until that, I strongly recommend the superb website austinrover.mg-rover.org/
|
The unions want to kill it, let it go to the wall. They never had the brains they were born with then, nor now.
|
|
Kill Land Rover? Can't see Ford letting that happen. Now MG Rover is another matter.
|
|
I'm sorry. I'm really finding this site hard work. Unlike just about every other board of this nature I use, this one allows you to type out a nice lengthy reply, then asks you to log in when you come to post. When you do log in, you find that your reply has disappeared. Most, in fact all, I think, keep you logged on for a day or two, but not this one. I had clicked and copied much of what I'd typed, but didn't do so again just before submitting. It's hopeless!
It's a shame, this is an area that interests me, I was in full flow and had typed a lengthy reply, I'm now exhausted, and can't possibly re-type it all again. The only other site I know as awkward as this is Autosport.com, and I rarely go there now.
I'm afraid I'll just have to do with the following:
>>I really don't know anything about the SD1 saga, so can't comment on that.
I recall a long time ago I read that the then equivalent of the commision for racial equality had said that BL had to change its policy for recruiting production workers. Basically, there was no policy. Management viewed the workers as something akin to living under a stone, and so when they needed to recruit more, they just left it to their workers to bring in some more mates from the pub. This meant that very few coloured people were being recruited and the racial group wanted it to stop this form of 'recruitment'. Its only occurred to me recently that that policy would also see that the same type of militant people would be recruited.
Whatever, the factories at Peugeot Ryton and Toyota Burnaston, derbys. are not far from Longbridge, must recruit their workforce from the same geographical areas, and have not suffered anything like the unrest that BL used to. And of course, the quality of the Toyota factory is on another planet. Now how do you explain all this, if it doesn't rest solely at the foot of management?
I've always read about the overlap of marques, but the VAG group don't seem to suffer from this unduly. You'd think they would, with VW, Seat, Skoda on their books. Usually, it is found that competition raises the game.
There were some difficulties with overlap. The BMC 1100 range was to be a direct replacement for the Moggy Minor, but production of the Moggy stopped just 2 years before the 1100 did!
The 1100 range was a real genuine step forward in the small car market, yet a decade later, the Allegro was most definitly not a step forward! It was larger on the outside and smaller on the inside amongst its many faults.
The Marina was basically a rebodied Minor, the one improvement being telescopic shockers, on the rear only. It can hardly be the fault of the production staff that the components they were fitting on to the cars were 25 years old in design.
|
All true, HBGB. Firstly, the forum issue: I think the timer is set to 20 minutes. If you think you're going over that, just hit [CTRL] + [A][X][V] and you'll get everything back. If it does then log you out, you've got everything on the clipboard for next time.
And it's definitely true that no workforce could ever have made the Marina or Allegro into good cars. The reasons that range overlap and platform sharing work for VAG are firstly that the cars are mainly different in character (even cars as similar as the Arosa or Lupo are more different than the Wolesley Hornet/Riley Elf) let alone an Octavia/A3, and secondly they are marketed differently so that there is a clear hierarchy. This has served GM and Ford/Lincoln/Mercury well too.
However, a bad workforce, on strike, where management weren't able to make any decisions, good or bad, definitely contributed. Maybe a more motivated workforce (and blame for this lack of motivation goes both ways) would have helped or maybe it would have been a case of lions led by donkeys, but the attitude that any decision that reduced staffing levels in any area, or changed responsibilities as competition intensified and technology advanced, definitely reduced both productivity and innovation.
The real killer was underinvestment, but of course with a stronger product line, better management and a more flexible workforce, government investment wouldn't have been necessary as the cars, and the profits, would have flowed naturally together.
|
All true, HBGB. Firstly, the forum issue: I think the timer is set to 20 minutes.
Yep, sure is.
If you think you're going over that, just hit [CTRL] + [A] [X][V] and you'll get everything back. If it does then log you out, you've got everything on the clipboard for next time.
Also see:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=3&t=78...5
|
|
|
|
|
