Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lamberti papers #15

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stall
    replied
    I agree with you Bob, Shortsighted is another word for Union IMHO and experience.

    Originally posted by Bob Andrews View Post
    Interesting. That's the first time I've heard Mr. Egbert accused of being anything but a guy who was instrumental in prolonging Studebaker for a few more years; who might have turned it around had he not fallen ill; and would have stood up to and corrected the greedy, arrogant attitude of union management had he survived. Everything I've found in my desire to study and learn the history of the Studebaker Corp. unanimously backs this up, starting with the fact that Studebaker employees did in fact have contracts that were unsustainable if the automotive division was to survive. The Union sealed the fate of the company with a strike that killed production at the most critical time, and screwed themselves out of their own members' livelihoods. That has the ring of truth, because we see unions doing that all across the country today; and either the company moves out of the country, or simply closes down. And, the unions prefer to actually kill the company over being rational.

    As always, I state that I'm new to the Studebaker world, having only been involved since about 2004. So I defer on the facts of the history to the better-versed.

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by 8E45E View Post
    How long did you wait after production ended in South Bend? I have heard of some who did make money on the sale of their stock in 1964.

    Craig
    Yes, you were okay if you sold in 1964. I was referring to after car production ended (1966).

    Leave a comment:


  • 8E45E
    replied
    Originally posted by studegary View Post
    Bob P. - I have to disagree with part of your post #28.
    I purchased Studebaker stock during the period of time under discussion. I remember the stock becoming worthless when automobile production ended and a new stock was issued for the "new" corporation. A similar thing happened with my Rolls Royce stock.
    How long did you wait after production ended in South Bend? I have heard of some who did make money on the sale of their stock in 1964.

    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Bob P. - I have to disagree with part of your post #28.
    I purchased Studebaker stock during the period of time under discussion. I remember the stock becoming worthless when automobile production ended and a new stock was issued for the "new" corporation. A similar thing happened with my Rolls Royce stock.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Originally posted by Gunslinger View Post
    I can understand both sides of the argument...I've been in management and also as a union member and vice-chairman of a labor committee. When a contract is agreed to by all parties...both management and labor, both are expected to live up to that agreement...not just management which seems to be a prevailing opinion. Labor is obligated as well.

    When a contract is up for renegotiation, that usually means all bets are off...management has the right to offer as little as then can get away with and labor is free to ask for as much as they can get. Hopefully, the two sides negotiate and an agreement somewhere in the middle can be found.

    Labor unions came about due to bad management. If all companies had good management, all a union would be is a social organization and a bowling league. Since all companies in the past didn't always have good and decent management...and that can be found today in some industries...unions came about.

    Can an argument be made that unions have become too strong and detrimental to a company's as well as an industry's long-term viability? I think it can...maybe not in every case but it has an effect. One of the few things a company has real control over in maintaining costs is payroll. When a company is handcuffed by high labor costs it suffers and can become unprofitable...sometimes resulting in relocating or going under altogether.

    I've seen unions demand a bigger share of the good economic times and refuse to give back during the hard economic times...at least not without hard negotiating, if even then. More than once unions have bitten their own noses off to spite their faces by refusing to work with a company, who then folds their tents and goes under.

    Studebaker, from what I've read and understand...had many systemic problems...not just unions. They had an antiquated factory that was inefficient in layout, higher than industry average hourly wages and benefits, much poorer buying power compared to other car companies, an apparently weak dealer network and any number of other issues.

    It was more than one thing that brought Studebaker down. To harp on one isn't fair, but all those issues took their part. Even if Studebaker had everything going for it...cheaper labor costs in line with the industry, more buying power, an efficient factory...they still may have failed. No company has a right to succeed...they have to earn it. Even then...if you do everything right you can still fail...there is no guarantee of success.

    Even if Studebaker had everything going for it...there are three things they probably still would have been unable to overcome...GM, Ford, and Chrysler. When the giants fight, all the smaller guys get trampled on.
    Yep; well said, Bruce.

    Simply put, isn't greed the common denominator?

    Management was greedy and thus mistreated workers in the early part of the last century, so unions justifiably came about.

    Unions were greedy in the latter half of the last century, bringing about a manufacturing geographical shift -ahem- to places where workers are less greedy....for now.

    The common denominator: Greed.

    'Must be some kind of human shortcoming. BP

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Originally posted by Welcome View Post
    Unfortunately, it appears some have spent way too much time reading less than factual information and then formed their OWN personal interpretation instead of obtaining all the facts by reading the actual Company & Union contract, having extensive talks with the actual people involved on BOTH sides over decades and familiarizing oneself with the State of Indiana Work Laws in effect at that time.

    Had that been done, certainly many would not be "confusing" the 24 minutes "Relief Time" the State of Indiana (not the Union) then required (3 min. per hour X 8 hours = 24 mins.) with "Clean-up Time" ...a completely separate agreement between the Company and Union!

    In 1956 the Studebaker-Packard Corporation (the Company) and the UAW, Local # 5 (the Union) agreed to and signed a "Memoranda of Understanding" establishing a total of 15 minutes per work day for "Clean-up Time." The 15 minute "Clean-up Time" was divided into three periods: 1.) Prior to start of shift. 2.) Immediately prior to lunch period. 3.) End of work shift. "Clean-up Time" was further defined as time allowed for tasks to include; trips to the crib to obtain or return tools, don and removing protective clothing, prepare machines, clean up work area at end of shift.

    OK, now does everyone understand where the "39 minutes" that gets thrown around so much comes from??? IF ...still not, here you go; 24 minutes State of Indiana Work Laws + 15 minutes "Clean-up Time" previously agreed to between the Company and the Union = 39 minutes!!!

    All appeared to be working well for both parties from that point …right through the 1958 Contract …through the 1960 Contract …right up until 1962, that is!!! Then for some reason (insert your personal opinion here) the Company just decided to eliminate "Clean-up Time" altogether!!! As anyone would expect, the Union was not at all in favor of that "take-away" and a Strike was on!!! When the smoke all cleared, and the new Contract dated February 7, 1962, was in place it was virtually the same as the 1960 Contract, but the Company had gained 5 minutes production time …and Union employees lost 5 minutes clean-up time.

    So was it all worth it for the Studebaker Corporation and ALL its employees …or was it just a reckless ego-exercise of one person???

    As always, YOU be the judge!!!
    Ultimately, after "all the above," who won; the Company or the Union?

    That's easy: "The Company" won.


    Studebaker Corporation as an entity was ultimately and simply the collective interest of every person or investment company, insurance company, pension fund, or what-have-you, that owned shares of Studebaker Corporation stock. Aside from a few token novelty purchases, the bulk of the investors bought the stock to make money by earning and being paid dividends.

    Or, perhaps they believed Studebaker management was such that the value of the stock would increase over what they paid for it, even if it wasn't currently paying dividends, thus making it an attractive long-term investment.

    Regardless of their motivation, the value of their stock, their equity, ROSE when Studebaker shed its money-losing Automotive Division. As investors, the people behind the company; they won.


    Meanwhile, UAW Local #5 members lost. Less than 24 months after their strike helped sink the Automotive Division by:

    1. Reducing dealer stocks and model availability during the critical Spring 1962 selling season, and

    2. Causing bad Studebaker press to issue forth across the fruited plain at a time when things were shaky anyhow, and

    3. Contributing to the monumental problems getting the glamorous Avanti into production,

    most of them were simply out of a job! Many had spent their whole lives working at Studebaker and were too old or had too few marketable job skills to find a good-paying job for another 6 or 8 years until they reached full retirement age.

    But, by George, they sure showed Studebaker management they wouldn't be pushed around in the better days of early 1962, that's for sure! Solidarity first!

    Now if you project that attitude forward about 50 years as regards United States manufacturing potential in an increasingly-competitive world labor market....BP

    Leave a comment:


  • Corvanti
    replied
    well said, 'slinger!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gunslinger
    replied
    I can understand both sides of the argument...I've been in management and also as a union member and vice-chairman of a labor committee. When a contract is agreed to by all parties...both management and labor, both are expected to live up to that agreement...not just management which seems to be a prevailing opinion. Labor is obligated as well.

    When a contract is up for renegotiation, that usually means all bets are off...management has the right to offer as little as they can get away with and labor is free to ask for as much as they can get. Hopefully, the two sides negotiate and an agreement somewhere in the middle can be found.

    Labor unions came about due to bad management. If all companies had good management, all a union would be is a social organization and a bowling league. Since all companies in the past didn't always have good and decent management...and that can be found today in some industries...unions came about.

    Can an argument be made that unions have become too strong and detrimental to a company's as well as an industry's long-term viability? I think it can...maybe not in every case but it has an effect. One of the few things a company has real control over in maintaining costs is payroll. When a company is handcuffed by high labor costs it suffers and can become unprofitable...sometimes resulting in relocating or going under altogether.

    I've seen unions demand a bigger share of the good economic times and refuse to give back during the hard economic times...at least not without hard negotiating, if even then. More than once unions have bitten their own noses off to spite their faces by refusing to work with a company, who then folds their tents and goes under.

    Studebaker, from what I've read and understand...had many systemic problems...not just unions. They had an antiquated factory that was inefficient in layout, higher than industry average hourly wages and benefits, much poorer buying power compared to other car companies, an apparently weak dealer network and any number of other issues.

    It was more than one thing that brought Studebaker down. To harp on one isn't fair, but all those issues took their part. Even if Studebaker had everything going for it...cheaper labor costs in line with the industry, more buying power, an efficient factory...they still may have failed. No company has a right to succeed...they have to earn it. Even then...if you do everything right you can still fail...there is no guarantee of success.

    Even if Studebaker had everything going for it...there are three things they probably still would have been unable to overcome...GM, Ford, and Chrysler. When the giants fight, all the smaller guys get trampled on.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 09-03-2011, 08:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Originally posted by Ricardo View Post
    "1. Shows

    The New York show went extremely well. The press preview for Mr. Egbert and Mr. Gale went very well. The public swarmed all over the Super Lark and the Super Hawk – we had as good an audience as anything on the floor. They had good press in advance,.....
    ....., our whole front section at the show was of bland colors. The blue, which is our No. 2 color, was not in the front; and gold, which is our No. 3 color, wasn’t in the show at all."

    Nice to hear that we had a very good show at New York . But... they mention color number 2 and 3 . The ranking was about the prefered ones or the best seller colors ?

    What color was number 1? Thanks again Mr Quinn
    Probably ERMINE WHITE.

    The first eight Super Larks and Super Hawks were all Ermine White. Of course, these were press preview and show cars, as would have been shown at a venue such as the subject New York Auto Show.

    Then, when "production" Super Larks and Super Hawks started coming down the line, #9 was a Regal Red Hawk, #10 was an Ermine White Lark Custom 2-door, and #11 (63V26979) was a Super Red R2/4-speed Regal 2-door, the first Super Red, Full Package car. BP

    Leave a comment:


  • studefan
    replied
    Welcome, that is a pretty detailed account. Thanks for the data. It pretty much confirms my thoughts that Unions were and are detrimental to the country. I get paid for 8 hours a day but usually work 9 hour days because that's what it often takes to complete the job. Striking over 15 minutes, or 5 minutes lost, or 5 minutes gained was ridiculous. The slogan from Studebaker's good ole days was "Give more than you Promise." Sounds like that was lost near the end of the company. What a shame.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ricardo
    replied
    "1. Shows

    The New York show went extremely well. The press preview for Mr. Egbert and Mr. Gale went very well. The public swarmed all over the Super Lark and the Super Hawk – we had as good an audience as anything on the floor. They had good press in advance,.....
    ....., our whole front section at the show was of bland colors. The blue, which is our No. 2 color, was not in the front; and gold, which is our No. 3 color, wasn’t in the show at all."

    Nice to hear that we had a very good show at New York . But... they mention color number 2 and 3 . The ranking was about the prefered ones or the best seller colors ?

    What color was number 1 ?


    Thanks again Mr Quinn

    Leave a comment:


  • BobPalma
    replied
    Originally posted by bob40 View Post
    I will however take a few hours and enjoy the coverage of the U.S.Nationals drag race.
    Well, Bob; if we had the audio capability, I'd go out on my rear deck right now and record for you the sounds of the fastest rails as they thunder down Indianapolis Raceway Park's quarter-mile.

    It's no more than 4 miles as the crow flies from our back porch to the drag strip, but it is dead flat farm land. We can easily hear the rails and such from our deck. In fact, you can actually feel the vibrations this far away! Seriously. BP

    Leave a comment:


  • Welcome
    replied

    Unfortunately, it appears some have spent way too much time reading less than factual information and then formed their OWN personal interpretation instead of obtaining all the facts by reading the actual Company & Union contract, having extensive talks with the actual people involved on BOTH sides over decades and familiarizing oneself with the State of Indiana Work Laws in effect at that time.

    Had that been done, certainly many would not be "confusing" the 24 minutes "Relief Time" the State of Indiana (not the Union) then required (3 min. per hour X 8 hours = 24 mins.) with "Clean-up Time" ...a completely separate agreement between the Company and Union!

    In 1956 the Studebaker-Packard Corporation (the Company) and the UAW, Local # 5 (the Union) agreed to and signed a "Memoranda of Understanding" establishing a total of 15 minutes per work day for "Clean-up Time." The 15 minute "Clean-up Time" was divided into three periods: 1.) Prior to start of shift. 2.) Immediately prior to lunch period. 3.) End of work shift. "Clean-up Time" was further defined as time allowed for tasks to include; trips to the crib to obtain or return tools, don and removing protective clothing, prepare machines, clean up work area at end of shift.

    OK, now does everyone understand where the "39 minutes" that gets thrown around so much comes from??? IF ...still not, here you go; 24 minutes State of Indiana Work Laws + 15 minutes "Clean-up Time" previously agreed to between the Company and the Union = 39 minutes!!!

    All appeared to be working well for both parties from that point …right through the 1958 Contract …through the 1960 Contract …right up until 1962, that is!!! Then for some reason (insert your personal opinion here) the Company just decided to eliminate "Clean-up Time" altogether!!! As anyone would expect, the Union was not at all in favor of that "take-away" and a Strike was on!!! When the smoke all cleared, and the new Contract dated February 7, 1962, was in place it was virtually the same as the 1960 Contract, but the Company had gained 5 minutes production time …and Union employees lost 5 minutes clean-up time.

    So was it all worth it for the Studebaker Corporation and ALL its employees …or was it just a reckless ego-exercise of one person???

    As always, YOU be the judge!!!
    Last edited by Welcome; 09-03-2011, 06:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 8E45E
    replied
    I dispute the fact that the Union wanted to see Studebaker go under for reasons I mentioned here: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...highlight=hall

    Craig

    Leave a comment:


  • Milaca
    replied
    Originally posted by Welcome View Post
    Can you point us to neutral & reputable sources that can factually back up the above statement?

    The Studebaker UAW Local # 5 Union employees gained NOTHING by that 1962 Strike. The Strike was called in an effort to retain the rights the Company and the Union had already agreed to …before Mr. Egbert arrived on the scene. BP, I have that contract signed on February 7, 1962, so if you could find time to read it, I would be very happy to send it to your; 610 Jefferson St., Brownship, Ind. address.

    In retrospect; Studebaker Corporation should have anticipated Labor problems when a new guy [Mr. Egbert] arrived there with ZERO experience working within an existing legally binding labor contract (between Studebaker-Packard Corporation and UAW, Local # 5). Mr. Egbert’s apparent indifference to the Company’s obligations under the existing contract with the UAW and his sometimes arrogant attitude towards lessers certainly points to him as the "primer" that set-off the 1962 Strike ...a Strike that did not even need to happen!!!

    Incidentally, last week I was having lunch and none other than the current Chairman of (formerly Studebaker) UAW, Local # 5 sat at the table next to me. We had a chance to chat about the SDC International Meet being held in South Bend next July. He "offered" to open up the UAW Local # 5 Union Hall to all SDC’ers during MeetWeek 2012. As some know, "Assembly Hall" has full wall size murals depicting the UAW’s history in South Bend beginning with Studebaker up to modern times. They are a "must see" for those coming to the 2012 IM. He believes some former Studebaker employees will be available to give us tours or just for us to chat with. He also opened the "possibility" of even having a BBQ for us SDC’ers as well.

    Oh, by the way …he owns a ’39 Studebaker Commander and now plans to have it in "running condition" for the 2012 IM!!! I did inform him of the existence of this SDC Forum as a good source of information to help get his ’39 back on the road. So please out of common courtesy, can we here try to keep our "Union Bashing" to a minimum???
    I won't bash the UAW #5 as it will do nothing to bring Studebaker back into business. What's done is done and we can't get both sides of the arguement as many involved in the dispute have passed away.
    I appreciate the offer to see inside the union hall and visit with former Studebaker employees as I am sure they have many Studebaker reminisces to tell.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X