Bailout

Though the healthiest of the U.S. automakers, Ford makes the case for government support on this new micro site. True to form, Ford has been relying on longterm planning established over the last two years. They have been open with their vision in an effort to change public perception. For several years, Ford has invited journalists on embargoed annual visits to Detroit to unveil a strategy as a mandate for stronger product, and more recently a green approach with regular regional small group seminars. The language of the site echoes much of what Ford execs have made the case for in their media presentations –and here they deliver the business plan in black and white. True to Ford pride, the plan is mixed with a stress on the progress that’s been made on green, quality, smart, technology, safety and products – a pride that is the hallmark of the Big Three and other American manufacturers. While company propaganda must always be taken with a grain of salt, this clear admission of a need for improvement helps to wipe the slate clean and offers a clear marker on areas where progress has been made. Here is a source that helps dispel the myth that Detroiters have been twiddling their thumbs for the past decade while their business collapsed around the world. Simply not true. Ford has been the most upfront about their product re-haul recently, but the internal demand to make changes has been sweeping the industry and a constant theme. The uncertainty of the future has been looming around Detroit for so many years, that the good old days of booming business seem far in the past.

I find myself in Michigan today where the testimony of the American automakers before a skeptical Congressional committee is hometown news — the outcome will greatly determine the fate of the region over the next decade and the business climate of America, from steel production to advertising to infrastructure. It’s simply not the same as a bank which deals in facts, figures and assets, nor an issue limited to the faltering and struggling Michigan workers.

Here is a structural problem that cannot be ignored or cast aside with finger pointing and sarcasm. It’s dire straits when fervent competitors link arms to ask for the help. The backbone of Detroit has always been about healthy competition — the GM guys vs the Ford people and the Chrysler folks. And then the Japanese and the Germans. and now the Koreans. It’s all about one upping each other on almost universal standards with small differences in the outcome for picky auto critics to decipher.

While the automakers come together to make their case to Congress in a hopeful Round II, individually, they forge their identities on the marketplace from the giant General Motors, to the Daimler-divorced Cerberus-owned Chrysler Corporation to the family-style biz at Ford Motor Company. Yet, they have done so, along with foreign automakers in recent years, sharing technology , suppliers, and research dollars. There are so many factors that account for the state of the industry that have not been adequately explained, and therefore are not understood by the average taxpayer nor some of those in power making decisions — from labor to emissions issues — the list is long. Perhaps it would be wise if the foreign automakers would send their US reps to Congress urging them to respond to the request that will shatter the manufacturing industry. (Have they?) Eventually, it will come to that. While it is easy to make the case that it’s sink or swim for the US automakers, to leave America without the ability to manufacture domestic product is a short-sighted strategy. While banking is at the core of our financial system, goods and services are what drive it.

I would argue that Congress is late to the game. Like the banking world, trade regulations are needed, and should have been implemented with the merger of Chrysler and Daimler, which in many ways has set off this ill course. But where the government has weighed in is not always in a way that supports development, or can often seem contradictory toward the outcome. Like how a foreign automaker can spend less to get around labor laws and is then praised for making a better product, while the American worker is expected to make less or sacrifice health care to make a product that costs the same. The finesse of free trade at it’s finest.

Money comes and goes quickly as the stock market shows us in wild dips and sways, but technology and steel are tangible commodities we cannot afford to gamble with or give up on. Some of the national coverage I’ve seen is biting and critical in a way that is not productive — too many talking heads without real knowledge or a firm grasp on the moves they are advocating, nor the setup of the industry. The suggestions border on wacky and they are permeating the national psyche. The research, experience and breadth in these fractured U.S. companies far outweighs the capability of upstarts and also buoys the tight marketplace among competitors. It is their separateness that drives competition and propels capitalism.

I also find that many of the business colleagues who recommend bankruptcy for GM are ignorant of production processes and what they are advocating. The car industry would not be able to simply swallow the loss of these huge sweeping arms. In an attempt to present balanced coverage or bipartisanship, what’s emerging is a losing argument that only prolongs the painful cuts and wastes precious time that could be devoted to a turnaround.

The coverage in today’s paper is full of conflicting opinions, advocating for new management, an age old shake up solution which has already been attempted Ford (Mulally) and Chrysler (Bob Nardelli, Jim Press, etc).

While changes inject fresh blood, they also mean that progress is sometimes lost as workers are doing and redoing the same things, and lack the vision of someone whose been a part of the brand. Shake ups bring unwanted redundancy. Not the time for that now.

It’s all criticism, without Congress really suggesting viable alternatives. This is where the company’s must step up and bring some kind of optimism on how they can turn things around and perhaps create more jobs and a greener world. Don’t concede to oversight, ask for it. Congressional members should be more aware of what we do in this country — how we make things work — to better serve their constituents. Change comes with pains so make a decision already rather than prolong it until the wreckage is unfixable, before real thumb twiddling on Capitol Hill and in the White House costs more jobs and the security of America’s industrial future. Emergency funds are clearly needed — for many reasons that mostly come down to market forces, timing and bad luck. Issue an initial fund and demand progress reports to Senate and House committees. Work with Nancy Pelosi’s environmental agenda, work with Southern Republicans who do not see how this money serves their constituents, and bring in the gas companies and use this opportunity to put in place a system that helps reform the infrastructure of fueling in America. Make this is a global issue, too. Use lobbyists effectively and be better than politics. We need well-covered regulation, accountability and progress reports — what’s been lacking and is still lacking in the financial sector. Use the auto industry to set the tone for a new, better era. We need the media that are sometimes isolated in big city bureaus to provide more comprehensive coverage rather than smug opinionated critiques that are not based on expansive research. Coverage and oversight would help to bring the country up to speed on the products and capabilities of our work force, and finally start to delineate the perception that American cars are no good. I’m not an expert, but I do have a front row seat to the bigger show as a New York car journalist, native Detroiter and descendant of autoworkers. It was only when I left Detroit that I grapsed it’s impact on the globe.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Their Side of It: The Ford Story (gotryke.com)

{ 1 comment }