1
4

[–] 1533980? 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

I worked as an engineer for a union-staffed manufacturing company. The business was growing faster than the company could produce product, even with 3 shifts running 7 days a week.

In an effort to improve throughput, we implemented several new policies:

Documenting first and last piece inspection by the operator at every step of the process. The union filed multiple grievances, because they did not feel they should be held accountable for checking their work. (In the end, it resulted in a 75% decrease in scrap, and improved company-wide throughput by >30%) Prior to implementing this, the union was given 2 months to come up with their own plan to reduce scrap; they were never able to make any measurable improvement.

New equipment investments. The union filed multiple grievances, because the new equipment ran 2 operations in one setup, but only required one operator, and required new skill sets to operate. Again - the union was given 3 months to come up with a plan to increase throughput, but was unable to. The new equipment was able to reduce setup times by over 75% and shortened lead time on multiple product lines from months to weeks.

Outsourcing of past-due orders. We made the call to outsource any order that was more than 3 months past due in order to focus on scheduling of new product (in order to take advantage of the increased throughput and new equipment.) Again, the union filed multiple grievances, but were unable to offer an alternative - they were already working 24/7.

After 6 months, we were able to improve throughput by nearly 45%, reduce scrap and rework by nearly 80%, stop all outsourcing, eliminated weekend shifts, improved delivery times to >95% on-time deliveries, improved quality, lowered costs, and our product line went from a 60% market share to a 90% market share.

We provided a catered lunch and a bonus payment for the entire shop. Most of them refused to attend or accept the check, and they filed a grievance because the lunch was an hour long instead of their normal 30 minutes.

The lack of overtime pay drove them to cause an uproar at the next contract negotiation and completely block anything that the company proposed.

10 years later, and that portion of the company is staffed by <10 people (down from nearly 350) and nearly all of the product is now made overseas. Over 300 people are out of a job because they refused to accept change, to the point of refusing to work unless they were guaranteed overtime pay. They refused to run the new equipment, knowingly allowed bad product to get through to inventory, organized work slowdowns, and mired the company in daily grievances that tied up management to the point that we did not have enough time in the day to actually get anything done except sit in grievance meetings and document every conversation.

There was a time when taking a cab meant something. That time is changing, and the Boston cabbies seem to want legislation to force things to go back to the old ways despite the fact that it just makes people even less inclined to use their services.

tldr: Doing things a new way means the old way needs to evolve or eventually go extinct.

0
2

[–] SiWofos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Efficiency increases seem inevitable, but what should society do with the workers replaced by automation? Ignore them and confine them to slums/trailer parks? Plow their pay ever lower until it competes with Chinese sweatshop labor?

More, better, cheaper stuff is good, but it seems to come at a price, and that is an issue no-one really seems to confront satisfactorily.

0
4

[–] 1536883? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

In the case of manufacturing (the service industry is similar, but has enough differences that I'd rather not go into that):

I started running a manual lathe; the employer provided training. Manual machines gave way to computerized (CNC) machines. The big concern was that the CNC machines would replace machinists, but that simply was not the case - Having a machine that made parts automatically still required a person who knew how to identify problems with the setup, the tooling, part quality, consistency in raw material... all of the things that were required to run a manual machine. Without the need to manually dial in every single cut, the skilled operator had more time to focus on the process, and work to streamline it. Without someone at the machine to troubleshoot problems, the CNC equipment was not a step forward at all.

Yes, automation replaces manpower. There is no doubt about that. But no automation can be implemented without skilled manpower being involved in the concept, design, building, implementation, and maintenance of that automation.

But the skilled manpower must be good enough at their job to be valuable in the automation process. If an employee is not showing any desire to become an expert at their job (by means other than osmosis and familiarity) then they should be prepared to be on the unemployment line. A motivated workforce with the focus on improvement will only see automation as a way to free them up to focus on improving the process, product, quality, and so on.

But the mindset that says "I need to get paid $75K to push this green button every 15 minutes and I'll file a grievance if you ask me to check the finished part" will lead to that person being obsolete - as it should. The mindset that says "I've learned how to make this part the best way I can with the tools at my disposal and I even have some ideas that will improve it" will lead to that person being involved with the next step in the evolution of the process, because that person is the resident expert.

I recently managed a project to install 7 new CNC machines at a facility. This project replaced an existing cell that required 1 operator, 1 inspector, and 1 part washer per machine. The new cell requires 1 operator per machine, 3 total inspectors and a 3-person crew to run the new parts washer that services all 7 machines. Of the 8 people that used to work in that cell: 4 of them worked with engineering to design workholding and 3 of them are now doing design work on other projects. 2 of them developed the training program for the new cell and became the company's training department for all new projects, as well as new hire training. 2 of them were let go, in large part because they showed no interest in learning a new way of doing the same job they had been doing for 10+ years, yet demanded more pay.

In addition, we provided the automation - which required a staff of 12 people to design and build the cell. That staff includes engineers and machinists and programmers and inspectors... all of us with skills and experience to ensure the cell will work as efficiently as possible. We have about double that number of employees, and we install 8-10 cells every year. And at every install, we work with the current on-site experts - which tend to be the machinists who are currently making the product. Their input is the key to the entire project working well at all.

From high atop my soapbox, I see this: A lot of production is going overseas. And from deep in the trenches I've worked in for nearly 30 years, I see time and again that the largest reason is cost. And, sadly, I see time and again a workforce that says "We don't want to get better at our jobs, we don't care about the product, we have no desire to grow the business, we refuse your offer of paid college courses... but we demand higher pay" and they say that louder and louder until they are saying it to the fence surrounding the parking lot after that product was sent to another supplier.

Skilled workers should demand to be paid for their skills. And those skilled workers will be the ones that will drive the next steps in improved efficiency. And when a product or process is operating at continuously improved efficiencies, then there will be no way for another company to improve on it to the point they will be cheaper, regardless of the cost of labor.

Improving yourself, striving to be better, using every resource available to develop skills to make your job or your team or your company better - THAT should be the driving force behind every employee. But a mentality of complacency and a willingness to have no comprehension of what you actually DO for a living or how to do it better - that should be unacceptable to everyone.

Companies are in business to make a profit. There is no doubt about that. But if it is more profitable to pay the initial costs to set up a foreign company to develop a process and a workforce and supply lines and shipping and so on, then I really have to ask - why can't the current workforce find a way to do it faster / cheaper / better quality?

And if we all know that companies want the highest profit margins they can get - enough so that they will send the work overseas if it is cheaper, then why isn't that incentive to get every single employee off their asses and figure out how to make things better rather than bitch about how bad their job is yet do nothing to improve it?

0
4

[–] RabidRaccoon 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Classic example of a producer lobby. It's also pretty telling that other strikes have 'devolved into ugly violence'. The medallion owners were granted a monopoly and Uber and Lyft have challenged that. Really the only way they can stop the challenge is violence. However the real problem isn't Uber it's the fact that medallion owners have a monopoly on taxis.

0
11

[–] Zaqwert 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

“We have to show the city officials that what they’re doing is not right,” said Rene Flerime, an independent cab driver and medallion owner in Cambridge who helped organize the action. “Uber and Lyft destroyed my business.”

Flerime and other drivers say Uber has cut deeply into their revenues.

BOO HOO, my business has competition, it's not fair!

0
15

[–] Zaqwert 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Wow talk about a terrible idea. So people who normally use taxis will now use Uber, see that it's cheaper and easier, and will never go back to using taxis.

Speeding up your own demise.

0
1

[–] Chew_Monster 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Exactly what I was thinking. The guy for a cab group had this to say:

“We just think a work stoppage at this point would be counterproductive to the progress we’ve been making with legislators and regulators across the state,” said Steve Regan

Really he meant, if they learn to use Uber they will never return!

1
1

[–] TheVillain61 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

During the Sydney seige in Australia uber drivers put their prices up, they also did this during the London underground saga where trains weren't running. Ubers reply was that demand drives up prices so this is a taste of things to come. Uber bosses will make plenty of money charging their drivers 20% but their drivers will struggle to make money not to mention that uber refused to acknowledge one of their drivers that killed someone was actually an employee and said they were contracted. I'd be concerned that uber drivers are not regulated nor adequately insured nor have correct knowledge of areas.

0
1

[–] jardeon 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I thought price surges were set by Uber corporate, not the individual drivers. While it's unfortunate that as a whole, Uber turns to profiteering during a "bad" event, it's not on the individual drivers to set the rates or surge prices, they just follow the app and pick up the passengers.

0
24

[–] SiWofos 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

This is a visible part of the process of the de-skilling and automating of various sectors of the economy. Taxi driving was a highly skilled job, with the most highly trained drivers having noticeably different brain structures from the general population (i.e., enlarged hippocampus). Automation is inevitable (particularly of auto-mobiles: GPS is just the beginning of the end of the taxi driver). It's a tool to produce abundance (here taxi rides) for little effort (or much lower cost). We need to start thinking now about what to do when large sections of the population are unemployable (or employable at only a much lower level) -- through no fault of their own.

More broadly, we're heading toward a future where, for most jobs, Humans Need Not Apply.

0
0

[–] itshappening- ago 

There is nothing to do... It's musical chairs. Since the 1970's there have been various attempts at adding more chairs, but the store room is out of chairs and the music is so worn the record is starting to skip. Better leave the dance before they turn off the lights.

0
0

[–] TheBeesTrees ago 

We'd better start accepting that hateful word "socialism" before too long here. Otherwise we're going to have 95% of the human population squatting on the 5%'s robotic spa's and solar array suites.

0
4

[–] Br0k3nsn0fl6k32 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I think you mean "highly specialized", otherwise agree 100% with your writing.

4
10

[–] Ragnar1234 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago 

Driving a taxi has never been a "highly skilled job." Heart surgeon, CPA, and master electrician are examples of highly skilled jobs that require years of training and certification.

I agree with you that automation will continue to improve productivity and remove the need for humans at many menial tasks. I disagree with you on the idea that large sections of the population will be unemployed against their will. Humans are one of the most adaptable species on the planet and I have faith that they will be able to continue to adapt to the ever changing labor market as automation continues to rollout. It most certainly will have periods of time when people are making the initial transition that will be difficult and uncomfortable for many, but as a whole humans will continue to adapt and overcome their surroundings.

0
2

[–] pepepepepe 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm sick of this automation doomsday scare mongering. When human labor demand is removed by automation they can be re-purposed elsewhere. It's not going to eat away at all our labor markets until we're all jobless. People will develop some new idea that needs a new labor market, people will come flooding in, efficiency will improve, and automation edges humans out. Until robots are superior in every way to humans and we reach a post-scarcity society there is no need to drastically alter our economics.

0
13

[–] SiWofos 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I wouldn't be so dismissive: London cab drivers must learn routes all over the city during 34 months of training, and then must pass a series of tests. They have a very specialized skill, the constant practice of which (as I said above) actually alters their brain structure.

However, all this skill and training are now practically worthless in the face of GPS. That represents a tough transition for the old-school drivers. The cheaper fares of uber come at a cost of replacing these well trained, skilled, highly paid people by lower-paid but better-equipped drivers with smart phones.

Making people poorer for the sake of cheap things for everyone is something that I feel uneasy about, despite it being the accepted path of "progress".

By the way, did you watch the video I linked (Humans Need Not Apply)? It articulates very well the point I'm trying to make.

2
48

[–] MCVoat 2 points 48 points (+50|-2) ago 

Uber destroyed my business

No, you did when you failed to adapt to a changing market and give customers what they want.

For decades cab companies have been screwing over their customers AND their employees and suddenly competition comes along that wants to offer customers a better experience. That's how capitalism works. So sad to see these neanderthals beating up Uber drivers just because they offer a better product.

What does this say for innovation in America? Better not try and improve on a service because the companies that are already in business will burn you down or complain to the government until you're gone. We don't improve anything that way. Young entrepreneurs will second guess going into business for themselves.

0
1

[–] hypercat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The fact that JUST recently cabs take cards blows my mind. They were cash only and now a few of them take cards. I MADE my cab driver (who is independent and owns 2 cars) take Square the second it came out (Known him for years). He gets more fares just by that little sign that says "VISA/MC" than any ad or app. He also uses flywheel and a few other modern apps. They are the dinosaurs of transportation.

0
9

[–] neverending_strife 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

If Uber destroyed their business, why not just drive for Uber? Problem solved!

1
12

[–] RabidRaccoon 1 point 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

I do sympathise with the taxi drivers to some extent. They paid money for a medallion because that was the only way they could operate. However that doesn't mean they're allowed to stop Uber.

0
4

[–] Yollasho 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Not all of them pay for a medallion. Many PAY the taxi company to be allowed to drive for the company...sort of like renting a license I guess.

One guy in Boston owns 21% of the medallions. I'm sure he's just rolling while all his drivers are broke as fuck paying him out the ass just to be able to drive. What a scheme.

1
19

[–] White_Raven 1 point 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

You sympathize with people for buying something they lobbied to make requirement that now puts them at a massive disadvantage because that thing they lobbied to have made mandatory is also expensive as fuck and so they cannot compete which was the intention of the thing that they wanted?