You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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
0

[–] SiWofos ago 

Thank you for taking the time to outline your position. You make some good points. However, in answer to your question about why can't the current workforce find a way to do it faster / cheaper / better quality? The sad truth is that factories in China (and increasingly other countries in Asia) have pay and conditions that would be intolerable to workers in the West.

For example, this article states that in 2013 Cambodian workers making textiles for the global market received a wage increase from $60 to $75 a month, plus a $5 living allowance. While two or three dollars per day is decent enough money in Cambodia (to have one of these jobs is a good thing over there), I imagine that the average North American, European, or Australian would indeed be grieved by such wages.

I see a global trend of rising third-world wages and falling first-world ones. This seems fair and good, but painful to those mid-to-low-skilled workers in the first-world who will lack the opportunities for advancement that their parents had.