by philmoberg » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:03 pm
FWIW, I'm not sure that Buy America policies apply in this case, primarily because of NAFTA. At this point, most of the rolling stock manufacturers are either NAFTA companies or have U.S. subsidiaries which are covered under Buy America. I'd also make the observation, having been in the middle of (read in the crossfire of) labor negotiations several times, that much of what is goes on these days is posturing, and can be quite histrionic because it makes for good theater on the evening news. We just got over such a situation, including a lockout, with the NBA, and it leaves me wondering what my great grandfather, who helped organize his local of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and who retired with sixty-two years in the railroad industry, would think of all this. I'd be curious to know what is actually going an behind the theatrics.
The biggest problems EMD has are legacies of its days as a a subsidiary of GM, these being the whole scope if its labor relations, and the one hand, and their approach to quality control and innovation on the other hand. These were based on the assumptions of planned obsolescence, cheap energy and perpetually growing demand. The consequences of this approach, and the corporation's failure to comprehend (much less to respond effectively to) the consequences of it have been well documented, beginning as early as the late-'60s with an early, notorious case study that identified a corporate culture of Not Invented Here (which later became the basis of the Python group's Knights who say NIH, by the way). Similar problems existed, to some extent, in all heavy industries. In order to avoid what they had witnessed in the railroad industry a generation earlier, investors began to divest themselves of these industries and their internal and external liabilities. Because of severe inflation and changes to the tax codes, most of this money was re-invested in low capital, high growth businesses, the bulk of which provided services of various sorts. It is now beginning to dawn on a growing number of investors, for a variety of good reasons (which I'll be happy to get into if there is any interest), that this economy would be more healthy if we made more of what we consumed.
I'd be curious to know what Progress has in mind for the Indiana plant. If it's strictly a final assembly operation, I wouldn't expect most of the wages to be better than industry-standard entry level for an new startup. I would be more interested to see where the wages go in the next few years, if the plant's order book grows and the operation turns out to be a good investment. For the time being, however, the local economy is bound to improve - these being jobs where there previously were none - and I have to wish them well.
Please don't think I'm attempting to minimize a bad situation: I started out in the mid-'70s, with the country's industrial base collapsing around me, 17-18% inflation and growth limited to the retail and food service sectors. It's a frustrating situation, but I see some underlying and unremarked trends more cause for optimism than I had then.