|
Vauxhall "Reckless"..........................
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39738302
The line in the article above "................. the company put money and reputation ahead of safety............." made me smile, I would suggest this is about the same as saying the Pope is catholic?
Since when did any mainstream business put the safely of it's customers above the "needs" of its shareholders?
|
|
Sadly, this is the short-termism which is endemic in large companies. Ultimately the shareholders' best interests are served by a company building up a good reputation over time. But shareholders in public companies are mostly institutions nowadays, and demand maximum dividend payouts each year - so that not enough gets retained in the company for future growth.
That's an over-simplification but is essentially true of most large public corporations.
|
|
Yes Avant, spot-on, I think the word is GREED?
Same everywhere, a very sad reflection of society.
Same in the rail industry where the companies want to remove guards from trains. I would suggest if they actually put TWO guards on every train AND both these ensured everyone had a valid ticket, they would make more money?
|
|
The main gripe of the report is that it took three whole months between Vauxhall becoming aware of the problem on already recalled vehicles, despite the need to engineer a solution and arrange for production and distribution of the necessary parts. Wasn't the main problem that people were bypassing safety fuses when they blew due to corrosion in the motor?
|
Black Box thinking by Matthew Syed is a good insight into issues such as this.
His argument is whenever there is an aircraft accident there is an immediate full investigation launched and changes made to reduce the risk of another.
In other walks of life such as car design leading to fires this doesn't happen. Protect the brand and the company is paramount. As buyers we also don't help ourselves by continuing to buy their products.
|
|
|
|
|
Greed, perhaps, but please don't muddy the waters with spouting on about guards on trains, which have been shown by the rail regulator and worldwide make NO difference discernable to safety on a modern rail system. In fact, the safest train systems are the fully automated ones with no driver as well.
|
Greed, perhaps, but please don't muddy the waters with spouting on about guards on trains, which have been shown by the rail regulator and worldwide make NO difference discernable to safety on a modern rail system. In fact, the safest train systems are the fully automated ones with no driver as well.
I never mentioned safety regarding my argument for train guards, (even though the union is using this as the excuse), I mentioned greed. The rail company wants to maximise it's profits and the union wants to maximise(or retain) the income of its members. My suggestion was that both might be achieved if fares were always collected?
|
Greed, perhaps, but please don't muddy the waters with spouting on about guards on trains, which have been shown by the rail regulator and worldwide make NO difference discernable to safety on a modern rail system. In fact, the safest train systems are the fully automated ones with no driver as well.
I never mentioned safety regarding my argument for train guards, (even though the union is using this as the excuse), I mentioned greed. The rail company wants to maximise it's profits and the union wants to maximise(or retain) the income of its members. My suggestion was that both might be achieved if fares were always collected?
Fair enough, but the vast majority of non-payers are young people, mainly teenagers and college students who like to 'try it on', and are very good at avoiding ticket inspectors, even when there are several (I've seen 4 at one time in the rush hour) when they have an opportunity to walk up the carriages or get off at a different stop and wait 15 mins for the next train.
At busy time it needs 4 of them to check the whole train by its final destination - imagine having enough for EVERY scheduled train ALL day - no way would that be profitable, especially out of busy times, thus they target certain times of the day and randomly so that 'regular' evaders don't get savvy. It works OK in my view.
Better to have barriers at the vast majority of stations, or at least where its known that lots of ticket evaders use the station (aside from a few seldomly used rural ones) and staff to catch the evaders there instead, rather than on every train.
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, this is the short-termism which is endemic in large companies. Ultimately the shareholders' best interests are served by a company building up a good reputation over time. But shareholders in public companies are mostly institutions nowadays, and demand maximum dividend payouts each year - so that not enough gets retained in the company for future growth.
That's an over-simplification but is essentially true of most large public corporations.
Indeed - effectively the shares in major firms are controlled by directors in other major firms (who actually don't own that many, but run the firm so control the assets on a day-to-day basis), so individual investors get frozen out of decision making. Only pension funds have any sort of clout, and slowly they are waking up to how angry many ordinary people are (who are also investors in the pension funds) and are gradually felxing their proverbial muscles, such as vetoing huge (and unwarranted) pay deals and pay-offs for directors.
Short-termism is a fact of modern life - in sport, instant soundbites from politicians caring only about tomorrow's headlines and so-called journalists wanting to agitate for the same reasons (and damn the consequences), employers telling staff to spend less time on tasks without giving them the tools/resources they need, people taking risks in their own life to save time or money. Most people grumble/moan at their TV, but expects 'someone else' to solve these problems, rather than getting off their backsides and taking a moral/ethical stand (that doesn't mean a left-wing approach, which, despite claims by such people, aren't one and the same), even if that means making sacrifices themselves.
Car firms are no different - IMO they bend, or in some circumstances break the rules until they get caught, and mostly do the absolute minimum to go towards resolving the problem. I think that one day, perhaps not with VAG with dieselgate or Vauxhall here, one major firm (not necessarily a car firm either) will go under as a result of some scandal like this that is so severe that their reputation never recovers - perhaps it will scare the living daylights out of other firms and they change to treat customers and staff with the respect they deserve.
|
|
History is littered with product failures which management then seek to conceal rather than effectively communicate.
The short term cost to reputation and finances is frequently minor by comparison to longer term impacts which stick. Personally I accept that suppliers and products will occassionally fail - the critical element is how quickly and fairly the issue is dealt with.
The motor industry is amongst the worst of offenders but not alone. You would have thought they would have learned by now!
|
|
WHY is anyone surprised?
GM : the compamny that stalked Nadir who revealed the lack of safety of GM cars.
The compny which builds cars in Mexico to lower standards than cars in US
The company that is so badly run it has gone from No 1 in cars to No 3 in 15 years.
The company whose quality is so-so..with no technical leadership .
|
The company whose quality is so-so..with no technical leadership .
...... and that is the problem with MOST big businesses, run by accountants with NO technical expertese whatsoever. Short-term gains win again (for now at least)!
|
The company whose quality is so-so..with no technical leadership .
...... and that is the problem with MOST big businesses, run by accountants with NO technical expertese whatsoever. Short-term gains win again (for now at least)!
I would add that many technical firms (I've worked for many [in Construction, not the motor industry]) also have a problem by promoting experienced technical staff to middle and upper ranked managerial positions who have no idea how to manage people (often promoted due to technical expertise, length of time at the firm, or most likely, how good they are at sucking up to the boss), which is just as bad as installing bean counters as Directors.
Particularly bad in the UK, which is why I originally was surprised at why the VAG dieselgate issue arose (the Germans are generally better on that score than us), but not so about GM/Vauxhall vehicle fires.
|
|
I don't think short-termism is solely the province of accountants.
There is a pervasive management approach which continually seeks to put off until tomorrow that which could be dealt with today. Sales and marketing staff hope that next quarters figures will be better, engineers don't want to expose design deficiencies, etc etc.
This approach has many advantages - minimises short term hassle, the risk identified may not actually manifest itself, someone else may be in charge and have to sort the problem out.
|
|
All of this is nothing new, but where it hits the "Punter" hardest nowadays is that..
1. Jo bloggs buys new car.... correctly serviced till end of warranty.. then with VAG/Merc/BMW no "goodwill" afterwards unless lots of publicity and lots of widespread complaints and dealers who care..Some mostly far eastern maufactures having longer warranties.
2. Jo bloggs buys used after warranty...ZERO chance of goodwill, and a lot less help from selling dealers who will still try to wiggle..
3. Cost of replacement major components after warranty. DMF's EGR's mechatronic units,etc etc..
All being done to drive "Punters" to change on a regular cycle. the PCP/leasing/Hp deals, all of them credit of some sort to get people into the vicious circle of continually replacing and regarding cars as white goods.
|
All of this is nothing new, but where it hits the "Punter" hardest nowadays is that..
1. Jo bloggs buys new car.... correctly serviced till end of warranty.. then with VAG/Merc/BMW no "goodwill" afterwards unless lots of publicity and lots of widespread complaints and dealers who care..Some mostly far eastern maufactures having longer warranties.
2. Jo bloggs buys used after warranty...ZERO chance of goodwill, and a lot less help from selling dealers who will still try to wiggle..
3. Cost of replacement major components after warranty. DMF's EGR's mechatronic units,etc etc..
All being done to drive "Punters" to change on a regular cycle. the PCP/leasing/Hp deals, all of them credit of some sort to get people into the vicious circle of continually replacing and regarding cars as white goods.
Its the same in most of society, including the jobs market - for those of us who have worked as contractors or got a job (incl. permanent ones) via over job agencies the years, I wonder how many have sourced a job via one, and within a few months been bothered by the same agent, tapping you up for another job by 'asking' if you like the job they said was 'great' and a 'wonderful employer' - essentially implying they were lying before and could get you something better elsewhere.
What really surprises me these days is when people/firms are actually completely open, honest and selfless in their dealings with me. To me, that's a sure way to make proper friends and to obtain my business long term, rather than lies and short term gimmics/promises that don't amount to much. The same goes for car firms and their staff.
|
|
I once owned a Vauxhall, but having read this tale I doubt whether I ever will again. A catalogue of quite appalling behaviour by a company which chose self preservation in preference to integrity, and ended up achieving neither.
Just by way of clarification, the RMT are not demanding the retention of train guards solely to prevent fare dodging. There are safety issues to consider, things which could not be achieved by drivers without leaving their cabs and delaying the train. Helping disabled passengers get off and on when station staff are unavailable/ otherwise engaged, and assisting people on the moving train who need information or other kinds of aid. Most of all, being available to look after vulnerable passengers who might find themselves alone on a late train and sharing a carriage with dodgy characters; for example, train company executives.
|
Just by way of clarification, the RMT are not demanding the retention of train guards solely to prevent fare dodging. There are safety issues to consider, things which could not be achieved by drivers without leaving their cabs and delaying the train. Helping disabled passengers get off and on when station staff are unavailable/ otherwise engaged, and assisting people on the moving train who need information or other kinds of aid. Most of all, being available to look after vulnerable passengers who might find themselves alone on a late train and sharing a carriage with dodgy characters; for example, train company executives.
It would not be such a problem if every platform had station attendants to help out, but I'm not sure this is the case. People like guards, someone to speak with if there a problem. As for fare dodgers, I have known guards who have been attacked by fare dodgers, it's a totally different topic (and not an acceptable excuse) but for the low paid fares are too high, it's interesting that other countries can have better systems with lower fares. Leave it with that comment, I could go further but it's not motoring related!
|
|
1. Jo bloggs buys new car.... correctly serviced till end of warranty.. then with VAG/Merc/BMW no "goodwill" afterwards unless lots of publicity and lots of widespread complaints and dealers who care..Some mostly far eastern maufactures having longer warranties.
It's a free market and people have choices. If they choose to buy a car with a dubious reputation for reliability and/or service without checking - it is their own fault.
If they choose to buy a car with a shorter warranty period, it is their own fault..
Inferior makers survive and often prosper because many consumers are lazy or taken in by bling..
|
1. Jo bloggs buys new car.... correctly serviced till end of warranty.. then with VAG/Merc/BMW no "goodwill" afterwards unless lots of publicity and lots of widespread complaints and dealers who care..Some mostly far eastern maufactures having longer warranties.
It's a free market and people have choices. If they choose to buy a car with a dubious reputation for reliability and/or service without checking - it is their own fault.
If they choose to buy a car with a shorter warranty period, it is their own fault..
Inferior makers survive and often prosper because many consumers are lazy or taken in by bling..
Which is exactly my point.
|
|
|
|
