Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I seen "H Ford wiki entry" which picked and chose one quote from a book to suit an argument while ignoring other facts.
Employees were paid $5 for an 8 hour day, but were often required to work 12-15 hours. He later changed to 8 hour work day but thats only because it became more profitable to run the factory 24 hours a day, 3 shifts.
If the plant was shut down for 5 minutes, employees had to sign out for an hour, giving Ford 55 minutes of unpaid labor.
Employee rate as his factories was over 50% because no one would work for him and the costs to train employees were too expensive, which is when he doubled the wage to $5 a day.
If you complained about such policies, you were fired.
The man treated his employees like dirt.. but liberals like to hold him up as a fabulous example as to how employees should be treated..
All employers back in the early part of the century treated employees like dirt, Ford much less so which is why so many southerners migrated north to Detroit to work for him. You want to pick and choose figures out of the air without comparing them to others in the manufacturing base of the times and that doesn't prove a thing.
Ford was a Welfare Capitalist and nothing like the capitalists of today.
"When Ford started the 40-hour work week [1926] and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the change in part of the "Wages" chapter of My Life and Work.[19] He labeled the increased compensation as profit-sharing rather than wages."
Henry Ford only paid his employees $2.50 a day when he opened up his factory. He only doubled the wage to $5 a day when the turnover rate passed 50% and the costs to retrain new employees were astronomical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
This had nothing what so ever to do with unions at that point in time, unless you want to refute his own book on the topic. The rest of the rebuttals in your post to me (#82) are too silly to reply to.
The man had a private police force which would crack down on any employee trying to uninize. Later when unions got a foothold, Mr Ford decided to close up Ford Motor Company, until his wife threated to leave him if Mr Ford did not recognize the unions and end a strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
This had nothing what so ever to do with unions at that point in time, unless you want to refute his own book on the topic. The rest of the rebuttals in your post to me (#82) are too silly to reply to.
Yeah, its too silly to respond with fact against the hero of the left "Mr Ford" who treated his employees like crap and thats why he needed to pay them so much.. a 50% turn over rate is HORRIBLE for any company..
All employers back in the early part of the century treated employees like dirt, Ford much less so which is why so many southerners migrated north to Detroit to work for him. You want to pick and choose figures out of the air without comparing them to others in the manufacturing base of the times and that doesn't prove a thing.
Then tell me why Ford had a 50% turnover rate? If it was so common, then individuals wouldn't have quit Ford Motor Company to work elsewhere, considering he paid "twice the going rate"..
The topic we were discussing was your claim: "The fact that 'he paid more to allow them to buy his own product' is a myth."
It was not a myth, per his autobiography.
So that issue looks resolved.
its indeed a myth, since you like Wikipedia so much.. Efficiency wages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Raff and Summers (1987) conduct a case study on Henry Ford’s introduction of the five dollar day in 1914. Their conclusion is that the Ford experience supports efficiency wage interpretations. Ford’s decision to increase wages so dramatically (doubling for most workers) is most plausibly portrayed as the consequence of efficiency wage considerations, with the structure being consistent, evidence of substantial queues for Ford jobs, and significant increases in productivity and profits at Ford. Concerns such as high turnover and poor worker morale appear to have played a significant role in the five-dollar decision. Ford’s new wage put him in the position of rationing jobs, and increased wages did yield substantial productivity benefits and profits. There is also evidence that other firms emulated Ford’s policy to some extent, with wages in the automobile industry 40% higher than in the rest of manufacturing (Rae 1965, quoted in Raff and Summers). Given low monitoring costs and skill levels on the Ford production line, such benefits (and the decision itself) appear particularly significant.
Henry Ford only paid his employees $2.50 a day when he opened up his factory. He only doubled the wage to $5 a day when the turnover rate passed 50% and the costs to retrain new employees were astronomical.
Ford was the first industrialist to recognize the value of trained employees and start paying them accordingly. Why is that so hard for you to recognize his contributions to improving the lives of common man? Whatever his reasons may or may not have been, his place in labor history are facts.
Quote:
The man had a private police force which would crack down on any employee trying to uninize. Later when unions got a foothold, Mr Ford decided to close up Ford Motor Company, until his wife threated to leave him if Mr Ford did not recognize the unions and end a strike.
As did other companies in the early part of the century. Want to talk about how many coal miners were gunned down by machine guns while doing a sit down strike? You can't study history in a vacuum.
Quote:
Yeah, its too silly to respond with fact against the hero of the left "Mr Ford" who treated his employees like crap and thats why he needed to pay them so much.. a 50% turn over rate is HORRIBLE for any company..
ooh lookie.. another wikipedia posting..
Your rebuttal that I called silly was you stating that I was advocating for Americans to work for $3.00 an hour. (Your post #82) And for your information, Ford in neither a hero of the left or a villain. He is what he was: an important figure in American history.
Then tell me why Ford had a 50% turnover rate? If it was so common, then individuals wouldn't have quit Ford Motor Company to work elsewhere, considering he paid "twice the going rate"..
He didn't pay the workers twice as much when he had the 50% turnover, silly goose. He raised the pay rate to stop the turn-over....you've even said this yourself in earlier posts. As side from that, auto manufacturing was dangerous work back then and many people quit for that reason alone.
do you realize, pghquest, that in quoting that entry at w'pedia you're quoting a paraphrase of a study by "Raff and Summers (1987)"?
In other words, you're acknowledging that responsible wikipedia entries are collections of referenced information.
Your quote is not relevant to what we were talking about, but thanks regarding wikipedia
I quoted a study.. Yes, I sent you the link
Is this your way of validating Wikipedia, or discrediting the study, which indeed comes from a list of sources from the period of time when Ford increased wages?
Hell, I sent you the link on Wikipedia for a reason.. I very easily could have found the original study and linked you to it.. Glad you now understand the humor of Wikipedia..
He didn't pay the workers twice as much when he had the 50% turnover, silly goose. He raised the pay rate to stop the turn-over....you've even said this yourself in earlier posts. As side from that, auto manufacturing was dangerous work back then and many people quit for that reason alone.
So now through all of these postings arguing with me, you now admit that he raised the pay to stop turn-over, not to allow employees to buy his products.
So now through all of these postings arguing with me, you now admit that he raised the pay to stop turn-over, not to allow employees to buy his products.
No I don't admit that. His manufacturing career spanned many decades and you are talking about one decade while I'm talking about another. I also do not doubt his own words in his own autobiography. I've even seen period writings that back up that his philosophy of setting wages so workers could buy the products they built was for real.
I'm off to go out for dinner. You'll have to find someone else to play with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
