HP not following US Law--Selling to Iran

[rbailleu]

has anyone looked at the number of union jobs versus the management employees at the us auto manufacturers a compared that to the other auto makers . and wage differences at this level. I wonder why you don't hear this number.

OH yeah did you hear that some yahoo out east wants to bail out the newspaper industry now. I say maybe they should start charging more for there services.

 

[JaimeZ]

ABDick' Miscues

ABDick' Miscues

Hey guys,

The AB Dick managers made bad decisions? Please elaborate on that comment. What did they do wrong?
OG

offsetguy,

ABDick made some bad decisions.

We can start with picking bad vendors: ABDick had the technology to roll out the first polyester CTP device in 1990, but the vendor that supplied the laser at the last minute increased the price to the point that ABDick could not use that vendor and had to go back to re-engineer the CTP device delaying it until 1995 when they introduced the first DPM, therefore allowing Mitsubishi to gain market share with their DPX device.

Or how about the Century press? ABDick introduced a press that was not ready for the market having a few major problems (I'm sure you remember those days, offsetguy) and therefore tainting the Century's reputation. This press had the capabilities to go head to head with the Ryobi 3302 press but no one would buy it with its problems. Instead when ABDick purchased Itek they got the OEM for the Ryobi 3302 (the Itek 3985) and rebranded it as the the ABDick 9985--a great press which we own.

ABDick was also slow to anticipate the change in the small offset market. We have seen this segment decline in sales over the last ten years and ABDick did not develop digital equipment and instead saw Xerox, Cannon, Ricoh, KM etc. make significant footholds in new equipment purchases by the small commercial and quick printer. Similarly they also aloud Riso to dominate the digital duplicator market instead of continuing the OEM ABDick had with what I believe was Ricoh (I'm not sure about who the OEM was), but the bottom line is they blew that too.

And then there was ownership itself. First GE England which used ABDick as a cash cow instead of infusing R&D dollars back into the company. When NESCO purchased ABDick, NESCO tried to revitalize ABDick but it was too late for the short term and instead had to allow ABDick to declare bankruptcy leading to Presstek's eventual purchase.

 

[mattf]

many subjects in one pot

many subjects in one pot

Ok, this branched from just selling printers to Iran to proper business practices to union legitimacy. Gotta love our current economy!

1) As rbailleu stated, unions were a great thing in the past. They provided security, safety, fairness and flexibility with their work environment. Unions protected the workers, and I guarantee 99.99% of the population will agree that it was something that needed to be done (Last .01% are the people who wanted the money for themselves and would squeeze whatever they could to get it).

As time went on we see that a lot of what unions stood for have been converted to laws. These laws now protect every American citizen within any type of job, not just union based. Many people will say these laws are broken, many will say these laws are working and just as many would say these laws are crippling businesses. A good example of a website that gets into all this type of stuff is American Rights at Work - Home

Whether you agree with unions or not is beyond the point. The point is these businesses, example would be the big 3, are not doing as well as some of their overseas competitors. There are multiple reasons for this. Total cost per worker, union management, lax environment in regards to on-site rules and regulations, company management and even business model. The whole idea is their business isn't doing well. The company needs to figure out a way to survive or they are gone. Whether this means retooling how unions work, reorganization of the whole company, rethinking how they do business and so on.

Government bailout is not going to solve anything. It only prolongs the inevitable. Financial institutions are going under. Giving them a life-line while not changing how they do business isn't going to stop the bleeding. Giving a bailout to the automotive industries prevents them from making the changes they need in order to survive and stay competitive. I'll probably be challenged on that notion. If you don't agree I'll try to explain in another post

2) Touched on in #1, business practices that work is a key to surviving in any economy. If you sell a widget for $1 and it costs you $2 to produce, you can't survive. If you sell a widget for $1 and it costs .99 cents to produce, you can survive. It doesn't matter how much the union workers cost with their pay and benefits, if the company itself isn't able to manage that cost in order stay successful something needs to change. Management AND workers need to realize that. Its a fine line, but both need to understand each other in order to succeed.

We aren't talking about changing an element in the process, but the whole process itself. Lean Manufacturing is one way to start thinking about this, same with Six Sigma. As Lean states, we shouldn't put blame on someone for what they did wrong, but see what happened, why it happened, figure out a solution to insure that it never happens again. The big 3 need to come to grips with this and start quick. They can choose whatever system they so wish, just as long as they know that such change will come slow, but they will come.

Toyota does just this with their Toyota Production System. Granted, they've had about 40+ years to fine tune it, but it works nonetheless. You shouldn't emulate the system down to the period, but examining how your own company works at the moment and trying to improve on it by giving the workers the ability to improve themselves is a major step.

3) The original topic. There are two sides to every story. There are two sides of facts to every subject. Instead of trying to fight both sides and get nowhere, lets try to think about the overall facts (If there are any!)

Why do many in America not agree with Iran? Easy enough, they are seen as a terrorist supportive country that their leadership also wishes to destroy the state of Israel. Personally I take offense to it, I have family that lives there. There are many other reasons, but I put those two down because they usually are the most commonly seen.

Why does Iran wish to destroy the state of Israel?

One sentence should get this. They are a successful non-Islamic state routed in a historical area that is deeply disputed between Islamic and non-Islamic religions.

If Israel was a country in disarray, I don't think Iran would give much thought, because of the fact that it would be in disarray and unpleasant for non-Islamic individuals living in the country.

So why do we care about HP Printers being sold to Iran?

I said I take offense to Iran leadership saying they wish to destroy Israel because of a subsection of my family being there. Something personal to me gives me that opinion. The people of Iran actually also agree with the president on this fact ,which was a bit disturbing to see. They want Israel gone, they want nuclear weapons.

All that aside, Iran's president was elected by democratic vote. America as a country have "supported" democratically elected governments, but only when they support the US's wants and needs. That is why we support Afghanistan, but not much with Venezuela's decisions.

So out of all these issues we have with Iran, its not OK with HP to sell printers to them third party style, but it was OK for coca-cola and to sell to Nazi Germany? Bad example to some, well lets try to dig deeper. The big 3 sell cars to dealerships, they have to sell the cars to consumers. They are independently owned and operated, but they still help the big 3 make money. So American companies CAN'T sell their products to independent dealerships, all be it foreign dealerships who do whatever it takes to sell the product? Isn't that in the first chapter in economics? Demand drives supply? Worrying about printers at the same level as nuclear material is a stretch, even to me. Politics aside, the whole idea of naming businesses "terrorist supportive" is like saying the military industrial complex in America are "terrorist supporters" in the eyes of Iran. Where has the world gone....

Two cents became four, criticize at your leisure

 

[Vee]

I've owned a Chevy, Ford, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Jeep, and a Mazda. The Jeep was great! 190k miles on it when I sold it. But the Chevy was the best car for the $$. Hands down.

I have a close family member who owns a Tire & Automotive shop in my town, they do the entire spectrum of repairs, rebuilds, maintenance, etc. His advice is this, buy American. You can get an Impala for about 10k less than a Honda, it gets better gas mileage, will last just as long with proper maintenance, and will cost approx 1/3 of the price for repairs across the life of the car. Sure the foreign cars are good cars, but if you have engine or transmission troubles you will pay a premium to have them fixed.... Example: A part (plastic tank) on my old Mazda costs the $60, that same part is $25 on an Impala.

EDIT: About the comment in an earlier post, The big 3 not building what consumers want, I think that is WAY off! Everyone wanted SUVs, until gas went to $4 / gallon... then they wanted something else overnight. SUVs were in demand in a big way.

 

[starprintingltd]

JaimeZ whats it to you if they sell printers to Iran. Iran is not the terrorist, america is and britian. You do not even know the truth. You hear what they want to hear. You see what they want you to see and so on. SO search the truth my friend.

The americans kill children, massacre people, rape women, kill everyone they come across. Look whats happened now in Israel. Is that Right? Tell me. Please research the conflict. This conflict has been going on for decades now. They try to take land from the palestinians and the innocent people are being killed. They defend themselves as you would if someone invaded your country. Wake up.

Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Bosnia, Somalia, Indonesia, - they all can't be wrong can they. So why have they been subjected to wars and killings

 

[J]

Iran is not the terrorist, america is and britian. You do not even know the truth. You hear what they want to hear. You see what they want you to see and so on. SO search the truth my friend.

Some of the anger in Iran towards the US might come from the fact that the US supported Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War which began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980. The US support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. Donald Rumsfeld, for example, met with Saddam on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad, five days later, on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."
The war lasted from September 1980 to August 1988 with some half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians killed.

I guess wars will continue until they become less profitable than peace.

J

 

[gordo]

About the comment in an earlier post, The big 3 not building what consumers want, I think that is WAY off! Everyone wanted SUVs, until gas went to $4 / gallon... then they wanted something else overnight. SUVs were in demand in a big way.

I believe that comment was mine. There is nothing inherently wrong with SUVs - auto makers loved them because their profit margins way exceeded conventional cars. Consumers may react to topical crisis events like fast rising gasoline price increases - however those issues have happened before. In fact consumer reaction to high gas prices was one of the reasons that the Japanese automakers originally got their entry into the US market in the first place.
When I said the big 3 were not building what consumers want, all you have to do is look at their history of blocking innovation in consumer auto safety (it took Ralph Nader to battle that) alternative fuels and other initiatives (check out Who Killed the Electric Car? the 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s).
There has been a need to rethink automobile design and engineering for decades, but the BIG 3 act the same way as consumers - they're reactive not proactive. They're recycling old ideas in order to appear that they are doing "the right thing."

best, gordo

 

[mattf]

I believe that comment was mine. There is nothing inherently wrong with SUVs - auto makers loved them because their profit margins way exceeded conventional cars. Consumers may react to topical crisis events like fast rising gasoline price increases - however those issues have happened before. In fact consumer reaction to high gas prices was one of the reasons that the Japanese automakers originally got their entry into the US market in the first place.
When I said the big 3 were not building what consumers want, all you have to do is look at their history of blocking innovation in consumer auto safety (it took Ralph Nader to battle that) alternative fuels and other initiatives (check out Who Killed the Electric Car? the 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s).
There has been a need to rethink automobile design and engineering for decades, but the BIG 3 act the same way as consumers - they're reactive not proactive. They're recycling old ideas in order to appear that they are doing "the right thing."

best, gordo

I'll agree with your comment to a point. The big 3 automakers are making cars that are both profitable for themselves as well as demanded by the market. In a "true" free market we would be able to say "we want an electric car" and the suppliers would create one. Simple enough of course, but there are tons of in between steps to consider.

However, because of our specific car driven society and the needs of the population, automakers can easily get away with just recycling the old ideas. People within this market will ALWAYS want a few things:

1) powerful vehicle
2) lots of space (storage and passenger capacity)
3) crash safety
4) cool lookin' car (image is key!)

Real life example here. My girlfriend has 3 kids and they have always loved to go camping. Is it feasible to pack a small dinky car with 40 mpg with all the camping equipment needed on top of the whole family? Of course not, thats why she likes SUV's. Large enough to carry the whole family, but also large enough to carry a flotilla of other stuff along with the family.

Granted, there are other companies other then the big 3.

30 electric cars companies ready to take over the road » VentureBeat

A major shift within consumer thinking about what car they wish to have and what they need in a car is the only way for consumers to demand for something else. The economy in my mind is "rigged" to not be steady. On top of the fact we grew in the US within a car culture mindset, there will always be innovation with technology but then there will be an equal amount of downs to push innovation to the curb. Gas isn't $4 a gallon now, and no one has any money anyway (Or someone has the money but they don't want to spend it). Why change?

 

[Vee]

Hi Gordo,
I'm actually familiar with the "Who Killed the Electric Car" piece. My point was simply that these guys were making exactly what most of the buyers wanted - SUV's. There was a stronger demand for SUV's than electric or battery powered automobiles in the recent past. Today the focus may be shifted to electric, alternative powered vehicles, etc.... but with respect to the aforementioned statement, I think GM and Ford (among others) were producing what was in strong demand.

I do agree with you, old ideas are being recycled, and there is a need for fresh design and engineering in the auto industry.

Regards,
Vee

I believe that comment was mine. There is nothing inherently wrong with SUVs - auto makers loved them because their profit margins way exceeded conventional cars. Consumers may react to topical crisis events like fast rising gasoline price increases - however those issues have happened before. In fact consumer reaction to high gas prices was one of the reasons that the Japanese automakers originally got their entry into the US market in the first place.
When I said the big 3 were not building what consumers want, all you have to do is look at their history of blocking innovation in consumer auto safety (it took Ralph Nader to battle that) alternative fuels and other initiatives (check out Who Killed the Electric Car? the 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s).
There has been a need to rethink automobile design and engineering for decades, but the BIG 3 act the same way as consumers - they're reactive not proactive. They're recycling old ideas in order to appear that they are doing "the right thing."

best, gordo

 

[spiderman 2012]

Hi
Dear...
our company haveamacdermid colorspan DM98UVR and wewantbuy a ink pomp for this machine. thanks for your advice.
BEST REGARD

 

[Slammer]

I am surprised at the people who are surprised that companies use a third party to flog stuff to the "Axis of evil" heck if a company did not sell then I would want my shares back.

 

[OkiTech]

Hi guys, excellent tread. I have truly enjoyed reading every post. Lots of interesting topics being exposed far beyond printing industry.

 

[gordo]

At some point i would hope that our common biology would supersede our different ideology.

Gordo

 

[FileJockey]

What country should the sanctions really be against?

What country should the sanctions really be against?

Agree with starprintingltd. Iran is not an enemy of the U.S., although it may in fact be an enemy of Israel, who is the leading proponent of war against Iran in their own quest for regional dominance (Israel has already been carrying out a covert war against Iran, assassinating scientists and destroying industrial facilities). The idea that Iran might (but probably won't) get a nuke is driving Israel nuts because it could challenge their own nuclear arsenal. Hence, the crippling sanctions and the threats of attack against Iran. Today's commentary in the Guardian is on the subject of Israel as a rogue state. U.S. foreign policy is dictated by neoconservative right-wing Israel supporters who gained prominence in the last half century, advocating for the destruction or overthrow of every Islamic country in the Middle East. Refer to the nefarious "Project for a New American Century," a Washington think tank headed by major Zionist Islamophobes William Kristol and Robert Kagan with the help of other notorious scumbags like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Israel goaded the U.S. into the Iraq war and are attempting the same with Iran. Say what you will about Obama, at least he has held firm against another stupid invasion at the insistence of war-mongerers including Israel. What's more, there is an astonishing escalation of apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Israel/Palestine by the Jewish residents (who have consistently elected racist ethno-nationalist champs like Netanyahu to run their government). So, trying to push the U.S. into another unnecessary war and carrying out blatant crimes against humanity, any one who thinks that Israel is an "ally" of the U.S. is deluded and possibly dangerous.

Anyway, back to HP, they have a huge operation in Israel, so I'm kind of surprised that they would be so bold with their Iranian deal.

 

[Mark]

Clinton sold rocket technology secrets to China which is a heck of a lot more dangerous than a Indigo.
Who cares if Iran gets a printer or two, maybe their people will print up some pro democracy propaganda and have a revolution against the government there.