The AP is reporting that the Wisconsin company may be relocating jobs from its Fond Du Lac plant to its Stillwater plant:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090823/ap_on_bi_ge/us_mercury_marine_3
Basstrackers, Bayliners and a Party Barge, roped together like a floating trailer park...
Really I just hope that Stillwater doesn't lose its Mercruiser plant. Gaining jobs in Stilly would be good, but I was just hoping that the parent company wouldn't decide to close the Stilly plant. This sounds like the plant won't be closing. Fingers crossed.
"Mercury Marine had asked for changes to a four-year contract it signed a year ago. The company had said workers would see no pay cuts under its proposal, but the union said workers were asked give up 2 percent pay raises in each of the last two years of the contract. The average hourly wage now is about $20, the union said."
That's union logic for you. These people voted against keeping their jobs over $.80 an hour over two years. W*T*F*????
We are in the worst recession since the depression (at least that's what they were saying before POTUS Obama took office) this company builds powerplants mostly for recreational equipment which is a particularly hard-hit segment of industry in times like these and the union convinced their followers to piss away their $40,000 a year jobs over two $800 per year raises, roughly a net $10 a week difference on their paycheck per year. What does UEI pay? 55% of gross earnings? Does the union provide some sort of stipend? What will these folks do when UEI runs out? Will the government create a bottomless pit of UEI benefits for these union loyalists?
D'Oh!
Someone feel free to correct me if I missed something here, but I for one think the union mentality lost on this one. Nice deal for our regional economy if Stillwater gets these jobs.
Maybe some of the Wisconsin workers will move to Oklahoma. We need more Packer fans...
http://www.tulsa-packerbackers.org/
Chaulk another one up for "Right To Work" ;D
Quote from: MDepr2007 on August 23, 2009, 09:47:07 PM
Chaulk another one up for "Right To Work" ;D
That's right, but it won't ever be reported that way.
Say, I once was told the MM plant in Stillwater also was the contractor for the Z1 engine for Corvettes. That was some years ago, but wondered if anyone knew this to be true or still true.
Quote from: Wrinkle on August 23, 2009, 10:08:42 PM
That's right, but it won't ever be reported that way.
Say, I once was told the MM plant in Stillwater also was the contractor for the Z1 engine for Corvettes. That was some years ago, but wondered if anyone knew this to be true or still true.
True at one time, no idea if they still do anything automotive there. Last time I was in the plant about 10 years ago, I think they were strictly doing marine. The Z-1 engine was reputed to be one of the best balanced rotating assemblies in an on-road engine. As I recall, the boast was you could stand a nickel on it's end on the intake plenum while it was idling and it would just sit there.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 23, 2009, 10:29:53 PM
True at one time, no idea if they still do anything automotive there. Last time I was in the plant about 10 years ago, I think they were strictly doing marine. The Z-1 engine was reputed to be one of the best balanced rotating assemblies in an on-road engine. As I recall, the boast was you could stand a nickel on it's end on the intake plenum while it was idling and it would just sit there.
GM design built by MM or a MM design? Doesn't really matter, just curious.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 23, 2009, 10:51:49 PM
GM design built by MM or a MM design? Doesn't really matter, just curious.
Found some info on it at WikiPedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvette)
Look down about mid-page to the ZR-1 (1990-1995). Gives credit to MM and Stillwater for the LT5 engine production.
Since it was a modified base engine, I would presume the base to be an original GM design. Who did the actual mods design isn't clear, but it does not appear to have been done by MM.
UPDATE: Found this info at http://www.vetteweb.com/features/vemp_0905_1991_chevrolet_corvette_zr1/index.html (http://www.vetteweb.com/features/vemp_0905_1991_chevrolet_corvette_zr1/index.html)
QuoteMuch like the contemporary LS9, the C4 ZR-1's Lotus-designed LT5 engine is a unique specimen among Corvette powerplants. The sophisticated motor features an all-aluminum build and a dual-overhead-camshaft valvetrain. While it was a low-production engine, many of its advances were carried over into the Northstar and LS1 mills. "All the LS-based engine owners out there should take a minute to say, 'Thank you, LT5,'" Henderson says with a smile. These motors are known for their naturally aspirated power potential, and Henderson's is no exception.
I'm stretching my brain back about 10-12 years here, so bear with me. I don't think there are any casting operations in Stillwater. I think assembly-only and perhaps machining. I was working with them to solve a phenol problem in their waste water at the time and didn't spend much time in any production areas, just the "back-end" of the plant. For all I remember, they may have even had parts of the plant which were not accessible to visitors and non-project vendors.
As I remember, GM would send completely assembled engines full of oil to MM in Stillwater for marine applications. The phenol was part of a solvent they used to clean the oil from the assemblies, I think. MM would disassemble and "marinize" the powerplants. Seems incredibly inefficient to me, but as I recall, this is what they did at the time. I wish I could remember more of the story on the LT5, when it was originally out. Google about and given enough time in the day, you might be able to find more info on it. I'm guessing that MM was assembling a GM design from GM castings. I think MM made sense because they dealt profitably with daily lower production volume than the typical auto-maker.
From the Corvette Museum....
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2009zr1/history.shtml (http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2009zr1/history.shtml)
It was designed by Lotus and manufactured by MM because of their ability to machine aluminum.
http://www.web-cars.com/corvette/zr-1-2.php (http://www.web-cars.com/corvette/zr-1-2.php)
Heh, I was close:
"Engineers were justifiably proud of the LT5's refinement and smoothness; so much so that it was claimed a nickel placed on its end on top of the engine wouldn't fall over when the engine was started. The challenge was immediately taken up – and the LT5 roared to life while the nickel remained standing."
The GM equipment was moved out of Stillwater some years ago. I worked with a guy that had the machinery moving contract for the move (a large one at that). If anyone is really interested I could get dates and where it was moved.
- - -
So I guess the workers thought the company was bluffing? I mean, kudos for sticking with your guns but at the end of the day you are in the unemployment line and someone in Oklahoma is working. Not sure the company or the workers really came out ahead on this one. Seems like a lose lose but-for the workers in Oklahoma (who neither the company or the WI employees really care about at this point).
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 24, 2009, 03:25:09 PM
The GM equipment was moved out of Stillwater some years ago. I worked with a guy that had the machinery moving contract for the move (a large one at that). If anyone is really interested I could get dates and where it was moved.
- - -
So I guess the workers thought the company was bluffing? I mean, kudos for sticking with your guns but at the end of the day you are in the unemployment line and someone in Oklahoma is working. Not sure the company or the workers really came out ahead on this one. Seems like a lose lose but-for the workers in Oklahoma (who neither the company or the WI employees really care about at this point).
One would have to presume from the info provided that the LT5 was produced only from 1990 to 1995 with the C4 Vette. So, I'd guess it was about then.
As for MM workers, it appears to me now that the WI bunch is acting like Boeing. That is, using OK as leverage to get what they want there. News stated there's "one more vote pending".
Next we'll be hearing about OK's plant closing and moving the jobs to WI.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 24, 2009, 01:39:26 PM
Heh, I was close:
and the LT5 roared to life while the nickel remained standing."
Superglue?
Quote from: Wrinkle on August 24, 2009, 07:44:45 PM
One would have to presume from the info provided that the LT5 was produced only from 1990 to 1995 with the C4 Vette. So, I'd guess it was about then.
As for MM workers, it appears to me now that the WI bunch is acting like Boeing. That is, using OK as leverage to get what they want there. News stated there's "one more vote pending".
Next we'll be hearing about OK's plant closing and moving the jobs to WI.
Man, let's hope the union tools take it in the neck on this one.
Quote from: Wrinkle on August 24, 2009, 07:44:45 PM
Next we'll be hearing about OK's plant closing and moving the jobs to WI.
You win!
Mercury Marine to move Stillwater work to Wisconsin (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=48&articleid=20090904_297_0_Boatma787368&allcom=1)
Wasn't right-to-work supposed make this incident a non-possibility? ::)
Quote from: TURobY on September 04, 2009, 08:47:05 PM
You win!
Mercury Marine to move Stillwater work to Wisconsin (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=48&articleid=20090904_297_0_Boatma787368&allcom=1)
Wasn't right-to-work supposed make this incident a non-possibility? ::)
No
When cities are allowed to enter into bidding wars to attract job this is what happens. The union do use leverage in nearly all negotiations but also the cities also are using leverage to bring many things on line. One does not need to look far for the leverage the City used in the AA and School Bus contract.
Oklahoma was only the low man it the leverage costing hundreds of jobs. It has come to where the cities should be prohibited from entering into bidding wars.
By who?
Would you like the feds to prohibit it? Because that would seem to be a restraint of trade that wouldn't be very popular with the voters and extremely hard to police. It will happen on a less visible, informal manner often referred to as GOB or smokey back room dealings. Better eliminate any economic development entities within the city either cause they'll surely attempt to persuade businesses to locate here. Maybe you think the Chamber ought to reserve those functions?
I just don't understand your reasoning.
Mercury played us just like many people thought they were doing. I still believe as I stated in another thread, that people here put way too much faith in corporations. Something about our Calvinism here makes us believe corporate authority is supreme. They used our reputation as a low pay, non union support state to scare their employees into submission. Its embarrasing for our state. They played the game and so did we. We just need to get better at it.
Let me ask you this. Would your guy Medlock be in favor of prohibiting cities from enticing manufacturing jobs to our area using the powers that only governments possess? Namely tax benefits, grants etc.?
What'd I win....a Bass Boat?
Think the thing here is to approach economic development with class and dignity rather than like a Jr. High whore who just wants someone to notice.
The degree of gullibility our leaders seem to present promotes being used like this.
I'll say it again, the way to bring business is to make Tulsa a place _people_ want to live. One thing which would make it a more people place is to have a government responsive to them.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 06, 2009, 02:04:10 PM
What'd I win....a Bass Boat?
Think the thing here is to approach economic development with class and dignity rather than like a Jr. High whore who just wants someone to notice.
The degree of gullibility our leaders seem to present promotes being used like this.
I'll say it again, the way to bring business is to make Tulsa a place _people_ want to live. One thing which would make it a more people place is to have a government responsive to them.
Yes. Your bass boat is moored up over on the docks at Zink Lake. ;) The one's promised to us since the late '70's and shown once again on the new (Blue Rose) plans.
I agree with what you've posted.
Ever hear about "freedom of enterprise" without governments interfering?
Or "to the winner goes the spoils".
Under the guise of "Public-Private Partnerships", government and business have joined at the hip and left constituants out of the loop, except as required by law. Then, either it's minimal compliance, or outright anti-public campaigns based upon lies, deceit and use of every technique in the book to minimize the impact of the public on their plans.
I'm going back to campaign finance on this. If corporations weren't allowed to participate in OUR election of OUR representation, at least with direct contributions to candidates, and individuals where able to donate only to candidates for who they can vote, it would restore representation as it was intended, and solve a lot of other problems.
Our Council could stop this practice in short order if they wished.
Wished they would.