Leadership Imperative in Fast Food Management

leadership and cultural develop needed in fast food

Not to overstate the impact, but this is a pivotal moment for the fast food industry to be better employers. With seven major players in that market agreeing to forego their anti-employee ‘No Poach,’ clause. For many workers, a job in fast food is a stepping stone on a career path to a livable wage. Granted, there is some that move into supervisory roles and management who can flourish in the industry. At the minimum wage levels for ‘associates,’ it is not a career. Despite this, the impact for associates can be profound. With the no-poach clause removed, employees are effectively at-will. Now, food franchise leadership must differentiate themselves to retain employees. Yes, the ability to move around more freely will pressure the wage levels and that will be balanced with the move to further automate stores. Now, like any industry, they must inspire and lead effectively to retain workers.

There are two fast food restaurants near our office, which are different brands, within walking distance. Based on proximity, they are recruiting from the same pool of candidates. What continually amazes me about these two stores, is the distinct contrast in the customer service between them. The store that has been here longer has predictably poor service. [poor leadership?] On a number of occasions I have received my sandwich and then, driven to the office, only to find that it is a bun with condiments only, the star of the show (egg, chicken, beef, etc) is missing! After an initial attempt going back to the store, the general indifference from the associate made the effort appear fruitless. Based on the lines at each register and drive-thru queue wrapping the entire parking lot, it seems that my dissatisfaction will not be a blip on their radar.

The other store, which is opened in the last seven years, is a completely different experience. Every time I go in or use the drive-thru, the experience is prompt, accurate and positive. Over the time they have been opened, I notice the faces change, but the experience remains the same. [good leadership?] With the predictable, positive experience, I go back. Colleagues remark that they do not like the food there, but it is easy and dependable, so when they are in a pinch, that is where they grab a quick bite to eat.

It would be easy to lament that for several generations, fast food was the common first job, to learn responsibility, experience leadership from an adult that is not from home, school or church, and to gain the skills of money management. Certainly, there are a lot of first jobs that can teach those skills, but with the transition from fast-food to fast-casual and the decline of teenagers with summer jobs, the face of fast food has gotten older. With the ‘No Poach’ clause, these older workers, with the skills developed in fast food, were relatively captive, unless they could make the leap to another industry. With that barrier removed, employees can now move around and earn more where their skills may pay better. But the impact now is greater than the wage.

The difference in customer experience between the two restaurants belies a greater issue: leadership and culture. The first store does not hire all the indifferent employees and the second store filters through and only picks the good ones, over and over. The restaurants, and particularly the franchisees, have to assess their culture and the leadership environment they foster, or lack thereof, to make the jobs they offer a meaningful experience for the employees. The head of the International Franchise Association indicates that these minimum wage jobs were not meant to be livable or permanent. If that is the case, then beyond the explicit task of getting the job done, these store owners need to focus on the value of the job to the employee, for the time the employee is there, to develop their skills for that next job, and to foster the environment and a leadership culture. Then, when the inevitable employee turnover occurs, the next wave of personnel embrace the established culture and can propel it forward, in a sustainable way.

For anyone leadership looking for a valuable tool to share with employees, here is a great podcast from organizational psychologist Adam Grant on emotions at work. And for further reading for leaders, take a look at A More Beautiful Question.

May 24, 2018May 29, 2018

TDI Buyback: Abusing the Class Action Settlement?

Salvaged Titles are Excluded from the TDI Settlement Process

With the summer road trip season upon us, it seemed timely to bring up a car topic that has moved out of the spotlight: The Volkswagen TDI Settlement. Initially, it seemed like writing about this would be pretty straightforward, but within the buyback experience, a larger issue was exposed: VW allowing opportunists to exploit the settlement process.

The Settlement Process, First-hand Experience

The buyback process was quick and easy. The agent who did our closing, Mark, I had met previously. Though professional, on initial interaction, his job appeared unpredictable and stressful. Mark seemed nervous, hands shaking and out of sorts. As it turns out, the buyback role requires the agent to constantly drive between VW and Audi dealerships in the region, for closings with individuals who select their local dealership, resulting in an inconsistent base of operations. Plus, the demeanor of the sell-back individual is unpredictable. Some are still confused and stressed by the process when there is a loan closing involved, and others feel they are cheated and want to be heard. My impression from speaking with him is that “Don’t kill the messenger”, has not been observed by sellers.

Our buyback experience wrapped up quickly: we went out and demonstrated the vehicle turned on and could drive backward and forward 10 feet, then we were handed over a check. The reason for us selecting the buyback instead of emissions fix was described previously.

TDI Settlement outlines a 6 step claims process — Although VWGoA Outlines a 6 Step process, the sub-step questions and requirements put the process at closer to two dozen.

The Volkswagen & Audi brands, which I will collectively reference VWGoA (Volkswagen Group of America), documentation process, that preceded the buyback, was extensive. It was 19 steps, providing various paperwork, declarations, and scheduling.

After wrapping up our quick buyback meeting, I inquired to the VWGoA agent how the process is going overall. He mentioned that Volkswagen dealers recently began accepting the buyback checks as a trade-in, which was a good deal for customer retention, as it eliminated some sales tax. The process remained anxiety-inducing for some claimants who have a loan on their vehicle.

The Dark Side

It was freely shared that individuals are taking advantage of the system. One story particularly bothered the VWGoA agent:

Two brothers unabashadely took $10k out of their 401(k) to fund the purchase of salvaged TDI’s that are in the qualifying age of vehicles for the buyback. In January the brothers showed up to a buyback appointment with 3 Audi TDI on a flatbed. Each one turned on, which at the time was the only requirement for qualifying a vehicle as being operational, and that day they walked away with a check for $140,000. The VWGoA agent refused to sign off on this buyback because the vehicles had salvaged titles, which are explicitly excluded, per the Terms of the Class Action Settlement.

The TDI Settlement has many requirements to qualify for Buyback or Restitution — Salvaged Titles are Excluded from the TDI Settlement. The exclusion is clear.

Stepping in for the buyback agent’s objection, VWGoA Corporate indicated they would accept the vehicles, and also informed him these two guys have 37 more vehicles they are selling back. Rough buyback estimate, $1.2 million!

So Many Questions…

This is where my thoughts and speculation began!

My Question: Why would Volkswagen accept these, as they clearly exclude salvaged vehicles in the Buyback Terms & Conditions?

My Guess: There is a bounty and this adds to the headcount. VWGoA needs to remove or modify 85% of the affected vehicles, per the EPA website:

Volkswagen must remove from commerce in the United States or perform an approved emissions modification on at least 85 percent of the affected 2.0 liter vehicles by June 2019.

A salvaged vehicle has no visibility of being removed from the road, with respect to VW proving to the EPA they are indeed removed. Sure, they could scan all vehicle registrations in every state and count the number of TDI that are no longer registered and cross-reference those that are claimed for buyback or modification. That would be an expensive undertaking for VW. The states have no reason to do that VIN registration search for free, particularly on behalf of an offending corporation, and a car no longer being registered does not prove it is any longer being driven, which is the whole point, removing these vehicles from the road [or modifying them] to eliminate the excess emissions.

This was a passing discussion with the VWGoA agent during our buyback process and it caught me off guard. I imagine someone could investigate this further and validate if people are taking advantage of the buyback, or found some loophole despite the vehicles not passing the clean title. It is also surprising if this story is true, of a VW owner stripping down their Golf before turning it in, and being denied. After Volkswagen’s poor conduct resulting in the TDI scandal, it seems they would want to stay clear of any transactions which are in conflict with the Terms of the Class Action Settlement. If they are accepting salvaged vehicles as buybacks, to ensure they reach the 85% threshold, such a move would be customer-centric, but again is lacking in transparency, which does not build customer confidence.

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/volkswagen-clean-air-act-civil-settlement

March 23, 2018March 23, 2018

Section 232 Steel Tariff Developments

Encouraging 232 Developments

As I have been very critical of the seemingly overreaching Section 232 action on Steel, I read some encouraging news that is important to share. According do the US Trade Representative, the Section 232 tariffs are being delayed for countries currently negotiating exemptions. As reported by the American Metal Market, those temporarily exempted countries include the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea.

These currently exempted countries, along with Canada and Mexico, account for greater than 50% of our steel imported to the US annually, and in-kind more than 15% of our overall steel consumption. Noticeably absent from this list is Japan, which is a source of high tech steels used in a variety of industries.

In discussions with market participants, I have recently heard of 35% price increases from distributors on various grades of steel, and a datapoint of 25% increase on tool steel that is made in Germany. With this latest news, what will distributors do? Will they scale back those announced price increases, as their savvy customers know the origin of the material they buy?

In the meantime, and even if steelmakers and steel distributors do not scale back on these price increases, those in the steel industry are experiencing high margins, at a level we have not seen in years.

Scrap has been the primary driver of steel prices in the US for decades. Year to date, the price of steel is up 30% but the price of steel scrap is up less than 10%. So what is driving the price increases?

Tax Increases? No
Wages? No
Natural Gas? No
Electricity? No

Its difficult to point the price increases to anything other than the Section 232 hype machine, on top of the protectionist agenda that has been raising steel prices since November 2016. Steel pricing is up 3 times more than steel scrap so far in 2018

How do you push back on these price increases? It is time to be opportunistic. There is certainly a steel distributor somewhere, who is will to move their inventory at a more modest price increase than those who are aggressively going to the 25-35% price increase range described above. Go back to your vendor and talk through the increases and the rationale above, regarding the origin of the material. If they are a good vendor and a real partner, they should come to the table and find some compromise on these price increases. After all, this is why we develop relationships with vendors and not just treat them like a number to be replaced as soon as there is a lower price elsewhere.

March 14, 2018March 19, 2018

Where Are the Women in Manufacturing

How do we get women passionate for science into manufacturing

Last week, diving deep into the speculative end of the Section 232 Steel tariff pool, and prepping for a trip to China, I neglected to keep tabs on a couple job postings that we have listed. Since the beginning of the year, we have been looking for someone with a technical background to develop a mid-level sales position. Getting back to them now, and looking through all the candidates, it struck me, where are the women in manufacturing?

In the roughly two months of receiving resumes, there have been a wide range of applicants, both qualified and not, but through it all, zero female candidates. No gender diversity, across LinkedIn, alumni job boards, local classifieds and recruiters. Seeing this, I am both perplexed and concerned: is this female candidate void a mirror, reflecting our deficiency, or a window to see the larger issue in the industry?

Or maybe it is both and the fact is that we have a long way to go. It feels like support for STEM is everywhere. For the last several years, coaching high schoolers, there were many girls I worked with who were good students with an interest in math and science and a work ethic I admired. I would hire any of them to work in this role, but besides not being old enough to work in manufacturing, they also have no interest. It seems that all the support of students in STEM is only the beginning. We also have to connect and inspire girls to the opportunities in manufacturing and other technical industries.

Eighteen years ago when I was entering university to study mechanical engineering, it was generally accepted that females studying engineering were rare. At the time, roughly 1/3 of the engineering student population were female and that fraction was generous, I do not recall a class as an undergraduate or a teaching assistant where 1/3 of the students were women.

Fast forward to now, and despite a decade of intense STEM support across the country, alumni relations informed me the rate of female enrollment is unchanged from when I was in college. WHAT?! How is that possible? I realize it is a midsize school, and there may be some big-name programs elsewhere that can tout growth of female enrollment, but this is not an isolated problem. How are there not more females interested in engineering? If the broad topic of engineering is not gaining interest, then the subset of manufacturing does not have a chance!

My view is distorted by my spheres of influence. Working with manufacturing companies every day and participating in a technical advisory at the local community college, I am almost constantly surrounded by like-minded people who support STEM and increasing opportunities in our industry. Plus, I infer the connection between STEM and technical careers, but that may be a leap for others outside of technical industries. As a high school coach, on the other hand, with many student’s parents being doctors, lawyers, business owners, and entrepreneurs, the fact that I worked in manufacturing was overlooked in favor of the more altruistic label as a volunteer youth athletics, so there is certainly some negative bias to overcome.

And even if we succeed in encouraging teenagers to pursue these technical careers, there are several years before they will be in the workforce. What about filling the immediate roles that are available? How do we motivate and attract women to this industry and careers? The point above, regarding my influences and connections, is that I do not have the answers.

A few years ago we hired a sales person that came from selling wholesale beauty products to salons. When she was going to college for fashion, did she think one day she would be helping maintenance workers troubleshoot hydraulic components and selling them replacement parts? Doubtful. And you know what, she is awesome at it! How did we get her? Pure luck. Human resources or I cannot claim any special insight. This is not to pat ourselves on the back. Being lucky is not going to solve the gender imbalance in manufacturing.

So what do we do? To paraphrase Sheryl Sandberg, how do we overcome them not doing something where they do not see themselves? I can think of several great women leaders in manufacturing that I have had an opportunity to work with, but the reality is, on the scale that the industry needs, there are not enough of them that can serve as role models for students. Women in Manufacturing is a great organization and I hope they can build even more momentum to encourage their peers to be a force in this industry.

And how else can we grow manufacturing? Take a chance! Reach across and embrace candidates from other industries. Manufacturing can be taught and if someone has the interest and willingness to learn and apply themselves, there is no doubt the employee and business will benefit. With the impending retail apocalypse, how many experienced store managers and key holders could kick butt given a chance in manufacturing? Probably thousands. Let’s figure out how to attract them, and ambitious individuals from other areas, to the opportunities in manufacturing.

March 6, 2018March 19, 2018

Section 232 Steel Tariffs – How to Respond

On heels of the Commerce Departments Section 232 Report, the Trump Administration indicated they will impose aluminum and steel tariffs on those imported materials: 25% on Steel and 10% on aluminum. As written about previously, there are several concerns about the basis of the section 232 report and its assumptions of how steel is a national security concern. With the steel tariffs imminent, it is time to move from critiquing the report to considering what effects this may have on business and in the market. What situations could this protectionist move cause? How will interest rates affect consumers of steel? How will steel sourcing change the trucking market.

Inventory

Inventory costs will increase, a concern for manufacturers that fund their inventory through revolving credit. This will decrease how much inventory they can effectively carry or it will impede them from using their credit line for other needs, such as unplanned maintenance. With the Federal Reserve expected to increase interest rates three times this year, that will amplify the inventory challenge for manufacturers by making it more expensive to service their credit facilities.

Challenge: Cost Increases

Response: ???

Raise Prices?

When input costs increase, particularly raw materials, there are a few options in response. Manufacturers could raise prices. In an expanding market, it is possible to do so with minimal concern of losing market share. But in a tight market, and in the current environment, where customers could search for another vendor, who may have a lower price as they are working off older, less expensive inventory, there is a potential to lose business.

Product Redesign

The challenge can be put to engineering to redesign products to decrease the requirement of expensive materials. Is the material cost impact enough that a product can be redesigned to use non-metallic material? For example, with the cost of steel going up and oil remaining steady, could a manufactured sheet metal component be replaced by molded plastic? This has already occurred in consumer products, such as Honda’s polymer lawn mower deck.

Lean Lean Lean

Manufacturing operations may review how to reduce the non-material costs of production. This is typically thought of as reducing labor, which can be accomplished by re-evaluating the manufacturing process and adopting automation. Depending on the industry and whether the manufacturer is an OEM or a subcontractor will change whether selling price can be adjusted, product redesigned or changes in the manufacturing process.

The Capital Question

One solution is increasing automation. Those well-capitalized manufacturing companies can invest in more automation to reduce the labor component of their manufactured product cost. Hopefully, the employee can be redeployed on some other function in the business, and based on the shortage of technical workers, this should be realistic.

In an environment where raw material costs and interest rates are increasing, the investment in automation is limited to those that can pay cash for capital expenditures or are able to service an increased debt load. The option of investing in capital equipment is limited to those with sufficient, unused cash in the bank, as increased material cost and stagnant prices reduce cash flow.

Choices: Inaction and Investment

For those companies manufacturing who have used the last 8 years to right the balance sheet and build a rainy day fund, this is a time to separate themselves from illiquid competitors. The question then becomes strategy:

Do you keep prices down, absorb the cost increase and wait out competitors, who cannot do so, in an effort to gain market share?
Do you take this as a challenge to make that next step in automation, to decrease the labor cost of the product being manufactured?

The biggest concern I see is these market challenges causing a greater dichotomy among manufacturers of steel products. As mentioned in the previous review of the Section 232, right after the Commerce Department’s announcement, a local midwest distributor took the opportunity send out 15% price increases on steel material. Manufacturers can invest in automation, to reduce labor, as a way to counteract that material cost increase. For those manufacturers that have not been able to pay down debt and do not have the flexibility to invest in automation, the gap will expand between them and their market’s leaders.

February 21, 2018March 3, 2018

What will Section 232 Action on Steel do to US Manufacturing?

“Steel prices make up only a fraction of the retail cost of a car or truck. In other industries, such as canned beverages and food, “it’s even more trivial… a fraction of 1 cent,” stated Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to address the Section 232 report for Steel and Aluminum.

That’s great; rising steel prices will have a limited effect on the cost basis for the end manufacturer of complex products like automobiles (or appliances), but what about the fabricators and manufacturers who provide the components to those end products? Manufacturing suppliers will most certainly get squeezed as they buy more expensive raw material and are unable to pass on that increased cost to the automakers.

And why does that matter? The manufacturers of metal components employ 16 times more people than the 140,000 American steelworkers. Notwithstanding Section 232 action triggering a trade ware on the international stage, close to home it is difficult to disconnect such a move from having a negative effect on small and medium manufacturers.

An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal recently, put a thoughtful perspective on the concern threat of 232 action costing American jobs. As a point of reference, if we look to the Section 201 action taken during the second Bush administration, the temporary import relief to steel industry through tariffs, had a negative impact, raising costs and resulting in job losses. At that time, I recall a Tier 1 automotive supplier telling me they lost a long-term contract, at a Big 3 automaker, for a steel dashboard support component. The Big 3 buyer’s new source, overseas, had a price for the complete part that was less than the domestic supplier’s raw material cost. Due to situations like this across the country, it is estimated that roughly 200,000 jobs were lost in American steel-consuming industries due to that section 201 relief. For comparison, there were roughly 187,500 people employed in the US steel industries. Sadly, many were sacrificed to protect jobs of the few.

Why overreach and protect the primary industries like steel and aluminum? Its hard to set aside the deep pockets to lobby for those two industries, compared to the much larger and less organized small and medium business manufacturers. And perception? Fortunately, steel is a defined, census tracked industry. So let us look at a little Q&A to debunk some populist fodder of our threats and benefits.

Question 1: How much steel is China sending to the US?

Answer: Not much. 2.2% of total steel imports are from China, which is less than 1% of total US consumption. Surprisingly, Russia, which the US has numerous sanctions against, supplies 3x more steel to the US than China.

Question 2: What percentage of steel used in the US is domestic or foreign made?

Answer: Roughly 70% is domestic and 30% is imported.

Question 3: What is the current capacity utilization rate of the US steelmaking industry?

Answer: 75.9% as of February 19, 2018, up 0.8%-points from the previous week.

It is easy to look at the statistics and think, “Oh, we are at 75% utilization capacity and 70% of the steel we consume is domestic, so if we increase to 100% capacity, then we will only need to import 5% of our needs. Math!”

Nooooooooooooooooo…It is not that simple. Steel is a catch-all term, of which there are many types: carbon, alloy, electrical, among others. On top of that, those types come in many forms: ingots, bar, plate, and coil. The capacity available in the US is not being utilized for various reasons, particularly efficiency and need. There are other mills that produce those same products as the idled facilities, but much more productively, so those mills are profitable at a lower steel price. Once steel prices rise, through tariffs or supply-demand dynamics, then the less productive mills can get in the game. That would displace some imports, but not all. At idled mills, there are some products and grades of steel that are not in demand. As higher grades of materials are specified in industries, such as the latest generation of ultra-high strength steels (UHSS) in automotive applications, or Grade 80 material for metal roofing and construction, it has left mild or commercial quality (CQ) steel capacity less needed. There is not enough capacity of the sophisticated alloys available domestically, and there is too much capacity of common materials. Thus, effectively utilizing 100% of domestic steel capacity is not possible. We could not build enough ‘bridges to nowhere’ to utilize some of the idled capacity.

What is happening now? This week, a metals buyer told me their primary steel supplier informed 15% price increases were coming. This announcement was four days after the section 232 report’s release. How much does 15% matter? In high volume, competitive industries like construction or tubing, material costs make up 70-90% of the selling price of the product. Will those manufacturers pass on the material cost? To make money they will have to raise prices and they may lose some orders in the short term while cheaper inventory at competitors gets absorbed in the market.

And what else will happen? Imports of finished products will go up, which will hurt the manufacturers of value-added products. Like the automotive example with the dashboard support component, supply chain experts will resource overseas as they will be able to find finished products that are less expensive than their domestic vendors raw material cost. It took the Commerce Department 10 months to submit their Section 232 report on the steel and aluminum industry. How long would it take them to identify all the industries that consume these materials, who will be hurt by finished goods imports displacing their products in the market?

With history as an indication, we would be foolish to ignore the effects of Section 201 action to protect the steel industry in the early 2000s. A move by the government to proceed with Section 232 protection, whether it is through tariffs, quotas or minim prices, will be a detriment to competitiveness and employment in the broader American manufacturing landscape.

Sources:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2017pr/02/steel/index.html

http://www.steel.org/about-aisi/statistics.aspx

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-punish-american-workers-1519078840

December 20, 2016January 1, 2018

Communities Left Behind and the Rise of Populism

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6UU12_lM720/VERVtVUJb-I/AAAAAAAAAUU/fwAswBKgbf8/s1600/Youngstown_Sheet%26Tube_Abandoned.jpg

It is always a fun going to a new pool, where I have not coached or visited in many years: see what changes have occurred, new starting blocks, different lane lines, and to check out the record board. It is a peak into history at some places and in others, a way to connect with high performing student-athletes perhaps All-Americans or Olympians, who may have competed there in the past.

This evening coaching a high school swim meet, before warm-ups I found myself staring at the record board for longer than I care to realize. I had not been to this pool before and the high school is in an area where there are two Big Three auto plants in the community. What most captured my attention, looking at the pool’s scoreboard, it seems to be an analogy of middle America, particularly here in the Midwest Rust Belt. This place, the pool like the community, was booming and peaked in the mid-60s when the Ford engine plant and the GM plant in the next town over employed more than 10,000 people.

How do we measure progress and identify those communities that have been left behind — This Scoreboard is Updated as of 12-2016

This town and the school have been in steady decline since 1980, until 2010. The plants that counted employees in the thousands now count in the hundreds. That shrink inevitably caused a declining tax base. To remain economically feasible for the community, this school district was forced to merge with the neighboring town in 2011.

I took a picture of the scoreboard because it is, in a way, an illustration of this decline. I go to a lot of pools and nowhere are the peak performances so centered in the distant past like this place. For those unfamiliar with swimming record boards, the second and fourth columns are the record setter, listed as first initial, last name, high school name, and year the record was set (two digits). There has been a huge increase in swimming technology and performance in the last decade, which has catapulted performances and records everywhere, the full breadth of that topic is a series of posts in its own right. Looking at the dates on the record board (centered in the 1970s) makes me think this community, with its primarily low technology, outmoded jobs, was left behind.

As I look at it I think, is this the type of decline that the populist voter experienced, this left behind feel, whether it is due to insufficient opportunities or their jobs being replaced by automation or exported to some low-cost country? Are these the communities that incited and excited the new presidency. Where the populist idea ‘making things great again’ resonates. The reality is the average American, regardless of sex or race, is better off today than they were in 1965, but the average American white male with only a high school diploma is much worse off. Those are the ones that strived for and passed down the jobs at the Big Three plants, only to have those well paying, low barrier occupations replaced by automation, outsourced to a supplier, or eliminated completely.

I grew up in a community like this, so the experience and this visual illustration really hit me. The experience and visit tonight generated conflicting emotions of interest, nostalgia, and empathy. Like most issues, the real answers here are complex and prone to heated debate.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company image from http://postindustrialrustbelt.blogspot.com/2014/10/rust-belt.html

June 15, 2009January 1, 2018

What Are We Going Through

An edited version of this article, THE NEW MANUFACTURING LANDSCAPE, appeared in the September 2009 issue of FF Journal

The recession of the last 18 months and its causes have been well documented. The decrease is spending and capital availability has cascaded throughout manufacturing, resulting in layoffs, rolling shutdowns, and factory liquidations. The cutbacks have created a range of challenges for those of us in manufacturing and manufacturing services. Spread thin, limited internal personnel, a lack of cross training, outsourcing and furloughs have caused an uncertain landscape for employees.

Outsourcing

Since the 1980s, layoffs of production, engineering and support personnel have been a common action to reduce costs during declines in business activity. These layoffs, along with retirements, have wittled away the manufacturing base in the United States to the point it is today. For many companies, with the pool of direct labor stripped to its core of personnel required to conduct business, other avenues have been pursued to cut costs. With the decreased business activity, it has created an environment for manufacturers to take the chance and outsource administrative activities, such as human resources, purchasing, and even accounting. As automotive and appliance manufacturers have done over the last several decades; small and medium producers are testing the waters with local outsourcing of component and production activities that may be done by job shops. Though these outsourcing activities may be a necessary step for businesses to survive this economic climate, it presents new challenges. For example, the outsourcing to local job shops may reduce the need for some on-hand inventory, but the manufacturer is no longer in control of the lead times or the opportunity to fill rush orders, which are more common as everyone has shed inventory to meet demand. This can be frustrating for customers and manufacturers alike: eventhough no one is ‘busy,’ ie., at or near full production, leadtimes for manufacturered items are nearly unchanged, or longer than usual.

In-Sourcing

Several years ago, because of the overwhelming cost savings touted by offshoring components, for some manufacturers it was automatic to try this. As offshore costs have approached parity with local capabilities, in-sourcing has become an admirable way for manufacturers to maintain a level of self-reliance and insure work for their remaining core of employees. In-sourcing has presented complications, though. For example, a manufacturer of scaffolding brought back their production of planks. Upon assembly they found their planks and fasteners, still offshored, no longer fit together per their print. Since they had purchased this fabricated subassembly for years, it had changed from the original specifications but went unnoticed because the deviated subassembly still fit within the overall system. Because the supply of offshored planks could not be instantly turned on, it was necessary to retool their plank. Additionally, a manufacturer of vacuums found their quality problems increased when they insourced production because they no longer had technical personnel familiar with the critical assembly of their equipment.

Cross Training

The recession and layoffs have pushed a lot of companies to no longer have backups in their workforce, there is one person to do each job or there are a handful of personnel that are doing all the various disciplines that are now required on a smaller scale. This has emphasized the need for cross training core personnel; on a given day it may require an engineer to design a component, purchase the materials, and schedule the production. It’s as if small business structure is being projected onto larger businesses.

Productivity?

Since this recession has proliferated the use of furloughs to meet business demand, it has caused a delay in opportunities. For the companies with liquidity to pursue capital projects, the possibility of purchasing new equipment or automation to increase productivity or in-house capabilties, the rolling layoffs impede the justification process. For example, a company furloughing on a four week rotation, the week off and week of catching up can cause the process of justifying a capital project by two or three fold, when considering the time required to coordinate technical personnel with outside vendors, review quotations and successive revisions.

Taking Risks (expanding in a down economy)

Developing technologies and new industries are a common sources for increasing economic activity or ‘green shoots,’ as has become the common buzzword lately. Even as some companies pursue the opportunities to create or expand their business to pursue these new opportunities, they are finding substantial roadblocks, particularly fiancial. Major banks and financing companies have restricted leasing to any LLC without several years of credit history or businesses of any kind that are less than a year old. It’s also disheartening that banks are resistant to finance capital equipment, even when the suppliers are willing to back the loans to some rate. For example, a small business that was not eligible for equipment financing because the banks no longer considered their debt ratio acceptable. The business was eventually able to lease the equipment, a used model financed directly by the manufacturer, at a 12% interest rate.

Inventory & Maintenance

As demand decreased, manufactruers have been forced to lower minimum order sizes. A few tubing manufacturers have been forced decrease their minimum production run from 100,000 feet to 30,000 feet to maintain orders. This adjustment to demand has caused the manufacturers to changeover tooling every single shift. These lower production quantities have resulted in more changeover time for products, higher scrap rate and more wear and tear on equipment. In the short term, manufacturers have met the maintenance needs of these demands by using parts from one of their mothballed production lines to keep the other one(s) running. When happens when the economy picks back up? Will the mothballed and scavenged equipment be operable to bring back online?

Flexible Employment

Where is manufacturing going? What will it look like when things rebound. Several manufacturers have commented that they will never have the number of employees they did before. They have found their ability to do more with less. A portion of our current unemployment rate are baby boomers who are still willing and able to work as well as people only a few years out of school that were fulfilling entry level roles. It seems that we are coming to a new era of freelance employment. Industry veterans, who may have been pushed out earlier than they desired, may be available on a a consulting basis. Additional personnel may fit into the puzzle as temporary employees, to fulfill fluctuations in business demand, since companies may choose to stick with their core of compotent, cross trained personnel.