| Jacob North to close Newton operation today | |
| Date | June 29, 2006 |
| Section(s) | Local News |
| By PETER HUSSMANN
Editor Today is the last day on the job for 15 employees at Jacob North Printing after the Lincoln, Neb.,-based company decided to close its Newton operation. Charlie Calhoun, president and CEO of the privately-owned printing company, said the decision to close the Newton facility was based on “current economic conditions.” He declined to elaborate but Jacob North, which has been located at different sites in Newton since the late 1980s, did a significant amount of printing work for Maytag. Calhoun said the printing company’s 10,000 square-foot facility in the Newton Industrial Park will be put on the market for sale. He said that a determination on the equipment in the building had yet to be made. In addition to its operations in Lincoln, Neb., Jacob North has operations in Omaha, Neb., and Kansas City, Mo. |
|
Archive for June, 2006
Huge severance amounts are not exception
June 27, 2006| Huge severance amounts are not exception | |
| Date | June 27, 2006 |
| Section(s) | Columnists |
| By Wendell Wendt | |
| Like many other persons, I was amazed when I learned that the CEO of Maytag would receive about $17 million in severance pay when Whirlpool completed its acquisition of Maytag. However, a look at some other mergers shows that huge severance amounts are not an exception.
For example, the telephone giants AT &T and Bell South are planning a merger. If the merger goes through as planned, the CEO of Bell South and seven of his assistants will share $32.5 million in severance rewards. Undoubtedly, financial maneuvers like the above are part of the reason Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, recently wrote an editorial with the title “Rich Man, Poor Man.” In the editorial, Zuckerman says Americans still have faith that in this country a person can start out poor, work hard and become well off. We have that faith, he says, because as a people, we are natural optimists. However, Zuckerman believes only a small minority now have the possibility of starting poor and becoming well off. This is a change, he says, that has occurred in the last 25 years and is an issue we must address with urgency. We must address it with urgency, not just for the sake of social justice, but “also to obtain the greatest benefits from the talents of our fellow citizens and maintain a cohesive community.” Zuckerman backs up his contentions with statistics. As a nation, the U.S. experienced exceptional financial growth from 1980 to 2004. Our gross domestic product rose almost two-thirds, but during that period the wages of an average worker fell, once his income is adjusted for inflation. Zuckerman gives three reasons for the decline in the probability of the American dream. They are: 1. Our tax system has become much less progressive. 2. “Globalization and technology have increased the rewards for intellectual skills, vastly increasing the value of a college degree.” 3. College-educated women tend to postpone having children, while at lower income levels women have children at a younger age, and more of them. Zuckerman closes his editorial with these sentences, “We must make climbing the ladder of success a reality for more and more Americans, and begin reducing the gap between the rungs. This means that governments, at all levels, must give more of a helping hand to poorer qualified college students, expand preschool education and develop a tax system that no longer turns the American dream into an American nightmare.” |
|
Conduct an autopsy on Maytag death
June 22, 2006| Conduct an autopsy on Maytag death | |
| Date | June 22, 2006 |
| Section(s) | Opinion |
| Brief | |
| To the Editor:
The failure of Maytag is causing major problems in a very large number of lives. The death of one person results in an autopsy many times but only affects a relatively few number of people. Since it is almost inconceivable that a robust, well-managed corporation could fail, shouldn’t an autopsy of some sort be performed to determine the cause of death? At the very least, other companies might learn how to avoid the same fate. Could the governor appoint a group of knowledgeable former Maytag managers to perform this service? Wouldn’t this be in the best interest of the people? James Kirwin Franklin, Tenn. |
|
Lot of reasons for Maytag’s failure
June 12, 2006| Lot of reasons for Maytag’s failur | |
| Date | June 12, 2006 |
| Section(s) | Opinion |
| Brief | |
| To the Editor:
There is a lot of conjecture over how a once well managed and cash abundant Maytag corporation could have come to this end. Amoung a lot of bad decisions lies an over riding fault. The last group of CEOs were not willing to use the expertise of their knowledgeable staff. For some reason many CEO’s rise to the top from one area of expertise and right away think they have the same expertise in the other facets of the corporation. As we know, profit is what is left over when the cost of sales is deducted from the sale of products. Since the vast majority of cost is generated in the manufacturing operation (labor and purchased materials), it would stand to reason that the manufacturing costs be given the highest consideration. Not so the last years at Maytag. The biggest inefficiency in manufacturing comes from the cost of changing production rates. It generates line downtime, wasted management time, scrap, overtime, extra workers, layoff costs, etc. But instead of stabilizing the production rate, they dictated that rates be set at the highly unreliable marketing forecasts. Typically, this resulted in prodction rate changes. In short, rates should have been set by what marketing’s feet were doing not their mouth. The CEO’s didn’t understand that the entire plant is staffed to build the given number of products each day and every time one unit doesn’t come off the end of the line the cost of everyone’s labor in the plant must be spread over the rest of production driving up the cost per unit and eroding profits. Now, they did dictate that “lean manufacturing concepts” be adopted. They took these principles out of context from the Toyota system –just-in-time, Kaisens etc. The authors of that system specifically state that these efforts will fail if production rates aren’t stabilized, and how right they are. Another case in point was the decision to change all the computer systems in the corporation to the AS400. I don’t know if this made sense in financial or marketing but it was disastrous to manufacturing because it was unfriendly to the flow of materials causing line downtime and a fantastic amount of management time trying to make it work instead of working on productive endeavors. Again they wouldn’t listen to manufacturing. In more than one instance, they threw millions at “upgrading the facilities.” These caused major interruptions in production and even if successful, wouldn’t have saved near as much as stabilizing production,which costs nothing to implement, if done right. The litany goes on but this is where the major fault is, here and an inept board of directors. Then these same people walked away rewarded beyond belief. Let this be a lesson to others lest it happen to them, and alas, it will. Jim Kirwan Franklin, Tenn. |
|