Updated: An Interesting "Respect for People" Question

It’s been brought up before in posts about Toyota and temp workers – if a reduction in workforce is due to “lean” or as a result of improvements then yes, it does violate the “Respect for People” principle.

But, like the example of temp workers in Indiana, this is a market dynamics issue. If the market for Tacomas has fallen and Toyota (NUMMI) has tried everything it can do reduce waste and resultant cost, then a reduction is inevitable and would not be a violation of the principle.

I just hope that Toyota, NUMMI, and the UAW truly do everything in their power to drive cost out of the operation and prevent a reduction or outright closure. Use attrition, early retirements, rotating assignments, voluntary relo’s to other Toyota facilities, etc. Try anything and everything – think of at least 7 ways to avoid moving production, right?

Here’s a back-at-ya: Take NUMMI and Toyota out of the article and substitute GM, Ford, or Chrysler. What would we be saying then? Would we be jumping all over GM/Ford/Chrysler management for placing the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of one plant?

The ball is in Toyota’s court. It shouldn’t have been a NUMMI representative saying “NUMMI must improve its competitiveness”. It should have been a Toyota representative saying “WE must improve OUR competitiveness”.

When you talk about “respect for people”, it’s important to keep in mind that the “people” we are supposed to have respect for are not just the NUMMI employees. By shifting production to a lower-cost location, isn’t Toyota showing respect to these people in the lower cost location who are capable and willing of producing quality cars, but haven’t been given a chance? It’s also important to show respect for the investors by helping them earn a fair return on their investment, and to show respect for our customers by giving them a great product at a competitive price.