The social and labour impact of globalization in the manufacture of transport equipment

Quick link to sectors:

Browse by theme:

Go to main meeting page.

Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on the Social and
Labour Impact of Globalization in the Manufacture of Transport Equipment

Geneva, 8 - 12 May 2000

International Labour Office Geneva

Tables 3.1 - 2.4

Cover photographs: ILO/J. Maillard

To purchase this document, click here

Table 3.1. The major global suppliers, ranked by employment


Company	Employees

Delphi	>200 000
RrRobert Bosch	189 537
Michelin	127 241
Goodyear Tire	98 265
Bridgestone	97 767
Johnson Controls	89 000
Dana	86 400
TRW	78 000
Visteon (ex-Ford)	77 000
Denso	72 359
Lear	65 466
Mannesmann	64 054
Valeo	50 400
Magna International	49 000
Total	1 067 489

Sources: 1999 Fortune Global 500, Economist Intelligence Unit 1998, Financial Times and company annual reports.

Table 3.2. Frequency of deliveries by suppliers to automobile companies


Product		Frequency of delivery, depending on customer

Instruments/instrument panel		Once a day
Pistons		Twice a day to once a week
Locking systems		One to four times a day
Wiring		Twice a day to twice a week
Printed circuits (direct delivery and subcontracted)		90 per cent of deliveries once a day
Axles		Once a day
Stamped metal parts		Once to twice a day
Back shelf		Once a day to twice a week
Seat subcontracting chain	Delivery frequency	Frequency of subcontractors’ deliveries
Seats (German plant)	Continuous/synchronous	Frames: once a day Foam: several times a day Runners: once a day
Seats (French plant)	Continuous/synchronous	Frames: up to five times a day Foam: Several times a day Other components: about once every two days
Source: Lehndorff, La flexibilité …, op. cit., p. 69.

Table 3.3. Flexibility of working time in the automotive components industry: Frequency of use of overtime, fixed-term contracts and temporary agency workers


Product/type of supply	Overtime	Fixed-term contracts	Agency workers

Germany
Seats/synchronous Wiring harness/synchronous Instruments/direct Plastic parts/direct Electronics/subcontract	Up to 5% Up to 10% Up to 5% Up to 5% Low	Up to 10% Low Up to 10% Up to 5% Low	Low (Home work) Low Up to 5% Up to 10%
Spain
Seats/synchronous Metal parts/synchronous Instruments/direct Plastic parts/subcontract	Up to 5% Up to 5% Up to 5% Up to 5%	Up to 85% Up to 90% Varies, overall 25% Up to 25%	– – – –
United Kingdom
Seats/synchronous Plastic parts/synchronous Pistons/direct Electronics/direct Metal parts/subcontract	Up to 10% Up to 10% Up to 20% Up to 15% Up to 15%	Up to 5% – Low Low –	– Up to 5% Low – Up to 10%
Source: Lehndorff, La flexibilité ..., op. cit., p. 74, based on interviews.

Table 3.4. Average gross wages of various parts suppliers
as an index of final assemblers


	Germany	France	United Kingdom	Spain

Final assembly	100	100	100	100
Average of all suppliers	74	74	68	67
Pistons	100	79	95	76
Seats	79	73	93 (I) 75 (II)	56
Instruments	79	71	52	91 (I) 66 (II)
Wiring/electrical	65	65
Metal parts/doors			45	50
Note: The calculations are for the lowest-paid production workers and exclude technicians (Facharbeiter). They include regular payments such as premiums for shift work and annual bonuses, but not overtime payments, and are averaged for the year on the basis of the average exchange rate for 1995. They are not exact wages but give an impression of orders of magnitude. United Kingdom: factory I has the same collective agreement as assembly workers. Spain: factory I is unionized; factory II is not. Source: Steffen Lehndorff: Zeitnot und Zeitsouveränität in der just-in-time-Fabrik: Arbeitszeitorganisation und Arbeitsbedingungen in der Europäischen Automobilzulieferindustrie (Munich, Rainer Hampp Verlag, 1997), pp. 87-92.

Table 3.5. Average gross wages in auto assemblers/suppliers as compared to Germany


	Germany	France	United Kingdom	Spain

Auto assembly	100	72	76	59
Manufacture of pistons	100	67/57	72	46
Seat installation	100	67	90/72	42
Seat frames	100	69		61
Instrument assembly	100	66	50	70/50
Platforms	100	64	72	50
Plastics	100	61	72	55
Wiring	100/86			47(54)^a
Note: ^aFigure in brackets refers to ratio to lower-wage German factory.Source: Lehndorff, Zeitnot …, op. cit.

Table 3.6. Percentage share of outsourced parts in final vehicle, 1996


Company	Percentage of parts provided by suppliers in the final vehicle

Honda, Nissan, Toyota	75
Fiat	70
BMW, Renault, Peugeot	66
GM	63
Mercedes-Benz	62
Volkswagen	57
Ford, Volvo	40
Source: Based on UNCTAD: World Investment Report 1998: Trends and determinants (Geneva, 1998), p. 26.

Table 3.7 Full-service suppliers in Saarlouis


Company	Part/module/system	No. of employees

ACU	Assembly of special orders such as spoilers and alloy wheels	84
Anterist & Schneider with Visteon	Dashboard, steering wheel, steering column, radiator	169
Benteler	Assembled axle parts, prefabrication of front and rear axle	77
Irausa	Interior parts, roof cover	21
LMS with SAL	Door and side panels, carpets	35
LMS	Engine-gearbox prefabrication	75
Michels	Special machinery, welding equipment, welded panels	202
Sekurit	Car glass	31
Tenneco/Gillet	Prefabricated exhaust systems	15
UTA	Wiring loom (engine), electronic control boxes	36
Source: Strykk, op. cit.

Table 3.8. CarsDirect.com faces Web competition: On-line car order services, 1999


Website	Date launched	Visitors*
		February	March

Carpoint.msn.com	1996	994 000	1 302 000
AutoWeb.com	1994	790 000	915 000
autobytel.com	1995	653 000	724 000
cars.com	1998	674 000	695 000
*Unique visitors, or estimated number of individuals visiting site. Source: Warner, CarsDirect.com …, op. cit.

Table 4.1. Shipbuilding workforce, 1975/98 (number of employees, % change)


Country	1975	1998	Change	% change from 1975

Denmark	18 900	6 500	12 400	–66
Finland	18 000	5 897	12 103	–67
France	40 354	6 650	33 704	–84
W. Germany*	73 172	22 500	50 672	–69
E. Germany	32 816	–
Greece	10 159	3 600	6 559	–65
Italy	36 260	11 244	25 016	–69
Netherlands	39 850	9 100	30 750	–77
Norway**	29 000	6 640	22 360	–77
Portugal	17 100	3 328	13 772	–81
Spain	47 000	9 150	37 850	–81
United Kingdom	59 999	8 500	51 499	–86
Belgium	10 245	300		–97
Sweden	31 500	1 152		–96
W. Europe	462 348	113 505		–75
Poland	42 788	26 686	16 102	–57
Japan	151 000	38 700	–	–74
Rep. of Korea	35 000	51 000	–	46
United States	171 600	107 200	–	–38
Total	862 436	334 405
* The figure for 1998 represents united Germany. ** Only member yards.Source: Based on Association of European Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers (AWES): Annual Report 1998-1999, p. 53.

Table 4.2. Ship completions, 1998 (number of ships and market share)


	Number built	Share of GT¹ (%)	Share of CGT² (%)

Japan	559	40.7	38.0
EuropeGermany	57074	20.04.1	28.85.4
Rep. of Korea	159	29.3	20.3
Rest of worldChinaUnited States	36512276	105.60.8	12.96.12.0
Total	1 653	100	100
¹ Gross tonnage. ² Compensated gross tonnage (reflects the complexity of the ship).Source: AWES, op. cit., p. 93.

Table 4.3. New ships ordered, by type and country where they are being built


Country	Dry cargo	Container	Tanker	Bulker	RoRo¹	Total	Total dwt (000)²

Japan	77	58	169	230	49	583	38 430
Rep. of Korea	2	58	204	57	20	341	34 251
China	65	52	67	25	4	213	5 040
Taiwan, China	4	20	–	11	–	35	1 706
Germany	23	35	16	–	22	96	1 673
Poland	6	17	18	13	2	56	1 571
Denmark	1	13	5	–	–	19	1 124
Croatia	19	–	18	1	5	43	1 112
Spain	1	–	20	–	6	27	984
Ukraine	7	–	12	5	–	24	929
Netherlands	145	7	16	2	3	173	806
United States	–	–	4	1	13	18	805
Italy	4	–	23	2	14	43	779
Romania	44	4	9	5	–	62	550
Turkey	15	11	9	3	6	43	448
Indonesia	2	7	8	5	–	22	325
Islamic Rep. of Iran	15	–	1	–	–	16	318
Philippines	–	–	–	8	1	9	283
Russian Fed.	10	–	18	1	–	29	279
Bulgaria	12	–	–	7	–	19	265
India	3	1	3	4	–	11	229
Norway	–	–	5	–	–	5	144
Slovakia	28	–	–	–	–	28	112
France	–	–	3	1	–	4	110
Yugoslavia	10	–	2	3	–	15	66
Total	507	289	640	386	156	1 978	92 681
¹ Roll-on/roll-off. ² Deadweight tonnes. Excludes passenger ships (183) and other miscellaneous vessels (417) which will not affect the overall analysis.Source: Fairplay Newbuildings, 4 Mar. 1999, p. 4.

Table 4.4. Main countries ordering new ships, by type


Country	No.	Dwt (000)	Gen. cargo	Con- tainer	Tanker	Bulker	Passenger	Misc.	RoRo	Reefer	Combined carrier	Off- shore

Japan	315	18 421	23	13	75	116	12	23	36	13	–	4
Germany	252	3 676	100	83	24	11	6	6	21	1	–	–
Netherlands	218	1 375	110	12	16	1	4	58	10	5	–	2
Unknown	190	3 626	82	11	33	27	4	24	4	4	–	1
Norway	180	4 559	10	–	44	14	10	38	13	–	–	51
United States	179	4 738	–	2	43	2	30	29	13	–	–	60
Greece	136	8 042	10	14	66	18	21	–	–	7	–	–
United Kingdom	87	8 269	7	1	36	5	10	13	1	–	2	12
China	85	2 910	17	20	11	30	–	7	–	–	–	–
Denmark	84	4 563	5	28	25	3	4	4	2	–	–	13
Italy	77	1 414	–	–	25	6	22	12	6	4	–	2
Taiwan, China	66	3 541	7	36	7	14	–	2	–	–	–	–
Singapore	64	3 234	–	1	24	13	2	13	2	–	–	9
Indonesia	48	295	1	7	21	2	5	12	–	–	–	–
Russian Fed.	47	927	14	–	24	–	–	6	–	1	–	2
Total	2732
Source: Fairplay, op. cit., p. 2.

Table 4.5 Ship scrapping by country, 1996-98 (million deadweight tonnes – dwt)


Country	1996	1997	1998

India	8.9	7.6	8.5
Bangladesh	4.4	2.9	5.2
Pakistan	2.0	0.8	2.7
China	0.2	0.2	1.4
Others	2.3	3.8	2.6
Total	17.9	14.5	20.4
Source: Iron & Steelscrap and Shipbreakers Association of India, cited in Lloyd’s List.

Table 5.1. State of employee relations at various automobile plants with respect to teamwork


	Degree of implementation of teamwork	Degree of polyvalency	Negotiated decisions with hierarchy	Autonomy and responsibility of foremen	Payment by results	Individual involvement of operators	Union support for organizational changes	Elected leader

Traditional Ford model	0	1	0	2	1	1	0	0
Japanese-type ideal	10	10	2	4	5	8	10	0
Kalmarian model	10	8	9	5	8	9	10	10
Toyota-Tahara	10	8	4	4	5	7	10	1
Toyota-Kyushu	10	7	4	4	6	7	10	1
Nissan-Kyushu	10	7	2	4	4	6	8	0
Ford Dearborn (1996 actual)	0	1	2	3	0	2	0	0
Ford Dearborn (agreement of autumn 1995)	10	3	3	2	0	7	10	8
GM Brazil	8	3	2	3	4	5	2	2
NUMMI	10	7	7	5	5	7	7	4
NUMMI (protest areas)	10	7	3	5	5	4	4	1
Saturn (GM)	10	7	3	4	1	5	4	10
Peugeot-Sochaux	0	4	1	2	2	6	3	0
Citroën-Aulnay	0	5	2	3	1	3	3	0
Renault-Flins	8	4	4	4	4	5	4	0
Renault-FASA (engines)	9	5	3	2	3	5	4	1
Fiat Melfi	10	5	5	5	7	5	5	0
Vauxhall (GM) Ellesmere Port	9	8	9	4	1	2	10	0
Rover Swindon (stamping)	10	6	3	5	2	3	10	6
Opel-Antwerp	10	9	7	7	3	8	8	4
Volvo-Ghent	10	4	0	4	1	7	1	0
VW Hanover (body shop)	2	8	10	3	3	7	8	10
Mercedes (engine parts)	8	8	8	5	8	5	8	10
Mercedes (assembly line – marriage point)	8	7	4	5	8	4	5	10
Mercedes (assembly line – trim area)	8	2	2	5	2	2	5	10
Saab-Trollhättan	10	6	2	5	6	6	2	1
Volvo-Torslanda	8	6	3	5	4	6	8	10
Source: Durand et al., op. cit., p. 413.

Table 6.1. Agreements securing production location and employment: Comparative analysis


	Germany	United Kingdom	Spain	France	Belgium

Goals	Link long-term competitiveness to employment security	Deal with ad hoc crises Rover: new organization	General collective agreements that cover an extension of production	Increase working time flexibility to adjust to fluctuating demand	Increase working time flexibility and experiment with new forms of work and supplier organization
Period	Usually 1997-2000 Ford long term	Ad hoc	1997-2000	1997-2000	1997-99/2000 Ford long term
Actors	Works council	Local trade union officers	Labour union sections	Labour union sections	Labour union sections and local union officers
Field of application	German operations of the company	Plant level; many are not included	Spanish operations of the companies	Plant level	Plant level
Contents	n No lay-offs n Early retirement n Career planning and training n Smaller wage increases n Investment commitments	n General commitment to support productivity drives n Smaller wage increases n Work organization	n Extension of production time, including Saturday and Sunday work n New hires n Wage increases	n Employment guarantees n Working time reduction and flexibility	n Working time reduction and flexibility n Early retirement n Out- and in-sourcing n Investment commitments
General evaluation	Anticipating possible relocation problems, unions use the German model of labour relations to influence the effects of management decisions	Agreements deal with specific crises, and are negotiated at a decentralized level	No crisis anticipated; instead an extension of production is planned	Reflection of both a concern for employment guarantees and a competitive bidding process to secure production of new models	Attempts to safeguard production volume by conceding on working time and the organization of production
Source: Hancké, op. cit. (table 1).

Table 6.2. Agreements securing employment and production in General Motors Europe


	Opel Germany	Opel Belgium	Vauxhall	Opel Spain

Goal	Secure employment and investment for four years	Secure employment and investment for five years	Secure employment for six years	Part of regular collective bargaining rounds
Date	Jan. 1998	Mar. 1998	Spring 1998	Spring 1998
Period	1998-2002	1998-2002	1998-2001	1998-2000
Actors	Group Works Council	Plant-level union delegates and local union officers	Local union officers	Labour unions CCOO/UGT
Number of workers covered	ca. 44,000 in four plants	ca. 8,000 in one plant	ca. 9,000 in two plants	ca. 9,100 in one plant
Measures	No lay-offs Investment commitments Working time flexibility Early retirement Sourcing Productivity drive Wage reductions	No lay-offs Investment commitments Working time flexibility Early retirement Sourcing Productivity drive	Working time flexibility and corridor system Commitment to support productivity drive (+30%)	Machine time extension Wage increases Union follow-up of investment plans
Source: Hancké, op. cit. (table 2).

Table 6.3. Agreements securing employment and production in Renault


	Flins	Douai	Sandouville	Cléon	FASA (Spain)	RIB (Belgium)

Goal	Working time flexibility to deal with fluctuation in demand, explicit inter-plant competition	Working time flexibility to deal with fluctuation in demand, explicit inter-plant competition	Working time flexibility to deal with fluctuation in demand, explicit inter-plant competition	Working time flexibility to deal with fluctuation in demand, explicit inter-plant competition	Secure investments, production volume through working time flexibility aimed at increasing machine time	Working time flexibility to secure employment plus investment guarantees
Date	(1992) 1996	(1992) 1997	1996	1996	1998	(1993) 1998
Period	1997-2000	16 months, renewable	1996-97	Open	1997-2000	1993 – open
Actors	CFTC, CGC, FO	CFDT, CGC, FO	CFDT, CGC, FO	CFDT, CGC, FO	CCOO, UGT	CCMB, CMB
Number of workers covered	7,500	5,500	6,500	4,700	12,500 over three plants	3,400
Measures	Third shift in peak periods Working time flexibility through working time accounts Working time reduction New hires	Third shift in peak periods Saturday work Special week-end shifts (24 or 26-30 hours) Working time accounts Working time reduction New hires	Third shift in peak periods 45-48 hours weekly working time in peak periods, over 6 days Working time accounts New hires	Special week-end shifts (24 hours) Working time accounts	Saturday work Wage increases New hires Increase in production volume	Working time flexibility (9-hour day; 35-45 hour week; 3-5 days per week; 13-21 days per month) No lay-offs Investment guarantees
Source: Hancké, op. cit. (table 3).

Table 6.4. Basic data for European Works Councils (EWCs) in the automotive industry


	No. of scheduled meetings	Structure of EWC bureau	Special meetings	Agenda setting	Language

BMW “Euro-Forum”	1 Different locations	“Select committee” Employee only	EWC and management decide jointly	According to agreement management can agree to proposals of EWC	German, translation provided
Daimler-Benz	1 Stuttgart	“Praesidium” Employee only	Ad hoc committees with management approval	Management informs EWC about themes	German, translation provided
Fiat	1 Different locations	“Executive Committee” Employee only	Executive Committee and management decide jointly	Executive Committee and management decide jointly	Italian, translation provided
Ford “FEWC”	1 Cologne	“Select Committee” Employee only	FEWC and central management decide jointly	Select Committee and management decide jointly	English, translation provided
GM Europe “The Forum”	1 Different locations	“Steering Committee” Employee only	Steering Committee, concerned members and management decide jointly	Steering Committee and management decide jointly	English, translation provided
Honda “European Communication and Consultation Group”	1 Different locations plus interim meetings at “convenient time”	Management appoints a chairman and a coordinator	On request of minimum two countries or a European director	Jointly prepared during annual and interim meetings	English, translation provided
PSA “European Committee”	1 Paris	“Secretary” Joint management employee body	Mutual agreement	Chairmen and Secretary decide jointly	French, translation provided
Renault	1 Paris	“Bureau” Employee only	Mutual agreement	Secretary of Bureau and management decide jointly	French, translation provided
Toyota	1 Different locations	“Administrative Subcommittee” Management included	Senior manager and president of Subcommittee jointly or half of Subcommittee	General manager of human resources	English, translation provided
Volvo “Volvo Euro Dialogue” (VED) “EWC”	1 Different locations	“Steering Committee” Management included	One separate 2-day meeting a year “Working Group” shall have the right to prepare VED	Working Group Employee only	English, translation provided
VW “Europäischer VW Konzernbetriebsrat”	1 Wolfsburg	“Praesidium” Employee only*	Ad hoc committees with management approval	Praesidium Employee only	German, translation provided
* VW’s bureau is the only one which represents all countries. Source: Hancké, op. cit. (table 4).

Updated by BR. Approved by OdVR. Last update: 28 September 2000.