Wow, what a total jerk. Regardless of the differences between US, Chinese, Indian and French work ethics the least you could do as a CEO is to learn how to write a polite refusal.
When you don't have to insult someone it is probably better not to. Because those pesky French just might publish your less than elegant letters, your stockholders might read those letters and could very well think: "This guy runs the company I invest in? I'd better move my money out before his loud mouth causes him to lose business.".
Stockholders are fickle, and some stockholders actually care about more than just the numbers (of course, that is a minority).
Also, if you communicate you negative interest when a foreign representative has thought to offer you a chance at some deal you may want to think of the future. Effectively you are saying 'if you are so kind as to think of me I will repay you with trash'. That will likely not be repeated again and likely the effect will be much further spread than just this one country and just this one official.
That bulk deal for Tires for all the vehicles of the French armed forces (Michelin?), the police force or their connections with the ministry of labour and their counterparts in other countries. Piss off politicians in enough places and it will backfire.
Maybe there is some hidden upside but I don't see any.
Finally, you are also representing your country when you do business abroad. Every other American CEO lost a little bit of respect today by re-inforcing certain stereo types that we could all do without.
If you are ever in a position like this, please say 'no' with some grace.
I like people who tell it like they see it. Sure, he could tone it down a bit, but I would prefer he does not. When you guard your words and hold back how you really feel, you are not doing anyone any favors.
Saying nice, comforting things to them (while they fail and people lose their jobs) would be a greater injustice than being honest and frank. I bet no one else has ever spoken that directly about the matter. Sometimes, that's precisely what is needed.
Another thing that bugs me is the hypocritical stance of suing Chinese tire manufacturers and then turning around and manufacturing in China.
If you do something like this - it's a pretty drastic departure from good form - there ought to be a reason for it, some kind of upside to balance the obvious downsides.
I think it is productive - a polite refusal would leave the minister with less information about the opinion of business leaders towards French policies. This way, he knows of a few specific issues that the CEO has with the idea of operating in France.
It's not just stereotypes, he gives examples of direct observations and interactions. You can attribute it to distaste for environmental controls or anything else, but the fact is that he and many other companies are passing up locating in France. Personally, the difficulty in firing people in the event of making a hiring mistake or having a cashflow issue would discourage me from ever setting up shop there, even though I think I would really enjoy living there otherwise.
French here. What I'm mostly concerned here is that the guy is basically saying : "we will produce tires in China for cheap and then sell them to you, because we can".
Europe has very low restrictions on imports, because it tries to implement free market as purely as possible. Many voices in France say we must be more aggressive on importation taxes, and that even US has a more protected market than us. After all, no west country can beat China in production costs.
Problem is, those voices are mostly from nationalist and xenophobic parties. Even current left wing french government would not touch total free market.
Now, there is the insult. Saying french workers work 3 hours a day is totally stupid. Normal work day is 8 hours for private sector, and 7 hours for public sector (but most public sector workers work 8 hours and then take a day off to compensate over worked days). The reason because average hours per day is low (see other comments) is because unemployment is high, so many people accept part time jobs and short term jobs.
Now, combine the cynical stance "we can produce cheap products in China and sell them to you with no penalties" and the insult, and you've got perfect food for nationalist parties. Once again.
> Saying French workers work 3 hours a day is totally stupid. Normal work day is 8 hours for private sector, and 7 hours for public sector (but most public sector workers work 8 hours and then take a day off to compensate over worked days)
He didn't say workers came to the factory for 3 hours then left. What he said was that out of the 7 hours of a work day, 1 is lost in breaks and lunch, 3 are spent chatting instead of working and there's only 3 ours of actual work being done.
If you read the comments on the article the vast majority actually support what that CEO says and disapprove the actions of the CGT.
"Another thing that bugs me is the hypocritical stance of suing Chinese tire manufacturers and then turning around and manufacturing in China."
I could see why you'd viscerally feel that way, but if the tariffs that are being applied in the US aren't also being applied in other countries (Europe, for example) then he is unable to compete with Chinese tires without creating a factory there to get the same subsidies.
>Wow, what a total jerk. [...]
>When you don't have to insult someone it is probably better not to. //
Also is there any basis for this:
>I'd better move my money out before his loud mouth causes him to lose business. //
He sounds like a no nonsense kinda guy that is getting annoyed that people keep asking him to intervene and save tire plants without letting him address the issues that would allow the plants to be saved?
There is a pretty big gap between 'no-nonsense' and 'insulting'. This is clearly in the insulting category.
He's been given an opportunity, if he sees any bread in it he should take it, if not politely refuse. Just so the next time there is an opportunity he's still on the 'call' list.
I can see 0 upside to acting like this, and I'm known as pretty direct myself. I'd never insult a government official - in writing, no less - unless it served a purpose and I can't find any purpose here, just insults for insults sake and direct proof of acting on incorrect information. Keep in mind that France has a huge domestic tire manufacturer that negates pretty much everything mr. Titan says here. If he's not happy with the factory operation, it's equipment or its workforce then it's time to either negotiate or to bow out with some grace.
Shooting yourself in the foot like this is not the way business is done, especially not in France where they value propriety in business as much as anywhere else on the planet. Sure there may be insurmountable downsides but given an opportunity you can simply say 'pass', no need to spit the person giving you the opportunity in the face.
I assume he thinks putting the situation in stark terms is more likely to provoke a response from France that will have a chance of saving their jobs in the future.
An interesting, and foreseeable, response from the French minister: “In the meantime,” he added, “rest assured that you can count on me to have the competent government agencies survey your imported tires with a redoubled zeal.” (From the NYT story, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/american-executiv...)
There is a note of subtlety there that I find hard to translate but my French interpreter detects a very subtle note of sarcasm in that carefully worded salutation.
When you've been insulted you can insult back by throwing rotten fish or you can insult back by being very explicitly correct and I sense this is some slight variation of that. Maybe someone who is more experienced in French can confirm or deny that.
It's a very formal salutation. Its inclusion in an otherwise informal message is very sarcastic, and most native french speakers would take it as such.
That's actually what the minister did in his reply.
Actually, the sarcasm would only be perceived by an Anglophone. That is a fairly standard salutation in French, further, it is one that indicating that the recipient is of higher status than the sender. French salutations are notoriously flowery and with complex rules (which I have probably gotten wrong here, being primarily an Anglophone myself).
I think he felt it necessary to explain in greater details why buying this distressed factory made no sense. If you can read the comments (http://commentaires.lesechos.fr/commentaires.php?id=02025770...) the vast majority said they're very happy to see someone bluntly tell the government what the majority of French people understood a long time ago but can't say publicly because it's taboo to talk about business, productivity and how the big unions are costing more jobs then they're saving.
> Titan had to pay millions to Washington lawyers to sue the Chinese tire companies because of their subsidizing. Titan won. The government collects the duties. We don't get the duties, the government does.
This is how tariffs work. You don't tax imports to fork over free money to domestic companies. The point is to increase the cost of the imported good to compensate for illegal (from the WTO's point of view) Chinese subsidies.
I'm confused as to why he thinks those taxes should go to Titan.
> I'm confused as to why he thinks those taxes should go to Titan.
Probably because from 2000–2005, under U.S. law [0], anti-dumping duties did get disbursed to the U.S. companies that brought successful anti-dumping complaints. This is illegal under WTO rules, however, and Congress repealed the law after the WTO authorized retaliatory sanctions against the U.S.
What's amusing about the letter is that it shows how even executives buy into cultural stereotypes to justify their activities.
The substance of the letter is this: we'd rather buy an Indian or Chinese tire company to get the government subsidies and take advantage of the low cost of labor.
The stuff about French workers only working three hours a day is fluff, and on top of that almost certainly exaggerated out of context and/or apocryphal.
The French work on average 1,554 hours per year, about 10% lower than the OECD average of 1,749. Is that 10% breaking the backs of French tire manufacturing? Of course not. Consider that South Koreans work on average 2,193 hours per year, a staggering 25% higher than the OECD average. Why doesn't Titan manufacture tires in South Korea?
The answer is that relatively small differences in the number of hours people worked aren't driving the economics here. The French work somewhat less than say Americans, but also make somewhat less money than say Americans (last I checked, manufacturing jobs paid on an hourly basis). To be accurate, the letter could have said: "we won't manufacture tires in France because the French work 6.5 hours per day on average versus 7.5 per day for Americans." But that would have sounded stupid. Hence the need to exaggerate and say: "the French only work 3 hours per day!"
What's driving the economics is, as the letter points out, $1/hour wages in China or India, where people are happy to get so little money because those countries are poor and have low standards of living relative to western countries. The rest is just handwaving and fluff.
The "three hours a day" is obviously an impressionistic account, but he reports having visited that factory more than once and spoken with its workers. And, as someone who's managed similar factories in other jurisdictions, he'd have some insight about what 'tempo' of production is necessary for profitable operation.
So it's not fair to accuse him of imagining this based solely on cultural stereotypes. He has expertise beyond that, both in the industry and the specific factory; that's why the French government approached him.
Also, your OECD averages for France don't tell us anything about how a single troubled factory works. Many French businesses are doing fine, but they aren't looking for a foreign-buyer rescue. The Titan CEO is speaking of one, specific troubled factory, with a specific (likely unfireable) workforce. Its work environment might be among the worst France's traditions, unions, and political influences has to offer. As thin as the anecdote in the CEO's letter is, it's still stronger than an argument based on national averages that include healthy businesses.
The third paragraph is talking about that factory, but he's clearly generalizing to French workers. He uses the word "French" three times in four short sentences.
It can be stretched to read that way, but I believe the context makes it clear that he is primarily speaking about those he observed and spoke to in that factory.
For example, the last sentence phrase "I told this to the French union workers to their faces" is clearly referring to specific workers at a specific site, not all French workers (or even French union workers) everywhere.
He does emphasize the descriptor 'French', but that seems both to rub a little salt in the wound of the national official he's responding to, and perhaps to contrast those he's describing with non-French workers at the same factory, or with workers in similar tire factories outside France. It isn't evidence the author has the same judgement of all French workers, even though that expansive interpretation is an easier strawman to knock down.
French workers also have an old tradition for manufacturing, produce quality products and have one of the best productivity per hour of all the developed countries (mostly due to the fact that they work slightly LESS than other workers in developed economies).
But what are you gonna do, it's become trendy to take swings at the French for being cowardly, lazy, corrupted union-loving socialist epicurian bastards with no engineering and manufacturing skills whatsoever even though rankings, statistics and facts paint another picture.
Your assuming things that are not necessarily the case. GM had some terrible factory's in the 80's where you could buy alcohol, hard drugs, and visit a prostitute all inside the factory. That has little to due with the US work force and a lot to due with the history of Union activity at GM.
I do not doubt that some executive in the American auto industry JUST TODAY used hard drugs and alcohol in the office. The prostitution probably happened in a hotel somewhere, the accommodations paid with frequent flyer miles.
Very good comment. This open letter is copied in every right wing economic blogs as a demonstration that unions are killing companies, when really no OECD country can compete with China or India for low wages.
The big public rant about how bad things are in the factory looks just like a large media spin to justify the closure of the factory.
Well, we're going to have these conversations again in the near future as automation becomes more common. At some point we as a society are either going to have to organize us all with some productive activity, or embrace and deal with the departure of the "everyone-must-work-hard-all-of-the-time" work ethic.
The French show up to work for that long, but what do they accomplish?
As http://www.ibtimes.com/us-labor-department-statistics-vindic... points out, the per hour productivity of French workers in manufacturing is only 78% of the per hour productivity of US workers. And going to the statistics linked in that chart, I note that French workers receive 144% of what US workers do per hour. (I looked for both India and China in the stats, but failed to find them.)
So yes, he's exaggerating. But he has a point. French workers do less and receive more than US workers. If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't want to run a French factory either.
In many European countries, not just France, American per-hour wages would be considered exploitation. And that does not even begin to look at things like holidays, sick leave, maternity leave, workers compensation and of course health insurance.
I don't disagree. However from the point of view of the manufacturer, spending more and getting less isn't a good deal. Contrast with the South Korean model where manufacturers spend more and also get more. Where would you prefer to put a factory?
I'm a big fan of putting factories close to the region where the goods are consumed. In the long run that would seem to make the most sense. Of course, short term economical factors and longer term trends are not always in harmony. As long as CEOs are judged by quarterly earnings reports this will likely remain.
I have an idea that the differences in work ethic across Europe may be partly to do with climate and partly to do with language.
In France, the verb 'work' is travailler. Traditionally this meant literally to toil, a chore, an obligation. In Germany, the word werken means to build, create, do. The German word more aligned with travailler is arbeit. This lack of correlation in the word work I believe may explain the differences in the approach and cultural views towards work that I see across Europe, particularly with latin root romance languages.
The second factor I've seen is climate. In the more productive northern European countries, it's generally colder. There's been a historical need for produce and for people to work (not endure or arbeit) to trade in order to get everything you need in terms of food and shelter.
South of the Olive line something strange happens. If you look at Spain you'll see that there's a long siesta during the day. This is because for a large part of the year Spain's too hot to work in during most of the afternoon. While we have air conditioning now, hundreds of years of cultural differences I feel may have led us with ingrained ideas about what work is and what it means, with those differences reinforced by climate.
For example, in Turkey there's no such thing as a siesta (there's no time in Istanbul for one anyway). Culturally it doesn't really exist, yet it's as hot as parts of Spain that do.
I could be completely wrong about this, but it's just something I've noticed. I do believe that the unions are crippling France's productivity, but France is as likely to change in the short term as the rest of Europe to France's view IMHO.
EDIT : I'm not saying that Germans, Brits or whoever are harder working, or that the French, Spanish, Moomins are lazy, far from it. I'm pointing out some differences in how people perceive work (i.e. neutrally or with negative connotations) based on language and culture, based solely on my own experience. For what it's worth I've worked with lazy Brits and Germans and hard working French and Spanish people. The Moomins I've never worked with, sorry if you're a Moomin and my ignorance upset you.
France is a hard working country. It's not where it is today just because there is an Eiffel tower and great bread.
I realize that bashing France is always enjoyable but although its going downhill it's still one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world.
People have more holidays but work for longer hours. One example of one factory doesn't say much about the country as a whole.
For the record, in Germany, 32 hours a week is frequent in many factories (VW).
The question one could ask, is how come the factory reached a point where people work only three hours per day?
It's however true that the minimum wages are far above the minimum wages in India or China. I'm not sure dropping wages to Chinese levels is the solution.
I'm not saying there aren't any problem.
There is a recurrent problem with unions in France and the lack of communication between unions and employers.
Work laws are rigid and the amount of tax companies suffer clearly costs a great deal of opportunities to the country.
There is also a recent, negative shift, toward work and effort in general, especially in the youngest generation. I'm however afraid this might not be specific to France.
> France is a hard working country. It's not where it is today just because there is an Eiffel tower and great bread.
I'm not saying that it isn't. Sorry, I was commenting on etymological and cultural differences. Most of the French people I've worked with have a very different view of work compared to most of the British and German people I've worked with. My thoughts on this are that it's cultural, and that the etymology may correlate with this.
Right, but that is partly or wholly because French unemployment is higher than it is in the US with the result that the less productive workers do not have jobs and consequently are not included in the statistic. If we use a different statistic, namely, GDP per capita, France is significantly lower than the US.
I dont think the unemployment affects the stats that much but anyway the US has a higher GDP per capita and higher GDP per hour worked than France. I was just replying to the common stereotype that France is significatively less productive than other european countries (say, Germany).
Another fact that contradicts that stereotype is France's position as a recipient of foreign direct investment:
GDP per capita doesn't track unemployment either. France isn't 'significantly' lower than the US either it is about where Germany is and Britain is far behind them both.
That could be due to the diminishing returns of working longer hours after a certain point. They work fewer hours, so are more productive per hour, but sacrifice overall production to do so.
> In Germany, the word werk means to build, create, do.
'Werk' is a noun being either a factory or a creation of an artist. But to work still means 'arbeiten' in German.
'werken' in the sense of 'to work' is dutch. Maybe you mean this?
Other than that: I can tell you that my German colleagues aren't really more motivated or hardworking than my French, English or Polish colleagues. That hard working German stereotype is a nice stereotype but it isn't really all too true.
Sorry, I was thinking of werken (this is the bit where you tell me I'm wrong here too - sorry, I only studied German in high school which was a long time ago).
It's the same thing over and over. When people like two things, they tend to want to see connections between them. Max Weber liked protestantism and capitalism, so he wrote "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". iuguy likes Northen Europe and hard work, so he posted that collection of stereotypes. Redditors like atheism and science, and to hear them tell it, the two things are basically one and the same.
It's just a very basic psychological mechanism of likes and dislikes, prejudice and favoritism, but masquerading as something intellectual.
I've read about that, and to be fair religion has a major cultural impact but I'm not sure how significant it all is in the grand scheme of things (given changes in religion over the years, reformations etc.).
>>In France, the verb 'work' is travailler. Traditionally this meant literally to toil, a chore, an obligation. In Germany, the word werken means to build, create, do. The German word more aligned with travailler is arbeit. This lack of correlation in the word work I believe may explain the differences in the approach and cultural views towards work that I see across Europe, particularly with latin root romance languages.
This makes no sense at all. What is the mechanism at play here? Languages with different etymologies for the verb to work impress those differences into the cultures that use the language? Travailler doesn't really mean toil at all, besogne is the word for really hard chores, lit. Travail pénible. There is no connotation that work is always a chore. French has the same type of words for making things as German goes. This goes back to the agriculture/craftsmen distinction in the middle ages. There is no difference.
>>The second factor I've seen is climate. In the more productive northern European countries, it's generally colder. There's been a historical need for produce and for people to work (not endure or arbeit) to trade in order to get everything you need in terms of food and shelter.
Productivity isn't equivalent to working hard at all. Differences in productivity and wealth in european countries generally go back to pre-industrial developments in technology. Hotter climates tend to not be as integrated into Europe due to simple geography. The alps and the Pyrenees are two examples. You can also look at political developments that helped give rise to reliable systems of law absent elsewhere. As an Arab commented during the crusades, the crusaders could depend on freedom from arbitrary judgments. Again, this development seems to be based on geography
but has nothing to do with the climate per se.
>>In France, the verb 'work' is travailler. Traditionally this meant literally to toil, a chore, an obligation.
"travailler" comes from Latin, in spanish the same word is "trabajar", notice the resemblance. It literally means "to work" in english. Just saying this because I don't really buy it that "travailler" in French means "to toil".
Travail (like trabajo) means labor, effort. It's different from "empoi" ("empleo" in español), which has a bigger relation with being useful, and is also less commonly used.
I don't get why you'd ever send a letter like this (except anonymously, or if you were a politician). There is no upside beyond just "Sorry, we're not interested -- our new investments are focused on Asia, where demand for tires is growing 200%/yr. Sincerely, CEO." There is downside -- you might provoke some tariffs in EU/France, or disinvestment from the pension fund, or whatever.
While scathing, it is also very informative. "Not interested" and a vague "lookin' better elsewhere" doesn't get into the reality of "why?"
Methinks he did them a great service in being brutally honest. Those trying to solve the obvious problems will make much greater progress with such a letter in hand, rather than the usual apologetic tact. "Helpful are the wounds of a friend..." I'm sure he would, in fact, like to buy a French tire factory, but ridiculous pay for minuscule work makes for an offer no less insulting than his reply.
Yes, but there is no percentage in it for him. It's like telling a random fat person on the bus that he's fat. Probably nothing happens, but there is a small chance he will fly into a rage, or will tell everyone that you called him fat (maybe blogging about it, with video!). There's a much smaller chance that he'll suddenly start to diet/exercise, but how does that benefit you? It's different if it's a friend/family member, or if you're hired as a trainer or doctor.
There is a percentage in it for him: I'm sure he would like to own a French tire factory IF they actually had competitive productivity. With a verbal kick in the pants, perhaps the situation will change and he'll get a viable opportunity there. That aside, he's giving someone fair warning they're engaging in self-destructive behavior - a kind act.
And no, it's not like telling a random fat person he's fat. He was approached with a request that he purchase the company. It's more like an obese slob applying for a serving-staff position at Hooters or Tilted Kilt.
Somewhat ironically, it's also one of the best manufacturers for tires, the product specifically mentioned in the article. Michelin (for passenger car tires) is amazing, although their US-market tires (at least for everything but some specific race/customs) are all made in South Carolina.
If I was to pretend I was the Titan CEO and read into the letter deeper, it's almost a backhanded way of saying "look, you're probably not going to find any buyer for your firm and I'll helpfully tell you why because it seems your management and unions are in denial".
Perhaps he just wants high fives from like minded CEOs. Getting political jabs in when they can seems popular with biz guys with too much time on their hands. It's the executive version of "doing it for the lulz."
It's been shown time and time again that conversation / discussion with honest dissent proves to foster more thought and recourse than "being nice" and not directly engaging the problem. While the letter bordered on over-the-top I'd rather get the honest feedback than nothing at all (i.e. thanks but no thanks).
Quite the flame, I share others surprise that he would be quite so flagrant in his discussion. It is something of an art, and perhaps a bit of fun, to tell people 'no freaking way' with language that reads nicely. Clearly the guys at Titan have no interest in that :-).
It would have been more effective perhaps if he had shared with the people of Amien the context of the discussion. Something along the lines of "this is what we can pay per worked hour if we want to sell tires to your neighbors. More than that, and they will buy them from Chinese factories." And let the unions be the ones who get to decide that the jobs go out of the country.
Talk about a financial blowout. Sounds like his intent is to waste Titan's time writing negative remarks and being disrespectful. I agree they shouldn't do business with France, but to be so rude is, well...rude.
Your words, as extreme as they are insulting, pay witness to your complete ignorance of our country, France, and its solid assets, such as its world renowned power of attraction and its ties with the United States of America.
France is proud to host more than 20 000 foreign businesses, representing nearly 2 million jobs, a third of it's industrial exports, 20% of its private R&D and 25% of its industrial jobs. Every year, 700 foreign investors make a decision to localize job and value creating investments in France. And this strong attractivity is not waning, on the contrary, it is strengthening every year.
Amongst these foreign investments, the United States take the first place. 4200 subsidiaries of american businesses represent nearly 500 000 jobs. The presence of american businesses in France is not new: Haviland since 1842, IBM since 1914, Coca-Cola since 1933, General Electric since 1974, and so many others. These ties are renewed every year: in 2012, businesses like Massey-Fergueson, Mars Chocolat, or 3M chose to grow their presence in France.
What were the decisive factors in these decisions? Foreign businesses come to France for its quality infrastructure, its enviable living environment, one of the most competitive energy in Europe and an enviroment favoring research and innovation. But above all, in opposition to your ridiculous and disparaging remarks, the bulk of these businesses know and appreciate the quality and productivity of the french workforce, its engagement, its knowhow, its talents and the competence of french workers.
To strengthen this power of attraction, the french government has just taken 35 measures in the "National pact for growth, competitivity and work". Amongst them, a tax refund for competitivity and work lighten by 6% the salary load of businesses of between 1 and 2,5 SMIC. Social partners have also reached an agreement on job security, which illustrate the quality of the social dialogue in France and its importance to our government.
Might I remind you that Titan, the company you helm, is 20 times smaller than Michelin, our French technology leader with global reach, and 35 times less profitable? This demonstrate how much Titan could stand to learn and gain from implanting in France.
France is even prouder and happy to host american investments that our two countries are linked by an old and passionate friendship. Are you at least aware of what La Fayette did for the United States of America? And as for us, we will never forget the sacrifices young american soldiers made on the beaches of Normandy to free us from nazism in 1944. And since you chose to criticise your own country in the email you sent me, I must tell you how much the french government admires the policies put in place by President Obama. As our minister of industry, I am particularly impressed by his action favoring relocating industrial jobs in the United States and its radical innovation. There is a certain link between our current policy and the one inspired by your President.
You evoque your intention to use certain countries' workforce to flood our markets. I have a duty to inform you that this condamnable short-term thinking will one day face a justified reaction from States. Such is already the case for France and it's growing amount of allies within the European Union who are campaining for reciprocity of trading and are working against dumping. In the meantime, be assured that I will make certain that our competent governmental services will work twice as hard to inspect your imported tires. They will be especially mindful of the respect of the applicable standards in matters social, environmental and technical.
Please accept, sir, my greetings. ((That greeting is essentially untranslatable)).
Would have been a much more powerful response if he'd left out that last paragraph. In two sentences he reinforced every incorrect stereotype of France as a third-world chickenshit bureaucracy that any Americans might have held.
One thing that this underscores is one of the subtleties of doing business in France. If this had been a German or a Dutch minister the reply would have been in English, in France the reply is of course in French.
He makes some great points. People don't care where their good come from, they just want them to be cheap and high quality. # hour workday? Unbelievable.
Well, on the one hand people don't care where their goods come from when they buy them (or more to the point, they don't care under which conditions they were manufactured). But then, on the other hand, they don't want to have the standard of living of the people working in those factories. Short-term self-interest tends to make people ignore that in the long-term this model is not sustainable.
Exorbitant pay for 3 hours of labor* is much less sustainable. The euro-per-hour workers will (and do) work their way up to better conditions, while their overpaid slothful competition will just get shut down.
(* - we may also presume those 3 hours do not constitute "hard" work.)
So just because some crazy US CEO states in a letter that French workers have a "3 hour workday" you suddenly believe that? This guy is crazy and I find it amusing that anybody takes anything he writes seriously.
I don't think this is entirely true. In fact, I think Americans have been caring more and more over the past few decades, especially about items made in Asia (and please don't mention Apple).
His letter shows the classic signs of someone uncomfortable expressing himself in words. Reading his letter is like watching someone ice skate for the first time -- all the expected motions are there, but without any familiarity or sense of style.
The "I and Titan have a 40-year history" sentence is pretty poorly written. I had to to stop, rewind, and reparse to understand it after hitting the comma after "companies".
The letter is a good example of the cognitive dissonance so prevalent amongst the privileged elite. In the same paragraph where he laments that the French government "does nothing" while the Chinese ship tires to France, he predicts French industrial degradation because "its government is more government." Which is it, is it too much government or not enough?
It's this deafness to the meaning of your own words that would allow a loudmouthed industrialist-type to shout "class warfare!" the moment new taxes are proposed on the wealthy. This letter is an unprovoked attack on French working people. And if French working people decide to non-violently retaliate against the company by petitioning for import restrictions, organizing a boycott, etc, it would be wholly justified.
I find it somewhat odd that he rails against workers earning too much, when what they earn is but a fraction of his own salary. I doubt they work any less harder than him either.
> I doubt they work any less harder than him either.
Actually, his main gripe is that after visiting the factory, he realized workers only do 3 hours of actual work in a typical 7-hour day. When he brought that up to union reps, they bluntly replied that "it's the French way".
I can't see how taunting government leaders ends well for a company. You may not agree with them, but what good comes from taunting? Will this really be productive to getting France to ease up on union laws?
He could have got his point across in a more civil way.
I understand he felt the urge to vent his spleen at someone, but now they are going to be blackballed should they ever need anything from the French government.
>>Alas, America isn’t what it used to be: Insulting the French doesn’t seem to be rewarded by the stock market, and Titan is down about 1% so far today.
True. Also, the wsj article is dated today. Look at the market, EVERYTHING is down today. The letter was dated Feb 8. As if this news is just getting around to the big players today...
When you don't have to insult someone it is probably better not to. Because those pesky French just might publish your less than elegant letters, your stockholders might read those letters and could very well think: "This guy runs the company I invest in? I'd better move my money out before his loud mouth causes him to lose business.".
Stockholders are fickle, and some stockholders actually care about more than just the numbers (of course, that is a minority).
Also, if you communicate you negative interest when a foreign representative has thought to offer you a chance at some deal you may want to think of the future. Effectively you are saying 'if you are so kind as to think of me I will repay you with trash'. That will likely not be repeated again and likely the effect will be much further spread than just this one country and just this one official.
That bulk deal for Tires for all the vehicles of the French armed forces (Michelin?), the police force or their connections with the ministry of labour and their counterparts in other countries. Piss off politicians in enough places and it will backfire.
Maybe there is some hidden upside but I don't see any.
Finally, you are also representing your country when you do business abroad. Every other American CEO lost a little bit of respect today by re-inforcing certain stereo types that we could all do without.
If you are ever in a position like this, please say 'no' with some grace.