RE: Aston Sheds 600 jobs
Tuesday 2nd December 2008
Aston Martin is to axe up to a third of its workforce due to a fall in sales, it has been reported. Luxury carmakers have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn and the decision to cut jobs at Aston comes just days after Rolls Royce announced it was closing its plant temporarily.
Aston Sheds 600 jobs
Luxury car firms continue to be hit by economic downturn
Aston said yesterday that it was planning to shed 600 full-time and temporary jobs because it expected to sell 800 less cars this year. The company shifted 7,300 vehicles last year but that figure is likely to fall to around 6,500 for 2008.
Chief executive Dr Ulrich Bez said: ‘Like other premium car brands, Aston Martin has been forced to take action to respond to the unprecedented downturn in the global economy.These are regrettable but necessary measures in the extraordinary market conditions we all now face.’ The company said the job cuts would hit the company's factory in Gaydon.
Discussion
The figures don't add up here.
Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
It does not indicate the 'full-time equivalent' losses, so it could be the equivalent of as low as 300 'full time' position losses.
It's AWFUL for the real people involved, but everyone needs to remember that whilst the mouth may say 'due to the downturn', the reality is that a lot of companies are hiding behind that as a reason to make big changes in their operations.
<cynic>I run a company that has lots of part-time positions and it's a pain because I need full-time people. The economy is slowing, so I decide to cut some costs...but look - at the same time, I can cut a temporary cost and remove some of my PT people. Then when business ramps back up, I can replace those positions with the full-time workers I wanted.</cynic>
Big business is using the 'downturn' to offload un-profitable or in-efficient areas of it's business.
My heart goes out to the people affected.
P~
Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
It does not indicate the 'full-time equivalent' losses, so it could be the equivalent of as low as 300 'full time' position losses.
It's AWFUL for the real people involved, but everyone needs to remember that whilst the mouth may say 'due to the downturn', the reality is that a lot of companies are hiding behind that as a reason to make big changes in their operations.
<cynic>I run a company that has lots of part-time positions and it's a pain because I need full-time people. The economy is slowing, so I decide to cut some costs...but look - at the same time, I can cut a temporary cost and remove some of my PT people. Then when business ramps back up, I can replace those positions with the full-time workers I wanted.</cynic>
Big business is using the 'downturn' to offload un-profitable or in-efficient areas of it's business.
My heart goes out to the people affected.
P~
PhantomPH said:
The figures don't add up here.
Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
It does not indicate the 'full-time equivalent' losses, so it could be the equivalent of as low as 300 'full time' position losses.
It's AWFUL for the real people involved, but everyone needs to remember that whilst the mouth may say 'due to the downturn', the reality is that a lot of companies are hiding behind that as a reason to make big changes in their operations.
<cynic>I run a company that has lots of part-time positions and it's a pain because I need full-time people. The economy is slowing, so I decide to cut some costs...but look - at the same time, I can cut a temporary cost and remove some of my PT people. Then when business ramps back up, I can replace those positions with the full-time workers I wanted.</cynic>
Big business is using the 'downturn' to offload un-profitable or in-efficient areas of it's business.
My heart goes out to the people affected.
P~
+1 my thoughts exactly Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
It does not indicate the 'full-time equivalent' losses, so it could be the equivalent of as low as 300 'full time' position losses.
It's AWFUL for the real people involved, but everyone needs to remember that whilst the mouth may say 'due to the downturn', the reality is that a lot of companies are hiding behind that as a reason to make big changes in their operations.
<cynic>I run a company that has lots of part-time positions and it's a pain because I need full-time people. The economy is slowing, so I decide to cut some costs...but look - at the same time, I can cut a temporary cost and remove some of my PT people. Then when business ramps back up, I can replace those positions with the full-time workers I wanted.</cynic>
Big business is using the 'downturn' to offload un-profitable or in-efficient areas of it's business.
My heart goes out to the people affected.
P~
PhantomPH said:
The figures don't add up here.
Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
- It is often the case that while it may take 100 workers to produce 100 units, it takes 200 workers to produce 150... The latter units produced being less profitable, but still desirable to make because of various reasons. Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
Hope all the workers find jobs fast.
stuart-b said:
rudler said:
They would probably be selling more cars if their whole range didn't look the same!
FFS! The idea isn't to keep re-designing everything from scratch, they have a design ethos, and it has evolved over 50 years - go back to your Honda Civic! 
Come on people - Where are all the d
heads that would quite happily see other UK manufacturers i.e Rover (RIP), Jaguar and Land Rover go down the p!sshole due to the prevailing economic climate tearing the heart of the West Midlands economy as a whole. Curiously quiet on the "compete or die mentality" that has prevailed in other similar carmaker threads when it comes to beloved Aston Martin 
Zod - your thread is calling - weren't you hankering after an Aston. If it doesn't damage the kudos too much you can pick one up in the fire sale...
On a serious note - my thoughts are for the workforce. Less than fortuatous timing...
heads that would quite happily see other UK manufacturers i.e Rover (RIP), Jaguar and Land Rover go down the p!sshole due to the prevailing economic climate tearing the heart of the West Midlands economy as a whole. Curiously quiet on the "compete or die mentality" that has prevailed in other similar carmaker threads when it comes to beloved Aston Martin Zod - your thread is calling - weren't you hankering after an Aston. If it doesn't damage the kudos too much you can pick one up in the fire sale...
On a serious note - my thoughts are for the workforce. Less than fortuatous timing...
Edited by FWDRacer on Tuesday 2nd December 12:03
PhantomPH said:
The figures don't add up here.
Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
It does not indicate the 'full-time equivalent' losses, so it could be the equivalent of as low as 300 'full time' position losses.
It's AWFUL for the real people involved, but everyone needs to remember that whilst the mouth may say 'due to the downturn', the reality is that a lot of companies are hiding behind that as a reason to make big changes in their operations.
<cynic>I run a company that has lots of part-time positions and it's a pain because I need full-time people. The economy is slowing, so I decide to cut some costs...but look - at the same time, I can cut a temporary cost and remove some of my PT people. Then when business ramps back up, I can replace those positions with the full-time workers I wanted.</cynic>
Big business is using the 'downturn' to offload un-profitable or in-efficient areas of it's business.
My heart goes out to the people affected.
P~
you are correct, sir, on the 300 people thing, here:Are we sure this is not just another example of companies using the 'downturn' as a reason to shed over-staffing issues?
600 people for 800 cars annually?? An almost 1:1 ratio? Hmmm, so do Aston have 7,300 staff? (I am rounding for ease)
It does not indicate the 'full-time equivalent' losses, so it could be the equivalent of as low as 300 'full time' position losses.
It's AWFUL for the real people involved, but everyone needs to remember that whilst the mouth may say 'due to the downturn', the reality is that a lot of companies are hiding behind that as a reason to make big changes in their operations.
<cynic>I run a company that has lots of part-time positions and it's a pain because I need full-time people. The economy is slowing, so I decide to cut some costs...but look - at the same time, I can cut a temporary cost and remove some of my PT people. Then when business ramps back up, I can replace those positions with the full-time workers I wanted.</cynic>
Big business is using the 'downturn' to offload un-profitable or in-efficient areas of it's business.
My heart goes out to the people affected.
P~
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?AR=...
They are still going to be making the new Aston martin Rapide in Austria though, even with the threat of job loses they are still taking work away from the UK, this is a case of the rich being greedy such as the ceo of Aston martin Dr Betz or what ever, his missus is sitting on the very top of the board of the company that are going to be making the Rapide, Magna Steyr.
If his missus wasn't on the board and getting her pockets lined, then would they still be making the Rapide abroad, this I dont think so! But all ways if you got the money you can do what you want in this country, including selling off what little industry is left
If his missus wasn't on the board and getting her pockets lined, then would they still be making the Rapide abroad, this I dont think so! But all ways if you got the money you can do what you want in this country, including selling off what little industry is left
Edited by BigFatBloke on Tuesday 2nd December 14:37
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff