|
Post by Dane on Mar 7, 2009 0:15:10 GMT -8
This pool is to determine when BC Ferries will deny the quality roots of this vessel and paint over the .... ... pool closes whenever it actually happens. Dane guesses: 13 Mar 09
|
|
|
Post by Coastal Drought on Mar 7, 2009 23:50:13 GMT -8
I have a feeling this one will be way more fun to do than the other pools. (Maybe except for the Island Sky pool). Here's mine: March 17th.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Mar 8, 2009 0:23:13 GMT -8
I'll go with March 28.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 8, 2009 11:23:59 GMT -8
This pool is to determine when BC Ferries will deny the quality roots of this vessel and paint over the .... Soon, I hope, considering that the quality work that our BC yards did on the majority of the fleet built here is not commemorated in similar advertising.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Mar 8, 2009 11:42:29 GMT -8
Could it be that FSG has learned from the Coastals, and this time it's not painted on, but it is in fact a decal and all that has to be done is to rip it off?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 8, 2009 12:11:19 GMT -8
Soon, I hope, considering that the quality work that our BC yards did on the majority of the fleet built here is not commemorated in similar advertising. Yeah, it's not the "BC Way" to promote the work that we've done here. That lack of promotion helps the woe-is-me attitude to endure. Maybe the BC Yards should have been more creative and done something similar? No, that's not our way...
|
|
|
Post by landlubber on Mar 8, 2009 12:22:26 GMT -8
C'mon already.. the people of BC should be proud of their new ships and where they were built. Any other approach to this is childish and immature.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 8, 2009 12:31:12 GMT -8
Agreed. Van Shipyard's lack of creativity in putting their name on the vessel is not a justification in itself. I think having logos on the vessel, unrelated to the paint scheme, is ugly so if I was in charge I would remove it as well.
But, saying since BC shipyards didn't paint their logo on is a poor argument.
Heaven forbid something is.... different.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 8, 2009 12:36:08 GMT -8
Ships have builder's plaques displayed on board. They don't have shipbuilder advertising prominently displayed on hulls or superstructure. It really has nothing to do with pride, promotion, or being childish.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Mar 8, 2009 13:02:06 GMT -8
Ship building in British Columbia has been relegated to re-fit work and sad attempts at relatively small new-builds, as we've seen with the pitiful completion schedule of the Island Sky. FSG would be totally embarrassed to admit it took them that long to build a minor vessel of that nature. Fact is, we have either never developed the newest technologies or we have lost what new technologies we did create, ie. Fast Ferry, Aluminum consstruction, to be successful in building even smaller vessels. Most sadly we have lost and not trained the various ship-building tradesmen as the older generation have retired or left the industry due to a lack of employment opportunities. Governments at all levels, from the Feds on down have been complicit in sitting idly by and watching what used to be a great industrial strength of this country go down the drain. Canada is, the last time I looked, a MARITIME country, where did the various levels of government think required new-builds of all desriptions were going to come from? I don't even want to get into the procurement of new vessels for the various Departments/Agencies of the Federal Government. So,governments at all levels didn't protect or promote a viable industry in Canada, but the Feds have the temerity to levy import duties on vessels built abroad. All that rant being said, I get sick and tired of the "we should have built those ships locally crowd" when it is ultimately our own fault for not holding our various elected officials accountable for public policy decisions that have disregarded a very viable industry in this country. In life: Ya gets what ya pay for, or in this case, Canadians haven't got a viable ship-building industry because they didn't scream long enough or loud enough and hold public policy makers accountable for stupid decisions. Far too much heat was directed at those high-priced labour unions for being the major cause of the slow and agonizing death of a healthy Canadian ship building industry. The good folks at FSG should have permanently steel-decaled the "Built by Flensburger" logo onto the side of all the new ships so that all those that read it could have been reminded for a longer period of time, just how stupid we were to let our industry go down the drain.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Mar 8, 2009 13:05:56 GMT -8
Builder's plaques that are fixtures of the interiors of ships are nice to look at, if you're onboard, while the outdoor decals get far more viewing exposure over time.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 8, 2009 15:12:06 GMT -8
I get sick and tired of the "we should have built those ships locally crowd" when it is ultimately our own fault for not holding our various elected officials accountable for public policy decisions that have disregarded a very viable industry in this country. In life: Ya gets what ya pay for, or in this case, Canadians haven't got a viable ship-building industry because they didn't scream long enough or loud enough and hold public policy makers accountable for stupid decisions. You're assuming that we live in a pure democracy, where citizens actually can hold the entrenched powers fully accountable for their actions. For my part, I've never voted for the parties that allowed our shipbuilding industry to wither, and those parties don't listen to people like me, so I'm afraid I'm not willing to accept the blame. The good folks at FSG should have permanently steel-decaled the "Built by Flensburger" logo onto the side of all the new ships so that all those that read it could have been reminded for a longer period of time, just how stupid we were to let our industry go down the drain. If that's what people would read from that, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, I doubt that it would be any more than just advertising for Flensburger, so there's no way it should stay. Other than that, Starsteward, I completely agree with you. Flugel Horn's comments about the attitude of our local industry made me think of comments that have come up before. I know people are really sick of the rehashing of the shipbuilding issue, but I'd like to ask a question that I don't think has been answered before. I direct it to those folks who maintain that our shipbuilding industry, and its workers, have not been positive enough or promoted themselves enough, and that this somehow has a bearing on the state of the industry. People seem to think it's significant that our industry doesn't have nice flashy websites like the vaunted Flensburger. We've also heard that the shipyard workers should have held some sort of press conference, or maybe taken out ads or issued press releases, or perhaps given away decorative helium balloons to school kids proclaiming their enthusiasm and gratitude for having worked on the Island Sky. The union should stop complaining about foreign newbuilds, and should work with management on some sort of public relations campaign to convince... somebody... that ship work should stay in BC. What has never really been elucidated is what exactly would be expected to come of such a campaign. Might the feds explore some incentive program to encourage our timid, low-aiming shipbuilding industry to recapitalize and expand infrastructure? Would the Conservatives force BC Ferries to pay the import duty on all their foreign built vessels, and make it clear that this would be the case in future, to encourage building at home? Might the BC Ferries board decide to pay a premium to build at home, having miraculously come to the correct conclusion that it benefits the economy overall to do so, rather than sending hundreds of millions of dollars overseas? If none of these things were to change, all the Sunny Jim attitude in the world would count for nothing. Fervently declaring 'Yes We Can' worked for Obama, but I don't think it would mean squat to a shipyard job. Apologies to Dane. You asked a simple question, and suddenly it's welcome to Rant World. Starsteward makes an excellent point about the logo, but personally, I don't want to be reminded of our short sightedness every time I see the side of a freakin' ferry.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 8, 2009 15:41:05 GMT -8
What prevents the BC Shipyard that just built the Island Sky from doing a similar decal/label, for the purposes of pridefully saying that they built it?
Not that they need to think a decal will change government policy, but just for pride to say "this is what we built"?
Flensburger seems proud of their ships. I have no idea how the BC shipyards and their workers feel about their ships. From what we can tell, it's just a job / contract to our local guys.....nothing more?
I find it refreshing how Flensburger takes pride in their products that their team has built. And if the decal's life is short before it's removed, that's ok.
And it really is strange that we, as outsiders, know more about a shipyard in Germany than we do about a shipyard in our own backyards.
Neil seems to belittle the pride / promotion aspect of running a business or promoting a trade (ie. the balloon comment).
Promotion / pride / enthusiasm: These words describe what I see in other companies, but what I'm still searching for in others. What's so bad about being proud of your work and letting people know about it?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 8, 2009 16:10:57 GMT -8
I find it refreshing how Flensburger takes pride in their products that their team has built. And if the decal's life is short before it's removed, that's ok. I assumed that what we were talking about was whether there is a permanent logo on the side of a ferry. If we're talking about a temporary stick-on, fine, they can put it on for the trip over. And it really is strange that we, as outsiders, know more about a shipyard in Germany than we do about a shipyard in our own backyards. Well, we're not buying the ferries, and I doubt the yard's public image has little to do with who BC Ferries gives the contracts to. Neil seems to belittle the pride / promotion aspect of running a business or promoting a trade (ie. the balloon comment). Not so. If there is a benefit to public relations and 'attitude', I'm all for it. But no one has been able to demonstrate how a change in attitude on the part of our shipyard workers, or a cheerier demeanor from the industry, would have any tangible effect on their fortunes.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 8, 2009 17:55:57 GMT -8
...But no one has been able to demonstrate how a change in attitude on the part of our shipyard workers, or a cheerier demeanor from the industry, would have any tangible effect on their fortunes. And that brings me to this point: Regardless of effect on fortunes, why wouldn't a shipyard or its workers want to be demonstratively proud of their product? Yes, I'm just arguing the point of why not be cheerful about your work? Is there a BC Labour rule that says that big industry and its workers have to be inherently unhappy in their work? That's what originally got me going on this topic a couple of years ago. The negativity of Mr. McPherson and the lack of anything positive to say publicly about the work his members were doing. So this is the ideological gulf that we've reached: I think that it's good to be happy and cheerful about work and life, and to be thankful for work and opportunities. I usually cringe at the philosophy of entitlement, relating to jobs and industry. That's why I look for local shipyard workers to show that they are pleased with their work and their finished product. And that's why I admire FSG for showing that same sentiment. Why not smile and be happy about what you built, just because? ps: I'm not running for office or trying to force this philosophy on the masses. I'm just trying to explain how I feel about things, and how some of my core-beliefs impact how I view this ferry issue. Agree or not, at least you know why I feel this way.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 8, 2009 20:24:30 GMT -8
I tend to think that happy people have a really warped perspective on reality.
Just kidding! Happy is good. Happy workers do better work. Happy people live longer, have less Alzheimer’s, and there’s research to show they even smell better. How this all connects to getting contracts to build ferries, I’m not sure, but hey, if you want to get up a soothing chorus of ‘Kumbaya’, I’ll join in, in my grumpy fashion…
As for finding Flensburger’s pride refreshing, if you’ll allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment I might also point out that MacDonald’s takes pride in the burgers they sell. If one is refreshed by corporate self promotion, one must be in a constant state of refreshment, because it’s virtually impossible to get away from these days.
Go to the Washington Marine Group site, and look at their shipyard sections. You won’t see any apologies for what they do. You’ll see expressions of pride in their products, and a conviction that they do top notch refit work. You’ll also see a ‘Proudly Canadian’ emblem, despite the fact that Dennis probably doesn’t spend much time this side of the border. Go to the Shipyard General Workers Federation site, and along with the justifiable (though tiresome to some) complaints about newbuild work going overseas, you’ll see a history of the shipbuilding industry, with an unmistakeable attitude of pride in the ships they built, and in what the industry meant to our economy. These are not people who do not take satisfaction in a job well done, and I wonder just what it is that people would have them do in order to display the correct attitude.
In the sixties, our yards did the very best kind of public relations work- they built ferries, one after another, mostly on time and on budget- quality ships that served us well and stood the test of time. The yards got the work not because of a cheery attitude but because W.A.C. Bennett, despite some of his other egregious failings, recognized the value of making use of an existing industry and workforce, and building at home even if the job could be done a bit cheaper elsewhere. The reality is totally different now, and no one has been able to describe how this ill defined attitude problem has a bearing on the hard reality of where the contracts go.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 8, 2009 20:45:52 GMT -8
I tend to think that happy people have a really warped perspective on reality. Just kidding! Happy is good. Hey, thanks for understanding me. I know that my views aren't always applicable to the reality of the situation, but I'm glad that I can express them nonetheless. Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts on this too. Good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 9, 2009 8:01:22 GMT -8
For those who don't mind continuing this discussion here, and on a general sidetrack from the newbuild discussion, here is a musing of mine regarding team-pride in any company environment:
- At what point does simple team-pride (people working together for a common purpose with respect for the end goal and pride in their efforts & outcome) get overtaken by "corporate self-promotion"?
There will always be those who despise "rah rah" and those who get motivated by same. But surely there are companies / organizations who walk the walk and talk the talk, in that they live-out the ideals that they promote, which impacts the work environment. Even the most reserved of employees must find those good-companies good to work for and would take some pride in their logo / emblem etc?
.......and then there's the movie Office-Space. rah-rah by management didn't work so well there.
I wonder if FSG shipyard really is a special place to work, or if it's just a clever job of management PR? Maybe they really do have something special going on? (or maybe not.....) Likely a combination of both.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 9, 2009 8:34:34 GMT -8
I have mostly kept silent because I think I have made my opinion well known. However I do want to address the marketing question.
Marketing is one of the key aspects of a business or legs of the stool as it were. To dismiss it is very short sighted.
The launch of the "New Coke" (sweeter and tasted closer to Pepsi) is only one of dozens of examples. The product was rejected by a huge number of people so much so that the launch was an abismal failure. However, smart marketing that came about very quickly, turned things around. If you recall Coke came back with ads telling the consumer they were important and Classic Coke was here to stay. That marketing turned a massive failure into one of the best marketing campaigns ever. Product share for coke products was actually higher after the fiasco than before. Had Coke sat on its @ss the company would have lost major ground.
If you poll BC, and for that matter the rest of Canada, my guess is that a good number of people would say it was important to Canada because it sounds like a motherhood issue. However, when you scratch deeper, I believe the bulk of the public is largely apathetic because they simply don't know much about it. And beyond that the majority of people that think shipbuilding was important, wouldn't consider it an election issue or have ever taken any action regarding it.
So my point is, had the BC Marine Industry/unions had engaged the public on a ongoing basis over the years, the public would be better educated about the issue. More would consider shipbuilding and the industry associated important and crucial to the economy. More individuals would be tempted to consider the industry for employment.
The public perception is that the industry doesn't matter that much, because the economy, particularly in BC, has been booming the whole time the marine industry has been in decline. If the picture was the opposite and the public truly was convinced that it was very important to the BC economy you better believe that more fed and provincial dollars would have flowed. More orders from government and quasi government industries would likely have resulted to curry some of the public sentiment. More incentives to buy local could have been a result. There would be less incentive to refund GST or other taxes on foreign built vessels.
That is to say the industry wasn't producing the marine equivalent of "New Coke" and was producing a competitive product.
The purpose of business is to make an income. Shipbuilders aren't keepers of public nostalgia or required to uphold the flag by being viable. If they can make a living/profit from refits and do well, they are a success in shareholders eyes. Had the market and public perception been different and more government funds flowed to the industry to keep innovation and infrastructure in place, likely the shipbuilders would be better able to compete now.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 9, 2009 8:57:53 GMT -8
Wow, some refreshing discourse. I'll chime in here too. Politics aside, it is beneficial all around for the workers and company to be openly proud of the products that they put out. FSG knew the spotlight was on them from the flood of inquiries received when the contract was announced; we read all about that. Markus, on his own volition, I believe, sought us out and became one of us -- I don't think that anyone at FSG said "Hey, we need someone to go and placate the teeming masses..."
FSG for their part went to the nines to do the whole PR thing, with the website, the balloons, etc etc. Markus was not (to the best of my knowledge) a part of the PR thing, but his contributions here were more than welcome. We also know that FSG took all measures to make sure about quality of construction and timeliness.
Contrast that to WMG and the IS fiasco, overbudget, late, and no public information. While we don't need RAH RAH cheerleaders, being a little more open and proud of things would not have hurt the overall impression of the industry here -- after all, image and perception are KEY!
That said, when the project got derailed and went sideways, maybe hiding under a rock was the best thing they could have done... I suppose we will have to wait and see how well the vessel performs before all of the verdicts are in, but she sure did get off to a rocky start, and one that, albeit different in scale, compared to the 4 FSG newbuilds, pales drastically.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,171
|
Post by Neil on Mar 9, 2009 11:01:44 GMT -8
I don't think the marketing of New Coke is really analogous to what's going on in the ferry world. New Coke was a consumer product, marketed to the masses; marketing and image is virtually everything in that sphere. The Super-C contract was won by a company with zero public recognition, and was won on the simple basis of cost, delivery guarantee, and the reputation of the builder within the industry. Our local yards get refit work from the cruise industry and others totally without regard to the perception the general public has of them.
Unions have a very limited ability to 'engage the public' with a view to promoting their continued employment. One factor is a lack of funds to do so over the long term, and another is the reaction they get from the big corporate media and other conservative elements every time they speak out. During the period when the Super-C contract was being decided, the shipyard workers engaged in a vigorous campaign to have the ships built here, with media releases and information designed to show the advantages of building locally. The reaction from all the predictable sources was that this was just another case of fat cat unionists trying to get their snouts in the public trough, and we needed to send the contract to whoever could build the cheapest. The union has tried to keep the issue in the public eye, but often, the reaction is, "Shut up, we're tired of hearing your whining." So the opportunity to engage the public would seem to be limited.
I think our perception of our local yards 'image', as opposed to that of Flensburger, is based on very superficial criteria. We look at websites, we listen to union press conferences, we look at press releases, but we have no inside knowledge of how they're perceived within the industry. Given WMG's full workload some years, apparently their 'image' with the people who really count isn't that bad. Unfortunately, WMG is content with the industry's leftovers, and has no desire to invest the money necessary to be a big player in the field, and the feds and provincial Liberals have made it clear they see no inherent value in building locally. Those factors, far more than any p.r. work or union advocacy, determine the sorry scope of today's west coast ship building industry.
|
|
|
Post by DENelson83 on Mar 9, 2009 11:45:36 GMT -8
The Super-C contract was won by a company with zero public recognition, and was won on the simple basis of cost, delivery guarantee, and the reputation of the builder within the industry. Well, FSG certainly has public recognition now, 'cuz it seems the Super C's have gotten quite popular. They're popular with me at least.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 9, 2009 11:52:42 GMT -8
Unions have a very limited ability to 'engage the public' with a view to promoting their continued employment. One factor is a lack of funds to do so over the long term, and another is the reaction they get from the big corporate media and other conservative elements every time they speak out. Neil, I would have to heartily disagree with this opinion. I won't say every union is in the position to promote themselves in the eyes of the public, but many are and still don't. I look at the Philadelphia Carpenters Union as a good example. Failure to promote themselves and their members as equal hire/equal opportunity has cost the union one of the biggest ongoing projects in the city. So you know, their "slush" fund is valued in the hundreds of millions and they are not afraid to dip into it to win jobs...and they still fail to promote themselves. As for worrying about what the media says, it is no issue down here for those unions wishing to show their clout. US union have been known to seriously swing voting blocks in favour of the candidate of their choice...not something to scoff at. Oops, here we go again!
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 9, 2009 16:42:10 GMT -8
The Super-C contract was won by a company with zero public recognition, and was won on the simple basis of cost, delivery guarantee, and the reputation of the builder within the industry. Well, FSG certainly has public recognition now, 'cuz it seems the Super C's have gotten quite popular. They're popular with me at least. " FSG certainly has public recognition now..." Are you serious? I would bet that if you were to ask British columbians this question: "What or who is 'FSG'?" Perhaps one in a hundred would know. If you were to quiz a thousand people with that question at least ten of those people would have to be either BC Ferries employees, local ship yard people or ferry geeks like you and me, or you would not even get a correct response rate of one in a hundred.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 9, 2009 16:55:23 GMT -8
I don't think the marketing of New Coke is really analogous to what's going on in the ferry world. New Coke was a consumer product, marketed to the masses; marketing and image is virtually everything in that sphere. This was an example of the power of marketing and the fact that you have to start with where the public is at that moment. The point is that the public wasn't with Coke and reacted to their move. The public/masses aren't with the situation in the marine industry either. You have to start with where the public is, and it has no real understanding of the need for he industry to be supported. When a contract is up for grabs it is too late to do that. I don't question for one moment the choice of FSG given the current climate. My point is directed to those who bemoan the condition of the BC Industry. Marketing is one of the missing legs to the stool. And my point is that had marketing been in place all along we might not be having this discussion. The communication strategy has been to whine and complain rather than get in front of the situation. When the unions were successful was the time they should have been marketing not now when they are depleted. If all the marine unions and industry wanted to, they could band together and embark on an education campaign as the foundation to change opinion and influence political will. But to do that companies and unions would actually have to cooperate. Too little too late. Marketing isn't throwing money away by panicing and flooding the public without a cohesive plan. It is a strategic process of influencing opinion and governent and laying the ground work for what you want to happen. If WMG is making money I am sure they are quite content with their refit business. Sean Avery's comment about "sloppy seconds" comes to mind with your impression of refits being leftovers. It is a business that is very necessary, has good repeat customers, and employs workers. Your comments say that the situation in the industry is inevitable, couldn't have been influenced, and won't ever change. The public isn't going to go to the trouble to investigate - hence the need for marketing. If the public doesn't care - where is the pressure brought to bear on politicians? Marketing is only one leg of the stool and all I am commenting on. Missing is the whole discussion regarding quality, ability to deliver on time and budget, worker retention and recruitment, etc. However I was just responding to the broad statements regarding marketing that were inaccurate.
|
|