I think the goal is to replace all GE employees with MAU (or equivalent) over time. The Greenville Plant Manager has stated "Zero Labor" as being the GOAL with automation and technology being utilized to meet that goal as close as feasible. Maybe contractors don't count as GE Labor.
8 replies (most recent on top)
MAU type staffing companies (formerly called temp agencies) ARE becoming common throughout industries. GE's lack of commitment to these employees will have an impact on business. Motivated and committed employees correlate with stronger business performance through greater productivity, lower turnover, and better work quality. If business today is the tough competitive race GE keeps saying it is, the lack of commitment of our “crew” doesn’t bode well for our success, and it’s probably not something GE leaders should ignore. GE leaders can't comprehend because they can't measure the impact of uncommitted employees. But maybe it can be measured. Try comparing defect percentages now and and when GE employees provided 100% of the labor. Then measure defects per ratio of MAU staffing over different time periods. Consider customer issues as well as manufacturing defects. Compare safety incidents. It's obvious to those of us that have been around a while.
I met GE's facility leader in Greenville last year and was amazed at the arrogance. I decided if that was the culture I didn't want GE as a customer.
I've only got 22 years of experience working at GE Power, so this isn't an official statement. But I think one of their biggest problems is that they reward stone throwers who just criticize others' opinions more than they reward the people who have legitimate, value added opinions.
@NLLSYIH-adq, what's your view of the use of MAU vs. GE employees?
A true leader makes decisions based on real business impacts. Some cannot be easily calculated. Sourcing bean counters make decisions like this because they do no understand the real long term cost.
yes, @1wxj - this sums up the problem
The problem is GE is not making a commitment to these people and therefore the commitment to GE doesn't exist in return
so, my turn - 'i think' this is not only a ge problem, it is widespread problem in all industries
look at the winning enterprises today, find me one that has made contracting or outsourcing work in their favor - yes, it helps with cost, it's awesome in short/mid term, in the long run you cannot win in the marketplace unless folks working for you leave everything they have on the field - and contractors, by definition, do not do that
There are definetly good people working for GE through MAU. The problem is GE is not making a commitment to these people and therefore the commitment to GE doesn't exist in return. Lack of commitment is a two way sword. GE leaders are measured by metrics that can easily be displayed on a Power Point presentation. The cost of uncommitted contractors to product quality, safety, and loyalty is not easy to calculate and display in their PowerPoint slides. In GE world, it doesn't matter if it's not your measureable metric.
It's ok to stress the "I think" part of my statement because GE does not have a publicized strategy of replacing GE employees with MAU contractors. We can only make judgements based on actual actions in the plant. Yes, MAU has already replaced many GE employees. And yes, Zero Labor is the stated goal of the plant manager. This will be answered through leadership actions over time.
The emphasis here is on "I think" part of your statement