Toyota bragged it saved more than $100M in '07 recall

Well we agree on some minutia, we disagree on some.

"Ignoring and stopping safety investigations is not a good business practice."

I do not think the presented document shows any evidence that Toyota either ignored or stopped a safety investigation. They thought they had resolution of the problem, as they thought it existed at the time.

I think you are misreading me on a lot of my issues. Again you are applying the realities of a document dealing with a 2007 defined problem to a 2010 reality.

Yes, I'm sure Toyota doesn't care about the 100m they saved in 2007/008 vs. the billions lost today and the damage to Toyota. Yes in Hindsight if they had the knowledge they have today, I'm sure they would of liked to do things differently yesterday. But again that's an unrealistic standard to apply to Toyota or any automaker.

The funny thing reading your post is that I think we actually agree on a lot of this, but either you are misreading my tone or I'm misreading yours.

 

And that falls under one of the "secondary" purposes of a Corporation. Also, corporations will only spend extra money to be good corporate citizens if there is a law or regulation forcing it, or if there is a sales benefit in it (for example, there is no incentive to be "green" unless it is a selling point, or if it will actually save the company money - in the current case, the incentive to produce a "safe" car is to increase sales through improved brand image, again unless "safety" somehow saves money, in which case it is a good thing to do anyway).

It may sound odd, but spending money without meeting regulations, or without increasing sales sufficiently to pay for the cost is actually poor corporate management. Corporations are not here for the good of the planet or society. They have only one purpose: to make money. As consumers, it is up to us to force corporations to produce safe products through legislation or through our purchasing habits.

You are absolutely right - there should be no morality or emotion involved. That said, since corporations are populated with managers and executives who are people, with their own drives and agendas, such issues are often used by individuals to attempt to further their career. After all, since the sole purpose of the corporation is to make money, saving money is considered by upper management to be a Good Thing.

However, if making a profit in a vacuum were all it was about, GM would stop building and selling cars and start selling crack on the street (much easier to manufacture, with a much higher profit margin). But the threat of incarceration keeps them from doing that. Also, the threat of higher cost down the road, and of lost sales should have told Toyota management that the approach they were taking could easily bite them in the rear. They weighed the risks and made a business decision. It turns out to be the wrong one.

Whether the current media frenzy, lawsuits and Congressional hearings are some kind of conspiracy between the government and the UAW (as a Management Scientist I see no evidence of this - in fact, the government's agreeing to GM's bankruptcy scheme says the government is against the UAW, not for them, as it allowed GM to throw out their union contracts and save money) is irrelevant - had Toyota not put themselves in this position there would be nothing for the government to get hold of.

 

Safety people can sound kind of callous. They will "boast" about reducing industrial fatalities by 50% so only 4 people died. It is significant but doesn't do the dead or their survivors much good. I think that's kind of what was going on with this presentation.

That being said, I don't know that we know yet how seriously Toyota took the complaints of unintended acceleration. As noted in an article on handling driving emergencies at edmunds.com, many instances are due to people putting their foot on the wrong pedal. But Toyota should have still spent the money to make certain that they had done everything they could. The term "nip it in the bud" comes to mind. Do the testing again and again. Do your own investigation of the incidents. Just like GM used to be a big target for the news media and for litigators, the new number one is going to draw the same mob mentality.

 

Agreed again (I was taking the simplistic approach). That said, generally individual stockholders have little say in large corporations. Institutional investors, OTOH, tend to have more clout. However, their agenda is usually maximizing dividends and stock value.

There is a fascinating story about Henry Ford (who believed the corporation's duty was growth) and the Dodge Brothers who were big investors. When Henry plowed all the profits back into the corporation, the Dodge Brothers demanded a dividend. The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the ruling still influences how corporate money is spent and divided today. Henry was ordered to pay the Dodge Brothers a dividend. He actually resigned as CEO. He then rounded up enough money to buy out the Dodge Brothers and take his corporation back, and vowed never to allow shareholders to control his company. But times changed, and Ford has long since been a public corporation.

 

I would boast about saving one extra life. But we're not talking about saving lives, we're talking about saving money.

 

That statement alone really nail the core debate here and I hope to see all these cleared up by end of the week.

Saving lives? Yes, political and moral sense.
Saving money? Sure, in coroperate and business sense.

So does Toyota agreed all the above ? Sure it does, publicly.
But do those documentations and allegations factually prove otherwise? - Nope.

What was the finding on the tragic 28th Aug crash that took the life of Mark Saylor and his family? - Mismatched floor mat resulting in accelerator entrapment.

Is there any evidence and test results conducted by NHTSA or any other parties shows, other than the mat, that shows Toyota's electronic-based accelerator were/are at fault? - None.

Does the SUA allegations and class actions provide factual proof that Toyota had been negligent and attempted cover-ups? - Not yet.

So does having more attorneys/politicians than engineers involvement means one can get to the core of technical problem?

Go figure.

 

In that crash the brakes did not work. Stuck floor mat. No way, this was a trained driver not a 90 year old woman.

 

I, like many others, like to believe those assumptions. Problem is NHTSA reports says brakes were working.

 

Brakes don't work, listen to the phone call, he can't slow down.

 

is it the tape that makes a defect worse ... or is it just the defect?

http://www.ohiolemonlaw.com/safety-recall-60-gm-seat-belt.htm

GM Piston Slap and Engine Knock Concerns, Lemon Law Rights for General Motors Truck Owners

GM recalls 800,000 pickups, SUVs - Autos- msnbc.com

Massive General Motors Recall Over Fire Hazard

AUTOS: The Largest Recall - TIME

It is intriguing when someone throws stones in their glass house.

.

 

Forgot about those days. Unfortunately we're seeing less of that today. Generally institutional stockholders today are large investors managing millions of 401Ks.

Do you think there will be stockholder repercussions for Toyota? I wonder if there will be initiatives presented to the board (replace Toyoda with a professional CEO? - Institute safety measures?).