Marlin acquires Winchester

[Brett]

I heard on Fox Business news this evening that Marlin has bought Winchesters manufacturing facilities and equipment.  No word yet on if they also have rights to the Winchester name or if they will continue manufacturing previous Winchester models.

[FWiedner]

Yeah, over on Leverguns.com somebody said that Sturm Ruger picked 'em up.

Another april fools?

?

[Brett]

Would you believe a joint venture between Marlin and Ruger?  :wink:

[Echo4Lima]

What REALLY happened to  Winchester?  Could it have been the...Shhhhhhhh...union?

[ironglow]

... If they were unionized, that probably was the problem..

[Keith L]

... If they were unionized, that probably was the problem..

You are right.  If it wasn't for that darned union they could have hired illegals for sub poverty wages and no benefits.

US Repeating Arms was represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, a labor union that trains it members in High Performance Work stressing the need for a highly productive workforce.  Why would you want them to make a poverty wage?  On average in America workers compensation is less than 10% of the cost of product.  Even paying them nothing wouldn't have saved Winchester.

[fe352v8]

Yeah it is the unions all right, Herstal FN, is unionized in their Belgium facilities.  The New Haven plant was their last US subsidiary that was.

Another of their, non-union US subsidiaries, FN Corp., is the supplier of our M-16, M-60, and SAW gun.

A non-union subsidiary of an Italian company has supplied our military side arms for almost 30 years; in Italy the parent is unionized.

When I was in the Army, my M-60 was made by the Turbo-hydramatic division of GM, by UAW workers.
The plan my father flew in during WWII, a B-24, was made a the GM Fairfax plant by UAW workers.

Remember when cops carried Colts or S&W, now they carry Glocks or Sigs, the plants in Austria and Germany, are all unionized.

Considering the amount of debt controlled by foreign owned interest, soon they will own our government, if they do not already.  One wonders when looking at the agendas of the Republirat-Democrap monopoly, and the number of people that accept their tripe, whose government they are.

Yeah it was the union’s fault, and if you really believe that, I have this bridge that I can let you have real cheap.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[ironglow]

  Exhibit A..GM

  Exhibit B..Ford

[Keith L]

Have a great life Ironglow, safe and secure in your own little world.

[ironglow]

   rather hard yto deny..eh.Keith ?

   I see that Winchester has worked a deal with Browning..  www.winchesterguns.com/

      Click onto 2006 products..then read 'press releases..

[victorcharlie]

Not sure how much a deal this really is, as Browning is also owned by the Herstal group..(as was us repeating arms).....my thinking is it's kind of like building chevy's on the GMC assembly line.......

[Keith L]

   rather hard yto deny..eh.Keith ?

   I see that Winchester has worked a deal with Browning..  www.winchesterguns.com/

      Click onto 2006 products..then read 'press releases..

It is quite easy to deny.  I am just tired of this argument that goes nowhere.  Apparently you don't research, so your anti-union feelings are all you need to make such an oversimplified statement.  If that floats your boat far be it from me to continue the discussion.

AS I said, enjoy your life.

[mrlizzzard]

Fact:Union members have more firearms and hunt more days than non-union workers doing the same job,and being forced to work more hrs and doing lawnwork for the kind boss.Here's another tidbit,people who bash unions never bash the tight knit organizations that ,in this case,gun makers belong to.Look'em up and tell me these org's do not act like unions.I have a distant relative that is so anti-union.After 43 years with DuPont and being forced to retire 2 yrs ago,DuPont told him that they could no longer pay his pension.What's our NRA?It's a union of gun owners and 2nd amendment patriots protecting the most important right in this great country.They organize like unions,they vote like unions,they blackball like unions.It amazes me that working men and women are the first to attack other working men and women for organizing in the same way manufactures have always done.

After nearly 30yrs and a serious illness I was forced to retire.Thx to my UNION I have kept my home,health insurance,and buy a new gun once in awhile.I know the dense union bashers won't be objective enough to find the truth in this post but there is a young sportsman or two that can read this and not become the narrow minded biggot that others have become.

The oil producers have a UNION (OPEC),the doctors have a UNION(AMA) they work for them,but somehow it's wrong for working men and women to do the same?

The reason for this post?Cause the union bashing is so empty of real thought and most union members wish non-union members only the best.

all the best,...............I think Winchester was owned by DuPont or a subsid. at one point.Was that a good thing?

[Mike357mag]

Employe's salary even in a union ran company is usually 2% or less in exspenses paid out.  They went under because of fat ceo's and bad mangement.  Import rifles and remington had most of the market in my area, shotguns were mostly remingtons.
Mike H

[DWTim]

Employe's salary even in a union ran company is usually 2% or less in exspenses paid out.

WHAT?! Labor costs are typically 60% to 80% of the costs of running a company. Even if we strip out workmans' comp, benefits and taxes, we're still nowhere near 2%.

Come on, even your union will tell you this. Let's not get carried away here.

[Keith L]

"WHAT?! Labor costs are typically 60% to 80% of the costs of running a company. Even if we strip out workmans' comp, benefits and taxes, we're still nowhere near 2%.

Come on, even your union will tell you this. Let's not get carried away here."

No company that has to pay that much in labor costs will be in business long.  The average labor cost for most manufacturing companies is between 6% and 8% of sales cost (to the first customer, most likely a distributor).  Material costs are normally higher depending on industry, and overhead costs are higher than labor as well.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is just plain wrong.  I have been in the business of consulting with manufacturers for more than 20 years, and have seen the cost breakdowns from bunches of them as well as seeing documentation of industry norms.  Labor cost is rarely an issue when companies go broke.
 
 
 
 

[DWTim]

Keith L,

My information is from working for, owning, and doing jobs for business around my area. I'm in the IT field, so it was impossible to avoid the ins and outs of electronic bookkeeping systems. Since I'm inquisitive, I asked questions. I now work for government, and 80 percent of the budget for my organization goes to salaries. I'm not pulling your leg, we all work on the budget every spring and I get to see the numbers. My experience is mainly in service-related industries, e.g. banks, lawyers, doctors, small shops and the like.

I have never heard a big-whig put a figure that small on labor in terms of the budget. Which industries are these? It would have to be something where there is large capital investments in equipment, like with heavy construction, or prototyping. I'm thinking back to the plastics factory I worked in... A fews days of work for three shifts worth of labor would have covered the monthly electric bill, which was easily the largest overhead cost.

[dukkillr]

I can't believe that any industry pays 2% in salaries.  Obviously it's going to vary wildly depending on the industry but I bet the 60% to 80% figure is much closer than the 2% figure. 

[Keith L]

The highest labor cost I have seen in any manufacturing industry was around 24 percent in a manufactured housing company that was quite labor intensive.  As you point out your experience is in service industry, not at all what this is about.  Service industry by nature is nearly all labor, as is your other stated experience, Government.  In manufacturing, where raw material is modified to meet the needs of the customer, an 80% labor rate is not a viable business.  I agree I have never seen any as low as 2%, but the majority are between 6% and 10%.  Labor is one of the smallest fixed cost, but is a big target for those wanting to place blame on failures, such as the one discussed in this thread.

[Keith L]

An interesting point about blaming labor cost for a fortune 500 company going out of business:  in most cases the cost of management and other salaried workers is higher than labor making the product.  In Japan it used to be (and may still be) the CEO was limited to making no more than 10 times the wage of workers.  In most large American companies the CEO is making hundreds of times the wage of the workers, and in some cases thousands of times (40K vs millions per year).   Management size has grown to the point where in some cases there are only 2 or 3 hourly workers for every salaried worker. 

I don't know dollars or ratios for US Repeating Arms Company, but I do know that with the cost of materials, machines, energy, etc. if Labor were 60-80% of the cost of the product they would have been gone long ago.

[jmm1245]

KeithL


I came in at end of this tread but I read your statement of labor being one of the smallest fixed cost.
I have to disagree.

Having run a large retail chain, my highest fixed expense was payroll. Ask anyone who lives or dies by a P&L report and they will tell you the same thing.

I've managed everything from small restaurants in college to stores who grossed $65million yearly. Payroll is your largest expense.

Just my option.

jmm1245

[Keith L]

Were Winchesters made in a retail chain?  Or in a service industry, doctor's office, or by the government?  I thought they were made by a MANUFACTURING COMPANY.  That is what my comments are coments are about.  I am aware of the difference in other industries, but still maintain if you check into manufacturing you will find out that my statements, based on working for years with hundreds of manufacturers are correct.  If the guns were made by a retail chain or a doctor I am sure that they would have more labor cost in them, and as I said in a previous post, USRA for sure would have gone out of business long ago.

I tire of this subject.  It seems pointless for me to continue to post when the responses are clearly posted by folks who haven't read or understood the subject.  So believe what you want.  I can do nothing about that. 

Have a nice day.

[nabob]

Labor is not a fixed cost. Because it will vary with the amount of production, it is a variable cost, by definition.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

A portion of the total cost known as fixed cost (e.g., the costs of building rental or of heavy machinery) does not vary with the quantity produced and, in the short run, cannot be altered by increasing or decreasing production. Variable costs, like the costs of labour or raw materials, change with the level of output.