Re: 8.75 vs 2.1

Posted by Steve203 On 2014/11/17 21:33:18

When I said I've been told things at Hudson were really bad, that includes labor problems. Hudson apparently had tremendous morale problems.

Morale is always going to be an issue in a company that is struggling as Hudson was. Additionally Barit was known as a skinflint, which could have contributed to poor working conditions, which contributed to poor morale. I have seen Roy Chapin Jr quoted on the poor condition of the plant.

When Sherwood Egbert took over as President of Studebaker, one of the first things he did was a "clean up, paint up" program in the plant to improve morale.

The body plant was the big inducement, plus an established medium-priced make in Hudson

According to Ward, Nance was grousing about the body deal with Briggs almost from day one and had Walter Grant working up cost estimates to bring bodybuilding back in house, but the price was too high.

Then there was the cost and confusion of trying to establish Clipper as a stand alone brand.

Solving both the body plant and midmarket brand issues were bonuses had Packard picked up Hudson, on top of Hudson's 7,000 odd dealers and service parts business serving the large number of cars already on the road.

But, Packard's hubris killed the potential. Ward may have the timeline wrong when he says it was August 53 that Barit contacted Packard about a merger and the Packard board shrugged it off, but Packard management should have seen the potential, that is what they were paid for.