M00seUK

vacmanuk wrote:
I made the observation as my father needed to buy such a vacuum for his workshop recently. The Numatic cleaners are the usual choice and easy to get hold of in the hardware stores. But they're a little pricey at around the £100 mark, so after some searching, we found the following at around half the price :-

Earlex WD1100 Workshop Combi-Vac Vacuum and Blower
http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/home-improvement/earlex-wd1100-workshop-combi-vac-vacuum-and-blower.asp

Severus wrote:
In the case of Dyson's move to Malaysia, here is their rationale, as described in key management interviews over the years:-

1. The vast majority of our key suppliers are now based abroad.
2. The strength of the UK pound means that we lose money on a percentage of our export sales.
3. Our planning applications for expanding production on the Malmesbury site have been turned down.
4. We need to expand production to enter the US market, before our key patents expire.
5. The reduced costs of overseas production will mean that we can invest further in R&D spend.
6. Recent advances in communication / CAD technology mean that there are less efficiencies to be gleamed from having design and production operating under the same roof.

As in the US, many regions of the UK have in the past 50 years gone from being thriving manufacturing powerhouses, to relative poverty and desolation as unskilled production jobs have been lost to overseas players with far less regulation / operating costs. So certainly, in the 'working classes' there can be a degree of suspicion in the motives when a prominent business makes a decision to move jobs overseas.

600 unskilled positions went from Dyson's UK site in 2001 when production was moved to Malaysia. By way of a comparison 63,330 UK jobs were lost during the first 3 months of this year, across all pay grades.

In the case of Dyson job losses - is any negativity justified? Was there anything in the way of genuine 'victims'? Some thoughts:-

1. It is said that in the final days there were few (if any?) UK-based component suppliers available / dependant on Dyson.
2. Dyson was often said to be a frustration to other businesses looking to recruit in the local area - Dyson offered good pay and conditions which had a sizeable number of the local working population 'beating a path to their door'.
3. Dyson now employs a higher number of people in total at the Malmesbury site than it did before moving production - the majority in skilled roles, but also many semi-skilled / administration roles, such as call centre representatives:-
   
   http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/small-business/article.html?in_article_id=491794&in_page_id=10
   Dyson employs about 110 staff at the call centre, of whom 85 work as advisers.
   
   http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/4685184.Award_for_Malmesbury_call_centre_successes/
   Dyson's Malmesbury call centre has named the best retail and distribution call centre in the UK.
   
   
4. It's unlikely that Dyson would have had anywhere near the success they have had over the last 6 years, if they'd constrained their marketing activity to a limited UK-based production site. Greater success means greater UK tax revenues and on-going investment in R&D activities.
5. Dyson have long been pro-active in supporting education in Design & Engineering within the UK and around the world:-
   http://www.jamesdysonfoundation.com/

The negative perception of Dyson in the mind of the occasional British person is, in my view, largely the result of selective reporting in the media at the time of the announcement on the job move, getting in the way of the full picture... and also lasting resentment from the pubic at similar labour moves in the past.

In the people that remain unconvinced... that Dyson are a traitor of the highest order... what patriotic, locally-made purchasing choices can they realistically make? As I understand it, Numatic's Henry is the sole contender. A respectable enough machine on its own merit, with a good following - although lacking in any recent innovation to the design and around twice the price of canisters with similar features.

However, if you want an upright, a bagless or a powerhead vacuum cleaner your domestic choices are somewhat restricted. British people who shun Dyson on principle and instead buy a Vax or a Hoover brand... well, that's not exactly a rational decision, is it? Apple Inc. used to manufacture in the USA at one time - they don't any more. Should patriotic US citizens be avoiding the iPhone in droves and buy a touchscreen handset from LG instead?

DysonInventsBig wrote:
As a privately held, limited company, Dyson's accounts for the period ending 2008 only need to be filed on or around 9 months later, which is why that it is only as of this week that they are in the public domain. Due to being in private ownership, there's next to nothing that can be gleamed from the filing, other than the numbers discussed above. If you're after a breakdown of sales by business unit, by quarter, you'll have to resort to guesswork. Frustrating for Dyson's competitors and followers alike.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine - an objective series of points there that I agree with 100%. Perhaps to add that Dyson was a touch naive in presuming that he'd be able to get planning permission to extend the UK production if needed. The irony being that if he'd simply set up production overseas from day 1, he'd have avoided being labelled as a some type of national traitor, by an often cynical British media. Still, you could argue that the desire to claw back some respect with innovative new products, help drives him further than it otherwise might have. Such is business life.

CarmineD wrote:
I can't think of any 'obvious' reasons myself... However, I can easily imagine a situation with insurance broker requiring that a supplier of high value, easily resell-able goods not to have a prominent logo on the side of the vehicle, for the increased lorry-jacking theft risk it might represent.

I used to work for a retailer that used goods vehicles branded the to freight company. These were replaced with vehicles owned by the freight company, but branded to the retailer, so they could promote the brand while travelling the country. But then, we sold items that would be many times less desirable to be sold on as stolen goods. Thus, there was the opportunity to have them branded.