- Honda Worldwide Home
- About Honda
- Heritage
- Honda History
- Challenge
- Employing the "My Record" Project and Expert Certification System
- Union Reluctant to Implement Certification (Story)
 |
| Union Reluctant to Implement Certification |
||||
|
A special issue of the Honda newsletter published in October 1965 announced that the certification system was soon to be launched. In the newsletter, Fujisawa's concept of the ideal system for experts was referred to as the "3-D structure." The structure was described as a mechanism that would allow Honda's leading experts to swiftly and enthusiastically work together where they were needed most, and when the company needed them. Thus, we would be able to resolve issues without a moment's delay." It was also stated that Honda's idea of an expert certification system was unlike any other system in the industry. It wasn't simply a "stepping stone" path to becoming a supervisor, nor was it an empty encouragement or guarantee of status. The article noted that experts could only become motivating forces within the company when they were allowed to make use of their expertise. Pamphlets detailing the system of expert certification, it said, would be distributed at a later date. However, the pamphlets were never distributed. This was because the labor union, despite acknowledging the necessity of such a certification system, was reluctant to prompt its implementation. Seiichiro Suzuki, then chairman of the Honda Motor Labor Union, wrote in the October 1965 issue of the union newsletter, "The details of this system must be clear and reasonable. It must be operated fairly, with opportunities available to all members of our union." Suzuki questioned the system's correlation of wages to work evaluations, asking that the certification standards be made clear to the union membership. Moreover, because the system was to be implemented in the technical area first, he maintained that adjustments were needed to ensure consistency of application in all areas. The company, he said, needed to avoid going ahead with the system in such a way that it may cause concern in the future. It was finally decided that all details examined up to that point would go back to the drawing board for reexamination, including the input of all employees. The date of implementation was also postponed until a fully satisfactory proposal could be made. |
|||
| << previous | 4 of 9 | next >> |
 |
||
| Photo >> |
