Pricing should be clear This letter is intended to be a wake-up call to the many used-machine sellers who flood me, on a daily basis, with their offerings - sans selling price.
These go immediately in my wastebasket.
No one goes to the store and picks up an unpriced item and then negotiates at the checkout counter. Why should we have to do this with the used-machine dealers?
They know what they paid for the machine, added to which is a profit margin, which in turn establishes a selling price.
On the few occasions when I have responded to an offering on which I want to know the price, I'm told, ``We are looking for X dollars-but it is negotiable.'' Bull!
State your price in the offering.
What is the dress code?
We are a small injection molding company. Everything I have read for dressing safely for injection molding machine operators goes against what I have seen on the front pages of Plastics News.
It is my understanding that the machine operators need to dress in such a manner that they are covered for protection.
Yet on the front page of the Jan. 30 edition there is a machine operator with a sleeveless blouse. Another time there was a male machine operator wearing a tank top. Is this acceptable?
Each time this has been on your front page, our employees have noticed it - and complained. It seems the larger companies are more lax - or am I too strict? Where can I find what is acceptable?
Source Plastics Corp.
Wood Dale, Ill.
Coverage of peso useful
As a resident of the Guadalajara area of Mexico during the past year, I've been very impressed with your recent reports on the ``currency crisis.'' They have been very helpful in gauging U.S. reaction and understanding of the facts here in Mexico by the plastics industry. Keep it up. The better the understanding on both sides of the border, the faster we can all get back to business.
Mexico will survive this problem and the companies that survive will be much more competitive domestically as well as on the foreign market.
Tracy W. Norton
Pl sticos Arco Iris
Lumber opinion revisited
I would like to thank the two gentlemen, Mr. Robert E. Thompson III and R.G. Saba, for their responses to my Dec. 5 Perspective [Mailbag, Jan. 9, Page 7].
Mr. Thompson ``was exceptionally disappointed,'' but at the third paragraph he writes: ``No doubt that Mr. Zukerman is correct ... [for] a few plastic lumber manufacturers.''
I apologize to each and every one of the industry members to whom my Perspective did not apply. I did not mention any names but I did use the term ``the majority.''
I am happy that Mr. Thompson did use the opportunity to tell the readers about Eaglebrook Plastics Inc.'s successful operation which adds to the reputation of the plastic lumber industry.
Mr. Saba claims that I could be right if I wrote the Perspective five years ago! I am sorry to tell Mr. Saba that giving the industry a status of an ``embryonic industry'' is not more than an excuse, and, unfortunately, customers and potential users care only about cost, quality and performance.
I would like to mention that extrusion of hollow, coextruded, foamed and fiber-reinforced profiles had been manufactured five years ago under my supervision.
I am also happy that Mr. Saba did use the opportunity to enlighten all of us with the great news and his prophecy concerning the future of plastic lumber.
I would like to use this opportunity and thank all of you (even those who have asked to remain anonymous) who called me and expressed your support of my article. We agreed about the main issues with a few minor modifications (each one with his own views), and we all believe that the industry as a whole will only gain from courageous criticism and disagreements.
The many calls I got and the two above-mentioned letters that have been published are a clear evidence to the importance of expressing controversial issues.
Replast Engineering Co.
Newport Beach, Calif.