IBJNews

South Bend to lose 250 jobs with Bosch closing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An auto parts maker says it will close its South Bend facilities by the end of 2011 and will offer about 170 of the 250 employees who work there jobs elsewhere.

The South Bend Tribune says Robert Bosch Corp. announced Tuesday that it will offer about 20 employees in the truck braking division positions in nearby St. Joseph, Mich.

Sixty other workers from the braking division and 30 from the corporate office will be offered jobs at corporate headquarters in Farmington Hills, Mich. Sixty employees in the information technology group will be offered jobs either in Farmington Hills or Mount Prospect, Ill., near Chicago.

The move follows Bosch's decision a year ago to sell off its foundation braking business to Tokyo-based Akebono Brake Industries Co.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Already starting
    Ever since I was a child, I am simply bewildered and simply disgusted by the trend of massive company announcements of and actual layoffs and shutdowns, within a few weeks of Christmas. I understand that there never is a good time but why mid-November to Mid-December?
  • cheaper
    American dream build a company sell it off because you cant compete with the foriegn markets.
    So what do you do, subsidize it, bail it out or repeal nafta and force us to pay a higher price to keep our neighbors employed? Or look for the next thing and move forward to something other than manufacturing.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT