Lee said:
At this point in history, unions are now dragging down more
companies than they are helping. At this point, unions have made
many US companies uncompetitive in the world market. That affects
the world economy, the US economy and MY economy.
Your statements are not supported by facts nor by history. They are
the propaganda promoted by those who really are the problem.
When top management blames all others, then top management is the
reason for failure. I have worked in GM. When management could not
understand a problem, suggest a solution, OR make a decision, instead,
a union guy would say screw them and help me solve the problem right
then and there. Too many GM managers are business school and law
school graduates. Therefore innovation is measured in terms of costs.
Innovation is routinely stifled.
A typical example that every product oriented person in the industry
has long understood. A problem literally created by management who
does not come from where the work gets done. How many horsepower
does every liter of engine produce? The technology was developed and
ready for production in GM in 1975. After 1990, even foreign
competition was selling 70 Hp per liter engines. GM does not sell such
engines standard in all cars. GM does not put both horsepower and
liters on their window stickers - so that you will remain ignorant. A
GM car therefore must have two extra pistons - and all that extra
hardware - to do what oversea competition does. Therefore GM products
cost more to build. This directly traceable to top GM management -
many don't even drive. GM products cost more to build because world
standard technology - pioneered in GM 30+ years ago - still is not
standard in all GM products.
So who does GM blame for these higher costs? Unions? Government?
Tax structure? American education? These higher GM costs are due to
stifled technology in GM products. 70 Horsepower per liter being one
in hundreds of examples why GM products cost more to build than even
Mercedes Benz (comparatively equipped).
When an American company was in trouble - steel, autos, AT&T, IBM,
Xerox, Apple Computer, etc - in every case top management were business
school and law school graduates who could not see innovation if it was
pushed up their nose. In every case, such management used bean counter
reasoning to blame others. What is called innovation to a product guy
is called increased costs to a bean counter. There is no entry for
innovation on a spread sheet.
GM could have replaced Jack Smith with a 'car guy' - an
expression that should mean something to every person with an opinion.
Instead GM promoted a bean counter: whose entire history was devoid of
product development and without 'dirt under his fingernails'. Rick
Wagoner was not even running North American operations profitably when
he was selected to lead GM. Now every GM operation is losing money -
because the top man does not come from where the work gets done.
Because the top man still does not even understand why every GM car
must - as was necessary even 15 years ago - must have a world standard
70 Hp per liter engine. This is too product orient for a bean counter
who views innovation as increased costs. The 70 HP/l engine being a
classic symptom of a company whose products are so bad that Ward
Automotive once noted GM could not even give away their six cylinder
engine to Toyota - for free. Toyota would never have an engine that
poor inside their products.
30 years ago, every manufacturer was eliminating push rod engines.
Overhead cams were essential to lowering costs. Today, Toyota cars
have no pushrod engines. But this year, GM will release two new engine
designs - both using push rods. Business school graduates judge
innovation in terms of costs. Therefore GM continues to use obsolete
technology designs - which is why GM cars cost more to build and
require more man-hours to assemble. This directly traceable to top
management that does not come from where the work gets done; then
blames workers.
What will save GM is what saved Chrysler and Ford. Threat of
bankruptcy is required to remove the only problem - top management.
Patriots believe in the free market - and not a lie called "Buy
American". 'Buy American' only protects top managers who then
take big bonuses and golden parachutes while downsizing - destroying
American jobs. How do you save those union jobs? The proof was in
1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford. Buy the best. Those who bought Honda
and VW saved Chrysler and Ford. Buy using free market principles to
remove Rick Wagoner and his large staff of overpaid law and business
school 'car designers' (and yes, GM design teams answer to
accountants rather than accountants working for car guys). American
jobs will continue to disappear as long as those bean counters use
business school principles to design cars. As long at they preach
lies about 'smoke stack industries', then Americans must continue
to downsize.
Who is GM's top designer? A graphics artist? How then does GM get
70 Hp per liter engines in all products? They don't. Instead
promote 'Buy American'. Instead blame the unions for cars that must
have two extra cylinders just to be equivalent. To bean counters, a 70
Hp per liter engine means increased cost. People who have even
stifled the 70 Hp/liter engine for 30 years - long after that
technology was standard even in competition products - then invent
myths such as pension costs. How to make a 1990 spread sheet look
profitable? Underfund the pension fund while those retirees were still
working. Now GM will drop that $multi-billion pension fund shortfall
on the US public - PBGC - while paying top management more bonuses.
