R.I.P. General Motors (1931-2006)

[Gosi]

The Unions in france are rioting because they do not like what the
premier and president are doing and saying

The Unions in America are not strong enough

They only kill individual companies by not controling the whole country

 

[Rev. 11D Meow!]

Why won't those Negros give Lawrence Welk the credit he deserves?

What makes white people white, daddy?
They eat too many potatoes all the time, son.

 

[Rev. 11D Meow!]

If it weren't for the standards set by union companies, your experience
might be much different.

Dave

Nuke Iran!

 

[Gosi]

To really mess up Iran send them GM management
It will also help GM

 

[Lee Florack]

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.

Well, at least we agree on this part. Look. I am not saying that
the unions are the only problem. I'm saying that they are NOW the
biggest problem. We obviously disagree. Problem is. It's very
probably too late.

 

[Lee Florack]

If it weren't for the standards set by union companies, your experience
might be much different.

I agree with you! The unions were are very positive influence in
history (The key word is WERE.) They are no longer providing that
positive influence. As a matter of fact, they stopped providing a
positive influence, a long time ago.

What we have now as a result of this change over from a positive
influence to a negative one is relatively unskilled workforce making
skilled and professional level money. That's simply contrary to a
free market economy and it is unsupportable over the long run in a
competitive world market.

 

[ME]

Well, I totally agree with that. The union is becoming ridiculous now.
Eventually it's gonna drag the whole country down. Look at what had
happened long ago in UK. Somebody said the union guys came from there to
North America. They are free to strike but they don't have right to stop
others go to work such as securing the plant etc.

 

[Jeff]

(...)

I agree with you! The unions were are very positive influence in history
(The key word is WERE.) They are no longer providing that positive
influence. As a matter of fact, they stopped providing a positive
influence, a long time ago.

I think unions still provide a positive influence. They help enable grocery
store workers in unionized stores to maintain higher wages and benifits.
They prevent governments from taking advantage of workers. And if Walmart
had unions, the workers would be paid fairer wages and get decent benefits.

However, some of the working rules are rediculus. I think it is stupid not
to let maintaince workers not touch up pain in subway stations in NYC.
Certainly, there is no reasaon why workers should not be cross-trained. That
is the way they are doing it in the foriegn owned automotive plants.

So, defintiely, unions have their positive and negative sides.

What we have now as a result of this change over from a positive influence
to a negative one is relatively unskilled workforce making skilled and
professional level money. That's simply contrary to a free market economy
and it is unsupportable over the long run in a competitive world market.

A lot of the work is really dirty, nasty work. In many cases, they earn
every penny.

Jeff

 

[Lee Florack]

(...)


I think unions still provide a positive influence. They help enable grocery
store workers in unionized stores to maintain higher wages and benifits.
They prevent governments from taking advantage of workers. And if Walmart
had unions, the workers would be paid fairer wages and get decent benefits.

However, some of the working rules are rediculus. I think it is stupid not
to let maintaince workers not touch up pain in subway stations in NYC.
Certainly, there is no reasaon why workers should not be cross-trained. That
is the way they are doing it in the foriegn owned automotive plants.

So, defintiely, unions have their positive and negative sides.


A lot of the work is really dirty, nasty work. In many cases, they earn
every penny.

Jeff

Of course, each job that is unskilled or less skilled but somehow
undesirable in some other way must be evaluated individually for
'proper' compensation. The true test is whether the wages for a
particular job can be justified and sustained in a competitive world
market. It's my contention that the jobs we're largely discussing
here (UAW workers) do not meet that competitive market test.

Let me bring up an anecdotal example I'm aware of....
A "local" company (non-Union) found that their 'unskilled' workforce
was grossly overpaid (25% or more) when compared to similar jobs in
the area. Management, faced with fierce international competition
(even within the same company) had to make adjustments in several
areas -- not just wages -- to either become competitive or close
down. They went to the employees and told them that wages would be
frozen until further notice in order to save the plant and their
jobs. Since this is a non-union plant, they were able to do it,
keeping the plant going, so that everyone was able to keep their
jobs. It's been 4 years and the plant is still there. Not many
have left and they're almost to the point of being competitive.

A union shop, faced with the same choice, would have most likely
chosen differently -- and all would have been out of work making
nothing by now.

 

[Fwap]

(...)


You mean like both domestic automakers?

Making products for new overseas markets is good business. The US auto
business is limited. Foreign people want cars. It is the way that a company
grows. You don't see Microsoft say to Europe, you are foreign, we don't want
your business. Boeing doesn't say to China, we don't want to build any
airplanes in Asia: Send your business to Airbus.

What's wrong with US manufacturers expanding by putting plants in other
countries to increase sales?

Nothing at all. It's what manufacturers do.

And, as an added bonus, if every chinese family buys a car,
we'll soon be able to grow pineapples in antarctica. My home
nation has substantial territorial claims there. About time
we got something out of it.

The other thing is that when they do that, they increase their diversity, so
that when one country is having a bad year, other countries will have good
years. Again, good for US businesses.

Yes it's good for US businesses. However, it might pay even
better for US businesses to take into consideration that the
slaves said businesses use has a different understanding of
what's "good"?

....

 

[ME]

And this is all the unions' fault?

I teach in a public school in NYC. Without the unions, the schools would
have teachers work before school watching the kids during breakfast and
after school, tutoring and all, for no more pay.

Pay. That's what it is. Here in Canada. there's almost a strike every two
years and that's what the teachers ask for. They don't consider the fact
that their basic salary is way over the others. They have over 3 months of
summer vacation not to mention the march break etc..

In addition, they would
have teachers teach 6 or 7 classes a day. It would be horrible for the
students, because teachers need time to plan lesssons and prepare for
class.

Teaching is your job and what's really horrible for the students is they
decided on strike for their benefits.
I don't disagree with people on strike. I mean they have the right to do
so. However, I disagree with the fact that they are lining up and blocking
others to go to work and interfere other's. If you don't want to work,
fine and stay at home. But you don't have the right to stop others to
work. You work and you got pay simple as that. If you don't like the job,
switch to other job then. Consider everyone is working hard here and still
have to worry about their kids when teachers on strike.

 

[Steve Daniels]

However, some of the working rules are rediculus. I think it is stupid not
to let maintaince workers not touch up pain in subway stations in NYC.

That's because rubbing salt into wounds, dislocating joints, and
causing large abrasions require training not generally given to
maintenance workers. Touching up pain should be left to
professionals.

 

[ME]

I agree with you! The unions were are very positive influence in
history (The key word is WERE.) They are no longer providing that
positive influence. As a matter of fact, they stopped providing a
positive influence, a long time ago.

What we have now as a result of this change over from a positive
influence to a negative one is relatively unskilled workforce making
skilled and professional level money. That's simply contrary to a free
market economy and it is unsupportable over the long run in a
competitive world market.

Oh. I totally agree. Those unskilled workforce making skilled level money
compared to others because of the union. And the Union is simply a
protection for them from getting laid off.

Here's a true story from a guy told me. There was a person sleeping during
the work hour and got caught by the management. A picture was even taken
when he's sleeping. The management decided to let him go the next day. The
Union brought him back because they argue that he was praying instead.

 

[Jeff]

Of course, each job that is unskilled or less skilled but somehow
undesirable in some other way must be evaluated individually for 'proper'
compensation. The true test is whether the wages for a particular job can
be justified and sustained in a competitive world market. It's my
contention that the jobs we're largely discussing here (UAW workers) do
not meet that competitive market test.

Let me bring up an anecdotal example I'm aware of....
A "local" company (non-Union) found that their 'unskilled' workforce was
grossly overpaid (25% or more) when compared to similar jobs in the area.
Management, faced with fierce international competition (even within the
same company) had to make adjustments in several areas -- not just
wages -- to either become competitive or close down. They went to the
employees and told them that wages would be frozen until further notice
in order to save the plant and their jobs. Since this is a non-union
plant, they were able to do it, keeping the plant going, so that everyone
was able to keep their jobs. It's been 4 years and the plant is still
there. Not many have left and they're almost to the point of being
competitive.

A union shop, faced with the same choice, would have most likely chosen
differently -- and all would have been out of work making nothing by now.

Caterpillar and UAW came together with some consessions to help keep plants
open:
http://www.businessfinancemag.com/channels/costManagement/article.html?articleID=14424

Jeff

 

[Jeff]

That's because rubbing salt into wounds, dislocating joints, and
causing large abrasions require training not generally given to
maintenance workers. Touching up pain should be left to
professionals.

We're talking about touching up paint on polls, not about repainting an
entire station.

That is one reason why workers at new auto plants owned by Japanese auto
companies get paid more: Because they are cross-trained, then can do more.
So the company can afford to pay them more. So when something needs doing,
it get done soon, not until some union guy on break can get to it.

Jeff

 

[Jeff]

Well, I totally agree with that. The union is becoming ridiculous now.
Eventually it's gonna drag the whole country down. Look at what had
happened long ago in UK. Somebody said the union guys came from there to
North America. They are free to strike but they don't have right to stop
others go to work such as securing the plant etc.

No, unions are the least powerful they have been since the early 1900s or
so. There is a smaller percentage of workers represented by unions than in a
long time. Most union workers work for government, many of whom are
represented by the UAW.

Jeff

 

[Steve Daniels]

We're talking about touching up paint on polls, not about repainting an
entire station.

Poles are people just like us, and should only be touched up by
qualified professionals.

 

[w_tom]

Back in the 1960s when engineers designed products, GM was
profitable. Starting in the 1970s, business school graduates began
running GM. The last of the GM engineers were Coles, Estes, and
DeLorean. GM then played money games to mask their losses. Some
will remember Detroit Diesel Allison, Hughes Spacecraft, and EDS. All
were use in money games to mask poor profits by vehicle divisions. As
you must know, GM was literally four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991
(or was it 1990?). GM products have been that bad for that long. GM
costs have long remains so high that GM cannot make a profit on any
vehicle that sells less than 50,000 per year. Even Mazda made a profit
the first year selling only 13,000 Miyatas. And GM pays their labor
about same as the Japanese competition (when the yen was higher).

Meanwhile labor is a very little part of a vehicles cost. What
determines profits is design and manufacturing systems. When GM was
building every part in every car - even putting threads on every screw
- in 120 man-hours per car; Toyota and Honda were doing same work in
only 70 man hours. When GM bragged about getting their labor down to
60 man hours, Toyota and Honda were estimated to do same in maybe 30
man-hours. There is very little labor in a car. But there are massive
pension and health care funds that GM failed to fund in decades
previous. This because GM products were so bad that GM was only hours
from bankruptcy back in 1990. Because GM cars require so many more
parts - even use pushrod technology - that they must sell products on
fire sales.

Well now GM has no more operations to bleed for money games. They
were bleeding the profitable GMAC to mask losses. That asset is now
gone. GM is now sticking warranty costs on a dealer - which means good
luck getting the dealer to honor a GM warranty. One GM dealer tells
how two tires were 2 pounds low on pressure - which was enough to deny
warranty work repayment on those two new cars. Just another cost
control in a company that must give away cars at no profit to keep
factories working.

GM will not go bankrupt. No large company does. Like AT&T, it will
bleed to death and then be picked up for pocket change by other
companies. Like Chrysler - Mercedes Benz designed cars sold with
Chrysler bodies - GM will somehow be scrapped for its parts if
Americans continue to buy American - protect GM's only problem for the
past 30+ years. GM will never be fixed if bean counters continue to
design GM products - union or no union. GM's only problems are
directly traceable to current top management that only worked in
finance jobs. As long as they remain, then union workers must be fired
and lose pension benefits. A fact that was becoming obvious more than
20 years ago ... if you think product oriented.

GM's largest problem is bad products ... that even require too much
labor. GM's finance problems were created by bean counter management
who played money games to make GM appear profitable on spread sheets.
The only automotive division that is probably making a profit is
Cadillac. Why? Cadillac has the same 70 Hp/l engines that have long
been standard in Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, etc products. You pay how
much more to only get the same technology? Without minimally
acceptable engines and other technology, the unions will only be
victims. Without minimally acceptable technology, nothing but
anti-free trade policies from the government can help. GM products are
that obsolete - and remain so because of GM's largest problem - finance
and law department trained executives. Unions are only a symptom of
GM's #1 problem - bean counter management. Labor is not the largest
cost in a car - if managment was not playing money games to mask their
bad products. All GM problems start with their bad management.

 

[y_p_w]

Making a part or a electronic circut board is far different than moving
your entire operation to China. I'm told by reliable sources that China
is difficult to do business with. If I owned a car company, I would buy
parts but I'd never move my entire facility or in other words be
completely dependent on China, no way no how.

I was listening to a radio piece on the difference
between American production vs ofshore production in
China.

In the factory in China, about one in six workers at
an auto parts plant were actually operating their
equipment. The others were talking to each other.
I wasn't really laziness, but that the employees were
only trained to operate a specific piece of machinery.
The vast majority of the workers wanted to earn their
money and go back to their small towns. Some wanted
to start their own businesses. The most telling thing
was that most of the employees didn't even know what
it was they were making. If the need to use a single
type of equipment was over, the employees trained to
use that equipment were doing nothing but getting
paid. The real cost savings were that the employees
were making a tiny fraction of what an American
worker was getting.

At the American equivalent plant, the employees were
all trained to operate multiple pieces of equipment.
The foreman could operate anything in the building
and employees could be shifted.

It may be different with other industries like shoe
or clothing manufacturing. Those industries often
pay by the piece.

 

[y_p_w]

Just out of curiosity, if the domestic automobile
quality is "no different" than that of Asian makes
such as Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus and Nissan/Infiniti,
then why are the Detroit-based 'Big 2.5' continuing to
lose overall market share on a perpetual basis?

I think it's more than simply market share, which the
import makes are steadily increasing. The Big 3 have
been attempting to keep up market share by offering
huge rebates or artificially lowering prices. I know
people who had refused for years to buy a Japanese car
out of principle even when they admitted there was a
particular make they otherwise liked.

Honda has been able to produce their economy cars for
less than the Big 3 could make an equivalent and sell
them for more. The Big 3 have often sold their lower
end models at or close to a loss to keep within CAFE
standards. The Big 3 may be keeping up market share
but they sure aren't making money.