PDA

View Full Version : GM to shed 30,000 workers in "most dramatic corporate downsizings in US history"


jAZ
06-26-2006, 02:01 PM
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13541353/

GM to shed quarter of workforce this year
By Bernard Simon in Toronto
Financial Times


Updated: 6:42 p.m. MT June 25, 2006
General Motors will on Monday disclose details of one of most dramatic corporate downsizings in US history, exceeding a key target of its turnround plan and accelerating the demise of the privileged American car worker.

Rick Wagoner, chief executive, is expected to announce that about 30,000 workers – more than a quarter of GM's blue-collar US workforce – have taken up its offer of early retirement and severance packages.

Almost all will leave by the end of the year, achieving in a few months what the company had set out to accomplish over more than two years.

A total of 50,000 workers or more is set to leave the industry over the next few months.

Later this week, Delphi – the former GM subsidiary which is north America's biggest auto parts maker – is expected to disclose that at least 9,000 of its 31,000 unionised workers have accepted similar buy-outs.

Many Delphi workers not included in the original offer, have until late July to decide.

In addition, Ford, the second-biggest Detroit-based carmaker, has disclosed that more than 10,000 workers have taken packages. All three companies are also cutting salaried staff.

The GM buy-out "is really historic", said Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University in Massachusetts. He said it marked "the end of the good jobs" in the auto industry, created when the Detroit carmakers held a dominant market share, or were willing to grant generous concessions in return for labour peace.

GM shares have soared by a third since the company announced the "accelerated attrition programme" late in March. They closed at $26.97 on Friday.

The buy-outs, from $35,000 to $140,000 depending on length of service, will bring big savings to GM, especially in future health and pension benefits.

They will also shrink the so-called Jobs Bank, which lets laid-off workers collect full pay just for showing up at an assembly plant each day or doing volunteer community service. The buyouts are part of GM's plan to bring north American capacity into line with its shrinking market share. It is cutting capacity by 1m vehicles a year, with a dozen plant closures by 2008.

GM's share of the car and light truck market fell to 22.5 per cent last month, the lowest for decades. It has sacrificed some market share in recent months to wean buyers off discounts and other sales incentives. Nonetheless, GM is expected to announce a new incentives programme tomorrow, in response to an aggressive promotion by DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler unit.

It heralds tougher times for the United Auto Workers union, once the aristocrat of the US labour movement. Membership fell to 557,000 last year, about a third of the level in its 1970s heyday.

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

Donger
06-26-2006, 02:02 PM
And yet, their cars will continue to suck.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 02:03 PM
Finally, a jAZ gotcha thread I can enjoy ROFL

jspchief
06-26-2006, 02:05 PM
UAW might possibly be the worst thing to ever happen to labor unions. What a friggin racket.

hypersensitiveZO6
06-26-2006, 02:05 PM
I've got a good friend that works with them. He says its a mess and he's afraid he's on the "list."

tk13
06-26-2006, 02:07 PM
Somebody cue Iraqi Information Minister picture. "Everything is alright with GM, we're on the way up!"

SPchief
06-26-2006, 02:08 PM
In before Rexjake gets here

JBucc
06-26-2006, 02:09 PM
In before Rexjake gets hereI was gonna say that:(. Actually I was going to say Recxjake in 5 4 3 2 1...

jAZ
06-26-2006, 02:10 PM
Actually I was going to say Recxjake in 5 4 3 2 1...
Keep counting. It's going to be a while I suspect.

SPchief
06-26-2006, 02:12 PM
Keep counting. It's going to be a while I suspect.


No, he'll be along shortly to explain why this article is false and what GM will do to correct it.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 02:13 PM
Not to give him any ideas, but you know that the spin will be that this will boost GM so much that they will take over 99.12345% of the market.

Iowanian
06-26-2006, 02:17 PM
The Good ole Union Lable.

chagrin
06-26-2006, 02:31 PM
Somebody cue Iraqi Information Minister picture. "Everything is alright with GM, we're on the way up!"

Something like that, but I'm not good with this technical stuff...

RedDread
06-26-2006, 02:33 PM
Hehe, good stuff.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 02:33 PM
GM's announcement is the first of several...

RedDread
06-26-2006, 02:34 PM
Also as a side note it sucks that so many people are losing their jobs. I know we all like to make fun of rex but that's a lot of people that will be looking for work. :shake:

Logical
06-26-2006, 02:39 PM
What is sad is we are so annoyed with recxjake that we are enjoying such bad news. 30K people looking for jobs is a bad situation no matter how much we enjoy rubbing it in recxjake's face.

jspchief
06-26-2006, 02:46 PM
Did I read the article wrong? I thought it said early retirement and severance packages?

Not exactly the same as getting the axe IMO.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 02:49 PM
Also as a side note it sucks that so many people are losing their jobs. I know we all like to make fun of rex but that's a lot of people that will be looking for work. :shake:

It does suck. And my dad is UAW, so don't get me wrong but the US economy has to update itself at some point.

A long time ago a lot of people lost their jobs in domestic factories that churned out fabrics. Other countries started having the means of production and could do it cheaper. But things corrected, and other industries stepped in to employ that work force. America still rolled on. People adapted themselves with new skills and new ways to keep themselves marketable. The country and economy was advanced as a result.

The product is mature. It's become pretty clear that GM can't compete with the overseas makes by most standards. The natural lifecycle of a product has been accelerated by the labor unions ball-twisting of the automakers. I think history will show that maybe they didn't quite kill the goose, but they certainly hastened the very things they told workers they were fighting to stop.

Instead of being like the child who doesn't want to go to school, holding onto the door frame kicking and screaming while his mom tries to drag him out to meet the bus, why not adapt? Fighting the tide of economics doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do. You might as well use a bucket to try to keep the tide from coming in.

Deberg_1990
06-26-2006, 02:53 PM
It does suck. And my dad is UAW, so don't get me wrong but the US economy has to update itself at some point.

A long time ago a lot of people lost their jobs in domestic factories that churned out fabrics. Other countries started having the means of production and could do it cheaper. But things corrected, and other industries stepped in to employ that work force. America still rolled on. People adapted themselves with new skills and new ways to keep themselves marketable. The country and economy was advanced as a result.

The product is mature. It's become pretty clear that GM can't compete with the overseas makes by most standards. The natural lifecycle of a product has been accelerated by the labor unions ball-twisting of the automakers. I think history will show that maybe they didn't quite kill the goose, but they certainly hastened the very things they told workers they were fighting to stop.

Instead of being like the child who doesn't want to go to school, holding onto the door frame kicking and screaming while his mom tries to drag him out to meet the bus, why not adapt? Fighting the tide of economics doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do. You might as well use a bucket to try to keep the tide from coming in.

Well said...exactly my thoughts as well.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 02:54 PM
There's gonna be glut of telecom people joining the ranks of the unemployed this summer as well.

AT&T is going to announce cuts soon, as are we. I've heard through the grapevine that our cuts will be significant.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 02:55 PM
It does suck. And my dad is UAW, so don't get me wrong but the US economy has to update itself at some point.

A long time ago a lot of people lost their jobs in domestic factories that churned out fabrics. Other countries started having the means of production and could do it cheaper. But things corrected, and other industries stepped in to employ that work force. America still rolled on. People adapted themselves with new skills and new ways to keep themselves marketable. The country and economy was advanced as a result.

The product is mature. It's become pretty clear that GM can't compete with the overseas makes by most standards. The natural lifecycle of a product has been accelerated by the labor unions ball-twisting of the automakers. I think history will show that maybe they didn't quite kill the goose, but they certainly hastened the very things they told workers they were fighting to stop.

Instead of being like the child who doesn't want to go to school, holding onto the door frame kicking and screaming while his mom tries to drag him out to meet the bus, why not adapt? Fighting the tide of economics doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do. You might as well use a bucket to try to keep the tide from coming in.

The UAW doesn't just infect the auto industry. All of the Maytag workers up here (that will be losing their jobs) are UAW.

Iowanian
06-26-2006, 02:57 PM
parker....you should get that virus tested, so you'll be able to install it before they drag you out....make sure to test that decimal place first, Samir.

They outright said the Union was a major part of the decision to close those Iowa plants.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 02:57 PM
The UAW doesn't just infect the auto industry. All of the Maytag workers up here (that will be losing their jobs) are UAW.

Yeah, my father actually works for a railroad, but for some reason they are UAW.

Braincase
06-26-2006, 03:00 PM
Somebody get to Detroit. rexcjake might be up in a clock tower somewhere.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 03:04 PM
parker....you should get that virus tested, so you'll be able to install it before they drag you out....make sure to test that decimal place first, Samir.

They outright said the Union was a major part of the decision to close those Iowa plants.

I'm a little biased about this, so if I offend anyone, let me start by saying I'm sorry.

But for the last 6 years (since I got married) I've listened to my in-laws levy complaint after complaint after complaint. All they do is bitch.

For example, Maytag wanted them to contribute every month for their health insurance. Apparently, up until that point, Maytag covered 100% of the premiums. ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?

I know of a person there (not related to me, not one of my in-laws) that literally got paid $18.50 an hour to push the green button to start the paint and the red button to stop the paint. Sometimes, they had to get out of the chair to clean the paint machine or something like that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure that at times it's physically demanding. But what REAL skills are required? $18.50 an hour? And they wonder why Maytag was looking for any reason they could find to outsource.

DanT
06-26-2006, 03:17 PM
That's a lot of jobs. My father worked 30 years for GM, at their old Leeds plant (near Arrowhead). I've never seen anything from GM or the UAW to make me think badly of either. I wish these workers and their families well.

banyon
06-26-2006, 03:22 PM
Is recxjake's dad among the downsized?

jAZ
06-26-2006, 03:24 PM
I'm a little biased about this, so if I offend anyone, let me start by saying I'm sorry.

But for the last 6 years (since I got married) I've listened to my in-laws levy complaint after complaint after complaint. All they do is bitch.

For example, Maytag wanted them to contribute every month for their health insurance. Apparently, up until that point, Maytag covered 100% of the premiums. ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?

I know of a person there (not related to me, not one of my in-laws) that literally got paid $18.50 an hour to push the green button to start the paint and the red button to stop the paint. Sometimes, they had to get out of the chair to clean the paint machine or something like that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure that at times it's physically demanding. But what REAL skills are required? $18.50 an hour? And they wonder why Maytag was looking for any reason they could find to outsource.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that GM agreed to those arrangements and felt it worth their investors' dollars to pay such fees for such service. And their shareholders agreed.

While you might not value it at $18.50, lots of supposedly intelligent (and certainly wealthy) people agreed that it was the right thing to spend their money on.

GM's problem isn't Union labor, but crappy strategic planning by the corporate honchos who thought it was a brilliant long term idea to bet the farm on Humvees and other gas guzzling SUV's.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 03:25 PM
Is recxjake's dad among the downsized?
Let's hope not.

Donger
06-26-2006, 03:26 PM
GM's problem isn't Union labor, but crappy strategic planning by the corporate honchos who thought it was a brilliant long term idea to bet the farm on Humvees and other gas guzzling SUV's.

ROFL

jAZ
06-26-2006, 03:33 PM
ROFL
Toyota faces the same Union threats at their US factories (and pay similar or greater wages as the Union shops), and they are kicking GM's ass because of brand management, product quality, value and a core strength in quality and appealing small and mid-sized cars.

None of this does GM do well. They know how to do big vehicles (trucks, SUV's, etc) well. That's the upper management's fault. Unions impact labor costs, which are basically the same at (less than fully unionized) Toyota USA plants as they are at (unionized) GM USA plants.

HemiEd
06-26-2006, 03:36 PM
I'm a little biased about this, so if I offend anyone, let me start by saying I'm sorry.

But for the last 6 years (since I got married) I've listened to my in-laws levy complaint after complaint after complaint. All they do is bitch.

For example, Maytag wanted them to contribute every month for their health insurance. Apparently, up until that point, Maytag covered 100% of the premiums. ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?

I know of a person there (not related to me, not one of my in-laws) that literally got paid $18.50 an hour to push the green button to start the paint and the red button to stop the paint. Sometimes, they had to get out of the chair to clean the paint machine or something like that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure that at times it's physically demanding. But what REAL skills are required? $18.50 an hour? And they wonder why Maytag was looking for any reason they could find to outsource.

And there you have it, the whole problem IMO. How high on the economic scale does a person get making $38,295.00 a year?
He can probably raise a family reasonably well in a low cost of living area.
This same person will not take a job at minimum wage, even though that is what the skill sets dictate for the job. Who would take that job at minimum wage?
In order for that factory to compete, they need to be paying minimum wage. Illegal Immigrants are about the only ones that will accept the $13,455.00 annual salary. We then run all the illegal immigrants out of the country and the rest of the manufacturing base with it.

HemiEd
06-26-2006, 03:38 PM
Toyota faces the same Union threats at their US factories (and pay similar or greater wages as the Union shops), and they are kicking GM's ass because of brand management, product quality, value and a core strength in quality and appealing small and mid-sized cars.

None of this does GM do well. They know how to do big vehicles (trucks, SUV's, etc) well. That's the upper management's fault. Unions impact labor costs, which are basically the same at (less than fully unionized) Toyota USA plants as they are at (unionized) GM USA plants.


That is such a tired and inaccurate argument.

Donger
06-26-2006, 03:39 PM
Toyota faces the same Union threats at their US factories (and pay similar or greater wages as the Union shops), and they are kicking GM's ass because of brand management, product quality, value and a core strength in quality and appealing small and mid-sized cars.

None of this does GM do well. They know how to do big vehicles (trucks, SUV's, etc) well. That's the upper management's fault. Unions impact labor costs, which are basically the same at (less than fully unionized) Toyota USA plants as they are at (unionized) GM USA plants.

Yeah, it's all management's fault that, thanks mainly to GM's labor and retirees, GM's cars are $1,600.00 higher than other manufacturers.

And, I'm sure it's also management's fault that they have union 340,000 retirees on the books, too.

Come on, jAZ. I'm not stating that I think GM's woes are entirely due to union labor. Nor am I saying that it's all due to GM management putting out shitty cars, but to lay no blame at the feet of unionized labor is absurd. I hope you're not saying that.

Donger
06-26-2006, 03:50 PM
Having its 340,000 union retirees pay $100 a month for health care -- as do GM's nonunion employees -- would save the company almost a half-billion dollars a year.

Ouch.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:03 PM
Yeah, it's all management's fault that, thanks mainly to GM's labor and retirees, GM's cars are $1,600.00 higher than other manufacturers.

And, I'm sure it's also management's fault that they have union 340,000 retirees on the books, too.

Come on, jAZ. I'm not stating that I think GM's woes are entirely due to union labor. Nor am I saying that it's all due to GM management putting out shitty cars, but to lay no blame at the feet of unionized labor is absurd. I hope you're not saying that.
I'm saying that GM Management is the only one in a position to affect all apsects of the companies problems.

Most of the problem is strategic positioning, poor quality and poor management choices.

The union helped set labor costs, no doubt, but Toyota employs union labor and pays equal or greater labor costs on the cars they produce in the US (they pay union labor rates even when the union doesn't weild any power at a facility).

And finally, GM Management agreed to pay for any employment deals that the Union and GM struck. They are responsible for any good or bad deals that they reach. If GM wanted to, they could shut down plants and open them in non-union states. They chose a path and bare all the responsiblity for that path.

I'd say neither party acted wisely by putting the "big picture" issues as a top priority, and in that respect the union members get what they get. But the direction of a company like GM is entirely the responsiblity of management.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 04:06 PM
You seem to be overlooking the fact that GM agreed to those arrangements and felt it worth their investors' dollars to pay such fees for such service. And their shareholders agreed.

While you might not value it at $18.50, lots of supposedly intelligent (and certainly wealthy) people agreed that it was the right thing to spend their money on.

GM's problem isn't Union labor, but crappy strategic planning by the corporate honchos who thought it was a brilliant long term idea to bet the farm on Humvees and other gas guzzling SUV's.

Have you ever been in a labor union?

Do you know what the term "coercion" means?

Donger
06-26-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm saying that GM Management is the only one in a position to affect all apsects of the companies problems.

Most of the problem is strategic positioning, poor quality and poor management choices.

The union helped set labor costs, no doubt, but Toyota employs union labor and pays equal or greater labor costs on the cars they produce in the US (they pay union labor rates even when the union doesn't weild any power at a facility).

And finally, GM Management agreed to pay for any employment deals that the Union and GM struck. They are responsible for any good or bad deals that they reach. If GM wanted to, they could shut down plants and open them in non-union states. They chose a path and bare all the responsiblity for that path.

I'd say neither party acted wisely by putting the "big picture" issues as a top priority, and in that respect the union members get what they get. But the direction of a company like GM is entirely the responsiblity of management.

Sure, GM f*cked itself when it chose not to tell the UAW to go f*ck itself long ago.

It's amazing that you put very little, if any, blame on the union management for demanding such benefits in the first place.

Actually, no it's not.

Clint in Wichita
06-26-2006, 04:11 PM
If those 30,000 people weren't dramatically overpaid, making it impossible for them to find similar wages elsewhere, this wouldn't be as big a deal as it is.

Good luck making $30 per hour to pop rivets elsewhere. The aircraft workers here in Wichita should've learned this lesson long ago. They build their whole lives on a $30-40 per hour job at Raytheon, and end up in a friggin trailer and on welfare when, surprise, the annual layoffs come up and their name is on the list.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:11 PM
Have you ever been in a labor union?

Do you know what the term "coercion" means?
I haven't, but my dad was in one, and has told stories. He left his union before he retired and was pissed at them.

I'm not trying to ADVOCATE for UAW and I've said repeatedly that the overwhelming need for labor unions has in large part passed.

But that doesn't excuse GM Management from their shareholder responsiblity. And they have failed the shareholders.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:15 PM
Sure, GM f*cked itself when it chose not to tell the UAW to go f*ck itself long ago.

It's amazing that you put very little, if any, blame on the union management for demanding such benefits in the first place.

Actually, no it's not.
The union gets what it gets, but they don't make corporate decision, they make employee deicsions. GM had all the power to do whatever the hell it wanted. And GM management wanted to strike the deals they did at the time they did.

And bare in mind that we are talking about the performance of a company. It's a different disucssion if we are talking about the role unions currently play in American competitiveness and outsourcing of jobs overseas. In that discussion, unions bare a greater overall responsiblity.

But all decisions made by GM management were (in the mind of the management at the time) "good business decisions". That's not to say that they were actually "good" business decisions in the end. But that's what management chose to do at the time.

Donger
06-26-2006, 04:17 PM
The union gets what it gets, but they don't make corporate decision, they make employee deicsions. GM had all the power to do whatever the hell it wanted. And GM management wanted to strike the deals they did at the time they did.

And bare in mind that we are talking about the performance of a company. It's a different disucssion if we are talking about the role unions currently play in American competitiveness and outsourcing of jobs overseas. In that discussion, unions bare a greater overall responsiblity.

But all decisions made by GM management were (in the mind of the management at the time) "good business decisions". That's not to say that they were actually "good" business decisions in the end. But that's what management chose to do at the time.

You probably blame the muggee instead of the mugger, too.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:20 PM
And when it comes to the shortfall of American manufacturing businesses as a whole, one needs to look at the performance of American Managment, labor (unions) and maybe most importantly... shareholders.

Shareholders have pushed for short term economic returns over long term investments with short term expenses. It's a major failing of our economic system (as good as it is).

Unions and management can both be faulted for short term thinking, but in the end, the most powerful force in our economy is investment and investors. And they continue to make the same long term economic mistakes in exchange for short term profits.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:23 PM
You probably blame the muggee instead of the mugger, too.
It's not a mugging, when it's an agreed upon transaction. That GM management made massive capital investments that put them in poor negotiating position (making it expensive to move operations and costly to shut them down for long) is not the Union's fault.

That management had a shitty track-record of viewing employees as short-term comodities rather than long term business partners (like Japanese auto makers) and thus giving need and rise to unionization at all... is entirely managements fault.

Donger
06-26-2006, 04:25 PM
It's not a mugging, when it's an agreed upon transaction. That GM management made massive capital investments that put them in poor negotiating position (making it expensive to move operations and costly to shut them down for long) is not the Union's fault.

That management had a shitty track-record of viewing employees as short-term comodities rather than long term business partners (like Japanese auto makers) and thus giving need and rise to unionization at all... is entirely managements fault.

A mugging is an agreed-upon transaction, too.

Mugger: "Give me your money."

Muggee: "No."

Mugger: "Okay (raising gun to muggee's head). Now give me your money."

Muggee: "Yes. That sounds acceptable."

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:28 PM
A mugging is an agreed-upon transaction, too.

Mugger: "Give me your money."

Muggee: "No."

Mugger: "Okay (raising gun to muggee's head). Now give me your money."

Muggee: "Yes. That sounds acceptable."
That's just stupid. That you have reached this point says you've run out of acutally meaningful points to make.

Donger
06-26-2006, 04:32 PM
That's just stupid. That you have reached this point says you've run out of acutally meaningful points to make.

Oh no. What to do? jAZ is displeased.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make (and everyone else probably got besides you), was that not blaming the unions at all for demanding such benefits is plain stupidity. Yes, GM could have told them to take a hike and then had massive walk-outs and their business would have been in shambles.

See, jAZ, that's where the mugger analogy come from. The muggee could have stood firm and gotten shot. Instead, they gave in in hope of living some more.

Jeezus.

TinyEvel
06-26-2006, 04:37 PM
CARL, TAKE NOTE:

Early retirement/severence package?

Maybe take some of the D with you.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 04:56 PM
Oh no. What to do? jAZ is displeased.

Anyway, the point that I was trying to make (and everyone else probably got besides you), was that not blaming the unions at all for demanding such benefits is plain stupidity. Yes, GM could have told them to take a hike and then had massive walk-outs and their business would have been in shambles.

See, jAZ, that's where the mugger analogy come from. The muggee could have stood firm and gotten shot. Instead, they gave in in hope of living some more.

Jeezus.
It's not a mugging. It's not a crime. It's an agreed upon business arrangement. A business doesn't have a "right to life" like a person does. It's not a crime to negotiate a labor rate or other benefits.

A business is a fully voluntary thing. If you can't afford the labor costs, don't go into business. If you can no longer afford the labor costs, go out of business. If the GM shareholders were willing to invest in a business that had risky labor costs, they could have moved their money elsewhere.

Your analogy is beyond stupid. It's nothing like a mugging.

It's like a business deal, that at the time, when struck, was agreed to be of benefit to both parties.

jspchief
06-26-2006, 05:45 PM
It's not a mugging. It's not a crime. It's an agreed upon business arrangement. A business doesn't have a "right to life" like a person does. It's not a crime to negotiate a labor rate or other benefits.

A business is a fully voluntary thing. If you can't afford the labor costs, don't go into business. If you can no longer afford the labor costs, go out of business. If the GM shareholders were willing to invest in a business that had risky labor costs, they could have moved their money elsewhere.

Your analogy is beyond stupid. It's nothing like a mugging.

It's like a business deal, that at the time, when struck, was agreed to be of benefit to both parties.The analogy may be a little over the top, but it's fairly accurate.

The gun that the union holds to the head of the corporation is a labor strike.

"Give us a pay raise or we'll shut your factory down for the next year and physically harass anyone that tries to fill our job." Sounds more like a mugging than a negotiation to me.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 06:31 PM
The analogy may be a little over the top, but it's fairly accurate.

The gun that the union holds to the head of the corporation is a labor strike.

"Give us a pay raise or we'll shut your factory down for the next year and physically harass anyone that tries to fill our job." Sounds more like a mugging than a negotiation to me.
On it's merits it's an assinine comparison because a mugging involves threat of physical harm or loss of life in exchange for theft of personal property.

GM agrees to employ people and those people agree to negotiate en masse to establish supplier power in the negotiation. GM doesn't need to do business. They don't need to make cars. They don't need to make cars in the US. They don't need to make cars in Union states. They don't need to do any of this.

They choose to... and not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it's profitable for the investors. The deals that they struck with the union was struck because it was in the best financial interest.

As the old saying goes... you are worth what someone will pay you.

Now I'm not denying that unions have a history of using illegal tactics to create maintain labor unity, and those tactics (where reported) need to be punished appropriately.

But to Donger's point that Unions have figureatively mugged owners by threatening strikes and factory shutdowns... that's utter bullshit. It presumes that empolyee pay is some sort of property of the company and an employee who has and uses their "supplier" power is stealing by doing so.

Ultra Peanut
06-26-2006, 06:41 PM
TOOOOOOYOTA!

Donger
06-26-2006, 07:06 PM
GM doesn't need to do business. They don't need to make cars.

ROFL

And, mugger's don't need to mug, you pin-head.

They CHOOSE to.

For such an intelligent person, you're exceedingly obtuse sometimes.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 07:08 PM
On it's merits it's an assinine comparison because a mugging involves threat of physical harm or loss of life in exchange for theft of personal property.

GM agrees to employ people and those people agree to negotiate en masse to establish supplier power in the negotiation. GM doesn't need to do business. They don't need to make cars. They don't need to make cars in the US. They don't need to make cars in Union states. They don't need to do any of this.

They choose to... and not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it's profitable for the investors. The deals that they struck with the union was struck because it was in the best financial interest.

As the old saying goes... you are worth what someone will pay you.

Now I'm not denying that unions have a history of using illegal tactics to create maintain labor unity, and those tactics (where reported) need to be punished appropriately.

But to Donger's point that Unions have figureatively mugged owners by threatening strikes and factory shutdowns... that's utter bullshit. It presumes that empolyee pay is some sort of property of the company and an employee who has and uses their "supplier" power is stealing by doing so.

You're forgetting that the union of yesteryear held FAR MORE governmental influence than the union of today. If you really think the government wasn't involved in this and that GM could have simply said "**** you" to the UAW, you're sadly mistaken.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 07:09 PM
And when it comes to the shortfall of American manufacturing businesses as a whole, one needs to look at the performance of American Managment, labor (unions) and maybe most importantly... shareholders.

Shareholders have pushed for short term economic returns over long term investments with short term expenses. It's a major failing of our economic system (as good as it is).

Unions and management can both be faulted for short term thinking, but in the end, the most powerful force in our economy is investment and investors. And they continue to make the same long term economic mistakes in exchange for short term profits.

The bold part is 100% unadulterated truth. :thumb:

jAZ
06-26-2006, 08:26 PM
ROFL

And, mugger's don't need to mug, you pin-head.

They CHOOSE to.

For such an intelligent person, you're exceedingly obtuse sometimes.
You can't even keep your own analogies straight in the middle of your personal attacks.

GM <> mugger.

Ari Chi3fs
06-26-2006, 08:27 PM
has recxjake imploded yet?

jAZ
06-26-2006, 08:28 PM
You're forgetting that the union of yesteryear held FAR MORE governmental influence than the union of today. If you really think the government wasn't involved in this and that GM could have simply said "**** you" to the UAW, you're sadly mistaken.
I'm not forgetting that, but it doesn't change the control that GM has to move its operations to non-union states beyond the reach of union-influenced laws.

Just like employees have had the abililty to move to pro-union states.

Both the company and the employee have the freedom to choose to partner to make cars.

The mugee has no choice but to be mugged.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:33 PM
This is not new news... this was announced last year in the turnaround plan... it's just going faster then expected.... GM had a 400 million in profits Q 1.... they are doing much better because they are adjusting production capacity to the actual need... they are making much better cars and trucks, etc, etc

Donger
06-26-2006, 08:34 PM
You can't even keep your own analogies straight in the middle of your personal attacks.

GM <> mugger.

My God, jAZ. Honestly, I hope you are joking. Okay, I'll go slowly, just in case.

I made the analogy between the mugger and the muggee, and GM and the unions to show that sometimes "agreed-upon" transactions don't leave each party happy. In fact, sometimes one of the parties feels like they got f*cked and were forced into it considering the alternative.

Out of business = being dead/hurt in my analogy.

If you got mugged, and were still alive, you'd feel good that you're still alive but badly that you got f*cked, right.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:35 PM
Did I read the article wrong? I thought it said early retirement and severance packages?

Not exactly the same as getting the axe IMO.

Correct... GM gave upwards of 140,000 per person to "buy" the factory workers out of their retirement plans... basically cutting ties

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:36 PM
Toyota faces the same Union threats at their US factories (and pay similar or greater wages as the Union shops), and they are kicking GM's ass because of brand management, product quality, value and a core strength in quality and appealing small and mid-sized cars.

None of this does GM do well. They know how to do big vehicles (trucks, SUV's, etc) well. That's the upper management's fault. Unions impact labor costs, which are basically the same at (less than fully unionized) Toyota USA plants as they are at (unionized) GM USA plants.


I have never read anything so wrong....

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:39 PM
I'm at the point where I only care about my dad's job... he works for GMAC... and his job is secure.... I feel terrible for the towns across this country that will be destroyed becuase of this and by similar situations at Ford.... but it's not like these people are being kicked to the street... they are getting a very nice chunk of change... AND it was THERE choice to take or not take it!

FAX
06-26-2006, 08:41 PM
Glad to see you're okay, Mr. recxjake. I held fears that you might have driven a Nova off a cliff or something.

Also glad to hear that this was only part of their previous reorg plan. Thanks for keeping it straight.

FAX

Brock
06-26-2006, 08:45 PM
Walking away with 150k would kick ass.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:45 PM
Glad to see you're okay, Mr. recxjake. I held fears that you might have driven a Nova off a cliff or something.

Also glad to hear that this was only part of their previous reorg plan. Thanks for keeping it straight.

FAX

nah, i had to work from 1 to 10... they just like making these public annoncements to drive the stock price up, and make the american people feel bad for GM... which I think is stupid because it makes the consumer worry about the future of the car or truck they are going to purchase

FAX
06-26-2006, 08:48 PM
nah, i had to work from 1 to 10... they just like making these public annoncements to drive the stock price up, and make the american people feel bad for GM... which I think is stupid because it makes the consumer worry about the future of the car or truck they are going to purchase

What about if we all drove a bunch of Novas off cliffs, Mr. recxjake?

Do you think that would drive the value of the cars up? You know, the supply and demand thing?

FAX

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:51 PM
Some good news out of GM today...

For a second consecutive year, GM’s Oshawa production facilities have received J.D. Power and Associates’ “Gold Plant Quality Award.” The award is given to the production facility with the fewest number of defects per vehicle, as measured by J.D.’s famous “Initial Quality Study.”

Ultra Peanut
06-26-2006, 08:53 PM
JACKPOT

Logical
06-26-2006, 08:56 PM
nah, i had to work from 1 to 10... they just like making these public annoncements to drive the stock price up, and make the american people feel bad for GM... which I think is stupid because it makes the consumer worry about the future of the car or truck they are going to purchase

Don't worry about that, the consumers were planning on buying quality vehicles that get great gas mileage like Toyota and Hondas.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 08:58 PM
Don't worry about that, the consumers were planning on buying quality vehicles that get great gas mileage like Toyota and Hondas.

oh thats funny, because GM sold more cars and trucks then they did last year... oh yea and GM has also offers the most cars and trucks that get over 30 mpg

Brock
06-26-2006, 08:59 PM
oh thats funny, because GM sold more cars and trucks then they did last year... oh yea and GM has also offers the most cars and trucks that get over 30 mpg

Yeah, boy...Gm's just kicking that ass. ROFL

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:01 PM
Yeah, boy...Gm's just kicking that ass. ROFL

GM is just doing what it needs to do to be competitive... they are still the number 1 car maker in the world

Logical
06-26-2006, 09:07 PM
GM is just doing what it needs to do to be competitive... they are still the number 1 car maker in the worldThis is projected to be the year that is no longer true. Then what will you say?

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:09 PM
This is projected to be the year that is no longer true. Then what will you say?

Actually next year.... and this is fine with me.... GM needs to get everything fixed internally first, then worry about taking away marketshare from Toyota...

eventually Toyota will go through the same thing.... its a cycle

Herzig
06-26-2006, 09:12 PM
Actually next year.... and this is fine with me.... GM needs to get everything fixed internally first, then worry about taking away marketshare from Toyota...

eventually Toyota will go through the same thing.... its a cycle

You're an Idiot

Logical
06-26-2006, 09:12 PM
Actually next year.... and this is fine with me.... GM needs to get everything fixed internally first, then worry about taking away marketshare from Toyota...

eventually Toyota will go through the same thing.... its a cycleYes eventually Honda will pass Toyota and Toyota will be number 2 again. Maybe Mercedes will be merciful and buy up GM and save it from itself.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:15 PM
You're an Idiot

wrong, educate yourself first...

GM is a prime example of what is going to happen to the United States Social Security System... To many retirees, not enough people paying into the system... GM has hundreds of thousands of retirees... Toyota has very few... in time, Toyota will go through this also

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:16 PM
Yes eventually Honda will pass Toyota and Toyota will be number 2 again. Maybe Mercedes will be merciful and buy up GM and save it from itself.

Mercedes is owned my Chrysler...

Honda built 3 million cars last year... Toyo, 7 million, GM almost 8

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:22 PM
I've got a good friend that works with them. He says its a mess and he's afraid he's on the "list."

lol theres no list... these are voluntary buyouts and retirements

Brock
06-26-2006, 09:27 PM
Mercedes is owned my Chrysler...


Ha-haaaa.

Otter
06-26-2006, 09:27 PM
GM's problem isn't Union labor, but crappy strategic planning by the corporate honchos who thought it was a brilliant long term idea to bet the farm on Humvees and other gas guzzling SUV's.

I don't usually give a shit but you have no clue what you speak of here Jaz.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:30 PM
I don't usually give a shit but you have no clue what you speak of here Jaz.

In response to what Jaz said... he's just wrong

Like I said before, GM sells the most cars with 30 + mpg

1. GM is coming out with a huge array of hybrids... that arent 5,000 more like Toyota's

Saturn Vue
Chevy Tahoe
Saturn Aura
Chevy Malibu
Chevy Silverado... etc etc

hawkchief
06-26-2006, 09:37 PM
In response to what Jaz said... he's just wrong

Like I said before, GM sells the most cars with 30 + mpg

1. GM is coming out with a huge array of hybrids... that arent 5,000 more like Toyota's

Saturn Vue
Chevy Tahoe
Saturn Aura
Chevy Malibu
Chevy Silverado... etc etc

Until Americans can be convinced that the American/UAW f'***ed -up POS cars won't break apart after the first 20K miles, it doesn't matter if the junkers get 100 mpg. Why would we think hybrids are going to be any better? People are fed up with the crap that comes off of the UAW assembly lines, where people making $50/hour can't bolt a dashboard to a frame properly.

Sadly, I've probably bought my last American rattle-trap.

Logical
06-26-2006, 09:46 PM
Mercedes is owned my Chrysler...

...

Yup that is why they call it Daimler-Chrysler.ROFL

Otter
06-26-2006, 09:58 PM
In response to what Jaz said... he's just wrong

Like I said before, GM sells the most cars with 30 + mpg

1. GM is coming out with a huge array of hybrids... that arent 5,000 more like Toyota's

Saturn Vue
Chevy Tahoe
Saturn Aura
Chevy Malibu
Chevy Silverado... etc etc

So, what's your thoughts on the labor union that drug GM down the drain?

Otter
06-26-2006, 10:09 PM
I dislike the job bank, and all the other crazy things they get, I think they need to make some serious concessions or they will lose even more jobs

That's actually nice to hear coming from a "GM Guy".

rep

jAZ
06-26-2006, 10:47 PM
I don't usually give a shit but you have no clue what you speak of here Jaz.
Actually, I'll concede one point that I missed entirely before WRT labor costs and union influence.

Toyota pays the non-union employees about the same as GM union employees, however Toyota doesn't have the legacy of 50 years worth of retired employees to carry on their books (which was in as sense what Donger was starting to get at).

However, that's primarily a result of Toyota's operations being brand new. They don't have a legacy employee base like GM did.

But like I said before, GM management carries the full and ultimate responsibility for the behavior and performance of the business, just like every other business.

And their management culture (a bloated, arrogant one borne out of a near monopolistic environment in the 50's and 60's) lead their management to assume that they could concede to some of the inflated demands of labor unions and continue to turn a profit. When you operate with monopoly power you can charge whatever you want and people will pay the increase prices. Management was fat and arrogant and thought it could define car buying culture rather than react to it. Again, behaving like a monopoly.

They fail to see a need to offer smaller, fuel efficient and cost effectively designed and built cars and stick to their fat hog, poorly engineered, poorly designed vehicles produced in antiquated facilities designed by management who could never figure out how to be a leader in efficency.

They have since the Japanese made a move in the US market, always been a technicalogical follower in both automotive engineering and operational design.

The best parallel out there is the old school airlines who are/were getting their asses handed to them by the low cost carriers like Southwest and America West. The difference is that as the old-line carriers go belly up, the competition is from smaller and younger American companies.

I don't understand why there hasn't been a young up-start American automaker who entered the market like Soutwest did with air travel.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 10:50 PM
In short, GM was it's own worst enemy by failing to evolve out of a highly competive marketplace.

Halfcan
06-27-2006, 01:16 AM
And yet, their cars will continue to suck.

Yep, they should name their next truck the "Depreciator."

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 04:40 AM
In response to what Jaz said... he's just wrong

Like I said before, GM sells the most cars with 30 + mpg

1. GM is coming out with a huge array of hybrids... that arent 5,000 more like Toyota's

Saturn Vue
Chevy Tahoe
Saturn Aura
Chevy Malibu
Chevy Silverado... etc etc

How many cars does GM make that gets over 35 mpg that ARE NOT hybrids? Hybrids aren't the be all/end all.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 04:40 AM
Actually, I'll concede one point that I missed entirely before WRT labor costs and union influence.

Toyota pays the non-union employees about the same as GM union employees, however Toyota doesn't have the legacy of 50 years worth of retired employees to carry on their books (which was in as sense what Donger was starting to get at).

However, that's primarily a result of Toyota's operations being brand new. They don't have a legacy employee base like GM did.

But like I said before, GM management carries the full and ultimate responsibility for the behavior and performance of the business, just like every other business.

And their management culture (a bloated, arrogant one borne out of a near monopolistic environment in the 50's and 60's) lead their management to assume that they could concede to some of the inflated demands of labor unions and continue to turn a profit. When you operate with monopoly power you can charge whatever you want and people will pay the increase prices. Management was fat and arrogant and thought it could define car buying culture rather than react to it. Again, behaving like a monopoly.

They fail to see a need to offer smaller, fuel efficient and cost effectively designed and built cars and stick to their fat hog, poorly engineered, poorly designed vehicles produced in antiquated facilities designed by management who could never figure out how to be a leader in efficency.

They have since the Japanese made a move in the US market, always been a technicalogical follower in both automotive engineering and operational design.

The best parallel out there is the old school airlines who are/were getting their asses handed to them by the low cost carriers like Southwest and America West. The difference is that as the old-line carriers go belly up, the competition is from smaller and younger American companies.

I don't understand why there hasn't been a young up-start American automaker who entered the market like Soutwest did with air travel.

That's simply not true.

recxjake
06-27-2006, 07:10 AM
That's simply not true.

wrong, he's saying brand new as building cars in the United States, they havent been doing it long, and don't have any legacy cost

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:18 AM
wrong, he's saying brand new as building cars in the United States, they havent been doing it long, and don't have any legacy cost

They have legacy workers in Japan, genius. The difference is that they didn't promise their retirees the world on a golden plate...

morphius
06-27-2006, 07:20 AM
wrong, he's saying brand new as building cars in the United States, they havent been doing it long, and don't have any legacy cost
Just because they are not in the US doesn't mean they don't have legacy people, just means they never gave the huge concessions to the Unions so that people made such an expensive retirement. I'm also guessing they will never have the issue that GM is because they are not going to make that mistake.

recxjake
06-27-2006, 07:22 AM
Just because they are not in the US doesn't mean they don't have legacy people, just means they never gave the huge concessions to the Unions so that people made such an expensive retirement. I'm also guessing they will never have the issue that GM is because they are not going to make that mistake.

agreed, but you make it sound way to simple, they had to give concessions, they were on strike! You don't make money when you are not making cars

morphius
06-27-2006, 07:28 AM
agreed, but you make it sound way to simple, they had to give concessions, they were on strike! You don't make money when you are not making cars
Yeah, but you don't make money when you give in too much either.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:30 AM
agreed, but you make it sound way to simple, they had to give concessions, they were on strike! You don't make money when you are not making cars

Come on, get with the program. jAZ says it's all management's fault. They didn't have to give the union all those things.

Seriously, this happens to be the point that I agree with you on.

KCTitus
06-27-2006, 07:31 AM
agreed, but you make it sound way to simple, they had to give concessions, they were on strike! You don't make money when you are not making cars

Destroy the company then or now...at some point you gotta pay the piper for stupid decisions.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 07:33 AM
They have legacy workers in Japan, genius. The difference is that they didn't promise their retirees the world on a golden plate...

Show him what he's won...

Until Americans can be convinced that the American/UAW f'***ed -up POS cars won't break apart after the first 20K miles, it doesn't matter if the junkers get 100 mpg. Why would we think hybrids are going to be any better? People are fed up with the crap that comes off of the UAW assembly lines, where people making $50/hour can't bolt a dashboard to a frame properly.

Sadly, I've probably bought my last American rattle-trap.

Same here

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:35 AM
Destroy the company then or now...at some point you gotta pay the piper for stupid decisions.

What choice did they have?

Walk away from thousands of union workers in favor of scabs? Like the federal government would have let that happen. Not to mention they'd never be able to find enough scabs that didn't fear for their lives and property. If we didn't have mafioso unions in this country, we'd be a lot better off.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 07:42 AM
What choice did they have?

Walk away from thousands of union workers in favor of scabs? Like the federal government would have let that happen. Not to mention they'd never be able to find enough scabs that didn't fear for their lives and property. If we didn't have mafioso unions in this country, we'd be a lot better off.

Yeah, they couldn't can all the striking workers or ever bring in enough qualified replacements. And even if they had tried the government would have stopped them.

At some point what you ask for from your company will impact your company. Big labor didn't notice that or didn't care at the time.

There was talk earlier in the thread about shareholders being the problem, that they only wanted short term profits. Well, what about the union? They only want people to pay their next dues installment. They don't pimp themselves on having a partnership with the company to protect their financial future. They only care about taking the company for every dime they can. It's about how much they got you from the man last time, and how much they'll get you next time, not whether GM is going to be around when you retire.

KCTitus
06-27-2006, 07:43 AM
What choice did they have?

Walk away from thousands of union workers in favor of scabs? Like the federal government would have let that happen. Not to mention they'd never be able to find enough scabs that didn't fear for their lives and property. If we didn't have mafioso unions in this country, we'd be a lot better off.

Im guessing the 'they' you refer to were the GM officials...I'd say 'they' had little choice, but the Unions were irresponsible in the silly demands they were making. It was their (unions) stupid decisions to milk every last possible dime out of the company that eventually caused the problem today.

Obviously, they (unions and GM) knew what they were doing and realized it wasnt their generation that would have to clean up the mess.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:43 AM
Yeah, they couldn't can all the striking workers or ever bring in enough qualified replacements. And even if they had tried the government would have stopped them.

At some point what you ask for from your company will impact your company. Big labor didn't notice that or didn't care at the time.

There was talk earlier in the thread about shareholders being the problem, that they only wanted short term profits. Well, what about the union? They only want people to pay their next dues installment. They don't pimp themselves on having a partnership with the company to protect their financial future. They only care about taking the company for every dime they can. It's about how much they got you from the man last time, and how much they'll get you next time, not whether GM is going to be around when you retire.

:clap: :clap:

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:44 AM
Im guessing the 'they' you refer to were the GM officials...I'd say 'they' had little choice, but the Unions were irresponsible in the silly demands they were making. It was their (unions) stupid decisions to milk every last possible dime out of the company that eventually caused the problem today.

Obviously, they (unions and GM) knew what they were doing and realized it wasnt their generation that would have to clean up the mess.

Yes, I was referring to GM management, which is who I thought you were attributing said "stupid decisions" to...

Donger
06-27-2006, 07:46 AM
I've changed my mind. This was all the fault of GM's management.

recxjake
06-27-2006, 07:49 AM
I've changed my mind. This was all the fault of GM's management.

Before Richard Wagoner, they had some terrible CEO's....

KCTitus
06-27-2006, 07:49 AM
Yes, I was referring to GM management, which is who I thought you were attributing said "stupid decisions" to...

Both sides set up this ridiculous system...the unions had the 'upper' hand for many years in the past and they're at fault for setting up a system that is untenable for the long term and their 'membership' deserves what it gets for agreeing to the nonsense.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:55 AM
Both sides set up this ridiculous system...the unions had the 'upper' hand for many years in the past and they're at fault for setting up a system that is untenable for the long term and their 'membership' deserves what it gets for agreeing to the nonsense.

Having seen a similar system from both sides, I struggle with blaming both sides equally. When the union says "jump", management usually has precious little leeway in their decision.

KCTitus
06-27-2006, 08:09 AM
Having seen a similar system from both sides, I struggle with blaming both sides equally. When the union says "jump", management usually has precious little leeway in their decision.

Im not sure where I said I blamed them equally, quite the contrary.

hawkchief
06-27-2006, 08:24 AM
I personally believe that the majority of the blame goes to the union - but it really doesn't matter. What does matter, is that US citizens have little or no faith or trust in Ford, GM etc., and until they truly put out a quality, affordable prodcut, and start leveling with the consumer, they will be in trouble.

A side story. I went into Andy Klein Pontiac/GMC "Service" a few years ago because my wife backed out of the garage and busted the glass portion of one of the side mirrors. The service guy claimed I needed to replace the entire mirror, have it painted etc. etc. for about $800.00. (He was a senior guy, not some rookie). I said that it looked to me like just the glass was broken - could I just replace that? He said no, and after a bunch more of me pressing him about it, and him lying to me, I left and went to Randy Curnow GMC. Their service guy immediately pulled out the busted glass, got a new one off of the shelf, and within 5 minutes and $39.00 I was out of there. IMO, the Klein guy was trained to gig people for a big number before they get away. This typifies the was American car dealers work - get as much from the consumer as you can, and if your prodcut sucks, that's even better, as they will have to come back and get it fixed or replace it with a new one. What a joke.

Stinger
06-27-2006, 08:25 AM
This thread seemed like the right spot for this pic

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/stinger871/gmairbag.jpg

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 08:29 AM
Im not sure where I said I blamed them equally, quite the contrary.

Sorry, I never meant to insinuate you did. I was just carrying on the discussion.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 08:51 AM
That's simply not true.

http://www.scdigest.com/assets/NewsViews/06-05-25-2.cfm

GM’s assembly plant in Arlington, TX produces highly profitable SUV’s like the Chevy Suburban, and is considered the company’s most efficient SUV factory. Still, as rival Toyota prepares to bring on line its first Texas plant near San Antonio, a recent story in the Wall Street Journal shows the challenges GM faces along many fronts.

“Separated by 280 miles, these two factories bring into stark relief the competitive problems plaguing GM at home at a time when car-building in the U.S. is thriving, even though American car companies are faltering,” the Journal notes. “In no small part, the world's largest auto maker's difficulties stem from the fact that its challengers can start fresh, unencumbered by old plants and old obligations that limit innovation and add hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle.”

You can start with labor costs. Non-union Toyota pays competitive wages of $15-20 per hour, which is grow to $21-25 per hour over a few years. But with benefits, one industry researcher estimates Toyota’s total labor costs to be about $35/hour, versus $81/hour for GM, including its legacy retirement and healthcare costs. That means that if Toyota did no better than match GM’s Arlington levels of productivity, it would still have a $1000 per car cost advantage in labor alone.

But it will exceed GM’s level of productivity. GM’s 3000 workers in Arlington operate in a decades old plant that is landlocked by development, making many potential cost-saving changes to flow and efficiency impossible. For example, as the WSJ reports, “GM's body shop is housed in a separate building, which was built in 2000 to introduce new technology. The bodies are transported on an elaborate, enclosed conveyor to the final assembly area, where they are painted and stored before being bolted onto frames. GM managers say they would use a more modern layout that would help boost the plant's productivity even more, but GM can't afford to shut down operations and completely rebuild the plant.”

Toyota, meanwhile, is deploying all of its latest manufacturing thinking and technology to reach new levels of efficiency.

The story says that, “smaller, lighter machinery with a simpler design that takes up less space than previous generations of equipment, an effort Toyota calls "simple and slim." Smaller machines mean Toyota can spend less on the building that houses them, while simpler design means those machines are cheaper to install, easier to maintain, much less likely to break down and simpler to fix if they do. The plant covers about 2.2 million square feet, including some metal-stamping operations, which are not done in Arlington. Still, the Toyota plant is roughly a third smaller than the 3.75 million-square-foot GM plant.”

Conventional technology would have increased the footprint by 30-40%.

Gone from the new Toyota plant also are the traditional shelves holding parts for assembly tasks. “Instead, the parts for each vehicle are delivered in a small container inside each car, freeing workers from having to pick out the right parts from the shelves,” the WSJ reports. “The missing shelves coupled with the smaller machines turn what would ordinarily be a dark and noisy place into one that is airy and well lighted.”

Toyota has also arranged to have nearly two dozen key suppliers close by two the San Antonio factory, reducing the cost of transportation, inventory carrying and factory space. A combination of history, long-term supply agreements, and union contracts give GM much less flexibility, meaning higher cost parts that come from all over the country.

To top if off, Toyota was able to gain tax and training incentives in selecting San Antonio for the new plant, giving it a further cost advantages over GM.

With lots of room around the plant, Toyota will have many future options for adding capacity of changing material flows. The GM Arlington plant does not.

As one industry pundit noted, both literally and figuratively, “"GM has to stay within the box. Toyota was able to think outside the box."

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 08:55 AM
http://www.scdigest.com/assets/NewsViews/06-05-25-2.cfm

GM’s assembly plant in Arlington, TX produces highly profitable SUV’s like the Chevy Suburban, and is considered the company’s most efficient SUV factory. Still, as rival Toyota prepares to bring on line its first Texas plant near San Antonio, a recent story in the Wall Street Journal shows the challenges GM faces along many fronts.

“Separated by 280 miles, these two factories bring into stark relief the competitive problems plaguing GM at home at a time when car-building in the U.S. is thriving, even though American car companies are faltering,” the Journal notes. “In no small part, the world's largest auto maker's difficulties stem from the fact that its challengers can start fresh, unencumbered by old plants and old obligations that limit innovation and add hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle.”

You can start with labor costs. Non-union Toyota pays competitive wages of $15-20 per hour, which is grow to $21-25 per hour over a few years. But with benefits, one industry researcher estimates Toyota’s total labor costs to be about $35/hour, versus $81/hour for GM, including its legacy retirement and healthcare costs. That means that if Toyota did no better than match GM’s Arlington levels of productivity, it would still have a $1000 per car cost advantage in labor alone.

But it will exceed GM’s level of productivity. GM’s 3000 workers in Arlington operate in a decades old plant that is landlocked by development, making many potential cost-saving changes to flow and efficiency impossible. For example, as the WSJ reports, “GM's body shop is housed in a separate building, which was built in 2000 to introduce new technology. The bodies are transported on an elaborate, enclosed conveyor to the final assembly area, where they are painted and stored before being bolted onto frames. GM managers say they would use a more modern layout that would help boost the plant's productivity even more, but GM can't afford to shut down operations and completely rebuild the plant.”

Toyota, meanwhile, is deploying all of its latest manufacturing thinking and technology to reach new levels of efficiency.

The story says that, “smaller, lighter machinery with a simpler design that takes up less space than previous generations of equipment, an effort Toyota calls "simple and slim." Smaller machines mean Toyota can spend less on the building that houses them, while simpler design means those machines are cheaper to install, easier to maintain, much less likely to break down and simpler to fix if they do. The plant covers about 2.2 million square feet, including some metal-stamping operations, which are not done in Arlington. Still, the Toyota plant is roughly a third smaller than the 3.75 million-square-foot GM plant.”

Conventional technology would have increased the footprint by 30-40%.

Gone from the new Toyota plant also are the traditional shelves holding parts for assembly tasks. “Instead, the parts for each vehicle are delivered in a small container inside each car, freeing workers from having to pick out the right parts from the shelves,” the WSJ reports. “The missing shelves coupled with the smaller machines turn what would ordinarily be a dark and noisy place into one that is airy and well lighted.”

Toyota has also arranged to have nearly two dozen key suppliers close by two the San Antonio factory, reducing the cost of transportation, inventory carrying and factory space. A combination of history, long-term supply agreements, and union contracts give GM much less flexibility, meaning higher cost parts that come from all over the country.

To top if off, Toyota was able to gain tax and training incentives in selecting San Antonio for the new plant, giving it a further cost advantages over GM.

With lots of room around the plant, Toyota will have many future options for adding capacity of changing material flows. The GM Arlington plant does not.

As one industry pundit noted, both literally and figuratively, “"GM has to stay within the box. Toyota was able to think outside the box."

You should really confine your cut and paste activities to the DC forum. There's no sense in showing everybody out here that you're a terrible spin artist.

That article you cut and pasted does a fine job of illustrating how much BETTER the Toyota Production System is than any other system of manufacturing. I know because I worked for a fenestration company that used it.

However, it says nothing about Toyota's legacy worker base. A base that exists in Japan but which you tried to tell us doesn't exist.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 08:58 AM
I just noticed my bold tags only highlight one sentence of the two sentences I was responding to.

That would explain a lot.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 09:00 AM
That being said, you'll notice that Toyota's production efficiency is not due just to the fact that they're new. Understanding how they handle supply-chain management has alot to do with understanding how well they are run.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 09:11 AM
That being said, you'll notice that Toyota's production efficiency is not due just to the fact that they're new. Understanding how they handle supply-chain management has alot to do with understanding how well they are run.
:hmmm:

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 09:18 AM
:hmmm:

You attributed it to new facilities and lack of legacy worker base.

:hmmm: indeed.

bkkcoh
06-27-2006, 09:18 AM
Having seen a similar system from both sides, I struggle with blaming both sides equally. When the union says "jump", management usually has precious little leeway in their decision.

Fear of shutting them down due to an extended strike does a lot to force the management. Which is worse..

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 09:21 AM
Fear of shutting them down dueto an extended strike does a lot to force the management. Which is worse..

Yep. The union comes to the table in an already favorable bargaining position. Just look at the NFL.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 09:22 AM
This is one of those moments where I have to laugh beause the planet has so many experts on anything (or in some cases, on everything). We even have Toyota accountants on staff here. ROFL

hawkchief
06-27-2006, 09:23 AM
Wow! The Japanese have really come up with some amazing ideas -- smaller, more dependable machines, putting the parts in a container in the cars rather than using shelves etc. No wonder they kick our asses, if ideas that simple can't be implemented by US manufactures. Let's go US, we are pathetic at making cars. It's not like you are trying to find a cure for cancer, or launching a space mission. You're putting together a bunch of parts - learn how to do it cost-effeciently and with quality, and hurry the f**k up about it for chrissakes so we can keep some jobs around here!!!!

KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2006, 09:46 AM
My POS 93 Saturn has 295k miles on it with the original engine/transmission and is still going strong. I guess i should run out and buy a toyota because a bunch of dipshits on a BB tell me it cant cut the mustard, hmmmmmmmmmmm.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 09:52 AM
My POS 93 Saturn has 295k miles on it with the original engine/transmission and is still going strong. I guess i should run out and buy a toyota because a bunch of dipshits on a BB tell me it cant cut the mustard, hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Umm, you might want to check out where and how Saturn's are manufactured, lest you be one of the "dipshits on a BB".

hawkchief
06-27-2006, 09:53 AM
My POS 93 Saturn has 295k miles on it with the original engine/transmission and is still going strong. I guess i should run out and buy a toyota because a bunch of dipshits on a BB tell me it cant cut the mustard, hmmmmmmmmmmm.

You should have boought a lottery ticket back in '93, instead of your Saturn. You could have be driving a Mercedes for the past 13 years!

jAZ
06-27-2006, 10:00 AM
You attributed it to new facilities and lack of legacy worker base.

:hmmm: indeed.
I've attibuted it to many things... you've just pulled out the parts you wanted to see and seem to have ignored the rest. This is not a simple problem in the least.
They fail to see a need to offer smaller, fuel efficient and cost effectively designed and built cars and stick to their fat hog, poorly engineered, poorly designed vehicles produced in antiquated facilities designed by management who could never figure out how to be a leader in efficency.

They have since the Japanese made a move in the US market, always been a technicalogical follower in ... operational design.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 10:19 AM
I've attibuted it to many things... you've just pulled out the parts you wanted to see and seem to have ignored the rest. This is not a simple problem in the least.

I've seen the TPS at work in facilities that were built in the 1930's. That argument doesn't fly either. Of course, they're not a union shop.

Management simply doesn't have the tools to make it efficient. The union places too many restrictions on what workers can and can't do.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 10:22 AM
Management simply doesn't have the tools to make it efficient. The union places too many restrictions on what workers can and can't do.
And management agreed to those concessions because at the time they calculated that it made business sense.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 10:56 AM
And management agreed to those concessions because at the time they calculated that it made business sense.

Perhaps management agreed to those concessions because they had to in order to remain in business. :hmmm:

jAZ
06-27-2006, 11:07 AM
Perhaps management agreed to those concessions because they had to in order to remain in business. :hmmm:
Yes, and as I said, business is a fully voluntary activitiy that no investor engages in unless they see economic benefit from doing so.

bkkcoh
06-27-2006, 11:10 AM
My POS 93 Saturn has 295k miles on it with the original engine/transmission and is still going strong. I guess i should run out and buy a toyota because a bunch of dipshits on a BB tell me it cant cut the mustard, hmmmmmmmmmmm.


It is amazing that GM wanted to NOT have Saturn associated with them. I think that was because of they wanted Saturn to develop its own reputation and besides, it was doing business so much different than the other manufacturing plants were.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 11:14 AM
Yes, and as I said, business is a fully voluntary activitiy that no investor engages in unless they see economic benefit from doing so.

ROFL

Was the union in existence when they engaged in doing business?

Try again.

KCTitus
06-27-2006, 11:18 AM
Yes, and as I said, business is a fully voluntary activitiy that no investor engages in unless they see economic benefit from doing so.

WTF? Businesses arent in business to make profits...how dare you say as much? They're in business to provide jobs and health care. Sheesh!

King_Chief_Fan
06-27-2006, 11:41 AM
Sure seems like the proper time to start an anti - union campaign

You have to love those organizations that draw funds from their members and do nothing but put companies at a competitive disadavange causing members to lose decent paying jobs.

And before any of you start on me, I was a union member and president of a local quite a number of years ago. Believe me, it was how much can I get and how little can I do to get it.

Unions have out lived their usefulness of years ago. Unions should be forming strong business relationships for the good of the company and its employees. I am waiting to see a donkey fly by.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 11:44 AM
ROFL

Was the union in existence when they engaged in doing business?

Try again.
So? As I said, a business is voluntary. GM could have chosen to exit the industry at any time, including at the time that unions began to form.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 11:49 AM
Unions have out lived their usefulness of years ago. Unions should be forming strong business relationships for the good of the company and its employees. I am waiting to see a donkey fly by.
I agree with almost everything you have to say here.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 11:51 AM
So? As I said, a business is voluntary. GM could have chosen to exit the industry at any time, including at the time that unions began to form.

That's so friggin dumb it's laughable.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 11:52 AM
Sure seems like the proper time to start an anti - union campaign

You have to love those organizations that draw funds from their members and do nothing but put companies at a competitive disadavange causing members to lose decent paying jobs.

And before any of you start on me, I was a union member and president of a local quite a number of years ago. Believe me, it was how much can I get and how little can I do to get it.

Unions have out lived their usefulness of years ago. Unions should be forming strong business relationships for the good of the company and its employees. I am waiting to see a donkey fly by.

I don't think you have to worry about anyone here "starting on you". I don't think I've seen a pro-union post here in quite a while...

Cochise
06-27-2006, 11:53 AM
That's so friggin dumb it's laughable.

What? You don't think the board could just vote for GM to close its doors and the shareholders would have just said "Oh, ok." and thrown their shares in the trash?

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:00 PM
What? You don't think the board could just vote for GM to close its doors and the shareholders would have just said "Oh, ok." and thrown their shares in the trash?

I'm sure the SEC and FTC would have been just fine with that, too.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-27-2006, 12:01 PM
Umm, you might want to check out where and how Saturn's are manufactured, lest you be one of the "dipshits on a BB".

Oh I see they are owned by someone other than the EVIL american empire eh? Keep drinking the kool aid dippy.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:03 PM
That's so friggin dumb it's laughable.
Actually, it's not rocket science... that's for sure.

It's business economics 101.

Fixed costs over contribution margin is the break point below which a business exits a marketplace.

Unions impact upon labor and benefit costs drive contribution margin. Factory and other capital assets drive fixed costs.

As long as contribution margin is covering fixed costs, a business should operate.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:04 PM
What? You don't think the board could just vote for GM to close its doors and the shareholders would have just said "Oh, ok." and thrown their shares in the trash?
Yep, below the break even point, even shareholders agree that exit is the best option. GM has yet to reach the break even point, even with all of the labor costs we've discussed.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:06 PM
Fixed costs over contribution margin is the break point below which a business exits a marketplace.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/3/4/f349efbd5006f6d1f5953212fb0057d0.png

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:09 PM
I'm sure the SEC and FTC would have been just fine with that, too.
If they are operating below the break even point, even the SEC, FTC and every Business Economist and corporate CEO would agree with the choice.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:11 PM
Oh I see they are owned by someone other than the EVIL american empire eh? Keep drinking the kool aid dippy.

ROFL

I see you've pulled up a seat next to jAZ on the stupid train.

Saturn's are manufactured in NEW facilities using entirely DIFFERENT PROCESSES than what is used to make older GM brands like Chevy and Oldsmobile.

You said your GM car has 295k miles on it, I told you why. Nothing more simple than that, dippy.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 12:12 PM
If they are operating below the break even point, even the SEC, FTC and every Business Economist and corporate CEO would agree with the choice.

ROFL Sometimes I think you're so far away from the real world you'd need a passport to travel there.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:12 PM
If they are operating below the break even point, even the SEC, FTC and every Business Economist and corporate CEO would agree with the choice.

Two words:

"defense contractor"

Now go back to your econ books and look that up.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:16 PM
Two words:

"defense contractor"

Now go back to your econ books and look that up.
Who GM? You'll need to distill your rocket science down for me on this one.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:18 PM
Who GM? You'll need to distill your rocket science down for me on this one.

You need to read up on the history of the UAW, GM, and the role of federal and state government in their relationship.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:21 PM
You need to read up on the history of the UAW, GM, and the role of federal and state government in their relationship.
Thanks, now let's get back to your defense contractor comment. I'm trying not to assume anything here, but since you seem to be dodging any specific statements I might have to assume the obvious.

But one last chance. What are you saying about GM & Defense Contractors.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:26 PM
Thanks, now let's get back to your defense contractor comment. I'm trying not to assume anything here, but since you seem to be dodging any specific statements I might have to assume the obvious.

But one last chance. What are you saying about GM & Defense Contractors.

GM was a critical member of the military industrial complex, so critical that the UAW even put a moratorium on strikes during World War II.

Certain types of industry are not allowed to simply shut their doors and stop doing business. Today's airlines are a good example, they're a critical piece of the nation's infrastructure. Another good example is Enron vs. WorldCom. There's a reason Enron is gone and WorldCom is not. WorldCom provides about $2B worth of telecom service to the federal government.

Rausch
06-27-2006, 12:29 PM
There's no way in hell teh gubment allows GM to close.

These plants are necessary for war mobilization. Should another WW break out (we've had two in the last centry and limitless smaller conflicts) we need that manufacturing muscle.

In a time of war this nation can not depend on outside sources for production and resources.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:31 PM
GM was a critical member of the military industrial complex, so critical that the UAW even put a moratorium on strikes during World War II.

Certain types of industry are not allowed to simply shut their doors and stop doing business. Today's airlines are a good example, they're a critical piece of the nation's infrastructure. Another good example is Enron vs. WorldCom. There's a reason Enron is gone and WorldCom is not. WorldCom provides about $2B worth of telecom service to the federal government.
There are ways for the government to prop up a needed business. That doesn't change anything, sorry. If GM has a massive customer in the federal gov't during a time of war, that's the time they are FURTHEST from that break even point. Modern day GM has little if anything to do with defense contracting since they sold off their ownership in a joint venture with General Dynamics.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:35 PM
There are ways for the government to prop up a needed business. That doesn't change anything, sorry. If GM has a massive customer in the federal gov't during a time of war, that's the time they are FURTHEST from that break even point. Modern day GM has little if anything to do with defense contracting since they sold off their ownership in a joint venture with General Dynamics.

Are you purposefully dense, or just dumb?

You said that GM could have just decided not to do business.

I said they didn't know about unions at the time they engaged in their business.

You said they could have just decided to stop doing business at the time the union formed.

The union formed in 1936. GM tried to back away from the table and wasn't allowed.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 12:39 PM
The gub'ment would definitely just let a major automaker fold!

Sincerely,
Chrysler

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:40 PM
Are you purposefully dense, or just dumb?

You said that GM could have just decided not to do business.

I said they didn't know about unions at the time they engaged in their business.

You said they could have just decided to stop doing business at the time the union formed.

The union formed in 1936. GM tried to back away from the table and wasn't allowed.
I'm saying that anything that the gov't would do to "force" GM to stay in business would push the contribution margin above the break even point. They would choose to stay in business.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. They did/would CHOOSE to stay in buiness because the makes it make economic sense.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:45 PM
I'm saying that anything that the gov't would do to "force" GM to stay in business would push the contribution margin above the break even point. They would choose to stay in business.

Like I said, it's not rocket science. They did/would CHOOSE to stay in buiness because the makes it make economic sense.

Anything? Did you say ANYTHING?

Yep, that proves it for me.

I'm done with this conversation. Some people are beyond help.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 12:49 PM
Anything? Did you say ANYTHING?

Yep, that proves it for me.

I'm done with this conversation. Some people are beyond help.
Good time to get out.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 12:51 PM
Good time to get out.

Yep.

I'd prefer to have conversations with someone who's interested in something other than trying to be as big of an ass as possible.

HemiEd
06-27-2006, 12:54 PM
ROFL Sometimes I think you're so far away from the real world you'd need a passport to travel there.

I am starting to understand this, wow.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 01:02 PM
Yep.

I'd prefer to have conversations with someone who's interested in something other than trying to be as big of an ass as possible.
Maybe you really don't grasp this... I'll give you credit and assume you are missing the point and not just picking the point of no return as a good time to get out of conversation.

If GM were considered a massive national defense asset, it would want it to stay in operation in case of a time of war. If GM is operating below this breakeven point, they are beyond hemoraging cash. They can't even pay their fixed costs. They are burning through their cash assets with their operating costs. The ONLY way ANYONE can "force" continued operations is to infuse money.

That means that ANYTHING the government would do to "force" continued operations need to push that operating margin above the break even point. Above that GM continues operations because it makes sense. Below that the Gov MUST do something to push it above that point.

But go ahead and pretend that you know what you are talking about... and that I'm the one that's clueless.

KCTitus
06-27-2006, 01:05 PM
But go ahead and pretend that you know what you are talking about... and that I'm the one that's clueless.

I nominate this post for Most Ironic of 2006

Donger
06-27-2006, 01:07 PM
Perhaps it's just me, but I'd be willing to wager that jAZ masturbates while re-reading his posts.

Such fantastic arrogance.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 01:08 PM
Maybe you really don't grasp this... I'll give you credit and assume you are missing the point and not just picking the point of no return as a good time to get out of conversation.

If GM were considered a massive national defense asset, it would want it to stay in operation in case of a time of war. If GM is operating below this breakeven point, they are beyond hemoraging cash. They can't even pay their fixed costs. They are burning through their cash assets with their operating costs. The ONLY way ANYONE can "force" continued operations is to infuse money.

That means that ANYTHING the government would do to "force" continued operations need to push that operating margin above the break even point. Above that GM continues operations because it makes sense. Below that the Gov MUST do something to push it above that point.

But go ahead and pretend that you know what you are talking about... and that I'm the one that's clueless.

Wow. I don't even know where to start.

You said that GM could have decided NOT TO GO INTO BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I said that GM went into business PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF INDUSTRIAL LABOR UNIONS.

You said that GM could have shut their doors AT THAT TIME.

That was 1936.

GM wasn't allowed to do that IN 1936. At that point, GM wasn't losing money at all. The government infused nothing into the business. They just made GM sit down at the table with the union and hammer out a deal. Walking away wasn't an option.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 01:16 PM
Wow. I don't even know where to start.

You said that GM could have decided NOT TO GO INTO BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I said that GM went into business PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF INDUSTRIAL LABOR UNIONS.

You said that GM could have shut their doors AT THAT TIME.

That was 1936.

GM wasn't allowed to do that IN 1936. At that point, GM wasn't losing money at all. The government infused nothing into the business. They just made GM sit down at the table with the union and hammer out a deal. Walking away wasn't an option.
You are completely ignoring the entire point (of this side discussion).

At each point along the way, GM could choose to exit the industry. But as long as it makes economic sense to stay in... they won't (exit). In 1936 (or at any point), it made economic sense for GM to stay in operation. Whether that's by government intervention through defense spending, tax subsidies, or whatever. The way a business stays in operation is to stay above that break even.

Even if the Gov't WANTED a company to continue operations below it. If they don't infuse capital (cash), it won't happen no matter what the government wants.

Hell, the government itself operates this same way. If they spend more money than they take in (by taxes or loans, etc), they cease operations. So even if (as people here seem to assume) the goverment were to literally completely take over operations of GM, the same economic principles apply... only the government can "force" customers (the citizens) to "buy" the products at whatever price is needed in excess of this breakeven.

I thought this was not rocket science, but maybe it is closer than I thought.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 01:18 PM
They just made GM sit down at the table with the union and hammer out a deal. Walking away wasn't an option.
It wasn't a deal that put them below the breakeven line, so GM was seated at the table by way of shareholder pressure. The government just put pressure on them (similar to setting a deadline).

jspchief
06-27-2006, 01:26 PM
GM could have walked away at any time and not agreed to a union deal. But they didn't because they wanted to make more money.

Of course, the union could have chosen to not strangle their golden goose employer, but they didn't because they wanted more money.

Both entities made their decisions based on greed. 30k people are now jobless because of it.

The corporation always wins in the end. The union can strong-arm companies until the breaking point, when it finally does break, the employees they claim to be representing lose.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 01:29 PM
Such fantastic arrogance.
Yeah, cause I'm the only one expressing "fantastic" arrogance on this thread.

ROFL

jAZ
06-27-2006, 01:29 PM
GM could have walked away at any time and not agreed to a union deal. But they didn't because they wanted to make more money.

Of course, the union could have chosen to not strangle their golden goose employer, but they didn't because they wanted more money.

Both entities made their decisions based on greed. 30k people are now jobless because of it.

The corporation always wins in the end. The union can strong-arm companies until the breaking point, when it finally does break, the employees they claim to be representing lose.
100% true.

Donger
06-27-2006, 01:34 PM
Yeah, cause I'm the only one expressing "fantastic" arrogance on this thread.

ROFL

Yes, you would see it that way.

Thanks for the graphic example.

Cochise
06-27-2006, 01:36 PM
Perhaps it's just me, but I'd be willing to wager that jAZ masturbates while re-reading his posts.

Such fantastic arrogance.

Empires have been ruled with much less haught, that is for sure.

Calcountry
06-27-2006, 01:37 PM
Gee, I wonder what that fat clown Michael Moore will have to say about this? Maybe he doesn'e care about Flint Michigan anymore. He has moved onto bigger fish, like the President of the U.S instead of the President of G.M.

Miles
06-27-2006, 02:11 PM
ROFL Sometimes I think you're so far away from the real world you'd need a passport to travel there.

That pretty much sums it up.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 03:02 PM
At each point along the way, GM could choose to exit the industry. But as long as it makes economic sense to stay in... they won't (exit). In 1936 (or at any point), it made economic sense for GM to stay in operation. Whether that's by government intervention through defense spending, tax subsidies, or whatever. The way a business stays in operation is to stay above that break even.

Like I said, read up on the history.

GM did not have a choice in 1936. The governor of Michigan, with the backing of the feds, told GM "come to the table or else." At the time, it made economic sense because the union wasn't yet established, how were they suppose to know that it would cause them to go broke in SEVENTY FIVE YEARS?

It's as if you think these things all happen in little silos. Like you make no effort to understand cause (1936) and effect (2006).

Calcountry
06-27-2006, 05:48 PM
Sorry, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. There is only so much Mr. Goodscrewing that a guy can take in the name of "Buy American".

HemiEd
06-27-2006, 05:59 PM
So does anyone but me sense a responsibility to support the very spine of our economic system.


Bottom Line, I see a severe recession possibly a depression if GM were to fold.

redbrian
06-27-2006, 06:19 PM
This is a good move, puts them on a more level playing field with the foreign competitors.

Should have been done years ago, they have been under the strain of a bulging (union controlled) work force for to many years.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2006, 07:35 PM
So does anyone but me sense a responsibility to support the very spine of our economic system.


Bottom Line, I see a severe recession possibly a depression if GM were to fold.

Manufacturing hasn't been the "spine" of our economic system for a while. Haven't you heard, it's a "service" economy now. ;)

That said, I've never had a problem with spending a little more to support locally owned stores and buying American when possible, :shrug:

Calcountry
06-27-2006, 09:14 PM
So does anyone but me sense a responsibility to support the very spine of our economic system.


Bottom Line, I see a severe recession possibly a depression if GM were to fold.Puhlease. :rolleyes: I see the good workers, the ones that are worth a chit, transferring over to Toyota or Honda plants, as they pick up the excess capacity.

jAZ
06-27-2006, 11:26 PM
Like I said, read up on the history.

GM did not have a choice in 1936. The governor of Michigan, with the backing of the feds, told GM "come to the table or else." At the time, it made economic sense because the union wasn't yet established, how were they suppose to know that it would cause them to go broke in SEVENTY FIVE YEARS?

It's as if you think these things all happen in little silos. Like you make no effort to understand cause (1936) and effect (2006).
Actually, you seem to be the one taking a "silo" approach. I said, they could have chosen to opt out at any point at which it made economic sense to do so. You seem to have zeroed in on 1936 as the only meaningful time they could opt out... conveniently it was one of the least economiclly likely times that GM would consider exiting.

I will repeat that GM had the ability to exit (even in 1936), but it didn't make sense to do so. It made more sense to make concessions to union labor and continue to operate their business at a massive profit than to exit. Effectively that situation continued until the mid 70s when foreign automakers entered the market and broke up the near monopoly conditions of the auto industry.

GM made business decisions (including union concessions, product selections, factory investments, etc) as if it's monopoly power would continue inperpetuity. That's stupid, stupid, stupid on their part. Oh and arrogant too.

GM had many chances to reposition itself to compete in quality, efficiency, product selection, etc. They chose not to make the massive long-term investments that Toyota did. Don't forget that Toyota and Honda decided to move their mfg operations from Japan to the US. They spent billions and billions of dollars on a revolutionary change to their business model and it's paid off hugely for them. Unlike Toyota, GM chose not to make similar business model modifications and long term operational investments. Again, management failure.

StcChief
06-28-2006, 05:45 AM
So how long until GM or some of it's divisions are bought by Toyota/Honda/Nissan etc.

MahiMike
06-28-2006, 06:59 AM
If I had the opportunity to take the buy out I'd do it in a heartbeat and get a LUMP SUM payment. Who knows if they'll have the $$$ in a few years...

Jim Morrison has a song about this - "This is the end, the end my friend..."

redbrian
06-28-2006, 07:06 AM
So how long until GM or some of it's divisions are bought by Toyota/Honda/Nissan etc.

Ford already owns a large share of Nissan so I doubt they will be buying any part of GM.

KCTitus
06-28-2006, 07:06 AM
Actually, you seem to be the one taking a "silo" approach. I said, they could have chosen to opt out at any point at which it made economic sense to do so. You seem to have zeroed in on 1936 as the only meaningful time they could opt out... conveniently it was one of the least economiclly likely times that GM would consider exiting.

I will repeat that GM had the ability to exit (even in 1936), but it didn't make sense to do so. It made more sense to make concessions to union labor and continue to operate their business at a massive profit than to exit. Effectively that situation continued until the mid 70s when foreign automakers entered the market and broke up the near monopoly conditions of the auto industry.

GM made business decisions (including union concessions, product selections, factory investments, etc) as if it's monopoly power would continue inperpetuity. That's stupid, stupid, stupid on their part. Oh and arrogant too.

GM had many chances to reposition itself to compete in quality, efficiency, product selection, etc. They chose not to make the massive long-term investments that Toyota did. Don't forget that Toyota and Honda decided to move their mfg operations from Japan to the US. They spent billions and billions of dollars on a revolutionary change to their business model and it's paid off hugely for them. Unlike Toyota, GM chose not to make similar business model modifications and long term operational investments. Again, management failure.

LOL...Parker, you dont really think you're going to get Jaz to admit any failure in a socialist construct are you? Pissin in the wind, my friend.

tiptap
06-28-2006, 07:24 AM
My take on this is that there is an excess production capacity throughout the world in auto manufactoring. There has to be a cut. In an economy based upon oil and rising cost of oil, the auto crazed lifestyle of the 2nd half of the 20th century will is fizzling out and US society will be forced to get by on less driving and oil use (and less cars). The choices will reflect that. The reduced capacity in production fell upon GM and Ford. That was a result of not anticipating that the crunch would mean quality and gas mileage would be the deciding factors. So now the process has begun and GM and Ford will down size and hopefully work hard to be ready when the switch to Hydrogen economy takes place in 25 to 30 years. But that will mean in the intervening years the US needs engineers and scientists, not accountants and lawyers, to invent the infrastructure.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 08:03 AM
LOL...Parker, you dont really think you're going to get Jaz to admit any failure in a socialist construct are you? Pissin in the wind, my friend.

I know, that's why I exited the conversation when I did.

Talking about stuff like this with him is like talking to a brick - only the brick is more open-minded.

recxjake
07-01-2006, 10:09 PM
Bill Vlasic / The Detroit News

Renault-Nissan, the Franco-Japanese auto giant, is interested in buying a 20 percent stake in General Motors Corp. for more than $3 billion and establishing a massive global alliance with the ailing No. 1 U.S. automaker that would shake up the auto industry.

The audacious plan was conceived in secret talks between billionaire GM shareholder Kirk Kerkorian and Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of Renault SA and Nissan Motor Co., according to people familiar with the situation.

Kerkorian, who owns a 9.9 percent stake in GM through his investment company, Tracinda Corp., went public Friday with a letter to GM Chairman Rick Wagoner that urged the GM board to immediately consider selling a "significant minority interest" to Renault-Nissan.

The prospect of a blockbuster three-way alliance sent GM's stock soaring. GM shares closed at $29.79, up $2.35, in trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

But there is no indication that GM, which is in the midst of an exhaustive restructuring of its North American operations, has any interest in a link-up with Renault-Nissan.

After an emergency meeting Friday, GM said the board would take Tracinda's proposal "under advisement," but gave no timetable for its deliberations.

Renault-Nissan, for its part, said it was open to expanding its alliance "under the right circumstances and with the appropriate partners," but pointedly added that GM's cooperation was essential to pursuing any deal.

"At this point, it is necessary that (the) GM Board and top management fully support this project in order to start the study of this opportunity after agreement of (the) Renault and Nissan boards," Renault-Nissan said in a statement.

GM undergoing changes

An alliance between GM, the world's largest automaker, and Renault-Nissan, the fourth largest, would be the most important automotive deal since German automaker Daimler-Benz AG bought Chrysler Corp. in 1998.

But while both Daimler and Chrysler were healthy and profitable at the time, GM is undergoing wrenching changes in its effort to rebound from a $10.6 billion loss last year.

GM is in the midst of shedding 35,000 U.S. hourly workers through buyouts and early retirements, as well as selling off its prized financial-services unit and helping reorganize bankrupt Delphi Corp., its biggest supplier.

However, the pace of change is apparently too slow for Kerkorian, the 89-year-old casino mogul who began building his nearly 10 percent stake in GM a year ago and has lost more than $1 billion on his investment.

Kerkorian first made contact with Ghosn in May through Jerry York, a senior Kerkorian adviser who was elected in January to a seat on GM's board of directors.

York, who has often cited the Nissan turnaround as a model for GM to follow, met in London with Ghosn, according to people familiar with the situation. An agreement was made that Ghosn would meet with Kerkorian at a later date in the United States.

HemiEd
07-02-2006, 06:32 AM
Manufacturing hasn't been the "spine" of our economic system for a while. Haven't you heard, it's a "service" economy now. ;)

That said, I've never had a problem with spending a little more to support locally owned stores and buying American when possible, :shrug:

There are at least 5 support jobs for every factory job. These are the vendors that sell the parts to the car Manufacturers, and Delphi is only a part of that.


Puhlease. :rolleyes: I see the good workers, the ones that are worth a chit, transferring over to Toyota or Honda plants, as they pick up the excess capacity.

ROFL The Honda and Toyota execs do not want GM going down because they know what it will do to this economy.

morphius
07-02-2006, 08:09 AM
Wow, a US/French/Japanese company. It would be funny when cracking on some of the "buy American" folks who still try to buy the GM Le Silverado, haha.

Not that I have an issue with the "buy American" folks, I just think that "buy American" should mean the same as buying a reasonably priced great car and not some low styled wannabe. Not that it holds for all American cars, but a good chunk of them do fit.