That may be and the leadership of today is paying for the leadership errors made 30-50 years ago. You have obviously never been on the inside of a strong Union or you would understand the problems facing the current management at GM. Don't get me wrong I am thankful for my Union affiliation. I don't think the UAW management is doing what is right for the employees or the companies. They are killing the goose that laid golden eggs for them, all these many decades.
I'm not particularly impressed by UAW's leadership, either. But it's a last gasp for power -- UAW membership is now below 600,000, and the health care packages approved for GM and Ford, and underway for Daimler, will help drive the nails in the coffin.
But all those healthcare cuts still won't save GM. The product needed to do the job isn't in the pipeline, these deals will simply slow down its death unless something substantive is done to make GM a retail player, rather than a supreme discounter.
Who would have thought that a Toyota dealership was the equivalent of a Klan meeting hall?
You may be right. HonToy owners seem a bit cult like in their zealotry. Kind of reminds me of Amway people. We are talking about cars not an icon you set in the driveway and worship.
ALL automakers are trying to get as much out of your pocket, with the least amount spent doing it. Some are better than others, Toyota comes to mind. Give a little take a lot, wasn't that the Toyota motto?
The product needed to do the job isn't in the pipeline,
As long as they build decent trucks they are for me, and at least a million other Americans every year. Did they sell as many CamCords last year as GM sold full sized PU trucks?
"Hoping a for the collapse of major American manufacturer that employs tens of thousands with hundreds of thousands of others depending on it is self-hating, self-destructive, and suicidal."
Yes. That WOULD be true.......if folks in here were actively rooting for a GM collapse. Most of the critics simply want GM to build BETTER cars so that they CAN COMPETE in todays Global Market. The major disagreement IS NOT about whether or not GM builds mediocre cars and is in major financial trouble. That is a given. The disagreement comes from placing the blame.
Let's turn your accusation around however.
One could say that blind devotion to a marque in the name of Patriotism despite years (decades?) of mediocrity simply enables that marque to limp along with slowly eroding market share and warmed over offerings while all the major players involved spend half their time covering their rears and the other half pointing their finger at the OTHER guy as the one responsible for all the problems.
I can't speak for socalawd or brightness, but I'll spell out my take on this: I know GM can do better. I know GM must do better to compete globally. They can't survive just doing business in the U.S. and relying on inertia and patriotism to last another 5-10-20 years. That ain't gonna cut it. So either they improve, or they die. Whether or not there are folks sitting around rooting for this to happen is immaterial.
Now - as far as the topic goes, I think of the current relationship between the UAW and GM as a marriage gone bad. And it went bad a long time ago. Both sides (management AND union) share the blame. The problem is that a divorce in this case would probably result in the death of the UAW.
"As long as they build decent trucks they are for me, and at least a million other Americans every year."
They used to build decent sedans as well. But what happened? The imports improved their offerings at a faster pace.
Now look at Toyota and full size trucks. Now look at their initial T100 (nope, not gonna cut it), then their Tundra (hmmm, that's not too bad), and now their next generation Tundra due this fall. Again, they are improving their offering at a fast pace.
Where will Toyota be 10 years from now with their full size trucks and SUV's?
Companies are valued by future earnings, not faded glories
I would not call the new Tahoe sales faded glory. The Silverado/Sierra in their 7th year are still selling better than the two top selling cars combined. That with gas at 3 bucks a gallon. I have never thought about buying a new GM car so your argument does not apply to me. The only car I have bought for myself in the last 25 years was to see if I liked the VW diesel Passat. GM or Ford or HonToy were not on the radar screen. About half the population are not interested in cars period. They like PU trucks and large SUVs. I am one of them. My GMC was built by proud UAW members in Indiana. I wish them the best. I think their time is running out.
I don't think you can include Honda as long as they refuse to build real trucks. Trucks on car chassis are NOT PU trucks. Nissan will probably pass them by very soon.
He singled out New York-based financial analysts for creating and fueling the "fiction" that GM is bankruptcy bound.
Lutz should be sent packing on the driver's seat of a horse carrige buggy ASAP. Hard to say who is overpaid: the guy who makes 75k driving a forklift in GM's assembly plant or Lutz who pocket all those million and refuses to take his foot out of his mouth.
I would not call the new Tahoe sales faded glory. The Silverado/Sierra in their 7th year are still selling better than the two top selling cars combined.
Deja vous all over again. I will bet you that this is essentially the type of "analysis" that GM execs were making during the 1970's and '80's about what was happening in the passenger car market.
I believe that a reality check is in order here: GM has only maintained dominance in the truck market for the same reasons that it once had dominance in the car market -- because it hasn't had much competition. The US automakers erected trade barriers that effectively eliminated competition for a very long time, so the Big 3 have really remained the Big 3 in respect to selling full-size trucks.
The problem is that the truck market is now being opened to foreign rivals, who are figuring out the game. And precisely as has already occurred in the car market, these rivals are more nimble, more hungry and better positioned to eat away at Big 3 market share.
If you think that the Big 3 have been dominant in the truck market because their products have been fantastic, think again. The products really aren't that great -- the best thing about them is that consumers in the full-size market simply haven't had a lot of choices from other manufacturers, very much like the situation that once existed with cars.
GMNA is simply not good at competition. It enjoyed so many decades in which competition was extremely light that it couldn't help but win. Now that it has to compete on its own merits in respect to passenger cars, it falls down on its face.
You can expect the same thing to happen with them with trucks. Even if fuel prices trend downward, it is a matter of time before they lose out in the truck segment as well. In twenty years' time, I have little doubt that Toyota will be either dominating the truck segment, or else grabbing up huge chunks of market share from Ford and GM. Toyota will learn from its mistakes and improve; you can bet that under the current management philosophy, GM certainly won't.
GMNA is simply not good at competition. It enjoyed so many decades in which competition was extremely light that it couldn't help but win.
Your statement reminded me of a time when the Federal government filed an anti-trust suit and stopped GM from competing in races. I believe the jist was they had so much money no other car company could compete. GM dropped out of racing for a long time and car sales suffered as a result.
Take a look back 30 years ago, Will Japan, China & OPEC follow in these footsteps?
look at automobiles. In 1921 we had 88 firms in this industry. By 1935 there were 10 left, and you know where we are today: the big 3 make 97% of the cars manufactured in the United States, Even counting imports, they control 83% of the sales.
That doesn't just mean high prices -- it means limited choice. It took the big 3 years to come up with the small cars -- they might never have done so if it hadn't been for increasing competition from abroad.
To a certain extent they also control our future choices, for they control all research into alternative engines, auto safety, and emissions control.
The same big 3 that control the car industry also dominate the production of buses and trains. Last year, GM manufactured more than half our city buses, 90% of the bus engines, and 80% of our rail locomotives.
This kind of control has had disastrous effects on our transportation system. Since a bus or train can carry many more people than a car, GM had every incentive to push car sales and discourage mass transit. Testimony to a Senate committee last year indicated that over the years GM bought and tore up electric railway systems in 56 cities throughout the country -- including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Some riders switched to GM buses -- more bought GM cars.
The fact is that the big 3 shape America's ground transport system. And the system they have produced -- roads clogged with millions of cars and trucks, pouring out pollution and consuming vast amounts of oil, while mass transit remains virtually nonexistent -- that system simply won't do.
The Federal Government may have to reorganize the rail and bus equipment industries, building new plants and selling them to private investors if necessary, to increase capacity and promote competition.
The energy industry poses even bigger problems. A few huge corporations dominate the oil and natural gas businesses from the ground to the refinery, and for gasoline, of course, all the way to the pump. While the industry is not statistically very concentrated, it has hardly behaved in a competitive fashion. The oil majors are tied more subtly together through a complex network of overlapping directorates, joint ventures, and product exchange agreements.
That article kind of sums up what most of the posters have been saying for the last couple months. GM, Delphi & the UAW better find some middle ground and get to making what people want to buy or they will be a footnote in the history books. If the UAW members think they are indispensible, they are dead wrong. They can be replaced in Mexico, China or India in a Heartbeat. They may have to work harder for less money to compete in this global economy.
Actually they have already been replaced by Delphi's having brought in parts from other countries where they have plants. It's just for appearance sake that Delphi is negotiating with them. Delphi is on their way to being Nike and Reebok.
Ohmy I guess I'll have to watch the "sexist" jokes.I would'nt want to make you cry!I just think that you should disconnect your lips from GM managments'collective butt. I do believe you're right about the BMW.It would be the same thing if it was a "from on high the all mighty Honda."
Both managment and the union are to blame. But the virulent hatred for some on this site for unions is getting ridiculous. You can brown nose Ricky the Retard all you want but the fact is he and the rest of managment share more of the blame. Trying to blame the UAW for mediocre designs,overpriced crap that GM sells is ludicrous and just plain stupid. Apparently there are a lot of probably loser middle-managment people around here who can't stop being yes men no matter what the subject. And I'm buying a GMC 2500 next week because I'm a masochist.And for you humorless cretins that last was a joke. :P
I got off of work tonight and tried to skim through all these posts. I see some of us are blaming the UAW for ALL GM's problems. I see some blaming both. I also see a few defending the UAW.
I like I've said in the past, I want what's good for this country. I want both management and hourly to both make a good salary, have good insurance, and have solid retirements. I care alot about my country and it's citizens. I want the United States Of America, and it's citizens to have the best standard of living in the world and a government that has plenty of tax revenue to invest in R&D to save this planet, keep peace, and also help advance technology for mankind. Is there anything wrong with my wishes ?
I personally am worried about the future for my children. I'm worried World War III might be around the corner. We as a nation better get united and make are economy as strong as possible in the up coming years to generate enough tax revenue to invest alot of capital in military R&D to guarantee world peace.
This Iran situation worry's me. I feel by keeping the middle class strong (both management and hourly) we can show the world that the United States is the "Standard of the World" when it comes to treating human beings right. I also feel it's critical that both management and hourly can build not only the best products in this country, but also build a strong united relationship. The UAW and GM-Management, lately have found common ground to help the company have a chance at becoming profitable for the first time in a few years. I know many folks the work for GM (both management and union) and I will speak for them. These folks are genuine, patriotic, americans that love this country and care about it's future. It's not just my family members, but it's my family's co-workers. I would hope that most of you have this same respect torwards your fellow american and wish him/her well. We sometimes in our culture do to much finger pointing, and put the blame on everyone else for our misfortunes. I'm a victim of this to. What I'm getting at is we as a free democracy need to come togeather and advance this country togeather and not on;y make us the strongest most vibrant economy in the world, but also guarantee that we out the ultimate superpower.
I feel we in this society are getting caught up with the small stuff, and making "mountains out of mole hills" and aren't worry about the stuff that really matters to the majority of americans.
I am praying that in my lifetime, we as a nation will fix our faults, and give the future generations the oppertunity to live the american dream, and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.
Actually I have a love/hate relationship with GM. Their products don't have to be second rate,but they are. It's mostly due to the window-licking retards that manage it.They keep making the same mistakes over and over and it doesn't look like anything is going to change. But unlike some on this site I will not bury my head in the sand and put all blame on one side or another and get involved in woulda,coulda,shoulda. :P
I am not thrilled with the looks on the Chevy Silverado either. That is why I switched to GMC. I really liked the looks of the pre 2000 Chevy PU trucks. They are still better looking than any other truck on the market. Some are just grotesque.
PS I thought you were being facetious about buying a GM truck. My mistake. I wanted a Duramax also. I just could not justify the additional cost. My trailer loaded is only about 5500 lbs.
Talk is cheap. Since you consider Wagoner "the retard," what brilliant idea do you have that would have been different? Anything concrete? So far, everything the critics of the management have proffered, what passes for alternative strategy in the brilliant minds of the union apologists, would have made the company in an even bigger hole.
I would fire 50-75 % of the monday-friday paper pushers since they aren't productive, and his/her boss can pick up the slack, instead of playing solitare while he/she should be actually supporting the misson of the company. :surprise:
a long, expensive re-engineering program, hence the "paper pushers" remain important to GM. So does the UAW, eh?
Nothing is gonna change very fast and GM should consider a bankruptcy and re-orgainization deal that eliminates, or severely decreases the money-sucking element of the union that takes the competitiveness rought out of the company. Perhaps they could adopt a Toyota type deal where they pay a decent wage with good benefits but not allow this out-of-control union monopoly that takes valuable resources away from their ability to compete.
Staying the same isn't gonna cut it for GM. Change-change-change.
Happy Easter to you too. What you wrote is quite handy for a political stump speech. There are however some questionable details, some alarming details:
1. What is "a good salary"? A number with a lot of zero's at the end? or the ability to buy a lot of products? Someone has to produce all the products that people with "a good salary" want to buy; government sinecures can not produce such goods. The focus should not be on "salary" but instead on what is being produced or what is available for purchase.
2. What is "good insurance"? Higher probability of getting cure when you are ill? or the secure knowledge that nobody else in your neighborhood can get better medicine than yourself can get, even if it means hardly any effective medicine for anyone, except for a few well-connected government officials? Someone has to provide the actual work of healthcare. The focus should not be on "insurance" or the abstract idea of "healthcare" (both hopital, where you get cure, and hospice, where you wait to die, can be considered "healthcare") but should be on the incentive for pursuit of cures.
3. What is "solid retirement"? Obviously, everyone can not retire all at once . . . who would be doing the work supporting the retired? Obviously, government sinecures that do not produce anything valuable can not support the retired. The focus should be on productive work years to support the currently retired so that you will be supported in turn when you retire.
Put all three together, what it all means is that, if you spend all your working life making things that are no different from what a typical worker can make in India or China, you really should not expect any better salary (in purchasing power), healthcare, or retirement than that same someone in India or China. Any difference could only come from two sources:
(1) You are ripping off fellow Americans who are much more productive than anyone in India or China;
(2) You are ripping off some poor [non-permissible content removed] in India or China.
There is quite a lot of both going on right now; the former throgh tax and redistribution, and the latter through the trade for goods with paper money.
Government sponsored R&D hardly ever works efficiently for the benefit of the populatino at large. Resources always get put forth to advance senior bureacrats' pet projects. That's the case in the US, Japan, India, China and the former USSR. Without market competition, hubris run unchecked.
Market competition is what keeps every participant effeicient at what they do. Paternalistic societies are inherently inefficient, and ultimately they lose wars, marketshare wars as well as territorial wars.
Back at GM and the union, the sides had been chummy with each other for decades in the "golden ages." The result? both monopolistic powers profit handsomely from ripping off consumers and churning out unreliable crap. The US auto industry produced the most reliable cars, planes and tanks in the 1940's because of the vibrant competition that existed in the 1920's and 30's, far more reliable than what German and Japanese automakers under the aegis of their respective governments were churning out in WWII. However, post-WWII, 30 years of anti-competitive practices by the companies and unions reduced the domestic auto industry to shambles compared to what German and Japanese carmakers were able to ship to this country by the 1970's and 80's.
Competition is good. Competition makes people work hard, be more productive, which is the ultimate source of higher living standard for the societal average. Emotionally rousing political speaches are usually followed not by productive work, but usually by broken glasses or by coffee breaks with sweets and short cakes.
I would fire 50-75 % of the monday-friday paper pushers since they aren't productive, and his/her boss can pick up the slack, instead of playing solitare while he/she should be actually supporting the misson of the company.
Where is that 50-75% coming from? Do you have any evidence of massive solitare playing? or is that the same kind of hyperbole as your repeated lambasting of a massive corp of multi-million salary executives when there is none at GM?
Here's the difference. The Union Workers make a product for the company, yielding efficiency. The "Paper Pushers" due to their sheer numbers have cost the company butt loads of money because they are doing jobs that could easily be performed by one person instead of he/she playing solitare hours a day. "Some can blast the union, jobs banks, but if you really stopped and took a good look at management, you would find way worst inefficientcies.
That is certainly not true. Productivity is not the same thing as making the physical product. Product designers at a fully automated robotic shop can be far more productive than a few cavemen with stoneage tools.
The very fact that you and other union supporters blame GM management for bad design shows that you know very well that product design and engineeing have values. Nike and Reebok employees are far more productive today with practically no physical shoemaking in this country than it ever was when entirely operated out of the US. Those US-based designers, shoe engineers and marketing experts are extremely productive. The value they create, far more than anyone can dream of producing while working on a shoe production line in India and China, is what justifies their far higher standard of living in the US than those line workers in India and China.
If that is the logic that you use you have raised an interesting conundrum. A machine can out produce a man by a factor of x. After proper installation and maintenance it (the machine) has a relatively predictable life and can be replaced with a more efficient model. Result ? Less people needed- more production achieved. There is a big difference between making something and creating the methodology and concept for its' (a product) creation. I don't think you have ever grasped that idea.
But on another subject, does anyone know out there what percentage of non-union components go into GM or any of the other foreign vehicles? Additionally what are the operational work and maintenance rule differences between say TOYOTA and GM.
Labor my friend is the greatest variable in production equation once the fixed costs are acknowledged. I think you are using a preprogrammed stereotype that sees physical labor as productive and intellectual efforts as not value added. When you provide a substantially lower cost for the output of both and highly automate it you really take a bite out of operational costs.
Getting to the tirades of SoCala4, management CAN negate the fruits of both segments. The flexibility to react quickly is in the favor of the competitor who changes the rules of production as necessary. As I have said many times before.....atrification can happen just as well as productive change.
Rocky, the days of folks hiding behind computers playing solitaire at GM are long gone. Massive cuts in salaried ranks with the fastest changeover of products in GM's history is causing folks to get very tired of working at GM. Most positions a few years ago would have been two postions. My last position five years before I left was by two different guys. The goof offs are pretty much gone. Sure there are still some as there are in any work force but GM does not have all those paper pushers you talk about. Of course I guess I do not know your definition of paper pusher.
Actually there are no longer any paper pushers since everything is done on the computer. :P
Amen to that! My group at GM went from over 700 salaried approximately 18 years ago to less than 100 today. We handle 10 times the previous annual dollar volume and have leveraged any non essential tasks out MANY years ago. You work 50 to 60 hours a week JUST to remain competitive in your group. And NO you don't get paid for overtime being salaried. I am sorry I don't have any empathy for a UAW neighbor (cutting his lawn last summer and finishing a few beers only to tell me he is "on the clock" at work ). He was complaining he had not broke 125k in SEPTEMBER. ... Poor baby !
Oh wow! You saleried people really must have it rough! Why then do you keep making those same stupid descisions,putting out the same inferior products year after year? I guess you all really do work hard. Now you only have 99 useless positions instead of over 700.It really is that evil UAWs fault!
If I were to answer that in the same light it was proposed I would ask you why do you keep "producing" something you claim is marginal and only complain. Just walk off the job and quit. Show them you have substance of your convictions. (Reply to post 1791)
The answer to the this other question may be rhetorical .When has management (And I was not) been successful in firing a tenured committeeman? Just a question so that you can correct me. Are you willing to actually get rid of that 2% that don't produce anything? We already have years ago.
>If I were to answer that in the same light it was proposed I would ask you why do you keep "producing" something you claim is marginal and only complain. Just walk off the job and quit. Show them you have substance of your convictions.
It is going to take 20+ years for the domestics to recover. You have a company full of workers that are used to being able to strike out in front of the plant and demand anything they wanted and get it. The company had to cut quality to keep the "loyal" workers around. Now there is a bunch or workers being paid way more than the company can afford and still regain quality. So until all the old-timers check out and are replaced with newbies on a new pay scale, the autos will continue to be well below Japanese quality. The unions killed themselves. Layoffs and plants closing are blamed on lack of sales. In reality, the outrageous wages demanded by the unions is the ultimate cause. The union may be good for the lucky few who keep their job, but the people that are shut out are kicking themselves for committing career suicide like a bunch of zombies on the picket line. As for the comments about the non-union workers sitting around playing on the computer all day, I had a union buddy at Boeing who worked every minute of overtime he could including triple time on holidays. He stood out in the union lines with the other idiots demanding "fair" pay. What did he do that he needed better pay? Sat on his computer all day every day playing video games except for less than 20 minutes a day that he spent on the floor doing safety checks. He is still standing on the sidewalk demanding better pay, only now he has a sign that says "will work for food". A product of his own union loyalty.
the autos will continue to be well below Japanese quality.
Fortunately this is no longer true. Most of GM's products are at least average in the industry and many are near the top or at the top of the quality lists. There are some that do need to improve. Most of these are older models such as the minivan, that need to go.
And the union only has a part in this quality. Design and Engineering has the most to do with quality. Quality needs to be designed in. Each plant also has to have a management system that thrives on continuous improvement with the hourly workers help to become world class. that is why GM's midsize cars (Impala, Monte Carlo, LaCrosse, Grand Prix) all have better intitial and long term quality than their competitors Accord and Camry.
I have had an opportunity to see both of these segments and how they operate. The basic problem is operational philosophy in making that FINAL DECISION. "WE" (AMERICANS) are culturally an irrational, emotional, short sighted ,spoiled, fickle bunch. We expect everything NOW.....how we want it, when we want it and at the lowest price. We are driven by the dollar and a status mentality. When you understand that you will understand why decision makers adopt a very short term viewpoint in accepting change in design or engineering. Recommendations made by those who have a different (long term) mindset will not get engineering and design concepts thru if it costs one penny more that cannot be justified in immediate profits. RONA (Return on Net Assets) and paybacks on total engineering cost and design investments in 12 months is the benchmark. That may change in the next 10 years but I doubt it.
The competitor looks at this as a long term (read growing market share) decision process. The JAPANESE have this ingrained in their make up.
To quote an old Asian saying:
"The first generation plants the seed, the second generation tends the tree and the third and succeeding generations enjoy the fruit'.
Before you laugh at that consider some history. 1956 (Minimal Japanese impact on car production ) 1976 (innovative applications in design,quality and engineering) Refusal of accept conventional labor structure and organization.Much larger consumer acceptance of product. 1996 (refinement of D&E,quality improvements)Overwhelming product acceptance.
Design and Engineering has the most to do with quality. Quality needs to be designed in.
Hallelujah! now we're making progress here. It's management practices that account for most of the quality of the car, not the workers. For it is the management who is responsible for the design and engineering.
Just one problem -- Americans consumers don't like what GM is producing. We know this because the sales are falling.
Want sales to increase? Makes excellent products that Americans want, and earn back their trust so that they are willing to buy them. Hyundai would provide a decent case study of one way to make that happen. The Cobalt is a good case study of what one should avoid.
Recommendations made by those who have a different (long term) mindset will not get engineering and design concepts thru if it costs one penny more that cannot be justified in immediate profits.
Again, we are making progress.
That's also a good insight about why GM won't properly manage its inventories and why it dumps cars into fleets. The desire to "recover costs" from the standpoint of an accountant's mentality motivates bad managers to emphasize buildin a lot of units in order to recoup one's investment. The emphasis is on plant utilization and theoretical margins (that don't actually get earned, thanks to the consistent discounting), rather than on quality or on meeting customer wants.
The fact that the product itself wasn't terribly desirable, or that it may have harmed the brand value of the badge and nameplate get ignored, just so long as the plant got utilized and the investment was recovered on paper.
It is a VERY tough industry out there.
Given some of the successful companies in the business, it doesn't seem any more difficult than is any other competitive industry. It's only difficult for those who refuse to compete, to recognize competitive threats, and that fail to address customer needs in making their products.
Just one problem -- Americans consumers don't like what GM is producing. We know this because the sales are falling.
That is not based on fact. Fact: Impala, Cobalt & Malibu the top 3 GM cars are all ahead of last years sales. Accord & Camry the top sellers from Japan are down on sales over last year. GM must be doing something right. Also the top two Ford cars are down in sales from last year.
Comments
That may be and the leadership of today is paying for the leadership errors made 30-50 years ago. You have obviously never been on the inside of a strong Union or you would understand the problems facing the current management at GM. Don't get me wrong I am thankful for my Union affiliation. I don't think the UAW management is doing what is right for the employees or the companies. They are killing the goose that laid golden eggs for them, all these many decades.
But all those healthcare cuts still won't save GM. The product needed to do the job isn't in the pipeline, these deals will simply slow down its death unless something substantive is done to make GM a retail player, rather than a supreme discounter.
You may be right. HonToy owners seem a bit cult like in their zealotry. Kind of reminds me of Amway people. We are talking about cars not an icon you set in the driveway and worship.
ALL automakers are trying to get as much out of your pocket, with the least amount spent doing it. Some are better than others, Toyota comes to mind. Give a little take a lot, wasn't that the Toyota motto?
As long as they build decent trucks they are for me, and at least a million other Americans every year. Did they sell as many CamCords last year as GM sold full sized PU trucks?
Companies are valued by future earnings, not faded glories. Not a good thing for the current shareholders, that much I can tell you.
Yes. That WOULD be true.......if folks in here were actively rooting for a GM collapse. Most of the critics simply want GM to build BETTER cars so that they CAN COMPETE in todays Global Market. The major disagreement IS NOT about whether or not GM builds mediocre cars and is in major financial trouble. That is a given. The disagreement comes from placing the blame.
Let's turn your accusation around however.
One could say that blind devotion to a marque in the name of Patriotism despite years (decades?) of mediocrity simply enables that marque to limp along with slowly eroding market share and warmed over offerings while all the major players involved spend half their time covering their rears and the other half pointing their finger at the OTHER guy as the one responsible for all the problems.
I can't speak for socalawd or brightness, but I'll spell out my take on this: I know GM can do better. I know GM must do better to compete globally. They can't survive just doing business in the U.S. and relying on inertia and patriotism to last another 5-10-20 years. That ain't gonna cut it. So either they improve, or they die. Whether or not there are folks sitting around rooting for this to happen is immaterial.
Now - as far as the topic goes, I think of the current relationship between the UAW and GM as a marriage gone bad. And it went bad a long time ago. Both sides (management AND union) share the blame. The problem is that a divorce in this case would probably result in the death of the UAW.
They used to build decent sedans as well. But what happened? The imports improved their offerings at a faster pace.
Now look at Toyota and full size trucks. Now look at their initial T100 (nope, not gonna cut it), then their Tundra (hmmm, that's not too bad), and now their next generation Tundra due this fall. Again, they are improving their offering at a fast pace.
Where will Toyota be 10 years from now with their full size trucks and SUV's?
Maybe this article will give you a better idea.
I would not call the new Tahoe sales faded glory. The Silverado/Sierra in their 7th year are still selling better than the two top selling cars combined. That with gas at 3 bucks a gallon. I have never thought about buying a new GM car so your argument does not apply to me. The only car I have bought for myself in the last 25 years was to see if I liked the VW diesel Passat. GM or Ford or HonToy were not on the radar screen. About half the population are not interested in cars period. They like PU trucks and large SUVs. I am one of them. My GMC was built by proud UAW members in Indiana. I wish them the best. I think their time is running out.
He singled out New York-based financial analysts for creating and fueling the "fiction" that GM is bankruptcy bound.
Lutz should be sent packing on the driver's seat of a horse carrige buggy ASAP. Hard to say who is overpaid: the guy who makes 75k driving a forklift in GM's assembly plant or Lutz who pocket all those million and refuses to take his foot out of his mouth.
Deja vous all over again. I will bet you that this is essentially the type of "analysis" that GM execs were making during the 1970's and '80's about what was happening in the passenger car market.
I believe that a reality check is in order here: GM has only maintained dominance in the truck market for the same reasons that it once had dominance in the car market -- because it hasn't had much competition. The US automakers erected trade barriers that effectively eliminated competition for a very long time, so the Big 3 have really remained the Big 3 in respect to selling full-size trucks.
The problem is that the truck market is now being opened to foreign rivals, who are figuring out the game. And precisely as has already occurred in the car market, these rivals are more nimble, more hungry and better positioned to eat away at Big 3 market share.
If you think that the Big 3 have been dominant in the truck market because their products have been fantastic, think again. The products really aren't that great -- the best thing about them is that consumers in the full-size market simply haven't had a lot of choices from other manufacturers, very much like the situation that once existed with cars.
GMNA is simply not good at competition. It enjoyed so many decades in which competition was extremely light that it couldn't help but win. Now that it has to compete on its own merits in respect to passenger cars, it falls down on its face.
You can expect the same thing to happen with them with trucks. Even if fuel prices trend downward, it is a matter of time before they lose out in the truck segment as well. In twenty years' time, I have little doubt that Toyota will be either dominating the truck segment, or else grabbing up huge chunks of market share from Ford and GM. Toyota will learn from its mistakes and improve; you can bet that under the current management philosophy, GM certainly won't.
Your statement reminded me of a time when the Federal government filed an anti-trust suit and stopped GM from competing in races. I believe the jist was they had so much money no other car company could compete. GM dropped out of racing for a long time and car sales suffered as a result.
Take a look back 30 years ago, Will Japan, China & OPEC follow in these footsteps?
look at automobiles. In 1921 we had 88 firms in this industry. By 1935 there were 10 left, and you know where we are today: the big 3 make 97% of the cars manufactured in the United States, Even counting imports, they control 83% of the sales.
That doesn't just mean high prices -- it means limited choice. It took the big 3 years to come up with the small cars -- they might never have done so if it hadn't been for increasing competition from abroad.
To a certain extent they also control our future choices, for they control all research into alternative engines, auto safety, and emissions control.
The same big 3 that control the car industry also dominate the production of buses and trains. Last year, GM manufactured more than half our city buses, 90% of the bus engines, and 80% of our rail locomotives.
This kind of control has had disastrous effects on our transportation system. Since a bus or train can carry many more people than a car, GM had every incentive to push car sales and discourage mass transit. Testimony to a Senate committee last year indicated that over the years GM bought and tore up electric railway systems in 56 cities throughout the country -- including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Some riders switched to GM buses -- more bought GM cars.
The fact is that the big 3 shape America's ground transport system. And the system they have produced -- roads clogged with millions of cars and trucks, pouring out pollution and consuming vast amounts of oil, while mass transit remains virtually nonexistent -- that system simply won't do.
The Federal Government may have to reorganize the rail and bus equipment industries, building new plants and selling them to private investors if necessary, to increase capacity and promote competition.
The energy industry poses even bigger problems. A few huge corporations dominate the oil and natural gas businesses from the ground to the refinery, and for gasoline, of course, all the way to the pump. While the industry is not statistically very concentrated, it has hardly behaved in a competitive fashion. The oil majors are tied more subtly together through a complex network of overlapping directorates, joint ventures, and product exchange agreements.
1975
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I do believe you're right about the BMW.It would be the same thing if it was a "from on high the all mighty Honda."
And I'm buying a GMC 2500 next week because I'm a masochist.And for you humorless cretins that last was a joke. :P
I got off of work tonight and tried to skim through all these posts. I see some of us are blaming the UAW for ALL GM's problems. I see some blaming both. I also see a few defending the UAW.
I like I've said in the past, I want what's good for this country. I want both management and hourly to both make a good salary, have good insurance, and have solid retirements. I care alot about my country and it's citizens. I want the United States Of America, and it's citizens to have the best standard of living in the world and a government that has plenty of tax revenue to invest in R&D to save this planet, keep peace, and also help advance technology for mankind. Is there anything wrong with my wishes ?
I personally am worried about the future for my children. I'm worried World War III might be around the corner. We as a nation better get united and make are economy as strong as possible in the up coming years to generate enough tax revenue to invest alot of capital in military R&D to guarantee world peace.
This Iran situation worry's me. I feel by keeping the middle class strong (both management and hourly) we can show the world that the United States is the
"Standard of the World" when it comes to treating human beings right. I also feel it's critical that both management and hourly can build not only the best products in this country, but also build a strong united relationship. The UAW and GM-Management, lately have found common ground to help the company have a chance at becoming profitable for the first time in a few years. I know many folks the work for GM
(both management and union) and I will speak for them. These folks are genuine, patriotic, americans that love this country and care about it's future. It's not just my family members, but it's my family's co-workers. I would hope that most of you have this same respect torwards your fellow american and wish him/her well. We sometimes in our culture do to much finger pointing, and put the blame on everyone else for our misfortunes. I'm a victim of this to. What I'm getting at is we as a free democracy need to come togeather and advance this country togeather and not on;y make us the strongest most vibrant economy in the world, but also guarantee that we out the ultimate superpower.
I feel we in this society are getting caught up with the small stuff, and making
"mountains out of mole hills" and aren't worry about the stuff that really matters to the majority of americans.
I am praying that in my lifetime, we as a nation will fix our faults, and give the future generations the oppertunity to live the american dream, and set an example for the rest of the world to follow.
I wish you all a Happy Easter Sunday
Rocky
I however wish you well with your new Truck pal. :shades:
BTW- What engine are you getting ?
Rocky
I don't think he is buying ANY GM product. He is a GM hater as can be gleaned from his posts.
Rocky, You & yours have a wonderful Easter.
PS
I thought you were being facetious about buying a GM truck. My mistake. I wanted a Duramax also. I just could not justify the additional cost. My trailer loaded is only about 5500 lbs.
So much for substance.
paper pushers since they aren't productive, and his/her boss can pick up the slack, instead of playing solitare while he/she should be actually supporting the misson of the company. :surprise:
Rocky
Nothing is gonna change very fast and GM should consider a bankruptcy and re-orgainization deal that eliminates, or severely decreases the money-sucking element of the union that takes the competitiveness rought out of the company. Perhaps they could adopt a Toyota type deal where they pay a decent wage with good benefits but not allow this out-of-control union monopoly that takes valuable resources away from their ability to compete.
Staying the same isn't gonna cut it for GM. Change-change-change.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
1. What is "a good salary"? A number with a lot of zero's at the end? or the ability to buy a lot of products? Someone has to produce all the products that people with "a good salary" want to buy; government sinecures can not produce such goods. The focus should not be on "salary" but instead on what is being produced or what is available for purchase.
2. What is "good insurance"? Higher probability of getting cure when you are ill? or the secure knowledge that nobody else in your neighborhood can get better medicine than yourself can get, even if it means hardly any effective medicine for anyone, except for a few well-connected government officials? Someone has to provide the actual work of healthcare. The focus should not be on "insurance" or the abstract idea of "healthcare" (both hopital, where you get cure, and hospice, where you wait to die, can be considered "healthcare") but should be on the incentive for pursuit of cures.
3. What is "solid retirement"? Obviously, everyone can not retire all at once . . . who would be doing the work supporting the retired? Obviously, government sinecures that do not produce anything valuable can not support the retired. The focus should be on productive work years to support the currently retired so that you will be supported in turn when you retire.
Put all three together, what it all means is that, if you spend all your working life making things that are no different from what a typical worker can make in India or China, you really should not expect any better salary (in purchasing power), healthcare, or retirement than that same someone in India or China. Any difference could only come from two sources:
(1) You are ripping off fellow Americans who are much more productive than anyone in India or China;
(2) You are ripping off some poor [non-permissible content removed] in India or China.
There is quite a lot of both going on right now; the former throgh tax and redistribution, and the latter through the trade for goods with paper money.
Government sponsored R&D hardly ever works efficiently for the benefit of the populatino at large. Resources always get put forth to advance senior bureacrats' pet projects. That's the case in the US, Japan, India, China and the former USSR. Without market competition, hubris run unchecked.
Market competition is what keeps every participant effeicient at what they do. Paternalistic societies are inherently inefficient, and ultimately they lose wars, marketshare wars as well as territorial wars.
Back at GM and the union, the sides had been chummy with each other for decades in the "golden ages." The result? both monopolistic powers profit handsomely from ripping off consumers and churning out unreliable crap. The US auto industry produced the most reliable cars, planes and tanks in the 1940's because of the vibrant competition that existed in the 1920's and 30's, far more reliable than what German and Japanese automakers under the aegis of their respective governments were churning out in WWII. However, post-WWII, 30 years of anti-competitive practices by the companies and unions reduced the domestic auto industry to shambles compared to what German and Japanese carmakers were able to ship to this country by the 1970's and 80's.
Competition is good. Competition makes people work hard, be more productive, which is the ultimate source of higher living standard for the societal average. Emotionally rousing political speaches are usually followed not by productive work, but usually by broken glasses or by coffee breaks with sweets and short cakes.
paper pushers since they aren't productive, and his/her boss can pick up the slack, instead of playing solitare while he/she should be actually supporting the misson of the company.
Where is that 50-75% coming from? Do you have any evidence of massive solitare playing? or is that the same kind of hyperbole as your repeated lambasting of a massive corp of multi-million salary executives when there is none at GM?
company butt loads of money because they are doing jobs that could easily be performed by one person instead of he/she playing solitare hours a day. "Some can blast the union, jobs banks, but if you really stopped and took a good look at management, you would find way worst inefficientcies.
Rocky
The very fact that you and other union supporters blame GM management for bad design shows that you know very well that product design and engineeing have values. Nike and Reebok employees are far more productive today with practically no physical shoemaking in this country than it ever was when entirely operated out of the US. Those US-based designers, shoe engineers and marketing experts are extremely productive. The value they create, far more than anyone can dream of producing while working on a shoe production line in India and China, is what justifies their far higher standard of living in the US than those line workers in India and China.
A machine can out produce a man by a factor of x. After proper installation and maintenance it (the machine) has a relatively predictable life and can be replaced with a more efficient model.
Result ? Less people needed- more production achieved.
There is a big difference between making something and creating the methodology and concept for its' (a product) creation. I don't think you have ever grasped that idea.
But on another subject, does anyone know out there what percentage of non-union components go into GM or any of the other foreign vehicles? Additionally what are the operational work and maintenance rule differences between say TOYOTA and GM.
Labor my friend is the greatest variable in production equation once the fixed costs are acknowledged. I think you are using a preprogrammed stereotype that sees physical labor as productive and intellectual efforts as not value added. When you provide a substantially lower cost for the output of both and highly automate it you really take a bite out of operational costs.
Getting to the tirades of SoCala4, management CAN negate the fruits of both segments. The flexibility to react quickly is in the favor of the competitor who changes the rules of production as necessary. As I have said many times before.....atrification can happen just as well as productive change.
Actually there are no longer any paper pushers since everything is done on the computer. :P
My group at GM went from over 700 salaried approximately 18 years ago to less than 100 today. We handle 10 times the previous annual dollar volume and have leveraged any non essential tasks out MANY years ago. You work 50 to 60 hours a week JUST to remain competitive in your group.
And NO you don't get paid for overtime being salaried.
I am sorry I don't have any empathy for a UAW neighbor (cutting his lawn last summer and finishing a few beers only to tell me he is "on the clock" at work ). He was complaining he had not broke 125k in SEPTEMBER. ... Poor baby !
And did you turn that in to management and the union officers so they could correct that problem of working at home but being paid by GM?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The answer to the this other question may be rhetorical .When has management (And I was not) been successful in firing a tenured committeeman? Just a question so that you can correct me.
Are you willing to actually get rid of that 2% that don't produce anything? We already have years ago.
???? I don't understand this.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As for the comments about the non-union workers sitting around playing on the computer all day, I had a union buddy at Boeing who worked every minute of overtime he could including triple time on holidays. He stood out in the union lines with the other idiots demanding "fair" pay. What did he do that he needed better pay? Sat on his computer all day every day playing video games except for less than 20 minutes a day that he spent on the floor doing safety checks. He is still standing on the sidewalk demanding better pay, only now he has a sign that says
"will work for food". A product of his own union loyalty.
Fortunately this is no longer true. Most of GM's products are at least average in the industry and many are near the top or at the top of the quality lists. There are some that do need to improve. Most of these are older models such as the minivan, that need to go.
And the union only has a part in this quality. Design and Engineering has the most to do with quality. Quality needs to be designed in. Each plant also has to have a management system that thrives on continuous improvement with the hourly workers help to become world class. that is why GM's midsize cars (Impala, Monte Carlo, LaCrosse, Grand Prix) all have better intitial and long term quality than their competitors Accord and Camry.
http://www.jdpower.com/special/powerreport/gm05/GM_SPR.pdf
"WE" (AMERICANS) are culturally an irrational, emotional, short sighted ,spoiled, fickle bunch. We expect everything NOW.....how we want it, when we want it and at the lowest price. We are driven by the dollar and a status mentality.
When you understand that you will understand why decision makers adopt a very short term viewpoint in accepting change in design or engineering.
Recommendations made by those who have a different (long term) mindset will not get engineering and design concepts thru if it costs one penny more that cannot be justified in immediate profits.
RONA (Return on Net Assets) and paybacks on total engineering cost and design investments in 12 months is the benchmark. That may change in the next 10 years but I doubt it.
The competitor looks at this as a long term (read growing market share) decision process. The JAPANESE have this ingrained in their make up.
To quote an old Asian saying:
"The first generation plants the seed, the second generation tends the tree and the third and succeeding generations enjoy the fruit'.
Before you laugh at that consider some history.
1956 (Minimal Japanese impact on car production ) 1976 (innovative applications in design,quality and engineering) Refusal of accept conventional labor structure and organization.Much larger consumer acceptance of product.
1996 (refinement of D&E,quality improvements)Overwhelming product acceptance.
2016 ?????????? But you know it will be improved.
It is a VERY tough industry out there.
Hallelujah! now we're making progress here. It's management practices that account for most of the quality of the car, not the workers. For it is the management who is responsible for the design and engineering.
Just one problem -- Americans consumers don't like what GM is producing. We know this because the sales are falling.
Want sales to increase? Makes excellent products that Americans want, and earn back their trust so that they are willing to buy them. Hyundai would provide a decent case study of one way to make that happen. The Cobalt is a good case study of what one should avoid.
Again, we are making progress.
That's also a good insight about why GM won't properly manage its inventories and why it dumps cars into fleets. The desire to "recover costs" from the standpoint of an accountant's mentality motivates bad managers to emphasize buildin a lot of units in order to recoup one's investment. The emphasis is on plant utilization and theoretical margins (that don't actually get earned, thanks to the consistent discounting), rather than on quality or on meeting customer wants.
The fact that the product itself wasn't terribly desirable, or that it may have harmed the brand value of the badge and nameplate get ignored, just so long as the plant got utilized and the investment was recovered on paper.
It is a VERY tough industry out there.
Given some of the successful companies in the business, it doesn't seem any more difficult than is any other competitive industry. It's only difficult for those who refuse to compete, to recognize competitive threats, and that fail to address customer needs in making their products.
That is not based on fact. Fact: Impala, Cobalt & Malibu the top 3 GM cars are all ahead of last years sales. Accord & Camry the top sellers from Japan are down on sales over last year. GM must be doing something right. Also the top two Ford cars are down in sales from last year.