Well, GM is a bigger animal, and it seems to make louder blunders and have products that are for the most part held in low regard.
But when Ford or Chrysler are bashed, I don't see the all out devotion and defense as I see when GM is bashed. It's interesting, reminds me of a cult or something.
LOL. It shows you just how many people either love or hate em' for being #1. It just peeves me Ford and Chrysler get a free pass. They both have the UAW in their shops. My UAW GM/Delphi father gets bullets, and Ford and Chryslers UAW employees get no mention of how they supposedly play cards (Which is a joke today) and I'd love for the attention to be turned on them for once. Ford certainly has more issues than GM when it comes to new product that is relavent. Geeeez the Zephyer, or whatever name Ford decides to call it this week, isn't exactly class leeading. It's FWD and under powered and it get's no arrows thrown at it ? :confuse:
I guess it's hard being #1
OTOH Ford did build me the S80.
Fintail what do you think about the new 2007 S80 ? You like euro cars, and wanted to get your opinion pal.
No, I got your point loud and clear -- GM is a culture of excusemakers par excellence who are largely incapable of making anything happen.
Build a bad car at GM, and absolutely nobody takes responsibility for it. Dilute and destroy a badge in the name of cost amortization, and nobody steps up.
At GM, it's always the other guy's fault: you can blame the union, the Asians, the dollar, the consumer, the Broncos defensive line, Mercury not being in retrograde, or whatever, but you will NEVER in your life even think of condemning the product or the people in charge of creating and delivering that product.
If they don't manage product and production, why have managers at all? Perhaps I am naive: GM might be so strongly dominated by a hapless collection of visionless beancounters and mid-level hacks that it might be necessary to fire too many people too quickly to ever maintain the company's current size and scope. I suppose it might be hard to fire thousands of people at one shot, but if that's what it takes, perhaps that's where they need to start.
I think a lot of people who dislike GM have been burned by their cars. And because GM has so many makes and lines, more people have been burned than with the others. Looking at the woes of Chrysler and Ford, people aren't giving them a free pass, they are just voting with their feet primarily, instead of with their mouths and feet.
Ford has done a laudable job of handling its Euro acquisitions, certainly better than GM. Volvos don't really get me excited, but I am sure the new S80 could be a good car.
I do respect your opinion on European cars. You are a great source especially when it comes to Mercedes Benz.
I for some darn reason love the new Volvo S80. I mean everything about it. It's so Volvoish, and the design, the fit and finish, the way everything looks is so stunning. The wood, the leather, seems so comfortable and rock solid to drive. The safety features, the Dynaudio, everything reminds me of of what a car from Europe/Scandinavia should be.
I suppose I shouldn't be suprised, but I was sure Bill Ford was going to destroy Volvo with cost cutting measures. I'm happy he didn't destroy Volvo. I'm really worried about Cadillacs future. The Volvo S80 undercuts the STS by $10 grand or so, and it appears you get alot more owning a volvo and the residual values will hold with the Volvo. The competition is getting really tough. Consumers have alot of choices to make and it appears Ford has a winner.
I plan to hold onto my car for several more years, at least.
But I wouldn't be against a Volvo, per se. It is nicer looking than the current one...kinda like a big more agressive S60. GM could learn some lessons from Ford's handling of Volvo.
Build a bad car at GM, and absolutely nobody takes responsibility for it.
You keep referring to GM building bad cars. In the last ten months I have rented a Malibu, Sebring, Trailblazer & a Camry. The Sebring I took back the next day and demanded a decent car. What a POC that was. I found the Malibu and Camry about equal. They both got me 27 MPG mixed driving. The Camry had the advantage as I was on Vancouver Island where the top speed is 90KMH (56 MPH). I don't see that much difference between those two. I probably would not buy either one. They were both fine rental cars. The Trailblazer was far and away the best of the bunch. We took it on some fairly bad roads looking at property in Hawaii. It was very good on rough gravel roads. I would never rent or own anything much smaller than the Camry so I do not have any experience with the small GM products.
Since it was a point I was trying to make, I NOT YOU can either accept or deny your interpretation of my intent. YOU MISSED IT BY A MILE......... AGAIN !
Gagrice, you need to accept that you are a throwback to a different era. Your tastes don't match those of much of the buying population.
You should understand -- what you (or I) personally like or dislike is fairly meaningless. What counts is what the consumer likes, and we know that the consumer quite likes the Camry. The consumer votes with his money, and you need to please him to win the election.
GM can either accept the reality and make a car that can compete with the Camry (although preferably something that is interesting and doesn't mimic it, as nobody wants to buy a Chevy Camry), or else it can keep doing what is doing, and fail. Which do you prefer -- success or failure?
Obviously you know as well as anyone, my feelings towards GM products.
That said, on paper (since I haven't seen one in person) the Aura is the first car that I can think of from GM that I'm interested in purchasing. There are still some ifs, primarily pricing and passing my test drive, but that goes for any car. I like the looks, the powertrain (wish it would offer a manual) and the interior. I say thumbs up.
you need to accept that you are a throwback to a different era. Your tastes don't match those of much of the buying population.
I drive down through our subdivision and see new Armadas, Suburbans, LX470s, and every brand of fullsize PU truck. It is a typical middle class working neighborhood. I would buy a Porsche Carrera but my wife has already owned several Porsches, and thinks they are too hard to get in and out of. I think maybe you are looking at a different demographic than I see in SoCal. I only see little old ladies driving Camrys. Little old men like Buicks & Caddies.
We'll see what happens with Saturn. The Aura appears to be a great step in the right direction, but I fear that Saturn is already a dying badge, so I wonder whether consumers will largely be skeptical of the Aura because of the Saturn name.
The more that I think about it, the more I wonder whether the badges should be radically changed even more than I had first thought. For example, if GM wants to reach a European-oriented consumer base seeking alternatives to Volvo, Audi, BMW, etc., then why not just badge these cars as Opels so as to emphasize the European heritage, and leave them largely unmodified for the US market? Why not sell those Opels alongside a reduced line of Saabs that returns to its core, which no longer includes rebadged Chevy SUV's and Subarus, and which tie the Opel identity to another distinctively European brand?
I'm afraid that even if the cars are good that the Saturn affiliation may kill off the marque. Saturn was originally positioned as a cult alternative to Toyota, Honda, etc., and this car may create more brand confusion. And somehow, I have to wonder whether dropping in an American drivetrain might harm it as well.
Thanx for your opinion. I am hoping for the best. I hope GM can restore Saturns brand. I like the Saturn brand and what it could represent. I suppose your right, but we'll see, huh?
I look at the Camry sales figures, deduct the relatively small proportion sold to fleets out of the equation, and what I'm left to conclude is that it is a highly popular car. The numbers are what they are, and it sells very well.
Rather than denigrating Toyota's success, it would be better to match and outcompete them. Again, I wouldn't just copy the Camry (Hyundai can afford to create knockoffs, but GM will lose with that strategy), but I would certainly make a product that combines reliability and good packaging with more distinctive styling and something special in order to take back that market. Look at the Altima as a good case study -- similar concept as the Camry, but more of a styling edge to slot it toward the youth market. Good thinking on Nissan's part (and essential to its survival), much better than giving into rental car anti-chic.
I'm glad you atleast like a GM car. I like I've said in the past feel bad about your Suburban, and yes it has been a bad apple to you. :mad: I've had probably worst luck than you with GM vehicles in the past. If I believed things weren't changing, I'd tell you to buy something else and piss on GM.
I do respect your willingness to give em' another try and atleast look at the Aura.
I'm left to conclude is that it is a highly popular car.
It is a popular and reliable car. NO question about it. I think it has a demographic older than you think. I also think it is downgraded the last few years according to some that have bought 2nd or third Camrys. My cousin just bought a 2006 Camry top of the line and does not like it as well as her 1999. The new one sits in the garage and she continues to drive the older one. She had a Cressida that she traded for the 1999 Camry and was not thrilled with that exchange either. So I am not sure that Camry is getting better or not.
So I am not sure that Camry is getting better or not.
For the purposes of this analysis, I would define "good" upon whether consumers (a) like the product, (b) would buy another one if in the market for a four-door mid-market sedan, and (c) would recommend them to their friends. (My personal preferences aren't included here -- personally, Camry's bore me to tears, but I don't count here.)
If your cousin and sister are indicative of the buying population, then Toyota had better listen, but most of the buyers seem happy. (I read a blurb in a car mag that stated that Toyota found that styling was one of the most common reasons why those who had looked at Camry but didn't buy one had selected a rival product, instead. Toyotas are not built for excitement, but not everyone wants excitement.)
That's one reason I argue that GM could compete if it had a car that matched it on reliability, but beat it on style, handling and packaging. It is those who want a bit more joie de vivre in their driving experience who will be most inclined to shop. Toyotas are outstanding but dull, and not everybody wants dull.
Actually the 97-01 Gen4 was estimated to be the worst of the recent ones since they 'decontented' it from the excellent Gen3. The '02-'06 was a big step up but IMO bland. This new Gen6 is by far the best.
'89 Camry - '94 Camry - '97 Camry - '00 Camry and a total of 500,000+ absolutely trouble-free miles on the four of them.
"..a hapless collection of visionless beancounters and mid-level hacks.." Socala what/who do you think has been talking and trashing you this whole time? All of these union-hating, managment butt-kissers on this site are exactly that:beancounters and hacks.They haven't been truly listening simply because they lack any imagination to look beyond whatever pasty-white [non-permissible content removed] they are smooching at the moment.Pretty much like GM managment... :shades:
Well, GM is a bigger animal, and it seems to make louder blunders and have products that are for the most part held in low regard.
But when Ford or Chrysler are bashed, I don't see the all out devotion and defense as I see when GM is bashed. It's interesting, reminds me of a cult or something
I can think of a few reasons Chrysler is not dogged. For one, Chrysler pretty much was hanging by a thread in the early 80s. They have went from the K Car to the 300, which quite frankly is the engineering marvel of the last 20 years in the auto industry. To borrow from Tom Lykis, the 300 is a California "10", and GM can't come up with a Seattle "6". Add the Sebring and Sebring convertible, the PT Cruiser and the light trucks, and they have turned alot of heads. GMs answer to the PT Cruiser is the Homely Hot Rod (HHR). That is one sorry looking vehicle. And it is a poorly done copy. Hyundai did a better job copying the 300. GM has some decent light trucks, and has since I can remember, but their cars are not worth looking at, and haven't been since the mid 70s. Even the Caddies have been made cheap. To be honest, Toyota and Honda (and especially Hyundai) came into the US with little cheap tinny cars and built better every year (most years anyway). Americans remember Chevy for the Hot Rod tank built 63 Impel la with the 327 or whatever it had. And they have gotten smaller and lighter since. Chevy may have decent quality, but they don't have a 300. When I hear Chrysler I think 300 and PT Cruiser. When I hear Chevy I think Chevette, Citation and Cavalier. When Chevy comes up with a show quality car or 2, the perceptions will change.
I don't want to come off as a Chevy basher, because I grew up a Chevy man in a Ford world (and a John Deere man in a Chalmers world). I had a Chevette myself. I knew it was a cheap car when I bought it, but the only time it left me stranded was when I put Exxon fuel in it. I knew better, but had no choice. But it was a cheap car (made, to buy and to operate) and everyone knew it. It didn't do too bad of a job competing with the Toys and Hondas of that era, but unfortunately, they moved up while GM leveled out, or in most cases dropped. I have never been a Chrysler fan, but the 300 is just beyond belief. That car has done more for Chrysler than Lee did, and he walked on water. I said before that it is the best in 20 years, but I would have to say that the 57 Chevy was the last vehicle that compared. Chrysler is going to sell more trucks because they have the 300. I see Toyota knocking off GM soon, and Chrysler being their rivel soon. Come on GM, don't abandon me.
Confused on your data. You say sales are up due to fleet sales yet your own data shows fleet sales are down.
I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll post it again. A few factoids from the Detroit News:
Top 10 US fleet cars, October 2005 - January 2006: 1 - Impala 2 - Malibu 3 - Taurus 4 - Sonata 5 - Grand Prix 6 - Stratus 7 - G6 8 - Caravan 9 - Cobalt 10 -PT Cruiser
GM fleet sales as a percentage of total sales: Oct. 2004 - January 2005: 26% Oct. 2005 - January 2006: 31%
Clearly, GM continues to dominate the fleet market. And while they talk a big game about reducing fleet sales, the fleet sales are actually increasing in percentage terms.
Not only that, but fleet sales during the same period also increased in absolute terms. If we look at GM's actual sale numbers, we can see that total US sales for the two periods above were as follows:
Oct. 2004 - January 2005: 1,366,763 Oct. 2005 - January 2006: 1,226,955 Net decrease: 139,808 units (-10.2%)
Apply the 26% and 31% fleet sales share figures to the above, and you get this estimate of fleet sales for the period:
Oct. 2004 - January 2005: 355,000 Oct. 2005 - January 2006: 380,000 Net increase: 25,000 more units (+7.0%)
Now, if you back these fleet estimates out of the total, you can estimate GM's retail sales declined from about 1 million units during 10/04-1/05 to about 847,000 units during 10/05-1/06, a decrease of 16%.
It's pretty clear that the new no-fleet policy is smoke and mirrors. Why GM's press agents keep repeating this fallacy, I have no idea, when the data clearly conflicts with the reality. As usual, the only thing that changes is the story, but otherwise, it's business as usual.
I would be slackin if I did not mention the Astro. I have had 2. A 87 shorty and a 97 AWD. That is the best van on the lot, plain and simple. The Caravan started the minivan craze and has dominated it the whole time, but if you want a worker in a smaller package, you will not look anywhere but the Astro/Safari. There is not another vehicle on the market that parks like a Hyundai, but pulls like a horse. I sold my last one because it sits too high for my other halfs job, but it is without a doubt the best thing that GM has put out in 40 years. It had flaws, but anyone who owned one would never be happy with any other mini-van.
"Okay, help me with this one, how is 4 > 30+ and why is 1.6 > 4.2 and 1.6 > 5.2?? What facts have Socala provided? Mostly partial facts and half-turths, if not outright fantasies (like "simply" make better small cars and hybrids) as far as I can tell. "
I think you have a problem when somebody provides facts like Socala, and you always point the blame instead of taking ownership like a real manager when things fail.
Please answer my simple question. Repeating your own lie is not proving your thesis about Socala providing one diddly fact!
I will ask you again, since when is:
4 > 30 ?? Socala prescribed that GM management should never have tried M&A because it lost $4 billion on bad deals, while entirely ignoring the $30+ billion profit GM management made on successful M&A activities
1.6 > 4.2? 1.6 > 5.2? Socala repeated asserted that GTO was a terrible failure while holding forth 300 and Mustang as shining examples of scuess. Guess what? GTO is having a $500 or 1.6% of MSRP cash incentive in its third model year, while 300 is having a $1000 cash incentive or 4.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year, and Mustang is having $1000 cash incentive or 5.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year.
Socala even brought forth Hyundai as example of selling well because of product quality instead of selling because of low price and giving the shop away! Sonata, the best selling Hyndai, has a $2000 cash incentive on a $15k MSRP car! That's 7.5% of MSRP. Talk about cluelessness.
Your illustration of your own experience with non-union jobs and union job experience is quite atypical and contradictory. For example, you said "Yep, we all make the same. Why ? We all do the same work." How exactly does that related to rewarding hard work?? You can not be seriously telling me that everyone work exactly equally hard.
Your comment about in a non-union shop you were fired because you were the new comer . . . while that may or may not be typical of non-union shops (actually the most common employee complaint in recent years is that senior employees with high salaries being let go because their pay is too high and their job can be replaced with new comers with lower pay), new-comers being kicked out first is certainly the rule in a union-shop . . . even you admitted that seniorities in the union shop means getting laid off last.
the slackers get punished and embarrassed by the union steward. The union steward polices the membership and working hard usually isn't a problem since everyone wants to do a good job and keep a good reputation.
That is so ludicrous a statement I don't even konw where to begin . . . Union stewards have long lost the power to embarrass or punish individual union members over the past three decades . . . can you say law suits for harassment?? As to everyone wants to do a good job and keep a good reputation . . . if that's the case how can you be spending hours everyday blaming management?? Aren't they people, too?? In fact, as far as defending repuations are concerned, they are individually held responsible for their positions whereas the very purpose of union is anonymity . . . "we all do the same work" in your own words, remember??
You seem like the trigger happy firing managers that I've worked for in the past and I personally don't want to have fear going into work each day and have to kiss my bosses butt just to stay employed. I have to much pride to cower down like a abused dog and if you have a problem with me I can bring my union steward into my meeting with me as my back-up.
Obviously you do not have enough pride in your own work or enough confidence to believe that your work can stand on their own merit to save your job.
Frankly, if you are in a job where you feel you are abused, you should have enough confidence in yourself to leave the job and find your talent better utilized elsewhere . . . without the fear that just because you are the newest member of the union shop you will be the first one to be let go!
Socala prescribed that GM management should never have tried M&A because it lost $4 billion on bad deals, while entirely ignoring the $30+ billion profit GM management made on successful M&A activities
You are obviously not a trustworthy discussion partner.
The cost of the FIAT deal alone was $4.4 billion. The Forbes article referenced above determined a conservative estimate of $15 billion.
You are free to believe what you want, but if you are going to deliberately lie about what other people said, then you aren't worth speaking with. Faking the numbers just to suit your story puts you in a bad light.
Rather than denigrating Toyota's success, it would be better to match and outcompete them. Again, I wouldn't just copy the Camry (Hyundai can afford to create knockoffs, but GM will lose with that strategy), but I would certainly make a product that combines reliability and good packaging with more distinctive styling and something special in order to take back that market.
Easier said than done. Given the high cost of low quality production line thanks to the archaic union labor rules that GM is facing, you may as well advise GM to "simply" find a fairy god-mother who will pay $50k for every GM car and buy several million of them for her fairy friends; problem solved. Wonder why GM would lose the strategy that has served Hyundai well? and Toyota and Honda well too before they became respected brands. Low cost flexible labor.
Look at the Altima as a good case study -- similar concept as the Camry, but more of a styling edge to slot it toward the youth market. Good thinking on Nissan's part (and essential to its survival), much better than giving into rental car anti-chic.
Are you like the depository of obsolete auto news?? Altima was doing fine in its first model year back in 2001. Have you checked its sales lately?? There is currently a $1750-2250 cash incentive on the $20k MSRP car. That's 9%-11% of MSRP (that's cash offered by manufacturer in addition to the usual dealer margins/discounts)! Compared to 1.6% of MSRP for GTO, which you call a miserable failure. Nissan would be better served finding a fleet outlet instead of trying to dump so many of the unsold cars on the retail market.
You are the untrustworthy discussion partner. Somehow you are now claiming 15 > 30??
What did I lie about what you said? Did you not keep harping about GM management losing $4 billion on M&A while entirely ignoring M&A gains that amounted to several times that?? Even if we use your $15 billion number, $30+ billion gain is still more than double the supposed losses. Talk about serious intellectual dishonesty on your part. You could have pleaded ignorance before I brought up the numbers, but no, you kept harping about M&A loss, and even lied and claimed my numbers were fantacies.
Did you not describe GTO as a miserable failure, while holding forth 300 and Mustang as successes?? Whereas in reality, 300 and Mustang are being discounted much more heavily than GTO is. Now you add Altima to that list, after earlier mention of Hyundai. Do you know anything about the auto industry? Besides searching for headlines??
Please answer my simple question. Repeating your own lie is not proving your thesis about Socala providing one diddly fact!
I will ask you again, since when is:
4 > 30 ?? Socala prescribed that GM management should never have tried M&A because it lost $4 billion on bad deals, while entirely ignoring the $30+ billion profit GM management made on successful M&A activities
Socala, explained himself in the above post. Obviously you misunderstood him. :confuse:
1.6 > 4.2? 1.6 > 5.2? Socala repeated asserted that GTO was a terrible failure while holding forth 300 and Mustang as shining examples of scuess. Guess what? GTO is having a $500 or 1.6% of MSRP cash incentive in its third model year, while 300 is having a $1000 cash incentive or 4.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year, and Mustang is having $1000 cash incentive or 5.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year.
Socala even brought forth Hyundai as example of selling well because of product quality instead of selling because of low price and giving the shop away! Sonata, the best selling Hyndai, has a $2000 cash incentive on a $15k MSRP car! That's 7.5% of MSRP. Talk about cluelessness.
brightness, I personally like the GTO. I seriously came real close to closing a deal on a 2005, but the car salesmen kept dinking me around about the sport appearance package and it's availability. I called several dealerships here in the SW and got told lies and deceptions and almost made a 4 1/2 hour drive, which turned out to be a lie. :mad:
Well back on the GTO. GM's goal was to sell 18,000 GTO's. The current GTO, doesn't look like what a GTO should, thus is a total failure and once again Socala, provided you with facts of why it didn't sell and you overlook them and twist Hyundai and other car company's into the situation.:confuse: Heck plenty of other people provided facts, and opinions on why the GTO wasn't a HOTT car like the Mustang. :sick: Wasn't it obvious that it was going to fall flat on it's face without any retro styling to the past ? Wasn't Rick and Bob aware of this ? You gotta blame GM management and the UAW doesn't assemble the car, so you can't blame em' :P BTW- GM management has stuck to their guns on incentives, I will give em' that.
Your illustration of your own experience with non-union jobs and union job experience is quite atypical and contradictory. For example, you said "Yep, we all make the same. Why ? We all do the same work." How exactly does that related to rewarding hard work?? You can not be seriously telling me that everyone work exactly equally hard.
In my line of work, everyone has to work hard to get the job done. We actually work the job with less people than we should. (due to management wanting to save a buck, imagine that :confuse: ) We work in teams, like the military police.
Your comment about in a non-union shop you were fired because you were the new comer . . . while that may or may not be typical of non-union shops (actually the most common employee complaint in recent years is that senior employees with high salaries being let go because their pay is too high and their job can be replaced with new comers with lower pay), new-comers being kicked out first is certainly the rule in a union-shop . . . even you admitted that seniorities in the union shop means getting laid off last.
The senior employees put the blame on me when things weren't getting all the way done. I didn't know they were backstabbing me to my boss. It really hurt my feelings, friends to my face, but were actually enemy's that didn't want to take ownership and take some of the blame. I was so frusterated. my boss of course believed the older employees over me, leading to me getting the axe. Hell it wasn't that big of a loss. I look back on it, I'm thankful the way it turned out.
Obviously you do not have enough pride in your own work or enough confidence to believe that your work can stand on their own merit to save your job.
I work my butt off brightness. I always have. My merit in those non-union jobs didn't mean anything to my supervisor. They were more interested in drinking beer after work and party's. I tell you one thing, the [non-permissible content removed] kissers will come out of the woodwork in a non-union shop, and you being a employer should be cautious that the guy kissing your butt, might not neccessarily be your best worker, just a thought
Frankly, if you are in a job where you feel you are abused, you should have enough confidence in yourself to leave the job and find your talent better utilized elsewhere . . . without the fear that just because you are the newest member of the union shop you will be the first one to be let go!
I'm in a pretty secure job where I don't have to worry a whole lot about being laid off. I also am mid-pack on seniority, and moving up pretty darn fast. I'd consider myself darn safe.
Also Brightness, I have no ambition to start over. I hope I can retire at my current job, god willing. I feel really bad for folks that work somewhere with 10-15 years and have 3-4 weeks of vacation, and they have to start over from scratch :sick:
You as an employer are very lucky, and can come and go as you please, and yes I'm happy for you that you are very successful at your buisness and can do this for your family.
VP for organizing tells Detroit audience that union can't afford to wage war, must work to save jobs.
DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers has dropped its adversarial stance with Detroit automakers and suppliers in favor of a more cooperative approach to saving union jobs, a senior UAW official Wednesday.
Bob King, the UAW's vice president for organizing, said the union has dramatically changed its relationship with employers because of the dire need to preserve manufacturing jobs in the United States.
"We have made a conscious choice to put aside the adversarial approach," King told an automotive conference in Detroit. "We believe adversarial relationships drive manufacturing jobs out of this country."
With Detroit's Big Three automakers struggling with soaring health care and material costs, the UAW can ill afford to wage war over downsizing at General Motors Corp. or Ford Motor Co., King said.
"We are committed to change, and we are changing," King told the attendees at the event, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. "It's not easy, but we're doing it."
The UAW's ranks have dwindled in recent years as U.S. manufacturing jobs have moved overseas to lower-wage countries.
The union's latest financial report said its membership declined 10.5 percent last year to 557,099 people -- the lowest since World War II.
With GM and Ford seeking to shed a combined 60,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs in coming years, the UAW has tried to negotiate "accelerated attrition" programs rather than fight inevitable job cuts.
"We have taken the high-road approach where we work together to reverse this trend," King said.
Last month, the union agreed to a massive buyout program with GM and its biggest supplier -- bankrupt Delphi Corp. -- that covers more than 130,000 unionized workers.
The buyout program offers UAW members packages worth $35,000 to $140,000 to either retire early or sever ties with GM or Delphi.
King declined to answer direct questions about Delphi, which has asked a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to void its contracts with 24,000 UAW members and another 8,000 unionized workers.
But in recent days, GM executives have said they are hopeful that Delphi's restructuring can be accomplished without a strike.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner said in an April 4 interview that the UAW, led by President Ron Gettelfinger, has shown a willingness to work with the Big Three rather than fight them.
"I think Ron and the UAW have shown themselves to be very knowledgeable about the state of the industry and the competitive environment and the needs of their members," Wagoner told The Detroit News.
King noted that the UAW has struck several agreements with major parts suppliers that relax union work rules and job classifications in factories to improve productivity.
"The UAW is acting differently," said King, a UAW vice president since 1998. "That is not the public perception but that is a fact and that is the truth."
Last year's historic deal between GM and the UAW to cut health care costs -- including assessing first-ever health care fees on UAW retirees -- was a turning point in the relationship between the union and the Big Three.
With GM and Ford losing billions of dollars in North America, the UAW is committed to helping the companies lower their costs to compete more effectively with foreign rivals.
"There are no sacred cows in terms of old practices and old strategies," King said.
What this means to us: The UAW is going to bring a Gun to the knife fight to help our beloved Big 3 return to dominance :shades:
Firm's North American factories are now running at about 72 percent of capacity
Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday that its plan to idle seven factories will cost the company another $2.4 billion before taxes this year, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
That's in addition to $1 billion in related charges already announced by the company, bringing the total cost of the restructuring moves to about $3.4 billion for the year.
The moves will further reduce the company's North American production capacity by 1.2 million units, or 26 percent, Ford said.
Global Insight Inc. estimates that Ford's North American factories are now running at about 72 percent of capacity.
In January, Ford unveiled a restructuring plan that calls for the idling of 14 factories and elimination of 30,000 factory jobs over the next six years.
At the time, it said it would shutter assembly plants in Wixom, Atlanta and St. Louis, idle two parts factories and cut production to one shift at its St. Thomas assembly plant in Canada and warned that the moves would cost more than $1 billion.
Last week, the automaker said it would also idle assembly plants in St. Paul, Minn., and Norfolk, Va.
On Wednesday, Ford said it would take another $2.4 billion in pre-tax charges, including $1.7 billion in costs related to voluntary termination packages and layoffs, $425 million related to pension curtailment and $280 million in costs associated with the plants closings.
Lead negotiator says union open to some sacrifices
The UAW is willing to make some sacrifices to reach a new labor agreement with Tower Automotive Inc., but labor costs are not a problem at the automotive-parts supplier, a top UAW official said Wednesday.
UAW Vice President Bob King, the union's lead negotiator with Tower, said talks continue with the supplier, which filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors last year.
"The problem at Tower is not labor costs. The problem is way too much debt incurred by prior management," King told reporters after a conference at the Detroit branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Tower filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in February to cancel its labor contracts in order to cut wages and benefits by $40 million annually.
If the judge rules in Tower's favor, there's no guarantee Tower actually would cancel its union contracts.
Tower's three major unions, including the UAW, said in January that they would strike if Tower wins court approval and nullifies the labor contracts.
A strike at Tower mostly would affect its largest customers, Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG.
"We're willing to try to work with them ... make some sacrifices, make the company viable," King said Wednesday.
Novi-based Tower employs more than 3,000 hourly workers at eight plants in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, including sites in Plymouth, Clinton Township and Traverse City.
Tower Chief Executive Kathleen Ligocki earlier this month said she hopes to reach a deal with the UAW on a new labor contract by May 1.
She said Tower expects to emerge from bankruptcy this summer.
King declined to characterize the ongoing talks with Tower.
"We're talking. I'm always an optimistic bargainer. I hope that we're able to resolve something with Tower," he said.
A Toyota Motor Co. executive said Tuesday the company wouldn't rule out any U.S. state for future plants because it has a strong union presence.
Toyota, along with other foreign automakers, has been criticized for trying to avoid unions by putting plants in the South where right-to-work laws make it more difficult to unionize.
Dennis Cuneo, senior vice president for Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, said Toyota wouldn't make a decision based on those laws. He spoke at an auto conference hosted by the Federal Reserve of Chicago's Detroit branch.
Toyota's only UAW plant in the United States is a joint venture in California with General Motors Corp. But the company has plants in states or Canadian provinces, such as Ontario and West Virginia, with a strong union tradition, Cuneo said.
"Just look at what we've done," he said. "We're in a lot of non-right-to-work states."
Cuneo wouldn't comment about when or where new plants might be built. Michigan officials have been courting Toyota for a possible engine plant. The New York Times reported this week that Toyota is considering a new North American assembly plant in four Southern states.
"At this time, we have no plans," Cuneo said.
Toyota is busy now preparing new assembly plants in Texas, Indiana and Ontario scheduled to begin production by 2008, he said. Those three plants combined will be able to produce 450,000 vehicles annually. "We're focused right now on the 450,000 units," Cuneo said. "We have to get that on-stream."
What this means to me: If Toyota becomes more union friendly, I might cower down an support them like the Big 3. :surprise: *GULP*
Toyota is working hard on its image to try to become and "American" car company. The advertisements in Cincy that started months ago were my first clue. But most people inthis area realize they built their Georgetown plant far down in Kentucky not to be close to Cincinnati but to be far away from unions and down where people had few industrial jobs or that type and were hungry for higher paid work.
The article may say "might build in union area" but that just means they might. Doesn't mean they likely will. My son "might" become President some day...
Watch them work on their image. They copied US car quality and TVs and VCRs and all other equipment and then took over the industry. Watch them work.
Geeze, now THAT would be interesting! If Toyota can manage well with a UAW labor force, it will CLEARLY show that GM's woes are the fault of the MANAGEMENT!
Are you like the depository of obsolete auto news?? Altima was doing fine in its first model year back in 2001. Have you checked its sales lately?? There is currently a $1750-2250 cash incentive on the $20k MSRP car.
GM would love have car that sells over 200,000 units in it's final year before redesign with only $2000 cash incentive. Usually GM is forced to offer similar rebates when brand new models are *launched*
Comments
Rocky
But when Ford or Chrysler are bashed, I don't see the all out devotion and defense as I see when GM is bashed. It's interesting, reminds me of a cult or something.
I guess it's hard being #1
OTOH Ford did build me the S80.
Fintail what do you think about the new 2007 S80 ?
You like euro cars, and wanted to get your opinion pal.
Rocky
No, I got your point loud and clear -- GM is a culture of excusemakers par excellence who are largely incapable of making anything happen.
Build a bad car at GM, and absolutely nobody takes responsibility for it. Dilute and destroy a badge in the name of cost amortization, and nobody steps up.
At GM, it's always the other guy's fault: you can blame the union, the Asians, the dollar, the consumer, the Broncos defensive line, Mercury not being in retrograde, or whatever, but you will NEVER in your life even think of condemning the product or the people in charge of creating and delivering that product.
If they don't manage product and production, why have managers at all? Perhaps I am naive: GM might be so strongly dominated by a hapless collection of visionless beancounters and mid-level hacks that it might be necessary to fire too many people too quickly to ever maintain the company's current size and scope. I suppose it might be hard to fire thousands of people at one shot, but if that's what it takes, perhaps that's where they need to start.
Ford has done a laudable job of handling its Euro acquisitions, certainly better than GM. Volvos don't really get me excited, but I am sure the new S80 could be a good car.
But it reminds me of a Benz
Rocky
I do respect your opinion on European cars. You are a great source especially when it comes to Mercedes Benz.
I for some darn reason love the new Volvo S80. I mean everything about it. It's so Volvoish, and the design, the fit and finish, the way everything looks is so stunning. The wood, the leather, seems so comfortable and rock solid to drive. The safety features, the Dynaudio, everything reminds me of of what a car from Europe/Scandinavia should be.
I suppose I shouldn't be suprised, but I was sure Bill Ford was going to destroy Volvo with cost cutting measures. I'm happy he didn't destroy Volvo. I'm really worried about Cadillacs future. The Volvo S80 undercuts the STS by $10 grand or so, and it appears you get alot more owning a volvo and the residual values will hold with the Volvo. The competition is getting really tough. Consumers have alot of choices to make and it appears Ford has a winner.
Rocky
But I wouldn't be against a Volvo, per se. It is nicer looking than the current one...kinda like a big more agressive S60. GM could learn some lessons from Ford's handling of Volvo.
You keep referring to GM building bad cars. In the last ten months I have rented a Malibu, Sebring, Trailblazer & a Camry. The Sebring I took back the next day and demanded a decent car. What a POC that was. I found the Malibu and Camry about equal. They both got me 27 MPG mixed driving. The Camry had the advantage as I was on Vancouver Island where the top speed is 90KMH (56 MPH). I don't see that much difference between those two. I probably would not buy either one. They were both fine rental cars. The Trailblazer was far and away the best of the bunch. We took it on some fairly bad roads looking at property in Hawaii. It was very good on rough gravel roads. I would never rent or own anything much smaller than the Camry so I do not have any experience with the small GM products.
I agree pal.
Rocky
YOU MISSED IT BY A MILE......... AGAIN !
You should understand -- what you (or I) personally like or dislike is fairly meaningless. What counts is what the consumer likes, and we know that the consumer quite likes the Camry. The consumer votes with his money, and you need to please him to win the election.
GM can either accept the reality and make a car that can compete with the Camry (although preferably something that is interesting and doesn't mimic it, as nobody wants to buy a Chevy Camry), or else it can keep doing what is doing, and fail. Which do you prefer -- success or failure?
I hope Rick would learn a few lesson from Bill, Fintail
Rocky
Sorry, but excuses won't lead to profitability. Do you think that the current product lineup is sufficiently capable to create profits?
Do you think the Saturn Aura, comes atleast close pal ?
Rocky
Obviously you know as well as anyone, my feelings towards GM products.
That said, on paper (since I haven't seen one in person) the Aura is the first car that I can think of from GM that I'm interested in purchasing. There are still some ifs, primarily pricing and passing my test drive, but that goes for any car. I like the looks, the powertrain (wish it would offer a manual) and the interior. I say thumbs up.
I drive down through our subdivision and see new Armadas, Suburbans, LX470s, and every brand of fullsize PU truck. It is a typical middle class working neighborhood. I would buy a Porsche Carrera but my wife has already owned several Porsches, and thinks they are too hard to get in and out of. I think maybe you are looking at a different demographic than I see in SoCal. I only see little old ladies driving Camrys. Little old men like Buicks & Caddies.
The more that I think about it, the more I wonder whether the badges should be radically changed even more than I had first thought. For example, if GM wants to reach a European-oriented consumer base seeking alternatives to Volvo, Audi, BMW, etc., then why not just badge these cars as Opels so as to emphasize the European heritage, and leave them largely unmodified for the US market? Why not sell those Opels alongside a reduced line of Saabs that returns to its core, which no longer includes rebadged Chevy SUV's and Subarus, and which tie the Opel identity to another distinctively European brand?
I'm afraid that even if the cars are good that the Saturn affiliation may kill off the marque. Saturn was originally positioned as a cult alternative to Toyota, Honda, etc., and this car may create more brand confusion. And somehow, I have to wonder whether dropping in an American drivetrain might harm it as well.
Rocky
Rather than denigrating Toyota's success, it would be better to match and outcompete them. Again, I wouldn't just copy the Camry (Hyundai can afford to create knockoffs, but GM will lose with that strategy), but I would certainly make a product that combines reliability and good packaging with more distinctive styling and something special in order to take back that market. Look at the Altima as a good case study -- similar concept as the Camry, but more of a styling edge to slot it toward the youth market. Good thinking on Nissan's part (and essential to its survival), much better than giving into rental car anti-chic.
I do respect your willingness to give em' another try and atleast look at the Aura.
Rocky
It is a popular and reliable car. NO question about it. I think it has a demographic older than you think. I also think it is downgraded the last few years according to some that have bought 2nd or third Camrys. My cousin just bought a 2006 Camry top of the line and does not like it as well as her 1999. The new one sits in the garage and she continues to drive the older one. She had a Cressida that she traded for the 1999 Camry and was not thrilled with that exchange either. So I am not sure that Camry is getting better or not.
Is that a topic for mystery car pix ?
Rocky
For the purposes of this analysis, I would define "good" upon whether consumers (a) like the product, (b) would buy another one if in the market for a four-door mid-market sedan, and (c) would recommend them to their friends. (My personal preferences aren't included here -- personally, Camry's bore me to tears, but I don't count here.)
If your cousin and sister are indicative of the buying population, then Toyota had better listen, but most of the buyers seem happy. (I read a blurb in a car mag that stated that Toyota found that styling was one of the most common reasons why those who had looked at Camry but didn't buy one had selected a rival product, instead. Toyotas are not built for excitement, but not everyone wants excitement.)
That's one reason I argue that GM could compete if it had a car that matched it on reliability, but beat it on style, handling and packaging. It is those who want a bit more joie de vivre in their driving experience who will be most inclined to shop. Toyotas are outstanding but dull, and not everybody wants dull.
Argh, talk about making me feel old. Kids today, I tell ya...
'89 Camry - '94 Camry - '97 Camry - '00 Camry and a total of 500,000+ absolutely trouble-free miles on the four of them.
But when Ford or Chrysler are bashed, I don't see the all out devotion and defense as I see when GM is bashed. It's interesting, reminds me of a cult or something
I can think of a few reasons Chrysler is not dogged. For one, Chrysler pretty much was hanging by a thread in the early 80s. They have went from the K Car to the 300, which quite frankly is the engineering marvel of the last 20 years in the auto industry. To borrow from Tom Lykis, the 300 is a California "10", and GM can't come up with a Seattle "6". Add the Sebring and Sebring convertible, the PT Cruiser and the light trucks, and they have turned alot of heads. GMs answer to the PT Cruiser is the Homely Hot Rod (HHR). That is one sorry looking vehicle. And it is a poorly done copy. Hyundai did a better job copying the 300. GM has some decent light trucks, and has since I can remember, but their cars are not worth looking at, and haven't been since the mid 70s. Even the Caddies have been made cheap. To be honest, Toyota and Honda (and especially Hyundai) came into the US with little cheap tinny cars and built better every year (most years anyway). Americans remember Chevy for the Hot Rod tank built 63 Impel la with the 327 or whatever it had. And they have gotten smaller and lighter since. Chevy may have decent quality, but they don't have a 300. When I hear Chrysler I think 300 and PT Cruiser. When I hear Chevy I think Chevette, Citation and Cavalier. When Chevy comes up with a show quality car or 2, the perceptions will change.
I thought it was pretty clear, but I'll post it again. A few factoids from the Detroit News:
Top 10 US fleet cars, October 2005 - January 2006:
1 - Impala
2 - Malibu
3 - Taurus
4 - Sonata
5 - Grand Prix
6 - Stratus
7 - G6
8 - Caravan
9 - Cobalt
10 -PT Cruiser
GM fleet sales as a percentage of total sales:
Oct. 2004 - January 2005: 26%
Oct. 2005 - January 2006: 31%
Clearly, GM continues to dominate the fleet market. And while they talk a big game about reducing fleet sales, the fleet sales are actually increasing in percentage terms.
Not only that, but fleet sales during the same period also increased in absolute terms. If we look at GM's actual sale numbers, we can see that total US sales for the two periods above were as follows:
Oct. 2004 - January 2005: 1,366,763
Oct. 2005 - January 2006: 1,226,955
Net decrease: 139,808 units (-10.2%)
Apply the 26% and 31% fleet sales share figures to the above, and you get this estimate of fleet sales for the period:
Oct. 2004 - January 2005: 355,000
Oct. 2005 - January 2006: 380,000
Net increase: 25,000 more units (+7.0%)
Now, if you back these fleet estimates out of the total, you can estimate GM's retail sales declined from about 1 million units during 10/04-1/05 to about 847,000 units during 10/05-1/06, a decrease of 16%.
It's pretty clear that the new no-fleet policy is smoke and mirrors. Why GM's press agents keep repeating this fallacy, I have no idea, when the data clearly conflicts with the reality. As usual, the only thing that changes is the story, but otherwise, it's business as usual.
I think you have a problem when somebody provides facts like Socala, and you always point the blame instead of taking ownership like a real manager when things fail.
Please answer my simple question. Repeating your own lie is not proving your thesis about Socala providing one diddly fact!
I will ask you again, since when is:
4 > 30 ??
Socala prescribed that GM management should never have tried M&A because it lost $4 billion on bad deals, while entirely ignoring the $30+ billion profit GM management made on successful M&A activities
1.6 > 4.2? 1.6 > 5.2?
Socala repeated asserted that GTO was a terrible failure while holding forth 300 and Mustang as shining examples of scuess. Guess what? GTO is having a $500 or 1.6% of MSRP cash incentive in its third model year, while 300 is having a $1000 cash incentive or 4.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year, and Mustang is having $1000 cash incentive or 5.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year.
Socala even brought forth Hyundai as example of selling well because of product quality instead of selling because of low price and giving the shop away! Sonata, the best selling Hyndai, has a $2000 cash incentive on a $15k MSRP car! That's 7.5% of MSRP. Talk about cluelessness.
Your illustration of your own experience with non-union jobs and union job experience is quite atypical and contradictory. For example, you said "Yep, we all make the same. Why ? We all do the same work." How exactly does that related to rewarding hard work?? You can not be seriously telling me that everyone work exactly equally hard.
Your comment about in a non-union shop you were fired because you were the new comer . . . while that may or may not be typical of non-union shops (actually the most common employee complaint in recent years is that senior employees with high salaries being let go because their pay is too high and their job can be replaced with new comers with lower pay), new-comers being kicked out first is certainly the rule in a union-shop . . . even you admitted that seniorities in the union shop means getting laid off last.
the slackers get punished and embarrassed by the union steward. The union steward polices the membership and working hard usually isn't a problem since everyone wants to do a good job and keep a good reputation.
That is so ludicrous a statement I don't even konw where to begin . . . Union stewards have long lost the power to embarrass or punish individual union members over the past three decades . . . can you say law suits for harassment?? As to everyone wants to do a good job and keep a good reputation . . . if that's the case how can you be spending hours everyday blaming management?? Aren't they people, too?? In fact, as far as defending repuations are concerned, they are individually held responsible for their positions whereas the very purpose of union is anonymity . . . "we all do the same work" in your own words, remember??
You seem like the trigger happy firing managers that I've worked for in the past and I personally don't want to have fear going into work each day and have to kiss my bosses butt just to stay employed. I have to much pride to cower down like a abused dog and if you have a problem with me I can bring my union steward into my meeting with me as my back-up.
Obviously you do not have enough pride in your own work or enough confidence to believe that your work can stand on their own merit to save your job.
Frankly, if you are in a job where you feel you are abused, you should have enough confidence in yourself to leave the job and find your talent better utilized elsewhere . . . without the fear that just because you are the newest member of the union shop you will be the first one to be let go!
You are obviously not a trustworthy discussion partner.
The cost of the FIAT deal alone was $4.4 billion. The Forbes article referenced above determined a conservative estimate of $15 billion.
You are free to believe what you want, but if you are going to deliberately lie about what other people said, then you aren't worth speaking with. Faking the numbers just to suit your story puts you in a bad light.
Easier said than done. Given the high cost of low quality production line thanks to the archaic union labor rules that GM is facing, you may as well advise GM to "simply" find a fairy god-mother who will pay $50k for every GM car and buy several million of them for her fairy friends; problem solved. Wonder why GM would lose the strategy that has served Hyundai well? and Toyota and Honda well too before they became respected brands. Low cost flexible labor.
Look at the Altima as a good case study -- similar concept as the Camry, but more of a styling edge to slot it toward the youth market. Good thinking on Nissan's part (and essential to its survival), much better than giving into rental car anti-chic.
Are you like the depository of obsolete auto news?? Altima was doing fine in its first model year back in 2001. Have you checked its sales lately?? There is currently a $1750-2250 cash incentive on the $20k MSRP car. That's 9%-11% of MSRP (that's cash offered by manufacturer in addition to the usual dealer margins/discounts)! Compared to 1.6% of MSRP for GTO, which you call a miserable failure. Nissan would be better served finding a fleet outlet instead of trying to dump so many of the unsold cars on the retail market.
What did I lie about what you said? Did you not keep harping about GM management losing $4 billion on M&A while entirely ignoring M&A gains that amounted to several times that?? Even if we use your $15 billion number, $30+ billion gain is still more than double the supposed losses. Talk about serious intellectual dishonesty on your part. You could have pleaded ignorance before I brought up the numbers, but no, you kept harping about M&A loss, and even lied and claimed my numbers were fantacies.
Did you not describe GTO as a miserable failure, while holding forth 300 and Mustang as successes?? Whereas in reality, 300 and Mustang are being discounted much more heavily than GTO is. Now you add Altima to that list, after earlier mention of Hyundai. Do you know anything about the auto industry? Besides searching for headlines??
Please answer my simple question. Repeating your own lie is not proving your thesis about Socala providing one diddly fact!
I will ask you again, since when is:
4 > 30 ??
Socala prescribed that GM management should never have tried M&A because it lost $4 billion on bad deals, while entirely ignoring the $30+ billion profit GM management made on successful M&A activities
Socala, explained himself in the above post. Obviously you misunderstood him. :confuse:
1.6 > 4.2? 1.6 > 5.2?
Socala repeated asserted that GTO was a terrible failure while holding forth 300 and Mustang as shining examples of scuess. Guess what? GTO is having a $500 or 1.6% of MSRP cash incentive in its third model year, while 300 is having a $1000 cash incentive or 4.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year, and Mustang is having $1000 cash incentive or 5.2% of MSRP in its 2nd model year.
Socala even brought forth Hyundai as example of selling well because of product quality instead of selling because of low price and giving the shop away! Sonata, the best selling Hyndai, has a $2000 cash incentive on a $15k MSRP car! That's 7.5% of MSRP. Talk about cluelessness.
brightness, I personally like the GTO. I seriously came real close to closing a deal on a 2005, but the car salesmen kept dinking me around about the sport appearance package and it's availability. I called several dealerships here in the SW and got told lies and deceptions and almost made a 4 1/2 hour drive, which turned out to be a lie. :mad:
Well back on the GTO. GM's goal was to sell 18,000 GTO's. The current GTO, doesn't look like what a GTO should, thus is a total failure and once again Socala, provided you with facts of why it didn't sell and you overlook them and twist Hyundai and other car company's into the situation.:confuse: Heck plenty of other people provided facts, and opinions on why the GTO wasn't a HOTT car like the Mustang. :sick: Wasn't it obvious that it was going to fall flat on it's face without any retro styling to the past ? Wasn't Rick and Bob aware of this ? You gotta blame GM management and the UAW doesn't assemble the car, so you can't blame em' :P
BTW- GM management has stuck to their guns on incentives, I will give em' that.
Your illustration of your own experience with non-union jobs and union job experience is quite atypical and contradictory. For example, you said "Yep, we all make the same. Why ? We all do the same work." How exactly does that related to rewarding hard work?? You can not be seriously telling me that everyone work exactly equally hard.
In my line of work, everyone has to work hard to get the job done. We actually work the job with less people than we should.
(due to management wanting to save a buck, imagine that :confuse: ) We work in teams, like the military police.
Your comment about in a non-union shop you were fired because you were the new comer . . . while that may or may not be typical of non-union shops (actually the most common employee complaint in recent years is that senior employees with high salaries being let go because their pay is too high and their job can be replaced with new comers with lower pay), new-comers being kicked out first is certainly the rule in a union-shop . . . even you admitted that seniorities in the union shop means getting laid off last.
The senior employees put the blame on me when things weren't getting all the way done. I didn't know they were backstabbing me to my boss. It really hurt my feelings, friends to my face, but were actually enemy's that didn't want to take ownership and take some of the blame. I was so frusterated. my boss of course believed the older employees over me, leading to me getting the axe. Hell it wasn't that big of a loss. I look back on it, I'm thankful the way it turned out.
Obviously you do not have enough pride in your own work or enough confidence to believe that your work can stand on their own merit to save your job.
I work my butt off brightness. I always have. My merit in those non-union jobs didn't mean anything to my supervisor. They were more interested in drinking beer after work and party's. I tell you one thing, the [non-permissible content removed] kissers will come out of the woodwork in a non-union shop, and you being a employer should be cautious that the guy kissing your butt, might not neccessarily be your best worker, just a thought
Frankly, if you are in a job where you feel you are abused, you should have enough confidence in yourself to leave the job and find your talent better utilized elsewhere . . . without the fear that just because you are the newest member of the union shop you will be the first one to be let go!
I'm in a pretty secure job where I don't have to worry a whole lot about being laid off. I also am mid-pack on seniority, and moving up pretty darn fast. I'd consider myself darn safe.
Also Brightness, I have no ambition to start over. I hope I can retire at my current job, god willing. I feel really bad for folks that work somewhere with 10-15 years and have 3-4 weeks of vacation, and they have to start over from scratch :sick:
You as an employer are very lucky, and can come and go as you please, and yes I'm happy for you that you are very successful at your buisness and can do this for your family.
Rocky
&
The UAW
Time Kick a little butt, eh ?
VP for organizing tells Detroit audience that union can't afford to wage war, must work to save jobs.
DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers has dropped its adversarial stance with Detroit automakers and suppliers in favor of a more cooperative approach to saving union jobs, a senior UAW official Wednesday.
Bob King, the UAW's vice president for organizing, said the union has dramatically changed its relationship with employers because of the dire need to preserve manufacturing jobs in the United States.
"We have made a conscious choice to put aside the adversarial approach," King told an automotive conference in Detroit. "We believe adversarial relationships drive manufacturing jobs out of this country."
With Detroit's Big Three automakers struggling with soaring health care and material costs, the UAW can ill afford to wage war over downsizing at General Motors Corp. or Ford Motor Co., King said.
"We are committed to change, and we are changing," King told the attendees at the event, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. "It's not easy, but we're doing it."
The UAW's ranks have dwindled in recent years as U.S. manufacturing jobs have moved overseas to lower-wage countries.
The union's latest financial report said its membership declined 10.5 percent last year to 557,099 people -- the lowest since World War II.
With GM and Ford seeking to shed a combined 60,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs in coming years, the UAW has tried to negotiate "accelerated attrition" programs rather than fight inevitable job cuts.
"We have taken the high-road approach where we work together to reverse this trend," King said.
Last month, the union agreed to a massive buyout program with GM and its biggest supplier -- bankrupt Delphi Corp. -- that covers more than 130,000 unionized workers.
The buyout program offers UAW members packages worth $35,000 to $140,000 to either retire early or sever ties with GM or Delphi.
King declined to answer direct questions about Delphi, which has asked a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to void its contracts with 24,000 UAW members and another 8,000 unionized workers.
But in recent days, GM executives have said they are hopeful that Delphi's restructuring can be accomplished without a strike.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner said in an April 4 interview that the UAW, led by President Ron Gettelfinger, has shown a willingness to work with the Big Three rather than fight them.
"I think Ron and the UAW have shown themselves to be very knowledgeable about the state of the industry and the competitive environment and the needs of their members," Wagoner told The Detroit News.
King noted that the UAW has struck several agreements with major parts suppliers that relax union work rules and job classifications in factories to improve productivity.
"The UAW is acting differently," said King, a UAW vice president since 1998. "That is not the public perception but that is a fact and that is the truth."
Last year's historic deal between GM and the UAW to cut health care costs -- including assessing first-ever health care fees on UAW retirees -- was a turning point in the relationship between the union and the Big Three.
With GM and Ford losing billions of dollars in North America, the UAW is committed to helping the companies lower their costs to compete more effectively with foreign rivals.
"There are no sacred cows in terms of old practices and old strategies," King said.
What this means to us:
The UAW is going to bring a Gun to the knife fight to help our beloved Big 3 return to dominance :shades:
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/AUTO01/604200372/- - - - - - - 1148
Rocky
Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday that its plan to idle seven factories will cost the company another $2.4 billion before taxes this year, according to documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
That's in addition to $1 billion in related charges already announced by the company, bringing the total cost of the restructuring moves to about $3.4 billion for the year.
The moves will further reduce the company's North American production capacity by 1.2 million units, or 26 percent, Ford said.
Global Insight Inc. estimates that Ford's North American factories are now running at about 72 percent of capacity.
In January, Ford unveiled a restructuring plan that calls for the idling of 14 factories and elimination of 30,000 factory jobs over the next six years.
At the time, it said it would shutter assembly plants in Wixom, Atlanta and St. Louis, idle two parts factories and cut production to one shift at its St. Thomas assembly plant in Canada and warned that the moves would cost more than $1 billion.
Last week, the automaker said it would also idle assembly plants in St. Paul, Minn., and Norfolk, Va.
On Wednesday, Ford said it would take another $2.4 billion in pre-tax charges, including $1.7 billion in costs related to voluntary termination packages and layoffs, $425 million related to pension curtailment and $280 million in costs associated with the plants closings.
Rocky
The UAW is willing to make some sacrifices to reach a new labor agreement with Tower Automotive Inc., but labor costs are not a problem at the automotive-parts supplier, a top UAW official said Wednesday.
UAW Vice President Bob King, the union's lead negotiator with Tower, said talks continue with the supplier, which filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors last year.
"The problem at Tower is not labor costs. The problem is way too much debt incurred by prior management," King told reporters after a conference at the Detroit branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Tower filed a motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in February to cancel its labor contracts in order to cut wages and benefits by $40 million annually.
If the judge rules in Tower's favor, there's no guarantee Tower actually would cancel its union contracts.
Tower's three major unions, including the UAW, said in January that they would strike if Tower wins court approval and nullifies the labor contracts.
A strike at Tower mostly would affect its largest customers, Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG.
"We're willing to try to work with them ... make some sacrifices, make the company viable," King said Wednesday.
Novi-based Tower employs more than 3,000 hourly workers at eight plants in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, including sites in Plymouth, Clinton Township and Traverse City.
Tower Chief Executive Kathleen Ligocki earlier this month said she hopes to reach a deal with the UAW on a new labor contract by May 1.
She said Tower expects to emerge from bankruptcy this summer.
King declined to characterize the ongoing talks with Tower.
"We're talking. I'm always an optimistic bargainer. I hope that we're able to resolve something with Tower," he said.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/BUSINESS01/604200560/10- 14
Rocky
Did I read that right ? :surprise:
Here's the article for my proof.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060419/BUSINESS01/604190410/10- - 14
A Toyota Motor Co. executive said Tuesday the company wouldn't rule out any U.S. state for future plants because it has a strong union presence.
Toyota, along with other foreign automakers, has been criticized for trying to avoid unions by putting plants in the South where right-to-work laws make it more difficult to unionize.
Dennis Cuneo, senior vice president for Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, said Toyota wouldn't make a decision based on those laws. He spoke at an auto conference hosted by the Federal Reserve of Chicago's Detroit branch.
Toyota's only UAW plant in the United States is a joint venture in California with General Motors Corp. But the company has plants in states or Canadian provinces, such as Ontario and West Virginia, with a strong union tradition, Cuneo said.
"Just look at what we've done," he said. "We're in a lot of non-right-to-work states."
Cuneo wouldn't comment about when or where new plants might be built. Michigan officials have been courting Toyota for a possible engine plant. The New York Times reported this week that Toyota is considering a new North American assembly plant in four Southern states.
"At this time, we have no plans," Cuneo said.
Toyota is busy now preparing new assembly plants in Texas, Indiana and Ontario scheduled to begin production by 2008, he said. Those three plants combined will be able to produce 450,000 vehicles annually. "We're focused right now on the 450,000 units," Cuneo said. "We have to get that on-stream."
What this means to me: If Toyota becomes more union friendly, I might cower down an support them like the Big 3. :surprise: *GULP*
Rocky
The article may say "might build in union area" but that just means they might. Doesn't mean they likely will. My son "might" become President some day...
Watch them work on their image. They copied US car quality and TVs and VCRs and all other equipment and then took over the industry. Watch them work.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM would love have car that sells over 200,000 units in it's final year before redesign with only $2000 cash incentive. Usually GM is forced to offer similar rebates when brand new models are *launched*