You're assuming that the actual Union contracts would be the same. Not a safe bet.
Actually, I think Lemko had a fair insight with that one. One of the points I made earlier on this thread is that is a bit of a cop-out to blame the union for the terms of the agreement when it was the byproduct of a mutual negotiation. Management agreed to those terms, and you must hold management responsible for those terms if you don't like them.
I'm not the biggest fan of unions, and if I were in management of any company, I would obviously prefer to not have a union. That being said, the UAW has already adopted team production methods at GM, Chrysler and Ford (unfortunately, the Big 2.5 just don't seem to be as good at implementing them), has ceded to cars being imported from outside of the US and Canada, and so forth.
In practice, I doubt that Toyota would be eager to work with the UAW if they can get better results without them, but at the same time, Toyota has a completely different approach to project valuation which leads to different results. I suspect that even if the UAW vanished tomorrow at GM, but everyone at Toyota USA unionized, Toyota will still be beating the pants off of GM.
Whereas GM's approach is to reduce costs whereever possible and to use discounting to sell inventory, Toyota focuses on the product, with the goal of making the product so competitive that it will sell to the retail customer, while managing its inventories effectively enough to keep prices high and emphasizing quality in order to maintain repeat business. Given what we see happening today, it's pretty clear to me that focusing on driving revenues and managing costs through quality control and inventory management is a better approach than focusing on margins and managing costs by nickel-and-diming every supplier and attacking your workforce whereever possible.
Argh, talk about making me feel old. Kids today, I tell ya.
Watch out you will be getting into my age bracket.
Rocky, the Cressida was arguably the best Toyota ever built. They killed it so they could sell their Lexus. Built from about 1986 to 1992. Downgrading to the FWD Camry was a big disappointment to many Cressida owners. The LS400 was too expensive, and the ES was just a fancy Camry. My cousin bought two Cressidas in about 1990. My aunt is still driving hers and will not give it up.
GM is not the only company that has screwed up. Just because they sell by the millions does not make them a great car. The 911 Carrera is a GREAT car and they only sell about 300 per month.
...the ES250? It's a very cheap way to own a Lexus!
Anyway, if Toyota hired UAW workers, they've would get trained, skilled employees who would be able to go right to work in an environment unlike the adversarial one at GM. They also won't have to train Cletus the slack-jawed non-union yokel using comic books. Toyota already must know how NOT to deal with the union by studying GM's experience
"They also won't have to train Cletus the slack-jawed non-union yokel using comic books."
Since all of Toyota's other plants were non-union (with the exception of the joint GM/Toyota NUMMI plant), I'll have to assume that you are referring to everyone in these other plants as 'slack-jawed yokels'.
Is this your assertion? Interesting stereotype. I suppose that you also feel that EVERYONE in a right-to-work state (with the exception of those enlightened individuals in Unions) are ALSO 'slack-jawed yokels'?
BTW - we've also determined (thanks rocky) that GM has extensive training programs for their employees (I'm assuming UAW employees), so really the only difference is that non-UAW folks get trained with comic books while UAW members used standard training manuals?
I've heard of bilingual education but this is ridiculous....
I think the slack-jawed yokel remark was directed at Nissan's experience in Mississippi where they had a very hard time getting enough qualified people to hire at their new plant near Jackson. They were hiring people from out of state and moving them to Jackson to work. Toyota listed that experience as one reason why they decided to build another plant in Canada instead of our South. The story was in the news last summer.
edit: Here's a link to a CBC report from exactly one year ago:
relevant passage is: "He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment. "
The data quoted is about the same for both 3 month and 3 year dependability. Unfortunately there is no unbiased data out there for longer than 3 years.
My mistake - I should have clarified myself meaning longer term reliability over three years. Mainly, I meant after warranty expiration. But for the number of different models GM produces, that is not too many good models.
If GM could only spread that kind of ranking out over the majority of their product line, they would not be in the trouble they are now.
there is direct correlation between initial quality and long term dependability.
Initial quality is more based on the manufacturing process, while long term durability is based on the engineering. Again, if GM could just spread the success of those models over their entire product line, problem solved!
Exactly pal. The UAW knows hey are going to have to flexible, and the Lansing plant workers like working in teams and say the time goes by when you get to work with your friends who happen to be your co-workers also.
If Toyota lets the UAW in the door, I will support them like an American company an include them. How does The Big 4 sound
You said it best pal. I have to agree with you that toyota with a unionized labor force would still beat GM. The UAW isn't going risk vanishing because of not being flexible and if Toyota does except a union workforce someday, you will still see Toyota a dominant player. Toyota has proven they are willing to pay good money for the best possible workforce.
If this is so, what do the employees gain by being unionized? Better yet, what does Toyota (and ultimately, the consumer) gain?
Job Security and Seniority. They would also get a contract with the company, and perhaps a better retirement like a good company matching 401K. OTOH- I agree Toyota has been able to keep unions out of their plants because they do have good enough benefits, pay, retirements, to keep the workers happy.
I personally would still rather work under a union contract, that way I know what I got written in writing. But hey that's me, and my experience.
"I personally would still rather work under a union contract, that way I know what I got written in writing. But hey that's me, and my experience."
I'm not sure I understand.
I've never been in a Union, yet I've ALWAYS known, in writing, what my pay/benefits/retirement plan/etc was.
Job security? If you consistently give value to the company in line with your pay/benefits, then you will have job security. Why should ANY company, rationally managed (big caveat I'll agree), run off employees who give them value in line with their pay/bennies?
Seniority? Are you treating Seniority as simply another aspect of Job Security?
I've never been in a Union, yet I've ALWAYS known, in writing, what my pay/benefits/retirement plan/etc was.
Well I never had in writing what my pay and benefits would be lets say 2 or 3 years down the line rorr. You are fortunate to know.
Job security? If you consistently give value to the company in line with your pay/benefits, then you will have job security. Why should ANY company, rationally managed (big caveat I'll agree), run off employees who give them value in line with their pay/bennies?
Well a bean counter employer will hirer someone younger, and is willing to work for less. It happens all the time. I agree not all employers are created equal and not all of em' have no morales.
Seniority? Are you treating Seniority as simply another aspect of Job Security?
Seniority is job security, and in a union company their is a better chance of longevity, and the fear of being replaced by a youngster that is willing to work for half, means you won't be forced out the door and have to start all over. I've unfortunately seen this happen to many folks, and this has even happened to some of my family that's in management and hourly.
I've thought about this (a tiny bit more), and I think what it all boils down to is....
safety.
There is safety in numbers. A Union member (analogous to a Wildebeast) feels 'safer' as part of the overall herd. And if that Union member has to operate out in a non-union environment,they may feel more exposed to the whims of management (the lions). Much safer to just be part of the herd.
moo.
Problem is, you resign yourself to whatever the best deal is that the Union can give you. Is it RISKIER out there in a non-union environment? Sure. But the only ones who get rich in a Union are the leaders. Middle class is ALL you can look forward to as a rank and file member. And the leadership is more akin to politicians getting fat by sucking the blood off of the rank and file than by actually PRODUCING anything.
"Well I never had in writing what my pay and benefits would be lets say 2 or 3 years down the line..."
WHAT? 2-3 years down the line?
How can you rationally EXPECT to know what sort of pay/benefits YOU will get if management doesn't know what sort of employee you will be? Or what their own financial situation will be? Have you ever considered looking at ANY of your arguments from management's perspective?
"Well a bean counter employer will hirer someone younger, and is willing to work for less."
Why shouldn't they? If you want to be PAID more, you should be able to OFFER more to the company, regardless of age. Pay/benefits should ALWAYS be in line with the value the employee gives to the company. Or do you EXPECT to just get a job and then coast along at the same freakin' level of competence year after year yet still get pay raises?
If you've been with a company for 10 years, getting progressively more and more money/benefits, you certainly SHOULD be able to offer more value to the company than some wet behind the ears kid off the street. Or are you admitting that some young kid fresh off the street can do your same job, will do it for less, so you NEED the Union to protect you from 'unfair' hiring practices????
My grandmother is very far from rich and she was a union rep for the IUE for 22 years. I wouldn't call that blood sucking.
Let's put it this way rorr. This year I will make around $60,000 give or take a few grand, and perhaps if I continue to work a little more Overtime I will knock down $65,000 which would put me in the top 20% percentile, and my wife currently doesn't work yet.
She put off college so we could start a family, but is only lacking about a 1 1/2 years left of college. She wants to be a school teacher (God only knows why :confuse: ) and then things will be a little easier.
My point is rorr, a large group of "Moos" :P is better than 1 moo when getting the best deal. I gurantee you that their isn't a non-union person in my line of work that make more money than I do. we our the lowest paid DOE SPO's in the complex. Well that is until next March
I got a 401K with a company 10% match, I pay about $122-123 dollars for medical(90/10 up to $1500 max) dental, optical, prescription drugs which is a $5,10,12 dollar co-pay depending on expense. We are currently lobbying congress for a federal retirement plan backed by the DOE. I personally am against it, but the old timers feel it's worth a try. I'd rather negotiate for a 20-50% company match dollar for dollar and would be more logical to get funding for.
Do you think I could get this in a non-union plant ?
You already know the answer I probably have it better than you on benefits, eh ? You probably make alot more salary than I ? I hope you do rorr ! I'm not jealous, and I want whats best for you and your family, just I want what's best for all our citizens.
How can you rationally EXPECT to know what sort of pay/benefits YOU will get if management doesn't know what sort of employee you will be? Or what their own financial situation will be? Have you ever considered looking at ANY of your arguments from management's perspective?
Well if everyone is doing "Their Jobs" correctly, then their should be expansion and growth in 2-3 years.
Why shouldn't they? If you want to be PAID more, you should be able to OFFER more to the company, regardless of age. Pay/benefits should ALWAYS be in line with the value the employee gives to the company. Or do you EXPECT to just get a job and then coast along at the same freakin' level of competence year after year yet still get pay raises?
I don't think people just coast along year after year, without gaining new skills and knowledge. I know we have gotten very high-tech in the last couple of years, and yes we got minimal training, so we had to learn as we go. So yes I deserve a good raise
If you've been with a company for 10 years, getting progressively more and more money/benefits, you certainly SHOULD be able to offer more value to the company than some wet behind the ears kid off the street.
Not if the company feels they can train that wet behind the ears kid, and send your high pay, 3 or 4 weeks vacation and old-[non-permissible content removed] out the door. :P
Or are you admitting that some young kid fresh off the street can do your same job, will do it for less, so you NEED the Union to protect you from 'unfair' hiring practices????
Anyone can be trained to do any job if one has good instructors and the person has a half of a brain. Sure some jobs might take a month to learn, others might take 3 months. My job takes about 6 good months of solid training with experienced co-workers to learn.
Wait a minute....middle-class is all a person can look forward to if they are rank and file? So people that aren't rank and file are upper-class people? You Sir have your head up your [non-permissible content removed]! :mad:
We agree. The Buick Lucernes interior though is pretty nice. The new SUV's also have very nice comfy interior to.
Oh no doubt. The new Tahoe/Sububan/Denali/Escalade interiors are much improved and at the very least look appropriate for a vehicle of their price. Which certainly wasn't the case for the previous models.
Oh no doubt. The new Tahoe/Sububan/Denali/Escalade interiors are much improved and at the very least look appropriate for a vehicle of their price. Which certainly wasn't the case for the previous models.
We agree again diesel. If I do buy a new Truck or SUV, I was waiting for this generation to come out.
My Work Car: is to find a Olds Aurora 95-on that is in great condition. My Grandma said she might sell me hers (01' 3.5 shortstar V-6) It's White with tan leather, sunroof, Bose, 12 disc in the trunk, of course heated seats, dual climate, and the dang thing is built like a bank vault.
My Toy: will be a 7-UP 25th Ann. Ford Mustang Emerald Green Paint, W/ White Leather, 5.0 w/ 5 speed manuel
The Wife wants a used SUV to haul the kids around or a Mini-van like a Relay. We'll See.
The Aurora might be her and the kids car until the 98' Mustang pukes.
I'll have sell my 3/4 Ton 4x4 Dodge flat-Bed to my neighbor. He wants us to hold on to it for him, He's 15'. I told him we weren't in a big hurry and you get first dibbs on it. :shades:
The Wife wants a used SUV to haul the kids around or a Mini-van like a Relay. We'll See.
Well, the women usually get what they want, but I will say I've owned two SUVs and a minivan. Hands down the minivan was much better for hauling kids around, much better fuel economy too, particularly in town. The only advantage my Suburban has is towing capacity and room behind the 3rd row and 4 wheel drive, but I don't think thats much of an issue in TX, it's not much of one here in Wichita either. Most minivans are quicker and handle much better. If I didn't need to tow, no way would I have an SUV.
Regarding the Tahoe/Suburban, I know it may not be an issue for most, but it just bothers the heck out of me that they are not offering the 6speed auto in a tahoe/Suburban and the tow capacity was reduced. Rock, I know you'll disagree, but I'm seriously interested in the upcoming Expedition due to the fact I can get a 6speed auto, more torque @ a lower rpm vs GMs 5.3. Obviously, I would have to do a complete comparison, but I would at least want to see how the Ford will stack up. I think with 2 extra gears, more torque, more towing capacity, it should make a nice tow vehicle. I'll just have to wait and see, especially since I don't plan on getting rid of my current Sub for another year or two.
Sure the Denali would be nice, but I'm not going to spend $50k+ to get the 6.2/6speed which obviously would be nice. Maybe a few used ones will be available in a year or two?
Also, looks like I might begin doing some dealer searches for an 06 Mustang GT convertible 5 speed manual for the wife by July.:) The beauty is she looses her company car for a year (different assignment at work) then gets another company car (after about a year). That means the Mustang will be my daily driver and I can use the Suburban for trips/towing duty only. Which may mean I'll keep it even longer.
Socala, explained himself in the above post. Obviously you misunderstood him.
So which one of his explanations was satisfactory to you? 4 > 30, 4 > 15 or 15 > 30? Which of the three passes for union shop math nowadays? ;-)
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.
Nope, I did not. Socala repeatedly called GTO a failure and praised Mustang and 300 as successes (post #1821, #1825), when in fact both Mustang and 300 have much higher manufacturers' cash incentives than there is on GTO despite being a year younger in the model cycle. Socala is the one who brought up Hyundai as an example of company that sells on quality, when in fact Hyundai primary marketting tool is price, as evidenced by the $2000 cash incentive on the $15k Sonata compared to the $500 on the $30k GTO!
You consider Socala's misconceptions to be facts because both of you get your information from media hypes . . . infotainment are not reliable sources of information. A case in point, Socala still held onto his obsolete news about how hot Altima is, whereas an knowledgeable observer of the industry was able to anticipate today's headline yesterday:
Like the common saying on Wall Street, news analysis is exactly worth how much you pay for it: namely, not worth a dime most of the time.
Heck plenty of other people provided facts, and opinions on why the GTO wasn't a HOTT car like the Mustang.
Those same people would be wrong in the face of a very simple fact: GTO needs only 1.6% of MSRP in cash incentive in the third model year, whereas Mustang needs 5.4% of MSRPin the second model year. Mustang SVT Cobra, which is really the only competitor to GTO in the whole Mustang lineup, isn't even being marketed.
BTW- GM management has stuck to their guns on incentives, I will give em' that.
Without UAW inflexible work rule, GM management can afford to do this on the GTO. It will take a few repeat instances of this to revive the Pontiac brand from the ashes of heavy discounting due to uncontrollable oversupply necessiated by UAW fixed pay rules.
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
Kissing my butt never gets anyone anywhere. I'm very much a bottom-line kind of guy. Only those contributing to my bottom-line gets to stay. The beauty with competitive market place is that, firms with irreponsible middle-management lose, and lose very quickly. I can not stand working for people who do not appreciate the value I create though my work.
You as an employer are very lucky, and can come and go as you please,
Actually, we all have to work for someone in return for our keeping. In my case, I have clients. I actually have to work even on weekends, most of the time. As to job security, if everyone's job is secure all the time, especially the kind father-to-son job security dreamed of by the unions, the economy would be really stagnant and rotten! Would you like to be watching B&W TV and getting all your news on radio and newspaper?? Obviously, a generation ago, nobody was making DVD, computer, internet or cellphone. All these new industries need people laid off from somewhere else to work for them. That's why job security at the expense of labor flexibility is terrible. Companies go through cycles of founding, expansion, hiring, layoff and ultimately bankruptcy and liquidation in response to consumer demands transmitted through the market place. All the hirings and firings are the invisible hand at work allocating precious human resources. A human being only has 30-40 productive years. . . getting those years stuck in a non-productive place-holding job position while watching the economy moving on is a terrible fate.
Well if everyone is doing "Their Jobs" correctly, then their should be expansion and growth in 2-3 years.
Not necessarily. Competition and the condition of economy itself has a lot to do with expansin/contraction of a car company. Sometimes even cutting back is the "correct" way to do the management job.
Not if the company feels they can train that wet behind the ears kid, and send your high pay, 3 or 4 weeks vacation and old-[non-permissible content removed] out the door.
That doesn't quite jive with your earlier statement that you got fired because you were the newest kid on the block :-)
Anyone can be trained to do any job if one has good instructors and the person has a half of a brain. Sure some jobs might take a month to learn, others might take 3 months. My job takes about 6 good months of solid training with experienced co-workers to learn.
These three statements do not look good coming together. If all jobs take 1 or 3 months to learn, and you took 6 months . . . that does not look good at all :-) The reality is that some jobs require longer learning curves; some even involve talent . . . something that learning alone is not enough. Time is money and talent is certainly valuable asset. On the other hand, if a job literally can take anyone with half a brain, and it only takes 1-3 months of training, there is very little reason why it should pay more than minimum wage + $3k (or whatever the training cost is).
Very well said. It's really a terrible insurance plan. The ultimate twist is that, because it's a pyramid scheme when the company is expanding, the earliest retirees are well supported by the larger pool of subsequent workers . . . for the bulk meat of the population in that plan, the promise can never be delivered simply because every company eventually shrinks and dies. In other words, the union promise is an article of faith, like the 72 virgins in the after-life, etc., the blood suckers never actually have to deliver. Life-time warranty? Whose life time?? ;-)
Those same people would be wrong in the face of a very simple fact: GTO needs only 1.6% of MSRP in cash incentive in the third model year, whereas Mustang needs 5.4% of MSRPin the second model year. Mustang SVT Cobra, which is really the only competitor to GTO in the whole Mustang lineup, isn't even being marketed.
Maybe it's different in other areas of the country, but I just checked Ford's website for my zip code and they only show a $500 rebate for v6 models and none for GTs. Last month when I was at my local Ford dealer, they were asking $3k over sticker for a 5speed manual GT, which I thought was nuts. I like the GT, but it be a cold day in hell before I paid over sticker for any mass produced car.
As for the GTO, I don't know, it sure seems most comments about the car regarding desirability are lacking. I don't think most people will miss is when it's gone. Seriously, it just doesn't do anything for me. Sure it's fast and it's a nice car, but for some reason it just doesn't scream buy me.
I think the idea that the GTO is a failure is a result of GM tauting the car as a low production, high demand car, meaning the dealers were seeing dollars signs of being able to charge over MSRP and having waiting lists for the car. That just didn't materialize, now the Solstice seems to be doing just that because of its polarizing styling that trumps its performance.
Thank you. At least someone has a realistic view of how the corporate structure works. Most salaried retirees know that by sheer virtue of their job status. There are NO GUARANTEES in life. Promises perhaps,but guarantees are a thing of the past. The Union is about to learn that fact of life if they are to survive. Maybe then the importance of the quality/cost of the job task they perform will become evident.
Dealers were asking and getting over sticker prices in the first model year of GTO, too. Like you said, it' would be a cold day in hell . . . It's pretty much a given that Mustangs will show up in large numbers at the rental places before long, thanks to the inevitable over-supply when fixed union contracts meet the undulating product cycle.
That reminded me of our first TV. My mother & grandmother took over the payments on an $800 TV with a huge cabinet and little screen. It was 1948 and I was 5. We have come along way. I wonder what a TV would cost if we did not have free trade with other countries. I don't think the average family could afford a TV (entertainment system) built in the US. I know the top line stuff built in the USA today, for home theaters, is in the $50k plus range.
Rocky, where were your shoes made? I'm still wearing my old Van's made here in SoCalifornia. I take very good care of my Dexter dress shoes made in the USA. They are now made in China. Even companies like Clarks out of England are made in China. Like it or not we are in a global economy and need to get used to it. Hopefully the other countries will come up without dragging us too far down.
Honestly, I can't possibly imagine how a reasonable person could think that the GTO was a success when it fell short of hitting sales targets, and when inventories have piled up as they have.
Edmunds take:
Last year, the GTO suffered a 14.6 percent drop in sales, with GM unloading 11,590 units compared to 13,569 in 2004.
The disappointing sales compared to the projected 18,000 in 2003 have been attributed to the vehicle's bland styling as well as its lack of retro styling cues which would have appealed to GTO fans.
What this means to you: Those who believe the '05 Mustang is a redesign gone right and the GTO a concept gone awry saw the writing on the wall.
MSN:
Ask most car buffs why they were disappointed with last year's Pontiac GTO and most are likely to say they didn't think it looked racy enough, as did most versions of that automaker's iconic 1960s GTO muscle car.
The GTO thus had disappointing sales last year of 13,569 cars, or about 5,000 units short of projected sales. Many of the growing number of fast-car buyers were waiting for the $24,600 redesigned 300-horsepower 2005 Ford Mustang GT V8 coupe. Or they bought the rakish Chrysler 300C sedan with a 325-horspower HEMI V8, which costs $800 more than the $32,295 GTO.
You GM cheerleaders need to wake up: The car fell 25% short of predictions, even during its best years. It didn't meet the needs of its market; others did a better job of doing that.
Interesting, both the Mustang and 300 end up on Consumer Report's survey as cars that owners would be most likely to buy again, with 89% and 80% of owners, respectively, giving them the thumbs up for a repeat purchase. (And that despite the 300 having low reliability.) Retail buyers like them, and the Mustang is the only American passenger car in 2005's top ten sellers that wasn't dominated by fleet sales.
Very much in agreement with the gist of your post. Furthermore, I don't think there's that much of a dragging-down effect going on. It's like, sure the wealthy got the TV before everyone else did, and they got it in color too before everyone else did; however, but I don't think they were being dragged down as the rest of the town get their own TV, then color TV, too. Sure, they may felt less special about themselves, however, the multitude of TV and color TV ownership brought their own benefits even to the rich: more programming and better programming because there are more viewers now. We are witnessing some of that effect with HDTV right now. The beauty of free market is that it is not a zero-sum gain exercise in futility. As you mentioned, "their" catching up is in effect benefiting us tremendously in terms of our own standard of living by providing us an oversupply of consumer goods, especially for the lower and middle class income households in this country.
Yet, both Mustang and 300 have much higher cash incentive as per centage of MSRP than there is on GTO. What does that tell you:
(1) Columnists are writing to fill space. . . Like Jefferson once said about newspapers, reading them make you worse informed than not reading them. If reinforcing reader's prejudice sells ads and subscription, they will do just that. Once again, infotainment is not reliable source of information; commentaries are all fluff, written with a rear-view mirror just like your own comments on the Altima. Even award winning journalist like David Kiley (Businessweek automobile section editor) makes up things about GM exectutive's private life on the fly just for the entertainment value. What does that say about the real purpose of their daily endeavors? Space-fillers and entertainment.
(2) Domestic infexible labor is killing the manufacturers in the normal model cycle. Even hot-when-new models like Mustang and 300 have to have high cash discounts as early as second model year! I never claimed that GTO was a success (so your GM cheerleading accusation is a lie). However, if "hot" cars like Mustang and 300 have to have higher percentage cash incentive than even a "mediocre" "imported" GTO, what does that say about inflexible labor contracts are doing to domestic carmakers? Furthermore, what does that say about GM management's acumen in trying to acquire overseas production capacity instead of banging their collective heads against the immovable wall that is UAW in this country and try to make "hot" small cars here like you suggested?
The Buick Lucernes interior though is pretty nice. The new SUV's also have very nice comfy interior to.
GM is changing. Problem is competitior are changing even quicker. If Aura was lauched with 250HP three years ago it would have been a class leader in performance, now Camry and Altima has 265. You can bet Accord will better that too. BTW, does Aura have NAV option? All competitors do.
I have no idea what that response has to do with the basic point: Sales did not hit projections.
If the car was slated to sell 18,000 units and fell short by 25% the first year, and by one-third in the following year, that's a pretty good hint that it didn't hit target. Basic arithmetic for an undeniable flop.
And put it in perspective, the failure to hurdle a low bar of 18,000 units is pretty abysmal. Chevy managed to move 32,000 Corvettes in the US during 2005, while Ford sold about 161,000 Mustangs, both largely without fleet sales. To think that GM could barely move 11,000 of its retro coupe while Ford could hit the top ten is a pretty obvious hint that the GTO just didn't work.
"Wait a minute....middle-class is all a person can look forward to if they are rank and file?"
Maybe you can correct me then - how many 'rich' rank and file Union members are there? And are they 'rich' because of the Union or for something they've done, as an INDEPENDENT investor, outside of the Union?
"So people that aren't rank and file are upper-class people?"
No. All I was stating was that the ONLY way to move beyond a mid/upper middle class existence AS PART OF A UNION is to move out of the rank and file. Does this mean all non-rank and file members are upper-class? Of course not.
"You Sir have your head up your [non-permissible content removed]!"
Well, as one of your acused '[non-permissible content removed] kissers', I have to practice as much as possible.
You were being teased about making a spelling mistake ("Your" vs. "you're".) It was an ironic mistake, in light of the comments about the educational system.
You were being teased about making a spelling mistake ("Your" vs. "you're".) It was an ironic mistake, in light of the comments about the educational system.
LOL, well I deserve that. What's really sad, is I didn't notice it untill you pointed it out. Yikes!!!!
What can I say, I was raised and edgeumacated in Indiana.
Comments
You're assuming that the actual Union contracts would be the same. Not a safe bet.
Actually, I think Lemko had a fair insight with that one. One of the points I made earlier on this thread is that is a bit of a cop-out to blame the union for the terms of the agreement when it was the byproduct of a mutual negotiation. Management agreed to those terms, and you must hold management responsible for those terms if you don't like them.
I'm not the biggest fan of unions, and if I were in management of any company, I would obviously prefer to not have a union. That being said, the UAW has already adopted team production methods at GM, Chrysler and Ford (unfortunately, the Big 2.5 just don't seem to be as good at implementing them), has ceded to cars being imported from outside of the US and Canada, and so forth.
In practice, I doubt that Toyota would be eager to work with the UAW if they can get better results without them, but at the same time, Toyota has a completely different approach to project valuation which leads to different results. I suspect that even if the UAW vanished tomorrow at GM, but everyone at Toyota USA unionized, Toyota will still be beating the pants off of GM.
Whereas GM's approach is to reduce costs whereever possible and to use discounting to sell inventory, Toyota focuses on the product, with the goal of making the product so competitive that it will sell to the retail customer, while managing its inventories effectively enough to keep prices high and emphasizing quality in order to maintain repeat business. Given what we see happening today, it's pretty clear to me that focusing on driving revenues and managing costs through quality control and inventory management is a better approach than focusing on margins and managing costs by nickel-and-diming every supplier and attacking your workforce whereever possible.
Watch out you will be getting into my age bracket.
Rocky, the Cressida was arguably the best Toyota ever built. They killed it so they could sell their Lexus. Built from about 1986 to 1992. Downgrading to the FWD Camry was a big disappointment to many Cressida owners. The LS400 was too expensive, and the ES was just a fancy Camry. My cousin bought two Cressidas in about 1990. My aunt is still driving hers and will not give it up.
GM is not the only company that has screwed up. Just because they sell by the millions does not make them a great car. The 911 Carrera is a GREAT car and they only sell about 300 per month.
Good point, but it does make them rich.
Anyway, if Toyota hired UAW workers, they've would get trained, skilled employees who would be able to go right to work in an environment unlike the adversarial one at GM. They also won't have to train Cletus the slack-jawed non-union yokel using comic books. Toyota already must know how NOT to deal with the union by studying GM's experience
Since all of Toyota's other plants were non-union (with the exception of the joint GM/Toyota NUMMI plant), I'll have to assume that you are referring to everyone in these other plants as 'slack-jawed yokels'.
Is this your assertion? Interesting stereotype. I suppose that you also feel that EVERYONE in a right-to-work state (with the exception of those enlightened individuals in Unions) are ALSO 'slack-jawed yokels'?
BTW - we've also determined (thanks rocky) that GM has extensive training programs for their employees (I'm assuming UAW employees), so really the only difference is that non-UAW folks get trained with comic books while UAW members used standard training manuals?
I've heard of bilingual education but this is ridiculous....
edit:
Here's a link to a CBC report from exactly one year ago:
Toyota in Canada
relevant passage is: "He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment. "
Abyssmal. But is that more indicative of the state of our education system or union vs. non-union work force. I lean towards the former explanation.
My mistake - I should have clarified myself meaning longer term reliability over three years. Mainly, I meant after warranty expiration. But for the number of different models GM produces, that is not too many good models.
If GM could only spread that kind of ranking out over the majority of their product line, they would not be in the trouble they are now.
there is direct correlation between initial quality and long term dependability.
Initial quality is more based on the manufacturing process, while long term durability is based on the engineering. Again, if GM could just spread the success of those models over their entire product line, problem solved!
Unfortunately, I think your correct.
This was a joke, right?
Your correct, that one went write buy me. You know, its a shame but I don't know weather to laugh or cry.
See you guys later; I need to go work on my breaks.....
If Toyota lets the UAW in the door, I will support them like an American company an include them. How does The Big 4 sound
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
If this is so, what do the employees gain by being unionized? Better yet, what does Toyota (and ultimately, the consumer) gain?
Job Security and Seniority. They would also get a contract with the company, and perhaps a better retirement like a good company matching 401K. OTOH- I agree Toyota has been able to keep unions out of their plants because they do have good enough benefits, pay, retirements, to keep the workers happy.
I personally would still rather work under a union contract, that way I know what I got written in writing. But hey that's me, and my experience.
Rocky
I'm not sure I understand.
I've never been in a Union, yet I've ALWAYS known, in writing, what my pay/benefits/retirement plan/etc was.
Job security? If you consistently give value to the company in line with your pay/benefits, then you will have job security. Why should ANY company, rationally managed (big caveat I'll agree), run off employees who give them value in line with their pay/bennies?
Seniority? Are you treating Seniority as simply another aspect of Job Security?
I've never been in a Union, yet I've ALWAYS known, in writing, what my pay/benefits/retirement plan/etc was.
Well I never had in writing what my pay and benefits would be lets say 2 or 3 years down the line rorr. You are fortunate to know.
Job security? If you consistently give value to the company in line with your pay/benefits, then you will have job security. Why should ANY company, rationally managed (big caveat I'll agree), run off employees who give them value in line with their pay/bennies?
Well a bean counter employer will hirer someone younger, and is willing to work for less. It happens all the time. I agree not all employers are created equal and not all of em' have no morales.
Seniority? Are you treating Seniority as simply another aspect of Job Security?
Seniority is job security, and in a union company their is a better chance of longevity, and the fear of being replaced by a youngster that is willing to work for half, means you won't be forced out the door and have to start all over.
Rocky
I've thought about this (a tiny bit more), and I think what it all boils down to is....
safety.
There is safety in numbers. A Union member (analogous to a Wildebeast) feels 'safer' as part of the overall herd. And if that Union member has to operate out in a non-union environment,they may feel more exposed to the whims of management (the lions). Much safer to just be part of the herd.
moo.
Problem is, you resign yourself to whatever the best deal is that the Union can give you. Is it RISKIER out there in a non-union environment? Sure. But the only ones who get rich in a Union are the leaders. Middle class is ALL you can look forward to as a rank and file member. And the leadership is more akin to politicians getting fat by sucking the blood off of the rank and file than by actually PRODUCING anything.
Just my perspective....
WHAT? 2-3 years down the line?
How can you rationally EXPECT to know what sort of pay/benefits YOU will get if management doesn't know what sort of employee you will be? Or what their own financial situation will be? Have you ever considered looking at ANY of your arguments from management's perspective?
"Well a bean counter employer will hirer someone younger, and is willing to work for less."
Why shouldn't they? If you want to be PAID more, you should be able to OFFER more to the company, regardless of age. Pay/benefits should ALWAYS be in line with the value the employee gives to the company. Or do you EXPECT to just get a job and then coast along at the same freakin' level of competence year after year yet still get pay raises?
If you've been with a company for 10 years, getting progressively more and more money/benefits, you certainly SHOULD be able to offer more value to the company than some wet behind the ears kid off the street. Or are you admitting that some young kid fresh off the street can do your same job, will do it for less, so you NEED the Union to protect you from 'unfair' hiring practices????
Let's put it this way rorr. This year I will make around $60,000 give or take a few grand, and perhaps if I continue to work a little more Overtime I will knock down $65,000 which would put me in the top 20% percentile, and my wife currently doesn't work yet.
She put off college so we could start a family, but is only lacking about a 1 1/2 years left of college.
She wants to be a school teacher
(God only knows why :confuse: ) and then things will be a little easier.
My point is rorr, a large group of "Moos" :P is better than 1 moo when getting the best deal. I gurantee you that their isn't a non-union person in my line of work that make more money than I do. we our the lowest paid DOE SPO's in the complex. Well that is until next March
I got a 401K with a company 10% match, I pay about
$122-123 dollars for
medical(90/10 up to $1500 max) dental, optical, prescription drugs which is a $5,10,12 dollar co-pay depending on expense. We are currently lobbying congress for a federal retirement plan backed by the DOE. I personally am against it, but the old timers feel it's worth a try. I'd rather negotiate for a 20-50% company match dollar for dollar and would be more logical to get funding for.
Do you think I could get this in a non-union plant ?
You already know the answer
Rocky
Uh-oh! What did I miss? I was referring to the point made about our public schools in some areas sorely lacking, not the union vs. non-union issue.
How can you rationally EXPECT to know what sort of pay/benefits YOU will get if management doesn't know what sort of employee you will be? Or what their own financial situation will be? Have you ever considered looking at ANY of your arguments from management's perspective?
Well if everyone is doing "Their Jobs" correctly, then their should be expansion and growth in 2-3 years.
Why shouldn't they? If you want to be PAID more, you should be able to OFFER more to the company, regardless of age. Pay/benefits should ALWAYS be in line with the value the employee gives to the company. Or do you EXPECT to just get a job and then coast along at the same freakin' level of competence year after year yet still get pay raises?
I don't think people just coast along year after year, without gaining new skills and knowledge. I know we have gotten very high-tech in the last couple of years, and yes we got minimal training, so we had to learn as we go.
So yes I deserve a good raise
If you've been with a company for 10 years, getting progressively more and more money/benefits, you certainly SHOULD be able to offer more value to the company than some wet behind the ears kid off the street.
Not if the company feels they can train that wet behind the ears kid, and send your high pay, 3 or 4 weeks vacation and old-[non-permissible content removed] out the door. :P
Or are you admitting that some young kid fresh off the street can do your same job, will do it for less, so you NEED the Union to protect you from 'unfair' hiring practices????
Anyone can be trained to do any job if one has good instructors and the person has a half of a brain. Sure some jobs might take a month to learn, others might take 3 months. My job takes about 6 good months of solid training with experienced co-workers to learn.
Rocky
However, I'm reserving judgement until I get to see one in person. Until I can feel the interior materials and check the fit and finish.
Though, it does seem to be light-years ahead of anything GM has produced for the North American market, ever.
:shades:
:P
GM is changing. Look at the new Enclave
Rocky
Oh no doubt. The new Tahoe/Sububan/Denali/Escalade interiors are much improved and at the very least look appropriate for a vehicle of their price. Which certainly wasn't the case for the previous models.
We agree again diesel.
My Work Car: is to find a Olds Aurora 95-on that is in great condition. My Grandma said she might sell me hers
(01' 3.5 shortstar V-6) It's White with tan leather, sunroof, Bose, 12 disc in the trunk, of course heated seats, dual climate, and the dang thing is built like a bank vault.
My Toy: will be a 7-UP 25th Ann. Ford Mustang Emerald Green Paint, W/ White Leather, 5.0 w/ 5 speed manuel
The Wife wants a used SUV to haul the kids around or a Mini-van like a Relay. We'll See.
The Aurora might be her and the kids car until the 98' Mustang pukes.
I'll have sell my 3/4 Ton 4x4 Dodge flat-Bed to my neighbor. He wants us to hold on to it for him, He's 15'. I told him we weren't in a big hurry and you get first dibbs on it. :shades:
Rocky
Well, the women usually get what they want, but I will say I've owned two SUVs and a minivan. Hands down the minivan was much better for hauling kids around, much better fuel economy too, particularly in town. The only advantage my Suburban has is towing capacity and room behind the 3rd row and 4 wheel drive, but I don't think thats much of an issue in TX, it's not much of one here in Wichita either. Most minivans are quicker and handle much better. If I didn't need to tow, no way would I have an SUV.
Regarding the Tahoe/Suburban, I know it may not be an issue for most, but it just bothers the heck out of me that they are not offering the 6speed auto in a tahoe/Suburban and the tow capacity was reduced. Rock, I know you'll disagree, but I'm seriously interested in the upcoming Expedition due to the fact I can get a 6speed auto, more torque @ a lower rpm vs GMs 5.3. Obviously, I would have to do a complete comparison, but I would at least want to see how the Ford will stack up. I think with 2 extra gears, more torque, more towing capacity, it should make a nice tow vehicle. I'll just have to wait and see, especially since I don't plan on getting rid of my current Sub for another year or two.
Sure the Denali would be nice, but I'm not going to spend $50k+ to get the 6.2/6speed which obviously would be nice. Maybe a few used ones will be available in a year or two?
Also, looks like I might begin doing some dealer searches for an 06 Mustang GT convertible 5 speed manual for the wife by July.:) The beauty is she looses her company car for a year (different assignment at work) then gets another company car (after about a year). That means the Mustang will be my daily driver and I can use the Suburban for trips/towing duty only. Which may mean I'll keep it even longer.
So which one of his explanations was satisfactory to you? 4 > 30, 4 > 15 or 15 > 30? Which of the three passes for union shop math nowadays? ;-)
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.
Nope, I did not. Socala repeatedly called GTO a failure and praised Mustang and 300 as successes (post #1821, #1825), when in fact both Mustang and 300 have much higher manufacturers' cash incentives than there is on GTO despite being a year younger in the model cycle. Socala is the one who brought up Hyundai as an example of company that sells on quality, when in fact Hyundai primary marketting tool is price, as evidenced by the $2000 cash incentive on the $15k Sonata compared to the $500 on the $30k GTO!
You consider Socala's misconceptions to be facts because both of you get your information from media hypes . . . infotainment are not reliable sources of information. A case in point, Socala still held onto his obsolete news about how hot Altima is, whereas an knowledgeable observer of the industry was able to anticipate today's headline yesterday:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Edition/Daily_Edition_Apr_21_200- - - - 6.S173.A10317.html (third paragraph, Nissan cutting production)
Like the common saying on Wall Street, news analysis is exactly worth how much you pay for it: namely, not worth a dime most of the time.
Heck plenty of other people provided facts, and opinions on why the GTO wasn't a HOTT car like the Mustang.
Those same people would be wrong in the face of a very simple fact: GTO needs only 1.6% of MSRP in cash incentive in the third model year, whereas Mustang needs 5.4% of MSRPin the second model year. Mustang SVT Cobra, which is really the only competitor to GTO in the whole Mustang lineup, isn't even being marketed.
BTW- GM management has stuck to their guns on incentives, I will give em' that.
Without UAW inflexible work rule, GM management can afford to do this on the GTO. It will take a few repeat instances
of this to revive the Pontiac brand from the ashes of heavy discounting due to uncontrollable oversupply necessiated by UAW fixed pay rules.
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
Kissing my butt never gets anyone anywhere. I'm very much a bottom-line kind of guy. Only those contributing to my bottom-line gets to stay. The beauty with competitive market place is that, firms with irreponsible middle-management lose, and lose very quickly. I can not stand working for people who do not appreciate the value I create though my work.
You as an employer are very lucky, and can come and go as you please,
Actually, we all have to work for someone in return for our keeping. In my case, I have clients. I actually have to work even on weekends, most of the time. As to job security, if everyone's job is secure all the time, especially the kind father-to-son job security dreamed of by the unions, the economy would be really stagnant and rotten! Would you like to be watching B&W TV and getting all your news on radio and newspaper?? Obviously, a generation ago, nobody was making DVD, computer, internet or cellphone. All these new industries need people laid off from somewhere else to work for them. That's why job security at the expense of labor flexibility is terrible. Companies go through cycles of founding, expansion, hiring, layoff and ultimately bankruptcy and liquidation in response to consumer demands transmitted through the market place. All the hirings and firings are the invisible hand at work allocating precious human resources. A human being only has 30-40 productive years. . . getting those years stuck in a non-productive place-holding job position while watching the economy moving on is a terrible fate.
Not necessarily. Competition and the condition of economy itself has a lot to do with expansin/contraction of a car company. Sometimes even cutting back is the "correct" way to do the management job.
Not if the company feels they can train that wet behind the ears kid, and send your high pay, 3 or 4 weeks vacation and old-[non-permissible content removed] out the door.
That doesn't quite jive with your earlier statement that you got fired because you were the newest kid on the block :-)
Anyone can be trained to do any job if one has good instructors and the person has a half of a brain. Sure some jobs might take a month to learn, others might take 3 months. My job takes about 6 good months of solid training with experienced co-workers to learn.
These three statements do not look good coming together. If all jobs take 1 or 3 months to learn, and you took 6 months . . . that does not look good at all :-) The reality is that some jobs require longer learning curves; some even involve talent . . . something that learning alone is not enough. Time is money and talent is certainly valuable asset. On the other hand, if a job literally can take anyone with half a brain, and it only takes 1-3 months of training, there is very little reason why it should pay more than minimum wage + $3k (or whatever the training cost is).
Maybe it's different in other areas of the country, but I just checked Ford's website for my zip code and they only show a $500 rebate for v6 models and none for GTs. Last month when I was at my local Ford dealer, they were asking $3k over sticker for a 5speed manual GT, which I thought was nuts. I like the GT, but it be a cold day in hell before I paid over sticker for any mass produced car.
As for the GTO, I don't know, it sure seems most comments about the car regarding desirability are lacking. I don't think most people will miss is when it's gone. Seriously, it just doesn't do anything for me. Sure it's fast and it's a nice car, but for some reason it just doesn't scream buy me.
I think the idea that the GTO is a failure is a result of GM tauting the car as a low production, high demand car, meaning the dealers were seeing dollars signs of being able to charge over MSRP and having waiting lists for the car. That just didn't materialize, now the Solstice seems to be doing just that because of its polarizing styling that trumps its performance.
That reminded me of our first TV. My mother & grandmother took over the payments on an $800 TV with a huge cabinet and little screen. It was 1948 and I was 5. We have come along way. I wonder what a TV would cost if we did not have free trade with other countries. I don't think the average family could afford a TV (entertainment system) built in the US. I know the top line stuff built in the USA today, for home theaters, is in the $50k plus range.
Rocky, where were your shoes made? I'm still wearing my old Van's made here in SoCalifornia. I take very good care of my Dexter dress shoes made in the USA. They are now made in China. Even companies like Clarks out of England are made in China. Like it or not we are in a global economy and need to get used to it. Hopefully the other countries will come up without dragging us too far down.
Edmunds take:
Last year, the GTO suffered a 14.6 percent drop in sales, with GM unloading 11,590 units compared to 13,569 in 2004.
The disappointing sales compared to the projected 18,000 in 2003 have been attributed to the vehicle's bland styling as well as its lack of retro styling cues which would have appealed to GTO fans.
What this means to you: Those who believe the '05 Mustang is a redesign gone right and the GTO a concept gone awry saw the writing on the wall.
MSN:
Ask most car buffs why they were disappointed with last year's Pontiac GTO and most are likely to say they didn't think it looked racy enough, as did most versions of that automaker's iconic 1960s GTO muscle car.
The GTO thus had disappointing sales last year of 13,569 cars, or about 5,000 units short of projected sales. Many of the growing number of fast-car buyers were waiting for the $24,600 redesigned 300-horsepower 2005 Ford Mustang GT V8 coupe. Or they bought the rakish Chrysler 300C sedan with a 325-horspower HEMI V8, which costs $800 more than the $32,295 GTO.
You GM cheerleaders need to wake up: The car fell 25% short of predictions, even during its best years. It didn't meet the needs of its market; others did a better job of doing that.
Interesting, both the Mustang and 300 end up on Consumer Report's survey as cars that owners would be most likely to buy again, with 89% and 80% of owners, respectively, giving them the thumbs up for a repeat purchase. (And that despite the 300 having low reliability.) Retail buyers like them, and the Mustang is the only American passenger car in 2005's top ten sellers that wasn't dominated by fleet sales.
(1) Columnists are writing to fill space. . . Like Jefferson once said about newspapers, reading them make you worse informed than not reading them. If reinforcing reader's prejudice sells ads and subscription, they will do just that. Once again, infotainment is not reliable source of information; commentaries are all fluff, written with a rear-view mirror just like your own comments on the Altima. Even award winning journalist like David Kiley (Businessweek automobile section editor) makes up things about GM exectutive's private life on the fly just for the entertainment value. What does that say about the real purpose of their daily endeavors? Space-fillers and entertainment.
(2) Domestic infexible labor is killing the manufacturers in the normal model cycle. Even hot-when-new models like Mustang and 300 have to have high cash discounts as early as second model year! I never claimed that GTO was a success (so your GM cheerleading accusation is a lie). However, if "hot" cars like Mustang and 300 have to have higher percentage cash incentive than even a "mediocre" "imported" GTO, what does that say about inflexible labor contracts are doing to domestic carmakers? Furthermore, what does that say about GM management's acumen in trying to acquire overseas production capacity instead of banging their collective heads against the immovable wall that is UAW in this country and try to make "hot" small cars here like you suggested?
GM is changing.
Problem is competitior are changing even quicker.
If Aura was lauched with 250HP three years ago it would have been a class leader in performance, now Camry and Altima has 265. You can bet Accord will better that too.
BTW, does Aura have NAV option? All competitors do.
If the car was slated to sell 18,000 units and fell short by 25% the first year, and by one-third in the following year, that's a pretty good hint that it didn't hit target. Basic arithmetic for an undeniable flop.
And put it in perspective, the failure to hurdle a low bar of 18,000 units is pretty abysmal. Chevy managed to move 32,000 Corvettes in the US during 2005, while Ford sold about 161,000 Mustangs, both largely without fleet sales. To think that GM could barely move 11,000 of its retro coupe while Ford could hit the top ten is a pretty obvious hint that the GTO just didn't work.
Maybe you can correct me then - how many 'rich' rank and file Union members are there? And are they 'rich' because of the Union or for something they've done, as an INDEPENDENT investor, outside of the Union?
"So people that aren't rank and file are upper-class people?"
No. All I was stating was that the ONLY way to move beyond a mid/upper middle class existence AS PART OF A UNION is to move out of the rank and file. Does this mean all non-rank and file members are upper-class? Of course not.
"You Sir have your head up your [non-permissible content removed]!"
Well, as one of your acused '[non-permissible content removed] kissers', I have to practice as much as possible.
You were being teased about making a spelling mistake ("Your" vs. "you're".) It was an ironic mistake, in light of the comments about the educational system.
LOL, well I deserve that. What's really sad, is I didn't notice it untill you pointed it out. Yikes!!!!
What can I say, I was raised and edgeumacated in Indiana.
Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Auto Workers Union
http://www.mises.org/story/2124