I think most of us can recognize that GM management in particular, and Ford/DCX management to a lesser extent, has made a number of boneheaded decisions in the past which have ALL contributed to their current problems.
But it isn't ALL a management problem.
I keep coming back to trying to figure out what BENEFIT the UAW gives to either the auto makers OR ultimately to the consumer?
IF it is shown that the UAW is more of a burden than a benefit to the automakers, it sounds as though the SAME PEOPLE who blame management for all the past problems now expect management do a 180 and miraculously figure out how to be competitive with Toyota/Honda despite the UAW hanging around their neck. Is this realistic?
Has management screwed up in the past? YES. But does the UAW make it EASIER or HARDER for mangement to right the ship?
it sounds as though the SAME PEOPLE who blame management for all the past problems now expect management do a 180 and miraculously figure out how to be competitive with Toyota/Honda despite the UAW hanging around their neck. Is this realistic?
Sure, it's realistic. The problems are largely functions of design, engineering, and marketing. It also comes from having poor supplier relationships that end up with lower quality parts sometimes going into the Big 2.5 cars.
The business problem has been that GM hasn't combined reliability with good design. The company often misses both, and when it does manage the achieve the former, it often doesn't achieve the latter. In all of that, the union is a non-factor.
From the consumer's standpoint, it shouldn't matter who builds the car. Given the success of certain nameplates, it should be apparent that most of them couldn't care less who builds their cars, and that it is possible to build a car with union labor and achieve success with it.
Labor relations have been (and continue to be) a huge and continuing distraction for management. Whether or not this is a good excuse for poor product planning or not is immaterial. Perhaps management feels vindicated coming down hard on suppliers because they feel a need to 'offset' the higher labor costs.
Is this smart? Perhaps not, but to simply turn a blind eye on the effects (both primary and secondary) of artificially high labor costs, and a poisonous labor/management relationship, isn't smart either. The fact remains that labor relations HAVE distracted management, therefore they HAVE been a factor.
Is labor to BLAME for this? No, not completely. But neither are they blameless. The fact remains that the relationship is not healthy for GM. And I simply can't see GM turning things around as long as the relationship is as bad as it is.
So, what's the solution? Ignore the labor issues completely and concentrate entirely on management? This sounds like your approach.
Perhaps not, but to simply turn a blind eye on the effects (both primary and secondary) of artificially high labor costs, and a poisonous labor/management relationship, isn't smart either.
I have already agreed that it makes sense for GM management to reduce benefit expenses to the extent that they don't create value. But again, labor is not the only component of the cost structure (parts are generally more costly than labor), and every business carries a cost structure. While you haven't been guilty of this, this thread has seen its share of posters who seem to think that the company should be able to operate with virtually no labor costs -- it's hard to complain about GM's alleged $1,500 in "legacy costs", emphasizing this amount as if its rivals have zero legacy costs.
As for the toxic nature of the relationship, let's address why it's toxic. In large part, it's because management maintains a toxic environment that regards employees as expense items rather than assets (the accountant's mentality again), which in turn encourages support for the union among the rank-and-file.
If GM management wants to diminish the effects of the union, the first step is to create a work environment in which the average worker knows the mission of the company, buys into it, and sees what is in it for him, and to channel that energy into an effective business plan that emphasizes the creation of products that people want. An atagonistic environment simply serves to perpetuate the union and its often rigid stances, because management actions reinforce the belief that the us-versus-them mentality is justified.
You can see that GM doesn't much care about developing trust and building relationships with its vendors, unlike Toyota or Honda, so why would it be any different with its employees? At this point, they are simply haggling over money, instead of finding common ground and working toward a common goal. They potentially had something going with Saturn, complete with flexible work rules, but once again, it has been the product that has been the problem.
"If GM management wants to diminish the effects of the union, the first step is to create a work environment in which the average worker knows the mission of the company, buys into it, and sees what is in it for him, and to channel that energy into an effective business plan that emphasizes the creation of products that people want."
In other words, be more like Toyota. I think the rank and file would go for it. I don't think Union leadership would.
"An atagonistic environment simply serves to perpetuate the union...."
Don't you think the Union leadership knows this? You think 100% of the antagonism is due to management?
socala4: They potentially had something going with Saturn, complete with flexible work rules, but once again, it has been the product that has been the problem.
In the mid-1990s I had the privilege of meeting one of the UAW leaders who helped create the Saturn labor agreement.
According to him, GM management - once Roger Smith was gone - didn't like Saturn, and didn't like the more flexible agreement covering Saturn factories.
But guess what - neither did UAW leadership! They weren't anymore enthusiastic about it than GM management.
I agree that blaming everything on legacy costs or the UAW is wrong. But I think you underestimate the extent to which UAW LEADERSHIP (not the rank-and-file) wants to maintain the status quo, and also has no interest in moving to a more Toyota-like work environment.
In this case, the workers are not being served well by their union leaders.
But I think you underestimate the extent to which UAW LEADERSHIP (not the rank-and-file) wants to maintain the status quo, and also has no interest in moving to a more Toyota-like work environment.
No, I completely agree that the UAW leadership also benefits from the antagonism.
But the only way to ever usurp that is for management to behave in ways that demonstrate to the rank-and-file that it doesn't need a union in order to prosper. If management did a better job of reaching out to the rank-and-file, the union leadership wouldn't be so successful in gaining the support of the rank-and-file.
The union leaders exploit the tools that management gives to them, and management needs to take those tools away if it expects to get anywhere. Given the current management team, I doubt that this will ever happen.
"But the only way to ever usurp that is for management to behave in ways that demonstrate to the rank-and-file that it doesn't need a union in order to prosper. If management did a better job of reaching out to the rank-and-file, the union leadership wouldn't be so successful in gaining the support of the rank-and-file."
I know it's not a perfect analogy, but try substituting "Israelis" for "management", "Palestinians" for "rank-and-file", and "PLO/Hamas" for "Union leadership".
My point? I honestly don't think there is ANY way for management to 'reach out' and 'demonstrate' to the rank-and-file that everything can be hunky dory precisely because the Union Leadership DOESN'T WANT this to happen and will keep the rabble roused up.
I honestly don't think there is ANY way for management to 'reach out' and 'demonstrate' to the rank-and-file that everything can be hunky dory precisely because the Union Leadership DOESN'T WANT this to happen and will keep the rabble roused up.
That doesn't say much for GM management's ability to communicate and to create a positive work environment. That sounds like a group of "managers" who don't bother trying to manage anything.
The appeal to the worker needs to be direct, personal, sincere and consistent. The appeal needs to be supported by actions that make it clear that the plan matches the rhetoric.
I have no fantasies about the UAW leadership suddenly embracing a bona fide business plan with open arms, but the leadership is a cone on the obstacle course that needs to be accounted for on the race to appeal to the common employee.
The UAW is successful in rousing rabble only because GM management makes it so easy to look good in comparison. IMO, Rocky is your prototype example -- give the guy a fine product to build, a mission and hunger to conquer and win (kick some serious Toyota backside), and some kudos and job security, and you'll have a loyal soldier who will fight to the death. You can't rally the troops by constantly telling them that they suck, are too stupid, and too costly. (And none of this anti-worker rhetoric is going to help the contract talks in 2007, so I wouldn't be doubling down on the stock just yet.)
You can see that GM doesn't much care about developing trust and building relationships with its vendors, unlike Toyota or Honda, so why would it be any different with its employees?
You are right: it's not just sour vendor relationships.
It appears that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, MB and other companies that run non-union shops here in the USA have better employee relationships than GM/Ford/DC.
Maybe the high quality of vehicles produced in the non UAW transplant factories reflects this.
Yep, it's ALWAYS management, right? Always, always, always. Union leadership has noooooooo culpability here at all. Nope. None whatsoever. Nothing to see here, folks.
Can't rally the troops by telling them they suck, are too stupid, and too costly? But it's FINE to say the same thing, 1000 different ways, about management? It's always a one-way street, right?
Face it: Management and Labor BOTH have big problems at GM. BOTH SIDES contribute to the problem. Both sides (Management and Union Leadership) must work on the solution.
Union leadership has noooooooo culpability here at all.
Where did I say this? My point has been that the union leadership can get away with it because management behaves in ways that ensures that the union leadership gets widespread support.
Without the rank-and-file backing it up, the leadership would become a paper tiger. Looking at the dynamics of the relationship between management and the common worker, it's no wonder that the UAW has remained as entrenched as it has.
If I was a line worker, there's no way in hell that I'd work for GM without a union, but I'd gladly go over to Toyota where I could work in a team and get a handsome bonus while making a product that I could take pride in. It's the employer who shapes the morale and can either motivate or demotivate. The players need to play well, but it's the coach who wins the games.
Craptastic(coined by Big 2.5 designers):the quality of being fundamentally awful depite being well presented. Sounds like a lot of recent(and past) american cars I can think of. Interesting that designers are the ones that use the term. Maybe GM and Ford need to layoff a few of them too.
The UAW is successful in rousing rabble only because GM management makes it so easy to look good in comparison. IMO, Rocky is your prototype example -- give the guy a fine product to build, a mission and hunger to conquer and win (kick some serious Toyota backside), and some kudos and job security, and you'll have a loyal soldier who will fight to the death. You can't rally the troops by constantly telling them that they suck, are too stupid, and too costly. (And none of this anti-worker rhetoric is going to help the contract talks in 2007, so I wouldn't be doubling down on the stock just yet.)
Socala4, that was a very nice compliment you said about me and I appreciate it.
I do feel their is alot of folks that act like us Union employees are only looking out for ourselves and we don't want our employer to be successful. These type of comments really are like knives in our backs because it so far from the truth it's not even funny. I know my relatives which consist of UAW, IUE-CWA, Teamsters, IBEW, PGU-(Me) are very proud, patriotic, americans that are happy to go the extra mile for there employers. They work very hard to keep there employers very profitable and do expect that their management puts forth the same effort to be competitive with the competition. Mu uncles, aunts, grandparents, myself, father, step-father, etc have offer money saving suggestions to our employers. The way we all look at it is we are offering these suggestions to further secure our good jobs. We strive to be the best at what we do. We expect our employer to offer us the tools to provide our customers with the best products and/or service to further secure our jobs. I've stopped work personally on the line before because our machines weren't making the best product for our consumers. The parts that were being made barely past quality inspections, and I demanded better. I'm not saying non-union employees don't catch flaws in the system.
I do feel that in some cases that non-union employees out on a production line don't have the same ownership as union employees because of pay and benefits and I'll tell you why. Take non-union employee "A" he's making $9.00 an hour, has crap insurance and crap 401K but will make $15-16 an hour after 4 or 5 years. Take union employee B that is making $14 bucks an hour and after 3-4 years will be making $20-21 an hour, and has good insurance and a retirement. Who's going to be more loyal on average to there employer, and is going to want to do a very good job since he/she wants to retain that good job ? This is the difference of attitudes in my personal experience. When I was in non-union enviroments except 1 place I worked at. These people were on average wanting to leave their job for better money, insurance, retirements, and were very unhappy. This company also had to bring new people in like cattle, and new friends would come and go and I had to retrain these folks so they could build the same high quality parts that we were use to producing.
This is my personal experience and thought I would give ya'll my 2 cents.
Socala, thanks again for the compliment. You are speaking the truth. If I worked for GM, I would do my absolute best to kick the crap out of my competition. My father and family pushed me to be the best that I could and being around his co-workers, I could see why 2nd place wasn't quite good good enough. :shades:
Issue is we are all listening but cannot agree. Most seem to be on one side of the fence or the other on the issues. As my past posts, and the just issued one, there are many reasons for the loss in profit at GM and the domestics. it is not just the union, or management or import rules or whatever. It is a combination of all.
I don't think it has as much to do with wages and benefits as you are saying. My daughter gave up a $55k per year job at Chicago Title as an Escrow officer. She was a slave to that company. No time for her son. Now she works 3-4 evenings a week at Wal-Mart and loves it. She acts like they are the greatest employer around. She is only making $9.50 per hour but feels she is part of the company. I do agree with Socala4 that management needs to make employees feel they are an important part of the overall process. That is whether they are Union or not. You can have the greatest Union job in the world and still be a disgruntled employee.
I agree with you gagrice. Not all Union employees are happy employees, but OTOH most recognize that have a great paying jobs which is few and far between.
I would not give up a good job like that for $9 an hour. She must have a well paid husband, because $9 an hour won't buy 3 gallons of gas let alone support a family without government help.
management needs to make employees feel they are an important part of the overall process. That is whether they are Union or not. You can have the greatest Union job in the world and still be a disgruntled employee.
Precisely. If anything, having a strong union is probably an indication that the workers are disgruntled. Not many people are going to be thrilled about paying union dues if they believe that they could have gotten the same or a better deal without the union. Employees who love their work and who are well paid for what they do are not generally going to want a union just for the sake of it.
Your logic is very sensible. I however will add though that having a strong union doesn't neccessary mean the employer is bad and treats it's employees like dirt. Having a strong union means the employees are sticking togeather on certain topics of concerns like safety issues, training, PPE, up coming contracts, etc
The UAW's future is tied to the financial health of GM and Ford. That is a bad position to be in.
I would add Chrysler to that list, but yes, the UAW is in very serious trouble.
I would think that the writing is on the wall, at least for the leadership. The entire union movement in the US in a weak position, and the UAW is no exception. IMO, a strong management effort to build strong direct relationships with the employees, and to offer those workers a more appealing and secure alternative, would only hasten the union's demise.
My point has been that the union leadership can get away with it because management behaves in ways that ensures that the union leadership gets widespread support.
The union leadership can get away with it because union is an institution backed up by previous legislations of the US Congress . . . a legallized monopoly. Being a union member has tremendous advantages over not being a union member in the same work outfit.
If I was a line worker, there's no way in hell that I'd work for GM without a union, but I'd gladly go over to Toyota where I could work in a team and get a handsome bonus while making a product that I could take pride in.
Yet, as Rocky mentioned earlier, Toyota Tacoma plant just voted for unionization. Given this fact contradicting to your theoretical projection, you need to modify one of the two of your premises thusly:
(1) Toyota management is not much better than that of the GM . . . which would then beg the question, just how well behaving the management has to be before workers are seduced by the false promises of the union?
(2) Union as an institution thrives on the un-level playground created by legistlations in the first half of 20th century. Union workers are legalized "privileged" workers, who basicly suck the sweat and blood of other workers, consumers, and ultimately taxpayers.
Your logic is very sensible. I however will add though that having a strong union doesn't neccessary mean the employer is bad and treats it's employees like dirt. Having a strong union means the employees are sticking togeather on certain topics of concerns like safety issues, training, PPE, up coming contracts, etc
Interesting take. I wonder when employers can stick together on certain topics of conerns like price and wages . . . Oh, I forgot, that's classic ILLEGAL TRUST/CARTELIZATION!
Not all Union employees are happy employees, but OTOH most recognize that have a great paying jobs which is few and far between.
And indeed they do. Most union employees are probably in the top 20% for income. According to IRS data, the cut-off for top 20% of all tax-filers is only $65k, that is for household income if you are married and filing jointly. The number itself is optimistic because those who are married and filing separately are counted as two tax filers, and those with really low income probably do not file income taxes. Most union jobs pay well in excess of 1/2 of $65k. The difference between their pay and market-recognized value of their work (ie. the wage of non-union replacement worker) often comes at the expense of those making far less.
I know my relatives which consist of UAW, IUE-CWA, Teamsters, IBEW, PGU-(Me) are very proud, patriotic, americans that are happy to go the extra mile for there employers.
Given that the 2nd highest CEO pension in America only pays $6mil per year, there are probably far more criminals among union members than there are CEO's with multi-million retirement pays.
BTW, isn't it interesting that the union bosses are going to Las Vegas to discuss their position for the next round of negotiations with the auto and partsmakers??
Not many people are going to be thrilled about paying union dues if they believe that they could have gotten the same or a better deal without the union. Employees who love their work and who are well paid for what they do are not generally going to want a union just for the sake of it.
So, if gas station owners believe they can get better price on what they have to offer by "organizing," should they be allowed to form their own gas-station cartel? no scabs allowed?
Your earlier statement about workers join union because the management does not respect them is even farther off-mark. Union is about price control, pure and simple. The core of each union contract negotiation is always about wages, higher wages, or same or higher wages for less work. If you think a little more respect would make the incentive for union go away by itself, you are really naive. Why don't you allow gas stations to form their own price-gouging board, then try your own luck at being nice to the gas station owner and see if he will give you a price break . . . after all, gas station owners don't get much respect nowadays, and many of them are barricaded behind thick bullet-proof glasses for their dear lives, not exactly refelction of respect from motorists.
And that would be your judgement call if you were in charge?? So far, we have no evidence whatsoever Rocky produces anything or have a hunger for anything. All we know is that he/she:
That is true brightness, but if I was a deadbeat do you really think I would work for the Department of Energy and carry automatic weapons.
(1) spends an inordinate amount of time online
That's like the pot, calling the kettle black :P
(2) is too afraid to start his/her own business
I'm not afraid brightness, but I'm not sure what to sell, or what service to provide that will give me an advantage over my competition. I also am playing it safe because I have two little ones to worry about. Perhaps someday I will find a way to open up my own or buy an existing new car dealership GM of course somewhere here in the U.S.
(3) wishes to do his current job for the rest of his life; i.e. no progress for the next 38 years!
That's not neccessarily true brightness. I'm elgible for retirement at age 55 with our current system in place. My company will pay the pentalty for early withdrawl of my enhanced 401K. If we get lucky and get a 20 yr. an out, I will only have 16 yrs and 3 months to go. I'm not counting on a 20 yr. retirement happening with this congress and administration. My job requires a very high degree of physical skill, and with the wear and tear we put on our body's we need to have a younger workforce. But yes someday brightness, I'd like to move on to something I'd enjoy like selling cars for a living. I would enjoy waking up in the morning knowing I would get to be around a company of brands that I have a personal bond with.
(4) gets his info primarily on TV, and believes himself to be a history buff because he gets his historical "facts" on history channel.
So your saying sources like "The History Channel" are bad sources of information ? :confuse: I indeed get some of my sources from the likes of a unbiased political source like Lou Dobbs. I'd love to know exactly where you get your sources of information ? I like ya brightness, but you need to also take a look in the mirror. I know you feel like an elite because you own your own buisness, and therefore your intellegence is above and beyond what my common human brain would understand. :surprise: I like I said before in the past am happy for you. I am not the type of guy who is going to wish somebody bad luck and hope they fail.
Sometimes the shoe fits . . . . anyway, isn't that what you and Rocky are saying of the white collar employees . . . that they suck, are too stupid, and too costly??
Well some of the leaders at GM do suck and lack a vision and buisness plan. I know most are very well educated, but I feel many of GM's problem is they build automobiles to price points, instead of building "the best" product. Bean counters that would be fired by Toyota find jobs at GM, because this is the culture. Cost cutting measures are shortsighted solutions to long term problems. Socala has stated this over and over again that product is the key to saving GM and the domestic automanufactoring here in the U.S. of A.
Rockylee and others in the domestic auto industry. Change is stressful for those involved.
I was born and raised on a small farm (20 dairy cows, 100 laying hens and 6 or 7 sows). Such farms made a good living for millions in the 50s and 60s: they are dead as a dinosaur now.
Management and/or labor can destroy a business if they stop thinking constantly about what the customer wants. Customer demand is the only thing that puts black ink on the bottom line.
scott1256: Management and/or labor can destroy a business if they stop thinking constantly about what the customer wants. Customer demand is the only thing that puts black ink on the bottom line.
Bingo! Both union and management keep forgetting the most important person in the equation.
I always chuckle when I read postings from union members on other websites about how they thank the UAW for their pay and benefits.
Uh, no...the CUSTOMER made those pay and benefits possible. If there aren't enough paying customers, there won't be ANY money to pay for those wages and benefits.
Just go to South Bend, Indiana, and ask some former Studebaker employees for an example of how this works in the real world.
Despite all of the gloom-and-doom talk, bankruptcy for either GM or Ford is hardly pre-ordained. Both companies have decent production facilities, a core of white-collar talent (stylists, engineers, etc.), a still-large contingent of loyal customers and a strong distribution network.
With a little creative thinking on the part of the UAW and management, they can pull out of this mess. The UAW, however, has to stop thinking that it's still 1965, and that Americans (or the American government) have some sort of obligation to keep them at their present level of pay and benefits.
Management has to approach the UAW as real partners, and drop some of their outmoded Detroit-think (for example, that all small cars must be cheap cars, or that customers can't see through badge engineering).
A very good post, I very much agree with the tenor of this. The company needs to be focused on serving the customer, first and foremost, and employees need to be rallied in order to adopt the mantra that serving customer needs is the primary goal. A company that sells products that consumers don't want can't stay in business for long.
Management has to approach the UAW as real partners, and drop some of their outmoded Detroit-think (for example, that all small cars must be cheap cars, or that customers can't see through badge engineering).
Exactly. And if the UAW leadership is going to resist change, the obvious alternative is to appeal directly to the membership, so that it becomes the rank-and-file that creates and demands the momentum for change. The entrenched leaders on both sides seem largely content with the status quo, so if there is to be a velvet revolution, it needs to be driven by the rank-and-file.
Easy big fellah ! If the union strikes at Delphi GM has about three weeks of cash reserve (in my estimation) and then ALL GM Workers, current,salaried, Union and both retired classes are history. No cushion if that happens. Being a union member at that point is purely academic.
It is not enough to just place percieved blame. It will not solve the problem. Change,unfortunately will be a major life style change. Incomes WILL drop. For some it is a bitterness that THEY believe has only one facet....MANAGEMENT. If you believe that is the SOLE issue you are not "running on all cylinders". The good times are about to end for the American Auto Industry and the Union/Management relationship will either change or both will perish.
Camcord-style production lines were not allowed by UAW in the domestics' plants because they involved too much automation, which threatened job security. So, in short, your question was answer more than 20 years ago.
Well from the information I've gathered the UAW has a few plants that are run like the transplants and I've posted articles in the past about the UAW allowing more automation and work groups in teams at these new facilty's. The UAW also took notice to the new teams and noticed a reduction in ergonomic/work-related injury's. Sure their would be a reduction in employees at the plants, but the UAW being more flexible might create jobs here in the U.S.
How ?
The workers being more flexible will lower production costs and will be multi-skilled and can run several jobs instead of 1, 2, or 3, and now they will beable to be trained on several. OTOH This Delphi issue isn't shaping up to good and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. It's really ashame that the company I used to strongly support is going to close half of the plants here in the U.S. and that includes some very profitable one. :sick:
And since I'm a business owner(small) I would never say that anyone "should do for himself"
The funny thing is that GM wouldn't even exist if everybody pursued a small business/ entrepreneurial path. If this was the case, who would work for it?
It shouldn't be any surprise that the majority of people who have spent decades of their lives pounding rivets on an assembly line are not going to be inclined toward self-employment. But large corporations are dependent upon employees who are willing to stay employees.
So GM and its fans should be thankful that some people choose to work on assembly lines and follow a routine. Now, all they need are the parts and processes needed to produce a great product, rather than a poor or mediocre one.
I over-estimated how long it would take for his retirement to come . . . not knowing that his is 55 or 20yrs of service instead of the normal retirement age of 65.
The 20 yr. plan probably ain't going to happen pal. Yes I'm 27, so 55 is 28 more years away and currently that is the only guarantee.
The reality is that in this vibrant economy of ours
What planet or country do you live at/on ? :surprise:
That is precisely what is happening in China . . . market economy is producing a middle class there.
We are supplying our enemy and you think it's good for us. The only reason why they have a strong middle class is because of the united states, and it's at the expense of our middle class. :mad:
Your observation about Republican Party would be more appropriatedly compare to people who call themselves "liberals," transforming from supporters of individual rights to supporters of government power.
Well brightness if Republicans and liberals are so much alike then explain to me why in the heck do liberatarians vote Republican since they are so much alike. :confuse: <--------Very *me*
DETROIT -- Auto parts supplier Delphi Corp. said Friday it lost $56 million in March as it continued its restructuring in federal bankruptcy court.
Delphi reported $1.75 billion in revenues for the month, with 60 percent of those sales coming from former parent General Motors Corp. and its affiliates.
Delphi filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 8. For the period from Oct. 8 to March 31, the company has lost $1.6 billion on $9.1 billion in sales. GM made up 58 percent of Delphi's sales in that period.
Delphi also said it has spent $61 million in attorney fees and other professional fees related to its restructuring since the filing, including $10 million in March.
Delphi is required to file monthly financial reports with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The company said its financial performance has been hampered by high U.S. labor costs, rising commodity prices and production cuts at U.S. automakers.
Delphi has asked a federal bankruptcy court judge to void its union contracts if it fails to reach an agreement with its unions and GM to lower its wages. Unions have threatened to strike if Delphi imposes lower wages, a move that could cripple GM.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain is scheduled to consider Delphi's request at hearings on May 9 and 10.
Income from dues fell 4.5% in 2005, but its total assets increased by $50 million, report says.
WASHINGTON -- Hurt by a decline in membership, the United Auto Workers union saw its dues income drop 4.5 percent last year to $197 million.
The union's overall financial receipts -- dues, interest and other income -- dropped to $306 million from $325 million in 2004, but the union's total assets grew by nearly $50 million, according to its latest annual financial report filed with the Department of Labor.
The report, filed April 15 and posted on the department's Web site this week, includes more detailed financial information now required by government reporting rules.
According to the filing:
The UAW spent $8.2 million on lobbying and political activities last year.
Its assets climbed by $47.6 million from $1.19 billion in 2004 to $1.24 billion in 2005.
It earned $54.4 million in interest income, mostly from its strike fund.
It spent $42 million in benefits for its employees and $88 million in salaries.
Top UAW executives, including President Ron Gettelfinger, took up to 3 percent pay cut in 2005. Gettelfinger's salary dropped to $141,796 from $145,466. Secretary Treasurer Elizabeth Bunn's pay went from $142,141 to $136,142.
In total, the union spent $2.3 million in officer compensation.
The UAW's finances could be tested if union leaders decide to strike Delphi Corp.
The two sides are wrangling over sweeping hourly pay and benefit cuts as part of Delphi's reorganization in bankruptcy. The union's strike fund -- used to provide medical and other benefits -- stood at $870 million at the end of 2004.
UAW spokesman Paul Krell didn't return calls seeking comment.
The UAW's active ranks fell 10.6 percent in 2005 to 557,099 members as Detroit automakers and other manufacturers continued to downsize.
But the UAW has long argued that figure in the report -- the number of employees on Dec. 31-- isn't an accurate portrayal of its membership; it says its 12-month average membership in 2005 was about 599,000 -- which represents a 3.7 percent decline.
The UAW's membership is certain to decline in 2006 as Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Delphi Corp. seek to sharply reduce their number of UAW represented employees.
The union has made recruiting new members -- in different areas -- a top priority and has had some success, but not enough to counteract job cuts, especially at auto companies and suppliers.
The operative word is "was." Consumers have long memories regarding brands. Few consumer realize that current GM vehicles are far more reliable than current Mercedes vehicles by any statistic standards . . . yet, Mercedes is living off its reputation for reliability from the 80's while GM has to live down the reputation from that same time period. Hoyota also got their name elevated from what would have been comparable to today's Hyundai to status of respectability back in the 80's. That was when UAW was against automation; they eventually gave in in exchange for job banks, which is another set of financial liabilities.
I don't see where it says anything in the title about "let's analyze the other guy's reason for existence and why he's here." If that's the only reason you're here, then it may be time to retire this discussion.
If we're done talking about the situation with the UAW and the domestic automakers, then we can wrap this one up for the historical archives. We simply can't have every discussion go in every direction.
We were talking about the NA mass market, a semi-lux offering by BMW/Rover in other markets isn't very revelant.
The biggest success stories in this market currently offer midrange sedans that cleanly dominate their segment.
I just have to wonder why anyone thinks the elimination of the UAW will be some kind of miracle cure.
Personally, I do think the UAW will either make serious concessions at the last minute, or they will somehow be eliminated otherwise and autoworkers will be making $8/hr. And when that happens, it will be time for the execs to put up or shut up.
Comments
I think most of us can recognize that GM management in particular, and Ford/DCX management to a lesser extent, has made a number of boneheaded decisions in the past which have ALL contributed to their current problems.
But it isn't ALL a management problem.
I keep coming back to trying to figure out what BENEFIT the UAW gives to either the auto makers OR ultimately to the consumer?
IF it is shown that the UAW is more of a burden than a benefit to the automakers, it sounds as though the SAME PEOPLE who blame management for all the past problems now expect management do a 180 and miraculously figure out how to be competitive with Toyota/Honda despite the UAW hanging around their neck. Is this realistic?
Has management screwed up in the past? YES. But does the UAW make it EASIER or HARDER for mangement to right the ship?
Sure, it's realistic. The problems are largely functions of design, engineering, and marketing. It also comes from having poor supplier relationships that end up with lower quality parts sometimes going into the Big 2.5 cars.
The business problem has been that GM hasn't combined reliability with good design. The company often misses both, and when it does manage the achieve the former, it often doesn't achieve the latter. In all of that, the union is a non-factor.
From the consumer's standpoint, it shouldn't matter who builds the car. Given the success of certain nameplates, it should be apparent that most of them couldn't care less who builds their cars, and that it is possible to build a car with union labor and achieve success with it.
False, IMO.
Labor relations have been (and continue to be) a huge and continuing distraction for management. Whether or not this is a good excuse for poor product planning or not is immaterial. Perhaps management feels vindicated coming down hard on suppliers because they feel a need to 'offset' the higher labor costs.
Is this smart? Perhaps not, but to simply turn a blind eye on the effects (both primary and secondary) of artificially high labor costs, and a poisonous labor/management relationship, isn't smart either. The fact remains that labor relations HAVE distracted management, therefore they HAVE been a factor.
Is labor to BLAME for this? No, not completely. But neither are they blameless. The fact remains that the relationship is not healthy for GM. And I simply can't see GM turning things around as long as the relationship is as bad as it is.
So, what's the solution? Ignore the labor issues completely and concentrate entirely on management? This sounds like your approach.
I have already agreed that it makes sense for GM management to reduce benefit expenses to the extent that they don't create value. But again, labor is not the only component of the cost structure (parts are generally more costly than labor), and every business carries a cost structure. While you haven't been guilty of this, this thread has seen its share of posters who seem to think that the company should be able to operate with virtually no labor costs -- it's hard to complain about GM's alleged $1,500 in "legacy costs", emphasizing this amount as if its rivals have zero legacy costs.
As for the toxic nature of the relationship, let's address why it's toxic. In large part, it's because management maintains a toxic environment that regards employees as expense items rather than assets (the accountant's mentality again), which in turn encourages support for the union among the rank-and-file.
If GM management wants to diminish the effects of the union, the first step is to create a work environment in which the average worker knows the mission of the company, buys into it, and sees what is in it for him, and to channel that energy into an effective business plan that emphasizes the creation of products that people want. An atagonistic environment simply serves to perpetuate the union and its often rigid stances, because management actions reinforce the belief that the us-versus-them mentality is justified.
You can see that GM doesn't much care about developing trust and building relationships with its vendors, unlike Toyota or Honda, so why would it be any different with its employees? At this point, they are simply haggling over money, instead of finding common ground and working toward a common goal. They potentially had something going with Saturn, complete with flexible work rules, but once again, it has been the product that has been the problem.
In other words, be more like Toyota. I think the rank and file would go for it. I don't think Union leadership would.
"An atagonistic environment simply serves to perpetuate the union...."
Don't you think the Union leadership knows this? You think 100% of the antagonism is due to management?
In the mid-1990s I had the privilege of meeting one of the UAW leaders who helped create the Saturn labor agreement.
According to him, GM management - once Roger Smith was gone - didn't like Saturn, and didn't like the more flexible agreement covering Saturn factories.
But guess what - neither did UAW leadership! They weren't anymore enthusiastic about it than GM management.
I agree that blaming everything on legacy costs or the UAW is wrong. But I think you underestimate the extent to which UAW LEADERSHIP (not the rank-and-file) wants to maintain the status quo, and also has no interest in moving to a more Toyota-like work environment.
In this case, the workers are not being served well by their union leaders.
No, I completely agree that the UAW leadership also benefits from the antagonism.
But the only way to ever usurp that is for management to behave in ways that demonstrate to the rank-and-file that it doesn't need a union in order to prosper. If management did a better job of reaching out to the rank-and-file, the union leadership wouldn't be so successful in gaining the support of the rank-and-file.
The union leaders exploit the tools that management gives to them, and management needs to take those tools away if it expects to get anywhere. Given the current management team, I doubt that this will ever happen.
I know it's not a perfect analogy, but try substituting "Israelis" for "management", "Palestinians" for "rank-and-file", and "PLO/Hamas" for "Union leadership".
My point? I honestly don't think there is ANY way for management to 'reach out' and 'demonstrate' to the rank-and-file that everything can be hunky dory precisely because the Union Leadership DOESN'T WANT this to happen and will keep the rabble roused up.
That doesn't say much for GM management's ability to communicate and to create a positive work environment. That sounds like a group of "managers" who don't bother trying to manage anything.
The appeal to the worker needs to be direct, personal, sincere and consistent. The appeal needs to be supported by actions that make it clear that the plan matches the rhetoric.
I have no fantasies about the UAW leadership suddenly embracing a bona fide business plan with open arms, but the leadership is a cone on the obstacle course that needs to be accounted for on the race to appeal to the common employee.
The UAW is successful in rousing rabble only because GM management makes it so easy to look good in comparison. IMO, Rocky is your prototype example -- give the guy a fine product to build, a mission and hunger to conquer and win (kick some serious Toyota backside), and some kudos and job security, and you'll have a loyal soldier who will fight to the death. You can't rally the troops by constantly telling them that they suck, are too stupid, and too costly. (And none of this anti-worker rhetoric is going to help the contract talks in 2007, so I wouldn't be doubling down on the stock just yet.)
You are right: it's not just sour vendor relationships.
It appears that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, MB and other companies that run non-union shops here in the USA have better employee relationships than GM/Ford/DC.
Maybe the high quality of vehicles produced in the non UAW transplant factories reflects this.
Can't rally the troops by telling them they suck, are too stupid, and too costly? But it's FINE to say the same thing, 1000 different ways, about management? It's always a one-way street, right?
Face it: Management and Labor BOTH have big problems at GM. BOTH SIDES contribute to the problem. Both sides (Management and Union Leadership) must work on the solution.
This is pointless.
Where did I say this? My point has been that the union leadership can get away with it because management behaves in ways that ensures that the union leadership gets widespread support.
Without the rank-and-file backing it up, the leadership would become a paper tiger. Looking at the dynamics of the relationship between management and the common worker, it's no wonder that the UAW has remained as entrenched as it has.
If I was a line worker, there's no way in hell that I'd work for GM without a union, but I'd gladly go over to Toyota where I could work in a team and get a handsome bonus while making a product that I could take pride in. It's the employer who shapes the morale and can either motivate or demotivate. The players need to play well, but it's the coach who wins the games.
Sounds like a lot of recent(and past) american cars I can think of. Interesting that designers are the ones that use the term. Maybe GM and Ford need to layoff a few of them too.
Socala4, that was a very nice compliment you said about me and I appreciate it.
I do feel their is alot of folks that act like us Union employees are only looking out for ourselves and we don't want our employer to be successful.
I do feel that in some cases that non-union employees out on a production line don't have the same ownership as union employees because of pay and benefits and I'll tell you why.
This is my personal experience and thought I would give ya'll my 2 cents.
Socala, thanks again for the compliment. You are speaking the truth. If I worked for GM, I would do my absolute best to kick the crap out of my competition. My father and family pushed me to be the best that I could and being around his co-workers, I could see why 2nd place wasn't quite good good enough. :shades:
Rocky
I don't think it has as much to do with wages and benefits as you are saying. My daughter gave up a $55k per year job at Chicago Title as an Escrow officer. She was a slave to that company. No time for her son. Now she works 3-4 evenings a week at Wal-Mart and loves it. She acts like they are the greatest employer around. She is only making $9.50 per hour but feels she is part of the company. I do agree with Socala4 that management needs to make employees feel they are an important part of the overall process. That is whether they are Union or not. You can have the greatest Union job in the world and still be a disgruntled employee.
I would not give up a good job like that for $9 an hour. She must have a well paid husband, because $9 an hour won't buy 3 gallons of gas let alone support a family without government help.
Rocky
Precisely. If anything, having a strong union is probably an indication that the workers are disgruntled. Not many people are going to be thrilled about paying union dues if they believe that they could have gotten the same or a better deal without the union. Employees who love their work and who are well paid for what they do are not generally going to want a union just for the sake of it.
Rocky
The healthy, growing part of the auto industry sector is the companies that have come here and built non-union shops.
The UAW's future is tied to the financial health of GM and Ford. That is a bad position to be in.
I would add Chrysler to that list, but yes, the UAW is in very serious trouble.
I would think that the writing is on the wall, at least for the leadership. The entire union movement in the US in a weak position, and the UAW is no exception. IMO, a strong management effort to build strong direct relationships with the employees, and to offer those workers a more appealing and secure alternative, would only hasten the union's demise.
The union leadership can get away with it because union is an institution backed up by previous legislations of the US Congress . . . a legallized monopoly. Being a union member has tremendous advantages over not being a union member in the same work outfit.
If I was a line worker, there's no way in hell that I'd work for GM without a union, but I'd gladly go over to Toyota where I could work in a team and get a handsome bonus while making a product that I could take pride in.
Yet, as Rocky mentioned earlier, Toyota Tacoma plant just voted for unionization. Given this fact contradicting to your theoretical projection, you need to modify one of the two of your premises thusly:
(1) Toyota management is not much better than that of the GM . . . which would then beg the question, just how well behaving the management has to be before workers are seduced by the false promises of the union?
(2) Union as an institution thrives on the un-level playground created by legistlations in the first half of 20th century. Union workers are legalized "privileged" workers, who basicly suck the sweat and blood of other workers, consumers, and ultimately taxpayers.
Interesting take. I wonder when employers can stick together on certain topics of conerns like price and wages . . . Oh, I forgot, that's classic ILLEGAL TRUST/CARTELIZATION!
And indeed they do. Most union employees are probably in the top 20% for income. According to IRS data, the cut-off for top 20% of all tax-filers is only $65k, that is for household income if you are married and filing jointly. The number itself is optimistic because those who are married and filing separately are counted as two tax filers, and those with really low income probably do not file income taxes. Most union jobs pay well in excess of 1/2 of $65k. The difference between their pay and market-recognized value of their work (ie. the wage of non-union replacement worker) often comes at the expense of those making far less.
Given that the 2nd highest CEO pension in America only pays $6mil per year, there are probably far more criminals among union members than there are CEO's with multi-million retirement pays.
BTW, isn't it interesting that the union bosses are going to Las Vegas to discuss their position for the next round of negotiations with the auto and partsmakers??
So, if gas station owners believe they can get better price on what they have to offer by "organizing," should they be allowed to form their own gas-station cartel? no scabs allowed?
Your earlier statement about workers join union because the management does not respect them is even farther off-mark. Union is about price control, pure and simple. The core of each union contract negotiation is always about wages, higher wages, or same or higher wages for less work. If you think a little more respect would make the incentive for union go away by itself, you are really naive. Why don't you allow gas stations to form their own price-gouging board, then try your own luck at being nice to the gas station owner and see if he will give you a price break . . . after all, gas station owners don't get much respect nowadays, and many of them are barricaded behind thick bullet-proof glasses for their dear lives, not exactly refelction of respect from motorists.
That is true brightness, but if I was a deadbeat do you really think I would work for the Department of Energy and carry automatic weapons.
(1) spends an inordinate amount of time online
That's like the pot, calling the kettle black :P
(2) is too afraid to start his/her own business
I'm not afraid brightness, but I'm not sure what to sell, or what service to provide that will give me an advantage over my competition. I also am playing it safe because I have two little ones to worry about. Perhaps someday I will find a way to open up my own or buy an existing new car dealership GM of course somewhere here in the U.S.
(3) wishes to do his current job for the rest of his life; i.e. no progress for the next 38 years!
That's not neccessarily true brightness. I'm elgible for retirement at age 55 with our current system in place. My company will pay the pentalty for early withdrawl of my enhanced 401K. If we get lucky and get a 20 yr. an out,
I will only have 16 yrs and 3 months to go. I'm not counting on a 20 yr. retirement happening with this congress and administration. My job requires a very high degree of physical skill, and with the wear and tear we put on our body's we need to have a younger workforce.
But yes someday brightness, I'd like to move on to something I'd enjoy like selling cars for a living. I would enjoy waking up in the morning knowing I would get to be around a company of brands that I have a personal bond with.
(4) gets his info primarily on TV, and believes himself to be a history buff because he gets his historical "facts" on history channel.
So your saying sources like "The History Channel" are bad sources of information ? :confuse: I indeed get some of my sources from the likes of a unbiased political
source like Lou Dobbs. I'd love to know exactly where you get your sources of information ? I like ya brightness, but you need to also take a look in the mirror. I know you feel like an elite because you own your own buisness,
and therefore your intellegence is above and beyond what my common human brain would understand. :surprise: I like I said before in the past am happy for you. I am not the type of guy who is going to wish somebody bad luck and hope they fail.
Sometimes the shoe fits . . . . anyway, isn't that what you and Rocky are saying of the white collar employees . . . that they suck, are too stupid, and too costly??
Well some of the leaders at GM do suck and lack a vision and buisness plan. I know most are very well educated, but I feel many of GM's problem is they build automobiles to price points, instead of building "the best" product. Bean counters that would be fired by Toyota find jobs at GM, because this is the culture. Cost cutting measures are shortsighted solutions to long term problems. Socala has stated this over and over again that product is the key to saving GM and the domestic automanufactoring here in the U.S. of A.
Rocky :shades:
I was born and raised on a small farm (20 dairy cows, 100 laying hens and 6 or 7 sows). Such farms made a good living for millions in the 50s and 60s: they are dead as a dinosaur now.
Management and/or labor can destroy a business if they stop thinking constantly about what the customer wants. Customer demand is the only thing that puts black ink on the bottom line.
Bingo! Both union and management keep forgetting the most important person in the equation.
I always chuckle when I read postings from union members on other websites about how they thank the UAW for their pay and benefits.
Uh, no...the CUSTOMER made those pay and benefits possible. If there aren't enough paying customers, there won't be ANY money to pay for those wages and benefits.
Just go to South Bend, Indiana, and ask some former Studebaker employees for an example of how this works in the real world.
Despite all of the gloom-and-doom talk, bankruptcy for either GM or Ford is hardly pre-ordained. Both companies have decent production facilities, a core of white-collar talent (stylists, engineers, etc.), a still-large contingent of loyal customers and a strong distribution network.
With a little creative thinking on the part of the UAW and management, they can pull out of this mess. The UAW, however, has to stop thinking that it's still 1965, and that Americans (or the American government) have some sort of obligation to keep them at their present level of pay and benefits.
Management has to approach the UAW as real partners, and drop some of their outmoded Detroit-think (for example, that all small cars must be cheap cars, or that customers can't see through badge engineering).
Management has to approach the UAW as real partners, and drop some of their outmoded Detroit-think (for example, that all small cars must be cheap cars, or that customers can't see through badge engineering).
Exactly. And if the UAW leadership is going to resist change, the obvious alternative is to appeal directly to the membership, so that it becomes the rank-and-file that creates and demands the momentum for change. The entrenched leaders on both sides seem largely content with the status quo, so if there is to be a velvet revolution, it needs to be driven by the rank-and-file.
Being a union member at that point is purely academic.
Well from the information I've gathered the UAW has a few plants that are run like the transplants and I've posted articles in the past about the UAW allowing more automation and work groups in teams at these new facilty's. The UAW also took notice to the new teams and noticed a reduction in ergonomic/work-related injury's. Sure their would be a reduction in employees at the plants, but the UAW being more flexible might create jobs here in the U.S.
How ?
The workers being more flexible will lower production costs and will be multi-skilled and can run several jobs instead of 1, 2, or 3, and now they will beable to be trained on several. OTOH This Delphi issue isn't shaping up to good and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. It's really ashame that the company I used to strongly support is going to close half of the plants here in the U.S. and that includes some very profitable one. :sick:
Rocky
The funny thing is that GM wouldn't even exist if everybody pursued a small business/ entrepreneurial path. If this was the case, who would work for it?
It shouldn't be any surprise that the majority of people who have spent decades of their lives pounding rivets on an assembly line are not going to be inclined toward self-employment. But large corporations are dependent upon employees who are willing to stay employees.
So GM and its fans should be thankful that some people choose to work on assembly lines and follow a routine. Now, all they need are the parts and processes needed to produce a great product, rather than a poor or mediocre one.
I'm not sure if you like any GM vehicles, do you ?
Rocky
The 20 yr. plan probably ain't going to happen pal. Yes I'm 27, so 55 is 28 more years away and currently that is the only guarantee.
The reality is that in this vibrant economy of ours
What planet or country do you live at/on ? :surprise:
That is precisely what is happening in China . . . market economy is producing a middle class there.
We are supplying our enemy and you think it's good for us. The only reason why they have a strong middle class is because of the united states, and it's at the expense of our middle class. :mad:
Your observation about Republican Party would be more appropriatedly compare to people who call themselves "liberals," transforming from supporters of individual rights to supporters of government power.
Well brightness if Republicans and liberals are so much alike then explain to me why in the heck do liberatarians vote Republican since they are so much alike.
:confuse: <--------Very *me*
Rocky
Delphi reported $1.75 billion in revenues for the month, with 60 percent of those sales coming from former parent General Motors Corp. and its affiliates.
Delphi filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 8. For the period from Oct. 8 to March 31, the company has lost $1.6 billion on $9.1 billion in sales. GM made up 58 percent of Delphi's sales in that period.
Delphi also said it has spent $61 million in attorney fees and other professional fees related to its restructuring since the filing, including $10 million in March.
Delphi is required to file monthly financial reports with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The company said its financial performance has been hampered by high U.S. labor costs, rising commodity prices and production cuts at U.S. automakers.
Delphi has asked a federal bankruptcy court judge to void its union contracts if it fails to reach an agreement with its unions and GM to lower its wages. Unions have threatened to strike if Delphi imposes lower wages, a move that could cripple GM.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain is scheduled to consider Delphi's request at hearings on May 9 and 10.
------
On the Net:
Delphi Corp.: http://www.delphi.com
WASHINGTON -- Hurt by a decline in membership, the United Auto Workers union saw its dues income drop 4.5 percent last year to $197 million.
The union's overall financial receipts -- dues, interest and other income -- dropped to $306 million from $325 million in 2004, but the union's total assets grew by nearly $50 million, according to its latest annual financial report filed with the Department of Labor.
The report, filed April 15 and posted on the department's Web site this week, includes more detailed financial information now required by government reporting rules.
According to the filing:
The UAW spent $8.2 million on lobbying and political activities last year.
Its assets climbed by $47.6 million from $1.19 billion in 2004 to $1.24 billion in 2005.
It earned $54.4 million in interest income, mostly from its strike fund.
It spent $42 million in benefits for its employees and $88 million in salaries.
Top UAW executives, including President Ron Gettelfinger, took up to 3 percent pay cut in 2005. Gettelfinger's salary dropped to $141,796 from $145,466. Secretary Treasurer Elizabeth Bunn's pay went from $142,141 to $136,142.
In total, the union spent $2.3 million in officer compensation.
The UAW's finances could be tested if union leaders decide to strike Delphi Corp.
The two sides are wrangling over sweeping hourly pay and benefit cuts as part of Delphi's reorganization in bankruptcy. The union's strike fund -- used to provide medical and other benefits -- stood at $870 million at the end of 2004.
UAW spokesman Paul Krell didn't return calls seeking comment.
The UAW's active ranks fell 10.6 percent in 2005 to 557,099 members as Detroit automakers and other manufacturers continued to downsize.
But the UAW has long argued that figure in the report -- the number of employees on Dec. 31-- isn't an accurate portrayal of its membership; it says its 12-month average membership in 2005 was about 599,000 -- which represents a 3.7 percent decline.
The UAW's membership is certain to decline in 2006 as Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Delphi Corp. seek to sharply reduce their number of UAW represented employees.
The union has made recruiting new members -- in different areas -- a top priority and has had some success, but not enough to counteract job cuts, especially at auto companies and suppliers.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/AUTO01/604270364/- 1148/AUTO01
Have a good day all my edmunds friends.
Rocky
If we're done talking about the situation with the UAW and the domestic automakers, then we can wrap this one up for the historical archives. We simply can't have every discussion go in every direction.
The big 2.5 have proven with trucks and SUVs that they can design class leaders but now they need great cars.
Except for the Cadillac brand and a few great individual models like the Mustang, 300 and Corvette their cars have been neglected.
Chrysler weighs modern factory
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=detroit+news.com&page=1&offset- - =1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dc255deadbeedd297%26clickedIt- - emRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Ddetroit%2Bnews.com%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%25- - 2Fwww.detnews.com%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest- - %3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.detnews.com%2F
Back to your regularly scheduled programming on the current situation with the UAW and the automakers.
The biggest success stories in this market currently offer midrange sedans that cleanly dominate their segment.
I just have to wonder why anyone thinks the elimination of the UAW will be some kind of miracle cure.
Personally, I do think the UAW will either make serious concessions at the last minute, or they will somehow be eliminated otherwise and autoworkers will be making $8/hr. And when that happens, it will be time for the execs to put up or shut up.