By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Rocky
You can't be serious. :surprise:
Rocky
I agree pal. OTOH that's why both GM and Ford offered buy-outs to there employees. I'm not sure how many have signed up so far for the buy-out package ? My POPS is of course one of em'. It just gets my blood boiling 62' when GM will release a car like the POS Aztek and they hesitate on making the most awesome car in the world, in the Buick Velite. :shades:
It just makes me...
Rocky
Pulling a line from someone's post to address a single point someone made and avoid confusion is fine, as long as it's not then used as a way to make a comment about the poster. That's where the problem comes in.
The whole idea here is to discuss the topics, not each other. Your cooperation on this is greatly appreciated.
Toyota and Honda's meteoric rise in NA over the last decade has been due to their truck/SUV and luxury vehicle offerings . . . which are also the reason behind GM and Ford's decline, as vehicles like RAV4, RX, Highlander, MDX, Pilot and CRV put margin pressure on products that had been making Ford and GM gobs of money.
I just have to wonder why anyone thinks the elimination of the UAW will be some kind of miracle cure.
I don' think many are thinking that way at all. Most don't expect ex-cancer patients to decimate all other runners and win Marathon races just because they finally got rid of the tumor. On the other hand, not getting rid of a cancerous tumor does tend to eliminate any chances of winning at all (or meaningfully participate for that matter).
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.
Agree on the last sentence, but I'm not as confident about its actually happening; ie. GM being allowed to exist with UAW somehow fading away, as much as I hope that's the case. If GM shuts down and gets liquidated, Toyota will be under tremendous pressure to absorb the capacity, especially personnel. Given the market share increase and current profits, there just might be sufficient political pressure to turn Toyota into another GM. The saga goes on, with only the old workers and retirees getting shafted and become wards of the taxpayers. Ultimately, taxpayers and old workers/retirees who are way too late in their careers to find new jobs get the short end of the stick . . . 30 years later, the same process all over again to catch up with today's young workers unwary enough to consign themselves to such a fate.
From the start, Toy/Hon/Hyun/BMW/MB's US factories have paid hourly wages similar to what UAW workers make.
They are also profitable while paying these higher wages.
The burden with the UAW is retirement costs, benefits and job bank programs. GM/Ford/Chrysler and the UAW have to work and figure a way to handle this.
Anyway, here is the perspective from Japan - Toyota is scared of GM going down (and the political backlash that would follow - We see the illegal immigrants marcing in LA, and know that in US it is not rational logic that rules) and will do some "behind the scene" deals for this not to happen (increase in pricing, delay of model releases etc). So no need to worry about Toyota dominance!
But coming back to the topic in question - And again, just the Japan perspective (I am representing Japanese Auto mags) - Brightness is right, if you sum up all the +ves and -ves - The legacy costs of GM are driving a behaviour that ultimately will result in something drastic. We are just coming back from a 15 yr recession, and while the western press refers to it as a lost decade due to muddles Japanese decision making, the fact is that labor costs have been axed dramatically, and companies have reduced their dependency on manual labor. The result? Even Japanese Steel companies, the dinosaurs to beat all Japanese dinosaurs, are recording the highest profits ever.
Of course, that results in the rich-poor gap widening, and an increase in the percentage of Japanese with no savings....but that is what Gen McArthur all about, wasn't he?
That makes sense. Of course, Toyota is going to gun for the territory of its largest competitor -- it is easier to become stronger if your rival becomes weaker. Its segment choices reflect that, such as the Avalon competing for Buick's share, or the larger trucks looking to carve out a portion of the market for GM offerings. But on the whole, concern for a political backlash is well founded.
The legacy costs of GM are driving a behaviour that ultimately will result in something drastic.
Not really, these costs are already headed for the chopping block. The process of paring these down is already underway, it's just a matter of time before they are on par with every other company's.
GM management is simply hyping up the legacy cost rhetoric for a couple of core reasons: (a) it's a PR exercise meant to attack and disable the union, and (b) it's a distraction ploy intended to hide management's deficiencies from Wall Street, an effort to get analysts to believe that GM's problems can be solved by focusing on the company's cost structure.
Point A is a predictable exercise, and Point B ultimately won't work unless it can be combined with some hit cars that sell in volumes large enough to turn loss into profit. The business press and analysts are now fully coginizant of the fleet sales problem and retail market share erosion, and nobody with any common sense is going to believe that sustained high oil prices wouldn't have an impact on consumer buying habits that will work against the gas guzzler manufacturers. It won't be long before the analysts begin asking, "Enough beating of the legacy costs drum, when are you going to start selling successful cars?"
Strong competition is a wonderful driver of innovation.
I also hope lawmakers avoid giving loans, guarantees, tarrifs or other artificial support to the US auto industry.
Surely management of the big 3 should be hearing what the marketplace is saying loud and clear right now.
Velite type vehicle at Buick is a possibility. If the Lucerne continues to be a hit and the Enclave also does well Buick may earn a $35k 2 seater NOT based on the Solstice.
I can see Tiger Woods walking up the 18th Hole at the Buick Invitational, and a prize of a Buick Velite sitting there for the known Winner named Tiger
He knocks in his put for Eagle, and stands in front of the Velite with his hands in the air at the tune of Aerosmith's 'Dream On' song :shades: as the bulbs flash
Rocky
P.S. I have quite an imagination don't I :P
Toyota and Honda are making their profits in the $16,000 to $26,000 range with well designed, plain vanilla, reliable cars that get high gas mileage.
That is the market the big 3 have to get serious about. Profits from the bread and butter lines can fund cars like the Velites, GTs, Vipers and Z06s.
Rocky
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HCIJT01.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_- - - up&chan=db
This strike will be a gift to Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and other competitors.
Shutting down GM hands them an open market, while allowing them to raise prices and increase profits.
I hope UAW membership considers all this on voting day.
The southern California grocery strike involving 70,000 United Food And Commercial Workers members from October 2003 to March 2004 was one of the most significant actions the U.S. labor movement took in the last twenty years.
What happened? The workers lost, betrayed by their union leaders. This defeat was devastating, setting up a spiral of attacks on the lives of people who must work to live, particularly on the minimal health benefits that a few working people still have. The old labor saw, "An injury to one just goes before an injury to all," is already felt in teacher-union contract negotiations.
What were the issues? The 70,000 plus grocery workers in Southern California, most but not all of them check-out clerks, struck to protect their wages, health benefits, pension funds, the hours and nature of the hours at work, and their union itself. Grocery clerks are not known as impatient militants. The workers fought because they had to fight. Cornered, they engaged in a battle that few of them fully understood. The sole thing that was retained after the end of a five-month strike was the right of their United Food and Commercial Workers Union directors to collect dues from the members.
The grocery owners, Vons, Ralphs, and Albertsons, claimed they had to have massive concessions from the union in order to stave off competition from Walmart, now invading their turf. The grocery bosses rightly said that Walmart's edge was not only in its ability to buy in bulk, but its cheap labor costs.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473107/
The import plants all pay about the same wages, benefits, etc. as the big 3.
That is why unions have had no success recruiting employees at Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW plants in the US.
The supermarket strike failed because it was limited to a local effort that failed to impact the stores at a broader level. It was foolish for the union to proceed without having first coordinating strikes that would have impacted these chains across their entire operations. Very poor gamesmanship, and a lesson about how not to coordinate a strike.
The transplant automakers have provided competitively paid jobs with benefits on par with the norm across the rest of the country. They also were wise to start operations in places where workers would be thankful for the jobs. And the use of team-based assembly methods should be better for morale.
GM management has sought to replace good management practice with paycheck/benefit-based labor relations. Giving someone a good insurance policy is not the same thing as providing a positive work environment with a common goal to win and earn profits.
The blame culture within GM simply never ceases to amaze me. I guess this is what happens when any company gets too big for its own good -- everyone, both workers and management, get too fat and lazy to keep their eyes on the ball, and begin to think that success is an entitlement, rather than something to be earned.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060504/AUTO01/605040395/- 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
:sick:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/14503549.htm
Management GM or Union !
http://unionfacts.com/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12678094/
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Auto_News/Industry_Report_May_8_2006.S- 175.A10387.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114687835100345662.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060520/AUTO01/605200422/1148-
============================
Really....? ... is that how it works.??? ..l.o.l...
I've never been a fan of the UAW ... but let's be honest here, the "the transplant automakers" are paying 10cts on the dollar for the cost of their employee's ...
Japanese Cars, American Retirees
Tom Uhlman for The New York Times
Richard Baugh, 61, who plans to retire in January, inspects the paint on a Toyota Camry in Georgetown, Ky.
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: May 19, 2006
GEORGETOWN, Ky. — For the last quarter-century, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have strived to appear to American consumers like homegrown companies.
Skip to next paragraph
Tom Uhlman for The New York Times
JoAnn Elbert, 45, works on the moon roof of a car on the Toyota assembly line in Georgetown, Ky.
They built a string of manufacturing plants in the South, employing tens of thousands of local workers. They hired American designers. They spent millions on ads to trumpet their growing roots in communities across the country.
"Being a good corporate citizen starts with hiring lots of good citizens," one Toyota ad says.
Yet as they built up their operations, the Japanese "transplants" have worked hard not to resemble an American car company in one vital respect: how they treat their retirees.
"We want to avoid commitments when we have no control over their costs," said Pete Gritton, the head of human resources for Toyota's United States manufacturing operations. "We can't build in things in such a way that we won't be able to keep our commitments later."
Until recently, the issue has mostly been academic for the Japanese car companies. Most of the American factory workers they started hiring in the mid-1980's are still working.
But age is creeping up on them. All three Japanese companies are anticipating that the ranks of retirees will swell over the next several years. Toyota's American arm, for example, has just 258 retired production workers (G.M., by contrast, has more than 400,000 retirees).
But things will change over the next five years. In 2011 and 2012, a combined 1,700 workers will be eligible for retirement at Toyota — about 6 percent of its current labor force.
Their retirement will contrast in a crucial way with their counterparts who have retired from the Big Three auto companies in that they will bear much more of the costs and the risks of retirement on their own.
This difference adds up to an important cost disadvantage for the Big Three as they fight to regain market share.
The benefit packages offered by Detroit's three carmakers to its blue-collar workers, negotiated over time with the United Automobile Workers union, pretty much fit a standard model. Retirees receive a pension check every month, which varies with the number of years served.
An average worker who reaches retirement age at G.M. will get a monthly pension check worth about $50 for every year of service, up to a maximum of about $1,500 a month, which accrues after 30 years of service, according to a G.M. spokesman, Jerry Dubrowski. Retirees with 30 years of service get a supplement that brings their monthly check up to about $3,000 until they reach 62.
Moreover, until last year, when General Motors and the union cut a deal for retirees to cover co-pays and deductibles, G.M. covered retirees' health care expenses.
With benefits like these, it's no wonder that G.M. was once known as "Generous Motors."
But these days, health care costs are causing enormous financial headaches for the Big Three. G.M. has an unfunded liability of $85 billion in today's money to cover future health care costs for workers and retirees. That is seven to eight times the market value of the whole company.
General Motors estimates that health care costs add about $1,500 to the cost of each vehicle it makes in the United States. Chrysler claims a health care cost of $1,400 per vehicle. Ford says its burden is $1,100.
G.M.'s pension plan has also been a drain. Since 1992, G.M. has plowed $56 billion in stock and cash into it. It is hoping to reduce its burden by offering all of its 105,000 U.A.W. workers buyout packages worth up to $140,000. It is still unclear how many plan to accept the offer.
"The higher legacy costs are reflected in a less modern product," said George E. Hoffer, a professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University who has studied the auto industry. "They had to cut costs somewhere else and they cut costs in retooling."
Japanese companies face little of this burden in Japan, where the government covers retirees' health care and pays a bigger share of workers' pensions.
Toyota expected to pay out about $700 million in pension benefits in fiscal year 2006, which ended in March. That's less than a tenth of what G.M. expects to pay on its pensions this year.
In the United States, retirees of the Japanese companies pay part of their health care costs. And the Japanese companies' pension obligations are a fraction of that of the American carmakers.
While G.M. paid $5.4 billion last year for the health care of its 141,000 workers, 449,000 retirees and their dependents, Toyota said in its 2005 annual report that its obligations to cover the health care expenses for its retirees "are not material."
At Honda, a 60-year-old retiree with 10 years of service would typically pay $345 a month for health care; a 62-year-old retiree with 25 years at the company would pay $70. Toyota also requires retirees to pay part of their premiums, based on years of service.
In general, these retirees are cut off from the company health plan when they turn 65, and receive instead a lump sum with which they can buy supplementary insurance to Medicare. Honda is alone among the big three Japanese carmakers to still offer a defined-benefit pension guaranteeing a monthly check to newly retired workers in the United States.
At Toyota, a worker's pension consists of an investment account in which the company deposits the equivalent of 5 percent of a worker's earnings each year, typically around $3,000 to $3,500. An employee can supplement that with a 401(k) plan, and the company matches contributions up to a maximum of 4 percent of the worker's income.
For the company, these retirement packages carry no uncertainty. But they do for workers, whose nest eggs depend on their contributions and the financial markets.
His wife, Ruth, 58, will also retire after 14 years at the plant. With total savings of some $700,000, the Baughs feel ready for retirement. They were thrifty, plowing at least 12 percent of their wages into their 401(k)'s.
"After the stock market crash we stayed invested and kept buying, and our 401(k) roared back," Mr. Baugh said.
With less than 25 years at the company, they will have to pay a portion of their health insurance premium, which Mr. Baugh said would amount to some $300 a month.
Tim Garrett, vice president of administration at Honda Manufacturing of America, says talk of the Big Three's "legacy" problem is overblown. Had they set enough money aside when the workers were active, their retirement would not be costing them anything today. "Depending on your decisions you will have legacy costs or you will not have legacy costs," Mr. Garrett said. "We have no legacy costs."
To be fair, Detroit's car companies were no more shortsighted than many companies in other industries. From steelmakers to telephone companies, free health and defined pension checks were a staple of the retirement packages negotiated between America's industrial titans and their unions half a century ago.
When these companies were growing quickly, providing generous retirement benefits seemed cheaper than offering better pay, a future cost that often did not even have to be accounted for on the financial books.
From 1990 to 2005, G.M.'s payroll shrank by two-thirds, and its current work force is now just one-third the number of its retirees and their dependents.
Today, defined-benefit pensions are dwindling across industries, as companies force retirees and active workers to pick up part of their health costs. According to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only one out of three big companies now provide health care coverage for their retirees, down from two-thirds in 1988.
In 2003, 22 million workers were covered by some sort of defined-benefit pension, 8 million fewer than in 1980, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. And the number of workers in defined-contribution plans jumped to 52 million, from 14.5 million, over the same period.
Union contracts have limited what Detroit's car companies can do with their blue-collar workers, but they are paring back where they can.
G.M. eliminated health care coverage for its salaried, nonunion retirees hired after 1993. This year, it froze the salaried workers' defined-contribution pension plan. Chrysler made its salaried workers pay more for their health care starting this year.
Under an agreement last year with the autoworkers' union, retirees at G.M. and Ford will start paying part of their health care costs, up to $370 a year for an individual and $752 for a retiree's family.
With Detroit sagging under the burden of these "legacy" costs, it is unsurprising — even to executives at the Big Three — that the Japanese companies arriving in America chose to do things differently.
"These are well-managed companies," said Frederick A. Henderson, G.M.'s chief financial officer. "It is natural that they would look at our experience and say 'I don't want to do that.' "
I never said it was fair ...
Terry
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gettelfinger21may21,1,6151395.story?coll=l- a-headlines-business&track=crosspromo
http://www.tribune-chronicle.com/news/articles.asp?articleID=4144
Rocky
Once Delphi gets past this bankruptcy it will have to stand on it's own. GM will buy from the best suppliers. Hopefully Delphi will offer products at competitive quality/prices.
Defined benefits and carte blanche healthcare essentially make the company into an insurance business in addition to its core competence . . . Most managers are probably no good at running insurance business, and why tempt them with a giant nest egg that they could potentially raid/siphon to buttress the quarterly report?
Having to run an insurance company for its employees also creates a barrier to entry for newcomer companies that could potentially offer workers better pay.
Carte Blanche healthcare creates its own market externality when the benefitiary is entirely detached from the paying of bills. That's a major factor behind the rapidly rising cost of healthcare: third-party pay creating excessive demand coupled with AMA monopolistic control on supply.
Rocky
That is exactly what an employer does with money in a retirement fund. They invest in stocks and bonds. At least with the 401K you have some control over where the money is invested. Unless of course you worked for Enron. There are funds that plug along making 2-5% year after year and are as safe as any retirement plan. Just keep control of your finances. Just read an article of a husband and wife that are retiring from Toyota. They have together in their 401K approximately $700k dollars. That is more than is in my Teamsters account after 36 years.
Rocky
DB pension plans are unsupportable in today's competitive world. There are too many unknowns.
Me personally, I feel much more comfortable in knowing I can control where to invest my retirement money. Any moderately diversified investment would produce 7% over the long term. Gary's 2-5% is pretty conservative.
I'd rather not depend on my employer's DB plan to support my retirement - and risk bankruptcy/fraud on their part.
That is true. It would be for someone with no sense of adventure. My 401K which has done real well up until the last couple weeks, had about 12% for the year to date. I am afraid to pull it up after the last several sessions. I used to get nervous about the Teamster Trust as well. Fortunetly it is a separate plan for Alaska Teamsters. I also have a close friend on the board that keeps me up on the condition. Nothing is 100% safe.