What you are missing is that the current impotent state of domestic auto making is indeed the usual result of cartel member being exposed to renewed competition from outside forces. Union by defintition is a cartel and a monopoly. Cartel and competitiveness is at the core of the issue here, just like the failing steel industry decades ago, and the failing old airlines right now.
If you want to accuse some one of being off-topic, every time any one brings up union was necessary for redistribution of wealth (a false theory anyway), you can pick on that.
I'd have no problem if foreign competition had to play on the same level as american buisness. I still think company's like Toyota and Honda would kick the domestics butts because they have long-term goals for there buisness, instead of greedy CEO's soaking up the company's profit margins and cooking the books. Roger Smith, captained the ship straight into the iceberg and said the ship was "unsinkable" and Rick Wagoner is trying to cut enough life boats to save the crew.
I like Rick, but he needs to quit canceling or delaying successful projects like the Super-V CTS, Buick Velite, Camaro, Enclave, G8, etc etc etc that will add real value to GM's vey unstable portfolio. These cancelations aren't going to help save jobs, and is very frusterating to consumers like myself that want to buy or be interested in one these cars this fall but can't get one because of availability. :mad:
Unions have raised the standard of living of everyone, including lower management. Even my management is praying we get a good contract next March, so they can actually feel like they are getting a raise, instead of it going to "energy company's".
Where is the off-topic patrol?? LOL. The last sentence does not even make any sense; what they actually pray for is between them and their God, unless you have a bugging device somewhere . . . So I will only address the thesis statement: It's is completely false that union raised living standards for everyone. Doubling everyone's nominal wage does not raise living standards for anyone if everything doubles in price too; in fact, the effective savings are just cut in half. If everyone is still doing the same amount of work turning out the exact same number of products, those who are getting their wages doubled before everyone else is in effect ripping off all the rest; their new high wages will drive up price for those who have not yet seen their wages raised! Please don't tell me union raised living standard for the scab worker who got beaten to death by the union either. Also, how exactly does strike, i.e. stoppage of production, raise everyone's standard of living?? Unionism is pipe dream indeed.
If greedy CEO's, politicians, had it there way only the "elite" would live the good life.
Again, where is the off-topic patrol?? CEO's and politicians are not the only greedy ones. Many politicians climbed the ladder through unions anyway. Even the union member watching TV all day in the job bank and still collect high pay is very much greedy and is part of an elite establishment compared to young workers who have to work their butt off to make little over minimum wage. Greed and elitism is not unique to CEO's and politicians. Greed and elitism is a common affliction to human beings. That's why competition is necessary to force everyone to create real value for fellow human beings.
Well, I should clarify what happened, because Sir Bright edited one of his posts in which claimed that the $5 day was the modern equivalent of $50 per hour, which would mean that the current UAW auto worker has actually had a pay cut since 1916.
Of course, that $50 per hour figure is obviously well off the mark when you use federal CPI data. Based upon the nine-hour day of the time that Ford had at the time, and paying the ninth hour at time-and-a-half, that $5 day works out to be a whopping $10.63 per hour. But of course, he responded to that by defending his absurd, obviously made-up number, by citing some "goldbug" (gold standard pusher and precious metals dealer) who claims that CPI is understated (by apparently a factor of 4.5 times, I guess.)
Anyway, the higher-wages-lift-all-boats argument is essentially a monetarist argument (Milton Friedman and all that), as a modest bit of inflation in the economy due to wage growth spurs workers to keep producing and aspire to something. Wages affect behavior in ways that can help a business create profits.
Higher wages don't necessarily translate into higher product costs if it saves money elsewhere in the system or increases productivity. When Henry Ford more than doubled the wage of his workers, he wasn't doing it because he was a saint or a friend to labor, but because the high turnover rate was constantly halting production, which was killing his revenue potential. And those workers who remained were less productive because they had less training on average (due to the high turnover rate, they were further down the learning curve), less motivated and idle more often when the line would stop whenever someone didn't turn up or walked off the job.
Ford was fairly uneducated and rough, but he was smart enough to know that if he sold high volumes of his cars that it would significantly lower his production costs, make the product more affordable, improve his sales channels and build his brand, all of which would make him money. His mistake from which Sloan would profit with GM was that Ford paid little attention to segmenting the market (understandable in the early days, but not as time went on and the market became lucrative enough to invite strong rivals), and GM came in by creating various products, features, and brands to which customers could aspire. Ford's philosophy of offering "any color they want...as long as it's black" was ultimately a gift to GM.
So no, higher wages can actually be a good thing, while simultaneously resulting in lower product costs for all of us. The price of a Model T declined over time because of the economies of scale achieved as the car became popular, and those production volumes would never have been achievable without higher wages. Profits aren't necessarily increased by lowering expenses, but by making sure that the difference between your revenues and costs increases, however which way you do it, and dumping on your workforce is generally pennywise and pound foolish.
Socala, that educated theory which is backed by facts defends my American vs foreign worker arguement. The better your workers are compensated the more likely they are willing to tolerate dislikes with the job, thus creating a well trained motivated workforce. You'd think todays CEO's would learn a few things from Ol' Henry and yes it makes since that Toyota is willing to pay near UAW wage levels to it's workers for retention reasons
Socala, that educated theory which is backed by facts defends my American vs foreign worker arguement.
Rock, unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way, because you can motivate foreign workers -- at least in some countries -- with a lot less money.
Like it or not, we have to live with globalization. In 1916, there was just no way that Ford could have built cars in China and imported them here -- the transport costs would have taken all of the profit, the operation would have been impossible to manage, and it was difficult to move capital back and forth across borders at that time. But those barriers are largely gone now, and it is easy and cheap to ship goods long distances.
But that doesn't mean slashing wages for its own sake. You can't slash worker pay or cut bodies in a vacuum, it often harms morale and productivity, and that seems to be what's ongoing at GM at the moment.
The Japanese makes have the better idea. They lower their costs primarily by creating more efficiencies and by improving quality (eliminating defects generates sales and reduces costs), and they can increase sales enough to absorb any excess labor. (In other words, instead of having increased efficiency cause them to can workers, they find ways to build sales and markets so that they can put those freed-up resources to work.)
GM sort of does the same thing, but because the products aren't great, they have to sell those products at a steep discount, which harms their margins. That's why quality is so important, because it allows you to sell that extra production at a high price, instead of for pennies earned from the car rental industry.
I was making the arguement that the Mexico auto-industry doesn't pay any better than TV assembly plant was the point I was trying to make. Here in the U.S. the auto-industry traditionally pays more than other blue-chip industries and in Mexico that isn't the case.
I read his (Bush) proposal and he has angered many of his supporters that voted for him that work for Uncle Sam. It's going to get very interesting here very soon. The UAW vs. Delphi issue is something some in my union are watching closely since there might be government intervention.
Let's not jumpt out the frying pan and straight into the fire pit here. Foreign CEO's are no more saintly than domestic CEO's. Toyota NA chief just got canned for getting himself into a multi-million dollar sexual harassment suit. Hyundai, the latest rising star beating Toyota in the small car market, just saw its CEO arrested and indicted for corruption!
I tend not to think myself as smarter or better informed to make decisions for GM than Rick. The critics seem to be coming at him at contradictory directions: some say he should not cancel or delay projects; some say he should shut down entire divisions in order to make small cars . . . My guess is that, he may just be doing the right thing ;-)
Board of directors are chosen by shareholders, who are supposed to own the company. CEO's are appointed by the board. See, it's okay for you to spend your own money however you like; however, it's not okay for the nanny tto kidnap your baby and demand ransom just because you let her into your household to watch the baby.
The joke about off-topic patrol was not aimed at you. I was not criticizing your going off-topic per se; merely curious how come solcal is not showing up to pick on your posts that are not on topics intrinsic to auto industry itself at all.
The rebuttal to your post was offered in the rest of the text I posted earlier in the same posts.
but how are individuals making a middle income salary going to afford healthcare if it comes soley out of there pockets without enough raises to cover the added expense is the real problem.
Medical expenses would be a lot cheaper if not for the various subsidies driving up the prices.
Isn't the need for such a buy-out itself a tacit admission of the exhorbitantly high cost of labor currently in place? I actually agree that instead of all the benefits that are sooner or later bankrupt, employees should just be paid in cold hard cash. The exactly amount however would have to be decided by consumers. I think my time and the pain in watching baby is worth $100/hr, but that does not mean I can go sign up for a $10/hr baby sitter job then hold up the baby until the parents agree to pay me $100/hr.
A lot of workers in Mexico and the rest of the world have a more realistic view of what a pay means. They want to be paid now, in money, not in some false promise of retirement payments decades from now.
So we agree somewhat on this subject. Where you and I disagree is the market always being the determining factor. If the market is the ultimate determining factor of everything then we as a country really need to rethink our stradegy. We simpily can't compete with India, China, Taiwan, Singapore, etc etc etc in labor costs. We have to give up manufactoring all togeather if the world market is going to be the utopian factor, since nobody does it cheaper than the poor asian country's and middle easterners. American workers can't compete with people living in slums, unless we become slum lords ourselves. This is where the free marketeers "pipe dream" of smoke becomes cloudy when trying to solve this problem. We better also give of being the world police to since that costs to much money and debt.
I refuse to allow the elites to take over without a good fight even though my voice and opinion means nothing. I honestly believe it's possible to have a world economy where you can have Rich and middle class type people. So does the unions and yes you want to call it wealth distribution. I don't call it that but rather morale values of others lives. Who else does the ordinary person have fighting for them besides unions in Washington brightness ????? Everyone that says they are for the middle class in this country is basically baught and paid for by corporations. Sure there are a few exceptions. I honestly want the rich that work very hard to be rich because some really deserve it, but it becomes greed when they want to exploit populations to make a extra buck instead of having enough morales to help people out that are less fortunate. (Both in the U.S. and World)
I do believe one day they will be judged and that extra buck will not be worth the punishment they will recieve IMO. I hope anyways
Rock, this is not meant as a personal attack, but your prejudice is showing. Here is what CIA World Factbook has to say about Singapore: "Singapore, a highly-developed and successful free-market economy, enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the four largest West European countries. . . " Singaporeans don't live in slums; in fact, one of their prejudices is that American cities comparable to their own size (the country of Singapore is a city state) are chock full of slums . . . obviously provincial ignorance and prejudice exist in all corners of the world.
Free market is not a pipe dream. Ask yourself, do you want to decide what kind of car you want to drive or would you prefer some government official specify that for you? Would you prefer deciding for yourself what you'd like for dinner tonight, or having some official deciding for you because of "econological cost"? Would you prefer deciding what you wear after work or would you prefer some government official specify that for you? The list goes on and on. If you choose to decide for yourself on any of these issues, you are choosing the free market solution. Whether goods get imported from India, China, Taiwan or Singapore is not a government decision, but a decision driven by what you and I buy. If government officials were to decide for us, they'd all choose to buy from their own brothers and cousins and charge us taxpayers the proverbial $64k toilet seat.
It is proposterous to suggest that Americans can not compete. Historically, Americans have been way ahead the rest of the world thanks to our vastly more free market compared to the rest of the world. It was precisely their own smoke-and-mirror pipe dream utopia of governmental control that held back much of the rest of the world. They have been learning from us over the past couple decades; it would be ludicrous for us to emulate their old mistakes.
Neither of us is in favor of entrenching the existing elite. Monopolistic political power only serve to entrench elite because they are the ones wielding such power. Unions fighting for the ordinary person? Hardly ever. Unions fight for union bosses and union members; where do you think their higher wages come from? the pockets of consumers, and taxpayers (when the companies become bankrupt and taxpayers end up paying the pensions).
All that talks about morales and helping out the poor out of goodness of the heart of the rich is really a very feudalistic paternalistic view of the world. What the poor needs is not a hand-out, but an opportunity to better themselves. Haven't you noticed, all those countries receiving foreign aid from us are kept in poverty; yet those receving competitive foreign direct investment quickly see their lot improve. Same goes with domesticly. Communities receiving long term aid are usually kept poor; yet those receiving competitive capitalistic attention see their living standards improve quickly.
I like to change this famous bumper sticker: Live Better Work Union to Live Better Work Union
UAW will be doing more concession as it is already happening. Reality finally started to sink in their head not over their head like they used to. If they don’t, the large cash reserves will ran out soon. Bankruptcy is inevitable. In order for all domestic automakers to stay in black, they have to shift cost by sending jobs to Mexico, Canada, and/or China. Result: More jobs will be lost. In my opinion, it’s a lose-lose situation for both.
We've now seen what GM can do with a non-union chinese made cars that yes are nice. EVEN with the $0.60 an hour labor costs with no benefits or retirements, they still are charging in the $40K range for a LaCrosse made in China for that market. The LaCrosse while nice still isn't near the Japanese elite and/or European/Scandinavian levels. So if Labor Unions like the UAW are such a damn problem, then what the heck is your excuse for GM still not being able to execute the "benchmark" of cars using a unimportant factor such as labor assuming all stripes of men are equal ???????????????
I feel like Rocky Marciano with my oppenent dangling on the ropes :P
LaCrosse (or Regal) in China market is quite a different car from the one in the US. The car has much more upscale fit and finish. The LaCrosse in the US may or may not be up to Japanese or European luxury standards, the one in China market certainly is. You price may also be off. It was $40k half a decade ago, before China joined WTO. Car prices have been cut in half in the last couple years after WTO removed much of the tariff previously imposed by the Chinese government. In any case, large cars are not affected by labor cost as much per centage-wise as small cars.
edit: just found this link: http://en-1.ce.cn/Industries/Auto/200606/06/t20060606_7238929.shtml Apparently, the 2006 Buick Regal (LaCrosse) for China market is about $22k. The engine displacement may have been reduced compared to half a decade ago, but those buggers come loaded with amenities, with reverse radar, double-layer sunroof, genuine leather (the bonded leather crap we have here apparently doesn't sell well there, perhaps due to warmer weather), rear-seat A/C, rear-seat DVD's etc..
I'll pass on traveling to Singapore pal I like my head intact. My racial make-up would surely get me the dull knife treatment. I also am not much into there delicacy of sitting around a wooden tabel that has a clamp to hold the skull in place of our closest relative the monkey.
$1500 is the minimum estimate of UAW labor cost _differential_. Some estimate it to be $3-5k. It's the _differential_, not the whole labor cost. As to whether an additional $1500 is going to make or break the deal with the consumer, when was the last time you walked into a dealership and paid $1500 more than what he/she was asking? People buy from a different dealership for as little as $200 price differnce.
The actual cost of what a customer pays and what the dealership pays is apples and oranges. If your product is engineered to be among the best, consumers are willing to pay the premium. You think the new shelby isn't getting $20-30K over Sticker ? Well a guy here in Dumas is paying $20K over sticker to have one. Some in California and Florida are paying as much as $30K over sticker to own a Shelby. When the company builds elite products, it will spur enough demand theat the company can pick it's price. This is something Toyota, Honda, Audi, BMW, Porsche, are used to doing and have been able to do so because the product is desirable. When your market is Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, then you got to really worry about price points. I'm not going to beat a old drum again since Socala, has pointed this out over and over again. Quality products is most important to the majority of consumers in the free market.
I do disagree with your stance on anything but unregulated capatalism is the only way that consumers get the best products. Are you saying Socialist country's like Canada, Norway, etc don't get to choose what they wear or eat :confuse:
I sometimes think you confuse the two like many in the media. I guess one belonging to a union or supporting one makes you have communist intentions. I support a free market capatalist society as long as all involved are playing on a level playing field and it seems to me you want to lower the incomes and benefits of union workers to meet those free market challenges, instead of raising everyone else's standard of living. I'm not going to question your morale values brightness, but I'd think one having morales would like to see not only americans achieve a better lifestyle, but the whole world. I don't think it's a fantasy to believe someday it can be achieve is all I'm saying.
The China LaCrosse is over $40K U.S. dollars according to sources others have posted on this website. They even had articles and pics of the car. It certainly outshines the U.S. version but still falls behind the Japanese cars that it targets in every category. GM replied to me saying the Chinese LaCrosse is like a American Cadillac DTS. Well there is one helluva alot of mark-up then if they are charging over $40K and are using chinese labor and materials to build the car. :confuse: That ought to show you how greedy they really are.
02/23/2006 Shanghai GM Introduces Buick LaCrosse Premium Sedan
Shanghai, China – Shanghai General Motors (Shanghai GM) today introduced the newest member of its Buick lineup, the LaCrosse premium sedan. Using the LaCrosse architecture from North America, the vehicle has been engineered and developed specifically for the China market. It has an all-new body, exterior and interior, and unique engine lineup.
“With its contemporary design, luxurious interior and superior handling, the LaCrosse epitomizes the Buick spirit of striving for excellence,” said Chris Gubbey, Executive Vice President of Shanghai GM. “It is targeted at those who want a vehicle that reflects their exquisite taste and desire to achieve.
“The LaCrosse is another example of Shanghai GM’s integration of its global and local resources,” he added. “The design, state-of-the-art technology, interior amenities, advanced safety features and overall craftsmanship all raise the bar for domestically produced sedans.”
Based on the model of the same name sold in the United States since 2005, the LaCrosse was reengineered in Shanghai by the Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center (PATAC), a joint venture of General Motors and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. Group (SAIC). The engineering and design center was responsible for body, exterior and interior design as well as the selection of powertrains. Refinements were made in line with China’s road and fuel conditions and customer requirements.
The new sedan competes in the upper-medium segment. Shanghai GM is offering three LaCrosse models: the 2.4 Luxury model priced at RMB 239,800, the 2.4 Elite model priced at RMB 269,800 and the 3.0 Flagship model price at RMB 329,800. Customers can start placing their orders today. Deliveries will begin in the second quarter of 2006.
Choice of Engines
LaCrosse buyers have a choice of two engines, both of which are making their debut in China. The ECOTEC D-VVT 2.4-liter all-alloy four-cylinder engine is the newest member of the highly acclaimed ECOTEC family. The engine has a host of advanced features such as D-VVT, or double variable valve timing, sequential fuel injection (SFI) and electronic throttle control (ETC). It is among the most competitive in terms of fuel economy in its class.
The 3.0-liter V-6 AFM engine adopts the Active Fuel Management (AFM) system, which offers improved fuel economy of between 2 and 8 percent compared to similar engines. The engine automatically shuts down half of the engine cylinders when not needed.
Contemporary Styling
The LaCrosse has an elegant design. Up front, an oversized three-dimensional chrome-plated grille joins with the U-shaped hood to create clean, flowing lines. Horizontally shaped air intakes contrast with fog lamps on either side of the sedan, giving it a more seductive feel. Specially designed low-air resistance side mirrors are inlaid with five LED indicator lamps.
The shape of the rear windows and trunk follows the overall shape of the sedan, creating a streamlined sensation. The dynamic-looking rear is highlighted by three-dimensional circular tungsten lighting with jewel-like lamps, which offer a strong visual contrast.
Luxurious, Comfortable Interior
The exterior design carries on into the interior. An integrated U-shaped central console takes on the shape of the Buick shield. Entertainment, information and air-conditioning controls are strategically placed for easy access. The interior is trimmed with chrome-plated strips, which contrast walnut wood inlays and genuine leather seats. A multifunctional wooden steering wheel has ergonomically designed buttons. A Bluetooth hands-free communication system permits the driver to receive calls through a hotkey on the steering wheel.
The sumptuous interior goes far beyond traditional midsize sedans. The LaCrosse boasts the most powerful GPS audio cruise control system in China, with street information for 140 Chinese cities as well as a Chinese language display with user-friendly graphics. It is complemented by a head-up display (HUD) system that shows a variety of information such as speed, direction indicator, even caller ID.
The cabin theater DVD system is equipped with 6.5-inch double display monitors in both front and back, each of which can be independently controlled. The car’s unique three independent media channel audio system allows users to enjoy DVDs, CDs and the radio all at once.
The adoption of GM’s QuietTuning as well as the extensive utilization of sound-deadening materials significantly reduces noise and vibration levels throughout the entire body structure, ensuring a quiet ride.
Advanced Safety
The LaCrosse has a number of active and passive safety features. GM’s Vehicle Stability Enhancement System (VSES) automatically adjusts the engine’s torque output if the car deviates from its ideal path, selectively applying braking pressure on all four wheels. ABS with Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) effectively shortens the braking distance during emergencies. With the Traction Control System (TCS), the on-board computer automatically adjusts power output and controls wheel drag to prevent skidding.
Among the passive safety features are a high-strength steel body that directs impact forces away from passengers. A lightweight aluminum-magnesium alloy dashboard panel coupled with protective features for the knees provides added protection to those in front. In the event of a frontal collision, a sensor allows the on-board computer to decide whether to activate the safety belt’s tightening function or to also activate the front and side curtain air bags. As a result of the attention to safety, the LaCrosse received a five-star rating in North American New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) testing.
To ensure security, the LaCrosse’s advanced anti-theft intelligent key system immobilizes the engine and locks doors remotely. For added safety and aesthetic purposes, the trunk does not feature an outside lock; it can only be opened remotely or from inside the vehicle. The pioneering Remote Engine Start (RES) allows owners to start the engine from up to 50 meters away.
Shanghai GM is a 50-50 joint venture between GM and SAIC. In addition to the LaCrosse, Shanghai GM offers the Buick Royaum, Regal, Excelle and GL8. It also assembles Chevrolet and Cadillac products. Shanghai GM sold a record 325,429 vehicles in 2005, which represented a year-on-year increase of 28.7 percent.
General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world’s largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for 75 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 327,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit, GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries. In 2005, 9.17 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and
Nope it's not much of a plan. At the Delphi, Wyoming Mi. plant for example 75% of the workforce is leaving and the replacements like my step-day are making $14 an hour with no benefits for atleast 6 months. However he is willing to take the risk since Michigans economy is in the toilet.
BTW- Dads replacement looks to be flowing back to GM, thus creating a month of worthless training. Dad is upset but can't blame the guy.
So your saying that these type of actions don't happen in management levels. :surprise: I could use your same theory on the CEO corporate level. When one CEO performs very well and gets paid $1-million, but another performs very poor but yet gets a $500-million dollar golden parachute for his failings, then does it make it fair because that CEO has the power to right his own ticket even though he failed ? That seems to be the right that most corporate big-wigs enjoy and are guaranteed high pay and finacial security regardless of the performance they achieve.
I'm tired of beating this old-drum, I'm going to bed.
Like I said before, the cost of labor becomes a diminishing factor in larger cars. Material actually cost about the same the world over; cheap labor is the primary advantage of manufacturing in China. The top end of the model range usually involves big mark-ups; you don't actually believe an MB S550 cost $100k to make, do you? Besides, in the case of GM, hey, someone has gotta pay for all the retiree pensions. You can't really blame management who set high product prices and still sell well when you were a moment ago lambasting them in another post for inability to command price premium. So what is it? should they just give away the cars to benefit the consumers in China?
What you are missing is that in your example, the people getting ripped off are the shareholders, who bought the stocks voluntarily. There are market mechanism for correcting that problem very quickly; it's called stock market. Underperforming executives either don't get paid well or don't last long; often both.
The union pay package advantage over other workers however is achieved through extorsion, and there's no real remedy for it (besides abolishing union) for over half a century.
BTW, there is no such thing as a $500-mil golden parachute for any executive. You are off by at least an order of maganitude. The dollar has not been devalued that much yet.
but if it could command higher prices similar to those of Toyota, then it would be earning a profit
And if I can make 20 million cars in my garage, I'd be the biggest automaker in the world. How is any of this related to reality? How can GM possibly command higher price premium when: (1) the union refusal to automation have ruined GM reputation for reliability; (2) Union work rules manded same pay regardless whether production is taking place forcing GM into overproduction. You can't command high unit price if you have too much to sell, simple supply-demand.
It goes back to the Henry Ford example -- he deliberately increased his labor costs, because he got more out of it than he paid. Lower labor costs were actually harming his business, because his labor was less efficient than it would have otherwise been.
This is one strange way of characterising what happened. Henry raised starting wages in order to get new recruits for his expanding company and reduce turn-over. His Production Line Method was actually displacing what had been skilled craftsman jobs with unskilled laborers. At its core, it was a process that reduces labor cost, at least per product unit labor cost. In any case, when Ford was surpassed by upstart GM and Chrysler by the mid-1920's, raising wage was the last thing he wanted or needed.
The Edmunds forums are not a place to fight out your personal battles. Posts talking about other users, or characterizing other users posts as spam, lies, or whatever are going to be removed.
The discussions here are topic-oriented. When someone comes along and sees the title "The UAW and Domestic Automakers", they have an expectation to find a discussion about that subject matter, not an ongoing personal fight or discussion about unrelated matters.
If you cannot disagree with what someone has posted here without resorting to attacking them personally, then I suggest you use the undocumneted IGNORE feature that is found on every single message board and skip over their posts.
Not to get off subject too much but GM no longer offers traditional Bluecross/ Blue Shield to the Salaried. Instead the new plan is an HSA which we decided to go with. To entice us to make this choice (over PPO's and HMO's) there is no premium. NONE. So we pay most of the first $5000 or so out of pocket and then it goes into a more traditional co-pay/max out of pocket scenario.
What this did is to make us think about how we spend our medical dollars. We need to buy a monthly prescription. The name brand is $50/month copay at the drugstore. If we mail order from Medco this same drug is $75 for 3 months. If we order the generic it is $5 for 3 months.
so far even with a child in the hospital 2 nights we are ahead of last year. BUT still 6 months to go.
If everyone with full coverage or "no think" insurance was to be a little more fiscally observant medical costs would drop.
Let's try injecting an on topic news item to see if we can get back on track here.
UAW trusts Gettelfinger for a changed era
Ron Gettelfinger won a second four-year term as president of the United Auto Workers last week...
With his re-election, Gettelfinger has to resolve the situation at Delphi, but his main task will be leading the UAW into the 2007 contract talks.
The automakers certainly are going to seek more concessions along with an overhaul of the reviled jobs bank, in which UAW members get paid even when laid off. The automakers would like to do away with the jobs bank but might settle for new rules on who gets in it and for how long to reduce the numbers.
Gettelfinger's re-election is a sign that there may be more harmony than haranguing in those contract talks and that the rank-and-file accepts he will exhibit some flexibility in dealing with the automakers--even on the jobs bank.
OK-GM UAW will agree to drop job banks since the GM paid buy outs will give the folks in Job banks an opportunity to come back or leave. Also many in the UAW are at and above the retirement age. since many
UAW will agree to freezing pensions where they are and then use the 401k for future retirement money with GM matching 401k funds. Just like the salaried.
UAW will agree to paying a large portion of the medical costs. Just like the salaried.
Wow. A lot of posts since last night. Do you guys sleep?
"Anyway, the higher-wages-lift-all-boats argument is essentially....."
Higher wages 'for all' isn't what was being discussed. What was said was Unionization raised the standard of living for everyone. Um, not everyone is in a Union. Not even CLOSE to everyone is in a Union. So, the Union members have the higher wages, and their wages are paid by....? Management? The company? Noooooo, ultimately those wages are paid by the consumer.
"Higher wages don't necessarily translate into higher product costs IF it saves money elsewhere in the system or increases productivity."
I hope you don't mind if I emphasised a bit of your statement. Because that's a mighty big 'IF'. Of course, one could say that non-inflated wages might translate into LOWER product costs if it saves money elsewhere in the system or increases productivity. This leads to additional sales and increased market share (hmmmm, kinda like what Toyota and Honda are doing). But you expect GM to do the same......WITH higher labor costs.
"So no, higher wages can actually be a good thing, while simultaneously resulting in lower product costs for all of us."
I'm sorry; I missed the cause/effect there. Higher wages RESULT in lower product costs? I think the auto (and labor) industry has changed a bit since the days of Henry. Following your logic would mean that GM should start drastically increasing their labor costs way above the current UAW contracts with the expectation that their product costs will go down. :confuse:
I'll pass on traveling to Singapore pal I like my head intact. My racial make-up would surely get me the dull knife treatment. I also am not much into there delicacy of sitting around a wooden tabel that has a clamp to hold the skull in place of our closest relative the monkey.
Where do you get your info from?
One of the safest most friendly places in the world. As an added advantage, women outnumber men 2 to 1. :shades:
Higher wages 'for all' isn't what was being discussed. What was said was Unionization raised the standard of living for everyone.
Sure they did, because they put the idea on the table that workers should earn higher wages, not treated like a commodity, and that diverting all surplus resources to owners and shareholders was an idea of the past. In the big picture, when wages increase at the lower echelons, it trickles up the ladder.
I missed the cause/effect there. Higher wages RESULT in lower product costs? I think the auto (and labor) industry has changed a bit since the days of Henry. Following your logic would mean that GM should start drastically increasing their labor costs way above the current UAW contracts with the expectation that their product costs will go down.
Remember that argument the next time that you want a raise, or you are trying to gain approval to hire someone or acquire a piece of equipment. Given your perspective, I take it anything that raises costs is a problem?
Then again, a smart manager knows that his workers need to be incentivized to work and to produce at optimal levels, and one key to that is money. It's bad business to assume that lower costs translate into more profits, particularly if your production inputs are inferior as a result.
GM's core problem is that it makes inferior products, that are lacking in either reliability or else some quality that consumers want, which causes them to earn less revenue per unit than its better managed most competitive rival. My goal would be to eliminate that gap, and if that means spending some money on something, then so be it. At this point, GM's strategy seems to be to eliminate its best workers (who will be the ones most likely to take a buyout plan, since they know that they can get jobs somewhere else) in order to meet its challenges to becoming competitive in a short time.
I would be cutting costs whereever I could in ways that didn't compromise the goal of higher revenue, rather than focusing on costcutting for its own sake. And if I opted to cut some benefits, etc., at the very least, I'd try to secure buy in from the workers, so that they would help with the process. Is a strategy meant to demoralize the workforce an optimal way to make money?
That is a bargain then. Look what Toyota is charging for a Prius built in China, sold to the Chinese.
Toyota is making the Prius with its Chinese joint venture partner FAW, China's biggest automaker. FAW already works with Toyota to build both sedans and SUVs. The Prius will be made in Changchun in northeastern China The model is no bargain by U.S. standards with a price of between $35,000-$37,000 in China.
I was thinking about a comment on Mexican built vehicles. Of the last three GM vehicles I have bought they each were assembled in a different country. My 1993 Chevy 3/4 ton 4X4 was built in Canada. My 1998/99 Suburban came out of Mexico. The latest 2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid from Indiana.
Of the 3 the overall fit and finish of the 1993 from Canada was slightly better than the Suburban from Mexico. The 2005 GMC from Indiana is not as well put together as the earlier GM vehicles I have owned. It runs fine and I have had no issues other than junk tires that the dealer exchanged. It is just tinnier built. It does not have the solid feel of earlier trucks. The metal feels thinner on the doors, roof and fenders. Can we blame that on the UAW? I don't think so. In fact if I was to point a finger it would be toward government regulators.
"Given your perspective, I take it anything that raises costs is a problem?"
No. Only if something raises costs WITHOUT A BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY do I see a problem.
So, how do higher UAW labor costs benefit GM?
"Then again, a smart manager knows that his workers need to be incentivized to work and to produce at optimal levels, and one key to that is money."
Absolutely. So, does a 'smart manager' within GM have the ABILITY to reward individual behaviour within the UAW ranks? I was under the impression (perhaps erroneous) that typically the 'smart manager' within GM couldn't directly reward Union employees; that raises/bonuses were awarded either collectively or through some pecking order within the Union (seniority).
"GM's core problem is that it makes inferior products, that are lacking in either reliability or else some quality that consumers want, which causes them to earn less revenue per unit than its better managed most competitive rival."
We can quibble back and forth about what GM's CORE problem is, but I certainly can't disagree that a MAJOR problem GM has is as you described.
HOWEVER, this is not a "What's wrong with GM" topic. The topic is fairly specific and deals with the UAW and Domestic Automaker's.
In the light of THE TOPIC, it has been established that the UAW does impart some degree of additional cost to the domestics. What I'd like to discuss is whether or not the domestics gain enough benefit from using Union labor to offset the additional cost.
In the light of THE TOPIC, it has been established that the UAW does impart some degree of additional cost to the domestics. What I'd like to discuss is whether or not the domestics gain enough benefit from using Union labor to offset the additional cost.
That is not going to happen. The only benefit GM gets out of the union is that they have a stable work force. No one leaves until they retire and even then they usually work until they are almost dead.
When I say stable I meant that they are on GM's list as employees. I never said they show up for work consistently.
I am not saying this against all GM hourly workers. Most work hard and do their jobs. There are just a percentage (higher than other non union shops) that pull the company down. And before I get squashed I have many relatives that are union. I spent some time working in the GM shops as union. This is the way it is.
Maybe some type of buyout deal where GM will max out a 401 K yearly to make up for lost time ? You gotta remember the pension plans were for a very long time the only form of retirement plan these guys had. Also back in the 50's- 80's autoworkers weren't paid much more than the common factory worker. People use to quit GM and go work for GE
I agree with your proposals, and yes see huge changes. I do think they will be good for the company and good enough to swallow by the workers.
I've worked in several non-union shops and felt the degree of slacking was higher than union shops in my experience. It use to frusterate me when some of my co-workers spend half of the nite in my bosses office talking college football, while I was doing my job + some of there's. I agree 62' back in the 80's that was the way it was in those GM plants. The mid 90's is when big changes happened and they went from a 2,000 strong workforce to a 850 workforce in some plants. They also are doing 3 jobs instead of just 1 and are able to because of modern automation. While I'm not disagreeing with your personal experience "62" things most definitely have changed.
Comments
If you want to accuse some one of being off-topic, every time any one brings up union was necessary for redistribution of wealth (a false theory anyway), you can pick on that.
I like Rick, but he needs to quit canceling or delaying successful projects like the Super-V CTS, Buick Velite, Camaro, Enclave, G8, etc etc etc that will add real value to GM's vey unstable portfolio. These cancelations aren't going to help save jobs, and is very frusterating to consumers like myself that want to buy or be interested in one these cars this fall but can't get one because of availability. :mad:
Rocky
Rocky
Where is the off-topic patrol?? LOL. The last sentence does not even make any sense; what they actually pray for is between them and their God, unless you have a bugging device somewhere . . . So I will only address the thesis statement: It's is completely false that union raised living standards for everyone. Doubling everyone's nominal wage does not raise living standards for anyone if everything doubles in price too; in fact, the effective savings are just cut in half. If everyone is still doing the same amount of work turning out the exact same number of products, those who are getting their wages doubled before everyone else is in effect ripping off all the rest; their new high wages will drive up price for those who have not yet seen their wages raised! Please don't tell me union raised living standard for the scab worker who got beaten to death by the union either. Also, how exactly does strike, i.e. stoppage of production, raise everyone's standard of living?? Unionism is pipe dream indeed.
If greedy CEO's, politicians, had it there way only the "elite" would live the good life.
Again, where is the off-topic patrol?? CEO's and politicians are not the only greedy ones. Many politicians climbed the ladder through unions anyway. Even the union member watching TV all day in the job bank and still collect high pay is very much greedy and is part of an elite establishment compared to young workers who have to work their butt off to make little over minimum wage. Greed and elitism is not unique to CEO's and politicians. Greed and elitism is a common affliction to human beings. That's why competition is necessary to force everyone to create real value for fellow human beings.
Thank-you
Rocky
Well, I should clarify what happened, because Sir Bright edited one of his posts in which claimed that the $5 day was the modern equivalent of $50 per hour, which would mean that the current UAW auto worker has actually had a pay cut since 1916.
Of course, that $50 per hour figure is obviously well off the mark when you use federal CPI data. Based upon the nine-hour day of the time that Ford had at the time, and paying the ninth hour at time-and-a-half, that $5 day works out to be a whopping $10.63 per hour. But of course, he responded to that by defending his absurd, obviously made-up number, by citing some "goldbug" (gold standard pusher and precious metals dealer) who claims that CPI is understated (by apparently a factor of 4.5 times, I guess.)
Anyway, the higher-wages-lift-all-boats argument is essentially a monetarist argument (Milton Friedman and all that), as a modest bit of inflation in the economy due to wage growth spurs workers to keep producing and aspire to something. Wages affect behavior in ways that can help a business create profits.
Higher wages don't necessarily translate into higher product costs if it saves money elsewhere in the system or increases productivity. When Henry Ford more than doubled the wage of his workers, he wasn't doing it because he was a saint or a friend to labor, but because the high turnover rate was constantly halting production, which was killing his revenue potential. And those workers who remained were less productive because they had less training on average (due to the high turnover rate, they were further down the learning curve), less motivated and idle more often when the line would stop whenever someone didn't turn up or walked off the job.
Ford was fairly uneducated and rough, but he was smart enough to know that if he sold high volumes of his cars that it would significantly lower his production costs, make the product more affordable, improve his sales channels and build his brand, all of which would make him money. His mistake from which Sloan would profit with GM was that Ford paid little attention to segmenting the market (understandable in the early days, but not as time went on and the market became lucrative enough to invite strong rivals), and GM came in by creating various products, features, and brands to which customers could aspire. Ford's philosophy of offering "any color they want...as long as it's black" was ultimately a gift to GM.
So no, higher wages can actually be a good thing, while simultaneously resulting in lower product costs for all of us. The price of a Model T declined over time because of the economies of scale achieved as the car became popular, and those production volumes would never have been achievable without higher wages. Profits aren't necessarily increased by lowering expenses, but by making sure that the difference between your revenues and costs increases, however which way you do it, and dumping on your workforce is generally pennywise and pound foolish.
Rocky
Rock, unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way, because you can motivate foreign workers -- at least in some countries -- with a lot less money.
Like it or not, we have to live with globalization. In 1916, there was just no way that Ford could have built cars in China and imported them here -- the transport costs would have taken all of the profit, the operation would have been impossible to manage, and it was difficult to move capital back and forth across borders at that time. But those barriers are largely gone now, and it is easy and cheap to ship goods long distances.
But that doesn't mean slashing wages for its own sake. You can't slash worker pay or cut bodies in a vacuum, it often harms morale and productivity, and that seems to be what's ongoing at GM at the moment.
The Japanese makes have the better idea. They lower their costs primarily by creating more efficiencies and by improving quality (eliminating defects generates sales and reduces costs), and they can increase sales enough to absorb any excess labor. (In other words, instead of having increased efficiency cause them to can workers, they find ways to build sales and markets so that they can put those freed-up resources to work.)
GM sort of does the same thing, but because the products aren't great, they have to sell those products at a steep discount, which harms their margins. That's why quality is so important, because it allows you to sell that extra production at a high price, instead of for pennies earned from the car rental industry.
So basically for federal employees paid by the tax-payers he wants them to have no health insurance, and no define benefit retirements.
That sounds good to me. Just include all of congress and all White House related workers in that plan and I'll accept it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The rest I agree 100% with ya.
Rocky
Rocky
I tend not to think myself as smarter or better informed to make decisions for GM than Rick. The critics seem to be coming at him at contradictory directions: some say he should not cancel or delay projects; some say he should shut down entire divisions in order to make small cars . . . My guess is that, he may just be doing the right thing ;-)
The rebuttal to your post was offered in the rest of the text I posted earlier in the same posts.
Rocky
Medical expenses would be a lot cheaper if not for the various subsidies driving up the prices.
I refuse to allow the elites to take over without a good fight even though my voice and opinion means nothing. I honestly believe it's possible to have a world economy where you can have Rich and middle class type people. So does the unions and yes you want to call it wealth distribution. I don't call it that but rather morale values of others lives. Who else does the ordinary person have fighting for them besides unions in Washington brightness ????? Everyone that says they are for the middle class in this country is basically baught and paid for by corporations. Sure there are a few exceptions. I honestly want the rich that work very hard to be rich because some really deserve it, but it becomes greed when they want to exploit populations to make a extra buck instead of having enough morales to help people out that are less fortunate. (Both in the U.S. and World)
I do believe one day they will be judged and that extra buck will not be worth the punishment they will recieve IMO. I hope anyways
Rocky
Free market is not a pipe dream. Ask yourself, do you want to decide what kind of car you want to drive or would you prefer some government official specify that for you? Would you prefer deciding for yourself what you'd like for dinner tonight, or having some official deciding for you because of "econological cost"? Would you prefer deciding what you wear after work or would you prefer some government official specify that for you? The list goes on and on. If you choose to decide for yourself on any of these issues, you are choosing the free market solution. Whether goods get imported from India, China, Taiwan or Singapore is not a government decision, but a decision driven by what you and I buy. If government officials were to decide for us, they'd all choose to buy from their own brothers and cousins and charge us taxpayers the proverbial $64k toilet seat.
It is proposterous to suggest that Americans can not compete. Historically, Americans have been way ahead the rest of the world thanks to our vastly more free market compared to the rest of the world. It was precisely their own smoke-and-mirror pipe dream utopia of governmental control that held back much of the rest of the world. They have been learning from us over the past couple decades; it would be ludicrous for us to emulate their old mistakes.
Neither of us is in favor of entrenching the existing elite. Monopolistic political power only serve to entrench elite because they are the ones wielding such power. Unions fighting for the ordinary person? Hardly ever. Unions fight for union bosses and union members; where do you think their higher wages come from? the pockets of consumers, and taxpayers (when the companies become bankrupt and taxpayers end up paying the pensions).
All that talks about morales and helping out the poor out of goodness of the heart of the rich is really a very feudalistic paternalistic view of the world. What the poor needs is not a hand-out, but an opportunity to better themselves. Haven't you noticed, all those countries receiving foreign aid from us are kept in poverty; yet those receving competitive foreign direct investment quickly see their lot improve. Same goes with domesticly. Communities receiving long term aid are usually kept poor; yet those receiving competitive capitalistic attention see their living standards improve quickly.
UnionUAW will be doing more concession as it is already happening. Reality finally started to sink in their head not over their head like they used to. If they don’t, the large cash reserves will ran out soon. Bankruptcy is inevitable. In order for all domestic automakers to stay in black, they have to shift cost by sending jobs to Mexico, Canada, and/or China. Result: More jobs will be lost. In my opinion, it’s a lose-lose situation for both.
I feel like Rocky Marciano with my oppenent dangling on the ropes :P
I'll let you think about that one pal. :P
Rocky
P.S. I hope your little one is doing fine.
If you want to get a real feeling of what cheap labor can do in the making of a economy car, GM partially owns a maker of small minivans in China that sells a popular small minivan for $5000 and gets over 40miles to the gallon. ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0603260182mar26,1,4327366.story?coll=- - chi-business-hed)
edit: just found this link:
http://en-1.ce.cn/Industries/Auto/200606/06/t20060606_7238929.shtml
Apparently, the 2006 Buick Regal (LaCrosse) for China market is about $22k. The engine displacement may have been reduced compared to half a decade ago, but those buggers come loaded with amenities, with reverse radar, double-layer sunroof, genuine leather (the bonded leather crap we have here apparently doesn't sell well there, perhaps due to warmer weather), rear-seat A/C, rear-seat DVD's etc..
$1500 is the minimum estimate of UAW labor cost _differential_. Some estimate it to be $3-5k. It's the _differential_, not the whole labor cost. As to whether an additional $1500 is going to make or break the deal with the consumer, when was the last time you walked into a dealership and paid $1500 more than what he/she was asking? People buy from a different dealership for as little as $200 price differnce.
The actual cost of what a customer pays and what the dealership pays is apples and oranges. If your product is engineered to be among the best, consumers are willing to pay the premium. You think the new shelby isn't getting $20-30K over Sticker ? Well a guy here in Dumas is paying $20K over sticker to have one. Some in California and Florida are paying as much as $30K over sticker to own a Shelby. When the company builds elite products, it will spur enough demand theat the company can pick it's price. This is something Toyota, Honda, Audi, BMW, Porsche, are used to doing and have been able to do so because the product is desirable. When your market is Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, then you got to really worry about price points. I'm not going to beat a old drum again since Socala, has pointed this out over and over again. Quality products is most important to the majority of consumers in the free market.
I do disagree with your stance on anything but unregulated capatalism is the only way that consumers get the best products. Are you saying Socialist country's like Canada, Norway, etc don't get to choose what they wear or eat :confuse:
I sometimes think you confuse the two like many in the media. I guess one belonging to a union or supporting one makes you have communist intentions. I support a free market capatalist society as long as all involved are playing on a level playing field and it seems to me you want to lower the incomes and benefits of union workers to meet those free market challenges, instead of raising everyone else's standard of living.
Rocky
Rocky
Shanghai GM Introduces Buick LaCrosse Premium Sedan
Shanghai, China – Shanghai General Motors (Shanghai GM) today introduced the newest member of its Buick lineup, the LaCrosse premium sedan. Using the LaCrosse architecture from North America, the vehicle has been engineered and developed specifically for the China market. It has an all-new body, exterior and interior, and unique engine lineup.
“With its contemporary design, luxurious interior and superior handling, the LaCrosse epitomizes the Buick spirit of striving for excellence,” said Chris Gubbey, Executive Vice President of Shanghai GM. “It is targeted at those who want a vehicle that reflects their exquisite taste and desire to achieve.
“The LaCrosse is another example of Shanghai GM’s integration of its global and local resources,” he added. “The design, state-of-the-art technology, interior amenities, advanced safety features and overall craftsmanship all raise the bar for domestically produced sedans.”
Based on the model of the same name sold in the United States since 2005, the LaCrosse was reengineered in Shanghai by the Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center (PATAC), a joint venture of General Motors and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. Group (SAIC). The engineering and design center was responsible for body, exterior and interior design as well as the selection of powertrains. Refinements were made in line with China’s road and fuel conditions and customer requirements.
The new sedan competes in the upper-medium segment. Shanghai GM is offering three LaCrosse models: the 2.4 Luxury model priced at RMB 239,800, the 2.4 Elite model priced at RMB 269,800 and the 3.0 Flagship model price at RMB 329,800. Customers can start placing their orders today. Deliveries will begin in the second quarter of 2006.
Choice of Engines
LaCrosse buyers have a choice of two engines, both of which are making their debut in China. The ECOTEC D-VVT 2.4-liter all-alloy four-cylinder engine is the newest member of the highly acclaimed ECOTEC family. The engine has a host of advanced features such as D-VVT, or double variable valve timing, sequential fuel injection (SFI) and electronic throttle control (ETC). It is among the most competitive in terms of fuel economy in its class.
The 3.0-liter V-6 AFM engine adopts the Active Fuel Management (AFM) system, which offers improved fuel economy of between 2 and 8 percent compared to similar engines. The engine automatically shuts down half of the engine cylinders when not needed.
Contemporary Styling
The LaCrosse has an elegant design. Up front, an oversized three-dimensional chrome-plated grille joins with the U-shaped hood to create clean, flowing lines. Horizontally shaped air intakes contrast with fog lamps on either side of the sedan, giving it a more seductive feel. Specially designed low-air resistance side mirrors are inlaid with five LED indicator lamps.
The shape of the rear windows and trunk follows the overall shape of the sedan, creating a streamlined sensation. The dynamic-looking rear is highlighted by three-dimensional circular tungsten lighting with jewel-like lamps, which offer a strong visual contrast.
Luxurious, Comfortable Interior
The exterior design carries on into the interior. An integrated U-shaped central console takes on the shape of the Buick shield. Entertainment, information and air-conditioning controls are strategically placed for easy access. The interior is trimmed with chrome-plated strips, which contrast walnut wood inlays and genuine leather seats. A multifunctional wooden steering wheel has ergonomically designed buttons. A Bluetooth hands-free communication system permits the driver to receive calls through a hotkey on the steering wheel.
The sumptuous interior goes far beyond traditional midsize sedans. The LaCrosse boasts the most powerful GPS audio cruise control system in China, with street information for 140 Chinese cities as well as a Chinese language display with user-friendly graphics. It is complemented by a head-up display (HUD) system that shows a variety of information such as speed, direction indicator, even caller ID.
The cabin theater DVD system is equipped with 6.5-inch double display monitors in both front and back, each of which can be independently controlled. The car’s unique three independent media channel audio system allows users to enjoy DVDs, CDs and the radio all at once.
The adoption of GM’s QuietTuning as well as the extensive utilization of sound-deadening materials significantly reduces noise and vibration levels throughout the entire body structure, ensuring a quiet ride.
Advanced Safety
The LaCrosse has a number of active and passive safety features. GM’s Vehicle Stability Enhancement System (VSES) automatically adjusts the engine’s torque output if the car deviates from its ideal path, selectively applying braking pressure on all four wheels. ABS with Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) effectively shortens the braking distance during emergencies. With the Traction Control System (TCS), the on-board computer automatically adjusts power output and controls wheel drag to prevent skidding.
Among the passive safety features are a high-strength steel body that directs impact forces away from passengers. A lightweight aluminum-magnesium alloy dashboard panel coupled with protective features for the knees provides added protection to those in front. In the event of a frontal collision, a sensor allows the on-board computer to decide whether to activate the safety belt’s tightening function or to also activate the front and side curtain air bags. As a result of the attention to safety, the LaCrosse received a five-star rating in North American New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) testing.
To ensure security, the LaCrosse’s advanced anti-theft intelligent key system immobilizes the engine and locks doors remotely. For added safety and aesthetic purposes, the trunk does not feature an outside lock; it can only be opened remotely or from inside the vehicle. The pioneering Remote Engine Start (RES) allows owners to start the engine from up to 50 meters away.
Shanghai GM is a 50-50 joint venture between GM and SAIC. In addition to the LaCrosse, Shanghai GM offers the Buick Royaum, Regal, Excelle and GL8. It also assembles Chevrolet and Cadillac products. Shanghai GM sold a record 325,429 vehicles in 2005, which represented a year-on-year increase of 28.7 percent.
General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world’s largest automaker, has been the global industry sales leader for 75 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 327,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit, GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 33 countries. In 2005, 9.17 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and
http://english.people.com.cn/200602/23/eng20060223_245330.html
BTW- Dads replacement looks to be flowing back to GM, thus creating a month of worthless training. Dad is upset but can't blame the guy.
Rocky
I was off on prices slightly, well not really since a loaded Chinese LaCrosse is $41K American.
Rocky
I'm tired of beating this old-drum, I'm going to bed.
Have a good night....
Rocky
The union pay package advantage over other workers however is achieved through extorsion, and there's no real remedy for it (besides abolishing union) for over half a century.
BTW, there is no such thing as a $500-mil golden parachute for any executive. You are off by at least an order of maganitude. The dollar has not been devalued that much yet.
And if I can make 20 million cars in my garage, I'd be the biggest automaker in the world. How is any of this related to reality? How can GM possibly command higher price premium when:
(1) the union refusal to automation have ruined GM reputation for reliability;
(2) Union work rules manded same pay regardless whether production is taking place forcing GM into overproduction. You can't command high unit price if you have too much to sell, simple supply-demand.
It goes back to the Henry Ford example -- he deliberately increased his labor costs, because he got more out of it than he paid. Lower labor costs were actually harming his business, because his labor was less efficient than it would have otherwise been.
This is one strange way of characterising what happened. Henry raised starting wages in order to get new recruits for his expanding company and reduce turn-over. His Production Line Method was actually displacing what had been skilled craftsman jobs with unskilled laborers. At its core, it was a process that reduces labor cost, at least per product unit labor cost. In any case, when Ford was surpassed by upstart GM and Chrysler by the mid-1920's, raising wage was the last thing he wanted or needed.
The discussions here are topic-oriented. When someone comes along and sees the title "The UAW and Domestic Automakers", they have an expectation to find a discussion about that subject matter, not an ongoing personal fight or discussion about unrelated matters.
If you cannot disagree with what someone has posted here without resorting to attacking them personally, then I suggest you use the undocumneted IGNORE feature that is found on every single message board and skip over their posts.
What this did is to make us think about how we spend our medical dollars. We need to buy a monthly prescription. The name brand is $50/month copay at the drugstore. If we mail order from Medco this same drug is $75 for 3 months. If we order the generic it is $5 for 3 months.
so far even with a child in the hospital 2 nights we are ahead of last year. BUT still 6 months to go.
If everyone with full coverage or "no think" insurance was to be a little more fiscally observant medical costs would drop.
http://www.gmchina.com/english/showroom/default.htm
The Regal is our old Regal while the LaCrosse is a uplevel version of our LaCrosse.
http://www.buick.com.cn/en/c_model/regal.aspx
UAW trusts Gettelfinger for a changed era
Ron Gettelfinger won a second four-year term as president of the United Auto Workers last week...
With his re-election, Gettelfinger has to resolve the situation at Delphi, but his main task will be leading the UAW into the 2007 contract talks.
The automakers certainly are going to seek more concessions along with an overhaul of the reviled jobs bank, in which UAW members get paid even when laid off. The automakers would like to do away with the jobs bank but might settle for new rules on who gets in it and for how long to reduce the numbers.
Gettelfinger's re-election is a sign that there may be more harmony than haranguing in those contract talks and that the rank-and-file accepts he will exhibit some flexibility in dealing with the automakers--even on the jobs bank.
UAW will agree to freezing pensions where they are and then use the 401k for future retirement money with GM matching 401k funds. Just like the salaried.
UAW will agree to paying a large portion of the medical costs. Just like the salaried.
UAW will agree to fewer work classifications.
"Anyway, the higher-wages-lift-all-boats argument is essentially....."
Higher wages 'for all' isn't what was being discussed. What was said was Unionization raised the standard of living for everyone. Um, not everyone is in a Union. Not even CLOSE to everyone is in a Union. So, the Union members have the higher wages, and their wages are paid by....? Management? The company? Noooooo, ultimately those wages are paid by the consumer.
"Higher wages don't necessarily translate into higher product costs IF it saves money elsewhere in the system or increases productivity."
I hope you don't mind if I emphasised a bit of your statement. Because that's a mighty big 'IF'. Of course, one could say that non-inflated wages might translate into LOWER product costs if it saves money elsewhere in the system or increases productivity. This leads to additional sales and increased market share (hmmmm, kinda like what Toyota and Honda are doing). But you expect GM to do the same......WITH higher labor costs.
"So no, higher wages can actually be a good thing, while simultaneously resulting in lower product costs for all of us."
I'm sorry; I missed the cause/effect there. Higher wages RESULT in lower product costs? I think the auto (and labor) industry has changed a bit since the days of Henry. Following your logic would mean that GM should start drastically increasing their labor costs way above the current UAW contracts with the expectation that their product costs will go down. :confuse:
Where do you get your info from?
One of the safest most friendly places in the world.
As an added advantage, women outnumber men 2 to 1. :shades:
Sure they did, because they put the idea on the table that workers should earn higher wages, not treated like a commodity, and that diverting all surplus resources to owners and shareholders was an idea of the past. In the big picture, when wages increase at the lower echelons, it trickles up the ladder.
I missed the cause/effect there. Higher wages RESULT in lower product costs? I think the auto (and labor) industry has changed a bit since the days of Henry. Following your logic would mean that GM should start drastically increasing their labor costs way above the current UAW contracts with the expectation that their product costs will go down.
Remember that argument the next time that you want a raise, or you are trying to gain approval to hire someone or acquire a piece of equipment. Given your perspective, I take it anything that raises costs is a problem?
Then again, a smart manager knows that his workers need to be incentivized to work and to produce at optimal levels, and one key to that is money. It's bad business to assume that lower costs translate into more profits, particularly if your production inputs are inferior as a result.
GM's core problem is that it makes inferior products, that are lacking in either reliability or else some quality that consumers want, which causes them to earn less revenue per unit than its better managed most competitive rival. My goal would be to eliminate that gap, and if that means spending some money on something, then so be it. At this point, GM's strategy seems to be to eliminate its best workers (who will be the ones most likely to take a buyout plan, since they know that they can get jobs somewhere else) in order to meet its challenges to becoming competitive in a short time.
I would be cutting costs whereever I could in ways that didn't compromise the goal of higher revenue, rather than focusing on costcutting for its own sake. And if I opted to cut some benefits, etc., at the very least, I'd try to secure buy in from the workers, so that they would help with the process. Is a strategy meant to demoralize the workforce an optimal way to make money?
That is a bargain then. Look what Toyota is charging for a Prius built in China, sold to the Chinese.
Toyota is making the Prius with its Chinese joint venture partner FAW, China's biggest automaker. FAW already works with Toyota to build both sedans and SUVs. The Prius will be made in Changchun in northeastern China
The model is no bargain by U.S. standards with a price of between $35,000-$37,000 in China.
Of the 3 the overall fit and finish of the 1993 from Canada was slightly better than the Suburban from Mexico. The 2005 GMC from Indiana is not as well put together as the earlier GM vehicles I have owned. It runs fine and I have had no issues other than junk tires that the dealer exchanged. It is just tinnier built. It does not have the solid feel of earlier trucks. The metal feels thinner on the doors, roof and fenders. Can we blame that on the UAW? I don't think so. In fact if I was to point a finger it would be toward government regulators.
No. Only if something raises costs WITHOUT A BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY do I see a problem.
So, how do higher UAW labor costs benefit GM?
"Then again, a smart manager knows that his workers need to be incentivized to work and to produce at optimal levels, and one key to that is money."
Absolutely. So, does a 'smart manager' within GM have the ABILITY to reward individual behaviour within the UAW ranks? I was under the impression (perhaps erroneous) that typically the 'smart manager' within GM couldn't directly reward Union employees; that raises/bonuses were awarded either collectively or through some pecking order within the Union (seniority).
"GM's core problem is that it makes inferior products, that are lacking in either reliability or else some quality that consumers want, which causes them to earn less revenue per unit than its better managed most competitive rival."
We can quibble back and forth about what GM's CORE problem is, but I certainly can't disagree that a MAJOR problem GM has is as you described.
HOWEVER, this is not a "What's wrong with GM" topic. The topic is fairly specific and deals with the UAW and Domestic Automaker's.
In the light of THE TOPIC, it has been established that the UAW does impart some degree of additional cost to the domestics. What I'd like to discuss is whether or not the domestics gain enough benefit from using Union labor to offset the additional cost.
That is not going to happen. The only benefit GM gets out of the union is that they have a stable work force. No one leaves until they retire and even then they usually work until they are almost dead.
When I say stable I meant that they are on GM's list as employees. I never said they show up for work consistently.
I am not saying this against all GM hourly workers. Most work hard and do their jobs. There are just a percentage (higher than other non union shops) that pull the company down. And before I get squashed I have many relatives that are union. I spent some time working in the GM shops as union. This is the way it is.
Maybe some type of buyout deal where GM will max out a 401 K yearly to make up for lost time ? You gotta remember the pension plans were for a very long time the only form of retirement plan these guys had. Also back in the 50's- 80's autoworkers weren't paid much more than the common factory worker. People use to quit GM and go work for GE
I agree with your proposals, and yes see huge changes. I do think they will be good for the company and good enough to swallow by the workers.
Rocky
Yeah, I'm beginning to realize that myself.
Rocky
Rocky