So what your saying is union workers are to blame for GM losing market share, and not the product itself, and/or trade laws on the books we have in this country and are neglected. hmmmmmmm...........interesting
All I'm saying is that if you take away an individual's initiative to excel, you are dooming society.
America is a great country because it recognizes individual enterprise - more so than any other country. It's the easiest to set up a business. It's not called "the land of opportunity" for nothing.
If all labour was unionized, it wouldn't be so easy to set up a business. The barriers of entry would be impossible to overcome for most entrepreneurs.
You tell me - do unions make it easier or harder for a small business owner to employ the type of people he needs - on a temporary or permanent basis.
I'm not blaming GM's problems on UAW. I'm saying that unions in general are a bad thing.
If all labour was unionized, it wouldn't be so easy to set up a business.
That is true. A friend opened a restaurant in PV, Mexico. The trials endured using unionized waiters is beyond belief. That is one of the higher paying, highly prized jobs in Mexico resort towns.
Right now today, in CA an employee gets better pay & benefits working at a non-union Walmart than a Union super market. That strike/lockout made a hollow shell out of the grocery clerks Union. Starting pay $6.75 per hour. That is about $2 less than McDonald's and Wally World.
Unions have been the force that made gains for all labor. That threat is there if an employer is not treating the people fairly. I think overall our government protection of collective bargaining is pretty balanced. I think it may be over unionized in many countries.
I speak as a retired SALARIED employee. I worked for GM and I will tell you I am a strong supporter of the union concept. The problem that we have is that is has morphed into something the originators never intended. The result is an unprofitable organization with a union membership that is fixated on "market control level of entitlements". Those days are gone. Period! The future however I hope will foster a new dialogue that will send a strong message to the competition. "We CAN and WILL build a better product than the offshore competitors".
The future actions will either herald our success or be a prelude to the demise of the Auto Industry in the U.S.
Let's see if I can make this clearer. It's time to stop making comments about each other and stick to the discussion topics. If you feel you have to post something about another user, don't. If you can't post without adding the barbs at other users, you may have to find someplace else to play.
"We're coming very rapidly on the road back," GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said Monday. The buyouts and retirements will cost GM about $3.8 billion.
Deal speeds up GM turnaround by 2 years; Delphi exodus paves way for restructuring.
DETROIT -- More than 47,000 union workers at General Motors Corp. and bankrupt Delphi Corp. have taken buyouts or early retirements in what amounts to the biggest corporate downsizing in U.S. automotive history.
GM said Monday that 35,000 hourly employees have agreed to leave the struggling automaker for packages ranging from $35,000 to $140,000 -- which will allow the company to reach its target reduction of 30,000 hourly jobs by Jan. 1, two years early.
The final tally of buyouts and early retirements far exceeds early estimates and lays the groundwork for a sweeping restructuring of GM's U.S. manufacturing operations.
"It's fair to say we're coming very rapidly on the road back," said GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner at a news conference at GM's Detroit headquarters.
At Delphi, another 12,600 union members have elected to retire early, paving the way for a radical restructuring of the parts maker's U.S. operations.
Wagoner said the buyouts and retirements at GM will cost about $3.8 billion in payments to departing employees and adjustments in pension liabilities. He said GM will take the charge when it releases second-quarter earnings next month.
In announcing the results of the epic attrition program, Wagoner said GM has increased its target for reducing its North American structural costs from $7 billion annually to $8 billion by the end of this year.
GM market share slides
GM lost $10.6 billion last year, sparking speculation on Wall Street that the company was heading toward bankruptcy.
A decades-long slide in U.S. market share, coupled with rising legacy costs, prompted GM in March to offer buyouts or retirement packages to all of its 113,000 U.S. hourly employees.
Delphi, a former unit of GM and its biggest parts supplier, later extended its own buyout and retirement offers to most of its 33,000 unionized workers.
Wagoner said Monday that the downsizing of the GM work force, coupled with buyouts and retirements at Delphi, could set the stage for a peaceful resolution of Delphi's restructuring process.
"It goes a long way toward addressing the issue of a future at Delphi that works for everybody," Wagoner said.
Delphi said Monday that 12,600 of its 24,000 UAW members have accepted retirement deals, but gave no details on how many other workers took buyouts. The company is also offering packages to 8,000 workers represented by other unions.
UAW support noted
The conclusion of GM's attrition program marks another milestone in the wrenching effort to turn around the automaker.
Last fall, GM struck a deal with the UAW that forced retired workers to pay a portion of their health care and required active workers to forgo a wage increase to help cover medical bills.
Wagoner credited the UAW leadership for its "steady support" of GM's moves to return its North American business to profit.
There was no immediate comment from the UAW on Monday.
Wagoner said the 35,000 departing workers include 33,800 represented by the UAW and another 1,200 represented by the International Union of Electrical Workers and Communication Workers of America.
Of the 35,000 who signed up, Wagoner said that 4,600 accepted cash buyouts that included relinquishing their health benefits.
When GM and the UAW agreed in March to the massive "accelerated attrition" plan, industry observers were unsure how the offers would be received by the rank and file. But questions about GM's future and Delphi's restructuring in bankruptcy court helped convince workers to take the money and run.
Buyouts open up options
"The ball really started rolling toward the end," said Bobby Millsap, who took early retirement after 27 years at GM's assembly plant in Oklahoma City.
GM closed the Oklahoma City plant, which made mid-size SUVs, in February. More than 2,200 hourly workers were transferred into the GM "jobs bank," where they continued to receive paychecks but had little hope of returning to their old jobs.
"With these packages, they can afford to get off the assembly line and do something they really want to do," Millsap said.
The exodus of workers should help GM drastically reduce the size of the jobs bank. At one point this year, the automaker was paying about 9,000 hourly workers to sit idle or do community service.
"The question is whether the buyouts are going to be enough to soak up most of the jobs bank," said David Healy, an analyst with Burnham Securities.
Wagoner declined to provide numbers, but said the number of workers in the jobs bank "will be dramatically reduced."
A bigger issue is whether GM can shrink its manufacturing base fast enough to keep up with its falling market share.
GM announced last year plans to close at least 12 plants and engineering centers by 2008.
Analysts predict the overall U.S. new-vehicle sales to sag in June, and GM to fare worse than other manufacturers. Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy said Wednesday that GM's market share for the month will drop below 24 percent.
It's now a scramble
GM and Delphi will have to scramble to keep plants and assembly lines running by recalling laid-off workers, transferring workers from other plants and hiring temporary workers.
GM said about 9,000 workers have left the company and the remaining workers who took packages have departure dates scattered through the end of the year.
"We feel highly comfortable we can offer continued focus on great quality," Wagoner said.
Healy estimated the cost of a temporary employee at $19 an hour, compared to about $80-an-hour in wages, benefits and retirement costs for current workers. "That's a huge savings," he said.
Healy estimated the cost of a temporary employee at $19 an hour, compared to about $80-an-hour in wages, benefits and retirement costs for current workers. "That's a huge savings," he said.
My god what really is the cost per hour of a UAW/GM/Delphi worker ? $45 an hour $65 an hour ? $75 an hour ? $80 an hour ? Some have said as high $90 an hour. :confuse:
It's so ridiculous I gotta laugh at it anymore.
I got a idea next contract is pay these union folks $80 an hour no health benefits or retirement benefits for new hires. It would be a savings for the company right ? Why ? There would be no admin folks that cost money to oversee these expensive benefits plans. All the new UAW hires get is vacation accurals This is one way the UAW could call B.S. on their cost per hour numbers.
$80 x 40=$3200x52=$166,400 a year "Gross" The moon is made out of green cheese also.
"GM said Monday that 35,000 hourly employees have agreed to leave the struggling automaker for packages ranging from $35,000 to $140,000 -- which will allow the company to reach its target reduction of 30,000 hourly jobs by Jan. 1, two years early."
Hmmmm, if they met their target reductions (of 30,000 hourly jobs) two years early, perhaps their buyout offers were too much? Sounds like yet ANOTHER management screwup somewhere..... :P
Hmmmm, if they met their target reductions (of 30,000 hourly jobs) two years early, perhaps their buyout offers were too much?
In all seriousness, I expect that the real problem will be that this buyout plan may very well have encouraged the best workers to leave. So while they've trimmed down the number of bodies, they've probably cut the wrong ones, leaving them with the mediocre and below to launch a turnaround.
Combined with the deficient vehicle lineup discussed above, this doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.
I agree with that. It's going to interesting with all the temps and some of the less-qualified workers floating the boat. But when it's all made in China in a couple of years that will be a moot question as to whether they lost their better workers.
Afraid with the union there is no way of cutting the 'right' ones.
BUT, if you feel the 'right' ones are the younger OR the older they could have slanted the buyout amount more at one end or the other.
So if the ones to keep were the younger ones offer them almost nothing and offer the time to retire ones lots.
Funny thing is that in the articles I read the ones who are well past retirement age did not take the money. The individuals said they liked their job too much and wanted the income. I guess working in the shops at 75 is the good life!
"BUT, if you feel the 'right' ones are the younger OR the older they could have slanted the buyout amount more at one end or the other."
I don't know that they DIDN'T do this. At this point, it's all 100% conjecture whether or not the 'right' ones took the buyout offer or not.
"Funny thing is that in the articles I read the ones who are well past retirement age did not take the money. The individuals said they liked their job too much and wanted the income."
There's nothing wrong with working as long as you WANT to work when you've found something you enjoy doing.
The bulk of these numbers comes from pension and benefits. With the cost of medicine going through the roof, the actureal estimate of future cost (ie. liability) outweigh even current wage payment.
UAW can't call it for two reasons:
(1) if everyone were paid in cash instead of some nebulous "benefits" there would not be the need for a UAW to defend for its members. The mommy hen (UAW) needs something to do to stay in business. In other words, UAW is a corporation that may or may not has its own interest aligned with individual members (certainly not individual workers, many of whom are not union members at all), no more than management always having its interest aligned with shareholders.
(2)There is no current cash to foot those future bills.
Therein lies the scam that is UAW as an institution. It's just another layer of intermediaries to live off the workers and the consumers.
Here's a theory for ya brightness is it just all union or just the UAW ? I know some IBEW workers who work jobs and get paid cash with no benefits. I personally would love to see the day when workers get a big paycheck that includes enough money for benefits and retirements. This would be benefitual for the workers and employers. We've discussed this in our union to benefit both party's and we as a union and go buy our own policy and keep the leftover cash
we as a union and go buy our own policy and keep the leftover cash
We also looked into getting our own medical insurance. We found out it is better to stick with the company paying the premiums. What happens when your HMO raises the premium by $200 per month and you have negotiated a hard figure. There are other expenses also. Workman's comp is a high dollar cost. Vacation and sick leave is part of that overall per hour figure. I have to admit $80 per hour seems a bit much. I think $55 is closer if their wage is $26 per hour. Anything past 2080 hours per year skews that upward.
If they included the 9000 sitting in a rubber room maybe $80 per hour is about right.
I personally would love to see the day when workers get a big paycheck that includes enough money for benefits and retirements.
George Washington once observed that it took a wagon load of Continentals (the first American exprience with paper money) to buy a wagon load of supplies (for his army). Neither "big paycheck" nor "money" has any meaning without realizing that "money" is nothing more than markers in economic exchange. If you have to cut a "big paycheck" for a job as simple as a baby sitter or burger flipper or sitting in the job banks watching TV, suddenly your own "big paycheck" is not that big anymore.
The function of money is to transmit the preference each of us has for goods and services as we pass it along to someone else, thereby deciding how natural and human resources get allocated in our economy.
Ever since the day the "dollar" (which etymologically literally meant silver rounds) was divorced from the original metal basis (gold and silver) as envisioned in the Constitution, it has been meaningless to measure income in dollar terms because the value of "dollar" change dramaticly over time as well as space (location). It's much more helpful to think income/money as the goods and service you can lay claim on . . . e.g. how many hours of baby sitting you can get with your weekly pay, how many burgers, how many cars of what quality . . . Therefore, as you can see, raising nominal income without commesurate productivity increase is really like a dog chasing its own tail.
Retirement is nothing more than a claim on the labor of the younger generation. It's not a magic box on the Walmart shelf.
I was only talking about what money really means in an economy, whether gold standard or no gold standard. It's at the root of the difference of opinions here. The implicit assumption of pro-union position is that higher nominal income automaticly means higher standard of living . . . whereas the opposing view is that higher nominal income for everyone (without productivity increase) does not improve standard of living for anyone because it would now take more money to get the same service done for you. The intervention that it takes to raise nominal income would only skew the market place to benefit those who get the raise before everyone else does, for a short time. That's essentially what union is: front-running the monetary inflation.
Please talk about subject matters, not other posters, as our host requested. Your mentioning of gold standard does not belong here either, whether you like it or not.
However, how should management have cut the 'right' ones (mediocre and below)?
It's a tough question, and admittedly, this is certainly one circumstance in which the union poses a challenge, due to seniority preferences.
In the case of GM, I'd say the answer is that the company needs to emphasize the creation of product that it can sell to generate maximum revenues, so that the workforce that it has is put to good use. That means increasing sales volume, which in turn means creating some great products that can be sold in retail.
The current GM plan implies that falling sales are inevitable to the future of the company, as it is willing to cut the workforce to such an extent that production is slated to decline. This tells me that GM intends to contract and accept defeat in certain segments, retreating so as to accept low volumes in various segments at a low level that is considered to be "good enough." In turn, I would guess that they seem intent on continuing to rely on SUV's and trucks as cornerstones to their recovery plan, which doesn't exactly strike me as a brilliant long-term move.
In addition, I can't see how GM expects to make this plan work without outsourcing as a component to pick up the slack created by the buyouts. In turn, that would imply that it is planning on sourcing more of its production in Mexico and Korea. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I don't see much of a plan for those low-cost factories gearing up to produce products that consumers want any more than the ones that are being sold today.
So what will we do when it becomes clear that this plan has failed, too? My guess is that we'll be seeing a new series of golden parachutes, and a few replacement corporate lifers who lack urgency taking over the reins so they may commit a whole new slate of errors of their own. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
IMHO, focusing on one's core competence is just business rule 101. Trying to make a good small car (where labor to material ratio is higher) despite high labor cost is obviously a non-starter. Reducing oversupply is also a good strategy if one is interested in increasing unit margins.
The real issue is whether consumers are so turned off by GM cars just like some of us here by GM management that, in their eyes, GM can do nothing right. In that case, GM should stop selling cars in the US altogether, and serve only its loyal truck base here and willing GM car buyers in some other parts of the world where people still believe GM can do it right.
BTW, bankruptcy wipes out any and all golden parachute obligation, too.
IMHO, focusing on one's core competence is just business rule 101
I would agree, but specializing in buggy whips when everyone is driving Model T's is not a good idea, unless you sell them as a niche product. And GM is a mainstream operator, not a niche marketer.
Trying to make a good small car (where labor to material ratio is higher) despite high labor cost is obviously a non-starter.
Better tell that to DCX. The Caliber is flying off the shelves at the moment, GM should be so unlucky. Reducing oversupply is also a good strategy if one is interested in increasing unit margins.
Ceding more of the market to rivals such as Toyota is a slow bleed strategy that will ultimately make things worse. Conquest sales are much more costly than are sales churned from an existing customer base, and this "strategy" calls for shrinking that customer base.
It makes sense to cut production if the goal is to build rental specials. It's not so good if the problem can be solved with bona fide Camry-Accord, Civic-Corolla and Avalon beaters.
In that case, GM should stop selling cars in the US altogether, and serve only its loyal truck base here and willing GM car buyers in some other parts of the world where people still believe GM can do it right.
If the management is so inept that they can't build a car that consumers want, then they need to be fired this morning. Chrysler has taken a fairly mediocre-to-horrendous reputation similar to the one that GM has now, and appears to be working toward a second turnaround. GM needs a management team that can accomplish that, and more.
It makes sense to cut production if the goal is to build rental specials.
huh?? The point of trimming oversupply is so that the company does not have to sell to the rental fleet in order to clear inventory. It's called supply management; Toyota does that all the time. Like I said, GM's biggest problem is some critics see it can do nothing right . . . even concrete steps to accomplish what the critics themselves suggested only a moment ago get damned a moment later.
Chrysler is on its third or fourth turn-around since 1980. Many "turn-arounds" happened before 1980. That's just how Chrysler is, hot-again-cold-again. Neons sold pretty well early in its production cycle too. It won't be long before the supply of dummies are used up, and the car buying public realize that the Caliber is just another econobox hatch with rental fleet potential. Remember Crossfire, Pacifica, etc. etc.?
If the management is so inept that they can't build a car that consumers want, then they need to be fired this morning.
And where would the board find the replacement talents? on the forums where everyone is a genius in his own mind? and no hard number realities to deal with?
The point of trimming oversupply is so that the company does not have to sell to the rental fleet in order to clear inventory.
Trimming sales wouldn't be necessary if the cars were good enough to sell at retail.
Judging from all of the companies banging on the door to get into it and the general uptrend in sales volumes, the US auto market is competitive but ultimately lucrative for well-managed companies with desirable products.
The solution lies in improving the product so that Avis isn't the only one who would like to have one in its driveway. GM could sell plenty of cars, if only they were any good.
Chrysler is on its third or fourth turn-around since 1980. Many "turn-arounds" happened before 1980. That's just how Chrysler is, hot-again-cold-again. Neons sold pretty well early in its production cycle too. It won't be long before the supply of dummies are used up, and the car buying public realize that the Caliber is just another econobox hatch with rental fleet potential.
And yet it outperforms GM. While certainly flawed, it offers a better business model and promises better prospects than does GM.
And where would the board find the replacement talents?
Not sure exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wouldn't benefit from looking outside of the auto industry for some of the talent, and outside of the United States for still more. (It would be fitting and more than a bit ironic if Wagoner's job was among the next things to be outsourced.)
GM needs some talented, aggressive people that understands complex manufacturing, brand marketing and building passion into automobiles. It also needs someone who understands how to lead corporate turnarounds. And it would help if the accounting orientation was restricted to the accounting department, where it belongs.
If carmakig is such an easy business and so profitable, why aren't you getting into it? Seriously. At least, you won't have the legacy cost to deal with and you can have as few divisions as you like without being sued, and presumably you have a great car in mind, and getting a dedicated workforce that is fastideous about product detail only takes the waving a magic wand by the managemnt, right? So does designing a product of such a high quality that it can not possibly be built on your existing production line or by your existing worker.
GM could sell plenty of cars, if only they were any good.
So could you and I.
GM could sell plenty of cars, if only they were any good.
And it does, every time it cuts price dramaticly. Therein lies the obvious truth: consumers care about price, especially for low priced plebian cars. That's why imports from low labor cost nations can always carve out a niche at the expense of GM (and increasingly Toyota as well).
Chrysler offering a better business model? I thought the coup de grace was selling itself to MB at the top of the market. It's simply not an option for GM.
Not sure exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't benefit from looking outside of the auto industry for some talent, and outside of the United States for still more.
I'm actually not a big believer in the heroics of CEO's. If you believe the right CEO with the right magic wand can solve all problems, you must be willing to pay for them a lot more than I would :-)
GM needs some talent that understand complex manufacturing, brand marketing and building passion into automobiles. And it would help if the accounting orientation was restricted to the accounting department, where it belongs.
Ironic how the accountant-run Toyota is doing so much better than the passionately engineer and designer dominated Nissan and Honda are doing nowadays. Like I said, GM has a perception problem.
That's why imports from low labor cost nations can always carve out a niche at the expense of GM (and increasingly Toyota as well).
GM's most formidable competitors use labor in Germany, Japan and in the US, including union labor. The same UAW that builds Cobalts also builds Mustangs and the low cost, successful Caliber.
Therein lies the obvious truth: consumers care about price, especially for low priced plebian cars.
Toyota and Honda do not have low priced strategies for their bread-and-butter cars in the US market. The Chevy Aveo is the cheapest in its segment, even when compared to the (other) Koreans, yet it is selling poorly and destined for fleet stardom, even with expensive gas. Leave it to GM to fail in the small car market, even when the price of fuel is through the roof.
GM has a price advantage, yet it doesn't help. The American consumer is generally value-oriented, not strictly price-oriented, which means getting bang-for-the-buck. GM is more buck than bang, hence the problem.
Like I said, GM has a perception problem.
Agreed. It seems incapable of perceiving the market and the competitive threats within it. It cannot perceive of the fact that the market cannot be conquered without desirable products, and that no company can be saved through cost cutting alone.
German and Japanese carmakers intentionally use non-union labor in the US. That should tell us something about the value of union labor.
Give it some time, both Mustang and Caliber will be heavily discounted. Mustang already is. Both are indeed destined to rental fleet stardom; Mustang already is.
Aveo is actually a very successful car overseas. That's one of the strongest evidence yet that GM has a press and consumer perception problem in the US. Perhaps it is time for greener pasture. For a long time, Honda was not a desirable brand in Japanese home market because it was perceived as the moped maker related to the post-WWII poverty years. That's why Honda focused its operation "overseas" in the US and built its strength here. Perhaps GM needs to do something similar regarding cars (sedans, coups and hatches). It just makes no sense throwing good money after bad ones when the brand itself has a problem. Why work under such handicap when the greener pasture overseas consumers assign no such negative value to GM.
Give it some time, both Mustang and Caliber will be heavily discounted. Mustang already is. Both are indeed destined to rental fleet stardom; Mustang already is.
I'm not sure what planet your living on brightness. :confuse:
Aveo is actually a very successful car overseas. That's one of the strongest evidence yet that GM has a press and consumer perception problem in the US. Perhaps it is time for greener pasture. For a long time, Honda was not a desirable brand in Japanese home market because it was perceived as the moped maker related to the post-WWII poverty years. That's why Honda focused its operation "overseas" in the US and built its strength here. Perhaps GM needs to do something similar regarding cars (sedans, coups and hatches). It just makes no sense throwing good money after bad ones when the brand itself has a problem. Why work under such handicap when the greener pasture overseas consumers assign no such negative value to GM.
So it's "the consumer" that has a mental problem with GM ?
brightness, I am a GM fan and yes they have made some nice cars I really loved. I-Roc Z-28, Trans-Am WS-6, Camaro SS, Buick Grand National, GMC Syclone and Typhoon, Corvette, Bonneville, lemko's cars, etc etc etc. you get the picture.
OTOH they have signed off on some really really bad POS junk cars. This mentality still seems to be present in the board room today. :sick: GM not only has to deliver a quality made product, but it has to deliver the customer service to go along with it (at the time of sale, and after) we all expect when dropping that much money on a major purchase. GM was going to buy up all of it's dealerships to regulate this area about 7 or 8 years ago :confuse: but then backed down and still allows some dealerships to operate that should have there license suspended or revoked. GM has lost Billions of dollars because of bad customer service over the years.
The bottom line is some people can't own up to their decision making, and blame the guy below him and it rolls down hill from their. The UAW will always be a scapegoat for the company's and it's membership gets little or no attention for jobs well done. I guess some americans that are elites have no respect or value for "factory rats" that build products like cars for a living. Perhaps this is a culture issue we americans have torwards other americans and the dollar is always the bottom line with everything we do. It's ashame many have acquired this attitude. :sick:
Maybe the UAW could offer to buyout the mediocre management....?
They've already have there multi-million dollar Golden Parachutes lined up and are already waiting to jump if it gets to bad. The UAW's $300 million bank roll isn't enough money to cover the packages that would be needed to be offered to get them to leave. :sick:
Honda is building a new plant in Indiana that will create 1500 new jobs. Only 46,100 to go to replace all the buy-outs at GM. Hopefully Honyota will keep building here to keep americanizing these cars.
Rocky
P.S. Socala, does Honda pay about the same as Toyota for wages ?
Thousands are expected to eagerly seek temporary positions at Delphi Corp. and General Motors Corp. at wages up to 50% less than those of the 47,600 workers leaving the companies in an unprecedented program to cut costs.
Delphi Corp. already has hired more than 2,000 temporary workers who are being trained to replace a portion of the estimated 12,600 workers taking offers to retire early or transfer to General Motors Corp.
Both GM and Delphi say they aren't worried that the unexpectedly large number of workers leaving the two companies will create production problems.
The companies anticipate being able to hire quickly from a large pool of people seeking jobs, especially in areas with high unemployment, such as Michigan.
In locations where Delphi already has advertised for jobs, it has received scores of applications.
Belinda Hart, a 31-year-old unemployed Flint mother of three, is one of those looking for work. She searches newspapers daily for information on becoming a temporary worker at Delphi's plant in Flint.
Hart says she knows she won't be paid the $27 an hour or receive the cradle-to-grave benefits other workers enjoy.
"But a job is a job," Hart said. "And I'm a good worker."
Delphi is paying its temporary workers around $14 an hour, the rate set under a UAW agreement linked to the attrition program, Delphi spokesman Lindsey Williams said.
Williams asked those seeking work to contact employment agencies near a Delphi plant instead of contacting the plant directly.
GM and Delphi workers taking the buyout are not eligible to apply for a temporary position, Williams said. Under the UAW agreement, workers can come back on only a contract basis, usually to help train workers.
Delphi, in some cases, has advertised in newspapers. The auto supplier had an ad in the Decatur Daily in Alabama to fill production and machine jobs at the Limestone County plant. Delphi also asked for applications for journeymen and electrician positions at hourly rates from $19.50 to $21.35.
Williams said he did not know how many Delphi plants were hiring. Hiring is done on a plant-by-plant basis, meaning the corporate offices in Troy give individual plant managers autonomy in determining how many workers they need to meet production targets.
Demand also is likely to be strong for temporary GM jobs. GM's temporary workers will be members of the UAW union, but they will be paid $18 to $19 an hour, or 70% of the current average wage, with no benefits. GM has not said how many temporary workers it has hired or needs, but the automaker said it will take referrals from only current workers to fill any needed spaces.
The time needed to train workers varies. For example, temporary GM workers at a foundry pouring molten metal require more training than an employee assembling parts, mainly because of required safety certifications, said Katie McBride, GM spokeswoman.
Plenty of demand for work
Delphi Chief Executive Officer Steve Miller has said plants can adapt quickly to losing a large chunk of the workforce. In an Oct. 21 interview, Miller used a plant restructuring negotiated between DaimlerChryslerAG and Plymouth-based Metaldyne Corp. as an example of what's possible between GM and Delphi.
In the fall of 2002, when DaimlerChrysler was preparing to shut down its 1,200-employee machining and forge plant in New Castle, Ind., Metaldyne bought the facility, and in two years, the plant went from 1,200 workers earning between $24 and $32 an hour to 850 workers earning $12 to $16 an hour.
The plant's workers were given three options: retire, return to work at a nearby DaimlerChrysler plant in Kokomo, Ind., or stay with Metaldyne and work for half the wages and benefits. For those opting to stay with Metaldyne, DaimlerChrysler paid a $10,000 bonus for each year of service at the plant.
Of the 1,200 employees, just 200 chose to stay with Metaldyne, not enough to operate the plant's 55 lines producing product that supplies 14 assembly plants for various customers.
In September 2003, Metaldyne held a two-day job fair at a New Castle YMCA. To its surprise, more than 5,300 applicants stood in a line that stretched outside into the rain with hopes of filling 650 positions.
The example shows what could happen near Delphi and GM plants across the country, especially in Michigan, which has a 6% unemployment rate, one of the highest in the country.
If workers go on strike, Delphi can hire new employees and then fire them before their 90-day probation period is up, about the time Delphi is expected to reach an agreement with unions.
Waiting for the check
Edward Matteson, 54, of Shreveport, La., took GM's $140,000 buyout as soon as it was offered and left his GM plant May 31 with the hope of getting his check in three to four weeks.
Matteson still hasn't received his check. He recently was told the first $70,000 installment would arrive July 14, a surprise to Matteson, who figured he would receive all $140,000 at once.
"I've already got another job lined up," Matteson said. "I'm moving to Miami as soon as they give me my money."
No, GM has gotten rid of excess capacity in workers. There are enough folks sitting in job banks, transferring from Delphi and available from announced closing plants to keep the plants running. GM just needs time to transfer the employees to the right plants. Temps will allow the time.
Delphi is a different story. It will be quite a dance to keep parts supplied to the OEM's as they close plants and transfer the work overseas or the OEM's source elsewhere. BUT, I bet some of the announced closed plants will become proftiable and will stay in business using the new lower paid employees.
Do we still need to talk about the UAW striking at Delphi or are we past that yet?
I see the media is starting to believe that GM will not be going bankrupt.
Do we still need to talk about the UAW striking at Delphi or are we past that yet?
Still a small concern, but most of those would be striking employees will transfer to GM plants based on dad's educated opinion. However $9.00-12.50 an hour could reheat a strike. $14 an hour for new hires will be okay as long as eventually they get some benefits.
I see the media is starting to believe that GM will not be going bankrupt.
Rocky, you know that all along I have said GM is not going bankrupt.
I do not know what you are talking about with new hires. Delphi is hiring temps only. When they close the plants down the temps will let be go. Old employees will be transferred to the few plants left. Now what the old employees will be paid is a question.
That is true about the old employees being transferred and the new ones being let go. OTOH if you acquire a few desirable skills by having motivation there will be some room for new hires. Step-dad is learning a job that only one guy knows at the Wyoming Delphi plant. My aunt is going to try to transfer to the Wyoming plant once Coopersville shuts the doors. Boy Coopersville is going to become a ghost town :surprise: It's ashame all the local buisness's are going to have to close the doors to.
It's a hard pill to swallow for me since I care alot about my home state. :sick:
No, GM has gotten rid of excess capacity in workers.
The reason that GM has excess capacity is not because there isn't a demand for cars in the US or elsewhere. It's because GM uses what capacity it has to make cars that consumers don't want.
Honda is currently seeking to build yet another plant somewhere in the Midwest. Many automakers from abroad have come to the US in order to create capacity, using expensive American labor, in order to build more cars.
So the issue isn't with capacity. The issue is what GM chooses to do with that capacity. And unfortunately for the workers and shareholders, GM's management frequently make some pretty awful choices.
The only one not paying for this are the consumers who have decided to pay other automakers whenever they have an auto purchase. Ask yourself why they switched, and you will realize that "excess capacity" is yet another euphemism for "incompetent management."
Comments
All I'm saying is that if you take away an individual's initiative to excel, you are dooming society.
America is a great country because it recognizes individual enterprise - more so than any other country. It's the easiest to set up a business. It's not called "the land of opportunity" for nothing.
If all labour was unionized, it wouldn't be so easy to set up a business. The barriers of entry would be impossible to overcome for most entrepreneurs.
You tell me - do unions make it easier or harder for a small business owner to employ the type of people he needs - on a temporary or permanent basis.
I'm not blaming GM's problems on UAW. I'm saying that unions in general are a bad thing.
That is true. A friend opened a restaurant in PV, Mexico. The trials endured using unionized waiters is beyond belief. That is one of the higher paying, highly prized jobs in Mexico resort towns.
Right now today, in CA an employee gets better pay & benefits working at a non-union Walmart than a Union super market. That strike/lockout made a hollow shell out of the grocery clerks Union. Starting pay $6.75 per hour. That is about $2 less than McDonald's and Wally World.
Unions have been the force that made gains for all labor. That threat is there if an employer is not treating the people fairly. I think overall our government protection of collective bargaining is pretty balanced. I think it may be over unionized in many countries.
The problem that we have is that is has morphed into something the originators never intended. The result is an unprofitable organization with a union membership that is fixated on "market control level of entitlements". Those days are gone. Period! The future however I hope will foster a new dialogue that will send a strong message to the competition. "We CAN and WILL build a better product than the offshore competitors".
The future actions will either herald our success or be a prelude to the demise of the Auto Industry in the U.S.
Back to the topic please.
"We're coming very rapidly on the road back," GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said Monday. The buyouts and retirements will cost GM about $3.8 billion.
Deal speeds up GM turnaround by 2 years; Delphi exodus paves way for restructuring.
DETROIT -- More than 47,000 union workers at General Motors Corp. and bankrupt Delphi Corp. have taken buyouts or early retirements in what amounts to the biggest corporate downsizing in U.S. automotive history.
GM said Monday that 35,000 hourly employees have agreed to leave the struggling automaker for packages ranging from $35,000 to $140,000 -- which will allow the company to reach its target reduction of 30,000 hourly jobs by Jan. 1, two years early.
The final tally of buyouts and early retirements far exceeds early estimates and lays the groundwork for a sweeping restructuring of GM's U.S. manufacturing operations.
"It's fair to say we're coming very rapidly on the road back," said GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner at a news conference at GM's Detroit headquarters.
At Delphi, another 12,600 union members have elected to retire early, paving the way for a radical restructuring of the parts maker's U.S. operations.
Wagoner said the buyouts and retirements at GM will cost about $3.8 billion in payments to departing employees and adjustments in pension liabilities. He said GM will take the charge when it releases second-quarter earnings next month.
In announcing the results of the epic attrition program, Wagoner said GM has increased its target for reducing its North American structural costs from $7 billion annually to $8 billion by the end of this year.
GM market share slides
GM lost $10.6 billion last year, sparking speculation on Wall Street that the company was heading toward bankruptcy.
A decades-long slide in U.S. market share, coupled with rising legacy costs, prompted GM in March to offer buyouts or retirement packages to all of its 113,000 U.S. hourly employees.
Delphi, a former unit of GM and its biggest parts supplier, later extended its own buyout and retirement offers to most of its 33,000 unionized workers.
Wagoner said Monday that the downsizing of the GM work force, coupled with buyouts and retirements at Delphi, could set the stage for a peaceful resolution of Delphi's restructuring process.
"It goes a long way toward addressing the issue of a future at Delphi that works for everybody," Wagoner said.
Delphi said Monday that 12,600 of its 24,000 UAW members have accepted retirement deals, but gave no details on how many other workers took buyouts. The company is also offering packages to 8,000 workers represented by other unions.
UAW support noted
The conclusion of GM's attrition program marks another milestone in the wrenching effort to turn around the automaker.
Last fall, GM struck a deal with the UAW that forced retired workers to pay a portion of their health care and required active workers to forgo a wage increase to help cover medical bills.
Wagoner credited the UAW leadership for its "steady support" of GM's moves to return its North American business to profit.
There was no immediate comment from the UAW on Monday.
Wagoner said the 35,000 departing workers include 33,800 represented by the UAW and another 1,200 represented by the International Union of Electrical Workers and Communication Workers of America.
Of the 35,000 who signed up, Wagoner said that 4,600 accepted cash buyouts that included relinquishing their health benefits.
When GM and the UAW agreed in March to the massive "accelerated attrition" plan, industry observers were unsure how the offers would be received by the rank and file. But questions about GM's future and Delphi's restructuring in bankruptcy court helped convince workers to take the money and run.
Buyouts open up options
"The ball really started rolling toward the end," said Bobby Millsap, who took early retirement after 27 years at GM's assembly plant in Oklahoma City.
GM closed the Oklahoma City plant, which made mid-size SUVs, in February. More than 2,200 hourly workers were transferred into the GM "jobs bank," where they continued to receive paychecks but had little hope of returning to their old jobs.
"With these packages, they can afford to get off the assembly line and do something they really want to do," Millsap said.
The exodus of workers should help GM drastically reduce the size of the jobs bank. At one point this year, the automaker was paying about 9,000 hourly workers to sit idle or do community service.
"The question is whether the buyouts are going to be enough to soak up most of the jobs bank," said David Healy, an analyst with Burnham Securities.
Wagoner declined to provide numbers, but said the number of workers in the jobs bank "will be dramatically reduced."
A bigger issue is whether GM can shrink its manufacturing base fast enough to keep up with its falling market share.
GM announced last year plans to close at least 12 plants and engineering centers by 2008.
Analysts predict the overall U.S. new-vehicle sales to sag in June, and GM to fare worse than other manufacturers. Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy said Wednesday that GM's market share for the month will drop below 24 percent.
It's now a scramble
GM and Delphi will have to scramble to keep plants and assembly lines running by recalling laid-off workers, transferring workers from other plants and hiring temporary workers.
GM said about 9,000 workers have left the company and the remaining workers who took packages have departure dates scattered through the end of the year.
"We feel highly comfortable we can offer continued focus on great quality," Wagoner said.
Healy estimated the cost of a temporary employee at $19 an hour, compared to about $80-an-hour in wages, benefits and retirement costs for current workers. "That's a huge savings," he said.
GM shares closed at $27.75 Monday, up 78 cents.
My god what really is the cost per hour of a UAW/GM/Delphi worker ? $45 an hour $65 an hour ? $75 an hour ? $80 an hour ? Some have said as high $90 an hour. :confuse:
It's so ridiculous I gotta laugh at it anymore.
I got a idea next contract is pay these union folks $80 an hour no health benefits or retirement benefits for new hires. It would be a savings for the company right ? Why ? There would be no admin folks that cost money to oversee these expensive benefits plans. All the new UAW hires get is vacation accurals
$80 x 40=$3200x52=$166,400 a year "Gross" The moon is made out of green cheese also.
Rocky
These folks are asking for a 9.1% raise after already getting a 6.1% raise last yr.
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/UPDATE/606260403/- 1148/AUTO01
From the Detroit Free Press and there spin on it.
Rocky
P.S.
I can't wait until dad gets to leave.
Good article
Rocky
Rocky
Hmmmm, if they met their target reductions (of 30,000 hourly jobs) two years early, perhaps their buyout offers were too much? Sounds like yet ANOTHER management screwup somewhere..... :P
In all seriousness, I expect that the real problem will be that this buyout plan may very well have encouraged the best workers to leave. So while they've trimmed down the number of bodies, they've probably cut the wrong ones, leaving them with the mediocre and below to launch a turnaround.
Combined with the deficient vehicle lineup discussed above, this doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.
I agree with that. It's going to interesting with all the temps and some of the less-qualified workers floating the boat. But when it's all made in China in a couple of years that will be a moot question as to whether they lost their better workers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Quite possibly true.
However, how should management have cut the 'right' ones (mediocre and below)?
BUT, if you feel the 'right' ones are the younger OR the older they could have slanted the buyout amount more at one end or the other.
So if the ones to keep were the younger ones offer them almost nothing and offer the time to retire ones lots.
Funny thing is that in the articles I read the ones who are well past retirement age did not take the money. The individuals said they liked their job too much and wanted the income. I guess working in the shops at 75 is the good life!
Maybe the UAW could offer to buyout the mediocre management....?
I don't know that they DIDN'T do this. At this point, it's all 100% conjecture whether or not the 'right' ones took the buyout offer or not.
"Funny thing is that in the articles I read the ones who are well past retirement age did not take the money. The individuals said they liked their job too much and wanted the income."
There's nothing wrong with working as long as you WANT to work when you've found something you enjoy doing.
You can be guaranteed that this will happen every year... at nearly the same time each year.
And the Korean businesses and consumers tolerate, support, and encourage it.
:surprise:
UAW can't call it for two reasons:
(1) if everyone were paid in cash instead of some nebulous "benefits" there would not be the need for a UAW to defend for its members. The mommy hen (UAW) needs something to do to stay in business. In other words, UAW is a corporation that may or may not has its own interest aligned with individual members (certainly not individual workers, many of whom are not union members at all), no more than management always having its interest aligned with shareholders.
(2)There is no current cash to foot those future bills.
Therein lies the scam that is UAW as an institution. It's just another layer of intermediaries to live off the workers and the consumers.
Just a thought
Rocky
We also looked into getting our own medical insurance. We found out it is better to stick with the company paying the premiums. What happens when your HMO raises the premium by $200 per month and you have negotiated a hard figure. There are other expenses also. Workman's comp is a high dollar cost. Vacation and sick leave is part of that overall per hour figure. I have to admit $80 per hour seems a bit much. I think $55 is closer if their wage is $26 per hour. Anything past 2080 hours per year skews that upward.
If they included the 9000 sitting in a rubber room maybe $80 per hour is about right.
George Washington once observed that it took a wagon load of Continentals (the first American exprience with paper money) to buy a wagon load of supplies (for his army). Neither "big paycheck" nor "money" has any meaning without realizing that "money" is nothing more than markers in economic exchange. If you have to cut a "big paycheck" for a job as simple as a baby sitter or burger flipper or sitting in the job banks watching TV, suddenly your own "big paycheck" is not that big anymore.
The function of money is to transmit the preference each of us has for goods and services as we pass it along to someone else, thereby deciding how natural and human resources get allocated in our economy.
Ever since the day the "dollar" (which etymologically literally meant silver rounds) was divorced from the original metal basis (gold and silver) as envisioned in the Constitution, it has been meaningless to measure income in dollar terms because the value of "dollar" change dramaticly over time as well as space (location). It's much more helpful to think income/money as the goods and service you can lay claim on . . . e.g. how many hours of baby sitting you can get with your weekly pay, how many burgers, how many cars of what quality . . . Therefore, as you can see, raising nominal income without commesurate productivity increase is really like a dog chasing its own tail.
Retirement is nothing more than a claim on the labor of the younger generation. It's not a magic box on the Walmart shelf.
I was only talking about what money really means in an economy, whether gold standard or no gold standard. It's at the root of the difference of opinions here. The implicit assumption of pro-union position is that higher nominal income automaticly means higher standard of living . . . whereas the opposing view is that higher nominal income for everyone (without productivity increase) does not improve standard of living for anyone because it would now take more money to get the same service done for you. The intervention that it takes to raise nominal income would only skew the market place to benefit those who get the raise before everyone else does, for a short time. That's essentially what union is: front-running the monetary inflation.
It's a tough question, and admittedly, this is certainly one circumstance in which the union poses a challenge, due to seniority preferences.
In the case of GM, I'd say the answer is that the company needs to emphasize the creation of product that it can sell to generate maximum revenues, so that the workforce that it has is put to good use. That means increasing sales volume, which in turn means creating some great products that can be sold in retail.
The current GM plan implies that falling sales are inevitable to the future of the company, as it is willing to cut the workforce to such an extent that production is slated to decline. This tells me that GM intends to contract and accept defeat in certain segments, retreating so as to accept low volumes in various segments at a low level that is considered to be "good enough." In turn, I would guess that they seem intent on continuing to rely on SUV's and trucks as cornerstones to their recovery plan, which doesn't exactly strike me as a brilliant long-term move.
In addition, I can't see how GM expects to make this plan work without outsourcing as a component to pick up the slack created by the buyouts. In turn, that would imply that it is planning on sourcing more of its production in Mexico and Korea. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I don't see much of a plan for those low-cost factories gearing up to produce products that consumers want any more than the ones that are being sold today.
So what will we do when it becomes clear that this plan has failed, too? My guess is that we'll be seeing a new series of golden parachutes, and a few replacement corporate lifers who lack urgency taking over the reins so they may commit a whole new slate of errors of their own. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The real issue is whether consumers are so turned off by GM cars just like some of us here by GM management that, in their eyes, GM can do nothing right. In that case, GM should stop selling cars in the US altogether, and serve only its loyal truck base here and willing GM car buyers in some other parts of the world where people still believe GM can do it right.
BTW, bankruptcy wipes out any and all golden parachute obligation, too.
I would agree, but specializing in buggy whips when everyone is driving Model T's is not a good idea, unless you sell them as a niche product. And GM is a mainstream operator, not a niche marketer.
Trying to make a good small car (where labor to material ratio is higher) despite high labor cost is obviously a non-starter.
Better tell that to DCX. The Caliber is flying off the shelves at the moment, GM should be so unlucky.
Reducing oversupply is also a good strategy if one is interested in increasing unit margins.
Ceding more of the market to rivals such as Toyota is a slow bleed strategy that will ultimately make things worse. Conquest sales are much more costly than are sales churned from an existing customer base, and this "strategy" calls for shrinking that customer base.
It makes sense to cut production if the goal is to build rental specials. It's not so good if the problem can be solved with bona fide Camry-Accord, Civic-Corolla and Avalon beaters.
In that case, GM should stop selling cars in the US altogether, and serve only its loyal truck base here and willing GM car buyers in some other parts of the world where people still believe GM can do it right.
If the management is so inept that they can't build a car that consumers want, then they need to be fired this morning. Chrysler has taken a fairly mediocre-to-horrendous reputation similar to the one that GM has now, and appears to be working toward a second turnaround. GM needs a management team that can accomplish that, and more.
huh?? The point of trimming oversupply is so that the company does not have to sell to the rental fleet in order to clear inventory. It's called supply management; Toyota does that all the time. Like I said, GM's biggest problem is some critics see it can do nothing right . . . even concrete steps to accomplish what the critics themselves suggested only a moment ago get damned a moment later.
Chrysler is on its third or fourth turn-around since 1980. Many "turn-arounds" happened before 1980. That's just how Chrysler is, hot-again-cold-again. Neons sold pretty well early in its production cycle too. It won't be long before the supply of dummies are used up, and the car buying public realize that the Caliber is just another econobox hatch with rental fleet potential. Remember Crossfire, Pacifica, etc. etc.?
If the management is so inept that they can't build a car that consumers want, then they need to be fired this morning.
And where would the board find the replacement talents? on the forums where everyone is a genius in his own mind? and no hard number realities to deal with?
Trimming sales wouldn't be necessary if the cars were good enough to sell at retail.
Judging from all of the companies banging on the door to get into it and the general uptrend in sales volumes, the US auto market is competitive but ultimately lucrative for well-managed companies with desirable products.
The solution lies in improving the product so that Avis isn't the only one who would like to have one in its driveway. GM could sell plenty of cars, if only they were any good.
Chrysler is on its third or fourth turn-around since 1980. Many "turn-arounds" happened before 1980. That's just how Chrysler is, hot-again-cold-again. Neons sold pretty well early in its production cycle too. It won't be long before the supply of dummies are used up, and the car buying public realize that the Caliber is just another econobox hatch with rental fleet potential.
And yet it outperforms GM. While certainly flawed, it offers a better business model and promises better prospects than does GM.
And where would the board find the replacement talents?
Not sure exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wouldn't benefit from looking outside of the auto industry for some of the talent, and outside of the United States for still more. (It would be fitting and more than a bit ironic if Wagoner's job was among the next things to be outsourced.)
GM needs some talented, aggressive people that understands complex manufacturing, brand marketing and building passion into automobiles. It also needs someone who understands how to lead corporate turnarounds. And it would help if the accounting orientation was restricted to the accounting department, where it belongs.
GM could sell plenty of cars, if only they were any good.
So could you and I.
GM could sell plenty of cars, if only they were any good.
And it does, every time it cuts price dramaticly. Therein lies the obvious truth: consumers care about price, especially for low priced plebian cars. That's why imports from low labor cost nations can always carve out a niche at the expense of GM (and increasingly Toyota as well).
Chrysler offering a better business model? I thought the coup de grace was selling itself to MB at the top of the market. It's simply not an option for GM.
Not sure exactly, but it wouldn't surprise me if they wouldn't benefit from looking outside of the auto industry for some talent, and outside of the United States for still more.
I'm actually not a big believer in the heroics of CEO's. If you believe the right CEO with the right magic wand can solve all problems, you must be willing to pay for them a lot more than I would :-)
GM needs some talent that understand complex manufacturing, brand marketing and building passion into automobiles. And it would help if the accounting orientation was restricted to the accounting department, where it belongs.
Ironic how the accountant-run Toyota is doing so much better than the passionately engineer and designer dominated Nissan and Honda are doing nowadays. Like I said, GM has a perception problem.
GM's most formidable competitors use labor in Germany, Japan and in the US, including union labor. The same UAW that builds Cobalts also builds Mustangs and the low cost, successful Caliber.
Therein lies the obvious truth: consumers care about price, especially for low priced plebian cars.
Toyota and Honda do not have low priced strategies for their bread-and-butter cars in the US market. The Chevy Aveo is the cheapest in its segment, even when compared to the (other) Koreans, yet it is selling poorly and destined for fleet stardom, even with expensive gas. Leave it to GM to fail in the small car market, even when the price of fuel is through the roof.
GM has a price advantage, yet it doesn't help. The American consumer is generally value-oriented, not strictly price-oriented, which means getting bang-for-the-buck. GM is more buck than bang, hence the problem.
Like I said, GM has a perception problem.
Agreed. It seems incapable of perceiving the market and the competitive threats within it. It cannot perceive of the fact that the market cannot be conquered without desirable products, and that no company can be saved through cost cutting alone.
(Oh, that isn't what you meant, is it?)
Give it some time, both Mustang and Caliber will be heavily discounted. Mustang already is. Both are indeed destined to rental fleet stardom; Mustang already is.
Aveo is actually a very successful car overseas. That's one of the strongest evidence yet that GM has a press and consumer perception problem in the US. Perhaps it is time for greener pasture. For a long time, Honda was not a desirable brand in Japanese home market because it was perceived as the moped maker related to the post-WWII poverty years. That's why Honda focused its operation "overseas" in the US and built its strength here. Perhaps GM needs to do something similar regarding cars (sedans, coups and hatches). It just makes no sense throwing good money after bad ones when the brand itself has a problem. Why work under such handicap when the greener pasture overseas consumers assign no such negative value to GM.
I'm not sure what planet your living on brightness. :confuse:
Aveo is actually a very successful car overseas. That's one of the strongest evidence yet that GM has a press and consumer perception problem in the US. Perhaps it is time for greener pasture. For a long time, Honda was not a desirable brand in Japanese home market because it was perceived as the moped maker related to the post-WWII poverty years. That's why Honda focused its operation "overseas" in the US and built its strength here. Perhaps GM needs to do something similar regarding cars (sedans, coups and hatches). It just makes no sense throwing good money after bad ones when the brand itself has a problem. Why work under such handicap when the greener pasture overseas consumers assign no such negative value to GM.
So it's "the consumer" that has a mental problem with GM ?
brightness, I am a GM fan and yes they have made some nice cars I really loved. I-Roc Z-28, Trans-Am WS-6, Camaro SS, Buick Grand National, GMC Syclone and Typhoon, Corvette, Bonneville, lemko's cars, etc etc etc. you get the picture.
OTOH they have signed off on some really really bad POS junk cars. This mentality still seems to be present in the board room today. :sick: GM not only has to deliver a quality made product, but it has to deliver the customer service to go along with it
(at the time of sale, and after) we all expect when dropping that much money on a major purchase. GM was going to buy up all of it's dealerships to regulate this area about 7 or 8 years ago :confuse: but then backed down and still allows some dealerships to operate that should have there license suspended or revoked. GM has lost Billions of dollars because of bad customer service over the years.
The bottom line is some people can't own up to their decision making, and blame the guy below him and it rolls down hill from their. The UAW will always be a scapegoat for the company's and it's membership gets little or no attention for jobs well done. I guess some americans that are elites have no respect or value for "factory rats" that build products like cars for a living. Perhaps this is a culture issue we americans have torwards other americans and the dollar is always the bottom line with everything we do. It's ashame many have acquired this attitude. :sick:
Rocky
They've already have there multi-million dollar Golden Parachutes lined up and are already waiting to jump if it gets to bad. The UAW's $300 million bank roll isn't enough money to cover the packages that would be needed to be offered to get them to leave. :sick:
Rocky
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060628/AUTO01/606280364/1148
Rocky
P.S.
brightness, I post fairly even dirt on unions but GM management also is just as much to blame. Good thing these guys got the guilty verdict.
Rocky
P.S. Socala, does Honda pay about the same as Toyota for wages ?
Thousands are expected to eagerly seek temporary positions at Delphi Corp. and General Motors Corp. at wages up to 50% less than those of the 47,600 workers leaving the companies in an unprecedented program to cut costs.
Delphi Corp. already has hired more than 2,000 temporary workers who are being trained to replace a portion of the estimated 12,600 workers taking offers to retire early or transfer to General Motors Corp.
Both GM and Delphi say they aren't worried that the unexpectedly large number of workers leaving the two companies will create production problems.
The companies anticipate being able to hire quickly from a large pool of people seeking jobs, especially in areas with high unemployment, such as Michigan.
In locations where Delphi already has advertised for jobs, it has received scores of applications.
Belinda Hart, a 31-year-old unemployed Flint mother of three, is one of those looking for work. She searches newspapers daily for information on becoming a temporary worker at Delphi's plant in Flint.
Hart says she knows she won't be paid the $27 an hour or receive the cradle-to-grave benefits other workers enjoy.
"But a job is a job," Hart said. "And I'm a good worker."
Delphi is paying its temporary workers around $14 an hour, the rate set under a UAW agreement linked to the attrition program, Delphi spokesman Lindsey Williams said.
Williams asked those seeking work to contact employment agencies near a Delphi plant instead of contacting the plant directly.
GM and Delphi workers taking the buyout are not eligible to apply for a temporary position, Williams said. Under the UAW agreement, workers can come back on only a contract basis, usually to help train workers.
Delphi, in some cases, has advertised in newspapers. The auto supplier had an ad in the Decatur Daily in Alabama to fill production and machine jobs at the Limestone County plant. Delphi also asked for applications for journeymen and electrician positions at hourly rates from $19.50 to $21.35.
Williams said he did not know how many Delphi plants were hiring. Hiring is done on a plant-by-plant basis, meaning the corporate offices in Troy give individual plant managers autonomy in determining how many workers they need to meet production targets.
Demand also is likely to be strong for temporary GM jobs. GM's temporary workers will be members of the UAW union, but they will be paid $18 to $19 an hour, or 70% of the current average wage, with no benefits. GM has not said how many temporary workers it has hired or needs, but the automaker said it will take referrals from only current workers to fill any needed spaces.
The time needed to train workers varies. For example, temporary GM workers at a foundry pouring molten metal require more training than an employee assembling parts, mainly because of required safety certifications, said Katie McBride, GM spokeswoman.
Plenty of demand for work
Delphi Chief Executive Officer Steve Miller has said plants can adapt quickly to losing a large chunk of the workforce. In an Oct. 21 interview, Miller used a plant restructuring negotiated between DaimlerChryslerAG and Plymouth-based Metaldyne Corp. as an example of what's possible between GM and Delphi.
In the fall of 2002, when DaimlerChrysler was preparing to shut down its 1,200-employee machining and forge plant in New Castle, Ind., Metaldyne bought the facility, and in two years, the plant went from 1,200 workers earning between $24 and $32 an hour to 850 workers earning $12 to $16 an hour.
The plant's workers were given three options: retire, return to work at a nearby DaimlerChrysler plant in Kokomo, Ind., or stay with Metaldyne and work for half the wages and benefits. For those opting to stay with Metaldyne, DaimlerChrysler paid a $10,000 bonus for each year of service at the plant.
Of the 1,200 employees, just 200 chose to stay with Metaldyne, not enough to operate the plant's 55 lines producing product that supplies 14 assembly plants for various customers.
In September 2003, Metaldyne held a two-day job fair at a New Castle YMCA. To its surprise, more than 5,300 applicants stood in a line that stretched outside into the rain with hopes of filling 650 positions.
The example shows what could happen near Delphi and GM plants across the country, especially in Michigan, which has a 6% unemployment rate, one of the highest in the country.
If workers go on strike, Delphi can hire new employees and then fire them before their 90-day probation period is up, about the time Delphi is expected to reach an agreement with unions.
Waiting for the check
Edward Matteson, 54, of Shreveport, La., took GM's $140,000 buyout as soon as it was offered and left his GM plant May 31 with the hope of getting his check in three to four weeks.
Matteson still hasn't received his check. He recently was told the first $70,000 installment would arrive July 14, a surprise to Matteson, who figured he would receive all $140,000 at once.
"I've already got another job lined up," Matteson said. "I'm moving to Miami as soon as they give me my money."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006606280303
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Delphi is a different story. It will be quite a dance to keep parts supplied to the OEM's as they close plants and transfer the work overseas or the OEM's source elsewhere. BUT, I bet some of the announced closed plants will become proftiable and will stay in business using the new lower paid employees.
Do we still need to talk about the UAW striking at Delphi or are we past that yet?
I see the media is starting to believe that GM will not be going bankrupt.
Still a small concern, but most of those would be striking employees will transfer to GM plants based on dad's educated opinion.
I see the media is starting to believe that GM will not be going bankrupt.
So I'm not the only one who's noticed lately !
Rocky
I do not know what you are talking about with new hires. Delphi is hiring temps only. When they close the plants down the temps will let be go. Old employees will be transferred to the few plants left. Now what the old employees will be paid is a question.
It's a hard pill to swallow for me since I care alot about my home state. :sick:
Rocky
The reason that GM has excess capacity is not because there isn't a demand for cars in the US or elsewhere. It's because GM uses what capacity it has to make cars that consumers don't want.
Honda is currently seeking to build yet another plant somewhere in the Midwest. Many automakers from abroad have come to the US in order to create capacity, using expensive American labor, in order to build more cars.
So the issue isn't with capacity. The issue is what GM chooses to do with that capacity. And unfortunately for the workers and shareholders, GM's management frequently make some pretty awful choices.
The only one not paying for this are the consumers who have decided to pay other automakers whenever they have an auto purchase. Ask yourself why they switched, and you will realize that "excess capacity" is yet another euphemism for "incompetent management."
The Honda plant according to the Deroit News will be built in Greensburg, Indiana.
Rocky