That's probably why I don't have kids. I'm worried about getting through my own life let alone what would happen to them. I don't want to drag innocent people down the toilet if I get downsized, rif'd, etc. Who knows, maybe these kids will take the country back from those greedy corporate whores and the fat pig politicians who support them?
Dad, has always been proud to belong to the UAW. He was asked several times to promote to supervision. Dad however didn't want to be kicked around and disrected by the plant manager who was very cocky. He loved working on and with machinery and it gave him several challenges and he was known by everyone as the best worker at both GM Coopersville and Wyoming Mi. plants. It also helped that my grandfathers and uncles are all known has smart, hardworking workers that care a great deal about the company. Dad was also lucky to have had some good upper management that knew how to make the company a great deal of money and invent+ launch new technologies like direct fuel injection, tuned port injection, etc etc etc.
Dad said once he's able to retire he's going to take a few months off and get some tasks at home done. He also wants to come out here and visit. After that he might look for another job.
Rocky
P.S. hope your son and daughter find affordable housing.
So your theory is Saab was doing well under Swedish rule?
I think that I made it pretty clear that the company wasn't doing well, which is why GM had no business in buying it in the first place. (GM seems to have a special fondness for bad automotive acquisitions.)
That GM came in and bought them to have a European presence?
Obviously not, GM has a European presence with Opel/Vauxhall.
No, it was to have a European badge to compete against BMW, MB, etc. in North America. GM wanted a piece of the 3-series/ US yuppie market.
What is conspiratorial about the failure of the Swedish market?
It's this odd theory of yours that GM invests in bad companies because you believe to be some automaking variant of the UN or the Marshall Plan. These are business deals (albeit really bad business deals), not humanitarian missions or part of a US government coverup, as you've intimated elsewhere in these forums.
..it wasn't a big seller in sweden, or in NA. Just like Volvo, it was a small division of a big truck mfg. (SAAB Scania0. Very likely, it was running at a loss. sweden is a very small car market-it probably buys fewer new cars in a year than NYC. Plus, it made its own engines, so GM had to invest a lot in it top use standardized (Opel) components. In my own experience, SAAB attracks a very speciual buyer, and its looks don't appeal to everybody. plus, they have very low resale value-if you buy one, bette rplan on keeping it. its a perfectly good car, but will always be a nich market car. GM probably should have passed.
Dad however didn't want to be kicked around and disrected by the plant manager who was very cocky.
I am sure he can see the dilemma of middle managers where he is working. Trying to please upper management and manage a union operation is not an easy job. You are always the bad guy going both ways. When you have control of the operation under you it is not such a bad job. I also refused to take a management job on several occasions. I did not want the hassle of trying to get hard-core union guys to produce.
I'm not sure what was being covered up. The Swedish economy was in dire straits in spite of your opinion on the subject. No conspiracy about it. Just a poorly run country. Ford and GM saw an opportunity to cash in and one screwed it up and the other seems to be doing OK.
They really don't have a problem with getting people to produce, but they do have a fair share of people that just gripe. It's that way about everywhere I've worked. The job-setters like him pretty much run the departments and lower management has a pretty easy day for the most part. Yes middle management are caught in the "middle" of orders from above and gripes/complaints from the line. Not a easy job for sure.
GM seems to have a special fondness for bad automotive acquisitions.
GM would not be there if not for automotive acquisitions to begin with. Goes to show how short the memory is and how shallow the knowledge base. Marginal accreation? Perhaps the organic growth potential is even lower thanks to the anchor called UAW. At least Saab sales is growing, whereas the rest of the GM empire is shrinking.
GM would not be there if not for automotive acquisitions to begin with.
I do hope that you're not going to reference Sloan and Wagoner in the same breath. Sloan practically invented tiered branding. Unfortunately, it has been his successors who undid the whole thing.
I'd bet that Sloan must be rolling over in his grave. To think that one of the greatest CEO's in 20th US corporate history has had his legacy almost completely unwound.
If I recall correctly, GM bought Saab because it lost the bidding for Jaguar to Ford. In the automotive version of keeping up with the Joneses (or, in this case, the Fords), GM bought Saab because it wanted a European luxury brand, too.
Ironically, because it got into a bidding war with GM, Ford overpaid for Jaguar. The company has turned into a moneypit for Ford over the last 17 years.
GM hasn't done much better with Saab.
Either way, both companies have funneled lots of money into two companies that could have been used to bolster their North American lineups.
At least Ford has realized genuine benefits - new platforms, improved engineering techniques, quality control methods that can be applied to North American products - from its ownership of Volvo and ownership of a controlling interest in Mazda.
I'd bet that Sloan must be rolling over in his grave. To think that one of the greatest CEO's in 20th US corporate history has had his legacy almost completely unwound.
That's exactly how competitive markets are supposed to work. Shirt-sleeve-to-shirt-sleeve in three generations. Would you rather prefer GM perpetuate its entrenched advantages for ever regardless what it does, as in a non-competitive market? as in generations of union workers who are appreciated because their fathers and uncles used to be good characters?
Right back at you: Pay Attention, Pay more attention, and do the math yourself.
Saab is not a big volume brand to begin with. The detail you are missing is that Saab set sales record last year! Being able to maintain at the record level is not bad at all, when the whole industry is shrinking compared to last year. Also GM had huge incentive programs going last year, but much less this year. . . comes to think of it, you are contradicting youreslf again: didn't you suggest less discounting? Doesn't that automaticly reduce sales volume? or are you thinking of a wave of your magic wand and suddenly hundreds of thousands of superduper hybrids coming out of the ears of Wagoner?
When you start so low, even tiny sales numbers begin to comprise a large percentage of the total.
Tiny compared to what? Certainly not tiny for Saab. Prius sales was tiny compared to Corolla volume too, but I didn't see you decrying its "tiny" increase year over year.
There was no reason to spend the R&D and marketing money on a car, even if it is just a rebadge, to sell so few units
Exactly how did you reach that conclusion? Do you know how much the brand engineering cost? Keeping the vehicle in production for 6 years would mean 36k units even at your lowball number, and if each can command a $5k price premium over comparable Chevy, that's nearly 200 million! Probably more than the project cost. Didn't you say GM needs to generate more revenue? Yet you are against concrete steps to achieve that goal. Of course, real life solutions are not quite as clean or elegant as a waiving of your magic wand.
It's amazing how anyone can be blind to the fact that the domestic brands have an image problem, and brand engineering is necessary. The blind faith that a good small car would automaticly bring good sales and profitability falls completely flat in the presence of Ford Focus, which garnered more praise than any other econobox in both generations. Yet Ford does not even dare to bring the 2nd generation Focus to the US market simply because of the brand perception problem precludes even possibility of profitability; a better car would simply cost more to make and still unable to command higher price if it bears the Ford brand! Volvo and Mazda cars based on the 2nd generation Focus are doing quite well in the US market.
The detail you are missing is that Saab set sales record last year!
We're going to need a full-time factchecker on the payroll to keep up with these errors of yours. Let's look at Saab's sales in the US, according to GM:
So except for a spike in 2003, sales here have been essentially flat.
Except it's worse than that. The only way that Saab has been able to maintain stagnant total sales has been to introduce new nameplates. During 2001, Saab had two models; in 2005, it had five. 9-5 sales are down by 2/3rds compared to 2001, and it has taken the introduction of three new models to make up for that difference.
Saab is following a pattern very typical of GM, the same pattern that led to its current problems:
-Build cars that lack appeal, leading to -The introduction of additional "new" badge-engineered models meant to prop up total sales figures, leading to -Falling average sales per individual nameplate, leading to -Higher overall costs due to higher R&D expenses, more parts, more marketing, etc., etc.,etc.
In 2001, Saab sold an average of about 18,800 cars per nameplate. In 2005, that had fallen by almost 50% to approx. 9,600 per nameplate. Seems that Saab is doomed to fall into the same excessive nameplate/ brand dilution trap that has defined GM's operating history for the last few decades.
Carrying more nameplates costs more money, so it's a fair guess that Saab is losing more money than ever. And to think that GM management is making exactly the same mistakes with Saab that it made with Pontiac, Chevy, Buick, Olds and Cadillac. These guys simply don't learn from their mistakes.
Prius sales was tiny compared to Corolla volume too, but I didn't see you decrying its "tiny" increase year over year.
Toyota sold almost three times more Priuses in the US than Saab sold vehicles. GM should be so unlucky.
Second plan affects about 17,000 workers from IUE-CWA and UAW unions at supplier.
NEW YORK -- A bankruptcy judge on Thursday approved attrition programs that will be offered to more than 17,000 Delphi Corp. employees represented by its two largest unions, allowing the auto parts supplier to move forward on a second wave of buyout and early retirement offers.
Judge Robert Drain confirmed a motion by Delphi to offer attrition packages to about 8,500 hourly employees represented by its second-largest union, the International Union of Electronic Workers-Communications Workers of America, and 8,600 members of the United Auto Workers who were not covered in an earlier, similar program.
The company has said the "soft landing" offers, which will allow it to shrink its work force, are a crucial part of its overall plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection.
The program will cost Delphi an estimated $135 million.
In contrast to earlier court hearings, during which the unions had been at odds with Delphi, union representatives spoke in support of Delphi on Thursday. IUE-CWA attorney Tom Kennedy called the plans "incredibly important."
The union said the plan was the result of "a consensual resolution of difficult and complex matters affecting thousands of hourly employees and their families."
Check worldwide sales. Your nonsensical apples-to-orange comparisons take no account of model cycle whatsoever.
Prius sold roughly 3k units a month in 2004 and 7k units a month in 2005, both are peanuts compared to Camry and Corolla sales. By your logic, it should long have been discontinued, perhaps in 2002.
More importantly, where is you answer to the Focus delima?? Your genius solution of having a wonder econobox obviously does not work.
Interesting: when you refer to Saab sales, you only examined the Domestic numbers. But when you refer to Prius sales, you reference worldwide sales numbers.
But when you refer to Prius sales, you reference worldwide sales numbers.
Incorrect. I used that article to speak to US Prius sales, which it reports as exceeding 107,000 units. This article from MS NBC ties roughly with that number. Total hybrid US sales during 2005 were about 200,000, and the Prius accounted for 53% of that market.
Point being is that some posters here don't hesitate to simply create statistics out of thin air. We can't have an honest discussion if the "facts" used to justify a point are made up.
Have finally caught up on the posts. They have been very good reads, for the most part.
Have a few questions for you brightness. In reading your posts it seems that your thoughts are the UAW and workers are to blame for GM’s troubles, not the management. With the number of people taking the buyouts do you think: a. this will cause GM to turn it around, since the “problem-makers” are gone b. GM will turn it around since legacy costs will be greatly reduced c. the execs will give themselves big bonuses and rewards for making “the plan” work d. that if this mass exodus doesn’t turn GM around, the management may in fact be the blame, the real problem e. the management will rest on their laurels, i.e. status quo f. suffer any problems from the talent drain, current and future. – meaning those leaving now and/or in the future with employees thinking that if GM goes through another financial problem they’re going to just cut employees so why stay
Prius was selling 7k units in May 2005. I never gave the 84k unit number; you did. 84k would indeed be the result if you extrapolate the whole year using only the first 5 months like you did with 9-7x. You just proved how silly your method of extrapolating a whole year from the first 5 months really was.
Back to the central point of contention, 107k is still very small compared to Camry and Corolla sales. So why didn't you suggest shut down Prius?
More to the point, when Lexus IS sales dropped, GS sales droped as models aged, and new models were brought out in other parts of the lineup, where was the SoCalA4 genius lambasting Lexus for model mix dilution? Or is it delusion? ;-)
Where is the wonderful Ford or Chrysler that SoCalA4 has been telling us about? Apparently Chrysler has the worst inventory problem among the domestic three.
I never said the management is blameless. IMHO, the GM managment does about as well as can be expected of typical management . . . UAW does about as well as can be expected of typical unions. Therein lies the problem: because erstwhile monopolies with union burdens tend to have a very high statistic record of going out business!
Point being is that some posters here don't hesitate to simply create statistics out of thin air. We can't have an honest discussion if the "facts" used to justify a point are made up.
Very fitting description of what you have been writing. All the statistics in the world can not substantiate your claim that if only GM management focused on making a good small car, the company would have prospered. Ford is having even more difficulty than GM, despite having possibly two, not one, of the best econoboxes in the world, Focus Gen1 and Gen2.
The Focus is one of the best econoboxes in the world? Are all of your "facts" based on personal opinion? Judging by the many of your previous posts I'm beginning to wonder. And what pray tell makes you think that the Focus is such a world class car?
some, what, 13 recalls? Hummm...sounds kinda shaky to me. It looked hokeyer and hokeyer to me as time went on. However, just lately, some of the dress-up on it has made it look a little better to me. I wouldn't buy one, if I went with Ford I'd have to consider getting a Mustang.
Both generations of Focus won numerous awards, both here in the US and across the pond in Europe, in a field against Civic, Corolla, Golf, etc. Both were routinely ranked higher than all the rest. If that's not a indication of a good design (or two) on hand, I don't know what is.
BTW, please lay off the straw-man tactic. I said "one of the best . . . " not "the best" although many industry commentators did rank both generations of Focus as "the best." My earlier post actually was a very measured understatement, going by the judgement of professional car reviewers. My personal opinion of Focus? None whatsoever.
Goes to show that a good design alone is nowhere nearly enough to turn a big domestic around. Carmaking is first and foremost a game of execution in details.
in the details, brightness04? Executing the details? I mean, that is enough to turn me away from even looking at a Focus to purchase. Is Ford that distracted with gripey union issues to concentrate on a good small car?
A Kia Spectra wouldn't cause me fits like that and it carries a great Warranty to boot.
Really, has anyone ever read a good reason or two or three or four..hee-hee...just joshin'...that Ford couldn't get the Focus' production execution down right for 100 or 200 runs down the production line?
Union certainly has a hugely adverse effect on quality control. Union work rules preclude the most effective tool for discipline: the risk of being fired. It's the golden parachute of all golden parachutes. Wagoner actually tried to improve quality and efficiency on a particular production line back in the late 90's, what he got for his trouble was a GM-wide shutdown by the UAW.
You have illustrated the other point that I mentioned regarding the brand perception issue when you said you would not even look at a Ford to purchase. Ford has a great design in the Focus Gen2, as illustrated by its sales in Europe, and the sale of its platform-mates, the Mazda3 and Volvo S40/V50 here in the US. Yet, due to the poor brand perception coupled with high labor cost, Ford can't even begin to produce Focus Gen2 here as an econobox. Higher premium brand-engineered variants are all it can even try, and with a reasonable degree of sucess.
As much as I like Hyundai/Kia as an upstart challenging the established players, I'm not entirely convinced about how much of the company's success is due to the cars they make or simply a case of Korean taxpayers subsidizing US consumers. A warranty is only as good as the company still being around and willing to honor it. Historically, 10-yr warranties tend to be a temporary sales booster that usually end up biting the mfr in the tail in the long run when the warranty services come due . . . never quite enough money was set aside to pay for the bath-tub curve and mechanics hourly rate inflation.
Union certainly has a hugely adverse effect on quality control. Union work rules preclude the most effective tool for discipline: the risk of being fired. It's the golden parachute of all golden parachutes. Wagoner actually tried to improve quality and efficiency on a particular production line back in the late 90's, what he got for his trouble was a GM-wide shutdown by the UAW.
Well right now brightness, both GM and Delphi have a lot of new employees without union protection and the supervisors tell them what to do. Dad, says they wanted to bust the union and lower wages to $14 an hour with no benefits and the quality of the work force is just that.
BTW- The new hire screw machine operators were trained for 4 hours and the supervisors told them to stay over for Overtime, even though they are running close to 60% scrap. Dad flat out said he wouldn't by a GM car for atleast 2 years because of the quality parts Delphi is sending out the door and the lack of training the new GM workers are getting. :sick:
You still don't get it. The japanese car company's use better material, have better engineering, so it must be the engineers that have been doing to much wild party stuff. :P On another note if the wild party theme were true, then explain to me why the Germans who drink on the job, are still able to build superior products ? :P
So what you are saying essentially is that non-union workers don't party on weekends ? hmmmm explain to me why my mothers boss goes to the bar with his co-workers and talks about sex to his female co-workers and is falling down drunk in the bar ????? I guess your going to say that's a isolated incident. :sick:
brightness, you know deep down what you are saying is hawg wash. non-union workers drink and party just like everybody else. I worked in non-union shops and many showed up with a hang over or was intoxicated. The bottom line is that UAW workers on average take more pride in what they build because they want to keep their good paying job. Sure their are bad apples in every barrel. Non-union company's aren't exempted from this either and because they are excellent brown nosers their boss will cover for them. I've seen it first hand, my mom is going through this right now.
The stereotyping of UAW workers as all being bad isn't true and deep down you know this. The engineering and bean counters ruined GM's reputation. Now all party's are trying to figure out a way to fix a bad image and it has to start with product. The UAW can build good cars like the Lucerne, Mustang, Escalade, 2007' Silverado/Sierra, Chrysler 300, Mazda 6, etc etc etc.
...I heard that all non-union workers spend Saturdays with their grandmothers and Sundays at church and then invite the minister over for dinner while all those UAW guys are spending a debauched weekend full of so much sin and excess that it would leave the Marquis de Sade blushing.
Rocky, you are bringing up isolated examples to contradict a general rule - workers whose pay depends on their performance will work better than workers whose pay don't.
The natural selection process will weed out the workers who show up to work with a hangover or drunk. Unionism interferes with this process. That's the whole premise of brightness' argument.
Sorry for the long delay - haven't been here since Friday morning. Nice to be away from a computer for five days.
From your posts you take the side that the problems are caused by the workers / UAW and that management is not responsible for the dismal situation GM is in. Now if that is not the case then I apologize; I must have gis-read all your posts as well as the responses to those posts. And may I ask what is a typical management to you? If that's typical, sheesh! :surprise:
In any event, what are your thoughts to the questions I posed? With this massive worker exodus, the management has in a sense backed itself into a corner. They have to perform now, as they can't push the blame on the "BAD" UAW workforce. And with Kerkorian and crew pushing the Renault/Nissan thing, June sales a disaster (with no employee pricing, crazy incentives-not including the latest 0% for 72 months-some decline was expected but damn, truck/SUV sales in le crapper, it's going to get hairy for them.
So your saying that drunk UAW workers aren't isolated incidents ? You guys don't have a clue. I've worked a many of factory's in my 27 years and non-union workers production costs the company more to produce a product than union.
Socala, has pointed this out on numerous occassions. brightness, if you believe his distorted rhetoric is a pseudo-capatalist who pins the blame on everyone else instead of mangement taking ownership and atleast some of the blame, if not all the blame. It's amazing that Chrysler, has the same union but makes a profit. Those European Unions make the UAW look like pussycats, and because their management has enough common sense to build quality, desirable products, they sell and make a profit. GM's management without Carlos Ghosn genous is headed for bankruptcy. Ghosn, can save General Motors but Rick Wagoner can't. Ghosn, has a proven track record that says he can and will. Wagoner, only knows how to "cut".
Nissan's quality has made the biggest strides ever since Ghosn, has taken over. While not the best it is leap and bounds better than GM. Nissan/Infiniti knows a few things about "Gadgetology" also.
Rocky, you are so far off on facts, it's not even funny. Japanese car companies do not use better material. Japanese have been using Palladium as a cheaper alternative to Platinum for over decades. Japanese cars used to have a bad rep for rusting due to their use of non-galvanized sheet metal, to save pennies.
Germans do not build superior products. Aside from Porsche, which accounts a few drops in the bucket, German cars are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability and defects.
What employees (management and line workers) do on weekends on their own time do not matter so long as they can work efficiently on Monday.
You are kidding yourself to think that people drinking alcohol on jobs can make good cars . . . I don't care if they are German, American or Japanese, or Martian for that matter. If good cars can be made by intoxicated machine operators, why do we need to pay them well at all?? A bunch of homeless wino's would do just fine. All the profits should then go to the management, engineers and shareholders.
brightness, while I like you personally alot, you are very far from comprehending the truth pal.
Rocky, you are so far off on facts, it's not even funny. Japanese car companies do not use better material. Japanese have been using Palladium as a cheaper alternative to Platinum for over decades. Japanese cars used to have a bad rep for rusting due to their use of non-galvanized sheet metal, to save pennies.
The Germans are about the smartest people on the planet. That is common sense. Sure some products fail pre-mature, but that doesn't mean that the quality was forgotten about. Look at the engineering for faults. German cars are simpily about the best. The Germans believe in buying the best grade to build their products. They have alot of pride im both mangement and worker.
Germans do not build superior products. Aside from Porsche, which accounts a few drops in the bucket, German cars are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability and defects.
The domestics use cheap hard plastic as dash material and side panels. Is that Quality with tactile touch ? :confuse: german cars in many respects are the best cars in the world from a engineering stand point.
What employees (management and line workers) do on weekends on their own time do not matter so long as they can work efficiently on Monday.
We agree, but that doesn't mean that UAW members are all a bunch of drunken hacks that don't care about quality.
You are kidding yourself to think that people drinking alcohol on jobs can make good cars
The Germans and Scandinavians do it everyday. Your kidding yourself thinking this isn't the norm in Europe.
I don't care if they are German, American or Japanese, or Martian for that matter. If good cars can be made by intoxicated machine operators, why do we need to pay them well at all??
They are paid well because they are smart. Just because a German worker is "feeling good" doesn't mean he is plastered or loss brain power.
A bunch of homeless wino's would do just fine. All the profits should then go to the management, engineers and shareholders.
They first need to learn how to turn the machines on. LOL :P Do you really think your average executive is going to comprehend how the machine works ?
If you do, then you truely don't undersand the manufactoring industry.
Wild stuff, man. Your post reads like a Kurt Vonnegut book. Hitler's adaptation of Eugenics and Budweiser's vision of alcohol as commonplace merged into the UAW (evidently now representing the United Alcohol Workers).
I don't know the litigation system in Europe, but there is no tolerance for alcohol use at any manufacturing company that I have ever worked for in the US. It is an unnecessary risk. The first person (and 10,000th person)"feeling good" that cuts his/her hand off using one of those "ultrasophisticated" machines at GM will cost the company a lot of dough. What then?
My god John, you really do think it's common for UAW workers to be drunk on the job. :surprise: That isn't true and is propaganda put out by the the far Right.
What employees (management and line workers) do on weekends on their own time do not matter so long as they can work efficiently on Monday
That may be true in some places. Not in the oil fields. I spent 25 years in Prudhoe Bay, AK, ARCO & BP had zero tolerance rules on alcohol and drugs. None allowed at any time. On shift or off. They regularly searched rooms with dogs. A friend was fired and sent home for having a little bottle off the plane in his room unopened. You played by the oil comany rules or you were on the next plane out of there. Same for breaking any of the driving rules.
If you think it is your right to come home and have a beer. Yes you would be gone. I would never work for an oil company because they are dictators. They pay well and you sell yourself to them in return. Not sure if they are that way in the TX oil fields. Probably not. In Alaska it is the British Petroleum influence that is so strong.
I don't care how much they pay, I wouldn't give up my freedoms to be controlled by a dictatorship. No union I take it ? If there is one it's very weak and has no backbone. Our oilfield workers down here isn't nearly that bad surprisingly. They actually have a hard time finding workers to do that sort of work because it's a short lived career physically.
Only a small group are Union. As you say it is very dangerous work on the rigs especially. That is the reason for the zero tolerance. You don't want your buddy a little hung over to drop a 40 foot drill pipe on you. My friends in communications with BP and Conoco all make over $115k per year working 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off. That is non union with all medical and company paid retirement. The Union guys they hire for short duration do not make nearly as much. They keep the Unions out with high pay and good benefits.
If you think it is your right to come home and have a beer. Yes you would be gone.
Honestly, folks, no one has shown any evidence that the Chevy Cobalt is a third-rate box because of UAW drinking habits, so there's no reason to belabor the point.
Automakers such as GM are not losing sales or market share because of Budweiser or Jack Daniels, but because they make cars that people don't want to buy. Let's place the responsibility where it belongs, and stop blaming the workers for dumb decisions that they didn't make.
no one has shown any evidence that the Chevy Cobalt is a third-rate box
I don't think anyone has shown it is a third rate box at all. If given the choice between a Civic and the Cobalt at a rental agency I would take the Cobalt. It is better looking than the Civic. It also has cleaner emissions. The Civic is not available as PZEV and the Cobalt is. Both Ford Focus and the Cobalt have better emissions than the Civic. If you look at the fuel economy site those posting give the Cobalt a better real world mileage rating than those with the very popular new Civic. Plus the Cobalt is selling 20% more cars this year than last year at this time, even with all the giveaways last year. Looks like a lot of car for the money.
Comments
Dad said once he's able to retire he's going to take a few months off and get some tasks at home done. He also wants to come out here and visit. After that he might look for another job.
Rocky
P.S. hope your son and daughter find affordable housing.
Rocky
I think that I made it pretty clear that the company wasn't doing well, which is why GM had no business in buying it in the first place. (GM seems to have a special fondness for bad automotive acquisitions.)
That GM came in and bought them to have a European presence?
Obviously not, GM has a European presence with Opel/Vauxhall.
No, it was to have a European badge to compete against BMW, MB, etc. in North America. GM wanted a piece of the 3-series/ US yuppie market.
What is conspiratorial about the failure of the Swedish market?
It's this odd theory of yours that GM invests in bad companies because you believe to be some automaking variant of the UN or the Marshall Plan. These are business deals (albeit really bad business deals), not humanitarian missions or part of a US government coverup, as you've intimated elsewhere in these forums.
its a perfectly good car, but will always be a nich market car. GM probably should have passed.
I am sure he can see the dilemma of middle managers where he is working. Trying to please upper management and manage a union operation is not an easy job. You are always the bad guy going both ways. When you have control of the operation under you it is not such a bad job. I also refused to take a management job on several occasions. I did not want the hassle of trying to get hard-core union guys to produce.
I'm not sure what was being covered up. The Swedish economy was in dire straits in spite of your opinion on the subject. No conspiracy about it. Just a poorly run country. Ford and GM saw an opportunity to cash in and one screwed it up and the other seems to be doing OK.
Rocky
GM would not be there if not for automotive acquisitions to begin with. Goes to show how short the memory is and how shallow the knowledge base. Marginal accreation? Perhaps the organic growth potential is even lower thanks to the anchor called UAW. At least Saab sales is growing, whereas the rest of the GM empire is shrinking.
I do hope that you're not going to reference Sloan and Wagoner in the same breath. Sloan practically invented tiered branding. Unfortunately, it has been his successors who undid the whole thing.
I'd bet that Sloan must be rolling over in his grave. To think that one of the greatest CEO's in 20th US corporate history has had his legacy almost completely unwound.
Ironically, because it got into a bidding war with GM, Ford overpaid for Jaguar. The company has turned into a moneypit for Ford over the last 17 years.
GM hasn't done much better with Saab.
Either way, both companies have funneled lots of money into two companies that could have been used to bolster their North American lineups.
At least Ford has realized genuine benefits - new platforms, improved engineering techniques, quality control methods that can be applied to North American products - from its ownership of Volvo and ownership of a controlling interest in Mazda.
Rocky
That's exactly how competitive markets are supposed to work. Shirt-sleeve-to-shirt-sleeve in three generations. Would you rather prefer GM perpetuate its entrenched advantages for ever regardless what it does, as in a non-competitive market? as in generations of union workers who are appreciated because their fathers and uncles used to be good characters?
Saab is not a big volume brand to begin with. The detail you are missing is that Saab set sales record last year! Being able to maintain at the record level is not bad at all, when the whole industry is shrinking compared to last year. Also GM had huge incentive programs going last year, but much less this year. . . comes to think of it, you are contradicting youreslf again: didn't you suggest less discounting? Doesn't that automaticly reduce sales volume? or are you thinking of a wave of your magic wand and suddenly hundreds of thousands of superduper hybrids coming out of the ears of Wagoner?
When you start so low, even tiny sales numbers begin to comprise a large percentage of the total.
Tiny compared to what? Certainly not tiny for Saab. Prius sales was tiny compared to Corolla volume too, but I didn't see you decrying its "tiny" increase year over year.
There was no reason to spend the R&D and marketing money on a car, even if it is just a rebadge, to sell so few units
Exactly how did you reach that conclusion? Do you know how much the brand engineering cost? Keeping the vehicle in production for 6 years would mean 36k units even at your lowball number, and if each can command a $5k price premium over comparable Chevy, that's nearly 200 million! Probably more than the project cost. Didn't you say GM needs to generate more revenue? Yet you are against concrete steps to achieve that goal. Of course, real life solutions are not quite as clean or elegant as a waiving of your magic wand.
It's amazing how anyone can be blind to the fact that the domestic brands have an image problem, and brand engineering is necessary. The blind faith that a good small car would automaticly bring good sales and profitability falls completely flat in the presence of Ford Focus, which garnered more praise than any other econobox in both generations. Yet Ford does not even dare to bring the 2nd generation Focus to the US market simply because of the brand perception problem precludes even possibility of profitability; a better car would simply cost more to make and still unable to command higher price if it bears the Ford brand! Volvo and Mazda cars based on the 2nd generation Focus are doing quite well in the US market.
We're going to need a full-time factchecker on the payroll to keep up with these errors of yours. Let's look at Saab's sales in the US, according to GM:
2005 - 38,343
2004 - 38,159
2003 - 47,914
2002 - 37,805
2001 - 37,556
So except for a spike in 2003, sales here have been essentially flat.
Except it's worse than that. The only way that Saab has been able to maintain stagnant total sales has been to introduce new nameplates. During 2001, Saab had two models; in 2005, it had five. 9-5 sales are down by 2/3rds compared to 2001, and it has taken the introduction of three new models to make up for that difference.
Saab is following a pattern very typical of GM, the same pattern that led to its current problems:
-Build cars that lack appeal, leading to
-The introduction of additional "new" badge-engineered models meant to prop up total sales figures, leading to
-Falling average sales per individual nameplate, leading to
-Higher overall costs due to higher R&D expenses, more parts, more marketing, etc., etc.,etc.
In 2001, Saab sold an average of about 18,800 cars per nameplate. In 2005, that had fallen by almost 50% to approx. 9,600 per nameplate. Seems that Saab is doomed to fall into the same excessive nameplate/ brand dilution trap that has defined GM's operating history for the last few decades.
Carrying more nameplates costs more money, so it's a fair guess that Saab is losing more money than ever. And to think that GM management is making exactly the same mistakes with Saab that it made with Pontiac, Chevy, Buick, Olds and Cadillac. These guys simply don't learn from their mistakes.
Prius sales was tiny compared to Corolla volume too, but I didn't see you decrying its "tiny" increase year over year.
Toyota sold almost three times more Priuses in the US than Saab sold vehicles. GM should be so unlucky.
NEW YORK -- A bankruptcy judge on Thursday approved attrition programs that will be offered to more than 17,000 Delphi Corp. employees represented by its two largest unions, allowing the auto parts supplier to move forward on a second wave of buyout and early retirement offers.
Judge Robert Drain confirmed a motion by Delphi to offer attrition packages to about 8,500 hourly employees represented by its second-largest union, the International Union of Electronic Workers-Communications Workers of America, and 8,600 members of the United Auto Workers who were not covered in an earlier, similar program.
The company has said the "soft landing" offers, which will allow it to shrink its work force, are a crucial part of its overall plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection.
The program will cost Delphi an estimated $135 million.
In contrast to earlier court hearings, during which the unions had been at odds with Delphi, union representatives spoke in support of Delphi on Thursday. IUE-CWA attorney Tom Kennedy called the plans "incredibly important."
The union said the plan was the result of "a consensual resolution of difficult and complex matters affecting thousands of hourly employees and their families."
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060630/AUTO01/606300407/- 1148
Rocky
Prius sold roughly 3k units a month in 2004 and 7k units a month in 2005, both are peanuts compared to Camry and Corolla sales. By your logic, it should long have been discontinued, perhaps in 2002.
More importantly, where is you answer to the Focus delima?? Your genius solution of having a wonder econobox obviously does not work.
Once again, we'll need to hire a factchecker for you. Prius sales for 2005 were about 107,000 units; you've just claimed that it was 84,000 units.
Per usual, you're off by a wide margin, this time by almost 25%. We have to spend more time correcting your errors than we do discussing the topic...
Incorrect. I used that article to speak to US Prius sales, which it reports as exceeding 107,000 units. This article from MS NBC ties roughly with that number. Total hybrid US sales during 2005 were about 200,000, and the Prius accounted for 53% of that market.
Point being is that some posters here don't hesitate to simply create statistics out of thin air. We can't have an honest discussion if the "facts" used to justify a point are made up.
Have a few questions for you brightness. In reading your posts it seems that your thoughts are the UAW and workers are to blame for GM’s troubles, not the management. With the number of people taking the buyouts do you think:
a. this will cause GM to turn it around, since the “problem-makers” are gone
b. GM will turn it around since legacy costs will be greatly reduced
c. the execs will give themselves big bonuses and rewards for making “the plan” work
d. that if this mass exodus doesn’t turn GM around, the management may in fact be the blame, the real problem
e. the management will rest on their laurels, i.e. status quo
f. suffer any problems from the talent drain, current and future. – meaning those leaving now and/or in the future with employees thinking that if GM goes through another financial problem they’re going to just cut employees so why stay
Back to the central point of contention, 107k is still very small compared to Camry and Corolla sales. So why didn't you suggest shut down Prius?
More to the point, when Lexus IS sales dropped, GS sales droped as models aged, and new models were brought out in other parts of the lineup, where was the SoCalA4 genius lambasting Lexus for model mix dilution? Or is it delusion? ;-)
Here is the latest update on the industry:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/30/news/companies/pluggedin.fortune/index.htm
Where is the wonderful Ford or Chrysler that SoCalA4 has been telling us about? Apparently Chrysler has the worst inventory problem among the domestic three.
Very fitting description of what you have been writing. All the statistics in the world can not substantiate your claim that if only GM management focused on making a good small car, the company would have prospered. Ford is having even more difficulty than GM, despite having possibly two, not one, of the best econoboxes in the world, Focus Gen1 and Gen2.
Rocky
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
BTW, please lay off the straw-man tactic. I said "one of the best . . . " not "the best" although many industry commentators did rank both generations of Focus as "the best." My earlier post actually was a very measured understatement, going by the judgement of professional car reviewers. My personal opinion of Focus? None whatsoever.
A Kia Spectra wouldn't cause me fits like that and it carries a great Warranty to boot.
Really, has anyone ever read a good reason or two or three or four..hee-hee...just joshin'...that Ford couldn't get the Focus' production execution down right for 100 or 200 runs down the production line?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You have illustrated the other point that I mentioned regarding the brand perception issue when you said you would not even look at a Ford to purchase. Ford has a great design in the Focus Gen2, as illustrated by its sales in Europe, and the sale of its platform-mates, the Mazda3 and Volvo S40/V50 here in the US. Yet, due to the poor brand perception coupled with high labor cost, Ford can't even begin to produce Focus Gen2 here as an econobox. Higher premium brand-engineered variants are all it can even try, and with a reasonable degree of sucess.
As much as I like Hyundai/Kia as an upstart challenging the established players, I'm not entirely convinced about how much of the company's success is due to the cars they make or simply a case of Korean taxpayers subsidizing US consumers. A warranty is only as good as the company still being around and willing to honor it. Historically, 10-yr warranties tend to be a temporary sales booster that usually end up biting the mfr in the tail in the long run when the warranty services come due . . . never quite enough money was set aside to pay for the bath-tub curve and mechanics hourly rate inflation.
Well right now brightness, both GM and Delphi have a lot of new employees without union protection and the supervisors tell them what to do. Dad, says they wanted to bust the union and lower wages to $14 an hour with no benefits and the quality of the work force is just that.
BTW- The new hire screw machine operators were trained for 4 hours and the supervisors told them to stay over for Overtime, even though they are running close to 60% scrap.
Dad flat out said he wouldn't by a GM car for atleast 2 years because of the quality parts Delphi is sending out the door and the lack of training the new GM workers are getting. :sick:
Good Luck Delphi. :P
Rocky
You still don't get it. The japanese car company's use better material, have better engineering, so it must be the engineers that have been doing to much wild party stuff. :P On another note if the wild party theme were true, then explain to me why the Germans who drink on the job, are still able to build superior products ? :P
So what you are saying essentially is that non-union workers don't party on weekends ? hmmmm explain to me why my mothers boss goes to the bar with his co-workers and talks about sex to his female co-workers and is falling down drunk in the bar ????? I guess your going to say that's a isolated incident. :sick:
brightness, you know deep down what you are saying is hawg wash. non-union workers drink and party just like everybody else. I worked in non-union shops and many showed up with a hang over or was intoxicated. The bottom line is that UAW workers on average take more pride in what they build because they want to keep their good paying job. Sure their are bad apples in every barrel. Non-union company's aren't exempted from this either and because they are excellent brown nosers their boss will cover for them. I've seen it first hand, my mom is going through this right now.
The stereotyping of UAW workers as all being bad isn't true and deep down you know this. The engineering and bean counters ruined GM's reputation. Now all party's are trying to figure out a way to fix a bad image and it has to start with product. The UAW can build good cars like the Lucerne, Mustang, Escalade, 2007' Silverado/Sierra, Chrysler 300, Mazda 6, etc etc etc.
Rocky
Rocky
The natural selection process will weed out the workers who show up to work with a hangover or drunk. Unionism interferes with this process. That's the whole premise of brightness' argument.
From your posts you take the side that the problems are caused by the workers / UAW and that management is not responsible for the dismal situation GM is in. Now if that is not the case then I apologize; I must have gis-read all your posts as well as the responses to those posts. And may I ask what is a typical management to you? If that's typical, sheesh! :surprise:
In any event, what are your thoughts to the questions I posed? With this massive worker exodus, the management has in a sense backed itself into a corner. They have to perform now, as they can't push the blame on the "BAD" UAW workforce. And with Kerkorian and crew pushing the Renault/Nissan thing, June sales a disaster (with no employee pricing, crazy incentives-not including the latest 0% for 72 months-some decline was expected but damn, truck/SUV sales in le crapper, it's going to get hairy for them.
It's SOGOTP time for management.
Socala, has pointed this out on numerous occassions. brightness, if you believe his distorted rhetoric is a pseudo-capatalist who pins the blame on everyone else instead of mangement taking ownership and atleast some of the blame, if not all the blame. It's amazing that Chrysler, has the same union but makes a profit. Those European Unions make the UAW look like pussycats, and because their management has enough common sense to build quality, desirable products, they sell and make a profit. GM's management without Carlos Ghosn genous is headed for bankruptcy. Ghosn, can save General Motors but Rick Wagoner can't. Ghosn, has a proven track record that says he can and will. Wagoner, only knows how to "cut".
Nissan's quality has made the biggest strides ever since Ghosn, has taken over. While not the best it is leap and bounds better than GM. Nissan/Infiniti knows a few things about "Gadgetology" also.
Rocky
Germans do not build superior products. Aside from Porsche, which accounts a few drops in the bucket, German cars are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability and defects.
What employees (management and line workers) do on weekends on their own time do not matter so long as they can work efficiently on Monday.
You are kidding yourself to think that people drinking alcohol on jobs can make good cars . . . I don't care if they are German, American or Japanese, or Martian for that matter. If good cars can be made by intoxicated machine operators, why do we need to pay them well at all?? A bunch of homeless wino's would do just fine. All the profits should then go to the management, engineers and shareholders.
Rocky, you are so far off on facts, it's not even funny. Japanese car companies do not use better material. Japanese have been using Palladium as a cheaper alternative to Platinum for over decades. Japanese cars used to have a bad rep for rusting due to their use of non-galvanized sheet metal, to save pennies.
The Germans are about the smartest people on the planet. That is common sense. Sure some products fail pre-mature, but that doesn't mean that the quality was forgotten about. Look at the engineering for faults. German cars are simpily about the best. The Germans believe in buying the best grade to build their products. They have alot of pride im both mangement and worker.
Germans do not build superior products. Aside from Porsche, which accounts a few drops in the bucket, German cars are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of reliability and defects.
The domestics use cheap hard plastic as dash material and side panels. Is that Quality with tactile touch ? :confuse: german cars in many respects are the best cars in the world from a engineering stand point.
What employees (management and line workers) do on weekends on their own time do not matter so long as they can work efficiently on Monday.
We agree, but that doesn't mean that UAW members are all a bunch of drunken hacks that don't care about quality.
You are kidding yourself to think that people drinking alcohol on jobs can make good cars
The Germans and Scandinavians do it everyday. Your kidding yourself thinking this isn't the norm in Europe.
I don't care if they are German, American or Japanese, or Martian for that matter. If good cars can be made by intoxicated machine operators, why do we need to pay them well at all??
They are paid well because they are smart. Just because a German worker is "feeling good" doesn't mean he is plastered or loss brain power.
A bunch of homeless wino's would do just fine. All the profits should then go to the management, engineers and shareholders.
They first need to learn how to turn the machines on. LOL :P Do you really think your average executive is going to comprehend how the machine works ?
If you do, then you truely don't undersand the manufactoring industry.
Rocky
I don't know the litigation system in Europe, but there is no tolerance for alcohol use at any manufacturing company that I have ever worked for in the US. It is an unnecessary risk. The first person (and 10,000th person)"feeling good" that cuts his/her hand off using one of those "ultrasophisticated" machines at GM will cost the company a lot of dough. What then?
Rocky
That may be true in some places. Not in the oil fields. I spent 25 years in Prudhoe Bay, AK, ARCO & BP had zero tolerance rules on alcohol and drugs. None allowed at any time. On shift or off. They regularly searched rooms with dogs. A friend was fired and sent home for having a little bottle off the plane in his room unopened. You played by the oil comany rules or you were on the next plane out of there. Same for breaking any of the driving rules.
Rocky
Rocky
Honestly, folks, no one has shown any evidence that the Chevy Cobalt is a third-rate box because of UAW drinking habits, so there's no reason to belabor the point.
Automakers such as GM are not losing sales or market share because of Budweiser or Jack Daniels, but because they make cars that people don't want to buy. Let's place the responsibility where it belongs, and stop blaming the workers for dumb decisions that they didn't make.
Rocky
I don't think anyone has shown it is a third rate box at all. If given the choice between a Civic and the Cobalt at a rental agency I would take the Cobalt. It is better looking than the Civic. It also has cleaner emissions. The Civic is not available as PZEV and the Cobalt is. Both Ford Focus and the Cobalt have better emissions than the Civic. If you look at the fuel economy site those posting give the Cobalt a better real world mileage rating than those with the very popular new Civic. Plus the Cobalt is selling 20% more cars this year than last year at this time, even with all the giveaways last year. Looks like a lot of car for the money.