Why can't a combination of wealth and jobs co-exist. Neutron Jack, created alot of wealth at GE, but as an american, he could of saved thousands of jobs if he would of been willing to not make quite as much. I have always said it comes down to morales and/or buisness ethics of the individual. Jack, would of been an american hero/icon if he would of accomplished these tasks using american manpower to get his mission done. Sure he wouldn't of made those extra few billions, but he could of been somebody my children could look up to.
Not to be too funny but maybe your children are unhappy with Jack because they did not get the money/jobs they think they deserved but a whole bunch of other people are happy because they got the money they invested for.
Since both GM and Ford are losing market share, billions of dollars every year and on verge of bankruptcy; how are they suppose to turn it around without cutting cost (cheaper labor)?
GM, has never been on the verge of bankruptcy. The solution to losing market-shair is to make better products which GM, has been doing. I predict GM, will gain Market-share in 2007. I see more new GM, cars down here in the Tx Panhandle than any other brand. I know that isn't a refelction of the world but even car analysis predict GM to sustain or even regain market-share. Ford, and Chrysler I predict quite the opposite to happen unfortunately. I think it might be in Fords best interest to let GM, swallow them and create a super corporation. I believe Rick Wagoner, could steer Ford, back in the right direction also. Ford has alot of tools that GM, could use. However how would they distinguish the brands effectively ? :surprise:
I also think the UAW, would be happier if the two merged and from a fan of both company's I can only wish it happens soon.
I really wouldn't want to see GM and Ford merge. GM is starting to recover from a lenghty sickness while Ford is still gravely ill. Ford would just get GM sick again and they'll both die. At least Ford decided to keep the Lincoln Town Car - now produced in St. Thomas, so they've still got at least ONE car I would seriously consider.
"I believe Rick Wagoner, could steer Ford, back in the right direction also."
Funny. Just a few short months ago you were ready to have Wagoner tarred and feathered. If I remember right, there were a number of pro-GM folks in here loudly proclaiming about how THEY could do Wagoner's job, and do it better.....
So your solution is to have Ford and Chrysler (by the way Chrysler is now part of Daimler Chrysler) merge into GM and created a mega corporation to fight off the imports, right?
First of all, do you really think the Congress is going to let that happen regarding the anti-trust issue? Second, once the 2 companies merged, there is inevitably going to be more job-slashing and plants-closing and how's that going to help the UAW workers and America economy? Right now GM and Ford still combined for about 50% of the market share and do you honestly think with the merger they can maintain that and nevertheless gain more?
I personally don't want to see that happen because at least right now for those die-hard domestic lovers they still have 2 choices when go shopping for a car/truck. With the merger that option will be down to one which is not good from a consumer's stand point of view.
I've always like Rick Wagoner, alot personally. I yes think I could do at least as good of a job as him. (I know that sounds very cocky) I however must admit he did surprise me. How ? In the past GM, has always been about "just cut little fat here, and their, and the problems were solved even though they continued to lose market-shair. To my surprise instead Rick, has allowed new life to be introduced into the GM, new product to go along with cuts. I just hope for the UAW's sake that they can negotiate a decent contract for it's workers in the future and hopefully one day we will see more plants be built here in the United States.
My solution would be to have GM, and Ford, merge togeather to form one mega-alliance corporation to fight off the imports. I'm not saying this is the ultimate solution but is worth at least looking at. Chrysler, is to much like Ford and GM, to have a 3-way merge I suppose. I of course think a Honda, and GM, would be the best merge for GM's interest. I also think it could possibly be benefitual to Honda IMHO.
First of all, do you really think the Congress is going to let that happen regarding the anti-trust issue?
Yes, because their is plenty of competition for the consumer to choose from.
Second, once the 2 companies merged, there is inevitably going to be more job-slashing and plants-closing and how's that going to help the UAW workers and America economy?
Those are inevitable regardless of the merge and are currently taking place as we speak. I think a merge could reduce the "slash and burn" effect to some degree.
Right now GM and Ford still combined for about 50% of the market share and do you honestly think with the merger they can maintain that and nevertheless gain more?
I believe both would gain market-shair if the proper buisness mudule was implemented. They combined could split R&D and launch new product, more often to remain competitive.
I personally don't want to see that happen because at least right now for those die-hard domestic lovers they still have 2 choices when go shopping for a car/truck. With the merger that option will be down to one which is not good from a consumer's stand point of view.
Down to just one ? You don't think a GenFord Motors would still keep all the brands ?
I have not taken the time to read any of the articles about this pie-in-the-sky merger being bandied about between Ford and GM. My first thought was that the two corporations see this as an opportunity to rid themselves of their pyramid scheme-like pension and retirement plans.
From what I know about their financial conditions it seems that anything less would be window dressing.....at best. Greatest cars on the plant? Won't matter. Slightly increased market share? Who cares? Unless they control their obligations to millions of retirees they will never climb out of their current mess. And, it will only get worse as their work force shrinks and their pool of retirees swells.
I believe so....R&D is the only key for survival. GM, is in a better situation than the others and thus are spending more R&D money, thus resulting in a small turn arounds that will eventually equal a large revamp healthier GM, IMHO
No offense, but let's leave Honda out of this discussion. Just the thought of Honda being with GM alone gives me goose bumps. :P
Yes, because their (there) is plenty of competition for the consumer to choose from.
Yeah, but those are foreign companies, the only domestic auto manufactures left are GM and Ford. Do you honestly think it's in consumers' best interest that GM and Ford merge?
I think a merge could reduce the "slash and burn" effect to some degree.
Please explain how? When the big 2 merged (that's if they are really going to merge) some brands will be dropped. On top of my head, pontiac, Buick, Mercury and Lincoln come to my mind. Production line will be merged as well so some plants will be closed. When the plants are closed there are going to be job-slashed. Also, like you said since now the R&D and design will be done together so that many engineers, designers and lower level managements will be shown the door as well. With all those in mind please tell me how's the merger going to reduce the "slash and burn" effect like you stated? In an article from ClickonDetroit.com it says that: "This is one of those instances where 1 plus 1 equals 1.2." I think that might be a little extreme (more like 1.5) but they got a point there.Article
I believe both would gain market-shair (share) if the proper business module was implemented.
You said it there yourself. With or without merger both could and should gain market share if the proper business module was implemented. So the point right here is not about to merge or not it's about these companies are cutting corners and not following the proper business module. If they continue to do so even after the merger I don't think how they can become more successful.
Down to just one ? You don't think a GenFord Motors would still keep all the brands ?
In one I meant GM-Ford, not all their divisions. Since the domestics got so good at badge engineering I really don't see the difference in each brand anyway (especially Ford, at least GM has Cadillac).
The purpose of jobs is to create wealth. Otherwise, why don't we just give everyone a $100 million a year salary sitting on their hands? Would you be happily fed, clothed, sheltered and entertained if nothing is ever produced in the economy because everyone is sitting on their hands? The worst type of morale would be locking people into unproductive jobs. Jack Welch was very much correct that the company should only do what it was best at. That's called division of labor, the very source of the wealth of nations.
Please read the bonus plan again. First of all, the money is one-time only, therefore no job security at these pay levels to speak of. More importantly, the bulk of the pay is conditional (even the cash bonus is conditional), much of it in the form of stocks and options. For example, what's described as a $17 million bonus to the CFO by the critics is based on the assumption that if the stock triples in value! What they don't tell you is that the same stock option would be worth zero if the stock does not move or worse drop in price. Grabbing headlines uncritically and run with it makes for pretty weak argument.
GM is starting to recover from a lenghty sickness while Ford is still gravely ill.
Very much agree. It's funny how a couple months ago on this very forum, I had to debate UAW defenders who insisted on telling us how wonderfully Ford and Chrysler were managed compared to the incompetent GM management.
No offense, but let's leave Honda out of this discussion. Just the thought of Honda being with GM alone gives me goose bumps.
Honda needs a turn-around also and Rick could right it's ship also.
Yeah, but those are foreign companies, the only domestic auto manufactures left are GM and Ford. Do you honestly think it's in consumers' best interest that GM and Ford merge?
I'm a consumer and yes it's in my best interest since I dearly love both car company's.
Please explain how? When the big 2 merged (that's if they are really going to merge) some brands will be dropped. On top of my head, pontiac, Buick, Mercury and Lincoln come to my mind. Production line will be merged as well so some plants will be closed. When the plants are closed there are going to be job-slashed. Also, like you said since now the R&D and design will be done together so that many engineers, designers and lower level managements will be shown the door as well. With all those in mind please tell me how's the merger going to reduce the "slash and burn" effect like you stated? In an article from ClickonDetroit.com it says that: "This is one of those instances where 1 plus 1 equals 1.2." I think that might be a little extreme (more like 1.5) but they got a point there.Article
They'd reduce R&D, because they would beable to shair platforms and parts and designs. I agree that some would be shown the door, but they could keep the best and brightest minds. I also think GenFord could streamline the buisness reducing overall employee costs and that new over-paid Boeing CEO, could be shown the door by Rick Wagoner.
You said it there yourself. With or without merger both could and should gain market share if the proper business module was implemented. So the point right here that not about to merge or not it's about these companies are cutting corners and not following the proper business module. If they continue to do so even after the merger I don't think how they can become more successful.
I think a stream-lined buisness would yield benefits for both sides. But of course this is my opinion.
In one I meant GM-Ford, not all their divisions. Since the domestics got so good at badge engineering I really don't see the difference in each brand anyway (especially Ford, at least GM has Cadillac).
Well each brand would have to get a brand identity and stick with it if they wanted to somehow keep all brands.
Maglomania is a poor way to run business . . . Conglomeration was popular back in the 70's because back then the Wall Street promoted the wacky idea that non-industry-specific management talents can have economy of scale . . . it would make even less sense if you think the management talent is dubious to begin with.
But anyway, why does Honda all of the sudden need a turn-around? Last time I checked I think it's still one of the fastest growing auto companies in the NA market only behind Toyota, Hyundai and BMW maybe?
I think Honda is too precious to merge with anyone because like BMW it is more of an engineering-oriented company and even the thought of Honda merge with Toyota will scare the *beep* out of me.
Your post goes to prove my point a couple months ago that the existing management (especially at GM) probably can run the companies much better than forum yahoos who consider themselves smarter than everyone else. So far over the span of two months, we had Wagoner tarred and feathered and kicked out of the door for incompetence compared to Ford and Chrysler management and utter hopelessness when compared to that of Honda/Toyota . . . two months later, we have people advocating for Wagoner to take over both Ford and Honda and turn those companies around . . . go figure. If anyone thought the market place is fickle, political discourse is certain more whimsical.
All that hand-waving "streamlining" wishful thinking is quite meaniingless until the bean counters come up with a solid workable plan with real numbers. Real money in the market place is the only way to stop endless and pointless spins.
"The pension plan is gone for any new hires, that's a guarantee. The current pension swells will drop over the years...." - rockylee.
That isn't good enough. New hires won't retire for 30 years, so that move has little impact on the current situation. All current employees and those who are retired will continue to be a tremendous drain on GM and Ford due to the generous benefit packages. The two remaining giants made promises they can't keep. Cuts (deep cuts) are needed to the benefits provided to retirees and current employees. This is the lynch pin to recovery.
Exactly. The generous promises extracted by metal-pipe wielding youths decades ago will simply disappear when the same youths are too old and frail to wield a metal pipe and threaten any one. Pretty sad form of human interaction on both sides.
Ford Motor Co. will be able to replace workers who take advantage of one of the automaker's buyout offers with lower-paid temporary workers under an agreement negotiated with the United Auto Workers.
But the company expects to fill most vacancies with replacement workers from factories that were once part of Visteon Corp., Ford's former parts unit.
I of course think a Honda, and GM, would be the best merge for GM's interest. I also think it could possibly be benefitual to Honda IMHO.
Honda is too smart for that. Why would Honda, or any company for that matter, want to take on the huge problems of GM? Honda and GM are very, very far apart on product strategy and management styles. Just look at Honda offerings over last 30 years vs those of GM. Count up the GM failings. Where did Honda fail?
Their philosophies are very different. Honda has emphasized engineering excellence and long term vision. Can't say the same about GM. A GM/Honda merge would be a huge distraction for Honda. Honda would have everything to lose, absolutely nothing to gain. GM would be an albatross to Honda.
"Pretty sad form of human interaction on both sides."- brightness.
Yup, and anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming twenty years ago. Both sides are getting exactly what they deserve. Short sighted grab happy workers and their short sighted grab happy employers rarely end up in a happy place.
Anyone hired after 1999' can't get a pension. OTOH it's not final but it's looking like that anyone with 27 yrs after July 06' won't get a early out. What this means ultimately is 27 yr. employees and anyone who stayed will be subject to the new contract stipulations which I'm willing to bet won't be all that "golden" when March rolls around. Anyone with some common sense would of left. Yes, some couldn't afford to but that's their problem and will face the consequences for better or worse.
The retirees don't deserve anymore cuts. They already gave GM billions in healthcare costs by them paying a portion for there health insurance. The company needs to hold up its end of the agreement. It's not the UAW workers faults that GM, Ford, didn't fully fund their pension obligations over the last 20 years or so.
The legacy costs will be reduced since new retirees will more than likely be on a 401K "Las Vegas" style of retirement plan. I have one currently and worked for my present employer for approx 4 years 3 months and have approx 55K give or take a few thousand. I was estimated to have $3.8 million after 25 years and I still laugh at how they come up with those figures. :confuse: :surprise:
"The next thing you know, ol' Jebs a millionaire" Ummmmmmm, NO !!!!
Jack Welch, wasn't happy enough with the billions that GE, was pulling in. He was always looking for that next dollar saved and would get it no matter who's life he destroyed. The man was a great manager of his buisness, but lacked morales, loyalty, and most important buisness ethics. Mises, would be proud of his greatest student.
when reality hits for those who have gorgeous deals. It came for Enron workers who thought the golden goose was theirs. The Delta pilots and other airlines and their contracts have had to be modified. If GM's going to survive that needs to happen.
The problem is the many levels of managers have their rides and they don't want to let go. No pay cuts, no benefit cuts for them.
I have and if they can afford to give hundreds of millions in stock options, then they can afford to pay their union obligations. I'd figure you'd be upset since you and I would of had to front the bill since the tax payers would of had to pay for it. I guess those obligations you don't mind paying because perhaps you look up to them or you think you're one of them ? I guess I don't understand your complex personality based on your previous posts saying quite the opposite. :confuse:
Honda, needs a small turn-around because they still can't understand the fact that 240 hp. in a Truck or SUV isn't good enough. They only get a couple of miles per gallon better than the full-size 315+ hp GMers ?
Rocky - GM needs to make drastic cuts to the benefits paid to current retirees and, to a lesser extent, employees. Tinkering around the edges with current employees won't cut it because they only represent a small percentage of the overall GM family.
GM used to employ a God awful number of people who now are consuming a huge amount of resources as retirees. This is the number one problem facing GM.
Did GM under fund its pension - absolutely. It really had no choice given the demands of its workers, its ongoing obligations and its loss of market share. This is just the sad reality of an unrealistic pension structure.
NOt sure what you mean Rocky? GM is reducing their workforce with no loss in wages. A very small change in health care but not much else. This is such a win for the union guys. They get out with money in their pockets. Most other companies just tell them to go home and stay there.
So if you cut off 400,000 people then what ? Where are people like my grandfather going to go ? to the guillotine ?
I honestly believe GM, can be managed to profitability. 401K plans weren't offered years ago and GM, wanted to keep pension plans as the only retirement source.
GM, can and should fully fund it's obligations. They have wasted billions in buisness deals that otherwise could of went to their pension obligations.
General Motors, like GE, made choices. GE, paid up there obligations and now the fund is self-supportive with nearly 30 billion in it. GM needs to take 15 Billion and create a huge pension fund that is self supportive and once the retirees all die off then it will be a lump sum of dough they can use at a later date. Unfortunatley the fund would probably get redistributed to all the shair-holders and/or used for golden parachutes for top executives.
GM is reducing their workforce with no loss in wages.
What ? A pension is half the pay of working full time.
A very small change in health care but not much else.
Just wait until March rolls around and we'll see.
This is such a win for the union guys. They get out with money in their pockets.
That depends on how many years you have.
Most other companies just tell them to go home and stay there.
That is why unions were formed to protect workers via a contract so they don't have to leave with nothing. It's not a golden parachute like a suit would get, but it's better than nothing I suppose.
Rocky - Who said anything about cutting off pension benefits? Retirees may have to lose half of their pension benefits and completely lose their health care plan or accept a stripped down version thereof. Not a complete loss, but a significant reduction.
The opportunity cost of diverting billions of dollars into the pension fund would fatally wound GM. While GM can pay their pension obligations, it can't afford to. There's a difference.
GE is and has been a lot more profitable than GM. I'm not confident that GM would have survived if it had diverted its resources into its pension fund. It simply isn't a sustainable structure.
Rocky - Who said anything about cutting off pension benefits? Retirees may have to lose half of their pension benefits and completely lose their health care plan or accept a stripped down version thereof. Not a complete loss, but a significant reduction.
Well you'd send every retiree back to work since anymore of a significant reduction in benefits would kill retirement for the majority of retirees. It's not like they are making alot of dough being retired. Dad, took the early out and he is getting $2700 a month plus still has bills. Step-mom went after a better job to make up the difference since she is 10 yrs younger than him. If they have to pay even more healthcare coverage or if the pension plan is scrapped and sent to the pension guarantee corp that will send dad back to work since he wouldn't have any health benefits and only half the income coming in. People like my grand-dad aren't fit to work anymore and he requires a cocktail worth of pharmaceutical drugs to keep him "balanced" in his health.
The pension fund is sustainable if mamagement makes the right choices when bringing product to the marketplace. If GM, for instances brings Azteks, Catera's, 4-6-2 engines, etc to market sure the pension plan isn't sustainable. The UAW workers shouldn't have to pay for managements incompentence. CEO's are paid millions a yr. in salary and if they can't work it all out then they should get the guillotine. I don't understand why it's so hard to turn-around a company like GM. It's not like the 400 pound Gorilla is preventing them from doing it. The answers are obvious that even a simple mind such as mine can figure it out. :P
The opportunity cost of diverting billions of dollars into the pension fund would fatally wound GM. While GM can pay their pension obligations, it can't afford to. There's a difference.
Not if they would of over-funded the pension obligations 50 or 60 years ago like GE. GE, obviously had better more future thinking management than GM.
GE is and has been a lot more profitable than GM. I'm not confident that GM would have survived if it had diverted its resources into its pension fund. It simply isn't a sustainable structure.
GE is and has been a lot more profitable than GM. I'm not confident that GM would have survived if it had diverted its resources into its pension fund. It simply isn't a sustainable structure.
-I'll add this to it. GM, has approx $25-30 billion that we know of. I honestly believe they have billions more stashed away in foreign banks. Delphi as poor as they were has $11 billion in Asian banks and $16 billion in European bank accounts. The Delphi bankruptcy was this nations largest and they used the loopholes in our laws to file bankruptcy and rid or reduce union obligations at tax-payer expenses according to the UAW lawyers that did investigations to counter the Delphi bankruptcy. Enron, isn't the only corporation that is fruadulating the workers and tax-payers in this country. :mad: Former Senator John Edwards, has attempted to get law makers to pass legistlation to close these loopholes which I personally signed on to and sent to my congressmen.
I have several family members who've retired out of GM (the now defunct Oldsmobile Division in Lansing, MI). All retired as "blue collar UAW workers" in their early 50s with excellent pension and medical benefits. Frankly, I'm very happy for them.
However, others who work in the private sector, don't have it so well, especially those who work for small companies or small corporations. White collar workers with years of education beyond high school, with degree upon degree, are extremely lucky to have what UAW workers are getting now in termination allowances or pensions. Many of the folks I know working for small corporations consider themselves blessed to have a job, work 10 to 12 hours a day for a base salary with no overtime, have no company pension program (only a 401k if they're lucky), have minimal medical benefits with rather high co-pays, and hope to retire when they reach 65 or 67! Blue collar workers who work for these same small companies can be even worse off, since they have no organized labor protection.
The UAW has represented its membership well which has allowed its membership to attain life style levels it could never attain working in other businesses. The only problem with this premise is that due to their high compensation and benefits, they're bankrupting the companies for which they work.
Unfortunately for many UAW workers in this country, the time has come for a serious "reality check."
Comments
Rocky
October 2005: Delphi wants to pay the top 600 executives a total amount of 980 million in bonuses befoe filing for bankruptcy. :surprise:
This of course set the UAW over the deep in and has lead us to the present rocky-road.
Rocky
Rocky
Since both GM and Ford are losing market share, billions of dollars every year and on verge of bankruptcy; how are they suppose to turn it around without cutting cost (cheaper labor)?
GM, has never been on the verge of bankruptcy. The solution to losing market-shair is to make better products which GM, has been doing. I predict GM, will gain Market-share in 2007. I see more new GM, cars down here in the Tx Panhandle than any other brand.
I also think the UAW, would be happier if the two merged and from a fan of both company's I can only wish it happens soon.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Funny. Just a few short months ago you were ready to have Wagoner tarred and feathered. If I remember right, there were a number of pro-GM folks in here loudly proclaiming about how THEY could do Wagoner's job, and do it better.....
First of all, do you really think the Congress is going to let that happen regarding the anti-trust issue? Second, once the 2 companies merged, there is inevitably going to be more job-slashing and plants-closing and how's that going to help the UAW workers and America economy? Right now GM and Ford still combined for about 50% of the market share and do you honestly think with the merger they can maintain that and nevertheless gain more?
I personally don't want to see that happen because at least right now for those die-hard domestic lovers they still have 2 choices when go shopping for a car/truck. With the merger that option will be down to one which is not good from a consumer's stand point of view.
(I know that sounds very cocky) I however must admit he did surprise me. How ? In the past GM, has always been about "just cut little fat here, and their, and the problems were solved even though they continued to lose market-shair. To my surprise instead Rick, has allowed new life to be introduced into the GM, new product to go along with cuts. I just hope for the UAW's sake that they can negotiate a decent contract for it's workers in the future and hopefully one day we will see more plants be built here in the United States.
Rocky
First of all, do you really think the Congress is going to let that happen regarding the anti-trust issue?
Yes, because their is plenty of competition for the consumer to choose from.
Second, once the 2 companies merged, there is inevitably going to be more job-slashing and plants-closing and how's that going to help the UAW workers and America economy?
Those are inevitable regardless of the merge and are currently taking place as we speak. I think a merge could reduce the "slash and burn" effect to some degree.
Right now GM and Ford still combined for about 50% of the market share and do you honestly think with the merger they can maintain that and nevertheless gain more?
I believe both would gain market-shair if the proper buisness mudule was implemented. They combined could split R&D and launch new product, more often to remain competitive.
I personally don't want to see that happen because at least right now for those die-hard domestic lovers they still have 2 choices when go shopping for a car/truck. With the merger that option will be down to one which is not good from a consumer's stand point of view.
Down to just one ? You don't think a GenFord Motors would still keep all the brands ?
Rocky
From what I know about their financial conditions it seems that anything less would be window dressing.....at best. Greatest cars on the plant? Won't matter. Slightly increased market share? Who cares? Unless they control their obligations to millions of retirees they will never climb out of their current mess. And, it will only get worse as their work force shrinks and their pool of retirees swells.
Rocky
GM, is in a better situation than the others and thus are spending more R&D money, thus resulting in a small turn arounds that will eventually equal a large revamp healthier GM, IMHO
Rocky
Yes, because their (there) is plenty of competition for the consumer to choose from.
Yeah, but those are foreign companies, the only domestic auto manufactures left are GM and Ford. Do you honestly think it's in consumers' best interest that GM and Ford merge?
I think a merge could reduce the "slash and burn" effect to some degree.
Please explain how? When the big 2 merged (that's if they are really going to merge) some brands will be dropped. On top of my head, pontiac, Buick, Mercury and Lincoln come to my mind. Production line will be merged as well so some plants will be closed. When the plants are closed there are going to be job-slashed. Also, like you said since now the R&D and design will be done together so that many engineers, designers and lower level managements will be shown the door as well. With all those in mind please tell me how's the merger going to reduce the "slash and burn" effect like you stated? In an article from ClickonDetroit.com it says that: "This is one of those instances where 1 plus 1 equals 1.2." I think that might be a little extreme (more like 1.5) but they got a point there.Article
I believe both would gain market-shair (share) if the proper business module was implemented.
You said it there yourself. With or without merger both could and should gain market share if the proper business module was implemented. So the point right here is not about to merge or not it's about these companies are cutting corners and not following the proper business module. If they continue to do so even after the merger I don't think how they can become more successful.
Down to just one ? You don't think a GenFord Motors would still keep all the brands ?
In one I meant GM-Ford, not all their divisions. Since the domestics got so good at badge engineering I really don't see the difference in each brand anyway (especially Ford, at least GM has Cadillac).
Very much agree. It's funny how a couple months ago on this very forum, I had to debate UAW defenders who insisted on telling us how wonderfully Ford and Chrysler were managed compared to the incompetent GM management.
Honda needs a turn-around also and Rick could right it's ship also.
Yeah, but those are foreign companies, the only domestic auto manufactures left are GM and Ford. Do you honestly think it's in consumers' best interest that GM and Ford merge?
I'm a consumer and yes it's in my best interest since I dearly love both car company's.
Please explain how? When the big 2 merged (that's if they are really going to merge) some brands will be dropped. On top of my head, pontiac, Buick, Mercury and Lincoln come to my mind. Production line will be merged as well so some plants will be closed. When the plants are closed there are going to be job-slashed. Also, like you said since now the R&D and design will be done together so that many engineers, designers and lower level managements will be shown the door as well. With all those in mind please tell me how's the merger going to reduce the "slash and burn" effect like you stated? In an article from ClickonDetroit.com it says that: "This is one of those instances where 1 plus 1 equals 1.2." I think that might be a little extreme (more like 1.5) but they got a point there.Article
They'd reduce R&D, because they would beable to shair platforms and parts and designs. I agree that some would be shown the door, but they could keep the best and brightest minds. I also think GenFord could streamline the buisness reducing overall employee costs and that new over-paid Boeing CEO, could be shown the door by Rick Wagoner.
You said it there yourself. With or without merger both could and should gain market share if the proper business module was implemented. So the point right here that not about to merge or not it's about these companies are cutting corners and not following the proper business module. If they continue to do so even after the merger I don't think how they can become more successful.
I think a stream-lined buisness would yield benefits for both sides. But of course this is my opinion.
In one I meant GM-Ford, not all their divisions. Since the domestics got so good at badge engineering I really don't see the difference in each brand anyway (especially Ford, at least GM has Cadillac).
Well each brand would have to get a brand identity and stick with it if they wanted to somehow keep all brands.
Rocky
Rocky
But anyway, why does Honda all of the sudden need a turn-around? Last time I checked I think it's still one of the fastest growing auto companies in the NA market only behind Toyota, Hyundai and BMW maybe?
I think Honda is too precious to merge with anyone because like BMW it is more of an engineering-oriented company and even the thought of Honda merge with Toyota will scare the *beep* out of me.
Ford outspends Toyota and GM and actually the rest of the auto industry in terms of R&D.
http://www.autolinedetroit.com/industryrc/IRC2006.pdf
It's the INTELLIGENT use of R&D dollars that makes the difference. Intelligent = Good Management.
All that hand-waving "streamlining" wishful thinking is quite meaniingless until the bean counters come up with a solid workable plan with real numbers. Real money in the market place is the only way to stop endless and pointless spins.
That isn't good enough. New hires won't retire for 30 years, so that move has little impact on the current situation. All current employees and those who are retired will continue to be a tremendous drain on GM and Ford due to the generous benefit packages. The two remaining giants made promises they can't keep. Cuts (deep cuts) are needed to the benefits provided to retirees and current employees. This is the lynch pin to recovery.
But the company expects to fill most vacancies with replacement workers from factories that were once part of Visteon Corp., Ford's former parts unit.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060919/AUTO01/609190354&Sear- chID=73257340927477
Honda is too smart for that. Why would Honda, or any company for that matter, want to take on the huge problems of GM? Honda and GM are very, very far apart on product strategy and management styles. Just look at Honda offerings over last 30 years vs those of GM. Count up the GM failings. Where did Honda fail?
Their philosophies are very different. Honda has emphasized engineering excellence and long term vision. Can't say the same about GM. A GM/Honda merge would be a huge distraction for Honda. Honda would have everything to lose, absolutely nothing to gain. GM would be an albatross to Honda.
Yup, and anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming twenty years ago. Both sides are getting exactly what they deserve. Short sighted grab happy workers and their short sighted grab happy employers rarely end up in a happy place.
The retirees don't deserve anymore cuts. They already gave GM billions in healthcare costs by them paying a portion for there health insurance.
The company needs to hold up its end of the agreement. It's not the UAW workers faults that GM, Ford, didn't fully fund their pension obligations over the last 20 years or so.
The legacy costs will be reduced since new retirees will more than likely be on a 401K "Las Vegas" style of retirement plan. I have one currently and worked for my present employer for approx 4 years 3 months and have approx 55K give or take a few thousand. I was estimated to have $3.8 million after 25 years and I still laugh at how they come up with those figures. :confuse: :surprise:
"The next thing you know, ol' Jebs a millionaire"
Ummmmmmm, NO !!!!
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
The problem is the many levels of managers have their rides and they don't want to let go. No pay cuts, no benefit cuts for them.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
GM used to employ a God awful number of people who now are consuming a huge amount of resources as retirees. This is the number one problem facing GM.
Did GM under fund its pension - absolutely. It really had no choice given the demands of its workers, its ongoing obligations and its loss of market share. This is just the sad reality of an unrealistic pension structure.
I honestly believe GM, can be managed to profitability. 401K plans weren't offered years ago and GM, wanted to keep pension plans as the only retirement source.
GM, can and should fully fund it's obligations. They have wasted billions in buisness deals that otherwise could of went to their pension obligations.
General Motors, like GE, made choices. GE, paid up there obligations and now the fund is self-supportive with nearly 30 billion in it. GM needs to take 15 Billion and create a huge pension fund that is self supportive and once the retirees all die off then it will be a lump sum of dough they can use at a later date. Unfortunatley the fund would probably get redistributed to all the shair-holders and/or used for golden parachutes for top executives.
Rocky
What ? A pension is half the pay of working full time.
A very small change in health care but not much else.
Just wait until March rolls around and we'll see.
This is such a win for the union guys. They get out with money in their pockets.
That depends on how many years you have.
Most other companies just tell them to go home and stay there.
That is why unions were formed to protect workers via a contract so they don't have to leave with nothing.
It's not a golden parachute like a suit would get, but it's better than nothing I suppose.
Rocky
The opportunity cost of diverting billions of dollars into the pension fund would fatally wound GM. While GM can pay their pension obligations, it can't afford to. There's a difference.
GE is and has been a lot more profitable than GM. I'm not confident that GM would have survived if it had diverted its resources into its pension fund. It simply isn't a sustainable structure.
Well you'd send every retiree back to work since anymore of a significant reduction in benefits would kill retirement for the majority of retirees. It's not like they are making alot of dough being retired. Dad, took the early out and he is getting $2700 a month plus still has bills. Step-mom went after a better job to make up the difference since she is 10 yrs younger than him. If they have to pay even more healthcare coverage or if the pension plan is scrapped and sent to the pension guarantee corp that will send dad back to work since he wouldn't have any health benefits and only half the income coming in. People like my grand-dad aren't fit to work anymore and he requires a cocktail worth of pharmaceutical drugs to keep him "balanced" in his health.
The pension fund is sustainable if mamagement makes the right choices when bringing product to the marketplace. If GM, for instances brings Azteks, Catera's, 4-6-2 engines, etc to market sure the pension plan isn't sustainable.
The UAW workers shouldn't have to pay for managements incompentence. CEO's are paid millions a yr. in salary and if they can't work it all out then they should get the guillotine. I don't understand why it's so hard to turn-around a company like GM. It's not like the 400 pound Gorilla is preventing them from doing it. The answers are obvious that even a simple mind such as mine can figure it out. :P
Rocky
Not if they would of over-funded the pension obligations 50 or 60 years ago like GE. GE, obviously had better more future thinking management than GM.
GE is and has been a lot more profitable than GM. I'm not confident that GM would have survived if it had diverted its resources into its pension fund. It simply isn't a sustainable structure.
See above post for your answer.
Rocky
-I'll add this to it. GM, has approx $25-30 billion that we know of. I honestly believe they have billions more stashed away in foreign banks. Delphi as poor as they were has $11 billion in Asian banks and $16 billion in European bank accounts. The Delphi bankruptcy was this nations largest and they used the loopholes in our laws to file bankruptcy and rid or reduce union obligations at tax-payer expenses according to the UAW lawyers that did investigations to counter the Delphi bankruptcy. Enron, isn't the only corporation that is fruadulating the workers and tax-payers in this country. :mad: Former Senator John Edwards, has attempted to get law makers to pass legistlation to close these loopholes which I personally signed on to and sent to my congressmen.
Rocky
However, others who work in the private sector, don't have it so well, especially those who work for small companies or small corporations. White collar workers with years of education beyond high school, with degree upon degree, are extremely lucky to have what UAW workers are getting now in termination allowances or pensions. Many of the folks I know working for small corporations consider themselves blessed to have a job, work 10 to 12 hours a day for a base salary with no overtime, have no company pension program (only a 401k if they're lucky), have minimal medical benefits with rather high co-pays, and hope to retire when they reach 65 or 67! Blue collar workers who work for these same small companies can be even worse off, since they have no organized labor protection.
The UAW has represented its membership well which has allowed its membership to attain life style levels it could never attain working in other businesses. The only problem with this premise is that due to their high compensation and benefits, they're bankrupting the companies for which they work.
Unfortunately for many UAW workers in this country, the time has come for a serious "reality check."