Like you, I had always heard good things about GM transmissions. When my transmission failed out of the blue, I did some research and talked to several transmission techs that were very familiar with the 4l60e. The all said basically the same thing. That sometime around the 2000 redesign, GM used more aluminum and lighter weight components, thus the problems with the "sun shell" which is common and the valve body/TCC (torque converter clutch) lockup issues even more so. The latter can be fixed by repacing the valve body if caught soon enough before it causes the rest of the trans to burn up.
The problem with the 4L60E goes back to 1996 when they started making them. My 97 Astro had the trans rebuild due to the sun shell. The shop used a one piece billet sun shell for the rebuild and guarentee it for 75,000 miles. They had 6 more of them on the bench waiting for a rebuild while I was looking at my damaged components. I complained to GM and they paid $500 of the repair. Apparently the 4L80E used in the 3/4 and 1 ton trucks is built tougher, don't hear of any problems with them. Most of the problems started in 1996 with the Vortex intake with leaking gaskets and the 4L60E trans. According to the reliability records on MSN the most reliable Suburban is the 1995. The last year before the supposably new improvements. It looks like the 50 extra hp from the Vortex intake which will leak coolent is too much for the transmission to handle.
I have no first hand knowledge of any current GM offerings so I can't tell you. From past experience (wife's car) and from riding in co-workers vehicles (late '90s Monte Carlo and various Suburbans) I'd agree that their passenger cars aren't up to the competition (at least the older models I've been in) but I thought the Suburban was very good for a large SUV.
I did exclude the Large SUV's and Trucks, because GM makes good large SUV's and Trucks. However, this is a shrinking market, or at least the Large SUV market is shrinking. So GM has put all their eggs into the wrong basket. There are only so many gangsta wonnabees out there that need the Escalade and the Bling Bling. Most of us want a reliable, reasonably priced, QUALITY vehicle. I cannot compare the GM offerings to the Hoyandas or even the Nissans. Even Hyundai is better :surprise:
Same could be said for someone with family working for one of the 'import' brands in this country. Or even one of the American suppliers (over 600 different American suppliers of parts for Toyota). Attempting to discuss these points based on how they affect YOU or your family personally is a losing proposition because they guy you're discussing the issue with could be using the exact same reasons.
Yes that is very true that someone could say the same thing about buying a import brand because a brother, sister, dad, mom, works for one of the "front companies" here in the U.S. Perhaps they should buy from the company they work for. I believe in loyalty. However that loyalty of sending U.S. dollars back to Asia will someday bring the United States to it's knees. :mad: I guess if Asian owned auto company's had to "take care" it's hard working U.S. automobile workers, I would be able to "handle" them being in our country a little more easier if they did more to contribute instead of finding every way to rip off the federal, state, local economies. We got to blame our elected officials for that happening. :mad: This just doesn't apply to the automobile sectors. The real world fact is my Tax dollars are probably going to social programs for them once they can't work anymore. Toyota, in the U.S. doesn't offer company paid health insurance for it's retirees and a "define benefit" that's gauranteed. As Wealthy as Toyota is their is no excuse they couldn't offer a "define benefit" plan for it's workers. Ex. They take $25 Billion and invest it like General Electric, the fund would thus become self supportive and a real money maker.
Now you need to go get your head checked. Trying to compare a Escalades quality to that of a Hyundai. :confuse: I think you need to take a breather, while I put on my hip boots, because it's getting deep.
I know there are plenty of hybrid critics out there, and I recall reading somewhere that GM pooh poohed hybrids. I have also read that Toyota is planning on making hybrids available in a number of different vehicles in its product line. If their gamble pays off, where does GM end up? Toyota has been in the hybrid business for something like 9 years now, I think. GM offers a hybrid version of their full-size pickup (or two if you consider the Chevy and GMC trucks to be two different models), and I think GM is collaborating with one or two other manufacturers, but those models will not be available until next year at the earliest.
Actually the hybrid engine I believe will be available this spring on the Tahoe/Yukon 5.3 Vortec V-8. They worked with BMW and Diamler Chrysler on the "state of the art" 2 stage hybrid system. If the Germans helped engineer it then you know it's gonna be real good.
Lots of US companies don't offer a "defined benefit" retirement program or medical coverage in retirement. I don't see why any company should be forced to provide one. In a perfect world "defined benefit" programs are great, but in the real world they are expensive to administer and fund.
Ironically, my Grandfather and my FIL have lost a good portion of their pensions due to LTV going bankrupt and their pensions were not adequately funded.
My grandpa actually saved enough money during his working years that even before his pension went to the PBGC, his retirement savings was bringing in more money than his pension check to this day and he's been retired since 1980. Good thing he didn't believe his union benefits alone would take care of him in retirement or he'd be broke.
At least with a "defined contribution" retirement your contribution is your money and once vested the companies contributions is yours to take with you were ever you go.
I know that you like GM cars Rocky, but I posted the same thing as 2zmax last week about what a POS the Pontiac GP is. Now I have the same car again, because National Car rent only has GM cars.
Even simple things in this Pontiac are done wrong.
Take for example the over head reading lamp. I was driving down the road and needed to take a look at the map. I wanted to turn on the overhead reading light. Now in every single car in the world the switch is on the lamp. On some cars you push the lamp, on some cars there is a switch next to the lamp. Not on a GM car. :mad: I missed my exit looking for the stupid switch for the reading lamp. You know were the switch is? Its next to cruise control on the turn stalk. Now what idiot would put a switch for the reading lamp on the turn signal stalk next to cruise control? Its impossible to find the thing in the dark. Its just an example of blatant disregard of basic user interface design elements in a GM car. They make cars that only people who own GM cars would ever buy. And even people like you Rocky, GM owners, are a dying breed. Take a look at the cruise control on a GM car. Its straight out of the 60's mounted on that turn stalk. Again hard to find, hard to use. It has no Coast function. Why is it that every other company on the face of the earth makes cruise control easy to use, but GM sticks to something from the 60's. If you are not a previous GM owner, you cannot figure out how to use the cruise control.
A company cannot survive without attracting new customers, but GM does everything in its power to turn new customers away by making POS cars.
Oh well, maybe next time I will rent from Hertz.....
At least with a "defined contribution" retirement your contribution is your money and once vested the companies contributions is yours to take with you were ever you go.
Tell the Enron folks that pal !!!!! :mad:
Lots of US companies don't offer a "defined benefit" retirement program or medical coverage in retirement. I don't see why any company should be forced to provide one. In a perfect world "defined benefit" programs are great, but in the real world they are expensive to administer and fund.
dieselone, your much too smart to believe the theory of were all going to be 401K millionaires. Especially my generation (X) Perhaps yours could :confuse: We are just worried about S.S. being their for us along with medicare and medicaid. If not we might as well start getting dibbs on cardboard boxes. :sick:
Well I feel the same when I drive a Japanese car. I feel all out of Whack. I'm like where in the heck is the pwr mirrow switch :confuse: Anyways the Grand Prix you probably drove was a stripped rental. Get a GTP or GXP they are much better. However I do agree the GP is far from engineering excellence, but it's not as bad in higher trim levels and can be fun to drive in GXP trim.
Well I feel the same when I drive a Japanese car. I feel all out of Whack. I'm like where in the heck is the pwr mirrow switch
Here is an interesting little factoid from driving every Japanese, Korean, domestic and European vehicle over the last 6 yrs.
Every single Japanese and Korean vehicle have the switches in exactly the same place and they all work the same way. a few minor differences but essentially this is a true statement.
I've owned ( see profile ) GM's, Chryslers and Fords. NONE of the switches are in the same place nor do they work in the same way in the 3 Us models. They still aren't.
Times have changed. The US isn't what it once was. Toyota has gotten into the bigtime without having those huge overheads. "It's pure capitalism" as Charles Darwin once said...
You push in on the set speed button or tap the brake pedal????
>Its (sic) straight out of the 60's mounted on that turn stalk.
Should something be changed that's ergonomically well-designed and works nicely for most people? I think not. If you're used to a different brand or product then you are going to feel their layout is the correct way and others feel alien. I feel that each time I sit in a Camry or Accord. Things are not in the logical place.
My newer GM product has the cruise controls in the steering wheel. That has been part of certain option packages for a while.
But the big 2.5 have been building such crappy cars for decades that we owe it to the companies who have been building what the people want. So the tax dollars should go to support them!
Obviously he knew what was going to eventually happen. Currently we are right on course with no icebergs in our path.
Marx predicted that predatory capitalism would collapse under its own weight by provoking a revolt of the working class that would topple the system and transition to a society with state-controlled production and everyone's basic needs being met.
It didn't happen, and probably won't. Labor unions formed to create more balance in the system, and mass production led to the creation of a western consumerist prosperity-based society, the likes of which the world has never seen before. One of the more notable failures of economic theorizing that I can think of -- practically nothing he predicted actually happened.
I agree, I don't want the unions to disappear, just so long as they can be productive. And I actually agree with you that the UAW is being scapegoated by GM management -- as usual, management's tactic is to blame everyone and everything other than those people actually managing the company for the company's problems. Likewise, they cut a deal to pay benefits, and I agree they should stand by it (or at least by the spirit of it -- perhaps a cheaper alternative that accomplishes most of the same stuff is possible).
But at the end of the day, none of it will matter if/when GM BK's and the courts help force a cramdown on the labor contract. Understand that BK puts creditors before both shareholders and employees, which is why bankruptcy is an attractive option over the long run for the company.
And let's face it, the union also has misaligned priorities. Something that labor and management have in common is that they both enjoy pointing fingers at everyone and each other, forgetting that when you point a finger, three are pointing back at yourself. If neither side cares about making products people want and invests most of their efforts on blame rather than customer satisfaction, then the company is screwed. You can blame Toyota all you want, but if you can't build a car that's as good or better, don't be surprised when you pay the price.
"So what's going to happen if they dissappear ????"
Um, perhaps the end of migration of jobs away from union states to right-to-work states? Perhaps a reduction in the number of firms declaring bankruptcy to get out from under suffocating union contracts? Perhaps a general rise in economic prosperity? I can think of a number of wonderful things which would happen with reductions to (if not the elimination of) most unions.
You must realize that unions should have very specific purposes, not just the continued extortion of management. But once the purpose of the union is served, is the continued existence of the union necessary?
An analogy: if you break your leg, you put on a cast and use a crutch. That crutch has a purpose (allow you to walk while the leg heals) but once the leg is healed, you don't continue to use the crutch. It isn't needed and it hampers your mobility. So you put the crutch away. If (at some future date) you rebreak your leg, get out the crutch. But there's no reason to use that damn thing everyday for the rest of your life.
Enron employees were ripped off because nearly 100% of their retirement funds were in company stock. Anybody that knows anything, should know you don't put all your eggs in one basket.
I'm not that much older than you (35). I'm not counting on social security and neither my wife or myself is covered by a pension. Regardless, while nothing is guaranteed I'm not worried. We save a minimum of 15% of our income every year for retirement across profit sharing, IRA, and deferred compensation plans. These funds are in a variety of investments. They are as safe as they possibly can be.
We fund college savings accounts for our 2 young kids (3 & 7) and quite frankly if they were college right now, we could afford to pay for it. We'd just have to skip a few vacations. And we live on a single income.
Rock, "defined benefit" plans really aren't that much different than "defined contribution" plans in that they are still based on investments to achieve a desired goal. If the stock market were to crash, many a pension fund could end up underfunded as well. The PBGC is already stressed with all of the failed pension's they've had to take over.
My wife and I are comfortable with our prospects for retirement. I actively monitor our accounts and I can honestly say, even during the tech bust, our 401k/profit sharing plans still gained value overall.
My point is nothing is guaranteed. Wether you have a pension or not, you need to plan and prepare for retirement.
And just because a company doesn't offer "defined benefit" retirement plans doesn't mean they don't take care of their employees.
You must realize that unions should have very specific purposes, not just the continued extortion of management. But once the purpose of the union is served, is the continued existence of the union necessary?
I would agree with that, but I don't think that GM is a stellar example of a company with a management that could be trusted to treat its employees properly without a union. Let's remember that the UAW was formed because of management's level of hostility toward its workers, and not much has changed ever since.
The Japanese makers are willing to build plants in the US because the team assembly TQM manufacturing process can't work without an educated, motivated workforce. They understand that product quality is a key to their success and to their manufacturing efficiency, so they don't mind paying higher wages in order to produce a better product.
Compare that to GM and Ford, which look at it by the numbers. They want to gain profits (or reduce expenses) by pushing margin, which means cost cutting whereever possible. Their entire management philosophy is prone to outsourcing and wage and benefit cuts, irrespective of what it does to the cars.
That's why I have more faith in the "imports" than in the Big 2.5 -- the entire attitude toward the purpose of the workforce is different. GM would fire everyone in the US at the drop of a hat if it could make more margin as a result, while Toyota wouldn't do it because of the disruptive effect that would have on product quality.
That explains why Toyota has no problems whatsoever with building a US plant, and why GM would eagerly build everything in China if it could get away with it. Even though China is not (yet) a builder of quality products, it is an unmatched producer of low-cost products, and that's going to appeal to any company that isn't highly concerned with consistent quality, as is GM.
I agree, I don't want the unions to disappear, just so long as they can be productive. And I actually agree with you that the UAW is being scapegoated by GM management -- as usual, management's tactic is to blame everyone and everything other than those people actually managing the company for the company's problems. Likewise, they cut a deal to pay benefits, and I agree they should stand by it (or at least by the spirit of it -- perhaps a cheaper alternative that accomplishes most of the same stuff is possible).
You agree :surprise: not to be sarcastic. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack. :P
Yeah but the UAW can overide the judge with a strike and good luck GM finding Tens of thousand of replacements that can walk in and do the job within a year or two.
However I do think the UAW will give up future raises to keep what they got. Hell they probably will give up a little. However as a UAW employee, they are going to want results in return. Not lip service, actual results. Good Quality Cars. Do you think people like my father want to build junk when they know it will hurt the reputation of the company. NO !!!!! It most of the time gets reflected or blamed on them when it's not their fault. GM, regardless in 2006 and 2007 makes much better cars than in 2003 or 2004. Yes it's a slow moving process and eventaully *pray* they can exceed toyota and honda quality and engineering. However that's gonna be up to uncle Rick to decide.
My Top 5
#1 Better product with Qulity and Reliability #2 Modern Facilties to keep costs low #3 Happy workers with incentives #4 Better Car salesmen-people with good interaction skills. Not some slum bag that couldn't work at Walley World selling me my next ride. #5 Service Dept. personel that are more qualified than a burger flipper.
Well that's find and dandy bud, if you got the extra income to invest. Many don't make enough per-hour, or in salary to afford extra investments. I for one have a 401K with a company match of 10%. Yeah it's far from being excellent, but it's better than nothing. :sick:
BTW- We all better watch those U.S. Treasury bonds closer
I wasn't trying to imply that ALL of GM's problems are based on the Union. However, I think that the current union vs. management culture is simply the natural result of decade after decade after decade of an adversarial relationship.
MUST unions be adversarial to management? MUST management be adversarial to unions? Personally, I don't know. I've always lived in a right-to-work state, I've never been IN a union, and have never had any sort of an adversarial relationship with my employer. I recognize that the relationship is a two-way street: the company gives me value (in the form of salary/benefits) and in exchange I give the company value (in the form of production/labor/service). The trade in value must balance or SOMEBODY is getting screwed.
You bring up the differences in the way management at Toyota operates vs. the way management at GM operates. My question would be, is it even POSSIBLE for GM to revise the way they operate (closer to the Toyota model) in a Union environment?
My question would be, is it even POSSIBLE for GM to revise the way they operate (closer to the Toyota model) in a Union environment?
If having a union was the problem, then Toyota et. al. would be failing miserably. But they're not, the company manages to work with its union and create a work environment conducive to building quality and meeting the needs of the consumer.
So I don't see the union's presence conceptually being the problem. But perhaps the culture at GM is so highly dysfunctional with the UAW and its management that both prevent a successful solution from being implemented.
Just as long as the emphasis is on expense control, rather than quality, workers will always be seen as an unfortunate expense on the books who need to be pushed, cut, crammed down and outsourced as much as possible, rather than as partners in the business who can help to make or break it. And just as long as the union is looking to "get what it can", rather than worrying about creating great products, they will also be part of the problem.
For GM, it may be too late unless the company is reinvented. But given some of the products that it willingly builds and its questionable practices, I have my doubts that they are prepared to do any such thing. And the problems may be so deeply entrenched that it is virtually impossible for anyone to solve without drastic, deep housekeeping.
"If having a union was the problem, then Toyota et. al. would be failing miserably."
Good point. I guess what I was insinuating was that in order for GM Management to operate in a manner closer to the Toyota model, that both management AND union must change the way they do business.
My gut feeling is this will never happen. Management/Union will continue in their deathmatch while the bus goes over the cliff.
Take a look at the cruise control on a GM car. Its straight out of the 60's mounted on that turn stalk. Again hard to find, hard to use. It has no Coast function. Why is it that every other company on the face of the earth makes cruise control easy to use, but GM sticks to something from the 60's. If you are not a previous GM owner, you cannot figure out how to use the cruise control.
I definitely prefer the CC stalk in my Chevy Prizm to the steering-wheel-mounted controls in the (otherwise ergonomically superior) Accord. With a stalk, you push the button on it, reach the desired speed, and tap the stalk down. I still have to occasionally look at the (non-illuminated in 2003) Accord CC "buttons" to figure out what they do, and they are so low operating them in winter gloves is problematic.
Yeah but the UAW can overide the judge with a strike and good luck GM finding Tens of thousand of replacements that can walk in and do the job within a year or two.
All this will do is hasten R Wagoner's move to China. UAW on strike for 2 yrs might be the perfect excuse for him to just close all the auto plants and import every Chinese/Korean vehicle he can... the UAW made me do it.
Now if the UAW goes to GM and says OK we both made lots of money over the last 20 yrs so lets look at things realistically, we propose, 1) Jobs Bank is dead; Anyone currently in the Bank will get a $10000 buy out, full health ins for 12 mo's., 50% unemployment for 12 mo's and full funding for any retraining schooling begun within 12 mo's. 2) Retires depending on age will contribute up to 50% of health insurance; a sliding scale with the oldest ones getting full funding and the newest ones 50%. 3) Current UAW employees wishing to be retired will get a lumpsum buyout of 6 mo's wages and full health ins for 12 mos; then see #2 above. 4) Wages will be reduced 20%!!!! But there will be a profit sharing bonus payable in Jan of every year of up to 40% of base wages but only on profit from ongoing automotive operations; not GMAC and other subsidiaries. 5) Management across the board takes a 30% cut in salaries! Management bonuses are also payable up to 100% of base salary based on ongoing automotive operations - but only after the employee profit sharing bonuses are paid. ( it might be beneficial to try to get into management ).
There is no way GM can control it's dealerships, they are separate businesses, unless they cut the numbers and keep only the ones with CSI scores above the national averages
..The U.S. is the most lucrative market in the world by far - but it has become a dumping ground for every emerging automobile industry in the world. While we basically throw our ports open to various countries and their auto companies and say, "Come on in!" - those same countries add tariffs upon duties to U.S. vehicles in a carefully calculated and orchestrated attempt at destroying any hope of a U.S.-branded product from establishing a foothold in their home markets. The U.S. market amounts to the biggest poker game in the world, except that instead of being one of the key players, our own U.S. manufacturing industries are rapidly being relegated to the sidelines. Every country that can muster a product gets to play "all in" in our game - while this country's leaders stumble around talking about such quaint notions as "free" and "fair" trade, "playing by the rules" and the concept of integrity. And because of our bumpkin-like, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" demeanor when it comes to dealing with these fundamental trade issues, our government's naively-skewed view of what the world should be has allowed our home market to be turned into some sort of maniacal "Wheel of Fortune" for every country but our own. While Washington is fiddling around with archaically naive trade policies and suggestions as to what the "right" way is for these countries to approach our market, they're gorging at our dinner table with impunity - as our own industries are sentenced to sit at the kids' table in the backyard. As we like to say around here, not good. It's time for tough actions and tough measures from Washington. This country is getting its clock cleaned by the unchecked economic engines of Japan, Inc., China, Inc. and Korea, Inc. And our government's relentless inaction is opening the way for the step-by-step dismantling of a manufacturing sector that was once the envy of the world. It's time for this one-way street to end. (snip)
Washington must get real about the concept of USA, Inc. and start looking out for our own industries. Some people actually think it would be no big deal if this country were to lose most of its manufacturing base, and I feel sorry for them, because they really don't know what they're wishing upon this country when they say that. Once upon a time, there were textbook ideals of a happy economic world that would revel in free and open markets and "fair" trade. That's a nice, idyllic fantasyland to conjure up, but it has nothing to do with what's going on in the world today. We live in a world where countries will take as much of the economic action as they can possibly get their hands on. And for Washington to continue to embrace the notion of "acquiescing" indefinitely to make the world a happier place for everybody is simply nonsensical and detrimental to this country's welfare at this point. A few months ago, I said that the looming crisis that the domestic auto industry is facing due to the unfair trade practices and the manipulation of currencies by its foreign competitors' host countries, combined with this country's growing inability to deal with the health care and pension issues was the "canary in the coal mine" for the rest of industrial America. This isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue - it's an American issue - and I grow more convinced by the day that Washington's failure to take definitive action to counteract this accelerating crisis will have catastrophic implications for this country's economic well-being for years to come.
Did you read any of the foregoing posts on currency? You might be of the opinion that there is some currency shenanigans going on but actually here is the real situation.
The US$ has depreciated 15% vs the European currency since 1995 and the US automakers have done nothing to take advantage of it. They could export anything to Europe .. undercut the market there by $3000 to $5000 per vehicle and essentially be selling it for full sticker. Did they? Why not?
The US$ and Japanese Yen have not changed since 2001.. The US$ has depreciated by nearly 70% vs the Yen since the 1970's.
The US auto industry is almost 40% bigger than it was in 1985.. it's booming and we all benefit from it.
Bring some facts to the table and we can discuss them, otherwise yours is a very valid opinion of a likely well-intentioned but uninformed citizen who feels threatened by the changes going on around him. Others of us who recognize that the facts don't bear out your opinion are not threatened.
Besides, what if this was all negotiated between GM/F/T/DC/H/H and they are perfectly aware of all of it and are in agreement. Hey it's only business.
If I recall correctly, Toyota's Japanese union is not cut from the same cloth as the UAW. It resembles a company union, which has been specifically banned in the United States. (I assume that you are talking about Toyota's Japanese union, and not the UAW workers in Toyota's NUMMI plant in California.)
I agree that eliminating the UAW from GM's factories will not solve GM's problems. But the brutal truth is that the UAW - both leadership and a fair amount of its rank-and-file membership - really doesn't want to change either the work atmosphere or the worker-management relationship at GM. The UAW wants to maintain the status quo, no matter how dysfunctional it is.
What are the UAW's solutions to GM's current predicament? The solutions I hear touted by the UAW either involve more protectionist measures, or government takeover of the healthcare system. Either way, the messsage is that some other entity - either customers or taxpayers - will make the necessary sacrifices (or cough up the necessary cash) to enable UAW members to enjoy unchanged pay and benefits (and even continue the Jobs Bank). That is why I believe that there is a fair amount of hostility to the UAW.
I don't begrudge the pay and benefits enjoyed by UAW members. When the goose was laying the golden eggs, the union made sure that members got their share. But now the goose is out of golden eggs, and it's time for retrenchment. And the retrenchment must occur among the UAW members and company leadership, not among people who have decided to shop elsewhere for their new vehicles. I don't think that this message has sunk in yet at the UAW.
We all agree that GM needs to make desirable well made automobiles. Who has control of that ???? As far as the goose laying golden eggs goes yes the UAW took a few from the hen house. However grbeck is it fair for company top executives to continue making tens of millions in salary, while asking the low men on the totem pole(UAW) members to change their lifestyles drastically ?????? Taking millions from the top, still keeps those top officials who are in charge and made the calls on product in the millionaire club from past and current wages.
Take my father for instance. He has a one bedroom house/cottage he lives in year around on a inland lake. He still owes a substantial amount of money on his mortgage and is doing a 15 yr. note to pay it off. Dad and step mom who also works don't do anything extravacant because they are trying to pay of the note. I get to see them once, maybe twice a yr. because money is tighter with the rising costs of the cost of living. Dad has always been a big time saver, but blew most of his savings on this lake property to keep it in the family for another generation since my grandparents couldn't afford it during retirement years and didn't want to be house broke.
What I'm trying to say is why should the UAW Delphi workers have to work for a little over poverty, while Delphi executives get million dollar corporate bonuses while in Chapter 11 ????? :confuse: I'm not saying the UAW on both GM and Delphi shouldn't be flexible on the upcoming contracts to contribute to the restructuring needed. But asking for a 63% wage reduction to $12 dollars an hour and paying $300-650 (propasals) a month for health insurance will not allow my father to retire. Hell my grandfather, at age 70 would have to go back into the workforce, and he's seriously unable to because of his medical conditions. The bottom line is the UAW workers will have to find buyers for their homes, probably sell a car or two, or go from a Yukon, to a used Impala. I guess it's so easy to ask the low man to take the blunt of the costs, while not factoring the "impact" it will have on Joe-Six Pack vs. asking more from the millionaires that have everything paid for.
I hope this helps ya'll understand the "real" effects and understand the consquences of such extreme cuts!b>
...no cable TV ...no restaurants ...no new cars ...absolutely no credit cards ...no girlfriends ...no nightclubs ...no bars ...few new clothes ...shopping at Save-A-Lot ...might have to sacrifice life insurance policy ...might risk driving without car insurance ...see the barber once every few months instead of weeks ...doctor? Feh! ...veterinarian? Ha! ...saving? Shoot, ALL my income would go towards meeting just my basic needs. If I can pay my mortgage and keep the heat and lights on, I'd be doing pretty well. Heck, pretty soon I'd have to sell the house and move back to the 'hood.
Comments
Like you, I had always heard good things about GM transmissions. When my transmission failed out of the blue, I did some research and talked to several transmission techs that were very familiar with the 4l60e. The all said basically the same thing. That sometime around the 2000 redesign, GM used more aluminum and lighter weight components, thus the problems with the "sun shell" which is common and the valve body/TCC (torque converter clutch) lockup issues even more so. The latter can be fixed by repacing the valve body if caught soon enough before it causes the rest of the trans to burn up.
I have no first hand knowledge of any current GM offerings so I can't tell you. From past experience (wife's car) and from riding in co-workers vehicles (late '90s Monte Carlo and various Suburbans) I'd agree that their passenger cars aren't up to the competition (at least the older models I've been in) but I thought the Suburban was very good for a large SUV.
However, this is a shrinking market, or at least the Large SUV market is shrinking. So GM has put all their eggs into the wrong basket.
There are only so many gangsta wonnabees out there that need the Escalade and the Bling Bling.
Most of us want a reliable, reasonably priced, QUALITY vehicle. I cannot compare the GM offerings to the Hoyandas or even the Nissans. Even Hyundai is better :surprise:
Yes that is very true that someone could say the same thing about buying a import brand because a brother, sister, dad, mom, works for one of the "front companies" here in the U.S.
Perhaps they should buy from the company they work for. I believe in loyalty. However that loyalty of sending U.S. dollars back to Asia will someday bring the United States to it's knees. :mad:
I guess if Asian owned auto company's had to "take care" it's hard working U.S. automobile workers, I would be able to "handle" them being in our country a little more easier if they did more to contribute instead of finding every way to rip off the federal, state, local economies. We got to blame our elected officials for that happening. :mad: This just doesn't apply to the automobile sectors.
The real world fact is my Tax dollars are probably going to social programs for them once they can't work anymore. Toyota, in the U.S. doesn't offer company paid health insurance for it's retirees and a "define benefit" that's gauranteed. As Wealthy as Toyota is their is no excuse they couldn't offer a "define benefit" plan for it's workers. Ex. They take $25 Billion and invest it like General Electric, the fund would thus become self supportive and a real money maker.
Rocky
Rocky
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/20/news/companies/pluggedin_2_fortune/index.htm
I know there are plenty of hybrid critics out there, and I recall reading somewhere that GM pooh poohed hybrids. I have also read that Toyota is planning on making hybrids available in a number of different vehicles in its product line. If their gamble pays off, where does GM end up? Toyota has been in the hybrid business for something like 9 years now, I think. GM offers a hybrid version of their full-size pickup (or two if you consider the Chevy and GMC trucks to be two different models), and I think GM is collaborating with one or two other manufacturers, but those models will not be available until next year at the earliest.
Rocky
Ironically, my Grandfather and my FIL have lost a good portion of their pensions due to LTV going bankrupt and their pensions were not adequately funded.
My grandpa actually saved enough money during his working years that even before his pension went to the PBGC, his retirement savings was bringing in more money than his pension check to this day and he's been retired since 1980. Good thing he didn't believe his union benefits alone would take care of him in retirement or he'd be broke.
At least with a "defined contribution" retirement your contribution is your money and once vested the companies contributions is yours to take with you were ever you go.
Even simple things in this Pontiac are done wrong.
Take for example the over head reading lamp. I was driving down the road and needed to take a look at the map. I wanted to turn on the overhead reading light. Now in every single car in the world the switch is on the lamp. On some cars you push the lamp, on some cars there is a switch next to the lamp. Not on a GM car. :mad: I missed my exit looking for the stupid switch for the reading lamp. You know were the switch is? Its next to cruise control on the turn stalk. Now what idiot would put a switch for the reading lamp on the turn signal stalk next to cruise control? Its impossible to find the thing in the dark. Its just an example of blatant disregard of basic user interface design elements in a GM car. They make cars that only people who own GM cars would ever buy. And even people like you Rocky, GM owners, are a dying breed. Take a look at the cruise control on a GM car. Its straight out of the 60's mounted on that turn stalk. Again hard to find, hard to use. It has no Coast function. Why is it that every other company on the face of the earth makes cruise control easy to use, but GM sticks to something from the 60's. If you are not a previous GM owner, you cannot figure out how to use the cruise control.
A company cannot survive without attracting new customers, but GM does everything in its power to turn new customers away by making POS cars.
Oh well, maybe next time I will rent from Hertz.....
Tell the Enron folks that pal !!!!! :mad:
Lots of US companies don't offer a "defined benefit" retirement program or medical coverage in retirement. I don't see why any company should be forced to provide one. In a perfect world "defined benefit" programs are great, but in the real world they are expensive to administer and fund.
dieselone, your much too smart to believe the theory of were all going to be 401K millionaires. Especially my generation (X)
Rocky
Rocky
Here is an interesting little factoid from driving every Japanese, Korean, domestic and European vehicle over the last 6 yrs.
Every single Japanese and Korean vehicle have the switches in exactly the same place and they all work the same way. a few minor differences but essentially this is a true statement.
I've owned ( see profile ) GM's, Chryslers and Fords. NONE of the switches are in the same place nor do they work in the same way in the 3 Us models. They still aren't.
I know a few of you were around when this place was still rolling out automobiles. :P
Rocky
You push in on the set speed button or tap the brake pedal????
>Its (sic) straight out of the 60's mounted on that turn stalk.
Should something be changed that's ergonomically well-designed and works nicely for most people? I think not. If you're used to a different brand or product then you are going to feel their layout is the correct way and others feel alien. I feel that each time I sit in a Camry or Accord. Things are not in the logical place.
My newer GM product has the cruise controls in the steering wheel. That has been part of certain option packages for a while.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
Rocky
But the big 2.5 have been building such crappy cars for decades that we owe it to the companies who have been building what the people want. So the tax dollars should go to support them!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
Ah, good to see you quoting someone who really KNEW good economic theory......
Obviously he knew what was going to eventually happen. Currently we are right on course with no icebergs in our path.
Rocky
Marx predicted that predatory capitalism would collapse under its own weight by provoking a revolt of the working class that would topple the system and transition to a society with state-controlled production and everyone's basic needs being met.
It didn't happen, and probably won't. Labor unions formed to create more balance in the system, and mass production led to the creation of a western consumerist prosperity-based society, the likes of which the world has never seen before. One of the more notable failures of economic theorizing that I can think of -- practically nothing he predicted actually happened.
BTW-http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/AUTO01/602220348/- 1148
Chysler firm is cutting 200 jobs. Hopefully they don't have to cut anymore. We've seen enough bleeding for awhile.
Rocky
But at the end of the day, none of it will matter if/when GM BK's and the courts help force a cramdown on the labor contract. Understand that BK puts creditors before both shareholders and employees, which is why bankruptcy is an attractive option over the long run for the company.
And let's face it, the union also has misaligned priorities. Something that labor and management have in common is that they both enjoy pointing fingers at everyone and each other, forgetting that when you point a finger, three are pointing back at yourself. If neither side cares about making products people want and invests most of their efforts on blame rather than customer satisfaction, then the company is screwed. You can blame Toyota all you want, but if you can't build a car that's as good or better, don't be surprised when you pay the price.
Um, perhaps the end of migration of jobs away from union states to right-to-work states? Perhaps a reduction in the number of firms declaring bankruptcy to get out from under suffocating union contracts? Perhaps a general rise in economic prosperity? I can think of a number of wonderful things which would happen with reductions to (if not the elimination of) most unions.
You must realize that unions should have very specific purposes, not just the continued extortion of management. But once the purpose of the union is served, is the continued existence of the union necessary?
An analogy: if you break your leg, you put on a cast and use a crutch. That crutch has a purpose (allow you to walk while the leg heals) but once the leg is healed, you don't continue to use the crutch. It isn't needed and it hampers your mobility. So you put the crutch away. If (at some future date) you rebreak your leg, get out the crutch. But there's no reason to use that damn thing everyday for the rest of your life.
The strong kill the weak and life goes on.
Enron employees were ripped off because nearly 100% of their retirement funds were in company stock. Anybody that knows anything, should know you don't put all your eggs in one basket.
I'm not that much older than you (35). I'm not counting on social security and neither my wife or myself is covered by a pension. Regardless, while nothing is guaranteed I'm not worried. We save a minimum of 15% of our income every year for retirement across profit sharing, IRA, and deferred compensation plans. These funds are in a variety of investments. They are as safe as they possibly can be.
We fund college savings accounts for our 2 young kids (3 & 7) and quite frankly if they were college right now, we could afford to pay for it. We'd just have to skip a few vacations. And we live on a single income.
Rock, "defined benefit" plans really aren't that much different than "defined contribution" plans in that they are still based on investments to achieve a desired goal. If the stock market were to crash, many a pension fund could end up underfunded as well. The PBGC is already stressed with all of the failed pension's they've had to take over.
My wife and I are comfortable with our prospects for retirement. I actively monitor our accounts and I can honestly say, even during the tech bust, our 401k/profit sharing plans still gained value overall.
My point is nothing is guaranteed. Wether you have a pension or not, you need to plan and prepare for retirement.
And just because a company doesn't offer "defined benefit" retirement plans doesn't mean they don't take care of their employees.
I would agree with that, but I don't think that GM is a stellar example of a company with a management that could be trusted to treat its employees properly without a union. Let's remember that the UAW was formed because of management's level of hostility toward its workers, and not much has changed ever since.
The Japanese makers are willing to build plants in the US because the team assembly TQM manufacturing process can't work without an educated, motivated workforce. They understand that product quality is a key to their success and to their manufacturing efficiency, so they don't mind paying higher wages in order to produce a better product.
Compare that to GM and Ford, which look at it by the numbers. They want to gain profits (or reduce expenses) by pushing margin, which means cost cutting whereever possible. Their entire management philosophy is prone to outsourcing and wage and benefit cuts, irrespective of what it does to the cars.
That's why I have more faith in the "imports" than in the Big 2.5 -- the entire attitude toward the purpose of the workforce is different. GM would fire everyone in the US at the drop of a hat if it could make more margin as a result, while Toyota wouldn't do it because of the disruptive effect that would have on product quality.
That explains why Toyota has no problems whatsoever with building a US plant, and why GM would eagerly build everything in China if it could get away with it. Even though China is not (yet) a builder of quality products, it is an unmatched producer of low-cost products, and that's going to appeal to any company that isn't highly concerned with consistent quality, as is GM.
You agree :surprise: not to be sarcastic. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack. :P
Yeah but the UAW can overide the judge with a strike and good luck GM finding Tens of thousand of replacements that can walk in and do the job within a year or two.
However I do think the UAW will give up future raises to keep what they got. Hell they probably will give up a little. However as a UAW employee, they are going to want results in return. Not lip service, actual results. Good Quality Cars. Do you think people like my father want to build junk when they know it will hurt the reputation of the company. NO !!!!! It most of the time gets reflected or blamed on them when it's not their fault. GM, regardless in 2006 and 2007 makes much better cars than in 2003 or 2004. Yes it's a slow moving process and eventaully *pray* they can exceed toyota and honda quality and engineering. However that's gonna be up to uncle Rick to decide.
My Top 5
#1 Better product with Qulity and Reliability
#2 Modern Facilties to keep costs low
#3 Happy workers with incentives
#4 Better Car salesmen-people with good interaction skills.
Not some slum bag that couldn't work at Walley World selling me my next ride.
#5 Service Dept. personel that are more qualified than a burger flipper.
Rocky
BTW- We all better watch those U.S. Treasury bonds closer
Rocky
MUST unions be adversarial to management? MUST management be adversarial to unions? Personally, I don't know. I've always lived in a right-to-work state, I've never been IN a union, and have never had any sort of an adversarial relationship with my employer. I recognize that the relationship is a two-way street: the company gives me value (in the form of salary/benefits) and in exchange I give the company value (in the form of production/labor/service). The trade in value must balance or SOMEBODY is getting screwed.
You bring up the differences in the way management at Toyota operates vs. the way management at GM operates. My question would be, is it even POSSIBLE for GM to revise the way they operate (closer to the Toyota model) in a Union environment?
If having a union was the problem, then Toyota et. al. would be failing miserably. But they're not, the company manages to work with its union and create a work environment conducive to building quality and meeting the needs of the consumer.
So I don't see the union's presence conceptually being the problem. But perhaps the culture at GM is so highly dysfunctional with the UAW and its management that both prevent a successful solution from being implemented.
Just as long as the emphasis is on expense control, rather than quality, workers will always be seen as an unfortunate expense on the books who need to be pushed, cut, crammed down and outsourced as much as possible, rather than as partners in the business who can help to make or break it. And just as long as the union is looking to "get what it can", rather than worrying about creating great products, they will also be part of the problem.
For GM, it may be too late unless the company is reinvented. But given some of the products that it willingly builds and its questionable practices, I have my doubts that they are prepared to do any such thing. And the problems may be so deeply entrenched that it is virtually impossible for anyone to solve without drastic, deep housekeeping.
Rocky
Good point. I guess what I was insinuating was that in order for GM Management to operate in a manner closer to the Toyota model, that both management AND union must change the way they do business.
My gut feeling is this will never happen. Management/Union will continue in their deathmatch while the bus goes over the cliff.
I definitely prefer the CC stalk in my Chevy Prizm to the steering-wheel-mounted controls in the (otherwise ergonomically superior) Accord. With a stalk, you push the button on it, reach the desired speed, and tap the stalk down. I still have to occasionally look at the (non-illuminated in 2003) Accord CC "buttons" to figure out what they do, and they are so low operating them in winter gloves is problematic.
All this will do is hasten R Wagoner's move to China. UAW on strike for 2 yrs might be the perfect excuse for him to just close all the auto plants and import every Chinese/Korean vehicle he can... the UAW made me do it.
Now if the UAW goes to GM and says OK we both made lots of money over the last 20 yrs so lets look at things realistically, we propose,
1) Jobs Bank is dead; Anyone currently in the Bank will get a $10000 buy out, full health ins for 12 mo's., 50% unemployment for 12 mo's and full funding for any retraining schooling begun within 12 mo's.
2) Retires depending on age will contribute up to 50% of health insurance; a sliding scale with the oldest ones getting full funding and the newest ones 50%.
3) Current UAW employees wishing to be retired will get a lumpsum buyout of 6 mo's wages and full health ins for 12 mos; then see #2 above.
4) Wages will be reduced 20%!!!! But there will be a profit sharing bonus payable in Jan of every year of up to 40% of base wages but only on profit from ongoing automotive operations; not GMAC and other subsidiaries.
5) Management across the board takes a 30% cut in salaries! Management bonuses are also payable up to 100% of base salary based on ongoing automotive operations - but only after the employee profit sharing bonuses are paid. ( it might be beneficial to try to get into management ).
There is no way GM can control it's dealerships, they are separate businesses, unless they cut the numbers and keep only the ones with CSI scores above the national averages
I have to agree these sound like heads in the air items for the union to accept on behalf of its membership.
What to do with Delphi. A strike there affects many car company's production.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
..The U.S. is the most lucrative market in the world by far - but it has become a dumping ground for every emerging automobile industry in the world. While we basically throw our ports open to various countries and their auto companies and say, "Come on in!" - those same countries add tariffs upon duties to U.S. vehicles in a carefully calculated and orchestrated attempt at destroying any hope of a U.S.-branded product from establishing a foothold in their home markets.
The U.S. market amounts to the biggest poker game in the world, except that instead of being one of the key players, our own U.S. manufacturing industries are rapidly being relegated to the sidelines. Every country that can muster a product gets to play "all in" in our game - while this country's leaders stumble around talking about such quaint notions as "free" and "fair" trade, "playing by the rules" and the concept of integrity. And because of our bumpkin-like, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" demeanor when it comes to dealing with these fundamental trade issues, our government's naively-skewed view of what the world should be has allowed our home market to be turned into some sort of maniacal "Wheel of Fortune" for every country but our own.
While Washington is fiddling around with archaically naive trade policies and suggestions as to what the "right" way is for these countries to approach our market, they're gorging at our dinner table with impunity - as our own industries are sentenced to sit at the kids' table in the backyard. As we like to say around here, not good.
It's time for tough actions and tough measures from Washington. This country is getting its clock cleaned by the unchecked economic engines of Japan, Inc., China, Inc. and Korea, Inc. And our government's relentless inaction is opening the way for the step-by-step dismantling of a manufacturing sector that was once the envy of the world.
It's time for this one-way street to end. (snip)
Washington must get real about the concept of USA, Inc. and start looking out for our own industries. Some people actually think it would be no big deal if this country were to lose most of its manufacturing base, and I feel sorry for them, because they really don't know what they're wishing upon this country when they say that. Once upon a time, there were textbook ideals of a happy economic world that would revel in free and open markets and "fair" trade. That's a nice, idyllic fantasyland to conjure up, but it has nothing to do with what's going on in the world today.
We live in a world where countries will take as much of the economic action as they can possibly get their hands on. And for Washington to continue to embrace the notion of "acquiescing" indefinitely to make the world a happier place for everybody is simply nonsensical and detrimental to this country's welfare at this point.
A few months ago, I said that the looming crisis that the domestic auto industry is facing due to the unfair trade practices and the manipulation of currencies by its foreign competitors' host countries, combined with this country's growing inability to deal with the health care and pension issues was the "canary in the coal mine" for the rest of industrial America.
This isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue - it's an American issue - and I grow more convinced by the day that Washington's failure to take definitive action to counteract this accelerating crisis will have catastrophic implications for this country's economic well-being for years to come.
The US$ has depreciated 15% vs the European currency since 1995 and the US automakers have done nothing to take advantage of it. They could export anything to Europe .. undercut the market there by $3000 to $5000 per vehicle and essentially be selling it for full sticker. Did they? Why not?
The US$ and Japanese Yen have not changed since 2001.. The US$ has depreciated by nearly 70% vs the Yen since the 1970's.
The US auto industry is almost 40% bigger than it was in 1985.. it's booming and we all benefit from it.
Bring some facts to the table and we can discuss them, otherwise yours is a very valid opinion of a likely well-intentioned but uninformed citizen who feels threatened by the changes going on around him. Others of us who recognize that the facts don't bear out your opinion are not threatened.
Besides, what if this was all negotiated between GM/F/T/DC/H/H and they are perfectly aware of all of it and are in agreement. Hey it's only business.
However, there are probably very few people who agree with you because most of us don't see any problems with the auto industry.
We have a lot of quality cars for sale at very reasonable prices so we are pretty happy. We base our opinions on our own experiences.
I agree that eliminating the UAW from GM's factories will not solve GM's problems. But the brutal truth is that the UAW - both leadership and a fair amount of its rank-and-file membership - really doesn't want to change either the work atmosphere or the worker-management relationship at GM. The UAW wants to maintain the status quo, no matter how dysfunctional it is.
What are the UAW's solutions to GM's current predicament? The solutions I hear touted by the UAW either involve more protectionist measures, or government takeover of the healthcare system. Either way, the messsage is that some other entity - either customers or taxpayers - will make the necessary sacrifices (or cough up the necessary cash) to enable UAW members to enjoy unchanged pay and benefits (and even continue the Jobs Bank). That is why I believe that there is a fair amount of hostility to the UAW.
I don't begrudge the pay and benefits enjoyed by UAW members. When the goose was laying the golden eggs, the union made sure that members got their share. But now the goose is out of golden eggs, and it's time for retrenchment. And the retrenchment must occur among the UAW members and company leadership, not among people who have decided to shop elsewhere for their new vehicles. I don't think that this message has sunk in yet at the UAW.
Take my father for instance. He has a one bedroom house/cottage he lives in year around on a inland lake. He still owes a substantial amount of money on his mortgage and is doing a 15 yr. note to pay it off. Dad and step mom who also works don't do anything extravacant because they are trying to pay of the note. I get to see them once, maybe twice a yr. because money is tighter with the rising costs of the cost of living. Dad has always been a big time saver, but blew most of his savings on this lake property to keep it in the family for another generation since my grandparents couldn't afford it during retirement years and didn't want to be house broke.
What I'm trying to say is why should the UAW Delphi workers have to work for a little over poverty, while Delphi executives get million dollar corporate bonuses while in Chapter 11 ????? :confuse: I'm not saying the UAW on both GM and Delphi shouldn't be flexible on the upcoming contracts to contribute to the restructuring needed. But asking for a 63% wage reduction to $12 dollars an hour and paying $300-650 (propasals) a month for health insurance will not allow my father to retire. Hell my grandfather, at age 70 would have to go back into the workforce, and he's seriously unable to because of his medical conditions. The bottom line is the UAW workers will have to find buyers for their homes, probably sell a car or two, or go from a Yukon, to a used Impala. I guess it's so easy to ask the low man to take the blunt of the costs, while not factoring the "impact" it will have on Joe-Six Pack vs. asking more from the millionaires that have everything paid for.
I hope this helps ya'll understand the "real" effects and understand the consquences of such extreme cuts!b>
Rocky
...no restaurants
...no new cars
...absolutely no credit cards
...no girlfriends
...no nightclubs
...no bars
...few new clothes
...shopping at Save-A-Lot
...might have to sacrifice life insurance policy
...might risk driving without car insurance
...see the barber once every few months instead of weeks
...doctor? Feh!
...veterinarian? Ha!
...saving? Shoot, ALL my income would go towards meeting just my basic needs. If I can pay my mortgage and keep the heat and lights on, I'd be doing pretty well. Heck, pretty soon I'd have to sell the house and move back to the 'hood.
Issue number 335...."Detroit" thanks.
You give up so easily?
Has Walmart started selling cars yet?