Trouble is, even if they do furnish you the loan and your business fails, you're dead with this draconian new bankruptcy law. It was meant to reel in the "big spenders" and compulsive gamblers who only amount to 4% of people who file for bankruptcy. Truth is most people file because of job loss or a catastrophic illness. Ironically, most of those who had filed for a medical bankruptcy had coverage - just not enough to make up for the difference. It turns out this new bankruptcy law was Bush's gift to the credit card industry who so generously funded his reelection campaign. All it really does is stifle the entrepreneurial spirit and place insovent families into a lifetime of crushing debt servitude. I urge all to Google it and see how badly we've all been stabbed in the back.
I didn't know they split. Thanks for the link. regardless they are a union and the UAW still posts CAW vehicles on it's website.
Of course you still feel that Delphi is part of GM
I just follow the money :P Look at the major shareholder of Delphi, and look at GM. I once had a list from the UAW, but that's been a few years ago. The reason why they spun it off was to get buisness from other manufactors like Hyundai, John Deere, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, Chrysler, Kia, Mercury, Ferrari, etc etc. Just about everybody including Ford gets parts from Delphi. No Delphi= No Auto Industry
Well those are a few of the jobs left. The rest are service.
Union per centage of the labor force has been declining in the past two and half decades. I see, you are not counting service jobs as jobs . . . well, then why are you counting manufacturing jobs as jobs? They are not exactly producing corn or beef like real real jobs do. See, the US economy has transitioned from farming to manufacturing in the late 19th century, and then service industry domination since the late 1960's. Manufacturing is just about as "glorious" today as farming was in 1880, becoming smaller and smaller part of the economy despite all the romatic emotional attachment.
Well explain to me why Herman Miller, Steelcase, Stryker, Tyco, Haworth, etc, which are all non-union doing so bad ? huh, huh, huh ?
Non union is certainly no guarantee of success by itself. Business cycle still exist; all those companies you listed have their own product cycle problems, for the time being. None of them would have been the success stories that they were a few years ago if they were saddled with legacy union labor problems.
Ok whoopie Nucor....
Thank you agreeing with me ;-)
Well why is every non-union school district and law enforcement making poverty wages.
The reason is two fold: (1) Because the employer in this case is a monopoly, namely, the government. (2) Because the alternative present to the employees are just as bleak in the union schools districts, in terms of work envrionment as well as wages.
My wife used to be a teacher btw, so we know the pains of unappreciating school districts, principal, and parents in a union school district quite well. Now, compare that to a privately operated day care center . . . the owners are usually making out much better than public school teachers.
That is false again.... A union worker according to the dept. of labor out works a non-union worker 2 to 1 on average in the U.S.
What do you mean by "out work"?? What's the definition of "non-union worker" here? Obviously a very narrow definition of "worker" here.
There is as much if not more corruption in the private buisness sector. However being part of the government I will say it happens there to, but not as much.
I see where you are coming from (I had been thinking that you were a union member at a factory all this time, silly me). I will grant you that this country has been blessed with a relatively clean corp of public servants thanks to relatively small government we had for much of the history of the republic. Most government positions have not been there for more than one generation. The old rule of thumb regarding bureaucracy is that, every 40-60 years or so (one or two generations), most bureaucratic institution get clogged up dead weight that it can no longer get much done . . . That's a rule observed through hundreds if not thousands of years of history in the old world. It's being played out in the US even as we speak: State Department being superceded by National Security Council, CIA being superceded by National Security Agency, White House Press Secretary being superceded by the Communications Directory, then the mega-reorg involving Homeland Security Department . . . If past history is any guide, all that shuffling will not stop the inevitable march towards mediocrity, incompetence and corruption. That is not to say every public employee is corrupt; far from it, many of them should be applauded for staying clean. However, hanging all hopes onto their staying clean and their successors staying clean is doomed to produce corrupt empires like the French, Byzantines and Chinese used to have . . . and the Founding Fathers tried so hard to avoid.
I'm not sure what you mean by this....So I won't comment
It's a simple restatement of the simple axiom that: If you are spending your own money for your own benefit, you will be very exacting about how much you spend and what kind of result you want; if you are spending someone else' money, you will be exactly about results but care less about expenditure; if you are spending someone else' money for a third party's benefits, you can't care less about how much is spent, nor how little result is achieved.
Not sure what you meant (aside from the joke at the end, I assume ;-) Many car making jobs are being created in the south along with numerous service jobs that pay quite well, by local cost of living standards.
Well the only new employers are your McDonalds, Government, Oil, and some law enforcement/security.
McDonalds, Government and big oil are not new employers by definition. I know for fact that there are a lot of new employers, just by driving around the city.
Starting a buisness. Well like I said before who's going to furnish me the loan ????
Registering a business cost $20-25. If you stay with a bank for 3 yrs, many of them will furnish a $100k business line of credit with no question asked. It's really that easy. The key issue is finding a line of service or product that consumers really want . . . not necessarily your own dream, but try to sell consumers their dream ;-) I started my business with less than $20k of my own savings. I get offers of those $100k-500k business loans all the time; never took any. The banker tried really hard to sell me a $500k business line of credit the last time I was there making IRA contributions.
Yes, thanks for reminding me. Time is ticking away for Delphi.
Miller's been a little more quiet lately, did someone duct-tape him. I guess it is hitting home that you just can't put something on the table then expect people to eat it up, no questions asked.
I wonder if they'll ask for another extension (if that's possible). In any event, it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks.
But just remember, the displaced workers can find other "manufacturing" jobs @ the fine burger establishments throughout the land. :P (remember when G.W. tried to dish that stuff out a few years ago when the economy was in a big slump, trying to reclassify burger flipping as manufacturing)
The Canadian Auto Workers union said about 11,000 members of Local 222 at three Oshawa assembly plants are likely to vote to accept job losses -- which could number as many as 2,500 -- to avoid the possibility that GM will shut down two car-assembly plants, and to give the plants a shot at landing new investments, including the Camaro contract.
"I'm anticipating it will be ratified," said CAW spokesman Peter Kennedy. "But I don't think I'd call this a rubber-stamp process because there is a lot of frustration and people are angry that they're in the situation that they're in."
GM has said Oshawa's No. 2 plant will close in 2008 when assembly of the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse/Allure comes to a halt. The No. 1 plant is set to lose assembly of its Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Impala models in 2009.
But the CAW says turning Oshawa's two car factories into one flexible assembly plant that can produce different vehicles would better position GM Canada to secure as much as $701 million (Canadian $800 million) in new investment from GM.
I know for fact that there are a lot of new employers, just by driving around the city.
When I drive around the industrial and business districts spread all over Southern California. I see literally hundreds of new businesses that I never heard of. San Diego is sitting at about 4.3% unemployment. Help Wanted signs everywhere. Wal-Mart is paying about $9 per hour starting pay. Most of the jobs are Non-Union. I find it sad as I am about to retire from 45 years in Union work. My children will not have the retirement the Union gained for me. I don't know that they will make out as well as I did. It does no good to cry about lost union jobs. If you have to move to get a decent job, you better do it. My dad moved all over the country following the construction trade. Life is what you make of it. UAW members should just be thankful for the good years. It is not like they have been kept in the dark about the pending doom. If they were not saving for this eventuality shame on them...
this brings back memories of the booming Boeing years. Once again, it was not like all of us Boeing workers were kept in the dark about what was happening. Phil Condit and Harry Stonecipher, while not fooling around with other's spouses, kept us completely "in the light, man."
If not for wonderful CEO's where would we turn for guidance. I'm thankful to be out of that zoo. I chose to retrain in the Allied Health field. It's booming, but you must pass exam after exam after exam after exam and be fully licensed in the state that you practice. It's good work and it can be really hard work. One nice thing about it is it's not going to ever dry up. After all, the boomers are aging more and more as I type this and I'm a boomer, too. I'll want to be given proper health care when I need it, too. Point of this little discussion: there is life after Boeing, GM, Ford, etc. You must be hard-working and study your trade intently, though. And it's not always easy. Bet that surprised y'all, huh?
BTW-Kia's looking to build a large factory in rural Georgia on the truck line up from Hyundai's Montgomery, Alabama factory. There might be jobs available working for my favorite automobile manufacturer. Just what you wanted to hear, eh?
rockylee: Good point....The UAW wanted to make the best, but mangement didn't allow it.
Not quite...I don't doubt that many individual UAW members tried to do their best, but they were not supported by the union as a whole. UAW leadership, just like the executive teams at the domestics, had absolutely no interest in improving vehicle quality until the threat of imported competition forced the issue.
The UAW paid lip service to quality, but the real focus was on getting more pay and benefits for less work. And the union protected the slackers who were there to simply milk the system...and it still does today.
the union protected the slackers who were there to simply milk the system...and it still does today.
That is very true. It is the case in our Union, and many other Unions as well. Unions have lost the will to police their members. 25 years ago we would put a slacker up to the "E" board and he or she would get their act together or not be protected from company reprimand or termination. Not today. Everyone is worried about being included in a harassment lawsuit.
... **The UAW paid lip service to quality, but the real focus was on getting more pay and benefits for less work. And the union protected the slackers who were there to simply milk the system... and it still does today.....** ==============
...What rockylee and the other union supporters don't realize is that outside of the company towns, the UAW isn't really seen as standing up for the little guy anymore. If anything, the UAW is usually lumped in with company management as being part of the problem.
Recently The Philadelphia Inquirer - which is hardly a conservative, pro-business newspaper - ran an editorial on the troubles of GM and Ford. What struck me was how the editorial writers pointed fingers at both the UAW and company management as being part of the problem.
The UAW paid lip service to quality, but the real focus was on getting more pay and benefits for less work. And the union protected the slackers who were there to simply milk the system...and it still does today.
I agree with that, but no amount of dedication from the workforce would overcome sloppy engineering, excessive badge engineering, poor design, botched M&A deals, an inappropriate product mix, or outdated distribution channels.
The little guy at GM has very little to do with the overall problem. If GM didn't give away its margins with fleet sales (despite all the hue-and-cry about worker benefits, Toyota is also able to sell cars at much higher wholesale prices than can GM) and service brands that are well tarnished, then the company could make money.
The vast majority of the problem comes from GM's management practices. The union is not exactly a help, but look at this way: If the company was effectively managed, it could overcome these issues with labor -- sales would be sufficient to create profits. But if you banished the union tomorrow, all of the other problems related to product, design, distribution, etc. would remain unchanged.
As is true in any business, bad management is usually the culprit behind the erosion of any company. Automakers are no exception, but unfortunately, their size and scale make the screw-ups more monumental in proportion. Revising a cost structure can slow bleeding, but without products that customers want, revising the cost structure will only slow the inevitable death, rather than create a turnaround.
While GM management probably made quite a few mistakes like any other management, we should keep in mind though that there is no such thing as a good or bad management decision when taken in isolation with no regard for circumstances. Management is about making decisions based what the circumstances are. For example, designing and engineering cars with tight tolerance worked great for Toyota, but if GM had made that decision 20 years ago, the result would have been catastrophic: the UAW was against both robotics and tight discipline for workers; a car designed and engineered with tight component fitting and tolerance would have led to massive reduction in production line yield simply because by the time the car approach the end of the production line, the last few panels would not fit at all because of the sloppiness of work done in the earlier stations.
Having a high price and tight supply structure worked great for Prosche brand equity, but if GM had taken the same route over the past 20 years, it would have been an unmitigated financial disaster . . . because the production workers had/have to be paid the exactly the same regardless whether they were making cars or not. I doubt anyone working for GM or Ford wanted to make cars dedicated to fleet sales . . . however, if your cars are not selling well due to loose tolerance as mentioned above, and your workers have to be kept busy and paid, what choice do you have? Not making any car at all and a short path to bankruptcy (because the workers still have to be paid!)?
Brand engineering is another legacy problem. If GM dropped brands and aggressively stream-lined its offering any time in the past 30 yrs, it would either have to pay out in huge sums (a la Oldsmobile) or face law suits from dealerships in all 50 states. Combine that with the need to keep all the workers paid (and busy), what's the least expensive way to keep the brand obligations fulfilled? (a franchise agreement usually involves a commitment of certain number of new models in a certain number of year period; or the manufacturer would have to be penalty for breach). State laws usually prohibit GM from selling cars to consumers directly.
It's a very tough busines indeed. I doubt any of us could have come up with substantially better solutions than the GM management has done, given the unenviable circumstances . . . much of it the result of inflexible regulations dating from the oligopoly days. When the domestics were oligopolies, the additional cost of regulations just got passed to the consumers (plus a markup for profit on that cost too); once they faced real competition, there was no easy solutions. It's literally like being forced to bring a knife to a gun fight . . . the loser may well have been a good knife fighter or even a good gun fighter, just never had a chance.
Sorry, but that's an elaborate exercise in excusemaking that flies in the face of the huge piles of bad product, poor M&A decisions, and every other bad choice management has made.
You have to forgive me for thinking that you come off as a Rush Limbaugh-flavored ideologue who is eager to acquit management and convict the common worker at every turn, in spite of the abundant evidence to the contrary. This seems to be a poor proxy for demonstrating the Republican-Democrat schism, rather than dealing with the many problems of this specific company.
The proof is in the numbers and the product mix, the reliability and the lack of attention to consumer demand and shifting macroeconomic trends, all of which are all painfully evident to see. I don't know what's worse -- a management team that makes so many poor decisions, or a management team that blows it, then engages in such transparent efforts at damage control that still do nothing to aid profiability or long-term sustainability.
For what it's worth, it's been over 10 years since the last time I heard Rush Limbaugh's voice on radio, and that was at a college suite-mate's back in 1995. I don't know what's worse, unable to make a cogent argument, or engaging in bad taxonomy and pretending incorrect classification of the opponent is a form of debate.
It will be very helpful if you can kindly point out the flaws in my argument as presented, instead of trying to pigeon-hole me into any particular category. Attempting the latter would only compound error on top of erros just like some other poster simply because I'm quite open-minded and liberal in my thinking, and do not easily belong to any particular category or group.
Again for what it's worth, I'm not the leaste related to GM management, aside from being a consumer who benefitted their Saab purchase that led to a remarkably good European car subsidized by GMAC when being sold to consumers.
IMHO, the domestics are pretty good at big picture product mix and detecting shifting consumer demands and macroeconomic trends. They led the market on pickups, minivans and SUV's, the three biggest trend setters in the last thirty years in terms of making a car that they can possibly sell for profit. None of them can possibly make a small car profitably simply due to the labor structure (small cars involve almost just many assembly steps as big vehicles, and sell for much less).
The problem with the domestics is in execution. I think we can agree that product quality is the cause of much of the grief. We seem to disagree on what caused the quality problems. It is my contention that inflexible labor (which got in the way of both adapting robotics and labor discipline) is the root cause for sub-par quality. What I have to back up my theory? at least two fold:
(1) Toyota and Honda have/had much higher robotics utilization rate; that of MB and BMW are lower . . . needless to say, the domestics' reliability is lower than Toyota and Honda, and higher than MB and BMW.
(2) The most significant quality control program ever launched and executed in the last 30 years was GE's six-sigma program of the late 80's and early 90's. What was the six-sigma program about? Neutron Jack cleaning the barn and putting together a disciplined work force and modern tiered personal-responsibility quality control process. What were the chances that the same could have been done at GM, Ford or Chrysler, or any other UAW shop in the last three decades? Zilch.
UAW stood in the way of both adoption of robotics and disciplined work force . . . that was the root cause of poor quality at the domestics. You can not argue against the simple fact that if a product is designed and engineered with tight tolerance, it can not be manufactured on a low-precision produciton line with any acceptable yield rate (e.g. tight gap tolerance in design would lead to production line stall because the last few panels would fail to fit on a high per centage of cars as they approach the end of assembly line). Even in my line of work, I have to constantly keep in mind what the target workers/processes can do while designing products.
If you have a counter argument, instead of off-target personal attacks, I'm all ears.
Industrial robots can't speak English or Chinese, but they can communicate very well with their controllers--something they do 24/7, with no vacations and no health care. They don't receive a pension after they're retired, either. Instead, they get recycled or remanufactured and go to work again.
The average wage for a U.S. warehouse or distribution worker is around $15 per hour (plus benefits). The average wage for this same work in China is about $3 per hour. The average wage for a skilled UAW U.S. automobile worker is $25 to $30 per hour, plus the staggering costs of health care coverage and retirement.
The average cost per hour to operate an industrial robot is, “30 cents per hour,” according to Ron Potter, director of robotic technologies of Factory Automation Systems.
Even if this figure is doubled to 60 cents and includes a vision system, a software package and yearly maintenance, it is still only one-fifth the cost per hour of a Chinese laborer. It is more like one-fiftieth as costly as a General Motors assembler. Is it possible that GM, Ford Motor and a host of other U.S. manufacturers, distribution-center operators and warehouse managers should look more closely at industrial robots?
The major reason they are building modern plants that produce superior automobiles. If they were not tied to archaic assembly lines in the USA, we would get the same high quality GM cars that are built in places like Australia.
I just bought a new GMC PU truck built in Indiana. It is a nice truck. The fit and finish is not in a league with my new VW Passat Wagon built in Germany.
As has been stated. A human assembler cannot compete with a Robot for precision. As long as GM is trying to survive with the UAW contracts currently in affect they will not be able to build cars that compete with a Camry or Accord built by a robot.
GM is doomed. Get used to it. Filing for bankruptcy and reorganizing may be in their future but it's gonna get real ugly along the way. Those with cushy jobs don't give them up easily, huh?
Question for anyone out there: when the '62-'65 Chevy Nova SS' were built was there a UAW standing in the way...I...I mean helping out Chevy so graciously?
The comparison to Rush Limbaugh is based upon your constant refrain of attacking unions and defending management, at every turn. It's obvious that you don't just take issue with the UAW contracts with Ford and GM, but also dislike the very concept of collective bargaining. You've more than once made a tie-in to "socialism" and "socialists" (I guess this is the modern PCish version of applying McCarthyistic "communist" label to ideas and people we don't like), while implying that you view unions as comprising some sort of illegal restraint of trade. If you're going to keep beating that drum, don't be surprised if you hear your song with Rush's name included in the chorus.
You've made a lot of comments, I'll just touch on a few:
-A union contract is a byproduct of negotiation between management and labor. If you don't like the contract terms, then you should blame both management and labor, because both parties agreed to the terms.
-If you justify the company's choice to badge engineer to support divisions, then you are simply giving management an excuse to avoid making some hard choices.
Except in this case, the choices really aren't all that tough. If you look at GM's financial statements, then you see that GM booked a charge of $583 million to pay to the terminated Olds dealers as compensation. If that sounds like a lot of money, it might help to know that this payoff amounted to a whopping $67 for every car that GM sold by GM during the year 2000. If management can't make similar decisions based upon a $67 expense, I'd hate to see what they would do when the choices are actually costly.
-You forget that style and engineering have both been problematic within GM's product mix, and these are two items for which the UAW obviously has no responsibility. I seriously doubt that management ever asked anybody whether they'd like to build the Cavalier or Cobalt, or if they could take any pride in building them.
-As far as the pursuit of quality, let's see how seriously GM's management takes it by considering some recent news:
The first place (Gold) winner of the JD Power's 2005 Plant Quality Award was GM's Oshawa #2.
Compare this to the list of plant closures planned as part of GM's latest cutting plan. Guess which is one of the plants on the chopping block -- yep, you guessed it -- the very same plant, Oshawa #2. Does its decision to shut down one of the very best auto plants sound like the act of a company committed to quality, or to the needs of the North American customer?
... >>> **... What rockylee and the other union supporters don't realize is that outside of the company towns, the UAW isn't really seen as standing up for the little guy anymore. If anything, the UAW is usually lumped in with company management as being part of the problem ...** ===================
Unions have done a lot of wonderful things for a lot of people for alot of years .... but there comes a time when there is a full blown - "disconnect" ...
GM has made plenty of mistakes for a long time .. I remember in 97 at the dealers meetings when GM couldn't decide to keep or drop the Corvette or maybe place it with a different franchise based on CSI reports for the last 6 months, I remember the battles over maybe dropping Olds and keeping Saturn, even though Saturn hadn't made a dime in the last 8 years .. and the list goes on ...
That all said .... the biggest problem Ford/GM has, is the lack of any quality communication and any ability to comes to terms with the UAW leaders - basically blackmailed ...
You can't cut costs and build better vehicles when you're paying someone $45,000 a year to sweep floors ..
- you can't cut costs when you're paying someone $55,000+ a year to drive a tow motor for 40hrs a week, when they only work 30hrs ..
- you can't cut costs when the tow motor operator files 8 or 9 grievances a year at $1,500 a pop because his buddy didn't show up for work and he's been asked to carry a 10lb tool box for 12 minutes, then that in itself becomes a business ..
- you can't costs when you have guys out on sick leave and they get a Doctors note that say they'll be out with a cold for 2 weeks ..
- you can't costs when you have guys clock in for others on a daily basis ..
- you can't costs when you have guys out for a sprained pinky finger and get paid their full pay for 3 months ..
- you can't cut costs when you have guys that run the computer assembly line and jam-it with a press of a button and the line is stopped for 2 days .. one hour standing, then home - full pay.
- you can't cut costs when they are paying for 100 % of their workmans comp and 75% of those people should have been back at work 2 months ago ..
- you can't cut costs when you have 15/20% of your work force on any given day getting "full pay" because they are in Gen-pop, sorry - union regulations ...
You also can't cut costs when there is no help from the UAW negotiations .... their biggest negotiation 4 years ago was .. "We as members will sacrifice "not" buying any of Fords non-direct products" .... *meaning*, they won't take a discount on Volvo's, Mazda's, Jag's, etc etc ..... that's a power point.?
3 years ago the major issue was the Ford employee's had to finally pay a $7 deductible on the health prescriptions .... you'd thought they had to give up their kidneys for a transplant and the UAW played this to the Max ... the new issue, is paying $125 a month to help cover the cost of the UAW workers family health cost, whether it be 2 or 22 - $125 ..... where on this fine planet can someone find a program like that.? ... but the UAW has run this up the flag pole as a direct attack for the very survival of their endearing and "paying" union members .....
I was born and raised in a Union town, and I don't want to see anyone lose a job ... my Grand Daddy was Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, my Father was Teamsters, my uncle was Ford for 35 years and my brother-in-law is just heading into his 31st year at GM .. and that doesn't count the other 30/40 others that I grew up with, that still work for all of the big 3 that I see or speak with on a full time basis ...
All I can say is: .. Wake-Up.! ... the UAW has done some great things in the past .. but today is today .. if these guys and their members keep letting the UAW be the Captain of their Ship, then they better get some life preservers .. because it's going down in a hurry ..... sad, but reality 101 ......
Compare this to the list of plant closures planned as part of GM's latest cutting plan. Guess which is one of the plants on the chopping block -- yep, you guessed it -- the very same plant, Oshawa #2. Does its decision to shut down one of the very best auto plants sound like the act of a company committed to quality, or to the needs of the North American customer?
You missed the entire point of this exercise. GM has a problem with the high wages and pension and health care and some lack of worker efficiency with the union. They can do little about that when it comes to negotiations. In the paper all you read is that the people of the Unions will not give in even if they are going bankrupt. What can a company do? Well the same thing the unions. More posturing. they announce massive plant closures and layoffs.
What happens 5 months later? One of the announced closing plants (announced to be closed in 2-3 years) votes with 74% agreement to concessions and the plants are now most likely to stay open and build the new RWD vehicles. Now the #1 quality plant has a good chance of staying open with fewer employees and other concessions.
The above is the only tool GM has to work with the unions. Strikes cause massive downtime and profit loss with the manufacture winning nothing or little. Always have and always will.
You missed the entire point of this exercise. GM has a problem with the high wages and pension and health care and some lack of worker efficiency with the union. They can do little about that when it comes to negotiations.
That's actually a good insight about GM management's mentality about its workers:
All this talk of quality, and to the extent that the workers play a role in providing it, these workers in Oshawa are clearly doing it. According to the same JD Power survey, it is also the fourth most efficient plant in North America (and yes, this includes those of the transplants.)
So how does GM reward its workers at its best facility for providing a great effort and producing high quality product for the company? It marks it for closure, and them for termination.
Now, why should any other GM worker possibly think that the company will repay them for their efforts and loyalty? The lesson is clear: even if you do a stellar job for GM and create a quality product in an efficient manner, you STILL face the prospects of losing your livelihood. You are not a vital part of the GM team, but just a bean to be counted, and an expense to be trimmed.
Given that, is there any surprise that GM's workers want to have a union? If management is going to seek every opportunity to leverage them for concessions, even after they've done a great job, then the mistrust and desire to bargain collectively is more than justified. The UAW is a byproduct of management's hostility toward the worker, it didn't simply materialize out of thin air.
The management sets the tone. Exactly right. They reap what they sow in many unions other than UAW.
Does anyone know of problems with worker treatment by the "transplants" at their factories? I can't recall hearing about any yet. How do they handle problems with termination? How do they handle problem workers -- real problems, not just ones someone above them wants to get rid of? Do their worker treament methods actually work the way they say they are working?
why should any other GM worker possibly think that the company will repay them for their efforts and loyalty?
Welcome to the 21 century. If you have looked around the automakers are the last of the dinosaurs. Who used to be bigger than GM? AT&T was the biggest of the big. I worked for them. All my fellow loyal employees are out on early retirement. There is no such thing as corporate loyalty in 2006. It is a dog eat dog world. The protectionism of the UAW is doomed. I got out 10 years before the axe fell and went elsewhere. Now I get to retire with a nice pension. My old friends are living from SS check to check. If you are not paying attention to what is happening you get run over. You can cry all you want for the GM & Ford workers. It will not change the ultimate outcome. They cannot maintain the status quo of losing money for too much longer. Ask the UAW bosses how they will make out when it all comes tumbling down. I bet they are sitting just as well as the management at GM. The Union has done as much damage to GM as the management has done.
>Ask the UAW bosses how they will make out when it all comes tumbling down. I bet they are sitting just as well as the management at GM. The Union has done as much damage to GM as the management has done.
Right on point. The union bosses are really set up as far as income. No wonder they want the workers to fight so hard to keep the status quo. Does anyone had data on UAW and IUE labor managements' pay setups? I bet the union memebers don't know.
I know of one union where the labor leaders were telling the workers to accept and negotiate 10%-20% pay portions of healthcare costs. Guess what they negotiated for themselves at their employer -- 100% paid, no percentage of healthcare costs for them!
If you want to hold the leadership of the UAW culpable, I won't argue with you.
But as a white-collar professional myself, I would submit to you that if you are a producer of a product whose quality and efficiency of production are heavily rooted in the morale of your workers, then attacking that morale is one of the most foolish, unproductive things that you can possibly do.
Again, what kind of message does it send to your workforce, whether or not it is unionized, that doing a great job does absolutely nothing to ensure your continued tenure with the company?
That provides zero incentive for the worker to strive for being the best, because being the best gets you fired. What a weird message to send if your goal is to rally the troops, and in my mind, a ham-fisted move that reeks of incompetence and arrogance.
If GM management had a modicum of intelligence and leadership, it would instead point to this plant as a model, and tell those at the inferior plants to either meet the standard set by the Oshawa people (who should be rewarded with bonuses, etc. for their effort), or face closure themselves.
Yet instead of providing a case study for the workers to follow, it offers another example to the worker about why management can't be trusted. If you want to increase the management-labor schism, that would be a good way to do it.
In reference to having accuracy part by part AND not to have a problem in Final Assembly, you must MINIMIZE the range of "stack tolerances" for the sub component. If each piece is sloppy the outcome is obvious. A machine does it better if programmed well.
GM management has been way too clueless for way too long and the union and everyone else(except those top dogs lining their pockers while they could)paid for it, or should I say pays for it, as their ship hasn't totally sideswept the Titanic...yet.
socala4: The vast majority of the problem comes from GM's management practices. The union is not exactly a help, but look at this way: If the company was effectively managed, it could overcome these issues with labor -- sales would be sufficient to create profits. But if you banished the union tomorrow, all of the other problems related to product, design, distribution, etc. would remain unchanged.
I agree that if the UAW vanished tomorrow, GM and Ford would still face serious competitive problems that stem from stupid management decisions.
If GM and Ford are to be effectively managed, they must both make some serious changes in the way they do business - that is true. But the UAW does NOT want the companies to make those changes, because it would involve radical changes in how assembly-line workers do their jobs, and how GM and Ford handle staffing needs. How the factories - and production - are managed is crucial in this business, and the UAW IS an integral part of that factor.
The days of the union filling the role of the underdog are long gone. Today the UAW has a fair amount of power within those companies, but I fear that leadership has no clue as to how to use it, except to get more and more for members, until they strangle the goose that is laying the golden eggs. UAW management needs to start telling members that it is no longer 1965, that the threat of transplant competition is real, and that Americans are not going to alter their vehicle buying habits to ensure that union members continue receiving fully paid medical benefits and rich wage packages.
Rroyce did an excellent job of detailing the practices that must be changed on the factory floor if those companies are to survive and thrive. I'll bet anyone here that UAW leadership has absolutely no interest in making those changes.
While these issues can be addressed during contract talks, so far the UAW has acted as though the financial troubles of GM and Ford really don't exist, or that some outside force is really to blame, or that this is ALL management's fault. I don't think the UAW leadership is going to make major concessions during the 2007 contract talks, unless GM and Ford really are prepared to file for bankruptcy.
Has anyone noticed that the non US automakers who do not have the UAW are doing just fine in this country, while those that do have the UAW generally are doing pretty badly. I do not believe that it is just coincidence!
Please tell us which poster I have called "socialist." I don't think you can find any. On the other hand, I have been called everything "right-wing" sounding under the sun, and I'm not even very conservative (e.g. I'm not even fan of Dobbs or Savage for that matter). If you really want to engage in name-calling fest, we can find about as much validity in short-handing union supporters as members of organized crime syndicates ;-) Such is the futility of tossing around ill-fitting labels.
One does not have to be a follower of Rush Limbaugh to see the evils of collective bargaining. Like I said before, my wife used to be a teacher in a union school district. Seeing the result of collective bargaining first-hand (strict pay equality regardless how much or how little effor one puts in) was quite enough to convince us that it's a process quite capable of destroying worker morale without further contribution from the management.
Collective bargaining was indeed illegal under Sherman Anti-trust Act. If you ever own a business, try setting up uniform pricing to gouge your customers in collusion with your competitors, and see how quickly the feds knock on your door. What enabled collective bargaining was the Clayton Act of 1914, with its assertion that labor is not commodity for commerce therefore exempt from Sherman Act. A rather curious assertion, considering that minimum wage laws obviously treat labor as a non-differentiated commodity.
-A union contract is a byproduct of negotiation between management and labor. If you don't like the contract terms, then you should blame both management and labor, because both parties agreed to the terms.
That would make about as much sense as blaming the kidnap victim for entering into negotiations with the kidnapper, at the beginning. In the hey days of domestic carmaking oligopoly, however, the arrangement served both the union management and the corporate management: while the member benefits and closed-shop/agency-shop policies served to swell the ranks of union membership drive, the excessive labor cost drove the smaller competitors into insolvency, . . . ultimately all at the expense of consumers. Now the oligopolistic pricing power has been dead for nearly two decades; management has been perfectly willing to extricate the company from the antiquated labor structure for just as long yet the labor union has been hanging steadfast onto them threatening strike at every turn . . . whose fault do you think it is for perpetrating the unworkable labor structure?
Except in this case, the choices really aren't all that tough. If you look at GM's financial statements, then you see that GM booked a charge of $583 million to pay to the terminated Olds dealers as compensation.
$583M is a lot of money, considering that in the last profitable quarter, 2004Q4, GM NA operation only made $430M. And that was the only profitable quarter in the last 8 quarters. Pretending that the cost could be amortized to every GM car ever sold, instead of being limited to dwindling Oldsmobiles sales in the last year of its existence, was quite a bald-faced book-cooking feat. Also, the overall cost of closing down Olds cost close to $2 billion, all for very little gain:
You forget that style and engineering have both been problematic within GM's product mix, and these are two items for which the UAW obviously has no responsibility.
While isolated tasteless designs (e.g.Aztek, Subaru B9) or overly outlandish designs (e.g. last-gen Accord and prev-gen Taurus) show up occasionally from practically every carmaker, domestics are certainly not behind on styles. CTS, Rendezvous, PT Cruiser, HHR, Avalanche, 300M, Hummer, etc. are/were all on the leading edge of style. As to engineering, low-precision production line and production line labor inflexibility severely limit engeering options.
The part about Oshawa is also very misleading. First of all, Oshawa is a plant in Canada, hence not a UAW plant. Its being on the planned closure list may well be the result of UAW political clout. Secondly, the survey is for North America and South American plants only. Thirdly, the plants produce some very old models, also thanks to UAW political clout. While making the same car year after year may help quality in later years, it certainly jeopardize the long-term viability of a plant if no new model is allowed to be produced there.
Four for four (plus some bonus play on political labels and collective bargaining), the ball is now in your court.
Exactly. The plethra of job opportunities and business opportunities is what the union supporters steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Dwindling union influence and lower taxes and regulations enabling more business and employment opportunities is ultimately the only sustainable way to enable workers receive the pay and respect they deserve, not some anonymizing "collectives." The best solution to an abusive employer is an employer next door that treats his/her workers better . . . how simple is that? We all know that the answer to the only pizza shop in town serving blend food is not having the town take over the pizza shop and let the mayor's brother make "fair pizzas"; why is the employment/labor market any different?
know of one union where the labor leaders were telling the workers to accept and negotiate 10%-20% pay portions of healthcare costs. Guess what they negotiated for themselves at their employer -- 100% paid, no percentage of healthcare costs for them!
Big Surprise . . . NOT! That's what usually happens in a "collective" . . . some are more equal than others. There are two routes of finding cure for this kind of corruption:
(1) the old French, Byzantine and Chinese method of appointing an over-sight committee to watch over them; needless to say, in a few years, you will need another layer to watch over the watchers as they get bought off too as power corrupts; so on and so forth, until you get an unwieldy empire with myriads of bureaucrats arbitrarging power at every level.
(2) the historically Anglo-American solution of minimizing regulations and promoting free market; letting every participant bring forth a better value despite (or rather because of) their self-interest.
Which path do you think will lead to more benefitial results for the consumers, and the society at large?
Again, you've merely reiterated your belief that collective bargaining should be illegal. Obviously, your view of the union-management relationship is cast in stone, and not going to be swayed by the actual facts of the issues at GM or anyplace else. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is obviously extreme and built on ideology, first and foremost.
As for the cost of making changes to the company, if the management is too gutless or tunnelvisioned to divert a quarter's worth of profits to a monumental change that would save literally billions of dollars in future periods, then they are incompetent managers, period. A short-term investment with a short payback period is no brainer to any of us who is actually competent and helped to manage a business.
And despite the "kidnapper" rhetoric, the contract is a byproduct of mutual negotiation. But in any case, if the managers don't manage the company, as you'd like us to believe, why not just fire them now and get it over with? If they are completely unable to affect change, I don't see any reason to keep them there another day longer.
Thank you for helping me clarify. A tightly desinged/engineered car can only be manufactured in a plant with small production variance at every station (and upstream). If work done by component makers and every previous station is sloppy, the final assembly simply can not be tightly designed or engineered for such a design/engineering plan would be unexecutable in the final assembly.
Management does not own the company. Shareholders do. If GM management attempted anything as drastic as your are suggesting in the last 30 years, it would simply lead to a prolonged strike, with the result that nothing changes except for getting the management fired.
Regarding your argument that contract was a product of mutual negotiation, check out UAW history for yourself: pension funding was the result of 104 day strike at Chrysler. That's not exactly negotiation . . . legalized robbery or kidnapping is more like it.
The managers are supposed to manage the company on behalf of the shareholders -- that's why we call them "managers."
So, if they can't develop successful products, then why are they there? If they are incapable of utilizing existing resources to achieve profitability or to fix problems, then why are they there? If they can't make tough decisions and implement them, then why are they there?
Always an excuse and a justification, but just how is this Blame The World strategy supposed to create shareholder value? Managers are supposed to lead, create and innovate, not simply cop out at every opportunity.
I'm just curious -- when they've BK'd the union into irrelevance, and they still haven't turned around the company, who are you going to blame then?
Yeah GM management is inept but it's a lot easier to look inept when each car starts 2 grand in the hole compared to a Toyota vehicle due to legacy costs. IF GM produced a superior product people would buy it and maybe even pay a bit more to help out American workers. You know what, a lot of Japanese cars are built right here in America now non UAW of course. Toyota didn't get where it is by dealing with a militant union whose workers can't get a door bolted on with the correct gaps or interior screws that come undone in a month. Unions care about benefits to their members regardless of performance. The guy who is high and bolts a door on wrong still gets the same raise as the guy who does it right every time.
When GM goes under the union can have an investigation claiming it was an "Enron" situation and everyone is owed pensions.
"So, if they can't develop successful products, then why are they there? If they are incapable of utilizing existing resources to achieve profitability or to fix problems, then why are they there? If they can't make tough decisions and implement them, then why are they there?"
Thye have and do which is why domestic interiors are awful. In order to match the quality of a Lexus interior, you'd have to tack on another $2,500 to the Cadillac CTS. The mangers have tried within the awful framework of the UAW and consumers have chosen other manufacturers.
What's the one constant for FORD/GM during it's 20-30 decline? The unrelenting costs of the UAW. It doesn't matter who you bring in there as long as the UAW is there they will never be able to rise to the top again.
I doubt that Toyota's management team would have made all those bad acquisitions, prioritized production volumes over reliability, or blamed the consumer for preferring other products.
I have little doubt that TMC management would have done a vastly superior job to Roger Smith and the whole variety of groupthink and shortsighted planning that GM has suffered over the years. But I am impressed with GM management's ability to beat this drum of legacy costs so much that the uncompetitive product, bad M&A, and large wholesale business is alternately rationalized and swept under the rug by management's supporters.
Again, it's fairly obvious to me that GM is heading to BK court, and the UAW will be severely defanged as a result. So, who are you going to blame after that? (I would have hoped that sometime during the last few decades, management was actually held partially accountable for how it managed.)
Comments
The CAW does not report to the UAW or vice versa. they are not together. They kinda dislike each other in fact.
Of course you still feel that Delphi is part of GM :P
He supported the Dubai deal also :mad: Along with Hush Bimbo
Rocky
This topic is busy enough without the side issues.
I didn't know they split. Thanks for the link. regardless they are a union and the UAW still posts CAW vehicles on it's website.
Of course you still feel that Delphi is part of GM
I just follow the money :P Look at the major shareholder of Delphi, and look at GM. I once had a list from the UAW, but that's been a few years ago. The reason why they spun it off was to get buisness from other manufactors like Hyundai, John Deere, Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, Chrysler, Kia, Mercury, Ferrari, etc etc. Just about everybody including Ford gets parts from Delphi. No Delphi= No Auto Industry
Rocky
Union per centage of the labor force has been declining in the past two and half decades. I see, you are not counting service jobs as jobs . . . well, then why are you counting manufacturing jobs as jobs? They are not exactly producing corn or beef like real real jobs do. See, the US economy has transitioned from farming to manufacturing in the late 19th century, and then service industry domination since the late 1960's. Manufacturing is just about as "glorious" today as farming was in 1880, becoming smaller and smaller part of the economy despite all the romatic emotional attachment.
Well explain to me why Herman Miller, Steelcase, Stryker, Tyco, Haworth, etc, which are all non-union doing so bad ? huh, huh, huh ?
Non union is certainly no guarantee of success by itself. Business cycle still exist; all those companies you listed have their own product cycle problems, for the time being. None of them would have been the success stories that they were a few years ago if they were saddled with legacy union labor problems.
Ok whoopie Nucor....
Thank you agreeing with me ;-)
Well why is every non-union school district and law enforcement making poverty wages.
The reason is two fold:
(1) Because the employer in this case is a monopoly, namely, the government.
(2) Because the alternative present to the employees are just as bleak in the union schools districts, in terms of work envrionment as well as wages.
My wife used to be a teacher btw, so we know the pains of unappreciating school districts, principal, and parents in a union school district quite well. Now, compare that to a privately operated day care center . . . the owners are usually making out much better than public school teachers.
That is false again.... A union worker according to the dept. of labor out works a non-union worker 2 to 1 on average in the U.S.
What do you mean by "out work"?? What's the definition of "non-union worker" here? Obviously a very narrow definition of "worker" here.
There is as much if not more corruption in the private buisness sector. However being part of the government I will say it happens there to, but not as much.
I see where you are coming from (I had been thinking that you were a union member at a factory all this time, silly me). I will grant you that this country has been blessed with a relatively clean corp of public servants thanks to relatively small government we had for much of the history of the republic. Most government positions have not been there for more than one generation. The old rule of thumb regarding bureaucracy is that, every 40-60 years or so (one or two generations), most bureaucratic institution get clogged up dead weight that it can no longer get much done . . . That's a rule observed through hundreds if not thousands of years of history in the old world. It's being played out in the US even as we speak: State Department being superceded by National Security Council, CIA being superceded by National Security Agency, White House Press Secretary being superceded by the Communications Directory, then the mega-reorg involving Homeland Security Department . . . If past history is any guide, all that shuffling will not stop the inevitable march towards mediocrity, incompetence and corruption. That is not to say every public employee is corrupt; far from it, many of them should be applauded for staying clean. However, hanging all hopes onto their staying clean and their successors staying clean is doomed to produce corrupt empires like the French, Byzantines and Chinese used to have . . . and the Founding Fathers tried so hard to avoid.
I'm not sure what you mean by this....So I won't comment
It's a simple restatement of the simple axiom that:
If you are spending your own money for your own benefit, you will be very exacting about how much you spend and what kind of result you want; if you are spending someone else' money, you will be exactly about results but care less about expenditure; if you are spending someone else' money for a third party's benefits, you can't care less about how much is spent, nor how little result is achieved.
Delphi and GM do have agreements per their separation but are completely separate companies.
McDonalds, Government and big oil are not new employers by definition. I know for fact that there are a lot of new employers, just by driving around the city.
Starting a buisness. Well like I said before who's going to furnish me the loan ????
Registering a business cost $20-25. If you stay with a bank for 3 yrs, many of them will furnish a $100k business line of credit with no question asked. It's really that easy. The key issue is finding a line of service or product that consumers really want . . . not necessarily your own dream, but try to sell consumers their dream ;-) I started my business with less than $20k of my own savings. I get offers of those $100k-500k business loans all the time; never took any. The banker tried really hard to sell me a $500k business line of credit the last time I was there making IRA contributions.
Miller's been a little more quiet lately, did someone duct-tape him. I guess it is hitting home that you just can't put something on the table then expect people to eat it up, no questions asked.
I wonder if they'll ask for another extension (if that's possible). In any event, it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks.
But just remember, the displaced workers can find other "manufacturing" jobs @ the fine burger establishments throughout the land. :P (remember when G.W. tried to dish that stuff out a few years ago when the economy was in a big slump, trying to reclassify burger flipping as manufacturing)
The Canadian Auto Workers union said about 11,000 members of Local 222 at three Oshawa assembly plants are likely to vote to accept job losses -- which could number as many as 2,500 -- to avoid the possibility that GM will shut down two car-assembly plants, and to give the plants a shot at landing new investments, including the Camaro contract.
"I'm anticipating it will be ratified," said CAW spokesman Peter Kennedy. "But I don't think I'd call this a rubber-stamp process because there is a lot of frustration and people are angry that they're in the situation that they're in."
GM has said Oshawa's No. 2 plant will close in 2008 when assembly of the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse/Allure comes to a halt. The No. 1 plant is set to lose assembly of its Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Impala models in 2009.
But the CAW says turning Oshawa's two car factories into one flexible assembly plant that can produce different vehicles would better position GM Canada to secure as much as $701 million (Canadian $800 million) in new investment from GM.
Tis would be a huge investment.
When I drive around the industrial and business districts spread all over Southern California. I see literally hundreds of new businesses that I never heard of. San Diego is sitting at about 4.3% unemployment. Help Wanted signs everywhere. Wal-Mart is paying about $9 per hour starting pay. Most of the jobs are Non-Union. I find it sad as I am about to retire from 45 years in Union work. My children will not have the retirement the Union gained for me. I don't know that they will make out as well as I did. It does no good to cry about lost union jobs. If you have to move to get a decent job, you better do it. My dad moved all over the country following the construction trade. Life is what you make of it. UAW members should just be thankful for the good years. It is not like they have been kept in the dark about the pending doom. If they were not saving for this eventuality shame on them...
If not for wonderful CEO's where would we turn for guidance. I'm thankful to be out of that zoo. I chose to retrain in the Allied Health field. It's booming, but you must pass exam after exam after exam after exam and be fully licensed in the state that you practice. It's good work and it can be really hard work. One nice thing about it is it's not going to ever dry up. After all, the boomers are aging more and more as I type this and I'm a boomer, too. I'll want to be given proper health care when I need it, too. Point of this little discussion: there is life after Boeing, GM, Ford, etc. You must be hard-working and study your trade intently, though. And it's not always easy. Bet that surprised y'all, huh?
BTW-Kia's looking to build a large factory in rural Georgia on the truck line up from Hyundai's Montgomery, Alabama factory. There might be jobs available working for my favorite automobile manufacturer. Just what you wanted to hear, eh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Not quite...I don't doubt that many individual UAW members tried to do their best, but they were not supported by the union as a whole. UAW leadership, just like the executive teams at the domestics, had absolutely no interest in improving vehicle quality until the threat of imported competition forced the issue.
The UAW paid lip service to quality, but the real focus was on getting more pay and benefits for less work. And the union protected the slackers who were there to simply milk the system...and it still does today.
That is very true. It is the case in our Union, and many other Unions as well. Unions have lost the will to police their members. 25 years ago we would put a slacker up to the "E" board and he or she would get their act together or not be protected from company reprimand or termination. Not today. Everyone is worried about being included in a harassment lawsuit.
==============
Bingo.....!! ... give that man a $25 cigar.!
Terry.
Recently The Philadelphia Inquirer - which is hardly a conservative, pro-business newspaper - ran an editorial on the troubles of GM and Ford. What struck me was how the editorial writers pointed fingers at both the UAW and company management as being part of the problem.
And rroyce...where do I pick up my cigar?
I agree with that, but no amount of dedication from the workforce would overcome sloppy engineering, excessive badge engineering, poor design, botched M&A deals, an inappropriate product mix, or outdated distribution channels.
The little guy at GM has very little to do with the overall problem. If GM didn't give away its margins with fleet sales (despite all the hue-and-cry about worker benefits, Toyota is also able to sell cars at much higher wholesale prices than can GM) and service brands that are well tarnished, then the company could make money.
The vast majority of the problem comes from GM's management practices. The union is not exactly a help, but look at this way: If the company was effectively managed, it could overcome these issues with labor -- sales would be sufficient to create profits. But if you banished the union tomorrow, all of the other problems related to product, design, distribution, etc. would remain unchanged.
As is true in any business, bad management is usually the culprit behind the erosion of any company. Automakers are no exception, but unfortunately, their size and scale make the screw-ups more monumental in proportion. Revising a cost structure can slow bleeding, but without products that customers want, revising the cost structure will only slow the inevitable death, rather than create a turnaround.
Having a high price and tight supply structure worked great for Prosche brand equity, but if GM had taken the same route over the past 20 years, it would have been an unmitigated financial disaster . . . because the production workers had/have to be paid the exactly the same regardless whether they were making cars or not. I doubt anyone working for GM or Ford wanted to make cars dedicated to fleet sales . . . however, if your cars are not selling well due to loose tolerance as mentioned above, and your workers have to be kept busy and paid, what choice do you have? Not making any car at all and a short path to bankruptcy (because the workers still have to be paid!)?
Brand engineering is another legacy problem. If GM dropped brands and aggressively stream-lined its offering any time in the past 30 yrs, it would either have to pay out in huge sums (a la Oldsmobile) or face law suits from dealerships in all 50 states. Combine that with the need to keep all the workers paid (and busy), what's the least expensive way to keep the brand obligations fulfilled? (a franchise agreement usually involves a commitment of certain number of new models in a certain number of year period; or the manufacturer would have to be penalty for breach). State laws usually prohibit GM from selling cars to consumers directly.
It's a very tough busines indeed. I doubt any of us could have come up with substantially better solutions than the GM management has done, given the unenviable circumstances . . . much of it the result of inflexible regulations dating from the oligopoly days. When the domestics were oligopolies, the additional cost of regulations just got passed to the consumers (plus a markup for profit on that cost too); once they faced real competition, there was no easy solutions. It's literally like being forced to bring a knife to a gun fight . . . the loser may well have been a good knife fighter or even a good gun fighter, just never had a chance.
You have to forgive me for thinking that you come off as a Rush Limbaugh-flavored ideologue who is eager to acquit management and convict the common worker at every turn, in spite of the abundant evidence to the contrary. This seems to be a poor proxy for demonstrating the Republican-Democrat schism, rather than dealing with the many problems of this specific company.
The proof is in the numbers and the product mix, the reliability and the lack of attention to consumer demand and shifting macroeconomic trends, all of which are all painfully evident to see. I don't know what's worse -- a management team that makes so many poor decisions, or a management team that blows it, then engages in such transparent efforts at damage control that still do nothing to aid profiability or long-term sustainability.
It will be very helpful if you can kindly point out the flaws in my argument as presented, instead of trying to pigeon-hole me into any particular category. Attempting the latter would only compound error on top of erros just like some other poster simply because I'm quite open-minded and liberal in my thinking, and do not easily belong to any particular category or group.
Again for what it's worth, I'm not the leaste related to GM management, aside from being a consumer who benefitted their Saab purchase that led to a remarkably good European car subsidized by GMAC when being sold to consumers.
IMHO, the domestics are pretty good at big picture product mix and detecting shifting consumer demands and macroeconomic trends. They led the market on pickups, minivans and SUV's, the three biggest trend setters in the last thirty years in terms of making a car that they can possibly sell for profit. None of them can possibly make a small car profitably simply due to the labor structure (small cars involve almost just many assembly steps as big vehicles, and sell for much less).
The problem with the domestics is in execution. I think we can agree that product quality is the cause of much of the grief. We seem to disagree on what caused the quality problems. It is my contention that inflexible labor (which got in the way of both adapting robotics and labor discipline) is the root cause for sub-par quality. What I have to back up my theory? at least two fold:
(1) Toyota and Honda have/had much higher robotics utilization rate; that of MB and BMW are lower . . . needless to say, the domestics' reliability is lower than Toyota and Honda, and higher than MB and BMW.
(2) The most significant quality control program ever launched and executed in the last 30 years was GE's six-sigma program of the late 80's and early 90's. What was the six-sigma program about? Neutron Jack cleaning the barn and putting together a disciplined work force and modern tiered personal-responsibility quality control process. What were the chances that the same could have been done at GM, Ford or Chrysler, or any other UAW shop in the last three decades? Zilch.
UAW stood in the way of both adoption of robotics and disciplined work force . . . that was the root cause of poor quality at the domestics. You can not argue against the simple fact that if a product is designed and engineered with tight tolerance, it can not be manufactured on a low-precision produciton line with any acceptable yield rate (e.g. tight gap tolerance in design would lead to production line stall because the last few panels would fail to fit on a high per centage of cars as they approach the end of assembly line). Even in my line of work, I have to constantly keep in mind what the target workers/processes can do while designing products.
If you have a counter argument, instead of off-target personal attacks, I'm all ears.
Industrial robots can't speak English or Chinese, but they can communicate very well with their controllers--something they do 24/7, with no vacations and no health care. They don't receive a pension after they're retired, either. Instead, they get recycled or remanufactured and go to work again.
The average wage for a U.S. warehouse or distribution worker is around $15 per hour (plus benefits). The average wage for this same work in China is about $3 per hour. The average wage for a skilled UAW U.S. automobile worker is $25 to $30 per hour, plus the staggering costs of health care coverage and retirement.
The average cost per hour to operate an industrial robot is, “30 cents per hour,” according to Ron Potter, director of robotic technologies of Factory Automation Systems.
Even if this figure is doubled to 60 cents and includes a vision system, a software package and yearly maintenance, it is still only one-fifth the cost per hour of a Chinese laborer. It is more like one-fiftieth as costly as a General Motors assembler. Is it possible that GM, Ford Motor and a host of other U.S. manufacturers, distribution-center operators and warehouse managers should look more closely at industrial robots?
Robots
I just bought a new GMC PU truck built in Indiana. It is a nice truck. The fit and finish is not in a league with my new VW Passat Wagon built in Germany.
As has been stated. A human assembler cannot compete with a Robot for precision. As long as GM is trying to survive with the UAW contracts currently in affect they will not be able to build cars that compete with a Camry or Accord built by a robot.
Unions are fine as long as there are no unions.
GM is doomed. Get used to it. Filing for bankruptcy and reorganizing may be in their future but it's gonna get real ugly along the way. Those with cushy jobs don't give them up easily, huh?
Question for anyone out there: when the '62-'65 Chevy Nova SS' were built was there a UAW standing in the way...I...I mean helping out Chevy so graciously?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You've made a lot of comments, I'll just touch on a few:
-A union contract is a byproduct of negotiation between management and labor. If you don't like the contract terms, then you should blame both management and labor, because both parties agreed to the terms.
-If you justify the company's choice to badge engineer to support divisions, then you are simply giving management an excuse to avoid making some hard choices.
Except in this case, the choices really aren't all that tough. If you look at GM's financial statements, then you see that GM booked a charge of $583 million to pay to the terminated Olds dealers as compensation. If that sounds like a lot of money, it might help to know that this payoff amounted to a whopping $67 for every car that GM sold by GM during the year 2000. If management can't make similar decisions based upon a $67 expense, I'd hate to see what they would do when the choices are actually costly.
-You forget that style and engineering have both been problematic within GM's product mix, and these are two items for which the UAW obviously has no responsibility. I seriously doubt that management ever asked anybody whether they'd like to build the Cavalier or Cobalt, or if they could take any pride in building them.
-As far as the pursuit of quality, let's see how seriously GM's management takes it by considering some recent news:
The first place (Gold) winner of the JD Power's 2005 Plant Quality Award was GM's Oshawa #2.
Compare this to the list of plant closures planned as part of GM's latest cutting plan. Guess which is one of the plants on the chopping block -- yep, you guessed it -- the very same plant, Oshawa #2. Does its decision to shut down one of the very best auto plants sound like the act of a company committed to quality, or to the needs of the North American customer?
===================
Unions have done a lot of wonderful things for a lot of people for alot of years .... but there comes a time when there is a full blown - "disconnect" ...
GM has made plenty of mistakes for a long time .. I remember in 97 at the dealers meetings when GM couldn't decide to keep or drop the Corvette or maybe place it with a different franchise based on CSI reports for the last 6 months, I remember the battles over maybe dropping Olds and keeping Saturn, even though Saturn hadn't made a dime in the last 8 years .. and the list goes on ...
That all said .... the biggest problem Ford/GM has, is the lack of any quality communication and any ability to comes to terms with the UAW leaders - basically blackmailed ...
You can't cut costs and build better vehicles when you're paying someone $45,000 a year to sweep floors ..
- you can't cut costs when you're paying someone $55,000+ a year to drive a tow motor for 40hrs a week, when they only work 30hrs ..
- you can't cut costs when the tow motor operator files 8 or 9 grievances a year at $1,500 a pop because his buddy didn't show up for work and he's been asked to carry a 10lb tool box for 12 minutes, then that in itself becomes a business ..
- you can't costs when you have guys out on sick leave and they get a Doctors note that say they'll be out with a cold for 2 weeks ..
- you can't costs when you have guys clock in for others on a daily basis ..
- you can't costs when you have guys out for a sprained pinky finger and get paid their full pay for 3 months ..
- you can't cut costs when you have guys that run the computer assembly line and jam-it with a press of a button and the line is stopped for 2 days .. one hour standing, then home - full pay.
- you can't cut costs when they are paying for 100 % of their workmans comp and 75% of those people should have been back at work 2 months ago ..
- you can't cut costs when you have 15/20% of your work force on any given day getting "full pay" because they are in Gen-pop, sorry - union regulations ...
You also can't cut costs when there is no help from the UAW negotiations .... their biggest negotiation 4 years ago was .. "We as members will sacrifice "not" buying any of Fords non-direct products" .... *meaning*, they won't take a discount on Volvo's, Mazda's, Jag's, etc etc ..... that's a power point.?
3 years ago the major issue was the Ford employee's had to finally pay a $7 deductible on the health prescriptions .... you'd thought they had to give up their kidneys for a transplant and the UAW played this to the Max ... the new issue, is paying $125 a month to help cover the cost of the UAW workers family health cost, whether it be 2 or 22 - $125 ..... where on this fine planet can someone find a program like that.? ... but the UAW has run this up the flag pole as a direct attack for the very survival of their endearing and "paying" union members .....
I was born and raised in a Union town, and I don't want to see anyone lose a job ... my Grand Daddy was Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, my Father was Teamsters, my uncle was Ford for 35 years and my brother-in-law is just heading into his 31st year at GM .. and that doesn't count the other 30/40 others that I grew up with, that still work for all of the big 3 that I see or speak with on a full time basis ...
All I can say is: .. Wake-Up.! ... the UAW has done some great things in the past .. but today is today .. if these guys and their members keep letting the UAW be the Captain of their Ship, then they better get some life preservers .. because it's going down in a hurry ..... sad, but reality 101 ......
Terry.
You missed the entire point of this exercise. GM has a problem with the high wages and pension and health care and some lack of worker efficiency with the union. They can do little about that when it comes to negotiations. In the paper all you read is that the people of the Unions will not give in even if they are going bankrupt. What can a company do? Well the same thing the unions. More posturing. they announce massive plant closures and layoffs.
What happens 5 months later? One of the announced closing plants (announced to be closed in 2-3 years) votes with 74% agreement to concessions and the plants are now most likely to stay open and build the new RWD vehicles. Now the #1 quality plant has a good chance of staying open with fewer employees and other concessions.
The above is the only tool GM has to work with the unions. Strikes cause massive downtime and profit loss with the manufacture winning nothing or little. Always have and always will.
That's actually a good insight about GM management's mentality about its workers:
All this talk of quality, and to the extent that the workers play a role in providing it, these workers in Oshawa are clearly doing it. According to the same JD Power survey, it is also the fourth most efficient plant in North America (and yes, this includes those of the transplants.)
So how does GM reward its workers at its best facility for providing a great effort and producing high quality product for the company? It marks it for closure, and them for termination.
Now, why should any other GM worker possibly think that the company will repay them for their efforts and loyalty? The lesson is clear: even if you do a stellar job for GM and create a quality product in an efficient manner, you STILL face the prospects of losing your livelihood. You are not a vital part of the GM team, but just a bean to be counted, and an expense to be trimmed.
Given that, is there any surprise that GM's workers want to have a union? If management is going to seek every opportunity to leverage them for concessions, even after they've done a great job, then the mistrust and desire to bargain collectively is more than justified. The UAW is a byproduct of management's hostility toward the worker, it didn't simply materialize out of thin air.
Does anyone know of problems with worker treatment by the "transplants" at their factories? I can't recall hearing about any yet. How do they handle problems with termination? How do they handle problem workers -- real problems, not just ones someone above them wants to get rid of? Do their worker treament methods actually work the way they say they are working?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Welcome to the 21 century. If you have looked around the automakers are the last of the dinosaurs. Who used to be bigger than GM? AT&T was the biggest of the big. I worked for them. All my fellow loyal employees are out on early retirement. There is no such thing as corporate loyalty in 2006. It is a dog eat dog world. The protectionism of the UAW is doomed. I got out 10 years before the axe fell and went elsewhere. Now I get to retire with a nice pension. My old friends are living from SS check to check. If you are not paying attention to what is happening you get run over. You can cry all you want for the GM & Ford workers. It will not change the ultimate outcome. They cannot maintain the status quo of losing money for too much longer. Ask the UAW bosses how they will make out when it all comes tumbling down. I bet they are sitting just as well as the management at GM. The Union has done as much damage to GM as the management has done.
Right on point. The union bosses are really set up as far as income. No wonder they want the workers to fight so hard to keep the status quo. Does anyone had data on UAW and IUE labor managements' pay setups? I bet the union memebers don't know.
I know of one union where the labor leaders were telling the workers to accept and negotiate 10%-20% pay portions of healthcare costs. Guess what they negotiated for themselves at their employer -- 100% paid, no percentage of healthcare costs for them!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But as a white-collar professional myself, I would submit to you that if you are a producer of a product whose quality and efficiency of production are heavily rooted in the morale of your workers, then attacking that morale is one of the most foolish, unproductive things that you can possibly do.
Again, what kind of message does it send to your workforce, whether or not it is unionized, that doing a great job does absolutely nothing to ensure your continued tenure with the company?
That provides zero incentive for the worker to strive for being the best, because being the best gets you fired. What a weird message to send if your goal is to rally the troops, and in my mind, a ham-fisted move that reeks of incompetence and arrogance.
If GM management had a modicum of intelligence and leadership, it would instead point to this plant as a model, and tell those at the inferior plants to either meet the standard set by the Oshawa people (who should be rewarded with bonuses, etc. for their effort), or face closure themselves.
Yet instead of providing a case study for the workers to follow, it offers another example to the worker about why management can't be trusted. If you want to increase the management-labor schism, that would be a good way to do it.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I agree that if the UAW vanished tomorrow, GM and Ford would still face serious competitive problems that stem from stupid management decisions.
If GM and Ford are to be effectively managed, they must both make some serious changes in the way they do business - that is true. But the UAW does NOT want the companies to make those changes, because it would involve radical changes in how assembly-line workers do their jobs, and how GM and Ford handle staffing needs. How the factories - and production - are managed is crucial in this business, and the UAW IS an integral part of that factor.
The days of the union filling the role of the underdog are long gone. Today the UAW has a fair amount of power within those companies, but I fear that leadership has no clue as to how to use it, except to get more and more for members, until they strangle the goose that is laying the golden eggs. UAW management needs to start telling members that it is no longer 1965, that the threat of transplant competition is real, and that Americans are not going to alter their vehicle buying habits to ensure that union members continue receiving fully paid medical benefits and rich wage packages.
Rroyce did an excellent job of detailing the practices that must be changed on the factory floor if those companies are to survive and thrive. I'll bet anyone here that UAW leadership has absolutely no interest in making those changes.
While these issues can be addressed during contract talks, so far the UAW has acted as though the financial troubles of GM and Ford really don't exist, or that some outside force is really to blame, or that this is ALL management's fault. I don't think the UAW leadership is going to make major concessions during the 2007 contract talks, unless GM and Ford really are prepared to file for bankruptcy.
One does not have to be a follower of Rush Limbaugh to see the evils of collective bargaining. Like I said before, my wife used to be a teacher in a union school district. Seeing the result of collective bargaining first-hand (strict pay equality regardless how much or how little effor one puts in) was quite enough to convince us that it's a process quite capable of destroying worker morale without further contribution from the management.
Collective bargaining was indeed illegal under Sherman Anti-trust Act. If you ever own a business, try setting up uniform pricing to gouge your customers in collusion with your competitors, and see how quickly the feds knock on your door. What enabled collective bargaining was the Clayton Act of 1914, with its assertion that labor is not commodity for commerce therefore exempt from Sherman Act. A rather curious assertion, considering that minimum wage laws obviously treat labor as a non-differentiated commodity.
-A union contract is a byproduct of negotiation between management and labor. If you don't like the contract terms, then you should blame both management and labor, because both parties agreed to the terms.
That would make about as much sense as blaming the kidnap victim for entering into negotiations with the kidnapper, at the beginning. In the hey days of domestic carmaking oligopoly, however, the arrangement served both the union management and the corporate management: while the member benefits and closed-shop/agency-shop policies served to swell the ranks of union membership drive, the excessive labor cost drove the smaller competitors into insolvency, . . . ultimately all at the expense of consumers. Now the oligopolistic pricing power has been dead for nearly two decades; management has been perfectly willing to extricate the company from the antiquated labor structure for just as long yet the labor union has been hanging steadfast onto them threatening strike at every turn . . . whose fault do you think it is for perpetrating the unworkable labor structure?
Except in this case, the choices really aren't all that tough. If you look at GM's financial statements, then you see that GM booked a charge of $583 million to pay to the terminated Olds dealers as compensation.
$583M is a lot of money, considering that in the last profitable quarter, 2004Q4, GM NA operation only made $430M. And that was the only profitable quarter in the last 8 quarters. Pretending that the cost could be amortized to every GM car ever sold, instead of being limited to dwindling Oldsmobiles sales in the last year of its existence, was quite a bald-faced book-cooking feat. Also, the overall cost of closing down Olds cost close to $2 billion, all for very little gain:
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/2005/04/04/cz_jf_0404flint.html
You forget that style and engineering have both been problematic within GM's product mix, and these are two items for which the UAW obviously has no responsibility.
While isolated tasteless designs (e.g.Aztek, Subaru B9) or overly outlandish designs (e.g. last-gen Accord and prev-gen Taurus) show up occasionally from practically every carmaker, domestics are certainly not behind on styles. CTS, Rendezvous, PT Cruiser, HHR, Avalanche, 300M, Hummer, etc. are/were all on the leading edge of style. As to engineering, low-precision production line and production line labor inflexibility severely limit engeering options.
The part about Oshawa is also very misleading. First of all, Oshawa is a plant in Canada, hence not a UAW plant. Its being on the planned closure list may well be the result of UAW political clout. Secondly, the survey is for North America and South American plants only. Thirdly, the plants produce some very old models, also thanks to UAW political clout. While making the same car year after year may help quality in later years, it certainly jeopardize the long-term viability of a plant if no new model is allowed to be produced there.
Four for four (plus some bonus play on political labels and collective bargaining), the ball is now in your court.
Big Surprise . . . NOT! That's what usually happens in a "collective" . . . some are more equal than others. There are two routes of finding cure for this kind of corruption:
(1) the old French, Byzantine and Chinese method of appointing an over-sight committee to watch over them; needless to say, in a few years, you will need another layer to watch over the watchers as they get bought off too as power corrupts; so on and so forth, until you get an unwieldy empire with myriads of bureaucrats arbitrarging power at every level.
(2) the historically Anglo-American solution of minimizing regulations and promoting free market; letting every participant bring forth a better value despite (or rather because of) their self-interest.
Which path do you think will lead to more benefitial results for the consumers, and the society at large?
As for the cost of making changes to the company, if the management is too gutless or tunnelvisioned to divert a quarter's worth of profits to a monumental change that would save literally billions of dollars in future periods, then they are incompetent managers, period. A short-term investment with a short payback period is no brainer to any of us who is actually competent and helped to manage a business.
And despite the "kidnapper" rhetoric, the contract is a byproduct of mutual negotiation. But in any case, if the managers don't manage the company, as you'd like us to believe, why not just fire them now and get it over with? If they are completely unable to affect change, I don't see any reason to keep them there another day longer.
Regarding your argument that contract was a product of mutual negotiation, check out UAW history for yourself: pension funding was the result of 104 day strike at Chrysler. That's not exactly negotiation . . . legalized robbery or kidnapping is more like it.
The managers are supposed to manage the company on behalf of the shareholders -- that's why we call them "managers."
So, if they can't develop successful products, then why are they there? If they are incapable of utilizing existing resources to achieve profitability or to fix problems, then why are they there? If they can't make tough decisions and implement them, then why are they there?
Always an excuse and a justification, but just how is this Blame The World strategy supposed to create shareholder value? Managers are supposed to lead, create and innovate, not simply cop out at every opportunity.
I'm just curious -- when they've BK'd the union into irrelevance, and they still haven't turned around the company, who are you going to blame then?
When GM goes under the union can have an investigation claiming it was an "Enron" situation and everyone is owed pensions.
Thye have and do which is why domestic interiors are awful. In order to match the quality of a Lexus interior, you'd have to tack on another $2,500 to the Cadillac CTS. The mangers have tried within the awful framework of the UAW and consumers have chosen other manufacturers.
I have little doubt that TMC management would have done a vastly superior job to Roger Smith and the whole variety of groupthink and shortsighted planning that GM has suffered over the years. But I am impressed with GM management's ability to beat this drum of legacy costs so much that the uncompetitive product, bad M&A, and large wholesale business is alternately rationalized and swept under the rug by management's supporters.
Again, it's fairly obvious to me that GM is heading to BK court, and the UAW will be severely defanged as a result. So, who are you going to blame after that? (I would have hoped that sometime during the last few decades, management was actually held partially accountable for how it managed.)