[TETENAL]

General Motors wants to lay off 7.000 Opel employees and close the plants in Rüsselsheim and Bochum.

[TETENAL]

GM lays off 10.000 Opel employees. This is an outrage!

[Dakar]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
GM lays off 10.000 Opel employees. This is an outrage!

Is there sufficient work to keep them?

Also, how did the number jump 3,000 between 1 post?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Also, how did the number jump 3,000 between 1 post?

The question is how did the number jump in one day? Ask the GM management. It's probably the usual tactic to blackmail government to give subsidies.

Opel is a car maker of great tradition. It is unthinkable that they close the plant in Rüsselsheim. And I think they also want to cut down development there. GM hasn't been good for the company though time. Opel's quality problems it often had were direct results of GM's cost cutting measures. GM also didn't invest into the plant in Bochum, so it comes at no surprise that this plant is not efficient.

[vmarks]

GM has resold the Opel around the world under different model names as well- the Cadillac Catera, most recently, and the Buick Opel in the late 70s. The early 70s gave us the Opel GT, a 7/8th size corvette.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Reuters has an interesting article Here. Basically, it says that this is a wider issue than just GM. Several European car manufacturers are finding themselves squeezed between an oversupplied market, lower-cost imports, and high labor costs.

But most manufacturers now feel chronic overcapacity in Europe, as Asian carmakers expand in an already crowded market, will force reform and that it could even come down to the survival of the fittest.

Europe's biggest carmaker Volkswagen and U.S. giant GM both hope to whittle down costs by freezing wages. Ford luxury unit Jaguar announced last week it would halt car production at a UK plant and cut over 1,100 jobs.

Volkswagen said it wanted to stay close to its customers and was reforming to make this possible.

Saab Chief Peter Augustsson said his company was also cutting back on jobs.

"We are actually reducing. We took out some substantial amount of people a couple of years ago in our Swedish operation and it will continue," he told CNBC.

"You could say that we are reducing our costs by about 15-20 percent in manufacturing. That means there will be fewer people doing more and that's part of this industry's development."

That's something that isn't new in the auto industry and it is certainly something that US makers have faced.

With respect to Germany though, this struck me:

GM has denied it is pitting the Opel plant in Ruesselsheim, Germany, against the Saab plant in Trollhattan, Sweden.

Swedish wage costs are around 35 percent lower than German ones, GM Europe President Carl-Peter Forster said, even though transport costs are higher.

Germany needs to do something about that. Imagine how much cheaper labor is in, say, Poland if labor is 35% cheaper in Sweden.

Anyway, these kinds of dislocations are never fun for the workers but I used to drive past the Rüsselsheim plant pretty much weekly and it doesn't strike me that the car plant is the only local employer. It's not like the entire economy will collapse.

[MATTRESS]

High wages leads to companies looking for places with lower wages? You don't say?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Germany needs to do something about that.

High ancillary wage costs are a problem. It's not fair to blame the workers for that.

I used to drive past the Rüsselsheim plant pretty much weekly and it doesn't strike me that the car plant is the only local employer. It's not like the entire economy will collapse.

It's the largest employer of the city. 4.000 layoffs as planned there have a severe impact on the region.

[MATTRESS]

And as usual they will find something else to do.

Perhaps if they didn't price their labor out of the market then they could keep their jobs. I have no sympathy for people like that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
High ancillary wage costs are a problem. It's not fair to blame the workers for that.

It's not a question of "blaming" workers. Employers are just making a rational economic business decision. It really doesn't matter what the underlying cause of the excessive labor costs are. If employers can't afford to pay the costs, they will lay people off.

[OldManMac]

Don't worry, they'll be able to work at Wal-Mart.

[Atomic Rooster]

U.S. answer to this unemployment problem.

Build some Wal-Marts.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Don't worry, they'll be able to work at Wal-Mart.

WOW!!! You had the same thought as me at the same time!!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
U.S. answer to this unemployment problem.

Build some Wal-Marts.

Actually, I think it is "come build your auto plants in the US where workers are skilled and productive, and costs are reasonable."

Critical factors drive automotive industry to East South Central Region

By Deena C. Bouknight


ALABAMA
Influx of new jobs saves state economy from serious trouble

Of the 30 or so large new projects and expansions underway this year in Alabama, half are auto-related. In the past few years, Alabama has landed Honda, Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai assembly plants and a Toyota engine plant. In 2003, carmakers and their suppliers accounted for nearly 55,000 direct jobs and some $3 billion in overall payroll in the state.

Workers are clamoring for employment at the new auto-related facilities because of the reputation these new plants are achieving for their better wages and benefits packages. Workers typically earn more than $10 an hour for basic assembly line work, and that wage jumps significantly the longer the employment or the more skilled the employee.

Link

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not a question of "blaming" workers. Employers are just making a rational economic business decision. It really doesn't matter what the underlying cause of the excessive labor costs are. If employers can't afford to pay the costs, they will lay people off.

As I said, high ancillary wage costs are a problem, but they are not the only problem (and you continue to "blame" high wages as the only reason). For example when Opel had the rusting problems – which cost them many sales and severely damaged Opel's image in the long term – this was a GM management mistake.

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
U.S. answer to this unemployment problem.

Build some Wal-Marts.

There is a large ware house chain in Germany – Karstadt. They are in financial trouble as well, want to close half of their ware houses and lay off 5.500 employees. Was it the high wages that brought Karstadt into trouble? No. They bought a dozen or so of smaller chains (Runner's Point, Starbucks Coffee, Thomas Cook etc.) all of which are losing money. Bright idea! Who is now going to pay for it? The employees are. What did the manager get that ruined the company? A 4 million golden handshake.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
(and you continue to "blame" high wages as the only reason).

No, I said labor costs. Labor costs include a great deal more than wages. It's also specifically what GM cite. I take it they know their own business and can compare their overheads between plants in different countries. They said labor costs in Germany were 35% higher than in Sweden. Sweden isn't exactly a poor country. You have a structural problem that you need to fix -- quick.

[djohnson]

So why dont you have the German President do something about it? It must be his fault... Oh wait, is there a German President? Better yet, blame the EU!

[Atomic Rooster]

I dunno where I read this but I have and heard it many times as well. Labor costs are a very small part of manufacturing costs. Especially in mass production. Even Philip's management has said this.

[aberdeenwriter]

Would ANYONE accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist were I to suggest a possible connection between the plant closure and Germany's stance re: Bush & Iraq?

Hmmm?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
As I said, high ancillary wage costs are a problem, but they are not the only problem (and you continue to "blame" high wages as the only reason). For example when Opel had the rusting problems – which cost them many sales and severely damaged Opel's image in the long term – this was a GM management mistake.
There is a large ware house chain in Germany – Karstadt. They are in financial trouble as well, want to close half of their ware houses and lay off 5.500 employees. Was it the high wages that brought Karstadt into trouble? No. They bought a dozen or so of smaller chains (Runner's Point, Starbucks Coffee, Thomas Cook etc.) all of which are losing money. Bright idea! Who is now going to pay for it? The employees are. What did the manager get that ruined the company? A 4 million golden handshake.

Welcome to the American way of doing business! Management, which is ultimately responsible, makes bad decisions, and gets rewarded nonetheless.

[aberdeenwriter]

Here's another set of clues:

US Military is leaving.

Now Germany has to spend a higher % of it's GNP on national defense than during the past 59 years, when the heavy lifting was done by the US.



Freedom is not free.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here's another set of clues:

US Military is leaving.

Now Germany has to spend a higher % of it's GNP on national defense than during the past 59 years, when the heavy lifting was done by the US.



Freedom is not free.

Brilliant.

And Brazilians wouldn't have to eat our rainforest if you bought more Twinkies.

Or what?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Brilliant.

And Brazilians wouldn't have to eat our rainforest if you bought more Twinkies.

Or what?

I know that economic interests are behind rain forest de-forestation. I know it is not good for the environment.

The remainder of your statement leaves me scratching my head (allowing question marks to escape).

Ahhh, so you are Brazilliant! ("our rainforest")

EDIT: Are you saying you see no connection?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Would ANYONE accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist were I to suggest a possible connection between the plant closure and Germany's stance re: Bush & Iraq?

Hmmm?

Yeah, I would. Business is business, and it's money that GM is looking at, not politics. I think it would be rather ridiculous to think that Iraq and the German position regarding it have anything to do with it. The bottom line, on the other hand, is usually the driving force.

I don't know what the wages for autoworkers in Germany are, but the two automotive plants in my area pay about $30 per hour and give all the OT you can handle. I know high school drop outs that are clearing $100,000 a year pushing out transmissions. Boring work, but the pay makes up for it.

The loss of major manufacturing jobs is brutal on a local economy. My county lost 3000 jobs in less than five years do to the closing of a Miller Brewery, Nestle Chocolate plant, and an International Paper plant. We'll probably never recover from that loss. There aren't any new industries clamoring to fill the void. Pretty sad for an area that for 150 years thrived and prospered on industry and manufacturing. If Alcan ever closes up shop, that's it manufacturing jobs here.

And it's not just a matter of a specific plant not being profitable. That Nestle plant I mentioned above was Nestle's highest producing plant world wide (as well as being the oldest chocolate factory in the US and the birthplace of Nestle's Quick, for what ever nostalgia is worth). Those jobs are in Brazil now.

Some plant managers and employees got together and raised the money to buy the plant and set up there own operation producing as a contract vendor. Nestle flat out refused to sell to them, instead auctioning off the equipment for pennies on the dollar and 'donating' the building and property to the city so they would no longer be obliged to pay the tax bill. Money talks, and ******** runs the marathon. Not politics, just cash.

At least there is an African Consortium that wants to begin production there, and everyone is keeping their fingers crossed.

[badidea]

Originally posted by djohnson:
... Oh wait, is there a German President? ...

Yes, his name is Horst Köhler!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


[...]

EDIT: Are you saying you see no connection?

bingo.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by badidea:
Yes, his name is Horst Köhler!

LOL! I don't follow European Politics as closely as most Europeans follow US politics... Anyways, plant closing suck for the people doing the actual manual labor. For the most part, the higher up management will just move to the new location. I guess though, you have to go to where you make the most money. Sometimes every penny counts!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by djohnson:
LOL! I don't follow European Politics as closely as most Europeans follow US politics...

That's okay.

The president isn't really the political leader; he's the formal head of state. As such, he is supposed to live beyond partisan politics.

The actual political leader is the chancellor (Gerhard Schröder, before him: Helmut Kohl).

-s*

[Troll]

It's interesting the whole labour costs argument. I read a study recently comparing the Mercedes, BMW, Opel and Volkswagen plants in South Africa with those in Germany. Labour is much cheaper in South Africa but South African workers are so much less productive (due to education levels mostly) that German workers are cheaper! They produce more with fewer mistakes than their African counterparts. In fact, German workers were around 4 times more productive than South Africans.

I think though that this is a problem with two of the big manufacturers rather than a problem in the industry as a whole. If you look at the European car industry generally, it's still growing. Mercedes Benz is selling more models than ever, as are BMW and Audi. Porsche is doing better than ever. It's just that VW and GM have lost their share of the market. Why? Because they aren't making good cars. Opel is the jewel in the GM crown as far as Europe goes. Saab is losing money, American cars aren't competitive because they are mostly petrol engines and gas guzzlers and they're expensive for compartively low quality. Opel was doing very well in the 90's with the Opel Corsa and Astra ranges. They had good designs, the quality had improved drastically and their performance was unbeatable. Since then they've had a number of models flop. The last two derivatives of the Corsa haven't sold well nor has the Astra and they've had even worse problems with their other ranges. VW has been in a similar position. The new Polo has lost money and the new Golf seems to be a non-starter. They've try to become a luxury car maker and no longer cover the traditional cheap market. You can get much more car elsewhere. As for Opel, well they seem to be making a bit of a comeback with the new Astra and certain other models but probably not enough to sustain all those workers.

At the same time, the French auto industry has surged with PSA and Renault growing at phenomonenal rates on the back of excellent products. Renault caught everyone by surprise with the Scenic and invented a new market sector that the rest have been slow to come into. Their entire Megane range is selling enormously well. PSA's Peugeot 206 consistently eclipsed the Golf as the top selling passenger car in Europe and they've had success with the Picasso too. So, a lot of those jobs that are going missing in Germany have turned up in France. Even VW's own Seat and Audi are doing well - both have innovative designs.

I think in the case of both GM and VW, management is to blame for where they are. PSA and Citroen have double figue growth at the moment because they are innovating. GM and VW aren't. It has nothing to do with labour costs IMHO. It has to do with them not offering good products.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Troll:
In fact, German workers were around 4 times more productive than South Africans.

This reminds me of an unforgettable conversation I heard between two workers in the pause room of a chemical factory (in Germany) I was working in as a student. It was in production and physically very hard work.

Worker: "Was mir schaffe, könne die garnet bezahle!"
Other: "Ja... wenn mer schaffe däide."

Which translates to something like

Worker: "The (hard) work we do, they can't pay for."
Other: "Yeah... if we would work."

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That's okay.

The president isn't really the political leader; he's the formal head of state. As such, he is supposed to live beyond partisan politics.

The actual political leader is the chancellor (Gerhard Schröder, before him: Helmut Kohl).

-s*

chancellor as in what Hitler was? Not comparing them in anyways, just the name chancellor.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Troll:
Why? Because they aren't making good cars. Opel is the jewel in the GM crown as far as Europe goes. Saab is losing money, American cars aren't competitive because they are mostly petrol engines and gas guzzlers and they're expensive for compartively low quality.

Ahh but in the US people throw a fit if you introduce a diesel engine. I would love to have one of the new engines that produce less pollution than gasoline engines. Better fuel economy, cleaner emissions, and more power in a lighter design. I dont see a draw back except for the enviro freaks that think diesel == pollution! The new standard is what, 5 parts per million? Doesnt gasoline put out somewhere around 17-50 parts per million?

[Spliffdaddy]

The ill-fated diesel offerrings from twenty years ago are still haunting our thoughts today. With the exception of perhaps 2 European models, all diesel vehicles passenger cars used modified gasoline engines as their foundation. And they sucked really bad in nearly every way. GM especially, and Ford, to a lesser degree - are responsible for the reluctance of the American public to accept the diesel engine. Diesels are viewed as smelly, slow, noisy, and unreliable - much like we view liberal Democrats. heh.

Mercedes-Benz even gave up trying to sell their diesel models ('real' diesels, btw) in America. That should tell you something. Although VW still offers them, and has since the late 70's. I noticed that the diesel-engined VWs have poor resale value when compared to their gas-engined siblings. So, it appears that Americans still maintain a distaste for diesels.

Except for me, that is. But then, I had several good ones (VW Rabbit & M-B 300D) and none of the bad ones (GM V8s).

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Except for me, that is. But then, I had several good ones (VW Rabbit & M-B 300D) and none of the bad ones (GM V8s).

I must say that it took me a long time to get used to diesels. Even now, when I drive with the window open in a diesel, I'm reminded of driving the tractor on my uncle's farm! In France around 70% of the car market is now diesel and Europe-wide it's around 50%.

Some of the engines are really amazing. Much as I detest SUV's, I needed a 4x4 on a snowboarding trip recently and we rented a Diesel VW Touareg. Absolutely amazing engine in that thing!

[mitchell_pgh]

Isn't this exactly what happened to the US in the 80's?

We moved many of our car plants to Canada and Mexico (or elsewhere) in search for cheaper labor?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Troll:
Much as I detest SUV's, I needed a 4x4 on a snowboarding trip recently and we rented a Diesel VW Touareg. Absolutely amazing engine in that thing!

LOL!!!111oneoneone

Gripe about SUVs until you need one. Then you will use it!

[Troll]

Originally posted by djohnson:
LOL!!!111oneoneone

Gripe about SUVs until you need one. Then you will use it!

First off, I don't have a general gripe with SUV's. I have a gripe with people who don't need them, such as people who live in inner cities, driving SUV's. Most people who own them have never gone off road. Even those who do say they need them, use them once a year, when they could just as well rent one. If you have to cross a river to get to your home or if you live on the side of a mountain, by all means, drive an SUV. I personally used an SUV to get a part of the Alps was inaccessbile in anything else. Second, the SUV I had, I RENTED. That is, I shared the environmental impact with hundreds of other people. Finally, the SUV I had was a diesel.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by djohnson:
chancellor as in what Hitler was? Not comparing them in anyways, just the name chancellor.

In much the same way as both Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush were "presidents" of their respective countries, yes.

Remember, Hitler was elected legally by people just like you who loved simple, straightforward answers.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Ahh but in the US people throw a fit if you introduce a diesel engine. I would love to have one of the new engines that produce less pollution than gasoline engines. Better fuel economy, cleaner emissions, and more power in a lighter design. I dont see a draw back except for the enviro freaks that think diesel == pollution! The new standard is what, 5 parts per million? Doesnt gasoline put out somewhere around 17-50 parts per million?

Diesel is the most disgusting idea to ever be invented. You obviously haven't been to any one of many countries where diesel is king and gasoline is rare.

Personally, I'll take a gasoline run nation over a diesel one any day of the week, Diesel = disgusting, smelly, sooty. Blech.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Diesel is the most disgusting idea to ever be invented. You obviously haven't been to any one of many countries where diesel is king and gasoline is rare.

Personally, I'll take a gasoline run nation over a diesel one any day of the week, Diesel = disgusting, smelly, sooty. Blech.

Does the Mighty American Truck™ eat regular unleaded? They must, if they're King (of the Road), right?

Every other truck in the world runs on Diesel.

[TETENAL]

There is no problem with Diesel if they have a particle filter like the French ones do.

[Spliffdaddy]

The catalytic converter is responsible for burning most of the unburnt hydrocarbons in a gasoline engine. Therefore, the exhaust gasses look clean. Mostly just carbon dioxide and water vapor. The harmful gasses are not the visible ones, and they have no odor, either. To the untrained eye, one would think the gasoline engine was less polluting than the diesel. That's not the case, typically. Most of the visible smoke emitted by diesels is merely harmless carbon particles. It looks dirty, but really isn't a pollutant. Technology exists to clean (filter/reburn) the exhaust gasses in a diesel engine so the 'objectionable', but not-really-polluting carbon will not be visible.

Diesels typically pollute less than a similar gasoline engine - it's just that the gasoline engine emits non-visible odor-free pollutants...and even those are re-burned in the catalytic converter.

Note that the catalytic converter is only required on vehicles in countries that care about the environment.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Does the Mighty American Truck™ eat regular unleaded? They must, if they're King (of the Road), right?

Every other truck in the world runs on Diesel.

What I'm saying is if the concentration of diesel increased here then the skies would be brown, our clothes sooty, etc.

I've been to many countries where diesel is the norm and when I return I spend weeks hacking up brown/black phlegm, my clothes are filthy, etc. And the smell of the diesel polluted air and it's thickness makes for one nauseating experience.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The catalytic converter is responsible for burning most of the unburnt hydrocarbons in a gasoline engine. Therefore, the exhaust gasses look clean. Mostly just carbon dioxide and water vapor. The harmful gasses are not the visible ones, and they have no odor, either. To the untrained eye, one would think the gasoline engine was less polluting than the diesel. That's not the case, typically. Most of the visible smoke emitted by diesels is merely harmless carbon particles. It looks dirty, but really isn't a pollutant. Technology exists to clean (filter/reburn) the exhaust gasses in a diesel engine so the 'objectionable', but not-really-polluting carbon will not be visible.

Diesels typically pollute less than a similar gasoline engine - it's just that the gasoline engine emits non-visible odor-free pollutants...and even those are re-burned in the catalytic converter.

Note that the catalytic converter is only required on vehicles in countries that care about the environment.

Would you rather be breathing non-carcinogenic vapors such as water vapor or CO^2, or, would you rather be sucking in all those sooty particles when you inhale?

The problem is that Joe Public isn't going to maintain his diesel to keep it "clean."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Would you rather be breathing non-carcinogenic vapors such as water vapor or CO^2, or, would you rather be sucking in all those sooty particles when you inhale?

The problem is that Joe Public isn't going to maintain his diesel to keep it "clean."

Would you mind actually reading what he wrote?

I'll gladly settle for whichever is LESS noxious.

Which happens to be diesel. (It's also less harmful to the environment and the energy-balance, since diesel engines typically consume quite a bit less fuel, while diesel fuel itself is not as refined as gasoline, meaning there's less energy involved in production, as well.)

Unfortunately, my van, being older, is not fitted with a soot filter, but the French are pioneers in that respect. They will be standard across Europe in a few years.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Would you rather be breathing non-carcinogenic vapors such as water vapor or CO^2, or, would you rather be sucking in all those sooty particles when you inhale?

The problem is that Joe Public isn't going to maintain his diesel to keep it "clean."

Joe Public maintains his gas-engine car at the force of government threat in the US- or don't you have car inspections with emissions tests yearly?

When the car fails inspection, you are forced to repair it or suffer the liklihood of being ticketed.

And that's just the 49 states outside of California- heaven help you if you find yourself at the mercy of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with a car that won't pass inspection.

[OldManMac]

We haven't had inspections in Michigan for the last seven or eight years, IIRC. My seven year old Pontiac has never gone through one.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by KarlG:
We haven't had inspections in Michigan for the last seven or eight years, IIRC. My seven year old Pontiac has never gone through one.

Interesting. I wonder if that's somehow related to the state being the home of the Big Three.

I thought Tennessee was the only state that was absent when it came to not performing mandatory vehicle inspection.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by KarlG:
We haven't had inspections in Michigan for the last seven or eight years, IIRC. My seven year old Pontiac has never gone through one.

That's irresponsible. A defective car is a hazard not only for you but also for others.

[OldManMac]

When we did have them, our inspections were strictly for pollution control. We've never had inspections, as they do in some states, where they check mechanical issues, like brakes, etc. Many years ago, I was in PA on a business trip for a few days, and I was told that state inspections there were so tough that one couldn't even have a rust hole on a car, over a certain size. Does anyone know if that's still true?