[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Railroader

False. You amaze me. Do you even think at all when you post?
.

I'm not a finance major like my friend. I could be wrong on some things, but it was something like that.

[placebo1969]

I kind of torn. It's a shame that a large company like GM is in the position it's in. But they (along with Ford and Chrysler to a lesser extent) haven't made the changes quick enough in the face of competition from Japan and now South Korea. Unfortunately, I can't consider any GM products when I compare them to Honda and Toyota.

[ambush]

Is it, along with outsourcing, linked to a larger phenomenon?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

I kind of torn. It's a shame that a large company like GM is in the position it's in. But they (along with Ford and Chrysler to a lesser extent) haven't made the changes quick enough in the face of competition from Japan and now South Korea. Unfortunately, I can't consider any GM products when I compare them to Honda and Toyota.

The corvette seems to be well sorted out. It's not what I'd call gorgeous, but the price and performance are spot on! Let's see, run with cars costing twice as much, and get 30mpg on the highway? Neat ride.

[ReggieX]

Without capitalism, they wouldn't have had jobs in the first place.

[ambush]

you're right.

Instead of being exploited by big pockets shareholders, they would work for the State, the common good,

[ndptal85]

Originally Posted by ambush

you're right.

Instead of being exploited by big pockets shareholders, they would work for the State, the common good,

Yeah that whole common good thing worked out real well for the Soviet Union. Its also working out really well for the Cubans who love it so much they're risking their lives to cross the ocean to get to Florida. And its working so well for China that they're abandoning it for a market economy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ndptal85

Yeah that whole common good thing worked out real well for the Soviet Union. Its also working out really well for the Cubans who love it so much they're risking their lives to cross the ocean to get to Florida. And its working so well for China that they're abandoning it for a market economy.

and don't forget the N. Koreans, they're lucky if they can get a meal every couple days.

[ghporter]

There was a time not too terribly long ago when the UAW was trying very hard to destroy the auto industry. Instead of making demands about safety and work conditions, the only things you heard about their negotiations were more money for less work. It got to be pretty harsh in the mid 1970s; with the oil embargo's repercussions still rattling around the industry and the union demanding more for less, a lot of plants were idled or just plain shut down. The one in my home town, Flat Rock, MI was one of those plants.

Then there was a change in union thinking. Maybe having thousands of out of work union members who weren't getting jack from the companies because the companies couldn't afford to hire them had something to do with it. In any case, Both the union and the companies changed how they did things, and it was for the better for the whole industry.

That doesn't mean that the suits in Detroit got all soft and sentimental, or that they demanded their designers and engineers give them products that were really fuel efficient and hot on the market - they still haven't quite gotten rolling as well as the Japan-based car makers have - but they figured that building a 1950's design with 1975 sheet metal on the outside was not the best thing to do. This is often known as a "kick in the @ss." At the same time, the union decided that being entitled to less pay, but having an actual chance to work, was a Good Thing, and wage demands changed pretty radically. It took a long time for the U.S. auto industry to rebuild from that particular situation, but they wound up being better companies with more dedicated workers for it.

Finally, I don't think that any corporation in the U.S. could manage to simply let go tens of thousands of workers without a real attrition plan like GM's. I don't think the public or the government would stand for it, and the effects on the economy would be pretty harsh. These particular suits aren't dumb; they want to streamline their operations, closing plants that are excess or inefficiently designed for today's processes, and at the same time clear the personnel books of people who are ready to retire anyway. (Keeping a retirement-eligible worker on the books becomes a diminishing returns issue, just as it's a diminishing return issue for the worker to keep working after some point when the retirement package gets large enough.)

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There was a time not too terribly long ago when the UAW was trying very hard to destroy the auto industry. Instead of making demands about safety and work conditions, the only things you heard about their negotiations were more money for less work. It got to be pretty harsh in the mid 1970s; with the oil embargo's repercussions still rattling around the industry and the union demanding more for less, a lot of plants were idled or just plain shut down. The one in my home town, Flat Rock, MI was one of those plants.

Was it Ford's Michigan Casting Center? My father worked there (he was in Ford finance--I grew up in Trenton, btw). I remember that time when I was young: Leonard Woodcock was running the UAW--and they struck with actual effectiveness. We'd be waiting and waiting to see who'd be the strike target, and there was real trepidation in my household.

While I haven't the time right now to cover all that I want to write about this, I'll add a personal anecdote: Currently, I'm a contract employee with General Motors archives, and I'm categorizing and encoding (to WMV, blech) historical (and not) film from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s that've been converted to digi-beta. Anyway, there was one today I encoded with a newly appointed Roger B. Smith addressing the workers regarding restructuring due to Japanese competition. Twenty-five or so years later, the song remains the same.

What's happening to the Big 3 (which used to be 4 with American Motors in the 70s) is not a failure of Capitalism; it's a failure of competence and vision beginning with management, abetted by the UAW with a veneer of denial in what globalization really means and that people will be buying SUVs forever.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by hayesk

It's got nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with people would rather buy better cars than what GM makes.

I disagree completely. I think it has a LOT to do with unions. Let me explain.

Did you know that non-union employees in American auto plants owned by foreign manufacturers make MORE money than UAW employees do? What they are buying for their extra money is accountability. If someone comes into work drunk, fails a drug test, or consistantly performs poorly at their job assignment, they can be fired. This is not the case at a UAW-controlled facility.

For three months, I worked as a SalTech (first line supervisor) at a UAW facility. I had 27 UAW employees report directly to me. Most of my employees (~85%) were honest, hard-working, punctual, and took pride in doing a good job. They were great. The remaining 15% were there to exploit the system. They would always perform at the lowest level possible. They would complain whenever there was a change of plans, or even the smallest extra bit of work was asked of them. They would show up late or not at all, with no advanced notice. They were poor employees.

The economy of the area I worked at was interesting. It was a small town and the plant contributed a lot to running the economy of the area. The GM jobs were so high-paying (~$27/hr + overtime) that there was a lottery every time more positions opened up. And the jobs are generally easier than working at McDonalds. One of my worst employees was a young kid (probably very early 20's) who, obviously, won the lottery. He had no college education and was mowing lawns for $6 per hour when he got the job. You can imagine what a gift it was for him. He bought a new car and a new motorcycle while I was there. There were probably about six other people who really wanted that job, and who would have done a better job, but didn't get it.

The great irony of the whole situation is that no one, not even his union brothers, liked having him around. He would cause problems, slow down production, and generally cost the facility money. No one wanted to come out and say it, but they didn't want to work for an organization that DEFENDED his poor performance! It would have been better for everyone if the plant were able to fire him and replace him with someone who would appreciate the job and work hard at it (like most of the people there). But the union went out of the way to defend his mediocrity.

Furthermore, none of the hard-working people got any extra reward for their hard work! I would have LOVED to take the mandatory contractual raise that this guy got every year, and give it to someone who deserved it more! But, with no incentive to work hard, and practically no penalty for working poorly, the union system tends to bring out the worst in people.

So, in conclusion, my opinion is that the UAW shoulders a share of the blame for what's happening, although not all of it. It's not the people (like I said, most of my employees were great, even though there was basically no incentive), it's the institution.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by KarlG

If anyone has ever paid attention, which doesn't seem to be the case, the Japanse and German car manufacturers who have plants in the States pay their employees comparable wages and benefits, yet they're selling cars and not screaming about their overpaid workers.

Right, because at those plants workers earn their wages, instead of having them guaranteed regardless of how well or poorly they do their jobs. Accountability is a wonderful thing.

[kcmac]

This is not about the Unions.

If it wasn't for the Rental Car companies, GM would be lucky to sell one of their ugly A$$ automobiles.

And if you don't believe me, go rent one. Crap, crap, triple crap.

The only way out of this mess is to DESIGN and INNOVATE their way out of it. But they are just too big and stupid to do this. Instead, their solution is to get rid of their biggest asset which is their people.

Idiots. (And no, I do not or do not know anyone that works for GM. I also do not work or have worked for a Union.)

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by kcmac

This is not about the Unions.

If it wasn't for the Rental Car companies, GM would be lucky to sell one of their ugly A$$ automobiles.

And if you don't believe me, go rent one. Crap, crap, triple crap.

The only way out of this mess is to DESIGN and INNOVATE their way out of it. But they are just too big and stupid to do this. Instead, their solution is to get rid of their biggest asset which is their people.

Idiots. (And no, I do not or do not know anyone that works for GM. I also do not work or have worked for a Union.)

I think the UAW is part of the problem, not the whole problem.

The big three made a big investment in SUV's, which paid off for a while, but with gas prices on the rise, I think their sales are slipping. It was short-sighted.

I like some of GM's products. The Corvette is, in my opinion, clearly the best. I also like the Pontiac GTO, the Saab 9-2X, and most Cadillacs. I also really liked the Aurora but they don't make it anymore. Those are pretty much the only cars I really like. Some of their other vehicles seem very pedestrian. And their 3800 V6 engine is a crime against nature. 3.8 liters, pushrod valvetrain, 2 valves per cylinder, iron block, iron heads, roots blower, 240 horsepower. Yuck!

I own a 2003 Cavalier and I have been pretty happy with it. I have not been impressed with the quality. The sunroof shade doesn't like to slide easily. When I first got it, the passenger window would get stuck when rolled all the way down. But, I love the powertrain. I think they did a great job with the all-aluminum ECOTEC, and the transaxle is very nice too. I can't complain very much about it.

So, like I said, I think it's a combination of factors: union, short-sighted management, and ho-hum designs on a lot of their vehicles. I just emphasized the union part because it was being discussed, and I have relevant experience.

[ambush]

why can't they hire competent designers? is it THAT hard to come up with exciting designs? why can the other companies in europe and asia can [mostly] do it right? heck, if you can,t do it at least just copy their style.

The corvette might be nice, but there's not a huge market attached to it.

How about innovation? Hybrid? Electric? GM *has* influence on the US govt. Why can't they use it to change things?

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by ambush

why can't they hire competent designers? is it THAT hard to come up with exciting designs? why can the other companies in europe and asia can [mostly] do it right? heck, if you can,t do it at least just copy their style.

The corvette might be nice, but there's not a huge market attached to it.

How about innovation? Hybrid? Electric? GM *has* influence on the US govt. Why can't they use it to change things?

Exactly.

Look at Chrysler. They got bailed out by the government many years ago. They came back by completely redesigning and refining their lineup. You actually recognize their vehicles from the rest of the pack.

GM? Good lord. In the first place they have about a bazillion different models. (Kinda like Apple when they had the performas...)

Why can't they drastically reduce their model line, redesign them and try to kick everyone's a$$? Why don't they get aggressive with good looking hybrids that maybe someone other than the CEO of the company can afford?

Is it the Union holding them back here? Sure, I guess that unless they go on strike and say they aren't coming back until they can build something that doesn't look like crap you can blame the workers.

This fish is dead in the head but unfortunately they are cutting from the wrong end.

[Link]

Dig the monte carlo, along with their cadillac cars... there's some nice stuff there not to mention the corvette, but chevy needs a little change of focus away from their trucks/SUVs if they want to stay in business.

What I'd like to see: More new designs -- not retro but not another japanese car wannabe, new engines, some ... really interesting interior designs (probably the biggest problem with them IMHO).

About one of the only reasons I'd not get an Impala and thus want a Charger/300

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by scottiB

Lutz didn't join GM until after the Azteks had hit the showroom. The Aztek was introduced mid-2000, and Lutz joined GM in an official capacity in September 2001. While he was consulting GM before that by a 8-12 months, he lacked the authority to kill the line after so much had been invested in it.

Didn't Lutz's daughter actually design it? So, by the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon effect, he's to blame.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ambush

Well sorry for starting a thread that, after 48 posts+ interests many people.

I hereby predict GM will soon fail.

Railroader: don't worry all's going very well for GM. In your opium dream smoke screen anyway No go watch that TV show and try to forget it's soon going to be your turn

Redneck: I'm flattered by the fulcrum pilot comparison

Opium dream? You're the one who is the drug abuser, not me.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I'm not a finance major like my friend. I could be wrong on some things, but it was something like that.

Well, you were completely wrong in this case. And your friend is not very smart if he told you that.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I disagree completely. I think it has a LOT to do with unions. Let me explain.

Did you know that non-union employees in American auto plants owned by foreign manufacturers make MORE money than UAW employees do? What they are buying for their extra money is accountability. If someone comes into work drunk, fails a drug test, or consistantly performs poorly at their job assignment, they can be fired. This is not the case at a UAW-controlled facility.

For three months, I worked as a SalTech (first line supervisor) at a UAW facility. I had 27 UAW employees report directly to me. Most of my employees (~85%) were honest, hard-working, punctual, and took pride in doing a good job. They were great. The remaining 15% were there to exploit the system. They would always perform at the lowest level possible. They would complain whenever there was a change of plans, or even the smallest extra bit of work was asked of them. They would show up late or not at all, with no advanced notice. They were poor employees.

The economy of the area I worked at was interesting. It was a small town and the plant contributed a lot to running the economy of the area. The GM jobs were so high-paying (~$27/hr + overtime) that there was a lottery every time more positions opened up. And the jobs are generally easier than working at McDonalds. One of my worst employees was a young kid (probably very early 20's) who, obviously, won the lottery. He had no college education and was mowing lawns for $6 per hour when he got the job. You can imagine what a gift it was for him. He bought a new car and a new motorcycle while I was there. There were probably about six other people who really wanted that job, and who would have done a better job, but didn't get it.

The great irony of the whole situation is that no one, not even his union brothers, liked having him around. He would cause problems, slow down production, and generally cost the facility money. No one wanted to come out and say it, but they didn't want to work for an organization that DEFENDED his poor performance! It would have been better for everyone if the plant were able to fire him and replace him with someone who would appreciate the job and work hard at it (like most of the people there). But the union went out of the way to defend his mediocrity.

Furthermore, none of the hard-working people got any extra reward for their hard work! I would have LOVED to take the mandatory contractual raise that this guy got every year, and give it to someone who deserved it more! But, with no incentive to work hard, and practically no penalty for working poorly, the union system tends to bring out the worst in people.

So, in conclusion, my opinion is that the UAW shoulders a share of the blame for what's happening, although not all of it. It's not the people (like I said, most of my employees were great, even though there was basically no incentive), it's the institution.

Not all UAW plants/locasl are the same. In our local/plant, you show up with .0001% alcohol in your system, or any illegal drug, you are fired. It is a ZERO-tolerance plant.You have a chance to come back, but only after you complete a rehab stint and you pay for it. THEN, you have a chance to come back, but if you are ever caught again, you are fired without ANY union backing.

You make a bad part, you are disciplined, and if you make too many, you are fired.

Say you normally work 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and you decide to "stick it to 'em" and stop working all of the overtime, you are fired. It is called a "work slow down" and your employment is terminated.

Take too long of a break, you get the rest of the shift off without pay and have a record made in your personell file. If this happens too many times, you are fired.

UAW jobs are not cake walks. They are paid a high wage, but with it comes more responsibility. I have worked in non-union shops for less pay, and I had FAR less responsibilities.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Right, because at those plants workers earn their wages, instead of having them guaranteed regardless of how well or poorly they do their jobs. Accountability is a wonderful thing.

You are simply wrong on this regard. GM is not like this. Maybe where you worked it was, but not GM.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by kcmac

This is not about the Unions.

If it wasn't for the Rental Car companies, GM would be lucky to sell one of their ugly A$$ automobiles.

And if you don't believe me, go rent one. Crap, crap, triple crap.

The only way out of this mess is to DESIGN and INNOVATE their way out of it. But they are just too big and stupid to do this. Instead, their solution is to get rid of their biggest asset which is their people.

Idiots. (And no, I do not or do not know anyone that works for GM. I also do not work or have worked for a Union.)

Only about 5% of GMs car sales are to rental companies.

You can't really judge any car company on rental cars you have driven. The first thing 99.9% of all car renters do is slam on the gas and beat the thing hard. I have had to rent just about all makes of cars when renting and they are all trashed.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by kcmac

Exactly.

Look at Chrysler. They got bailed out by the government many years ago. They came back by completely redesigning and refining their lineup. You actually recognize their vehicles from the rest of the pack.

GM? Good lord. In the first place they have about a bazillion different models. (Kinda like Apple when they had the performas...)

Why can't they drastically reduce their model line, redesign them and try to kick everyone's a$$? Why don't they get aggressive with good looking hybrids that maybe someone other than the CEO of the company can afford?

Is it the Union holding them back here? Sure, I guess that unless they go on strike and say they aren't coming back until they can build something that doesn't look like crap you can blame the workers.

This fish is dead in the head but unfortunately they are cutting from the wrong end.

You are completely delusional. The workers cannot strike over such a folly. The unions are severly limited in what they can strike over.

[Link]

Wow, talk about damage control there

What's funny is GM cars have gotten cheap. [ooh, $26k fully loaded impala ss!]

I think people are just mesmerized with Honda/Toyota = reliable. In reality, I doubt they're the car manufacturing gods they're seen as.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Only about 5% of GMs car sales are to rental companies.

You can't really judge any car company on rental cars you have driven. The first thing 99.9% of all car renters do is slam on the gas and beat the thing hard. I have had to rent just about all makes of cars when renting and they are all trashed.

Sorry, but your numbers appear to be quite low.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosins...tos-297748.htm

"About 17 percent of the 16.5 million new cars and trucks produced in the U.S. annually year are leased and another 20 percent are sold to fleet customers such as car-rental companies."

Interesting article about some of the dynamics of car sales statistics.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Sorry, but your numbers appear to be quite low.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosins...tos-297748.htm

"About 17 percent of the 16.5 million new cars and trucks produced in the U.S. annually year are leased and another 20 percent are sold to fleet customers such as car-rental companies."

Interesting article about some of the dynamics of car sales statistics.

My numbers might be low, but you don't have GM's numbers either. I am only going by what I heard in a once a year "State of the Business Address" meeting. I'll admit, I don't have hard numbers or a link/article to refrence to.

Actually, your numbers aren't really applicable at all. Leases could be to companies or private individuals. Fleet sales could be to rental car companies, large private companies, and/or the various governments.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Link

Wow, talk about damage control there

What's funny is GM cars have gotten cheap. [ooh, $26k fully loaded impala ss!]

I think people are just mesmerized with Honda/Toyota = reliable. In reality, I doubt they're the car manufacturing gods they're seen as.

I like seeing GM and all of the other various manufacturers drop the prices of new cars to realistic numbers. Prices were rising too fast in my opinion.

The quality differences are very minute anymore between the various manufacturers. A few percentage points really.

[Link]

Yep. I've actually heard at least a dozen "I drove an acura the other day and it had a lot more wind noise than my <insert "big 3" car here>" -- usually shocked 300 or charger owners (it's my fault really, I've been interested in said cars and trolling said forums)...

I'm guessing it applies to any car company

What amazes me is how those that are playing with "modern muscle" don't see the potential their less powerful engines have -- erm, some are more powerful than most competitors' engines and still get better gas mileage. Unfortunately instead of being advertised as such, they're cast aside while the HEMIs and small blocks are taking the fame.

Rode in a favorite taxi driver's monte carlo today.. for a 3 year old car that's dang nice, and I didn't even notice him start it up it was so quiet o_O Nice car Too bad we as a family need a 4 door

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Link

Yep. I've actually heard at least a dozen "I drove an acura the other day and it had a lot more wind noise than my <insert "big 3" car here>" -- usually shocked 300 or charger owners (it's my fault really, I've been interested in said cars and trolling said forums)...

I'm guessing it applies to any car company

What amazes me is how those that are playing with "modern muscle" don't see the potential their less powerful engines have -- erm, some are more powerful than most competitors' engines and still get better gas mileage. Unfortunately instead of being advertised as such, they're cast aside while the HEMIs and small blocks are taking the fame.

Rode in a favorite taxi driver's monte carlo today.. for a 3 year old car that's dang nice, and I didn't even notice him start it up it was so quiet o_O Nice car Too bad we as a family need a 4 door

All this is probably true. I rented a Chevy Malibu the other day and was quite impressed with it. The problem is that too many of GM's buyers are people like me. I once owned a Buick Skylark. It was such a heap of unreliable junk I would be very leery of buying another GM product ever again. That's the way it is with brands and marketing. It takes a very long time to develop a positive image with the customer, but no time at all to create a negative one. GM did that because for too many years their products were badly made by a company and a workforce that obviously took their customers for granted. It creates a lasting impression.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by Link

I think people are just mesmerized with Honda/Toyota = reliable. In reality, I doubt they're the car manufacturing gods they're seen as.

More than GM styling (and over-capacity), this is what's hurting the American carmakers. The Toyota Camry isn't avant-garde, but they're purchased because of an established history of quality. If given a choice most consumers will choose reliability over styling (in most products). What's also hurt GM is allowing its entry-level cars languish for so long without nothing but facelifts.

The Cavalier and Sunbird had $3000 rebates on them before they were euthanized. This allowed buyers to consider Korean brands (Hyundai and Kia) that made cheaper, good-enough cars that carried a 10-year/100k mile warranty. Once consumers, most of whom hadn't thought of buying a Korean car before, were satisfied with them, it opens the doors for them to stay outside American cars for their purchasing lives.

Originally Posted by kcmac

Look at Chrysler. They got bailed out by the government many years ago. They came back by completely redesigning and refining their lineup.

Well, they were bailed-out twice and were headed for a third when Daimler Benz swallowed them--and almost brought Daimler/Chrysler to its knees. Recently, though, the American unit is outperforming the German financially.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

My numbers might be low, but you don't have GM's numbers either. I am only going by what I heard in a once a year "State of the Business Address" meeting. I'll admit, I don't have hard numbers or a link/article to refrence to.

Actually, your numbers aren't really applicable at all. Leases could be to companies or private individuals. Fleet sales could be to rental car companies, large private companies, and/or the various governments.

Actually, the 20 percent is valid when it comes to the discussion, even though it may be off a few percentage points. Whether it's to car rental agencies isn't really relevant, as the facts are that a much larger percentage of their cars go to fleets, which buy them based primarily on price, than 5%. Government agencies, corporations, and rental fleets buy cars based primarily on price and aren't that concerned about styling and features and engineering uniqueness. That still doesn't say much about their abilities to get individual consumers to buy their products.

Cars like the Malibu (which is rated as a fine car by most reviewers but still doesn't sell what GM had hoped it woudl), the Taurus, and the Impala are bland cars that often wind up in fleets, because there's no compelling reason for consumers to purchase one. The individuals who do buy these don't really care much about what they're buying either. They just want something that appears conservatively styled and relatively reliable, at an affordable price, and they often buy them just because they think of them as "American" cars.

[ambush]

does kilbey get paid by gm for each post he makes

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Only about 5% of GMs car sales are to rental companies.

You can't really judge any car company on rental cars you have driven. The first thing 99.9% of all car renters do is slam on the gas and beat the thing hard. I have had to rent just about all makes of cars when renting and they are all trashed.

I rent cars 2 to 3 times a week. (I travel a lot).

99% of the time, the car I get has less than 5K miles on it. If you can trash a car that quick, IT IS CRAP!

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You are completely delusional. The workers cannot strike over such a folly. The unions are severly limited in what they can strike over.

You are completely misreading my statement. I am defending the GM Worker. Read it again please and leave your emotions out of it. I was JOKING when I mentioned the strike business.

GM, at the top has a big problem. Again, I don't pit their troubles on the worker. I blame it on the top where branding and design decisions are made. They obviously are way out of touch with what the consumer wants and have been for a long time.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Not all UAW plants/locasl are the same. In our local/plant, you show up with .0001% alcohol in your system, or any illegal drug, you are fired. It is a ZERO-tolerance plant.You have a chance to come back, but only after you complete a rehab stint and you pay for it. THEN, you have a chance to come back, but if you are ever caught again, you are fired without ANY union backing.

You make a bad part, you are disciplined, and if you make too many, you are fired.

Say you normally work 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and you decide to "stick it to 'em" and stop working all of the overtime, you are fired. It is called a "work slow down" and your employment is terminated.

Take too long of a break, you get the rest of the shift off without pay and have a record made in your personell file. If this happens too many times, you are fired.

I am glad there is more accountability at your facility than where I worked, and you should be too. However, I find it very hard to believe that it is completely devoid of the problems that I witnessed. For example, I'd guess overtime is still awarded on an entitlement basis, not a merit basis. I'd also guess that your salary is not a cent higher than than the worst-performing employee in your trade. Wouldn't you like to be rewarded for doing excellent work by having a bigger salary and more chance to work overtime?

Originally Posted by Railroader

UAW jobs are not cake walks. They are paid a high wage, but with it comes more responsibility. I have worked in non-union shops for less pay, and I had FAR less responsibilities.

I understand the jobs at my facility and yours are not cake walks. It's a little different since you're skilled trades, and all my employees were "regular." Part of what you're paid for is the responsibility, since every part that is scrapped, or never made, costs the site a substantial sum of money. Employees in American Toyota plants actually make slightly more money than the UAW, and they are buying more control over their employees.

My point was that the jobs my employees were doing were not difficult. They did not require any type of advanced education or special skills. That said, most of them took pride in their work, inspected every part carefuly, and cared about doing a good job and for that, they should be rewarded. It was the ~15% who did not that I had the problem with.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You are simply wrong on this regard. GM is not like this. Maybe where you worked it was, but not GM.

I worked at a GM plant, although I won't say where. The problems I described were epidemic, and were eating the facility from the inside out.

I feel like I have loyalty to GM, and it kills me to see them going through hard times. Turning down the job offer I got from them was easily the single hardest decision I have ever had to make. I have many friends who work for GM, and they gave me two great internships. And like I said, I was very impressed by the hard work and dedication of most of the hourly workers. It's not (the majority of) the workers I have a problem with, it's the system.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Actually, the 20 percent is valid when it comes to the discussion, even though it may be off a few percentage points. Whether it's to car rental agencies isn't really relevant, as the facts are that a much larger percentage of their cars go to fleets, which buy them based primarily on price, than 5%. Government agencies, corporations, and rental fleets buy cars based primarily on price and aren't that concerned about styling and features and engineering uniqueness. That still doesn't say much about their abilities to get individual consumers to buy their products.

Cars like the Malibu (which is rated as a fine car by most reviewers but still doesn't sell what GM had hoped it woudl), the Taurus, and the Impala are bland cars that often wind up in fleets, because there's no compelling reason for consumers to purchase one. The individuals who do buy these don't really care much about what they're buying either. They just want something that appears conservatively styled and relatively reliable, at an affordable price, and they often buy them just because they think of them as "American" cars.

No, it doesn't. I mentioned rental car companies for a reason. It was the number I was given by our plant president. I wasn't including government purchases or private company purchases. Rental car companies. Am I clear.

You might be right on your number. But we really can't be sure of it. The number you gave was a vague number representing an average of auto manufacturers.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ambush

does kilbey get paid by gm for each post he makes

No, I get paid by the hour. You are so silly. /do.my.dishes]

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by kcmac

You are completely misreading my statement. I am defending the GM Worker. Read it again please and leave your emotions out of it. I was JOKING when I mentioned the strike business.

GM, at the top has a big problem. Again, I don't pit their troubles on the worker. I blame it on the top where branding and design decisions are made. They obviously are way out of touch with what the consumer wants and have been for a long time.

I understood you were defending the worker.

I am sorry. I thought you were serious. I never underestimate the level of stupidity in this place. (hint:ambush.)

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I am glad there is more accountability at your facility than where I worked, and you should be too. However, I find it very hard to believe that it is completely devoid of the problems that I witnessed. For example, I'd guess overtime is still awarded on an entitlement basis, not a merit basis. I'd also guess that your salary is not a cent higher than than the worst-performing employee in your trade. Wouldn't you like to be rewarded for doing excellent work by having a bigger salary and more chance to work overtime?

I don't really care what the other employees do as long as they do their jobs. There is enough accountability in place that it is usually assured.

I agreed to do a job for a certain wage, with certain benefits. I do what is asked, I make extra money for suggestions that save the company money or provides a safer work environment. It is a good arrangement. It does not bother me that some people have easier assignments and make the same amount of money as me. Good for them. I am highly satisfied with my job and what I am paid.

Overtime is determined upon an equality basis. It is doled out equally. If, you accept overtime for a job you are unable to do, you will be disciplined.

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I understand the jobs at my facility and yours are not cake walks. It's a little different since you're skilled trades, and all my employees were "regular." Part of what you're paid for is the responsibility, since every part that is scrapped, or never made, costs the site a substantial sum of money. Employees in American Toyota plants actually make slightly more money than the UAW, and they are buying more control over their employees.

My point was that the jobs my employees were doing were not difficult. They did not require any type of advanced education or special skills. That said, most of them took pride in their work, inspected every part carefuly, and cared about doing a good job and for that, they should be rewarded. It was the ~15% who did not that I had the problem with.

And I pay for union protection and the safety of not being fired on a whim. I have no problem with that. The union has steered the company in the right direction quite a few times. If we did not have that say in the business we would be completely at our management's whims.

The jobs may not have been "difficult" but have you ever worked an assembly line? Do you have any idea how mind numbing that labor is?

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I don't really care what the other employees do as long as they do their jobs. There is enough accountability in place that it is usually assured.

I agreed to do a job for a certain wage, with certain benefits. I do what is asked, I make extra money for suggestions that save the company money or provides a safer work environment. It is a good arrangement. It does not bother me that some people have easier assignments and make the same amount of money as me. Good for them. I am highly satisfied with my job and what I am paid.

Well, you should care. GM doesn't exist in a sheltered world anymore - it has to perform in a highly competitive global economy in order to survive. The money that's being paid to those workers who don't deserve it could go to someone else as an incentive to work better. That's what your competitors are doing, and they're driving you out of the market.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Overtime is determined upon an equality basis. It is doled out equally. If, you accept overtime for a job you are unable to do, you will be disciplined.

Equality. Entitlement. Regression toward the mean. It's all part of the same ideology. While this ideology may have been acceptable 40 years ago, it is simply not good enough for today's economy. GM, and every company, needs to be looking for ways to encourage their employees to perform at a higher level, and for GM, the union is a major obstacle. The union defends those who perform poorly and restrains those who perform well. The social and economic conditions that existed when unions were created do not exist anymore. I would say unions are obsolete and a hindrance to the growth of a modern global economy.

Originally Posted by Railroader

The jobs may not have been "difficult" but have you ever worked an assembly line? Do you have any idea how mind numbing that labor is?

Yes, I do. One night I worked on the line. It is extremely mind-numbing. I'm struggling to imagine how much I would despise the prospect of doing that for 40 years. That's why I went to a good university, completed a competitive degree program, and demonstrated my skills and my ability to apply them under pressure. That's why I now have a job where I'm paid to think, not move parts for one machine to the next. My job is intellectually stimulating, and I couldn't have it any other way. For others, the idea of having a simple, easy, and high-paying job is a dream come true, but that's not me.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

The jobs may not have been "difficult" but have you ever worked an assembly line? Do you have any idea how mind numbing that labor is?

Are you saying they deserve union protection, and high wages, because they're not motivated enough to find something better to do than act like automatons?

[ambush]

by railroader The jobs may not have been "difficult" but have you ever worked an assembly line? Do you have any idea how mind numbing that labor is?

Yes, YES!

Now, you are speaking like the great Marx.
THE GREAT MARX!!!! wow... my dream come true. Now, I respect you!
This is part of Marx's ALIENATION of the worker.

Workers create products by mixing their own labor in with natural resources to make new, composite things that have greater economic value. Thus, the labor itself is objectified, its worth turned into an ordinary thing that can be bought and sold on the open market, a mere commodity. The labor now exists in a form entirely external to the worker, separated forever from the human being whose very life it once was. This is the root of what Marx called alienation, a destructive feature of industrial life.

Workers in a capitalistic economic system become trapped in a vicious circle: the harder they work, the more resources in the natural world are appropriated for production, which leaves fewer resources for the workers to live on, so that they have to pay for their own livelihood out of their wages, to earn which they must work even harder. When the very means of subsistence are commodities along with labor, their is no escape for the "wage slave."

Thus, Marx pointed out, workers are alienated in several distinct ways: from their products as externalized objects existing independently of their makers; from the natural world out of which the raw material of these products has been appropriated; from their own labor, which becomes a grudging necessity instead of a worthwhile activity; and from each other as the consumers of the composite products. These dire conditions, according to Marx, are the invariable consequences of industrial society.

from my philo book!

must read...
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5o.htm#manu

you're making progress... defending unions... I LOVE YOU!

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ambush

Thus, Marx pointed out, workers are alienated in several distinct ways: from their products as externalized objects existing independently of their makers; from the natural world out of which the raw material of these products has been appropriated; from their own labor, which becomes a grudging necessity instead of a worthwhile activity; and from each other as the consumers of the composite products. These dire conditions, according to Marx, are the invariable consequences of industrial society.

And socialism provides better incentive structures because _________________________.



And an example of socialism working better is ________________________________.




Nice work on the e-book, by the way. Really.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by finboy

And socialism provides better incentive structures because _________________________.



And an example of socialism working better is ________________________________.




Nice work on the e-book, by the way. Really.

I think he was being sarcastic about Marxist socialism.

[memento]

I've said this many times before (just not on this board), strong sales bring in more cash to innovate. Innovation takes many forms, not just product design. GM needs to execute a plan to let people retire while hiring and training the remaining to work more efficient and accurate robotic assembly. Push the envelope of manufacturing. I'm sure the unions would not be happy about this in general (don't know about GM specific, but I do know about another US manufacturer).

To increase sales, GM needs compelling cars for the mass public. They have none. They need attractive and innovative features to overcome the Honda/Toy/Hyun reliability brainwash. Where are the small efficient diesels? Diesel VWs and Jeep Libertys cannot be made fast enough. Where's the Mazda3 killer? The Cobalt? Why would someone buy a Vibe when they can buy a Matrix? Or a Saab 9-2X when they can buy an Impreza? What about AWD and sporty 5 and 6 speed manuals for people who are driving enthusiasts? My next car may be the Mazdaspeed6. AWD, manual, beautiful, and very quick. There's no GM I'd even consider (or Ford for that matter).

Their designs stink and they are numb to drive. Design cars that set sales records and you'll see how quickly they can turn around.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by finboy

And socialism provides better incentive structures because _________________________.



And an example of socialism working better is ________________________________.




Nice work on the e-book, by the way. Really.

Communism is good in theory, but repressive in reality. An utopic regime.

NONETHELESS, concepts that marx studied and invented about capitalism (plus-value, alienation of the worker, a LOT more) are applicable in real life, like railroadr noted.

Do not ad hominem marx and think all of his theories are WRONG. He is a great studier of capitalism.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ambush

Do not ad hominem marx and think all of his theories are WRONG.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for Marx. It's all the folks who cite him as the potential savior of mankind that bug me. I'm tired of hearing that "if we'd only do it right this time" we could have utopia.

And I figured that you might have some examples, that's all.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I understood you were defending the worker.

I am sorry. I thought you were serious. I never underestimate the level of stupidity in this place. (hint:ambush.)

Stupid is as stupid does. (And that was not meant for Ambush)

You my friend, are a little naive. Enabling the great dinosaur will only lead them to the tar pits sooner. GM needs a kick in the A$$. Instead, they are doing it to the employees rather than to their philosophy, their strategy, their long term goals.

People will buy what they like. They aren't buying GM. What's not to understand?