Labor Union Demands Killing GM?

[manowar821]

HELL no.

 

[MaxisOne]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: conehead433
the simple truth is that the foreign automakers build a more dependable car that usually gets better gas mileage.

have you looked at the domestics in the last 5 years? they have models to compete with each and everything that any foreign maker sells.

How about a domestic version of a Mazda3 Grand Touring 5 door and Honda Fit Sport? Funny story... I just got back from a cruise to Grand Cayman and 2 stops in Mexico. They had several small Ford and Chevy models there that I've never seen on our roads. I pointed out a few and said to my friends, 'Why don't they sell those in the US?'.

Edit: (no the Vibe doesn't count)

Domestic competition for the Mazda3 5 door I give to the the Saturn Astra 5-door and for the MazdaSpeed 3 I would give you the HHR SS. It will take your Mazda3 to school and yes I mean the MazdaSpeed 3. Sure it might not please the dashstroking snobs here but performance wise it's far superior to the Mazda while also getting better mileage.

Nurburgring lap times:
8:40 --- Audi TT 2.0 TFSU
8:40 --- Cadillac CTS
8:42 --- Audi TT 1.8 Quattro
8:43 --- Honda Integra Type R
8:43.5 - Chevrolet HHR SS
8:47 --- Honda Civic Type-R
8:50 --- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG
8:52 --- VW Golf GTI DSG

You missed the point ...

We are looking at all round reliability .. NOT lap times.

While My 2000 Ford Contour SE sport has one of the smoothest nicest v6 that can be had in a car that size i still hate the damn thing ... and its not because of performance or even engine reliability. Its the Fit and finish ... after 3 years the interior of the car looks like its been through Afghanistan. The Domestics may have caught up in terms of engine reliabilty.. ill give them that ... but overall fit and finish over time... They have a ways to go.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: MaxisOne
You missed the point ...

We are looking at all round reliability .. NOT lap times.

While My 2000 Ford Contour SE sport has one of the smoothest nicest v6 that can be had in a car that size i still hate the damn thing ... and its not because of performance or even engine reliability. Its the Fit and finish ... after 3 years the interior of the car looks like its been through Afghanistan. The Domestics may have caught up in terms of engine reliabilty.. ill give them that ... but overall fit and finish over time... They have a ways to go.

Actually, not really, GM and Ford have come a LONG way in terms of reliability and fit and finish. If you compare their cars and trucks, with out the biased that all of anandtech seem to have towards the domestics, against the foreign competition you'd see that. I know that not all their cars are up to par but enough are to say that the domestics are far different to what they were years ago. Maybe you missed the point. BTW, my 4 year old Silverado's interior still has the same fit and finish it had the day i bought it, nothing falling off, nothing rattling.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: conehead433
the simple truth is that the foreign automakers build a more dependable car that usually gets better gas mileage.

have you looked at the domestics in the last 5 years? they have models to compete with each and everything that any foreign maker sells.

How about a domestic version of a Mazda3 Grand Touring 5 door and Honda Fit Sport? Funny story... I just got back from a cruise to Grand Cayman and 2 stops in Mexico. They had several small Ford and Chevy models there that I've never seen on our roads. I pointed out a few and said to my friends, 'Why don't they sell those in the US?'.

Edit: (no the Vibe doesn't count)

Domestic competition for the Mazda3 5 door I give to the the Saturn Astra 5-door and for the MazdaSpeed 3 I would give you the HHR SS. It will take your Mazda3 to school and yes I mean the MazdaSpeed 3. Sure it might not please the dashstroking snobs here but performance wise it's far superior to the Mazda while also getting better mileage.

Nurburgring lap times:
8:40 --- Audi TT 2.0 TFSU
8:40 --- Cadillac CTS
8:42 --- Audi TT 1.8 Quattro
8:43 --- Honda Integra Type R
8:43.5 - Chevrolet HHR SS
8:47 --- Honda Civic Type-R
8:50 --- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG
8:52 --- VW Golf GTI DSG

You definitely sounded like GM when they commented on Toyota first coming out with the Prius hybrid. GM said the only hybrid they're coming out with is the smell of rubber on the asphalt road, now that is hybrid! Today the Prius is selling like hot cakes with almost three months of back orders, while GM is begging for a bailout! And can you believe this, GM was even relying to make a come back with the 2009 Camaro and hope it'll give it the financial lift it needs? Do these people even go out and see what customers or the market wants? Do they actually believe they can just push any car designs to the customers? Well, the answer is an obvious NO!

That was Chrysler (Dodge Charger "hybrid" burns gas and rubber), not GM. GM already has a hybrid full size SUV out, unlike Toyota, which does not have a system robust enough to handle that duty. Also, Camaro IS going to be a hit for GM, and before you start whining about consumers not buying it because of fuel economy, 80% are pre ordered with a V8.

 

[quikah]

Originally posted by: Robor

How about a domestic version of a Mazda3 Grand Touring 5 door and Honda Fit Sport? Funny story... I just got back from a cruise to Grand Cayman and 2 stops in Mexico. They had several small Ford and Chevy models there that I've never seen on our roads. I pointed out a few and said to my friends, 'Why don't they sell those in the US?'.

Edit: (no the Vibe doesn't count)

The 2010 Ford focus is supposed to use the C1 platform (which is what the Mazda 3 is using).

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: herm0016
have you looked at the domestics in the last 5 years? they have models to compete with each and everything that any foreign maker sells.

I agree but for some reason the US doesn't get the good cars, look at ford with their mondeo, had that been available here I would have handily taken that over my Honda but alas the company doesn't feel like this is a good market for that product.

My sentiment is in line with the OP and that article, Unions are killing the US auto industry and need to be done away with, however the dems won't do anything about it because they want the vote that the unions bring.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If anything the government should offer to help them AFTER they enter chapter 11.

Ditch the union contracts, close the unprofitable plants, shed thousands of workers and totally streamline operations.

Go into chapter 11, develop a plan to do all that and then have the government help pay for it all. When it is all over the companies will emerge in far better shape and it will help the entire industry by being healthier.

QFT

 

[Puffnstuff]

Having owned several new gm vehicles over the years I can honestly say that gm killed itself with inferior products and workmanship. GM is the reason there's a honda and a toyota in my driveway right now. Over the years I've owned pontiac, chevy, olds, buick, vw, ford, dodge, nissan, toyota, honda and kia. I will not buy from a domestic manufacturer until they best their asian competitors in quality, ergonomics and style. I've spent too much time taking my domestics in for warranty repairs and being in rental cars while they're being worked on. Sorry but they did it to themselves and I am wholy opposed to the federal government giving them my tax dollars when I won't even buy one of their products for myself.

 

[nobodyknows]

We'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we let the big 3 automakers go down, wouldn't we? To be sure they have problems, especially management problems, but why doesn't everybody just take a cut in pay in exchange for government help?

I don't have any facts or figures to support my theory but it seems to me that paying for retired workers health care is killing them because their competition (domestic Toyota, etc. plants) haven't been open long enough to have that problem.

IMO, a UHC plan would level that playing field enough to make them competitive again.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
We'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we let the big 3 automakers go down, wouldn't we? To be sure they have problems, especially management problems, but why doesn't everybody just take a cut in pay in exchange for government help?

I don't have any facts or figures to support my theory but it seems to me that paying for retired workers health care is killing them because their competition (domestic Toyota, etc. plants) haven't been open long enough to have that problem.

IMO, a UHC plan would level that playing field enough to make them competitive again.

Your theories are sound. You should run for office, as we need some clear thinking in positions of power. I think you've summed it up short and sweet.

Now here, well, this bunch prefers those sensational headlines, knee-jerk reactions and worrying about me, me, me.

 

[Squisher]

You could easily bring down that labor cost to the $45/hr. range with some changes to the contract. I saw it done at a supplier. It won't be pretty, but it can be done.

But, you'd need the UAW to get onboard.


btw-the article states that a bailout will save 100,000 jobs. That is so far from truth that I don't know what to say. There could be as many as 6 million jobs in jeopardy. Even the foreign car manufacturers would face some tough times, because they use the same suppliers for half of their components of their domestically made products. Those suppliers would fail. Toyota, Honda, Mazda, etc. would have to stop production in their US plants. The only source for vehicles in the USA would be those shipped here for at least a couple of years. What happens when there is a shortage in the supply of something?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Squisher
You could easily bring down that labor cost to the $45/hr. range with some changes to the contract. I saw it done at a supplier. It won't be pretty, but it can be done.

This leads to why I fear that these loans will not work. The Democratic party is the friend of labor. They know that labor costs need to come down in conjunction with new management but they don't want to put themselves into the position of demanding labor concessions as a condition of these loans.

Gettlefinger knows this too. He's between a rock and a hard place. He needs to man up and let the membership know what needs to be done and why it needs to be done. But he wants it forced down his throat so that he doesn't appear to be the bad guy. It's not going to come from the Dem's. I bet he secretly wishes McCain would have won as he would have had a bad guy to pin it all on. Of course a McCain win would have meant the same management, so, that scenario would probably have been unworkable too.

A perfect storm that was a long time coming.

 

[Craig234]

The main poont I'll make is that without getting into the specific dollar amounts, it's good to see the workers make a decent wage - not only is it the moral thing for their good, not only is it the 'American dream' to have a wealthier middle class, it also helps our economy for them to buy more. The fact is, while where to draw the line is an amorphous discussion, *clearly* the facts show that our billionares are getting far too high a share of the nation's growth and wealth, and there's plenty of room for workers to make more.

That means asking how to make Toyota pay more, rather than how to make GM pay less.

Otherwise, let's have the next car company pay half what Toyota does, $17.50 an hour, and beat *them*. Then someone $9, and then export the jobs to China for $2.

The fundamental problem I see with the right-wing on economics is their lack of vision and commitment to the economic well-being of the people, instead only of the owners.

Need I post a reminder of the lessons of history, how when the people were empowered with unions in the first place, the middle class and the wealthy alike thrived?

And the wrong turn the country took in 1981 with Reagan, anti-inion, since when the bottom 80% of Americans have received none of the great economic growth, after inflation, while the higher you go, the higher percent they make, from a few percent gain at the 90% mark to 500% at the top 0.01%?

There's an old Hawaaiian proverb about crabs being easy to keep in a bucket because if one climbs out the others pull it back. People sadly look to 'pull back' their fellow workers.

By the way, the big part of the GM costs that are health care wages, PJ says are 'good for his uncle', are also 'good for the nation', but a reminder why UHC is good for business.

 

[Vette73]

Actually if you include bonus pay that Toyota uses then their pay is usually higher then current UAW/GM workers.

"The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.
In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies
In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers..."


Its the legacy cost that hurt GM. MGT signed away their future for todays money at the time so they could get their money and then get out and dump it on the next MGT. They come in and do the same until there is nothing left. Current MGT knows this but tried to play the same game and never tried to cut legacy cost and let the union have what they want so they get to keep their jobs and the VPs (not ceo) make more then then the CEO at other large forgin car makers.

 

[Strk]

I can't understand how the benefits at GM end up costing so much. I'm union and our benefits add around $7.50 per hour. It's full coverage. The biggest copay is ER ($50), with outpatient $15 and in-patient $5. Preventive dental work is free and most other work is $5 per visit. We also get a pension. And yes, it's a family plan.

I just can't figure out how poorly GM negotiated those contracts to get the figure that high.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: conehead433
the simple truth is that the foreign automakers build a more dependable car that usually gets better gas mileage.

have you looked at the domestics in the last 5 years? they have models to compete with each and everything that any foreign maker sells.

How about a domestic version of a Mazda3 Grand Touring 5 door and Honda Fit Sport? Funny story... I just got back from a cruise to Grand Cayman and 2 stops in Mexico. They had several small Ford and Chevy models there that I've never seen on our roads. I pointed out a few and said to my friends, 'Why don't they sell those in the US?'.

Edit: (no the Vibe doesn't count)

Domestic competition for the Mazda3 5 door I give to the the Saturn Astra 5-door and for the MazdaSpeed 3 I would give you the HHR SS. It will take your Mazda3 to school and yes I mean the MazdaSpeed 3. Sure it might not please the dashstroking snobs here but performance wise it's far superior to the Mazda while also getting better mileage.

Nurburgring lap times:
8:40 --- Audi TT 2.0 TFSU
8:40 --- Cadillac CTS
8:42 --- Audi TT 1.8 Quattro
8:43 --- Honda Integra Type R
8:43.5 - Chevrolet HHR SS
8:47 --- Honda Civic Type-R
8:50 --- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG
8:52 --- VW Golf GTI DSG

You definitely sounded like GM when they commented on Toyota first coming out with the Prius hybrid. GM said the only hybrid they're coming out with is the smell of rubber on the asphalt road, now that is hybrid! Today the Prius is selling like hot cakes with almost three months of back orders, while GM is begging for a bailout! And can you believe this, GM was even relying to make a come back with the 2009 Camaro and hope it'll give it the financial lift it needs? Do these people even go out and see what customers or the market wants? Do they actually believe they can just push any car designs to the customers? Well, the answer is an obvious NO!

That was Chrysler (Dodge Charger "hybrid" burns gas and rubber), not GM. GM already has a hybrid full size SUV out, unlike Toyota, which does not have a system robust enough to handle that duty. Also, Camaro IS going to be a hit for GM, and before you start whining about consumers not buying it because of fuel economy, 80% are pre ordered with a V8.

those are pre orders. the real test is if it can sustain those numbers over the long haul, and unless it can get decent mileage, it won't, all it'll take is another spike of the gas prices and cars and trucks the suck gas will fall by the wayside. and that GM SUV hybrid isn't selling in the number they expected and need for it to be sustainable.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Strk
I can't understand how the benefits at GM end up costing so much. I'm union and our benefits add around $7.50 per hour. It's full coverage. The biggest copay is ER ($50), with outpatient $15 and in-patient $5. Preventive dental work is free and most other work is $5 per visit. We also get reimbursed at the end of the year for the copays. We also get a pension. And yes, it's a family plan.

I just can't figure out how poorly GM negotiated those contracts to get the figure that high.

One of my best friends was the lead negotiator at that supplier I said brought down labor costs. I became privy to a lot of stuff that was going on in negotiations through our long discussions at the time. That $78 dollar figure is the fully loaded labor costs and has so much assigned to it that you would never think of it as something that you would be able to assign a dollar figure.

Case in point: Job classifications; they can assign a dollar amount into how much it costs to per part to do something if there are 6 as opposed to 36 classifications. You know how many people it takes to make that part and what your total labor costs will be divided by how many workers you employ. You can come up with an assignment to wages with something a nebulous as the number of classifications.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Strk
I can't understand how the benefits at GM end up costing so much. I'm union and our benefits add around $7.50 per hour. It's full coverage. The biggest copay is ER ($50), with outpatient $15 and in-patient $5. Preventive dental work is free and most other work is $5 per visit. We also get a pension. And yes, it's a family plan.

I just can't figure out how poorly GM negotiated those contracts to get the figure that high.

I've only got a minute to reply, but the figures that keep getting batted around include paid holidays, vacation, etc., etc. They also include health care for retirees and what was formerly known as the Big 3 have a ton of retirees. Those that are trying to make their point grab the biggest figure they can find. Conversely, they grab the lowest they can for the imports. It makes their argument look much better.

Lots of folks here would like all these people thrown to the mercies of the system not realizing that those that work support those that don't or can't.

There is so much BS being spread by the media, columnists, etc. I think that very little research is actually done, they just build on what those before them wrote.

 

[Siddhartha]

IIRC, a similar situation happened during the 1970's energy crisis, gas prices went up and people stopped buying big American cars. The Big 3 and antilabor advocates blamed the unions.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: Strk
I can't understand how the benefits at GM end up costing so much. I'm union and our benefits add around $7.50 per hour. It's full coverage. The biggest copay is ER ($50), with outpatient $15 and in-patient $5. Preventive dental work is free and most other work is $5 per visit. We also get a pension. And yes, it's a family plan.

I just can't figure out how poorly GM negotiated those contracts to get the figure that high.

I've only got a minute to reply, but the figures that keep getting batted around include paid holidays, vacation, etc., etc. They also include health care for retirees and what was formerly known as the Big 3 have a ton of retirees. Those that are trying to make their point grab the biggest figure they can find. Conversely, they grab the lowest they can for the imports. It makes their argument look much better.

Lots of folks here would like all these people thrown to the mercies of the system not realizing that those that work support those that don't or can't.

There is so much BS being spread by the media, columnists, etc. I think that very little research is actually done, they just build on what those before them wrote.

Well, paid holidays, vacations, healthcare as well as everything that goes to retirees are actual costs to big 3 bottom line and part of the reason why they are bleeding cash so bad.

But my view of UAW has changed a little after reading an article, they are not the only people to blame. Union contracts are not decided solely by UAW, it is negotiated and agreed by both UAW and big 3 managements. The reason UAW workers get such good retirement benefits is big 3 management's greed and focus on short term results. Years ago, when big 3 management negotiated those deals, they figured that retirement pension, health care won't impact their bottom line right away. So what they did was negotiated retirement heavy deals so they don't have to pay too much up front. That why, their cost at that time would look less, their profit would look higher, stock would go higher and their bonus gets bigger. They didn't think about years down the road, they cannot control the number of retirees, and when market shrink, they still have to pay bloated number of retiree benefit even if market don't have the demand to support the cost.

So both UAW and past big 3 management are to blame for fvcked up union deals. The sad part is us tax payer's money is on the line to pay for corporate greed once again.

 

[Wheezer]

Labor Union Demands Killing GM?

no, GM's lack of a set of balls to tell the union to suck dick when demands got out of control is what's killing GM.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Well if they're paying that much for a worker where do you think they cut corners? Probably on the quality of the car. I'll stick to Japanese cars.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
We'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we let the big 3 automakers go down, wouldn't we? To be sure they have problems, especially management problems, but why doesn't everybody just take a cut in pay in exchange for government help?

I don't have any facts or figures to support my theory but it seems to me that paying for retired workers health care is killing them because their competition (domestic Toyota, etc. plants) haven't been open long enough to have that problem.

IMO, a UHC plan would level that playing field enough to make them competitive again.

Thats what I was thinking. If we had UHC domestics would be ahead.
People need to get beyond the old cliche 'domestics bad, imports good'. Domestic cars have come a long way in reliability, Look at JD Powers annual reliability ratings. Domestics have been at the top for the past few years. Even that bastion of 'domestics bad, imports good', consumer reports has started giving domestics their top ratings.

Another aspect to look at is Total Cost of Ownership which calculates all costs over a 5 years period, including fuel, depreciation, maintenance, insurance etc. Domestics come out cheaper. Go to edmunds.com and do your own comparison.

Anecdotal: I own a 8 year old Jeep Gr Cherokee which turned 190K miles last week. Runs very well in and in excellent condition. Original drive train and all bells and whistles work. Sure I've had my share of breakdowns, a new a/c compressor and blend door 2 years ago, muffler, differential seals and a few minor issues. But it has never broken down on the road and I still feel confident going long distance on it. Which is more than I can say for my son's VW - which at 70K miles costs more to maintain than the other cars combined.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
$75 a hour? Wow, that's a lot. 75x40(hours)x52(weeks)=156,000... O_O WTF

It blows my mind as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the work isn't easy, but it just doesn't make sense to me that line workers are earning as much or more than a college grad (engineer, for example). How can they justify this amount of pay?

Funny, in another thread you righties said $150,000 is not rich, now you change your tunes.

:roll:

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Well if they're paying that much for a worker where do you think they cut corners? Probably on the quality of the car. I'll stick to Japanese cars.

You must be missing all the articles lately that say that American cars are better (and at the low end, equal) to Japanese cars. I would say, the last thing American car companies want to do is cut quality, seeing as how they are trying to get rid of the retarded image that their cars are still crap.