GM to say, 'more aid or bankruptcy'

[samclem]

It depends on which motor it has, if it has the 318, then maybe........

I envision a 318 engine, an aftermarket AC unit on the front hump that blows snowballs all summer, and there's not even a leak around the funky rear in-window. I'd go with a 4-door for practicality in this daily driver.

 

[FinanceDude]

There's only three things wrong with GM U-A-W

Their ability to build smaller cars with lower margins to save the company are in serious peril because the weight of the union is like an albatross around their neck.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think the arrogance GM had in the past is almost gone, which may allow them to survive.........

 

[Texarkandy]

....
Last but not least, would you prefer to live like the median German, or the median Arkansan?

Unless you really love hog jowl, I'd recommend Germany.

Ha

Rezept: Erbseneintopf mit Schweinebacke - essen & trinken

Or perhaps if you don't care so much for "hog jowls": Eisbein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as long as "hog jowls" are now indicative of standard of living - better not go to Italy: Guanciale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samclem]

You are neglecting the fact that a union is a business. It's primary objective is not to welfare of its members but in the union continuing to exist.

You raise some good points I hadn't considered before. The interests of the union can be far out of sync with the interests of the members.

It's a little like a real estate agent working for the seller: They get paid based on a strict commission, so it would seem at first glance that their interest in getting the highest price would match that of the seller. But if they discount the house 10% from it's fair market value, they can sell it in three days instead of six months, invest far less money in advertising, and move on to the next property. It's the seller who loses thousands.

 

[ziggy29]

You raise some good points I hadn't considered before. The interests of the union can be far out of sync with the interests of the members.

Often a union does have interests very much aligned with its members. GM and the UAW is a tougher case, though.

In the short term, sure, the rank and file of the UAW may be better served by not making many concessions. But some of them may realize that this goose can't lay many more golden eggs before it dies, and that in the long term they may be better off conceding that point and getting silver eggs for many years to come.

 

[samclem]

Hey, if the government eventually invests so much in GM that they own it, maybe the workers would become WG and GS-series federal employees and would no longer be allowed to be UAW members. And AFGE can't strike.

At least then we'd have an honest socialist state-owned enterprise for all to see, not this unholy alliance whereby politicians use the police power of the state to take money from the public to enrich union leaders.

 

[Gearhead Jim]

There's only three things wrong with GM U-A-W
...
.....

The UAW is a big part of GM's problem, but the UAW didn't design some of the butt-ugly cars GM has made in recent years, or the stupid cars (friend's $80k Cadillac XLR that can't carry one set of womans golf clubs). The UAW didn't negotiate that deal that required GM to BUY Fiat or pay a something like a billion dollar penalty.
GM is morons leading morons.
Ch 11 doesn't solve all problems. United Airlines (my alma mater) was morons leading morons before they went into Ch 11, and they are still nearly as bad.

 

[ERD50]

The UAW is a big part of GM's problem, but the UAW didn't design some of the butt-ugly cars GM has made in recent years, or the stupid cars (friend's $80k Cadillac XLR that can't carry one set of womans golf clubs). The UAW didn't negotiate that deal that required GM to BUY Fiat or pay a something like a billion dollar penalty.
GM is morons leading morons.

But, I understand that GM is profitable and competitive outside the US. While I'm sure management has made some blunders, it's the same management (at least at the top) running the operation overseas.

I'm having trouble reconciling that one.


-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

I agree, GM has made a number of bonehead manuvers.
However, i also have to agree that the agreements with the UAW being so expensive GM can't make money on small cars is a doosy. And for that, I blame both the management and UAW.

 

[ERD50]

I agree, GM has made a number of bonehead manuvers.
However, i also have to agree that the agreements with the UAW being so expensive GM can't make money on small cars is a doosy. And for that, I blame both the management and UAW.

What was management to do? Strikes are expensive.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

I do think that the UAW is stronger than it should be.
However, strikes may be expensive, not being able to compete puts you oiut of business.

 

[Bikerdude]

Watching the news tonight George Snufalufagus said that the money to GM and Chrysler was a done deal and that they will be supported until they can restructure.

 

[haha]

Watching the news tonight George Snufalufagus said that the money to GM and Chrysler was a done deal and that they will be supported until they can restructure.

Goodness gracious, who ever would have guessed this

 

[ERD50]

I do think that the UAW is stronger than it should be.
However, strikes may be expensive, not being able to compete puts you oiut of business.

Strikes can put you out of business too. Car manufacturing is a capital intensive business. All that capital sitting around doing nothing will suck you dry very, very fast.

The UAW sucked them dry just as surely, but stretched it out over decades.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Very true, but I still believe the Auto companies could have endured more pain than they did to get an equitable deal.
For example, did they ever offer a profit sharing structure to employees instead? This would have cut some of their expenses automatically as their profit went up in smoke. It would also give the workers reason to help the company, as opposed to just helping the union.

 

[ERD50]

Tying benefits to profits certainly would have helped. I don't know enough about the history of the negotiations to know if that was attempted or not.

I suspect the Unions would fight it. They want to give their members benefits they can enumerate "hey we got you that X% raise for the next 5 years", or whatever. They don't want to give a bunch of ifs, and, buts and formulas tied to numbers that many would be suspicious of.

-ERD50

 

[Zathras]

Biggest problem and what I think needs to change with the UAW is the fact that they have a monopoly. One union controls labor for GM, Ford and Chrysler (domestically). Giving them far too much leverage making it that much more difficult for management to get a deal that is sustainable.

 

[FinanceDude]

Tying benefits to profits certainly would have helped. I don't know enough about the history of the negotiations to know if that was attempted or not.

I suspect the Unions would fight it. They want to give their members benefits they can enumerate "hey we got you that X% raise for the next 5 years", or whatever. They don't want to give a bunch of ifs, and, buts and formulas tied to numbers that many would be suspicious of.

-ERD50

Performance-based pay never works among union members, it is only used in non-union jobs. I worked a manufacturing job while going to college. I got a piecemeal bonus if I made so many over target during my shift. I wanted that bonus so I worked hard. A week later my boss called me in, and said the fulltime workers were complaining about me because I was "working too fast" thereby "making others look bad". I didn't last long there. We made door panels for Ford Taurus's........

 

[Zathras]

That is exactly the kind of thing that led to the companies falling apart.
If you ask me, the smart thing would have been to fire the complainers and hold FD up as a good example

 

[clifp]

That is exactly the kind of thing that led to the companies falling apart.
If you ask me, the smart thing would have been to fire the complainers and hold FD up as a good example

Judging from the number of post FD has made during w*rk, I think he may have learned something from the complainers.

 

[73ss454]

I would guess that FD works on commission so his time is his own. On the other hand there are posters here that work for the fed that spend my tax money posting here.

 

[ziggy29]

I would guess that FD works on commission so his time is his own. On the other hand there are posters here that work for the fed that spend my tax money posting here.

Well, some of those who aren't on commissions are salaried employees, not hourly time-clock punchers.

At least in theory, salaried employees are paid based on producing a certain level of production for their employer -- not based on how many hours their butts are in their desk chair at the office.

Of course, that's only theory. If a salaried worker can do something in 10 hours that his/her colleagues can do in 50, it's not like that person will be allowed a 10-hour work week. Which is where many employers of "salaried labor" try to have it both ways: if you can't get your job done in 40 hours, you're expected to work overtime to get it done. But if you can get it done in 20, they expect you to put in at least 40 anyway, perhaps to bail out your slacking co-workers.

But I digress. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion...