Continuing the GM thread . . . .

[Cowperson]

The GM thread was wiped out so here's the latest . . . . GM laying off 30,000.

I guess the mistakes of managment are the problem of unions after all.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/21/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Cowperson

[TimSJ]

This really is a good move by GM... There overcapacity is unreal... Infact the overcapacity of all of teh big 3 is huge....This move will help the company get back into the black for sure...

[Cheese]

Heres a 2002 article on bonuses...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...9/ai_101567553

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The GM thread was wiped out so here's the latest . . . . GM laying off 30,000.

I guess the mistakes of managment are the problem of unions after all.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/21/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Cowperson

Mistakes of management? I guess letting the union tie their hands for so many years is a mistake. Mngt has had very little wiggle room when it came to improving efficiency, adopting new technology, and reacting quickly to shifts in demand largely because of the unwieldly labour force. UAW makes a decision like shifting from SUV's to fuel efficient cars into a huge exercise. Retraining, guarantees on jobs, relocation, downtime, pay, etc. 30,000 layoffs is catch-up for so many years of inefficiency.

The only way Ford and GM have been able to add flexibility to production and get fixed costs down was to spin-off much of the lower value added work to separate companies and strike contracts with them that call for yearly price reductions of 2-5%. Not easy when salaries escalate by the same amount. Same with raw materials. This has put the burden on Delphi, Lear, Dura, Magna, etc to make the tough headcount decisions while GM and Ford can distance themselves.

The healthcare cost issue is a huge joke as well. Why does the union have to have the Mercedes Benz of healthcare plans while GM's non-union workers have a very good health plan (bluecross type) akin to a Camry? If the union would change to the same plan as the non-union employees, then the company would save $2b per year.

UAW has had it good for too long. Seriously, I don't see the purpose of unions anymore. Outsourcing to low cost centres would be less of an issue if uinons clout were reduced. Are work conditions in North America that likely to return to late 19th century levels?

[Pagal4321]

OK so wait, could someone clarify for me, who created/offers the OnStar service?

[ken0042]

OnStar is a GM product.

[Hakan]

Yeah its those no good unions which forced GM to make crappy cars that no one wants! Fire them all!

[Pagal4321]

So if OnStar is a GM prodcut, I recall being told by one of my teachers that OnStar was so successful that the company that offfers it could be profitable even if they gave away their cars for free.
Now I know my teacher probably isn't a crebible source, but is that true?

[ken0042]

I'm trying to figure out how $25 per month would cover your car payments.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Mistakes of management? I guess letting the union tie their hands for so many years is a mistake. Mngt has had very little wiggle room when it came to improving efficiency, adopting new technology, and reacting quickly to shifts in demand largely because of the unwieldly labour force. UAW makes a decision like shifting from SUV's to fuel efficient cars into a huge exercise. Retraining, guarantees on jobs, relocation, downtime, pay, etc. 30,000 layoffs is catch-up for so many years of inefficiency.

The only way Ford and GM have been able to add flexibility to production and get fixed costs down was to spin-off much of the lower value added work to separate companies and strike contracts with them that call for yearly price reductions of 2-5%. Not easy when salaries escalate by the same amount. Same with raw materials. This has put the burden on Delphi, Lear, Dura, Magna, etc to make the tough headcount decisions while GM and Ford can distance themselves.

The healthcare cost issue is a huge joke as well. Why does the union have to have the Mercedes Benz of healthcare plans while GM's non-union workers have a very good health plan (bluecross type) akin to a Camry? If the union would change to the same plan as the non-union employees, then the company would save $2b per year.

UAW has had it good for too long. Seriously, I don't see the purpose of unions anymore. Outsourcing to low cost centres would be less of an issue if uinons clout were reduced. Are work conditions in North America that likely to return to late 19th century levels?

I'm not going to suggest that AUW has had no part in the struggles that have plagued American car manufacturing corporations but for you to disregard the mistakes of management is absurd.

How is it the responsibility of a union to ensure profitability for the managers? And how can you possibly suggest that employees should settle for a lesser health care plan simply because it costs the company a lot of money? The CEO doesn't appear to be expressing the same type of loyalty to his employees when he is laying off 30 000 employees as if it were the introduction of a new business model instead of a short term cost cutting manoever that will save the company some money this year.

I'm going to ignore your suggestion that we no longer need unions in our society because it is ridiculous. Instead I am going to pretend that you are suggesting that there are restrictions that should be put in place because that idea actually has some merit. And I agree. If the company needs to contract work to other companies for sustainability then there is obviously some problems in how their business is being run and they should work with the union in an effort to find solutions.

Outsourcing to low cost centres would be less of an issue if uinons clout were reduced. Are work conditions in North America that likely to return to late 19th century levels?

Maybe you should ask the workers that are employed in some of the "low cost centres"? Although I would imagine that eventually the workers would get together and form some sort of organization that will represent their right to proper working conditions and fair wages...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

How is it the responsibility of a union to ensure profitability for the managers?

Because of the lack of profitability; 30,000 union workers will be without jobs. Isn't it the union's function to work in the best interest of the members?

Originally Posted by Savvy27

I'm going to ignore your suggestion that we no longer need unions in our society because it is ridiculous.

I for one would like to hear why it is a ridiculous idea. Unions were formed because people were getting killed on the job as the industrial revolution took hold. Now all provinces and states have labour laws to protect employees; from everything to job safety to compensation for work provided.

[dustygoon]

How is it the responsibility of a union to ensure profitability for the managers? And how can you possibly suggest that employees should settle for a lesser health care plan simply because it costs the company a lot of money?

Union's are interested in maintaining/building union membership. There are no jobs unless there is a company. The company is losing money hand over fist....ONE of the reasons is the cost of healthcare. Another is the inflexibility (ie high fixed costs) of their production foot-print. Some concessions are needed on the part of the union and healthcare is an easy one. No jobs are lost and their health is taken care of in a reasonable manner. But the union won't negotiate. Probably because of mistrust and hate that has built up over the years between the two.

The CEO doesn't appear to be expressing the same type of loyalty to his employees when he is laying off 30 000 employees as if it were the introduction of a new business model instead of a short term cost cutting manoever that will save the company some money this year.

What are you talking about? Short term? You don't think that is 30,000 less employees in 2007 as well? And 2008? etc. Think man. And actually the restructuring will actually cost the company money this year and next year in severance and closure costs.

I'm going to ignore your suggestion that we no longer need unions in our society because it is ridiculous.

I would love to hear a sustainable argument as to why they are better off for everyone. Serious. By "everyone" I mean owners, managers, employees (good and bad), consumers, tax payers, citizens who are not part of union lobby efforts, etc. Why should the job of a sub-par teacher be protected?

Instead I am going to pretend that you are suggesting that there are restrictions that should be put in place because that idea actually has some merit.

What kind of restrictions? If you limit their right to strike then why have a union? Makes no sense.

they should work with the union in an effort to find solutions.

I love this. What a nice warm, fuzzy comment. But try rolling up your sleeves and thinking of what solution that might be? It is going to involve cutting costs or boosting productivity per cost unit. You figure it out. There is not some magical solution out there.

Maybe you should ask the workers that are employed in some of the "low cost centres"? Although I would imagine that eventually the workers would get together and form some sort of organization that will represent their right to proper working conditions and fair wages...

Give me a break. We all know there are horror stories in places like Asia working in textiles etc. But don't go lumping in call centres in India, IT developers in China, and Eastern European manufacturing too.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Union's are interested in maintaining/building union membership. There are no jobs unless there is a company. The company is losing money hand over fist....ONE of the reasons is the cost of healthcare. Another is the inflexibility (ie high fixed costs) of their production foot-print. Some concessions are needed on the part of the union and healthcare is an easy one. No jobs are lost and their health is taken care of in a reasonable manner. But the union won't negotiate. Probably because of mistrust and hate that has built up over the years between the two.

I agree that there are no jobs unless there is a company but there is no company if there are no employees. If the union is being completely inflexible when the company is losing so much money that they are laying off tens of thousands of jobs then they are not doing their job properly. This is hardly evidence that unions have no use and we would be better off without them. If they restructure the healthcare and accept a less inclusive (which according to you is still more than adequate...) does that mean that the company will be out of the red? I doubt it. So what is the next plan of action other than the management actually taking responsibility for not running a sustainable company and restructuring how they run their business?

What are you talking about? Short term? You don't think that is 30,000 less employees in 2007 as well? And 2008? etc. Think man. And actually the restructuring will actually cost the company money this year and next year in severance and closure costs.

They are firing 30 000 people to save the company money. How that is not a short term fix in your mind doesn't really make sense to me. Have you read anywhere that company representatives or experts feel that with 30 000 fewer people to pay the company will now be profitable? The people who run the company have failed as they are the ones who make the decisions. I find it astonishing that you feel the union and its members are responsible for the downfall of GM.

Think man. General motors has spent the last decade acquiring and merging with smaller car manufacturers. Could it be possible that they made a mistake in their shopping spree instead of blaming their employees health care plans?

I would love to hear a sustainable argument as to why they are better off for everyone. Serious. By "everyone" I mean owners, managers, employees (good and bad), consumers, tax payers, citizens who are not part of union lobby efforts, etc. Why should the job of a sub-par teacher be protected?

I could ask you why putting employees wages and benefits (also job security) under the complete control of owners and managers is beneficial to all the same groups but that would be impossible to successfully answer. So instead I will just try and answer your equally impossible question.

Obviously the presence of unions does not benefit owners and managers. That is not their purpose so I do not understand why they are included in your list. As for employees I would think the positives would be obvious (health care benefits, wage increases, improved working conditions, etc.) but overall I would say that unions give the employees a voice in how the company is run.

Consumers benefit from the presence of unions because as unions ensure that wages are appropriate and job security is provided for the employees. Without these incentives the auto industry would not be recruiting intelligent and well trained workers who we rely on to do a good job when manufacturing our vehicles, ensuring that they are well-built and safe. Also unions fight for auto workers to be retrained so that they possess the most up to date knowledge and can apply that knowledge to their job. I suppose that you are referring to pricing when you mentioned consumers, but I'm not going to say that consumers would benefit from having GM pay minimum wage to whoever is willing to do the job just because our cars would be cheaper.


Tax payers and citizens who are not part of lobby group efforts are another strange addition to your list. So I'm just going to write about society in general. Society benefits from unions because they had a huge part in the creation of the middle class. Along with contributing to the creation of a middle class, unions provided a political voice for the working class that could not be brushed off. Also, without unions the government would be forced to extensively regulate every corporation to protect the rights of their citizens who do not own companies, which would be incredibly tedious and expensive (unless of course you feel that employers do not need any regulation... which would leave us at an impasse).

What kind of restrictions? If you limit their right to strike then why have a union? Makes no sense.

Depriving unions of the right to strike did not even cross my mind. I meant that if it is true that unions are crippling a company's ability to be profitable (which I disagree about but for the sake of argument) then obviously the power has swayed too far toward the union's side. It's possible that more arbitration is required in some circumstances that can settle disputes with more compromise than has been shown between a union and the company they are in a dispute with.

I love this. What a nice warm, fuzzy comment. But try rolling up your sleeves and thinking of what solution that might be? It is going to involve cutting costs or boosting productivity per cost unit. You figure it out. There is not some magical solution out there.

If a union and a company cannot work together to find a solution that is acceptable to both sides then they are not doing their jobs. And as unlikely as I find the idea that there not a solution to the problems that GM is facing then the industry must be dying and eventually nobody is going to have a job with GM.

I never suggested a magical solution... I don't know where that came from. I simply suggested that if the company is going under because of union inflexibility the union is not doing its job. GM should be taking a financial hit for underestimating the decline in popularity of gas guzzling SUV's. You are placing the blame on the workers somehow because they would need to be retrained to produce a different product?

Give me a break. We all know there are horror stories in places like Asia working in textiles etc. But don't go lumping in call centres in India, IT developers in China, and Eastern European manufacturing too.

I don't have to give you a break over anything. If GM cannot manufacture cars in North America while fairly compensating their employees and make a profit then their business is unsustainable and they don't deserve to make a profit. This is a failure of management. Or if 'outsourcing' is the only viable option aside from disbanding auto worker unions and extensively cutting their pay and benefits it is free trade which has failed them. I can't imagine that you are suggesting that our society would benefit from having our working conditions and compensation regress to the standards set by India, China and Eastern Europe.

Why should the job of a sub-par teacher be protected?

It shouldn't be and it isn't. A union does not work to ensure that the worst of their worst members guranteed employment. A union works to define what a 'sub-par' teacher is and make sure that their abilities are the real reason that they are being fired. Without a teachers union the school board could simply lay off their most senior teachers because they are making the most money, which is hardly fair to the skilled and experienced teachers that are losing their jobs along with the lousy ones.

I don't think that unions are perfect and I agree that there are cases when their self-serving nature is detrimental. I do, however, maintain that to ignore the positives their positives and claim they are unnecessary is absurd.

[MRCboicgy]

my roomie grew up in Janesville WI, where they make Tahoe's and the like, he tells me that many guys from his grad class had no reason to go to college cause they knew they would be making close to 6 figures on the line within 5 years. Many of his friends still work there, drive their big SUVs and are sound financially and he says beer is still allowed on fridays. He's quite vitriolic when it comes to unions, mainly because he saw alot over 10 years.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

How is it the responsibility of a union to ensure profitability for the managers? ...

just for clarity, you supported the NHLPA in last years rediculous owners lock out, right ?

[Neeper]

And all the mean while import car sales are up!! There is a fricking waiting list for the new Civic's. Maybe if GM stops making **** like the Cavalier (actually they have haha), Dodge should stop making the Neon or 2.0sx whatever it's called then people will start buying their cars. I know I am biased but you have to admit, an import is so much nicer when it comes to styles and features and interior style.

[Cube Inmate]

Another thread about union labour eh? This'll go nowhere.

...

Savvy...the one mistake I have to point out in your arguments is that you claim that unions result in the recruitment of "intelligent and well trained workers." Not on this planet, hombre. It might start that way for a few idealistic youngsters, but the sense of entitlement soon takes over, and you're left with morons like Buzz Hargrove who think that a person who tightens a bolt is entitled to $25/hour.

[Cowperson]

Just wait until China begins exporting $10,000 SUV's . . . . which should be soon.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/insiders...tos-151749.htm

Also, this paragraph in a National Post story today:

Toyota's staff roster of 64,000 employees is just one-fifth the size of GM's staff. GM squeezes out just US$8.66 in net income per employee. Toyota manages a US$69 profit per worker.

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...2-2de5797fab33

Cowperson

[transplant99]

I agree that there are no jobs unless there is a company but there is no company if there are no employees.

technically....sure.

However, GM and their ilk can easily replace those unionized $25 an hour workers with cheaper and equally efficient types if the union wasn't demanding what they do. Thats indisputable.

The UAW has become a dinosaur in the new world of globalization and economy.

These 30,000 workers will be ****ed at GM no doubt, but they should be directing their wrath at their union "leadership" for pricing themselves out of a career.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Savvy27 I don't want to quote the whole post so I'll talk to a few points.

1)Consumers benefit from the presence of unions because as unions ensure that wages are appropriate and job security is provided for the employees. Without these incentives the auto industry would not be recruiting intelligent and well trained workers who we rely on to do a good job when manufacturing our vehicles, ensuring that they are well-built and safe. Also unions fight for auto workers to be retrained so that they possess the most up to date knowledge and can apply that knowledge to their job

I along with many other people would argue that the union actually decreases the quality and productivity of the workers. I would think that the most skilled workers would want to work in an environment where they are rewarded for skill instead of seniority. Any organization that rewards people simply for years of service instead of productivity and results is detrimental to the quality of work done by it's members.

2)Without a teachers union the school board could simply lay off their most senior teachers because they are making the most money, which is hardly fair to the skilled and experienced teachers that are losing their jobs along with the lousy ones

Without a teachers union, would the school board not be able to lay off those senior teachers who are poor teachers? Would they be making more simply because they've been there longer, or would it be because they are better teachers?

That's my main beef with unions. What kind of people would willingly join an organization where as long as you don't do something illegal you wont' get fired, and you'll get a raise simply because you've been there for a while? Probably the kind of people who aren't motivated to go out and work hard and try to be recognized. I want to work hard and get rewarded for my work, not my years of service. Hence I'm not a fan of unions.