GM to Slash 30,000 Jobs, Close 9 Plants

[steve]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051121/gm.html?.v=24

AP
GM to Slash 30,000 Jobs, Close 9 Plants
Monday November 21, 1:26 pm ET
By Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Auto Writer
General Motors to Eliminate 30,000 Jobs, Close Nine North American Plants by 2008

DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Corp. will eliminate 30,000 jobs and close nine North American assembly, stamping and powertrain plants by 2008 as part of an effort to get production in line with demand and position the world's biggest automaker to start making money again after absorbing nearly $4 billion in losses so far this year.
The announcement Monday by Rick Wagoner, GM's chairman and CEO, represents 5,000 more job cuts than the 25,000 that the automaker had previously indicated it planned to cut. United Auto Workers union leaders called the cuts "extremely disappointing, unfair and unfortunate."

The 30,000 job cuts represent about 9 percent of GM's global work force of about 325,000 people.

"The decisions we are announcing today were very difficult to reach because of their impact on our employees and the communities where we live and work," Wagoner told employees. "But these actions are necessary for GM to get its costs in line with our major global competitors. In short, they are an essential part of our plan to return our North American operations to profitability as soon as possible."

The plan will cut the number of vehicles GM is able to build in North America by about 1 million a year by the end of 2008. GM will be able to build about 4.2 million vehicles a year in North America, down 30 percent from 2002.

GM said assembly plants will close in Oklahoma City, Lansing, Mich., Doraville, Ga., and Ontario, Canada. GM also listed Spring Hill, Tenn., as a plant closing even though one production line will remain open there. A shift also will be removed at a plant in Moraine, Ohio.

"Personally, I've been speculating this would come down the pike for a while, and I've been trying to look for work elsewhere," said Bob Tyrrell, 45, who has worked the second shift at the Oklahoma City plant since 1979. "I didn't think it would be this quick or this drastic."

Mike O'Rourke, president of United Auto Workers Local 1853 in Spring Hill, said GM leaders need to change approaches to be successful. "They need to design cars that sell," O'Rourke said.

An engine facility in Flint, Mich., will close, along with a separate powertrain facility in Ontario and metal centers in Lansing and Pittsburgh.

Wagoner said GM also will close three service and parts operations facilities. They are in Ypsilanti, Mich., and Portland, Ore. One other site will to be announced later.

GM said the plan is to achieve $7 billion in cost reductions on a running rate basis by the end of 2006 -- $1 billion above its previously indicated target.

Cuts are expected to come through attrition and early retirement programs

The company said it would take a "significant" restructuring charge in conjunction with the changes and any related early retirement program. Details of those charges would be released later, GM said.

Any early retirement program would require an agreement with its unions, which GM said it hopes to reach soon.

The United Auto Workers said workers will be protected by the union's job security agreements, which ensure they get pay and benefits even while they're laid off. The union also said GM's actions will make contract negotiations in 2007 much more difficult.

"Today's action by General Motors is not only extremely disappointing, unfair and unfortunate, it is devastating to many thousands of workers, their families and communities," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and Vice President Richard Shoemaker said in a joint statement.

"Workers have no control over GM's capital investment, product development, design, marketing and advertising decisions. But, unfortunately, it is workers, their families and our communities that are being forced to suffer because of the failures of others."

GM shares rose 16 cents to $24.21 in late morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Its shares traded below $21 last week at an 18-year low.

Wagoner said last month the automaker would announce plant closures by the end of this year to get its capacity in line with U.S. demand. GM plants currently run at 85 percent of their capacity, lower than North American plants run by its Asian rivals. The plant closings aren't expected to be final until GM's current contract with the United Auto Workers expires in 2007.

GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and materials costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share has been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor Corp. GM lost nearly $4 billion in the first nine months of the year.

The automaker could be facing a strike at Delphi Corp., its biggest parts supplier, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month. GM spun off Delphi in 1999 and could be liable for billions in pension costs for Delphi retirees.

GM also is under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for accounting errors.

Last week, after the automaker's shares fell to their lowest level since 1987, Wagoner sent an e-mail to employees saying the company has a turnaround strategy in place and has no plans to file for bankruptcy. Wagoner repeated that Monday, and added that he continues to have the board's support and hasn't considered stepping down.

"I have given no thought to anything but turning the business around," Wagoner said. "I wasn't brought up to run and hide when things get tough"

GM is not the only U.S. automaker faced with the need to cut costs.

Last week, Ford Motor Co. told employees it plans to eliminate about 4,000 white-collar jobs in North America early next year as part of a restructuring plan. Ford said the cuts will be made in part through attrition and elimination of some agency and contract positions.

The plans were outlined Friday in an e-mail to employees from Mark Fields, president for the Americas.

The cuts will be in addition to 2,750 North American salaried jobs that Ford earlier said it wanted to cut by the end of 2005. Ford started the year with about 35,000 salaried workers in North America.

Dearborn-based Ford reported a third-quarter loss of $284 million, including a loss of $1.2 billion before taxes in North America.

Associated Press Writers David Runk in Detroit, Beth Rucker in Spring Hill, Tenn., and Ron Jenkins in Oklahoma City contributed to this report.

General Motors Corp.: http://www.gm.com

 

[maxmk8]

Not surprising. I feel bad for the people that built cars for generations. Like the who guy works for GM his father worked for gm and his grandpa worked for GM. Those are the ones who are going to be hit the hardest. Plus all the local communities around those 9 plants are going to turn into slums. ::nono::

 

[GRAND_LS 400]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gm22nov22,0,348168.story?coll=la-home-headlines

GM Closures to Hit 12 Plants, 30,000 Jobs
The world's biggest automaker, which faces mounting losses, increases its planned workforce cuts in the U.S. and Canada.
By James F. Peltz and John O'Dell
Times Staff Writers

November 22, 2005

General Motors Corp., reeling from slumping sales, crushing costs and massive losses, said Monday that it planned to close all or part of a dozen facilities in the U.S. and Canada and eliminate 30,000 manufacturing jobs over the next three years.

The cutbacks are even more extensive than GM officials had predicted five months ago when they warned that the company would reduce 25,000 jobs in a restructuring of its North American division — which has lost more than $4 billion so far this year.

Chief Executive Rick Wagoner told Wall Street analysts that "we expect we will achieve much of this [workforce] reduction by attrition and early retirement programs" rather than layoffs.

The restructuring would be GM's largest since 1991, when the automaker — facing many of the same problems — slashed 74,000 jobs and closed 21 North American facilities.

GM said the shuttered operations would help the company save $7 billion in annual costs by the end of next year.

The cuts also would lower GM's North American production capacity to about 4.2 million vehicles a year, down 30% from 2002.

But some Wall Street analysts disputed whether GM could achieve the savings it forecast, and others noted that the automaker remained saddled with several major problems, including a declining market share in the United States.

After the announcement, GM's already battered stock fell 47 cents to $23.58. Last Wednesday, the stock — a component of the Dow Jones industrial average — fell as low as $20.90 a share, its lowest level in 18 years. The stock has dropped 41% so far this year.

GM's shares have retreated even though Los Angeles billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, through his Tracinda Corp., amassed a 9.9% stake in GM this year and indicated his firm might seek a seat on GM's board of directors.

There has been speculation that Kerkorian, whose GM investment now appears to be in the red, might push for other actions to boost the automaker's share price. But he has been publicly silent about his intentions, and his office didn't return a call seeking comment Monday.

GM, whose nameplates include Chevrolet, Buick, Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac, said it would close assembly plants in Oklahoma City, Lansing, Mich., and Doraville, Ga., along with one of its plants in Oshawa, Canada. GM also is closing one of two assembly lines at its Spring Hill, Tenn., plant, which makes Saturn vehicles, and eliminating shifts at its Moraine, Ohio, assembly plant, and at a second assembly plant in Oshawa.

Other closures and production cuts affected powertrain, stamping and other types of facilities in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Canada.

The latest round of cuts represents 18.5% of the 162,000 workers employed in the United States and Canada by the world's largest automaker, which has about 325,000 employees worldwide.

Along with archrival Ford Motor Co., GM has been losing U.S. market share for years to Toyota Motor Corp. and other Asian and European companies, many of which can make cars more cheaply and offer vehicles with designs and features that increasingly appeal to American buyers, analysts said.

GM also bet heavily on large, gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, which lost favor with consumers after gasoline prices soared above $3 a gallon this summer in response to Hurricane Katrina.

The vehicles were a key source of profit in recent years for the company, whose share of the U.S. market dropped from more than 45% in the mid-1980s to 26.4% through the first 10 months of this year.

GM now utilizes only about 85% of its production capacity in North America, a situation that drains resources as the company maintains and staffs unnecessary facilities, analysts said.

"You don't start making profit [on production] until you are in the 90%-capacity territory," said Bruce Belzowski, a researcher at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.

"I see GM making itself smaller, not globally, but in the U.S., with a smaller production footprint here," he said.

That will be evident with the planned closure of GM's Oklahoma City plant, which makes SUVs.

"They may build fewer of them, but they will be shifting the production to other plants with underused capacity, so they'll end up better utilizing their workers and their remaining facilities," said George Peterson, president of AutoPacific Inc., a consulting firm in Tustin.

The restructuring delivers another blow to the United Auto Workers union, which just last month agreed to let GM reduce its cash outlay for current and retired workers' healthcare by $1 billion a year.

UAW leaders blasted the latest cutbacks as "disappointing, unfair and unfortunate" and said the company's "continuing decline in market share is not the fault of workers or our communities."

"We have said consistently that General Motors cannot shrink itself to prosperity," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and Vice President Richard Shoemaker said in a statement. The automaker needs to offer vehicles "that consumers find attractive, exciting and want to buy."

But many analysts said management and labor were both to blame for GM's decline.

Years of lucrative labor contracts have left the automaker saddled with enormous wage, healthcare and pension costs for about 1.1 million salaried and hourly U.S. workers, retirees and their dependents. The burden adds about $1,500 to the cost of every GM vehicle made in North America, reducing GM's competitiveness with lower-cost rivals.

"This debacle is a joint venture of both the UAW and the GM management," which has left "wages too high and work rules too cumbersome," said Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland.

"If the UAW doesn't change its tune, General Motors will end up" in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, he said.

There already has been speculation of a potential GM bankruptcy in recent weeks, particularly after the nation's biggest auto-parts supplier, Delphi Corp., filed for Chapter 11 last month.

Delphi is a former GM subsidiary, and there is concern that GM could be forced to cover billions of dollars of Delphi pension and retiree healthcare costs.

GM also has seen its bond ratings fall to "junk" status, which makes it more difficult and expensive for the automaker to borrow.

But Wagoner told employees Thursday that the automaker, which sells vehicles in 200 countries, had no intention of filing for Chapter 11.

Wagoner said GM was getting a good response to several new vehicles, including the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac Solstice and Hummer H3.

To further boost sales, "we're going to continue to move aggressively on the revitalization of brands, particularly Saturn," and boost production of "crossover" vehicles — which are styled like SUVs but built on car-like platforms — that are surging in popularity, Wagoner told the analysts.

GM noted that its plan for an early retirement program to help cut its payroll would require an agreement with the UAW, which GM said it hoped to reach soon.

 

[sleeper]

It had to happen sooner or later.

Personally, i blame the UAW. When you have workers on the line with a high-school diploma making as much as or more than the people with degrees designing the cars, there's a problem. And when the company is forced to continue paying those they lay off, indefinitely, there's a problem.

 

[sleeper]

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
I do not think the UAW is to blame, and certainly not one's education. Ask Bill Gates what degree he has. A degree does not equate to superior intelligence, and the proverbial intrinsic path to the top of the pay scale. I would blame it on poor planning. Fail to plan, plan to fail
[/div]

Certainly there was some level of poor planning involved, but most of the problem is the UAW.

Bill Gates has nothing to do with this. An entrepreneur who starts his own business and becomes successful is not the same thing as some schmuck working on the line with no ambition to further his career.

Some of these guys with no more than a high school education are being paid $25-$30 an hour to do unskilled labor. Sorry, but it doesn't take any special skill to work at most positions on an assembly line. It might take a day of training, that's about it. The people working in those jobs should NOT be making $80k a year.

And if the company needs to lay people off, they should NOT have to place them in a jobs bank and continue to pay them their salary indefinitely.

I have an education and a pretty well-paying job. There are people with no education that sit on an assembly line all day and make more money than i do, with better health care than i have, and a contract that says they can't be fired and can't be laid off. That's re-####-diculous. Now, if the company is profitable, certainly the line workers can get bonuses, etc. but the union really does need to get more realistic on these contracts. They are a large reason the company isn't profitable. You shouldn't have to pay $25/hour + full benefits for unskilled labor. Give them a good wage, maybe $35k-$50k a year depending on experience, with reasonable benefits, decent medical with co-pay, etc., and write six months of severance pay in case of a layoff into the contract. Throw in some profit sharing for the good times, and time and a half overtime. That's all that an unskilled assembly line worker really deserves to make, and that's a good middle-class wage. If you want to be really generous, offer reimbursement for education and draw managers from the unskilled labor force through the education program.

If you're GM and you need to cut costs, what do you do? Laying off UAW members really doesn't help, you still need to pay them. So you lay off white-collar workers. There goes a lot of engineers and designers, and that means it will take you longer to bring a vehicle to market that isn't as well-developed. Then you press for reductions in parts costs from suppliers. This comes with a reduction in quality. Then, finally, when the company is about to break, losing billions of dollars despite the financial incentives, you say hell with it, we need to offload some capacity. Then the UAW turns around and blames the company for having crappy designs! Well, if they didn't have to pay unfair wages to UAW members who aren't even working there anymore, maybe they'd have had some more money to invest in design and quality, and maybe the rest of the workers would still have jobs!

 

[Alexander]

It is terrible to see Ford and GM shrinking to a fraction of their former selves. So many jobs have been lost, and nobody thinks this will be the last cut. GM and Ford are saddled with dealer structures and worker benefits from days when they were prosperous. They no longer can afford them. The US government offers no protection economically to these countries. Local governments give tax advantages to foreign firms building plants in their state, but would not give it to domestic car companies. Congress and the president have too many other agendas to focus on other than keeping people in this country employed in good jobs. Certainly, the consumer in this country does not feel bound to buy domestic products.

In the current economic climate in this country, GM and Ford should follow suit with other domestic "manufacturers" such as sneaker, toy and computer companies which design goods here, but manufacture them overseas. The US consumers will not care as long as they get products of acceptable quality at a good price. Hey, if it is designed here, Ford and GM could put one of those nice USA flags on their products with the fine print that says "Designed in USA. Made in China"

Alexander
Board of Directors
Lincolns of Distinction

 

[Neilster]

The Ontario Plant referred to in Canada is right in my home town of Oshawa. While 3,900 jobs will be affected here thru a plant closure slated for 2008 and a third shift to be cut, it could have been a lot worse. Perhaps the fact that the Oshawa plants have won awards for #1 in quality offset what could have been worse.

There is no single explanation for the complex downward spiral of North American built market share. The high cost of the workforce as pointed out is certainly a contributing factor. In what other work segment do you find the benefits that the auto workers enjoy? The benefit list is long so I won't expand here.

Other things that contribute to the decline of GM:
- Unfair trade agreements with Far East auto manufacturers
- Failure to recognize and embrace the need for alternative fuel power plants in their vehicles
- Unattractive body styles on a number of car lines. I exempt Cadillac surprisingly, which has outstanding choice in this area.
- Abandonment of loyal brands such as Oldsmobile. Soon to follow others. Do we hear Buick?
- Poor brand management (Impala, Malibou for example.... for shame)
- Cobalt... Ya, like that's supposed to be a cool car 'cause of its sound system...

Yes, it's easy to be a critic. And yes, I can be accused of not supporting GM in my home town because I drive Fords. But, I have have had a GM in recent memory, a 95 Monte Carlo. I got rid of it after 6 months and bought my first Mark 8 (94 Base). I had two Impala's back in the late 70's. They didn't hold me to the brand.

I do hope that GM respects that the market place has spoken and it is not chosing GM. The company is at extreme risk at this juncture if it cannot get back on track and come up with a competitive line up - fast.

In closing, the autoworkers are just doing their job. While they are a protected lot and spoiled to a certain degree, they don't set the vision for the company. They don't do the style and design work. They don't come up with the marketing plans. They build cars. And here in Oshawa, they do a damn good job of it quality wise.

Stay tuned... Would I buy GM shares right now? Nope. We haven't seen the bottom yet.

 

[GRAND_LS 400]

Everyone keeps screaming the domestic manufactures have to pay health costs, and would like to blame it allllll on the worker benefits. Did you happen to forget the taxes imposed by the government on foreign automakers to make domestic cars more competitive? If it weren’t for those taxes, Japanese and European cars would be much cheaper (not sure about cars with forign parts, that are assembled here, but I’m sure tariffs apply).

Lets not forget what Neil just mentioned, verrrrrrrry ugly cars wont sell. They only sell because they are more affordable due to all the incentives, and AFTER they buy, they are screwed badly by the dealer network during/after warranty, add the screaming Radio/TV commercials to equation, and that’s a recipe for disaster :7

Seriously though, they have some serious management, quality and efficiency issues they need to deal with. Has anyone seen the panel gaps on GM cars overall?? I could open up a petting Zoo between some of those panels.

 

[sleeper]

GM has some fresh cars in their lineup, I don't really see that as the big problem right now. If they properly market the Solstice and other cars on that platform, as well as the Cobalt, they will do well in the small barely-profitable segment. Yay. SUV's are dying, finally, and all the companies need to find another cash cow. GM has some decent sports cars on the market, they just need to come up with a good performance sedan that can excite people like the 300/magnum did. Ford's new mustang and new mid-size cars look good. All 3 of the domestic automakers have some decent products. I don't really see design as the problem. However, it can always be improved upon.

Quality is an issue. Quality will continue to be an issue. But there isn't that large a gap between the domestics and the foreign cars right now, at least in the realm of reliability. If the manufacturers stop forcing their suppliers to come in with lower priced parts, quality stands to improve dramatically from an already quite good level. The GM cars i've seen lately have perfectly acceptable panel gaps. You don't want them touching, after all.

Really, labor is the problem right now. Too much capacity, too high of labor costs. The UAW enjoys benefits that can not be sustained. That package was fine when the economy was going nuts, but we all knew that was going to end soon and the automakers really fell down on the job by agreeing to UAW contracts that they couldn't support financially with a less vibrant economy.

And labor drives quality as well. Like I said, part of the labor problem is that it's very difficult to reduce the costs. You have the UAW to deal with and contracts that don't let you lay people off. So the money comes out of other areas, design and quality.

 

[dirty old man]

Oh boy, I could write a 50 page thesis on this topic! And I feel uniquely qualified to do so. Why? Because I have spent time working in both production and skilled trades at both Ford and GM here in Atlanta. There's some truth in what all of you have said, but all of you have holes in your arguement.
Sleeper, you've gotta spend some time on one of those line jobs and walk in those shoes before you can comment on the pay. I agree they are mostly unskilled, except for a few jobs such as welding, solder wiping, and what little spray painting that isn't automated. Plus, of course, the repair jobs for damaged cars.
But let me assure you, the assembly of automobiles is a very efficient process with a huge productivity extracted from each and every line worker. The jobs are loaded to the extent that you can be only a few feet from a water fountain and not have time to even get a drink. Smoke? in an area where it is allowed? Good luck on having time to even light it! Believe me, they earn every nickel they are paid if they are line workers. I now weigh 100# more than I weighed 39 years ago when I left the GM line on layoff and went to school to become a machinist. Some of it is age, but most of it is how hard I had to work there!
The SUB (supplemntal unemployment benefit) is not for an indefinite period. You build up points when working, and they are subtracted as you draw from the fund propotionate to the fund's level and your benefit amount. Get another lower paying job and report it and use up less points. This benefit wasn't there when I first went to work for GM in '58, or at least it was much more limited if you did get it.
It is a very necessary thing what with the cyclical nature of the auto industry and the big RIFs that come in economic downturns. No employer elsewhere will hire you if you tell the truth about your previous job, as they know that you will go back when recalled, because of the good pay and benefits, which, as I stated above, you earn not because of skill or degree, but from plain old hard work!
Much of what Neil says is true to a certain extent, but the American public can change their minds about what they want in a family vehicle much faster than a company crawling with engineers can move to accomadate these changing tastes. When the engineers have designed the car then they must design the equipment to build it,
And then that equipment must be built, installed and fine tuned. That's where the skilled trades come in and catch their share of hell.
When I hired on in the summer of '77 with Ford, they were preparing to put the Fairmont in production in Atlanta. This major model change triggered certain clauses in the contract, allowing management to implement mandantory overtime for all trades involved inthe model change till things were set up and fine tuned.
So I worked a litlle over 40 hrs a week my first 2 weeks as a toolmaker, then came the overtime. I worked 87 straight days, 11.5 hrs a day, straight thru holidays, weekends and all, before I got a day off. Beleve me, I was ready for a break!
Moe, you talk of poor panel fits and I agree that can be a problem, but who to blame? Once the Fairmont line was up and running, part of my job assignment was a highly automated (for the time) welding and assembly press that built the "front structure". This is the structure to which all the front suspension, crossmembers, engine, and front exterior and fenders are mounted to. Needless to say, a critical part of the car on a unibody. Our MK8s have a similar structure.
The last step in the building of this assembly was a dimensional review, fully automated and done by the machine itself. If an assembly failed to meet certain parameters, the machine pulled it off to one side, out of the lineup, with a printed readout of the dimensions and errors. It was then up to a production foreman, not an independent inspector to either put it back in line to keep up production, or reject it and catch hell for production deficit. Guess what usually happened? Then try to get a decent panel fit when you are way down the line!
My friends, please pardon this rant, but believe me you gotta be there to know what's happening.

 

[sleeper]

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Sleeper, you've gotta spend some time on one of those line jobs and walk in those shoes before you can comment on the pay. I agree they are mostly unskilled, except for a few jobs such as welding, solder wiping, and what little spray painting that isn't automated. Plus, of course, the repair jobs for damaged cars.[/div]

I believe those men work hard, but so do people working on roofs for $12 an hour and people cleaning up crap at the amusement park for $8 an hour.

I specifically said that unskilled labor should be paid less, because I wasn't referring to skilled labor. An electrician, a welder, a painter has a skill, something that takes school and/or a whole lot of practice to learn to do well. They deserve to make as much or nearly as much as the guys with college degrees crunching the numbers to make the stuff work.

The guy standing on the line busting his ass with a job that took him a day to learn to do properly, doesn't deserve 80k a year. They deserve a good middle-class living, but they certainly don't deserve to make more to start than the kid who busted his ass at school and now is sitting at a desk working a CAD program with $120k in school loans to pay back.

And maybe back in the day there was a time limit on the benefits drawn after a layoff. Nowadays, that isn't always the case. I'm sure it isn't industry wide, but there are people out there who go to work and sit in the break room all day watching TV because the company doesn't have work for them on the line, and they've been doing this for years. I think it's fair to write some kind of severence package into the contract, but that is just rediculous.

 

[sleeper]

oh and this is getting to the point that it might ought to be moved to the political forum.

good discussion points so far though, folks.

 

[steve]

Fire the people at the top, especially the CEO who makes an obscene amount of money. Probably makes 80k a day, for what, the company is failing big time and he is at the helm.

 

[sleeper]

I don't know about GM, but the CEO of Ford, a guy named Ford, isn't drawing a salary.

A lot of these companies pay obscene amounts of money to CEO's to attract talent. Sometimes this works, sometimes not. But CEO's need to be paid a lot of money or they'll up and leave and you won't be able to bring in a qualified person without paying a boatload of money.

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
IMO, GM agreed to pay the wages and benefits negotiated by the UAW. So, how can anyone blame the UAW? Did they twist their arm too hard?[/div]

In the 90's the economy was booming. GM agreed to outrageous contracts because if they didn't, the UAW would strike and cost them even more money. So GM agreed to the contracts.

Now, because of market forces that cannot be controlled by GM or the UAW, the company can't pay those rates any more and they must renegotiate or fire everyone.

So I turn that question back around on you. Can you really blame GM? Are they trying to twist the UAW's arm too hard? It's either fire some, or go out of business and fire 'em all...


[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Secondly, It is a GM engineer deciding on the design, specifications, materials, quality, and assembly of a part. Not the UAW. I say, fire the management, financial planners, and the engineers for doing such a poor job if their product failed in the marketplace. They are the well paid decision makers, and the company should expect them to be accountable for their poor performance.
[/div]

Okay, fire everyone that brings in new products. Then what are you going to build?

It's a beauracracy. It moves slow. Sure, reorganization is needed, but as demand changes it takes time for the company to respond. The company that can predict changes in consumer preferences is the successful company.

So go ahead and fire management, engineers, and bean counters. What's left for the UAW to build? And who is going to pay them?

 

[BRITLNC]

Workers at every level depend on "supply & demand". I wouldn't work on an auto. production line for $11/hr!! Some management staff arn't worth their inflated pay, as has been said.

GM, like all American car makers, should have seen it coming - "supply & demand" again. Britain dosen't have any auto makers any more (excl. specialist) for the same reasons. They rested on their laurels, failed to look ahead and lost out to the Japs and mainland Europe.

I have 2 American cars and can tell you the fit & finish is poorer on these than on almost any other car I have seen. They do tend to be more reliable, however. The Jags and RangeRovers you get from us now are better made(U.K.) and much more reliable since Ford got them.

By the way, I'm not knocking you guys. I'm an "America-phile" (if that sounds right) through & through. Two weeks every year I live the "American Dream"!!

Dave.

 

[dirty old man]

Sleeper, I don't know many roofers who work for the cheap wages you mention, and I'm in a small town with NO UNIONS. And a roofer can raise upan straighten his back for a moment and wipe the sweat from his eyes before it stings. Do that om an assembly line job and you'll be in the hole so far that you'll either have to let some work go or go like fighting fire for several more minutes to get the job caught back up.
And I've never seen any of the clean up workers in a theme park or amusement park who were overexerting themselves.
I unequivically state that NOBODY who has not worked on that line has a right to comment on the line worker's wages.
And those line workers have no say whatsoever in what the designers design and those executives some of you think so highly of choose to produce. I mean GM has produced some butt-ugly vehicles lately, ever took a GOOD LOOK at a Pontiac Aztec? I dislike the front end appearance on my '03 Silverado a bit also. GM seems to be on an "in your face" kick on styling.
Those same line workers have no say in the level of QC, or any of the myriad of decisions affecting their future and livelihood. All they have is a job that they must do in order to stay there and a Union to try to protect them when the job assignment is upped again to the point they can only keep up at a dead run, and who can run hard as they can go for 8 hours?
People on the clock in the break room? Sleeper, I challenge you to put up or shut up on that claim. The only people I have ever seen in that position of on the clock doing nothing had been injured on the job and the co elected to bring them in and pay them instead of workman's compensation in order to keep lost time injury time low and more than make up the cost on lower insurance rateing and rates.

 

[GRAND_LS 400]

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
Sleeper, I don't know many roofers who work for the cheap wages you mention, and I'm in a small town with NO UNIONS. And a roofer can raise upan straighten his back for a moment and wipe the sweat from his eyes before it stings. Do that om an assembly line job and you'll be in the hole so far that you'll either have to let some work go or go like fighting fire for several more minutes to get the job caught back up.And I've never seen any of the clean up workers in a theme park or amusement park who were overexerting themselves.I unequivically state that NOBODY who has not worked on that line has a right to comment on the line worker's wages.And those line workers have no say whatsoever in what the designers design and those executives some of you think so highly of choose to produce. I mean GM has produced some butt-ugly vehicles lately, ever took a GOOD LOOK at a Pontiac Aztec? I dislike the front end appearance on my '03 Silverado a bit also. GM seems to be on an "in your face" kick on styling.Those same line workers have no say in the level of QC, or any of the myriad of decisions affecting their future and livelihood. All they have is a job that they must do in order to stay there and a Union to try to protect them when the job assignment is upped again to the point they can only keep up at a dead run, and who can run hard as they can go for 8 hours?People on the clock in the break room? Sleeper, I challenge you to put up or shut up on that claim. The only people I have ever seen in that position of on the clock doing nothing had been injured on the job and the co elected to bring them in and pay them instead of workman's compensation in order to keep lost time injury time low and more than make up the cost on lower insurance rateing and rates.
[/div]

I'm sure Dave is not discredit the amount of work done at the assembly line. However, you never get paid based on the amount of labor. It mostly has to do with type of education, skill level, and experience.

There are a lot more labor intensive jobs then in a assembly plant, however those workers are not paid the same amount of money. Case in point, you never get paid for the amount of work, but more for your qualifications. Rule of thumb is, the more people available and willing to do what you are doing, the less the pay.

 

[Last Mrk]

Hopefully reducing the work force by 30,000 over the next 3 years GM will be able to preserve the jobs of the other 200,000 people they employ.

http://homepage.mac.com/paulchristenson/filechute/mark1.jpg​

 

[sleeper]

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
People on the clock in the break room? Sleeper, I challenge you to put up or shut up on that claim.
[/div]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm

I have a degree and i don't make as much money as this guy with a high-school diploma makes for sitting on his ass.

When you're young, you make a decision, or perhaps your genetics made it for you. You go to school and get a job where you don't have to bust ass everyday, or you bust ass everyday. I'm not saying someone who busts his ass every day doesn't deserve to make money, but I'll bet a lot of these guys are making more money than my doctor is.

 

[dirty old man]

Well Sleeper, I'll apologize about the guys in the break room, as I was unaware of the "jobs bank program". It started after I left the auto industry for good.
But if you bothered to read the whole article, you would have read that these guys had time working like 36 years, a long time to be at a company and then put out to pasture on a premature retirement.
Did you bother to read that they had filed grievances asking for meaningful training, instead of the billshut stuff they were offered? Did you read about the guys in the same program that were out spending their days doing stuff for the elderly and disabaled as their union local had set it up like this for them.
And don't get me started about degrees, as I'd likely start a flame war that I don't want.