Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

dbu. wrote:

> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.

How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> dbu. wrote:
>
>> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>> first.
>
> How will that improve GM management?
> Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> contracts?
>

It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and
continue to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability.
Even if the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce
some desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be
too low.

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> dbu. wrote:
>
>> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>> first.
>
> How will that improve GM management?
> Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> contracts?
>

It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and
continue to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability.
Even if the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce
some desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be
too low.

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>first.
>
>
> How will that improve GM management?

It won't.


> Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> contracts?

Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
have higher build quality.

Matt

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> dbu. wrote:
>
>
>>Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
>>watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
>>first.
>
>
> How will that improve GM management?

It won't.


> Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
> contracts?

Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
have higher build quality.

Matt

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts about
> the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when compared to value
> provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous retirement costs -- all
> the result of union demands have and continue to be at least one of the
> major causes of unprofitability.

Part union demand, part company willing to give in. Year ago, in a growing
economy, the companies figured increased sales and inflation would take care
of increased costs. Rather than fight the UAW, they gave in easily. Each
contract a different automaker was targeted. Rather than lose sales to a
competitor, they settled fast. It did work for many years.

I'm not pro-union by any means, however, if someone is giving, I'm going to
take whatever I can get. While good wages make for good consumers,
excessive wages are a burden on industry. Remember the cleaning woman in
the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
smart in taking what she could get, but the company was negligent in making
that possible and passing on the cost to the auto buyer. .

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts about
> the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when compared to value
> provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous retirement costs -- all
> the result of union demands have and continue to be at least one of the
> major causes of unprofitability.

Part union demand, part company willing to give in. Year ago, in a growing
economy, the companies figured increased sales and inflation would take care
of increased costs. Rather than fight the UAW, they gave in easily. Each
contract a different automaker was targeted. Rather than lose sales to a
competitor, they settled fast. It did work for many years.

I'm not pro-union by any means, however, if someone is giving, I'm going to
take whatever I can get. While good wages make for good consumers,
excessive wages are a burden on industry. Remember the cleaning woman in
the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
smart in taking what she could get, but the company was negligent in making
that possible and passing on the cost to the auto buyer. .

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts about
>> the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when compared to value
>> provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous retirement costs -- all
>> the result of union demands have and continue to be at least one of the
>> major causes of unprofitability.
>
> Part union demand, part company willing to give in. Year ago, in a growing
> economy, the companies figured increased sales and inflation would take care
> of increased costs. Rather than fight the UAW, they gave in easily. Each
> contract a different automaker was targeted. Rather than lose sales to a
> competitor, they settled fast. It did work for many years.

It only worked if you ignore the long-term effects -- which we're
now seeing. All the while it was 'working', the competition
(without the same burdens) got stronger and stronger.

> I'm not pro-union by any means, however, if someone is giving, I'm going to
> take whatever I can get. While good wages make for good consumers,
> excessive wages are a burden on industry.

I agree with 'excessive wages [being] a burden on industry', I'm
having a problem with, 'if someone is giving, I'm going to take
whatever I can get'. In this case the excessive wages and benefits
were not just offered by management. They were demanded by the
unions. Long-term thinking cannot overlook that it's a hollow and
short-lived victory for those that are taking or demanding out of
proportion to what they are actually earning. Since the result is
that Ford and GM are now close to bankruptcy, the unions are close
to being ignored as a reasonable force towards change, but also may
end up falling completely apart -- along with all of those over-paid
jobs they had, 'while it was working'.

All of this doesn't absolve management for caving in too easily or
for thier mis-management but unless they were really, really good
managers, few could overcome the burdens forced on them by the
greedy unions and their workers.

> Remember the cleaning woman in
> the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
> smart in taking what she could get, but the company was negligent in making
> that possible and passing on the cost to the auto buyer. .

I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable.
Again, I agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts about
>> the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when compared to value
>> provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous retirement costs -- all
>> the result of union demands have and continue to be at least one of the
>> major causes of unprofitability.
>
> Part union demand, part company willing to give in. Year ago, in a growing
> economy, the companies figured increased sales and inflation would take care
> of increased costs. Rather than fight the UAW, they gave in easily. Each
> contract a different automaker was targeted. Rather than lose sales to a
> competitor, they settled fast. It did work for many years.

It only worked if you ignore the long-term effects -- which we're
now seeing. All the while it was 'working', the competition
(without the same burdens) got stronger and stronger.

> I'm not pro-union by any means, however, if someone is giving, I'm going to
> take whatever I can get. While good wages make for good consumers,
> excessive wages are a burden on industry.

I agree with 'excessive wages [being] a burden on industry', I'm
having a problem with, 'if someone is giving, I'm going to take
whatever I can get'. In this case the excessive wages and benefits
were not just offered by management. They were demanded by the
unions. Long-term thinking cannot overlook that it's a hollow and
short-lived victory for those that are taking or demanding out of
proportion to what they are actually earning. Since the result is
that Ford and GM are now close to bankruptcy, the unions are close
to being ignored as a reasonable force towards change, but also may
end up falling completely apart -- along with all of those over-paid
jobs they had, 'while it was working'.

All of this doesn't absolve management for caving in too easily or
for thier mis-management but unless they were really, really good
managers, few could overcome the burdens forced on them by the
greedy unions and their workers.

> Remember the cleaning woman in
> the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
> smart in taking what she could get, but the company was negligent in making
> that possible and passing on the cost to the auto buyer. .

I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable.
Again, I agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

Lee Florack wrote:

>
> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
> about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when compared
> to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous retirement
> costs -- all the result of union demands have and continue to be at
> least one of the major causes of unprofitability. Even if the
> management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce some desirable
> cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be too low.

True enough, but don't forget that the GM and Ford executives are also
wildely overpaid by world competitive standards and have pension
programs for themselves which no mortal can hope to get.

John

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

Lee Florack wrote:

>
> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
> about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when compared
> to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous retirement
> costs -- all the result of union demands have and continue to be at
> least one of the major causes of unprofitability. Even if the
> management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce some desirable
> cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be too low.

True enough, but don't forget that the GM and Ford executives are also
wildely overpaid by world competitive standards and have pension
programs for themselves which no mortal can hope to get.

John

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

John Horner wrote:
> Lee Florack wrote:
>
>>
>> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
>> about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
>> compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
>> retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and continue
>> to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability. Even if
>> the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce some
>> desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be too low.
>
> True enough, but don't forget that the GM and Ford executives are also
> wildely overpaid by world competitive standards and have pension
> programs for themselves which no mortal can hope to get.

Good point!

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

John Horner wrote:
> Lee Florack wrote:
>
>>
>> It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
>> about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
>> compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
>> retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and continue
>> to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability. Even if
>> the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce some
>> desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be too low.
>
> True enough, but don't forget that the GM and Ford executives are also
> wildely overpaid by world competitive standards and have pension
> programs for themselves which no mortal can hope to get.

Good point!

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> I agree with 'excessive wages [being] a burden on industry', I'm having a
> problem with, 'if someone is giving, I'm going to take whatever I can
> get'. In this case the excessive wages and benefits were not just offered
> by management. They were demanded by the unions.

Management has a moral obligation too both make a profit for the
shareholders and to pay a fair wage to the workers. At some point, they
just have to say "Sorry, no". It was greed, IMO, that prevented them from
doing so bacause if production was shut down, they lost sales to the other
companies. Over the years, this worked, but now it is time to settle the
score and the Big 3 don't have the money to keep on the same way.
Competition can be a worderful thing. Even the unions are starting to take
a more sensible stand to save jobs.

> Long-term thinking cannot overlook that it's a hollow and short-lived
> victory for those that are taking or demanding out of proportion to what
> they are actually earning. Since the result is that Ford and GM are now
> close to bankruptcy, the unions are close to being ignored as a reasonable
> force towards change, but also may end up falling completely apart --
> along with all of those over-paid jobs they had, 'while it was working'.

Exactly.

>
> All of this doesn't absolve management for caving in too easily or for
> thier mis-management but unless they were really, really good managers,
> few could overcome the burdens forced on them by the greedy unions and
> their workers.

Greed on both parts. People are still buying what we make so just keep on
making the same stuff. Oh, don't worry about that VW or Datsun, they don't
make slick cars like we have.

>
>> Remember the cleaning woman in the new recently that was pulling about
>> 100k in wages and pension? She was smart in taking what she could get,
>> but the company was negligent in making that possible and passing on the
>> cost to the auto buyer. .
>
> I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable. Again, I
> agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.

If my boss wants to give me a raise, I'm not going to turn it down. But at
her age, I'd rather be spending time enjoying life, not cleaning. Yes, it
may have been unreasonable, but it was all perfectly legal. I'd also take a
job as a major league pitcher for $10 million a year if someone is dumb
enough to offer it. Heck, I'd probably stay on the team long enough to
collect 1/10th of the pay and then I can retire even with a 0-1 record.

Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
 

"Lee Florack" <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> I agree with 'excessive wages [being] a burden on industry', I'm having a
> problem with, 'if someone is giving, I'm going to take whatever I can
> get'. In this case the excessive wages and benefits were not just offered
> by management. They were demanded by the unions.

Management has a moral obligation too both make a profit for the
shareholders and to pay a fair wage to the workers. At some point, they
just have to say "Sorry, no". It was greed, IMO, that prevented them from
doing so bacause if production was shut down, they lost sales to the other
companies. Over the years, this worked, but now it is time to settle the
score and the Big 3 don't have the money to keep on the same way.
Competition can be a worderful thing. Even the unions are starting to take
a more sensible stand to save jobs.

> Long-term thinking cannot overlook that it's a hollow and short-lived
> victory for those that are taking or demanding out of proportion to what
> they are actually earning. Since the result is that Ford and GM are now
> close to bankruptcy, the unions are close to being ignored as a reasonable
> force towards change, but also may end up falling completely apart --
> along with all of those over-paid jobs they had, 'while it was working'.

Exactly.

>
> All of this doesn't absolve management for caving in too easily or for
> thier mis-management but unless they were really, really good managers,
> few could overcome the burdens forced on them by the greedy unions and
> their workers.

Greed on both parts. People are still buying what we make so just keep on
making the same stuff. Oh, don't worry about that VW or Datsun, they don't
make slick cars like we have.

>
>> Remember the cleaning woman in the new recently that was pulling about
>> 100k in wages and pension? She was smart in taking what she could get,
>> but the company was negligent in making that possible and passing on the
>> cost to the auto buyer. .
>
> I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable. Again, I
> agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.

If my boss wants to give me a raise, I'm not going to turn it down. But at
her age, I'd rather be spending time enjoying life, not cleaning. Yes, it
may have been unreasonable, but it was all perfectly legal. I'd also take a
job as a major league pitcher for $10 million a year if someone is dumb
enough to offer it. Heck, I'd probably stay on the team long enough to
collect 1/10th of the pay and then I can retire even with a 0-1 record.