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.

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:52:48 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
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.
>
>John

I think you should study the backgrounds of CEOs and get back to us.

You might be surprised at their backgrounds....


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

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

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:52:48 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
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.
>
>John

I think you should study the backgrounds of CEOs and get back to us.

You might be surprised at their backgrounds....


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free because of the Brave'

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

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:52:48 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> 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.
>>
>>John
>
>
> I think you should study the backgrounds of CEOs and get back to us.
>
> You might be surprised at their backgrounds....
>
>

What exactly is your point? Sure, Wagoneer is an experienced manager
and Bill Ford is, well, uh, a member of the Ford family.

Does that somehow mean that they should be much better paid than the
CEOs of Toyota or Honda?????

John

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

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:52:48 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> 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.
>>
>>John
>
>
> I think you should study the backgrounds of CEOs and get back to us.
>
> You might be surprised at their backgrounds....
>
>

What exactly is your point? Sure, Wagoneer is an experienced manager
and Bill Ford is, well, uh, a member of the Ford family.

Does that somehow mean that they should be much better paid than the
CEOs of Toyota or Honda?????

John

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

Lee Florack wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > "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. 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'.

The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
back.
I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
their unions start compromising.

Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.

> > Remember the cleaning woman in
> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
> 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 she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
negotiator. :)

Tim

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

Lee Florack wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > "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. 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'.

The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
back.
I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
their unions start compromising.

Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.

> > Remember the cleaning woman in
> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She was
> 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 she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
negotiator. :)

Tim

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

"NotBloodyLikely" <tmagee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155051697.419183.238890@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...

<...>

> The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
> Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
> end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
> union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
> near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
> Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
> part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
> back.

Actually, this is a result of deregulation and competitioin, at least in the
US.

The wages that many airline emploees are getting are relatively low. A lot
of retired pilots are getting very little in pensions, compared to what they
were promised, because of the bankruptcy that the airlines went through. The
pension are now run by the US Gov't. (as a result of the bankruptcy) and
they are capped at low values, in part because the pilots retired at 60, the
oldest pilots are allowed to fly (at least in the cabins). In addition, a
lot of flight attendents and other airline employees are working longer
hours.

The airlines without unions have mostly done better.

> I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
> their unions start compromising.
>
> Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
> workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.
>
>> > Remember the cleaning woman in
>> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She
>> > was
>> 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 she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
> the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
> she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
> negotiator. :)

I would call someone who makes $100k per year cleaning pretty smart. That's
more than teachers get almost everywhere. Heck, that is more than a lot of
doctors.

Jeff

> Tim
>

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

"NotBloodyLikely" <tmagee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155051697.419183.238890@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...

<...>

> The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
> Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
> end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
> union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
> near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
> Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
> part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
> back.

Actually, this is a result of deregulation and competitioin, at least in the
US.

The wages that many airline emploees are getting are relatively low. A lot
of retired pilots are getting very little in pensions, compared to what they
were promised, because of the bankruptcy that the airlines went through. The
pension are now run by the US Gov't. (as a result of the bankruptcy) and
they are capped at low values, in part because the pilots retired at 60, the
oldest pilots are allowed to fly (at least in the cabins). In addition, a
lot of flight attendents and other airline employees are working longer
hours.

The airlines without unions have mostly done better.

> I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
> their unions start compromising.
>
> Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
> workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.
>
>> > Remember the cleaning woman in
>> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She
>> > was
>> 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 she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
> the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
> she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
> negotiator. :)

I would call someone who makes $100k per year cleaning pretty smart. That's
more than teachers get almost everywhere. Heck, that is more than a lot of
doctors.

Jeff

> Tim
>

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

Lee Florack wrote:

>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.

You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

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

Lee Florack wrote:

>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.

You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

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

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:52:48 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>>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.

>I think you should study the backgrounds of CEOs and get back to us.

>You might be surprised at their backgrounds....

Among Wagoner of GM, Ford of Ford, and Cho of Toyota, Cho is the most
of an outsider, being a lawyer and an ethnic Korean, because few
Japanese industrialists are lawyers, and ethnic Koreans are treated as
badly in Japan as blacks and Jews were in the U.S. several decades ago.
Cho also has the most production experience, by far.

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

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:52:48 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

>>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.

>I think you should study the backgrounds of CEOs and get back to us.

>You might be surprised at their backgrounds....

Among Wagoner of GM, Ford of Ford, and Cho of Toyota, Cho is the most
of an outsider, being a lawyer and an ethnic Korean, because few
Japanese industrialists are lawyers, and ethnic Koreans are treated as
badly in Japan as blacks and Jews were in the U.S. several decades ago.
Cho also has the most production experience, by far.

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

rantonrave@mail.com wrote:

> Lee Florack wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
> showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
> changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
> every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
> costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
> still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
> more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

Can you point us to that case study?

Matt

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

rantonrave@mail.com wrote:

> Lee Florack wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
> showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
> changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
> every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
> costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
> still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
> more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

Can you point us to that case study?

Matt

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

rantonrave@mail.com 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.
>
> You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
> showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
> changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
> every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
> costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
> still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
> more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

I don't think we disagree. You may note that I said, "union demands
have and continue to be at least one of the major causes of
unprofitability" (emphasis should be on ONE of the major causes).

I also agree the designs are (although getting better) lacking in
what I'm looking for in a car -- and apparently others feel the same.

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

rantonrave@mail.com 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.
>
> You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
> showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
> changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
> every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
> costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
> still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
> more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

I don't think we disagree. You may note that I said, "union demands
have and continue to be at least one of the major causes of
unprofitability" (emphasis should be on ONE of the major causes).

I also agree the designs are (although getting better) lacking in
what I'm looking for in a car -- and apparently others feel the same.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
>rantonrave@mail.com wrote:

>>I've seen a case study showing that if GM had Toyota's
>>production efficiency - without any changes in its labor cost
>>structure, GM would have been profitable every year. That's
>>not to say that labor, health care, and pension costs are huge
>>burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would still be
>>losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
>>more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

>Can you point us to that case study?

I think it's an internal one (not to GM but my employer), but I'm sure
analysts in the investment community have made similar estimates.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
>rantonrave@mail.com wrote:

>>I've seen a case study showing that if GM had Toyota's
>>production efficiency - without any changes in its labor cost
>>structure, GM would have been profitable every year. That's
>>not to say that labor, health care, and pension costs are huge
>>burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would still be
>>losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
>>more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.

>Can you point us to that case study?

I think it's an internal one (not to GM but my employer), but I'm sure
analysts in the investment community have made similar estimates.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:

> 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.

It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.

And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
over the place, from above average to rather dismal.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:

> 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.

It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.

And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
over the place, from above average to rather dismal.

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

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.

You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.


Matt

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

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>
> And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> over the place, from above average to rather dismal.

You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.


Matt

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> > It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> > already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> > eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
> >
> > And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> > over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
>
> You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
> about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
> rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
> their jobs well.

The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
one in Kentucky.

So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
labor contract.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> > It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
> > already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
> > eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
> >
> > And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
> > over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
>
> You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
> about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
> rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
> their jobs well.

The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
one in Kentucky.

So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
labor contract.

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

do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
>>>already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
>>>eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.
>>>
>>>And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
>>>over the place, from above average to rather dismal.
>>
>>You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
>>about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
>>rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
>>their jobs well.
>
>
> The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
> union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
> best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
> in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
> one in Kentucky.
>
> So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
> labor contract.

I explained it. You don't like the explanation, but that doesn't change
the fact that I explained it.

Matt