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'

 

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'

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

"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
>

 

"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
>

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.