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

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