General Motors laying off 30k employee's/Rant inside
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10138507/



Now, I'm not going to try and be political here.. since, while i am a member of the Uaw(Ford).. I don't necessarily agree with their politics. That being said, I have read threads over the past few days(not just here mind you) about people wanting to buy cars.. and everything being suggested was "Toyota/Honda/Mazda".. why.. because they aren't american made, So while you are helping out some people, you are hurting others.. which i guess makes it kind of a double edged sword.. but i digress

News flash, over 50% of Toyota's/Honda's that are sold in the us ARE MADE IN THE US..

2nd News Flash, Ford owns Mazda.. (whoops)

Now, don't read this as a sales pitch, because i'm not out to change anyone's mind.. as people are entitled to their own opinions, I just wanted to knock down some common misconceptions i have repeatedly heard. People bitch and moan daily about the economy being poor, and why the goverment isn't doing anything to help.. Yet drive around Toyota's :P

Ummmmm...what?

according to the Republicans the economy is just fine. That is political sorry.

If the automaker could actually break the union, I wonder if cars would even get cheaper. Probaly not.

Patriotism comes a weak 2nd place to a well-designed, safe car. Sorry.

Toyota's are better, cheaper and more efficient cars. American car makers are saddled with their own stupidity - I see no reason for Assembly Line workers to be paid at 30-40 bucks an hour when the marketplace value of their skills is a whole heck of a lot less then that. As for the car market at large, GM's headed to bankruptcy sooner or later anyway - I'd gladly take 2 to 1 odds on it right now. :D

If GM and Ford would make some reliable cars, maybe their sales wouldn't be so poor. There is a reason that Hondas and Toyotas are being suggested. I have driven or owned 3 American cars, all of whom pretty much passed the point of being reliable after around 100,000 miles, even after having $2k or more poured into them. My Toyota that I drive to work every day, on the other hand, is in the shop right now for the first time in 7 years, with nearly 150k miles on it.

Cars would not get cheaper and I am a little skeptical that this has more to do with UAW than it does their bad business strategy. They are always behind the trends. I hope that in those 30,000 are all the people who plan out the business strategy for each year and the executives who signed off on it. Otherwise, they aren't fixing their biggest problems.

exactly

Half my family is (or was, until the last few years) in the auto industry in Detroit, so I hear the same things all the time. The fact of the matter is, make a better product and more people will buy it. Yes, a lot of Toyotas and Hondas are made in the US. But I don't necessarily have a problem with the assembly line workers - it's the designs, features, safety specs, etc., that are lacking, IMO. Are quality issues necessarily confined to the hourly wage people putting the cars together? I don't think so. That is a corporate issue.

As far as the Mazda-Ford thing, Ford owns about a third of Mazda, so it's not like they have complete control and its just like they are a brand of Ford like Mercury. It's not that way at all.

They may very well be making better and more appealing cars. But its going to take time. I'll admit - when I was looking for a luxury car back in May, I only seriously looked at Acura, Lexus, Inifiniti, and Audi. And when we bought my wife's minivan, it was Odyssey or bust. Just the way it is.

I don't see that as the problem. It may be part of the problem, but it isn't the biggest problem. They need some executives who have a good feel for the future. They are always trying to put all their eggs into past trends, with seemingly no real idea of what the market is going to want next year. That would have absolutely nothing to do with guys on the assembly line and everything to do with stupid stuffed shirts in the boardroom who are just trying to milk out big dollars before the house of cards collapses.

Agreed. High unionized wages and benefits probably don't help, but it was the guys in the suits that are running GM into the ground (and are probably getting raises while they do it!).

i agree with the behind the trends. according to the American Auto industry, they won't be able to roll out cars as energy efficient as Japan's cars till about 2010, 2012. why so long? spend more money on researching better fuel economy, deemphasize gas guzzling SUVs as the main source of revenue and invest in alternative fuel research. and do it quickly. they should have been working on more efficient cars once gas prices hit the $2 mark and tried to have been ahead of the curve.

also, while there are a lot of people living in the US, is there really a need for so many cars to get made each year? every citizen doesn't need a car. i mean, how often do we all buy cars? once every 8-10 years, if that. there are just so many different kinds of cars that are so similar, and so many get made.

Sorry. Hondas and Toyotas are consisently among the best-rated cars in Consumer Reports. GM cars are consistently among the worst.

Easy choice.

Yeah, I'm not saying to pay them shit, but like 20 bucks an hour is more than adequate compensation. I read somewhere that like 2-4 thousand dollars of each GM cars cost was essentially to pay health care expenses for a former employee/current employee.

Too bad its totally unrealistic for someone to start a new car company, I'm sure you could make similar cars to GM, sell them for 5K less, and make more of a profit on them than they do currently.

The same old problems everywhere, everytime. If the chief makes a mistake, the common people paid the bill.

I can undestand that 30k could be fired. It's a sad sad thing. But I can't understand that the managers that have put GM in a terrible situation can had millions in the bank just for his mismanagement.

I´ve no problem with Mr. Gates. He makes billions to Microsoft, so he can make half the billions of Microsoft, but I really had a very bad feeling about managers that get rich doing a terrible job.

Perhaps there are stats on this kind of thing, but I think you are way off on that number. Especially if you include new car leases. For every person who sits on a 225K mile, 12-year old car, there are many people who either lease a new car every 2-3 years, or who trade in cars they buy every 4-6 years. My wife and I have gotten rid of 3 cars we purchased - her Saturn, which we kept for 6 years, my Civic, which we kept for 5 years, and my 626, which we kept for just under 5 years. My father-in-law has had 4 different cars in the last 8 years.

I expect that we'll keep her Odyssey beyond April 2007, which will be 5 years, but I also expect that if we can afford it, w'll probably look to upgrade it to a new model that has leather seats, a built-in DVD player, XM radio, and generally is safer and, well, "newer."

You put Good Ol' Boys (tm) on the Board, who are then willing to take care of Good Ol' Boys (tm) in the Executive ranks. A lot of Boards really fail to act independently of the company's officers these days, which (IMO) defeats the purpose.

Hmmm, I dont know about this. My first Saturn(1995) went to 135K before being crunched by a ford escort going 70 into my parked car. My 2nd Saturn(1994) is now at 239K and still going strong with 1 starter replaced, reg oil changes and brake work done around every 40k miles and of course tires. Saturn is part of GM isn't it? Not sure about the last statement as I have no need for a new car being perfectly happy with my 94 Saturn and my 1985 Marquis.

And that is not the common trend. I have a friend with a Saturn. He has 75,000 miles on it, and has already replaced the transmission and the front-end joints. It seems like shortly after the warranty ended, the thing started falling apart.

There are other underlying circumstances in why some of these plants are being closed. Fro example, GM has been wanting to close the plant here in Oklahoma for some time now after a squabble over back taxes. Oklahoma City gave them five years of tax incentives for putting a plant here only to demand they pay those taxes with penalties and interest once the five years up. It upset the GM execs so much that they've been looking for an excuse to close the plant permanently. So it's not entirely because of cost cutting that they are closing these plants down.

It actually hurt our relations with business owners looking to bring industry to Oklahoma.

Another prime example of the de-industrialization of America.

So, if I understand this correctly...

Over half of Toyotas and Hondas sold in the US are made in the US...

One of the plants being closed by GM is in Canada...

But buying a Toyota instead of a GM is some kind of major impact on US economy and is causing the collapse of the US automotive industry?

So ? The future is in the service industries anyway. De-industrialization is hardly a bad thing per se.

Unless a day comes when we need to be able to manufacture vehicles for our own defense. The service industry will do little to help this nation stand on its own feet.

Well, not if you believe Donald Rumsfeld. I believe that he is very sympathetic to Toffler third-wave ideas applied to warfare (i.e., the wars of the future will bear little resemblance to wars of the past). According to the theory, wars won't be as mechanized--so a heavy industrial base won't be as necessary to war-fighting capacity.

Of course, Rumsfeld's attempts to transform US military doctrine overnight has met with mixed results in Iraq. While I'm not as gung-ho about a third-wave transformation as Rumsfeld is, I do think the ideas are interesting. I'm just not sure (a) how long such a transformation would take and (b) if this is applicable to insurgent warfare...

Not sure if this was mentioned, as I have only read as far as Flasch's post, but the Republican spin on this is that Health Care costs and therefore the Unions driving those benefit requirements that is causing this problem in a generally healthy economy.

I own a Wrangler and am planning on getting a new Mustang next year. They are cars I want to own and drive, the fact they are American is a coincidence(though it is not lost on me). Maybe when I'm older I'll put safer and reliable over the fun factor.

So in my case safety comes a weak second before fun ;).

If any of you truly believe there is a fundemental difference in quality in ANY car maker today you are foolish and misinformed.

There is a distinct difference in cost and services from different manufacturers, however the cars themselves are damn near identical across the board today under the sheetmetal (and in far too many cases including the sheetmetal).

What most people fail to recognize is that Those good ol' American cars they are bashing and passing up for a "foreign" machine are in fact the same exact machine with different labeling and options. 6 of Gm's top selling cars are simply japanese designed automobiles with new sheetmetal and GM tags.

Think people. There really isn't much difference anywhere along the line anymore. The so-called "quality" is a sham, since you're driving the same damn car be it mazda or Ford, or Toyota and Pontiac.

Its really tiring listening to people bad mouth the quality of American manufacturer's vehicles when the truth is there is no difference.

Sounds like a Hyundai I had years ago.

Lemme guess -- Consumer Reports, J.D.Power, et al are part of the some Christian conspiracy, right? :rolleyes:

A lot of companies share technology, platforms, and parts.

They must be owned by the foriegn interest. The Triad are trying to destroy the Amercian car industry. IT IS ALL A CONSPIRACY! PLEASE IGNORE FACTS!!!

And some are better at putting them togather to make a quality product that people want. GM has been terrible at for many years now.

Sorry, I'll put the opinions of virtually everyone I know who has had personal experience with American cars up against your claims that there is no difference between them and foreign cars. Hell, my dad used to work for Ford and he won't touch one.

While I'm sensitive to the fact that American jobs may be lost, the fact of the matter is, I view this like Wal-Mart running local grocery and drug stores out of business - find a better business model, or find another way to earn a living.

They took 'r Jobs!

I agree, the trend is pretty new. I really haven't seen American companies follow suit too much.

:)

Thats the tragedy here, the people who are being laid off are just working folks trying to make a living. Most of the people who made the the decisions that led to this are still making their over inflated saleries or have moved on with large golden parachutes. :(

Let me say this...I'm not bashing all American cars. There are some out there that are likable and buyable. Some companies are doing a better job at making products people want (Ford and Dodge have some nice products), but GM seems to be behind the 8-ball on this, and is the worst in hoping their past reputation as the "better quality" American automaker would sustain them. Besides the Hummer, I can't think of another GM "win" in recent history, and on some level models, they seem to be falling behind faster than they could ever hope to catch up. I can't think of a single GM product I woud like to own over any comparable Toyota product.

Sounds like the Hyundai I have now...

But that is not the same as "they all use the technology, platforms, and parts in the same way and to the same standards of performance."

The Chrysler 300 is a pretty good car, and was recognized as such by Motor Trend last year.

I have one with about 120k on it and has never required more than the usual routine maintenance. We've put brakes on it, and replaced a clutch, and otherwise nothing more than oil changes and tuneups.

But I would rather have an Avalon or a Lexus.

My mother has an Avalon. Must be at 110,000 miles by now, hasn't needed anything but new break pads. Didn't need those until a couple years ago. Stepmother has a Lexus, to new to see whats going on with that.

I dislike them both. Not my kind of car at all.

I drive a Ford Explorer, but not because of any act of patriotism, but rather because it was the car that fit my needs the most when I was looking to make a purchase. That's economics.

The biggest reason that GM is having a tough time competing is that they have to spend something like $8 billion a year on health care. Universal health care will eventually come to this country, but not because of the left, it will be because big business will demand it.

But then would be a 300M? I was just comparing types. I wouldn't buy any of the above, but would choose the Toyota's over the GM's, as per my statement.

I actually think you're right - universal health care as an issue will come from the right, not the left. And GM's health care costs are a big reason for its problems - but piss poor management, and an over-reliance on gaz-guzzling cash cow SUV's is another - too much of GM's revenue comes from those alone.

Render's "facts" are so far off it's not even funny...

As someone mentioned, i guess that means that the numerous magazines, experts, and personal anecdotes are all some conspiracy...

Sorry, but cars are not that similar... they're just not.

In this case, I believe Render is actually correct. There are differences between different manufacturers, but they are really minute differences that too much is made of. When shopping for a car, price is far and away the largest variable.

Yeah, Toyotas and Hondas are cheaper AND more reliable than Fords and Chevys....

This idea that the cars are all the same is so insane it is not even funny.

Agreed.

General Motors (and their lemon paint jobs of the 90's) can kiss my ass.

Back in the 90s, I had the displeasure of having to read about the hundreds of needless deaths GM caused because they decided it was cheaper to have lawsuits than it was to redesign their trucks and put the gas tanks inside the frames of their trucks. So instead, they let people die fiery deaths for a decade and a half.

Read more.

Of course, the folks behind that aren't the ones getting fired here. :(

Really? I have not looked at the sales data, so I am not sure the numbers back up my claim, but the reason I have not owned a GM car, and am not in the market for one, is because they don't have an entry in the kind of car I am looking for. In other words, my personal opinion is that GM is in this position because of bad business decisions made at the highest levels of the company. Not because of UAW.

Are you honestly saying if they could just reduce their healthcare costs they would have made a competitor for the Toyota Prius?

Any time you reduce cost you increase profit or decrease loss. They would not be competing with Prius so to speak, but they would be losing money at the level they are now.

But the question is, could they have made money if they had just been a little smarter? I guess the answer must be that they could not have done any better regardless of the decisions made by upper management, since those guys are not being shown the door. Apparently, all the burden of the company's performance rests in the hands of UAW and its members.

Who said all? Some rest on both. In other words, huge labor costs are real problems to major auto makers, as well as bad managment.

But they don't have the balls to address the bad management and prefer to blame a labor union?

They who?

On the issue of GM and other American made cars being inferior -- the facts don't entirely match that. The Chevy Malibu made here in Kansas City has been ranked as the No. 1 mid-size car by JD Power. GM is also launching a hybrid Malibu and a sister Saturn care based on the Malibu platform. As Ragone mentioned, some popular "foreign cars" are not foreign at all -- more than half of foreign cars sold in the U.S. last year were made in this country. That doesn't even get into debates like whether or not Chrylsers are American cars since DaimlerChrysler is a German company.

Twenty years ago, I think there was a legitimate argument that foreign made cars were better than American made cars, mostly because Japanese companies invested heavily in new technology and plant design. Since then, American companies have done the same thing, which has essentially negated the difference in quality between the cars. There are even those knowledgeable about the auto industry that have argued that American-made cars by foreign manufucturers are superior to foreign-made cars by foreign manufacturers, suggesting that American craftsmanship is superior when the playing field is even.

What makes the playing field uneven are benefits. It's not salary; American workers at Toyota plants here in the US make the same type of salary as Ford and GM workers. But GM, Ford, Chrylers and American companies have hefty insurance premiums primarily for retired workers which foreign manufacturers don't have -- the plants aren't old enough to have all these Baby Boomers have accumulated 30 years of service on the line. And the imports certainly have an advantage thanks to Japan's universal health care system that makes those workers more cost efficient.

So even if Ford and Toyota made an identical car, it's going to cost Ford maybe $1,500 in health care costs than Toyota. I think the auto companies have done a much better job in protecting pensions than other industries have -- read: airlines -- but they failed to project the astronomical increases in health care costs.

If anybody wants to blame this on the unions, feel free to start that argument in another thread and I'll be there. It's the fault of everyone; the manufacturer, the workers and government combined.

The Board of Directors, shareholders, and the upper levels of management together.

I heard today that even though the employees were laid off, they will continue to get paid. They will be paid until they retire or get another job. I am not sure if they retain benefits or not. That would not be a bad way to go.

My uncle works at the GM plant in okc. I read today that what GE says is correct, it is against the UAW contract for GM to permantly close a plant. Those workers are kinda furloughed, and I believe they make 80% of their wage. This does hurt the job market in OKC for some time I think. It does suck because a new manufacturing plant is set to open in norman next march, and I was planning on applying as a technician to work on their machines. I probably won't have any shot now, since a good number of the techs at GM will be looking for a job I would imagine. Such is life though...

This is called sub pay.. and it will only last for 2 years.. and any benefits they get they have to pay cobra.. which is a monumental rip off

Yeah. I lived near the main Saturn plant a couple of years after it was open. The people that were native to the area was pretty ticked about the fact they were told when it opened it would bring thousands of jobs. What they didn't know was it would actually bring several thousand northerners down to do those jobs. I think they hired about 100 people outside of the union workers they brought down from other plant closings.

That of course is not to say it didn't bring jobs to the people of the area. They were able to get jobs cutting peoples grass, serving them fast food, and washing their clothes. :)

They are being underpaid for not working any more? Really? A rip off?

If my employer no longer needs my services, you know what percent he continues to pay me for two years? You know how many people are in my situation?



Yes, GM's management made some bad decisions, and that is essentially at the core of their probelm right now. It is possible to maintain a successful automotive division in this country, but it is by no means easy.

One of the main reasons is is not easy is the deeply entrenched automotive labor unions - some of the strongest in the world, and who represent, in large part, people with wholly replaceable skills. Demanding contracts with clauses like this (the company is simply not alllowed to shut down plants) is patently absurd, and the substantially inflated labor coats in this country -- especially when driven by unions -- makes for an even tougher time turning a profit here than elsewhere. Most of the "foreign" names that do business with assembly plants here are nowhere near as under the thumb of the UAW as the "domestic" names, and still maintain an advantage (though that may change in time, but so might their willingness to center their workforce here).

As usual, the situation is more complex that anything that can be wrapped up in one or two pithy little sentences. Were GM leaders at fault? Yes. Are rising health care costs at fault? Yes. Are labor unions at fault? Yes. Are consumers continuing to vote with their feet and walk right past a GM dealer to buy a Toyota or other name instead? Yes.

I wasn't calling sub pay a rip off quik.. i was calling cobra a rip off.. and as far as saying 20+ bucks a hour is too much to pay someone to work assembly..

I welcome anyone to try it.. the strain of doing the same thing every day tears up your body.. If the money wasn't good i can guarentee you no one would want to do it.

A few things. Yes - COBRA is outlandish - but that's across the board, that's NOT a UAW thing. When I was laid off, I was paying $1300 a month to maintain health insurance for my family. Also note, I was not PAID FOR TWO YEARS (holy crap!). Also, there was no stipulation in my contract (not that I even had one) that my employer COULD NOT close my location (again, holy crap!). When I was laid off, it was "sayonara" - I would have killed for 2 years of severance pay.

Re: pensions. Are current workers still entitled to them? If a company made a contract to an employer, they have to live up to it. However, if current employees will still get these in the future - damn, what a deal. I know of very few employers who still offer pensions.

I'm sure assembly work is back-breaking, but again we're getting into supply and demand. It reminds me of the old argument teacher's pay vs. professional athlete's pay - the issue is, there are a hell of a lot of people who can do assembly line work, there are very few that can hit a baseball. I can imagine it's back-breaking work, but it still does not mask the fact that the skillset needed to do the work is lower on the pyramid than rocket science.

Yet...it pisses me off when the management stays intact and the workers are the ones who suffer. It seems like everyone is at fault here, and yes, I will continue to buy my Hondas because they're damn reliable and I like the feature set.

My wife insists that we buy cars made in the US because her father works at a taconite mine, but at least she does the research to know which cars are actually made here. She had a 1992 Ford Tempo when we met. Excellent car, no problems with it until after 150K miles. We're driving a Ford Focus now, no problems through 70K miles and we just bought a Mazda 6. I really liked the Mazda 3 because it gets better gas mileage, but it's also manufactured in Japan, so that was a no.

Assembly line worker wages are definitely at least a bit overinflated. My anecdote, a friend's fiancee got a job working at Ford straight out of high school because his father and other family worked there. He was making 70K a year within four years while working the line.

Exactly. I look at a lot of Fords and Chevys, and I just think "damn, these are boring/ugly cars". Now, that's not the case 100% of the time, I loved the redesigned T-Bird. Of course, I wasn't in the market for a car like that. Dodge on the other hand, from a stylistic point, is much more appealing to me. Even for minivans (our last purchase in 2000), I liked the Caravan much better than the Ford/Chevy offerings. However, the Mazda MPV was much more affordable for us (and smaller), yet still had most of what we wanted, so that's what we bought.

(for background, our past purchases had been a 98 Jeep Cherokee, a 95 Dodge Avenger, and a 93 Saturn that my wife's parents had bought her...so we're certainly not averse to American cars)

Our next purchase will either be a family sedan or a commuter car to replace the Saturn. If Ford/Chevy have something out there that appeals to us, we'll check it out. But from past experiences, their offerings haven't inspred us. Just the way it is.

The Saturn I drove to work today has 163k or so on it, and is getting along fine. I'd like to get at least 200k out of it.

Maybe not but a few others I know have Saturns that run amazingly well. They are all pre 95. I do know that Saturns from 96-99 are mostly crap. Still I have never had any problems with my Saturns :) .

And I drove a 95 Ford Escort until it had 180,000 miles on it. I wouldn't say they all lasted that long though. Saturns have decent but not spectacular service records. Indiviual stories mean nothing.

We ought to be able to resolve this whole "what kind of cars are best" debate if just a few more people offer as evidence what happened to them with their one or two cars.

I agree, which was really my point in the first place. I also once had a Pinto that lasted for 200,000+ miles without major service. Does that mean everyone should rush out and buy a Pinto? Consumer Report ratings are a pretty good gauge of how reliable a car is.

Yeah, but Quik how many people in this thread are using 3rd and 4th hand evidence of "I read this a while ago, I think" and the like. I'd say that's about as credible as anecdotal evidence. Heck, even JD Power, for instance, I'm sure they test a couple out but I doubt they're still driving around 1997 Hyundais to make sure their claims of "it'll break down" stand up.

SI

Regardless of whether you believe Japanese automakers make more reliable cars (I think they do), what the Japanese really do better than the US automakers is position themselves to deal with rapidly changing market conditions. The Japanese were ready for a big jump in gas prices with multiple hybrid vehicles that had already technologies proven themselves, for example. Meanwhile, the US automakers were obsessed with milking the SUV market and trying to sell vehicular abominations like the Excursion and the Suburban. And they ended up years behind the Japanese AGAIN. In fact, I think Ford, which is the only US automaker to actually have a hybrid on the market, is licensing the technology from the Japanese.

It's this kind of stuff that kills the US automakers. Not union benefits, which are not much of factor at all. The US automakers actually sell comparable vehicles for a lower price than the Japanese.

I think it has been reiterated that union benefits are a big part of the problem. Simply put, Assembly line workers, covered by union contracts, are being paid for the good performance in the past, without being penalized for the poor performance since then. Clearly, GM"s management is at fault as well, which is why it has been replaced since.

Magazines? Experts? yes indeed, they are certainly beyond ANY suspicion and could never have a biased point of view. Concumer reports? for christs sake THEY even caved in and started taking financial support from product makers in recent years.

Keep reading, keep sucking in the ignorance. I'll keep driving my Pontiac "Matrix"...oh so sorry, my "Vibe" and you can go on blindly believing there is a difference between American manufacturers and the imports.

The only one that matters truly is looks and the US cars blow the foriegn ones out of the water there.

As for GM not having any top quality vehicles, I will use one example, the Cavalier. The single highest selling passenger car in the history of automobiles. You don't reach that mark selling shit vehicles.

Of course some moron at GM thought it would be smart to replace it with the cobalt....so I won't argue the idiocy that is GM management.

Bah, this topic is as bad as politics, people would rather read "Ford and Driver" and swallow the whole story without question than actually research the facts.

This topic reminded me of a Geoge WIll Editorial from month or so ago. Regarding the general quality of American v. Japanese cars. I think the American cars came a long way quality wise in the 90s. I don't believe that the JD Powers and Consumer Reports of the world are showing near the disparity between Japanese cars and American cars that they used to. A number of American cars do pretty well in the areas pertaining to overall quality.

You're right! My 1982 Buick LeSabre didn't start today. Im off them forever.

COBRA rates are almost exactly what your employer is paying for your healthcare, by law it can only be 2% higher to handle the adminstration. So if you are paying $1,300 a month, then your employer was paying in the $1,275 neighborhood for you.

And yet here is GM, well on it's way to bankruptcy.... I guess maybe what you said can't possibly be true.

You were saying?

You misunderstand. The problem with GM is not that they don't make the right kinds of cars. The sales are all apparently there, it is just that they are losing so much money trying to pay out the benefits they previously agreed to offer.

What?

I think the European companies are coming on very strong as well. Also, a major shift in our car buying is the "luxury cars". GM has Caddy, which it has revive, but it still is having a hard time competing with the European brands. Ford has Jaguar and SAAB, which is still a mess.

What GM/Ford needs to do is look at Nissan's amazing turnaround.

True...If anything, the US companies only share within the brands. Ford does this with the Lincoln/Mercury/Ford lines. I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. It saves money, but does from a brand/business standpoint, escp. if your paying for a much more expensive product with Lincoln, I would wonder if your truly getting a "better" product.

Personally, I think that more american companys should follow the japanese trend when it comes to paying wages. Pay a minimum base wage. Then you give them large bonuses based on speed, quality, and customer service. I believe that any time you directly put amount of money someone can make in their hands, they will go that much further to insure those goals are met...

Propose this to U.S. manufacturers... you think they would disagree? Of course not. They would much rather pay for performance than be shackled to long-term payments for workers whether they are needed or not. But they don't have the complete say in the matter (as one may have gathered from this thread, even if nowhere else).

I most certainly don't misunderstand. The sales have been there in the short term due to their employee pricing strategy, once that ended they stopped selling cars in 2005. Since they were taking a loss on each sale, it's probably not a great long term strategy. They have continued to do well in the truck/SUV market but have been brutal in the passenger car arena.

I follow the their health coverage issues pretty closely since I'm in the industry. That is a big problem for them, but it certainly isn't their only problem.

I was being sarcastic. Those out there with an anti-labor union agenda are jumping all over this and blaming the UAW for the layoffs. As if GM would be on top of the world without that damned labor union dragging them down.

Ignorance is bliss. Have fun.

One big difference between American-made cars and those made in America by others. American-based auto companies buy 80% of their parts from American-based parts makers and suppliers, which benefits other American workers as that money then ripples into building, retail sectors, ect.

Foreign-made companies, even when assembled in the U.S., buy their parts from the 'home country', often from companies subsidized and in collusion with those home-country governments (wait until China starts selling cars in this country in the not-too-distant future!) and then on top of that funnels their profits from sales here back home. We and our economy get nada for that.

And I just love the fact that for all the money and profits we funnel over to Japan to make them so wealthy Japan turns around and allows us the 'privalege' of spending yet more of our deficit-ridden country's money to defend them for the likes of North Korea (put South Korea in this same category, where G.I.s serving along the DMZ will tell you shots are fire their way routinely and not reported here.) while those countries then funnel their auto-profits (subsidized by their governments, unlike here) back into research, ect...

But Americans must be content with this arrangement or they wouldn't put up with it. That simple.

Sure they do. My next car will be something from Saturn. A lot of people I know buy or not buy thier vehicles based on the quality and/or service they recieved on prior vehicles. I bought my 1st Saturn based on the fact that 2 of my friends had them and raved about them. The little woman is getting a Vue because I will pay for that but not any other vehicle(plus she likes it). Saturn has 2 sales from me and will one day soon get number 3. When my two cars finally go to the great junkyard in the sky, Saturn will have sale #4.

Sorry I didn't pick up on it. The UAW would be well served to look at the bigger picture. They will have a major effect on GM's 'turnaround', and would be smart to position themselves as partners. At some point their only move might be to offer short term concessions for a chance at long term gains.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the government you elected are the ones that want to have a military presence in Japan and South Korea. In fact, there have been recent anti-US military presence mass demonstrations by South Koreans.

I have no problem with it.

Oh I agree that they don't have complete say, at least in union shops. I think the mindset needs to change in non-union shops for this to become more common. I work for a japanese company, and right now they only pay around 5% of my yearly wage as bonuses. The bonuses do fluctuate some, but they have been pretty close each time I have gotten one, from between 4.5%-5.5