Times change, many refuse to change with them

[LS2JSTS]

Agreed, a lot of the loss of market share can be attributed directly to management and design decisions.

But it cant be ignored that the wages and the union were a huge part of that loss as well. As far as management making bad contractual decisions with the UAW and bending over for them...I'll only say it's amazing what you'll do when a knife is held to your throat. In many instances back in the seventies, GM faced being shut down for months at a time. Militant, empowered labor with the force of the Federal government and it's labor laws behind them are a hard thing to fight...Some who had to actually do it, would tell you they were hog tied and delivered for the taking.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The CEOs can't do the jobs of the mainline workers.

How many mainline workers can do the job of the CEO? The fact of the matter is that "evil and greedy" CEO is doing the work that ALLOWS those mainline workers to have a job.

He has to worry about rent, benefits, regulations, taxes, sales, labor relations, investments, customer service, productivity....

Dealing with ALL of that is not easy, and deserves a good wage.


I'm pretty sure I could do the CEO's job.
But I don't want to.
I spend too much time behind a desk already. Scheduling, reports,payroll, accounts payable, inventory maintenance, coddling "high profile" clients,...etc... Best time of the day is when I get to go out to the garage and install on a car. Without that "therapy" I probably wouldn't like my job.

Never point out to an excutive level manager that they are incapable of doing your job. They don't have to. They just have to get you to do it.
Just be fortunate when you do have a Manager that can do your job. When you go balls-out on a project, they'll recognize just how much you put into it. the regular suits won't.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Quote:
The inescapable truth is that the union priced themselves out of the market and their workers were being paid far more than their productivity was worth. This caused the collapse of the company they worked for and, if not for the American tax payer, none of these workers would have a job or pension.


Amen to that.

100% blame goes to those Good Ole Union boys who unmercilessly tightened the noose around the neck of their company with so many financial constraints that they put themselves out of work. You really can't feel sorry for them one bit. Unions only destroy American jobs and companies.


It's all the fault of the unions, who tightened the noose around the necks of whom -- the brilliant wizards who, when gas prices took off to the stratosphere had what to offer -- Suburbans, various pickups, and what else. . . No way on earth that the US auto industry's problems are ALL the fault of the unions. If nothing else, management should be faulted for being unable to stand up to unions. But apart from that, the legacy of US auto industry management is one bad judgment call after another, and none of them in any way the fault of unions. For decades, they dumped oversized, underquality products into the market with the arrogant, "take it or leave it" attitude. Well, buyers in droves decided to "leave it" and now, they're fighting to get back into the game. That's their fault, pure and simple.

 

[fdcg27]

Well, EK, not exactly.
There is an urban myth concerning just how bad American made cars used to be, and to some extent, still are.
Odd, since we all drove them for many years and many miles, if we are of a certain age.
I write this as someone who has owned but one American brand vehicle in the past twenty years, and found it as good as anything German or Japanese that we have owned.
I think what really happened was that American consumers were given enormous choice beginning in the early 'seventies, and growing from there.
Look at all of the nameplates and models that are now serious offerings in the US.
Without regard to the quality of the American offerings, the new entrants captured many young, educated buyers, who then became married to the new entrants.
Also, consider the growth in the high end of the market.
Not many American players there.
The average high-end buyer does not consider a Cadillac or a Lincoln, but would rather have a BMW or a Lexus.
The decline of the traditional American brands has been an ongoing process for most of the lives of most of the people here.
It isn't so much that American cars were awful as it was that serious competitors entered this market, and many chose to buy from these newer entrants.
Finally, the deline in UAW employment has been closely mirrored by the growth in employment by new entrants building cars in this country.
In a sense, the former big three are almost irrelevant to the number of people employed in the US in vehicle manufacture and assembly.

 

[Steve S]

If the corp can afford to pay the CEO millions I would want the $28.00 per hr.

 

[Mr Nice]

$28 an hour isn't really that much.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Agreed, a lot of the loss of market share can be attributed directly to management and design decisions.

But it cant be ignored that the wages and the union were a huge part of that loss as well. As far as management making bad contractual decisions with the UAW and bending over for them...I'll only say it's amazing what you'll do when a knife is held to your throat. In many instances back in the seventies, GM faced being shut down for months at a time. Militant, empowered labor with the force of the Federal government and it's labor laws behind them are a hard thing to fight...Some who had to actually do it, would tell you they were hog tied and delivered for the taking.


I agree that the UAW could be too aggressive and demanding at times in the past. Management can really hold a knife to workers' throats too as they usually hold most of the cards. Without collective bargaining and the ability to strike workers have no leverage. The main issue is that workers are making reasonable requests.

But now the union has shown it can and has made reasonable concessions. The things is if workers have no union or no influence then it gets skewed the other way, which is what we have now. Management went to find the ultimate "scab" workers in 3rd world countries. Even many modest paying, non-union production has been outsourced, so there's is no appeasing executives. So when people say the "union priced themself out of the market", what that really means is priced themselves out of the third world labor market.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
$28 an hour isn't really that much.


You kidding? The median wage in this country for a working man is about $45,000/year.

$28/hour with overtime plus all the benefits that the UAW workers used to get is about twice the median wage.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
$28 an hour isn't really that much.


Then why do you keep saying unions priced themselves out of the market? If a US production job pays $28/hr or $18/hr or even less it still won't stop some executive from offshoring to some place that has $1/hr labor rate (of course there are a lot of hidden cost to offshoring that may not realize much cost savings). It's not just about compensation either, but things like working conditions, safety and treatment.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
HOWEVER, that value is not added by something they bring to the table, it's not added by some unique education or ability that they alone posses. It is in fact added by the fact that the process itself is so efficient at building large dollar items. It is added because the company invests billions of dollars in equiptment and plants that make it all possible.
The truth is you could exchange almost any line worker with another similarly trained line worker and the "machine" would still run properly and build massive wealth. It's the extremely efficient system bought and paid for by the company that makes that workers added value to the product so big, not the other way around...imo.

Quote:
Militant, empowered labor with the force of the Federal government and it's labor laws behind them are a hard thing to fight...Some who had to actually do it, would tell you they were hog tied and delivered for the taking.


Yes and Yes!!

It's funny that people blame management for "bad decisions" with the government breathing down their necks via thousands of pages of regulations on how cars MUST be built. Plus, being horse collard in front of Congress.

Then you have the low friends in high places that the unions buy to come in and sit on that "evil" management. Then outsiders complain about "evil" management not having the stones to stand up the unions!!

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
For decades, they dumped oversized, underquality products into the market with the arrogant, "take it or leave it" attitude.


Say what? Trucks and SUV's are where they were making money. They were putting out econobox, money losing, death traps because the government forced them to via CAFE. This forced them to put money where they, and their customers, didn't want. A forced miss allocation of resources by government mandate.

Other companies were putting out better, small cars and they'd rather not target that market, but they had no choice.

 

[Autobahn88]

Originally Posted By: BigCahuna
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
First the good news. 1,550 jobs saved bringing Aveo assembly stateside and building the new Buick Verano. With 60% of the jobs getting the old UAW wage and the other 40% getting the new UAW wage....

http://www.freep.com/article/20101007/BU...-at-Orion-plant


But then the bad news. I can understand the angst at having two different pay scales. But at some point these guys have got to realize there are thousands that would line up and gladly do that job for $14/hr. The UAW is cutting their own throats, yet again...

http://www.freep.com/article/20101008/BU...-over-wage-cuts

So you think a take home pay of around $385 in the year 2010 is progress? Maybe you can work two of those jobs and pay your rent. Then again food is overrated, and the walk to work will keep you healthy. At those wages you won't be able to afford a old car, never mind a new one. How about trying to live on those wages before opening your mouth about lining up for them.,


I agree with your statement. I would love to see how many people here can pay for a mortgage, car, food, college for the kids, blls, etc, on $14/hr. We as a society are moving back with wages and part time jobs. So what if the jobs are unskilled. Does that mean that they should be treated second rate to a person with a college degree.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Does that mean that they should be treated second rate to a person with a college degree.

So I take it you believe, and are willing to pay for, a gardener, store clerk...etc...to be paid like a doctor?

 

[Mr Nice]

Sorry, I meant to say $28 per hour is way too much for an uneducated UAW person building cars.

Drew99GT,

Are you sure "The median wage in this country for a working man is about $45,000/year" ?

I think its more that that.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Sorry, I meant to say $28 per hour is way too much for an uneducated UAW person building cars.

Drew99GT,

Are you sure "The median wage in this country for a working man is about $45,000/year" ?

I think its more that that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

The average wage is a lot higher because the wealth at the top (ie, outliers) pull the average up.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Sorry, I meant to say $28 per hour is way too much for an uneducated UAW person building cars.



Getting a bachelors degree or graduate degree does not automatically make you valuable or productive. If doing highly productive, fast paced and demanding work like manufacturing something of high value like cars doesn't deserve a middle class living then I don't know what does. There are many people who would not do the work even at $30/hr becuase it is too demanding. Besides that not all manual labor is uneducated or unskilled.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Well, EK, not exactly.
There is an urban myth concerning just how bad American made cars used to be, and to some extent, still are.
Well, you didn't exactly read my post, did you. I'm 49 at the moment, and recall very well the wonderful American cars of the 60s and the 70s. There were a few good ones, but then again, there were Vegas, Pintos, Mavericks, Pacers, Astres, and so forth. There is nothing "mythological" about the quality problems of these cars. I know -- I lived with them.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Odd, since we all drove them for many years and many miles, if we are of a certain age.
Again, I'm of that age, and I had to put up with them. Many of them (most?) were indeed, truly awful, especially when viewed from the perspective of the present.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I write this as someone who has owned but one American brand vehicle in the past twenty years, and found it as good as anything German or Japanese that we have owned.
I've owned cars from various sources since 1977. I wish I could say the same, but, well, I can't.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I think what really happened was that American consumers were given enormous choice beginning in the early 'seventies, and growing from there.
Yeah, that's right, and what they did, in droves, was abandon Detroit and its overweight, underquality products. We're still catching up today.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Look at all of the nameplates and models that are now serious offerings in the US.
And I have to wonder whether Hyundai, Kia (or even Honda and Toyota) could have caught on at all had Detroit not dropped the ball so badly back in the 60s and 70s.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Without regard to the quality of the American offerings, the new entrants captured many young, educated buyers, who then became married to the new entrants.
Really, whose fault is that? After being burned once or twice on domestics, and they trying an import and finding it bullet-proof (but certainly not perfect), can you really blame them?

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Also, consider the growth in the high end of the market.
Not many American players there.
The average high-end buyer does not consider a Cadillac or a Lincoln, but would rather have a BMW or a Lexus.
And how exactly did we get from Cadillac being THE luxury brand to where we are now?

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The decline of the traditional American brands has been an ongoing process for most of the lives of most of the people here.
It isn't so much that American cars were awful as it was that serious competitors entered this market, and many chose to buy from these newer entrants.
But not just by accident...

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Finally, the deline in UAW employment has been closely mirrored by the growth in employment by new entrants building cars in this country.
In a sense, the former big three are almost irrelevant to the number of people employed in the US in vehicle manufacture and assembly.
Hey, things are looking up.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Does that mean that they should be treated second rate to a person with a college degree.

So I take it you believe, and are willing to pay for, a gardener, store clerk...etc...to be paid like a doctor?

No, but it wouldn't hurt the doctor one bit to pay their gardener a living wage. But some would rather hire illegals.

What a living wage is exactly, is debatable of course and changes depending on the area.

 

[sciphi]

$28k is a living wage around here. Some houses are less than that.

 

[JustinH]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
$28k is a living wage around here. Some houses are less than that.


Same here in Buffalo, right around 30k is an average wage for a lot of people that I know.