Tweet
My post blaming the demise of GM and Chrysler on the unions and having no sympathy for those employees was deleted. Is this fair in a post discussing the event. Any other opinions on the issue?
-
-
I didn't see the post, and I'm surprised that it was deleted if that was basically all you said. It's rare for the collapse of a company to be completely the fault of any one group, be it workers or management. It tends to be caused by a combination of management incompetence and union intransigence. Basically neither party sees the world as it really is; management think that because xyz sold in the past it will continue to sell so there is no need to inovate; unions fail/refuse to see or accept that old working practices can't continue when technology, and customer requirements, change.
I would be very surprised if the underlying causes with GM were any different. -
Well, considering the source, I'm guessing it's all in the delivery.
Living here in the eye of the storm, Keith is pretty much on target. What's more, the UAW/CAW have both been a lot more flexible over the past 5-10 years or so than they were in the Bad Old Days, but perhaps that's too little too late.
In any event, there is no shortage of blame to go around. What's more, Ford has essentially the same labor contracts that GM and Chrysler did, yet they've managed to remain solvent. We'll see whether or not that lasts, but still.Comment
-
One suggestion regarding possible causes for the demise of GM was that whilst other manufacturers saw the writing on the wall and began to develop and build less gas hungry vehicles, GM stuck with the big stuff. I don't know if there is any truth to that.Comment
-
I just saw your post in the relevant thread. It has not been deleted.Originally posted by ebram View PostComment
-
Ford hasn't really changed their fleet's efficiency profile either.I don't know if there is any truth to that.
There are real differences in perceived quality though. David Brooks, the NY Times columnist, cited Consumer Reports as recommending 70 percent of Ford's vehicle line, but only 19 percent of GM's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/opinion/02brooks.html
Ford also brought in an "outsider"---Mulally is from Boeing---to lead the company. Wagoner was a GM lifer. (That also dovetails with Brooks' contention that GM's problem is one of culture and management.)Comment
-
We do NOT delete posts here, unless specifically requested to do so. There are times when things get out of hand where we might "move" things to a more private forum but we never eradicate posts.
Yours is here: http://www.timeshareforums.com/forum...d-pontiac.html right where you originally put it:Lawren
------------------------
There are many wonderful places in the world, but one of my favourite places is on the back of my horse.
- Rolf KopfleComment
-
Ford borrowed a lot when credit was easier to get. If not, they would have probably been in the same boat as the others.
I wondered who had the bright idea at GM that old people were ready to die off so let's get rid of the Lesabre, Century, and Regal brands. Practically every older person I knew drove either a Lesabre or a Century. I hated the replacements for those models. I couldn't see out of the back windows on the Lacrosse or Lucerne (actually got car sick when I rode in the back of a Lucerne once).
I'm not old (hee, hee 50) but we own a Regal and a Lesabre and they are terrific, dependable vehicles. Husband is 6' 7", so the Honda cars are out - they're just too dang small. His shoulders barely fit in a Honda. He bumps them trying to get in and out.
Our GM vehicles have the 3800 engine - what a work horse that engine is. We gave away a still running 1988 '98 Oldsmobile to family and they gave it away to someone in need - and that car is still running great with over 200,000 miles on it. Our gas mileage is not bad on our Buicks - around 32 miles to the gallon on the highway.Comment
-
I think the OP was referring to a post he made over on TUG. Just FYI.Originally posted by lawren2 View Post
KurtComment
-
yeah, my opinion is if you had a message deleted on TUG, you should go back there to address your issues. It is completely inappropriate to bring any issues you have with TUG here.Originally posted by ebram View PostComment
-
Agreed!Originally posted by BocaBum99Angela
If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
BTW, I'm still keeping track of how many times you annoy me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PigsDadOriginally posted by BocaBum99Obviously we here at TS4Ms have no dog in this fight. Agreed if ebram has a problem with what was done over on TUG then TUG is where he needs to address his issue.Originally posted by ArtsieAng
Thanks Kurt for solving the mystery. I certainly appreciate it.Lawren
------------------------
There are many wonderful places in the world, but one of my favourite places is on the back of my horse.
- Rolf KopfleComment
-
As General Motors Goes, So Goes the Nation
Here is an interesting article that came from the UK a few months ago but it is quite thorough. I don't feel it is too political but please move it, if necessary.Originally posted by KeithtComment
-
"Say it ain't so Joe!"
I enjoyed the article, and I agree with most of it’s content. I don’t want to admit recognizing coloration between GM and our country.
I also believe the unions have been made the scapegoat for more than they are culpable.
The unions didn’t force GM to build the Corvair or the Vega.
The unions didn’t design the converted diesel V8 engines.
GM management pushed through Junk that destroyed the reputation of the entire US auto industry. I’m not saying the UAW is harmless here either. I believe greed played a role at every level. If blame can be accessed accurately the chief three culprits are:
1. GM management, starting with Roger Smith
2. US government/ ignoring anti trust laws,NAFTA, banking laws etc.
3. Unions, Greed, corruption, corrupting our legislature.
Chrysler failed for many of the same reasons GM did, but there are some major differences between the two companies. Although Chrysler management made many mistakes, they were nowhere near as inept as GM. Chrysler never controlled over 50% of the domestic market. Chrysler has always been undercapitalized. Chrysler never mastered importing nor quality control. Chrysler relied on a engineering edge it had over its two main rivals and was content being profitable appealing to a small market nitch.
I believe it is patently unfair lumping Ford with the other two automakers. Although Ford motor company is far from perfect, I doubt the US auto industry would be in the dire straits they find them self if they were under the present Ford management.
Ford’s main problem has been inconsistent management. Although a publicly traded company, their stock structure gives the Ford family holdings preferential power. Many perceive this power as both an asset and hindrance.
Ford management didn’t face the adversarial relationship the other two automakers had with their union. Over the last ten years Ford has been able to restructure UAW contacts, allowing more outsourcing. The Ford Family positioned Bill Ford as chairman of the board. Young Ford was able to go outside both the company hiring in areas management was weak. Ford pushed quality standards while sharing profits with its unions. Ford’s main weakness lies in thousands of outside suppliers. These small companies supplied both GM and Ford. Ford also was late discovering these small companies resent the companies bulling attitude.
Ford actually has had less government help then almost all other car companies. Ford has also managed to shed almost 10 billion in debt in the last year wile facing huge operating losses. Another factor is Ford must due well in all markets, having a large global presence. If the global economy fails to improve Ford could well join the ranks of the little 2 predecessors.Comment
-
Also Bill ford has skin in the game.Comment
Comment