GM closing nine plants

[edblysard]

Ok, Sierrarr, exactly how much money is it OK for a blue collar worker to make?
I mean, from you post, there appeares to be a limit, so what is it?

As for quality of cars, I, like the Big Z, have owned everything from Jeeps to an old MGB...some were junk, some were fantastic... I know folks who have 200 to 300 thousand on all makes...but I also know folks who bought lemons right of the lot from all the major players...
Quality is possible from them all, but so is junk.

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by sierrarr

A lot of it is a money hungry union. Our new car is a Toyota because of the better gas milage for a comparable car from GM. The difference was about 20% better for the Toyota and with price of gas it makes a big difference. I agree that the union people make TOO much money per hour for a blue collar job and have to pay NO health benefits. That is not going to work in todays world. Now on GM's part. They have to start making cars which beat the foreign cars in milage, and DON'T tell me the technology is not out there because if you do there are a couple of bridges I will sell you REAL CHEAP. We also have a Saturn and love it. If the Saturn had comparble gas milage we would have bought one. The Saturns' gas milage was 28/24 compared to the Toyots' 40/35. I rest my case.

[MJ4562]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz
Is this your "professional" opinion, or do you have any facts to support your claim?

Just speaking from my experience and those around me. I doubt anyone has ever really sifted through all the data and done unbiased field research. I know there are a lot of companies that rate cars but they tend to rely on only a few measures and mainly their judgements. Not exactly an objective approach.

It's really a matter of perception and not actual reliability. Every automaker has their share of lemons and amazing vehicles. No exceptions.

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
Ok, Sierrarr, exactly how much money is it OK for a blue collar worker to make?
I mean, from you post, there appeares to be a limit, so what is it?

I didn't get that from his post. It should be whatever the market rate is. Now that non-union plants have opened up shop it's easy to see what that is. You mentioned the new Toyota plant in San Antonio. They were originally going to pay $15/hr. with benefits comparable to Wal-mart (now that they've added health insurance) but they got so many qualified applicants they have lowered that rate to $10/hr.

One of the results of globalization will be that wages in the US will decline and wages in the Third world will increase until they meet in the middle somewhere.
Workers will be paid not by their nationality but what their skills are. It will be a rough ride.

[Modelcar]

....J D Power people is a concern generally accepted as a reliable source of quality reference.

[edblysard]

I don’t know, sounds like he is stating that union workers make too much money for a blue collar worker...
Point is, I agree with you APG45, there is no limit, it is whatever the market will bear.

And don’t kid yourself; this didn't just jump up in GM's face out of the blue, they knew
exactly what the cost would be when they signed the deal, I mean, they have to project their production cost years and years in advance just for tooling up the plants, and the cost of labor is figured into it...they just got caught with nothing sellable to compete with, and made a few other bad business decisions.

Last, even if you can show me how a blue collar worker is overpaid, you still have to consider this...they don’t take the money they are paid out of circulation...they turn right around and add it back into the economy by spending it...they shop at Wal-Mart, Sears, Dillard’s, McDonalds and GM too...
Oh, and as for railroaders being union and overpaid...my UPS driver makes as much as I do, with a better benefit package...

Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by sierrarr

I agree that the union people make TOO much money per hour for a blue collar job and have to pay NO health benefits.

[MJ4562]

Okay you're right about the "Too much..." but I think he meant they were over the market rate and just didn't word it well, IMO.

GM management was definately asleep at the switch. Or more likely took the path of least resistance figuring they would take their bonuses and cash out before the trouble hit. ********.

There are two sides to the blue collar worker thing. On the individual company level it's bad because it's hard for them to compete because their costs are higher than the competition. On the national USA level it's good because as you say it gives those workers purchasing power to pump money back into the economy.

There's no easy answer to any of this and economists have been and will continue to argue about this for decades to come. Eventually events will just unfold and we will have to survive the best we can.

JD Power.....that measures initial quality (1st year of ownership) in the opinion of the buyer. How about 5 years out? Do all people use the same scale when judging what a defect is and how serious? I always wonder when filling those surveys out....if you're someone that buys a new car every two years wouldn't it be to your advantage to report no defects as this will increase the resale value of your vehicle?

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

The real probelm is our companys are playing against a stacked deck in every other industrialized nation health care is paid for by the goverment!! Clinton tried to get passed in 1993 and everybody crucified him for it. In Japan the goverment pays for healthcare and that alone saves the Japaneese companies 1000 bucks in legacey costs per car. In our country it is the have and have nots when it comes to health care. Remove GM's health care costs and the last 3 quarters NA operations was profitable.

Manufacturing companies in other industrialized countries may not be saddled with the same healthcare burdens that US companies face but I think they have their own challenges.

Healthcare may be free for the individual people in other countries but at the end of the day someone still has to pay the bills. Remember, a government doesn't have anymore money than it collects from its citizens and businesses. In many countries, companies foot a large part of the healthcare bill either by paying direct healthcare taxes or through paying high corporate taxes or a combination of both.

[eastside]

Governments don't pay for programs, despite the representations of politicians, taxpayers -- you and I -- do. In the case of a national health care scheme in effect the government redistributes health costs among the taxpayers. In addition, there are considerable administrative costs because the government is involved. The big three automakers lobbied for a national health scheme because they could unload much of their enormous health care costs onto the taxpayer.

The role of a politician is to take credit for spending our money. Most Americans have access to health insurance and have become used to a gold-plated health care system, which would make it that much more difficult to implement a satisfactory national system. Countries with nationalized health care have big problems too, but this is way beyond the scope of this forum.

Legacy costs refer to benefits and health care associated with retirees, not health costs associated with current staff. GM's are currently about $1600/car whereas in Toyota's US plants it's about $200.

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

Arent they? Given the increasingly globally nature of trade, no one is an island any more.

How many workers do Toyota/Honda/GM have in the UK vs. the USA? I don't know the figures but am willing to bet their UK operations are a drop in the bucket compared to the US. GM is one of the largest (the largest?) private employer in the US.

From what I've read on the subject, for a car plant to be viable it must produce at least 200,000 cars a year. At the moment the Nissan and Toyota plants are the only ones in Britain which make this number or more though the Honda plant is rapidly approaching that level.

Just as an aside, when Britain and the EU tried to get the Japs to voluntary limit imports, these limits did not apply to Honda cars made in the US. Since these latter had a sufficiently high proportion of US made components to count as US made, Honda were able to import as many of these as they wished into the EU.

[daveklepper]

I am 73 years old, and the danger of falling asleep at the wheel is one reason I have not driven for 11 years. But I did own three cars, the first a Ford Mainline and the second and third Cehvrolet Corvairs (the last bought just before the Corvair was discontinued). I enjoyed driving all of them and had no complaints about USA quality. But it is clear that GM did not react in the right direction to the events of 11.09.01 or a much higher percentage of the car production would be hybrids.

[Modelcar]

...GM is not that far behind other "American" manufactures in producing Hybrids.....It probably contributes to the problem of market share but they do need to be more competitive in "new" and active designs of main stream autos. Producing "new" designs that bring in more showroom traffic to increase market share. Cost cutting is imperative but it will require regaining more market share to help them out of this crisis.

[richardy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45
In the US Ford makes the worst vehicles in terms of quality. Some GM vehicles are as good as Toyota and Honda, many are slightly behind.

Is this your "professional" opinion, or do you have any facts to support your claim?

I have had 'car quality' discussions with many people about cars over the years, and I know that each person has their own opinion on vehicles, which seems to be based on actual experience with a particular brand.

I know people that swear by Jeeps, whereas the Jeeps I've owned needed so many repairs by 120K miles, that after two such vehicles, I swore to never buy another one.

I've seen GM vehicles with well over 300K miles, and they were still functioning.

Some folks say that though their Chrysler products were nice when they bought them, they seemed to fall apart near about 100K miles.

Lots of people do not like Fords, but the two Explorers I've owned I sold at about 180K miles, and I sold them just because I wanted something newer, not because they were having problems. The 03 Ranger I own now has 75K miles on it, and I have had ZERO problems so far. None! (knock on wood)

Bottom line is, I feel, that each company can make a good vehicle, and can also make a crappy vehicle. Luck of the draw, I guess.

I agree with you Zardoz, it probably is luck of the draw. I have owned all Fords except for one Chevy. All of the Fords were great, I would still have my Explorer, that was in mint condition at 99,500 miles, had it not been for an out of control duct cleaning truck; the Explorer gave it's life to save mine. The Chevy was mechanically good but had a serious paint problem that they could not solve and GM would not stand behind the car.

[Anonymous]

Sierrarr. Sounds like sour grapes when you say us rails make too much money. It is not your position to determine my wages. What is it prey tell that you do for a living? How much do you make? You seem to know so much about my craft, hows about sharing something about yourself........Have you done my job? Do you know anymore about my job than what you have read? Please, dazzle me! You should put a sock in it. I get sick of some of this non-union drivel floating about here.