GM

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Here's the thing about unions "bending" though, why don't the friggin' people at the TOP give up something? Because they never do.

That's a very good point. However, in the case of the sought-after bailout, I believe mgmt DID give up something.

Am I remembering this correctly?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes, and their benefits.

Well, then, that's not actually outrageous, if you think about it.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not true, the auto industry has always been cyclic with the economy and have had a number of lean times. Every time that happens the automakers pressure the unions to bend (givebacks), but then when business picks up the automakers don't resume the things they took back.

1. This isn't a "lean time", it's a disaster.

2. During the bailout negotiations, the execs had agreed to taking a hit, IIRC. The UAW didn't. I am unsure why, or of the details.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Maybe because the UAW workers and the Toyota workers are only a buck or two apart.
The work rules that the Uaw negotiated generally fall into two categories.
One is safety related, trying to cut down on death and injury. Even when OSHA came about the union were their defacto in house agents because while OSHA had the clout, they didn't have the manpower.
The other category is trying to get more people employed by making overtime costly. A noble ambition stemming from the sweat shops they were formed to combat, but it probably has something to do with more people working means more dues collected and more power/prestige for the union.

Make no mistake the union's goals are honorable, but all union leadership is elected. They are in the end, politicians. Blaming the membership for the bad apples is like blaming everyone in Illinois for Blagojevich.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Maybe because the UAW workers and the Toyota workers are only a buck or two apart.
The work rules that the Uaw negotiated generally fall into two categories.
One is safety related, trying to cut down on death and injury. Even when OSHA came about the union were their defacto in house agents because while OSHA had the clout, they didn't have the manpower.
The other category is trying to get more people employed by making overtime costly. A noble ambition stemming from the sweat shops they were formed to combat, but it probably has something to do with more people working means more dues collected and more power/prestige for the union.

Make no mistake the union's goals are honorable, but all union leadership is elected. They are in the end, politicians. Blaming the membership for the bad apples is like blaming everyone in Illinois for Blagojevich.

I do blame Illinois for Blagojevich.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Even the people that didn't vote for him?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TGRR

That's a very good point. However, in the case of the sought-after bailout, I believe mgmt DID give up something.
Am I remembering this correctly?

Well yes. They gave up 30% and 50% per year salary increases. Salary increases that occurred even as GM was losing money and shorting the pension funds. Increases that occurred when GM then complained about legacy costs - because those same executives had shorted the pension fund to claim quarterly profits - and justify more executive bonuses.

Did they give up the private airplanes? No. Only a few. Why does GM need private airplanes? Because GM corporate executives are not permitted to fly on commercial airliners - that are too dangerous.

So rent a private jet when one is needed? That too would mean aanother perk denied elite executives.

So they gave up what? Did they take bonuses when the UAW gave up previous concessions? Of course. Did they surrender their hundred of $million golden parachutes? Of course not. They give up something when they surrender bonuses from past years that were never earned. UAW gave up concessions in years previous and GM executives took more bonuses.

There is only one reason why GM products are some of the worst in the world. There is good reason why the only part of GM that is productive was the part run by Louis Hughes. Hughes was then driven from GM because he was a car guy; not a bean counter. Rick Wagoner - whose history was to run only unprofitable operations - got promoted instead of Louis Hughes. What did he give up? They rewarded Wagoner for created quarterly losses.

Where are these concessions? He could not even tell Congress how much money GM would need from the government. What kind of leader is that? Typical of someone who also says GM has no internal problems; that GM's only problem is the economy. Any concession is for show. He sold off two(?) of six(?) private jets.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Even the people that didn't vote for him?

That's the beauty of a republic.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

Well yes. They gave up 30% and 50% per year salary increases. Salary increases that occurred even as GM was losing money and shorting the pension funds. Increases that occurred when GM then complained about legacy costs - because those same executives had shorted the pension fund to claim quarterly profits - and justify more executive bonuses.

Did they give up the private airplanes? No. Only a few. Why does GM need private airplanes? Because GM corporate executives are not permitted to fly on commercial airliners - that are too dangerous.

So rent a private jet when one is needed? That too would mean aanother perk denied elite executives.

So they gave up what? Did they take bonuses when the UAW gave up previous concessions? Of course. Did they surrender their hundred of $million golden parachutes? Of course not. They give up something when they surrender bonuses from past years that were never earned. UAW gave up concessions in years previous and GM executives took more bonuses.

There is only one reason why GM products are some of the worst in the world. There is good reason why the only part of GM that is productive was the part run by Louis Hughes. Hughes was then driven from GM because he was a car guy; not a bean counter. Rick Wagoner - whose history was to run only unprofitable operations - got promoted instead of Louis Hughes. What did he give up? They rewarded Wagoner for created quarterly losses.

Where are these concessions? He could not even tell Congress how much money GM would need from the government. What kind of leader is that? Typical of someone who also says GM has no internal problems; that GM's only problem is the economy. Any concession is for show. He sold off two(?) of six(?) private jets.

Dang. I just got spanked by TW.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Dang. I just got spanked by TW.

No spanking. Between us, demonstrated is what GM is excellent at doing. They actually have some people believing their latest myths. Because Rick Wagoner stopped taking a salary, then he made concessions?

You have posted what is probably popular beliefs. GM would do this propaganda every five some years. They would say, "We were making bad cars but we have now got our act together." As if an act of contrition suddenly made a saint. But people would believe that myth. GM promoted that myth again only two years ago. Now is using that propaganda machine to promote a myth of stability.

Reality - GM is either as bad as I have stated - or worse. Popular press is now suggesting 'medicine' even worse than I thought necessary only six months ago. GM is falling like a rock faster than anyone here had predicted. Nothing short of wholesale management removal can even start a recovery.

So they surrendered a few private jets. Chrysler's Nardelli did not even take a salary cut. The arrogance and denial remains. And still some people praise their GM products. And still some always believe that myth of "but we are better now". Well, Chrysler would be doing the same thing if they had an equally effective propaganda machine. You have simply demonstrated how effective their propaganda machine really is.

[classicman]

Feel bad for Ford yet? They didn't take the money.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

No spanking. Between us, demonstrated is what GM is excellent at doing. They actually have some people believing their latest myths. Because Rick Wagoner stopped taking a salary, then he made concessions?

You have posted what is probably popular beliefs. GM would do this propaganda every five some years. They would say, "We were making bad cars but we have now got our act together." As if an act of contrition suddenly made a saint. But people would believe that myth. GM promoted that myth again only two years ago. Now is using that propaganda machine to promote a myth of stability.

Reality - GM is either as bad as I have stated - or worse. Popular press is now suggesting 'medicine' even worse than I thought necessary only six months ago. GM is falling like a rock faster than anyone here had predicted. Nothing short of wholesale management removal can even start a recovery.

So they surrendered a few private jets. Chrysler's Nardelli did not even take a salary cut. The arrogance and denial remains. And still some people praise their GM products. And still some always believe that myth of "but we are better now". Well, Chrysler would be doing the same thing if they had an equally effective propaganda machine. You have simply demonstrated how effective their propaganda machine really is.

I checked. When you're right, you're right.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Feel bad for Ford yet? They didn't take the money.

Ford got rid of the MBA Jacque Nasser maybe seven years ago. Ford then started innovating again. For example, seven years after William Clay Ford finally started it, the 70 horsepower per liter engine finally arrived in Ford last year.

Yes, Ford is losing money. But not like GM because Ford let engineers again were permitted to make decisions - not MBAs.

[classicman]

I know - I was referring to the fact that even though Ford didn't take the money, but is seemingly still being painted with the same brush as those that did.

[classicman]

GM names former sales boss to international post

DETROIT (AP) - General Motors Co. says it has reassigned its former U.S. sales chief to a similar post in its international operations.
The automaker says Susan Docherty will be vice president of international sales and marketing effective June 1.
Docherty will coordinate sales efforts in GM's Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Russian markets. She will report to Tim Lee, president of international operations.
GM says international operations account for almost half of its sales.
Docherty had been vice president of U.S. sales, service and marketing. Her job eventually shrank to just marketing. She was replaced in that position earlier this month by former Hyundai marketing head Joel Ewanick.

Link
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this person apparently failed at her previous position, so she is now getting hired into a similar one.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by classicman

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this person apparently failed at her previous position, so she is now getting hired into a similar one.

That's GM's MO.

That's their entire philosophy of bidness, right there.