GM Discount for Everybody

[DigMe]

I want to understand why Christians, in a corporation - employee battle, suddenly lean toward (soulless) corporations and against humans.

1. I don't think it's appropriate to bring religion into this. For one thing I wasn't speaking for Christians. I was speaking for myself. Aside from that it's a breech of forum rules. If you want to discuss religion badly enough to awkwardly bring it into an irrelevant conversation then just go to the lounge and start a religion thread.

2. Corporations vs. Humans. Wow..last I heard corporations were comprised of humans with humans making the decisions. I'm not "taking sides" as you seem to see it. I don't view it as "corporatins vs. humans." I view it in light of our country being a capitalist republic and companies having the freedom to make the decisions that they want within the bounds of the laws and human rights. The fact that GM cannot decide to roll back health benefits or make any other such decisions because of that proverbial knife to the neck. We're not talking child labor and no benefits here. We're talking very nice health plans and very cushy retirement plans that they are not allowed to change at all per because of the union. They also cannot close any plants without enormous costs and if a plant closes and they lay off workers they are still required to pay those workers...all thanks to the wonderful UAW. It's great if you're one of the minority of people in this country that are in it but if you're not in it it hurts...even those who have nothing to do with GM. Yes, humans who are not in UAW and do not work for GM are negatively financially impacted by the actions of UAW. When GM shut down for a couple of months due to a union action many years back it knocked a full point off of our national growth rate for that quarter. A full point..from one company...all due to an overly powerful union. That hurts, but hey, as long as a few people maintain a high standard of living and abnormally large compensation for the work that they do then I guess that's fine that the rest of the country takes a hit.

There's no actual benefit to a "strong economy" if it doesn't produce widespread gains. Making a few shareholders more money is of negligible overall benefit, relative to providing a high standard of living for many.

If such a large company is more profitable the whole country benefits, not just the small portion of it that work for GM.

GM, in particular, has always been run with employing lots of people well as one of its apparent primary goals. They had 800,000 people last time I looked. Probably somewhat less now. They don't "need" half of that to produce the # of their cars there's demand for.

There's something we do agree on. GM is indeed a bloated company but they basically have no other choice thanks to UAW.

brad cook

 

[DigMe]

I wonder how many incentives there have been to cutting health care costs by giving people bonuses for losing weight, quitting smoking, more flexibility for taking time off, more variety on the job, providing counselling and gyms at work, etc. etc. By all accounts I've seen/heard, progressive companies who do so find the costs of these incentives are by far recouped in health savings plus morale, efficiency, and quality all go up. Might be something worth trying along with these current measures.

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/08/1auto-144409.html

They seem to have added gyms at many plants and to be working on health programs:

GM's push on healthy lifestyles dates back at least to 1996, when the company and the UAW started offering health classes and other services at two plants under a program called LifeSteps.

Also they're apparently scared to take big steps on smoking issues because of fear of union backlash.

You're right though, they should consider some kind of incentive for not smoking but with an hourly workforce that already has so many benefits I wonder how effective that would be.

RE: This whole thread - I have no stake in GM, I've never been a fan of their product and I find it strange that I'm in this debate in the way that I am. I also feel that GM does need to make some big changes but it certainly is not a one-sided issue and I believe that a lot of the problems come from the union, which was once a vital and helpful organization but now has overstepped it's bounds. It's gone from making and keeping things "fair" to demanding unreasonable and inflated pay for mostly unskilled labor. GM needs to make some big changes, UAW needs to make some big changes. If both don't then I believe there can only be eventual bankruptcy in store for GM and that is most definitely not good for the rest of us.

brad cook

 

[c-ba55]

It's great if you're one of the minority of people in this country that are in it but if you're not in it it hurts...even those who have nothing to do with GM. Yes, humans who are not in UAW and do not work for GM are negatively financially impacted by the actions of UAW. When GM shut down for a couple of months due to a union action many years back it knocked a full point off of our national growth rate for that quarter. A full point..from one company...all due to an overly powerful union. That hurts, but hey, as long as a few people maintain a high standard of living and abnormally large compensation for the work that they do then I guess that's fine that the rest of the country takes a hit.



If such a large company is more profitable the whole country benefits, not just the small portion of it that work for GM.


brad cook

Exactly how does GM taking more money out of workers' pockets and giving it to shareholders help America? GM making money just makes money for GM. It has no other benefits to society.

Health costs are high for GM, sure. Lots of costs are high for GM. But the main thing that is making them fail is making cars people don't want.

I think just how much it sucks to work at a plant needs to enter more strongly into this conversation. The workers have the pay & benefits they do because otherwise they would not accept the job at all. It is practically a lifetime commitment to work there. What other career are you now going to enter into if you've worked at their plant for 20 years. GM, (Ford, etc...) sign people up SOLELY on the promise of high pay and benefits forever, with the further understanding that the real good pay & benefits come with seniority. To take the best years of someone's life, then go back on the payout...that's ****ty.

That the Asian & European auto manufacturers have been successful operating plants in America, is due in part to the culture at the plants not being so anti-worker. In domestic automakers plants, everything is a war. They treat the employees like idiots and abuse them at every step. The employees react as you would expect.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

It's easy to knock unions, but without them you'd have lost your job years ago. Either they would have imported workers who would have worked for less money than you would have been willing to work for under without union protection of pay scales. Left to there own devices, corporations (which are made up of humans, the majority of which have absolutely no say in the decisions about direction of the corporation) have poisoned, neglected safety concerns of not only workers but of consumers of their products. For automotive manufactureres particularly, EVERY piece of equipment in that car that protects the occupants was put in because of Federal regulation. And, as the recent response from Chrysler/Daimler in response to a suit alleging unsafe design flaws in the seat attachments for the Grand Caravan, they will go not one millimeter BEYOND what they don't legally have to. Even if they know that they could save more lives. You remove the threat of Federal regulation, the threat of punitive damages from law suits and what do you get? Some bean counter sitting in a room deciding that they can expect x% of lawsuits that they can settle (because of award limits and "tort reform") for approximately $y. And the cost of adding the safety feature is gonna be $y -500,000. Guess what happens.

Look the bottom line is that wages in this country have either flatlined or fallen in the last 5 years, while corporate profits are up 14% on average across the board. The reason GM can't make a profit isn't because of the union.

 

[DigMe]

It's easy to knock unions, but without them you'd have lost your job years ago.

Who me? Last I heard they aren't importing foreign workers to do social work nor are we unionized. In fact In the 12 years I've been in the workforce I've had many jobs and none of them have been unionized. Soon though I'm making the jump from social work to teaching. I haven't decided whether or not to join a union. The only reason I'm considering it is that I hear if you get involved in a lawsuit it's about the only way to CYA.

Either way though, as I said unions WERE once an absolutely vital and necessary thing. They do some useful things too but as Smash and I discussed, the pendulum has swung too far in most cases. That doesn't seem to be the case with the teachers' unions in Texas because the minimum teacher salary is still very low.


brad cook

 

[DigMe]

Their costs for manufacturing are no higher than for Honda, et. al., their pay rates and benefits are no better than for Honda et. al., and their final sticker prices are the same or lower as their competitors. So, if anything it doesn't come down to the red herring of Unions and health plans, it comes down to crappy product and crappy sales initiatives versus their competitors.

Why isn't it PART of the problem instead of just a red herring? I'm not blaming all of GMs woes on the union. As I said, they need to make changes too but I believe that the union issues definitely add to the problem.

brad cook

 

[Thor]

Boy, this is turning out to be a lounge rat thread.

James, thanks for the heads up on the current promo.
That was a good public service.

I wasn't aware that you had offered the discounts previously
to TB'ers. You had no need to do so, other than your own
generosity and goodwill. Thanks for that.

Ignore the sniping and ill will that seems to occur when others
see that you work for a large corporation. Many smaller
companies in the private sector offer a lot less to their
employees, and I for one, would be proud of what GM does
offer if it were my employer.

Btw, thanks again for your hospitality the other day, it was
great to meet you, and you had some awesome stuff!
You never told me about the Bongo though.

No discount on 'Vettes? Oh well, I only wanted 2, a 64
coupe and a '58 convertible. Guess it isn't going to happen ...

 

[c-ba55]

Invalid Link Removed

Article blames GM's woes on plain old bad management decisions. Not making cars people want, stupid deals with Fiat and Hummer, no hybrid vehicle, slow to react to market trends, etc...
GM's CEO is in hiding, running scared from the press. But as far as anyone can tell, his plan, in order, is
#1) product
#2) marketing
#3) product cost & quality
#4) health care costs

And by the way, there are a lot of skilled workers in a plant. To get higher quality, paying them for their experience is a good idea. Listening to what they have to say would be an even better idea, but oh well.

 

[malthumb]

.... Of course, executive's huge bonuses will become even larger for taking these 'tough cost cutting measures',.......

Not true. Trust me, I have 1st hand knowledge.

as will their holdings of discounted stock increase. Too bad these people won't be able to afford a car at any price ...

True, but for reasons different than what you are implying. Executives at my boss's level and higher are required to have in their possession at all times a certain multiple of a their annual salary in company stock. The purpose is to buffer against insider trading. When the stock values drop, these executives and officers are required to buy more stock.

GM Plans to Cut 25,000 U.S. Jobs by 2008 & Close Plants

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050607/general_motors_outlook.html?.v=11

Believe it or not, this one caught me by surprise, too. I usually know about these things a couple days before significant announcements.

...."GM already has closed or discontinued production at several facilities this year. The company shut a factory in Linden, N.J., in April and a factory in Baltimore in May, affecting around 2,000 employees. The company also closed two plants in Lansing, Mich., last month, although those 3,500 employees are expected to find work at other GM facilities in the city."

Apples and oranges. The Linden plant was supposed to close three years ago but the company kept it open making an unprofitable vehicle (The old Chevy Blazer and GMC Jimmy that were replaced by the Trailblazer and Envoy in 2002) just to keep the workforce employed. Plants were renovated in Oklahoma City and Moraine, Ohio to build the new Trailblazer and Envoy, but the Linden Plant was kept open anyway.

The Baltimore plant closed according to schedule because it was determined two or three years ago that the product it was building was being phased out. There were considerations to put other products in that facility, but when analyzing the business cases of Baltimore and other locations, the other locations won out.

The two Lansing plants were also planned closings, because their products (Pontiac Grand Am and Chevy Malibu) were being replaced. The new products were launched out of assembly plants in Lake Orion, Michigan and Detroit / Hamtramck. Many of the workers followed the new products. Many stayed to move into the new plant built in Lansing two years ago to built Cadillac CTS, SRX, and STS. Others have taken temporary layoff with significant benefits still in place, awaiting the opening of another new plant in Lansing within the next year. Total net for Lansing, 2 planned plant closings, two new plants. I'd call that even.

He noted that health-care expenses add $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle. This puts GM at a "significant disadvantage versus foreign-based competitors," Wagoner said."

IME, comperable Nissans and Toyotas are more expensive than GM, so people are actually buying them because there's a perception of greater value rather than any cost savings.

Let's not confuse COST and PRICE. What Wagoner is saying is that GM and other domestic car manufacturers start with a $1,500 disadvantage in terms of what it COSTS to build the car, because Japanese automakers don't have the health care costs that domestics do. Your point, a valid one, is that consumers pay more in PRICE for Toyotas, Hondas, and Nissans. If your COSTS are higher to produce your product and you have to sell your product for less PRICE than your competitors, sooner or later there's gonna be a train wreck

Not to mention most are made domestically so it's a bit misleading to say they're "Asian". Though the "Asian" card does hint at the question of at what cost do we want discounts on things we don't need - the price is our future.

Many, but not most. Japanese automakers are not using US labor because they are altruistic. They're doing it because Americans work for less than Japanese, so their costs are lower building here for American sold vehicles than building in Japan and shipping. They still provide less in the way of salary and benefits than domestics do for their US built products and don't have the legacy costs, because their workforces are for the most part younger and non-unionized. They also don't have 2.5 retirees for every active employee. I could also mention the tricks the Japanese government plays with intentionally and illegally devaluing the yen as compared to the dollar, but that's for another thread.

I wonder how many incentives there have been to cutting health care costs by giving people bonuses for losing weight, quitting smoking, more flexibility for taking time off, more variety on the job, providing counselling and gyms at work, etc. etc. By all accounts I've seen/heard, progressive companies who do so find the costs of these incentives are by far recouped in health savings plus morale, efficiency, and quality all go up. Might be something worth trying along with these current measures.

Everything you've mentioned is in some form or another a program at GM. That's true of most Fortune 500 companies. It is now considered required fare for attracting new talent to the company. Bottom line is our workforce is probably healthier than it was 10 years ago, but there's no getting around the cost of retiree health care. These programs do not impact the retiree at home, who tend to be older and of less sound health.

Peace,

James

 

[malthumb]

Boy, this is turning out to be a lounge rat thread.....Ignore the sniping and ill will that seems to occur when others
see that you work for a large corporation. Many smaller
companies in the private sector offer a lot less to their
employees, and I for one, would be proud of what GM does
offer if it were my employer.

Yeah, this is turning into a Lounge / Lobby type thread. I originally thought to post it there, but figured that would limit knowledge of the discount offer to Supporting Members only.

I don't mind the sniping. I'm kinda enjoying the back and forth dialog. Especially with well informed, logical thinkers like DigMe and SMASH.

Btw, thanks again for your hospitality the other day, it was
great to meet you, and you had some awesome stuff!
You never told me about the Bongo though.
....

Any time. That goes for other TBers passing through town. I didn't know about the Bongo when you were here. That was a spur of the moment, Memorial Day Blow Out Sale purchase.

Peace,

James

 

[malthumb]

Exactly how does GM taking more money out of workers' pockets and giving it to shareholders help America? GM making money just makes money for GM. It has no other benefits to society.

It would take me too long to point out how so few words can harbor so many misconceptions. "Taking money out of workers' pockets" is basically rhetoric. No foundation in fact, but if people believe it is happening, it makes a great rallying cry. Giving it to shareholders is another misconception. The only way a company transfers wealth to shareholders is through the granting of dividends. GM does pay dividends on common stock, but the amount of those dividends hasn't changed in years. And if it does change anytime soon, I guarantee ya it'll be less, not more. GM is also responsible for more safety innovations than probably any company on earth. (I could be wrong and yes I am biased). Safety belts, airbags, highway medians that gently guide cars back into their lanes, crash test dummies, and a whole list of other safety technologies that are taken for granted were developed by GM. Saving lives does contribute to the greater good of society, last time I checked.

Health costs are high for GM, sure. Lots of costs are high for GM. But the main thing that is making them fail is making cars people don't want.

Both are factors. We have the power to fix one of them.

I think just how much it sucks to work at a plant needs to enter more strongly into this conversation. The workers have the pay & benefits they do because otherwise they would not accept the job at all. It is practically a lifetime commitment to work there. What other career are you now going to enter into if you've worked at their plant for 20 years. GM, (Ford, etc...) sign people up SOLELY on the promise of high pay and benefits forever, with the further understanding that the real good pay & benefits come with seniority. To take the best years of someone's life, then go back on the payout...that's ****ty.

Show me a company that guarantees its employees employment for life and I'll show you a company that doesn't understand the dynamics of free market economics and competition. I don't understand the part about "going back on the payout". I am unaware of any situations where pay has been reduced. I do know that in various spin-off situations (Delphi from GM and Visteon from Ford) the spun off companies leveled the amount they pay workers to be more in line with the parts industries, as opposed to the auto industry. In each case, GM and Ford supplemented the pay of the workers who moved to the new company so that they didn't lose anything. In effect, they were paying people to work for someone else. Where's the logic? It was the humane thing to do, though. New Delphi and Visteon workers were highered at lower wages. That is based on decisions by Delphi, Visteon, and the new hires who were happy to hire in at the lower pay. The days of the janitor in a plant making the same $30 plus as the guy who installs engines on the assembly line are over. No company can afford that anymore.

That the Asian & European auto manufacturers have been successful operating plants in America, is due in part to the culture at the plants not being so anti-worker. In domestic automakers plants, everything is a war. They treat the employees like idiots and abuse them at every step. The employees react as you would expect.

This may have been true in the '70s, but I can assure you any plant manager that thinks the way you believe they think will not be a plant manager for long. GM has plants at the top of the Harbour Reports for manufacturing efficiency every year. You can't achieve that level of productivity by mistreating people.

Peace,

James

 

[malthumb]

..... And who do we think buys GM cars if not typical union level wage earners anyway? I doubt the Board of Directors drive any Neons Do they even own a GM car among the lot of them, by which I mean one they paid full price for

Own GM cars. Yes. Pay full price? Of course not. If the janitor's brother can buy on a discount why would a corp VP pay full price?

....Bottom line - GMs stuff hasn't been selling well for a long long time.....Their costs for manufacturing are no higher than for Honda, et. al., their pay rates and benefits are no better than for Honda et. al., and their final sticker prices are the same or lower as their competitors.....

Depends on how you define costs of manufacturing. If you mean the cost of the material that goes into the car and the labor required to fit, weld, sew, and screw it together, you are right. They are similar. The cost disadvantage comes in regards to the cost of supporting health care for a much larger domestic workforce and retirement base.

So, if anything it doesn't come down to the red herring of Unions and health plans, it comes down to crappy product and crappy sales initiatives versus their competitors. Ford and GM went to huge job cuts and drastic sales initiatives and discounts years ago and have been doing them ever since - Honda, afaik, still hasn't.

Unions are not so much the issue in total. Health Care is a huge issue. GM is the single largest purchaser of health care in the world. Period. Costs in the health care industry are increases at rates exceeding 10% per year. Suppose you ran a restaurant and your product was, surprise!!, food. Now, because your employees have to wash their hands, you also have to supply soap. Now, suppose the cost of that soap increased 10% per year. You have no control over the cost of the soap, but your customer cannot absorb the increase in the price of your product. Suppose that for reasons unknown to you, your next door competitor was somehow immune to the cost increase of soap. Your costs continue to increase because of factors totally unrelated to your product. Your competitor's costs do not increase. How's business? That is the impact of health care costs on US manufacturing business in many sectors, as compared to offshore competition.[/quote]

This isn't the first time GM has been on the brink of disaster - for a good read on that see J. Patrick Wright's "On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors". It details how John DeLorean

Believe it or not, one of my favorite books. I read it over 15 years ago and still have my copy somewhere around the house. TRIVIA: From March 2001 until July 2004 my office was within single digits feet from where DeLorean's office was in the building he built to house the headquarters for Pontiac Motor Division. Since 1999 that building has been GM Powertrain World HQ.

It details how John DeLorean....saved GM from the brink of failure in the 70s, for which the company basically ended-up backstabbing him. Perhaps they're just reaping what they've sown?

Yes the company was on the brink of failure, but I'd stop short of saying the company backstabbed him. He didn't get the position he wanted and he pouted and left. I've seen others do the same. The real crisis for the company was in 1992. Jack Smith and Richard Wagoner pulled the company out of the toilet then and both are highly revered for their accomplishments. Now some are suggesting that Wagoner is ineffective. The man didn't get stupid overnight. He's an excellent leader and a savvy businessman. I trust him as much as anyone else in the company to turn things around.


Peace,

James

 

[malthumb]

I stated it that way because their competitors (Ford aside who's in the same boat as GM) are doing well in the marketplace while paying similar or greater benefits to their workers. Granted, those competitors might also have employees in more progressive and cooperative unions - I'm uncertain.

Ford is the only competitor with similar wage and benefits structures to GM. Chrysler went to lower content benefits as part of the concessions packages they took during the government bailout in the '80s. Their benefits have gradually increased, but I do not believe they've ever caught up to the level of GM or Ford.

Thing is, through these years of cutting benefits/wages/job/plants they've been trumpeting stable or increasing sales for the industry (and, if I recall forrectly, also GM and Ford). And all automakers have unions and pay health benefits, but only GM and Ford are on the verge of bankruptcy with their bonds rated at "Junk" status by the major bond rating srevices.

GM and Ford have been showing increasing sales in terms of total numbers, but declining market share percentage. Japanese and Korean (Hyundai, Kia, Daewoo) have been increasing in market share.

Those bond ratings came not because of union wages or health benefits. My choice to very profitably short GM and Ford stock a few years ago - long before their debt was downgraded to junk I might add - was not because they pay decent wages and health benefits.

The bond ratings are due to poor financial performance. The poor financial performance is due to lower than expected sales and higher than expected health care costs. Simple as that.

Peace,

James

 

[malthumb]

Invalid Link Removed

Article blames GM's woes on plain old bad management decisions. Not making cars people want, stupid deals with Fiat and Hummer, no hybrid vehicle, slow to react to market trends, etc...

Fiat was a horrible deal and a bad decision. Hummer, history will bear out, was a very good decision. Even with the current decline in sales of the H2, the line is profitable. The new H3 will be the highest volume vehicle in the Hummer portfolio and gets comparable fuel economy to most mid sized SUVs. Hybrids, that's a whole saga onto itself. There is a lot of hybrid product coming, but I am also frustrated by the slow rate of introduction. Fact of the matter is, hybrids lose money. Big time. You have to decide you're in it for the long haul and don't mind losing thousands of dollars per vehicle to establish a foothold in the market. It's not a good place for a nervous man.

GM's CEO is in hiding, running scared from the press. But as far as anyone can tell, his plan, in order, is
#1) product
#2) marketing
#3) product cost & quality
#4) health care costs

......

Wagoner has been no more or less accessible to the media as any other time during his tenure as CEO. Don't know where you're getting that impression. I'd also suggest that he has his priorities straight. If the company is, as you've said, making crappy product, shouldn't making better product be priority #1? Shouldn't telling people that you have new product and why it's good (marketing) be high on your list if you actually want to sell the product?


Peace,

James

 

[burk48237]

James. As always I appreciate your post and look forward to hearing your Bongo, I just purchased an Aguilar DB 750, maybe we can break them in together? More about that later.

I read in the Detroit News over the weekend that the average union assembly worker at GM has 5 weeks paid vacation and 15 personal days for a total of eight weeks paid time off, per the contract. Is that true? Don't these people realize that most people in the real world are happy with two weeks? I'm starting a new job next week, but I have never had more then three weeks paid vacation at any company I've worked for, and I was at one for 14 years! This doesn't even figure with the No deductible, no co-pay Health and Dental. My question is this, Do they have any Idea what it's like in the real world?

 

[malthumb]

Malthumb,

...Couple of points I wish to clarify. By "crappy" product/marketing, I meant in the eyes of the consumer (I'm guessing) per the purchasing of more of the competitors' products than GM. I personally have no experience with GM product, but from what I see driving around it looks like their line has been revitalized in the past 5-10 years. The (stock) market and sales incentives tell me it's not that simple though, so I maintain my position. I do think simple sales incentives like lower interest rates are disingenious and unsustainable, so I'm glad they're looking at other angles.

This becomes a catch 22. The only way to fix under-performing product is to replace it with better product. Let me illustrate a crucial dilemna. Without going into detail on which products, here's what's happened at three recent customer product clinics. A clinic is where we bring in people who fit the profile of our intended target market. We show them properties (mock ups of our future vehicle, competitors vehicles) and ask them questions and just listen to their impressions. In the three clinics that I'm referring to, we had our new XXXXX, a Honda, a Nissan, a Toyota, a Ford, and a Chrysler. In each case a different model, based on which of our vehicles we were gathering input on. All badges and identification are removed from the competitive vehicles.

We then ask which car they'd most like to have, not knowing the brands and not knowing the prices. The GM vehicle was the top choice by a significant margin in all three. Then they were told the prices. The GM vehicle was higher priced than some, lower priced than others. The GM vehicle was still top choice by a slightly lower margin. Then they were told the brands and models. The GM vehicles moved down to 3rd place in each clinic. In one clinic the Toyota and the Honda each moved up two places. In the other two clinics, the Toyota and the Nissan each moved up two places. Moral of the story......Even if you produce a better product, you still have to overcome negative perceptions (earned and unearned) of your brand as well as positive perceptions (earned and unearned) of other brands. That's called brand equity.

...As for vacation time, per the post immedaitely above this one, I too am curious if those figures are true. I very much doubt it. What are "personal days" anyway? If they are true, I'd say it's a good start and that it's an utter shame that so many people would react with "most people are happy with two weeks" rather than something like "4 weeks should be mandatory by law". In Germany, a place that produces plenty of good cars which is why I mention them, 3 weeks vacation is normal, if not law, for someone starting a job. It escalates quickly from there, plus they have over twice the stat holidays (paid) that we enjoy. But I digress.

I'm out of the loop on hourly vacation benefits, especially the concept of Personal Days. I thought we had ended that practice in the '80s or '90s, but I could be mistaken. For salaried employees, people hire in with 10 days per year and the option to buy up to 5 additional days at very low prices (way less than a day's pay). Through seniority, more vacation time is earned. Up to 25 days with option to buy 5 more. Personal Days off do not exist for salaried employees.

That last quote you attributed to me wasn't mine.

Fixed it. Last time I cut and paste in the middle of the night. Sorry 'bout that.

.....While the big cheeses might have to top-up their share holdings, they do so at nowhere near market prices correct? And I hope if they're smart enough to be a bigwig at GM they're smart enough to short against their heavily discounted shares and options purchases via offshore/Canadian accounts, thereby maintaining their free/easy domestic profit on same and capitalizing on their insider info. Under US tax tules for options and such (I believe you're taxed on the paper profit between the strike price and market price at the time of execution rather than at the time of sale, correct?), you've almost got to for self-preservation with a falling stock like GM's so that's no condemnation on GM it's just the way it works for the upper class. I guess my point being I'm not about to shed a tear for anyone who has access to shares, even in GM, on the insider plan.

Depends on how you look at it. All GM employees get a "match" on stock purchases. Stock is purchased at market price. That's the only way it can be purchased. The company matches at some fraction of what you purchase. I am not certain if this is applied to mandatory purchases. I believe that it is not.

Sounds like Kerkorkian wants to break up GM and split off his holdings. Any thoughts? Whatever comes, I hope it works out well for you.

The only thing that would make sense is spinning off GMAC. Maybe OnStar. I doubt that this will actually happen. As far as the vehicle operations, they are too deeply integrated by function. Even Saab, which was a separate company at one point, has its engineering and manufacturing activities integrated and shared with other vehicle brands.

Peace,

James

 

[DigMe]

In the other two clinics, the Toyota and the Nissan each moved up two places. Moral of the story......Even if you produce a better product, you still have to overcome negative perceptions (earned and unearned) of your brand as well as positive perceptions (earned and unearned) of other brands. That's called brand equity.

The problem with that is that it seems, from what you're saying, that people are just basing it solely on looks. I think it's more than just brand equity but that people have seen the Consumer Reports and JD Powers results of tests and surveys and they see that Honda and Toyota seem to have a history of better reliability than GM. To me that indicates that there's actually something BEHIND that brand equity. If you don't know much about 5 different cars but you know that 2 of the companies who made 2 of the cars have a better history of reliability then it's only logical to assume that those might be the better two to go with.

brad cook

 

[c-ba55]

---------------------------
Originally Posted by c-ba55
Health costs are high for GM, sure. Lots of costs are high for GM. But the main thing that is making them fail is making cars people don't want.
-------------------------
Both are factors. We have the power to fix one of them.

You're incapable of making cars people want and since you can't get revenue from customers, will make up the shortfall from employees?

Originally Posted by c-ba55
GM's CEO is in hiding, running scared from the press. But as far as anyone can tell, his plan, in order, is
#1) product
#2) marketing
#3) product cost & quality
#4) health care costs

----------------

I'd also suggest that he has his priorities straight. If the company is, as you've said, making crappy product, shouldn't making better product be priority #1? Shouldn't telling people that you have new product and why it's good (marketing) be high on your list if you actually want to sell the product?

Yes, his priorities are straight. First comes the product. GM product overall (functionality, desirability, quality, price,...) is not what people want and hasn't been for a long, long, long time. Trying to pin the discussion on healthcare costs, his fourth priority, is the problem I have. There is this proposed action to take money away from workers. Workers will have to pay more for health care. If GM was using its leverage to force health care costs to be lower from the providers, that'd be great. Instead, they are shifting what percentage the workers will pay. That is called "taking money out of workers pockets and putting it in the corporate coffers." The owner of the corporate coffers are the shareholders.

And shouldn't pensionee healthcare costs come out of the pension fund? You're not using the pension fund for operating costs of the business I hope? You didn't underfund the pension fund for years, diverting money to operating costs, I hope? Promises GM made 30, 40, 50 years ago still have to be lived up to. You can't wipe your hands and say "Sorry, that was GM that owed you. We're GM2, and have nothing to do with that."

Originally Posted by c-ba55
That the Asian & European auto manufacturers have been successful operating plants in America, is due in part to the culture at the plants not being so anti-worker. In domestic automakers plants, everything is a war. They treat the employees like idiots and abuse them at every step. The employees react as you would expect.
---------------

This may have been true in the '70s, but I can assure you any plant manager that thinks the way you believe they think will not be a plant manager for long.

I'm going on firsthand reports from hundreds of factory workers I know. Plant managers may be enlightened souls all of a sudden, but that hasn't been pushed down to the supervisor level. Working there eats a man away, and they deserve a lot more than workers in "most jobs."

 

[malthumb]

The problem with that is that it seems, from what you're saying, that people are just basing it solely on looks. I think it's more than just brand equity but that people have seen the Consumer Reports and JD Powers results of tests and surveys and they see that Honda and Toyota seem to have a history of better reliability than GM.

There is no doubt some truth to your point, but to honestly believe that in a group of 70 - 100 people, a large enough percentage study JD Power Reports to make that much of a difference? And besides, if they had gone to JD Power and compared

• Chevrolet Malibu
• Toyota Camry
• Nissan Altima
• Honda Accord

They would have seen that the Malibu received 5 Stars and led in all four major categories. The others received 4 stars.

To me that indicates that there's actually something BEHIND that brand equity. If you don't know much about 5 different cars but you know that 2 of the companies who made 2 of the cars have a better history of reliability then it's only logical to assume that those might be the better two to go with.

brad cook

I agree that their perceptions of the quality and reliability performance of the companies and their products drive brand equity, but my example above shows that sometimes perception and real data don't always coincide.

Peace,

James

 

[malthumb]

You're incapable of making cars people want and since you can't get revenue from customers, will make up the shortfall from employees?

• Chevrolet Corvette. Can't make 'em fast enough
• Hummer H3 Selling faster than the dealers can process them
• Pontiac Solstice. Took deposits on 1,000 within 24 hours of airing on The Apprentice. eBay auction for rights to buy one of the 1st 1,000 is currently over $6,000
• Cadillac CTS continues to increase in sales month to month, even though it hasn't changed much in 3 years
• Saturn VUE sales are increasing
• Chevrolet Equinox plant is running overtime (I guess we must be abusing those poor factory guys)
• Chevrolet Cobalt sales are picking up significantly over the past two months
• Saab 9-7X SUV sold over 5,000 in the first two weeks of availability

GM still outsells Toyota, Honda and Nissan. The gap is closing, but apparently there are still about 5 million people each year who disagree with your statement.

.....Trying to pin the discussion on healthcare costs, his fourth priority, is the problem I have.

A company that is in the automotive business spends HALF A BILLION dollars more on Health Care than on product development of automobiles and you don't see that as a health care spending problem?

There is this proposed action to take money away from workers. Workers will have to pay more for health care. If GM was using its leverage to force health care costs to be lower from the providers, that'd be great. Instead, they are shifting what percentage the workers will pay. That is called "taking money out of workers pockets and putting it in the corporate coffers." The owner of the corporate coffers are the shareholders.

Fine. You win. I'll admit that we're focused on screwing all of our hourly employees. That's where we REALLY make our money.

And shouldn't pensionee healthcare costs come out of the pension fund?

No. Pension fund money is paid to retirees. Health Care plans covers cost of health care expenses incurred by employees, retirees, and their families. That is paid directly from company funds.

You're not using the pension fund for operating costs of the business I hope? You didn't underfund the pension fund for years, diverting money to operating costs, I hope?

See note above on screwing employees and add appropriate smiley.

Promises GM made 30, 40, 50 years ago still have to be lived up to. You can't wipe your hands and say "Sorry, that was GM that owed you. We're GM2, and have nothing to do with that."

???????????????

I'm going on firsthand reports from hundreds of factory workers I know.

I can easily get as many 1st hand reports from factory workers who would state that their jobs are enjoyable, stimulating, and allow them to use their minds and judgement, unlike the repetitive "place bolt here and tighten" assembly line jobs of decades ago. Let's face it, some people love their jobs, some people hate their jobs, and some people just do their jobs.


Peace,

James