Should the US govt bail out the American Auto Giants?
-
tjamz;246352 wrote:
The reason GM (and the big 3) are losing money hand over fist is that there is a perceived devaluation of their products due to an inferior design/build....none of which happen at the union worker level...more so it happens at the design and R&D stages.It's already pretty well established that Toyota workers make about as much (if not more in some cases) than their UAW counterparts....so the high cost of having union employees is kind of a moot point. You might be able to say that the union workers aren't as versatile as their non-union counterparts, but that is part of the contracting process, the workers have very specific jobs that they perform and it is all spelled out under contract. If they fail to perform regularly, you have VERY easy ways of terminating their employment. To me, it doesn't seem like the UAW workers are the problem in this case...it seems like a poorly run company at the top levels of design/marketing/research and development/quality control.
Wages are a big reason...do your research. Another major problem like you said is they dont have the capital to R&D and create new products.
-
Grr;246355 wrote:
I am torn on the bailout. I dont think its a good thing at all, and am against it. But, the auto industry has a hand in every aspect of production and supply in most of the world. If they go under, EVERY industry is going to go down so far most of them will fold as well. Iron, electronics, plastic, you name it, they will go bankrupt. So in that respect, do the ends justify the means?So all the other us/world auto manufacturers wont need supplies? I think that it would effect the economy tremendously...more based off consumer confidence than what is really happening. I wouldnt think every industry would go down. That is business...you find new ways to diversify and become profitable. Maybe those manufacturers of supplies could export to other countries. Either way...survival of the fittest. If we keep bailing people out...we are going to be worse off in the long run.
-
SmitEvo;246354 wrote:
Wages are a big reason...do your research.I did:
-
most reliable cars of the last decade:
The Warranty Direct Top 100 Most Reliable Used Cars Of The Past Decade in order:
1 Honda Accord 2 Subaru Forester 3 Mazda MX-5 4 Mitsubishi Carisma 5 Toyota Yaris 6 Honda Civic 7 Nissan Almera 8 Honda CR-V 9 Toyota RAV4 10 Nissan Micra 11 Lexus IS 200 12 Mazda 626 13 Jaguar X-Type 14 Toyota Landcruiser 15 Volvo S/V40 16 MINI (BMW) 17 Suzuki Vitara 18 Mazda 323 19 Toyota Carina E 20 Saab 9-5 21 Lexus LS400 22 Ford Ka 23 Rover 45 24 Hyundai Lantra 25 Mercedes SLK 26 Citroen Xsara 27 Ford Cougar 28 Subaru Impreza 29 Skoda Octavia 30 Audi A4 31 Nissan Primera 32 Toyota Avensis 33 Volvo 850 34 Vauxhall Corsa 35 Seat Toledo 36 Volkswagen Golf 37 Daewoo Lanos 38 Fiat Brava 39 Hyundai Coupe 40 Mitsubishi Shogun 41 Rover 25 42 Mercedes CLK 43 Fiat Marea 44 Ford Focus 45 Peugeot 106 46 MG MG TF 47 BMW Z3 48 Hyundai Accent 49 Volkswagen Polo 50 Fiat Punto 51 Vauxhall Zafira 52 Mercedes C-class 53 Volvo S60 54 Toyota MR2 55 Mazda Xedos 6 56 Ford Puma 57 Vauxhall Astra 58 Vauxhall Omega 59 Chrysler Neon 60 Audi A2 61 Ford Fiesta 62 Ford Mondeo 63 Vauxhall Corsa 64 Citroen Saxo 65 BMW 3 Series 66 Vauxhall Vectra 67 Isuzu Trooper 68 Mercedes M-Class 69 Subaru Legacy 70 Rover 400 71 Fiat Ulysse 72 Mercedes E-Class 73 Renault Clio 74 Toyota Celica 75 Peugeot 306 76 Peugeot 406 77 Volvo S70 78 Rover 75 79 Daewoo Matiz 80 Peugeot 206 81 Mazda MX-3 82 Vauxhall Tigra 83 Seat Ibiza 84 Peugeot 106 85 Renault Megane 86 Peugeot 406 87 Saab 9-3 88 Audi A3 89 BMW X5 90 Mercedes S-class 91 Toyota Corolla 92 Seat Alhambra 93 BMW 5-series 94 Daewoo Nubira 95 Alfa Romeo 145 96 Saab 900 97 Mazda MX-6 98 Jaguar S-Type 99 Daewoo Leganza 100 Porsche BoxsterThe vehicles in red are the non-gm (at least not in the US) made cars, the vehicles in blue are the GM made cars manufactured/sold in the US.
-
tjamz;246352 wrote:
It's already pretty well established that Toyota workers make about as much (if not more in some cases) than their UAW counterparts....so the high cost of having union employees is kind of a moot point.No it's not really moot...in fact I'd almost say that shows even more that Unions are worthless. Rather than having to worry about dealing with union issues, Toyota can focus on their product more...when the product sells well, they pass the profits on to employees who are able to see more of a return on their hard work. Funny how unions are supposed to help people get more pay and more benefits yet a company like Toyota, who flips the bird to unions, can pay their employees more AND give employees profit-sharing whereas the big 3 can't do that. Unions = Red Tape, Red Tape = Slows R&D and other profit-making opportunities which in turn hurts the company, business, and in this case will now end up hurting the entire economy and the employees who are going to be SOL when the big 3 tank.
-
tjamz;246358 wrote:
I did:That shows the payscale...yes. Wages are still a problem...I didnt argue that they werent paid close to the same.
-
StangerBanger96;246360 wrote:
No it's not really moot...in fact I'd almost say that shows even more that Unions are worthless. Rather than having to worry about dealing with union issues, Toyota can focus on their product more...when the product sells well, they pass the profits on to employees who are able to see more of a return on their hard work. Funny how unions are supposed to help people get more pay and more benefits yet a company like Toyota, who flips the bird to unions, can pay their employees more AND give employees profit-sharing whereas the big 3 can't do that. Unions = Red Tape, Red Tape = Slows R&D and other profit-making opportunities which in turn hurts the company, business, and in this case will now end up hurting the entire economy and the employees who are going to be SOL when the big 3 tank.I'd say that unions help bring the wages up at Toyota and other manufacturers that are non-union. Do you really think the average wage would be $30+/hr at toyota if they weren't competing with unions for jobs? I've never worked directly for a union, nor do I want to necessarily, but I am glad they are there...they bring the average wage of non-union people up as well for similar jobs. IF GM had a better product and was able to actually give out profit sharing (meaning they need to profit to share it) they would have paid their employees more than Toyota. Since GM=Fail at making profit, their employees receive no profit sharing. Fix the problems up above and you will fix the whole problem.
Basically, the only difference between GM/Toyota is profits & reliability. Pay is about equal.
-
tjamz;246359 wrote:
most reliable cars of the last decade:The Warranty Direct Top 100 Most Reliable Used Cars Of The Past Decade in order:
1 Honda Accord 2 Subaru Forester 3 Mazda MX-5 4 Mitsubishi Carisma 5 Toyota Yaris 6 Honda Civic 7 Nissan Almera 8 Honda CR-V 9 Toyota RAV4 10 Nissan Micra 11 Lexus IS 200 12 Mazda 626 13 Jaguar X-Type 14 Toyota Landcruiser 15 Volvo S/V40 16 MINI (BMW) 17 Suzuki Vitara 18 Mazda 323 19 Toyota Carina E 20 Saab 9-5 21 Lexus LS400 22 Ford Ka 23 Rover 45 24 Hyundai Lantra 25 Mercedes SLK 26 Citroen Xsara 27 Ford Cougar 28 Subaru Impreza 29 Skoda Octavia 30 Audi A4 31 Nissan Primera 32 Toyota Avensis 33 Volvo 850 34 Vauxhall Corsa 35 Seat Toledo 36 Volkswagen Golf 37 Daewoo Lanos 38 Fiat Brava 39 Hyundai Coupe 40 Mitsubishi Shogun 41 Rover 25 42 Mercedes CLK 43 Fiat Marea 44 Ford Focus 45 Peugeot 106 46 MG MG TF 47 BMW Z3 48 Hyundai Accent 49 Volkswagen Polo 50 Fiat Punto 51 Vauxhall Zafira 52 Mercedes C-class 53 Volvo S60 54 Toyota MR2 55 Mazda Xedos 6 56 Ford Puma 57 Vauxhall Astra 58 Vauxhall Omega 59 Chrysler Neon 60 Audi A2 61 Ford Fiesta 62 Ford Mondeo 63 Vauxhall Corsa 64 Citroen Saxo 65 BMW 3 Series 66 Vauxhall Vectra 67 Isuzu Trooper 68 Mercedes M-Class 69 Subaru Legacy 70 Rover 400 71 Fiat Ulysse 72 Mercedes E-Class 73 Renault Clio 74 Toyota Celica 75 Peugeot 306 76 Peugeot 406 77 Volvo S70 78 Rover 75 79 Daewoo Matiz 80 Peugeot 206 81 Mazda MX-3 82 Vauxhall Tigra 83 Seat Ibiza 84 Peugeot 106 85 Renault Megane 86 Peugeot 406 87 Saab 9-3 88 Audi A3 89 BMW X5 90 Mercedes S-class 91 Toyota Corolla 92 Seat Alhambra 93 BMW 5-series 94 Daewoo Nubira 95 Alfa Romeo 145 96 Saab 900 97 Mazda MX-6 98 Jaguar S-Type 99 Daewoo Leganza 100 Porsche Boxster
The vehicles in red are the non-gm (at least not in the US) made cars, the vehicles in blue are the GM made cars manufactured/sold in the US.
I dont see any blue...:)
-
SmitEvo;246363 wrote:
That shows the payscale...yes. Wages are still a problem...I didnt argue that they werent paid close to the same.Please elaborate....what I think you are saying is it takes more guys at GM to do the same job as one guy at Toyota.
-
SmitEvo;246366 wrote:
I dont see any blue...:)wasn't a typo
-
tjamz;246367 wrote:
Please elaborate....what I think you are saying is it takes more guys at GM to do the same job as one guy at Toyota.They are paid more then they are worth is what I am saying. The percentage to revenue is too high vs other competitors. This effects their bottom line...
-
CMK has to be trolling. Fuck GM and the ridiculous UAW.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/11/let-gm-fail.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/11/yet-more-economic-ignorance.html
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/11/more-on-the-stagnating-wage-myth.htmlIt is critical that we finally let GM ch11 / restructure already. Letting it go ch11 is the only way they'll get out of the stupid-assed deals they signed with the meat-head UAW guys they employ. For every vehicle GM sells, $1200 goes to health care benefits. That's absolute insanity.
The summary of the 3 articles above is: GM will go through chapter 11 to let them get out of the ridiculous UAW contracts they signed into. Not that many jobs will actually be lost, but lots of union losers will start getting paid a lot less. Top talent will go elsewhere if it isn't being used (read: paid) effectively. This will also be good for the economy.
No amount of money will fix GM as it is now. Overpaid people need to be paid less. Underutilized talent needs to move elsewhere. Dead weight needs to be cut. Ineffective managers, leaders, and middle managers need to be replaced with new people that have better ideas.
-
MisterCMK;246345 wrote:
You don't get it. Unions do not bid jobs. Unions are not contractors. You might want to read up on unions.I didnt say unions bid jobs. I didnt say unions are contractors. I admitted to a poor choice of words and corrected myself.
i have read extensively on unions, thank you. It is actually required material for my major. Also, since I hear about it everyday from friends and work associates I would say I am rather well informed on the subject. It doesnt hurt that my mother is also a part of one. Thanks for the advice, though.
tjamz;246352 wrote:
It's already pretty well established that Toyota workers make about as much (if not more in some cases) than their UAW counterparts....so the high cost of having union employees is kind of a moot point. You might be able to say that the union workers aren't as versatile as their non-union counterparts, but that is part of the contracting process, the workers have very specific jobs that they perform and it is all spelled out under contract. .highly specialized work forces are not only necessary but preferred due to saftey regs and quality issues etc BUT the cost of simply dealing with union is where the downfall comes into play. on an assembly line it is slightly different but with basically every other unionized job it is the specialization that leads to the problems.
example? sure.
I know a woman who works in an office for the state of minnesota. She is a union worker and per her union contract she is not obligated to change the light bulb when it burns out OR refil the printer when the paper runs out. There is a union employee who handles those troublesome tasks WHO IS NOT GENERAL MAINTENANCE. now is the specialization and strict contractual agreements tailored to unions helping or hurting the state of minnesota by having to employ another perons on a salary with the same benefits as her? cmk obviously says yes. because unions are good. i say poo because its situations like this that cause my tution to go up every semester. unions look good on paper but the implementation is simply impractical.
its just like city trenchers, one guy running the trencher, two guys holding a shovel, and one old man napping in the truck. why? unions.
-
DaveH;246378 wrote:
Wow, a first.... something Mitch and I agree on. :icon_geek:So after readying 8 pages, is anyone here (other than Chuck) actually arguing for the Unions?
if you werent such a newb you would only be on page two..
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login