Rant....Ford & GM stupid

[Deleted member 3577]

Then there is the Ford Ka (UK market)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]The Ka has proved highly profitable for Ford despite its low selling price, largely due to the lack of spending required in its development. It has been the best selling car in its class in the United Kingdom for a number of years and commands around a fifth of the city car market.[/QUOTE]
And
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]It was confirmed in a radio interview with Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally that the second generation Ka may be introduced to the North American market to satisfy the high demand for smaller, more efficient cars, and to compliment rising sales of the Ford Focus. Such a move would make the Ka Ford's smallest vehicle in North America, beneath the Fiesta.[/QUOTE]

Reference
https://74.125.45.104/search?q=cach...+ka&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

 

[jessebogan]

The truly sad thing is that both GM and Ford sell very good small fuel efficient cars in other markets. There was an article in the paper a few weeks ago about the "new diesel Fiesta", on sale in Yurrop, with fuel milage in the 60s. They explained that it was built in England, and could not be imported to the US due to the currency situation. Sounds like Bravo Sierra to me. If they brought it in, it would create some traffic in the show rooms, and tht would HAVE to be better than no traffic at all. It seems like there are a lot of auto executives that really can't see the forest for all of the trees.

 

[racingenglishcars]

Funny, Toyota, Honda etc. could figure out how to make small cars profitable in America. They even make the cars in America. Seems the problem is the management of GM and Ford, not the small cars or the labour force.

BTW, a friend had a Ka. Garbage! and more rust than any other car I ever saw. Can you imagine a rusted rear chassis member being changed under warrenty when the car is less than a year old! And this is with both factory/dealer undercoating and supplimental undercoating. Guess they just didn't bother painting inside the frame, made it difficult to get the undercoating in there, and found a way for water to come in, all at the same time.

 

[tony barnhill]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

 

[racingenglishcars]

We've been told to not be political here!

I'll bet the Japanese are treated better than their counterparts.
I know the Danes are.

 

[Deleted member 3577]

I also heard that the Fiesta Mk7 might be coming at the end of next year.

(Bigger than the Ka and smaller than the Focus)

 

[coldplugs]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

I agree, although good - really good - upper management could have prevented the pension fund ~and~ the union problems.

 

[tony barnhill]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

I agree, although good - really good - upper management could have prevented the pension fund ~and~ the union problems.

40 years ago maybe.....

 

[mailbox]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

Thanks Tony. I tried to tiptoe thru that one but you just busted it wide open.

 

[tony barnhill]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

Thanks Tony. I tried to tiptoe thru that one but you just busted it wide open.

Why tiptoe if its the truth? Just don't get political!

 

[RonMacPherson]

Ah, but Honda and Toyota have unions at their assembly plants. Just not the same ones.

I have worked in sweat shops that sorely needed some protection for the employees and none was there.

I have also worked at dealerships in regional areas of the country where unions were dominant and the "what are you gonna give me if I come to work for you" attitude was prevalent.

I believe that a well regulated and operated employee bargaining structure(guilds) is a good thing.
As I have also seen dealerships where the unions and owners/management work together rather than against each other.

Bureaucracy will develop greedy status quo seekers if left unchecked in any organization long enough. The trick is to prevent that from happening.

Remember when my grandfather was proud to be a union member, because it meant that he had acquired a skill that not every layman had.

Now, sadly, most union members even if incompetent are protected rather than educated..

 

[tony barnhill]

So, GM just posted that the salary & benefits of one of their factory workers is $78.17 per hour.......how can the average Joe who makes $15 per hour buy a car made by an employee who makes $78.17 per hour.....GM posted that benefits add over $1500 to the price of every car made!

Oh, did you know that the GM medical program paid $17-million last year for Viagra for its employees & retirees.....that's surely loaded on top of ther price of a car!

 

[coldplugs]

So, GM just posted that the salary & benefits of one of their factory workers is $78.17 per hour.......how can the average Joe who makes $15 per hour buy a car made by an employee who makes $78.17 per hour.....GM posted that benefits add over $1500 to the price of every car made!

Oh, did you know that the GM medical program paid $17-million last year for Viagra for its employees & retirees.....that's surely loaded on top of ther price of a car!

That $78+ sounds about right if they're quoting a burdened rate which is ~their~ cost for a person. But $17,000,000 for Viagra? Good grief!

 

[roofman]

Generally the only pro union employees are those already in the union. Back when I lived in Michigan , car dealerships were union so they were always closed on Saturdays. If any car lot opened on Sat. the union goons would vandalize the cars on that lot. Not sure if that has changed. I am all for fair pay and treatment as a worker, but in general unions have gone way too far.

 

[lawguy]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

I agree, although good - really good - upper management could have prevented the pension fund ~and~ the union problems.

40 years ago maybe.....

Not even then. The unions already had the politicians in their pockets and those who legislated had the power to hold the car companies hostage...but there are many things the car companies could have done better. The "engineers" who designed the Pinto, Vega, Gremlin and on and on.... weren't in the union.

 

[Brooklands]

Short term profits have been the only goal of Big Three for years. There has been no desire to innovate unless the profit margin would improve. Now they are in deep trouble because the accounts have been in control, not car guys.

 

[aeronca65t]

Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!

I disagree.

Management in the US auto industry agreed to those terms without thinking of the long-term consequences. I mean why are they "managers" if they can't make good, long-term management decisions? What is the value of an MBA if it means your can't think past the next financial quarter?

And investors and brokers that were focused on short-term, quarterly profits encouraged management decisions that created artificial gains *right now* without considering the long term health of the companies (or their employees, for that matter).

If GM was really considering the long-term burden of their health care costs, why did their management refuse to lift a finger to support a national health care program? Because they'd rather spend their time and money on lobbying and maneuvering to protect their gas guzzling (and profitable) product line instead.

There are plenty of bad actors in this play, but upper management who made the *real* screwups here might have to get by with one less ski vacation to Vail. That'll be their "punishment".

And the investors who cashed in everytime GM sold another inappropriate vehicle couldn't care less how the profits were made as long as the cash was flowing. And so much for loyalty to US industry: this same investor-class has moved *mountains* of cash into Chinese and off shore stocks in recent weeks. Such patriots!

Meanwhile, the folks on the shop floor lose their jobs and get the blame for the company's problems to boot.

It has been well-know for decades that members of the US blue collar workforce are among the most productive workers in the world. That's the prime reasons why US manufacturing industries have been the economic engine of our economy for so long.
And that workforce has been mostly unionized.

 

[tony barnhill]

It has been well-know for decades that members of the US blue collar workforce are among the most productive workers in the world. That's the prime reasons why US manufacturing industries have been the economic engine of our economy for so long.
And that workforce has been mostly unionized.

With the first part of that statement, Nial, you & I are in full agreement. With the second part, however, I have to politely disagree.

So, you think the US workforce is the most productive in the world because they're union members?

WOW!!

Small businesses are the engines that run America - & by & large they're non-unionized....& small businesses all across America as a whole employ more workers than all 3 of the Big Three combined!

Break the hold the unions have on the American car industry & you'd be amazed at the productivity increases in America's workers....&, yes, I agree there was a time in America when unions were necessary to protect workers - but that time is past.

Union benefits add over $1500 to the cost of every car built by GM...Toyota here in the US isn't a sweatshop & they don't have that cost! But their workers are just as productive as GM's (if not more so), just as happy, & make just as much money!

 

[coldplugs]

I still blame management in GM's case. For example, if they hadn't plundered the pension funds over the years they wouldn't have to pay retirees out of current earnings. The pension costs were predictable and they ignored future obligations in hopes of somehow dumping them someday. Other large companies have managed to fully fund their pensions - why not GM? Sure, the unions demanded too much - that didn't mean that management needed to cave as often as they did. I've been involved in manufacturing since the sixties and have seen how unions work and their effect on the bottom line but I've seen management teams that dealt with them fairly and effectively yet didn't give away the store. Everyone benefited in the end. Since the sixties GM's management concentrated too much on short term financials & and were too busy worrying about their stock price to adaquately plan the companies financial and product futures.

 

[aeronca65t]

So, you think the US workforce is the most productive in the world because they're union members?

Nope. Never said "because" they are union members.
Simply stating a fact that they "are" union members.
Your original comment ("Unions! & the pension funds that follow unions!") blamed the unions for the auto company financial problems.
It's a popular sentiment.
And it's one I disagree with....politely, of course. :laugh:

One of the primary attractions to Japanese manufacturers when they started moving plants to the US (around the '70s) was the higher productivity levels of American auto workers. A significant level more productive than Japanese workers, in fact. And the vast majority of those highly productive workers were in unions.

My point is that being union workers did not cause them to be inefficient. And that the companys willingly participated in the union benefits programs. In exchange the companys got stable workforces that caused them to rake in nice profits. As managment kept ignoring the growing legacy costs associated with these benefits programs, the financial burden grew.

Your quote of about $78 total cost per hour is correct, but that is for workers near retirement (who recieve about $27/hr in actual wages). And much of that $78 is for health care costs. You and I have good health care that is expensive......but we don't control that cost. Neither do workers in US auto plants.
These days, new UAW line workers for GM average $14/hour and are paid about $26 per hour total cost (less than a Toyota worker, by the way). This reduced cost has come about because of union concessions in recent years. Buyout programs have resulted in huge numbers of new UAW workers at these much-lower rates.
Have you ever worked on an assembly line? I have, and $14 an hour doesn't seem like enough to me.

Unions tend to operate on a longer-term timeframe and they *want* their companys to prosper. If a company goes broke, their members have NO jobs. So they tend to be pragmatic and make concessions as above. Meanwhile, upper management and the investor-class tends to want to squeeze every last dime out of a company quickly and then walk away from it.

I agree that the unions pushed hard to get their workers good benfits. That's like you trying to buy a car for the best price you can. It's the ebb and flow of capitolism.
My point is that GM, Ford and Chrysler management didn't do it's part to protect and fairly represent their companys. And now they blame the unions. Union legacy costs are certainly part of the problem. But I would say that the primary blame lays on the inadequacies of managment who were more focused on responding to the short-term demands of the investor-class.