Crysler buying out hourly employees with $100K lump sums
- Thread starter halik
- Start date
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
Jealousy is not the issue, it's the fact that UAW is helping ruin south eastern michigan (where I'm from orginally) with this kind of bulsh!t.
Do you think manufacturing companies will want to return after dealing with stuff like that? Of course not, they'll set up plants in MS, TN or KY where the union won't hold them by the balls.
Factors most responsible for the collapse of the Big 3:
1) GM making crappy products . . . hello Aztek.
2) Ford making crappy products . . . hello virtually everything made for Lincoln or Mercury.
3) Chrysler making crappy products . . . hello rental car fleet.
4) Lack of nationalized healthcare . . . $1500 per vehicle.
5) Lack of a regulatory environment supportive of more fuel efficient vehicles.
The first three are obvious considering people will pay to get what they want (Toyota/Lexus, BMW, Honda) but you will be hard-pressed to get them to buy something they don't want (5000lb vehicle, 15mpg @$2.80/gal regular).
The automakers negotiated generous pension and health benefits packages with their employees/UAW. When automakers are flush with cash did they run the UAW and say, "name your price." Nope, the benefits of good times went to senior management and shareholders. Yet when times are rough it's all the union's fault.:roll:
When Gore the Bore was running the vehicle fuel efficiency initiative, US automakers were lukewarm at best. Why? Because the profits from land frigates were incompatible with the goals of the initiative. So what's the product backed up on dealer lots? Land frigates. Naturally, the Bush Regime didn't even feign interest in fuel efficiency. Although much like the Big 2 1/2, they appear to have found religion as of late.
IMO, Ford and GM are making substantially better vehicles than they did just a few years ago. But it's a shame they required such an arduous education in how to make a decent vehicle.
1) GM making crappy products . . . hello Aztek.
2) Ford making crappy products . . . hello virtually everything made for Lincoln or Mercury.
3) Chrysler making crappy products . . . hello rental car fleet.
4) Lack of nationalized healthcare . . . $1500 per vehicle.
5) Lack of a regulatory environment supportive of more fuel efficient vehicles.
The first three are obvious considering people will pay to get what they want (Toyota/Lexus, BMW, Honda) but you will be hard-pressed to get them to buy something they don't want (5000lb vehicle, 15mpg @$2.80/gal regular).
The automakers negotiated generous pension and health benefits packages with their employees/UAW. When automakers are flush with cash did they run the UAW and say, "name your price." Nope, the benefits of good times went to senior management and shareholders. Yet when times are rough it's all the union's fault.:roll:
When Gore the Bore was running the vehicle fuel efficiency initiative, US automakers were lukewarm at best. Why? Because the profits from land frigates were incompatible with the goals of the initiative. So what's the product backed up on dealer lots? Land frigates. Naturally, the Bush Regime didn't even feign interest in fuel efficiency. Although much like the Big 2 1/2, they appear to have found religion as of late.
IMO, Ford and GM are making substantially better vehicles than they did just a few years ago. But it's a shame they required such an arduous education in how to make a decent vehicle.
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
Actually crap products wasn't the case, the reason why the big 3 didn't have issues despite UAW standing on their gonads is because the high margin vehicles (body on frame trucks, SUV) were selling. That's why UAW could get away with crap like job banks at GM (you mean I get paid without working?).
The 'lack of nationalized healthcare ' argument doesn't work considering that both Honda and Toyota have and are building more plants in right-to-work states.
Also stricter gas milage regulation would only speed up the big 3 demise, because you're de facto killing the aforementioned cash cows.
What really happened is when the sales of Trucks and SUV started going down, the revenue begun to dry out and none of the big 3 had strong/high margin product in the sedan and crossover space and their costs were inflexible on the labor side (can't cut down hours, production etc. ). So basically you're forced to skimp out on materials and R&D and keep making the same crap untill you post 12billion dollar loss. Only then you can start convincing the union that the current contract simply won't work .
It's funny, but behind Lexus, guess which brands have some of the highest ratings? Buick, Cadillac, Mercury and Lincoln. The problem isn't selling cars, but the massive legacy costs each company has. GM still has the #1 brand in America. Ford still has the best selling vehicle. You also make some lame argument about 5000lbs vehicles getting 15mpg. While Honda and Toyota probably have the best known economy cars, they both have their low mpg vehicles, especially Toyota. Other than a lack of heavy duty trucks, Toyota's line isn't much better than Chevy or Ford as far as mpg is concerned.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
I agree. The products coming out of Detroit are much better than their (legacy) reputation. Look at JD Powers rankings, they've been consistently above average in the last few years. People tend to blindly assume that the Japs have better products and Detroit has crappy products. Check out the 'True cost to own' for various similar vehicles. Over a 5 year period the Jap brands fare worse than American brands.
The health care issue is important which is why the big three have extensive plants in Canada. As far as Honda & Toyota building in US, they pay a lot less, not only to blue collar workers but white collar as well with less benefits.
Halik, UAW workers get paid more than $15 an hour, and when you factor in the overtime, benefits & overheads, the buyout is nowhere near 3 years worth of income. Ford paid a larger amount in their buyout.
1) How many products have Toyota, Honda, or Nissan totally discontinued in the past decade? How about domestic automakers? I rest my case.
2) Body on frame trucks/SUVs were selling b/c only the big three made them in substantial numbers during the early 90s when the pestilence became pandemic. Few people wanted American cars b/c . . . well aside from the Taurus (through early90s) . . . America didn't know how to make a good car.
3) If you've got good product and it's selling you hire MORE workers. There's no need for a job bank b/c if you've got a job . . . the company is going to put your arse to work building something.
4) Nationalized healthcare matters b/c the downfall of the domestics STARTED in the 90s not a few years ago. Most of Toyota's facilities have been built in the past 8 years. Honda's sixth assembly plant should open in late 2007 or sometime in 2008. Many have indeed been built in the misnomerd 'right to work' states, but other facilities and assembly plants are in IN, CA, OH, and others. Yet Honda also plans to open an engine plant in Canada (nationalized healthcare, high taxes) and a car/engine facility in Japan (nationalized healthcare, high taxes) by 2010.
The broader issue is that GM is one of the largest providers of healthcare in the United States. I hear they do a pretty good job of it. In 2005, they covered 1.1 million people, spending $5.2 billion, annual inflation in costs of 8%, and it adds $1500 to the cost of each vehicle. I'm sure GM would prefer to give half the money to the government in taxes and spend the rest on making better vehicles.
Toyota and Honda have less of a burden b/c they have very few retirees and overall much younger workforce. These workers naturally require less healthcare. So comparing the domestics to recent factories from foreign makes is a failure to understand the complexity of what's going on. IIRC, imports are beginning to talk about this issue though.
5) Stricter mileage requirements would be gradual and predictable. In essence, the government sets goals, provides research support, and infrastructure support if necessary. Trucks and SUVs were indeed cash cows. Government guidance towards fuel efficiency would have made them dairy cash cows. Big 3 ate the beef and now all they have left is skin and bones. Ford was complaining Toyota was sucking all the hybrid parts out of the market. GM said hybrids only make sense as big vehicles . . . then waited a decade to start making them. The only reason Chrysler has diesels is the generosity of Daimler. How many engines (displacing less than 3L) have been produced by the Big 3 that win international acclaim?
6) In essence, the Big 3 were RARELY if ever competitive on the world market, but they could count on American jingoism and consumerism to keep the coffers flush. Then something amazing happened. American consumers realized there were other options . . . not only among the cars (that were always superior) but also light trucks, SUVs.
Americans bought a lot of light trucks and SUVs last year. They just didn't buy as many from GM, Ford, and Chrysler/Dodge. That has almost nothing to do with the UAW and everything to do with an inferior product - or at the very least 'impression' of an inferior product. The skimping on R&D into fuel efficiency, crossovers and sedans explains this crap. . . . which has been going on for a LONG time.
7) I'm not arguing the UAW isn't a burden to domestic automakers, but they are at best a 'trial lawyer' correlate to our healthcare system. We demand expensive drugs and facilities in an aging population that's getting more obese. Yet for some . . . the solution to all our problems is the 1% costs of liability.:roll:
2) Body on frame trucks/SUVs were selling b/c only the big three made them in substantial numbers during the early 90s when the pestilence became pandemic. Few people wanted American cars b/c . . . well aside from the Taurus (through early90s) . . . America didn't know how to make a good car.
3) If you've got good product and it's selling you hire MORE workers. There's no need for a job bank b/c if you've got a job . . . the company is going to put your arse to work building something.
4) Nationalized healthcare matters b/c the downfall of the domestics STARTED in the 90s not a few years ago. Most of Toyota's facilities have been built in the past 8 years. Honda's sixth assembly plant should open in late 2007 or sometime in 2008. Many have indeed been built in the misnomerd 'right to work' states, but other facilities and assembly plants are in IN, CA, OH, and others. Yet Honda also plans to open an engine plant in Canada (nationalized healthcare, high taxes) and a car/engine facility in Japan (nationalized healthcare, high taxes) by 2010.
The broader issue is that GM is one of the largest providers of healthcare in the United States. I hear they do a pretty good job of it. In 2005, they covered 1.1 million people, spending $5.2 billion, annual inflation in costs of 8%, and it adds $1500 to the cost of each vehicle. I'm sure GM would prefer to give half the money to the government in taxes and spend the rest on making better vehicles.
Toyota and Honda have less of a burden b/c they have very few retirees and overall much younger workforce. These workers naturally require less healthcare. So comparing the domestics to recent factories from foreign makes is a failure to understand the complexity of what's going on. IIRC, imports are beginning to talk about this issue though.
5) Stricter mileage requirements would be gradual and predictable. In essence, the government sets goals, provides research support, and infrastructure support if necessary. Trucks and SUVs were indeed cash cows. Government guidance towards fuel efficiency would have made them dairy cash cows. Big 3 ate the beef and now all they have left is skin and bones. Ford was complaining Toyota was sucking all the hybrid parts out of the market. GM said hybrids only make sense as big vehicles . . . then waited a decade to start making them. The only reason Chrysler has diesels is the generosity of Daimler. How many engines (displacing less than 3L) have been produced by the Big 3 that win international acclaim?
6) In essence, the Big 3 were RARELY if ever competitive on the world market, but they could count on American jingoism and consumerism to keep the coffers flush. Then something amazing happened. American consumers realized there were other options . . . not only among the cars (that were always superior) but also light trucks, SUVs.
Americans bought a lot of light trucks and SUVs last year. They just didn't buy as many from GM, Ford, and Chrysler/Dodge. That has almost nothing to do with the UAW and everything to do with an inferior product - or at the very least 'impression' of an inferior product. The skimping on R&D into fuel efficiency, crossovers and sedans explains this crap. . . . which has been going on for a LONG time.
7) I'm not arguing the UAW isn't a burden to domestic automakers, but they are at best a 'trial lawyer' correlate to our healthcare system. We demand expensive drugs and facilities in an aging population that's getting more obese. Yet for some . . . the solution to all our problems is the 1% costs of liability.:roll:
As has been mentioned, for the past 10 years at least, American car companies have been putting most of their creative juices into SUV's and trucks and neglected their passenger car lines. Young affluent buyers aren't into boring American cars with chinsy interiors, so if they aren't in the market for an SUV or a pickup, they will most likely be buying japanese or increasingly, korean.
One segment of the market that was hot for several years and continues to be is the small, sporty car segment. American car companies completely missed the boat on that and when they realized their mistake they could only scrounge up pretty poor substitute vehicles. Yeah Dodge SRT-4 was a pretty hot car, but it's a friggin Neon, and that fact alone kept a lot of buyers away and they didn't plan a follow-up of any kind and killed the entire line.
A young car buyer looking for a stylish, sporty car for under 20K isn't going to find what they want from an American company, that's why you see so many Scions and the like, the American alternative is what, Chevy Cavalier?
My friend recently bought a 300M, which I happen to think is actually a stylish car, however, after sitting in it, the interior is far, far below what I would expect from a car that was over 30K.
Look at the new Honda Civic, they always sell well, but now they are better equipped than ever, can get Ipod intergration, navigation, have a neat dash, etc. These are cheap cars that are practical, somewhat stylish and fun to drive.
One segment of the market that was hot for several years and continues to be is the small, sporty car segment. American car companies completely missed the boat on that and when they realized their mistake they could only scrounge up pretty poor substitute vehicles. Yeah Dodge SRT-4 was a pretty hot car, but it's a friggin Neon, and that fact alone kept a lot of buyers away and they didn't plan a follow-up of any kind and killed the entire line.
A young car buyer looking for a stylish, sporty car for under 20K isn't going to find what they want from an American company, that's why you see so many Scions and the like, the American alternative is what, Chevy Cavalier?
My friend recently bought a 300M, which I happen to think is actually a stylish car, however, after sitting in it, the interior is far, far below what I would expect from a car that was over 30K.
Look at the new Honda Civic, they always sell well, but now they are better equipped than ever, can get Ipod intergration, navigation, have a neat dash, etc. These are cheap cars that are practical, somewhat stylish and fun to drive.
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
Actually I'm concerned for both of my parents who work for Ford as well as the economic conditions in Michigan. There will be no manufacturing base in detroit if crap like that continues, it will all move to right to work states.
And you're a fool if you think Crysler is happy to voluntarily offer these buyouts. They have no choice but to do this to get themselves out of UAW.
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
We're saying the same thing then - the big 3 were never really efficent, but rather the SUV fad kept them afloat, but it also allowed UAW to demand all sorts of crazy benefits they now don't wanna give up.
By the way, job banks were operational since early 90s, it was a trade off to get UAW to allow robotic assembly lines.
And what about the auto executives with the private jets and million dollar paychecks? Oh yeah, its the union's fault. You do realize that Japanese auto workers have unions too? You also realize that Japanese auto workers get bonus' that are roughly equal to their salary each year?
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 0
First off executive pay is completly irrelevant in this case (even outside the fact that it's market determined). Japanese autoworkers have unions, just as the european ones do, but they also have statistics that back up their wages. Hell even Toyota handed out bonuses this year (and paid more than UAW contracts)... the key difference is the fact that the companies can scale down labor costs if needed. Bad year = no bonus as opposed to bad year = more peopel in job banks.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
I can hardly wait til the UAW disbands. Then Toyota can start paying their workers 10/hour.
And I can start providing Medicaid and Food Stamps to Toyota workers like I do with Wal-Mart workers.
And the American worker no longer has decent health plans, income, job security or working conditions.
And this is good for America???
And I can start providing Medicaid and Food Stamps to Toyota workers like I do with Wal-Mart workers.
And the American worker no longer has decent health plans, income, job security or working conditions.
And this is good for America???
It just seems crazy to lay so much of this at the feet of the UAW, when it was a NEGOTIATED contract.
How many industries finish up contract negotiations and say, "glad we got that finished, but you know this going to kill us in a couple of years."???!
Should the UAW give a little (or a lot) . . . sure. But the UAW did not destroy the Taurus, build the Blackwood, build the Blackwood again with a different name, take 10 years to make a decent small car (Focus) then shift resources back to trucks/SUVs, make minimal investment in fuel efficiency, and make minimal investment in alternative fuels (not named ethanol). The Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan are better than average vehicles . . . that should have been built by Ford 6 years ago.
Anybody want a Lincoln Zephyr?
Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys were among the dullest vehicles in the world from 1988 - 2004. But those vehicles and their compact siblings sold like mad b/c they gave the consumer what they needed.
V8? Are you kidding?!
RWD? HAHAHAHAHA!
Style? Bleh
Affordable. Check.
Fuel Efficient. Check.
Reliable. Check.
During the flush days at GM and Ford, I bet they still issued a dividend. Maybe that money should have gone into R&D.
SUVs and light trucks were life support during a time when Detroit refused to acknolwedge they were in intensive care. Then Toyota, Honda, and Nissan decided they were going to pull the plug by offering their own light platform vehicles and introducing a new one (crossovers). Well, I take that back. There was no malfeasance . . . just the market. The UAW is an unhelpful coincidence not the cause of Detroit's floundering.
How many industries finish up contract negotiations and say, "glad we got that finished, but you know this going to kill us in a couple of years."???!
Should the UAW give a little (or a lot) . . . sure. But the UAW did not destroy the Taurus, build the Blackwood, build the Blackwood again with a different name, take 10 years to make a decent small car (Focus) then shift resources back to trucks/SUVs, make minimal investment in fuel efficiency, and make minimal investment in alternative fuels (not named ethanol). The Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan are better than average vehicles . . . that should have been built by Ford 6 years ago.
Anybody want a Lincoln Zephyr?
Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys were among the dullest vehicles in the world from 1988 - 2004. But those vehicles and their compact siblings sold like mad b/c they gave the consumer what they needed.
V8? Are you kidding?!
RWD? HAHAHAHAHA!
Style? Bleh
Affordable. Check.
Fuel Efficient. Check.
Reliable. Check.
During the flush days at GM and Ford, I bet they still issued a dividend. Maybe that money should have gone into R&D.
SUVs and light trucks were life support during a time when Detroit refused to acknolwedge they were in intensive care. Then Toyota, Honda, and Nissan decided they were going to pull the plug by offering their own light platform vehicles and introducing a new one (crossovers). Well, I take that back. There was no malfeasance . . . just the market. The UAW is an unhelpful coincidence not the cause of Detroit's floundering.
I find that hard to believe since even when GM was making "crappy" products and supposedly going under, they were still outselling every other company in the entire world.
And that is why GM is failing. Market share is only PART of what it takes to be a successful company. GM is upteen different car companies. Toyota is three. Honda is two. Nissan is basically two.
Globally, GM was a few vehicles ahead of Toyota in 2006 and a few more in 2005. Over those two years, GM's losses were 11-figures. Toyota's profits over EACH of the last two fiscal years is 11-figures. My guess is that you could fill a lot of job banks with 11-figure profits.
But if those numbers are hard to grasp, try this . . . would you prefer to own a Toyota/Honda dealership or a GM/Ford dealership? Last I checked, the latter pair were looking for ways to cut as many dealerships as possible. I doubt that's b/c of gangbuster sales.
Globally, GM was a few vehicles ahead of Toyota in 2006 and a few more in 2005. Over those two years, GM's losses were 11-figures. Toyota's profits over EACH of the last two fiscal years is 11-figures. My guess is that you could fill a lot of job banks with 11-figure profits.
But if those numbers are hard to grasp, try this . . . would you prefer to own a Toyota/Honda dealership or a GM/Ford dealership? Last I checked, the latter pair were looking for ways to cut as many dealerships as possible. I doubt that's b/c of gangbuster sales.
Yeah, those damm unions. These people should just be laid off and get nothing because that's the American way.
Why don't you say something that has any content, instead of just an empty post?
Is his point wrong that workers are losing those benefits a lot? Is his point wrong that Republican policies have contributed greatly to that trend?
If so, say what evidence you have. If not, why are you disagreeing with him?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 15K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter