Labor Union Demands Killing GM?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Polish3d
Originally posted by: shabby
Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
$75 a hour? Wow, that's a lot. 75x40(hours)x52(weeks)=156,000... O_O WTF

Wow that's lunacy :shocked:
I hope the uaw dies a slow and painful death.


The UAW also claims that it's fully the fault of the economy, not UAW or the auto manufacturers that these companies are struggling:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...o_bailout_gettelfinger


That's odd and fallacious when you consider that the economy isn't causing these same problems for other auto companies

Other companies don't have the retiree healthcare obligations that detroit has to deal with, because their retirees are mainly in countries with universal healthcare. So there is no level playing field to begin with.

The US arm of those corporations aren't on a "level playing field"? Seems to me things are level here in America. The UAW and the Unions have milked the big 3 dry and it's time for them to jettison the baggage of legacy business practices. It seems the only way they could do that is Chap 11. Once they re-emerge not only would the field be level, but the monkeys would no longer be weighing their back down...
In theory the playing field is level, but what if money is crossing the ocean from the parent corp to subsidize the US operations? Is the playing field still level? Of course they would never do that would they?

GM doesn't have operations in foreign countries?
You should re-think that statement within the context of the discussion here. It's an irrelevant argument.

No, it's very relevant. People keep trying to claim the field isn't level because other corps have gov'ts paying their healthcare. In the US - they all pay some sort of healthcare. In other countries that have paid for healthcare -those companies with operations there don't have the costs. So if GM has operations there - they aren't paying it. Operations in America are on a level playing field.
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Jiggz
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: herm0016
Originally posted by: conehead433
the simple truth is that the foreign automakers build a more dependable car that usually gets better gas mileage.

have you looked at the domestics in the last 5 years? they have models to compete with each and everything that any foreign maker sells.

How about a domestic version of a Mazda3 Grand Touring 5 door and Honda Fit Sport? Funny story... I just got back from a cruise to Grand Cayman and 2 stops in Mexico. They had several small Ford and Chevy models there that I've never seen on our roads. I pointed out a few and said to my friends, 'Why don't they sell those in the US?'.

Edit: (no the Vibe doesn't count) ;)

Domestic competition for the Mazda3 5 door I give to the the Saturn Astra 5-door and for the MazdaSpeed 3 I would give you the HHR SS. It will take your Mazda3 to school and yes I mean the MazdaSpeed 3. Sure it might not please the dashstroking snobs here but performance wise it's far superior to the Mazda while also getting better mileage.;)

Nurburgring lap times:
8:40 --- Audi TT 2.0 TFSU
8:40 --- Cadillac CTS
8:42 --- Audi TT 1.8 Quattro
8:43 --- Honda Integra Type R
8:43.5 - Chevrolet HHR SS
8:47 --- Honda Civic Type-R
8:50 --- Mercedes Benz E55 AMG
8:52 --- VW Golf GTI DSG

You definitely sounded like GM when they commented on Toyota first coming out with the Prius hybrid. GM said the only hybrid they're coming out with is the smell of rubber on the asphalt road, now that is hybrid! Today the Prius is selling like hot cakes with almost three months of back orders, while GM is begging for a bailout! And can you believe this, GM was even relying to make a come back with the 2009 Camaro and hope it'll give it the financial lift it needs? Do these people even go out and see what customers or the market wants? Do they actually believe they can just push any car designs to the customers? Well, the answer is an obvious NO!

That was Chrysler (Dodge Charger "hybrid" burns gas and rubber), not GM. GM already has a hybrid full size SUV out, unlike Toyota, which does not have a system robust enough to handle that duty. Also, Camaro IS going to be a hit for GM, and before you start whining about consumers not buying it because of fuel economy, 80% are pre ordered with a V8.

those are pre orders. the real test is if it can sustain those numbers over the long haul, and unless it can get decent mileage, it won't, all it'll take is another spike of the gas prices and cars and trucks the suck gas will fall by the wayside. and that GM SUV hybrid isn't selling in the number they expected and need for it to be sustainable.

Camaro is not designed to be a mainstream car, it's a niche car with specific performance oriented target demographic. It's completely asinine to compare it to a Prius. Camaro buyer does not want a hybrid 4 banger, they want a V8, so GM is giving the customer what they want. So Camaro is wrong example if you are going to complain about GM not listening to the customer. Just like Prius buyers don't want a V8 under the hood, Camaro buyers don't want a hybrid 4 banger, even if it gets better mileage.

I mentioned Camaro because it was the model GM is betting on that will give it a financial lift. I compared Prius because it's a big seller and money maker for Toyota. You noticed the difference between the models and that's very insightful of you. However, you failed to see the economic and financial importance of catering to the masses first before a niche group, especially if you are financially struggling! Sure GM got the Aveo and some mid size sedans too, but how come the Prius is the one the masses wants? Why don't GM come with something like the Prius, instead of a muscle car; that nobody wants except a handful?
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
14
81
Originally posted by: woodie1
8-10% doesn't come close to ~$13k. Who's got the real facts?
The $13k is BS.

I've managed to find some figures from 2006.

GM Approx Costs per vehicle
Labor: $750 (approx 25 hours at average wage payable of $30 per hour)
Health benefits: $1500
Pension contributions: $1000 (does not include the pension shortfall)
Steel: $750

Also note efficiency differences:
Toyota and Honda only need 15 hours labor per vehicle.
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
Originally posted by: Jiggz
I mentioned Camaro because it was the model GM is betting on that will give it a financial lift. I compared Prius because it's a big seller and money maker for Toyota. You noticed the difference between the models and that's very insightful of you. However, you failed to see the economic and financial importance of catering to the masses first before a niche group, especially if you are financially struggling! Sure GM got the Aveo and some mid size sedans too, but how come the Prius is the one the masses wants? Why don't GM come with something like the Prius, instead of a muscle car; that nobody wants except a handful?

I don't think I EVER read GM mention that they expected the Camaro to fix their economic problem. To GM it is and always has been a niche vehicle. I don't understand why you bring up the Prius, it's not even a huge seller. It's been hyped like crazy so I'm sure to the average Joe it might seem as if it's a huge seller but it really only accounts for a small fraction of Toyota's sales. Funny that you talk about catering to the masses. Well the masses still buy GM Trucks/SUV/Midsize cars by the MILLIONS. Please do a little research before making blind statements.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
If the car companies are as important as claimed (plausible), then surely we're not to believe that a mere $25 or $50B is going to get them out of this. lol. It's like the bailout in general. A $14T economy literally held hostage in such a way that a mere $700 B was going to save it? no, sir. This is just common sense.
Originally posted by: Stunt
The factory I work at has USWA (United Steelworkers of America) and for all cost savings and budgetary charges we use a figure of $48/hr for wages and fringe.
The take home for an average employee at my place of work is ~$23/hr and there isn't one person making less than $18/hr. With open capacity at other locations in the United States, it's quite the challenge producing at a higher efficiency to offset these much higher labour costs. The US plants have a labour cost of about $18/hr average with unskilled workers getting minimum wage; not $18/hr.

It's bitter-sweet for me as a manager because I know my wage is inflated because of the union's inflated pay. But at the same time I understand how it makes us less competitive. I guess I'm no better than some of these union members taking a larger wage (and wanting more) not caring for the market value of my labour.

According to the Ontario University Graduate Survey performed by Ontario Undergraduate Application Center and Statistics Canada...6months after graduation, the average engineer makes ~$40k and after 2years makes ~$48-50k. I was hired after grad for $58k and now...3 years later I make $81k and I attribute some of that to the high wages of the union members.

Just saying not to blame the union exclusively...the white collar workers like myself have a role to play in this as well...
Hey, this is capitalism. As long as it's legal get all the money you can get, but if you're smart and I think you are you'll sock a lot of it away so that when the fat cat dies and you have to make money in another industry or company at the prevailing wage you will have something to show for what you consider to be a currently overinflated wage.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
What's killing GM is that for years it only catered to 2 markets: high-end/SUVs and rental car fleets.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
What's killing GM is that for years it only catered to 2 markets: high-end/SUVs and rental car fleets.

Yes that is very true. However their labor cost structure also kept them out of the small car market as well. Their management was an issue, but so was labor.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,565
889
126
"The Prius has been hyped like crazy" OK that's why they have a three month backlog. The 3 US automakers need to build a highly fuel efficient automobile that keeps it's value and doesn't need constant repairs. The Japanese are far better at building cars and management.
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
If I was shopping for a car would I consider an American made - NO. Reliability, resale value, etc., the US manufacturers have been getting whipped for years.
Lots of Hondas and Toyotas made by Americans in America.


Question that may have been answered before somewhere.

For an auto plant worker making say $25/hour, how much do they pay in UAW dues and healthcare?

:)
 

ICRS

Banned
Apr 20, 2008
1,328
0
0
The Japanese pay their american workers slave wages. We need to stop buying their car and buying American cars.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: bctbct
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Polish3d
Originally posted by: shabby
Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
$75 a hour? Wow, that's a lot. 75x40(hours)x52(weeks)=156,000... O_O WTF

Wow that's lunacy :shocked:
I hope the uaw dies a slow and painful death.


The UAW also claims that it's fully the fault of the economy, not UAW or the auto manufacturers that these companies are struggling:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...o_bailout_gettelfinger


That's odd and fallacious when you consider that the economy isn't causing these same problems for other auto companies

Other companies don't have the retiree healthcare obligations that detroit has to deal with, because their retirees are mainly in countries with universal healthcare. So there is no level playing field to begin with.

The US arm of those corporations aren't on a "level playing field"? Seems to me things are level here in America. The UAW and the Unions have milked the big 3 dry and it's time for them to jettison the baggage of legacy business practices. It seems the only way they could do that is Chap 11. Once they re-emerge not only would the field be level, but the monkeys would no longer be weighing their back down...

Everything job is being devalued, GM is one of the few that have fought hard over the years to retain what was bargained to them.

What I dont understand is why you and some others have to be such a prick about it. Do you resent that they dont have your education level and make as much as you do?

lol... retain what was bargained for them? True, except what you and others fail to accept is that the bargaining results were inflated. Manual labor jobs were over paid and lifetime benefits were unsustainable.

As to me and others... you are WAY off base. I'm being a realist - not a prick. I don't resent the fact that they were over paid, but I do resent that they want to be bailed out using our money. Their education or mine have nothing to do with this discussion - nor does my salary.

The only thing that was inflated was the lifetime medical, when medical didnt cost an arm and a leg.

Importing cheap vehicles drove the prices down, I suppose that the auto makers could have just taken a wage freeze 20 years ago in order to keep their products profitable. But when you see management making poor decisions and sucking the profits out of the company in the form of bonus' they probably didnt think that seemed reasonable.

Toyota and Honda have been running around bleeding States dry bribing them to come build a plant. Hell they passed out tax rebates for hybrid vehicles that didnt even deliver the mpg they promised.

I would much rather see my tax money going to try and save GM then handed over to the crooks on wallstreet who will pass it out like candy to the very people who started this fiasco to begin with.



 

Insomniator

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
6,294
171
106
Execs should never have caved into Union demands. Age 65 retirement is a joke, as are pensions for the rest of ones life.

But the democrats are with unions, so even if GM would love to go bankrupt, restructure and get rid of union contracts, it won't happen. They will be bailed out and nothing will change.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Bust your @ss on the line for 30+ years and then come back and say that age 65 retirement is a joke..by that time, your body is used up and you need to retire...no more worky worky except being the greeter at Wally World.

The Union contracts most likely did need to be restructured, however, Union people just assemble the vehicles with the POS design and parts that Management gives them. Until piss poor Management is fixed, bailout is pointless, we'll be right back in this situation again.

Lastly, now that the starting rate is $14/hr, you will have that much less quality going into the vehicles, due to lower worker quality. Even at the previous starting $22/hr, worker quality was/is many times questionable. IMHO, what needs to change on the Union side is the same thing that needs to change on the Management side: Accountability.

It starts with Management though...the uneducated lower paid harder (physical) working masses aren't going to buy in until Management at all levels is competant....and knowing many Union folks who work at one of the Big 3, it's clear that even at the lower levels, Management has no Accountability.

What flies at the Big 3, would never fly at Toyota or Honda because their culture simply will not tolerate those behaviours, whereas at the Big 3, it's SOP. Culture unfortunately is one of the hardest things to change.... :(

Chuck
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: chucky2


The Union contracts most likely did need to be restructured, however, Union people just assemble the vehicles with the POS design and parts that Management gives them. Until piss poor Management is fixed, bailout is pointless, we'll be right back in this situation again.

Maybe because quality budget is being consumed by the labor budget? The big 3 pay about a billion a year for UAW employees not work in the jobs bank. I am sure that would have a decent effect on quality.

Lastly, now that the starting rate is $14/hr, you will have that much less quality going into the vehicles, due to lower worker quality. Even at the previous starting $22/hr, worker quality was/is many times questionable. IMHO, what needs to change on the Union side is the same thing that needs to change on the Management side: Accountability.

For the big 3 quality has been on the rise. And actually they need fewer workers and more automation. However that is hard to do since, employees that are displaced by automation land in the job bank. So what is the point of more automation, if there is not labor savings.

It starts with Management though...the uneducated lower paid harder (physical) working masses aren't going to buy in until Management at all levels is competant....and knowing many Union folks who work at one of the Big 3, it's clear that even at the lower levels, Management has no Accountability.

Management does need change, as does management at UAW.


What flies at the Big 3, would never fly at Toyota or Honda because their culture simply will not tolerate those behaviours, whereas at the Big 3, it's SOP. Culture unfortunately is one of the hardest things to change.... :(

Chuck

Your right, labor has never viewed management as the enemy at toyota. That is not the case at the big 3, no matter what they have done.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
What's killing GM is that for years it only catered to 2 markets: high-end/SUVs and rental car fleets.

Yes that is very true. However their labor cost structure also kept them out of the small car market as well. Their management was an issue, but so was labor.

Odd that Honda and Toyota haven't had this problem despite the rather high cost of labor in Japan. Which is why they build so many of their cars here in the US now as well.

The simple fact is that GM management is lazy and blames labor for their laziness. They make some of the best cars in the world and could easily be competitive in the small car market, they just don't bother to try because they think the nickel-and-dime profit is beneath them.

Short-term thinking FTL.
 

ehhhh

Member
Oct 8, 2008
46
0
0
While I agree with some who've suggested management and poor designs are the problem, imo the quickest way to get out of this is to file for bankruptcy. That way they can throw out the contract with the union and effectively get rid of the union. I don't see any bankruptcy judge oppose that. That's what Northwest Airlines did. Even before bankruptcy they had contractors hiring maintenance personnel a good year before an actual showdown with the mechanics union. When the union went on strike they just brought in the scabs with about 30% lower pay ($/hr, not including benies) .
Obviously there's a difference here, northwest didn't care they were getting rid of professionals that had years of experience. You can't just bring any clown off the street who barely has any experience and expect them to hold hundreds of peoples lives in their hand. With an assembly line worker you can.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,392
126
Chapter 11 has had restrictions in it for several years now prohibiting an outright ditching of union contracts. This was one of the few so-called benefits to the bankruptcy reform act.

The only way to outright ditch the union contracts is a Chapter 7 dissolution.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vic
What's killing GM is that for years it only catered to 2 markets: high-end/SUVs and rental car fleets.

Yes that is very true. However their labor cost structure also kept them out of the small car market as well. Their management was an issue, but so was labor.

Odd that Honda and Toyota haven't had this problem despite the rather high cost of labor in Japan. Which is why they build so many of their cars here in the US now as well.

The simple fact is that GM management is lazy and blames labor for their laziness. They make some of the best cars in the world and could easily be competitive in the small car market, they just don't bother to try because they think the nickel-and-dime profit is beneath them.

Short-term thinking FTL.

You also need to realize, that because of higher labor costs in japan, they also have a higher level of automation. Which they continue to push higher.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: ICRS
The Japanese pay their american workers slave wages. We need to stop buying their car and buying American cars.

You're either really old and the world passed you by at some point... or just astoundingly ignorant.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
How much does the upper management team take home from each of the Big 3 compared to Japanese car makers?
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
There is seriously so much idiocy in this thread. Please read this damn article and tell me that it wasn't the contracts with the UAW that was killing GM.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/1...log-with-john-mcelroy/

Most people seem to miss the fact that they are on the verge of a massive turnaround. I'm not trying to be a rah-rah cheerleader here. I'm persuaded simply by the facts.

Last year's UAW contract was truly historic in that it will completely remove the health care cost burden off the Big Three. Though they have to give the union the money to assume this burden, they're paying 40% less than it would otherwise cost them. After 2010 they stop paying billions in health care every year and start dropping that money to the bottom line.

Moreover, there will no longer be any pensions for new hires. They'll get 401k's instead. Again, massive cost savings going forward.

On top of that the UAW workforce takes big pay cuts, and new hires come in at a wage rate that is roughly the same that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al, are paying their American workers. In other words, the Big Three can finally compete with the transplants from a labor cost standpoint. That means they can now make small cars in America without losing money on every one they make.

Another benefit of that new labor contract is that the Big Three are no longer pressured to keep building cars and trucks in the face of weak demand. Under the old labor contract it was cheaper to build cars and slap big incentives on them than it was to not build them in the first place. Now, they can build to actual demand, and they're running on much tighter inventory.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Ktulu
There is seriously so much idiocy in this thread. Please read this damn article and tell me that it wasn't the contracts with the UAW that was killing GM.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/1...log-with-john-mcelroy/

Most people seem to miss the fact that they are on the verge of a massive turnaround. I'm not trying to be a rah-rah cheerleader here. I'm persuaded simply by the facts.

Last year's UAW contract was truly historic in that it will completely remove the health care cost burden off the Big Three. Though they have to give the union the money to assume this burden, they're paying 40% less than it would otherwise cost them. After 2010 they stop paying billions in health care every year and start dropping that money to the bottom line.

Moreover, there will no longer be any pensions for new hires. They'll get 401k's instead. Again, massive cost savings going forward.

On top of that the UAW workforce takes big pay cuts, and new hires come in at a wage rate that is roughly the same that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al, are paying their American workers. In other words, the Big Three can finally compete with the transplants from a labor cost standpoint. That means they can now make small cars in America without losing money on every one they make.

Another benefit of that new labor contract is that the Big Three are no longer pressured to keep building cars and trucks in the face of weak demand. Under the old labor contract it was cheaper to build cars and slap big incentives on them than it was to not build them in the first place. Now, they can build to actual demand, and they're running on much tighter inventory.

What will happen if GM turns around starts showing profit? UAW will be back at it with demands... and when the next business cycle slump comes you'll be in the same situation.

In any case, GM will not be doing much CapEx in states with UAW presence, especially when the competition are states 500 miles south.

This is the whole issue of mentality - it starts with even petty things like calling UAW GM's partner. They're EMPLOYEES, not partners. The return on their work is their wage, shareholders and bondholders are the ones that get return on their CAPITAL. Profit is return on capital, wage is return on work.
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: Ktulu
There is seriously so much idiocy in this thread. Please read this damn article and tell me that it wasn't the contracts with the UAW that was killing GM.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/1...log-with-john-mcelroy/

Most people seem to miss the fact that they are on the verge of a massive turnaround. I'm not trying to be a rah-rah cheerleader here. I'm persuaded simply by the facts.

Last year's UAW contract was truly historic in that it will completely remove the health care cost burden off the Big Three. Though they have to give the union the money to assume this burden, they're paying 40% less than it would otherwise cost them. After 2010 they stop paying billions in health care every year and start dropping that money to the bottom line.

Moreover, there will no longer be any pensions for new hires. They'll get 401k's instead. Again, massive cost savings going forward.

On top of that the UAW workforce takes big pay cuts, and new hires come in at a wage rate that is roughly the same that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al, are paying their American workers. In other words, the Big Three can finally compete with the transplants from a labor cost standpoint. That means they can now make small cars in America without losing money on every one they make.

Another benefit of that new labor contract is that the Big Three are no longer pressured to keep building cars and trucks in the face of weak demand. Under the old labor contract it was cheaper to build cars and slap big incentives on them than it was to not build them in the first place. Now, they can build to actual demand, and they're running on much tighter inventory.

I agree. Its obvious 95% of the people in car threads have a political agenda and have no idea about the facts.