General Motors

Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 10:19 AM

As we all know, the once mighty GM declared bankruptcy recently. What went wrong? Bad decisions, poorly constructed labor contracts, and a shifting economy are just some of the reasons. This brings out one of the issues that Americans are going to have to confront. That issue is that of unions and labor contracts.

1998, two plants in Michigan were striking. United Auto Workers were defending production quotas that stated that workers could fill in five or six hours. After that, it was overtime or they could just call it a day. This would seem that the workers could rack up overtime that was unnecessary. Ultimately, fearing the wrath of UAW and public opinion GM bowed to them and settled this out of court. This ignorant policy was left on the books.

If one knows their business/economics, one will know that this led to their demise. Overpaid employees who were not contributing enough to the bottom line. This engrained idea that it is workers against the evil of management is a bit outdated. Feeling that anybody who rises in the ranks is going to take advantage of the lowly peasant. Well, earth to workers/peasants. These same workers became greedy, unscrupulous, and with a feeling of entitlement. Just because they got up that morning and decided to keep breathing does not mean that they are entitled to a high paying job. One has to prove oneself worthy of that.

I worked at a factory once and I dealt with the same thing. Workers that had been there a long time felt that they did not have to work hard. They could coast by and not give a darn about what they do. They showed up and did not die so that was good enough. These workers are expensive. If UAW would have thought about having its workers take a pay cut, this may have resulted more favorably.

Management is not off the hook. They are not upstanding citizens but I tire of the other side always getting the sympathy vote. Money corrupts all equally. Given the chance, most people will take the money and consider the consequences later.

Overall, I feel that Unions are, for the most part, outdated. Some fulfill their purpose but some like UAW are engines of their own demise. Keeping wages artificially high because your workers decide to show up is not enough. If the demand for the product goes down, then so should the wage. It is simple good business sense. What should Americans learn from this? Not to feel entitled and think long term. If it meant that I would have a job for three more years, I would take a pay cut. If it meant that my family would have some financial security for the next three years, I would be the first one to break union ranks and take a pay cut. To conclude, the demise of General Motors was due to gutless management, overpaid and underproducing employees, decline in demand, and having too many brands.

Comments

View 23 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

We should have let them file Bankruptcy in the first place or close the doors. Poor management, (gutless wonders),greed at every level, and laziness is what caused this. Not us, our government or any other entity should have given them bailout money. Sometimes "tough love" is all there is - let 'em fall. Now, they have our money, file bankruptcy (now no debt), and they go on their merry way - with OUR money.

-- Posted by midea on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 9:42 PM
Yep, pretty much! Take the money and RUN.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 9:53 PM
Last I heard, the production of the Hummers will remain in the U.S..

And the military Humvees are a separate entity; the chinese company buying Hummer will have nothing to do with production/oversight of military vehicles.

-- Posted by MrMister on Fri, Jun 5, 2009, at 3:09 AM
Uh huh MM. I am sure they will pick the least expensive place to build them. I heard it was going out of the US but that is the news for you. I am sure the entire story has yet to be told. Stay tuned!

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, Jun 5, 2009, at 7:00 PM
As far as I know, production will remain as is; no moving. Why would someone buy a business with an established facility and then spend the extra expense of packing up and moving? Doesn't make sense to me.

-- Posted by MrMister on Fri, Jun 5, 2009, at 10:56 PM
Uh...maybe because they already have a facility in the coutry and that is where the cheaper workers are and no unions. It is all about profit right? Do not think for one minute that China will not move their operations to a place with less regulation, etc.? Why pay more if you can get the same cow for less down the road? Simple economics really plus they get to make more money off of us. Win-win for them and I bet none of the profit will go to help pay down what we owe them. How nice that we sell off the US and its people 1 company at a time. Well done and yet more change that I can believe in (not really).

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 1:03 PM
Yep, I'm sure they have a facility they built before any transaction took place. I'm sure they built it to the exact specifics of Hummer vehicles.

-- Posted by MrMister on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 11:50 PM
Oh MM, always the wise one. Yes, plants cannot be changed out. They never do that. They also never change out plants to lower labor costs. Your arrogance sometimes gets ahead of your fingers. Do you not have some brushes or rollers to clean? Other blog kind of boring? Your project was under advertised. You could have worked on that a bit harder. Guess the wolf took all of your time and ability. Such a shame.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 12:20 PM
OM,

You are right (as always). I am wrong for stating my opinion. Please forgive me,,,I bow to your supremeness. Man oh man, I sure wish I had the level of knowledge that you have--cuz you seem to know it all.

MY ARROGANCE??? Look in the mirror big girl! You are the most arrogant person that posts on the BB! My arrogance,,,HA! what a joke.

And what's this about brushes and rollers?

When the well runs dry you have to dig into your little bag of "whatever I can think of to make myself look good and everyone else look inferior to me", doncha ya?

And hey, let's not forget to try and re-direct the discussion to a blog that has absolutely nothing to do with the current thread of discussion.

Face it, you are an opinionated twit and you think only your opinion matters. You jumped the gun (once again) with your little rant as follows:

"Yes, and why not send all of that bailout money to China as GM plans/is doing? Importing cars! Hummer to be sold to China! Just what I want...my husband, in a Hummer in Iraq, etc., that was built in China."

BEFORE doing any kind of research whatsoever. Yep, the sky sure is falling in your world...

-- Posted by MrMister on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 6:07 PM
P.S.

Tim,

Sorry for taking space on your blog to write what I wrote above. But some things (people) can't just be left unattended.

-- Posted by MrMister on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 6:09 PM
MM, once again thanks for the name calling. I do not know many 2 year olds so good with ,,,! Surely our community could have done better was my point. Yes, you are arrogant and I did do the research. Good night little boy---time for night-night, your diaper change and if you are really good a bottle. Sleep well.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 7:32 PM
Your welcome. You've done enough name calling in the past to warrant retribution, so I thought I would just throw my 2 pennies in there. And again, you are the LAST person around here to be calling someon arrogant.

What do you mean by

"Surely our community could have done better was my point."?

I'm not following your lead (of course I'm not; I'm just a simpleton). Were you talking about the community project with which I am involved? If so, please tell me how what you have done has added to the successfulness of this event, in "Our" community.

You're right,,,it's time for night-night. Sorry though, I don't have any diapers to change. It seems I've run out of them; maybe you could lend me some of yours?

Sleep well, big girl......

-- Posted by MrMister on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 12:40 AM
Again Tim,

Sorry for taking up space on your blog.

-- Posted by MrMister on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 12:42 AM
I never saw any "Hummers" in Iraq. However I did see plenty of "Humvees". I know the name is similar, but these annimals are breeds apart. Interestingly, I also saw many U.S. Service & civilian personnel driving around certain areas of Iraq in vehicle called the Pajero. It's made by Mitsubishi. It was a mini SUV and it had absolutely no armor whatsoever. It was just the standard off the sales lot version. I assume some of these drivers had spouses back home.

http://www.picsearch.com/pictures/cars/asian%20brands/mitsubishi/mitsubishi%20pa...

I drove one myself on a few occasions. It had a sporty feel to it. But neither the Pajero or that wannabe "Hummer" would be my first choice for a combat vehicle.

BTW, did ya all know that more U.S. Service personnel were killed here on the streets of the good old U.S. of A. in the last couple of weeks then were killed in Iraq during the same period?

-- Posted by Beau on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 3:16 AM
Can you say "BUFF"?

-- Posted by MrMister on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 4:02 PM
The midwest is going to be some loss of population, thats for sure. I would say that Fiat or whoever takes over needs to fight the tough fight and just go ahead with producing smaller gas efficient vehicles. These may not appease Americans but they will sell elsewhere and what is so bad with that. Selling cars = jobs = stability. This may not help heal our wounded pride but I would rather have a job than have bragging rights. If they continue to produce gas-guzzling, overrated, overpriced SUV's which will be obsolete the bottom is going to drop out eventually. By going ahead with this unpopular idea, they will ensure the jobs for the long term not just for the next two years.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 11:50 PM
The best vehicles for Iraq and Afghanistan are built by Boeing, have eight engines and have been around since 1955.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM

bazookaman,

The vehicle that I believe that you are referring to may have some value added applications in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. But as far as Iraq ; at present, there would be no value added, and in fact it would undermine our efforts on the ground.

As you should know, those efforts always boil down to the individual grunt in the trenches . Kind of like applying the more personal touch in getting rid of bad guys/gals. It can't be done from 30K+feet.. No, sometimes it requires eye to eye contact.

Of course, we could always send in more economists.

-- Posted by Beau on Fri, Jun 12, 2009, at 4:02 AM
Speaking of said vehicle, did you catch the one doing practice approaches at the base today. Yessirreee, a bonafide H/B-52 was in the pattern today---awesome and majestic sight!

-- Posted by MrMister on Fri, Jun 12, 2009, at 4:39 PM
Destroying or annihilating them is ignorant. What would be so wrong with pulling out and letting them kill each other. Sending in the forces to put a final end by way of complete devastation is for primitives and savages. If we have this bloodlust, then maybe we have not advanced as a society. One can think what they want but history has shown that view to be counterproductive.

It is not about showing the world that we have SPINE or how manly one is. Choosing one's battles and not needing to be the top dog in every arena would be a great step forward. Aggression should only be used if needed. Yes, our troops are getting shot at and killed for no good reason. So why not pull out and let them be. If we leave them alone, our losses will be minimal. Meddling and needing to flex our muscles where they dont belong cant be productive. As a nation, it is not weakness to simply let these countries fight their own wars. Let Sunni's and Shiite's kill each other. Our troops are third parties so their loss means nothing to these warring factions.

Taking the throne does not mean that we abuse it. Having the power does not mean that we NEED to use it. It should only be exercised if the threat is eminent. This threat only occurred because we ventured onto their land. This threat is not at our doorstep. Now, dont play dumb and say they are because I live here too and there are no Iraqis in my city with guns. Is it really our place to go over there and need to be the school yard bully. The bully usually was an insecure meathead that usually flexed his muscles because he only knows how to do that. We pride ourselves on being intelligent, rational, deliberate, and logical. Well destroying an entire nation/city does not fit into that.

could pick up that red phone, call the SAC Commander and Admiral of the Navy and say..........."We've put up with this long enough.........do what you have to do!"

This sounds like someone feeling that they cant win the battle otherwise. Hmmm... shocker, it's not all battle after all. It never was and so why are we there (Iraq, specifically). To finalize the logic, destroying them when it's not our business sounds like malice. Its like beating your neighbor to death when it's his issues with his wife... NOT YOURS.

FYI, Reagan did not order a final, crushing defeat to anyone.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sat, Jun 13, 2009, at 1:31 AM
Their ultimate beef is not with the US. That has been known and proven more times than there are air molecules on earth. We became the enemy when we would not leave them to their own means. The meddling and self-interest brought their rue. Prior to 1941, the US had very good relations with most of the Middle East and it was not because we imposed military threats upon them. Advocating violence when there are better, safer alternatives speaks of blood lust and malice and hatred. I would hope that as Americans, we are above that.

If we were to simply pull out and not leave any remnants, they would return to killing each other and threatening Israel. They would leave us alone if we would leave them be as well. There are other nations that are Western, civilized, and modern that do not agree with them but have not faced terrorist attacks. Again, dont play dumb and tell me that Germany has been under siege from Terrorist attacks. Nor do they provoke these people by meddling in their business and trying to Westernize them. Germany has done just fine by staying clear of it. Hmmmm.. sounds not too bad. Germany is not weak but does not pick a fight when it does not need to. Other nations have followed suit. They learned their lesson in the past and have not repeated those mistakes just yet.

Americans dying in Iraq is for nothing. Dying to further the ambitions of those who want to impose their way of being on others. We should expect these Iraqis to fight back, it is called self preservation. It is universal and unbending. If some other nation was imposing their way on us, we would fight back the same. Iraq and 911 are unrelated. You can believe what you want but conspiracy theories dont fly with me.

Finally, there are better uses of time and money than fighting a war that should never have began. The US is not under direct threat, our soil is not being invaded, so why do we need to be the aggressor when we have nothing to lose. It is violence just to be violent which is cowardly and pathetic. The bully is usually a coward at heart. Those who need to project toughness are usually meatheads with no other useful purpose in life. They are real winners.. yeah good one.

Overall, pulling out is not weak. It is called picking your battles. I would expect an older person to know that one. It is fundamental to living and surviving. Before we started meddling, were the attacks focused on us? The answer is no. Have other modern nations stayed out of it and been unscathed? Yes, and without exception. The bombing in Lebanon and hostages in Iran, happened on what continent? Now no being a poor sport.. Oh, yeah there were not in North America. If we had not placed ourselves in the line of fire, would we have been in danger? No.. putting oneself at risk and expecting it to not backfire is immature and asanine.

Politics and morality dont always go together though.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sat, Jun 13, 2009, at 5:32 PM
I realize that you will dodge the question but I shall try?

How many terrorist attacks were there against the US by Middle Easterners prior to 1970?

Who is the primary opponent of Hamas and most other Middle Eastern Terrorist Groups (Hint, its not the US).

What countries that have a superior military force choose not to meddle in the business of the Middle East and have not been subject to attacks?

Questions aside, how is it weak to let someone be? If you can put facts first and ignorance aside, who made the initial incursions? Hmmm... was it not the US and the Europeans. I dont recall any invasions of the US at the hands of Iraq or Egypt. Well it is too much to ask but minding our own business and letting the world carry on would be a step forward. Any moral high ground that we think that we have is lost by thinking that we HAVE to be the bully. There is nothing forcing us to do anything. History as our guide, when we have left them alone they have decided to wage war against themselves and not us.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Jun 15, 2009, at 10:16 AM
I was right, you did not answer the questions. Prior to the late 1960's and early 1970's, we had good relations with most of the middle east. Hmmm.. and we had little to nothing to do with their lives. No peacekeeping missions, no assisting Israel, no embargoes or sanctions, no CIA operatives, so pretty much nonexistent. Is there a relationship to this. I would think so. If we would ignore them, they would go away and we would not be wasting time, energy, money, and lives on this when their real hatred is for Israel. Our actions provoked them. Yes, the US has been the one that attacks when provoked. Revolutionary War, anyone...

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 10:20 AM
Pulling out would not mean failure or defeat. It means that we would have come to our senses and stopped wasting lives. This cause does not benefit us. We are no more secure if we pull out versus if we obliterate them. The exsmples are many, nations that dont toy with the ticking time bomb that is Middle East politics dont get hurt. If you mess with the grenade and get your face blown off, is it the grenades fault or the person's. People will always blame the grenade because taking personal responsibility takes too much effort and demonstrates too much character.

We dont need the world to view us as the omnipotent, end-all, superpower. Those who crave power and control are weak and insecure. If we are so great, then we need not to demonstrate it at will. The bully who struts his stuff and goes looking for trouble are morons. They are meatheads who offer nothing else to the world other than ability to get angry and throw down. Now, that's what I want to be known for.... Gee, mom when I grow up I want to be the insecure, MGD-High Life drinking fool who cant figure out how to cook a burrito but he sure can pick fights...

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Jun 22, 2009, at 4:04 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register