GM "Recovery" Strategy: Close Plants, Lay Off Workers

ExtremeModerate wrote:
You failed to mention that BUSH was the one who did the auto bailout, and started the "bailout ball" rolling. Government needs to stay out of business. He should have let GM fail.

And yes both Presidents should have let them either compromise like Ford did which worked, or let them fail and start over doing it right. You can't keep running a company that loses money on every product you make and expect taxpayers to give you money to make up the difference when it's obvious by their buying patterns that they don't even like your products.

The Viking wrote:

JMC wrote: They should have done that 10 years ago. You can't have it every way.

Exactly! The unions and GM and Chryler can't have it every way. They can't provide an inferior product that loses money for every vehicle they make and then refuse to compromise on the pay and ritirement packages. They can't say we would rather shut down companies and move jobs offshore rather than have people give up a little and at least keep their jobs and then complain about why they can't make it and why doesn't America want to give us more of their tax dollars.

You are right. They can't have it both ways.

Toyota and Nissan workers are union too, and they make money? Huh?

The Viking wrote: At issue is the UAW administered retiree health care fund. This fund is one of the biggest reasons that GM workers see a total per-employee labor cost of $69 per hour while its competition, such as Toyota, only is saddled with hourly costs of $53. This higher cost makes the U.S. automakers less competitive.

It appears the unions won’t bend even if the whole company goes down the tubes. I expect they imagine that with their guy in the White House they don’t have to make the same sort of sacrifices the rest of the country has to make?

You neglect to mention that GM has a much longer history in the US and thus more retirees, that pushes up the cost above Toyota......but your stuff sounds so much more damning. Expecially when you enlarge the font to the point of shouting at us.

The bit about Obama isn't even worth dignifying with a response.

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote: At issue is the UAW administered retiree health care fund. This fund is one of the biggest reasons that GM workers see a total per-employee labor cost of $69 per hour while its competition, such as Toyota, only is saddled with hourly costs of $53. This higher cost makes the U.S. automakers less competitive.

It appears the unions won’t bend even if the whole company goes down the tubes. I expect they imagine that with their guy in the White House they don’t have to make the same sort of sacrifices the rest of the country has to make?

You neglect to mention that GM has a much longer history in the US and thus more retirees, that pushes up the cost above Toyota......but your stuff sounds so much more damning. Expecially when you enlarge the font to the point of shouting at us.

The bit about Obama isn't even worth dignifying with a response.

You're on a roll Archer- Go get em!

Vice Lord wrote:

The Viking wrote:

JMC wrote: They should have done that 10 years ago. You can't have it every way.

Exactly! The unions and GM and Chryler can't have it every way. They can't provide an inferior product that loses money for every vehicle they make and then refuse to compromise on the pay and ritirement packages. They can't say we would rather shut down companies and move jobs offshore rather than have people give up a little and at least keep their jobs and then complain about why they can't make it and why doesn't America want to give us more of their tax dollars.

You are right. They can't have it both ways.

Toyota and Nissan workers are union too, and they make money? Huh?

An average of $53 per hour compared to $69 per hour with GM. And I believe Ford is around $49 with all benefits. THAT is the reason one is succeeding and why the Greedy UAW is forcing the other to close up shops and sending jobs overseas.

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote: At issue is the UAW administered retiree health care fund. This fund is one of the biggest reasons that GM workers see a total per-employee labor cost of $69 per hour while its competition, such as Toyota, only is saddled with hourly costs of $53. This higher cost makes the U.S. automakers less competitive.

It appears the unions won’t bend even if the whole company goes down the tubes. I expect they imagine that with their guy in the White House they don’t have to make the same sort of sacrifices the rest of the country has to make?

You neglect to mention that GM has a much longer history in the US and thus more retirees, that pushes up the cost above Toyota......but your stuff sounds so much more damning. Expecially when you enlarge the font to the point of shouting at us.

The bit about Obama isn't even worth dignifying with a response.

So what is your answer to a company that makes a vehicle at a $2000 loss per car and won't change anything but wants a bailout? Give it to them?