On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:56:14 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

The only hope for GM is to pirate Honda and Toyota management
to run it.

You've got to be kidding; they wouldn't know what to do with the mess
left behind. The best bet would be to lease out the best of the
production lines, and sell off the rest for what ever they can get.
There is no hope for GM with a labor friendly government owning half
of the company and the unions owning another big piece.

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:16:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:56:14 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

The only hope for GM is to pirate Honda and Toyota management
to run it.

You've got to be kidding; they wouldn't know what to do with the mess
left behind. The best bet would be to lease out the best of the
production lines, and sell off the rest for what ever they can get.
There is no hope for GM with a labor friendly government owning half
of the company and the unions owning another big piece.

I don't think there's much left of GM. @60k employees.
Wages are almost down to that of the non-union imports.
The retirement/health plans are being jettisoned.
But their management is stuck in '50's, 60's type mentality.
Cars are "romantic."
Yeah, well business isn't. It's about profit.
That's something Honda and Toyota know.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:16:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:56:14 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

The only hope for GM is to pirate Honda and Toyota management
to run it.
You've got to be kidding; they wouldn't know what to do with the mess
left behind. The best bet would be to lease out the best of the
production lines, and sell off the rest for what ever they can get.
There is no hope for GM with a labor friendly government owning half
of the company and the unions owning another big piece.

I don't think there's much left of GM. @60k employees.
Wages are almost down to that of the non-union imports.
The retirement/health plans are being jettisoned.
But their management is stuck in '50's, 60's type mentality.
Cars are "romantic."
Yeah, well business isn't. It's about profit.
That's something Honda and Toyota know.

--Vic


I've gotten a few chuckles reading the complaints of the
"corporationists" that a 31-year-old "kid" from the Obama admin is sorta
telling GM what to do. Right, as if the 40 to 65 year old "seasoned"
auto execs that were running GM had a clue.

The U.S. auto industry has failed, and the failure is absolutely,
completely, totally the responsibiity of auto company management, boards
of directors, and shareholders, and the U.S. government and voters who
have and are still resisting the sorts of measures it takes to help our
car companies stay competitive with Asian producers.

The righties would like nothing more than to have disposable employees
who work for crap wages without decent working conditions, without
health care insurance for themselves and their families, and without a
viable retirement program. That, they think, will make us "competitive"
with the rest of the word.

Bull****.

Workers in most modern countries are not dependent upon their employers
for health insurance and many other benefits, and higher education for
their children is either free or highly subsidized by the state.

Perhaps if the U.S. car manufacturers "woke up" a few decades earlier
and discovered the Japanese were just killing them on quality, and that
quality mattered to buyers, they'd be in better shape today. Or perhaps
instead of supporting multiple car lines that were identical but for the
name badge, and the tremendous number of dealers such "duplicity"
required, and worked on customer satisfaction instead...well...

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:16:20 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:56:14 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

The only hope for GM is to pirate Honda and Toyota management
to run it.
You've got to be kidding; they wouldn't know what to do with the mess
left behind. The best bet would be to lease out the best of the
production lines, and sell off the rest for what ever they can get.
There is no hope for GM with a labor friendly government owning half
of the company and the unions owning another big piece.

I don't think there's much left of GM. @60k employees.
Wages are almost down to that of the non-union imports.
The retirement/health plans are being jettisoned.
But their management is stuck in '50's, 60's type mentality.
Cars are "romantic."
Yeah, well business isn't. It's about profit.
That's something Honda and Toyota know.

--Vic


I've gotten a few chuckles reading the complaints of the "corporationists"
that a 31-year-old "kid" from the Obama admin is sorta telling GM what to
do. Right, as if the 40 to 65 year old "seasoned" auto execs that were
running GM had a clue.

The U.S. auto industry has failed, and the failure is absolutely,
completely, totally the responsibiity of auto company management, boards
of directors, and shareholders, and the U.S. government and voters who
have and are still resisting the sorts of measures it takes to help our
car companies stay competitive with Asian producers.

The righties would like nothing more than to have disposable employees who
work for crap wages without decent working conditions, without health care
insurance for themselves and their families, and without a viable
retirement program. That, they think, will make us "competitive" with the
rest of the word.

Bull****.

Workers in most modern countries are not dependent upon their employers
for health insurance and many other benefits, and higher education for
their children is either free or highly subsidized by the state.

Perhaps if the U.S. car manufacturers "woke up" a few decades earlier and
discovered the Japanese were just killing them on quality, and that
quality mattered to buyers, they'd be in better shape today. Or perhaps
instead of supporting multiple car lines that were identical but for the
name badge, and the tremendous number of dealers such "duplicity"
required, and worked on customer satisfaction instead...well...

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.




and corrupt unions.

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:50:16 -0400, "Wishingtobefishing"
wrote:

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.




and corrupt unions.

That was largely a fault of management also. They were never willing
to take the long term view, suffer through a big strike, move work to
non-union suppliers/low cost venues, and build up the automation and
other production efficiencies that were needed. Meanwhile they
played the consumer for suckers by trying to sell the sizzle without
the steak.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:50:16 -0400, "Wishingtobefishing"
wrote:

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.



and corrupt unions.

That was largely a fault of management also. They were never willing
to take the long term view, suffer through a big strike, move work to
non-union suppliers/low cost venues, and build up the automation and
other production efficiencies that were needed. Meanwhile they
played the consumer for suckers by trying to sell the sizzle without
the steak.



Management gets the relationship with employees it deserves.

On Jun 2, 10:09*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:50:16 -0400, "Wishingtobefishing"

wrote:
There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.

and corrupt unions.

That was largely a fault of management also. * They were never willing
to take the long term view, suffer through a big strike, move work to
non-union suppliers/low cost venues, and build up the automation and
other production efficiencies that were needed. * Meanwhile they
played the consumer for suckers by trying to sell the sizzle without
the steak.

I realized something the other night watching the news and the GM
debacle. Whenever you see an auto worker, you always see him with a
union logo on his shirt, etc. Always about the union. Maybe, just
maybe, if they would put the company that pays them first, they
wouldn't be in the mess they're in. It's almost like they are
brainwashed. Union this, union that. The union that TAKES from you.
Never do you hear them say anything like we're going to work harder
for General Motors because we want them to succeed. Making the company
that pays you succeed should be your number one priority if you want
that job. It's not hard to understand that if you aren't making the
company you work for money because you are a slacker, then that
company is going to fail.

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:47:06 -0400, HK wrote:

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.

You think the unions are blameless? It cost 75 an hour to have a guy
tighten lug nuts.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:47:06 -0400, HK wrote:

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.

You think the unions are blameless? It cost 75 an hour to have a guy
tighten lug nuts.

Pluse the guy gets to retire after 30 years on near full pension with
full coverage medical, dental and vision. If only I could have suffered
the boredom.

Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:47:06 -0400, HK wrote:

There are many factors involved in the demise of the Big Three. All of
them are attributable to bad management.

You think the unions are blameless? It cost 75 an hour to have a guy
tighten lug nuts.

Casady


The number you are quoting rolls in the health care and retirement costs
of retired workers. The actual hourly rate for a new hire autoworker is
much, much lower than that.

Possibly you do not understand the role of a labor union. Its job is to
defend its members and negotiate for them the best possible wages,
benefits, hours, and working conditions. In recent years, those
negotiations have been aimed at making it possible for workers and
retirees to have decent family health care and a decent retirement.

Had GM, the other automakers, and the corporate employers of other
workers in manufacturing fields embraced the concept of taxpayer-paid
health care and retirement for workers, as most other modern nations
have, the hourly cost for assembly line workers would not be nearly as
high as it is now.

Most conservatives seem to want blue collar workers and construction
workers to toil for crap wages, without any benefits for health care and
pension. If that is the way this country goes, well, it isn't worth
salvaging.