Re: GM and Chrysler
 

To clarify, my comment was intended to be less of a blanket statement against unions, and more specifically the fact that unions allow unskilled workers in the auto industry to make 4-5x the amount of money their job should pay. It's just not feasible for GM to be paying line workers $80-100+/hr and expect to remain solvent, let alone competitive with Japanese makers.

This probably isn't the best place for a debate about any of this though.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

where you get your numbers from? That is ridiclously high.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Alex - when you include benefits, his numbers aren't high at all.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/421350

The Big Three calculated the labour cost for workers here had risen to $81.40 an hour including benefits and pension liabilities, which was $33.90 more than the amount for Honda, Toyota and Nissan workers in the U.S.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

[quote=artdutra04;771491]That mentality isn't restricted to only unions; at every job I've had so far other employees (even supervisors) have told me to slow down, except if some urgent emergency or a tight deadline looms.

Why? The reason why supervisors have repeatedly told me to slow down can literally be summed up as "inertia". All companies usually know how long it takes to get something done, so managers allocate time accordingly. When I come to them finished with a project revision in a day that they expected to take a week, they kind of get mad, since now they have to take time out of their schedule to find another project for me to work on, or just watch me sit around and play Solitaire/take long lunches/leave early/etc for four days. To still come out ahead, I usually just hand in the work a day or so early; the managers don't seem to mind that as much, and usually take note, which is how I got an unsolicited $2/hr raise at my summer job two weeks after I was hired. ;-)

Interesting read because I have been fighting and now I think been finally defeated in the same battle in working in news, I'd always be going at twice the speed of sound and getting stuff done and going the extra mile and not missing anything and that was frowned upon by everyone else in the newsroom except for one equally hyper reporter, I'd work on stuff on my own time when off duty and that wouldn't be appreciated, apparently I was "making work for people", I think the hard part is to have people that treat their work/job as if it's their own business and care vs, those for whom it's just a job and a paycheque.

That's the tough part, I want to wake up and go to work but not feel like it's work because I love this business and then you end up with everyone else who is dragging their feet and YES I too had a supervisor that gets all stressed out when all of a sudden I did good work on a story because now my good work or luck whatever you call it just made him have to change his plans for the newscast.

It's frustrating that's for sure.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

See failed British Motor Industry.

Mergers > Government support > Nationalization > Sold off to the Germans

Ours is taking place in a bit different order but you see what's happening.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

True, this does look similar.

In Ford's case though, it was a 'Perfect Storm' that brought them to their knees. In 1998 / 1999 they had record profits. Then they made several questionable acquisitions (recyling, auto salvage yards, jaguar, land rover). Then the Firestone debacle hit. Then the price of raw materials went through the roof, followed immediately by gasoline. That hurt twice as much because Ford had been a truck company for the 10 years prior, ever since they decided cars just weren't profitable enough.

There were some other issues tied into all that - but even now if you look at Ford, they're making money everywhere but North America. They've adopted a new model roll out system that cuts time to market in half (used on the Flex, the Edge, the MKS, and other new models) and their cars are finally starting to sell.

I can't speak to that level of detail in what GM has or hasn't changed - but I think Ford's going to pull through just fine. They're doing the right things, and they've completely changed a their business model. Go drive a Fusion, or and Edge and see what I mean. Perhaps one of the smartest things they did was get a non-car guy in Allan Mulally as CEO and president - he's not set into the "car" paradigms, and he knows silly group-think decisions when he sees them (like dumping the Taurus name).

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Giving this thread a bump in the hopes that a good, sound conversation will be continued. As the U.S. and Canadian governments have offered/given bailouts to the Big Three, let's see what the future brings for our sponsorships and mentors.

(Bump.)

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Thanks, i was hoping this conversation would continue.

So, now that kickoff is approaching, have any teams been given word in terms of if they are receiving money this year? or worse...no mentors from GM :( Layoffs suck...'nuff said.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

If a company fails to innovate, fails to push efficiency hard enough, fails to cater to the market, fails to build a product that people will actually buy, fails to develop newer technology at a rate comparable to other players in the field, then they should expect to either drastically downsize, or die off.

This bailout makes me sick, I don't buy their cars, so instead I have to pay taxes to keep them afloat? How about they make a car that I'd actually consider buying, instead?

What's that system of government called where the government owns a stake in/controls the major companies? Oh yeah, Facism and Socialism!

Seriously, my opinions here may be harsh, but a FAILING company desvers to FAIL. Yes, many people will face hard times as a result of losing their jobs. Yes, there will be suffering. But a better, newer, and more economically minded company will rise out of the ashes, maybe bringing some cars with them that Americans will actually buy.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Craig, I have to disagree one one point, American's can't buy any cars right now. No one can get credit and very few people have 20k handy to just buy a car. Foreign automakers, while not in as bad a condition as American automakers, are also having hard years. While I am generally not a fan of any policies handing out taxpayer money to people I think that something needed to be done.

I would also like to point out that we are using incorrect terminology, what was given to the automakers was a loan, a loan with specific criteria and requirements. Calling this a bailout would be like saying that getting a loan on your car is a bailout.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Understood. Most Americans can't get credit because we abused credit as a country. The moment the Usery laws were struck down, and credit cards started becoming common, we started the downhill trend for the general populous. What a credit card really is is a loan system, minus the approval process. Without approval, Americans are tempted to follow the Instant gratification complex that we seem to have going on, and buy things they won't be able to pay off. From here, we end up in a cycle, and the only way out is down. Bring back the Usery laws, and I'll be our economy will start climbing again.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Is there any way that FIRST teams could possibly help out families who are being affected by massive layoffs? I mean, the companies themselves are being saved by the government and what the employees receive is a meager amount through unemployment checks and any pension they get from their employers.

I wouldn't want to make it sound like a total charity case, but anyone think that FIRST teams not just in Michigan but in the country could help out in some way? I really do feel for the families being affected.:(

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Sorry Andrew, but I have to agree with Craig. People buy stuff that they don't have money for. People are earning less and spending more. How is the loan gonna help GM. They need Billions and Billions of dollars to stay affloat and how long are they going to last? A month, four months, a year? Companies that build fuel efficient cars are going to stay. Thatz just how life is, the weak die while the strongest survive. I do not mean to offend anyone here.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

According to the CEO of GM himself, the "loan" will last them through the month. He said that at best it will provide for more action plans that will last 3 months (that's with the money + MASSIVE closures and layoffs). Source was a CNN interview in the Situation Room (yes I'm one of those weird 16 year olds who watches CNN and Comedy Central all day >.>)

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Im a firm believer in Darwinism just so you know but the myth that GM doesn't make fuel efficient cars is just plain wrong. My 2008 Saturn Aura gets roughly 30 MPG, not in lab tests, in actual driving. I am not disagreeing that this loan won't actually do anything but prop up the companies though. However, like Bush said, the purpose isn't to save them, it is to keep them from failing NOW. Basically we have a dying horse, would you prefer to have it die when you are riding it or when you can control its death? Just some food for thought.

Just as a disclaimer, I work for a company that provides ERP services to manufacturing companies, many of our customers are suppliers to various automakers.