Lutz: Market threatens to kill one of Big Three

I'm surprised nobody dared to touch on this article (see here http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46062). You can read into many different stories from Lutz's quotes alone (God, I love that man! :bow: ).

Anyway, just wanted to expand a little on Big Bob's comments. I believe Bob is being kind by stating one Detroiter will go. Ford are in big trouble IMHO. I don't know how the stock market operates. I don't know how much control the Ford family has on its company. What I do know is that Ford's sales are sliding at a rapid rate and there is nothing on the horizon, which promises great things.

Chrysler seem to be heading the way of GM if Lutz's comments are a guide. Why else would Bob comment on something that didn't concern him or his employer for that matter, right? :D

If you want to know how the US market will fare in future (assuming GM don't lift their game), look no further than the Australian domestic market currently! Toyota is numero uno, Holden is a distant second, Ford are nowhere...

However, I am not a GM basher and I can see some light at the end of the tunnel. I can't stand to see a Japanese maker succeed in a foreign market... not because I'm pseudo racist, but because the manufacturing/legacy costs and policies relating to the auto market is more favorable toward foreign owned makes.

It will be a sad day for Americans when the remnants of FOMOCO are bought up by the japanese. The 012 toyota mustang assembled right here in the USA ( with nippon denso, nippon seiki nippon ... parts) Keep buying those camrys folks. Help destroy the American middle class manufacturing worker.

I didn't read Bob's quotes but I doubt he is talking about Ford. While they are shrinking in marketshare and for the moment profitability they are slashing their workforce. They are reducing operating costs in the US which will help the company rebound in the next few years. True that they don't have to much on the horizon but they can work faster than GM to get a new model or update out of the door.

If they are really in the need for new products they have all of Ford Europe to plunder, which are rated very highly and are quite competitive with VW and Opel as well as low level BMWs and MBs in Europe. Then they have Ford Aus' Falcon line which could be completely brought to the states in short order, once Orion is finished (it will be LHD).

The question is where is the company headed. For the moment it seems the plan is to shrink to profitability. But once you do that where do you take your brands? What do you do with you established marques? Lots of questions that I personally want to hear Bill or Allan answer.

…I am not a GM basher and I can see some light at the end of the tunnel. I can't stand to see a Japanese maker succeed in a foreign market... not because I'm pseudo racist, but because the manufacturing/legacy costs and policies relating to the auto market is more favorable toward foreign owned makes.

Ok…let me make sure I understand…

You “hate to see a Japanese maker succeed in a foreign market”. This is coming from someone for whom GM is a foreign maker in Australia (I guess you don’t have a problem with a foreign make like GM succeeding in Australia).

Of course, it looks as if your comments are directed at the U.S. market and not Australia but if true, that makes your next comments all the more telling when you say that you aren’t a “pseudo racist”, yet you specifically and only mention the Japanese while apparently forgetting to mention any other nationality/nameplate such as BMW, MB and other European manufacturers. Last time I checked, those nameplates get the same “breaks” as the Japanese nameplates yet for some reason, people don’t seem to have much of a problem with them. Funny that.

I also find it funny that when Dell and Gateway and Apple took advantage of being the “new kids on the block” and the unfair advantage that brings (such as not having the overhead and “legacy costs” of IBM which has been THE computer manufacturer for decades) and all but put mighty IBM out of the personal computer business; I don’t recall a lot of people complaining that it was “unfair” that Dell and Gateway could take advantage of their position to sell as good or better of a product for less money…I guess when it comes to computers or any other good, that’s Ok but when it comes to cars, that competition is now deemed “unfair”.

I’m glad we cleared that up! :bow:

A weaker US dollar is one way the government can help US manufacturing. Fed needs to drop interest rates back down to 2%

A weaker US dollar is one way the government can help US manufacturing. Fed needs to drop interest rates back down to 2%
That would likely give us doubble-digit inflation again...is that really what you want?

Its not the market, its Detroit.

GM has or is about to turn the Titantic on a dime, why cant Ford or Chrysler do the same?

Despite Chryslers misteps I wont blame them if they go under, at this point they simply cant survive without MB, and unless someone on one of these boards buys it I dont think it would be any more of american company then it is now.

Ford wasted too much time doing then undoing in a years long panic. If they could manage to pull together product, half of which arent that bad, marketing, which sucks, and a couple other things they should be alright... If they dont I wont have any sympathy.

It will be a sad day for Americans when the remnants of FOMOCO are bought up by the japanese. The 012 toyota mustang assembled right here in the USA ( with nippon denso, nippon seiki nippon ... parts) Keep buying those camrys folks. Help destroy the American middle class manufacturing worker.

Yes, we're all victims, are we not? Ah poor us?

If GM, Ford, or Dodge builds something I want, I will buy it.

If GM, Ford, or Dodge builds something I want, I will buy it.

That's all it comes down to for me. I don't give a crap what badge is on the front of the car. If I like it and can afford it, I'll buy it.


Since I can't afford anything, I just buy used :)

Lutz I suspect, had Chrysler in his head when he made his comments.

Although Chrysler is arguably in the best position of the big 3, and perhaps the easiest to fix, I realize now it's in the most danger.

I've correctly suspected that former Chrysler CEO and now DamilerChrysler head Dieter Zetsche would rather eat glass than sell off Chrysler. What I didn't consider was that Daimler's German stockholders and Mercedes employees were all for getting rid of Chrysler, and DaimlerChrysler's largest stockholder, Deutche Bank (Daimler's protector against takeovers and the 800 pound, decision-backing gorilla) has reduced it's shares in Daimler, therefore it's influence and ability to protect the corperation.

Now, Dieter Zetsche is more beholden to the stockholders, who feel Chrysler was a folly that has dragged them (and Mercedes Benz) down.

Dieter Zetsche's plan to pull Mercedes Benz and Chrysler vehicles closer together in development and parts sharing on one hand, improves Chrysler's development costs dramatically. But on the other hand, it seems to be enraging a portion of stockholders who feel MB has already suffered because of the tieup. In case anyone's missed it, he's basically tied his continued career at Daimler to the success of Chrysler. If they dump Chrysler anyway (even before Chrysler's plan kicks in), I see a very real risk of him being voted out.

Ironically, it's Zetsche and the Daimler executives who shuttle to the US or are assigned to Chrysler who are it's strongest supporters. Not what you'd expect for what once seemed like a group who felt they were being sent to Siberia for a lost cause in an unglamourous division in going to Chrysler.


If the German stockholders win, and Chrysler is sold, that's likely to be a death warrant. Whoever buys Chrysler is going to need to resist the temptation to take the easy way to save money & cut development budgets (something expert auto industry decision makers have only recently figured out). They are going to also need to resist the temptation to shrink the company to a size they can manage (effectively turning Chrysler into a specialty brand, making it even more venerable to failure). At the very least, any buyer will need to have a crack team of automobile experts running the show with NO interference from the new owners. But this isn't very likely. History tends to show in instances like this, the buyer gains a company as a personal playtoy or.... buys the company to dismember it and sell it off for massive profit.

Chrysler's assets are worth FAR more than it's stock value, making it a fat, juicy target for anyone who can actually pony up the purchase price.


My favorite whipping boy of the moment, Ford, is certainly on the course of a death spiral. Fortunately, Ford's new CEO, Alan Mulally, seems to have been given total control of Ford, Lock, Stock, & Barrel, to do anything he needs to fix it. Right down to brusing egos and sidelining Bill Ford's or Ford family friends to get the company in shape.

Mark Fields named the recent Ford concept sedan Elimiator even though it was called Galaxie when designed. The production version will be called Galaxie. He seems to be the point man regarding Lincoln's renaming Zephyr MKZ, killing the "Aviator" name on Lincoln's new crossover in favor of "MKX", and naming the 2008 Lincoln Continental the Lincoln MKS. One wonders about who decided to kill the Taurus name.

Paul Mascarenas, the platform manager who has championed his FWD/AWD Volvo based chassis for everything at Ford (and effectively responsible for killing off Ford's D2C based, rear drive sedans). The upcoming Lincoln Continental 2008 MKS was planned to be based on the D2C as recently as 2-3 years ago. It was to replace the Town Car (and why production was initially planned to stop). His influence seems to have hit the wall, as there seems to be no additional cars planned on his chassis after next year's Lincoln MKS outside of crossovers and updates to existing models (not including one that may be replaced). Rear drive D2C is the plan.

Ford apparently has a killer Mustang done for 2009, and Ford is taking very seriously the next F series and SUVs, planning the exteriors to be as dramatic a upgrade as the interiors of the current ones were when they came out. Alan Mulally has essentially dictated that he wants the Mondeo here ASAP. There's better than even money on a version of the next Ford Falcon being imported here in small quanities in '09 and only slightly chance less we'll see a performance Focus here from Europe.

I think Ford's enemy is no longer itself, but the marketplace.

Ford's plan to shrink itself down to profitability, proliferate profitable and easy to sell crossovers (which will probally protect them when the truck market tanks again), continue to stay in the forefront with Mustang and it's large trucks, and globally standardize it's car platforms with only skin and tuning differences between countries, and buying out half of it's workforce & winning concessions in hiring temps seems from a automotive business standpoint a surefire winner to stay alive. Add to the mix that it appears no takeover entity can touch it (the Ford family own a controlling intrest), and you have a company that won't be raided for parts (just the Mustang name or manufacturing the F-series based trucks alone as a sort of modern International Harvester is worth serious bank!)


Although Ford was arguably in the worse condition of all 3 and Chrysler is in the best, I feel irony will play out IF any US maker dies. I'd say IF that happens, Chrysler won't make it while Ford will.

If Chrysler gets sold I would LOVE to see whoever buys it hire Jaques Nasser. He seemed to understand the market very well, his Dew98 cars would have been a few years ahead of Chryslers LX and would likely have started the RWD revolution even sooner.

Ok…let me make sure I understand…

You “hate to see a Japanese maker succeed in a foreign market”. This is coming from someone for whom GM is a foreign maker in Australia (I guess you don’t have a problem with a foreign make like GM succeeding in Australia).


Correction: Already successful Japanese automakers gaining momentum in a foreign land... at the expense of locals.

Put yourself in Detroit's shoes and see how welcoming the Japanese are to US automakers.

Oh. that's right, you don't care because Nissan puts bread on your table.

Correction: Already successful Japanese automakers gaining momentum in a foreign land... at the expense of locals.

Put yourself in Detroit's shoes and see how welcoming the Japanese are to US automakers.

Oh. that's right, you don't care because Nissan puts bread on your table.
Oh...well that really clears it up!

So long as a Japanese manufacturer isn't "too successful" (whatever level that is determined to be) it's not an issue for you.

I guess then all we need is for the United States to put a cap on how successful the Japanese are allowed to be.

I guess then all we need is for the United States to put a cap on how successful the Japanese are allowed to be.


That would be fair given how Japan treat their trade ally. ;)

Originally posted by Bob Cosby:
If GM, Ford, or Dodge builds something I want, I will buy itYou mean nothing that GM, Ford or Chrysler makes interests you, but something Japanese does?
What could they make for you that you'd want?(..at an affordable price...)
(..curious..)
Or could it just be, like others, you dislike Union made products??(except Harleys)

You mean nothing that GM, Ford or Chrysler makes interests you, but something Japanese does?
What could they make for you that you'd want?(..at an affordable price...)
(..curious..)
Or could it just be, like others, you dislike Union made products??

You are making assumptions, and they are not accurate. I made a very simple statement, and nothing further should be implied.

Personally, if I were to go out and buy a new car right now, it would likely be American, and if it I were to buy a new truck, it certainly would be. That said, I'm not fond of unions, but that wouldn't stop me from buying what I like.

But I only speak for me.
Bob

If Chrysler gets sold I would LOVE to see whoever buys it hire Jaques Nasser. He seemed to understand the market very well, his Dew98 cars would have been a few years ahead of Chryslers LX and would likely have started the RWD revolution even sooner.

You're kidding, right? That guy was a disaster.

He set ford up into all these other businesses, like autoparts chains and junkyards. Most of them failed and were sold for far less than was paid for them. He destroyed so much shareholder value.

You're kidding, right? That guy was a disaster.

He set ford up into all these other businesses, like autoparts chains and junkyards. Most of them failed and were sold for far less than was paid for them. He destroyed so much shareholder value.

I agree with your comments 100%.

Jac Nasser ripped the heart out of Ford. All the core automotive operations were moved to its suppliers. There was never any money invested on new technology, despite Ford making billions each year in profit.

He wasn't called 'Jac the knife' for nothing. At some stage, a guy has to pull his head in and ask whether cost reduction is eating too far into core operations. Jac seemed to think that was the best way to run a company - cut costs or move offshore to cheaper destinations... instead of investing for a stronger future.

Then there was the public Firestone spat.

Jac did buy Volvo, but how was that significant for Ford?

That would be fair given how Japan treat their trade ally. ;)
I've no idea what that statement is supposed to imply or what "trade ally" you are talking about.

Fortunately in the U.S. most people believe that competition is the best way to decide who "wins"; not quotas, tariffs or "caps" on success.

Such competition is the hallmark of a free market; controls and caps and artificial protections is just socialism concealed and socialism, reguardless of how well it's disguised, has never worked well or in the long term.

I've no idea what that statement is supposed to imply or what "trade ally" you are talking about.

Fortunately in the U.S. most people believe that competition is the best way to decide who "wins"; not quotas, tariffs or "caps" on success.

Such competition is the hallmark of a free market; controls and caps and artificial protections is just socialism concealed and socialism, reguardless of how well it's disguised, has never worked well or in the long term.

Fortunately for whom? Again, Nissan put bread on your table.

Robert, we've been down this road before and you keep bashing those who support 'local' industry. You are lucky I let you off lightly (by ignoring totally) the comment about Holden not being a 'local' company to Australia. Holden is a designer and manufacturer of automotive technology and significantly greater employer than Toyota which has NO design base here... you know what, so is Ford OZ, yet Ford Oz's market share is half that of Toyotas.

Yes, you heard right, successful companies like Toyota and Honda and to a lesser extend Nissan are getting there without having to pay billions each year in legacy costs. It's time the playing field was levelled out as the trend curve is showing no sign of a downward slope.

Yes, you heard right, successful companies like Toyota and Honda and to a lesser extend Nissan are getting there without having to pay billions each year in legacy costs. It's time the playing field was levelled out as the trend curve is showing no sign of a downward slope.

Why punish Toyota, Honda and Nissan for policies/decisions made by Detroit and UAW?

I dont believe in punishing a flourishing company just because others are not.

Why punish Toyota, Honda and Nissan for policies/decisions made by Detroit and UAW?

I dont believe in punishing a flourishing company just because others are not.

I put this to you. Why have the UAW used GM, Ford, Chrysler as punching bags for so long? How have the Japanese American makers avoided the UAW's clutches? If you look at things objectively, it's not just the Big 3 that need fixing, it's the motor industry on the whole that needs fixing.

OK, The Big 3 were fools for agreeing to terms it didn't have the hindsight to see the long term problems it would cause, but enough is enough. Why continue to punish Detroit for mistakes of the past? Let the Asians also share Detroit's burden as the legacy costs have nothing directly to do with building cars.

You can't have one set of rules for one company and have another set for another. That's not fair.

I agree with your comments 100%.

Jac Nasser ripped the heart out of Ford. All the core automotive operations were moved to its suppliers. There was never any money invested on new technology, despite Ford making billions each year in profit.

He wasn't called 'Jac the knife' for nothing. At some stage, a guy has to pull his head in and ask whether cost reduction is eating too far into core operations. Jac seemed to think that was the best way to run a company - cut costs or move offshore to cheaper destinations... instead of investing for a stronger future.

Then there was the public Firestone spat.

Jac did buy Volvo, but how was that significant for Ford?

You're kidding, right? That guy was a disaster.

He set ford up into all these other businesses, like autoparts chains and junkyards. Most of them failed and were sold for far less than was paid for them. He destroyed so much shareholder value.

Perhaps he wasn't good for the non Auto part of Ford but what he had setup within the auto lines was great, IMO. Perhaps to bring back an old thread with some very valid points would help. http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=489907&highlight=nasser

You are making assumptions, and they are not accurate. I made a very simple statement, and nothing further should be implied.Then I apologize, but that's how it came off, to me, maybe it was incomplete?Posted by Bob Cosby:
If GM, Ford, or Dodge builds something I want, I will buy it.
Posted by SSbaby:
Yes, you heard right, successful companies like Toyota and Honda and to a lesser extend Nissan are getting there without having to pay billions each year in legacy costs. It's time the playing field was levelled out as the trend curve is showing no sign of a downward slope.Yeah, and they live in a Police State with a National Healthcare system, I don't think I'd trade our Legacy issues for that.
And Toyota is seeing some retirees now, soon they will have some of their own Legacy costs...
..and BTW the UAW Retirement Health Plans around here aren't much to brag about, much worse than an active employee.
The Legacy issues go far beyond the Big 3 anyways, as we know, our Health-Care/Health-Insurance systems are broken, the costs are a run-away train.
And with more patients dying from malpractice than anytime before(Just saw a news report), it's not likely to come down soon...showing our Health Professional schools also need some work.

Fortunately for whom? Again, Nissan put bread on your table.

Robert, we've been down this road before and you keep bashing those who support 'local' industry. You are lucky I let you off lightly (by ignoring totally) the comment about Holden not being a 'local' company to Australia. Holden is a designer and manufacturer of automotive technology and significantly greater employer than Toyota which has NO design base here... you know what, so is Ford OZ, yet Ford Oz's market share is half that of Toyotas.

Yes, you heard right, successful companies like Toyota and Honda and to a lesser extend Nissan are getting there without having to pay billions each year in legacy costs. It's time the playing field was levelled out as the trend curve is showing no sign of a downward slope.
Fortunate for every business in this country.

Pointing out flaws and incorrect statements is not "bashing".

I frankly don't care what's in Australia or who has or doesn't have design centers there nor is it for you to decide for other companies where they should put their design centers. Do you think that GM and Ford have design centers in every country in which they sell cars? Do you think they need one in every country in which they sell cars?

If Holden is owned by GM and if GM is an "American" company (as is the opinion of most) then GM/Holden in IS a foreign company to Australia...your refusal to acknowledge that notwithstanding.

Nissan, Toyota, Honda nor any other company, in or outside of the auto industry are not responsible for other manufacturer's "legacy costs" or where they put or didn't put design centers; the other manufacturers are responsible for them and need to deal with them without running to the government for protection.

I put this to you. Why have the UAW used GM, Ford, Chrysler as punching bags for so long? How have the Japanese American makers avoided the UAW's clutches? If you look at things objectively, it's not just the Big 3 that need fixing, it's the motor industry on the whole that needs fixing.

OK, The Big 3 were fools for agreeing to terms it didn't have the hindsight to see the long term problems it would cause, but enough is enough. Why continue to punish Detroit for mistakes of the past? Let the Asians also share Detroit's burden as the legacy costs have nothing directly to do with building cars.

You can't have one set of rules for one company and have another set for another. That's not fair.
Ther rules ARE exactly the same for all companies...Detroit's legacy costs and poor marketing/product decisions have nothing to do with "rules"; they have everything to do with decisions they made and agreements they entered into of their own free business will...people beat up on the Big 3 for those decisions because THEY made those decisions.

The transplant automakers have avoided the unions for one main reason, the union has had nothing to offer except huge deductions from paychecks and then using that money to fund political candidates that the rank and file often don't support.

I've no idea what that statement is supposed to imply or what "trade ally" you are talking about.

Fortunately in the U.S. most people believe that competition is the best way to decide who "wins"; not quotas, tariffs or "caps" on success.

Such competition is the hallmark of a free market; controls and caps and artificial protections is just socialism concealed and socialism, reguardless of how well it's disguised, has never worked well or in the long term.

So, you think its ok for the Japanese economy to impose tariffs on us, but not the other way around? Please explain that one.

So, you think its ok for the Japanese economy to impose tariffs on us, but not the other way around? Please explain that one.
I'm not in favor of trade barriers period; ours or theirs. That aside, the U.S. is not "innocent" in this game either - but new protections have never been and will never be the answer.

okay, irrelavent to the subject at hand, but :confused:

Ford to restyle the 500/Taurus to look more impressive and less bland and maybe even to update the old Fox platform sometime soon. Sad to say but it looks like Chrysler will be the one taking the nose dive in the end. - Ponchoman49

It had me confused for a minute, like I was reading something from say, 2003??? then there was the bit about the 500/Tarus and now my brain has just melted :( Perhaps I should have just kept to Bob's article only.

Great post guionM.

If Chrysler gets bought out by private bankers as rumored, they will want install new management, and there's a very good chance they will put together a "crack team" as you mention.

But private ownership would be a temporary situation -- the eventual goal would be a new public offering or sale to another auto manufacturer. That's going to require a pretty radical slash-and-burn of unprofitable lines -- much more so than a public company can get away with because they do not need to report quarterly profits.

In the most extreme, unthinkable situation, any one of the Big Three could reduce operations to just Pickup Trucks and be an insanely profitable company.

You're kidding, right? That guy was a disaster.

He set ford up into all these other businesses, like autoparts chains and junkyards. Most of them failed and were sold for far less than was paid for them. He destroyed so much shareholder value.

I'll agree with the points you made. Nasser took Ford too far into outside industries. His idea to innoculate Ford from the ups and downs of the auto industry, while a very intresting idea, turned out to be a failure in the end. Gotta give the guy credit for being innovative. If it succeeded, Ford would no doubt be in better financial shape today.

But at the same time, you have to give the guy credit where it's due. I'm not a Nasser fan, but he had a pretty impressive Lincoln revival plan in place when he left Ford. He also had a global integration plan in place that would have given us some version of the Mondeo. There was a new Ranger pending. And, again focusing on Lincoln, there was the exact same uber-car in the pipeline that Bob Lutz has been trying to get through for Cadillac since he started.

Nasser was great at making money, and he walked into the CEO position with Ford already having a far bigger bank account than General Motors. When the Firestone disaster broke, he had made Ford even richer (if something as expensive as the Ford-Firestone recall-replacement hit GM, it would be years before GM recovered).

Nasser's real root to his problem was he went too far pinching pennies, and it blew up in his face. He time cut the number of hours on warranty repairs (effectively cutting the willingness of dealers to repair certain items crashing customer satisfaction with the service department). He instituted a program where bonuses based on quality centered on warranty costs effectively making Ford squrm out of every warranty issue they could (again screwing customer satisfaction). Finally, if that recipy wasn't enough for a total disaster, his management based everything on taking costs out of manufacturing, essentially putting cheaper parts (such as substandard Firestone tires... then changing reccomended air pressure to compensate for ride) or simply omiting parts (like a 50 cent battery cover for the last Thunderbird whose ommision shorted out quite a fewof them before Ford reinstalled the cover for the trunk mounted battery).


Although Bill Ford has turned the company around 180 degrees in quality (there hasn't been a botched new vehicle introduction or major quality issue with any new vehicles made on his watch), he allowed alot of people to do things to the company that destroyed it, in my view, because he liked them or they were friends.

Nasser was in many ways a disaster. But it took a multi-billion-dollar, easy-to-avoid disaster and his confrontational, unappologetic public appearences on that same subject before anyone decided to unseat him.

That says something.

Then I apologize, but that's how it came off, to me, maybe it was incomplete?
Yeah, and they live in a Police State with a National Healthcare system, I don't think I'd trade our Legacy issues for that.
And Toyota is seeing some retirees now, soon they will have some of their own Legacy costs...
..and BTW the UAW Retirement Health Plans around here aren't much to brag about, much worse than an active employee.
The Legacy issues go far beyond the Big 3 anyways, as we know, our Health-Care/Health-Insurance systems are broken, the costs are a run-away train.
And with more patients dying from malpractice than anytime before(Just saw a news report), it's not likely to come down soon...showing our Health Professional schools also need some work.

If ever Toyota experience legacy costs in the US the size of GM's they'll just pack up and head back home... to being just an exporter to the US. Toyota isn't silly.

As far as your political comments go, I'd rather not open up a can of worms.

OK, The Big 3 were fools for agreeing to terms it didn't have the hindsight to see the long term problems it would cause, but enough is enough. Why continue to punish Detroit for mistakes of the past?

Because that's the way business works - smart decisions are rewarded in the future, while dumb ones are punished. There's not a mulligan or a do-over - at least not for those businesses that aren't in favor with the party in power - and thus suffering can occur for stupidity that's several decades old. That sucks, but blindly ignoring problems will do bad things to a company.

Look at it this way - it's taken the threat of bankrupcy (actually, a few separate threats) for GM to finally start turning out some truly world-class vehicles. Why'd it take so long? It's not like GM has more cash now than it did before (quite the opposite, in fact). It, quite frankly, was the sort of sloth that often infects large and well-established businesses.

Nasser was in many ways a disaster. But it took a multi-billion-dollar, easy-to-avoid disaster and his confrontational, unappologetic public appearences on that same subject before anyone decided to unseat him.
That says something.

It would have all come crashing down sooner or later. The whole time he was there he preached about "Maximizing shareholder value" and absolutely nothing about making good cars. He distracted the company with his boondogles while companies like Toyota and Honda actually increased shareholder value by focusing on making good cars.

The transplant automakers have avoided the unions for one main reason, the union has had nothing to offer except huge deductions from paychecks and then using that money to fund political candidates that the rank and file often don't support.
I disagree, I know for a fact that Honda unofficially threatened employees by saying "if a union is voted in, you'll pay for ALL of you Health Coverage." I know several employees at the Marysville and EastLiberty plants.

And If it weren't for Union plants, or the fear of them, transplants wouldn't offer comparable wages and benefits.

And I wouldn't call 2-hours pay/month a "huge deduction"...

And how many "Employers", don't, use their profits to fund political candidates that their employees often do not support?
And lobby for laws that will negatively impact their employees.
At least the UAW lobbies for laws that help hard working people, especially in the lower ranks.
American workers and American managers need to work together to create a more realistic framework for American manufacturing.

The stakes are high and time is running short.

Without a change in approach in national policy, we are going to see more and more automotive jobs leave this country – not only production jobs, but in the longer run R & D, engineering, design, advertising and marketing, and finance jobs as well.

And, eventually, we will simply be left with a handful of assembly plants, with much of the content being produced in other countries.

Overall employment in the auto industry will be just a small fraction of what it is today, and the wages and benefits of those workers – hourly and salaried alike – who remain will be slashed.

The result will be a lower standard of living for UAW members, of course.

But the pain won’t be ours alone.
As workers lose income, they’ll buy less consumer goods, so local businesses will lose sales.

Local communities will lose tax revenue.

Schools, parks, roads, public safety and other public services will suffer – which will make it even harder to attract new businesses to replace the ones that have left.

It’s a grim scenario.

But, make no mistake, it’s the road we’re heading down … and we’re going to keep traveling down that bleak road unless we wake up and recognize that Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code is a sorry substitute for a coherent industrial policy.

We’ve got to stop pretending that the global economy operates on some Economics 101 textbook model of pure competition and open markets … and that the hollowing-out of America’s manufacturing base, lower living standards for America’s working families and widening economic disparity in the United States are simply the consequences of the impersonal forces of globalization.

We’ve got to stop pretending the so-called free trade policies of this and previous administrations are in our national interest, when the plain truth is that they’ve produced year after year of record-busting trade deficits.

It’s time to wake up and face the fact that a health care system that costs more than any in the world, yet leaves more than 46 million people without coverage … and, at the same time, punishes those employers who do the right thing and provide coverage … is a financial disaster and a moral outrage.

So, is the die cast and our fate sealed?

We in the UAW sure don’t think so.

Thursday, September 07, 2006
Remarks of UAW President Ron Gettelfinger
Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Michigan

I disagree, I know for a fact that Honda unofficially threatened employees by saying "if a union is voted in, you'll pay for ALL of you Health Coverage." I know several employees at the Marysville and EastLiberty plants.
I can believe that individuals may have made threats to other individual but to assume that was done as a matter of policy by Honda as you seem to be implying is a bit difficult to believe. Even if completely true I'm not sure Honda did anyting illegal - no employer is obligated to provide group health coverage to its employees or to pay for any of it if it does offer the coverage so if Honda really intended to stop paying some or all of the health care insurance expense if a union was voted in I would say that’s their right to do so…and it’s the right of the employees voting to decided how much they really want a union.

If it was illegal then where was the NLRB? It's been my experience that the NLRB watches organization efforts very closely and if individuals were inappropriately threatened then those individuals should have been responsible enough to file complaints; if they chose not to do that then they have no one to blame but themselves for where things stand today.


And If it weren't for Union plants, or the fear of them, transplants wouldn't offer comparable wages and benefits.
There is some truth to that statement but that doesn’t translate into Honda, Nissan and Toyota needing to be unionized.

My point was that Honda, Nissan and Toyota and the rest already offer all the pay and benefits, sometimes more so, than having a union would get them…all a union would do would be to put up one more wall between management and non-management.


And I wouldn't call 2-hours pay/month a "huge deduction"...
I would. However I doubt it’s just two hours of pay…the amounts I’ve seen were substantially more than two hours of wages.

At any rate, if it's two hours of pay a month, at $30/hour that's almost $800 a year which is not chump change; especially if they aren't really getting anything for it.


And how many "Employers", don't, use their profits to fund political candidates that their employees often do not support? And lobby for laws that will negatively impact their employees. At least the UAW lobbies for laws that help hard working people, especially in the lower ranks.
In your opinion, the UAW lobbies for laws that help; in my opinion, most of the laws I see them lobby for are primarily to help the UAW and seek artificial protection from competition…if you feel that’s “good” you certainly are entitled to feel that way but I don’t.

My point, however, was more directed to political candidates that many of the rank and file, who’s money is being used, do not support and don’t want to see elected. It should be up to the individual to support or not support whatever candidate and whatever law he feels he should; not have the union decide if for him.

As to what the companies do with their profits…so what?

It’s their money and they have a right to do with it as they choose just as you and I and every other individual should be able to do what we want with our money.

If employees don’t like what their employer is doing with its money then they should find a new employer.

Originally Posted by Robert_Nashville:
As to what the companies do with their profits…so what?

It’s their money and they have a right to do with it as they choose just as you and I and every other individual should be able to do what we want with our money.

If employees don’t like what their employer is doing with its money then they should find a new employer.My point on this was similar, if a Union member doesn't like who his union supports, he should likewise seek other employment.
Beyond that, Unions usually support candidates that support the Blue collar working class, which has Never been a Republican strong suit, so it stands to reason they support Democrats more. Unless the candidate is a total disaster, then they must settle for the less of the two evils.

At any rate, if it's two hours of pay a month, at $30/hour that's almost $800 a year which is not chump change; especially if they aren't really getting anything for it.

Unions do also offer a lot on a daily basis at our shop.
They help with scheduling vacation(remember most workers can't leave the line), absenteeism issues, resolve medical insurance problems, ensure people are properly trained on a job before they are cut loose, bring issues and concerns such as quality and safety to the proper management quickly, ensure management follows procedure daily, informs employees of open jobs and files departmental job transfers, ensure those transfers are completed fairly by the rules, ensures OverTime is fairly distributed, help with workers comp. issues, and general complaints and grievences, and shows emplyees the contract language when we're wrong.....and much more I can't think of right now.
Oh, most of our Stewards hold jobs, some work everyday on them as well as perform Union duties...

There is a reason for this. Toyota and Honda make a better small and mid-size car. The Civic, Corolla, Camry and Accord are better than the Big-3 counterparts.

Sit in them, drive them (especially the Accord) and it is pretty easy to figure out why people *want* them while people settle for the lower cost American versions. (obv. this is a generalization, but probably not far from the truth)

That being said, the economic reasons for this are so much more complex than being described here, it is fruitless to go into them (one because I do not fully understand them or know the *entire* history, nor does it matter really) because at the end of the day, as all free-market economies eventually come down to the idea that the "person who builds the best "X" for the lowest cost will sell it".

As for me, I am selling my 300c right now because it has been a nightmare for reliability, and I own my STi because there is nothing even *close* to this car from any of the Big 3 (not sure we should use the term big anymore though) and for those who say buying a foreign car hurts the American middle class, please remember where your F-body was built.

...
If you think you need a union to do all those things for you that's up to you.

The vast, overwhelming majority of workers in this country get along just fine without a union...they simply aren't needed anymore and haven't been for a long time.

Toyota and Toyota's workers seem to be getting along just fine without all the great things the UAW could do for them.

The overwhelming vast majority of workers in the country benefit, directly or indirectly, from Unions, especially Toyota's workers...many of which parts are made by UNION workers at the same place GM parts are produced.
As the unions diminish we are already seeing erosions in pay and benefits and lost jobs across this once great country...
You can either believe Union bashing sites like unionfacts.com, or believe people who are active in one...that site's not even good for entertainment value.

The overwhelming vast majority of workers in the country benefit, directly or indirectly, from Unions, especially Toyota's workers...many of which parts are made by UNION workers at the same place GM parts are produced.
As the unions diminish we are already seeing erosions in pay and benefits and lost jobs across this once great country...
You can either believe Union bashing sites like unionfacts.com, or believe people who are active in one...that site's not even good for entertainment value.
The country is still great and the best way to ensure you have great pay and benefits is to be worth more to the company you work for; that means you never stop learning and never stop re-inventing yourself...that means you don't learn how to put on one bolt or install one seat on an assembly like and assume you are going to have the same job for 30 years at ever increasing pay/benefits while bringing nothing more to the table.

I've never heard of "unionfacts.com" nor do I care what they have to say; I would assume their "facts" are just as biased against unions as union members are biased in favor of unions.

Originally Posted by Robert_Nashville:
The country is still great and the best way to ensure you have great pay and benefits is to be worth more to the company you work for; that means you never stop learning and never stop re-inventing yourself...that means you don't learn how to put on one bolt or install one seat on an assembly like and assume you are going to have the same job for 30 years at ever increasing pay/benefits while bringing nothing more to the table.Thanks for the insight, but it sounds like your still thinking of the past. Most people on the assmbly line today, have been or are going back to college, many hold degrees, always learning, always reinventing, especially on the floor...the increases in efficiency are MAINLY due to ideas and efforts of the workers. As efficiency increases, so does the numbers of Quality product, and hopefully our wages. We don't rest on our laurels and do as little as we can get by with, I told you, "this ain't our daddy's union".
Remember Kaizen, we don't call it that, but we practice it, we take pride in our work, and if they produce more here, we'll be the Best again!.

Thanks for the insight, but it sounds like your still thinking of the past. Most people on the assmbly line today, have been or are going back to college, many hold degrees, always learning, always reinventing, especially on the floor...the increases in efficiency are MAINLY due to ideas and efforts of the workers. As efficiency increases, so does the numbers of Quality product, and hopefully our wages. We don't rest on our laurels and do as little as we can get by with, I told you, "this ain't our daddy's union".
Remember Kaizen, we don't call it that, but we practice it, we take pride in our work, and if they produce more here, we'll be the Best again!.
Yes, well the "that was in the past" line is getting pretty old...as I said in another post; we'll see just how modern and enlightened the UAW has become when they negotiate their next contract with the Detroit 2(3) in a few months.

That aside, no one needs a union (Daddy's or otherwise) to make all the things you listed above, happen.

What the unions need to to actually create a union that crosses borders, specifically within China and Mexico with a centralized leadership.

It will be a sad day for Americans when the remnants of FOMOCO are bought up by the japanese. The 012 toyota mustang assembled right here in the USA ( with nippon denso, nippon seiki nippon ... parts) Keep buying those camrys folks. Help destroy the American middle class manufacturing worker.

Absolutely! I said it before, and I'll say it again. People in this country, are pissing it all away, on these junkpiles. These are sad times for America.