Don't want to hijack the thread but was reading this article wrt sharing production lines. The idea would imply platform sharing to take advantage of efficiencies... and (IMO) a modern interpretation of badge engineering.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...-shared-71384/

 

https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=649039

As I said in another thread, capitalism favors the banks, oil companies and those investing in countries like China where labor cost are low and manufacturing is cheap. The middleclass dwindles, meanwhile, as local manufacturing closes shop.

 

Well, GM is the one that said if they don't get approved loans immediately, they wouldn't survive till January. None of the "venom" filled people on this site said it.

The story I posted at the start of the "Ford thread" I highlighted in red that Ford is continuing with their plans as if they aren't going to get any help from the Federal Government. Because of that I feel it's safe to say Ford most certainly doesn't expect to disinergrate before February 2009.

Meanwhile, Chrysler is sitting on a good size chunk of change. It probably isn't the 11 billion they had in the summer, and they aren't likely as dialed in as Ford seems to be, but they too seem poised to last beyond February next year without government help.



Again, it's GM itself that indicated that they would not likely make it to Inaugration Day.

Congress isn't likely to pass help to the auto industry because there is no Republican support.

The new congress in January simply is not going to pass any legislation that's going to be vetoed by the Bush administration in it's final days in office. That means a new bill isn't likely to be signed and acted on before February.

Until then, since GM is the only one who claimed it couldn't survive, it's on it's own.

No venom against GM. Just going by GM's own claim.

 

The only logical answer would be for GM to shut down for a couple months to conserve cash until the new administration takes office.

 

I was thinking the same thing, is that even an option?

 

If things don't go well in DC next week, GM has some tough short term decisions to make.

 

I like how they call out the automotive industry as having brought this problem upon themselves, but they didn't hold the same attitude toward the banks and insurance companies in their contribution to the collapse of that sector. I suppose some other evil force went into the financial industry and caused that mess while the automotive industry did it to themselves. Sounds like a bunch of hypocritical bulls**t to me.

 

Exactly! You probably got some Joe Shmuck that gets paid $27.00 P/H to take out the trash, it's ridiculous and it will eventually fail.

 

Wouldn't they still have to pay UAW workers? If they didn't, can you imagine the backlash for pulling everyone's paycheck right before the holidays?

 

I'm going to let this thread continue for now, because I know this subject is near and dear to many of us. The whole conversation is political, but let's keep it to discussion of facts, and leave our political biases out of it.

I just deleted six posts, some of which I felt were inappropriate, and the rest of which were in direct response to the innappropriate posts. Please, guys, don't ruin it for everyone else here, and please, don't reply to the trolls.

 

GM is already idling 10 plants in January and the SUB fund will pay workers 85% of their normal pay. If GM could get all salaried workers to take just a 2 week unpaid leave, it could save GM an incredible amount of funds.

 

Just for the record...

Some of you are misinterpreting my point regarding GM and China (not surprising as I wasn't totally clear).

Although I'd prefer that China be completely cut off from the rest of the world and not given ANYTHING, I do understand why GM and Toyota and Nissan and a whole laundry list of companies are there/trying to be there...I do understand the financial/capitalistic issues involved.

My point of contention is that many want to make their arguments about the bailout/loan/Federal intervention, by warping GM up in the flag as if this is some sort or patriotic issue and GM is some patriot icon.

The issue isn't patriotism and GM isn't a patriot.

GM is a business...businesses do what is best for their business; they typically don't care at all about the country/countries they are operating save being able to operate profitably. That isn't evil...it's just business.

I'm not saying that GM employees aren't patriotic U.S. citizens...I'm simply saying GM as a huge, multinational corporation isn't.

 

Is that SUB fund funded by the UAW (which really means UAW members pay into either directly or indirectly) or is it funded directly by GM?

I ask because in another thread, guion was stating that the current UAW contracts are in near parity with non-unionized transplant manufacturing plants (thus implying that the UAW is no longer a real problem for the Detroit Three) which I have a difficult time believing.

I know that in most transplants, if there is a need to take a production day out of the schedule here or there or if a plant was actually shut down for a specific period; employees either have to take vacation to receive a full pay check or they get paid for the actual hours worked. I'll be the first to admit that doing that is rough on the employees but it is what it is.

If UAW members get paid for essentially not working and if that money comes out of GM's pocket, then I'd say the UAW/GM hasn't reached parity with it's foreign competitors.

In most businesses, if you don't got to work you don't get paid...I see no reason why the automotive industry should be any different.

 

Well, actually the union isn't involved in janitorial work, and GM's 2007 contract with the UAW allows them to pay $14 to $15 per hour to nonmanufacturing jobs, which, if you took time to actually look up instead of following blindly behind another poster who was great at parroting stuff but is godawful at actually looking up facts, you would know the UAW isn't exactly a janitorial service anymore.

Actually, the UAW has allowed non union workers in certain non manufacturing positions for years. If you also took time to pull up the UAW charts, you would see that it's divided into just "Assembler" and "Tool & Die" sections. That's because the UAW is involved in "Assembling" and "Tool & Die". Haven't come across a janitorial section.... because there isn't one.

The occasional Joe Shmuck, the union worker getting paid a assembler's wage for doing nonmanufacturing work is doing a light job because he's injured or otherwise disabled and his wage is protected. So, instead of sending him home and paying that wage, he's put to work where ever he can be used. Normally manning a console or admin work or nonmanufacturing supervisory work.

I'm not a huge fan of unions (they are a pain in the a** sometimes). But I'm not a blind blanket basher either. The UAW over the past few years has been extremely cooperative in helping get industry back on track. The last contract they agreed to won me over (even though they had a token strike that actually helped automakers clear excessive inventory). They are doing their part.

Feel free to visit www.UAW.org so you don't go into gunfights holding a spitball.

 

Hard to predict what will happen in four hours right now, yet alone a week... (and to me this fact is scary as hell).


Bush wants $25B in loans released to carmakers
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Friday threw its support behind a plan to speed release of $25 billion in existing loans to the Big Three automakers but rejected a Democratic proposal to use money from a financial bailout to help the troubled industry.

The $700 billion financial rescue package was never intended to help automakers and shouldn't be now, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told The Associated Press. But since Democratic leaders in Congress are pressing forward with a proposal to carve out a piece of its for the auto industry, she said the White House has decided to pursue a different approach: accelerating the availability of federal loans Congress first approved in September.

Those loans were approved to help automakers build more fuel-efficient vehicles and become more competitive companies in the global marketplace. The administration now supports allowing the loans to be released more quickly than the original legislation prescribed and to be used for more urgent purposes as the companies struggle to stay afloat.

"Democrats are choosing a path that would only lead to partisan gridlock," she said. "We are now actively calling on Congress to amend the loan program."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bush-w...-13582022.html