Unions aren't the problem (according to the UAW)
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
It'd be interesting to dive into the reasons that Japan can leverage a currency advantage over the USA, but that doesn't fit well with the subject of this thread.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,887
From: northeast Miss.
This line of thinking does little to explain Honda's preference for localized assembly, especially when it comes to building and selling vehicles in the US.
It'd be interesting to dive into the reasons that Japan can leverage a currency advantage over the USA, but that doesn't fit well with the subject of this thread.
It'd be interesting to dive into the reasons that Japan can leverage a currency advantage over the USA, but that doesn't fit well with the subject of this thread.
Now they wont be called 'foriegn' or 'outsiders' OR be taxed in trading.
But because their overall domestic content is still strong to their country, and not ours, they still support themselves, save cost, appear as American as apple pie, and dodge and future trade tarrif changes.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
(Obviously, this is one of those "lesser of two evils" political things, there's plenty of examples in the GOP as well.)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I dare say that if Roger Smith, Ron Zarella ... and others who led GM to a downward spiral, were never employed by GM and GM had Lutz running the company during those years, the UAW wouldn't even rate a mention wrt GM's current effort to turn itself around.
I do agree that the UAW must now have to share the pain or else GM is screwed... but to blame the UAW alone is really putting blame on a symptom rather than addressing the real cause. GM were starved of good product for decades. Not only good products, but quality suffered and brand management was a disaster - legacies that GM is still fighting hard to change. GM's problems were due to poor management. Also blame poor management on the silly UAW contracts negotiations of the past.
If GM were run like BMW, Toyota wouldn't be within coo-eee of GM in terms of sales, today.
I do agree that the UAW must now have to share the pain or else GM is screwed... but to blame the UAW alone is really putting blame on a symptom rather than addressing the real cause. GM were starved of good product for decades. Not only good products, but quality suffered and brand management was a disaster - legacies that GM is still fighting hard to change. GM's problems were due to poor management. Also blame poor management on the silly UAW contracts negotiations of the past.
If GM were run like BMW, Toyota wouldn't be within coo-eee of GM in terms of sales, today.
Last edited by SSbaby; Feb 24, 2007 at 07:49 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Last I checked, there was only a 2.5% tariff on imported cars (and that may not even exist nowadays).
Actually, Honda saves cost by purchasing components where the vehicle is built - that's something they do consistantly around the world.
But because their overall domestic content is still strong to their country, and not ours, they still support themselves, save cost, appear as American as apple pie, and dodge and future trade tarrif changes.
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 42
From: Louisville, KY
The two groups, which normally oppose one another over labor issues, agree that the U.S. government should provide them with more assistance in competing in today's global economy.
Am I the only one that has a problem with that sentence? If I run a company that makes widgets and not enough potential customers buy my widgets, do I have the right to have the government keep my business afloat? Isn't it the job of the CEO's, board members, and division managers to keep the company profitable?
From my perspective this issue is split half and half, the unions, well I think that they have lived past their prime and the only useful thing they do now is take money out of people's paychecks. And the manufacturers themselves just haven't produced a desireable product for so long that now that they have made strides in quality and produce more competitive products there is a big hole to dig out of.
Am I the only one that has a problem with that sentence? If I run a company that makes widgets and not enough potential customers buy my widgets, do I have the right to have the government keep my business afloat? Isn't it the job of the CEO's, board members, and division managers to keep the company profitable?
From my perspective this issue is split half and half, the unions, well I think that they have lived past their prime and the only useful thing they do now is take money out of people's paychecks. And the manufacturers themselves just haven't produced a desireable product for so long that now that they have made strides in quality and produce more competitive products there is a big hole to dig out of.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,449
From: Bentonville, AR
I absolutely think Unions are worthless in 2007, and well past the time that they were useful. With that said, not all GM, Ford, and DCX's issues are because of the UAW. What about product in the car market from a few years ago 
The product now is awesome, they just need people to go find that out for themselves...
The product now is awesome, they just need people to go find that out for themselves...
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 753
From: Annapolis Md. USA
I dare say that if Roger Smith, Ron Zarella ... and others who led GM to a downward spiral, were never employed by GM and GM had Lutz running the company during those years, the UAW wouldn't even rate a mention wrt GM's current effort to turn itself around.
I do agree that the UAW must now have to share the pain or else GM is screwed... but to blame the UAW alone is really putting blame on a symptom rather than addressing the real cause. GM were starved of good product for decades. Not only good products, but quality suffered and brand management was a disaster - legacies that GM is still fighting hard to change. GM's problems were due to poor management. Also blame poor management on the silly UAW contracts negotiations of the past.
If GM were run like BMW, Toyota wouldn't be within coo-eee of GM in terms of sales, today.
I do agree that the UAW must now have to share the pain or else GM is screwed... but to blame the UAW alone is really putting blame on a symptom rather than addressing the real cause. GM were starved of good product for decades. Not only good products, but quality suffered and brand management was a disaster - legacies that GM is still fighting hard to change. GM's problems were due to poor management. Also blame poor management on the silly UAW contracts negotiations of the past.
If GM were run like BMW, Toyota wouldn't be within coo-eee of GM in terms of sales, today.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Mitsubishi asked workers at its only North American factory for a temporary $4 an hour pay cut and other wage and benefit concessions as it seeks to recover from mounting debt and slumping sales.
In exchange, the Japanese-based automaker guaranteed no involuntary layoffs and that the nearly 20-year-old factory would stay open during the length of the modified contract, which would run through August 2008.
United Auto Workers negotiators, who hammered out concessions during months of talks with the company, had recommended workers approve the deal “to protect our jobs and guarantee future investment,” according to a summary of the proposed contract given to employees Thursday.
The deal included a company guarantee to redesign its Galant sedan, which would go into production at the Normal plant for the 2009 model year.
Under the deal, workers would give up $1.50 an hour in wages, along with a cost-of-living adjustment that now pays $2.53 an hour. The cuts would be restored in April 2008.
Mitsubishi forecasts a return to profitability for the full fiscal year ending March 2007, projecting an 8 billion yen ($70 million) profit on 2.23 trillion yen ($19 billion) in sales.
In exchange, the Japanese-based automaker guaranteed no involuntary layoffs and that the nearly 20-year-old factory would stay open during the length of the modified contract, which would run through August 2008.
United Auto Workers negotiators, who hammered out concessions during months of talks with the company, had recommended workers approve the deal “to protect our jobs and guarantee future investment,” according to a summary of the proposed contract given to employees Thursday.
The deal included a company guarantee to redesign its Galant sedan, which would go into production at the Normal plant for the 2009 model year.
Under the deal, workers would give up $1.50 an hour in wages, along with a cost-of-living adjustment that now pays $2.53 an hour. The cuts would be restored in April 2008.
Mitsubishi forecasts a return to profitability for the full fiscal year ending March 2007, projecting an 8 billion yen ($70 million) profit on 2.23 trillion yen ($19 billion) in sales.
Last edited by 90rocz; Feb 24, 2007 at 02:38 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,428
And that is why in the last year GM has made cars that look and behave alot better.
a big looks improvement = redesigned Aveo
a big behavior improvement = GM offering higher mileage warranties
ex. I'll give you an advanage on trade regulations if you stop selling rocket parts to China.
If its a big probelm GM is gonna have to lobby more. That way we can get country x to stop selling whole rockets (and not parts) to China.
Last edited by number77; Feb 24, 2007 at 03:06 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Everyone always seems to look at things in one way...
What if, GM couldn't invest so much in their product in the past due to the Reverse Protectionism they were/are dealing with??
And that issue was further aggrivated by Legacy, which then became a big issue, not caused by them, or the UAW..??
What if, GM couldn't invest so much in their product in the past due to the Reverse Protectionism they were/are dealing with??
And that issue was further aggrivated by Legacy, which then became a big issue, not caused by them, or the UAW..??
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,887
From: northeast Miss.
My point was that auto makers may (im guessing of course) be building in America because of how laws could change in the future. Not just now. Now, they have it good. But what if we imposed a 10% tarriff tomorrow? With an American assy plant, they would have that end covered.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
My point was that auto makers may (im guessing of course) be building in America because of how laws could change in the future. Not just now. Now, they have it good. But what if we imposed a 10% tarriff tomorrow? With an American assy plant, they would have that end covered.
