Employee Discount for Everyone

Page 1 of 2  
may yet sink GM. All they are doing is cannibalizing future sales.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is the American business way: make a buck now worry about the future later.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Buchanan wrote:

Wrong! GM's 'Employee Discount for Everyone" isn't really any more discount than the rebates were before this program. Besides, the GM employees not only get the standard employee discount they also get to add on all of the rebates and sometimes extra employee discounts. The only thing hurting GM is the American public that thinks it's really cool to support a foriegn company instead of keeping their dollars in the U.S.! BUY AMERICAN! BUY UNION!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Buy American slogan is a good one. Most people I know speak quite ill of unions...I wouldn't use that in a slogan for the general public's ears.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well I for one think Unions are good. Higher wages and benefits for members. Better quality and workmanship for customers. Most anti union folk have never belonged to a union and really don't understand exactly what unions do for their membership. So remember, if you want it done correctly the first time "BUY UNION"!
Proud retiree of UAW Local 362 Former member of UAW Local 455
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I understand that. But what you or I think matters not. If the general public mostly sees unions in a unfavorable light (rightly or wrongly matters not), and one wants to sell cars to that same general public, it's best to leave the word "union" out of slogans or risk turning them off.
A job in the Marketing Department you will not get! ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Better quality workmanship for customers?" Unions were a good thing back in the 1920s and 1930s. Unfortunately they came to dominate industries to the point where it didn't matter if the product was crap (it often was) or not. Look at the state of public education today, speaking of crap products controlled by unions that have workers who get above market wages regardless of the product they put out. At one time people were sympathetic to unions, but as product quality petered out people got wise to buying the best product, not the union product.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most were never sympathitic to unions, most thought it was communist. Most think that union members are liberal. Most don't have a clue! YOU can thank unions and their members for the wage and benefit structure you enjoy right now. When union members gain, the general public gains in wages and benefits. You will notice it's the non-union folk that are suffering loss in wage. Remember too that union members can only produce their employers allow them to produce.
If you want a job in service(sweeping floors, flipping burgers, etc) keep buying products from far away lands. You will be proud of your childs shiny floors and well done burgers.
By the way, every GM plant in the U.S. has the representing UAW Local listed on their sign in front of the plant.
Buy AMERICAN! BUY UNION!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Quote: "So remember, if you want it done correctly the first time "BUY UNION"! "
Why is it then.. that there are numerous issues with my GM vehicles (I own 3) and after searching on the net, it seems that the same problems keep coming up? Case in point: The targa top on my Corvette is delaminating on the right side. Can I just give the union a call and have it replaced? I'm not the only one with this problem and I *know* they built about 150,000 (at least maybe closer to 200,000!!) Corvettes between 1997 and 2004. How about the drivers seat rocking? That's case in point number two. Should I go on? I can probably come up with at least 5, 6, 7, or 8 more examples of defective, poor quality workmanship, (or design.. same thing). To be honest, the only reason I still buy GM is that I happen to have a TON of experience repairing my cars (because they weren't built right the first time) and don't want to have to re-learn different systems. (Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc..) So, in closing, I would just like to say, that in my opinion, unions are only good for the employees who have to pay somebody to protect their job. It gives them a sense of security that they can't be fired and probably gives them a little extra money on Friday. The product that comes out of the factories would probably be the same quality regardless of whether or not it was a union factory or not. I do have to wonder how much extra GM tacks on to the price of the cars to cover UAW related expenses.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Every one of the problems you mention are NOT controled by union members but by management or engineering departments. UAW members do not design cars nor do they purchase bulk parts for cars. Union members can only do what management lets them do.
UAW related expenses? Sure GM tacks on a price per car BUT so do all the other car makers. Even the NON union ones. in fact, all companies tack on extra costs for various reasons.
By the way, workmanship and engineering are not the same thing. Give employees good parts and tools and good engineering and they will produce a good product.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yikes, what a discussion! :-)
The bottom line is it would be best to leave the word "union" out of marketing materials if one wants to sell the the greatest number of cars they can. The word simply turns too many people off. It does not matter why this is so (ignorance, perception or whatever). Ego is the downfall of many. You personally may be proud of the union (and that is fine), but using the word in marketing the product these days will translate to fewer sales and less $$$ available for future union employment contracts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not true, this is uttely dependent on the marketing region. Some regions it would sell more cars. These campaigns are usually designed with a regional component as well as a national component.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is a good point. There is likely some truth to that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I thought everyone knew by now the quality of a product was a function of management. Guess not, many seem to still think it is a function of labor.
mike hunt
";-p" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
People think all kinds of things. ;-) Keeping marketing materials away from "touchy" topics is always best.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can also thank the union structure for the death of the steel industry. I live in Pittsburgh and the unions killed it. So, yeah, guys a generation ago could come right out of high school and earn $80,000 to $120,000 (equivalent of today's dollars...back then it was much less in actual 1978 dollars). Problem is they killed the golden goose. No NO ONE can do that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe if you did some research on the demise of many industries in the US between 1970 and 1990 that the fault lies in the unreasonable evirromental laws. The steel industry and many other 'dirty' industries were forced to meet environmental laws by dates certain, rather then giving the companies time to develop new technology to meet those goals. In the interim import product, that do not have those requirements, came into the US un retrained.
Companies were forced to spend billion on non productive equipment in what proved to be a futile effort to clean up the air a water, rather than developing cleaner more efficient way to achieve the same result over time.
A good example is the automobile. Companies were forced to spend billions to change factories over to FWD vehicle using small engines, with dubious pollution control devices, so they could still build five passenger cars the US consumer wanted. All that did was delay the far superior designs of today. On can buy one of the newer better handling RWD cars today that still gets better mileage than did the small unsafe under poser cars of the eighties. By setting a date certain, rather than goals, we actually delayed the better more efficient vehicles of today by ten to fifteen years,
In essence we exported the pollution, and all of the jobs, that were provided by steel, cement, chemical, paint, plastics and the oil industries etc.
I did a search and found the stating wage for a steelworker in 1955 was $1.47 a hour. The highest rate for a skilled craftsman in the steel mills was $2.12
Twenty year later in 1975 it was $4.03 and $5.11
The death rate among steelworkers was the highest of any industry at the time
mike hunt
"D.D. Palmer" wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Probably both contributed to some degree...among other factors.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obviously you never have had family members poisoned by industrial toxins.

There is no free lunch. Today we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars cleaning up Superfund sites that were created 50 years ago during lax environmental laws. And you know what, a lot of those sites could have been avoided if those companies had just dumped their toxic wastes into the city sewer, instead of into a pond out in the back 40 where it went into the ground water. The city sewer would have probably just dumped it into the river - which would have been polluted of course - but 20 years later after all those industries were forced to clean up their toxins instead of dumping them, the rivers are running fairly clean since they are continually being refreshed with clean water from their sources, but those contaminated aquifiers are still with us.
And all to save a miserable few hundred bucks a month in city sewer rates back then.
In any case even if those companies had done the right thing and dropped a few grand a month into a treatment plant for their wastes, it's still cheaper than the 4 billion or so per site we are paying today to clean them.

This is incorrect. FWD was a design that came out as a cost saving measure, not as a pollution control. I don't know what you have been reading, probably marketing bullshit, but it does not save fuel to put the driving wheels on the front, rather than the rear.
By going to FWD the automakers could assemble the entire engine and transmission as a single unit then just drop it (or raise it) into the body of the car. With RWD you have a driveshaft and a rear differential and axle - two parts, more labor.
FWD also allowed them to make the driveshaft hump in the center of the car a lot smaller which gives more leg room. While this has a side effect in making it easier to make the car smaller, the Datsun 510, 210 and smaller cars of that vintage in the 70's and 80's did not have a problem with RWD in a small car.
The dubious pollution control devices were all the baloney done to the engines to try to reduce emissions before the catalytic converter came out. And anyway, after the Arab oil embargo in the 70's everyone wanted high MPG cars and one easy way to reduce emissions is to make the car burn less fuel, which means higher mpg.

A very great lot of the US comsumer didn't want 5 passenger cars they wanted economy cars, which wern't 5 passenger unless 3 of your passengers were 8 year old children. And the same history is repeating itself today as Detroit still remains fixated on the SUV when everyone is wanting small economy high MPG cars again.

The cars today aren't any more efficient than they were 10 years ago.

For now. But would you rather live in Guiyu town in Guangdong? One of the most polluted places in China this is the destination for all the used toner cartridges, printed circuit boards, and everything else in old computers, where they are scrapped out for the metals.
Do you know how they recycle wires they get from the old computers? They burn them in the street until all the plastic insulation is burned off then they melt them down for the copper. How would you like to live there?
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's an old story, ( I don't know how true )
When congress passed the auto pollution laws in the 70's;
GM hired 150 lawyers to challenge the law. Toyota hired 150 engineers to solve the problem.
I guess it's all in how you approach the problem.
<rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.