GM to cut 30,000 Jobs & Close several NA Plants

Page 6 of 9  
wrote:


Politics is the reason. Most of us here think we will end up with car plant#1 expanding instead, once it is retooled for flex manufacturing (both car plants share the same building and the lines run side-by-side). GM Canada started backing away from the plant closure within a day of the announcement. There will be job losses, but not as severe as predicted. They may even reinstate the 3rd shift that we are losing in 2006. We've already lost a lot of jobs over the years...through outsourcing and productivity gains. When I started in Oshawa in '82, GM employed 18 000 people. We are now down to about 10 000, and nobody noticed.
Jane

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's 18 000 people in Oshawa alone, BTW.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just out of curiosity, what "function" does a Honda or Toyota have that can't be found on a GM vehicle?
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hairy wrote:

In vehicle integrated Navigation systems are readily available on the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. Try finding them on any $20-$25k US branded vehicle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can get a Pontiac Pursuit that starts at $16,140 Canadian with OnStar which does do directions. Not everyone needs a little TV to show them where to go.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
80 Knight wrote:

"OnStar" is just another promotional gimmick that you have to pay for. Like cable TV that was suppose to be inexpensive and commercial free when it started, it now cost 6 times as much or more and has as many if not more commercials than regular TV. I expect OnStar to increase in price as the years pass and you will probably be driving down the road with it telling you where to shop and eat and sleep as time goes by.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It can be very helpful though, and I was mentioning it to the other guy who said you could not get navigation systems on US cars under 20k. Sure, OnStar does not have the little TV, but it still can assist you in finding your direction. I am in Ontario Canada, and we had a snow storm several days ago, and I passed someone in a ditch. I stopped and asked if they needed help and they said that they were fine as they used there Onstar to call for a tow truck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote >

I could use a replacement for my 4 wheel drive S-10 (S-14) truck that was made also in 95. The Chevy trucks I saw at the dealer all were bigger, drank more gas, and didn't seem that much more advanced than my 1995 version. Did you read the Consumer Reports article on the new Honda pickup? It said it was the best riding truck they ever tested, it road like a passenger car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be because it is a car.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

was
Consumer Reports 2006 Buying Guide: Check rated, Good predicted reliability
"This crew-cab pickup has a supple and steady ride. Its 5-foot long composite cargo bed features an all-weather, lockable truck. The AWD system is permanent. Stability control is standard and handling is agile for a pickup. Jul. 2005"
I have not seen one in person. However my experience with CR is that they are pretty accurate about cars. If it has a 5-foot long uncovered cargo bed does that not make it a truck? If it is has a roof over the cargo bed it is then a SUV or station wagon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pumbaa wrote:

Its a minivan with the back chopped off. Trucks have frames and rear wheel drive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Which GM cars did you look and what made you reject them? I'm curious because while I was not wholly over-joyed with my last GM car (2000 Yukon XL that had too many minor problems that cost a bunch to fix) it was a good truck. A friend has two last generation Impalas and has had great reliability with them. The new Impalas look to be even better. I think GM is having a near-death experience (as Nissan had) and that is focusing their attention on product. The new Caddies are quite good as are some of the other recent redesigns and the Corvette is superb at its price.
To be fair, Toyota has had big problems with engine oil gelling in their V6's of late and poor operation of their FWD automatic transmissions.
wrote:

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

********That would be a change. Cadillac has been a pot of crap for a number of years. Corvette is superb for the price.

********* Hard to say where the truth lies here. Yes there were problems. Toyota says that if you change your oil regularly there is no problem. Also, there may have been some PCV modifications to prevent this. I have researched it carefully, and find that there is some doubt still about what really happened.
I can say that the Toyota is quiet, smooth, comfortable and economical. It is much more roadcomfortable than any GM I have driven lately.
Also drove a Passat. It drove wonderfully, similar to the Toyota.
Havent tried Honda yet. I know they had some tranny problems...Know why?? Because people didnt service them at the proper interval. Son has a couple, one of which had a tranny failure at 90,000 miles. The tranny shop told him it had never been serviced...and since they dont have filters, you MUST service them on schedule... whether true or not is up to you to comment.
Facts ARE however that GM has made a ton of crap, and has not bellied up and made good on it... the 3.4 engines with gasket and DexCool problems, the 3800 with plenum problems, and a whole host of other crappo deals.
GM needs to straighten up or belly up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Being familiar with some of these "layoffs", employees love it. It's like getting a paid vacation for up to a couple of years - good job eh??
--
Jerry

gfulton" < snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I stand corrected. Man, we could use a contract like that in the airline industry. Hard to believe GM ever signed anything like that. Got to tell the guys at work about this deal. They probably won't believe it. Thanks.
Garrett Fulton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good job? Usually not. UAW jobs are often physically taxing (even with automation) and often boring. On-the-job accidents are frequent. Many workers must retire early due to physical problems caused by their jobs.
Good benefits? Damn right. Don't blame the union for a contract that GM agreed to. Even more important, don't forget the many auto workers who were killed in the '30s while trying to win union representation. The fringe benefits that workers of all stripes now have available are a direct result of union workers' sacrifices. Things like pensions, medical coverage and vacations. Realize too that as union membership has decreased, so have these benefits. Is there a direct correlation? Maybe - maybe not. Certainly foreign competition has affected the situation. But WalMart has no foreign competitors - and their benefits suck. Be sure of this - no executive at GM, Ford, or Chrysler has had his benefits slashed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't get the wrong idea from my post, Doug. I'm certainly not anti-union and I don't doubt that assembly line work is likely as dangerous and detrimental to health as you've related. And I'll add the 40 hr. work week to your list of things that a lot of stout men in the union movement in the '30's achieved for all of us. Been a union member since the mid-70's. Although one that's weak kneed and in bed with management at their beck and call. Intl. Assoc. of Machinist and Aerospace Workers. (spit)
Garrett Fulton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No harm, Garrett. I was responding to Jerry's whining. Your message wasn't on my server when I posted.
Doug

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Boring yes, that's because anyone could do the jobs at much less than the 65/hour that they're getting, not counting overtime. Physically taxing - no (why would it be boring if physically taxing?). Accidents - mostly faked to get paid time off. These guys will someday realize that there is no free lunch. Areas around GM plants nickename them as "Generous Motors" - that is certainlly true, but will end in a few yeare due to global competition.
--
Jerry


"doug" < snipped-for-privacy@SPAMFREEhotmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't kid yourself - or try to BS anyone else. Your arrogant attitude indicates that you have no idea what's involved with the job. And 65 an hour? ROTFLMAO

It's known as repetition. Look it up in the dictionary, if you know how.

Really? Nothing like severing your finger to get a day off. Or a herniated disc. Or being electrocuted. Just check with OSHA if you doubt it.

I doubt that you'll find many UAW workers who aren't aware of it. But like I said - GM accepted the deal. Don't blame the workers. Your typical anti-union attitude is common among those who are trapped in a lousy job with crappy non-union pay and benefits, jealous of those are EARNING more than you.

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.