Chevy's new boss to retire

If an employee does not care about the health, wealth and prosperty of whoe they work for....

They should be so fired with cause. Or, 100% yeild to who is responsibily. This wage/benefit demand shit without responsibility is why any manufacturing manager faces with a union should close their doors if they unionize of if the union isn't working with management.

Reply to
Canuck57
Loading thread data ...

I blame them all, right from the board room to the toilets. And the only way to fix it is to fire them all while in bankruptcy, and start over from scratch, making sure only successful become management and they stay non-union.

GM has yet to remove the big obstrctions from why it can't make money. Now, just a leach on taxpayers pockets.

Reply to
Canuck57

Reply to
Canuck57

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Once again our friend Canuck57 is telling us the sky is falling. LOL

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Well, we agree that "management" is great at taking the credit, shifting the blame, and filling their pockets.

But look at it analytically.. What did Ford do that GM and Chrysler didnt or couldnt...Not in vague terms like "management" (we agree GM had a hell of a problem) but in specifics.

Reply to
hls

When the new CEO took over at ford in 2007 he mortgaged (ALL) the companies assets for 23 billion bucks and had enough cash on hand to weather the storm. Almost everything that GM and Chrysler won from the uaw carried over to ford to enable them to survive thru the downturn, and they had a few good vehicles hit the market at the right time. I don't know what fords debt burden is now and I did read that they made a 10 billion debt payment so it remains to be seen down the road where they stand. I hope all ford and GM come thru this alright. Chrysler has folded their company as it was even their financial company is gone, maybe the Chrysler products will survive but I don't have much hope for them as an American company.

Reply to
Tom

The original discussion didn't pertain to an analysis of the actual issues. The onus of substantiating charges is on those blaming unions, it is neither the role nor duty of labor to assess responsibility or have to undeservedly establish a defense of themselves. And in the absence of them or their supporters accepting management's burden and providing delineating specifics as to the cause of the latters failures,.the fault does not then justifiably revert to or lie with the worker.

This is not to say that trade unionists have not in fact had their own problems (e.g., selectively barring "untouchable" minorities from their ranks). However unlike the priviledged of society who are allowed to continually repeat their patterns of fraud, malfeasance and other criminal offenses, attempting to escape their just desserts by employing the tactic of simply and wrongly pointing the finger at others, they've instead gone on to correct and not endlessly commit these same mistakes.

And for the record, I am neither a member of a disadvantaged minority constituency nor have I had any manner of involvement of any kind in or with a union in well more than 35 years, when I was at that time a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, in the very early 70's.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

I asked you about actual issues, and apparently you dont know what they were.

Reply to
hls

You may of course choose to rationalize any interpretation of my comments that you'd care to. However in addition to my most recent remarks (which you've severly truncated), I've also clearly addressed the quite real and acutal issues (which you've also chosen to ignore) of remuneration along with their long term failures to correct known, documented problems (among them being faulty steering gears, leaking intake manifold gaskets [often times resulting in catastrophic engine failures], e pluribus duo) and other easily discovered both poor designs and general mistreatment of customers.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

You may of course choose to rationalize any interpretation of my comments that you'd care to. However in addition to my most recent remarks (which you've severly truncated), I've also clearly addressed the quite real and acutal issues (which you've also chosen to ignore) of remuneration along with their long term failures to correct known, documented problems (among them being faulty steering gears, leaking intake manifold gaskets [often times resulting in catastrophic engine failures], e pluribus duo) and other easily discovered both poor designs and general mistreatment of customers.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

You may of course choose to rationalize any interpretation of my comments that you'd care to. However in addition to my most recent remarks (which you've severly truncated), I've also clearly addressed the quite real and acutal issues (which you've also chosen to ignore) of remuneration along with their long term failures to correct known, documented problems (among them being faulty steering gears, leaking intake manifold gaskets [often times resulting in catastrophic engine failures], e pluribus duo) and other easily discovered both poor designs and general mistreatment of customers.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

You may of course choose to rationalize any interpretation of my comments that you'd care to. However in addition to my most recent remarks (which you've severly truncated), I've also clearly addressed the quite real and acutal issues (which you've also chosen to ignore) of remuneration along with their long term failures to correct known, documented problems (among them being faulty steering gears, leaking intake manifold gaskets [often times resulting in catastrophic engine failures], e pluribus duo) and other easily discovered both poor designs and general mistreatment of customers.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

You may of course choose to rationalize any interpretation of my comments that you'd care to. However in addition to my most recent remarks (which you've severly truncated), I've also clearly addressed the quite real and acutal issues (which you've also chosen to ignore) of remuneration along with their long term failures to correct known, documented problems (among them being faulty steering gears, leaking intake manifold gaskets [often times resulting in catastrophic engine failures], e pluribus duo) and other easily discovered both poor designs and general mistreatment of customers.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

I truncated them because there was little or no "meat" in them. A lot of verbage but no meat.

You say that the problems were not the fault of the unionized workers? True, in one sense. They were out to get every penny they could possibly get...the great American way, huh? No skin off their backs if GM management couldn't plan and execute. (Reminds me of my very EX wife)

Management should have taken corrective action earlier. They should have improved the product, fought to keep their client base loyal (warranties, good treatment, good products), and reduced costs (not necessarily prices)...

Normally, when I have had to analyze budgets to find out where the costs are excessive, I start with a simple sensitivity analysis. And, the cost sensitivies, almost always,involve the employees. This is about the only thing you can change that will reflect below the double line.

Reply to
hls

Speaking of remarks expressly unworthy of eliciting a response, notwithstanding my inherent liberal nature, my previous post on this subject will accordingly also have been my penultimate.

But just which terms, phrases and/or sentences would you characterize as "herbivorous". I'm somewhat familiar with your usenet replies, often times taking to task, point by point, others arguments. It's unfortunate that mine were unable to attain a grade such that you might deign to, in lieu of a supercilious dismissive riposte, actually offer an issue oriented rebuttal.

Perhaps, but no more so than the market pricing approach or tactic (that price levels being dependent upon "supply- and-demand" canard always brings a chortle) that is more often the rule rather than the exception, in sales in general.

Except of course you seem to ignore labor's many historical contributory give-backs, even in the absence of controlling interests opening their books to provide proof of loss related to unwarranted labor costs. It is hardly labors responsibility to insure that a corporation is or remains profitable solely on the backs of the worker. When you negotiate or offer your services is it your goal to leave anything on the table? And might I detect a hint of possible misogynism in that final parenthetical statement?

We seemingly at least partially agree, albeit you've apparently raised the bar, stating the case in a far superior manner to my own pathetically feeble, boiler-plate attempt.

CAN (irrespective of justifiability), being the operative word, given that other, non-labor suppliers simply won't tolerate getting stiffed, and with customers already at maximum price levels determined by competitive forces.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

We agree on this. There are intangible and tangible items which have to be considered.

GMs management was just not up to the job, it would seem.

I dont doubt the quality of the American laborer, and I also know that in the past organized labor has given some concessions in many industries to try to keep the business going. GM just waited too late to do anything of substance.

I was a customer of GM for years, starting back in the 70s. It took me a while to get really angry, and now that I am angry, it will take a long time to ever trust them again.

Im sorry if my posts upset you. It was not my intention.

Reply to
hls

Thank you, that's a most considerate and magnanimous gesture.

Reply to
Heron McKeister

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.