Something for nothing: GM and the unions

Something for nothing: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Published March 3, 2006

Government is not the only institution that promises something for
nothing. The decline of General Motors is just one consequence of the
idea labor unions can get their members something for nothing.
Workers themselves increasingly recognize there is no free lunch
through unionization and increasingly vote to be non-union. But the
word has yet to reach many among the intelligentsia, who still think of
labor unions as institutions that benefit the working class.
You can always benefit particular segments of any society at the
expense of some other segment. But unions do not benefit even the
working class as a whole -- just current union members at the expense
of other workers, current and future.
One reason General Motors has lost market share for years -- going
from selling about half the cars in the country to selling about
one-quarter today -- is its union contracts put them at a disadvantage
compared to Japanese competitors.
Though Toyota has factories in the United States, the American
employees in those factories vote to keep their jobs by staying
nonunion. Toyota takes business away from unionized Detroit carmakers,
who are forced to lay off thousands of workers while Toyota hires
additional workers.
There may not be any big difference in pay scales, but unions can
raise production costs many other ways. Fringe benefits are just one,
work rules another.
In some industries, employers pay their workers as much as, or more
than, unionized workers for the same jobs, just to be free of red tape
restrictions on how they can organize their business or discipline
employees who aren't doing their jobs right.
Toyota, for example, takes fewer hours to produce cars with fewer
defects than Detroit cars.
While unions are declining in the private sector, they are
expanding among government employees. Government agencies are usually
monopolies, so competition is no threat to their jobs. Taxpayers get
hit with the high cost of these monopolies. There is no such thing as
something for nothing.
Teachers' unions fight desperately and ruthlessly against vouchers.
They must maintain a monopoly of schoolchildren under the compulsory
attendance laws. Their members risk losing jobs if they must compete
with private schools.
Monopoly is the key to unionized teachers' job security -- at the
expense of children's education and the taxpayers' money.
Private-sector labor unions have long been in the forefront of
those pushing for higher minimum wage laws. Union members usually make
much more than minimum wages but need to safeguard their jobs from
others who might work for less.
People on the inside looking out benefit at the expense of people
on the outside looking in. Losers include not only less-experienced and
lower-skilled workers, whose output would not cover the cost of the
minimum wage, but also future workers who may find fewer jobs in the
unionized industries.
Minimum wage laws are like protective tariffs insulating unionized
workers from the competition of other workers. It is robbing a less
affluent Peter to pay a more affluent Paul -- while using noble
rhetoric that appeals to the uninformed and the unthinking, including
many people with fancy degrees and even fancier illusions about their
own greater compassion.
Some people may believe unions benefit their members at the expense
of employers -- and that big corporations should be paying a "living
wage." That may be possible in the short run.
But if unionized workers producing widgets get higher pay by
reducing widget manufacturers' profit rates, do you think there will be
as much invested in producing widgets when higher rates of return can
be realized by investing elsewhere?
The rate of return on widgets cannot remain permanently below rates
of returns in other industries. Widget prices will have to rise -- and
that means lower sales and lower employment. There is no free lunch, no
way to get something for nothing.

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> $14.105 Toyota Corolla
> $9,890 Chevrolet Aveo
>
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Mike, why do you post this drivel? OK, here we go:
>
>
>>Government is not the only institution that promises something for
>>nothing.
>
>
> no-nothing columnists do also.
>
>
>>The decline of General Motors is just one consequence of the
>>idea labor unions can get their members something for nothing.
>
>
> Rubbish. Let's get some realism here. I'll start with some figures from
> he
>
> http://www.gm.com/company/investor_i...tion/earnings/
>
> GM sold 9.2 million vehicles worldwide in 2005, the second-largest volume in
> GM's history
>
> Revenue was $192.6 billion in 2005, compared to $193.5 billion in 2004
>
> GM) today reported a 2005 calendar-year loss, excluding special items, of
> $3.4 billion.
> This is ONE POINT SEVEN PERCENT of their total revenue.
>
> it is equivalent to a private person who makes $20,000 a year after taxes,
> overspending their
> budget for the year by $340.00.
>
> Last year, in 2004, GM made a profit of 3.6 billion, on that revenue of
> 193.5 billion.
>
> That is equivalent to a private person who makes 20,000 a year after taxes,
> managing
> to save $360.00 for that year.
>
> GM has about 20 billion in cash in the bank. This is equivalent to that
> private
> person who makes $20,000 a year after taxes, having a savings account
> totalling
> $2,000
>
> With this cash GM could fund losses at the 2005 rate for about 5-6 years
> WITHOUT
> DOING A THING ABOUT IT.
>
> The idea that GM is hemorraging red ink is not supported by the facts - in a
> word
> it is preposterous. In fact, GM is basically operating like any other
> NORMAL
> business - they make some money some years, and they lose some money some
> years. Last year in 2005 was a losing year.
>
> Would you prefer GM to make profits on the order of the oil companies?
>
>
>> Workers themselves increasingly recognize there is no free lunch
>>through unionization and increasingly vote to be non-union.
>
>
> No evidence this is "increasing"
>
>
>>But the
>>word has yet to reach many among the intelligentsia, who still think of
>>labor unions as institutions that benefit the working class.
>> You can always benefit particular segments of any society at the
>>expense of some other segment. But unions do not benefit even the
>>working class as a whole -- just current union members at the expense
>>of other workers, current and future.
>
>
> If you are working at a non-union company along with 10 other workers,
> and you one out of that 10 go out and take night classes and get yourself
> an MBA, then walk into your bosses office and demand and get a raise
> based on the idea that you are now a more valuable employee because you
> have the MBA, you are benefiting yourself at the expense of the other 9
> workers.
>
>
>> One reason General Motors has lost market share for years -- going
>>from selling about half the cars in the country to selling about
>>one-quarter today -- is its union contracts put them at a disadvantage
>>compared to Japanese competitors.
>
>
> Let's see.
>
> 2006 Toyota Corolla, per the website, starting price $14.105
> 2006 Chevrolet Aveo, per the website, starting price $9,890
>
> How is this a disadvantage?
>
>
>> Though Toyota has factories in the United States, the American
>>employees in those factories vote to keep their jobs by staying
>>nonunion. Toyota takes business away from unionized Detroit carmakers,
>>who are forced to lay off thousands of workers while Toyota hires
>>additional workers.
>> There may not be any big difference in pay scales, but unions can
>>raise production costs many other ways. Fringe benefits are just one,
>>work rules another.
>> In some industries, employers pay their workers as much as, or more
>>than, unionized workers for the same jobs, just to be free of red tape
>>restrictions on how they can organize their business or discipline
>>employees who aren't doing their jobs right.
>> Toyota, for example, takes fewer hours to produce cars with fewer
>>defects than Detroit cars.
>> While unions are declining in the private sector, they are
>>expanding among government employees. Government agencies are usually
>>monopolies, so competition is no threat to their jobs. Taxpayers get
>>hit with the high cost of these monopolies. There is no such thing as
>>something for nothing.
>> Teachers' unions fight desperately and ruthlessly against vouchers.
>
>
> So do parents with kids in public schoos who do not want to see
> the quality of the schools go down the toilet. Here is the problem with
> vouchers. It starts with the really dedicated parents who use them to
> pull their kids out and stick them in private schools, generally with
> no justification. In short, the education isn't any better, it just perhaps
> happens to have religious overtones, treats evolution as debunked
> science, whatever. As a result the public schools lose money and
> get a little worse. So a few more parents see the decline and they
> pull their kids out. So the public schools get even worse. And so
> on until the public schools are so poor that your pretty much required
> to pull out your kids if you want them to get any education at all,
> and by then most of the parents pulling them out, would much rather
> not do it.
>
>
>>They must maintain a monopoly of schoolchildren under the compulsory
>>attendance laws. Their members risk losing jobs if they must compete
>>with private schools.
>> Monopoly is the key to unionized teachers' job security -- at the
>>expense of children's education and the taxpayers' money.
>
>
> In a public school you are not guarenteed to get a fantastic teacher
> for every grade, and when your kid does get a bum teacher, there's
> not much you can do. Whereas in a private school you can pull your
> kid out and go to a different school. The problem is that this isn't
> how life works. Your not guarenteed in getting a good boss every time
> you find a job. Your not guarenteed in getting a good spouse every
> time you get married. Your not guarenteed in getting good employees
> every time you hire someone.
>
> It is as valuable for a kid and their parents to learn how to deal with
> the occassional bum teacher as if they had all good teachers. More
> valuable in fact since the kid is being taught how to deal with it
> when that happens in college or later on in life.
>
>
>> Private-sector labor unions have long been in the forefront of
>>those pushing for higher minimum wage laws. Union members usually make
>>much more than minimum wages but need to safeguard their jobs from
>>others who might work for less.
>> People on the inside looking out benefit at the expense of people
>>on the outside looking in. Losers include not only less-experienced and
>>lower-skilled workers, whose output would not cover the cost of the
>>minimum wage, but also future workers who may find fewer jobs in the
>>unionized industries.
>
>
> If a business hires employees that have output that is lower in value
> than the cost to the business, the business is going to go bankrupt.
> Haven't you been paying attention to what is going on with many of
> the teams in the NBA these days? The union does not force a business
> to hire an employee that outputs lower than their cost. If the business
> is unionized, then they need to figure out how to restructure themselves
> so all of their employees jobs produce more than their cost.
>
>
>> Minimum wage laws are like protective tariffs insulating unionized
>>workers from the competition of other workers. It is robbing a less
>>affluent Peter to pay a more affluent Paul -- while using noble
>>rhetoric that appeals to the uninformed and the unthinking, including
>>many people with fancy degrees and even fancier illusions about their
>>own greater compassion.
>> Some people may believe unions benefit their members at the expense
>>of employers -- and that big corporations should be paying a "living
>>wage." That may be possible in the short run.
>> But if unionized workers producing widgets get higher pay by
>>reducing widget manufacturers' profit rates, do you think there will be
>>as much invested in producing widgets when higher rates of return can
>>be realized by investing elsewhere?
>> The rate of return on widgets cannot remain permanently below rates
>>of returns in other industries. Widget prices will have to rise -- and
>>that means lower sales and lower employment.
>
>
> So what? This is how a normal market operates. If too many auto companies
> out there are producing more cars than the market can absorb, then either
> costs of the cars drop until the market absorbs more of them, or some of
> the manufacturers disappear and car production drops.
>
> What your missing however is that when manufacturers disappear and the
> car production drops, it frees those employees up to go work in industries
> that have a need of employees.
>
> The problem here is that you need to look at the US market in the big
> picture. Right now we have too many cars produced and too many autoworkers.
> Yet at the same time health costs are skyrocketing - why? Because there's
> not enough competiton out there among health providers for the prices
> to drop. In short, there's a big shortage of nurses, doctors, pharmacists,
> etc. There's too few doctors offices and hospitals, that's why you have to
> wait 2 hours when you walk into a doctors office because there's just
> too many customers.
>
> What the US market needs, then is obvious - it needs some of those
> autoworkers
> to stop being autoworkers and start being nurses and doctors. That will
> only
> happen if those people lose their autoworking jobs and simply cannot get
> replacement autoworking jobs, they will then have to retrain.
>
> Let's say you dump all the unions and the costs for a typical autoworker
> drops.
> OK, so now we create a mecca for automakers the world over, they send
> all their work to us, and now we got lots and lots and lots of available
> autoworking jobs. The only problem is that all this does is allow Joe
> Blow autoworker to take a pay cut and keep working at what he already
> knows - which is autoworking - instead of being told he has no other choice
> than to retrain to be a doctor. So meanwhile, the need for more doctors
> and nurses is not met, and health care costs go even further out of control.
> How exactly does this help the economy?
>
> Ted
>
>

........... not that I'm union, but rather I've was a part of the
non-union end of the American "big 3" (1971 - 1989). The American auto
industry let WAY too many electrical issues slide for WAY too many
years. The truth is they relied very heavily on sub-contractors (who
were almost exclusively non-union BTW). Way too many of these
subassemblies were junk (made up of inferior electrical components and
questionable assembly methods). Although I was involved in the
electrical end, the mechanical side was much the same. The attitude in
the industry was "oh well, we're no worse than anybody else"...........
until the Japanese began getting a toe hold and everyone knows the rest
of the story . Believe me, 30 years ago had a lot more to do with
engineering, assembly methods, and using better quality components in
subassemblies than the shortfalls of union labor.

Here's a really good book on how one corporation, the Penn Central who was
the largest railroad of it's time went bankrupt.

....The Wreck of the Penn Central, which The New York Times called "a great
book" offering the reader "a ringside seat" to this economic debacle,
provides a close-up view of the events that brought the Big Train to
bankruptcy court -- over-regulation, subsidized competition, big labor
featherbedding, greed, corporate back stabbing, stunning incompetence, and
yes, even a little sex.


http://www.beardbooks.com/the_wreck_...n_central.html


Ken

"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
From Broadway bright the tubes run right
Into the Road of Anthracite"


"Mike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Something for nothing: Part II
> By Thomas Sowell
> Published March 3, 2006
>
> Government is not the only institution that promises something for
> nothing. The decline of General Motors is just one consequence of the
> idea labor unions can get their members something for nothing.
> Workers themselves increasingly recognize there is no free lunch
> through unionization and increasingly vote to be non-union. But the
> word has yet to reach many among the intelligentsia, who still think of
> labor unions as institutions that benefit the working class.
> You can always benefit particular segments of any society at the
> expense of some other segment. But unions do not benefit even the
> working class as a whole -- just current union members at the expense
> of other workers, current and future.
> One reason General Motors has lost market share for years -- going
> from selling about half the cars in the country to selling about
> one-quarter today -- is its union contracts put them at a disadvantage
> compared to Japanese competitors.
> Though Toyota has factories in the United States, the American
> employees in those factories vote to keep their jobs by staying
> nonunion. Toyota takes business away from unionized Detroit carmakers,
> who are forced to lay off thousands of workers while Toyota hires
> additional workers.
> There may not be any big difference in pay scales, but unions can
> raise production costs many other ways. Fringe benefits are just one,
> work rules another.
> In some industries, employers pay their workers as much as, or more
> than, unionized workers for the same jobs, just to be free of red tape
> restrictions on how they can organize their business or discipline
> employees who aren't doing their jobs right.
> Toyota, for example, takes fewer hours to produce cars with fewer
> defects than Detroit cars.
> While unions are declining in the private sector, they are
> expanding among government employees. Government agencies are usually
> monopolies, so competition is no threat to their jobs. Taxpayers get
> hit with the high cost of these monopolies. There is no such thing as
> something for nothing.
> Teachers' unions fight desperately and ruthlessly against vouchers.
> They must maintain a monopoly of schoolchildren under the compulsory
> attendance laws. Their members risk losing jobs if they must compete
> with private schools.
> Monopoly is the key to unionized teachers' job security -- at the
> expense of children's education and the taxpayers' money.
> Private-sector labor unions have long been in the forefront of
> those pushing for higher minimum wage laws. Union members usually make
> much more than minimum wages but need to safeguard their jobs from
> others who might work for less.
> People on the inside looking out benefit at the expense of people
> on the outside looking in. Losers include not only less-experienced and
> lower-skilled workers, whose output would not cover the cost of the
> minimum wage, but also future workers who may find fewer jobs in the
> unionized industries.
> Minimum wage laws are like protective tariffs insulating unionized
> workers from the competition of other workers. It is robbing a less
> affluent Peter to pay a more affluent Paul -- while using noble
> rhetoric that appeals to the uninformed and the unthinking, including
> many people with fancy degrees and even fancier illusions about their
> own greater compassion.
> Some people may believe unions benefit their members at the expense
> of employers -- and that big corporations should be paying a "living
> wage." That may be possible in the short run.
> But if unionized workers producing widgets get higher pay by
> reducing widget manufacturers' profit rates, do you think there will be
> as much invested in producing widgets when higher rates of return can
> be realized by investing elsewhere?
> The rate of return on widgets cannot remain permanently below rates
> of returns in other industries. Widget prices will have to rise -- and
> that means lower sales and lower employment. There is no free lunch, no
> way to get something for nothing.
>
> Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist.
>

In article .com>,
"Mike" > wrote:

> Something for nothing: Part II
> By Thomas Sowell
> Published March 3, 2006
>
> Government is not the only institution that promises something for
> nothing. The decline of General Motors is just one consequence of the
> idea labor unions can get their members something for nothing.

This is a load of crap. I am not a union member, nor have I ever been.
The problems General Motors is experiencing come from only one place;
the management. While General Motors was busy designing and building
cars that most people do not want, companies such as Toyota and Honda
are busy producing very desirable cars. For example, where's the GM
version of the Honda Civic or Toyota Prius? While Honda and Toyota are
busy building cars that they can't sell fast enough, the American
automobile manufacturers are busy building more and more gas guzzling
SUVs and pick up trucks.

There is no free lunch, but working on an assembly line and paying union
dues for decades is hardly a free lunch. Why is it that Honda and Toyota
can treat their current employees and retirees well, but GM can't? If GM
wants to make more profits and live up to its obligations to its past
and current employees, I have a radical idea ... make better products.
Make products that are better than your competition: that's the secret
to prosperity in any industry. If GM could figure out how to make a
midsize car with decent reliability that averages 60MPG highway, they
would outsell anything Toyota and Honda have today.

Ron wrote:

> .......... not that I'm union, but rather I've was a part of the
> non-union end of the American "big 3" (1971 - 1989). The American auto
> industry let WAY too many electrical issues slide for WAY too many
> years. The truth is they relied very heavily on sub-contractors (who
> were almost exclusively non-union BTW). Way too many of these
> subassemblies were junk (made up of inferior electrical components and
> questionable assembly methods). Although I was involved in the
> electrical end, the mechanical side was much the same. The attitude in
> the industry was "oh well, we're no worse than anybody else"...........

I was working for a 2nd tier supplier on the electrical side until 2000.
Much of what you describe hasn't changed - at least at that one
supplier. It was (still is) non-union, but the motto could have been,
as you said, "We're no worse than anybody else" - in fact I often used
those exact words myself to describe the attitude (hmmm - maybe that's
why I'm not still there).

The problem, which I've presented many times here before, was that the
customers (Ford, Delphi) would force price cuts on us with no basis in
reality, and on top of that, would dump no-value-added new
quality-documentation requirements (notice I make no reference to true
qualilty *improvement* requirements) on us. So we had less working
capital (neg. profits already) with which to hire people to fulfil the
new documentation requirements. As a result, the quality documentation
often got faked. The ultimate results of that is predictable (a la Ford
Explorer/Firestone). Delphi actually at one point blackballed our
company from any new business awards for 3 years because our plant
manager, out of desperation, grew a set of balls and on just a single
occasion told them we would not reduce our price on one product the next
year.

One of GM's (Delphi's) favorite tricks was to set up a team of their and
your people for a cost-cutting excercise (called PICOS) on an existing
product/process. The stated up-front premise was that any savings
discovered by the "team" would be shared 50/50 by Delphi and you, the
supplier. When the process was finished, they would then announce that,
oh by the way, sorry - they guess they forgot to tell you, but they were
absolutely required by their internal operating procedures manual to
subsequently put the new cost-shaved part and process design out for
competitive bids (called 'global sourcing' in the biz). Well guess what
- if you wanted to re-win the business with a competitive bid, you had
to give up the shared savings that you just spent tens of thousands of
dollars of your own money on in man-hours and travel to ferret out. We
were so stupid, we allowed ourselves to be raped in that fashion twice
before we told them 'hell no' on their third attempt at starting a PICOS
team on one of our products.

So the attitude of "We're no worse than anybody else", though
despicable, is somewhat understandable.

> until the Japanese began getting a toe hold and everyone knows the rest
> of the story . Believe me, 30 years ago had a lot more to do with
> engineering, assembly methods, and using better quality components in
> subassemblies than the shortfalls of union labor.

Another of the defensive measures of my previous employer was to,
without telling Ford, leave a Potemkin village line up (for when Ford
visited the plant) and move the real production to our Mexican facility.
(To make that facade complete, we'd have to ship from Mexico to the
plant in the states, and then ship from there to Ford.) If you were in
the business, you know that that (moving a production line to a new
location, much less out of the country, without their permissiona and
the full quality documentation for the establishment of a new line
location) was a real no-no. (My understanding is that they later moved
those lines back to the states due to even worse quaility problems in
Mexico.)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> ...One of GM's (Delphi's) favorite tricks was to set up a team of their and
> your people for a cost-cutting excercise (called PICOS) on an existing
> product/process. The stated up-front premise was that any savings
> discovered by the "team" would be shared 50/50 by Delphi and you, the
> supplier. When the process was finished, they would then announce that,
> oh by the way, sorry - they guess they forgot to tell you, but they were
> absolutely required by their internal operating procedures manual to
> subsequently put the new cost-shaved part and process design out for
> competitive bids (called 'global sourcing' in the biz). Well guess what
> - if you wanted to re-win the business with a competitive bid, you had
> to give up the shared savings that you just spent tens of thousands of
> dollars of your own money on in man-hours and travel to ferret out. We
> were so stupid, we allowed ourselves to be raped in that fashion twice
> before we told them 'hell no' on their third attempt at starting a PICOS
> team on one of our products...

One more thing I forgot to throw in on the PICOS process: One of the
rules, due to previous crappy agreements that GM made with the unions
many years ago (agreements that still plagued them, agreements that Ford
and Chrysler did not make and were unencumbered by) was that any savings
that the PICOS team came up with that resulted in added
efficiencies/cost reductions in the GM/Delphi plant by the elimination
of a body on their assembly line, by definition had to be crossed off
the list - i.e., those savings could not be realized.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Shawn Hirn wrote: "This is a load of crap. I am not a union member, nor
have I ever been. The problems General Motors is experiencing come from only
one place; the management. While General Motors was busy designing and
building cars that most people do not want, companies such as Toyota and
Honda
are busy producing very desirable cars. For example, where's the GM version
of the Honda Civic or Toyota Prius? While Honda and Toyota are
busy building cars that they can't sell fast enough, the American automobile
manufacturers are busy building more and more gas guzzling SUVs and pick up
trucks.

There is no free lunch, but working on an assembly line and paying union
dues for decades is hardly a free lunch. Why is it that Honda and Toyota can
treat their current employees and retirees well, but GM can't? If GM wants
to make more profits and live up to its obligations to its past and current
employees, I have a radical idea ... make better products. Make products
that are better than your competition: that's the secret to prosperity in
any industry. If GM could figure out how to make a midsize car with decent
reliability that averages 60MPG highway, they would outsell anything Toyota
and Honda have today.'

Shawn, I have to agree with you on why GM is failing in business. Upper
management is using the union as a scapegoat. Upper management makes all
financial decisions on what to invest in and what not to. If they make the
right or wrong decision that are ultimately responsible either way. The UAW
cannot decided what vehicles they will build and which ones will be designed
and marketed.

However, I do respectful disagree with you on Toyota and Honda treating
their retirees better. Both Toyota and Honda have no fixed pension plan
only a company sponsored 401K. 401K pension type plans can be big successes
are a financial failure. A good example is I work for a company that has a
fixed pension. I know that if I retire today what my pension will be.
However, my 401K which was close to 600 thousand 4 years ago has dropped by
250 thousand when the economy was doing bad. If I had to rely on my 401k to
living on then I may be in financial trouble every time the economy does
poor. The current president is pushing 401K type pensions for all workers.
401K pensions are to unstable for me to rely on. The UAW has negotiated
with GM to maintain a fixed pension so retirees know what they have to live
on and not a guess work. Yes, fixed pensions can fail also but they are
less likely if the company does good some years and bad others as long as
the business survives. It is also backed up by the government just like
your bank account. 401K are not insured.

yes, I am a union member and proud to be one. I work for a large company
and it is not in the automobile industry. I am a member of USW. USW, United
Steel Workers represents members employed in the steel industry, chemical,
paper, oil, healthcare and energy fields. Our membership is over 1 million
strong and growing. Unity and Strength for Workers is our motto.

Sarge

Absolutely true. Ford, for instance has been running on the reputation of
its pick up trucks for ages, it only seems to have 3 cars none of which can
hold a candle to Japanese. GM still makes cars no one wants the only market
related ones are from Daewoo in Korea, Chrysler have some decent cars but no
small or fuel efficient ones. It seems no one Detroit has noticed the
present price of gas and the popularity of frugal cars.
The marketing of cars is still in the dark ages. A friend in a dealership
told me that the best kept secret in the trade is the true cost price of a
North American Car. They quote lease payments but no actual price. That
couple d with the guessing game negotiations, the refer to manager deals,
the multiplicity of options. Japanese and Korean have usually 3 models
Entry, Upscale and De Luxe- thats it. GM quote a price but never sell at it.
What is needed is value for money, less sleaze bags selling them and cars
that are gas sippers and mechanically well engineered. We can build them,
Honda and Toyota build superb cars in Canada, its the Marketing, Accountants
and engineers that collectively turn out crap at Ford, GM and Chrysler .
I will be replacing my Intrepid with a Sonata, I just cant stand North
American Car Dealers.


"Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Mike" > wrote:
>
>> Something for nothing: Part II
>> By Thomas Sowell
>> Published March 3, 2006
>>
>> Government is not the only institution that promises something for
>> nothing. The decline of General Motors is just one consequence of the
>> idea labor unions can get their members something for nothing.
>
> This is a load of crap. I am not a union member, nor have I ever been.
> The problems General Motors is experiencing come from only one place;
> the management. While General Motors was busy designing and building
> cars that most people do not want, companies such as Toyota and Honda
> are busy producing very desirable cars. For example, where's the GM
> version of the Honda Civic or Toyota Prius? While Honda and Toyota are
> busy building cars that they can't sell fast enough, the American
> automobile manufacturers are busy building more and more gas guzzling
> SUVs and pick up trucks.
>
> There is no free lunch, but working on an assembly line and paying union
> dues for decades is hardly a free lunch. Why is it that Honda and Toyota
> can treat their current employees and retirees well, but GM can't? If GM
> wants to make more profits and live up to its obligations to its past
> and current employees, I have a radical idea ... make better products.
> Make products that are better than your competition: that's the secret
> to prosperity in any industry. If GM could figure out how to make a
> midsize car with decent reliability that averages 60MPG highway, they
> would outsell anything Toyota and Honda have today.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Licker wrote:

> The UAW cannot decided what vehicles they will build and which ones will
> be designed and marketed.

Actually, the UAW has a very strong influence on what cars are and aren't
built and marketed in North America. They are the primary reason why GM
and Ford don't import many of the excellent, up-to-date products they
design and build in the Australian market, for instance. Want to build a
car in North America, but UAW can't build to the precision and quality
levels a particular design requires (such as some of the ones from
Australia)? Common problem. You're screwed. Want to raise the level of
quality and precision from the UAW by implementing special training and
skill-building programs? Nope, UAW won't have it, 'cause that implies the
average UAW is underskilled and undertrained, and we certainly wouldn't
want anyone to think *that*. You remain screwed. Still want to market that
particular design, so you look at importing them already built-up from
your factories in another market? Bzzt! UAW won't allow it; they view it
as taking away "their" work. You're still screwed. Want to market a
homegrown design, the build of which impinges on upper or lower
worker-hourage boundaries? Bzzt! There's the friendly and helpful UAW
again to scotch the idea. You're screwed again.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Keith wrote:

> I will be replacing my Intrepid with a Sonata

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.