UAW vs non-UAW

On May 23, 8:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
]> wrote:
> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007
>

> Chrysler's labor costs are $30 an hour higher than Toyota's, headed for
> a gap of $45 by 2009. Chrysler pays the same wage to UAW janitors and
> skilled craftsmen. It carries idle workers on its books when no jobs
> are available. Most of all, it's on the hook for the untrammeled health-
> care spending of 134,000 unionized workers, retirees and dependents --
> an $18 billion liability that Toyota, Honda and Nissan don't face. This
> alone adds a cost of $1,500 per car.

Here's what America needs to do ASAP:

1) ban the unions;

2) socialize health care


Thing is that BOTH issues cannot be put on an agenda of any ruling
"party" ( i.e. neither democrats nor republicans). So, sorry guys but
you are facing a tough choice: either pay that extra $ 1 ,500 and buy
a domestic car OR buy Japanese...........hehe

I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
I have always though management structure was a bigger problem than the
unions.

CCC


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 23, 8:00 am, George Orwell <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
> ]> wrote:
>> Wall Street Journal - May 23, 2007
>>
>
>> Chrysler's labor costs are $30 an hour higher than Toyota's, headed for
>> a gap of $45 by 2009. Chrysler pays the same wage to UAW janitors and
>> skilled craftsmen. It carries idle workers on its books when no jobs
>> are available. Most of all, it's on the hook for the untrammeled health-
>> care spending of 134,000 unionized workers, retirees and dependents --
>> an $18 billion liability that Toyota, Honda and Nissan don't face. This
>> alone adds a cost of $1,500 per car.
>
> Here's what America needs to do ASAP:
>
> 1) ban the unions;
>
> 2) socialize health care
>
>
> Thing is that BOTH issues cannot be put on an agenda of any ruling
> "party" ( i.e. neither democrats nor republicans). So, sorry guys but
> you are facing a tough choice: either pay that extra $ 1 ,500 and buy
> a domestic car OR buy Japanese...........hehe
>
>

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:40:33 GMT, "CCC" > wrote:

>I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
>a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
>I have always though management structure was a bigger problem than the
>unions. <snip>

The problem has always been bad management. Study after study has
found that labor isn't the problem, despite what all the right-handed
wing nuts on Usenet say. The Toyota-GM Fremont, CA plant was
successful with UAW labor having the same contract as the other
plants, but GM's faulty management structure and processes were
banned. Toyota simply refuses to stop fighting the UAW in other US
plants because they've learned from US corporate assholes how to be
greedy. Since US labor laws are the weakest among all industrialized
nations, they simply take advantage of that fact.

The case that proves this is the GM Van Nuys, CA plant, now bulldozed
and a shopping center. GM management there was among the worst, and
labor responded accordingly. The place was a friggin' disaster for
decades. Rather than take Fremont as a model and further cede their
failed management practices, GM simply closed and bulldozed the plant.

Case closed. Right wing nuts defeated once again.

On 23 May 2007 12:56:37 -0700, wrote:

>Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers will perform
>different building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>

It's the MANAGEMENT, stupid.

On May 24, 9:06 am, DeserTBoB > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:40:33 GMT, "CCC" > wrote:
> >I don't fall on either side of the arguement, but I thought Toyota took over
> >a GM plant in California, used the same UAW workers and made it profitable.
> >I have always though management structure was a bigger problem than the
> >unions. <snip>
>
> The problem has always been bad management. Study after study has
> found that labor isn't the problem, despite what all the right-handed
> wing nuts on Usenet say. The Toyota-GM Fremont, CA plant was
> successful with UAW labor having the same contract as the other
> plants, but GM's faulty management structure and processes were
> banned. Toyota simply refuses to stop fighting the UAW in other US
> plants because they've learned from US corporate assholes how to be
> greedy. Since US labor laws are the weakest among all industrialized
> nations, they simply take advantage of that fact.
>
> The case that proves this is the GM Van Nuys, CA plant, now bulldozed
> and a shopping center. GM management there was among the worst, and
> labor responded accordingly. The place was a friggin' disaster for
> decades. Rather than take Fremont as a model and further cede their
> failed management practices, GM simply closed and bulldozed the plant.
>
> Case closed. Right wing nuts defeated once again.

That's sad to hear. I had a childhood friend who's father worked at
the Van Nuys plant. I also had a 1964 Chevelle Wagon that had been
assembled there.

-KM

On 24 May 2007 10:09:25 -0700, wrote:

>On May 24, 9:06 am, DeserTBoB > wrote:

>That's sad to hear. I had a childhood friend who's father worked at
>the Van Nuys plant. I also had a 1964 Chevelle Wagon that had been
>assembled there. <snip>

Van Nuys was built in 1946 as part of Al Sloan's "replace transit with
cars" campaign, in which GM gobbled up and shut down transit
operations, notably electric streetcar operations, all over the US and
Canada. At the time, GM was already getting the Key System in the Bay
Area disassembled and replaced with GM Coaches, and had their sights
on Pacific Electric in LA, and the Fremont and Van Nuys plants were
supposed to sell Chevies to all those who formerly rode street cars in
those areas.

Originally, Van Nuys was dedicated to Chevrolet production only, as
the huge neon "bow tie" sign on top of the assembly building
proclaimed. Higher end cars, such as the Pontiacs, Buicks and
Oldsmobiles, were built at the nearby South Gate plant on a rotating
basis....one week Oldses, one week Buicks, etc. Cadillacs still only
came from Lansing at that time. Later, during the "Roger Rabbit" era,
the Van Nuys plant was folded into GM Canada's operations, and made
only Camaros and Firebirds starting with the "new" '79 year model.
Just before that, Van Nuys was the assembly plant for Chevy's best
seller in California, the Malibus, including the SS variants.

GM lower and middle management at Van Nuys and South Gate were some of
the worst, most incompetent anywhere in the corporation, and UAW
simply reacted as they should to protect their membership. After many
tries at getting GM to save Van Nuys (South Gate was gone by the '70s)
by offering "collaborative" work rule deals, GM simply hosed it all
off and bulldozed the plant rather than concede any power. The real
shame was that the plant, a state-of-the-art facility in '46, was
built to an "open" floor plan and could have assembled any number of
vehicle types. GM simply strung the UAW along until it was ready for
the unsuccessful "new" Cramaro/Fireturd series to be built in
Youngstown using Buick V6s on a much-belated new platform. The F car
platform that GM was cranking out until the end of the '92 run had
been around, essentially unchanged, since 1979!

The local economy after the GM closure, which nearly coincided with
the Lockheed plant closings in nearby Burbank, was decimated, as tens
of thousands of well paying jobs evaporated overnight, causing a
record tanking of the real estate market around both plants. The San
Fernando Valley has never recovered from the loss, and all those lower
budget houses and apartments that formerly housed UAW and IAM plant
workers and their families are now chock full of illegal aliens.

Thanks, GM. Hope you go bankrupt.

DeserTBoB wrote:

> On 23 May 2007 12:56:37 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers will perform
> >different building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>
>
> It's the MANAGEMENT, stupid.

It's the health care costs. And union contracts that pay the same wage to
janitors and skilled workers is dumb.

"Detroit draws on the same talent pool as the rest of global industry, and
must pay a competitive wage. Its executives are no more overpaid or
incompetent than anybody else's. Nor is it necessary to rub its face in
the superiority of the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. No car company could
humanly hope to compete in the basic sedan segment with a deadweight cost
disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit would be foolish to
try." - Excerpt from Same Article

DeserTBoB wrote:

> Thanks, GM. Hope you go bankrupt.

I'm sure GM's current UAW employees appreciate your sentiment. Screw 'em
all, right brother?

In article >, Fred > wrote:

> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> > On 23 May 2007 12:56:37 -0700, wrote:
> >
> > >Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers will perform
> > >different building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>
> >
> > It's the MANAGEMENT, stupid.
>
> It's the health care costs. And union contracts that pay the same wage to
> janitors and skilled workers is dumb.
>
> "Detroit draws on the same talent pool as the rest of global industry, and
> must pay a competitive wage. Its executives are no more overpaid or
> incompetent than anybody else's. Nor is it necessary to rub its face in
> the superiority of the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. No car company could
> humanly hope to compete in the basic sedan segment with a deadweight cost
> disadvantage of thousands of dollars per car. Detroit would be foolish to
> try." - Excerpt from Same Article

Management are responsible for the agreements causing high costs.

"who" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fred > wrote:
>
>> DeserTBoB wrote:
>>
>> > On 23 May 2007 12:56:37 -0700, wrote:
>> >
>> > >Sir, please be kind to notice that the same UAW workers will perform
>> > >different building chryslers vs. toyotas...hehe <snip>
>> >
>> > It's the MANAGEMENT, stupid.
>>
>> It's the health care costs. And union contracts that pay the same wage
>> to
>> janitors and skilled workers is dumb.
>>
You need to remember here that the reason legacy costs hurt is that there's
shrinkage instead of growth. If the company grows today, then the amount of
retiree cost per car is smaller today. If the company shrinks, then the
cost goes up, and the company has more and more difficulty competing. In
Ford's case, the shrinkage is getting to be pretty painful. Even if the Big
3 stayed the same size, Toyota's growth still helps Toyota work at an
advantage.