Quote:
Originally Posted by wingfoot321  My history tells me that American companies quit taking strikes around 1975 due to foreign competition and therefore losing market share. We have gone approximately 30 years with the boardrooms giving the UAW whatever they were willing to fight for. (this is not just the auto companies, it is nearly every major co) |
OK, I've stayed out of this as long as I can. I can't believe how many can't see any reason to help the domestic automakers that are suffering as a result of the credit crisis, yet I don't see the same angst at the $700 billion bailout of the financial institutions that pushed the automakers over the edge. Is that because their 401k's were saved by the financial bailout?
You know, it is amazing how many see no problem offering uneducated opinons here. The above quote is just one of them. I have personally lived thru UAW strikes in the last few years that cost General Motors billions of dollars in profits in a matter of weeks. Don't think that both sides haven't fought hard. Just because you can't remember them does not mean they did not happen. Sorry, didn't mean to single you out, but your comment was just a good lead in to my message. There is no way for me to directly address all of the misinformation being spouted in this thread.
All of you far removed from the midwest and the auto companies themselves really have no idea what is going on within the companies. I do and so do several others that have tried to make points in this thread. From here I'll restrict my comments to GM because I work for the company, but similar comments could be made about Ford and to a lesser extent Chrysler, I'm sure.
At GM significant changes have been going on internally for over 10 years. GM has been and continues getting leaner and more productive on many levels. The changes have been unprecidented in the 100 year history of the corporation. General Motors products are gaining market share and are looked upon favorably in all markets
EXCEPT North America. Why is that?
Yeah, many people here did purchase a bad GM product in the 1970's, or 1980's or 1990's (we understand that), but it gets tiring that they have no problem repeating their miseries over and over again to anyone who might listen, while ignoring the significant quality and styling improvements that have been made in the last decade and a half - I'd say the GM renaissance started in the mid 1990's, but has been most obvious in the last 5 to 8 years. Many GM products are now getting glowing reviews from the critics these days - Chevy Malibu, Cadillac CTS, Saturn Aura, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, etc. That wasn't happening 5 years ago.
And in another area of rampant misinformation, as a whole, GM products get equivalent or better fuel mileage compared to competitive brands on a model to model basis, with over 30 models with 30+ highway mpg. It is the customers, however, that have chosen to mainly purchase GM larger vehicles, which leads to the perception that GM does not make fuel efficient vehicles.
As for hybrids, yes GM was later to the party than Toyota and Honda, but they now offer more hybrid models than those companies and the 2-mode hybrid system on the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade and soon Silverado/Sierra is an amazing system - I have driven one and seen the benefits. There are more hybrids coming out soon, including the Volt, which is more of an electric vehicle than a hybrid. The Volt concept of a fully electric vehicle (for the first 40 miles) that does not suffer from the range restrictions of past electric vehicles is a true game changer.
I wish people like Alabama Senator Richard Shelby wouldn't spread his mis-information so strongly calling GM and the other domestics dinosaurs that don't know how to innovate. I fully believe he knows better, but he has an ulterior motive. What he is hiding is the 5 foreign owned assembly plants in his state that would benefit from one or more of the domestic auto makers going out of business.
I could go on about leveling the playing field with Japan regarding currency manipulation and import tariff inequities, but that would just illustrate ways that our government has contributed to the mess we are in relative to the foreign automakers. Or I could comment how stable fuel prices would have made public buying habits easier to predict and design for. I have said all along that raising the fuel tax would have done much more to improve fuel economy by way of altering customer buying habits than any artificial CAFE target ever did. Still GM was overcoming all of those issues until the credit crisis hit.
And I could go on about how this issue is bigger than just the big three. Any failure of one of these companies will cost the U.S. more than a $25 billion loan in the long run due to ripple effects to already strapped suppliers and other other auto companies they support. And then there are the dealers, and all of the shops and restaurants and other businesses that support the autoworkers and dealer personnel. The loss to GNP and the tax base would be huge, with many of those losing their jobs putting more strain on hte Medicare and unemprolment systems. Government revenue would go down and government payments would go up. The risks are truly staggering. But I think I've said enough on that for now.
Believe m, the last thing I want is any government money or oversight for GM, but in light of the current credit crisis a government loan appears to be the only option. From what I have seen inside the company, there is no reason GM should not be viable in the long term as soon as consumer confidence and the ability to get credit is restored.
And let me say, that I am not a 100% rah rah supporter for GM. I am not blind to reality. I truely believe GM has the stuff to succeed, but to say that they never made a bad product or a bad business decision would not be truthful. But then there is no auto company or any company in any other business that hasn't made mistakes. Toyota quality has slipped in recent years as they expanded too fast and now they are back tracking on plant expansions they were making to expand their presense in the full size truck market. That is not to say Toyota is a bad company, just that as they get bigger they will have more opportinities to experience some of the same issues GM has experienced in the past.
I'll just close with this. With the critics now extolling the vitues of most new GM products, even ranking them above Toyota and Honda sometimes, all we need is the time for public perception and buying habits to catch up. A government loan would help buy us the time for this to happen.
Thanks for listening.