GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Hi, guys. I've been lurking around these boards for a while, and when I came across this thread, it really burned me to see what people's opinions are about the UAW (and, to an extent, the CAW).

You wonder why the workers and the union won't accept concessions? It's because upper management and CEO's won't take them. The day the president of General Motors decides to take a cut in pay, then I'm sure the union would consider it for their workers.

What the union has done for the autoworkers is made them part of the company. Long gone are the days when a company would hire a bunch of young guys off the street, work them 'till they break, then dump them for some fresh new young men. Now, the company is committed to those people who are the lifeblood and the backbone of the company. When the company profits, so do the workers.

If you think you'd somehow get better quality if GM used cheap, disposable labour, you're sadly mistaken. History has shown that the only thing they'd use that money for is to fatten their profit margin. The only reason why they budget money for R&D is to stay competitive...they'd get killed if they didn't. Whatever money they'll spend on R&D is going to be the same, no matter how much or little they're spending on their labour force.

There was a time back in the early 80's when the UAW did accept concessions, and it proved to be a big mistake. I suggest you people give Bob White's My Life on the Line a good read to get a more educated view on why concessions don't work to help a company.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by stewacide@May 22 2004, 09:46 PM
Dodge Driver obviously has no idea how the market economy works. How can a company dump savings into its profit margin if its competitors put those savings into lower prices and/or superior products? (hint: they can't).

No, those lazy, overpaid UAW/CAW workers make us all poorer through higher prices and inferior products. NOBODY should be paid full wages to sit on their asses for years when they could be working and actually contributing something to society!

As is the Big Three are being forced to compete on a unlevel basis, and again anyone who knows the first thing about economics will tell you that isn't sustainable. The global automotive industry is actually one of the most effecient, competative, and ever-progressing there is, and nobody's guaranteed a free ride: auto companies lose money nearly as often as they make it.

This is a classic example of stealing from the poor masses to further enrich the lucky few (union workers in this case).
Clearly, you have no idea how the automobile industry works.

When a product (car) fails in the marketplace, is that the fault of the unionized workers? Hardly; they're just building the car as they are directed to. When that same product (car) fails, do the engineers that designed it, or the upper management responsible for the car, get laid off? No they do not. Does the president of General Motors take a pay cut when some of their products are failing? Hardly.

Why should the workers who are the backbone and the bloodline of the company have to take concessions when nobody else is? What the union does is it forces General Motors to remain productive and keep it's workers working. You might notice how those laid-off Saturn workers are going to be recalled to build the new Solstice. As long as GM has to keep paying them, you know they're going to get them back into the plant as soon as possible...and that's good for the workers, the economy, and the company.

Even if all the unionized workers accepted a pay cut by half and didn't get paid while laid off, are you really that naive to think that the money saved would result in lower prices and superior products? Hardly. In fact, the quality of the products is likely to drop, while the company fattens it's coffers. Once again, I suggest you give Bob White's "My life on the line" a read so that perhaps you could produce an educated response next time.

Do bear in mind that General Motors is making some of the highest quality products in the world today and are making very healthy products in spite of the union. I cite the Union-built Impala as one of the best cars you can get in it's class for the money. Gee, I wonder why that is?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by Ming@May 22 2004, 09:56 PM
All the more reason to buy an Aveo and make those UAW bosses sweat in negotiations. ;)
I have to say, I like the Korean-built Aveo. It's a nice little hatchback, though butt-ugly in sedan form. I should point out that this non-union company called Daewoo with a global market went under while companies supposedly "Hobbled" by a unionized workforce are still thriving today, raking in healthy profits. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
When a car is successful, that has a lot to do with the workers. The reason why cars like the Impala are so successful is because the workers building it are dedicated to quality. When you pay your workers a sub-standard wage and have a revolving door policy, quality suffers as a result. The marketing staff can only do so much; if the car is a piece of crap, all the marketing in the world isn't going to help it. The guys on the line are the ones who can make a difference between a piece of crap and a good car, and GM frequently picks the brains of the line workers and compensates them for their ideas with their "Ideas for excellence" program.

A lot of those line workers are just as committed to the company as the corporate big-wigs...in some cases, even more. The skilled labour force has just as much, if not more, committed to education than the corporate big-wigs. When a big corporate guy wants to make cuts that will affect quality, it's the union worker who steps in and tells them so, without fear of getting canned because of the protection offered by the union.

The reality is, when a company isn't doing well with the cars it's making, does the president take a pay cut? Do any of the corporate VIP's or CEO's take cuts in their HUGE salaries? No they do not. Then why do they expect that of their workforce, which is the backbone of the company? Politicians, doctors, lawyers...examples of others who won't take concessions. The union only wants its members to be treated fairly. As long as the president of General Motors is making a ridiculously large salary and not taking concessions, nobody should expect anything different from the people actually building the cars. And those workers are entitled to share in the company's success because they're the ones that are producing that high-quality product like the Impala, Grand Prix, and the Regal.

What GM has done in response is very smart. They treat their labour force as an investment. They never over-hire so they can lay off later; instead, they hire what they need, and keep new designs like the Solstice coming so they can keep their labour investment working.

Anyone who thinks that unions have outlived their usefulness in developed countries aren't tuned in to the realities that labour faces today and are truly naive. We need unions today more than any other time. You have companies like Wal-Mart raking in record profits, yet they still continue to pay their work force a sub-standard wage. A lot of non-union places turn into sweat shops, where people are expected to work overtime without compensation...and if you're not willing to work the overtime, they'll lay you off and hire someone who will. Then you have places like the domestic Honda factories, which does pay it's workers a decent wage and treat them right...but that's because they can hear the union knocking at the door. All the workers at GM, Ford and Chrysler are effectively paying the union dues for the workers in the Honda and Nissan plants.

I've been there and seen it first hand. In the IT industry, I worked for a company that was non-union (most are non-union). The company had just increased what they charge for their services, citing the increased cost of doing business. The customers were still getting the same service, but paying more. When I went in for a raise, citing the increased cost of living, my boss laughed and said, "What do you think this is, General Motors?" They expected me to give them more, even though they expected their customers to pay more for the same. Eventually, I won and got my raise...which was eaten up by courses I had to take. The following year, I was laid off indefinitely with some Russian immigrant taking my place making half of what they paid me. Of course, quality suffered badly because he didn't have near the experience that I had. I was glad to be out, though...the place really was turning into a sweat shop, with salaried workers putting in long hours and taking their work home with them to make big profits for the people not doing nearly the same amount of work.

I have to say, I am amazed at the level of uneducated opinion that goes with the anti-union sentiment here. It must be all about corporate profits to you people. Clearly, the benefits the union has on the local economy is lost on you guys...you'd rather corporations be allowed to lock up their money while whole communities slip into states of depression, allowing those companies to hire people back, desparate to work, at a substandard rate...the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, we're back to the 1930's and the great depression again.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by stewacide@May 23 2004, 04:43 PM
Having experienced, dedicated workers and low turnover is indeed an advantage, and something smart companies will ensure by paying decent wages regardless. They don't need unions to tell them this.

However locking in employees through unions and promoteing and retaining on seniority alone doesn't make any allowances for how good a worker is.

And if companies are forceing workers to work unpaid overtime or are otherwise brakeing labour laws call the labour board! They will be all over their ***. Being a student and knowing many people who also work low wage, entry-level jobs we all are very wel aware of our rights under the law and won't let employers get away with ignoreing them.

Fundamentally the unions have served their purpose. In the late-1800s and early-1900s they were the ones largely who pushed for worker protection under the law and for a strong social safety net. Now that we have both those things haven't the unions outlived their purpose?
Having seniority means that the more time of your life you've committed to the company, the more choices you have in the jobs you can do. Granted, if you're not capable of performing a certain job, you won't be doing it...but seniority, especially in the unskilled labour force, is a great incentive. You know you won't get stuck on the same job for the next 30 years; you get to move up, get some variety, and get a better understanding how the process works.

Unpaid overtime happens all the time with salaried employees, and there's nothing the labour board can do about it. It's rampant in the Information Technology industry, where people are expected to take their work home with them, come in extra early and stay a little late. If you don't, you get laid off and they'll hire someone who can.

Go and ask your typical Wal-Mart employee if unions are a thing of the past and have outlived their purpose. I'm sure some will agree with you, but the ones sick and tired of getting a sub-standard rate of pay while their company is posting record profits year after year will tell you they can't wait until they get organized.

The sad fact of the matter is, most large corporations are driven purely by profit and will do everything possible to maximize those profits, even if it means making only a penny more. The long-term advantage to having experienced, dedicated workers is lost on board members who are only interested in maximizing the quarterly reports and maximizing the return on investment for their shareholders. They soon forget about the people who are making those profits possible. What the union does is say, "Excuse me, but while you're celebrating and buying corporate jets and such, our guys and girls are looking for an extra couple of bucks so they can afford to keep paying for gas to drive to work." Without a union, the complaining employees are told to get stuffed and are easily replaced...but with a union, the workers can stand together and demand their fair share or else the profit-making machine gets shut down. The union effectively levels the playing field a little better.

This means that what the guys at GM are getting in benefits were negotiated, they're part of the worker's fair share of GM's success over the years. And make no mistake about it; in spite of the loss in market share during the late 70's and early 80's, GM has been and continues to be a very successful and profitable business. What you see the guys at Saturn getting now comes from the many years of hard work that they put in. Most people working in an office today woudn't be able to keep pace with what an assembly line worker has to do. Consider a 45 second cycle time with a job loaded up so you're basically on your feet running around all day long. Imagine loading up 4 or 5 stations with razor-sharp metal in under 45 seconds, for 8 hours a day, and no air conditioning. That's what many of them have to do for years before they can move up to a better job. GM runs it's operations very lean as it is, as each worker's job gets loaded up with more and more work. They certainly have earned the paid time off they'll get with the layoff, and it won't even put a dent in GM's profits. Paying 872 workers while they're laid off is a pittance for this corporate giant who'll get it back out of them when they have them building the Solstice.

Without a union, a company like GM is going to be controlled by the shareholders. Shareholders that are only interested in maximizing profits with no regards for the social implecations of their choices. You can bet it's in their best interest to get the union out, and to brainwash people into believing that unions are a thing of the past. One thing is certain; eliminate the unions, and you can expect another great depression as the workers get laid off, companies lock down their profits, and then hire everyone back at a fraction of the wage they used to pay. It would turn America back into a 3rd world country, and the workers - those most entitled to share in the profits - will get screwed out of their share again and again.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by stewacide@May 23 2004, 05:13 PM
Are these workers not entitles to standard unemployment insurance and benefits just like everyone else? Are they not able to put money aside for hard times? (especially at their crazy wages!) Are they incapable ot finding/createing new jobs for themselves?

Can you imagine if everyone was entitled to these kind of insane benefit programs? Nobody would have any incentive to work!
The money these guys are getting while laid off, they're entitled to it and it's not coming out of GM's profits that they're making today. It's something that the company pays into (a sub fund) while the workers are working (instead of giving all the money the workers are entitled to at once), so it actually works out to the company's advantage to lay off workers once in a while to deplete that sub. To put it another way, this is something the workers have been earning over the past good number of years while they've been at their jobs. The money is already there, regardless of how GM is performing today. It was a negotiated benefit that the Union felt was better than simply another pay raise for socio-economic reasons.

So yes, they are putting money away for hard times. They're just not actively doing it themselves; the money goes to a sub fund for them, thanks to their foreward-thinking union. It's a win-win situation, not just for the workers and GM, but also for the businesses that rely on those workers and their money. If GM wasn't as successful as they are, that money simply wouldn't be there.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by jfnz24@May 24 2004, 05:07 PM
The plant workers should be kissing every GM managers behind because in the real world, layoffs while being paid just don't happen. I work in a steel mill that supplies GM their product, and each and every time that I was laid-off, I DIDN'T GET A PENNY. I have worked for 3 different companies due to the declining steel industry in the US, and I cannot remember getting more than one month's severance when a plant closed or layoff was conducted. This is the very reason that GM has problems with supplying good products. They are paying their people regardless of the outcome, offering no incentive to provide a great product. The workers know that they will get paid regardless of the job they do. If they had to fight for their jobs, and by this I mean build a superior product, they deserve to be compensated rightly. However, poor product, in this case the Saturn L series, is not all managements/engineerings fault. They build the product, and if it was built to a higher standard, we would have a success on our hands. That is what the economy is like today. I agree it wasn't always this way, but it is now.

Instead of GM sending good money after bad, cut the losses, pay the severance, and be done with it. Learn for the future. One cannot be competitive with others if most of your money is tied up in salaries instead of the product. It is also why GM has killed cars liked the Camaro and Firebird. These products were good products, but not at the prices charged. Bring the price down, and more people would've bought them. They weren't the most up to date vehicles, so don't price them like they are.
You still don't get it, do you? I'll try one more time.

These workers are being payed out of a SUB fund. This fund was paid into by General Motors while these workers were working their butts off, building good cars and making the company very good profits. It's a negotiated benefit; instead of just getting a pay raise, some of that money they otherwise should've been earning goes into SUB. So the money they're getting today while laid off isn't coming out of the money GM is making today; it's money they've already earned a long time ago. It's the same concept as putting money away in case of hard times, except it's automatically done for them for socio-economic reasons.

The plant managers should be kissing the line worker's asses, because it's those workers that actually build the product that sells and pays them their salary. The workers can thank their foreward-looking union for coming up with something as innovative as SUB unemployment.

You want to know what the incentive is to get off their butts and get to work? As soon as GM has work for them to do, they have to come in and start producing again...running that 45 second cycle time...or else they won't get anything. Even if they have to relocate to another city to work in another plant. And then the SUB fund is replenished once again.

Now, repeat after me...the workers aren't being paid out of the company's own pockets, they're being paid out of a SUB fund to which they're entitled to. I hope this clears things up.

You over-simplify the problems with the Camaro and Firebird. People just weren't buying them like they used to. Insurance cost far too much, they weren't exactly economical, and they aren't very practical to own for most people. When a company sells fewer products, the cost of each product goes up...such is the way things work in mass production. This is why sports cars from other companies tend to share platforms, so something like an Acura Integra Type R costs less because it's based on the same platform as other Acura Integra's, which themselves share the same platform as the Civic. The Camaro and Firebird didn't share platforms with a mass-produced counterpart. That's why they died, and if they ever come back, they'll be on a shared platform with some other car.

As for Azteks, they are well-built automobiles. It's too bad the styling is too advanced for most people to accept.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by Hudson@May 24 2004, 07:30 PM
This hardly clears ANYTHING up. You say that GM pays into a fund...then you say that the money doesn't come out of GM's pockets? If GM pays into the fund, it comes out of their pockets.

And if this money didn't go into this fund, would GM hire MORE workers when times are good? Would GM have provided the existing workers better raises? Could the workers have invested the money from this fund for themselves for bad times...retirement...college funds? I don't really see how the union has made their jobs much better in the past couple of decades. The union has, however, hampered progress by preventing factories from using newer techniques (which might have used fewer workers or provided better quality) that could have made the products more competitive thus generating more "good times" and fewer "bad times" at the factory.
Guess where the money comes from that pays into that fund? That's right, the sale of the cars that the workers build...and they built and sold a LOT of Saturns. It could've gone straight into their salary, but for some reason, the Union and the company feel it's better to have a SUB fund. Who are you to say the workers shouldn't be entitled to this benefit? On what do you base this presumption?

I'll bet you'd like to see GM plunder the worker's retirement benefits as well, wouldn't you? Because that's about the same thing as saying they should be able to plunder or eliminate the SUB fund. Funny thing is, a lot of workers do go back to school while collecting SUB and unemployment. Often, those workers study a skilled trade and come back to GM as a skilled tradesman. Do you think they'd do this if it wasn't for the SUB fund?

You guys don't get it that there's more to life than corporate profits and boosting company stock for the shareholders. The funny thing is, what do you think happens to that SUB money during good times? It's making interest. Just like a retirement fund. It's the worker's fair share for doing their part, yet the company makes a lot just from the interest on that money alone year after year they don't need to use it.

If you think that letting GM plunder the SUB and retirement funds of it's workers will lead to more workers getting hired and better vehicles, you are very naive. History has shown us that that money will simply go to their own bottom line. GM doesn't spend money unless it has to. Recent developments in it's product line as well as records showing it's profits (that's money the company earns after it's paid all the workers and their benefits) demonstrates how successful General Motors really is. The fact that their board members are getting multi-million dollar salaries is further proof that these programs like SUB and retirement aren't exactly hurting this company. They have the money and resources to further improve their products, but they'll only do so if it's absolutely necessary to sell a car.

The Union-built products GM is building today are all very competitive. As far as quality is concerned, they're giving the likes of Toyota a run for their money. Each car in it's class tends to be the best price and is laden with features...giving consumers a tremendous bang for their buck. You get the best fuel economy in a GM car where it counts (minivans and family sedans), and the power these cars deliver is more than enough. If they were allowed to rip off the assembly line workers by robbing them of SUB, then maybe you'll see bigger corporate jets or corporate yachts...but you aren't going to see any significant change in the cars they build.

The secret to their recent successes is they've learned to work with the union instead of against them. They've come to realize that the Union is simply a representative of the workers as a collective. Treat your workers like one of your shareholders, and the results...well, I think products like the Grand Prix and Impala speak for themselves. You have to spend thousands more to get the performance of a Grand Prix GTP in it's class.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by stewacide@May 24 2004, 08:11 PM
Exactly. It's not even the huge hourly wages that are strangleing the Big Three (the Europeans and Japanese pay similar wages without unions), but rather the insane benefit programs. Getting paid to sit on your *** for years at a time is simply unjustifiable - case closed. No matter how you slice it that money is coming out of GMs bank account, whether the workers "earned" it or not.

Even more insane are the healthcare benefits provided at MASSIVE expense. In fact I'm pretty sure the #1 component cost of every Big Three automobile is retiree healthcare!!! The Big Three in fact have lately been calling for national single-payer healthcare as the only solution if the US is to stay competative (healthcare cost inflation is running at insane levels in the US, and has been for many years, and it will only get worse as the baby boomers start to retire and get sick).

Big Business in the US can simply no longer keep subsidizing extravagent living and especially extravagent healthcare spending, and now the government is having to help out. Look at the MASSIVE US federal and state defecits, the MASSIVE US trade defecit, and the MASSIVE personal debt. The US standard of living is simply not sustainable. If I was an investor or the CEO of a multinational I wouldn't invest a cent in the US untill they get their problems sorted out.
Using your logic then, the workers also shouldn't have a retirement benefit plan, right? And never mind that the worker's health was probably compromised from working the past 30 years breathing in fumes from the welders and the painting process, might as well yank the healthcare benefits as well, right? Forget about corporate responsibility, it's all about maximizing profits, people are just another disposable resource, eh? When the workers break, just replace 'em and keep on pumping out flashy cars for the masses. I guess the workers have no right to share in the success of the company as far as you're concerned.

You seem to conveniently overlook the fact that the money going into GM's bank account comes directly from the products these workers are building, and as such are entitled to these benefits no matter what uneducated opinion you may have.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by stewacide@May 24 2004, 10:46 PM
Workers should be free to save all the money they want, but this "SUB fund" sounds completely open-ended and not tied to the income a worker deffers (do instead of making $40 an hour they're making $35 with $5 going to some fund? Yeah, that makes it more reasonable :rolleyes:).

And the problem with retiree healthcare benefits is that they're also completely open-ended. When they were promised nobody anticipated how expensive healthcare would be in the 21st century. There's no incentive not to use as much as possible.

And since when were workers entitled to a share? That's called communism, and it doesn't work because the incentives are all screwed up. Correctly companies should work for their shareholders only and should have only one motive: profit. It's advances in effeciency because of cut-throat competition which is responsible for our ever-advanceing standard of living. If you're not making the pie bigger you're not doing anything. The unions, however, actually make the wealth pie SMALLER in many cases by lowering effeciency, all the while cutting themselves a bigger slice at everyone else's expense.

It's not my logic, it's the logic of every competent economist alive.
But you see, Stewie, that's the thing about benefits. They're always open-ended. When you have a dental plan, some people are going to have more cavities and need more dental work; others will have perfectly fine teeth and not need to use it as much. When you have an optical plan, some people will need heavy-duty eye glasses, others have perfect 20/20 vision and don't need it. What you're saying is there's no incentive to not ruin your eyesight or wreck your teeth to take full advantage of a benefit, which is absurd.

The problem with your line of thinking is it's pure capitalism. A pure capitalist will rape the land, exploit the people, and leave destruction in his (or her) path, all for the sakes of profit. People become a disposable commodity as the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. There's no accountability. Whole communities end up drinking poisoned water and breathing poisoned air, and young men are worked into cripples while still at a relatively young age. Companies are free to lay off their workforce and hire them back at half the rate and no benefits, but there's no good economic reason for them to lower their prices or spend that money on making the products better. Advances in efficiency translates to cutting corners as products become cheaper so that the new working poor can afford it. Eventually, all the manufacturing jobs get moved offshore to countries where they can have children build their products for pennies a day. If you want a good example of the end result of pure capitalism, the great depression of the 1930's is a good example. Pure capitalism is simply not sustainable in the long run, because hardly anyone will be able to afford that standard of living you speak of.

Workers are entitled to their fare share of a company's success when they demand it. No, they don't have the money to invest into the company like the shareholders do...they invest something worth more: their lives. When a company is successful, that success is built on the backs of their labour force. The union is the voice of that labour force demanding their fair share. When the workers organize, they can collectively demonstrate just how important they are to the company's success.

Any competent economist knows that what you really need for a sustainable democratic economy is a balance between capitalism and socialism (what you confuse with communism). The Union is the socialist balance to the General's capitalist's ways. Companies either become smart and share their successes with their workers to keep the union out, or the workers eventually organize and demand it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that...the bottom line. GM is still reporting very healthy profits year after year, which is contrary to your contention that the Union is sucking the company dry. Of course, it's not in the union's best interest to kill a company, only to make sure that their members are treated and paid fairly.

And so, we come back to the Saturn layoffs and the contention that this is the fault of the Union. The workers are laid off because people aren't buying the Saturn like they used to. I wonder why that is? Is the presence of the union hindering advances in the technology in the Saturn line? They're being constructed out of a dent-resistent high-tech polymer that has the car looking just as good 10 years old as it does new, whereas even some of the most advanced imported cars are still using old fashioned sheet metal. These Saturns come with a very sophisticated twin cam, all-aluminum 2.2L engine in the base models, and the pricing is competitive with cars in it's class. Clearly, these Saturns are sophisticated, modern automobiles...so why aren't people buying them as much? Quite simply because people don't buy station wagons that much these days. That's right, the L300 wagon is the one that's being discontinued, simply because the market demand for this kind of vehicle just isn't there. It has nothing to do with the union or worker benefits.

So now, the workers are getting SUB, money built up from a day when these Saturns were more popular. They basically get a little vacation and well-deserved time off the line until GM places them in another plant...and if they don't go, they no longer receive this benefit. Seems fair enough to me.

Maybe you're just jealous that GM workers seem to have it better than you; I see no other logical reason why you would be so set against the workers receiving negotiated benefits they are entitled to while GM is reporting very healthy profits and producing very competitive products.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by paul8488+May 25 2004, 08:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul8488 @ May 25 2004, 08:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dodge Drivin' Paul@May 25 2004, 08:47 PM
They basically get a little vacation and well-deserved time off the line until GM places them in another plant...and if they don't go, they no longer receive this benefit.  Seems fair enough to me.
i don't know about anyone else... but you had me up to "well-deserved"! why do they 'deserve' this time off? if the L-series was selling like crazy and the plant was running full steam, would you say they should stop because they all deserve a break? these workers make a very good wage building cars, and i'll assume have vacation time in their agreement. otherwise i can understand what you're saying... but "well-deserved" doesn't sit right. [/b][/quote]
Clearly, you are ignorant to what these people have to do 8 hours a day, 5 days a week; otherwise, you would not make such an asinine comment. It sure ain't sitting at a desk posing to internet forums all day. :rolleyes:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Originally posted by stewacide@May 25 2004, 11:49 PM
Since when was 8 hours a day, 5 days a week a big deal? It's called a FULL TIME JOB!
It's what they do in that time. Like I mentioned, they don't exactly have time to post to internet forums while they're on the job...they don't even have time to stop and scratch their butts. Never judge another man until you've walked a mile in his shoes...which should take less than an hour for a typical assembly line job in a GM factory.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
Okay, let's set the record straight.

First off, nobody's asking for sympathy for these workers, so you can get off your high horse right now if you want to say how unsympathetic you are. Nobody asked, and nobody cares that you don't.

The problem is people who don't feel the workers are entitled to their SUB when they're laid off. That's like saying retirees aren't entitled to their pension. SUB is something that's paid into when the cars are selling and GM's making a healthy profit from them. Sure, the SUB fund, along with the retirement fund, the benefits, and the worker's wages, are all coming from the company profits...so are the multi-million dollar salaries of the president and board of directors. Sure, you could eliminate worker benefits, and you could also cut those multi-million dollar salaries considerably...but either act isn't going to result in a better Saturn station wagon when people aren't buying station wagons. The workers, along with the president and board of directors, are all sharing in the company's success. The only ones that would benefit from cutting worker benefits would be the shareholders. The cars aren't going to change, because, overall, they are competitive as they are. There aren't any station wagons in the Saturn wagon's class that are better.

The workers on the line work hard to make GM profitable these days. Some of you are stuck back in the old days when GM was losing market share to the Japanese, and yes, the line jobs may not have been so demanding...but anyone who has walked along the assembly line watching the workers do their thing all day long will realize that these guys (and women) really do earn what they make and deserve any time they get off the line. You'll notice that none of them have the time to waste posting in these forums like some of us do to defend themselves.

When quality is good in a product, that has everything to do with the workers. When a product fails in spite of being of very good quality (as is the case with the Saturn wagon), that is clearly out of the hands of the workers. In this case, that would have more to do with the engineers that failed to update the car's appearances in a manner that would appeal to the buying public. It also has to do with the fact that people aren't buying station wagons like they used to, and GM probably realized this, which is probably why they didn't bother to do much to update it.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top