GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
MORAINE — Officers of the union at General Motors Corp.'s local plant are expressing anger at the pace of contract talks with the automaker.

GM delayed talks that had been scheduled to resume last week, say officers of the International Union of Electronic Workers-Communication Workers of America Local 798, which represents some 2,000 workers at GM's sports utility vehicle assembly plant on Stroop Road. And those officers are not certain when talks will resume again.

"We should actually be meeting with them right now," Gaylen Turner, IUE-CWA 798 president, said Wednesday Aug. 13.

Union leaders note that talks began in October 2007 — nearly a year ago. And they contend that GM has a responsibility to expedite negotiations, especially after announcing in June that production at the Moraine plant will end by 2010 or earlier.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/b/content/oh/story/business/2008/08/13/ddn081308gmupdateweb.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Also From the IUE-CWA 798 Website statement.

This morning (August 13, 2008) we met with Tom Gnau from the Dayton Daily News regarding to our situation from our tentative National Agreement. The following statement was released.





In 2006 General Motors requested the Union to reopen our local labor agreement to make Moraine Assembly more competitive in the automotive industry. Local 798 recognized the fact that GM was at a competitive disadvantage and overwhelmingly ratified one of the most cost effective agreements in the Corporation. The Local Agreement included the outsourcing of some 180 non-core production jobs, outsourcing of skilled trades work and allowed the company the ability to work an alternative schedule of 2 shifts at 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, with no overtime, plus many other work rule changes and concessions to allow for a more flexible workforce. In exchange for these concessions, the Union was presented a letter of intent for future product allocation from the Corporation.

After the implementation of these competitive changes Moraine Assembly was not awarded a future product.

In October 2007 the IUE-CWA, along with the Local 798 Bargaining Committee, engaged in National Bargaining. The Corporations desires, in the opening discussions, were to be competitive with the foreign automakers. Once again, the IUE-CWA recognized the need to be pro-active and not just meet but exceed the foreign competition to ensure a future for our workforce, retirees, area businesses, and the surrounding communities.

In March 2008, the Union presented the Company an agreement that exceeded their expectations. Their response to this proposal was that this agreement had a major “wow” factor according to their own calculations. This tentative National Agreement includes a major wage and benefits restructuring package that is below North America standards both foreign and domestic.

On June 3rd, 2008, General Motors announced the closing of the Moraine Assembly Plant. Since this announcement the Local IUE-CWA negotiators and our members’ patience has been tested with the unwillingness of the Company to move forward with ratification of our current tentative agreement. We feel this membership deserves the same opportunities that were afforded to those of other closed facilities. We further expect General Motors to give the same dignity and respect to our members that we have given to the Company for the past 26 years.





Statement from John Harlow and the Local 798
Bargaining Committee.
http://iuecwa798.com/pressrelease.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
IMO We have an agreement that UAW can't and probably won't touch. This was before GM said that Moraine was to cease current operations.

I know this is where I work and it is the Union that represents me. It just bogels my mind that GM wouldn't find something for this plant to build. Don't say because it is a truck plant it can't build cars. Unless Ford didn't get that Memo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Shouldn't this be in the Union section? I dunno but I don't think this goes in General Car Discussion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,813 Posts
.

I know this is where I work and it is the Union that represents me. It just bogels my mind that GM wouldn't find something for this plant to build. Don't say because it is a truck plant it can't build cars. Unless Ford didn't get that Memo.
Ford is retooling some truck plants, GM would have to do what the company is doing in Oshawa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Ford is retooling some truck plants, GM would have to do what the company is doing in Oshawa.

I know Ford is retooling 4 truck plants to build cars. But there have been countless people on here that said that Moraine can't build cars because it is a Truck plant. I said yes we can you just have to retool it.

Heck GM will probably get an intrest free or low intrest loan from the goverment to retool. Gov. Strikland pretty much opened the book for GM and said "What do you want to keep it open"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,265 Posts
If GM does decide to retool for a car, how many of those cars will sell? GM NA has been loosing huge amounts of money, many NA plants MUST shut down. Sorry to say but I think plant workers should look for other positions in other sectors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,488 Posts
I know Ford is retooling 4 truck plants to build cars. But there have been countless people on here that said that Moraine can't build cars because it is a Truck plant. I said yes we can you just have to retool it.

Heck GM will probably get an intrest free or low intrest loan from the goverment to retool. Gov. Strikland pretty much opened the book for GM and said "What do you want to keep it open"?
What is the difference between truck plant and car plant, they are both buildings with people...

need to change some of the tooling obviously for a different type of product but otherwise

hell even things like paint booth etc should be fine because the car is smaller anyway



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
What is the difference between truck plant and car plant, they are both buildings with people...

need to change some of the tooling obviously for a different type of product but otherwise

hell even things like paint booth etc should be fine because the car is smaller anyway

Well we will eliminate Chasis, So we will umm have to tear it out. Seriously if you look at the GMT 360 it is basically a Unibody that is bolted onto a frame. You could probably keep most of the lines (in General Assembly) the same just have to make the carriers be able to hold a smaller car. Yes the Bodyshop would have to be all new but that is pretty much the same when you get a whole new vehicle. Plus all of those robots are wore out anyways and needs to be replaced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
If GM does decide to retool for a car, how many of those cars will sell? GM NA has been loosing huge amounts of money, many NA plants MUST shut down. Sorry to say but I think plant workers should look for other positions in other sectors.
Tell that to the implant Japanese plants because our tenetive agreement was already $5 less an hour then Toyota and Honda pay. Like I said and that was before GM announced the Cease of current operations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
885 Posts
To me, the most logical use for the Moraine plant would be for a redesigned GMT355/GMT360. Creating a new compact/midsize and associated SUV/CUV off the same platform would do several things:

1) reuse the plant for a more fuel efficient and competitive compact/midsize pickup/cuv/suv, whatever the case may be
2) free up the Shreveport plant for dedicated Hummer volume
3) create a smaller Hummer for Shreveport to keep them in the game
4) no need to redesign the frame for the Hummer's as it seems to work quite well on the H3's...

This way, everyone's happy and the product mix more accurately reflects the market along with entries hitting appropriate targets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Well from what I know is that Moraine Assembly was always used as an Overflow plant. Even though Moraine Assembly was the primary plant for the GMT 360. We were also set up to build the GMT 370. At first we were to build the Overflow of the GMT 370 because GM thought that they would sell more then the GMT 360. GM kinda missed the mark on selling the Bigger SUV.

This has always been my opinion and who knows I could be wrong. GM should of had a GMT 330 size and the XL should of been the 360 size. The GMT 370 was too close to the size of a Tahoe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
hopefully they will get things situated, always gets out of hand and then all hell breaks loose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
IMO We have an agreement that UAW can't and probably won't touch. This was before GM said that Moraine was to cease current operations.

I know this is where I work and it is the Union that represents me. It just bogels my mind that GM wouldn't find something for this plant to build. Don't say because it is a truck plant it can't build cars. Unless Ford didn't get that Memo.
Heck your plant used to build refrigerators for criminy's sake. So it ain't like it can't be tooled to assemble cars!

***

The GMT370 was so friggin' long because GM designed the GMT360 so poorly. They couldn't squeeze 3 rows of seating into GMT360. I think GMT370 sold poorly simply because it was way too big for a "midsize" vehicle, or at least compared to other midsizers. Heck its wheelbase was only one inch shy of a Suburban's!

Why GM are so insistent on creating products in "tweenie" size categories baffles me. GMT370. CTS. Equinox. Impala. While perhaps straddling size segments could be to an advantage in certain situations, I can't help but feel it's more likely to alienate buyers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
Heck your plant used to build refrigerators for criminy's sake. So it ain't like it can't be tooled to assemble cars!
I was about to reply to his first post something like "if it could go from making fridges to making trucks, it can certainly go from making trucks to making cars" and then decided to read the whole thread, betting someone had already pointed it out.

BTW, it definitely doesn't sound like a good reason to close it to me, but again I'm not an expert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I was about to reply to his first post something like "if it could go from making fridges to making trucks, it can certainly go from making trucks to making cars" and then decided to read the whole thread, betting someone had already pointed it out.

BTW, it definitely doesn't sound like a good reason to close it to me, but again I'm not an expert.

I agree that we could make just about anyting if they retool. Trust me if you dig up old posts about Moraine Assembly these so called "insiders" said that they plant can't be retooled for a car because it is a truck plant. lulz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
651 Posts
Any plant can be retooled but at what cost? Thats why flexible plants are ideal in this type of fast changing market since retooling the plant is cheap and quick in comparison. I think the other issue GM has is they simply have way too much capacity as it is and are forced to close plants to re-align with sales. Its unfortunate and I'm not sure how scientific it is in choosing which plant will close (often more political I imagine) but I think it is something GM has to do to get the efficiency they need.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top