[desmo9]

Originally posted by tgagneguam@May 27 2004, 03:03 AM
"...The real issue is perfectly clear, and here it is: Will a labor organization run the plants of General Motors Corporation or will the management continue to do so." Alfred P. Sloan. January 6, 1936

This article infuriates me! Imagine the audacity of the UAW to attempt to shape the future product plans at GM. I think they've definitely overstepped their boundaries, and it certainly deserves a public rebuke from GM.

And what does it say when representatives of the UAW speak poorly about the products produced by members of another chapter of their own union (i.e., UAW brothers and sisters who build the Crown Victoria)?

Mr. Jim DooLittle, you need to focus your business acumen elsewhere.

I agree wholehearteldly that it's time to stop the tail wagging the dog. Unions are pretty arrogant when they attempt to influence decisions about product and corporate structure. Take component modularization: GM deemed this an important step in making small cars profitably, especially in a country where labor is so expensive. The union stood in the way, wanting overpaid UAW line workers to do the assembly instead of a domestic supplier with market-rate personnel (generously, about $12 and hour). So think about that! GM attempts to improve productivity so laborers can continue to make big bucks, and the unions block the initiative! Unfortunately, those who've taken a stand against the union on these matters, Mark Hogan for instance, have found a couple rungs on the corporate ladder undermined. Wagoner and Cowger might be taking the most risk-averse course with union relations, but they seem like wimps in the process.

My attitude is tempered in the subject posting, but only because I felt it was a mistake to stop production of the B. If memory serves, they justified it because it was more profitable for Arlington to make trucks. So why didn't they combine a couple of underutilized FWD plants and keep the Caprice going in one of them? It continued to outsell many other models in the GM portfolio, and they made money on each one. The Impala SS even gave the platform some credibility and momentum on the non-commercial side. Then they killed it. Now we find only Dodge and Ford in the mainstream, RWD sedan game. And there's the draw... the RWD Impala relacement is due out in a couple years, or so I think. It would take that long to get a plant cleared out and tooled up to do the old full-framed B car.

But if they do decide to bring it back, don't do it cuz the union says so.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by tgagneguam@May 28 2004, 01:31 AM




"How dare they?!"

I've asked the same question.

Take the GTO. Granted, based on the percentage of our local allotment I see languishing on dealers' lots, and that I've yet to see one on the road, the "restricted volume" to be imported was likely commensurate with demand. Nevertheless, if demand for a hundred thousand new goats was present in the N.A. market, the union prevented GM from importing more than about 20,000 annually. In which case, over and above GM's opportunity lost, many would-be GTO buyers would pay thousands of dollars in dealer gouging at the whim of a labor union.

Is that not telling?