SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The GM/Ford/Chrysler Discussion Thread

153K views 750 replies 53 participants last post by  hudkina 
#1 ·
Jesus, how many people can GM lay off in Flint? It seems like they've laid off half the damn city...

GM to lay off 3,550 at 4 pickup truck and SUV factories
By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

DETROIT - The dwindling U.S. auto market and an accelerating shift from trucks to cars has brought grim layoff news to four General Motors Corp. factories.

The company announced Monday that it plans to cut one shift each at pickup truck and large sport utility vehicle plants in Flint and Pontiac, Mich.; Janesville, Wis.; and Oshawa, Ontario, resulting in about 3,550 layoffs.

The world's largest automaker by sales said the cuts, to take effect this summer, were brought on by weak demand due to high gasoline prices and an economic downturn.

GM said it will make about 88,000 fewer pickups and 50,000 fewer big SUVs this calendar year because of the cuts. The layoffs represent just over 4 percent of GM's hourly manufacturing work force of about 80,000 in North America.

The announcement came after stock markets closed. GM shares rose 56 cents, or 2.6 percent, to $21.94 Monday, then lost 3 cents in after-hours trading.

"With rising fuel prices, a softening economy and a downward trend on current and future market demand for full-size trucks, a significant adjustment was needed to align our production with market realities," GM North America President Troy Clarke said in a statement.

For about the past three years, the U.S. auto market has been shifting from pickup trucks and SUVs to cars and crossover vehicles, but the trend picked up in recent months due to gas prices that have reached $3.60 per gallon, on average.

GM expects the layoffs to begin July 14 at the Flint, Janesville and Pontiac plants, and Sept. 8 at Oshawa. Most of the factories had already seen layoffs and production cuts due to a parts shortage from a two-month strike at American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc.

GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said the company will eliminate shifts with 750 workers each at Flint and Janesville, 1,150 workers in Pontiac, and 900 workers in Oshawa. Final numbers must be worked out with unions, he said.

Laid-off workers will get unemployment benefits and supplemental pay that total 80 percent of their normal 40-hour gross pay, said GM spokesman Dan Flores.

Greg Gardner, an analyst with the Oliver Wyman Group, said the cuts look like "a realistic assessment."

"The full-size pickup and SUV market is not going to rebound anytime soon," he said. "It looks like that they don't plan on making up very much of the production loss due to the American Axle strike."

Gardner said GM's announcement reflects the industry's overall production forecast this year, down to about 15 million light vehicles from an earlier forecast of 15.5 million.

The Flint, Pontiac and Oshawa plants make the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups, while Janesville manufactures the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban and GMC Yukon big SUVs.

GM said it did not forecast how many of those vehicles it expected to make this year, but it sold about 1.1 million of them in the U.S. last year, according to Autodata Corp.

GM said pickup sales overall are down 15 percent through March, while sales of large SUVs are off 26 percent.

Jesse Toprak, chief industry analyst for the auto information site Edmunds.com, said GM has a 92-day average supply of large trucks. A 60-day supply is considered optimal in the business.

Toprak said the automaker will lose about $4.4 billion in gross sales because of the production cuts, but it's nearly impossible to determine the impact on GM's net profits.

The production cuts should help GM keep its inventory under control, said Catherine Madden, an analyst with the consulting firm Global Insight.

The cuts come as 74,000 U.S. workers represented by the United Auto Workers face a May 22 deadline to decide on GM's latest round of buyout and early retirement offers.

AP Business Writer Jeff Karoub in Detroit contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_cuts
 
See less See more
#337 ·
Hey, does anyone know if the new Chevy Spark is going to be manufactured in Korea (like aveo) or in US? I am not really too patriotic, but during this economy I would rather buy an american-made Corolla than an foreign Aveo.

And how can GM still be considered an american manufacturer when most of their manufacturing is outsourced to different countries, while Toyota and Hyundai creating more new factories inside the US?...
 
#342 ·
Again it's easy dominate the market when you're one of only a handful of companies.

The Big 3 didn't see their marketshare begin its rapid decline until the mid-late 90's, over 30 years after Toyota and Honda entered the market. Why is that? Why did it take over 30 years for the foreign brands to gain any serious marketshare? Was it because the foreign brands began offering a wider array of products?

Back in 1992, if you wanted to drive a Honda your only options were a tiny compact (Accord), and an impossibly smaller subcompact (Civic). There was no midsize sedan, SUV, truck, minivan, etc. Back in 1992, Honda had a very small share of the U.S. market, but its small lineup of tiny, cheap, fuel-efficient cars had a very good reputation, especially compared to the full line-up of the domestic brands. Honda's favorable reputation helped as it began to release cars that the American public was generally more interested in (larger cars, SUVs, minivans, trucks, etc.). "Well, everyone tells me Honda makes great cars, so I guess I'll check out this CR-V."

In the 80's and early 90's, the foreign brands really didn't have much to compete with GM. Now GM has to directly compete with at least six foreign brands that offer a full line of products. (let alone the rest of the Big 3.)

Even if every last vehicle that GM offered in the 80's and 90's was class-leading, it would have still lost a significant amount of marketshare...

It has nothing to do with "GM famillies" or whatever the hell you're arguing. It has to do with increased competition across its entire product line.
 
#343 ·
Again it's easy dominate the market when you're one of only a handful of companies.

The Big 3 didn't see their marketshare begin its rapid decline until the mid-late 90's, over 30 years after Toyota and Honda entered the market..
The big 3 have been experiencing declining marketshare since the late 70s, and it got worse throughout the 80's, 90's, 00's....all the way to bankruptcy.

That's what you would call being SMOKED by the competition.

Back in 1992, if you wanted to drive a Honda your only options were a tiny compact (Accord), and an impossibly smaller subcompact (Civic).
1992 was the second to the last year of that generation Accord. That Accord generation was on it's last legs. Either way, smaller or not, it was still a far better car than what Ford, GM, or Chrysler offered quality-wise.

In 1992, the redesigned Camry was far, far, far better than a Lumina or a Taurus.

In 1992, the Lumina and Taurus were outright PILES OF SHIT compared to the new Camry. The 1992 Camry even looked good, like a baby Lexus. And the big 3 never caught up until recently. Ford tried but failed miserably when they totally F-ed up the Taurus in 1996.

It has to do with increased competition across its entire product line.
It has to do with GM not upping their game, to the point that the competition broke GM's neck. Period.
 
#344 ·
Look at the trend line! While it is true that the marketshare of the domestic brands started a slight decline when the foreign brands began to enter the market, it wasn't until the mid-late 90's that the erosion began to truly pick up. It's not a coincidence that many of the foreign brands started offering full lines in the mid-late 90's.
 
#345 ·
Whatever, I'm not sure what your point is. That the Japanese came out of nowhere in the 90s? The Big 3 marketshare trendline has been downward for 30 years, they've had quite a bit of time to adjust. The Big 3 lost massive marketshare in their home market that they've been operating in for 100 years to relatively inexperienced competitors. They dropped the ball big time, there really isn't any other way to look at it.
 
#346 ·
No the Japanese didn't come out of nowhere. They went from being niche brands (think Mitsubishi or Suzuki) to being full line brands that competed directly with the Big 3. They went from selling a couple of decent small cars to offering larger cars, SUVs, trucks, minivans, etc.

There are over a dozen major foreign companies directly competing against the Big 3. The fact that 3 companies are able to still retain about half the market despite the fierce competition from 12+ foreign companies says a lot.
 
#347 ·
The fact that 3 companies are able to still retain about half the market despite the fierce competition from 12+ foreign companies says a lot.
It doesn't say a whole lot when you consider that they went from absolute dominance to bankruptcy.

The fact that the once mighty Big 3 have fallen so far at the hands of the once niche brands from a country previously known for making crap says a lot, and it's very sad.
 
#348 ·
You could say the same thing about the Big 3 networks. ABC, NBC, and CBS once dominated the television viewing market. Then came along cable, Fox, the CW, etc. Today the traditional three networks are only able to draw a fraction of the audiences they did 50 years ago.

You act like the Big 3 should have maintained 100% of the market, when it would be nearly impossible to do that...
 
#349 ·
You act like the Big 3 should have maintained 100% of the market, when it would be nearly impossible to do that...
I act like they should've never made the substandard products that they have. I act like they should've stepped up to Honda and Toyota before it was too late. I act like they should've stood up to the UAW before it was too late. I act like they should've never went bankrupt. Great companies adapt and avoid bankruptcy.

You act as if it's external forces that are the cause of where they are today, not their own fault.
 
#350 ·
No I think it is a combination of MANY different things, both internal and external. You're the one who always tries to pin everything on the UAW...

I'm just saying that the loss in marketshare isn't entirely attributed to the supposed lack of quality of the Big 3. I'm saying that even if the Big 3 had made the best little compacts around they would have still seen their marketshare drop as more and more companies began offering more and more products.

Again, it's just like the traditional three TV networks. I'm sure they made a few mistakes that turned off viewers, but ultimately they really couldn't have done too much to stem the flow of viewers to the other broadcast and cable networks.
 
#353 ·
You're the one who always tries to pin everything on the UAW...
The UAW is a HUGE part of it.

You're right in that it was inevitable that they would cede some marketshare because of increased competition, but they didn't need to lose as much as they have. Since they did lose the marketshare, they needed to become leaner, smaller, more efficient companies and the UAW fought fiercly against these goals the whole time leading to.....moving production out of the United States...and bankruptcy. It's a direct correlation, there is no debating this. Great job UAW!!!!

I seriously can't believe it's come to bankruptcy and there are still defenders of the indefensible organized crime mafia UAW.
 
#351 ·
@hudkina and he anti-cheesehead

i'm enjoying this discussion ...very much :banana:...carry on..:cheers:
 
#358 ·
I think what people don't get is that unions preserve the interests of their own members, while suppressing growth of overall employment in society at large (and not to mention damaging their employers). That's why I think for the greater good, militant trade unionism needs to be broken with right-to-work laws.
 
#362 ·
I don't think so. Again this is a fallacy that betrays a lack of understanding of even basic economics. A job has to offer reasonable compensation, relative to the standard of living and generally prevailing wages. $2 is such a low wage no one would take a job. It's unlikely people would take an auto assembly job even for what goes as minimum wage, since it's harder and more complex than the comparable alternatives of bagging groceries at Kroger or flipping burgers at McDonalds. But at $15-$20 an hour, a lot of people would take those jobs and that's what the employers would likely pay. The current wage and benefit packages commanded by the UAW are untenable. If you can't see that I can't help you. If you also can't see that it's better to have those jobs at slightly lower, more reasonable wages than to not have them at all, then you're completely hopeless.

At the end of the day, if the job doesn't pay what you think is reasonable, then don't take it. Someone else may find wages paid by that job to be reasonable and happily take it. With Michigan's double digit unemployment, a lot of people would take jobs at lower wages that never get created in the first place in Michigan due to the prevalence of trade unionism driving away potential employers, which creates an inflexible labor market. Is it better for these people to remain persistently unemployed?
 
#361 ·
Well you can think whatever you want, but the fact is there's a lot more job growth and income growth in the right to work states than in the closed shop unionism states. Businesses go where labor laws (amongst other factors) are more friendly. Unions protect the interests of people who belong to them only, but damage the long term job and income growth prospects of the overall society.
 
#365 ·
LOL. Conservatives arguing with conservatives.;)
LOL. Unemployed Detroiters cracking political jokes. ;)

First I get labeled a Toyota fanboy, and now a conservative? You've lost your mind.

I would like to see all of you go into your workplace and ask your employer to cut your wages and benefits by 30%.
Nah. I get paid PLENTY for what I do, without union interference.
 
#377 ·
"It seems clear that the Allies are outclassed on mechanical equipment, and it is foolish to talk about modernizing their Armies in times like these, they ought to have thought of that five years ago. There is no excuse for them not thinking of that except for the unintelligent, in fact, stupid, narrow-minded and selfish leadership which the democracies of the world are cursed with… But when some other system develops stronger leadership, works hard and long, and intelligently and aggressively—which are good traits—and, superimposed upon that, develops the instinct of a racketeer, there is nothing for the democracies to do but fold up. And that is about what it looks as if they are going to do."—June 1940

Alfred P. Sloan (former CEO & President of General Motors)

I am sure he is rolling in his grave that GM is Government Motors.
 
#380 ·
An article from the Detroit Free Press:

GM to make call on small car plant by end of month
By Justin Hyde • Free Press Washington Staff • June 11, 2009

General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Fritz Henderson said today that GM would make a decision by the end of the month on which one of three idled plants would be restarted to build small cars.

Henderson said the automaker had 12 criteria for choosing a site from Orion Township, Janesville, Wisc., and Spring Hill, Tenn.

"There are no surprises there," he said. "We just have to run our process."

Henderson spoke after meeting with members of Michigan's congressional delegation. Several lawmakers said the state would consider incentives to restart the Orion plant.

-----------------------------

This is the car that was originally planned to be built in China. I wonder why GM decided to bring production to the U.S...:|
 
#381 · (Edited)
The UAW strike at American Axle was the first straw that broke the camel's back last year, especially for GM (with the other hits being the gas price spike and the credit crunch). What the hell were they thinking? They should have been begging American Axle to cut their wages so the company could survive the worst auto market in decades. But they couldn't see past their own greed. They deserve to lose their jobs for what they did. :laugh:

I know here in Toledo, a lot of the disgruntled UAW ******** would sometimes go around town, looking for Chinese people to beat up. "Damn gooks, took our jobs. Killed muh' Pappy in 'Nam. I gon' teach you a lesson. BUY 'MERCHAN!" So as much I hate to see this economic decline which also hurts me and my family personally, it's very satisfying to see some rather nasty and undeserving people get what's been coming to them for a long time. :cheers:
 
#386 ·
Report: Koenigsegg owner confirms Saab interest

Oslo, Norway -- One of the main owners of Sweden's Koenigsegg Automotive AB has confirmed that the luxury sports car maker is among the final bidders for General Motor Corp.'s Saab unit.

Baard Eker, who did not return phone calls seeking comment Saturday, told Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet late Friday that although a final deal to buy the Trollhattan, Sweden-based GM subsidiary is not yet in place, his company would have the financial backing to pull the acquisition off.

"There have been many processes going on at the same time to get the buy together," he said, adding hurdles could still pop up before anything is finalized.

"We think it is possible and we have several good solutions to bring with us to Saab," he said. "But I don't want to comment on financial sums or who it is we have with us."

On Thursday, Swedish broadcaster SVT cited unnamed sources saying Koenigsegg, along with Norwegian investors, had signed a declaration of intent to buy Saab.

Neither Saab nor Koenigsegg has confirmed the report that suggests it is already a done deal.

On Friday, Saab issued a statement saying "there has been no official announcement relating to any potential investors but rest assured our negotiations are on track."

Saab went into creditor protection Feb. 20 in an effort by GM to spin off or sell the unit. Saab confirmed last month that three bidders remained in the sales process.


The three bidders reportedly in the lead to buy it were Koenigsegg; The Renco Group Inc., a private equity firm; and Merbanco Inc., a Wyoming-based group of investors.

Eker, who sits on Koenigsegg's board and whose shareholding in the firm is estimated at around 49 percent by market watchers, added that "many investors" have been interested in joining up in the deal that Saab has described as being "just around the corner."

"We've had good wind in the sails since we started, but we might be at a new level soon," he said.

According to Eker, Koenigsegg -- which is headquartered at a former air force base near Angelholm in southern Sweden -- aims to freshen up the work culture and the technology at Saab.

"Saab needs to be more creative," he said, but noted: "I want to make one thing clear, we are not going to buy Saab just to chop it up. That's not what we do."

Koenigsegg was founded by Christian von Koenigsegg, a Swedish sports car fanatic and entrepreneur, in 1994. The company, which has 45 full-time staff, produces around a dozen customized cars a year, including models like the CCR, the CCX and the ethanol-fueled CCXR.

The company doesn't advertise prices for its cars, but they are believed to range between 8 million-18 million kronor ($1 million-$2.3 million).
 
#388 ·
Southeast Michigan loses half of its manufacturing jobs since 2000:

http://www.detnews.com/article/2009...n-lost-half-its-manufacturing-jobs-since-2000

Is there a bigger poison than the UAW? I think they're happier fighting for $30/hour jobs that don't exist to the point that they drive their employers out of business rather than taking the many $20/hour jobs that would exist. Looks like they got what they deserved. In a way it's healthy for the region that they've been gutted. In what world can some no-education moron who cranks a wrench for a living really expect to make over $70,000 with a guaranteed pension and healthcare for life? :laugh: It looks like the chickens have now come home to roost.
 
#389 ·
First of all, they are not brainless monkeys. Go visit and auto plant and see how hard it is to work on the line. It is extremely back breaking work. That 70,000 dollars went mostly for the pension and health care, the made like 40k a year, and the rest of the money the saved up to send their kids to college so they would never have to work in a factory.

What killed the US auto industry was total mismanagement. Ford of Europe didn't have a clue what Ford of US was doing and Ford of South America, Asia, etc. You had crap CEOs for decades, that had no clue as to what was going on in their own company. They bought money losing brands like Land Rover, Jaguar, SAAB, and HUMMER and GM dumped Subaru to Toyota a couple years ago. They had car brands that competed with each their own brands; ignored other brands; and pissed away money for years. The 90s were a fluke, they should of restructured way back in the 1970s.
 
#391 ·
I love how the valuation of the worth of manufacturing work was grossly inflated via extortion by the UAW to the point that two of the greatest manufacturers in the history of the United States are bankrupt, and the economies of the states that relied upon manufacturing are completely and hopelessly crushed.....and people continue to inexplicably defend the unions!?!?!?!?!.....I love that.....that's just great.....
 
#397 ·
The UAW is the single largest factor in terms of the Big 3's inability to be efficient and compete. Every extra dollar spent on labor is a dollar not going into development of the product. That is not a matter of political leaning or opinion. It is what it is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, healthcare, NAFTA, economy, what about them? Other companies are competetive in this same environment, why not GM or Chrysler?

What is biggest thing the Big 3 have in common that other auto companies/other industries don't have? The UAW!!! That's IT!

I don't watch O'Reilly and I don't know who Dobbs is.
 
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