http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/03/news/co … tm?cnn=yes
It's good to know my dad will get to leave his job he hates in 2 years at least. . .
It's good to know my dad will get to leave his job he hates in 2 years at least. . .
This will not be good for Janesville. Perhaps GM can be convinced to re-tool the plant so that cars or the new Volt can be built there.
Oshawa got hit as well.......again
A month ago, or so, they lost 2 shifts.
Three weeks ago, they voted on a new three year contract.
One of the clause's is that product would run the life of the contract.
Trucks would be built there for the next three years.
Now this.
As well, the government gave GM 237 mill to retool and refit the plant.
See lots a court case's with this one.
Good luck GM
A month ago, or so, they lost 2 shifts.
Three weeks ago, they voted on a new three year contract.
One of the clause's is that product would run the life of the contract.
Trucks would be built there for the next three years.
Now this.
As well, the government gave GM 237 mill to retool and refit the plant.
See lots a court case's with this one.
Good luck GM
They are opening new small car plants at the same time...
I can see both sides of this. GM has to do what's smart for their business and the workers feel left out in the cold. GM doesn't really have any other choices since environmental activists have succeeded in putting their agenda in place through the EPA as it fought against refineries and drilling for the last 30 years. Those refineries and supply would have alleviated the prices we see today by providing more supply for the US. Fortunately the Volt is slated to go into production in 2010 and there are a healthy amount of hybrids in the GM lineup.
this was expected sooner or later
Generally speaking, this isn't the fault of environmentalists. If you want to get at the real heart of the problems for GM, look at the chokehold these unions have and the fact that most foreign automakers diversify their markets better by not relying so heavily on the sales of a few models (mostly pickups and SUVs were GM's bread and butter).Stingray24 wrote:
I can see both sides of this. GM has to do what's smart for their business and the workers feel left out in the cold. GM doesn't really have any other choices since environmental activists have succeeded in putting their agenda in place through the EPA as it fought against refineries and drilling for the last 30 years. Those refineries and supply would have alleviated the prices we see today by providing more supply for the US. Fortunately the Volt is slated to go into production in 2010 and there are a healthy amount of hybrids in the GM lineup.
As for oil, refineries play a part, but so does unregulated speculation. The fact that speculators can buy oil futures "on margin" helps force oil toward unrealistic price levels. World demand actually plays less of a role than you would think, and the "peak oil" argument has a number of flaws.
I did some research on this, and it turns out that we probably won't reach peak oil production as soon as we originally thought. It looks more like peak oil won't be coming any sooner than at least 2020.
GM is only doing what is in its own best interest, no one is buying large SUVs because of the price of fuel so it needs to build more small cars as that is where the market is heading... and most likely that is where the market will stay. In other words Toyota will be remaining on top of the car industry.
Stingray...
The price of CRUDE OIL has risen, no amount of refineries will make a difference to that.
As for drilling... WHERE???, Alaska has sweet F all oil in it. There is no more major oil reserves to be found if we haven't hit peak oil we soon will. In fact we don't know when we will hit peak oil because the major oil producers lie about how much reserve they actually have (we could of hit peak oil years ago)
You could allow drilling everywhere at it will make no difference as the major oil reserves are now tapped.
Stingray...
The price of CRUDE OIL has risen, no amount of refineries will make a difference to that.
As for drilling... WHERE???, Alaska has sweet F all oil in it. There is no more major oil reserves to be found if we haven't hit peak oil we soon will. In fact we don't know when we will hit peak oil because the major oil producers lie about how much reserve they actually have (we could of hit peak oil years ago)
You could allow drilling everywhere at it will make no difference as the major oil reserves are now tapped.
Last edited by Fred[OZ75] (2008-06-03 17:24:19)
Several decades of drilling and refining, that was instead restricted, would be having a positive impact on the price of crude oil right now. Chevron recently discovered more in the Gulf. There are more reserves, but if we insist on restricting the oil companies in this manner, China etc that ARE drilling off the coast will be taking the oil we should be snatching up.
The "gulf" has not had any restrictions and has only been drilled lately mainly because of new technologies also the amount of oil being found is nothing compared to the Arab oil reserves. There hasn't been a large oil reserve found in 20+ years, there just isn't any more large oil reserves left.
You know what would have had a positive impact on oil prices right now? Not invading Iraq.
You know what would have had a positive impact on oil prices right now? Not invading Iraq.
Interesting to note that GM are considering selling off Hummer. Makes sense I guess, although I dont know who would buy them considering current oil prices. Makes Tata will as they have just bought Jaguar and LandRover.
Its about time Americans ( and all of us for that matter ) started driving more sensible cars. Small cars neednt be boring, in fact I think they are much more fun to drive.
Its about time Americans ( and all of us for that matter ) started driving more sensible cars. Small cars neednt be boring, in fact I think they are much more fun to drive.
I guess this is what happens when you build an inferior product with over paid union labor..........No one buys it. Maybe GM and Ford will learn eventually, that people are not going to "buy American", unless it is better than foreign. These companies have over played that patriot card for too long now in place of a well built product. Now is the time for them to set all that aside and actually compete for a superior reputation over their foreign rivals, and yes......earn it.
Australias car industry is actually growing and it is heavily unionised ( and well payed). We are exporting heaps of cars overseas ( including V8's to the US as pontiacs), so it has nothing to do with unionised workforces. The key thing here is that the US makes cars that are arent what people want or need. If they made quality cars that handled and rode well and had superior fuel consumption, then they would sell thousand more cars. Americas car industry is reluctant to change with the times and is suffering because of it. They are slowly learning though, as can be seen with the Volt and Pontiac GX8.
Last edited by Burwhale the Avenger (2008-06-04 04:38:22)
That is why I combined inferior products with over paid union labor. You can not very well pay those artifically inflated salaries unless your product is flying off the selves can ya? If the salaries were more in line with the skill education and training, these companies could have more money to weather down turns more effectively without drastic measures such as closing entire plants.Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Australias car industry is actually growing and it is heavily unionised ( and well payed). We are exporting heaps of cars overseas ( including V8's to the US as pontiacs), so it has nothing to do with unionised workforces. The key thing here is that the US makes cars that are arent what people want or need. If they made quality cars that handled and rode well and had superior fuel consumption, then they would sell thousand more cars. Americas car industry is reluctant to change with the times and is suffering because of it. They are slowly learning though, as can be seen with the Volt and Pontiac GX8.
Alternatively they could make a quality product in the first place and pay their workers a good wage. Do you think that wages in Japan or Germany are low? No they are comparativey high, however they make the best cars in the world and their workers get paid a fair wage ( and companies like Toyota and BMW make great profit). Its all about the product. Bad product, your company deserves to suffer. Unionised labour shouldnt be a factor if the quality is there.lowing wrote:
If the salaries were more in line with the skill education and training, these companies could have more money to weather down turns more effectively without drastic measures such as closing entire plants.
OK, so we agree, these American companies are paying excessive wages to workers who build an inferior product. I say if you are going to build junk, why pay top dollar for people to do it?Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Alternatively they could make a quality product in the first place and pay their workers a good wage. Do you think that wages in Japan or Germany are low? No they are comparativey high, however they make the best cars in the world and their workers get paid a fair wage ( and companies like Toyota and BMW make great profit). Its all about the product. Bad product, your company deserves to suffer. Unionised labour shouldnt be a factor if the quality is there.lowing wrote:
If the salaries were more in line with the skill education and training, these companies could have more money to weather down turns more effectively without drastic measures such as closing entire plants.
Do you think an assembly line worker should be paid 30 dollars and hour to stick a bolt in a hole? Or are you one of those people that think companies should be in business to provide you with a good living over turning a profit.
I blame Bush!
Whoa, I never agreed that American companies are paying excessive wages to workers. All I said was that they were making inferior product. I didnt even say people should be paid high wages to do it. Just that they should be given a fair wage. I also pointed out that other car makers that pay workers decent wages seem and make quality cars and good profits. Paying workers $5 an hour to make cars would mean a shitty product at the end of the day ( workers wouldnt care about what they are doing), and this would mean less people would buy their cars. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.lowing wrote:
OK, so we agree, these American companies are paying excessive wages to workers who build an inferior product
Europe and Japan have environmentalists, far stronger unions and more expensive petrol prices, so those things cannot be the reasons for GM having problems.
Perhapse the major milestone sitting around GM's neck if healthcare costs. “The profit margin for GM without its pension and health contributions would rise from a poor 0.5 percent to 5.5 percent, according to analysts at the investment bank Morgan Stanley.... According to analysts’ estimates, these contributions cost the company $1,784 for every US-made vehicle.”
Save GM by privatising US healthcare.
Perhapse the major milestone sitting around GM's neck if healthcare costs. “The profit margin for GM without its pension and health contributions would rise from a poor 0.5 percent to 5.5 percent, according to analysts at the investment bank Morgan Stanley.... According to analysts’ estimates, these contributions cost the company $1,784 for every US-made vehicle.”
Save GM by privatising US healthcare.
Yeahhhhhhhh, except the American car manufacturers are paying monkeys top dollar and getting shit. This is my observation. If you are going to have monkeys produce shit, why not pay them peanuts?Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Whoa, I never agreed that American companies are paying excessive wages to workers. All I said was that they were making inferior product. I didnt even say people should be paid high wages to do it. Just that they should be given a fair wage. I also pointed out that other car makers that pay workers decent wages seem and make quality cars and good profits. Paying workers $5 an hour to make cars would mean a shitty product at the end of the day ( workers wouldnt care about what they are doing), and this would mean less people would buy their cars. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.lowing wrote:
OK, so we agree, these American companies are paying excessive wages to workers who build an inferior product
This is an example of why socialism is a necessity. Long live the European model of capitalism! Slower growth, but then again 'slow and steady wins the race'.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-05 07:50:17)
Dragging the lazy, and non-producers through society is a necessity?? Ohhhhhhh I don't think so.CameronPoe wrote:
This is an example of why socialism is a necessity. Long live the European model of capitalism! Slower growth, but then again 'slow and steady wins the race'.
THis is an example as to why capitalism is working as it should, the company that produces the better toys profit, regardless of nationality. It forces companies that actually want to stay in busines and compete, to improve their products through compitition. I drive a Toyota and a Honda. As soon as America builds a quality car, I will think about buying one, but they need to get beyond the reputation that they currently are bogged down with, and have earned.
I wonder why unions have the stereotype of being lazy, and whinners. I am sure it isn't something they havn't earned. I am also certain they had nothing to do with dragging a company to the point of locking doors and closing plants.
Last edited by lowing (2008-06-05 10:51:39)
No. Protecting workers from ineptitude at the top and global factors beyond the control of anyone. Guaranteeing social harmony.lowing wrote:
Dragging the lazy, and non-producers through society is a necessity?? Ohhhhhhh I don't think so.CameronPoe wrote:
This is an example of why socialism is a necessity. Long live the European model of capitalism! Slower growth, but then again 'slow and steady wins the race'.
As for the rest of your post: I'm not a fan of free global markets - it makes things like the subject of this OP far far more likely and frequent. Protectionism ftw. You see I care about workers, you seem to care about abstract things like 'corporations', etc., which don't guarantee anybody anything. The ultimate logical goal of the corporate world is to have the labour force living at mere subsistence level. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. It's the reason why we have things like monopoly commissions, minimum wages, import and export tariffs, social safety nets, etc. Your faith in corporations is naive to say the least.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-05 11:08:18)
No there needs to be a balance between what you describe, and the increased notion that workers have that, they are "owed" a quality of life by the corporations, instead of actually EARNING one. Now, tell me that unions do not hold this belief.CameronPoe wrote:
No. Protecting workers from ineptitude at the top and global factors beyond the control of anyone. Guaranteeing social harmony.lowing wrote:
Dragging the lazy, and non-producers through society is a necessity?? Ohhhhhhh I don't think so.CameronPoe wrote:
This is an example of why socialism is a necessity. Long live the European model of capitalism! Slower growth, but then again 'slow and steady wins the race'.
As for the rest of your post: I'm not a fan of free global markets - it makes things like the subject of this OP far far more likely and frequent. Protectionism ftw. You see I care about workers, you seem to care about abstract things like 'corporations', etc., which don't guarantee anybody anything. The ultimate logical goal of the corporate world is to have the labour force living at mere subsistence level. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. It's the reason why we have things like monopoly commissions, minimum wages, import and export tariffs, social safety nets, etc. Your faith in corporations is naive to say the least.
Because it wont solve any problems, you'll turn a short term profit (and any accountant worth his weight could get the same 'results' from legally butchering some numbers). But in the end you are still going to lose market share for inferior products and the companies going to be back where they started or worse. Probably worse because they will have lost some capital, and their reputation will be ruined further.lowing wrote:
Yeahhhhhhhh, except the American car manufacturers are paying monkeys top dollar and getting shit. This is my observation. If you are going to have monkeys produce shit, why not pay them peanuts?Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Whoa, I never agreed that American companies are paying excessive wages to workers. All I said was that they were making inferior product. I didnt even say people should be paid high wages to do it. Just that they should be given a fair wage. I also pointed out that other car makers that pay workers decent wages seem and make quality cars and good profits. Paying workers $5 an hour to make cars would mean a shitty product at the end of the day ( workers wouldnt care about what they are doing), and this would mean less people would buy their cars. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.lowing wrote:
OK, so we agree, these American companies are paying excessive wages to workers who build an inferior product