Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16738 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 10:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Dec 23, 2008 7:40 am) As the world turns. This is like a soap opera. Maybe you could put in for that CEO position as soon as it becomes vacant. If you haven't heard Toyota yesterday and Honda prior have come to grips with this global recession. We all want to look to someone or group to vent on. Who is responsible for the down turn? Who cares? How long is more important. The UAW is not responsible for the world wide demand of transportation. Our economy living on credit has even fueled that of China and other developing nations. They too will look for scapegoats. Americans not buying this Xmas in the malls will create a ripple effect that will be felt across the ocean. Transition/change will morph the automakers, UAW, and the entire business community of the world. We remember some of those who lived through the Great Depression and their frugality. Will the consumer morph into that type of consumer? Will Americans look to govt for relief? Does contraction in an economy bring about more unionism or less unionism as many see the pitfalls of capitalism? We can only hope that the contraction will be a short one and lead into a lengthy expansion. Will we still be the greatest consumer nation on the planet? Plenty of folks are already suffering. UAW or no UAW we all share common interests. We all want our offspring to enjoy the best this country has to offer. Educate them to make a difference and procreate. As this next generation come into the workforce, I don't want them to work as hard as the prior. Remember, we have technology and back breaking work is passé. |
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Dec 23, 2008 8:19 am) First time I agree with you, Rokie. The blame is definitely not all union. I would even say it's not "mostly" union. But the union had tremendous power, especially in those soc..., I mean Midwestern and Northern States. They have no creative powers, but boy do they have destructive powers or what... They can go on strike, shut down lines, block any changes - basically paralyze the company. It is their "job" to defend their turf, especially if their salaries and bonuses are paid based on what they were able to "tear" from their companies. However, it was conversely job of the management to break union's back, if necessary, shoot or otherwise netralize their leaders  and bring the normal order (by normal order I understand consumer -investor-"man of labor" order with large gaps between). Just like Caterpillar or other successful Midwestern manufacturers did. Since they were unable/unwilling to do that, it is their (management's) blame in the most. If you know what is necessary and you can't do it, you resign and make space for somebody, who can. Since Wagoner knew exactly and did not follow, it's his falut at most. My "blame assignment" is as follows: - management: 60% for being oblivious to market, short-sighted on finances and mostly cowardly on labor; - unions: 30% for being dumb (better shut down factories than agree to copay on Viagra), short-sighted and ultimately unwilling to acknowledge the change (if 200 milion Americans are more than happy to pay health insurance premiums and doctor copays, there is nothing special about fork lif operator in Dearborn plant); - politicians: 10% for supporting and perpetuating the disfunctional "stalemate" status quo just because it suited their fundraising (Republicans supported management and Democrats the unions - both sides to blame). So how about that |
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (Dec 22, 2008 4:51 pm)
|
|
|
General Motor's oldest plant nears shutdown Published: 12/23/08, 3:25 PM EDT By DINESH RAMDE JANESVILLE, Wis. (AP) - As the last SUV rolled off the production line at General Motors' oldest plant here Tuesday, Karen Green promised herself she would keep her emotions in check. The Janesville plant was built in 1918 for tractor production and converted to a Chevrolet plant in 1923. Green had worked on the assembly line for 14 years. When plant and union officials began thanking workers for their years of service, however, she couldn't hold back the tears. "I was pretty good up until the end. Then I lost it," said Green, 55, of Fort Atkinson. "It was just so somber, so sad." Green was one of 1,200 employees let go when GM ended production at the southern Wisconsin plant. Another 800 or so jobs have been lost at local companies that supplied GM parts. Over the years, workers churned out sedans and SUVs, including Chevrolet Suburbans and GMC Yukons. But demand for big vehicles plummeted during the days of $4 gas this summer and failed to recover as fuel prices came down. "We gave it a pretty good run for 85 years," said Steve Kriefall, 58, of Janesville. "But these are tough times now, and it's hard to see it come to this." Kriefall retired from a 25-year career at the plant two years ago, but came back Tuesday for the final day. The recession and a reluctant to extend credit have further hurt GM and other U.S. automakers. GM's sales have dropped 18 percent, and the company has lost $57.5 billion in the past 18 months. In response, GM has announced 11,000 U.S. layoffs this year. They include 1,080 workers at a GM plant in Moraine, Ohio, that also closed Tuesday. About 50 workers will remain at the Janesville plant to complete an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors Ltd. They're scheduled to finish by May or June, and then the plant will close for good, GM spokesman Christopher Lee said. The recent job losses follow years of dwindling employment at the plant, which had 8,000 workers in the early 1990s. Some wonder whether the Janesville area can survive. "You're already seeing it - lots of people leaving, lots of homes for sale," said Harry Larson, 57, who was an electrician at GM for 25 years. "They'll be looking for work wherever they can find it." Others are persistently optimistic. Marv Wopat, 61, believes the town can persevere and hopes the automaker will eventually bring a new product to Janesville and its 60,000 residents. "I believe Janesville will survive because of the community and the quality of people," said Wopat, who retired in July after 40 years with GM. "I believe it will survive, and it will grow, and hopefully it'll grow with GM down the road." So far, that doesn't seem likely. Even though the White House threw GM and Chrysler LLC a lifeline Friday, offering $17.4 billion in rescue loans, the money isn't likely to trickle down to Janesville. Before the money was approved, Gov. Jim Doyle had said the Janesville plant would have "no chance" without a bailout, and even with one it would have "a very, very remote chance." Doyle's spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner said the governor's assessment was unchanged. "It's still a very remote chance," Sensenbrenner said. "Maybe this keeps the door open a crack, but it's still going to be a difficult journey." Workers trickled out of the plant in twos and threes after Tuesday's final shift. Some said they were considering going back to school, but most said weren't sure what the future would hold. Jeff Schrobel, 50, of Fort Atkinson, said he was considering taking classes toward an engineering degree but wondered whether more schooling would help. "I'll be 55 when I'm done," Schrobel said. "Will having a degree make any difference at that point?" Green said she's also considering going back to school, although she doesn't know what she'd study. Meanwhile, she's been cutting back on her Christmas and other spending. "I'll just have to learn how to get by with less," she said. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 22, 2008 7:15 pm) Well, the 10-year thing worked for Hyundai, why not GM? Heck, my 1989 Cadillac Brougham and 1988 Buick Park Avenue could've had 20-year warranties and not needed them. If it's anything GM does right, it's powertrains! |
|
|
Replying to: motorcity6 (Dec 23, 2008 9:55 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Dec 23, 2008 1:11 pm) Wait...isn't an RSX basically an Acura Civic? If it doesn't have a manual transmission it would only have a 4-speed automatic at best, wouldn't it? What the hell is in that transmission that would make it cost $5K to replace?! There's a guy at work who has a 2003 or so Chevy Impala, just a base model with the 3.4. His transmission recently bit the dust, and was around $2500 or so to replace. At first I was thinking that was a bit premature, but then he said it had about 130,000 miles on it. So okay, it ain't no Torqueflite 727 or THM400. But if I got 130K out of a modern tranny before it chewed itself up, I wouldn't be too irritated with it. Oh, as an aside, I've seen a commercial on tv a few times for some aftermarket warranty company that says they'll put a warranty on your car as long as it's under 15 years old and less than 200,000 miles. They show examples of how they saved their customers money, and one of the examples they quote is something like "The cost to replace the transmission in this 2003 Intrepid would have been about $3,000, but with our warranty, it didn't cost our customer a cent! I think it's funny that of all the examples out there they could have picked from, they had to pick an Intrepid like mine!  The other example they used was a $1200 a/c compressor on an early '00's Caravan. Boy, this sure is pick on Mopar Day, isn't it? 
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 23, 2008 2:20 pm) Only 130k? That's pathetic. Any transmission that's worth a damn should run for at least 200k with no problems. Dying at 130k is some serious (expletive).
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Dec 23, 2008 3:26 pm) Lucky for him be bought some kind of warranty extension when he bought the car (new) so he's had no out of pocket costs. And it wasn't even built by the UAW |
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Dec 23, 2008 3:26 pm) Heck, my Mom & stepdad's '91 Stanza's tranny started to crap out around 90,000 miles! They were able to nurse it to around 110,000 though, when they sold the car. Their replacement car, a '99 Altima, crapped its tranny at 35,000. To its credit though, that car has about 275,000 miles on it now, so tranny #2 has proven itself. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
