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 What if you were in charge of GM?
874 messages, Last post on Oct 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Sep 05, 2009 3:10 am) There's an argument that the Wagner Act pretty much did that. Of course, the UAW had to go and actually strike to get their recognition, but the sympathy of the law was on their side after the mid-1930s. Taft-Hartley and subsequent UAW blundering arrogance set the stage for the nonunion transplants in the 1980s, but the domestics and the UAW were locked into a deathgrip by then.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Sep 06, 2009 3:52 pm) So tell me books weren't cooked and accounting "imaginative". |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 06, 2009 6:05 am) My argument has nothing to do with favoring foreign companies over their American counterparts. I'm sure that southern states would love to have new Ford and Chevy plants--provided they came without the UAW baggage. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's takeover made it certain that GM will never be able to break the UAW chains. I never mentioned a specific region, but the location of the new foreign plants is a direct result of the South's aggressive pursuit of these new job opportunities. I too see the irony in the South's opposition to NAFTA and foreign competition versus their marriage to Kia, Hyundai, BMW, and MB. Perhaps they realized that jobs from foreign employers are better than no jobs at all. By the way, when I talk about the UAW, I'm not trying to bash American workers. It's the corrupt UAW management and their shameful work rules and inflated contracts I oppose. Our legislators have done NOTHING to help American workers and their employers. NAFTA did nothing but send American jobs to Mexico and Canada. The latest example is "Cash For Clunkers" which did NOTHING to help US manufacturers as foreign companies captured most of the sales.
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Sep 07, 2009 6:48 am) That's somewhat misleading. First of all, "foreign" manufacturers, which are a majority of car manufacturers (something like 10 or more versus 3 domestics?) got I think 60%? Or was that 40% of the cars sold in C4C were built in the US? One or the other, don't remember which. Anyway, the domestics certainly didn't lose out...Ford had two vehicles in the top 10 C4C models: Focus and Escape. Even GM got some benefit from increased Malibu, Equinox, and Cobalt sales (I think Aveo sales increased too, didn't they?). Chrysler might not have but they're pretty much a lost cause at this point anyway, right? Ironically enough, many of the "foreign manufacturer" cars that benefited are in fact built in some of those bribe-influenced factories they built in the US. So even though it's not an American company, at least it benefits the American economy.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Sep 07, 2009 6:48 am) Let's say, for instance, that GM (or Ford or Chrysler, it doesn't matter) were actually ONE DEALERSHIP in a large American city. Okay, and lets' say this dealership wasn't doing too well. Sales were limp, customers not very well satisfied, in spite of decent product. The carpets are a bit tatty, the neon light out front flickers and the "V" is missing from Chevrolet. The salespeople are not well dressed and the bathrooms stink. Is this fixable? How might you do that? The point of this "thought exercise"? The point might be this---whatever you came up with to cure the ills of that dealership might be applicable on a corporate level. In other words, leadership from the top. |
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Sep 07, 2009 7:13 am) Had Congress given a hoot about American companies AND American jobs, they could have helped both by restricting the program to cars that are classified as American-made by the EPA. Although that would have eliminated those Chevy Aveo sales (made in Korea) it would have included all those Accords (made by American workers in Ohio). That way, American consumers benefit at the same time as American workers (a beautiful cycle because workers are consumers too). The following sentence would have accomplished this goal: The vehicle identification number must begin with a "1" to be eligible.
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Sep 07, 2009 10:34 am)  Quite frankly, I'm wondering how few GMs and Fords would have been left qualifying. Not sure where the Cobalt and G5 are built, or the Malibu, but you're right about the Aveo being out. Also the Focus and Fusion (not sure about the Escape).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Sep 07, 2009 10:54 am) I'm pretty sure an action like that would have made the WTO hopping mad and resulted in retaliatory trade sactions and a very unpleasant backlash for the US. Besides all that, the US government intervened mightily on behalf of the D3 in the late 70s and early 1980s, when they were being slaughtered by the foreign companies. They instituted what amounted to quotas, gave loans to Chrylser, required domestic content rules, etc. It didn't do any good because Americans boycotted American cars en masse. Nobody held a gun to American car buyers. They went out and did what Lee Iacocca used to recommend in his car commvercials: "If you can find a better car, buy it! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Sep 07, 2009 10:34 am) Easier than that: cars made in US or sold under the name plate of the big 3, GM, C, F.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Sep 07, 2009 12:14 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What if you were in charge of GM?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
