[396ssrat]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

very true.if the union was really protecting the workers they would be trying to get them an education in another field instead of a few more dollars an hour.

Geez, I'd think that is exactly what a company might do. Educate your workers.

[craigss50]

Originally Posted by DorkMissile

Look - if you think that "labor offshore" is really the difference, then you need to think about all the variables that go into manufacturing for a global company.

Believe it or not - the cost of labor in the US vs China is within 5% of each other. Are the wages that close? No. But U.S. manufacturing is also reported to be 70-90% more productive, and that is considering the average shift here is 8hrs vs 12hrs in China. Once you factor in everything like benefits and logistics, the number is really close. I work with a ton of companies that manufacture all over the world and they tell you that things now are more even now than they have ever been. Most will tell you cost to manufacture is within 7-8%. So why build factories around the world?

For starters - logistics. How cost effective would it be to build a 4,000lb car and ship it half way around the world to the buyer? No very. You are adding a serious amount of shipping and tariffs into the mix. IE - in Japan, it is a mandatory 30% import tariff on a imported vehicle. So you build cars in the markets in which they are sold.

See Americans think every good idea starts and ends here in our country. A shocking statistic is that GM sold 23% more cars in China last year vs here (1.6M vs 1.3M). Being that China has a 25% import tariff on cars, you would want to build cars in China also. A car built in China that is imported into the US only has 2.5%. So it is easier for GM to build cars there and bring them here.

Second thing is that in the US, a car company has to build a network of dealers and hold billions of dollars of inventory on the lots because the average US buyer wants to walk on the lot and browse cars. Which is all fine and dandy, but that comes at a cost. Every car sold, even if you pay cash, has somewhere buried in its cost 6-8% interest that you paid along the way (in the form of interest forced onto the dealer by the manufacturer and interest charged to the manufacturer by their banks & the government for the purchase of raw materials).

In Asia - over 90% of the cars sold are sold prior to being built. A guy walks into the dealer, looks at the car, might drive one, and then orders one. The dealerships are owned by the company and they don't have a ocean of cars out in front. They might have 25 cars there, and yea, you can buy off the lot, but most people order. So for the car company there is a seriously reduced amount of logistics selling in Asia (and Europe is quickly changing to this business model). Would you rather take the money for the car you want to sell up front, or would you want to build it and hope someone comes and buys it?

The two models that sell the most globally for GM are the Buick Envision & the Chevy Trax. Both are designed and built for the Asian market, and are built in China. Buick dealers here scream at GM that they can't get enough of them, but GM sells them before they are even built in China.

If you are a fan of your Camaro (of course built here in Lansing, and not available in most of the world) you have to understand, if there was no "offshore labor", you would have had to buy a car from someone else. GM would either have been gone or close to gone by the time the 6th Gen Camaro was produced. Stepping away from thinking that the only place to sell cars is North America is the best thing that GM ever did, and had it not been for the bailout it would have never happened. It's nothing to do with the UAW or the unions, it has to do with being able to take advantage of the world market.

This may apply to China but how about moving plants to Mexico? They don't buy a majority of autos built. Move the Mexico plants back to the US.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DorkMissile

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-fa...handong-china/

Point wasn’t what is made in China, it was where ours come from.

China builds the Buick Envision (shipped here), the Cadillac CT6, Buick LaCrosse, Chevy Cruze, and many others.

[KirkH]

Currently we have a Shareholder Economy. Nothing matters to the corporate executives except paying the shareholders.

We need a Stakeholder Economy. The profits are shared by the shareholders with the stakeholders of the company, such as the employees, the suppliers, and the customers.

We used to have a Stakeholder Economy, like in the 1950-70's when the CEO made far less than they do now, compared to workers.. Now the CEOs and the shareholders are proportioned more than they deserve, at the expense of the stakeholders.

[redone000]

Originally Posted by Lafourche1

To put another light on this. The workers took several cuts during the 2008-2010 time frame. This was a cut in wages and benefits. GM made > $11,000,000,000 in pre-tax profit last fiscal year. That $11 Billion. Workers wanting to have some of their work rewarded in not only logical, it is fair.

Unions are simply responsible for living wages, worker safety, healthcare, retirement and a host of other benefits that are now accepted across the work place. Another, over-looked, feature of unions is that for every union job, there are 7-8 non-union jobs that carry near equal pay and benefits.

A fair day's wage for a fair day's work is just.

plus 1

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Lafourche1

Just curious. Are you stipulating that the folks who had worked their 25-40 years for General Motors, paid their dues and now have retired, should have had their pensions either cut or taken entirely from them? These people worked most if not all of their adult lives for these pensions. They have earned them. It is part of the bargain that the company made with their employees. To even suggest that this is something that should be taken from someone is not only cruel and heartless, it is theft, plain and simple.

It's not an honest bargain when the stipulations are pay us what we want or you don't get to make a product.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

It's not an honest bargain when the stipulations are pay us what we want or you don't get to make a product.

You act like the unions have all the power in negotiations and don’t have to compromise in deal making......

You know what happens when a union makes too high of demands and won’t come down from them? Company goes fine, bye bye and closes shop there and go else where. Strikes are a tactic unions have and it is the employees legal right to do so to get any kind of fair deal out of management. If employees were on there own, management would have all the power.

[Smokin19]

This whole scenario is out of balance. If the CEO's and the unions want to make millions more on the cars they sell, it comes on the backs of the customers who buy them. Just look at how the cost of these cars has gone up, eventually the well will become dry.

We are already seeing prices and payment schedules that some never thought would get that high. The American consumer IMO has reached this plateau. Why? Because the average wages can't keep up with these price increases. GM and it's workers are going to rue the day over this strike. Especially because of the ripple effect it's going to have on the economy. If this strike goes on for too long you should expect a recession in the not to distant future. There are many companies that supply GM parts and they are also going to have to layoff employees because of "just in time" supply.

If you lose your job because of this strike, will you sour over GM products?

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

I doubt this strike will CAUSE a recession - GM isn't that important - but we are probably overdue for one anyway and certain indicators suggest one may be on the horizon (forecasting recessions being only slightly more reliable than forecasting the weather, of course), but if one does happen this strike over very, very good benefits not being good enough will look pretty short sighted and arrogant.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Lazerbrainz2k3

I doubt this strike will CAUSE a recession - GM isn't that important - but we are probably overdue for one anyway and certain indicators suggest one may be on the horizon (forecasting recessions being only slightly more reliable than forecasting the weather, of course), but if one does happen this strike over very, very good benefits not being good enough will look pretty short sighted and arrogant.

The theme of the strike seems to be over the temp workers and the two tier system than demanding more than what GM is offering in improved benefits. Back when the two tier system was agreed upon, GM promised a path for those temp workers to become Perm employees and gain the benefits those employees enjoy. Sounds like GM hasn’t honored that path and isn’t willing to do anything about it.

Now of course that is the UAW’s PR machine going. And GM’s PR piece of what they offered also sounds reasonable. Truth is somewhere in between.

[Petrol Head]

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum, have been lurking a bit but I was just about ready to order a new 2020 2SS 6 speed when the strike happened. I have to say, I'm glad I did not go in earlier to place the order - my car could be sitting on the line right now with one door, no wheels, and the hood open with no engine in it

[MrChrisLS3]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

The theme of the strike seems to be over the temp workers and the two tier system than demanding more than what GM is offering in improved benefits. Back when the two tier system was agreed upon, GM promised a path for those temp workers to become Perm employees and gain the benefits those employees enjoy. Sounds like GM hasn’t honored that path and isn’t willing to do anything about it.

Now of course that is the UAW’s PR machine going. And GM’s PR piece of what they offered also sounds reasonable. Truth is somewhere in between.

I saw a report on TV that said some of these "temp" workers have been employed for up to 8 years and haven't been 'hired in'.

There is a benefit to manufactures using union labor. The union helps workers survive the 'down times'. This benefits the manufacturer because when things go back up, and shifts are added, they are people who are trained, on boarded and ready to hit the ground running. Without this, they have to hire, on board, and train entire crews. Now that is expensive, especially when you factor the cost of assembly error and related warranty claims down the road. So the unions help maintain a plug and play stable of experienced workers. In the big picture, this saves GM big money. Of course, this relationship is prone to greed and finding loop holes on both sides of the line, with the people who just want to provide dinner for their families in the middle.

[Realist]

Originally Posted by MrChrisLS3

I saw a report on TV that said some of these "temp" workers have been employed for up to 8 years and haven't been 'hired in'.

There is a benefit to manufactures using union labor. The union helps workers survive the 'down times'. This benefits the manufacturer because when things go back up, and shifts are added, they are people who are trained, on boarded and ready to hit the ground running. Without this, they have to hire, on board, and train entire crews. Now that is expensive, especially when you factor the cost of assembly error and related warranty claims down the road. So the unions help maintain a plug and play stable of experienced workers. In the big picture, this saves GM big money. Of course, this relationship is prone to greed and finding loop holes on both sides of the line, with the people who just want to provide dinner for their families in the middle.

Completely disagree, the unions cost money, there is no savings from using them. They are costing GM customers at this very moment. I find Unions always make their jobs sound harder then they actually are and feel they perform less and cost more. The auto manufactures down south do just fine without Unions. Having Union janitors and truckers just add to the cost of every vehicle. Those roles can be filled in seconds and probably 90% of the UAW’s work could be trained in a few short weeks. Contract out the technical roles and it’s a win win for the US auto manufacturers which is just GM and Ford. Let’s be real, Ford is hurting and could really be in better position in the future if they could dump the UAW.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Realist

Completely disagree, the unions cost money, there is no savings from using them. They are costing GM customers at this very moment. I find Unions always make their jobs sound harder then they actually are and feel they perform less and cost more. The auto manufactures down south do just fine without Unions. Having Union janitors and truckers just add to the cost of every vehicle. Those roles can be filled in seconds and probably 90% of the UAW’s work could be trained in a few short weeks. Contract out the technical roles and it’s a win win for the US auto manufacturers which is just GM and Ford. Let’s be real, Ford is hurting and could really be in better position in the future if they could dump the UAW.

The Southern plants treat their employees well due to the threat of the UAW. Keep employees happy and they won't unionize. Start to abuse them, may see the UAW's push start to gain traction.

That is all it really boils down to. If a company treats their employees well, the threat of unionization goes down.