Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Thanks. That does look interesting. The article does not mention this, but, if you are not aware of it, that is the plant that builds the Chevy Cruze. It has a long history of building compact GM products.

BTW, I've got relatives from my Mom's side of the family, in Northeast Ohio, that live just a few miles from that plant. I've been by it several times, just off I-80, on my way to see them. Impressive facility.

situman

Not true at all. Its all the pensions for retired workers. Pensions needs.to be funded either by growth of the investments or by sales of cars. It can quickly bankrupt a company in a perfect storm.

mmarshall

Not trying to be evasive, but I will refer you to one of Sulu's posts. He can (and did) explain it a lot better then I can. Here, he refuted several anti-pension arguments.

Quote:
Sulu: I am wondering where you picked up this figure. Is this a gross figure that includes all post-retirement pension and other (e.g. health) benefits? This is a little hard to fathom, considering that the GM worker with 20+ years of experience right now earns only about $60,000 to $70,000 ($30+/hour is the number I found). That would mean that the GM retiree earns more in pension than in wages when working?

Sulu: Why the sudden fixation over pension costs and blaming the union? Pensions since the bailout are less generous than before.

Regardless, pensions rates were part of the legal, binding contracts that were negotiated, agreed and then signed by both management and the workers, going back decades and decades. And the union was only trying to get what the workers deserved (and they willingly gave up and demanded less during the bankruptcy), even as executive pay packages went up.

Pensions do not come out of daily operations but are paid out of pension funds into which the company contributes; these funds are then invested to earn a return on investment. So the fund should be growing. If the pension fund is not growing, it may be because not enough monies were invested; it may be because fund managers did not have the right mix of investments; or the company raided the funds for other purposes. No matter what the reason, the root cause is poor management of the pension fund.

If management cannot afford to pay the pensions they legally agreed to, it is due to poor management, not because workers demanded too much.

If management is now trying to renege on legal, binding contracts, this should be highlighted for the truly bad faith that it is.

Sulu: Let's not blame the unions. Workers do not willingly and knowingly build bad product; I know that most workers have pride in what they do and try to do their best. When they are not performing at their best, it is because they are told not to do their best (e.g. rushed or told "that is good enough") or given bad design (drawings or instructions) to build from; they are at the whim of management.

And again, if "unions demanded huge benefits" it is probably because they had reason to -- economic times were good and/or management compensation was going up out of proportion to the workers.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Mary Barra is going to Capitol Hill to speak to a very angry Congress (from both parties) to try and explain her actions (Good Luck) . I told you she was getting herself in hot water.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...t-week-n942391

General Motors Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra plans to visit Capitol Hill next week to discuss its plans to halt production at five plants in North America next year and cut up to 15,000 jobs, two congressional aides said on Friday.

GM has come under harsh criticism from lawmakers from both major political parties, and from President Donald Trump, since Monday when the No. 1 U.S. automaker announced the biggest restructuring since its bankruptcy a decade ago.

Barra is expected to meet with lawmakers from Michigan and Ohio, where GM plans to shutter three plants, as well as senior leaders in Congress. GM did not immediately comment.

Representative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, told CNN earlier this week that GM had done what others could not — unite both parties in their anger. She added that GM "has to be the most thoroughly disliked company in Washington right now." She also criticized GM's handling of the layoffs.

GM said this week that many workers at plants that are ending production will be able to transfer to open jobs at other plants.

Barra has been calling lawmakers this week to explain the decision to end production. Trump has threatened to revoke subsidies for GM for electric vehicles.

Barra also will speak at a forum next week at Harvard University in Massachusetts for new members of Congress.


GM plans to halt production next year at three assembly plants: the Lordstown small-car factory near Youngstown, Ohio; the Detroit-Hamtramck complex in Detroit; and the Oshawa, Ontario, assembly complex near Toronto. It will also stop building several models now assembled at those plants, including the Chevrolet Cruze, the Chevrolet Volt hybrid, the Cadillac CT6 and the Buick LaCrosse.

Additionally, GM plans to shutter the Warren transmission plant outside Detroit and a plant that makes electric motors and drivetrains outside Baltimore, Maryland.

GM could opt to add additional new products to those plants at a later date after it holds contract talks next summer with the United Auto Workers union.

Cost pressures on GM and other automakers and suppliers have increased as demand has waned for traditional sedans. The company has said tariffs on imported steel, imposed earlier this year by the Trump administration, have cost it $1 billion.

mmarshall

I read that article. It is spot-on. Mary Barra is in a lot more hot water than she thinks.

And that's only on this side of the border...never mind the problems she's also going to have with the Canadians.

Toys4RJill

mmarshall

Shareholders don't make laws or regulations. Shareholders don't vote Federal money. Shareholders don't draw up company contracts with the UAW (that they are expected to keep). In many cases, shareholders don't even buy GM products. This time, she's going to have to answer to a lot of other people...people who don't just sit around and think about nothing but corporate profits all day long.

MattyG

The logic does not compute. Shareholders are absolutely obsessed with profit over people, no doubt about that. But to understand GM's logic you have to look at who "owns" GM. Certainly not the federal government.

You say the CEO is going to "answer" to people. Who are they and what are her interests vs the Trump administration? Certainly a bit of bullying on Twitter can drive GM stock down, but it's the market that eventually settles it all at the end of the day.

Mary Barra owns over 500K of GM stock. Dan Amman and Mark Reuss (top executives) also hold hundreds of thousands of shares. The institutional holders of GM own over 360 million shares of GM, most of them are investment funds. It's doubtful that Mary Barra is going to be bullied by Trump and his people into a retreat, when these are the real organizations who can make or break GM on the stock markets.

Sure end the subsidies, what did they amount to anyway? $7500 to go buy an electric or hybrid car? The bigger threat is divestment by these gigantic index funds which would collapse GM stock, not to mention the personal holdings of Barra et. al.

mmarshall

Well, we'll see how much of it computes and how much doesn't.

mmarshall

Jill, you asked me earlier why I haven't considered a new Avalon next time around. I apologize for not replying sooner (probably just got forgotten in the sea of posts I've been sending). I don't know what the next Avalon will be like, but for the present one, here's the answer....at least on the surface. Both the regular and Sport-Package grilles, IMO, are ludicrous....I'd be embarrassed to be driving something like that.





However, I am also a person who practices what he preaches....and I can say that in good conscience. I myself have preached against pre-judging a vehicle solely by its looks (even with the ill-fated Pontiac Aztec LOL), and regularly advise others to do the same. I didn't like the 2013/2014 redesign at all...for reasons which you and I have discussed repeatedly in other threads, and don't need re-hashing here. The 2016 mid-cycle refresh, especially with the suspension revision, was a definite improvement, but still not quite my cup of tea....and I thought the 2017 Lacrosse simply blew it away in comfort and looks. I've seen the new 2019 only in pictures, and in person, roped off, at the D.C. Auto Show, where I couldn't get into it. But, I'll tell you what.....given that good vehicles sometimes lurk under ugly exteriors, and the need to practice what one preaches, I'll run out to one of the big local Toyota shops tomorrow (there are several in my area that are very big) and check out the 2019 Avalon (probably not a Touring or Sport-Package version, since they will likely have firmer suspensions and tires). If I can get past the grille (that will be a job LOL) , I might just like the way this new version drives......won't know untll I actually try it. I do know that I don't like the new ES350 (I've sampled it), but I suspect that the Avalon, from customer complaints in the last few years, may be less sport-oriented this time....sport-orientation definitely turns me off. Like with the Kia Cadenza, I might be able to live with it, even if it can't quite match the Lacrosse in smoothness or noise-isolation.

You want me to do another thread on what my reactions to it are, or do you think that maybe we have too many Car Chat threads (and too many posts) on this subject as it is?

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

mmarshall

OK, Dave...I'll start a new thread, then, with my feelings on the Avalon.

Toys4RJill