This is what a strong union will get you.

I wonder if the union willing to share in the suffering???

GM posts $15.5 billion 2nd-quarter loss By TOM KRISHER and DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP Auto Writers
1 hour, 19 minutes ago

DETROIT - General Motors Corp. said Friday its losses widened to $15.5 billion in the second quarter as North American sales plummeted and the company faced expenses due to labor unrest and its massive restructuring plan.

The loss of $27.33 per share is the third-worst quarterly loss in the automaker's history. In the same period a year earlier, GM recorded a net profit of $891 million, or $1.56 per share.


source

Sure they will. It's called layoffs.

Until GM learns to build vehicles that people actually want to buy, we can expect to see more numbers like this.

I blame management for signing agreements they cannot pay for.

Stephanie wrote:Sure they will. It's called layoffs.

Yeah, they'll suffer. Under the current agreement, they'll receive 90% of their pay for a fixed amount of time based on years of service.

ohio county wrote:I blame management for signing agreements they cannot pay for.

I agree Jimmy. For instance, they put all workers at all plants under one contract. So the union can strike at one location and bottleneck 5 or 6 plants and the employees of the striking plant aren't hurting because they receive full pay from the union.

Management also signed an agreement with the union that says no employee will lose their job to improved technology. As much as 45% of GM's workforce has no true job duties, other then to just show up and watch a machine do the work they used to.

GM spends over $4k per car to pay for retiree's and those that don't work. They deserve bankruptcy.

Richly. I say let them go.

The Michigan Congressional contingent is talking about a relief package of over $100 billion for the big three.

ziggy wrote:Until GM learns to build vehicles that people actually want to buy, we can expect to see more numbers like this.

Where have you been. GM has been the number 1 seller for all but one quarter for the past 60 years and they've been leaking like a sieve for more then a few years now. Their problems are all labor related.

They need to let the big 3 go into bankruptcy and if they can’t survive, let them die. Yes, stockholders will take a pounding and people will lose jobs but that equipment and those plants won't set idle for very long. People will still need cars that will need to be built in plants that will need employees.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sure they will. It's called layoffs.

Yeah, they'll suffer. Under the current agreement, they'll receive 90% of their pay for a fixed amount of time based on years of service.

The people with the least years of service will be the first to go. Those at the top will work until they retire or the company goes belly up. That union, like other unions, is willing to eat their young.

Isn't that what seniority means Stephanie?

To read all about it, ....... click below:

Too Little Too Late for U.S Auto Industry?



.

The problem is, GM can't compete with Toyota, Honda and Hyundai by selling Cobalts and Aveo's becasue their labor cost is as much as 4 times that of the Japense automakers and because of the current contracts, they can't lower that cost. GM's in for a very long, hard time unless something is done to address their labor situation.

Aaron wrote:Isn't that what seniority means Stephanie?

That's what unions have turned it into.

Unions have taken away the ability of management to reward the best employees. Union officials are never the newer employees and union officials are the ones who do the negotiating. They're the ones that go to the rank and file and tell them this deal isn't good enough, we need to get that. They don't care if the company is profitable and able to continue to grow. Sort of like Congress.....they only care about their personal wealth and power.

You're right in what unions now do. For the life of me, were I negotiating a contract, I would make the rewards for employees greater but they would also share in the risk. If sales declined or production declined or profits declined, I believe there should be a clause in the contract for wages to as well.

But I think you're mistaken in what they used to do. No union allowed a company to reward a good employee. What they did was weed out the bad employees so companies didn't have to deal with them.

Personally, no matter which side I were on, I would want incentives laced into any contract. Give workers the motivation to make extra money and they'll do it 9 times out of 10. And it is they that will weed out the bad employees so that unions or the companies don't have to.

But when you have situations like GM is now facing, everybody suffers and the only 'winner' in this situation will be the next automaker that comes in and picks up the factories to manufacture cars at below market value.

Yes, GM screwed up a great deal. But the fact that they are locked in and the union would rather see a plant close down then make any type of concession is sad in my book and neither side deserves any sympathy.

Is it just a coincidence that many of Americas fastest dying cities are all closely tied to the auto industry?

Thursday August 7, 2008
Forbes Magazine lists Charleston as one of America's 'fastest dying cities'

Forbes Magazine has listed Charleston as one of the United States' top 10 "fastest dying cities."

The Aug. 5 article is available at the magazine's Web site, www.forbes.com.

Charleston joins four Ohio cities - Dayton, Canton, Youngstown and Cleveland - and two Michigan cities - Flint and Detroit - on the list.

The other "dying" cities include Buffalo, N.Y., Springfield, Mass., and Scranton, Pa.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200808070581?page=2&build=cache

Jimmy posted this on the local news link as well Frank.

And of the 10 cities on the list, all save maybe Charleston have close ties to manufacturing companies that fell victim to extraordinarily high union labor cost and are no longer in operation or in sharp decline.

So my question is what good does the labor movements do if the end result is the shut down of businesses do to high labor cost?