This one takes the cake:
Even as Detroit’s Big Three teeter on collapse, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Saturday that the problem is not the union’s contract with the automakers and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy. “The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,” Gettelfinger [the UAW President] told reporters on a conference call … Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control — the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year. “We’re here not because of what the auto industry has done,” he said. “We’re here because of what has happened to the economy.”
Er… really. So why aren’t VW, BMW, Damlier-Benz, Toyota, or Honda in this kind of mess?
November 15th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
He’s right that the problem isn’t the union contract, and he’s right to defend his members. Management would love to get a bailout, blame the unions and force new contracts, and go back to business as susal. Yes, work rules and the contract is one of the issues, but not the main one. The union didn’t force management to fight fuel efficiency regulations, make SUV’s or design crummy cars. One of the advantages of bankruptcy is that it would force renegotiated contracts, which he wouldn’t like. But the bigger issue is getting rid of incompetent management, learning from Toyota and Honda and designing and building better cars — hybrids and electrics while they’re at it.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
W.E. Deming would agree with Michael Wells: “The problem is at the top; management is the problem.”
Ford Motors listened to Deming in 1986, but now they seem to have forgotten him.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Agree with all of the above. Unions are not the problem. Japanese and European automakers deal with much more powerful unions and manage to both turn out better cars and make profits.
Likewise, although the economy has exacerbated the problems of the auto industry here, it certainly hasn’t created them, and the Big 3 were in trouble long before the credit crunch. The credit crunch is just a nail in the coffin.
The Big 3 have done all they can to fight fuel efficiency standards in this nation, whining about how they can’t build fuel efficient cars, and all the time actually building said cars in Europe.
I’d say the American people actually deserve part of the blame here, though. I realize this comment is not going to make me popular, but as usual, I don’t care. The Big 3 would not have churned out crappy SUVs, behemoth pickup trucks, and joke automobiles if we hadn’t snapped them up. An awful lot of people wanted to “feel safe” driving an SUV or looked at an SUV or a pickup as overcompensation for a diminuitive body part. There is no reason on Earth that a single man has to own and drive a four-door crew cab 4×4 6 wheel long bed pickup truck to work and back, yet I see it every day here in Texas.
The Big 3 also have a burden that Japanese and European firms do not: health care and pensions. Other nations have these not only available outside of employers, but a lot have these as rights enshrined in their Constitutions. Particularly our unpleasant health care system (to even dignify it by calling it a “system”) has all but destroyed GM and Ford and probably has made a whole host of other industries globally non-competitive.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Swordsman,
Right on. I don’t trust anyone with a clean, un-dented pickup. For construction workers, farmers, etc. a big pickup is a necessary tool. But for commuters, they’re a vanity toy.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Michael, good summary. And thanks for the support.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
What happened to liberty? Choice? While many of us may disapprove of people driving big SUVs/Pickups when perhaps we perceive that they don’t ‘need’ one. For many suburbanites/urban dweller large cars are handy for multiple kids/pets/weekend trips/outdoor activities/carpools (to work, school, and play)/etc.. Its not for us to decide who has a right to purchase what type of vehicle.
Should we start legislating horsepower in Mercedes, beamers and porsches? What about home sizes? Number of tvs, ipods, or shoes that people can own? Should we limit how much time each of us spend on blogs/web etc? (it sucks a lot of energy!) What about how many miles we can travel by air/train/car each year? I think many countries have tried this model of planning.
Also, I love this ironic comment from user name “SWORDSMAN”…An awful lot of people wanted to “feel safe” driving an SUV or looked at an SUV or a pickup as overcompensation for a diminuitive body part.
All good interesting/debate, I just want us to be careful when we pick/choose where we want to limit choice/consumption? ie We’ve stamped out ’smokers rights’, but let everyone else eat to excess/obesity and to a point that demands more health care dollars than smoking.
All cars can and should be made ‘cleaner’ and more efficient. There is no doubt. But lets be mindful when making assumptions about who has the right to consume what if we are not ready to look at the full gamut of consumption.
November 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
David,
Good points. I don’t think it’s a question of deciding what people are allowed to do. It’s what is encouraged and subsidized by the society. SUVs and mega-pickups, as well as Hummers were designed specifically to get around fuel efficiency rules, then sold with bonuses to encourage gas guzzling (Hummers even got tax breaks). The society needs to encourage conservation and alternative energy. Then if someone wants to buy, or make, a fuel guzzling Behemoth that’s their choice.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
A comment on David’s post:
Choice is a fundamental tenet of democracy but a delicate balance must always be weighed between individual freedoms and the need for society’s need to advance and prosper. Individuals cannot leave their dirty dishes behind for others to clean-up in the name of choice. Everyone owes a responsibility to everyone else to work toward common goals or at least not create societal problems like climate change, deteriorating infrastructure, rising energy costs, suburban sprawl, the ignoring of urban decay for so many years, etc. Hopefully in the future more people will choose to plant the shade trees under which they’ll never sit.
Choice, and the decision to choose not to accept the right of minorities to equal education is what led to the explosion of suburbia (white flight) and the suburban models that we built during the 70’s and 80’s in particular and that Detroit fed upon with the SUV culture. The big house, big yard and spacious SUV’s. Obviously, I could go and on about this topic and many of the arguments are widespread; bottom line, choice must always be the accomplice of responsibility and limits to be noble.
Health care– we have the best health care in the world, we have a bad system, that point needs to be made. But think how healthier we would be as a society if we weren’t so dependent upon the automobile and walked a lot more in our day-to-day activities.
November 16th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
David, ever heard of something called a minivan? Doesn’t require massive fuel and transports kids and stuff just fine. So do station wagons. Also the name Swordsman I’ve used on multiple message boards. If it offends your sensibilities, too bad.
As for limiting consumption, we already do that. The argument is not between limiting consumption or not to do so, but where to draw the line.
Try buying a car that isn’t speed-governed. I’m sure many are not, but most these days are. Also, try buying a car without antilock brakes or airbags. Isn’t this also limiting my right to choose and my liberty?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Uh… having to actually, you know, deal with unions on an almost daily basis, and having dealt with the UAW in the past…
…the unions are the problem.
Japanese transplants are all non-union. Their pay and benefit packages are 25 to 25% less than the formerly big three.
Besides the direct cost savings, the non-union transplants have a flexibility that a Detroit manager could only dream of. Imagine having to negotiate every single factory change, no matter how trivial, with a union, rather than just making the change. It’s infuriating.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Buzz,
I’d buy “the unions are part of the problem” but not THE problem. Even with lower wages, etc., if Detroit were building the same junk they’d be driving over the same cliff, even if they weren’t so close to the dropoff yet. The difference with the Japanese transplants is that they build quality autos — and could do even better if the government can get around the Big 3 and their unions fighting against any change.
And the Japanese companies non-union pay and benefits are pretty good because the unions exist in the other companies. As is often the case, unions make things better for everyone in an industry, even in non-union shops.
November 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
@11
Michael,
Your repeated comment about the big 3’s product being junk is outdated. The quality of American made autos has been, and continues to improve. And I do not speak only of initial quality, which is important, but overall quality. You can check the facts at consumer reports, and JD Power… more and more American made cars and trucks are filling out the lists. Now as to the original issue of this post…. yes the Unions have been a historical drain on the bottom line for the Big 3, but as a child of an auto worker, I can say that the money and services that were provided by the union helped me grow up in a nice neighborhood, supplied some money for college, and has allowed my father to retire with good health care. None of these things were solely supplied from the Union, my Mother also worked a full time job to make sure ends met when it was time to pay the bills. It’s unfortunate that a stereotype of autoworkers and the memories of 1960’s Hoffa led union is what is keeping people from believing that the big 3 screwed themselves and should be left to attempt navigation through chapter 11.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Scott,
I’m basing my judgement on American rental cars of various sizes that I get when I travel. They’re poorly designed for driver ergonomics and the smaller ones are tinny sounding when you close the door. Unless they make different models for fleet sales, my judgement is they’re not anywhere near the quality of my 10 year old Subaru Outback.
Granted, they’re not as bad as 20 years ago when a co-worker of mine opened the door of his new car and it fell off in his hand. But while they’ve been improving, so have the Japanese and Europeans which are still out ahead in my experience.