ellives

One thing to remember is "the best deal between two parties is one in which neither side is happy." This means both sides had to give a little to get the deal done. Let's hope they can figure out something that works for everybody.

Philosophically you're probably right but in the end it only matters if the UAW can justify its existence in light of the fact Toyota is successful without a UAW. Why does GM need them? I don't think the UAW has an answer to this question so they better come up with one by September or fold.

There is clearly some confusion about compensation. When you speak of hourly rates, you are talking only about salary. You are not talking about all the other costs associated with labor such as health & dental and retirement costs. When you add these costs in, the cost of labor is much higher than you describe. You quoted, $28, $35 and $24 per hour. These rates seem a little confusing in terms of who is getting those pay rates. You might want to elaborate. I believe your personal situation is much less lucrative than UAW arrangements we've seen discussed even here on this forum. For instance 100% health coverage is something very rare in corporate America these days. These arrangements have to go. I know for me I dislike unions because of behaviors that are counterproductive to an aggressive company. My brother works for a union shop after years in a non-union shop. When he first started his current union job, his colleagues had to keep reminding him to relax and take his time. This behavior he was unaccustomed to after having spent years in a non-union shop where everything was go-go-go. Eventually he changed his own behavior to match. It's interesting you use the word "jealousy." It does seem a mentality brought on by unions... meaning a we vs. they attitude or a certain snobbery. I can't really put my finger on it. I know for me personally it's certainly not jealousy. It's brought on from a desire to see GM figure out the recipe again... to get their mojo back if it's indeed possible. To me the contract negotiations in September are a significant milestone and the results will determine the future of GM. I hope both sides will be sane without the blustering we heard at the beginning of this thread. They need to come up with a plan that fairly shares the risks and rewards of building the business back. This means up and down the ranks. I've personally hated when companies losing money giving management bonuses when the rank-and-file aren't getting them and the stockholders sure aren't getting anything.

They live and die together. Hopefully they've seen this although I have my doubts. When companies hit hard times, very often the quality people immediately leave and look for greener pastures (primarily because they CAN) leaving the dead wood behind. I just don't want to see GM die the "death of a thousand cuts." If it appears this will happen I hope the market shuns GM and ends it quickly.

True - it's a lot easier and safer to walk over to the Toyota plant and work there instead.

Yeah and that 3% would be UAW members, their families or retirees.

Sorry 'tard boy... this is called "supply and demand" and it's why Toyota can build for $2k per car less than GM. I'd be interested to know how he got such a precise number as "81%" and how he happens to know the wages of other people given privacy laws. Tick tock UAW.... Tick Tock.

.... and so it begins.....

Hmmm - me thinks Ford CEO's haven't been right even 50 percent of the time lately. Maybe others disagree.

I'm sure they'd figure out a way to screw somebody, somehow. That's what they do for a living isn't it?

Oh come on now. It was a friendly jab on a friendly site. Let's keep it that way. How would anybody here really know how much beer you drink, if any at all? Let's keep the discussion going on an even keel. I think it's great quality discussion and important for us all to keep each other honest. We all know there's not enough of the honesty part of the discussion in Washington.

:AH-HA_wink: If only we could. The problem would be there wouldn't BE any weathermen because they'd all get sued.

Sorry. I think Rich W5 has obviously already consumed all available beer.

I'm not in total agreement with the "no weapons" comment but it was the general idea of my initial statement. For those people who are primarily concerned with gas mileage and look at the EPA (old) numbers and see the Corolla with 41 mpg highway, they will jump on the ToyMotor bandwagon immediately. Why wouldn't they? There's no risk on their part. It's the best mileage in the segment and reliability isn't a concern. The only decision factor not in ToyMotor's favor MIGHT be price but in this segment there's isn't much leeway on the pricing while still keeping your hand in the game. GM needs to figure out how to get a product on the market that is competitive with the Corolla and hopefully beats it. Period. This product was ToyMotor's "in" to the market and it continues to be one of the main reasons GM isn't winning the battle.

At least he has the balls to stand up and speak his mind. He may need a little educating on the car business but at least his heart is in the right place. It's a lot more than we can say about Bush who, in the end, is a scared little man with serious problems of self-adequacy.

These people will have the same problem they have now. They aren't the ones (typically) buying new cars. They buy used ones that are cheaper. Once new ones are built and purchased, they will flow into the mainstream over time and these people you're describing will also get the benefit of better mileage. What was the point of this post anyway?

The "tax-CUTS" phenomena was a Bush tactic used to convince an otherwise apathetic public to support him. He mortgaged our children's future to advance his political agenda for which he will pay dearly for in the history books. The truth be told it was a Rove tactic which Bush wasn't smart enough to resist. Rove doesn't care - he's not the president. The problem with Bush is he can't see beyond what's in front of him. He's not a strategist which is why he has Rove and unfortunately because of this deficiency he's viritually guaranteed a Democrat president AND congress. Beyond this huge problem Bush and Rove do make an excellent good cop/bad cop. When you refer back to the 1980's it makes me laugh because a good deal of the reason why many of the traditional renewable energy programs were dropped was because of the nuclear power industry. I can still hear them saying electricity will be "too cheap to meter." As a result here in New Hampshire we have some of the highest rates in the country after we built our plant. Unfortunately we'll never learn. The nuclear power industry is back to selling the benefits of nuclear power and the public is again buying the bull$h! hook-line-and-sinker. They'll tout how much the technology has improved (to overcome any concern about a Three Mile Island-type problem) and argue it's a needed energy source. All the while they'll ignore and neglect to address the waste problem which continues on unabated from plants built back in the 80's. Yes - give me wind energy any time.

Who said anything about hatred? I don't hate Al. He's a good guy and his heart is in the right place but he needs to be careful with his words. There are plenty other politicians I really dislike but Al isn't one of them. One other comment... a "small solar panel" will not heat your water consistently in lots of the US. They will need to be big panels and there will be a need for storage. This approach will only address part of the problem. In the end it will all come down to cost and since the cost of oil is rising, market forces will drive different approaches to energy requirements. Personally I intend to dump my oil fired boiler in my home by next year. I don't care about the cost issues any more. I'm not contributing any more money to oil companies than I have to. Period.

He's ignorant and uninformed. Shouldn't be a surprise since he's a politician. Detroit owns some responsibility for Al's lack of understanding since they do such an abysmal job marketing themselves. I admit I was shocked myself when I looked at the EPA mileage numbers for the Tacoma v6 vs. the Chevy 1500. Don't really understand why anyone would buy the Taco - certainly not justified for the 1 mpg difference.

The Deville was not always the "faux-luxury" and I believe they should bring it back to its former glory as the flagship product. Think S or 7. To get there it needs to be RWD/AWD and much more refined that the current product. Many of the geezers buying the DTS now would flip for more money if the product demonstrated the value to support the expense. Those that won't spend the extra money can move into Buick. I'd expect Cadillac to gradually push the price up as they can justify the value and the market accepts it. If you recall when the LS first debuted, Toyota took the same approach until the market accepted the product and continues to push the price up.

OK - I'll buy one and let you know.

It is an interesting set of sales numbers you point out. The more significant information would be the trend numbers. A one year snapshot doesn't really indicate anything. People who buy in this market segment tend to be very brand loyal. If XLR sales are going up, I would worry much. I takes a long time to get people to consider making a plunge to another brand. I agree Cadillac needs to focus on their current lineup before expanding. I find it very typical for them to try to shotgun their product development strategy. It's not something you'd ever see ToyMotor doing. They need to learn a little bit of the GE / Jack Welch strategy of being 1 or 2 in the markets you serve or get out. When you're 3 or lower, you can't justify the R&D dollars being spent on these products. After all, the goal is to make money. It's not to build cars. People tend to lose site of this fact when they're talking about GM I think.

Well said. Something we can agree on.

Your point about "paper" is quite correct. ToyMotor does a nice job of optimizing their results for EPA testing. GM could learn a trick or two there. I just can't accept or believe ToyMotor's engineering team is better than GM. Does that make any sense? Engineers are usually very competitive and I just don't see it.

Get a grip. The extremist political rhetoric never helps and it doesn't here either. (As a result I'm ignoring your whole first paragraph and most of the second.) Pointing to Arnold as an example of Republican leadership is ridiculous. He's a RINO and even Republican party leaders accuse him of the same so let's get ourselves out of the generalist statements. He is also practical and does what is right for Arnold which happened to mean backing programs that would typically be considered "Democrat" programs. Good for him and California. Let's face it and agree there is no silver bullet to the energy problem. The solution will be a vast combination of many approaches. Ethanol alone isn't it and the only reason it's come into the mainstream recently is the fact petroleum costs have risen so high as to make ethanol a financially competitive solution. Again, I go back to controlling energy consumption by controlling the tax spigot. It can be done thoughtfully (I know it's an oxymoron in Washington) so as to mitigate the impact to the economy but it will in the end motivate consumers to reduce their fuel consumption.