Chyrsler union busting vs product
#1
05-22-2007, 06:35 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Chyrsler union busting vs product
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archiv....html?t=recent
Let us take the extreme case, eliminate all health care and pension benefits and save $1,500 per vehicle. What does that do to the actual costs of Chrysler vehicles? Would it be enough?
The reason I ask is KIA and other Pacific rim manufacturers make very low price cars but they require a higher, bi-monthly fuel bill tied to the cost of fuel. Their products don't have the operational cost savings associated with a better engineered vehicle. So I'm at a loss to understand why busting the union saves Chrysler when their products have nothing that appeals to me.
There was one other blurb by my favorite hybrid skeptic, CNW Marketing:
So the numbers have actually changed, 73% -> 72%. This could just be the 'reminder' factor of seeing Chrysler in the news as well as the margin of error. As we've already learned, CNW Marketing depends upon math illiteracy.
Apparently, Dan Quayle, the former vice president, is the chairman of Cerberus. Curiously, this explains their purchase of Chrysler.
Bob Wilson
. . .
By unwinding a nine-year-old merger between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz of Germany, “Cerberus is also taking on Chrysler’s $18 billion obligation for health care and pensions for employees and retirees," The New York Times reported on the front page earlier this month. "Any efforts to sharply reduce those perks — which Chrysler can afford but says represent a cost burden of $1,500 a vehicle — will probably put it at odds with the UAW.”
The newspaper said that “the most obvious way” for the new owners to make money on their investment is by reducing the benefits that workers hold sacred. . . .
By unwinding a nine-year-old merger between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz of Germany, “Cerberus is also taking on Chrysler’s $18 billion obligation for health care and pensions for employees and retirees," The New York Times reported on the front page earlier this month. "Any efforts to sharply reduce those perks — which Chrysler can afford but says represent a cost burden of $1,500 a vehicle — will probably put it at odds with the UAW.”
The newspaper said that “the most obvious way” for the new owners to make money on their investment is by reducing the benefits that workers hold sacred. . . .
The reason I ask is KIA and other Pacific rim manufacturers make very low price cars but they require a higher, bi-monthly fuel bill tied to the cost of fuel. Their products don't have the operational cost savings associated with a better engineered vehicle. So I'm at a loss to understand why busting the union saves Chrysler when their products have nothing that appeals to me.
There was one other blurb by my favorite hybrid skeptic, CNW Marketing:
. . .
In research done last week, CNW Marketing Research found that of the 1,600 people it surveyed who intended to buy a car, 41 percent were aware of the for-sale sign on the automaker. Of that group, almost three-quarters — 73 percent — said they were hesitant to put a ChryslerGroup product on their shopping list. Now 28 percent said they would consider Chrysler.
. . .
In research done last week, CNW Marketing Research found that of the 1,600 people it surveyed who intended to buy a car, 41 percent were aware of the for-sale sign on the automaker. Of that group, almost three-quarters — 73 percent — said they were hesitant to put a ChryslerGroup product on their shopping list. Now 28 percent said they would consider Chrysler.
. . .
Apparently, Dan Quayle, the former vice president, is the chairman of Cerberus. Curiously, this explains their purchase of Chrysler.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 05-22-2007 at 06:38 AM.
#3
05-22-2007, 04:04 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
#4
05-22-2007, 04:29 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
Hang on- are you calling pension plans, health care benefits for retirees and decades worth of retirement savings 'frills?' Because there are millions of people who would take issue with that characterization. Me, for instance.
I'm not discounting the value of R&D. But saying that it's a no-brainer to jettison years of employment benefits for people who worked for those benefits under contracts that obligate the employer to provide them, contracts that were agreed to by BOTH sides, is simply insulting to the entire work force.
Maybe you'd be a little upset if your boss stopped paying for your health insurance and cashed out your 401(k) plan, because they decided they have better things to do with that money. Perhaps an objective observer would say that your boss does, in fact, have better things to do with that money, things that would benefit the consumers of the products your boss makes- but would you be any less irate about it? And wouldn't you be right in feeling that way?
I'm not discounting the value of R&D. But saying that it's a no-brainer to jettison years of employment benefits for people who worked for those benefits under contracts that obligate the employer to provide them, contracts that were agreed to by BOTH sides, is simply insulting to the entire work force.
Maybe you'd be a little upset if your boss stopped paying for your health insurance and cashed out your 401(k) plan, because they decided they have better things to do with that money. Perhaps an objective observer would say that your boss does, in fact, have better things to do with that money, things that would benefit the consumers of the products your boss makes- but would you be any less irate about it? And wouldn't you be right in feeling that way?
#5
05-22-2007, 05:18 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18726439/site/newsweek/
Above is what he says are the plans for Chrysler.
#6
05-22-2007, 06:42 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
So, what makes you so very special? Nothing.
Detroit will collapse under is own weight. And the union workers will share the responsibility and fault, just as the execs.
#7
05-22-2007, 10:12 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
http://www.vicepresidentdanquayle.com/biography.html
. . .
Dan Quayle joined the Cerberus Advisory Board in 2000, and currently serves as Chairman. Cerberus is one of the world's leading private investment firms, with over $16 billion in committed capital and offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, London, Baarn,(The Netherlands), Frankfurt, Osaka,and Tokyo. As Chairman of Cerberus Global Investments, Dan Quayle has been actively involved in new business sourcing and marketing for Cerberus in North America, Asia and Europe. His extensive global network of public sector and private sector decision-makers, combined with his investment expertise, have significantly contributed to the growth of Cerberus. Dan Quayle has offices in New York and Arizona; He regularly travels throughout the US, Europe and Asia to meet with the heads of investment banks, corporations, buyout shops, potential investors, and other business leaders. His responsibilities include (1) ensuring that Cerberus stays at the forefront of deal flow activity, (2) facilitating Cerberus' entry into new markets and industries, and (3) fostering potential transaction partnerships.
. . .
Dan Quayle joined the Cerberus Advisory Board in 2000, and currently serves as Chairman. Cerberus is one of the world's leading private investment firms, with over $16 billion in committed capital and offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, London, Baarn,(The Netherlands), Frankfurt, Osaka,and Tokyo. As Chairman of Cerberus Global Investments, Dan Quayle has been actively involved in new business sourcing and marketing for Cerberus in North America, Asia and Europe. His extensive global network of public sector and private sector decision-makers, combined with his investment expertise, have significantly contributed to the growth of Cerberus. Dan Quayle has offices in New York and Arizona; He regularly travels throughout the US, Europe and Asia to meet with the heads of investment banks, corporations, buyout shops, potential investors, and other business leaders. His responsibilities include (1) ensuring that Cerberus stays at the forefront of deal flow activity, (2) facilitating Cerberus' entry into new markets and industries, and (3) fostering potential transaction partnerships.
. . .
#8
05-23-2007, 12:41 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
WaltPA: I am perfectly well aware that many companies lately have been shedding pension plans and so on, and that such things are no longer uncommon. See: WorldCom scandal, Enron scandal, United bankruptcy, etc. You are completely and utterly missing the point.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE THING! and furthermore, you wouldn't like it if it happened to you. Calling it a frill and belittling it that way is insulting and uncalled for.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE THING! and furthermore, you wouldn't like it if it happened to you. Calling it a frill and belittling it that way is insulting and uncalled for.
#9
05-23-2007, 01:51 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
The Big Three are at a huge disadvantage relative to the foreign manu(Toyota,Honda,Nissan etc).Big 3'S plants are UAW plants,and they are currently obliged by contracts to pay about twice as much per hour in wages/benefits/retirement,and they have HUGE obligations in respect to retirees.
Toyota,Honda,Nissan aren't "BETTER" companies than the big 3, they simply have much cheaper labor.Nissan just built a huge plant in Mississippi-a distinctly un-union state.Toyota is just finishing a huge plant in TX-same story-no union.All the engineers/MBAs read the same books,go to the same schools-Toyota doesn't have any special magic; they have a huge/insurmountable cost advantage.
The UNIONS and Big 3 MGN aren't stupid, they are aware of this.Unfortunately, it will probably be impossible for the union folks to accept half pay in time to save the BIG 3.GM had to build big SUVs/trucks-they were the only products they could make a profit on with their high wages.Toyota and Nissan weren't competing (much) in the full sized pickup SUV market.They are now.
GM makes some good products-their full sized pickups,and big SUVs are excellent.Their Impala and Maxx are also decent.Ford makes a nice enough Hybrid Escape-decent pickup,and an ok new sedan. I like the Dodge styling,and I like their full sized pickups-the Cummins Diesel is a win/win for USA(more or less USA) companies.
Bob is right of course,Dodge/Chrysler leads almost every segment in fuel consumption.Where and the heck are those high tech MB engines that would give Dodge FE near parity with Toyota and Honda??
It is a shame about the unions; UAW workers out produce most other auto workers in respect to production per hr.Unfortunately, they can't outproduce in cost per car-.
There really isn't a solution.The UAW leaders can't go to their members and say,"look, you have to accept $30,000/yr wages and benefits instead of the $60,000/yr you ,and your father,and his father made." Cheaper labor in other parts of the USA have put paid to the BIG 3.
It is a shame, but there isn't a solution.
Charlie
Toyota,Honda,Nissan aren't "BETTER" companies than the big 3, they simply have much cheaper labor.Nissan just built a huge plant in Mississippi-a distinctly un-union state.Toyota is just finishing a huge plant in TX-same story-no union.All the engineers/MBAs read the same books,go to the same schools-Toyota doesn't have any special magic; they have a huge/insurmountable cost advantage.
The UNIONS and Big 3 MGN aren't stupid, they are aware of this.Unfortunately, it will probably be impossible for the union folks to accept half pay in time to save the BIG 3.GM had to build big SUVs/trucks-they were the only products they could make a profit on with their high wages.Toyota and Nissan weren't competing (much) in the full sized pickup SUV market.They are now.
GM makes some good products-their full sized pickups,and big SUVs are excellent.Their Impala and Maxx are also decent.Ford makes a nice enough Hybrid Escape-decent pickup,and an ok new sedan. I like the Dodge styling,and I like their full sized pickups-the Cummins Diesel is a win/win for USA(more or less USA) companies.
Bob is right of course,Dodge/Chrysler leads almost every segment in fuel consumption.Where and the heck are those high tech MB engines that would give Dodge FE near parity with Toyota and Honda??
It is a shame about the unions; UAW workers out produce most other auto workers in respect to production per hr.Unfortunately, they can't outproduce in cost per car-.
There really isn't a solution.The UAW leaders can't go to their members and say,"look, you have to accept $30,000/yr wages and benefits instead of the $60,000/yr you ,and your father,and his father made." Cheaper labor in other parts of the USA have put paid to the BIG 3.
It is a shame, but there isn't a solution.
Charlie
#10
05-23-2007, 10:44 PM
Re: Chyrsler union busting vs product
Unfortunately, they can't outproduce in cost per car
I think that it's not really the unions/price that's hurting the Big 3 -- they just let their quality (and perhaps more importantly, their reputations) slip for too long. When the spate of mergers/acquisitions with European firms happened, there wasn't enough bidirectional sharing: Saab didn't strengthen GM, GM's "taint" made it so a lot of loyal Saab buyers I know wouldn't touch the brand anymore. Likewise with Ford and Volvo -- people didn't say "Oh, Ford just picked up some good old Volvo engineering and safety know-how" they said "Well, ****."
Anyhow, I think if the Big 3 want to get back on track what they need to do is secretly retool one or two of their plants and run off a few thousand new copies of 10-20 year old models, then start giving those out pretty much for free around cities/colleges/etc. Once people see a fleet of "10 year old" domestics that look and drive like new out on the roads, faith will be restored in the brand.
