GM preparing for bankruptcy

[Kyle2k]

Originally Posted by shnomac77

I sure hope that does not happen.... Not fair to the people who put in a hard 30 years worth of work.

Don't you remember?....anything in the name of business is fair. It's like the race card - "Don't take it personally, It's just business."

[FxsX24]

Originally Posted by the Mole

We all have a role to play. It was first and foremost the Big Banks that caused a global financial crisis in my opinion.

and IMO, some place that will be selling LOTS of sand and glass when we stop buying oil from them because they have all our money from last summer

[CaptianSam]

Originally Posted by manimsoblack

Actually i'm in favor of overlapping brands. Before you blow a fuse though here's why...
As long as everything is the same mechanically and structurally and the only difference is body panels and some interior and luxury features it can actually help rather than hurt. My mom thinks the GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook are uglier than sin, and the Traverse looks like a minivan but likes the Enclave. Same exact vehicle, but if not for the slight difference in Exterior styling, she'd be getting a Nissan Murano. All the money goes back to GM anyways so i think it's better to have people decide which version of your vehicle they want rather than which of the competition is better. I think that to cut down on costs (though i'm not sure how they do it) it would be best if they built all of them in the same facility. You'd have to bring in more equipment to the one that you pick and expand it a bit, but then you'd have all of the same "base" vehicle being built under one roof.

that rarely happens anyway

[Isshinryu]

At a White House ceremony, the president signed three executive orders that he said would “reverse many of the policies towards organized labor that we’ve seen these last eight years, policies with which I’ve sharply disagreed.”

The orders he signed, which union officials say will undo Bush administration policies that tilted toward employers, would require federal contractors to offer jobs to current workers when contracts change, and would make it more difficult for federal contractors to discourage union activities.

[Isshinryu]

“These are the men and the women who form the backbone of our economy, the most productive workers in the world,” Mr. Obama said.

[Oracle]

Originally Posted by CaptianSam

that rarely happens anyway

but thats the wrong idea isnt it? the company executes a good idea poorly and instead of addressing the execution you address the idea? im sorry but i agree with Mr. Black here. platforms and powertrains are the most costly developments in making a car. think about the Zeta Platform, there is a reason its called the billion dollar baby. thats a VERY high cost to try and make up when your only marketing it as one version of a product. if you give people a choice of several types of the same product (aka Outlook, Enclave, Traverse, Arcadia) then people can choose as per their preference. thats how people shop anyways right? by preference? I mean the Toyota Matix and Pontiac Vibe are the same car... which would you take out of the two? its preference that guides your decision. if you have more versions to meet peoples preference then you have a larger consumer base, which means the development cost is more spread out and suddenly as a whole your more profitable. if you sell 160k malibus, 40k auras, and 60k g6s then you sold 260k cars. if you kill off the saturn and pontiac then your going to have to hope those people who bought them come for the malibu instead of an accord, camry, or the like. i can all but promise you malibu volumes arent going to grow 62% by killing off your other companies. 40% maybe, but your still going to be short 57k cars. instead Gm should be working on streamlining these to work in harmony. build them all in the same factory, at the same time. develop them with this in mind. and make it worth it, buying cobalt and a G5 isnt enough visual diversification. they need to put effort into making this successful. all this talk of "lean mean GM" sounds more like "safe and sorry, taking the easy path to making money because we are to lazy to put the effort into making this successful." And all you have to do to make it successful is think differently. plan differently. it cant cost that much to think can it? well it can cost to kill off a brand and shrink. it can cost dearly

that all being said I also dont understand why we flame GM and the UAW for offering a better work environment. why do we tear them down because america pays more for decent labor? why do we rip them appart for taking care of their workers even after they have parted ways? I dont quite understand the love of toyota for paying their workers less. instead shouldnt we be flaming them for not being up to GM standards? I agree that the UAW has pushed past their boundries a bit to far. that i will admit. I will also admit that I feel we shouldnt need the UAW at all, but thats because we shouldnt need someone to babysit us. we should be able to offer good wages, good benefits, good retirement all without fussing about it with eachother. id love to see workers with a $35,000/year salary (put them on salary so that if work slows they dont end up sitting at home with no pay), 2/3 of all insurance paid, 4% matched retirement contribution, and the offer to take care of retired workers into their old age by keeping them on the same insurance but at a lower percentage (think of it like this: GM's insurance provider offers workers to buy insurance for 150 bucks a month vs 200/month if the workers bought independently. while you work for GM they pay 66% of that 100 bucks. after you retire you still get that 100 buck rate but now instead of paying only 33% you have to pay 75%.). this could create a secure standard for average workers. and you wouldnt even have to deal with the UAW demanding for more and more stuff. if you did this then you have a fair, competative yet cheap labor. correct me if im wrong but to me this sounds like < $20/hr overall cost per person. granted thats not assuming for insurance for families, increased pay for experience workers, or legacy costs caused by the retaining retirees... but thats an awful low number to start with, a number that can easily be stomached compared to what they have now while retaining their workers quality of living.

Is there something im missing about all of this? if so ignore whatever i said. I normally dont comment on business and such because there is to much oppinion and so little that i know, so please feel free to correct me if this is wrong in some way.