Wagoner speaks in the Wall Street Journal

[dave1w41]

A Portrait of My Industry
The Wall Street Journal

By Rick Wagoner (Commentary)

Dec. 6, 2005

DETROIT – Since mid-October, General Motors has announced plans to cease production at 12 North American manufacturing facilities and eliminate 30,000 jobs by 2008; trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25 percent, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion.

The reason for these dramatic actions is no secret: GM has lost a lot of money in 2005, due to rapidly increasing health-care and raw-material costs, lower sales volumes and a weaker sales mix -- essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars. What is less clear is why things turned sour so fast for GM, as well as for other American automakers and suppliers. To put it another way, why are so many foreign automakers and suppliers doing well in the United States, while so many U.S.-based auto companies are not?

Despite public perception, the answer is not that foreign automakers are more productive or offer better-quality or more fuel-efficient vehicles. In this year's Harbour Report, which measures manufacturing productivity, GM plants took three of the top five spots in North America, including first and second place. In the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, GM's Buick and Cadillac ranked among the top five vehicle brands sold in America, ahead of nameplates like Toyota, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti and Mercedes-Benz. And GM offers more models that get over 30 miles per gallon (highway) than any other automaker.

In fact, this kind of operating performance makes GM's recent financial performance all the more frustrating. The fact is, we're building the best cars and trucks we've ever built at GM, our products are receiving excellent reviews, and we're running the business in a globally competitive manner. Outside of North America, we're setting sales records. In fact, for the first time in our history, we will sell more cars and trucks this year outside the United States than inside, aided in no small part by our market-leading performance in China.

So why, fundamentally, are GM and the U.S. auto industry struggling right now?

Intense competition, for one. The global auto business grows tougher every year, and we accept that. Our ability to compete has made us the world's No. 1 automaker for 74 consecutive years, and we're fighting hard to stay on top.

Beyond that, our performance in the marketplace has not been what we've wanted it to be. While we've been strong in truck sales, we've been weaker in cars, and, yes, the recent surge in gas prices hurt sales. While we've led in technologies like OnStar, we've lagged in others like hybrid vehicles. Rest assured, we're working hard to address the areas where we lag. Simply put, we are committed to doing a better job of designing, building and selling high-quality, high-value cars and trucks that consumers can't wait to buy. No excuses. We will step up our performance in this regard.

But competition and marketplace performance are not the whole story. To fully understand why GM and the U.S. auto industry are struggling right now, we have to understand some of the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing in general -- challenges well beyond the control of any single company.

There are those who ask if manufacturing is still relevant for America. My view: You bet it is! Manufacturing generates two-thirds of America's R&D investment, accounts for three-fourths of our exports, and creates about 15 million American jobs. And the auto industry is a big part of that, accounting for 11 percent of American manufacturing, and nearly 4 percent of U.S. GDP. Together, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler invest more than $16 billion in research and development every year -- more than any other U.S. industry. And GM, alone, supports more than one million American jobs.

So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents – a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign automakers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs.

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American automakers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.

Another factor beyond our control is lawsuit abuse. Litigation now costs the U.S. economy more than $245 billion a year, or more than $845 per person. That's more than 2 percent of our GDP. No other country has costs anywhere near this level. And the perverse thing is that, in many cases, the majority of courtroom settlements go to the lawyers and other litigation costs, not to the injured parties.

Another major concern is unfair trading practices, especially Japan's long-term initiatives to artificially weaken the yen. A leading Japanese automaker reports that for each movement of one yen against the dollar, it gains 20 billion yen in additional profitability -- or nearly $170 million at today's exchange rate. No wonder Japanese automakers have noted their recent record profits were aided by exchange rates. And no wonder the U.S. trade-balance deficit continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

There are other issues, of course, but my point is this: We at GM have a number of tough challenges that we must and will address on our own -- but we also carry some huge costs that our foreign competitors do not share.

Some say we're looking for a bailout. Baloney -- we at GM do not want a bailout. What we want -- after we take the actions we are taking, in product, technology, cost and every area we're working in our business today -- is the chance to compete on a level playing field. It's critical that government leaders, supported by business, unions and all our citizens, forge policy solutions to the issues undercutting American manufacturing competitiveness. We can do this. And we need to do it now.


Discuss. :corn:

[steve442]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dave1w41
[b]A Portrait of My Industry
The Wall Street Journal

By Rick Wagoner (Commentary)

Dec. 6, 2005

DETROIT – Since mid-October, General Motors has announced plans to cease production at 12 North American manufacturing facilities and eliminate 30,000 jobs by 2008; trim $1 billion in net material costs in 2006; and, in cooperation with the United Automobile Workers, reduce GM's retiree health-care liabilities by $15 billion, or about 25 percent, for an annualized expense reduction of $3 billion.

The reason for these dramatic actions is no secret: GM has lost a lot of money in 2005, due to rapidly increasing health-care and raw-material costs, lower sales volumes and a weaker sales mix -- essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars. What is less clear is why things turned sour so fast for GM, as well as for other American automakers and suppliers. To put it another way, why are so many foreign automakers and suppliers doing well in the United States, while so many U.S.-based auto companies are not?

Despite public perception, the answer is not that foreign automakers are more productive or offer better-quality or more fuel-efficient vehicles. In this year's Harbour Report, which measures manufacturing productivity, GM plants took three of the top five spots in North America, including first and second place. In the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, GM's Buick and Cadillac ranked among the top five vehicle brands sold in America, ahead of nameplates like Toyota, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti and Mercedes-Benz. And GM offers more models that get over 30 miles per gallon (highway) than any other automaker.

In fact, this kind of operating performance makes GM's recent financial performance all the more frustrating. The fact is, we're building the best cars and trucks we've ever built at GM, our products are receiving excellent reviews, and we're running the business in a globally competitive manner. Outside of North America, we're setting sales records. In fact, for the first time in our history, we will sell more cars and trucks this year outside the United States than inside, aided in no small part by our market-leading performance in China.

So why, fundamentally, are GM and the U.S. auto industry struggling right now?

Intense competition, for one. The global auto business grows tougher every year, and we accept that. Our ability to compete has made us the world's No. 1 automaker for 74 consecutive years, and we're fighting hard to stay on top.

Beyond that, our performance in the marketplace has not been what we've wanted it to be. While we've been strong in truck sales, we've been weaker in cars, and, yes, the recent surge in gas prices hurt sales. While we've led in technologies like OnStar, we've lagged in others like hybrid vehicles. Rest assured, we're working hard to address the areas where we lag. Simply put, we are committed to doing a better job of designing, building and selling high-quality, high-value cars and trucks that consumers can't wait to buy. No excuses. We will step up our performance in this regard.

But competition and marketplace performance are not the whole story. To fully understand why GM and the U.S. auto industry are struggling right now, we have to understand some of the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing in general -- challenges well beyond the control of any single company.

There are those who ask if manufacturing is still relevant for America. My view: You bet it is! Manufacturing generates two-thirds of America's R&D investment, accounts for three-fourths of our exports, and creates about 15 million American jobs. And the auto industry is a big part of that, accounting for 11 percent of American manufacturing, and nearly 4 percent of U.S. GDP. Together, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler invest more than $16 billion in research and development every year -- more than any other U.S. industry. And GM, alone, supports more than one million American jobs.

So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents – a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign automakers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs.

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American automakers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.

Another factor beyond our control is lawsuit abuse. Litigation now costs the U.S. economy more than $245 billion a year, or more than $845 per person. That's more than 2 percent of our GDP. No other country has costs anywhere near this level. And the perverse thing is that, in many cases, the majority of courtroom settlements go to the lawyers and other litigation costs, not to the injured parties.

Another major concern is unfair trading practices, especially Japan's long-term initiatives to artificially weaken the yen. A leading Japanese automaker reports that for each movement of one yen against the dollar, it gains 20 billion yen in additional profitability -- or nearly $170 million at today's exchange rate. No wonder Japanese automakers have noted their recent record profits were aided by exchange rates. And no wonder the U.S. trade-balance deficit continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

There are other issues, of course, but my point is this: We at GM have a number of tough challenges that we must and will address on our own -- but we also carry some huge costs that our foreign competitors do not share.

Some say we're looking for a bailout. Baloney -- we at GM do not want a bailout. What we want -- after we take the actions we are taking, in product, technology, cost and every area we're working in our business today -- is the chance to compete on a level playing field. It's critical that government leaders, supported by business, unions and all our citizens, forge policy solutions to the issues undercutting American manufacturing competitiveness. We can do this. And we need to do it now.



Great article, I know you have to disagree with it for 2 reasons, one he is NOT BLAMING the UAW, and I like this part:

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American automakers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.


Now we know you dont agree with this, it is wrong to think like this, so because alot of people dont have this they should give it away, I applaud Mr Wagoner, I take back anything bad I might have said about him.

[triggerjerk]

I love how he brushes aside the fact that their cars are not up to par but dwells on the yen and litigation abuse :rolleyes:

<in before the impala and monte carlo nutswingers!>

[Doug Harden]

Originally posted by triggerjerk
I love how he brushes aside the fact that their cars are not up to par but dwells on the yen and litigation abuse :rolleyes:

<in before the impala and monte carlo nutswingers!>

Try reading up on the real trade barriers American cars face befoe making ignorant statements like that...:rolleyes: :badpost:

[MACGI 98 Z28]

I love how he brushes aside the fact that their cars are not up to par but dwells on the yen and litigation abuse

If you could pull your head out of Japan's ass and actually TEST DRIVE any GM car that has been rolled out since the G6 came out, you would realize just how dumb you sound.

If anyone "brushes aside" anything, it is you. Wagoner cited the Harbour report and J.D. Power surveys to support his contention that GM is making good product.

[Affirmed]

Originally posted by MACGI 98 Z28
If you could pull your head out of Japan's ass and actually TEST DRIVE any GM car that has been rolled out since the G6 came out, you would realize just how dumb you sound.

If anyone "brushes aside" anything, it is you. Wagoner cited the Harbour report and J.D. Power surveys to support his contention that GM is making good product.

Doesnt matter if there making a good product that not alot of people like.

[triggerjerk]

If you could pull your head out of Japan's ass and actually TEST DRIVE any GM car that has been rolled out since the G6 came out, you would realize just how dumb you sound.

If anyone "brushes aside" anything, it is you. Wagoner cited the Harbour report and J.D. Power surveys to support his contention that GM is making good product.



^^^^what makes you think I haven't?
What makes you think I don't already own a new toyota or gm car?

Search every post i've made, i don't have my head up japan's ass.
You can't blame unions for EVERYTHING.

Why isn't DCX having problems selling cars?

[mrgto]

I could give 5.6BILLION reasons to blame the unions.

[triggerjerk]

Originally posted by mrgto
I could give 5.6BILLION reasons to blame the unions.

Oh yeah, I agree. There was a thread yesterday about that.
I'm just saying there is more to it than that.
GM has no one to blame but themselves for being in the situation
they are in.

[steve442]

Originally posted by mrgto
I could give 5.6BILLION reasons to blame the unions.

Here we go again, got to bring up the union, get over it.
Why dont you reread the article, thank god Wagoner isnt a whiner like you, Gm would have been gone in months.

[ULTIMTEORANGESS]

what he said sounds good but it doesnt downplay GMs misfortunes since hes taken over.


weather its all his fault or not hes going to take the heat for it.



lets see what happens in 06.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by triggerjerk
^^^^what makes you think I haven't?
What makes you think I don't already own a new toyota or gm car?

Search every post i've made, i don't have my head up japan's ass.
You can't blame unions for EVERYTHING.

Why isn't DCX having problems selling cars?

With the exception of the RWD models (that don't sell as well as Chevrolet's Impala) they most definitely are. Sebring, Stratus, Neon, and Magnum are all dead in the water.

[mrgto]

Originally posted by steve442
Here we go again, got to bring up the union, get over it.
Why dont you reread the article, thank god Wagoner isnt a whiner like you, Gm would have been gone in months.


I guess you missed these two paragraphs....


So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents – a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign automakers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs.

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American automakers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.


Try reading between the lines...

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by dave1w41
With the exception of the RWD models (that don't sell as well as Chevrolet's Impala) they most definitely are. Sebring, Stratus, Neon, and Magnum are all dead in the water.

Magnum is dead? :sadnana: Uhh, No. Neon is cancelled and the Sebring is being replaced as well. Sales don't mean shit if you aren't making money. DCX is.

[MACGI 98 Z28]

Magnum is dead?

I think what he means is that Magnum sales are slow, not that the car has been cancelled.

[steve442]

Originally posted by mrgto
I guess you missed these two paragraphs....


So what are the fundamental challenges facing American manufacturing? One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States. Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees, retirees and dependents – a staggering $1,525 for every car and truck we produced. And the figure is going up again this year. Foreign automakers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs.

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." That kind of observation reminds me of the saying that no good deed going unpunished. That argument, while appealing to some, ignores the fact that American automakers and other traditional manufacturing companies created a social contract with government and labor that raised America's standard of living and provided much of the economic growth of the 20th century. American manufacturers were once held up as good corporate citizens for providing these benefits. Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.


Try reading between the lines...



Maybe you should, were does Wagoner "say" UAW.
The benifits he is talking about cover white collar too, but your hate for the the blue collar worker and the uaw shows in all your posts, Wagoner writes "Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." So your blinded spewing hatred writes,
"I could give 5.6BILLION reasons to blame the unions."
So maybe you should take off your blinders, and reread the article, Wagoner, unlike you, is not blaming the labor force.
You on the other hand think like this,
"Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago. " and "Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame"
People like you are the REASON we need unions.

Again I applaud Wagoner, good article,

[ULTIMTEORANGESS]

hatred tends to bring misinformation and denial along with it.

[steve442]

Originally posted by ULTIMTEORANGESS
hatred tends to bring misinformation and denial along with it.


AGREED!!!!!

[fastolman]

Sure the unions are innocent victims here, any company should be able to pay inflated wages and benefits and stay in business. :rolleyes:

As for me I hate unions not blue collar workers. The unions are worthy of hate, the workers aren't

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by MACGI 98 Z28
I think what he means is that Magnum sales are slow, not that the car has been cancelled.

Either way, it's a bullshit comment. All the LX plants are at capacity.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by 426Hemi
Either way, it's a bullshit comment. All the LX plants are at capacity.

They are at capacity for production of Hemi powered models, not the other models. The Magnum is selling well below projections.

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by fastolman
Sure the unions are innocent victims here, any company should be able to pay inflated wages and benefits and stay in business. :rolleyes:

As for me I hate unions not blue collar workers. The unions are worthy of hate, the workers aren't

Thats a bullshit statement if I have ever heard one. 1st off where in this discussion did anyone ever say that unions were innocent victims? 2ndly WTF kind of wages would you like for the employees to make? Does it bother you that I make 23 bucks an hour and not have a degree? Does it bother you that when you work overtime you get paid time and a half? Does it bother you that the national norm for a shift is 8 hours? Does it bother you that you get most holidays off and you can accrue sick days? Does it bother you that if your wife gets pregnant that you can take paternity leave and not get fired? Does it bother you that if you serve in the military in the reserves that when you get back from serving that you still have a job left? Does it bother you that there are children labor laws now? Does it bother you to get a pay raise every year for doing the same job? How about when you work on a holiday and get paid holiday premium, I bet that sucks too?

I commend Wagoner for what he said, because he is right. High healthcare premiums eat up their profits. Do you understand why we have high healthcare premiums? Its not because of the doctors its because of all the frivilous lawsuites and the malpractice insurance that must be kept. There are many reasons why this has all happened so don't you dare start pointing fingers at the damn union and trying to place blame.

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by dave1w41
They are at capacity for production of Hemi powered models, not the other models. The Magnum is selling well below projections.

Link? Everything I've read says otherwise.

[fastolman]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Thats a bullshit statement if I have ever heard one. 1st off where in this discussion did anyone ever say that unions were innocent victims? 2ndly WTF kind of wages would you like for the employees to make? Does it bother you that I make 23 bucks an hour and not have a degree? Does it bother you that when you work overtime you get paid time and a half? Does it bother you that the national norm for a shift is 8 hours? Does it bother you that you get most holidays off and you can accrue sick days? Does it bother you that if your wife gets pregnant that you can take paternity leave and not get fired? Does it bother you that if you serve in the military in the reserves that when you get back from serving that you still have a job left? Does it bother you that there are children labor laws now? Does it bother you to get a pay raise every year for doing the same job? How about when you work on a holiday and get paid holiday premium, I bet that sucks too?

What bothers me is the union people believing that if it weren't for them we'd be working 24 hours a day for 10 cents an hour. Union had their day but are counterproductive and have a great deal of blame in the loss of manufacturing jobs.

[steve442]

Originally posted by fastolman
What bothers me is the union people believing that if it weren't for them we'd be working 24 hours a day for 10 cents an hour.



Union had their day but are counterproductive and have a great deal of blame in the loss of manufacturing jobs.




Thats your unfortunate opinion!!

YAHHHHHHHHHHH Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrgto]

Originally posted by steve442
Maybe you should, were does Wagoner "say" UAW.
The benifits he is talking about cover white collar too, but your hate for the the blue collar worker and the uaw shows in all your posts, Wagoner writes "Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." So your blinded spewing hatred writes,
"I could give 5.6BILLION reasons to blame the unions."
So maybe you should take off your blinders, and reread the article, Wagoner, unlike you, is not blaming the labor force.
You on the other hand think like this,
"Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago. " and "Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame"
People like you are the REASON we need unions.

Again I applaud Wagoner, good article,


Wrong. White collar workers paid MUCH MORE for their insurance than did Blue Collar workers.

No he is blaming economic forces and the fact that Union members didn't pay as much, it all contributed to the money issues at not only GM but Ford too.

Do you honestly think that the UAW will be paying less than 50% of their health care after 2007? My guess is that the UAW won't even be around in 2007.

[steve442]

Originally posted by mrgto
Wrong. White collar workers paid MUCH MORE for their insurance than did Blue Collar workers.

No he is blaming economic forces and the fact that Union members didn't pay as much, it all contributed to the money issues at not only GM but Ford too.

Do you honestly think that the UAW will be paying less than 50% of their health care after 2007? My guess is that the UAW won't even be around in 2007.


Again, you still cant read because your hatred for the real working man blinds you, you are jealous of anybody that can do better then you, thats to bad, second the 5.6 billion number includes ALL of Gm's work force, again ,ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL got it! I didnt see anything in the article about white vs blue, but people like you like to make it that way.
Yes they will pay less, put it in your files so I can prove you wrong on 07.

And yes the UAW will be around well after 2007, just to piss you off.

[mrgto]

Originally posted by steve442
Again, you still cant read because your hatred for the real working man blinds you, you are jealous of anybody that can do better then you, thats to bad, second the 5.6 billion number includes ALL of Gm's work force, again ,ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL got it! I didnt see anything in the article about white vs blue, but people like you like to make it that way.
Yes they will pay less, put it in your files so I can prove you wrong on 07.

And yes the UAW will be around well after 2007, just to piss you off.


Hatred for the real working man? LOL, you got to be kidding.....

yea, you do realize that UAW workers were paying 7% while the white collar workers were paying 30% for their insurance?

The UAW might well be around for 2007, but they won't be working for GM or they will be paying 50+% for their insurance.

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by mrgto
Hatred for the real working man? LOL, you got to be kidding.....

yea, you do realize that UAW workers were paying 7% while the white collar workers were paying 30% for their insurance?

The UAW might well be around for 2007, but they won't be working for GM or they will be paying 50+% for their insurance.

I am in a Union and we only pay 25% of our insurance premiums.

[mrgto]

Originally posted by w02thumper
I am in a Union and we only pay 25% of our insurance premiums.


I am betting you're not in the UAW right?

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by mrgto
I am betting you're not in the UAW right?

Yea but my union is just as big and just as expensive.

[ThumperWS6]

http://www.nffe.org/mission.html

[mrgto]

Originally posted by w02thumper
Yea but my union is just as big and just as expensive.


Compared to the UAW? Do your union members get the same benefits as retiree's as the UAW ones do?

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by mrgto
Compared to the UAW? Do your union members get the same benefits as retiree's as the UAW ones do?

Nah, probably better.

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by 426Hemi
Link? Everything I've read says otherwise.

*cough* *cough*

[steve442]

Originally posted by w02thumper
http://www.nffe.org/mission.html

Your a union member, your going to burn in hell!! So is the District of Columbia going broke because of all you lazy dope smokers.

NFFE's objective is to advance the social and economic welfare and education of Federal employees and District of Columbia Municipal employees.

Well that is just wrong they should work for minimum wage and have no benifits, they are bleeding the system, I dont have all those perks and benifits so you shouldnt, damn unions.

From your site,
"It Doesn't Cost To Join, It Pays To Join"
A bargaining unit employee walked up to me one day and said, "You'll never get me to pay Union dues." I thought he was being a bit cynical, so I asked him why. "Because I can get representation for free whenever I want," he said.

Of course he has that right. Union representation is free to any employee in an exclusively represented bargaining unit. You don't HAVE to be a dues paying member to get effective Union representation. Actually, there are a lot of things you don't HAVE to do.


You don't HAVE to vote in elections to live in a free country.


You don't HAVE to give blood to get blood.


You don't HAVE to give a decent tip after you get better than decent service.


You don't HAVE to be a good neighbor to live in a good neighborhood.


People don't really HAVE to do any of these things. But aren't we all better off because they DO?

I agree with this! I was just screwing around at the top, sounding like mrgto, being mrnegative, I hope I never think like him.

[fastolman]

Originally posted by steve442
Your a union member, your going to burn in hell!! So is the District of Columbia going broke because of all you lazy dope smokers.

NFFE's objective is to advance the social and economic welfare and education of Federal employees and District of Columbia Municipal employees.

Well that is just wrong they should work for minimum wage and have no benifits, they are bleeding the system, I dont have all those perks and benifits so you shouldnt, damn unions.

From your site,
"It Doesn't Cost To Join, It Pays To Join"
A bargaining unit employee walked up to me one day and said, "You'll never get me to pay Union dues." I thought he was being a bit cynical, so I asked him why. "Because I can get representation for free whenever I want," he said.

Of course he has that right. Union representation is free to any employee in an exclusively represented bargaining unit. You don't HAVE to be a dues paying member to get effective Union representation. Actually, there are a lot of things you don't HAVE to do.


You don't HAVE to vote in elections to live in a free country.


You don't HAVE to give blood to get blood.


You don't HAVE to give a decent tip after you get better than decent service.


You don't HAVE to be a good neighbor to live in a good neighborhood.


People don't really HAVE to do any of these things. But aren't we all better off because they DO?

I agree with this! I was just screwing around at the top, sounding like mrgto, being mrnegative, I hope I never think like him.


Too bad you can't inlcude "you don't have to go on strike if the union goes on strike to that list"

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by fastolman
Too bad you can't inlcude "you don't have to go on strike if the union goes on strike to that list"

No actually I don't have to go on strike if the union does or not. That is my perogative. But I do have the legal right to go on strike if I wanted to.

[fastolman]

Originally posted by w02thumper
No actually I don't have to go on strike if the union does or not. That is my perogative. But I do have the legal right to go on strike if I wanted to.


The idea wasn't that you actually don't have the right but to not go on strike but the strikes and crossing the picket line situation pretty much makes it impossible not to go on strike.

[426HEMI]

That's what I thought. Nothing to back up the statements.

[dave1w41]

Originally posted by 426Hemi
Link? Everything I've read says otherwise.

Chrysler Offers Bonuses to Dealers
The Wall Street Journal

By Neal E. Boudette

Dec. 13, 2005

DETROIT – After slow sales in both October and November and an uncertain start this month, DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group has begun offering bonuses to dealers willing to stock extra vehicles that have piled up in the car maker's inventory.

The move indicates that while Chrysler has performed better than rivals General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the automaker faces its own headwinds amid a competitive U.S. market. The bonus program is a reminder that Chrysler still faces major challenges to pull in customers despite the presence in its lineup of some brisk-selling models like the Chrysler 300 sedan and Town & Country minivan.

Under the program, reported yesterday by Automotive News, Chrysler will pay dealers an additional $250 a vehicle if they agree to take a certain number of vehicles; under some circumstances, dealers can get bonuses of as much as $750 a vehicle.

Jason Vines, a company spokesman, acknowledged Chrysler is "heavier than we want to be in inventory" and said the bonus offer is aimed at ensuring the company closes the year with a strong month. Chrysler's sales fell 3 percent in October and 2.6 percent in November but are up 5.4 percent in the first 11 months of the year.

Chrysler's inventory situation is modest relative to the structural problems GM and Ford face. Chrysler is profitable and has seen its U.S. market share edge higher, while the North American operations of Ford and GM are racking up massive losses, closing plants and giving up market share.

Dealers showed mixed reactions to the offer. Alan B. Helfman, vice president at River Oaks Chrysler Jeep in Houston, said he is sticking with his order of about 100 vehicles this month and declining Chrysler's bonus offer if he takes about 200. "So far, December's been kind of average in terms of sales, and I don't want to distort my own inventory," he said. "I've got an inventory model, and I don't want to put that in jeopardy."

Like GM and Ford, Chrysler enjoyed a surge in sales over the summer as a result of discounts that offered customers prices that were previously available only to the car makers' employees. But sales then slowed in October and November, leaving Chrysler with unsold cars backing up on factory lots. At the end of November, Chrysler had 589,108 vehicles in inventory. While Chrysler would like to have less than that, Mr. Vines noted that figure is less than the inventory of 608,184 vehicles it had at the end of November 2004.

Chrysler has tried to increase sales in the past two months by increasing rebates on certain models, a practice that eats into its profit margin. In November, for example, it offered average rebates of $4,818 on the Dodge Dakota pickup truck, up from $3,239 in October and just $1,947 in November 2004, according to the Power Information Network, a Troy, Mich., market researcher that pulls data from thousands of auto dealers. Rebates also were higher on the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango sport-utility vehicles. Other models in the Chrysler lineup with slow sales recently include the Chrysler Pacifica and the Dodge Magnum station wagon. Chrysler, however, has set up its plants to produce multiple vehicles, easing the impact of slowdowns. The Brampton, Ontario, plant makes the Magnum on the same line as the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger. In November, the plant hit a production record despite weakness in Magnum sales. The Pacifica, the Town & Country and Dodge Caravan minivans are all made in Windsor, Ontario.


[b]Chrysler Buried in Inventory
The Detroit News

By Josee Valcourt

Dec. 13, 2005

Chrysler Group is raising the ante in the auto industry's year-end clearance wars by offering dealers up to $750 for every extra vehicle they order up to a certain limit.

The incentives are designed to help Chrysler finish the year strong and reduce a glut of excess cars and trucks. Thousands of unsold Dodge pickups and other Chrysler vehicles are parked in lots at the Michigan Fairgrounds and Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Chrysler is making it easier for dealers to qualify for cash incentives they can keep or pass on to customers. The automaker will pay dealers up to $500 per unit sold if monthly, quarterly and yearly sales targets are reached. Additional vehicles sold will earn dealers an extra $250 per unit, Chrysler said Monday.

Leaner inventory means lower operating costs for Chrysler. The automaker also books the revenue from a sale as soon as it delivers a vehicle to a dealer.

Yet larger showroom stockpiles put more pressure on dealers to boost sales. Dealers typically borrow money to purchase new vehicles, so the longer it takes to make a sale, the more interest dealers typically have to pay to their lenders.

And it's been taking Chrysler dealers longer to sell new cars, SUVs, minivans and pickup trucks recently.

Since October, days-to-turn – the number of days a vehicle sits on a dealer's lots – has been higher for each of Chrysler's three brands than the industry's average of 54 days. A new Chrysler vehicle is typically selling after 64 days on a lot; Jeep is at 83 days and Dodge is at 104 days, according to the Power Information Network, a J.D. Power and Associates affiliate.

Marlene Hollenback, owner of Dishman Dodge in Spokane Valley, Wash., chose not to accept Chrysler's offer because the dealership is already overstocked. "We're at least 100 vehicles over inventory," she said.

The dealership's annual sales have jumped a healthy 15 percent in recent years, prompting Hollenback to regularly increase orders from the factory. But 2005 has been challenging, and dealers are worried that rising interest rates, volatile gas prices and other factors affecting consumer behavior may stymie demand. Industry sales tend to dip over the winter months, too. So far this year, U.S. vehicle sales have risen about 1 percent, though Chrysler's sales have climbed 5.4 percent.

The year-end glut of vehicles "is a new experience for my dealership," Hollenback said.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. have also slashed inventory levels this year, in part by raising discounts and cutting factory output.

Although Chrysler has posted higher sales and market share gains this year, the company wants to trim inventories. It could take six months to reduce stockpiles.

"We have a little more inventory than we want," Chrysler spokesman Jason Vines said. "Admittedly in October and November, we were a little soft."

Chrysler has 3,900 dealers nationwide. About 70 percent of the dealers contacted so far have agreed to participate in the end-of-year clearance, Vines said.

Chrysler decides the number of extra vehicles allotted to participating retailers based on size and annual sales volume. Dealers choose the cars and trucks they want.

"They gave us an allocation based on what we sold in November," Chuck Fortinberry of Clarkston Chrysler Jeep said.

There's always pressure to sell vehicles, particularly because of interest rates, he said. "But actually with the current program, we've been quite busy and I foresee having a good December," he said.

Dan Frost, president of Southfield Chrysler Jeep, is another dealer who has embraced the program.

The abundance of vehicles is working in his favor. New cars and trucks now arrive at the dealership in roughly seven to 10 days, rather than four to six weeks, he said.

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by dave1w41


I retract my statements and apologise.

[ThumperWS6]

That was gentlemenly of you Hemi. I am glad to see that we have folks on here that can be honest and truthful, even when it sometimes hurts our pride a little.

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by ThumperWS6
That was gentlemenly of you Hemi. I am glad to see that we have folks on here that can be honest and truthful, even when it sometimes hurts our pride a little.

I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong.

[ThumperWS6]

Originally posted by 426Hemi
I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong.

I know this man. I was just saying that I was proud of ya thats all.

[426HEMI]

Originally posted by ThumperWS6
I know this man. I was just saying that I was proud of ya thats all.

:blush: