Which is a good argument for breaking it up

Post #299,516 by jay 11/12/08 10:06:54 AM Reply	Which is a good argument for breaking it up The fact that companies like GM are so big that we can't afford to let them fail is a good argument for not letting them get that big and breaking them up when they do need help. A few economists have raised the issue, but for the most part it's being swept under the rug. The corporate Chicago school economists don't want to face up the contradiction between unregulated business and huge bailouts. Heck, the companies we are offering bailout too are still trying to dictate terms of their own bailout. Jay
Post #299,527 by folkert 11/12/08 11:41:22 AM Reply	What part of General Motors... as a huge set of Brands are you forgetting... Consolidation means less cost to make things. Consolidation means less over head. Consolidation means making better things for better margin. Unless of course you are too big and have to deal with a union that stretches into making design and assembly decisions. Making sure maximum PEOPLE are still kept on lines. I have been in a multiple GM plants in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. One type of "making jobs" is many many examples of disabling automatic screw insertion so a Union person can start threading a screw. Then the next station is the automatic tightening station... except one bolt on the tightener is disabled allowing another person to use an air driven screw tightener (the same as the disabled one) for that screw. Another area of "making jobs" is "part transfer" de-automation. There also many many examples of this, where a machine automatic transfer (sliding, catching, moving or placing) of parts to the next stage of work to be done... no inspection, no value add, no nothing except taking part X from line 1-A after stage 4 and putting in the "queue/hopper/line" for Line 1-A stage 5. Heck even engine and transmissions are done this way. I witnessed places where the line had a 5-6 foot section cut out of the conveyance system. The entire line was run by a single "chain system", the section had the chain route into the floor to keep the system running on a single chain cog system at the section. ASCII Art representation Line 1-A "Stage 4" -->-->-\|__,__,__\|->-->-- "Stage 5" Man works {--this--} area Then a "man assisting" lifting device used to transfer a transmission carcass from "initial" pad trimming to the next section. There was no reason needed for the "workstation". Pad trimming is to get reference points for the rest of the machining, the base for the locating of everything. I've also been in multiple Ford and Chrysler plants and one Toyota plant, similar but fewer examples were there of the "making jobs" setups, but they still were there (unfortunately). One marked difference between the GM plants and All the others... cleanliness. Ford, Chrysler and Toyota(only one though) you could nearly "eat off the floor" outside of the actual "working area" of the machines. Inside the working area you could still see it was cleared and cleaned regularly. The GM plants, every one (except final assembly plants) had 1 to 12 inches of greasy dirt in MANY areas, especially around stamping machines, or machines dealing with heavy machining. This also extended into GM hanging area markers from frames rather than having them on the floor and able to be seen. One last thing, due to the fact that the machine I worked on used electricity, use compressed Air and had Hydraulic operation (air was used to push fluid), I got to have a Pipe fitter, a Hydraulic Engineer and an Electrician all around and assist me to do my job. This was at ALL of the Big Three only, Toyota, I only had a white collar person assisting me. The whole Auto-Industry thing is screwed... kill them all and let $DEITY sort them out. (Yeah I know... that would be bad)
Post #299,532 by beepster 11/12/08 1:24:36 PM Reply	Hush now unions are good for business.
Post #299,534 by jake123 11/12/08 1:39:13 PM Reply	No, they're bad for business they're good for society. Pas le meme chose.
Post #299,540 by beepster 11/12/08 1:53:27 PM Reply	If GM goes under and we lose 5M jobs and have to cover double that from a pension standpoint...when does that "good for society" balance tip vs the "bad for business" scale?
Post #299,543 by jake123 11/12/08 2:07:44 PM Reply	GM isn't going under because of their unions they're going under because their vehicles suck.
Post #299,537 by jay 11/12/08 1:44:45 PM Reply	Unions are only part of the problem Over powered unions and badly written union contracts are only part of the problem. And bad union contracts are partially management's problem. The management for the big three where too quick to sign contracts that minimized costs that year but setup the company for long term problems. High retirement benefits, big health care, and rigid staffing levels in exchange for reductions in salary. It makes this quarter profits look better, but those expenses accumulate down the road, and eventually the company ends up hosed. Jay
Post #299,539 by boxley 11/12/08 1:48:02 PM Reply	employer supplied healthcare, what were they thinking
Post #299,544 by jay 11/12/08 2:10:00 PM Reply	It isn't employer health care per se It isn't employer health care per se that is the problem. The problem is that they traded lower salary now for higher long term health benefits. Essentially what they said is that we will take x% of your salary now and increase your health benefits coverage. They did this knowing full well that health benefit costs where going up far faster then inflation. They had to know it would cost more in the long run, but it does look better for this years expenses, because the salary reduction reduces costs now, while health care only costs years down the road. Jay
Post #299,548 by Andrew Grygus 11/12/08 3:41:08 PM Reply	Yes, but those executives didn't plan . . . . . to still be there by time it came due.
Post #299,558 by static 11/12/08 6:09:01 PM Reply	+5, Informative

Welcome to IWETHEY!