GM Plans to Cut 25,000 U.S. Jobs by 2008

GM Plans to Cut 25,000 U.S. Jobs by 2008.

Hey ksdb - see if you kind find any bias in this. People are going to lose their jobs :angry:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Already this year, GM’s U.S. market share has fallen from 27 percent a year ago to 25.4 percent, much of the loss at the expense of Asian automakers such as Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co.


There you go… 'nuff said. I don’t currently own a Japanese or Asian auto as I like to buy American. I will say that I have owned my LAST GM product. The last three GM autos I owned began disintegrating at ~75 to 80K miles.

Get your s@#t together GM and I might give you another chance…

TG

PS I currently own Ford and Dodge products. Dodge 110K and still kicking. Ford(s) both over 80K. General maintenance only and doing great.

These jobs aren’t being immediately cut (in case you didn’t notice). Some news outlets aren’t including the timeline in their headlines. Considering this takes place over 3 1/2 years, some of those who are affected should be able to find jobs elsewhere. Watch how the story progresses and how it’s covered by other media outlets. Can you guarantee there won’t be a few political jabs thrown into the story by the networks or some of the major newspapers??

2008 is in the title. What I had hoped that you would seen and have commented on is:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
He noted that health-care expenses add $1,500 to the cost of each GM vehicle. This puts GM at a “significant disadvantage versus foreign-based competitors,” Wagoner said.


This is the same information that the MSNBC article I cited recently, that you objected to as biased, in case you don’t remember.

I do remember. I said nothing about bias in that thread. The piece you quoted before was an opinion piece that didn’t connect all the dots. The supposition was that all GM’s jobs were going to Canada. Does today’s story support that?? Health-care costs may be high, but it doesn’t explain why GM sales are sluggish. This story today doesn’t say the jobs that are being cut are being exported to Canada for health-care reasons.

Further, re-read what I said above. “Some news outlets” are omitting the timeline in the headlines. CNN.com and USAToday.com both have headlines with 2008 omitted. The omission serves to sensationalize the story, so you’re welcome to call that bias.

By the way, here’s something your story omitted:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
In fact a drop of 25,000 U.S. jobs for GM by the end of 2008 is not much steeper than the normal attrition rate the automaker’s seen in recent years.

In January Wagoner told reporters at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit that attrition among hourly workers had been running about 5 percent annually, and about 2 percent for salaried staff.

If the work force kept to last year’s attrition rates, there would be a reduction of 7,000 to 8,000 employees this year without any plant closings, and three more years of those kind of gradual trimming could achieve much if not all of the 25,000 reduction in active staff.

ksdb, come to Flint, you can see all of the people who were able to find new jobs. Comforting idea, withough any reality behind it. :)

People who have not lived with GM’s destructive actions cannot understand the magnitude of the harm.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
GM’s destructive actions


destructive as in employing how many thousands of people?.. general motors is not pulling these people from the assembly lines and executing them, gm is making a business decision that simply makes sense… of course it makes sense only because they’ve not been successful in their design and marketing decisions (look at the avalanche, ick… and what a waste of metal the geo was :)… even after these 25000 people are terminated (not in the arnold fashion :), gm will still employ thousands of people… but over the decades, gm will eventually disappear, they can’t exist forever… so at some point, gm will have to lay off the remaining hundreds, so why aren’t people upset about that same fact?.. is it unreasonable to worry about this future scenario?.. of course, they could sell to a competitor, who will most likely continue to employ the already trained workforce…

i’ve never understood why so many people staunchly maintain their “evil corporations” perspective… imagine a world without corporations, then concoct a scheme to employ those millions that are on the street… corporations are not evil entities, it requires unethical and dishonest people to create debacles like enron… lack of ethics and dishonesty are two things i can’t condone…

of course, this doesn’t help matters, either:
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
the UAW has indicated it won’t reopen its contract, which expires in 2007, and agree to pick up a larger share of soaring health care costs.


MSRP: $0.02 with 0% financing for the first 18 months

isaac

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
In fact a drop of 25,000 U.S. jobs for GM by the end of 2008 is not much steeper than the normal attrition rate the automaker’s seen in recent years.

Well - why do you think the attrition rate has been so high in recent years? :laugh:

Quote (TomS @ June 07 2005,19:34)
ksdb, come to Flint, you can see all of the people who were able to find new jobs. Comforting idea, withough any reality behind it.

More melodrama … are we talking about people who are actually unable to find work or are just unwilling to take other jobs?? If you can’t find a job, you move to a place that has jobs and you do what you have to do. People have choices and the responsibility to take care of themselves. Somehow GM is closing its plants while manufacturers like Hyundai open new plants in the U.S. People can go where the work is or find new occupations.

Quote (TomS @ June 07 2005,19:34)
People who have not lived with GM’s destructive actions cannot understand the magnitude of the harm.

More high-handedness, as if GM is the only major employer who deals with layoffs, firings and restructuring. I have an idea; get John Mellencamp to start CarAid to raise money for the former autoworkers. I guess in the long run this proves that evolution is bogus since these people don’t appear to be strong or smart enough to adapt and survive on their own.

I love your solution ksdb. That’s exactly what Ronald Reagan said & everyone moved to California :laugh:

You did insinuate that the msnbc article was biased even though you perhaps didn’t state it outright. But in fact, the msnbc article was right on the money & the GM’s CEO verified in his announcement that health is a major issue.

Nope, if you haven’t lived it you can’t understand it.

At bottom this is about those who think we ought to look out for each other, and those who think that the rich have a right to be right, even if that means that others suffer.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
and those who think that the rich have a right to be right


of course, i could suggest that this is a subtle inquiry into your conscience - that all rich people are found within the right portion of the political spectrum, and that your hands translated that…

but, i expect it’s really just a typo, which is far less fun… :)

the battery of attacks on “the rich” are, in my opinion, unjustified… just as people generalize that “hippies suck”, so do hippies generalize that “rich people are greedy, evil bastards”… does that include george soros?.. or is he the chosen one, the rich hippie?.. :)

isaac

No-one’s attacking the rich for being rich. The main issue for me is that they pay their fair share of taxes, and I don’t believe that they are.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 08 2005,11:56)
I love your solution ksdb. That’s exactly what Ronald Reagan said & everyone moved to California

Worker migration is a fact of life. I live in a state that constantly loses skilled workers to other states where better job opportunties exist. Several cities have shriveled up from lost population. Why would you ridicule the idea of going where the jobs are??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 08 2005,11:56)
You did insinuate that the msnbc article was biased even though you perhaps didn’t state it outright.

As TomS previously pointed out, I call BS. You quoted an opinion piece, not a news story. Discussing whether an opinion column is biased or not would be moot. Don’t try to spin my words just so can you can avoid losing face.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 08 2005,11:56)
But in fact, the msnbc article was right on the money & the GM’s CEO verified in his announcement that health is a major issue.

The opinion piece you sited suggested the lack of government-run health care in the U.S. was the primary reason why jobs are going to other countries. The new story doesn’t talk about that at all, but instead suggests that GM is using the health-care issue as leverage against the unions.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
“We have not reached an agreement at this time, and to be honest, I’m not 100 percent that we will,” Wagoner said of the ongoing talks with its unions. …

To date, the UAW has indicated it won’tagree to pick up a larger share of soaring health care costs.

Quote (TomS @ June 08 2005,12:25)
Nope, if you haven’t lived it you can’t understand it.

Do we owe you anything for your time and trouble in sharing this bit of provincial insight?

Quote (TomS @ June 08 2005,12:25)
At bottom this is about those who think we ought to look out for each other, and those who think that the rich have a right to be right, even if that means that others suffer.

I have the feeling that the vast majority of those who will “suffer” will be collecting severance pay and unemployment before they helplessly fall into poverty and rancour. The rich will rue the day they lost their ability to exploit this group of people.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The opinion piece you sited suggested the lack of government-run health care in the U.S. was the primary reason why jobs are going to other countries.

Yes - that’s exactly what I believe, which is why I posted it in the first place.

Yes - opinion pieces are inheritently biased for sure.

I do agree that workers sometimes do need to move, but that assumes that there are other manufacturing jobs for these displaced people to get. The answer is No because they’re all moving overseas.

Our goverenment policies helped created the middle class. If all these policies are changed/reduced/eliminated, and there are no more middle class jobs, then the middle class will dwindle. I think that process has begun.

I think health care is a big issue for employers & I think our government is doing very little to help this situation.

"Why would you ridicule the idea of going where the jobs are??"

While I don’t want to get deeply involved in some other parts of this argument going on here, I have to point out that there are some problems with attempting to move to follow work.

Firstly it breaks up families and communities. It can separate individuals and young families from much needed extend family support, disconnect children from grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. People are forced to leave their social and spiritual communities behind. kids have to adjust to new schools.

Moving also causes discontinuities in health care, the process of seeking new doctors, attempting to have records transferred is a huge hassle.

Also some of us are responsible for elderly family members who cannot be moved so easily, nor can they be left alone.

It costs money to move plus time and effort. finding a new place to live and uprooting yourself and possibly a family is a huge undertaking in itself.

The promise of jobs is not always true. I have twice traveled long distances, once years ago to another continent, on promises of employment only to be totally dissapointed.

I could actually be working today but for the few short hours offered, the low pay and the very long commute, it would likely not pay for the gas (I drive a fairly sensible car not an SUV). I mean it since it would be a 1.5 to 2 hour commute for 2 to 3 hours of work.

For some of us moving may be an option but for many it is not so simple as just follow the jobs.

Peace,
TrackGrrrl

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 08 2005,13:04)
The main issue for me is that they pay their fair share of taxes, and I don't believe that they are.

karl, is that you?...

Quote (TrackGrrrl @ June 08 2005,13:51)
"Why would you ridicule the idea of going where the jobs are??"

While I don’t want to get deeply involved in some other parts of this argument going on here, I have to point out that there are some problems with attempting to move to follow work.

Firstly it breaks up families and communities. It can separate individuals and young families from much needed extend family support, disconnect children from grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. People are forced to leave their social and spiritual communities behind. kids have to adjust to new schools.

Moving also causes discontinuities in health care, the process of seeking new doctors, attempting to have records transferred is a huge hassle.

Also some of us are responsible for elderly family members who cannot be moved so easily, nor can they be left alone.

It costs money to move plus time and effort. finding a new place to live and uprooting yourself and possibly a family is a huge undertaking in itself.

The promise of jobs is not always true. I have twice traveled long distances, once years ago to another continent, on promises of employment only to be totally dissapointed.

I could actually be working today but for the few short hours offered, the low pay and the very long commute, it would likely not pay for the gas (I drive a fairly sensible car not an SUV). I mean it since it would be a 1.5 to 2 hour commute for 2 to 3 hours of work.

For some of us moving may be an option but for many it is not so simple as just follow the jobs.

Peace,
TrackGrrrl

That’s a very thoughtful reply, but let’s not forget this country was built on (and continues to welcome) people who immigrated to this country in search of opportunities (not promises), all while breaking up families and leaving homes behind. There’s no suggestion that pursuing jobs in other cities or states is easy or without consequences. Starting over isn’t simple or easy, but sometimes necessity and reality outweigh convenience and tradition.