You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
How GM Lost Its Way - Timid management and coddled workers couldn't compete with Toyota.
2009-06-02
Decades of dumb decisions helped send General Motors to a bankruptcy court yesterday, but one stands out.

The year was 1998, and the United Auto Workers was striking at two factories in Flint, Mich., that made components critical to every GM assembly plant in the country. The union was defending production quotas that workers could fill in five or six hours, after which they would get overtime pay or just, you know, go home.

Most strikes are forbidden during the life of a labor contract, so to provide legal cover the union started filing grievances. GM lawyers contended the walkouts violated the contract anyway and drafted a lawsuit -- the first by the company against the UAW in more than 60 years. But GM's labor-relations department freaked out because the lawsuit would antagonize the union.



Just think about that. The union had shut down virtually all of GM, costing the company and its shareholders billions of dollars, and yet the company's labor negotiators were afraid of giving offense. After heated internal arguments, the suit was filed and GM seemed on the verge of winning. But the company settled just before the judge ruled.

UAW members marched victoriously through downtown Flint. GM executives who advocated a tougher stand got pushed out of the company.

The picture of a heedless union and a feckless management says a lot about what went wrong at GM. There were many more mistakes, of course -- look-alike cars, lapses in quality, misguided acquisitions, and betting on big SUVs just before gas prices soared. They were all born of a uniquely insular corporate culture.

The GM bailout probably will cost close to $100 billion, counting money from the governments of the U.S., Canada and Germany. On paper, the new company should emerge from Chapter 11 fully able to compete in the brutally competitive auto industry. Whether it will actually prosper is far less certain, but some things are beyond dispute. Bankruptcy didn't have to happen and the fact that it did happen is incredibly sad given GM's many contributions to American society and culture.

General Motors invented the modern corporation by developing the concept of giving operating executives power and responsibility to run far-flung operations subject to central financial control. While Henry Ford invented mass manufacturing, GM's long-time president and chairman of the board, Alfred P. Sloan Jr., developed mass marketing: a "car for every purse and purpose," as he put it in the company's 1924 annual report. This meant a hierarchy of brands ranging from practical Chevrolets to prestigious Cadillacs. GM's industrial might helped win a world war and made America rich in its aftermath.

For half a century, between the 1920s and the 1970s, GM seemed to have an instinctive feel for what Americans wanted before consumers themselves even knew it. Chrome, tail fins, muscle cars and even the first catalytic converters that let cars run on lead-free gasoline were developed at GM.

But the company signed generous labor deals during the 1970s, including the right to retire after 30 years with full pension and benefits, partly because it believed the contracts would cripple its smaller competitors, Ford and Chrysler. Then along came Honda, Nissan and Toyota, which didn't have to deal with labor contracts at all. That was the beginning of the agonizing decline.

This fate could have been avoided with better foresight and less hubris, but by 18 months ago bankruptcy was inevitable. GM's U.S. market share had declined to 22% from 52% in the early 1960s. There were too many brands, too much debt, a cumbersome union contract as big as a phone book, and an enormous dealer network built for the glory years of yesterday instead of the market share of today.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#19  If they offer me 3 for the price of one - I will buy right now!
Posted by: 3dc   2009-06-02 23:17  

#18  Worked as a tool engineer in the Oshawa Truck Plant for 38 years. Seen it all. Retired two years ago. Now the plant is closed.

Turns out in 1992 GM and the Province of Ontario worked out a deal to help large companies "to big to fail" relax their pension contributions. In return, the companies paid a modest premium into a provincial insurance scam plan. Turns out the insurance is as bankrupt as GM.

Word is the bulk of the Ontario bailout is destined to top up pensions, although no politician will admit to such an arrangement.

Seems like political meddling exists on both sides of the 49th.
Posted by: Skunky Glins 5***   2009-06-02 23:14  

#17  F150! Drink up! Doubles on me in the O-Club
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-02 21:54  

#16   and even the first catalytic converters that let cars run on lead-free gasoline were developed at GM

It's plain the author doesn't know shit about engines.
In order to run unleaded the exhaust valves had to be made of entirely different steels, hardened, and aluminum coated (On the sealing faces) in order not to melt, As well the piston rings also were made with a strip of softer metal sandwiched between twin hardened wearing surfaces as a built in lubricant, the Catylitic converter was only to super-clean the exhaust and has nothing to do with the actual running and life of the engine.

Lead was used mostly as a cushioner and sealer for the very hot moving parts, camshafts also had to be reground to allow valves to settle in place gently and not 'click' into place. a 'downramp' sorta.

Much more, but you get the point, engines run fine without all the government crap on them.
Posted by: mstrmech   2009-06-02 20:52  

#15  . Second, it has to compete against Government Motors, who has TWO vested interests in seeing Ford fail
The Feds can force Ford to fail using their power, but they cannot force GM or Chrysler to succeed.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-06-02 19:52  

#14  GM is no different from Ford or Chrysler except for being bigger. That business model can't survive and everyone knows it. So WHY have we (the taxpayers) been shoveling tens of billions of dollars into it for the last six months? Follow that money - it points somewhere.
"Too big to fail?" Then too big to BE!
Much as I'd like Ford to survive (because it has not been bailed out by yours truly), it can't happen. First, it still has to compete against Toyota et al, and it can't. Second, it has to compete against Government Motors, who has TWO vested interests in seeing Ford fail - to prove Obamanomics works and because Fords single biggest problem (UAW) has an overwhelming interest in GM.
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-06-02 18:47  

#13  Are you saying you were in sales, or worked on an assembly line Mr. Bunions? Where was that?
Posted by: lotp   2009-06-02 18:35  

#12  SteveS

Been there done that. Made quota then sat around 'til the whistle blew. Also enjoyed the 18 day PAID maintenance shutdown each July and the 9 paid Christmas shutdown days. And the 12 sick days per year, the easy to defraud Long Term Disability, the smoke break every hour on the line, the up to 12 weeks vacation, the near wholesale car prices, the double time, the pension after 25/30 years, the family preferences in hiring, somebody stop me...
Posted by: Uloluns Scourge of the Bunions1692   2009-06-02 17:27  

#11  ...In 1993 I went to a Chevy dealer in Akron to look at what was then one of the new Lumina minvans. My brother (a 24 year GM employee who loses everything next year, BTW, because his plant is being closed and he's management) said he would set me up for 'A Plan' (employee discount). I went in - at high noon on a Saturday, mind you - and saw nothing and no one save for one salesman in his office, feet up on the desk and talking on the phone. After he continued his conversation for a moment, he stopped talking and looked at me like I had just s@it in the middle of the sales floor and asked me what I wanted. I asked to talk about a Lumina van. His response was to write a price on a piece of paper, toss it across the desk to me, and tell me to take it or leave it, then go back to his phone conversation. I walked out and went down the street to a Chrysler dealer, where I told the salesman I could go A Plan through GM - give me a reason NOT to. The Plymouth I bought was one of the two best cars I've ever owned. But since that moment, I have steadfastly refused to even go near a GM dealer. I know there are many good and reliable dealers and salespeople out there, but this one and so many like them are also a major reason GM is face down in the gutter this morning.

PS - the Chevy dealer is still open and is NOT on the list of franchises getting the ax.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2009-06-02 16:47  

#10  GM has had a dysfunctional corporate culture ever since, oh, when I learned to walk. (In other words, 1962.)
Posted by: Mike   2009-06-02 16:35  

#9  Great cartoon from the Times of London
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2009-06-02 14:38  

#8  Well many of them now have plenty of time for card playing now Steve.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-02 14:29  

#7  Two Buicks and a Saturn for me. Never again.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-02 14:27  

#6  My father worked for General Motors as a metallurgist for the last 16 years of his working life. Basically, his job was to find bad parts coming off a machine and figure out what to do about it.

One of his pet peeves was trying to convince the production line guys that a production quota meant not just so many parts produced, but so many *usable* parts before you could sit around and play cards for the rest of your shift.
Posted by: SteveS   2009-06-02 14:21  

#5  My last several cars have been GM. Never had a problem w/ any of them. However I am unlikely to do so again. Not after $50+ billion in taxpayer subsidies to GM and its various carcasses before this all over.
Posted by: ed   2009-06-02 14:06  

#4  And Obama's Green-Car initiative will likely add to the unsold inventory problem.

I agree Plat. I suspect the entire organization is now on 'life support' awaiting the decision by someone to pull the plug. The GM dealerships that survived the purge of Republican doners will be moving swiftly to secure Japanese and Korean franchises as safety nets. Buying a US Gov't automobile will likely be about as popular as buying US Savings Bonds, maybe even less.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-02 13:55  

#3  Actually, GM planning include excessive production of SUVs and large trucks, because there were larger profit margins on same. When personal credit dried up, they were left with carrying costs for inventory, and there was no scenario in which those liabilities could be covered. I suppose good managers could have predicted the collapse of the financial system.

UAW concessions that GM demanded would have reduced costs by only 1%. The UAW had agreed to same. It is true that most Rantburg readers probably work 240+ days per year, while auto workers take full wages for working only 180. Drastic change is warranted. But administrative practises at GM didn't contribute to the economic crisis. And Obama's Green-Car initiative will likely add to the unsold inventory problem.
Posted by: Thrase Platypus1703   2009-06-02 13:44  

#2  Actually, the seeds of GM's demise were probably sewn in the 1950s. I highly recommend "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors" by Patrick Wright, who was writing for John DeLorean (pre-cocaine dealing days). It's a quick read, and it's obvious in retrospect that plenty of folks had a clear-headed notion of what ailed the automaker, but it was the corporate culture that prevented anyone who could buck the trend from making it to the top.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2009-06-02 13:14  

#1  It's been coming for a long time, circa 1981.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-06-02 11:38  

00:00