Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    GM's Top Lawyer, Delphi Exec Get Grilled By Senate

      The Senate Grills GM's Top Lawyer and Delphi CEO

    Another day, another senate hearing into the General Motors ignition switch recall. Today, two new people were grilled by the committee about their knowledge in this mess.

    First up was Michael Millikin, GM's General Counsel. Millikin testified that he didn't know about the issue till February of this year. He also testified that lawyers working for GM during April 2013 had information pertaining to this from a case they were working on. However, they failed to notify engineers about the problem.

    "That was tragic. If they had brought it to my attention at that time, I certainly would have made sure that they had done something," Millikin said.

    Lower-level lawyers were among those fifteen people who let go a couple months ago.

    However, many of the senators were wondering why Millikin was still employed with the company.

    "I do not understand how the General Counsel for a litigation department that had this massive failure of responsibility, how he would be allowed to continue in that important leadership role in this company," said Senator Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Senate Commerce subcommittee.

    The senators said Millikin should be held responsible for the actions of the lower-level lawyers.

    “My view is the team has to change,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal.

    Millikin testified that the company has brought in an outside law firm to review the litigation department.

    Also testifying today was Delphi CEO Rodney O'Neal. Delphi was the company who manufactured the switches and was being called in to explain their role in the recall. O'Neal testified that the company followed the specifications given by GM when making the switch. That included the low resistance turn because GM wanted it to turn smoothly.

    "GM knowingly approved a final design that included less torque than the original target. In our view, that approval established the final specification," said O'Neal.

    GM CEO Mary Barra who was at the hearing said that it was GM's fault for the design of the part, not Delphi.

    Source: Reuters, The Detroit News, (2)

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    About time Delphi was grilled on this and NO I do not buy it was just GM's fault. Delphi knew this was not good and should have built the part to the original spec not a lower spec. Also my gut tells me Delphi probably came back to GM and said you could build it at this lower spec and it would save X amount per part equaling millions that can go to executive bonuses for saving money.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    About time Delphi was grilled on this and NO I do not buy it was just GM's fault. Delphi knew this was not good and should have built the part to the original spec not a lower spec. Also my gut tells me Delphi probably came back to GM and said you could build it at this lower spec and it would save X amount per part equaling millions that can go to executive bonuses for saving money.

     

    I would disagree with that latter part. Especially when you consider this story from The Detroit News in April - Bad blood cited between GM, ignition switch supplier Delphi

     

    A couple of key quotes: 

     

     

    At the same time, GM was looking for ways to cut costs to cover an ever-widening cost gap with its foreign competitors. Squeezing suppliers for pricing concessions was a lot easier than addressing its own inefficiencies and uncompetitive business model.

     

    “They had Delphi over a barrel and they knew it. GM just went after them and put on all sorts of pressure to reduce costs,” said John Henke, president of Planning Perspectives Inc., which tracks relations between automakers and their suppliers. “The two companies hated each other. If you were a Delphi engineer and you worked with GM, you didn’t want to get out of bed in the morning.”

     

    Henke and other analysts believe the caustic relationship between General Motors and Delphi led to substandard parts being shipped by the supplier. And they say the dysfunctional state of Detroit’s automobile industry in the years leading up to its near-death experience in 2008 and 2009 helps explain why GM would have accepted them and installed them on its vehicles. 

     

     

    Henke has been asking suppliers to rate their relations with automakers since 1992. From 2002 to 2007, GM was consistently rated the worst company to do business with in his annual survey.

     
    “Relations with GM were definitely the most contentious,” he said. “They were so cost-oriented; price took precedence over quality. Suppliers were threatened with loss of business if they didn’t reduce the cost of their components. They had to be incredibly creative to meet GM targets.”

     

     

    Competing with other suppliers for business was often a brutal process at GM, according to Henke, who says the automaker routinely summoned parts manufacturers to its headquarters, put the representatives of each company in a different room and then asked them to name their lowest price for a given component. The GM purchasing reps would then take the lowest figure and challenge the other companies to beat it. And they would keep doing that until none of the suppliers was willing to go any lower.

     
    That sometimes resulted in suppliers bidding so low that they had to cut corners to meet the promised price. And that, says Henke, is one reason why GM ended up receiving parts that did not meet its own specifications, as the company now says happened with the ignition switches from Delphi. And he said GM was willing to accept those parts because the alternative — delaying production — was too costly.

     

    Should Delphi get some of the blame? Sure. But all roads lead back to GM.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Very interesting to read this. This information is what the news needs to be sharing about the problems in the culture of the company and how bean counters and lawyers tend to affect and play games with peoples life all over a few cents.

     

    Did they ever look at their own stupidty for over paying assembly line labor, over paying executives and the wasteful bonuses plus not having cleaned up their own product lines. It was hard on this country but the near death was a good thing I think in forcing the company to clean up its act. Hopefully this will force them to continue to do the right thing and get better.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Everything is going to s#!T in this country, even the feed at C and G (Sarcasm) Probably taking Maverick off the table for a new vehicle, although I would love to own one. At this point, paying cash for an older Jeep XJ or something almost is more appealing than anything new.
    • He was an amazing guy! Thank you.  Trump is making the next century the Chinese century. its inevitable at this point.  Chinese EV's are everywhere.  Worse, people will not invest in a country that is unstable.  It's not just Canada. And I have switched from drinking American micro brew beers to imported wine when I eat out. Not supporting American business when our country acts like this.  This YANK is buying Canadian over American every chance I get. 
    • The point is that going forward, Ford EVs: 1. This is a new way of assembling vehicles. The new production line is now a production tree with three branches that converge into one. 2. Ford has cut a lot of weight out of the platform. 4,000 fewer feet of wiring harness, 25% less fastener. Lower weight will mean more range with less battery. 3. LFP cells that are built in the US without cobalt or nickle. 4. Faster production, while overall production time will drop 15%, the assembly process will drop 40%. Ford will use some of that savings to in-source some component production. 5. 52,000 sq/ft expansion of Louisville facility. 6. Ford claims lower total cost to own than buying a 3-year old Model-Y. (I'd like to read the fine print on this one) 7. The way the components are assembled is now significantly more ergonomic, less twisting and bending for assembly workers. There was an audible gasp from someone in the crowd of assembly workers at the press event when the presenter said "You will never need to put a dash cluster through a door opening ever again". 8. The platform will allow many kinds of body styles including crossovers, sedans, and sport cars. The debut vehicle will arrive in 2027 as a mid-size truck.   Something that Tesla did with #1, #2 , and  #4 on that list a decade ago.  Something that GM is doing with #8 on that list with the Ultium platform as it was once called.   Something that Ford should have done from the very beginning when they came out with the Mach-E.  Tesla and SandY Monroe were tooting that for the Model 3.  I guess FoMoCo had to get the Mach-E out as fast as possible then though.   Dont get me wrong, I fully agree with your post 100%.  I was about to say better late than never, but I think with this Presidential administration, Ford will probably not survive Trump's presidency.  Nor Stellantis in the US.  And Im very iffy if GM survives too if the current tariff situation on Canadian steel and aluminium stays on.  Sad to say.         
    • They didn't even show a vehicle though, just said that in 2 years we'll have a pickup around $30,000.  Which probably means $30,990 plus a $1995 destination charge and you are at $33k before any options which will quickly push it to $40k.  They already have the Maverick in this same space. I don't see this as a "Model T" moment.  It would have to be $5k cheaper than the Maverick to get people to really start buying EV's en masse.  And where do they go with this, the Chinese already make midsize EV pickups for $25,000, so you can't see it overseas because the Chinese will win on price.   The Model T had years where it sold over a million units.  If Ford wants their new age Model T, then the vehicle has to be so good at such a price that you can't pass it up for a Rav4 or CRV.  This will be like the Equinox EV that was going to be $30k, but ended up more like $35k base and $40k for most of the ones at dealers and when the tax credit goes away sales will dry up.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search