thegriffon

As some of you have suggested, a number of analysts are saying this national strike is just to send a message to the rank and file that the UAW is getting a good deal, that it is largely symbolic and only meant to be short term. If they wanted they could shut down GM by only striking a few strategic plants, and preserve the strike fund for a much longer conflict, but instead they are striking everywhere, and to top it off, other unions which would otherwise be laid off by GM are striking as well. Now if I were in the rank and file I'd by asking "What the h— are you doing?" Of course they could be sending a message to GM while doing the least amount of damage to the company's ability to sustain future employment.

The Germans invented the car, and it was refined by the French (pioneering the front-engine layout, steering wheel etc.). Americans (well, mainly GM) invented the self-starter (hand cranks could be lethal), automatic transmission, airbags and a host of other gizmos for making motoring safer and more comfortable.

JK, but seriously, who has a carb these days? Unless you have a classic or are living in Russia or China, where are you going to come across a carburetored engine?

What's a carb?

There is one thing missing from free trade—free trade in labor markets, i.e. (subject to normal background and character checks), any Australian e.g. could hop on a plane and go to work in the US without the need for a green card and vice versa, with no limits of time or renewing visas, how long you can spend outside the US etc.

You're confusing the entire pension benefits with the unfunded portion (subject to interpretation and forecast returns from GM's pension investments) and the unknown and impossible to quantify future healthcare obligations. GM has a large amount of money set aside for anticipated healthcare expenses, but it is the inflation of current healthcare expenses, esp. for inherently older retirees that is causing the most problems. The VEBA essentially transfers GM's healthcare benefits to a private, mutual benefits fund, controlled by the UAW. This fund will almost certainly take over the healthcare obligations of Ford, Chrysler and UAW represented workers at suppliers and in other industries, in exchange for up-front contributions to cover current and near-term retirees, and probably a per-week pay increase that will go towards the "voluntary" health insurance contributions. The latter will certainly increase over time, as will co-pays and limits on claims. The VEBA could be used by the UAW as an effective marketing tool if managed well. There is no reason why it could not be expanded to other industries not represented by the UAW, and provide a broader range of financial services—loans, life insurance, home and auto insurance—modelled by the USAA; or with it's primary focus as a healthcare provider, acquire or employ its own hospitals, clinics and other care providers in order to reduce costs and improve car.

You have no idea what fascism is, or about who owns and controls large corporations. The "rich" control very little. Who controls the way businesses operate? The managers of pension funds and mutual funds, the combined investments of millions of middle-class workers around the world, all demanding the best return possible so they can live comfortably in retirement. Even the mega-rich depend on appealing to these people to gain access to capital, There are a number of "ethical" investment funds, which only invest in companies adhering to certain guidelines, be they environmental or social, but the vast majority of middle-class investors seek prefer funds which simply look for companies and and loans offering the best return.Fascism is a form of socialism, wherein private businesses are run under the supervision of the state for the benefit of the nation (if not always workers). North Korea is not fascist, but "communist" China has become so. A fascist would almost without exception be opposed to outsourcing to foreign producers or offshoring production. It is clear that you are far more fascist in your policies and ideals than the people you are trying to vilify. Don't forget that historically both the NAzi party and apartheid came out of trade unions. The inherent racism and nationalism in much "anti-globalisation" rhetoric is not so very different, despite often being disguised as protecting the "rights" of foreign workers (mostly the right to be unemployed and destitute).

The reasons companies outsource are the expectations of retailers (the gatekeepers to consumers) and the financial community (we have money for plants in China, not the US), and control by marketing types who think they are in the business of "selling", not "making". Plenty of companies have gotten into financial difficulty after outsourcing production. Once you factor in travel expanses, logistics and other costs, outsourcing or offshoring is not always successful in reducing costs. Truly "global" companies spread manufacturing and engineering centers all over the world, in order to optimize not only cost of manufacturing, but also logistics, economy of scale and local expertise. I can walk into my local supermarket and pick items of the shelf from one company that are made in Europe, Asia, Australia or the USA—sometimes a mix of two or more in one product (e.g. contents made locally [maximizing shelf-life and responsiveness] and packed in a decorative jar made in the USA). Imagine you are making clothing for the US market, and the really cold winter weather doesn't arrive for a couple of months later than normal (as has happened recently). A local supplier can delay or suspend production of winter coats at short notice, and restart when the cold weather really kicks in, but an overseas supplier may have the entire winter season already produced in on a ship crossing the Pacific when you realize you aren't going to able to sell them. GM can alter production of any model within days if the home building trade collapses, fuel prices spike, or there is an unexpected hit. An importer may do the same, but because it takes so long to ship product across the pacific the effect won't reach the local market until months later, when the it may be far too late.

When it comes to cars it is the Kia which is more expensive.

IIRC 7-Eleven is Japanese.

Maybe it's time for another split? Maybe the CAW should start organizing US plants

If I was working for GM right now, I'd be asking myself, my fellow workers and the local, "Is the UAW national leadership, really working to my benefit right now?" I don't think they have been given any answer at the moment.

They have to realize that only the consumer can decide if a UAW worker has job security, and at the moment most are sayign F— the UAW, I'm buying a Camry.

Wouldn't work. New automakers would still not have the cost burden Ford GM and Chrysler have with their legions of retirees. You would have to slap a sales tax on every item you could buy in the USA, to fund mandatory pension contributions to cover every current and retired worker in the US, regardless of place of manufacture, industry, or how long the company has been in business. THAT is what the UAW and other established unions need to be picketing for, especially in a coming election year. They should be asking Obama and Clinton and every other candidate to publicly campaign for that and get firm congressional and senate support in return for union support in funding, voter registation etc.. That is the only way company, industry and social security pensions will ever be adequately financed ever again. Chance of that actually happening in the next century? Zero zip, nada.

Umm, the same thing happens with almost every government. You win the most districts, you win government. It's no different in France, Germany, Britain Australia etc., even though they may lampoon the US system. The main difference is in most countries the entire cabinet, not just the President is chosen by the disctrict representatives, and what's more, not from a wider pool of skilled (if politically selected) candidates, but from amongst themselves, no matter how limited in experience that group may be in say, law, finance, defence, intelligence, health, transport etc.

Zenith was bought by LG years ago, IIRC. Organizing competing companies is not the answer however—any "new" competitor would immediately be able to pay the same wages and benefits, but have much lower costs than GM or other established companies, simply because they are not paying the health and retirement benefits of a generation oif retirees. This advantage is rapidly compounded as new companies take market share. Company- or even industry-wide funding for retirees is fundamentally a founded on the crackpot idea that the economy and the industries that drive it will never change. Even nationally-funded social-security is coming unstuck do to demographic changes (too many retirees compared to the remaining base of employed contributors). The UAW has to recognize that the only secure funding for their retirement and health benefits is their own personal contributions. They can throw a tantrum about unfairly baring the burden of cost cuts all they like, but where will extorting concessions get them if Chrysler Ford, or God forbid, GM goes out of business in NA as a result?

yeah, but what foes it do to resale if the car you bought last year is now 40% cheaper in $US? I pity the fool who paid sticker price for an Accord in Australia when they were $56K (now just over $30K new) ouch!

If there's still a plant in a few weeks.

Don't forget to check their youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/gmeuropecars

An old GM era EMD, the last passenger locomotive they built, not yet replaced by he related, commuter-oriented MP30s and MP40s build by MPI.

Have fun with Schwyzertütsch

You have to see things from the other point of view—that's why this is seen as a bad thing. If it had been Priuses or Camrys, then there would have been no complaints.

States are open to the idea, since it's cheaper than highway building, but—no matching funds and a federal government that has never given Amtrak proper funding to do its legal manadate.

Which is another reason GM and Ford are not building them.

Two factors effect locomotive design in North America-utility and cost. Te streamlined carbodies of engines such as EMD's E- anf F-series "covered wagons" are relatively expensive to produce in what is in comparison to the auto industry, low volume. hence even modern carbodies such as GE's Genesis series, EMD's last passenger engine, or Motive Power's latest designs are generally much ore slab-sided than the old engines. The other major factor is regulations and operating procedures. At one point engine duties were performed by three different types of locomotive—high-speed passenger, high-tractive effort freight, and high-visibility switchers in the yards. Alco I believe created the seminal general-purpose engine in the '50s the RS-2 (Road-Switcher), soon emulated by GE's U series (the U-boats) and EMD's general-purpose GP (geeps). As a result the standard American locomotive not only performs the tasks of a road engine—hauling long trains across the continent—but often performs switching (re-arranging the car consist) duties at either end and along the way. Stream-lined carbodies are not allowed to do this because of visibility issues and have become restricted to passenger service (with abysmal budgets for new engines) and business trains (low-mileage inspection trips using primarily older F-units). So much of the switching role is performed by road engines that the modern market for dedicated switchers is relatively small, and has been abandoned by the major builders. Those companies supplying switchers have tended to come and go, the market is so tight. Overseas markets have different regulations and operation practices, and carbodies (some with a degree of streamlining) are designed and built by EMD and GE for the European and Chinese markets, where they may work in both freight and passenger service. With inadequate budgets American passenger service cannot afford many tailor-made locomotives such as the Acela, so diesel passenger locomotives are effectively re-bodied road-switchers, with the limitations that entails. Cost and utility have also dictated changes in bus design, from the deep-windowed, mid-/rear-engined brick long used in commuter service, to the modern low-floor versions. You may like the way the old streamlined buses look, but you don't have to pay for them or operate them—the "bricks" provide more passenger capacity for lower cost.