gilli

The oakville plant is in the process of being retooled to become a flex facility similar to ford's plant in chicago, when it is done it will convert the current truck and car plants in to one facility scheduled to build the next gen lincoln aviator and ford edge. The product is scheduled for a 2007 launch date. The toyota plant while it may only offer 900 factory workers will essentially offer many more jobs to outside contractors in the construction of the plant and the eventual retooling that will be down several times over the plants life, this work is not usually done by factory workers so while it may only be 900 permanent jobs there are several other spin off jobs the new plant creates. I also think it is important to note that many of the 4000 jobs will likely be lost through retirement as opposed to out right layoffs, which doesn't really hurt the economy as much as a straight lay off would.

Okay, i'm going to throw this out as a possible scenario for Oshawa, the #2 plant closes. The land that the former #2 occupied is split to allow for a larger truck plant and an increase in the size of #1 to allow for new products perhaps in a flex type of set up. Perhaps also to allow for RWD production? What if the loss of the third shift in the #1 plant that makes both the impala and the monte carlo is not because the impala doesn't sell well, but because the monte carlo 's numbers aren't that high? I know the sound of lost jobs sucks but this is necessary for GM to try to fight back. I have no doubt that Buzz was a little left out of the loop on this one but I'm also sure that the majority of layoffs in Canada will come from early retirement in all three plants and eligable workers that remain in plant 2 will slide in to either 1 or the truck plant, making actual cuts less damaging to the local economy. I love it when the media hears layoffs and projects all doom and gloom but think of how many baby boomers are already on the door step of retirement and how many more could be there in the next 3 years. All GM is doing is reducing the workforce through retirements and not necessarily hiring new employees to replace those that leave.

[QUOTE][quote name='The O.C.' date='Sep 13 2005, 08:43 PM'] Razoredge, I've kept quiet through most of this post.....but now I feel I want to share two experiences that I've had when I was a white-collar worker at Buick Headquarters near Buick City in Flint back in the early-nineties.... Example #1 - We were having a product planning meeting at Buick one day and the conference room we were in had too few chairs to accomodate all the attendees to the meeting. The obvious solution? Grab a few chairs from adjoining offices and roll them into the conference room to have enough seats for everyone. Unfortunately, we were not "allowed" to go get the chairs. We had to call UAW workers up to physically go get the chairs and bring them into the conference room. Something about us taking "manual labor" away from the union workers. I should say that after we waited 45 minutes (!) for someone to come up, I decided to go get the chairs myself and roll them into the conference room. I got IN TROUBLE (!) for doing that and was written up...!!!!!! How ASSININE was that? Do you know how UNPRODUCTIVE that was? Waiting for a union worker to come up to bring the chairs into the conference room? Our meeting was delayed 45 minutes...and I got in trouble with management because I took the matter in my own hands. Additionally, as I was rolling the last couple of chairs in, the union workers showed up....but I had already taken care of everything. Those union workers were NASTY to me that I had done that....bitter, nasty, and demeaning.[/QUOTE] *You in this response is general and not aimed at any one person* Perhaps before you claim that the union members were nasty and demeaning to you, you should think about why certain rules in the workplace exist. I know it is only moving furniture and it seems so simple any one can do it but if it isn't in your job description does that mean you should do it? suppose you had hurt yourself moving the chairs would the employer be responsible? it isn't your responsibility to do it so why would you? Again they are only chairs and I realize this but what if it was something more serious like a live electrical wires, or dealing with machinery and equipment you know nothing about Would you still do the task yourself? The point is, those workers were assigned the task of moving furniture, that's there job not yours what gives you the right to decide to do everyone else's job. So what your meeting was late, if the person running the meeting had been really prepared s/he would have known before hand that there weren't enough chairs and made the proper arrangements. A relative of mine workers in a nuclear generating station, you can't do anything in that environment without triple checking information, there are safety checks for everything and only those allowed to perform certain tasks can do them because the results of a screw up can be catastrophic, again I know we were talking about chairs but the logic of the employer is still the same, safety demands certain people perform certain tasks. In the case of moving chairs, perhaps union workers have gone through training on proper lifting techniques that your group hasn't and hence you moving chairs is an added risk. (don't laugh i've been through that type of training). Before implying that these union workers were nasty and such perhaps it would be ideal to see the issue from the other side of the coin. I don't agree with the UAW at all, I think they are combative and misguided but that does not IMO apply to all unions, I think for anyone who took a good look at the CAW they would see the exact opposite attitude and approach to dealing with the manufacturers, they work together, they communicate and they have been rewarded with top quality products by GM in oshawa and by chrysler in Brampton (home of the 300, magnum etc.)