GM to put $500M into plant -

[JaredPointer]

bringing industry, jobs, and supplier opportunities..... to Mexico.

American Thinker Blog: GM announces major investment in auto plant (in Mexico)


From the article - "[FONT=times new roman,times]On the bright side, at least there may be fewer Mexicans crossing the border."


[/FONT]So remember folks, support America and buy American! Maybe that's the cure for the immigration problem. We build all "American" cars in Mexico, creating a whole bunch of jobs so they don't have to cross illegally.


Yeah, yeah, I know I'm stirring the pot a little, but you think the least they (GM) could do after we (i.e. American taxpayers) saved their broke rear ends would be to invest more in US facilities. Your money, hard at work for the Mexican people!

 

[black bart]

bringing industry, jobs, and supplier opportunities..... to Mexico.

American Thinker Blog: GM announces major investment in auto plant (in Mexico)


From the article - "[FONT=times new roman,times]On the bright side, at least there may be fewer Mexicans crossing the border."[/FONT]


So remember folks, support America and buy American! Maybe that's the cure for the immigration problem. We build all "American" cars in Mexico, creating a whole bunch of jobs so they don't have to cross illegally.


Yeah, yeah, I know I'm stirring the pot a little, but you think the least they (GM) could do after we (i.e. American taxpayers) saved their broke rear ends would be to invest more in US facilities. Your money, hard at work for the Mexican people!

I see your point and agree but if you were running a US car company how would you go about completing with the Asian cars being dumped in the US where the daily wage is less than a hour of UAW wages.

 

[JaredPointer]

I see your point and agree but if you were running a US car company how would you go about completing with the Asian cars being dumped in the US where the daily wage is less than a hour of UAW wages.

I'm not exactly sure where you think a lot of the Asian cars are "dumped" into the US on sweat-shop labor. I've got friends who work for Honda who make a pretty penny, as do the folks down the road from me here in Alabama at the Hyundai plant. Where exactly do you get this sort of wage data from? I've talked with people online (through forums and such) who work at Toyota plants in a couple of different spots across the country, and they are all well-paid. And I wouldn't believe that the auto workers in any civilized country (i.e. Japan) get paid peanuts for what they do.

My point being that the only investment into the US auto industry seems to be from foreign companies. While GM is investing in Mexico and laying off American workers, other foreign companies are building plants here and investing dollars into the auto industry.

I'm a staunch believer in the fact that UAW brought (and continues to bring) a lot of hardship on themselves. I don't like unions and I think their purpose has long since passed. I work at a place with unionized labor (for the hourly folks).... and well..... yeah.....

But to answer directly as to how the American companies could compete with lower costs labor of the foreign (yes, I know that the foreign manufacturers do pay less than those who employ UAW workers, although I highly doubt it's at the day's wage/UAW hour fraction you posted above) GM could always put a deal on the table and tell the union that's that. If it costs so much in labor to build a vehicle that the consumer price wouldn't allow it to sell, what would the union workers do then? I know it's not that simple, yet I also know that no worker is ever irreplaceable. Union workers can be replaced. GM could also streamline their product offering - There's no reason to have exact-brother models of GMC and Chevy pickups, vans, SUV's, etc. And they could also quit hanging their future hopes on novelty ideas like the Volt. {Just a couple quick examples, since you asked what *I* would do.}

I know of two serious attempts at the Honda facility to unionize here, and I believe it's been shot down by employee vote both times. That says a lot about what folks here who make a decent wage and are treated pretty nicely by Honda think of the union. I think it also says a lot about how well the Honda group treats the employees here. I don't see anyone working for the foreign automakers that makes $20 per day - I think it's a little naive to believe a figure like that.

To me, it's a slap in the face for GM to go invest our bailout money in a Mexican operation. I think it's asinine and I think it shows that they're still going to make poor decisions because they believe we won't let them fail. At some point, you gotta cut the cord and let them learn to swim or let them sink.

 

[black bart]

Hourly wage is not the biggest problem for GM it is retirement My Grandson works for Toyota and he is paid less than a GM worker and has no company retirement plan

Gm should have never agreed to these contract years ago.
They got a big break on new hires wages but the current retirement is what is killing them Ford owes Billions on theirs.

 

[Bunky]

I do not call cars being made with lower cost labor dumped. If they sell them for a profit then I do not consider them dumped. Yes, the wage in many far east countries is 1/10th the wage here.

It is not good publicity but the only ones that are really miffed are the domestic works. Don't forget many cars are made in Canada too.

But, most people are not going to pay more for a US made car. They do not care except when their job is in jeopardy. They are capitalists not nationalists.

 

[JaredPointer]

... no company retirement plan ...

I think that's the way most companies have gone. The place I'm currently at has a defined benefit plan (pension), which from my understanding is a pretty rare bird. Most places now (at least the places I've been courted by as well as places I've searched out) offer some sort of 401K or the like matching contributions (which we have also). I'd be really surprised if he works for Toyota-proper and they offer no type of retirement incentives whatsoever. He may choose not to participate in some sort of 40x plan, but I find it hard to imagine they have no retirement options at all.

In no way am I saying that's not the case, I just don't see how they attract and keep workers without offering benefits outside of pay and insurance.

 

[black bart]

I think that's the way most companies have gone. The place I'm currently at has a defined benefit plan (pension), which from my understanding is a pretty rare bird. Most places now (at least the places I've been courted by as well as places I've searched out) offer some sort of 401K or the like matching contributions (which we have also). I'd be really surprised if he works for Toyota-proper and they offer no type of retirement incentives whatsoever. He may choose not to participate in some sort of 40x plan, but I find it hard to imagine they have no retirement options at all.

In no way am I saying that's not the case, I just don't see how they attract and keep workers without offering benefits outside of pay and insurance.

I think Toyota will match what he puts in up to a point he told me but I don't remember but it was not very high.

His dad retired from GM and he paid nothing into his retirement but gets a very good check that is what I mean by no company paid you put your own money into a 401K at other than UAW workers.

Another thing that few know you hear how Toyota never lays off.

Well that is true but you have to understand how that works.

Their are what is called temps and full time workers.
A large percentage are temps and when things slow they lay off the temps but state no Toyota employees were laid off.

The way they view those people it is true but they can work their for years and still be temps.

But it does sound good when you don't know how it works.

Everyone lays off but Toyota tries to make it sound like they never lay off their employees.
Depends on how you view what is a employee.

 

[Bunky]

The way they view those people it is true but they can work their for years and still be temps.

But it does sound good when you don't know how it works.

Everyone lays off but Toyota tries to make it sound like they never lay off their employees.
Depends on how you view what is a employee.

Many companies manage their labor by just out sourcing work. If production drops, you just reduce orders from the supplier. There is no legal aspects needed since the supplier has to deal with the loss of business and what to do with idle employees. This is the ripple effect in the economy that some do not appreciate when discussing how one company can affect other companies.

Should GM as a company that wants to practice capitalism and compete in the market focus on manufacturing outside the United States especially since we as citizens are joint shareholders to bail it out for the mistakes of the past (poor management, greedy workforce, etc).

 

[JaredPointer]

I work for a defense contractor, and we layed of lot of full-time employees only to re-hire the same positions with temporary labor. You don't have to offer insurance, paid time off, paid sick leave, retirement, etc. Not saying that I agree with it, but sometimes a company has to make those kind of decisions to stay afloat. If you don't have "the work" to keep paying the salary and benefits of folks, you can't keep them around. In reality, when you think about it, we're pretty much all temporary employees because we can be let go at any time for pretty much any reason, and in a lot of cases no reason at all (I know the at-will status varies by state). Do I agree with using temps as permanent labor? Probably not all that much - but sometimes companies have to make those kind of unpopular choices to stick around. Same thing with pay reductions - that was an idea floated around here. I'll tell you - when you have the choice of a percentage decrease in pay versus no job at all, you are a lot more apt to agree to a pay reduction.

 

[Bunky]

Unfortunately that is capitalism. It can be cruel. When workers have rights you are moving toward socialism.

 

[black bart]

I work for a defense contractor, and we layed of lot of full-time employees only to re-hire the same positions with temporary labor. You don't have to offer insurance, paid time off, paid sick leave, retirement, etc. Not saying that I agree with it, but sometimes a company has to make those kind of decisions to stay afloat. If you don't have "the work" to keep paying the salary and benefits of folks, you can't keep them around. In reality, when you think about it, we're pretty much all temporary employees because we can be let go at any time for pretty much any reason, and in a lot of cases no reason at all (I know the at-will status varies by state). Do I agree with using temps as permanent labor? Probably not all that much - but sometimes companies have to make those kind of unpopular choices to stick around. Same thing with pay reductions - that was an idea floated around here. I'll tell you - when you have the choice of a percentage decrease in pay versus no job at all, you are a lot more apt to agree to a pay reduction.

I understand all of above but why try to make the public think you never lay off.

I'm sure they have their reasons.