Quote:With a number of powerful lobbies sitting at the negotiation table, Deese is having to cut through the clutter and acknowledge the major structural problems facing GM. The truth is that GM's crisis is the product of decades of gross mismanagement by its own executives and the equally-powerful leaders of the United Auto Workers.

In March of this year, GM President Rick Wagoner was forced to resign at the insistence of the Obama administration. That Ron Gettelfinger, Wagoner's counterpart at the UAW, has clung to his own position is an injustice, but one that could easily be remedied with some pressure from Deese. Continuing to invite Gettelfinger to the table for restructuring talks makes as much sense as tapping Bernie Madoff to reform the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Interesting why did Barry let the UAW president remain in place when much of the Auto Industry woes point directly and UAW unwillingness to negotiate.

Quote:Gettelfinger had his chance, but it's time to go.

With Gettelfinger out of the picture, Deese's next move should be helping dissatisfied GM employees decertify the United Auto Workers union. The UAW claims to represent the interests of its 400,000+ members, but this catastrophic failure of leadership calls for a reevaluation of that relationship. GM's remaining employees deserve the chance for a secret-ballot vote on firing their union, just like all workers deserve a vote on whether to be represented in the first place.

Wouldn't that be something thousands of unemployed GM UAW members voting the UAW out.

GM needs fresh start from UAW, too

I don't see where the President of the UAW should be held at the same level as the GM executives. He was bargaining for his group, just as I bargain with my company every year at my review and every time I interview at a different company.

Should he have given some concessions to GM to help keep it out of bankruptcy? Maybe. Of course, do we know that his constituents told him to start negotiating that or did they tell him no way, no how?

Bargaining with the power of the entire workforce of GM is a little different than your scenario, mlb.

That may be true, Rebel, but at the same time GM should have held its ground. If it weren't for greedy executives (short term bonuses) then the company would be in a much better situation.

How can a company "hold it's ground" when their entire work force will strike at the demand of Gettelfinger? Also, CEO bonuses didn't run a multibillion dollar company into the ground.

(06-17-2009 08:23 AM)Rebel Wrote:  How can a company "hold it's ground" when their entire work force will strike at the demand of Gettelfinger? Also, CEO bonuses didn't run a multibillion dollar company into the ground.

You're right - the CEO bonuses themselves didn't run the company into the ground. However, the lure of those bonuses leads executives to often "take the path of least resistance" when dealing with union issues.

Not the CEO, but many in the middle/upper ranks of management are measured on a whole range of things that lead to their bonuses. Worker unrest can lead to "bad measurements" which can mean no/reduced bonuses.

Too much focus on short term measurements often lead to decisions that help the short term numbers, but are actually bad for the company in the long run.

Believe me, while not in the auto industry but working in a union environment, I've seen plenty of decisions made that most definitely were short term "make the numbers look good" that suck for the long term. Most of the guys making the call know they won't be in the job when the SH!t hits the fan for their shortsighted decisions.

(06-17-2009 08:23 AM)Rebel Wrote:  How can a company "hold it's ground" when their entire work force will strike at the demand of Gettelfinger? Also, CEO bonuses didn't run a multibillion dollar company into the ground.

The employees need the money quicker than the company would. Even a 6 month strike would not have put GM out of business, but it would have really hurt the employees and made them change their demands.

As far as CEO bonuses go, the bonuses themselves don't put the company out of business. The decisions made by the executives in order to get their short term bonuses put companies out of business. For example, making sure you keep the assembly line going during a good year so that you hit your profit level to activate the bonuses but do so without worrying about what that does to your bottom line 3 to 5 years down the road. Simple as that...

(06-17-2009 08:50 AM)Crebman Wrote:  You're right - the CEO bonuses themselves didn't run the company into the ground. However, the lure of those bonuses leads executives to often "take the path of least resistance" when dealing with union issues.

Not the CEO, but many in the middle/upper ranks of management are measured on a whole range of things that lead to their bonuses. Worker unrest can lead to "bad measurements" which can mean no/reduced bonuses.

Too much focus on short term measurements often lead to decisions that help the short term numbers, but are actually bad for the company in the long run.

Believe me, while not in the auto industry but working in a union environment, I've seen plenty of decisions made that most definitely were short term "make the numbers look good" that suck for the long term. Most of the guys making the call know they won't be in the job when the SH!t hits the fan for their shortsighted decisions.

Exactly my point...

Guys, I'm not relieving any of the corporate officers of their responsibility towards the failure of the company. I'm simply saying that Gettelfinger, and the union structure in general, are somewhat complicit.

(06-16-2009 05:13 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:With a number of powerful lobbies sitting at the negotiation table, Deese is having to cut through the clutter and acknowledge the major structural problems facing GM. The truth is that GM's crisis is the product of decades of gross mismanagement by its own executives and the equally-powerful leaders of the United Auto Workers.

In March of this year, GM President Rick Wagoner was forced to resign at the insistence of the Obama administration. That Ron Gettelfinger, Wagoner's counterpart at the UAW, has clung to his own position is an injustice, but one that could easily be remedied with some pressure from Deese. Continuing to invite Gettelfinger to the table for restructuring talks makes as much sense as tapping Bernie Madoff to reform the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Interesting why did Barry let the UAW president remain in place when much of the Auto Industry woes point directly and UAW unwillingness to negotiate.

Quote:Gettelfinger had his chance, but it's time to go.

With Gettelfinger out of the picture, Deese's next move should be helping dissatisfied GM employees decertify the United Auto Workers union. The UAW claims to represent the interests of its 400,000+ members, but this catastrophic failure of leadership calls for a reevaluation of that relationship. GM's remaining employees deserve the chance for a secret-ballot vote on firing their union, just like all workers deserve a vote on whether to be represented in the first place.

Wouldn't that be something thousands of unemployed GM UAW members voting the UAW out.

GM needs fresh start from UAW, too

From what I can tell, that newspaper is the rightwing paper in Detroit. So yeah, I can understand why a Detroit paper will post wing nut views. Btw, I believe the Union DID take cuts. The people who DID NOT take cuts were the millionaires and billionaires.

There's plenty of blame to go around here. GM executives ran the company very poorly and deserve an a** kicking for that. But the UAW must be held accountable, too. I want my folks to be taken care of, too, but I have also tried to institute pay plans that provide increasing pay for improved and exceptional performance. Seems like a pretty simple concept, but one most unions don't want to discuss.