Ford Workers Reject Contract changes
Jim_Higgins
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/ford-workers-reject-contr_n_341181.html
DETROIT � Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract
changes that would have allowed the automaker to cut labor costs,
leaving Ford at a disadvantage to its Detroit rivals as it continues its
struggle to return to profitability.
The United Auto Workers union had given local unions until Monday to
complete voting. But a person briefed on the voting said Saturday that
the contract changes have been rejected by large margins. The person
asked not to be named because the UAW hasn't announced the results yet.
The UAW and Ford agreed to the contract changes several weeks ago, but
Ford workers needed to ratify them. Ford has 41,000 UAW-represented workers.
Two large union locals in Kentucky and Ford's home city of Dearborn
rejected the contract Friday, sealing its fate. Those unions together
represent 13,000 Ford workers. Exact tallies weren't available, but at
least 12 UAW locals representing about 27,500 workers so far have vetoed
the deal, many overwhelmingly. Only about four locals with a total of
7,000 members favored the pact.
Ford sought the deal to bring its labor costs in line with Detroit
rivals Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co., both of which won
concessions from the union as they headed into bankruptcy protection
earlier this year. Under pattern bargaining, the three automakers
usually match pay, benefits and other contract provisions.
But workers weren't convinced they should make more concessions, since
Ford avoided bankruptcy and is considered healthier than its rivals. At
least two Wall Street analysts are predicting that Ford could report a
profit Monday when it announces third-quarter earnings.
Rocky Comito, president of UAW Local 862 in Louisville, said Friday that
workers felt they were being asked to sacrifice more than the company's
executives. Ford CEO Alan Mulally made $17.7 million last year, although
that was down 22 percent from the year before.
"Some want to see management give more at the upper level," Comito said.
Story continues below
Ford was offering workers a $1,000 bonus if they ratified the contract.
But the contract also would have frozen entry-level pay, changed some
work rules and limited workers' ability to strike.
A message seeking comment was left Saturday for the UAW. UAW President
Ron Gettelfinger said Friday that there wouldn't be a revote if the
contract changes failed.
"If it fails, there would be no reason to go back to the bargaining
table," Gettelfinger said at a community event in Detroit. "We have a
democratic process in place. People have a right to express themselves.
We recognize there's a lot of misinformation about it out there, but
that is what it is."
Factory-level union leaders have known for several days that the deal
would be defeated, said one Detroit-area official who asked not to be
identified because the voting is not completed.
The union did a poor job of explaining the need to preserve jobs and
keep Ford competitive with GM and Chrysler, the official said.
He doesn't believe members will approve any more changes until the 2011
contract, which will leave Ford at a disadvantage and has the potential
to knock the company from its position as the strongest financially of
the Detroit Three.
"Our goal should be to keep Ford Motor Co. going in the right
direction," he said.
Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in
Worcester, Mass., said the vote was a slap to UAW leadership. It's
extremely rare for union members to oppose the union's recommended vote.
Chaison said the vote damages the reputation of UAW Vice President Bob
King, the chief Ford negotiator, who has been mentioned as a successor
to Gettelfinger when the union elects a new president in 2010.
"The sign of a good leader is that you can agree to something and then
sell it to the membership," Chaison said.
Chaison said Ford asked for too much too soon after workers already
agreed to concessions earlier this year. He also said Ford lacked
credibility because its financial situation wasn't as dire as GM's or
Chrysler's.
"They made such a strong case about not going to bankruptcy court and
turning the corner, so they couldn't go to the workers and say, 'We need
this to turn the corner,'" he said.
The no votes came even as Ford reached a similar cost-cutting agreement
with the Canadian Auto Workers union Friday. The CAW has agreed to cuts
in benefits in exchange for product guarantees, but that agreement must
be ratified by Canadian workers.
In addition to the plants in Louisville and Dearborn, workers at
factories in Chicago; Claycomo, Mo.; and Livonia, Plymouth, Sterling
Heights, Flat Rock, Ypsilanti Township, Mich., rejected the deal. Locals
in Wayne, Mich.; Cleveland; Indianapolis and St. Paul, Minn., voted in
favor.
Canuck57
Solution is pretty easy. Start going offshore and closing plants.
Let the hammer fall on a couple of more militaristic plants to
demonstrate. Shouldn't take too long to ge the point across.
I don't know why they even try to run domestic plants. Makes no sense,
too costly and too much nanny hand holding. I hear Ford Brazil can make
econo vehicle for 1/2 price, tell them to ramp up.
Jim_Higgins
Ford will start moving offshore and GM will match them. Chrysler doesn't
count for anything anymore.
Mike Hunter
USW Union agreed to big wage and benefits cut several times, but the steel
companies still when bankrupt.
Competition from foreign steel companies, that received huge supplements
from their governments and over regulation buy the US government, drove the
US companies into bankruptcy. It made no difference what the Union did to
help the companies stay in business and save American jobs.
All one need do is look back at what happened to our manufacturing base
after the EPA was enacted. in effect we "EXPORTED" our pollution and our
jobs along with it.
Now Bo and the Dims in Congress want to enact a carbon tax, to save the
world, that will export the rest of the jobs of you children and grand
children.
"Jim_Higgins" <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hckahe$skg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ford Workers Reject Contract changes
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/ford-workers-reject-contr_n_341181.html
>
> DETROIT � Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract
Mike Hunter
salary, or will you continue to buy the used cars you buy that someone else
no longer wanted? ;)
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F%kHm.3008$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
> Jim_Higgins wrote:
>> Ford Workers Reject Contract changes
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/ford-workers-reject-contr_n_341181.html
>> DETROIT � Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract
Michael Golden
> Perhaps the UAW noticed what happened to the American steel workers.
> The USW Union agreed to big wage and benefits cut several times, but
> the steel companies still when bankrupt.
>
> Competition from foreign steel companies, that received huge
> supplements from their governments and over regulation buy the US
> government, drove the US companies into bankruptcy. It made no
> difference what the Union did to help the companies stay in business
> and save American jobs.
>
> All one need do is look back at what happened to our manufacturing
> base after the EPA was enacted. in effect we "EXPORTED" our
> pollution and our jobs along with it.
>
> Now Bo and the Dims in Congress want to enact a carbon tax, to save
> the world, that will export the rest of the jobs of you children and
> grand children.
Agreed. The auto workers could give up all benefits, work for free,
and Ford / GM / <insert favorite company name here> would still manage
to squander any benefit derived by the elimination of labor expense.
Canuck57
> But, but, but will you be able to afford to buy one on your McDonalds
> salary, or will you continue to buy the used cars you buy that someone else
> no longer wanted? ;)
LOL. You wish. But I did once a long time ago start out with a job
that was at the social/pay status of McDonnalds, good learning
experience. Today I could buy a franchise if I wanted too.
If you think like a GM or a union slug on the dole, that is all you will
become.
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:F%kHm.3008$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
>> Jim_Higgins wrote:
>>> Ford Workers Reject Contract changes
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/ford-workers-reject-contr_n_341181.html
>>> DETROIT � Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract
hls
McDonalds,
WalMart, and Taco Bell.
These may not be the people who by Avalanches and Lucernes and suchlike, but
they
are the very bedrock of the American working environment.
Canuck57
> Perhaps the UAW noticed what happened to the American steel workers. The
> USW Union agreed to big wage and benefits cut several times, but the steel
> companies still when bankrupt.
That is usually because it s to little too late.
Survivability planning begins when times are good. If you wait until
times are bad you know it is too late and you made a stupid move.
I bet in good times they ranted for ever higher wages and not company
pension and debt buy down. Now they want to suck on the public tits
just like GM.
> Competition from foreign steel companies, that received huge supplements
> from their governments and over regulation buy the US government, drove the
> US companies into bankruptcy. It made no difference what the Union did to
> help the companies stay in business and save American jobs.
From a union and corrupt management perspective, when Americans win it
is competition, when foreigners win it is anti-competative. LMAO, never
have so many been so dilusional and facing the price to pay for their
stupidity.
Mike Hunter
costs are not necessarily reflected in the amount of profit an auto makers
earns.
Toyota pays it employees in the US lower wages, offers less desirable
benefits and does not offer a defined pension plan, yet their cars cost the
customer 20% to 30% more to drive home than comparably sized and equipped
domestics. Even with that Toyota has been operation at a lose for almost a
year.
A companies profits are a result of its economies of scale.
"Michael Golden" <mgo...@bkbusa.com> wrote in message
news:7l6i95F...@mid.individual.net...
Mike Hunter
dealership. LOL
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ROAHm.4501$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> But, but, but will you be able to afford to buy one on your McDonalds
>> salary, or will you continue to buy the used cars you buy that someone
>> else no longer wanted? ;)
>
> LOL. You wish. But I did once a long time ago start out with a job that
> was at the social/pay status of McDonnalds, good learning experience.
> Today I could buy a franchise if I wanted too.
>
> If you think like a GM or a union slug on the dole, that is all you will
> become.
>
>
>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:F%kHm.3008$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> Jim_Higgins wrote:
>>>> Ford Workers Reject Contract changes
>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/ford-workers-reject-contr_n_341181.html
>>>> DETROIT � Ford Motor Co. workers have overwhelmingly rejected contract
Mike Hunter
finance company to do so. Wal-Mart pays a lot more than minimum wage
however, generally twice that amount.
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:CY-dnTN-cNHzR3PX...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
The USW were taking cuts since 1985, years or more before the US government
forced the steel companies out of business..
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MXAHm.4502$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the UAW noticed what happened to the American steel workers.
>> The USW Union agreed to big wage and benefits cut several times, but the
>> steel companies still when bankrupt.
>> Competition from foreign steel companies, that received huge supplements
>> from their governments and over regulation buy the US government, drove
>> the US companies into bankruptcy. It made no difference what the Union
>> did to help the companies stay in business and save American jobs.
> That is usually because it s to little too late.
Canuck57
Agreed. And it is unfair that Obama will eventually saddle them with
the huge bailout-debt-spend-corruption going on. I don't see how these
workers were responsible for GMs demise, and don't see why non-auto now
has part of their taxes going to corrupt corporations of America.
Hopefully fewer of them will vot for the likes of BO in the future.
Canuck57
> I guess we can assume you have no idea what it would cost to buy a
> dealership. LOL
Who would want one? I like investments that return cash back to daddy.
The price is what people are willing to pay. Nothing more or less.
While 3 years ago a dealership might have fetched millions, today they
can find buyers.
Canuck57
> Ford is reporting a profit as we speak, but you are correct in that labor
> costs are not necessarily reflected in the amount of profit an auto makers
> earns.
>
> Toyota pays it employees in the US lower wages, offers less desirable
> benefits and does not offer a defined pension plan, yet their cars cost the
> customer 20% to 30% more to drive home than comparably sized and equipped
> domestics. Even with that Toyota has been operation at a lose for almost a
> year.
>
> A companies profits are a result of its economies of scale.
Nope, that is inferance by bullshit.
People working at Toyota have more jobs left and 98% of Americans don't
have to support them likes of GM. Toyota contributes to the society
around it. GM pricing is low because of brand damage, corporate
welfare, its paracitical nature and crappy quality.
Toyota during good time paid down debt, GM on the other hand stiffs
people who lend them money or sell them parts. Toyota looses a small
faction compared to GM which gushes loses.
If you were a supplier, had $10M in parts, 1/2 good parts and 1/2 fair
parts. And GM and Toyota came to buy them, would you send the good
parts to GM after they shafted you on paying for parts in bankruptcy?
Hell no, GM is a second rate customer after screwing so many. Good
customers that pay their bills get good parts.
Canuck57
> As one would suspect, you do not know what you are talking about, again.
> The USW were taking cuts since 1985, years or more before the US government
> forced the steel companies out of business..
The US governemnt didn't force any steel company out of business.
Crappy corporate management, corrupt old boys club boards and militant
unions drove them into the ground.
Because while everyone was blood sucking the companies in question, the
foreigners were building modern more efficient steel making plants and
blew he US out of the water. They could make it faster, better, cheaper
and just crushed the larders. There was even a point were US makers
couldn't make what the market wanted because their plant and equipment
was far too old. They could raise the salaries and they were paying big
bonuses and big salaries but were not making money.
So down they went. No loss, didn't cost the US taxpayer like GM is
costing them.
Mike Hunter
opinion is still that of a minority.
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:28WHm.12$fE...@newsfe04.iad...
Mike Hunter
comment do you? Indeed counties like Germany, India and China have steel
mills that are more modern than most in the US. The American taxpayer
built them in those countries for them after WWII under the Marshal Plan,
dummy.
In the mean time US steel companies had to settle with the mills they built
after WWI because of the overly restrictive and burdensome EPA regulations
were eating up most of their capital to clean up the WW1 equipment they were
using. Bethlehem Steel Company alone spent a half BILLON dollars in 1974,
on non-productive equipment required by the EPA. That wasted money caused
BSCO a delay of ten years in building its first BOF.
As with automobiles, if the government had allowed enough time to install
the newer BOF furnaces and Continuous caster that were developed in the US,
rather than setting days certain to meet the regulations, they could easily
have competed with the government subsidized foreign companies.
As it was the BOF furnaces and Continuous Caster technology was sold off to
foreign manufactures to get the capital they need to try to clean up 75 year
old technology. As with autos, if the government had allowed the
engineering to catch up the technology we would have had the safe fuel
efficient vehicles we have today, ten to fifteen year sooner, as well as the
clean more efficient ways to make steel, dummy
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FfWHm.13$fE...@newsfe04.iad...
God'sLittleAnus
Would someone please inform these uneducated, low-skilled buffoons
that the days of union strikes are over?
Canuck57
While Ford is better off than GM, they too are on the knife's edge. 8:1
debt to equity, big debt payments, competition getting stiffer, expenses
out the wazoo, low sales to historical averags...
Ford can't afford a mistep. If the union causes trouble, fire them all
who walk the line. If enough go on strike, close the whole plan
permanently. Make an example of one, say Deerborn. Put it to them
straight, here is the new rate, take it or leave it.
Canuck57
> But, but, but, GM still out sells Toyota in the US. Apparently your
> opinion is still that of a minority.
Ceasar was the leader in Rome, now where is he? Companies like people
age. GM has plenty of old age rot inside and it is dying. GM is about
the same difficulty as resurecting the dead. May god help them. But
forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Those loans will never be repaid
and any MBA dork knows you don't sink good money into bad.
GM: Tick-Tock.
Canuck57
> You obviously do not know much about the subjects on which you choose to
> comment do you? Indeed counties like Germany, India and China have steel
> mills that are more modern than most in the US. The American taxpayer
> built them in those countries for them after WWII under the Marshal Plan,
> dummy.
Of course they do. I said so too jack ass.
Trouble was US management was too busy pandering to unions and their own
corruption, they forgot to re-invest in their own companies. And NA
unions don't give a rats dead ass about the companies they work for.
The company is just for what they can milk out of it, just like management.
Bert Hyman
wrote:
> If the union causes trouble, fire them all who walk the line.
Firing somone who's involved in a legal strike is a violation of US
labor law.
> If enough go on strike, close the whole plan permanently.
And Ford would go out of business even faster than it's doing now.
The fact that the current administration is bought and paid for by big
labor wouldn't help Ford's cause much either.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Dave
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:CY-dnTN-cNHzR3PX...@giganews.com...
> from McDonalds,
> WalMart, and Taco Bell.
>
Yeah, too bad they have to work 3 jobs to be able to do so.
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> But, but, but, GM still out sells Toyota in the US. Apparently your
> opinion is still that of a minority.
But Toyota has been gaining market share and GM has been losing market share
for years. Just look at the pattern.
Canuck57
> In news:u24Im.4636$Yy6...@newsfe02.iad Canuck57 <Canu...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If the union causes trouble, fire them all who walk the line.
>
> Firing somone who's involved in a legal strike is a violation of US
> labor law.
A lockout is not. Then fire them first.
>> If enough go on strike, close the whole plan permanently.
>
> And Ford would go out of business even faster than it's doing now.
No, import them. Use the business model RCA, HP, Intel, Microsoft,
Snap-on, Sears, Masterlock and many others do. Make it offshore and
import the product. Slap a Ford logo on it an go.
> The fact that the current administration is bought and paid for by big
> labor wouldn't help Ford's cause much either.
And 98% of the rest of Amerca should be mad as all hell. They got sold
out by every Lib-Dim, including Obama. Even many a Republican supported
this massivve conspiracy to fraud the US taxpayer.
Head should roll for this kind of money. SEC should be lining them up
like the Italy mafia trials.
Mike Hunter
allows either side to request early talks, before the contract expires to
AVOID a strike, dummy
What makes you believe the assembly line is filled with uneducated,
low-skilled workers?
"God'sLittleAnus" <perry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37f7baad-6a60-41a3...@g7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
law does not allow striking union workers to be fired, if the contract has
expired. The Union is still recognized, under labor law, as the bargaining
agent for the workers. In any event ALL UAW contracts have a no strike
clause in effect during the term of the contract, dummy.
That is what got the Air Traffic Control Worker fired by President Reagan,
they went on strike in violation of their ongoing contract.
If the Union members vote to not accept the terms of a new contract they
continue to work under the terms of the old contract, if management agrees,
for a specified time or until the contract is replaced.
My techs were members of the Machinists Union and the ONLY power granted in
any union, under any contract, under US labor law is the power to force
management to abide by the contract it signed with the Union, period
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u24Im.4636$Yy6...@newsfe02.iad...
Mike Hunter
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bo6Im.2766$fE...@newsfe04.iad...
Mike Hunter
since you came into the NG but GM still out sells Toyota in the US.
Apparently your opinion is still that of a minority, dummy. LOL
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K44Im.4638$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
Mike Hunter
were eating up most of their capital to clean up the WW1 equipment they were
using. Bethlehem Steel Company alone spent a half BILLON dollars in 1974,
on non-productive equipment required by the EPA. That wasted money caused
understand?
The money they were forced to re-invest in their own companies was in none
productive equipment, dummy
Once again I must ask you to please tell us, exactly in your mind, the
corruption to which you are referring?
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:174Im.4639$Yy6....@newsfe02.iad...
Mike Hunter
not paying US Corporate Income taxes on the profits it earns in the US, as
well as being supported by the
Japanese government, ever since WWII LOL
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:5tidnZJjZaricm3X...@giganews.com...
Canuck57
> IMPORT THEM?? Tell us, what color is the sky in YOUR world?
Right now it is cold and black.
I will not buy a CAW/UAW made auto. In fact, I don't even want their
parts. Best way to beat that is to buy a true import not make here. I
got a glimpse of the GM prices for new autos, what a screw job,
absolutely insane pricing.
GM should run an advert, "Support Government Motors, we need your cash
and will stop at nothing to get it.".
Canuck57
> The Ford/UAW contract has not expired, there is a re-opening clause that
> allows either side to request early talks, before the contract expires to
> AVOID a strike, dummy
>
> What makes you believe the assembly line is filled with uneducated,
> low-skilled workers?
Simple. Tell them the day the contract is over, it is over. No
severance needed. Minimum to get rid of the losers. Start making the
replacements offshore.
Or move Ford USA into a holding company, declare Ford USA subsiduary
bankrupt, close the doors and the parent Ford World lives on.
Canuck57
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> What's your point, Toyota is also loosing money and it has the advantage
> of not paying US Corporate Income taxes on the profits it earns in the US,
> as well as being supported by the
> Japanese government, ever since WWII LOL
>
>
The point is, you keep stating that GM outsell every other car maker. That
maybe true today, but it is not for much longer. GM has been losing market
share for some time and the trend is not changing. They are not making
money. Something radical has to be done or they will be gone. Toyota my be
a big grabber, but so are many other brands taking away from GM.
I used to be a loyal GM buyer. Not any more, they've lost my trust. Many
people feel the same way.
Mike Hunter
statistics show that GM vehicles are 20% to 30% LESS expensive to drive
home, than Jap vehicles of the same size, when similarly equipped, dummy?
LOL
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4rqIm.3137$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
Mike Hunter
you ever do a search before you choose to speak on subjects of which you
obviously have little or no knowledge? LOL
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:quqIm.3152$gg6...@newsfe25.iad...
Mike Hunter
the opinion of those that still buy GM vehicles. That is WHY GM is still
number one in sales, more buyers still chose GM over every other.
It was not that many years ago that the soothsayer were predicting Ford,
that at the time was selling seven of the top ten selling vehicles in the
US, would soon out sell GM but that has yet to happen... Toyota has to
first catch up to Fords US sales, before it can catch GM. LOL
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:E6Sdnf4gN_Ldom_X...@giganews.com...
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> That may be your opinion but it does not make sense. Obviously that is
> not the opinion of those that still buy GM vehicles. That is WHY GM is
> still number one in sales, more buyers still chose GM over every other.
>
> It was not that many years ago that the soothsayer were predicting Ford,
> that at the time was selling seven of the top ten selling vehicles in the
> US, would soon out sell GM but that has yet to happen... Toyota has to
> first catch up to Fords US sales, before it can catch GM. LOL
I'm not offering an opinion. I'm talking about fact. GM cars have been
losing market share for many years. To many other makes, not just Toyota.
Some decades ago, GM had 41% of the US car market. Just look at the trend.
If not stopped, GM will just fade away at some point.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-market-share-slips-below-20/
It wasn't all that long ago that GM was focused on maintaining its 29
percent market share. Boy what they wouldn't sell give to be back at that
point right now (not including executive pay). Automotive News [sub]
reporting that GM's market share is below 20 percent for the first time in
the company's history (dating back 100 years to 1908). As of May 2008, it's
19.1 percent to be exact. Meanwhile, despite a fall in sales number,
Toyota's market share jumped up to 18.4 percent. Count out the
impossible-to-count out fleet sales and you can be sure Toyota has passed GM
in private market sales. On the positive side, least when GM isn't number
one in its home market any more, a lot of the pressure to move the metal at
all costs will decrease. Maybe. Alright, no.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/28/business/fi-gm-timeline28
1941 - GM market share grows to 41 percent.
1979 - GM's U.S. employment peaks at 618,365, making it the largest private
employer in the country. Worldwide employment is 853,000. Decade features
sales decline, recession, Arab oil embargo and gains by Japanese automakers.
Canuck57
that they are corporate welfare, or is that Marxist Government Motors?
Mike Hunter
number of manufactures has been stagnant for the past 40 years, let alone
from 1908 when less than 30,000 cars were sold, Even today in BO,s bad
economy, the market it is still over 11,000,000
What a buyer chose to buy is indeed indicative of their opinion of which
THEY believe is the better vehicle for them.
2007 was the year when the highest number vehicles ever were sold in the US
and GM sold more that year, when it "share" of that market was lower, than
it did back when it had nearly 50% of the market.
Even today, while the market went down by around 9,000,000 vehicles
annually, GM is still selling more than any other, and you beloved Toyota at
less than 15% still third behind Ford.
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:DbGdnZCsKqYcFW7X...@giganews.com...
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> DUH! Get real, do you think the TOTAL number of vehicles and the TOTAL
> number of manufactures has been stagnant for the past 40 years, let alone
> from 1908 when less than 30,000 cars were sold, Even today in BO,s bad
> economy, the market it is still over 11,000,000
>
> What a buyer chose to buy is indeed indicative of their opinion of which
> THEY believe is the better vehicle for them.
>
> 2007 was the year when the highest number vehicles ever were sold in the
> US and GM sold more that year, when it "share" of that market was lower,
> than it did back when it had nearly 50% of the market.
>
> Even today, while the market went down by around 9,000,000 vehicles
> annually, GM is still selling more than any other, and you beloved Toyota
> at less than 15% still third behind Ford.
Market share. They are losing market share. That means they are dying a
slow and painful death. If their stuff was so great, they'd still have that
41% market share. Your second paragraph show exactly why they are losing.
Buyers choose what they believe is better and that is less and less a GM car
or truck.
As for Toyota, they are not beloved to me. Never owned one, no plans to buy
one in the future. I don't give a damn what happens to them.
I happen to like the new Buick LaCrosse, but I don't trust GM enough to buy
one. I bet it would be a nice car for a year or two; then it starts to fall
apart..
Canuck57
Toyota with a much smaller debt say looses blood terms like a mosquito bite.
GM in so much debt it is not fathonable, in blood terms is a person cut
right through the neck jugulars and all, like a gusher.
And the effects will be the same.
Mike Hunter
growing/declining markets and ones share of that market. When it comes to
total market no matter the number, the one that sells the most, logic says
is the one that largest number of buyers prefer, period. All the others,
not so much, whether you would prefer to buy one or not in immaterial LOL
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:q56dnbhgNZqCLWnX...@giganews.com...
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> Obviously you were not an Economics major, if that is what you think about
> growing/declining markets and ones share of that market. When it comes
> to total market no matter the number, the one that sells the most, logic
> says is the one that largest number of buyers prefer, period. All the
> others, not so much, whether you would prefer to buy one or not in
> immaterial LOL
>
Exactly right, but there is a trend you do not seem to see. More and more
people are selecting GM less than ever before. Why do you keep ignoring the
fact that GM is on the decline in market share and is losing money? That is
just not a good business position no matter if the quality of the car is
good or bad. It means they eventually go out of business unless corrected.
Used to be that 41% of the buyer preferred GM, now only 19% prefer them. At
the rate of decline it will soon be 10%, then 5%, then 0%. Kaput!
Mike Hunter
have little of no knowledge.
As long as one can service their debt, it is not a problem. One may have a
$100,000 or $100,000 000 mortgage, but one does not have a "DEBT" problem as
long as you can easily pay the monthly cost of amortizing the mortgage,
dummy.
The difference between the NEW GM and Toyota is, GM must pay back the money
they received from its government with interest, as well as pay US Corporate
Tax on the profits it earns in the US, and Toyota does not need to pay back
the money it gets from its government.
In adding Toyota will continue to get money from the Japanese government, as
it has ever since WWII, as long as it brings back the US Corporate Tax free
profits it earns in the US, to Japan
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VO2Jm.3302$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
Mike Hunter
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:yJWdnc74G5owWGjX...@giganews.com...
Ed Pawlowski
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> Are you really that slow witted or just trying to appear slow?
>
>
Get back to me when GM is gone, as it will be on the current path.
Canuck57
government. Can you short the government? I wish I could.
GM is losing money, losing market share, losing customer faith, losing
brand image by being a giant welcher and leach on society.
So how long do you think GM will be around? Tell this group, how long?
Because I plan on holding your sorry ass to it. For 15 days after GM
goes belly up for the last time, I want to post your response.
As this is the second time, you said last year GM wasn't going bankrupt,
well it did.
Well it is going to really go banktupt in the next 4 to 40 months.
Obama is having to take a good hard look right about now on what parts
of America are worth saving. And I doubt GM tops the list this time.
Mike Hunter
There are no GM shares to buy today, dummy. Regardless of you personal
opinion, as long as GM can service their debt it is not a problem, and the
NEW GM is not having any problem doing so thus far.
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Q2KJm.3323$rE5...@newsfe08.iad...