Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#2Err... the stuff in ()'s is your own editorialized point of view. But this isn't really what I'd call hacker news in any case.
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#3Err... the stuff in ()'s is your own editorialized point of view. But this isn't really what I'd call hacker news in any case.
"But none of G.M.’s management miscues was so damaging to its long-term fate as the rich pensions and health care that robbed General Motors of its financial flexibility and, ultimately, of its cash.
General Motors established its pension in the “treaty of Detroit,” the five-year contract that it signed with the United Automobile Workers in 1950..."
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#4I think this is a pretty misleading OpEd. It would be crazy to think that management broke fiduciary duty here (as the article implies, with the references to legislatures/taxpayers).
It was twenty years before GM saw competition from the Japanese (in the wake of the oil crisis), and it's hard for us to see six months out in our own companies. Any rational shareholder, were they so smart, could have dumped GM in 1973. And, really, 1950 to now is two whole generations (generally defined as 30 years). Fiduciary duty means a "reasonable person" standard. While, yes, it would have been better now if they had the government take on these obligations then, it's clearly not unreasonable for GM to have decided otherwise.
Second, and more interestingly to me, is that it was in GM's interest to bear health care costs. GM needed to attract and retain skilled labor (which is why they compensated them so well in the Treaty of Detroit). Bearing healthcare costs, as a flush company with two full decades of prosperity ahead of it, provided a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining labor versus other fields that these workers could have gone into, such as plumbing, construction, or the like.
I'll leave the historical nature of the Big Three's political biases to others.
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#5As a libertarian immigrant, I don't care for unions. Please no Ayn Rand jokes, I can't stand her.
So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault.
It doesn't matter if it is GM or a start up, it's management. If you are considering going to work for a startup, the management should be the most important factor in your decision.
GM's management could have changed the company culture to be as efficient and productive as Toyota's. It's not like Toyota made a secret of how it works.
GM could have seen the decline of proven and easy to access oil reserves, and the rise of the middle class in the BRIC countries and done the math. They are in the car business, so they ought to have seen what's coming.
But no, crap giant gas guzzlers. The unions didn't do that, it was management.
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#6Err... the stuff in ()'s is your own editorialized point of view. But this isn't really what I'd call hacker news in any case.
"But none of G.M.’s management miscues was so damaging to its long-term fate as the rich pensions and health care that robbed General Motors of its financial flexibility and, ultimately, of its cash. General Motors established its pension in the “treaty of Detroit,” the five-year contract that it signed with the United Automobile Workers in 1950..."
You're right - there's nothing at all in there about hackers or computers or startups.
And as for the contract, presumably it was also signed by management, not just the union.
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#7Make cars people want.
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But none of G.M.’s management miscues was so damaging to its long-term fate as the rich pensions and health care that robbed General Motors of its financial flexibility and, ultimately, of its cash. General Motors established its pension in the “treaty of Detroit,” the five-year contract that it signed with the United Automobile Workers in 1950..."
You're right - there's nothing at all in there about hackers or computers or startups. And as for the contract, presumably it was also signed by management, not just the union.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right - there's nothing at all in there about hackers or computers or startups. And as for the contract, presumably it was also signed by management, not just the union.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."
What you guys don't seem to realize or take seriously is that enough of this stuff (Obama, Iran, unions, etc...) will drive the quality of the site down, just like reddit.
"Non computer" stuff is often ok if it's just some random, interesting thing that's "food for the brain", but when you get into politics and economics (at least some kinds of economics) and stuff like that, it's just poison.
Re: Who shot General Motors? (Labor unions, in 1950.)
#10As a libertarian immigrant, I don't care for unions. Please no Ayn Rand jokes, I can't stand her. So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault. It doesn't matter if it is GM or a start up, it's management. If you are considering going to work for a startup, the management should be the most important factor in your decis…
I think the stupid SUV's are the only thing that kept GM around this long. They probably would have died years ago if they never came up with them (the damn things are pure profit).
As for Toyota-style management? It's difficult to do with strong, uncooperative unions. Want to replace 100 workers by robots? Not happening. Want to give workers decision making power, tempered by accountability for their decisions? The union demands more money for the decisions, and thinks that "accountability" means "talk to the steward."
There is a reason Toyota builds factories in Kentucky instead of Detroit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/04uaw.html?_r=1&#...
I'm not saying GM made no mistakes, but unions did play a huge role.