đź“° Auto News BREAKING: Lutz to retire from GM... again
- Thread starter Mook
- Start date
but GM does need to be competitive in their executive pay as to attract or retain talented executives that could save the company. If you want to cut their pay as punishment for a poor performing company, they can just go somewhere else - and transfering/changing executives is expensive and can hurt company performance.
fyi, Underpaid directors/upper management persons work for the government and we can see how effective and effecient all those departments work...
fyi, Underpaid directors/upper management persons work for the government and we can see how effective and effecient all those departments work...
Agree.
This is why GM started their downward spiral back in the late 70's/early 80's. All the "car enthusiast" management left the company to work elsewhere for more money, Leaving the "bean counters" to run the the company. This is why Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac started the "Clone car" syndrome and killed the "heretage" of each division. Folks like Lutz and Wagner (and a few others) tried to change some things but it was too little, too late and every time they came up with something exciting for the public, It usually didn't last long or was run aground by the corporate bean counters. (especially if it affected Corvette!)
Isn't it enough to make decent money doing what you love though? Why do people need to make so much more? How much is "Underpaid" anyway? that's all bullshit people are just greedy, and now bob lutz is one of the many. He makes enough to buy any car from anyone on this forum twice, what more could a car guy ask for?
Wrong, the reason why GM started on a downward spiral in the 80's is because of a 5 letter word. U.N.I.O.N.
Most of them aren't 'car guys' though, they're business people in the automotive industry.
Regardless, I'm sure what they make is still too much for one person to spend in a lifetime unless they have a habit of lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills, or vintage automobiles.
1000% TRUE
When you have nearly$2,000 PER VEHICLE (at one point in time) going to UAW, you cannot be competitve. That money could have been used to improve quality or utilize better interior components. GM was chastized for the last 15 years for using cheap materials, but imaging what $1,000 or $1,500 in better materials would have done.
No, it isn't wrong.
The unions were sticking it to the automotive manufacturers long before the 80's. Back in the 1950's the unions were taking a higher percentage than they are now. The big fall-out in the early 70's changed it.
While they unions still take a huge chunk of cash, It is actually less than they use to. The unions are the reason for the higher cost of vehicles to the consumers not for the limited and bland products.
The actual problem with GM was they removed each divisions individual reputation and made all the cars the same except for badging and some minor styling. So all the GM divisions now competed with each other for the same identical vehicle. Hence why Oldsmobile is gone and Pontiac will be gone in 2 months.
Anyone ever notice that Ford, Lincoln and Mercury had the "clone" vehicle syndrome as well and thru the 90's they actually reduced them? They still have a few today, But they mostly advertise the unique cars of the brands.
GM started to get away from the clone syndrome with Pontiac with the GTO and G8 but it was too little too late.
Even the Solstice was cloned as a Sky.
Every manufacturer has 'clone' cars, or in other words utilize platform sharing. The only reason GM stood out at all is because they had twice as many separate divisions as the next closest manufacturer. And it's not like this hasn't happened forever, go back to the 60's and 70's and, even though the different divisions used different powertrains, they still shared platforms (you can't tell me that a Buick Skylark, Pontiac LeMans, Olds Cutlass and Chevy Chevelle from the late 60's/early 70's were any more different than a cavalier and sunfire of the late 80's/90's). Even Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infiniti all have 'clone cars.' I'm really going to have to disagree that this was GM's problem.
Now, if you wanted to make the argument that GM spread themselves too thin by trying to maintain so many different divisions, that I would agree with you on.
Where do I start?
Unions ARE a major reason for mediocre products. Nissan, Toyota, and Honda DO NOT have huge legacy costs. GM needed to sell a product at the same price point as their competitors. Well, how do you do that when you have those huge legacy costs? You cut costs on plastics, materials, and engineering.
In the 1950’s GM and Detroit didn’t have foreign competition, so they could pay the Union and be fat and happy. When the overseas competitors started to gain traction in the 70’s and 80’s, they did it without union labor.
Look at the decline in market share since 90:
Unions are a dinosaur! They are reactive and not proactive. If the UAW had taken major concessions 10 years ago based on the economic and automotive data, the Big 3 would be in a much healthier state than today.
jason.Thread Info
-
Created -
19Replies
-
688Views
-
Participants list
