GM on strike

[Balta1701]

'as good as I possibly do with that car'. Does that mean it was already s*** when you got it, or you had no time/money/knowledge to do upkeep? Was it new or used when you got it. As for your GM experience, I don't dispute it happened. I have heard many of them, unfortunately in the 80's, most from American dealers. But look back to I think 2005, Toyota recalled more cars than it sold in America. All I am trying to say is your experience 20 years ago isn't necessarily indicitive of todays world.

Man, you are making an awful lot of judgements on me. 20 years ago I was 6 years old, and I think my parents are fairly happy I wasn't driving then. It was new when purchased in the late 90's, and was basically a service disaster from the start. By the time we got to 15,000 miles we were taking it back to the dealer once a month with a variety of issues mainly dealing with the engine. I'd say it was basically built as a piece of crap. I didn't abuse the thing, I wasn't putting it in places it shouldn't go or stupid things like that, and I did all of the upkeep as reccommended/required. I can't say I couldn't have done better with it because I'm not a mechanic and I don't know how to repair a crappy starter, for example (which was one of the many issues and probably the most annoying of them), but I think I did everything I reasonably knew how to do in order to keep that vehicle running, and it wasn't too happy about it.

 

You may have had a better experience, and with that, I'll say you were luckier than me and therefore you should keep going with what works for you. But right now, it's going to take at least several years before I even consider a vehicle made by GM.

 

[kapkomet]

Man, you are making an awful lot of judgements on me. 20 years ago I was 6 years old, and I think my parents are fairly happy I wasn't driving then. It was new when purchased in the late 90's, and was basically a service disaster from the start. By the time we got to 15,000 miles we were taking it back to the dealer once a month with a variety of issues mainly dealing with the engine. I'd say it was basically built as a piece of crap. I didn't abuse the thing, I wasn't putting it in places it shouldn't go or stupid things like that, and I did all of the upkeep as reccommended/required. I can't say I couldn't have done better with it because I'm not a mechanic and I don't know how to repair a crappy starter, for example (which was one of the many issues and probably the most annoying of them), but I think I did everything I reasonably knew how to do in order to keep that vehicle running, and it wasn't too happy about it.

 

You may have had a better experience, and with that, I'll say you were luckier than me and therefore you should keep going with what works for you. But right now, it's going to take at least several years before I even consider a vehicle made by GM.

I have had the same issues with GM. I will liekly not own a GM again.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I may actually be buying a Ford product for the first time ever, early next year. We decided, with high gas prices, wife's long commute and an aging car, to buy a hybrid early next year. We wanted either a small/compact SUV or a tweener car (like Subaru, Audi and Volvo make, between a wagon and an SUV), because we do a lot of camping and sometimes tow stuff around, so we use the space (we're also maybe getting in the family thing soon). But we don't want a big car either, because it will guzzle gas and be a pain to drive in the city.

 

Unfortunately, while Japanese companies in general have far more variety in hybrid choices, they oddly seemed to have skipped that vehicle size bracket. You can get sedans of different sizes, or you can get larger SUV's, in hybrid, from Toyota and Honda. But the only vehicle in our size niche that is a hybrid is the Ford Escape (or Mercury Mariner, same car). Reading up on them, the 2008 version is getting pretty good reviews, though not spectacular. I am skeptical of the Ford brand, but since the car is everything we want, I think we'll be giving it a shot.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Man, you are making an awful lot of judgements on me.

Please note I ASKED if it was new, used, already crap, etc. My only judgement was that your situation isn'

the same for all, although I do realize that is was more common in the 80's and 90's than now. Enjoy your current car. Glad you like it. A question: if the dealer you bought your current car from also sold American cars, would you consider one then, or does the mere mention of an American brand turn you off? It seems to me that foreign vs domestic car ownerships can be as deeply divided as politics.

[NorthSideSox72]

Please note I ASKED if it was new, used, already crap, etc. My only judgement was that your situation isn'

the same for all, although I do realize that is was more common in the 80's and 90's than now. Enjoy your current car. Glad you like it. A question: if the dealer you bought your current car from also sold American cars, would you consider one then, or does the mere mention of an American brand turn you off? It seems to me that foreign vs domestic car ownerships can be as deeply divided as politics.

And like politics, I'll buy the car that best fits my needs. I could give less of a crap what party/country it is from.

 

[Balta1701]

Please note I ASKED if it was new, used, already crap, etc. My only judgement was that your situation isn'

the same for all, although I do realize that is was more common in the 80's and 90's than now. Enjoy your current car. Glad you like it. A question: if the dealer you bought your current car from also sold American cars, would you consider one then, or does the mere mention of an American brand turn you off? It seems to me that foreign vs domestic car ownerships can be as deeply divided as politics.

I would have been open on a Ford, but was never really a big fan of the Focus in general, and that was the level of car I was looking at. Chrysler has really never caught my interest, but I mgiht consider them in the future. Right now, I thought by far the best choice for me was something from the Japanese folks. If, at some point soon, the U.S. automakers get their heads fully into the game, that could change. That includes a longer trend of improving quality and a much more logical approach with regards to gas mileage (and getting their heads in the game with regards to gas mileage and politics would not be a bad thing from my perspective either, although even the Japanese companies are fairly indictable in that regard)

[Texsox]

First off the urban legends about American cars in this thread is so over the top it would take weeks to correct them all. In the 70's the Japanese were making small, s*** box cars that no one outside Japan wanted. The Big Three gave away as many cars as Japan sold in the US. The Datsun's et. al. were impossible to work on for most American owners (metric), parts took forever to arrive, and more lemons than a citrus field.

 

Then the oil shortage had Americans buying these because they got great fuel economy. There was almost no way to predict those events back in the 70's. The American car was king back then. Highest quality by far. It wasn't until they rushed into small car production that disaster struck. The zillion errors in small cars hurt them. K-cars, exploding Pintos, shove-its, etc.

 

So the comments that Japan listened to their customers and American automakers do not is false. The US invented and perfected consumer research.

 

But $30 per hour jobs like these are going away. Problem is when someone willing to take the job for $10 comes along we go from that job contributing to the tax revenue instead of taking away. So these jobs have to move off shore. It is for everyone's benefit. GM is paying way too much, they can get better profitability and more jobs in Mexico keeps those workers at home.

 

GM needs to immediately announce they are closing the plant and get it moved. The longer they wait, the more they lose.

[Rex Kickass]

I have had the same issues with GM. I will liekly not own a GM again.

Same here. Coolant and electric issues all over the place.

 

The UAW went to strike because they've seen GM's US workforce shrink by 70% in the last 15 years and they want to protect their workforce from shrinking further. I think that's a legitimate reason, whether you agree or not.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Same here. Coolant and electric issues all over the place.

 

The UAW went to strike because they've seen GM's US workforce shrink by 70% in the last 15 years and they want to protect their workforce from shrinking further. I think that's a legitimate reason, whether you agree or not.

I think it's legit, but I also think that these people have to realize that they don't rule the automotive world like they did 20 years ago.

[kapkomet]

First off the urban legends about American cars in this thread is so over the top it would take weeks to correct them all. In the 70's the Japanese were making small, s*** box cars that no one outside Japan wanted. The Big Three gave away as many cars as Japan sold in the US. The Datsun's et. al. were impossible to work on for most American owners (metric), parts took forever to arrive, and more lemons than a citrus field.

 

Then the oil shortage had Americans buying these because they got great fuel economy. There was almost no way to predict those events back in the 70's. The American car was king back then. Highest quality by far. It wasn't until they rushed into small car production that disaster struck. The zillion errors in small cars hurt them. K-cars, exploding Pintos, shove-its, etc.

 

So the comments that Japan listened to their customers and American automakers do not is false. The US invented and perfected consumer research.

 

But $30 per hour jobs like these are going away. Problem is when someone willing to take the job for $10 comes along we go from that job contributing to the tax revenue instead of taking away. So these jobs have to move off shore. It is for everyone's benefit. GM is paying way too much, they can get better profitability and more jobs in Mexico keeps those workers at home.

 

GM needs to immediately announce they are closing the plant and get it moved. The longer they wait, the more they lose.

I have done extensive research on this topic. And I do mean extensive. And I have some news for you. In the 1980's Japan kicked our ass all over the place in the manufacturing of autos. There are SOME myths in this thread (which have been corrected as we have went along), but a very few.

[Texsox]

I think it's legit, but I also think that these people have to realize that they don't rule the automotive world like they did 20 years ago.

 

It's only legit if they realize that $30 per hour nut tighteners hurt their job security. When they take cuts to get in line with what others will work for, a free market, then they will have some security.

 

$30 bolt tightener = low security

$10 bolt tightener = high security

[Texsox]

I have done extensive research on this topic. And I do mean extensive. And I have some news for you. In the 1980's Japan kicked our ass all over the place in the manufacturing of autos. There are SOME myths in this thread (which have been corrected as we have went along), but a very few.

 

Isn't that what I said?

 

Let's look?

In the 70's the Japanese were making small, s*** box cars that no one outside Japan wanted. The Big Three gave away as many cars as Japan sold in the US. The Datsun's et. al. were impossible to work on for most American owners (metric), parts took forever to arrive, and more lemons than a citrus field.

 

Then the oil shortage had Americans buying these because they got great fuel economy. There was almost no way to predict those events back in the 70's. The American car was king back then. Highest quality by far. It wasn't until they rushed into small car production that disaster struck. The zillion errors in small cars hurt them. K-cars, exploding Pintos, shove-its, etc

.

 

You just can't hit reply fast enough to argue.

[kapkomet]

It's only legit if they realize that $30 per hour nut tighteners hurt their job security. When they take cuts to get in line with what others will work for, a free market, then they will have some security.

 

$30 bolt tightener = low security

$10 bolt tightener = high security

These people have one skill. They're a bolt tightener. They can't do anything else.

 

Security is fine and dandy - but they're not going to give anything up like that. They are inherently greedy because they've been brainwashed to think it's ok to be so.

 

[Texsox]

These people have one skill. They're a bolt tightener. They can't do anything else.

 

That is true for many manufacturing plants. When I was Executive Director for the South Texas Manufacturers. Assoc. I was part of a team that looked a retraining opportunities for displaced textile workers, mostly from Levi's who sponsored the project. What we found was what you just posted, they may have twenty years experience, but it was the same one year, repeated twenty times. The most valuable job skill they possessed, which is big in this career sphere, is a proven track record of arriving on time and getting to work every day.

 

This was contrasted with the cross training that workers received in most big plants, and especially in large, unionized, shops. The Union shops were smart enough to know that job skills were their most important assett. So it would be highly unusual if they could not work other stations and run different machines.

 

Sadly, loyal workers hurt you when their skills can not become mroe valuable. In an ideal world workers get raises as they make more money for the company.

[southsider2k5]

Well early news in is that there has been a tentative agreement reached in the GM strike.

 

One more thing I wanted to share is that I have seen the justification of Toyota and the like as they build cars in America, and pay American workers. Finally I found some numbers. If you include all compensation that both employees receive (wages, health care, pension, stock plans etc) the average Toyota worker makes $45 an hour. The average GM worker makes $73 an hour, when everything is factored in.

 

I have asked before, and I will ask again, why is there no movement of people against Toyota, the way that there is against Wal-Mart. Really we are talking about the exact same business model and techniques. They both look for markets where they can under cut price and wages. They both are permanently removing higher paying jobs from the US. As a matter of a fact, looking at the numbers we should be more outraged at Toyota, because they are taking upper-middle class jobs (well heck upper class jobs according to some of the Dems) and replacing them with jobs that pay on average, with benefits included, about $60,000 LESS than the jobs they are offering. Where are the Stop Toyota campaigns? Where are the exposes on CNN? Where are the union protests? Why are they striking GM, when they should be striking Toyota?

 

Seriously, I'd love to hear an explanation of why Toyota is immune.

[Texsox]

Well early news in is that there has been a tentative agreement reached in the GM strike.

 

One more thing I wanted to share is that I have seen the justification of Toyota and the like as they build cars in America, and pay American workers. Finally I found some numbers. If you include all compensation that both employees receive (wages, health care, pension, stock plans etc) the average Toyota worker makes $45 an hour. The average GM worker makes $73 an hour, when everything is factored in.

 

I have asked before, and I will ask again, why is there no movement of people against Toyota, the way that there is against Wal-Mart. Really we are talking about the exact same business model and techniques. They both look for markets where they can under cut price and wages. They both are permanently removing higher paying jobs from the US. As a matter of a fact, looking at the numbers we should be more outraged at Toyota, because they are taking upper-middle class jobs (well heck upper class jobs according to some of the Dems) and replacing them with jobs that pay on average, with benefits included, about $60,000 LESS than the jobs they are offering. Where are the Stop Toyota campaigns? Where are the exposes on CNN? Where are the union protests? Why are they striking GM, when they should be striking Toyota?

 

Seriously, I'd love to hear an explanation of why Toyota is immune.

 

I would guess that the liberals would say Toyota is paying a living wage over the poverty line, while WalMart is not. Why aren't conservatives outraged?

[kapkomet]

I would guess that the liberals would say Toyota is paying a living wage over the poverty line, while WalMart is not. Why aren't conservatives outraged?

Because most conservatives will allow the market to take care of itself without government interference.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Well early news in is that there has been a tentative agreement reached in the GM strike.

 

One more thing I wanted to share is that I have seen the justification of Toyota and the like as they build cars in America, and pay American workers. Finally I found some numbers. If you include all compensation that both employees receive (wages, health care, pension, stock plans etc) the average Toyota worker makes $45 an hour. The average GM worker makes $73 an hour, when everything is factored in.

 

I have asked before, and I will ask again, why is there no movement of people against Toyota, the way that there is against Wal-Mart. Really we are talking about the exact same business model and techniques. They both look for markets where they can under cut price and wages. They both are permanently removing higher paying jobs from the US. As a matter of a fact, looking at the numbers we should be more outraged at Toyota, because they are taking upper-middle class jobs (well heck upper class jobs according to some of the Dems) and replacing them with jobs that pay on average, with benefits included, about $60,000 LESS than the jobs they are offering. Where are the Stop Toyota campaigns? Where are the exposes on CNN? Where are the union protests? Why are they striking GM, when they should be striking Toyota?

 

Seriously, I'd love to hear an explanation of why Toyota is immune.

Wage pressure is a reality in every industry, but I do think that there is a big difference between Walmart and Toyota. At $45 an hour plus benefits, its just not in the same realm as $6 an hour and probably no benefits. Also, at least for me anyway, it isn't low wages or lousy benefits that bothers me about Walmart. Its their predatory and borderline blackmail business practices with their suppliers and with other competing businesses - those are the areas where I feel they cross the line.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Wage pressure is a reality in every industry, but I do think that there is a big difference between Walmart and Toyota. At $45 an hour plus benefits, its just not in the same realm as $6 an hour and probably no benefits. Also, at least for me anyway, it isn't low wages or lousy benefits that bothers me about Walmart. Its their predatory and borderline blackmail business practices with their suppliers and with other competing businesses - those are the areas where I feel they cross the line.

Ok, a HUGE Walmart just opened in Lockport. Starting pay is more like $10 per hour, and there are benefits available, for all. But hey, $6 per hour makes them seem $4 more evil that they really are.

 

As for their 'blackmail' business practices, when you buy 80-90% of a companies entire production, you have leverage. It is up to the seller to find new customers so as not to put themselves into that position. I know 80% of business usually comes from 20% of your customers 9it is very true in my business), but when 80% of your business comes from 1 customer, you are just inviting future heartache.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, a HUGE Walmart just opened in Lockport. Starting pay is more like $10 per hour, and there are benefits available, for all. But hey, $6 per hour makes them seem $4 more evil that they really are.

 

As for their 'blackmail' business practices, when you buy 80-90% of a companies entire production, you have leverage. It is up to the seller to find new customers so as not to put themselves into that position. I know 80% of business usually comes from 20% of your customers 9it is very true in my business), but when 80% of your business comes from 1 customer, you are just inviting future heartache.

The $6 an hour was just an illustration that it is far different than $45. $10, fine. I wasn't really trying to make the $6 important.

 

And you are definitely right about distributors, but that is really only the case if you chose it. You see, I think many companies WERE distributing to lots of people. Then, Walmart comes in and takes over the business in the area (which is fine), and says, OK, now we have 90% of your distribution. I am not saying its illegal either, by the way - just scummy.

 

[Texsox]

Because most conservatives will allow the market to take care of itself without government interference.

 

A first in Soxtalk history, a ten sentence question answered in two sentences.

[Texsox]

Ok, a HUGE Walmart just opened in Lockport. Starting pay is more like $10 per hour, and there are benefits available, for all. But hey, $6 per hour makes them seem $4 more evil that they really are.

 

As for their 'blackmail' business practices, when you buy 80-90% of a companies entire production, you have leverage. It is up to the seller to find new customers so as not to put themselves into that position. I know 80% of business usually comes from 20% of your customers 9it is very true in my business), but when 80% of your business comes from 1 customer, you are just inviting future heartache.

 

[southsider2k5]

The details of the settlement are starting to come out now. I think the union realized they were bent over a barrell with their pants down, because this settlement is very lopsided.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2600155_pf.html

 

UAW Reaches Tentative Agreement With GM

 

By Sholnn Freeman, Frank Ahrens and Howard Schneider

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 12:18 PM

 

 

 

DETROIT, Sept. 26 -- General Motors and the United Auto Workers agreed to a new contract early Wednesday, ending a two-day nationwide strike with a watershed deal that establishes a new union-managed trust fund for retiree health care but does not include wage hikes.

 

The tentative four-year agreement was reached around 3 a.m. Union officials promptly called off the strike -- the first national job action against GM in more than 30 years -- and said the new contract will be submitted to union members for ratification by the weekend.

 

GM's 73,000 unionized employees are expected back on the job Wednesday afternoon and now must ratify the contract hammered out by union leadership.

 

To win over workers and get the deal wrapped up quickly, GM is dangling a $3,000 signing bonus for each member, with a possibility of additional signing bonuses in later years of the contract.

 

However, workers will get no base wage increases or cost-of-living adjustments as they have in the past, according to sources who have been briefed on the contract.

 

"There is no question this was one of the most complex and difficult bargaining sessions in the history of the GM, UAW relationship," GM chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. said in a statement. "This agreement helps us close the fundamental competitive gaps that exist in our business."

 

The company said the new contract would let GM "improve its manufacturing competitiveness, providing the basis for maintaining and strengthening its core manufacturing base in the United States."

 

In mid-day trading, shares of GM were up nearly 5 percent at $36.10.

 

The agreement is expected to include larger monthly pension payouts for retirees, which are meant to offset any increases in health-care expenses for retirees.

 

The agreement is also expected to include language the allows GM to pay lower wages and benefits for newer workers and other workers in the plant who do not do manufacturing work.

 

Under existing union rules, U.S. automakers have to pay UAW benefits and wages of about $28 per hour for the housekeeping of facilities -- costs that the non-union facilities of foreign automakers do not have to bear.

 

Foreign automakers, such as Toyota Motor Corp., have much more flexibility in non-manufacturing labor costs. As global competition has heated up, those automakers are pushing their manufacturing wages down. At a new assembly plant being built in Mississippi, for instance, Toyota has said it plans to pay workers as little as $12 an hour.

 

The contract might also include changes to the so-called "jobs bank" -- a costly union provision that forces the company to maintain UAW salaries when plants are closed or idled.

 

With the U.S. auto industry steadily losing market share to overseas manufacturers, both sides said the agreement will help keep jobs and manufacturing capacity in the United States.

 

GM is carrying some $50 billion in unfunded retiree health obligations on its books, a liability that executives say has helped make the company less competitive against foreign manufacturers. Toyota, the Japanese auto giant, is expected to supplant GM this year as the world's largest car maker.

 

Under the agreement, responsibility for the retiree health plan will shift to a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) managed by the union. Details about how the VEBA will be funded have not been disclosed. But it is expected to involve a one-time payment of as much as $35 billion by GM, providing the union with money to invest and to pay for retiree benefits while reducing the company's future expenses by billions of dollars. Creation of the retiree health trust is to be monitored by a judge and the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to GM's statement Wednesday morning.

 

At a Detroit news conference, UAW President Ronald A. Gettelfinger said the memorandum of understanding outlining the health fund would secure retiree health benefits for decades to come.

 

"We've got it secure and in place," he said, according to the Detroit News.

 

Other details of the agreement were not released as union negotiators prepared to brief their national leaders and circulate the contract to local affiliates for approval.

 

Final negotiations had focused on the union's desire to keep jobs at U.S. plants and reduce the use of part-time, temporary workers, while the company hoped to find ways to decrease the roughly $70 in average wages and benefits that it pays employees. GM's labor costs are estimated to be between $25 and $30 an hour more than those of Toyota and other competitors.

 

The new contract, and the treatment of retiree health costs in particular, are expected to form a framework for upcoming union negotiations with Ford and Chrysler.

 

The U.S. auto industry is in the midst of a critical restructuring, with the Big Three companies in Detroit closing factories, shedding workers and changing designs to catch up with foreign manufacturers and evolving consumer tastes.

 

The strike began Monday at GM's 80 unionized plants after a union-imposed deadline passed without an agreement. The impact was quickly felt -- and demonstrated why both sides feared a prolonged shutdown. One U.S. auto-parts maker laid off hundreds of workers, and the president of the autoworkers union in Canada predicted 100,000 layoffs there by the weekend if the strike continued to disrupt production.

 

For each day of the strike, GM's production was projected to fall 14,000 new vehicles behind rival automakers, according to industry estimates. The struggling auto giant was in danger of losing tenuous beachheads it had established with hot-selling, high-profit vehicles, such as the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia. A UAW official said on Tuesday that the union had taken into account GM's inventory before the strike and had warned the automaker before negotiations began to build up inventories of key vehicle lines.

 

Talks had continued Tuesday against a background of 24-hour nationwide picket lines.

 

Gettelfinger said Tuesday morning that he was hoping for a quick end to the strike, as many of GM's 73,000 union workers around the country began budgeting to live on $200 a week in strike pay.

 

"In many ways it may be a good thing because it will bring an end to this thing quicker," Gettelfinger said in a radio interview on Detroit's WJR-AM. "We are ready to settle the agreement and move on with life. But it takes two sides to do that."

 

The strike was a gamble of sorts for the union, whose members reported making no preparations for an extended walkout. A smaller, more targeted strike would have been easier to sustain. In 1998, the UAW struck at two key GM plants for 54 days, costing the company $12 billion in sales and $3 billion in profit.

 

Negotiations focused on wages, security for U.S. workers worried about jobs moving overseas, and the company's continued investment in new products.

 

The strike was felt beyond GM. Delphi, which makes parts for GM and its rivals, began laying off workers at some of its 29 plants, the company said. Though it continues to make parts for Ford and other companies, Delphi depends on GM for much of its revenue. Some Delphi plants, such as the Saginaw Steering Systems plant in Michigan, divide work roughly equally among the Big Three customers. Delphi laid off a small percentage of its 2,700 workers at Saginaw.

 

But at the Delphi plant in Lockport, N.Y., about 90 percent of the plant's output goes to GM, and most of the plant's 1,900 workers faced lay offs if the strike endured, an industry source said on the condition of anonymity for lack of authorization to speak publicly on the subject.

 

Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union, said GM production in his country was coming to a standstill because of the strike in the U.S.

 

At midnight Monday, a car assembly plant in Oshawa, Ontario, closed, putting about 3,600 workers out of jobs. A second Canadian car plant with about 2,800 workers was set to close on Tuesday because it lacks parts made by GM plants in the United States.

 

More than 16,000 Canadian union workers were to be laid off by the end of Tuesday because of the GM strike. If the strike continued through the end of the week, Hargrove estimated, as many as 100,000 Canadian workers could be laid off.

 

Despite the effect on his members, Hargrove said he supported the UAW strike.

 

"I believe General Motors' problems in the U.S. are the same as they are in Canada -- imports from Japan, South Korea and the European community," Hargrove said. "They close off their markets. GM is trying to make the UAW pay for that. I think it's wrong and unfair as hell."

 

At GM plants around the nation, strikers settled into picket lines on Tuesday and wondered how long the walkout would last. Some said it caught them by surprise.

 

"All those years, my mom kept the back room stocked with cans of food in case Dad had to go out on strike," said Mark Wilkerson, 42, crew coordinator for Local 1853 in Spring Hill, Tenn., one of about 200 picketers working six-hour protest shifts at the rural plant. "I didn't plan anything because I really wasn't expecting a strike. I heard they were near a deal a few days ago and things were going well, so I blew a lot of money this weekend."

 

The Tennessee plant once built Saturns but now makes only parts. GM is retooling the plant to make other vehicles. In the process, 2,200 workers were laid off this year. The plant retains much of its pioneering Saturn management ethos, where workers and managers work more closely together than in other unionized plants. On Tuesday, plant managers brought food and water to striking workers walking the sun-drenched picket lines.

 

At GM's Ypsilanti, Mich., parts-shipping plant, temporary workers -- those without benefits -- joined UAW workers on the picket line.

 

"I'd like to think I'll have a job here in 10 or 20 years," said temporary worker Jeff Helmer, 28, who has been at the plant for more than a year. "It's been nice work, good work and good pay, and that's what we're trying to keep going."

[southsider2k5]

Also interesting in the article was Toyota paying workers as little as $12 an hour in their new plants.... Now we are even getting down into Wal-Mart wage territory...

[Texsox]

Also interesting in the article was Toyota paying workers as little as $12 an hour in their new plants.... Now we are even getting down into Wal-Mart wage territory...

 

I wonder where they will find employees willing to work for those wages?