Addendum on the auto situation
Mar. 31st, 2009 11:57 amLewenza (head of CAW) says labour costs amount to only 7% of the cost of the car. Granted, the source is not disinterested in the issue; however, why then is all the pressure on the hourly workers to take a cut and save the company. (Anyone else have a "save the cheerleader, save the world" moment there?)
*sigh* Yes, I know, this is what I get for using my logical brain. Fine, back to GinnyLogicâ„¢.
*sigh* Yes, I know, this is what I get for using my logical brain. Fine, back to GinnyLogicâ„¢.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-31 04:29 pm (UTC)So let's be generous and assume the former. We'd then have to ask what the other 93% was and whether there was much GM could do about it. Now, GM sold off all its components businesses years ago so all it does manufacturing wise is assemble. That suggests to me that most of that 93% will be purchased components. GM has already squeezed its suppliers much harder than it has even dreamed of squeezing the UAW. My former employers helped them take several billion per year out of their costs that way. I doubt that there is much left to squeeze there. It's also unlikely that there is much left to squeeze out of real estate or maintenance costs and GM has already laid off thousands of managers and supervisors. That pretty much just leaves labour.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-31 05:50 pm (UTC)I just hate it when the people at the bottom of the org chart are getting what looks like disproportionate pressure to make concessions for the good of the company.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-31 05:34 pm (UTC)