Sunday digest
- Tonight, President Bush was interviewed on "60 Minutes". Say what you want about the guy, but at least he's principled, authentic, and accountable, which is more than one can say about a lot of politicians.
- Are you a lefty who's perplexed about whether or not to support the doctrinaire yet authoritarian Chavez regime in Venezuela? Then you owe it to yourself to read this.
- Here's a novel idea: referring Iran's Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to the International Criminal Court on charges of inciting genocide against Israelis.
- A positive move forward from across the pond: Sarko is one step closer to giving France a taste of the tough medicine it so desperately needs.
- Take a look at this chart, which compares GM and Toyota (I've provided some excerpts below).
U.S. Sales in 2005
GM: 4,454,386, down 4.3% from 2004
Toyota: 2,260,296, up 10.1% from 2004
U.S. Market Share
GM: 26.8%
Toyota: 13%
Profitability per Vehicle
GM: Loses $2,331 per vehicle
Toyota: Makes $1,488 per vehicle
Average Plant Capacity Utilization
GM: 85%
Toyota: 107% using overtime workers
Production Time per Vehicle
GM: 34.3 hours, 2.5% improvement since 2003
Toyota: 27.9 hours, 5.5% improvement since 2003
North American Workforce
GM: White collar: 36,000
Production: 106,000
Retirees: 460,000
Toyota: White collar: 17,000
Production: 21,000
Retirees: 1,600
Average Hourly Salary for Non-Skilled, Assembly Line Worker
GM: $31.35/hour
Toyota: $27/hour
Health Care Costs per Vehicle in 2004
GM: $1,525
Toyota: $201
Average Labor Cost per U.S. Hourly Worker
GM: $73.73
Toyota: $48
Speaking in the most general of terms, when per hour labour costs are a third higher than one's competition, it's no wonder that there's a difference in profitability per vehicle of nearly four thousand dollars. How much longer can GM be expected to keep losing money at that rate? I think the North American auto union leadership needs to consider these numbers because inflexibility on these and other workplace issues are clearly putting the employment of their membership at risk.
posted by Road Hammer @ 6:44 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Why are labour unions at fault because GM demonstrated crappy management in signing labour agreements?
Of course unions are going to try to get the best deals for members, just as conmpanies will try to get their best deals. The company signed on the dotted line when an agreement was reached, so why are the unions at fault?
It's the same scenario as with Air Canada some years back. They expected consumers to feel badly for the airline because they overpaid their pilots when the times were good. Gimme a break.
GMs problem is they build crappy cars. I know you think high labour costs are the main reason for this, but I think that's a huge oversimplification. And anyways, that blame lies at their own doorstep.
Post a Comment
<< Home