On May 31, 3:47*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:57:04 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Hi,
I think about two factors, US auto makers always chucked away good
design when people liked it and kept bad ones in the market.
Part of quality problem was union. They only worked hard for higher
wages and benefits not improving their workmanship. As a result GM and
Chrysler almost went belly up.

Only detriment The UAW had was making the cars cost more than
otherwise.

Like that's a small thing? The UAW workers were getting about 2x
what workers at non-union auto manufacturers earned in wages
and benefits.


You might argue the bean counters cut quality to accommodate the union
costs, but that was their call.
Union didn't design the cars or oversee quality control.
That's all management.

I wouldn't be so sure about the quality control part. If you
have inflexible union rules, I can see it affecting quality. I
have two guys doing X. I want to reassign one of them
so he does both A and B, which would improve quality
Union rules say no way.



Same with model changes.
Best car I ever had was an '88 Celebrity 2.8.
Almost flawless for 190K miles, when it rusted out.
GM dropped it a year later.
Same with the '97 Lumina I'm driving now.
Gone.
Corolla, Civic, Campy, Accord.
How old are those names?
What does GM have to compare?

Camaro, Corvette, Impala, Malibu, Regal come to mind

Nothing.
Toyota/Honda made decent models, grew a brand recognition, and
protected the brand with quality.
The GM mentality kind a reminds me that exec who came out with "new"
Coke.

--Vic