Filed under: Government/Legal, Chrysler, LLC., Ford, GM, UAW/Unions
Blame Game: Survey says who's at fault ? Management or union?
Each month, the American Pulse Survey seeks respondents' opinions regarding various political, pop culture and economic issues. Seeing that the auto bailout is a hot topic these days, it is unsurprising that much of the latest survey centered on the $17.4 billion in so-called bridge loans to the Detroit 3 automakers. So, who's to blame for the Motor City's downfall? Survey says: bad management (78.8 percent), the UAW (63.8 percent) and global economic uncertainty (57.7 percent); so say 4,117 Americans.
59.1 percent of respondents believe that the union should offer concessions to the automakers. Lastly, about half of Americans surveyed say that they are just as likely to consider a car from Detroit as they were before all this mess started.
Oh, just two more nuggets: The survey also notes that those surveyed find that "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer" is the most annoying Christmas song, and 6.7 percent of respondents still believe in Santa. Amazingly, we're not kidding.
[Source: MSNBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Stumpy 11:06AM (12/27/2008)
Both?
Reply
pmiddle5 11:16AM (12/27/2008)
second. "But who is at 'more' fault?"
Kattleox 11:24AM (12/27/2008)
"So, is it the guy with the knife doing the slitting we punish, OR the guy holding her down and gagging her?"
The union whined too much, and usually about things that the members didn't seem to care so much about. I have nothing against unionizing, but these ones seem to be pathetic representations of people in them and paying their hard earned cash for "union dues"
Then there is the Management, which strangles good ideas and innovation, so that none of the acorns fell far from the V8/live-rear-axle tree. It was a one two punch, not a one hit knockout: nothing is EVER a one hit knockout.
McLovin 1:45PM (12/27/2008)
At the end of the day, it was the corporation that agreed to the union demands. They did have a choice. They could have endured some pain with a strike but would have sent a message that the union demands were not good for business or they could kick the problem down the line until it was so bad that taxpayers had to dig them out. Which did they choose?
I can't blame the unions for asking for more pay and benefits. I mean, isn't that exactly what the CEOs were getting at the same time? More pay, more benefits attached to golden parachutes. So, it seems like these CEOs should have earned their money and taken a harder line that could have kept their companies solvent. Instead, they go begging from the taxpayer. Wagoner, Lutz and Nardelli should be fired. Mulally is probably the only CEO earning his keep.
JMC3 3:59PM (12/27/2008)
Both!!! You took the words right out of my mouth.
I think ,however,the union angle hasn't been explored enough,perhaps because of the fear of alienating or angering a powerful group of people.
Coincidentially the press is all union so You don't get the full story because they don't want to 'rat.
the unions are also very politically connected and deliver votes so the politicos don't touch them.
from my personal perspective I see them leeching off their hosts and increasing enrollment and power until the supporting host company is literally seconds from death
Josh 7:15PM (12/27/2008)
They all are..
LDMAN 11:09AM (12/27/2008)
The big 3 have been taking customers for a ride and have themselves to blame. The UAW should have seen it coming, and adopted a long term interest in the business and put pressure on Management to clean up their act.
Reply
happy_penguin 11:25AM (12/27/2008)
For not taking concessions sooner, the UAW is to blame. But management is to blame for spreading the $70/hr lie, poor designs and poor quality. The thing is, most of that has already been fixed. The cars are largely of very good quality and have been for some time. The UAW took many concessions in the past few years especially in the 2007 contract by giving up wages and retirement packages. These fixes will work if they can make it through the current economic crisis which is of Wall Street design, not Detroit.
Reply
JZeke 11:29AM (12/27/2008)
Why blame the automakers? The real culprit is the fickle and unreasonable expectations of a population addicted to ample credit, cheap food, and even cheaper goods. The only smart automakers are the ones who DIDN'T try to chase idiot dollars.
We're a country of junkies who sell the family silver to any nation that will let us have more for cheaper. My 9th grade earth science teacher always said "Nature never offers a free lunch". It looks like we're just beginning to pick up the tab for our decades of gluttony.
You can't fault anyone, since the consumer is as much to blame for blindly accepting product as the manufacturer and union is for making it.
Reply
Mazda FTW! 12:02PM (12/27/2008)
Well said. Nail on the head.
I was just reading the review on Edmunds Insideline for the new Venza CUV. It talks of a father of two small children. Apparently the 09 Camry he and his wife own is too small for their needs and they need a 7-seater CUV.
2 adults and 2 small children require a 7-seater 5000lbs CUV.
In India, where I'm from, 2 adults and 2 small children did just fine in a 4 seater, 2300lbs, 1-litre Fiat Uno.
CFelectro 12:13PM (12/27/2008)
These companies haven't been profitable for years, long before the credit crunch.
McLovin 1:52PM (12/27/2008)
@Mazda...
"In India, where I'm from, 2 adults and 2 small children did just fine in a 4 seater, 2300lbs, 1-litre Fiat Uno."
No. No you didn't do just fine. If you had an accident at anything over 40 miles an hour in that Fiat Uno you and yours would have been spread like chutney all over your unpaved streets. Luckily no one can ever get up to 40mph in India because of the lack of room and dearth of paved roads. Any stretch of road where you might be able to accelerate for 15 seconds to get to 60 mph in that Uno would be blocked by a bus full of people hanging out the windows and doors.
BTW, I read the article you refer to... A Venza is not a 7-seat, 5000lb CUV. It is a 3800lb, 5 seater that is offered with a 4 cylinder motor. It just a little bigger than a Camry which I see plenty of Indians driving around in here.
Mazda FTW! 2:10PM (12/27/2008)
McLovin, something about your tone in that post seems a bit...offensive. The logic behind your statement is good but it's the way you put it. Perhaps there is some underlying issue?
The Fiat Uno did considerable duty throughout the planet, including European highways which are faster than the ones in North America. And whoo-di-do! The Venza is 4000lbs. What a lightweight.
My point remains - A family of four doesn't need anything more than...say...a Civic (and if rich, a C-Class/3-Series sized vehicle).
Just like a family of four doesn't need a huge detached home or 7 credit cards between them. It's freedom of choice but somewhere along that process a lot of people forgot about taking responsibility for themselves and now pass the buck around. You can come up with as many witty-colourful retorts but if only they changed the reality right?
Polly Prissy Pants 2:36PM (12/27/2008)
I have a family of 5 and get along great in a Corolla. The confusion is between 'need' and 'want'.
McLovin 4:52PM (12/27/2008)
@Mazda
I have nothing against small cars. I drive a Audi A3.
I was merely pointing out that the Venza is not the behemoth that you made it seem to be. With the four cylinder motor, it will get near 30 miles per gallon. What you were describing was a Tahoe not a Venza. There are some pretty good reasons for having a larger vehicle. If you have two kids, you tend to haul a lot of sh*t around. That's the way it is. Moving around family of four can be done with a Civic sure. One could drive a car with their feet but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea.
If you don't like the way I make my points, perhaps you ought not comment on them, making it less likely that I make similar "offensive" statements.
Avinash machado 11:32AM (12/27/2008)
6.7 percent of respondents still believe in Santa.
Wow. Just wow. Need I say more?
Reply
chambo622 11:35AM (12/27/2008)
Only 6.7% believe in Santa? Seems a bit low. Clearly most adults believe in Santa or he wouldn't be around anymore. Kids alone can't keep traditions alive.
Reply
oneviwatara 11:41AM (12/27/2008)
Both are at fault! lol!
Reply
Sea Urchin 12:03PM (12/27/2008)
Wow, ofcourse its the management. The issue is the product, who approved of making more and more and more SUV as gas went thru the roof. This is not the issue of consumer wanted it, yet consumer did demand SUVs and that if why Toyota had TONS of money, but Toyota made great SUVS, and even better cars, GM and the other two make horrid cars.
A few years ago there was a rumor that Ford was going to become an all truck company and chryslers smallest car is a semi-SUV Caliber.
GM...well GM has a Cobalt, it wasn't Gettlefinger who approved it.
Reply
Mike 2:32PM (12/27/2008)
WTF are you talking about?
No one ramped up SUV production or creation over the summer (when fuel prices went up and up). Ford never became a truck only company.
I will give you that Chrysler was mismanaged badly, but this was done by the Germans who had no interest in making Chrysler a viable company, only soaking up their cash reserves, then dumping them. Job performed flawlessly there.
Please tell me how Toyota's SUVs are better than Ford or GMs? Then tell me how Camry is any better than Fusion or Malibu. Corolla just stinks, Cobalt does have a bad interior but does have a decent model in the SS, the '08 Focus aint pretty but it does drive nicely and is well equipped for the price (several thou less than Corolla). Have you driven a 500/Taurus? Arguably nicer than Avalon, which is another souless automobile and the reason they don't sell despite the Toyota name. Oh, how about convertibles and coupes. You really think Solara is better than Mustang?
Toyota sells/sold based completely on name and reputation. Their reputation still seems to be there in the minds of those who don't pay attention but everyone's on a level playing field as far as quality goes now. Get into an '06 or later Ford or an '07 or later GM and see the difference (those models released at that point or later). You can also read about the quality differences in multiple reports. The naysayers claimed Fusion wouldn't hold up over time- wrong. What's your next argument?