Labor Laughs at GM – Chrysler Merger

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Automotive News [sub] reports that United Auto Workers (UAW) chief Ron Gettelfinger is against the nevergonnahappen GM-Chrysler merger. Sort of. “I personally would not want to see anything that would result in a consolidation if that would mean the elimination of additional jobs,” Gettelfinger said. “But until we get into actual discussions, we can’t just speculate on what is going to happen. We have to know the situation, and then we can deal with it.” New CAW President Ken Lawenza is holding off on making any “if”-dependent statements on the matter until getting more details from GM and ChryCo. “We have already tried to contact the companies. We’re waiting for calls back,” Lewenza tells Reuters. Ken could be waiting for a while though, because the two firms probably haven’t even worked out the deal’s details yet. If there is a deal. Which there probably isn’t. Reaction on the other side of the pond is equally supportive…

In fact, organized labor the world over is taking a dump all over the speculation. Automotive News Europe [sub] tells us that the top labor rep for GM Europe is against a merger as well, for the same obvious reasons. “GM would only raise its own problems to a higher power. Chrysler has nothing that GM does not have already,” Klaus Franz tells Handelsblatt. “(Combining) two people with bad feet does not create a marathon runner, and with Cerberus there would be a third sick person on board,” he added, referring to Chrysler’s majority owner, Cerberus Capital Management. The labor boys are generally on-point here, since a merger would certainly mean job loss and a larger, less healthy company. What they don’t seem to understand is that jobs will probably be lost anyway, and that their over-zealous advocacy has helped bring Chrysler and GM to the current FUBAR situation. But by all means, keep insulting your employers.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Join the conversation
2 of 4 comments
  • Hltguy Hltguy on Oct 15, 2008

    Wow, that photo reminds me of the 60's, The Jefferson Airplane at the Fillmore. Peace.

  • SunnyvaleCA SunnyvaleCA on Oct 15, 2008

    Chrysler's legacy costs alone could swamp the combined bank accounts of GM and Chrysler. GM's legacy costs alone would do the same. Two separate companies means two chances to duck out of legacy costs and have something survive. A combined company means just 1 chance to duck out of both costs in order to survive. So, looks like the odds of something surviving would be cut by a factor of 4 if they combine.

  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
  • Lou_BC "That’s expensive for a midsize pickup" All of the "offroad" midsize trucks fall in that 65k USD range. The ZR2 is probably the cheapest ( without Bison option).
  • Lou_BC There are a few in my town. They come out on sunny days. I'd rather spend $29k on a square body Chevy