Labor Laughs at GM – Chrysler Merger

labor laughs at gm 8211 chrysler merger

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.

Comments
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.

  • Lou_BC Stupid to kill the 6ft box in the crewcab. That's the most common Canyon/Colorado trim I see. That kills the utility of a small truck. The extended cab was a poor seller so that makes sense. GM should have kept the diesel. It's a decent engine that mates well with the 6 speed. Fuel economy is impressive.
  • Lou_BC High end EV's are selling well. Car companies are taking advantage of that fact. I see quite a few $100k pickups in my travels so why is that ok but $100k EV's are bad? The cynical side of me sees car companies tack on 8k premiums to EV's around the time we see governments up EV credits. Coincidence? No fooking way.
  • EBFlex "I'd add to that right now, demand is higher than supply, so basic business rules say to raise the price."Demand is very low. Supply is even lower. Saying that demand is outstripping supply without providing context is dishonest at best.
  • IBx1 Took them long enough to make the dashboard look halfway decent in one of their small trucks.
  • Mcs You're right. I'd add to that right now, demand is higher than supply, so basic business rules say to raise the price. The battery tech is rapidly changing too. A battery tech in production today probably won't be what you're using in 2 years. In 4 years, something different. Lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Now cobalt and in some cases nickel isn't needed. New materials like prussian blue might need to be sourced. New sources might mean investing in mines. LMFP batteries from CATL are entering production this year and are a 15% to 20% improvement in density over current LFP closing the density gap with NCA and NCM batteries. So, more cars should be able to use LMFP than were able to use LFP. That will lower costs to automakers, but I doubt they'll pass it on. I think when the order backlogs are gone we'll stop seeing the increases. Especially once Tesla's backlog goes away. They have room to cut prices on the Model Y and once they start accumulating unsold vehicles at the factory lot, that price will come tumbling down.
Next