Elimination of Personal Waste Baskets at the [GM] Warren Tech Center

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

“In the coming weeks we will begin to implement a relatively new cost savings initiative at the Warren Tech Center. This initiative deals with the personal waste baskets that are present in most all of the office work stations and conference rooms. Our plan is to eliminate these waste baskets and transition to a modified method of personal office waste disposal.

The current process that most of you should be following in a office environment is to dispose of your office waste in three separate waste streams.

1, Any recyclable paper and/or materials (transparencies, phone books, catalogs, mail, electronic media, photographs, diskettes, blueprints, audio/video tapes, newspapers, magazines, envelopes, file folders, etc…) should be disposed of in the grey confidential bins.

2. Any food waste or associated containers and wrappers, should be disposed of into the food waste containers strategically located in your office areas.

3. Other items like Kleenex, paper towels, plastic wrappers, and such traditionally go into your office waste basket.

The new process will be to dispose of your office waste in two separate waste streams.

1, Any recyclable paper and/or materials (transparencies, phone books, catalogs, mail, electronic media, photographs, diskettes, blueprints, audio/video tapes, newspapers, magazines, envelopes, file folders, etc…) should be disposed of in the grey confidential bins.

2. Any other waste (food waste or associated containers and wrappers, Kleenex, paper towels, plastic wrappers, and such) should be disposed of into the food waste containers strategically located in your office areas.

When we remove your personal waste basket we will supply you with one of the white cardboard open top recycle boxes if you don’t already have one. You will use this to collect and transport your recyclables and other general trash. We ask that you place each in the proper containers. (food waste or grey recycle bins)

The Janitorial staff will no longer empty trash from your work station or from conference rooms.

We will increase the number of food waste containers to compensate for the increase in volume.

This will result in significant cost savings for General Motors and help us with mandated cleaning staff reductions.
Benefits would include:

Reduced cleaning costs and headcount.

Reduction in the quantity of trash can liners purchased.

Increased emphasis on recycling and reduction of land fill use. (We find a lot of recyclable paper in the waste baskets, wastebasket trash go into our landfills)”

[thanks to you-know-who-you-are]


Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 50 comments
  • JK43123 JK43123 on Nov 25, 2008
    Isn’t this centrally located nose-blowing-bin likely to spread disease? No, you have to think UAW. Germs bank! John

  • Ronnie Schreiber Ronnie Schreiber on Nov 25, 2008
    20 years of declining market share would seem to present a convincing set of data points. You can say the same about Apple. According to Gartner their share of the personal computer market has dropped from 15% in 1980 to less than 3% today. You can also find Apple fanboys who explain why that doesn't matter, that with size of the overall market expanding their sales went up. The cult of Jobs is dedicated to Apple regardless. FWIW, I did IT support at a site that had about 400 Macs and 400 Wintel boxes(later transitioning to PCs entirely), I've alway liked Apple products and think that their operating systems have always been more user friendly and intuitive than the competition. I have nothing against Apple, I just think a lot of consumers operate on "conventional wisdom" that's not very wise and make excuses for companies they like that they'd never make for Detroit.

  • Rng65694730 All auto makers seem to be having problems ! Still supply chain issues !
  • MrIcky I'd go 2500 before I went 1500 with a 6.2. I watched an engineer interview on the 2.7l. I appreciate that their focus on the 2.7 was to make it perform like a diesel and all of their choices including being a relatively large i4 instead of an i6 were all based around it feeling diesel like in it's torque delivery. It's all marketing at the end of the day, but I appreciated hearing the rationale. Personally I wouldnt want to tow much more than 7-8k lbs with a light truck anyway so it seems to fit the 1500 application.
  • MaintenanceCosts If I didn't have to listen to it, I'd take the 2.7 over the 5.3 based both on low-end torque and reliability record (although it's still early). But the 5.3 does sound a lot nicer.
  • Arthur Dailey The Torino Bird which was relatively short lived (3 years), 'feasted' on the prestige originally associated with the T-Bird name. The Cordoba originally did the same as it had a Chrysler nameplate. The Torino 'Bird had modified 'opera' style middle windows, a large hood with a big chrome grill and hood ornament, pop-up headlights, and a 'plush' interior. It was for the time considered a 'good looking' car and could be ordered with a 400 cid engine (the first 2 years) and even a T-bar roof. You can see one just behind De Niro and Liotta in Goodfellas when they are standing in the diner's parking lot and have learned that Pesci has been 'whacked'.Although a basically a renaming/redesign of the (Gran Torino) Elite, the Elite was for a time available with Ford's 460 cid engine.I had both an Elite and a 'Torino Bird'. Although their wheelbases were the same, the 'Bird always seemed 'bigger' both inside and out. The Elite seemed 'faster' but it had the 460 opposed to the 400 in the 'Bird. But those are just subjective judgements/memories on my part. However the 'box Bird' which followed it was a dud. It sold Ok the first year based on the T-Bird name, (probably mostly leases) but it quickly lost any appeal/prestige. Back then, the management/executives of the Toronto Maple Leafs used to get leased T-Birds every year. After the first year of the 'box Bird' they changed to different vehicles.
  • Parkave231 Random question that -- in the interest of full disclosure -- I am too lazy to look up on my own.Back in the day, cars in my mostly-GM family had a hard lock on the steering wheel, such that unless the key was turned to the ACC position, the steering wheel was physically locked in place.I don't recall whether my 2002 Deville locked the wheel in place, but I want to say it didn't, even though it still had a physical key.And now, of course, most everything is push-button, and my current Cadillac doesn't physically lock the wheel.So was the movement away from a literal physical lock of the steering wheel back in the 80s driven solely by the transition to push-button start, or was there some other safety regulation that got rid of them, or just something else that a car manufacturer could omit for cost savings by running something else through software (I'm guessing this since the H/K issue is a thing).
Next