GM to Cut Pontiac, 21,000 Jobs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
GM to Cut Pontiac, 21,000 Jobs
44
Mon, 04-27-2009 - 11:01am

My heart goes out to all those people without jobs. :(


http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story/GM-to-Cut-Pontiac-21-000-Jobs/kYLlxaZ6t0KZbtFj5yAwEw.cspx


General Motors says it will cut 21,000 hourly jobs and the entire Pontiac brand in what is being called a major restructuring effort.

Under the plan, GM will cut hourly employees from about 61,000  to around 40,000 in 2010. That represents about 1/3 of the total hourly workforce, and is between 7,000 and 8,000 more workers than the previously announced cuts.

The company will also be cutting about 1/3 of their plants by 2012. The plan calls for them to have 34 plants when the restructuring is complete. That's down from the current total of 47. No details are yet known on what plants will be cut.

GM will also cut 14 nameplates from their current total of 48, leaving them with 34. Again, no details on which nameplates will be cut, but it presumably includes all of Pontiac's nameplates. The company says it will concentrate on its core brands of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC. It is also accelerating plans for Saturn and Hummer, with decisions expected on those brands by the end of 2009.

The company's dealerships will also be slashed by 42%, to about 3,000. GM currently has over 6,000 dealers.

bird-1.jpg New picture by 1944misty    The WeatherPixie 

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Wed, 04-29-2009 - 3:58pm

In my family we buy American cars. In the future, it looks like Ford will be our only remaining choice.

I am puzzled by people who complain about American cars not being good enough, then write how awful it is that Americans are out of work.

SUV's and mini-vans kept American car makers in business for the past 20 years. The smaller cars, which the government mandates to meet CAFE have cost makers dearly.

Our last GM car was a Pontiac. It lasted for over 200,000 miles and was replaced only when it could no longer be reasonably repaired.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 04-29-2009 - 4:11pm

Show me a car manufacturer which was doing well in December! I suspect there's a strong, probably causal, relationship between overall economic performance, gasoline prices, and the nosedive of car sales figures for both hybrids and conventional automobiles. People were wary of making big expenditures and dropping gasoline prices kept them from making the switch to a hybrid.

Apparently, hesitation is no longer the case, maybe because Obama has made it clear he hopes to seriously back alternatives other than cheap oil. From the same blog as that which you quoted (http://www.hybridcarblog.com/) under yesterday's (April 28) date heading:
"By June Toyota will be producing 50,000 Prius hybrids per month, a 25 percent increase in production from Toyota's original plans.
GreenCarCongress reports, "Pre-orders for the new hybrid began in April, and exceeded 40,000 early last week. They are expected to keep climbing to anywhere between 60,000 and 70,000 before the launch date, indicating unusually robust demand for a new model."

As regards personal cost for driving a vehicle with low mpg, I guess as long as gas prices stay down, it might appeal in terms of avoiding purchase of a more fuel efficient vehicle like a hybrid. But don't forget to factor in the cost of taxes to pay for ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; cleanup of oil spills and environmental contamination, emissions inspections, boutique fuel blends for high smog metropolitan areas, etc. You don't see the price at the pump but it still must be paid by us collectively (4,000+ U.S. dead in Iraq so there's blood in that gasoline too), if not by you individually.

Gasoline prices won't stay down. I guarantee it. The oil companies tweak prices to ensure maximum profit (and boy, do they have myriad "explanations" for skyrocketing prices--refinery shutdowns, lack of access to ANWR or Gulf oil drilling, tensions in the Middle East, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico....the excuse du jour) but they have to be careful to avoid any long-term dissatisfaction which might drive consumers to new habits and alternatives. Don't want to kill the goose laying the golden egg!

Oil companies, through actions both direct and indirect, have made it damn near impossible for alternatives to become viable in the marketplace. If something looks like it might threaten fossil fuel domination, suddenly "fuel demand has dropped" and so do oil prices. The startup withers because it can't compete economically. Have seen it happen before. Most oil companies are multi-national, owe no particular loyalty to the U.S., and will do whatever best serves their bottomline. I certainly don't want the same companies or individuals glomming onto new technologies or a new energy source and continuing the goose monopoly! And more fool us for continuing to lay those eggs. In fact, one wonders why people don't see that pattern of behavior and rebel against it. Short memories? Lack of critical thinking? What?!

With a son in Iraq in 2003, there was powerful incentive for the purchase of a hybrid. And I do judge, because of that wrenching experience, the single driver of a big SUV or gas guzzler--and wonder if that person would drive that vehicle if they had a loved one serving in the Middle East.

As regards the other measures of conservation you mentioned, sounds like you practice "reduce, re-use, recycle". Makes sense. I practice the same measures, save for the dishwasher. Here in the Southwest, water is as precious as energy and a dishwasher can actually use less water than if dishes were washed by hand. I installed a low flow toilet and used the old high flow fixture as a planter--has poppies in the water tank and I'm going out now to plant a tomato seedling in the bowl!

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-2007
Wed, 04-29-2009 - 5:47pm

I'm with you, I don't understand why people complain about the quality of American cars, or how bad they are on gas, etc.

GO NOLES!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 04-29-2009 - 6:41pm

Eh? Being big and fuel-guzzling isn't enough?! Of course, much also depends on HOW vehicles are being driven, regardless of size. But when a driver of a massive and oversized vehicle is ruling as "king of the road", they (vehicle and driver in tandem) can be intimidating and dangerous.

Also clarify, if you would please, what you consider to be "decent" mileage per gallon. I know of NO U.S. made car which gets, highway and city averaged, a rating of more than 40 mpg. If you don't believe me, consult this link: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/bymake/bymanuNF.shtml

I own a 2001 Ford F250 diesel pickup in addition to a Prius. The pickup is a workhorse and has been used for hauling college kids's stuff back and forth*, mulch, dog, and Craigslist booty. I drive it when I have to go out in road conditions which are snowy or icy, since the Prius, for all its graces, performs poorly when traction is needed.

But the pickup is hard to park, hard to maneuver in tight spaces elsewhere, gets 20 mpg in comparison to the 45-55 mpg of the Prius; and the ONLY reason to drive it is for the purposes I mentioned above (workhorse, road conditions).

BTW, those other hybrids you mentioned are not noticeably more fuel efficient than their conventional counterparts. Most of the "hybrid" boost went into upping horsepower. Go figure. Use the link in the second paragraph to see the latest data.

*between DS and DD, there have been 17 moves of dorm, grad hall or apartment stuff between home, dorm, grad hall or apartment.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 7:04am

Until the mid-90's I lived in S.Calif. where good mileage & economy are key. There weren't any US cars in the 70-80's that ran 30+ MPG. I gave my last Toyota, an '84, to my daughter & it's still running. My Mitsubishi gets 28 MPG plus has AWD which is nice in the Winter time here in CT. All the options came standard...sunroof, luggage rack & such.

If American car makers had made the features & quality I wanted I would have considered buying one.

How about some 'great' US small cars the Gremlin, Corvair?

bird-1.jpg New picture by 1944misty

 


Photobucket&nbs

Avatar for ddnlj
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 10:35am

I have a 20 year old stepson in the Air Force stationed right now in Baghdad. I still can't go out and afford another car. I apologize if the sight of me in my Explorer is "wrenching" to you, but what's wrenching to me is being judged by people who are so short-sighted that they would find fault with others they know nothing about.


Especially in this economy I would think we could all have a little compassion and understanding for each other, but I'm finding so many people are so self-absorbed in their own little agendas that they seem to have lost all sense of humanity.


Right now it's all I can do to put a decent meal on the table in front of my family. My husband's company was sold yesterday. We have no idea where that will lead. Buying a car - Prius or otherwise - is completely out of the question in our lives. We have to keep and take care of what we have because it's ALL we have.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 12:03pm

Perhaps the "short-sighted", "find fault", "self-absorbed" and "judgmental" arrows were aimed in my direction. If so, I don't accept the criticisms as warranted.

WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. In the 1970's. Lessons should have been learned and were not. Shall we talk about "short-sighted"!?

And I do find fault with and am judgmental about a nation which is so insistent on its cheap fuel and profligate patterns of energy consumption that it will heap a burden on its all-volunteer military, of fighting wars to procure fossil fuel access and keep it. Something is horribly, horribly wrong with that. We are decadent, willful, and riding for a fall to insist on a status quo which has cost a relative few so much. Is that "self-absorption" or is it a huge concern over the well being of the personnel of our armed forces who have no choice but to follow orders?!

As regards your personal situation, it's doubtful that I will ever see you since we live in different parts of the country. Drive whatever vehicle you choose, with whatever rationale you wish. How I perceive the net impact is not going to matter a whit. But as is the case with many decisions and actions, what may be a minor impact at the level of one family or one person, will certainly have a far greater effect when the numbers are multiplied into the thousands and millions.

Regardless, I certainly hope that your stepson stays safe; unscathed mentally, spiritually, and physically. It may be that the new owner of your husband's company will find ways to keep all the same employees.

I wish you and your family well.




Edited 4/30/2009 12:18 pm ET by jabberwocka

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 5:04pm

I completely disagree.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 6:00pm

You asked & I'm answering...however, this is not intended to be mean or critical...JMHO.


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Thu, 04-30-2009 - 7:41pm

Small cars are more dangerous. Making smaller cars will result in more Americans dead. Personally I'm opposed to needless death, and thus am opposed to small cars on our roads.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/14/iihs-finds-sub-compacts-fair-poorly-again/

Although the physics of frontal car crashes usually are described in terms of what happens to the vehicles, injuries depend on the forces that act on the occupants, and these forces are affected by two key physical factors. One is the weight of a crashing vehicle, which determines how much its velocity will change during impact. The greater the change, the greater the forces on the people inside and the higher the injury risk. The second factor is vehicle size, specifically the distance from the front of a vehicle to its occupant compartment. The longer this is, the lower the forces on the occupants.

Size and weight affect injury likelihood in all kinds of crashes. In a collision involving two vehicles that differ in size and weight, the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle will be at a disadvantage. The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle. Greater force means greater risk, so the likelihood of injury goes up in the smaller, lighter vehicle.

Crash statistics confirm this. The death rate in 1-3-year-old minicars in multiple-vehicle crashes during 2007 was almost twice as high as the rate in very large cars.

"Though much safer than they were a few years ago, minicars as a group do a comparatively poor job of protecting people in crashes, simply because they're smaller and lighter," Lund says. "In collisions with bigger vehicles, the forces acting on the smaller ones are higher, and there's less distance from the front of a small car to the occupant compartment to 'ride down' the impact. These and other factors increase injury likelihood."

The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars. The lower death rate is because many objects that vehicles hit aren't solid, and vehicles that are big and heavy have a better chance of moving or deforming the objects they strike. This dissipates some of the energy of the impact.

Some proponents of mini and small cars claim they're as safe as bigger, heavier cars.

But the claims don't hold up. For example, there's a claim that the addition of safety features to the smallest cars in recent years reduces injury risk, and this is true as far as it goes. Airbags, advanced belts, electronic stability control, and other features are helping. They've been added to cars of all sizes, though, so the smallest cars still don't match the bigger cars in terms of occupant protection.

Would hazards be reduced if all passenger vehicles were as small as the smallest ones? This would help in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, but occupants of smaller cars are at increased risk in all kinds of crashes, not just ones with heavier vehicles. Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn't be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes.

Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.