zlacker

>>cmcgin+(OP)
As a libertarian immigrant, I don't care for unions. Please no Ayn Rand jokes, I can't stand her.

So while the unions are certainly a big part of the problem, the responsibility is ultimately with management. It is ALWAYS management's fault.

It doesn't matter if it is GM or a start up, it's management. If you are considering going to work for a startup, the management should be the most important factor in your decision.

GM's management could have changed the company culture to be as efficient and productive as Toyota's. It's not like Toyota made a secret of how it works.

GM could have seen the decline of proven and easy to access oil reserves, and the rise of the middle class in the BRIC countries and done the math. They are in the car business, so they ought to have seen what's coming.

But no, crap giant gas guzzlers. The unions didn't do that, it was management.

>>biohac+71
I think the stupid SUV's are the only thing that kept GM around this long. They probably would have died years ago if they never came up with them (the damn things are pure profit).

As for Toyota-style management? It's difficult to do with strong, uncooperative unions. Want to replace 100 workers by robots? Not happening. Want to give workers decision making power, tempered by accountability for their decisions? The union demands more money for the decisions, and thinks that "accountability" means "talk to the steward."

There is a reason Toyota builds factories in Kentucky instead of Detroit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/04uaw.html?_r=1&#...

I'm not saying GM made no mistakes, but unions did play a huge role.