General Motors to Lay Off 2,000 Employees in Ohio and Michigan

http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/general-motors-layoffs-ohio-michigan/

by FuNe • 10 years ago

69 120 10 years ago

This news is obviously important and shows a key trend in the vehicle industry but dailymail is utter garbage as a news source and in no way trustworthy for facts.

Would recommend truth seekers visit one of the following:

http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/general-motors-layoffs-ohio-mi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-generalmotors-layoffs-idUS...

FuNe• 10 years ago

I agree and sorry for linking to dm piece (I'll be more careful next time). I see though the link was changed - not by me though (you cannot change a link after submission which would be handy). Also it would be more appropriate/accurate as it now appears that I submitted a link which I actually did not.

@HN admin

phmagic• 10 years ago

Interesting, little is mentioned of re training workers for their new products

ssharp6• 10 years ago

The factory that makes the Cruze is set up to make the Cruze and it will continue to make Cruzes, just 16 hours a day instead of 24.

They might be able to work in another model on the same platform as the Cruze but they can't build Cruzes for 16 hours a day and then switch to building trucks.

GM does typically offers reassignments but maybe workers expect to be called back at some point.

whistlecrackers• 10 years ago

Different plants. BoF vs. unibody.

angry_octet5• 10 years ago

People are buying more trucks and SUVs and fewer small cars?

I mean, I get that people are climate change deniers, but there is no need to be rude about it.

dugditches• 10 years ago

Yes.

The price of gasoline at the pumps has gone down due to the dip in Oil Markets.

So people were drawn back to SUVs and Trucks. I don't many give much thought to Climate Change. Lots of people drive Trucks with Crewcabs as a social symbol rather than a work vehicle. And could easily get by with a Car. There's a certain masculinity tied to it.

People are able to easily get more money loaned to afford these more expensive vehicles as well.

cema3• 10 years ago

Not sure about trucks but modern SUVs have a good mpg rating. About as good as recent sedans.

greggman2• 10 years ago

Im sure this is a dumb question but why are your energy wasteful activities ok but others' are not?

Who gets to decide that? Maybe you flew 5hrs somewhere and your jet fuel environmental damage ends up being larger for the year than the suv driver who didn't make any long distance trips

I think this points to a basic issue. The only way forward is progress like Tesla and Impossible Foods and not in some elites choosing which wasteful activities are ok and which aren't

Shivetya• 10 years ago

buying phones and computers that fly, yes FLY, from China is acceptable to many because they don't see it. however they see a lone driver in a CUV/SUV and freak out without thinking beyond the fact that most families can afford one or two cars and don't have specific vehicles for commuting. So it is far easier to lump guilt on what you see or have to see versus what you cannot.

The way forward isn't tied to any particular brand. Its pulling back from a marketing driven world which has convinced people that not only do they need all of it they deserve it.

maxerickson3• 10 years ago

Would it be elite to tax both activities relative to the estimated damage?

(Passenger miles really aren't so bad, an airliner with a few hundred people on it is doing a lot more work than a commuter's SUV)

rtpg• 10 years ago

The difference between driving an SUV in towns and taking a flight is that there aren't many more fuel-efficient ways to cross the pacific.

Agree with the sentiment, though. We all want to make improvements. The strongest way to cut waste probably is less around making our current lifestyles cleaner (electric cars, easier to grow food), and more around making our lifestyles themselves cleaner (walkable cities, stop eating as much, or as much meat).

EDIT: Yeah, maybe I shouldn't ever cross the Pacific. It is a luxury in itself.

angry_octet5• 10 years ago

Whoa, hit a raw nerve there. Seems like you feel 'people' have been a bit holier than thou, a bit preachy about this whole 'I'm doing my bit why aren't you'?

I got to break it to you, this is not about making sure you get your fair share of the pie. This is about there being any pie at all.

And whatever the reason is that people are deliberately choosing massively more costly vehicles (in terms of gas and capital costs), there needs to be a lot more persuading of people in their purchasing decisions. It needs to be not cool to buy a truck to drive to the office.

I'm sure their will be an electric F350 (massive torque! The Model S P85 weighs half as much but has 50% more) but do we all need to drive one to work?!

galdosdi• 10 years ago

Forget about the environment! Being hit by an SUV instead of a mid-sized sedan increases your risk of death by over 50%, even if the SUV has no cargo in it and the driver is commuting, alone, to work.

Choosing SUVs and trucks and other oversize vehicles that are bigger than your actual use case calls for also violently inflicts greater risk of death and injury upon other road users at no benefit to you.

This is because doubling the weight of two cars in a collision does not make either driver safer; it's a zero sum game. (It's also because bigger vehicles reduce visibility for everyone else.)

It also indirectly creates more congestion -- the vehicles have to fit on the road, slowing maneuvers at intersections and making it less feasible for jurisdictions to manage traffic by repainting N lane roads as N+M lane roads with narrower lanes.

I'm all for getting a large vehicle if you actually use it to haul, but I get angry[1] whenever I see people driving around massive brand new pickup trucks with totally empty beds, two rows of seats, and all the luxury passenger-oriented option as a "lifestyle choice" because it "looks cool" to their buddies. It's essentially a sedan with a bunch of wasted weight and horsepower that fulfills the same goal a T-shirt reading "I'm a real man who needs a truck" would fulfill.

Some references:

http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2014/pounds-kill... http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2002/suvs-really... http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2012/slower-road...

[1] Although I temper my anger with a grain of salt since maybe they do use the bed, just not this time. My anger is against the general trend, not any individual. Still, two rows of seats in a pickup truck is usually the tipoff that the owner primarily uses the vehicle like a sedan. And when I do see stuff in the bed, it's rarely something that wouldn't have fit in a station wagon or minivan. It's just so rare to see someone actually using a pickup truck to haul the kind of weight that kind of horsepower is made for...

chestervonwinch• 10 years ago

People buy trucks for two purposes: utility (ability to haul loads, etc) and transportation. The higher utility comes at a price (more gas), and in general this balances with how frequently you require the the utility of a truck. Currently, gas prices are low, so someone who uses the utility less frequently may be more inclined to purchase a truck.

Clubber2• 10 years ago

I drive an SUV. I work 10 minutes from my house and remote 2 days a week. I fill up the tank of about 20 gallons once a month.

the-dude• 10 years ago

Why do you drive at all?

SeanDav• 10 years ago

There are numerous good reasons to buy a truck or SUV that supersede the question of emissions. Absolutely, the question of emissions should be on the list of considerations, but unless one can understand all the buying reasons/decisions for a particular buyer, one should not rush to judge.

jokoon2• 10 years ago

What kind of reasons?

mikestew2• 10 years ago

People are buying more trucks and SUVs and fewer small cars?

I own a Nissan Leaf and a motorcycle that gets 50mpg. That gets cancelled out every year when I hop on a cross-country flight to visit my parents in FL. But I still get to signal my environmental concern every time I drive the Leaf!

angry_octet5• 10 years ago

And would it be better or worse if instead of a Leaf you drove a truck?

test1235• 10 years ago

is a response to what the company believes will be a continued shift from cars to crossovers and trucks.

What's a 'crossover'?

lallysingh• 10 years ago

Looks like an SUV from the outside, but based on a unibody. Not body-on-frame like traditional trucks.

hellogoodbyeeee• 10 years ago

It's a vehicle that is larger than a car but smaller than an SUV. They generally look like tiny SUVs

tubbs• 10 years ago

Examples would include the Toyota RAV4, Jeep Renegade, Audi Q5, BMW X1/X3/X5/X6, Ford Edge, Nissan Juke, and the beloved Pontiac Aztek.

loudmax• 10 years ago

Newer model Subaru Outback is a good example. It looks something like an SUV, but the shape shows that it descended from a station wagon, not a pickup truck.

ssharp6• 10 years ago

Almost all SUV's are crossovers these days, including the three row ones. There are still some on truck frames like the Suburban but the market has almost entirely shifted. I assume they're cheaper to build that way, lighter, and also drive more like a car than a truck.

komodo• 10 years ago

SUV = built on top of truck body/platform; these are almost extinct

crossover = looks like an SUV, but is built on a car body/platform and thus generally smaller

tlrobinson• 10 years ago

I have to wonder if the timing of this announcement isn't a coincidence, given the relevance to Trump's platform, and Ohio and Michigan being swing states...

rubyfan• 10 years ago

Yes, looks like they tried not to sway the vote. But yeah, I'm sure this isn't the first layoff in these states anyway, which is probably why they went Trump.

I wonder if there will be more layoffs and an offshoring scramble in the lead up to Trump taking office for fear of his administration enacting penalties, etc.

snsr3• 10 years ago

But yeah, I'm sure this isn't the first layoff in these states anyway

It certainly isn't, and this won't be the last.

phkahler2• 10 years ago

> what the company believes will be a continued shift from cars to crossovers and trucks.

This part hints (to me anyway) that they may have waited for the election. Trump seems to be a fan of fossil fuels, so that would suggest cheap oil will be around for a while and people will be more willing to buy bigger vehicles. The article also points out that these vehicles are not selling well enough to support 3 shifts, so it probably has very little to do with union concerns. I suspect it's just a straight business decision based on a market forecast which was solidified by the election. They probably waited a bit for the election to feed that into the forecast.

closeparen2• 10 years ago

From GM, anyway.

I see plenty of small cars around, but they're the Prius, Civic, Accord, Corolla, Camry, Fit, Golf, and Mazda3.

dangerboysteve• 10 years ago

There is no doubt this was timed and the democrats asked GM to sit on this news until after the election.

revo13• 10 years ago

Regardless of conspiracy theories, it was definitely the responsible thing to do to wait.

johndoez• 10 years ago

Two long term trends: automation car sharing/hiring

Both mean that in the case of autos, Trump won't be able to bring manufacturing home in terms of jobs.

pavlov2• 10 years ago

In energy policy, Trump wants to make coal more affordable compared to renewables. Applying similar logic, he should work to enact legislation to prohibit automated vehicles or make them very expensive so they can't be deployed widely.

In 2020, Trump can point to this piece of legislation and tell voters: "Silicon Valley billionaires tried to put a million truckers and taxi drivers out of work, but I prevented that!"

I wonder how that would sit with Peter Thiel.

Anyone who expects the upcoming all-Republican government to be innovation-friendly may be in for a rude awakening. I have a feeling that many "job protection" solutions from Congress will be similar in spirit to the state laws that prevent Tesla from selling cars directly. In other words, there will be more legislation that's friendly to established business but hostile to SV's cherished "disruption". (Republican voters said loud and clear that they haven't liked being disrupted.)

EDIT: I expanded this comment into a post on Medium: https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-hold-...

lifeisstillgood• 10 years ago

  > Republican voters said loud and clear that they haven't 
  liked being disrupted.

This is a perfect comment.

Spooky232• 10 years ago

Great point. People pay too much attention to the republican rhetoric about reduced regulation, spending, etc.

The reality is that they help out their friends. There's only one way to generate jobs for coal miners.

raverbashing• 10 years ago

Well Peter Thiel can enjoy the consequences of his actions...

ssharp6• 10 years ago

I find Trump repugnant and don't think he's remotely fit to lead the U.S. but what has he said that makes you think he's going to be against private-sector-driven innovation?

Sectors that require, or are helped substantially by, the government to innovate will almost certainly suffer but what makes you think he would interfere with private enterprise?

Trump doesn't like business regulation and seems to want to make it easier for businesses to operate. Obviously that has negative consequences some some things but would also mean he wouldn't interfere.

Where he does want to make changes is in regards to trade and outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries.

As far as Republican leadership in the House and Senate, there is no doubt that they'll play favorites with lobbyists but Trump's main appeal was that he WASN'T like that. If he is like that, we'll have a Democratic Congress in two years and a new president in four.

Spooky232• 10 years ago

Both of those things can have regulatory bullets put into their heads, which can delay them for years.

willyph• 10 years ago

These layoffs are simply part of the cyclical nature of the automotive industry and the continual flux of consumer preferences.

sfifs• 10 years ago

India actually uses a rather simple strategy to keep car jobs. We simply tax all car imports at 100%. Full car kit imports that need to be assembled in India are taxed at a lower rate and companies that manufacture and setup local supply chains get tax concessions. Guess how global car manufacturers respond.

In a labor heavy supply chain like car manufacturing, it still boggles my mind why major consumer markets like the US would allow easy car imports at all.

kylehotchkiss• 10 years ago

American lawmakers love their German cars :D

jandrese3• 10 years ago

It will be interesting to see Trump attempt to follow through on his promise to eliminate NAFTA and slap tariffs on imported goods. Somehow I doubt he will have a lot of support from congress on that goal, as pretty much every senator and representative is in the pockets of big multinationals who have already moved their manufacturing overseas or to Mexico.

This is one area he really can't ignore. A lot of people voted for him because he promised to bring their jobs back and they're very keen on seeing manufacturing return to the US.

thenewwazoo2• 10 years ago

in the pockets of big multinationals

Your comment dismisses any concern that tariffs could be a bad thing, and ignores literally hundreds of years of research and experimentation that shows trade barriers to have negative effects on economic health and international peace. He may have little support from congress because congresspeople believe it to be _a bad idea_.

jandrese3• 10 years ago

I suspect your average Congressman has never read a single one of those studies but have gotten letters from donors telling them that they want free trade deals.

It's pretty hard to convince someone in Pennsylvania that free trade deals are good for them when the only factory in town just shut down because China flooded the marked with unbelievably cheap steel.

thomaskcr2• 10 years ago

I understand tariffs aren't good when taken alone, but what else can you do to put the US on an even playing field? We want to have strict environmental laws, which make manufacturing more expensive and then companies move to where there is no EPA so we lost jobs and new laws are a net negative for the environment.

My opinion is that there should be tariffs to make up for the differences in laws anywhere without similar laws - if you want to pay workers pennies a day no problem, but you're going to pay the difference on the way in. China might let you destroy their local environment but you'll pay for the effects of your pollution on the way in.

Trade deals should come with negotiations that will help us with our global warming problem at the very least - if you want to have a trade deal you'll need to match or beat the regulations we follow or the tariff will reflect an approximation of the difference in cost.

I think that it is a bit problematic that the majority of those for free trade also want policies that discourage domestic manufacturing like an increase in minimum wage and increased environmental regulations.

digler9994• 10 years ago

It really sounds like you're using the "studies have shown" fallacy.

What I see with "free trade" agreements is exploitation and creative accounting. Send your manufacturing one mile across the border to hire cheap labor through "third parties" that have much weaker workers' rights laws, no healthcare, and lax environmental oversight.

Then send those products back to the US and reap tremendous profit, while having your hands clean of any environmental or human exploitation because it was done on another "set of books" across the border. Same amount of damage, but we reap massive profits while keeping our noses clean. What's not to love about that ?

tn132• 10 years ago

Protectionist policies lead to economic slowdown, destruction of wealth and hurts common consumer. Lessen USA already learned when it first stared at the problem during Japanese Cars invaded US market. An average American is way better off because of Toyota and Nissan than what protectionist nonsense would have done.

Not to mention none of it prevented USA from creating Tesla.

Americans need to be really lot more confident about their place in the world instead of following third world policies of protectionism.

jandrese3• 10 years ago

The majority (well, technically a minority whos votes counted more) just voted for protectionism. If Trump wants to be more than a 1 term president he needs to at least make it look like he's following through. This is issue #1 for a huge chunk of his support base.

woobar• 10 years ago

Somehow I doubt he will have a lot of support from congress on that goal, as pretty much every senator and representative is in the pockets of big multinationals

Or maybe because they don't want to anger a lot of still employed people that could lose their jobs when other countries impose counter-tariffs on american exports?

digler9994• 10 years ago

american exports

you mean all those empty intermodal containers that head out of our ports ?

greenpizza13• 10 years ago

If Trump doesn't do anything about this will they finally believe he's not really interested in anything but their votes and money?

General Motors to Lay Off 2,000 Employees in Ohio and Michigan

Related Stories