Nickname: newman

Review: GM's issues are not with labor,it is with leaderhsip in 3 specific areas; 1) Executives are unable to reduce a bloated product portfolio. Reducing 30-35 US models(from 70+) to what consumers want will reduce advertising, dealer administration,capital,part numbers, staffing, whiling improving manufacturing throughput, and retain models with greatest growth/profit potential. 2) Operational Management with divergent goals. Reduce staffing while increasing programs, sell assets (GMAC) while acquiring assets (Conway), eliminate JV (Isuzu/Fuji) while creating strategic alliances (Nissan). Divergent goals lead to poor relationships with investors, employees, suppliers, unions, government, etc. 3) Financial has no control over spending and debt accumulation. How can the finance staff continue to sell programs that don't pay for themselves? Because they are being fed bogus information from the functions with little understanding of the business/data. Good Luck!

Date reviewed: Jul 5, 2006 10:29 PM

Nickname: Reality

Review: A tie-up of GM and Nissan-Renault would only be a weight around GM's Neck. It doesn't make sense for a company losing money to tie up with two other losers. Nissan is not a market leader in the U.S. and they're stumbling. Renault got kicked out of the US back in the 70s. GM would need a stronger partner like Honda, Toyota, possibly BMW. Anyway, like a previous poster stated, these tie-ups rarely work. GM's main problem right now is perception in the media. Most articles state reliabiltity issues like it's a fact. In my personal experience, my domestic cars have been as reliable or more reliable then my Honda, Isuzu and VWs.

Date reviewed: Jul 5, 2006 3:17 PM

Nickname: TnT

Review: You are kidding, of course, when you mention that Ford would have access to Ghosn's cost-cutting knowledge. Knowledge of the process is not a mystery--execution is, especially when you take into consideration the effect on employees, as well as the stockholders.

Date reviewed: Jul 5, 2006 2:36 PM

Nickname: alex

Review: Like I've said before if GM would reduce its brands from 8 to 4 or five strength brands it would be able to survive, save marketing dollars, save on design and cost, and ring up higher sales for automotive dealers who will have an entire strong line up of cars under one brand to easily sell to customers. Buick only has two good products, all of the minivans under every brand are outdated and not selling well. A strength brand like Chevrolet that offers something for everyone is doing great. Hummer, Saturn, Buick, and GMC should all be merged into a brand modeled after Chevrolet's something for everyone attitude. Chevrolet is ringing up almost as much sales as the entire Ford America brand group. GM must follow those steps to survive.

Date reviewed: Jul 5, 2006 3:56 AM

Nickname: Denny

Review: GM neeeds focus more than anything. Its game of internal competition made some sense back fifty years ago when it had 50%+ of the domestic car market. Those day are gone. As another pointed out, why have virtually identical Chev/GMC truck products chiseling away at its marketing funds? Do they really believe that the public can discern any tangible difference between a Sierra and a Silverado? The public is not that gullible. and, if anything, GM by pretending there is a difference, comes off looking hucksterish in the process. And, GM's top brass needs courage, to stand up to its unions and to its dealer body too and show determined leadership for survival. No makeshift bandaids from here on in. Perhaps someone with earned charisma, like Ghosn, can be GM's ticket to credibility, just as Iacocca was to Chrysler 25 years go.

Date reviewed: Jul 2, 2006 5:15 AM

Nickname: Dr. Unionchild

Review: To nissan guy- Your mean spirited comment about the union worker needs rethinking. Union laborers are not lazy - rather just appreciate the living wage they are paid. GM's problems with the workforce lies mainly in the fact it pays $1500 of every car it manufactures to cover health care costs. Do not blame the worker - rather the government for long denying universal healthcare. How can American companies compete with their rivals in the world market place while every other manufacturer has their government to cover these costs.

Date reviewed: Jul 1, 2006 6:20 PM

Nickname: dodgeman

Review: Better yet....Since both GM and Ford are in deep finacial straits maybe they should just merge and keep it all American?

Date reviewed: Jul 1, 2006 4:54 PM

Nickname: Taggart

Review: I'm not a big fan of GM Chairman and CEO G. Richard Wagoner Jr., but it is obvious that Kirk Kerkorian is grasping at straws. This deal makes very little sense. These schemes have been hashed out before and they rarely have worked in the auto industry.

Date reviewed: Jul 1, 2006 11:04 AM

Nickname: Ashcrest

Review: GM should (1) lose 35-50% of its dealer network (2) merge the car lines into two dealership/design divisions; Buick-Chevy (Buick is GM's Asia big seller, Chevy is big in Latin America with re-badged Opels and big in Europe with re-badged Daiwoos) Merge Cadillac and Pontiac (both are marketing "performance") How do you take care of the Health Care costs? GM becomes a Canadian Company, or maybe the US gets a national health care program. I must be kidding! The White House/Congress has their hands full with trying to eliminate the Middle Class to do anything like that.

Date reviewed: Jul 1, 2006 2:09 AM

Nickname: nissanguy

Review: Nissan should just buy GM and sell off the overlapping parts and get rid of all those lazy overpaid American Union workers!

Date reviewed: Jun 30, 2006 9:55 PM