5 ms·

BIG DISCLAIMER: I WORK FOR GM! Disclaimer: What follow are my personal opinions! Given the above, I do not think GM has always been right. GM has been part of

by csours 12y ago

BIG DISCLAIMER: I WORK FOR GM! Disclaimer: What follow are my personal opinions! Given the above, I do not think GM has always been right. GM has been part of many morally questionable practices. I think GM was on a terrible course from the mid 1970's to the early 2000's[0]. Those diesel engines in particular were incredibly shitty. My dad was one of those guys who loved the idea of diesel and who got the stares and the smirks.[1] In the early 2000's they started to try to change. It is very difficult to change a large organization like GM.[2] I don't think today's GM is the same GM from 1920, 1939, 1970, or 1990. If it was, I wouldn't work here. Many say it would have been worth it to let GM die. Under circumstances other than the 2008 economic downturn, it might have been. Much of the severity of the 2008 crisis was largely (immediately) due to shock related to the collapse of Lehman Brothers [3] and the refusal of anyone to take over those assets at any price. Very few people worked for Lehman Bros. A LOT of people work in the automotive ecosystem. Before bailing out GM, the govt and GM DID look around for other financing/buyout options. No one wanted to take that on. The saying "whats good for GM is good for the country" is largely outdated nowadays, but many people still think that way, and the collapse of GM would have been psychologically devastating, as well as financially devastating to many thousands of people. [0] The infamous "ignition switch" design process started in 1997 (Valukas PDF page 35). The Valukas report is very interesting, I recommend it for everyone who is interested in system design. http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/NHTSA+Electronic+Reading+Room+(ERR) http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/NHTSA+Electronic+Reading+Ro... (bullet 4) [1] My family has owned a 80's VW diesel rabbit, an 81 diesel Audi 5000 (20 years old at time of purchase), an 80's diesel Suburban (terrible engine), and various diesel work trucks. [2] GM is not a single organization. It is more accurate to think of all the external organizations such as: UAW-GM, GM branded dealerships (which are not owned by GM), GM Suppliers (which also supply other companies). Then there are all the internal organizations: GM Truck Manufacturing, GM Car Manufacturing, Global Brands, etc, etc, etc. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/f... From the above: In addition, the government’s inconsistent handling of major financial institutions during the crisis—the decision to rescue Bear Stearns and then to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, followed by its decision not to save Lehman Brothers and then to save AIG—increased uncertainty and panic in the market.

Cowicide 12y ago
>GM has been part of many morally questionable practices. I think GM was on a terrible course from the mid 1970's to the early 2000's Yeah, erm.. about that timeline. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/18/gm-cobalt-g5-faulty-ignition-switches-recall-deaths-airbags/5582241/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/18/gm-cobal... I think it's safe to say GM didn't exactly clean up its act after the early 2000's. If I did that same thing with my small business, I'd probably be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence... or perhaps outright murder since I knowingly allowed innocent people to die in order to rake in more cash. > If it was, I wouldn't work here. k
- csours 12y ago
  Every death and injury caused by those ignition switch failures was a tragedy. The attitude of the managers involved was wrong. The technical understanding of the complete system was unacceptable. It should not have taken as long as it did, and the defects should not have left the planning process, much less the plant. That being said, I do still think that the course was changing. The ignition switch in question was designed in 1997. Vehicles are hideously complicated; Conway's Law[1] would indicate that the organizations involved would also be hideously complicated, and they are! The Valukas report mentioned above calls out specific shortcomings in this regard. If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
  - Cowicide 12y ago
    >The attitude of the managers involved was wrong. That's a very corporate shill way of putting it. Their actions were murderous. They let people DIE. Do you not GET THIS somehow or are you attempting to gloss over this issue? >If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised! Please don't be disingenuous with artful dodging. You're not smart enough to get away with that with me, sorry. I'm VERY OBVIOUSLY not discussing an issue of complexity, I was discussing an issue of ethics and morality. It's an issue where GM knew they were killing people and did nothing about it for a long time because it wasn't profitable. No wonder the GM corporate culture is so twisted. You're trying to turn this around as an attack on my supposedly "simple" business instead of owning up to the fact you work for a scummy corporation that killed people in the name of the almighty buck. You may not want to face that fact and instead go running to another wikipedia link on humorous adages in hopes of distraction, but I'm not falling for it, guy. People are dead because of your company's lack of ethics. GET IT? If your goal here is to be public relations for GM, you're failing miserably and I suggest you move along. You're just making me resent GM even more. If you were my PR person, I'd fire you for incompetence. But, that's how I run MY business anyway.

by csours 12y ago

Cowicide 12y ago

>GM has been part of many morally questionable practices. I think GM was on a terrible course from the mid 1970's to the early 2000's Yeah, erm.. about that timeline. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/18/gm-cobalt-g5-faulty-ignition-switches-recall-deaths-airbags/5582241/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/18/gm-cobal... I think it's safe to say GM didn't exactly clean up its act after the early 2000's. If I did that same thing with my small business, I'd probably be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence... or perhaps outright murder since I knowingly allowed innocent people to die in order to rake in more cash. > If it was, I wouldn't work here. k

csours 12y ago
Every death and injury caused by those ignition switch failures was a tragedy. The attitude of the managers involved was wrong. The technical understanding of the complete system was unacceptable. It should not have taken as long as it did, and the defects should not have left the planning process, much less the plant. That being said, I do still think that the course was changing. The ignition switch in question was designed in 1997. Vehicles are hideously complicated; Conway's Law[1] would indicate that the organizations involved would also be hideously complicated, and they are! The Valukas report mentioned above calls out specific shortcomings in this regard. If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
- Cowicide 12y ago
  >The attitude of the managers involved was wrong. That's a very corporate shill way of putting it. Their actions were murderous. They let people DIE. Do you not GET THIS somehow or are you attempting to gloss over this issue? >If your small business produced vehicles on the scale of GM, I would be very very surprised! Please don't be disingenuous with artful dodging. You're not smart enough to get away with that with me, sorry. I'm VERY OBVIOUSLY not discussing an issue of complexity, I was discussing an issue of ethics and morality. It's an issue where GM knew they were killing people and did nothing about it for a long time because it wasn't profitable. No wonder the GM corporate culture is so twisted. You're trying to turn this around as an attack on my supposedly "simple" business instead of owning up to the fact you work for a scummy corporation that killed people in the name of the almighty buck. You may not want to face that fact and instead go running to another wikipedia link on humorous adages in hopes of distraction, but I'm not falling for it, guy. People are dead because of your company's lack of ethics. GET IT? If your goal here is to be public relations for GM, you're failing miserably and I suggest you move along. You're just making me resent GM even more. If you were my PR person, I'd fire you for incompetence. But, that's how I run MY business anyway.