Will GM's problems ever end?

[ranma]

That why I wrote about the medications, No it don't have anting to do with automotive issues but it's still relevant due to company practices! GM knew the switch could Fail, Ford knew the pinto gas tank was unsafe, Chrysler knew they had issues with cars in the past. All these companies knew things were wrong and let them slide. Not to get off the subject here but International Harvester had one of the best 4x4's out there. the body's tended to rust badly. but what ended the scout? recall's corperate greed? None of those because Harvester was mainly a farm and truck maker. CAFE' standards killed the scout.

[06daytona]

I have a suspicion that the latest recalls are simply GM doing a CYA thing to prevent further "real" issues. Likely top management went to every division and put it bluntly - "If you know of ANYTHING that COULD cause a major problem because of suspect parts, we need to know NOW". So, you get employees surfacing (or, perhaps it's a secret thing), indicating that such-and-such a car COULD have such-and such an issue, based on parts that are not QUITE up-to-spec, but we decided they were "good enough" at the time.

Better to be safe than sorry, given that everyone will now be jumping onto the lack-of-recall bandwagon any time something goes wrong with their car. And to prevent further bad press showing that GM KNEW the issues with the parts but refused to take any action. So, now, over-act and catch everything before it comes back to bite you.

Just a thought.

[Harry P.]

I have a suspicion that the latest recalls are simply GM doing a CYA thing

See post 356.

[Guest]

Bingo! That's it exactly. The number of recalls or number of cars recalled is not the issue.

This is what I was trying to get across.

[Harry P.]

This is what I was trying to get across.

And you did, perfectly.

[06daytona]

See post 356.

Ah, must have missed that in the tons of posts here. Agree totally!

[Harry P.]

Ah, must have missed that in the tons of posts here. Agree totally!

Yeah, it's a loooooooong thread!

[Tom Geiger]

Right now I'm wondering how many of the guys discussing this issue in this thread work in large corporations. Having worked for Fortune 100 companies for the past 35 years, the environment seems very familiar of what happens in large organizations. Nothing to do with malice or evil individuals, just what happens as people see small bits of information, never the whole. And people get moved to other projects before they can actually act upon something.

For those saying "one death is too many", I submit that if we discontinued every product where a death occurred, there would be no products left to sell. Every single car make and model has had fatalities. It's a matter of occurance, reoccurrance and just how safe a car really has to be. Note the information on Crown Vics earlier in this thread. No car is designed to survive those conditions.

As I read through the pages here I see things that happen in big companies. First, every single one of them make every employee sign (sometimes annually) a "Code of Conduct" that describes the companies ethics in glorious simplicity. Then people are put through half hearted training programs that they again need to sign off that they attended. All of this is nothing more than fluff that enables a company to push off just about anything on employees who have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Employees are placed under very high pressure to perform, make goals and deadlines. Each and every program has due dates needed to keep the entire vehicle production on target. If GM says that they'll start sending Cruzes to the dealers on June 1st, there is intense pressure on everyone to make that goal. And under that pressure mistakes and compromises take place. I can imagine that engineer DeGiorgio was given a specific order such as "get this ignition switch through Quality Assurance by June 1st". He had a very specific job, no doubt with a project number. Other engineers were assigned projects on those very same components, but due to workstreams and such, they may have not known about these other projects or that other engineers were working on things at all. Such a division would be guys assigned to hardware and electrical. The divisions in huge company make that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

So he had an issue that the lock tumbler turned a slight degree too easy for spec. No doubt this didn't seem significant. Heck, turning easier is better than it being hard to turn the key. When you oil a stuck tumbler on your front door lock and it turns easy you are happy. It never occurs to you that maybe it's now turning too easy. Nobody in this scenerio was evil. It's just that nobody at that point in time could imagine that human interaction with that switch... whether it was people with too heavy a key chain hitting against their person would actually turn that switch off and cause the issues that resulted. Remember, DeGiorgio gave his own son a car with that switch. And what was the pressure above him? How many levels of management told him there was no time to go back for a redesign now (as he did later), and to just move ahead to keep things on schedule. Nobody in a corporation wants their small part to be the one that screws up a project! All in all, in the big corporation, they always look for someone to blame. And this guy got the hot potato.

There is also the fact that large manufacturers demand total indemity from their subs. So Delphi will be the one making good on all the costs etc of this debacle. Back when I worked in design for a large oil company, they were having issues finding companies that would sell them piping, valves and such. Their total indemity clause would hold that company completely responsible for any mishap, damage, environmental issue, even loss of production, if that valve ever failed... ever! Some companies would sign and take their chances for such a large contract, but others walked away. Such are corporations. So it's easy for GM engineering to sign off on a vendor part since they're told the part's manufacturer will be held responsible, not them.

I can identify with this whole mess from the corporate end of it. One time I was in an engineering department and the boss was going door to door in my office area asking if we had any project going with a specific construction company. Every single one of us had projects with this contractor, but I didn't that week. Turns out that an employee from that company had an accident. He was cleaning up their construction trailer and picked up a circular saw that didn't have a guard by the blade, absolutely stupid. It was his own fault and wasn't associated with any of our company projects, but our corporate culture was that someone had to be blamed! So some poor engineer who had the sad luck of the draw of having them on a totally unrelated project that week took the hit for a lost time accident. That affected his review, his raise, his promotability and put him on the bottom rung in case of a layoff. And that's the way things work in a big company!

I'm not getting into any GM coverup or any other conspiracy theories the press or people here with no experience in corporate speak come up with. We really don't have the whole story. No doubt by a long shot.

And as far as those ignition switches. Time will show that the defect goes back to Delhi, the manufacturer of the switch. And that nobody at Delhi knew that a heavy keychain pulling on that switch when the car hit a bump in a certain way would turn a car off. And we'll be seeing recalls for that same switch design from different auto manufacturers. Probably already have and we don't realize it. I remember a few years ago my 1999 and 2000 Plymouth Breezes were recalled for the ignition switches. Both were inspected at the dealer and declared defect free. Were those the same switches? Or at least a variation of the same design? And time will show that that very same defect got by the engineering departments of many different auto manufacturers.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Tom Geiger

[Harry P.]

Bottom line: DeGiorgio ok'd the switch for use knowing it didn't meet GM specs. He could have said something. He didn't.

Then he had the switch redesigned but covered his tracks by leaving the old part number in place.

GM knew for years that the switch was a problem. They could have done something. They didn't.

Pretty simple.

[Rob Hall]

Right now I'm wondering how many of the guys discussing this issue in this thread work in large corporations. Having worked for Fortune 100 companies for the past 35 years, the environment seems very familiar of what happens in large organizations. Nothing to do with malice or evil individuals, just what happens as people see small bits of information, never the whole. And people get moved to other projects before they can actually act upon something.

Yes..been there, done that..worked at several Fortune 50 companies as an employee and/or contractor and the amount of questionable stuff that goes on is not surprising..I've seen systemic incompetence and poor 'best practices'. Projects cancelled, people shuffled around, then the same projects restarted..then cancelled again in 6 months.. I like working as a consultant for a small consulting firm now and being able to do work for big companies without becoming part of their dysfunctional organizations..

Edited July 2, 2014 by Rob Hall

[Tom Geiger]

Bottom line: DeGiorgio ok'd the switch for use knowing it didn't meet GM specs. He could have said something. He didn't.

How do you know the buck stopped there? You don't. No doubt he had many layers of management above him that knew, but he was the guy who got tagged. In a large company nobody has the total say in anything. Nobody has the ability to totally stop the train.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen things screw up in companies where a boss who signed off on everything and knew everything fired a low level guy to cover his own incompentence!

In fact I've seen people who have a whole trail of people who they've fired, people whose careers they've ruined... before the company actually realizes that they are the problem.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Tom Geiger

[Harry P.]

How do you know the buck stopped there?

The buck has to stop somewhere! You sound like one of the GM management team.... uh, nothing wrong here, boss! Not my fault! It wasn't me!

DeGiorgio ok'd the switch for use in production. He knew it didn't meet spec, yet he ok'd it. Maybe if he had said, "hey guys, this switch might be a problem," things would have turned out very differently. Then he had the switch redesigned, yet kept the same part number. Hmmmm... why do ya suppose he did that, Tom?

The actions he took were voluntary and of his own choosing.

Come on, Tom... you're a smart guy. Why are you trying to rationalize GM's bad behavior?

[High octane]

How can anyone rationalize millions of recalls???

[Dave Van]

When I read about the new recalls....all I could think was 'how are they going to fix them all??'

Just for fun let's say each recall takes 30 minutes each....from roll in to roll out. I think that's way to short but this is just for fun.

Almost 30 million cars affected.......30 minutes each........15 MILLION man hours to fix them all. I don't care how many mechanics you have

that's a LOT of time......and from what I have read some of the recall fixes will take much more than 30 minutes. It took our local GM dealer 5 days to replace the rusted brake line on my step Mom's car. (to be fair the work 1/2 day Sat and off Sun....but still 3 days)

Any way you look at it....an Albatross around GM's neck for a while!

[mistermodel]

Dave, your math is staggering. How will they do it.??Recall fixes on top of the garages doing non recall warranty issues as well as general maintenance the good wrenches are going to be busy

It amazes me that guys here are still trying to defend the general.Take your heads out of the sand ,its not a general motors culture ay more

[Tom Geiger]

The buck has to stop somewhere! You sound like one of the GM management team.... uh, nothing wrong here, boss! Not my fault! It wasn't me!

DeGiorgio ok'd the switch for use in production. He knew it didn't meet spec, yet he ok'd it. Maybe if he had said, "hey guys, this switch might be a problem," things would have turned out very differently. Then he had the switch redesigned, yet kept the same part number. Hmmmm... why do ya suppose he did that, Tom?

The actions he took were voluntary and of his own choosing.

Come on, Tom... you're a smart guy. Why are you trying to rationalize GM's bad behavior?

Harry, I'm not making excuses for GM. Something bad happened. I am just illustrating how it happens in a huge corporation. I believe DeGiorgio was made the scape goat because in a huge machine like GM, nobody has autonomy to make a major decision. That switch had to go through a bunch of people in different disciplines, and then a few levels of their bosses. Stuff like this happens just like my illustration of the engineer who took the fall for the saw accident that he had nothing to do with.

[Harry P.]

Harry, I'm not making excuses for GM. Something bad happened. I am just illustrating how it happens in a huge corporation. I believe DeGiorgio was made the scape goat because in a huge machine like GM, nobody has autonomy to make a major decision. That switch had to go through a bunch of people in different disciplines, and then a few levels of their bosses. Stuff like this happens just like my illustration of the engineer who took the fall for the saw accident that he had nothing to do with.

At some point somebody has to sign off on a decision. DeGiorgio signed off. It's on him. And it's on GM in general for ignoring the problem for years.

If your point is that this kind of thing is understandable, given the sheer size of the company, i would agree, At GM there are so many people making so many decisions, that bad decisions will inevitably happen once in a while.

But again... it was the fact that GM knew they had a problem, yet did nothing, that is the issue. Not how or why the bad decision was made, but that they knew about it–and did nothing.

[Ace-Garageguy]

.. I am just illustrating how it happens in a huge corporation.. because in a huge machine like GM, nobody has autonomy to make a major decision...

Then if there's no personal accountability, there's something VERY wrong with the corporate organization. This is one reason why I have so little respect for corporate BS excuse making and CYA.

All my own life, as a line mechanic, a racing mechanic, an aircraft mechanic, an engineering consultant, a shop manager, a shop owner, and a custom fabricator / machinist, MY ASS IS ON THE LINE FOR EVERYTHING I DO. Period. Besides the fact that I'm driven to do a good job, WHATEVER I do, being held PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN MISTAKES tends to make me a little more careful.

I'm sure all these clowns make a lot more dough than I do, too.

Maybe a little more personal accountability and a little less hiding in the herd would be a good thing, ya' think ??

[Muncie]

I hate speculating here... we don't have even a fraction of the facts

If the engineer signed off on the PPAP, he probably did it without knowing there could be some sort of problem... signing off a PPAP on a part that does not meet specs is normal - you wouldn't do it on a casting that came in in two pieces, but you might if the primer on a part wasn't the correct shade of gray. If that's what you are saying is GM knew they had a problem, it wouldn't even make the radar screenif he didn't report it back to purchasing or Engineering,.

Parts are not only controlled by the part number - a change that does not affect form, fit, or function can be done as a revision level without changing the part number - been that way for decades. Traceablity is a little more difficult because parts with different revision levels can be mixed - but they can be found. - that was probably done within GM's procedures.

Warranty information is shared with NHTSA under the TREAD Act - so they weren't hiding something they knew. However, the ignition switch probably didn't generate a lot of warranty claims.

We don't have anywhere near the information that GM has to make thier decisions - Right now, they are proceeding with an abundance of caution - partly because of the attention, but mostly because it's the correct thing to do.

Corporations are being painted in some of these posts as some sort of evil empire - the reality is that they are made of indivduals. Whether their uniform is a shirt and tie or jeans and a t-shirt in the plant, they want do a good job, build a good product and keep the customer happy with their work. Pride in workmanship.

Somewhere along the way, I lost my layman status with this stuff so I know GM has way more information than we or the media will ever see. I don't think they are hiding it, they just want to get the cars fixed. My (somewhat experienced) gut feel is that they are doing the right thing - beyond what is required. The media wants to deliver news - and stay in business, too.

Back to the topic, - yeah, GM will do OK

[Muncie]

OK, back to off-topic here...

In my days in the local auto parts store, in the 70's - 40 years ago, we sold ignition switches and lock cylinders. Not a lot, but we had them in stock. When we sold one, the guy usually brought in is old switch and lock cylinder. Then he laid his key ring on the counter next to it because the pound of keys wouldn't fit in his pocket. We pointed at the keys and told him - that's the problem...

I need to go work on a model...

[Harry P.]

I hate speculating here... we don't have even a fraction of the facts...

The Valukas report has the facts. And GM itself admitted that they screwed up big time.

From the NY Times, June 5, 2014:

"Shortly after GM CEO Mary Barra announcing the "deeply troubling" results of a thorough investigation into why it took the automaker years to recall millions of vehicles, federal safety regulators released the report online. The 315 page report chronicles 'a pattern of incompetence and neglect' that led to 'devastating consequences.'

'Repeatedly, individuals failed to disclose critical pieces of information that could have fundamentally changed the lives of those impacted by a faulty ignition switch,' Barra said during an employee town hall meeting Thursday morning at its Warren Technical Center to discuss the report.

Valukas and his team conducted more than 350 interviews with more than 230 people and analyzed more than 41 million documents, according to GM. Interviews included past and present employees and a number of third parties."

That sounds to me like they have the facts and are not "speculating."

[bobthehobbyguy]

Signing off for the wrong color primer is a liitle less serious than an ignition switch. Also why did he change the part if he thouht there wasn't an issue.

Edited July 3, 2014 by bobthehobbyguy

[Muncie]

Harry,

agreed - and they are doing something...

Edited July 3, 2014 by Muncie

[Dave Van]

I don't buy into the big corporation ....no one can make a decision....blame needs to be carried by multiple people....etc......

I worked in the banking industry for a top 3 bank. We were paid well, worked hard often nights and even Christmas day.

And because we were paid well, like GM mgnt, we were expected to not make mistakes.

I always give people this example of doing their job 100% correct and why they expect it out of me......and I should of them.

Let's say you deposit your paycheck of $1000. Next day you look at your account and it says deposit was $900. You call and complain and we tell you that that's pretty good....well within our 10% error tolerance . You explain that you want 100% of your deposit....close is not good enough.

And this is just money and not something that can kill you or hurt you and others. (disclaimer....banks make errors.....and every one I ever investigated was traced back to an employee not doing 100%)

GM needs to be held to the same tolerance as we do with a bank.

[bobthehobbyguy]

I think you are bring too literal on the part number. Yes the physical number wouldn't change but it should have had rev change. Thats why all of the cars with that part were recalled.