Will GM's problems ever end?

[Harry P.]

I never said they shouldn't be in business. I said I didn't agree with the bailout, and that businesses should either survive or fail based on their own merits in a free market system... not be propped up artificailly by bailouts. I don't believe it's fair to force taxpayers to subsidize a failing business, but in no way did I ever say or imply that GM shouldn't be in business–only that we as taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize them... or any business. Whether or not GM should be in business would be up to them, based on whether or not they can compete in the marketplace.

And as for the numbers... yes, I've made a point of pointing that out. It's absolutely mind-blowing how many cars GM has recalled in the first six months of this year alone. That is surely newsworthy. But the numbers isn't what got GM into trouble... it was the lying and the coverup.

[russosborne]

Nope, sorry. I left GM 15 years ago. Nice try, tho. I'd be defending Toyota if you all were saying they needed to go out of business over 7 accidents out of 8.4 million cars (sorry, the ignition switch only accounts for 8.2 million cars) or crowing from the housetops over another batch of recalls (one for a grand total of 117 cars). Heck, I'd defend India's finest if the pillories were out over half-a-dozen cars.

Just curious, what, precisely, about my former employment invalidates anything I've written? I'm more than willing to accept any correction so long as it's relevant.

all I said was you yourself stated you had 15 years of experience working on GM's assembly line and that might be why you seem to be defending them. First was fact, and as I stated the reason I gave was IMHO-means in my humble opinion, in case you aren't familiar with that. I've noticed over the years on different forums that GM employees past or present tend to do that. If I was wrong about you sorry.

Russ

sorry, had to edit this to get the quote right.

Edited July 1, 2014 by russosborne

[Tom Geiger]

I got a flyer in the mail today from a local Chevy dealer (Biggers Chevrolet in Elgin). It's one of those "scratch off this circle and bring it into our dealership to see if you match our prize board" type of gimmicks intended to draw people to their showroom. The funny thing is, the grand prize is a Chevy Cruze.

So... is the recall included with that prize?

That's kinda like a backwards promotion... people come into the showroom to look at the new cars and see if they can win a car. Dealer asks "Would you like to buy a Cruze?" Customer answers, "No, I'll just wait until I win one

I saw a local version of that this week.. It was a Toyota dealer. Had a big picture of a Camry and said in big letters... "WIN A CAMRY" and then the little letters said "lease". Yea, probably a 24 month one too!

[mikemodeler]

Unfortunately Harry the US government has been in the subsidizing business for many years, so don't think the money "invested" in Chrysler or GM a couple of years ago was their first foray into "helping" the free market enterprise system.

The GM bailout had financial, political and social reasons that I won't go into for fear of violating forum rules.

I do agree that the coverup and lying is a sad indictment of how a once proud company has fallen.

[Harry P.]

Unfortunately Harry the US government has been in the subsidizing business for many years, so don't think the money "invested" in Chrysler or GM a couple of years ago was their first foray into "helping" the free market enterprise system.

The GM bailout had financial, political and social reasons that I won't go into for fear of violating forum rules.

I do agree that the coverup and lying is a sad indictment of how a once proud company has fallen.

I agree that the GM bailout was certainly not the first time the taxpayers were forced to subsidize a failing company. And I definitely agree with you that the reasons for the GM bailout had far more to do with, um, ""other factors" that we can't talk about here than the actual bailout of a car company. I think most of us know the real reasons behind the bailout.

But no matter the reason, I don't like the idea of taxpayers being forced to subsidize companies that the government decides are "worthy" of being subsidized. And our "no politics" rule means I can't say any more.

[Austin T]

*Information already posted*

Edited July 1, 2014 by Austin T

[Deano]

all I said was you yourself stated you had 15 years of experience working on GM's assembly line and that might be why you seem to be defending them. First was fact, and as I stated the reason I gave was IMHO-means in my humble opinion, in case you aren't familiar with that. I've noticed over the years on different forums that GM employees past or present tend to do that. If I was wrong about you sorry.

Russ

sorry, had to edit this to get the quote right.

Yep ... I'm a GM automaton! What the General says, I do! That's why I left at 15 years, it's such a good place to be! As far as IMHO, I am very aware of what it means and in my experience the 'H' rarely applies. I note in your profile that you and I are very nearly the same age so don't presume to talk down to me; I'm not near the dolt you take me to be.

[Harry P.]

More background on the faulty ignition switch, which started this whole GM fiasco, excerpted from NBC News (June 15, 2014)...

The GM engineer who approved production of a faulty ignition switch implicated in at least 13 deaths was the only person within the company who knew prior to 2013 that the part did not meet manufacturing specifications, according to an internal report. The engineer spent so much time dealing with the part’s technical issues that he referred to it in a 2002 memo as “the switch from hell,” according to the report.

The internal report, prepared by former federal prosecutor Anton Valukas, faulted numerous GM employees for failing to “understand or solve the problem,” but it singled out Ray DeGiorgio, the engineer in charge of the faulty ignition switch, for particularly harsh criticism. DeGiorgio, it said, approved the part for production in 2002 despite knowing that it did not meet technical specifications and had failed “rotational torque” tests.

It said DeGiorgio told investigators that he approved production of the switch because no performance issues were brought to his attention during its development and “he had no awareness that the below-specification torque would have an impact on the safe operation of the car.”

In some cases, the problem resulted in ignition switches accidentally being turned from “run” to the “accessory” or “off” position while a car was being driven, shutting down power brakes, power steering and airbags. GM’s own figures have linked ignition problems to 13 deaths.

GM CEO Mary Barra told employees at a town hall meeting that 15 GM employees had been fired and five others disciplined as a result of the review. She did not identify the fired employees, but sources within the company told NBC News that DeGiorgio, program engineering manager Gary Altman, and safety lawyer William Kemp were among them. Barra also said that the internal review found no evidence of a cover-up. Rather, she said, it found a pattern of “misconduct or incompetence” that prevented company officials from linking the faulty ignition switch sooner to deadly crashes that occurred when the cars suddenly stalled on the road.

DeGiorgio has previously been in the spotlight in the wake of the recall, particularly when Barra was questioned about his role in the mishandling of the ignition switch problem during congressional hearings in April. But the GM report for the first time clarifies the key role he played in approving the faulty part, and how his actions may inadvertently have prevented other GM experts from connecting the dots.

The report indicated that rotational torque problems with a prototype of the ignition switch were first noted by a GM engineer two years earlier than previous reported. It said that design release engineer Calvin Wolf told investigators that a “very early” prototype of the ignition switch under development for use in the Saturn Ion had failed tests for “rotational torque values” in 1999 and that he and representatives of the part’s manufacturer, Eaton, had discussed possible fixes for the problem. But Wolf said he was transferred to a different job in another department soon after the meeting and never heard anything more about the issue.

DeGiorgio, who succeeded Wolf as the lead engineer on the ignition switch, approved production of the part and also later recommended that it be used in a new GM model, the Chevy Cobalt, the report said. Officials with Delphi, which bought Eaton’s switch division in 2001, told congressional staff in March that GM signed off on what’s known as a Production Part Approval Process, or PPAP, document in February 2002 for the switch “even though sample testing of the ignition switch was below the original specifications set by GM.” The company has declined to otherwise comment on the matter. The report noted that another significant but different problem with the ignition switch – occurrences of it not cranking or starting vehicles in cold weather – may have preoccupied DeGiorgio and other engineers and delayed them from addressing reports of the “moving stall” problem.

The report cited a 2002 email where DeGiorgio instructed a GM supplier, Delphi, not to immediately change the faulty ignition switch because doing so “would compromise the electrical performance of the switch.” Still, the email stated that changes might be necessary before the ignition switch could be used in the Cobalt, which was scheduled for launch in 2004.

The e-mail was signed, “Ray (tired of the switch from hell) DeGiorgio.”

The report noted that GM engineers working on the Chevy Cobalt also played a role in the ignition switch problem going undetected, saying they “failed to understand what others at GM already knew: when the ignition switch was inadvertently turned to ‘off’ or the accessory position – by design -- the airbags would not deploy." As a result of that misunderstanding, it said the engineers categorized the ignition switch problem as a “convenience” issue rather one of safety. Consequently, instead of implementing a solution to the problem, they “debated partial solutions, short-term fixes, and cost,” it said.

It was DeGiorgio who eventually ordered a design change to the switch in 2006 – the use of a slightly longer version of component known as a “detent plunger” -- aimed at preventing the switch from inadvertently being turned off. But he didn’t instruct the manufacturer to change the part number, which could have led GM to notify existing car owners of the defective switch.

An engineer working for an attorney representing the parents of a Georgia woman who died in the crash of a Chevrolet Cobalt found that GM had changed two internal ignition parts to make them bigger. The changes would make a key less likely to slip from the “on” to “accessory” position in the ignition while a vehicle was in motion. Those actions, the report said, "prevented investigators for years from learning what had actually taken place."

DeGiorgio testified last year in a wrongful death lawsuit in Georgia that he didn’t remember ordering the change and was, in fact, unaware that it had been made. GM’s report noted that “even today … DeGiorgio claims not to remember doing so.”

While DeGiorgio was intimately familiar with the shortcomings of the ignition switch, he said last year when he testified at the wrongful death hearing in Georgia that he never believed they would affect the safety of the vehicles they were installed in, noting that he had given his son a 2007 Cobalt.

“There’s no way I would have done that … had I any reservations,” he said.

[russosborne]

Yep ... I'm a GM automaton! What the General says, I do! That's why I left at 15 years, it's such a good place to be! As far as IMHO, I am very aware of what it means and in my experience the 'H' rarely applies. I note in your profile that you and I are very nearly the same age so don't presume to talk down to me; I'm not near the dolt you take me to be.

Hey. I said if I was wrong I was sorry. Guess you aren't willing to accept that. fine.

As far as IMHO, lots of people don't know what that means, and you certainly acted like you didn't.

As far as this goes at this point, I can't say what I want to now because I would rather not get banned.

Russ

Edited July 1, 2014 by russosborne

[Guest]

The odds of operator error, or just plain being in the wrong place at the wrong time are far higher than .0000008% It's a red herring and 100% irrelevant to the percentages to try to throw the loss of a loved in to the equation.

You still do not get my point. It is not about percentages, it is about any life lost due to negligence is one too many. Simple.

[Art Anderson]

I do think, however (with all due regard to the various situations) that much of this is driven by the Trial Lawyer's Industry.

Art

[Craig Irwin]

I do think, however (with all due regard to the various situations) that much of this is driven by the Trial Lawyer's Industry.

Art

X2

[Scale-Master]

You still do not get my point. It is not about percentages, it is about any life lost due to negligence is one too many. Simple.

So... if a convicted rapist or murderer that hurt or killed your loved one is the victim of a failed airbag, is it OK?

[Joe Handley]

So... if a convicted rapist or murderer that hurt or killed your loved one is the victim of a failed airbag, is it OK?

I believe that's called Karma

I do think, however (with all due regard to the various situations) that much of this is driven by the Trial Lawyer's Industry.

Art

Gotta X3 this one.

[Harry P.]

GM trying to hide a known defect for years is an issue.

The trial lawyer industry is a different issue. Sure, lawyers play a big part in GM's current problems, but they only got involved after people began dying due to GM's actions. You can say that trial lawyers are taking advantage of a potentially lucrative situation... but you can't blame them for the situation. GM created that.

[Harry P.]

And yet more embarrassing news for GM from today's NY Times...

The four other recalls announced on Monday (June 30) are for a range of problems, but one safety issue in particular, with the Chevrolet Trailblazer, had festered for years. More than 188,000, including the Trailblazer, have a defect that can cause door or window failures, as well as fires.

In February 2012, safety regulators opened an investigation into Trailblazers, based on 12 consumer complaints, several of which involved fires. By June 11 of that year, the safety agency had gathered more than 240 related complaints, and 677 related warranty claims had been filed internally at G.M.

At first, the automaker issued a "special coverage" notice, but, after talks with regulators, converted the program in August 2012 into a regional recall of vehicles from “salt belt” states.

Owners of cars from 21 states received a recall notice that described a “defect” that could cause a sudden fire: “It is advised that you park the vehicle outdoors until it has been remedied.” Owners in the remaining (29) states received a notice with softer language, and there was no mention of a defect or a warning to park outside. Instead, it said, “Do not take your vehicle to your G.M. dealer as a result of this letter unless you believe that your vehicle has the condition as described above.”

By the following June, after talking with regulators, G.M. decided to recall the cars in all states. And since then, it has learned of 10 “fires or melting incidents” that occurred after the fix was made, so Monday’s recall was issued.

The case caught the attention of federal regulators. In an email to G.M., Frank S. Borris II, its top defect investigator, wrote that regulators did not understand the basis upon which the company had decided to do a regional recall. There is a perception in terms of regional recalls, Mr. Borris wrote, that “G.M. is one of, if not the worst offender.”

[sjordan2]

GM has 219,000 employees worldwide, not to mention all the suppliers and their employees who depend on GM as a client. Something to think about if you're concerned about the bailout. The immediate and ripple effects of a GM shutdown would have had disastrous economic and personal consequences in manufacturing, supply chain and financial markets.

In the wake of their financial problems, GM's slimming down of its product lines resulted in the closing and reassignment of several dealerships in my own mid-sized hometown, leaving a ton of people out of work at the dealer level alone. The ripple effect on the real estate industry during the recession left them with empty properties that no one wanted.

Edited July 1, 2014 by sjordan2

[Harry P.]

GM has 219,000 employees worldwide, not to mention all the suppliers and their employees who depend on GM as a client. Something to think about if you're concerned about the bailout. The immediate and ripple effects of a GM shutdown would have had disastrous economic and personal consequences in manufacturing, supply and financial markets.

Yes, GM going belly up would have affected a lot of people. Same if any large corporation goes out of business, and plenty have... but that's how a free market system works. You either sink or swim based on your own merits and ability to compete.

You either believe in a free-market system, or you don't.

Once you begin to pick "winners and losers," you've opened Pandora's box. Who is "worthy" of a bailout? Whose jobs are worth saving, and whose do you let disappear? Are the jobs of people who work at "Failing Large Corporation A" more important than the jobs of people who work at "Failing Small Company B?" Aren't the families of the workers at "FSC B" as important as those of the workers at "FLC A?"

See how messy it gets when the government starts picking winners and losers?

[sjordan2]

Sorry, I don't have an "either-or" philosophy about much of anything. There's plenty of room in this world for intelligent people to make things happen inside or outside of those parameters.

[Harry P.]

All I'm saying is that once you set that precedent... then who decides who deserves help and who doesn't? Based on what criteria? Whose criteria? How is it even possible to make that decision fairly? It's not.

If "A" gets a bailout, why doesn't "B?" If "B" does too, what about "C?" And "D?"

Where does it end???

That's why, IMO, it would have been better to not open that door in the first place.

[sjordan2]

Different situations have different levels of impact and deserve individual consideration.

[bobthehobbyguy]

GM Does not deserve a bailout period. I don't buy in to the too big to fail. If we bail GM out then why should they change their ways. In fact they haven't learned from the past. Also why should any company change.

Its unfortunate that people who had no part in this will be hurt but there has to be consequences for these type of decisions. However if we expect for things to change then rewarding bad behavior has to stop.

[Harry P.]

Different situations have different levels of impact and deserve individual consideration.

So... at what point do you draw the line? At what point does a company pass the "You deserve a bailout" threshold? Who decides? And how?

Skip, it's just a bad idea. I see your argument, but the real world is a messy place.

We better knock this off, though... too close to "politics."

[Harry P.]

... if we expect for things to change then rewarding bad behavior has to stop.

Yup.

[johnbuzzed]

My wife mentioned something she heard this morning and I just "verified"(Googled) on CNN money( or whatever .com) - Chrysler recalled 696,000 minivans and SUVs for ignition switch problems that are similar to those in the GM 2.6 million vehicle recall. Now, I did not do any more research on this situation so I don't know any particulars, but I wonder if the manufacturer/supplier of those switches in question is the same- and I wonder what is the geographical origin of the switches.