I don’t know about all the dealerships in St. Louis MO but about 15 years ago the unionized mechanics at the Olds dealership we used for service on both my '87 Olds and Dad’s '83 Olds went on strike over a contract dispute. I don’t recall if other dealerships in the area were also on strike or not. Anyway, during that time is when we found both the independent mechanic we used quite a lot since then and the Chevy dealer across the river in IL. We were treated so well and got such good service from the Chevy dealer that when I went car shopping in late 2006 I ended up buying my Impala from them after lots of comparative shopping and speaking with various dealership shops. Even though I ended up replacing that Chevy back in April of this year after only 7.5 years, I was extremely tempted to get another Chevy Impala due to how very, very well I had been treated there over the years from the buying experience in 2006 through all the warranty repairs and a fair amount of regular maintenance.
Unions certainly were contributors to the long term financial obligations of the manufacturers, making profitability a greater challenge, but IMHO unions were not at the core of the problem. The management was. Arrogance, greed, and improper focus in the boardrooms were at the heart of the disaster.
For decades, GM ran their factories focused on the volume that would create the greatest efficiency numbers per facility, totally disregarding market demand and the marketability of the vehicles themselves. They shipped the vehicles to inventory and then let the dealers try to sell them. When the economy dipped in the 70s, they kept pushing cars into inventory without the market demand to absorb them. This was exacerbated by the success of the Japanese companies in taking a quickly growing bite out of the small car market. Roger Smith, GM CEO through the '80s, made the situation worse by running the company based purely on the “numbers” rather than the product. There’s no evidence that GM under his tenure focused on or understood the products or the customers at all.
Now we’re stuck with a company that created its own demise, was bailed out with tax dollars, and thus has never had to make the severe changes necessary to regain its credibility in the marketplace. Their having hid the recent safety defect for 14 years while they continued to pump out cars with the problem demonstrates beyond a doubt that they still consider chronic and serious safety problems, defects that kill people, to be acceptable as long as nobody discovers them, and that they haven’t become a responsible company in the marketplace. This isn’t happening in the union meetings… this is happening in the boardrooms.
It’s not like GM has a monopoly on hiding safety defects- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/toyota-reaches-1-2-billion-settlement-in-criminal-inquiry.html?_r=0
I’ve always contended that ANY car manufacturer that approaches the volume of GM will have the same systemic problems. Now that the big two Japanese manufacturers are operating in the same arena, they are exhibiting the same behavior.
I’m no huge advocate of GM but if you read the link I provided, they actually have a much lower incident rate of recalls PER VOLUME than the ones you’re putting on a pedestal…
This is the new Consumer Reports publication I mentioned above, which lists known problems resulting in some type of action on the part of the manufacturer, like an agreement to inspect the car and fix it, but only if it has the problem, extending the warranty time period, recalls, or TSBs, by make, model, and year. This is the kind of information an auto repair shop would probably already know because they fix these problems day in and day out and they notice that certain problems in certain makes/models/years are seen repeatedly. But the car-owning public wouldn’t normally have access to this kind of information. For the folks who regularly post here, definitely worth a look.
“Consumer Reports Reliability Guide for Car Owners and Buyer”, December, 2014
http://www.worldwidenewsonline.com/consumer-reports-reliability-guide-december-2014.html
Um, maybe provide an explanation? Is this supposed to have information in it or just advertise for the publications?
No, not intended to be an advertisement. I mentioned this publication in a post above in this thread as a resource the OP could use to address their question, but didn’t provide a title or link as it is new. I found a link to it today.
deleted by poster
All car makers hide stuff be it minor or even life threatening.
I would suspect that behind closed doors top execs and/or their lobbyists tell The Right Honorable Representative or Senator Windbag that they would appreciate “time to work things out” and this funnels its way to the top dogs at the NHTSA who send a similar message on downstream with a heavy inference on “not pushing the process”.
I still remember back in the 80s when Subaru had a speed wobble problem that would appear suddenly at 70 MPH and of course which could become a bit unnerving to the driver…
The problem was due to a faulty pinion spring in the steering rack and all of the affected cars were repaired by the factory parts reps with no paper trail or labor operation involved.
I personally watched the parts rep do half a dozen of them just 2 service stalls over from me and considering I had a bit of a past working relationship with him from some years earlier I poked him a bit on it. Not that I cared much for the guy anyway…
“SO; what you guys are doing is whitewashing this problem so the Feds won’t get on you and to keep the PR sheet clean…” is what I told him. (paraphrased)
He just smiled sheepishly, shrugged his shoulders, and nodded agreement.
@Bing
I’m getting back to unfair practices on the part of the dealer
“Um, that little black book would be illegal and unenforcable”
I agree that the black book is illegal
That said, if I had talked about a union and gotten fired, the cold hard truth is I’m out of a job. Now I have to hire a lawyer or find someone to fight to get my job back. Who’s going to pay for that lawyer?
The truth of the matter is, if they had fired me, it would mean they don’t like me, and don’t want me. Is that the kind of place I want to work? Even if a lawyer won the case and got me rehired, it would create an uncomfortable situation.
This was all just hypothetical
Did it actually happen to anybody here?
Did anybody on this forum get fired illegally, and got a lawyer or union to force the employer to take them back?
Yep, there’s practicality. You do what you need to do. I didn’t like some of the leadership the last ten years but draw the line at illegal versus just inappropriate and self-serving. So I just sucked it up. Another guy I know of though just collected about half a mil after suing and settling out of court. He was one of those guys that did everything by the book and straight as an arrow up against some folks that didn’t care what the law was. He decided to defend his reputation to the end and won. The ACA is a dirty business when you look under the surface. I wouldn’t have done it but to him his public reputation was important to him. Its an up hill battle though trying to fight the old boys/old girls/political machine whether large or small.
@db4690, did you apply for workman’s compensation benefits? I believe that you must initiate the claim and the insurance your employer must carry by law will pay you while you are off work. That’s the way I read it, anyway. Here is the URL. Look at “Information just for you …”. If you didn’t get paid you should have. As far as being fired for any reason, that’s the way it is for all exempt employees. The term exempt means not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act… I never worked at a permanent job where I was non-exempt. That said, I imagine that auto mechanics are non-exempt and entitled to all the benefits the law provides. That little black book is a sham and completely unenforceable.
@Bing
Good thoughts. Much reliability in cars are as a result of mandates. Mandates are not the bad thing most times as many are supported by car companies. Much of the automotive industry has "socialized " themselves and preferred a lot of items mandated instead competitive in nature. A friend in the automobile industry knows how things can change in the blink of an eye and the mandates give much need structure to car development. By requiring new technologies like tire pressure monitors not to be an interference item that required testing, it delayed inclusion and required reliability testing for years. The same is true for a lot of items including airbags. In his opinion, it has helped all cars become more reliable so the differences in reliability is not as great as it used to be.
It also allows car companies to more accurately plan their budgets and developmental costs.
There are fewer Yugos and Fiat Stratas finding their way onto the market. Think of it. You can buy or lease any new car car and be assured protection for three years plus bumper to bumper, 6 years 60k running gear on most and perforation protection. That’s a lot more satisfaction then “see ya after a year” it was for decades before. Some parts and components are now over 100k and more are to come. The safety in buying used cars has been enhanced by it.
We bought a used car with 20k miles, realizing it still had two years bumper to bumper for 16k more miles.
The savings of $7k over a new one seemed well worth it to buying a new car in a lower end model for more. Backed reliability is all good for the auto industry.
The bad side ? We get fewer Cords and Edsels and Corvairs, for good or bad as the car industry has mostly become a cookie cutter industry with fewer variations.
@jtsanders
As far as I know, the vast majority of mechanics at new car dealerships in Los Angeles are “at will” employees . . . meaning they can be fired at a moment’s notice, with no reason given. I think things change when you become a shop foreman, because you’re no longer flat rate, and you’ve actually got some authority.
I hope it’s different in other cities . . .
To be fair to my former employer, I believe a reason was always given when a mechanic was terminated. One guy even got fired for stealing. They had him dead to rights. No charges were made. In any case, he called some people at other Benz dealers, and he had a job lined up before he even moved his tool box. Naturally, he didn’t tell his buddies at the other shop WHY he was looking for a job . . .
Mechanics have few if any rights. That’s why toolboxes are portable much like a travel trailer…
As far as I know, the vast majority of mechanics at new car dealerships in Los Angeles are "at will" employees
That is common in most companies these days. Everyone at my company from people in shipping to Engineers and even management are at will employees. Big companies like IBM, HP, Microsoft and Oracle are all employee-at-will. Most companies I know of have been that way for over a decade.
Even my brother, who is the head of the IT department at his job . . . and has people under him . . . is an at will employee. He could quit or get fired at any time, with no reason given
Employment contracts are very rare in most places for anyone who isn’t a highly paid executive. That doesn’t your employer can fire you for any reason. Laws against various kinds of discrimination apply no matter what. Still, it can be hard to prove discrimination is why you were let go, especially for age discrimination, since it’s perfectly legal to lay people off because they are paid more, and more senior employees usually are paid more.