GM forgot about another $2,000,000,000 loss

So another $2 billion lost. Does this really change anything for GM besides making people even more leary of investing in them?

Each day that goes by, the worse it seems. Plus, it seems that gas prices are on the rise again.

 

And they say it's all Consumer Reports' fault:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/17/news/compa...rtune/index.htm

Taking on Consumer Reports
A GM exec's hotheaded e-mail puts CEO Wagoner in the hot seat.
By Alex Taylor III, FORTUNE senior editor
March 17, 2006: 5:31 PM EST


NEW YORK (FORTUNE) - Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. One General Motors executive is learning that the hard way.

Lori Queen, GM's vehicle line executive for small cars, found herself in a dispute with Consumer Reports magazine over the rating of GM vehicles.

Consumer Reports is the most powerful third-party source of automotive information in the country. Some 4.2 million people subscribe to the magazine and another 2.1 million pay to access its Web site.

Consumer Reports publishes four or five car tests every month and a special all-auto issue in April. It maintains an elaborate auto evaluation facility at an old drag strip in central Connecticut and even goes to the trouble of buying its test cars incognito from local dealers.

Auto executives from Ford and Chrysler as well as GM have quietly consulted with magazine editors to see how they can improve their ratings.

In addition to being rigorous -- it performs 50 different tests and evaluations -- Consumer Reports is also renowned for its even -handedness. It has moved on from only recommending the kinds of inexpensive, fuel-efficient cars that might appeal to the magazine's subscribers and given high marks to BMWs and Lexuses as well.

For the first time in its history, all of the magazine's ten top picks of the year, released in its auto issue in March, bore Japanese nameplates. Five were from Honda, two from Toyota and Subaru, and one from Nissan.

The magazine did not consider country of origin in its ratings, says David Champion, director of vehicle testing. "We just look at the data and see what come to the top of the chart.

GM's Queen apparently didn't agree. In an e-mail exchange with a staffer at Automotive News, a trade weekly, she blasted Consumer Report's staff as "the most unprofessional group of people I have ever worked with."

She went on: "They are totally nonobjective and go to great extremes to paint a picture for their paid subscription readers, who primarily buy Japanese cars. They don't consider price or price differences, they don't consider model mix or consumer preferences, they buy the cheapest car they can find (generally) and then base their opinions on a limited sample."

Consumer Reports' Champion says the magazine buys "the most popular model in a particular car."

Quotes from her e-mail were published in Automotive News, prompting Wagoner to placed a call to Champion to try to convince him that GM's senior management still respects Consumer Reports and that Queen's statement would not have been approved by the company. An official letter of apology is due to be published in Automotive News on Monday, March 20.

Exactly what provoked Queen is unknown, but some signs pointed to a review Consumer Reports published a year ago on the Chevy Cobalt, one of the cars that Queen has brought to market with great fanfare.

Consumer's bottom line: "It isn't very agile, the seats lack support, the car feels cramped, its engine was noisy and it had paltry fuel economy." Needless to say, the Cobalt didn't land on the magazine's recommended list (although the high-end version of the Cobalt, the Cobalt SS, topped Consumer Reports' small coupe list).

And Champion says Wagoner's phone call isn't going to move the rating of any GM car one bit. Every one of them, he adds, will be judged on its merits.

 

Where's Malorn

Actually I just feel bad for their workers and stockholders. GM once again shows that its leadership is not up to the task.

 

malorn is converting his chevy dealership to Toyota

 

Queen is just another GM exec who has never been in a position where she's had to buy one of GM's cheapest cars because that's all that one can afford. It's all theoretical from her perspective. If GM execs were required by the company to drive only a Chevy Cobalt and get it anonymously as Consumer Reports does so that the dealer doesn't give them that special Cobalt that the consumer would never get, be required to drive it for five years without a second car to fall back on or a company limo to drive them above the excrement of daily life that a lower middle class person has to deal with, I'm sure that Queen wouldn't be so clueless about why a lot of people in that position buy Japanese cars. Also, it's important for Queen to realize the philosophy behind buying the cheapest car on the lot: judge a company's ability to build a good car based how well it builds its cheapest car. The above article is an indicator that GM still doesn't get it.

Hint to Queen: I buy Toyotas because of past experience with the POS cars that I bought from GM. Consumer Reports is just one of many factors that I take in to account and your badmouthing them has N O T H I N G whatsover to do with why I don't buy your cars. What CR says and all of the other factors, by the way, account for 10% of my decision. The other 90% is my experience with what I bought, not CR's experience. Buy a clue.

 

my sister works for Ford dealer. the service manager drives two Toyota's... hmmm, that doesnt really mean anything though. its not as if the person in charge of preventitive maintenance and service would have any inside knowledge on the cars he services???


AND

i dont feel sorry for gm or its employees. in fact, gm's woes is most likely one of the BEST things that can happen to its employees. since the mid 70's, 2 million auto workers have been laid off from american car companies. over 90% of those displaced workers went to work for another automobile manufacturer. Toyota, Honda and VW leads that list.

so lets face it, if the autoworker is a good worker, they will continue to work and probably with a lot more pride and sense of acomplishment

 

I've been fired before and not based on my performance, but for reasons beyond my control and I am here to tell you it is extremely disheartening and hard on the ego. Therefore I feel extremely sorry for GM and other US autoworkers. To make matters worse, if you are up in years you have fixed expenses and are not likely to be quickly re-hired. Therefore there is a very real chance your 'estate' and family will suffer greatly, perhaps even come crashing down which will make you spiral into depression and so it goes even further against you. This is why I became self-employed. My destiny is then my own, and I have only myself to blame if things go south and conversely I get full credit when things go swimmingly. I have no boss to take credit for my creations and thoughts and good work, and now that I am up in years, I don't have to kiss up to the bosses nephew who is nothingmore than a young spoiled whippersnapper.

 

Unless said nephew is one of your customers but I understand what you're saying, believe me.

 

sorry have to disagree with you. sure there is a bias towards hiring older workers because they may demand a higher salary, have more medical issues, etc. but a good worker is a good worker and their experience will be valued by any good company.

i know first hand that any company carries dead weight. these people should not be re-hired, nor should they be supported because they have been at a company for any length of time.

 

What shall these people who should not be re-hired and should not be supported do then? Turn to a life of crime? Become homeless? Die in the street? The one thing that this country seems to be in short supply of is compassion.

 

have them find something that they can do. if they are unwilling to do this (nearly everyone has something they can do well) then they can deal with the consequences. most will not take a job that is "beneath them" or pays less. well that is their problem.

this crap about an employer oweing a useless employee a living is thankfully going away and GOOD RIDDANCE