On Nov 19, 8:36*am, Scott Seidman wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote innews:0tednZVQzsW9P77UnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@earthlink. com:

The major difference is the GM has about 2 retirees for every worker.
Those payments about double the labor costs.

One would think that a responsible company would properly endow pension
plans as they went along. *Isn't that the only tenable way to do this??

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

That presumes management responsibility & failure, but as we all know,
it's really all the unions' fault.


My father's company did marketing research for GM during the 60's and
70's. It was his account, so he had to go to Detroit every once in a
while to meet with senior execs. He always scheduled meetings for the
morning, because he learned pretty quickly that once these guys went
out for lunch the rest of the day was shot. And trying to tell them
that anything substantive should be changed in what GM produced and
sold and how it went about doing so (other than trying some new twist
on an ad campaign) was ****ing in the wind.