Abaolutely Not.
Detroit's Big Three have been so abusive of this nation, their customers, and their employees for so long, that a bailout alone will accomplish nothing beyond permitting some corporate honchos to maintain their lavish lifestyles past their expiration date. The message that Congress is hearing is that Americans are fed up to the teeth with the way Detroit does business, and I hope Congress listens.
Some of the abuses are of the government itself. Washington has long tried to pass laws mandating greater safety, lower emissions and better fuel economy. For all the chest-thumping in ads and brochures, Detroit has fought every bit of regulation Washington has tried to impose, for decades. PCV valves, as a first step in lowering emissions, were fought tooth and toenail. So were seatbelts, side marker lights, head restraints, and more. Detroit actually succeeded in getting a seatbelt interlock first required on all 1974 models rescinded; you couldn't start a '74 until you'd buckled up. Fuel economy regs passed in the '70s became a mockery once Detroit found the loophole - truck-based vehicles were exempt to a large extent. This began resulting in nicer trucks, then in SUV's.
Detroit's relationship with consumers has been nightmarish for those Americans purchasing the product. Today's cars are largely designed by temporary and outsourced employees, using computer simulations that say a particular system
should work. Very often, it doesn't, and if the stated warranty on the car has expired, automakers do nothing. Even in instances where problems surface quickly, automakers often bend over backwards to limit their costs on repairs, at the expense of consumers.
I personally owned a '96 Taurus purchased as a one-year-old "cream puff" with plenty of factory warranty left. Before closing the deal, I called Ford, and asked about outstanding recalls on the car. I was told there were none. Within a year, my car began exhibiting symptoms of a "brown coolant" problem epidemic among Tauruses of this year. It turned out that the problem was due to a design fault that permitted stray electrolysis current to get in the coolant. I called Ford, to be told that there
had been a "customer satisfaction" campaign about the issue, but that it was over, that I would get absolutely nothing from Ford. Calling the Feds elicited the shocking information that Ford's terming this a customer satisfaction issue to avoid a recall was perfectly legal. I had all the Ford-recommended repairs and modifications done to the car at my own expense, to no avail: the mods didn't work, and the car went to the junkyard at 66,000 immaculately maintained miles, due to failure of its water pump, freeze plugs, heater core, and radiator. Cost to repair was in the thousands. And this was my second Ford product failure in a row - my previous car, a Sable wagon, had blown its engine due to a head gasket failure traceable to design flaws. Again, it was an epidemic problem that owners were expected to bear the cost of.
I wasn't alone. Dodge Intrepid owners who had the 2.7l engine commonly experienced engine sludging and failure at just over 60,000 miles. Attempts to get Chrysler to do anything about it were met with the claim that owners had not maintained their vehicles properly. Claims were denied even when owners displayed absolute proof of maintenance, even when every speck of maintenance had been done
at a Chrysler dealer. Chrysler products are also notorious for steering rack failure, often at mileages in the low 20 thousands.
But, as the Ginsu knife people say, that's not all. Employees are abused, too, particularly at the dealership level. Mechanics who work on your car under warranty are paid on what is called a "flat rate" basis, meaning that the manufacturer has determined that each type of repair should take "X" amount of time, and therefore that's all they will pay, regardless of circumstances. Manufacturers themselves set the times, and complaints by service techs are long and loud, saying that times are impossible, completely unachievable and unrealistic. Too bad - they're paid only what the flat rate schedule says they'll be paid. Turnover at dealerships is high nowadays, a dramatic departure from the days when a job as a dealership tech was one of the most desirable blue-collar jobs around.
Assembly-line workers have a negative public image as highly-paid, low-performing union obstructionists. The fact is, automakers close plants, lay off workers, schedule plant down time, and create many other factors that lowers the effective rate of pay for UAW workers.
Manufacturers engage in practices like selling new dealership franchises too close to existing ones. They have, in the past, engaged in shipping unordered cars to dealers, telling them in effect, "This is what we're
going to sell you."
If there is to be any bailout, Detroit is going to have to be cleaned up from the bottom up, with sweeping changes to the way it does business and handles relationships with its dealer body, its customers, and Uncle Sam himself. I personally think the entitlement mentality among Detroit execs is so firmly entrenched that Congress would do very well to let one of the Big Three go belly-up before helping the remaining two - it's the only way to get the attention of people who have written the rules as they've seen fit for a century. While letting one manufacturer go under would have unpleasant results for its employees, the other two could then be made to reform in ways that would give them a better chance for survival. If we just throw money at Detroit and let its execs continue on their present path, the industry will burn through the $25 billion requested by Spring, and will still go under in the end.
Anyone who wants to know more about some of the things I've asserted here, try these links:
www.flatratetech.com - A site I occasionally write for, where Ford dealer techs have a forum for what's wrong at their company.
www.intrepidhorrorstories.blogspot.com - The title says it all.
