GM to employees: Drive our cars to work or walk

http://www.newsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/NEWS/606150381/1006/NEWS

GM plant to workers: Drive our cars or walk

y GARY HABER
The News Journal
06/15/2006

Unless you drive a General Motors car or truck onto the grounds of GM's Boxwood Road plant near Newport, be prepared for a long walk.

Starting July 10, employees and visitors driving non-GM vehicles will be required to park at the back of the company's West Lot, the farthest lot from the building. The plant's two closer lots will be restricted to drivers of GM models or brands in which GM has an equity stake, such as Isuzu and Saab.

"The explanation behind this is to reward employees for buying and driving our products," Alice Petitt, communications manager for the plant, said. She said United Auto Workers Local 435 agreed to the new policy, but union officials were unavailable for comment.

Petitt said GM gives plants the option of restricting non-GM vehicles to designated parking areas. She said "a majority" of the plant's 1,800 workers drive GM cars, but did not know how many.

It's just starting to be enforced again at some plants, but it's been around for quite some time.

And yes, I think it sucks.

That rule was in effect at Chrysler when I worked there way back in the 70s.

That shows just how lame they are. If they think bullying their employees is going to turn around their bottom line they're as stupid as Bush.
Maybe they should try that sales pitch on the general public. "BUY GM OR GET FUCKED"! Yeah that'll work.

...shows up in their BMW/Mercedes/Porche/Lexus they wont make them park in the back lot.

And just because the workers are loyal doesn't mean they have to buy GM...

I hope they remain loyal.

Welcome to the new Amerikan slavery!! The new masters? Those that run the corporations!
THEY will dictate to you what you drive.
THEY will dictate to you if you smoke or not.
THEY will dictate to you what your political choices are.
THEY will dictate to you what your healthcare choices are
THEY will dictate to you what sort of credit rating you "need" for employment.
THEY will dictate to you what housing you can afford.
THEY will dictate to you what you see on TV and hear on radio.

After living through the Cold War, when I was taught to fear the Communist dictators who would take my freedom away, I'm not so sure that I SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIVING UNDER COMMUNIST DICTATORS OR CORPORATE DICTATORS. Who gave them the right to dictate to us???? It makes me want to :puke:

had your urine tested today?

that GM puts into building and standing behind their cars, would buy them based on their insider knowledge.

heads surgically removed from their arses and make what people want to buy.

"The explanation behind this is to reward employees for buying and driving our products."

It sounds more to me that the explanation behind this is to punish employees for not buying or driving GM products. :eyes:

If I were a GM employee, I would be updating my resume today. And I would be doing it post-haste, especially since I drive a Toyota.

your resume would have been updated ages ago. Layoffs are the norm at that plant

Nice.

Indentured servitude is the new Corporate way!

I'd buy the junkiest Chevy I could find, remove the muffler, and park it right up front.

If you get generous discounts and cannot find a car they make that you like, then perhaps you could carpool.

It would piss me off to see my competitor's vehicles in the parking lot if I was paying union wages to my own employees.

True, GM needs to get more competitive, but they do have the right to expect their own employees to not bite the hand that feeds them:)

Most people have more than one car these days, and if I worked at GM, I would make sure my "go to work" car was a cheapo GM car, just to keep a low profile:)

No, they dont. This is a lot like saying WalMart employees seen shopping at Target can get punished, McDonald's employees seen buy a Whopper can be fired, etc., and etc.

This is wrong. This is ANTI-freedom. "Buy our product or you'll be punished."

It's sick. It's basically slavery.

More than one family has multiple members, yet cannot afford more than one car. Maybe all they can afford is the junker they had when they got hired.

We should never allow us to be put into a position where our bosses at work can disctate to us what we do and what we buy on our own time. Their authority over us needs to end when the clock is punched- otherwise, they better be willing to pay for a 24/7 workweek, if they wish to rule us after we leave their property.

I'm wholly against this practice everywhere I see it. There is NO excuse, and it should be flat illegal.

to buy a GM car ..they used to get a HUGE discount.. (maybe that's no longer in effect)..

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.:)

In a perfect world I agree with you, but in the hyper-competitive world we live in, GM can require non-GM cars relegated to the back of the lot..

BTW...every job I have ever had, REQUIRED employees to park in the "south-40"... the expectation was that the close parking places were for customers...not employees..

Perhaps GM officials just wanted the employees who DO drive their own products to have a closer spot.

Other employers will hear about this and decide it's a good idea. And besides, again, the employees are (not should be- ARE) free to buy whatever car they want.

This is a EEO complaint, actually.

and a roof over your head. If you think the competition is better, go work for them instead.

:shrug:

What's the problem? This rule has been around for at least thirty years. Personally, I think it makes sense.

And the nice employee discount that you, your spouse, your children, and your children's spouses get (18%?) is super sweet.

Best, Ida
Daughter of 30 year GM Guy (now deceased)
GM asked for a lot from my family, but they gave a lot, too
& the GM pension / medical coverage helps my mother, too

and when I graduated college I bought a Pontiac with my 18% discount.

It wasn't a bad car except I was constant putting on new brakes & steering to keep the thing running. And the motor had to be rebuilt at 68k miles.

I have not had any of these problems with my GM. I'd rather pay a little extra to save in the long run

My daughter had trouble her car, brakes, tires, front spoiler. It wasn't until i witnessed her driving and she didn't know i was watching, then it all became clear.

...then I would be experiencing the same problem with my Toyota - which I haven't. And btw, my mother had the same problem with her GM car. She drives a Dodge and hasn't had any of the same problems.

Don't assume - makes us look stupid

Which is two wheeled, gets great gas mileage(100mpg), and is much easier on the enviroment. Why should I be penalized for driving a vehicle that I want to drive:shrug: Sorry, but that sounds like corporate fascism to me.

Or what sandwich you buy, or what soft drink.

Imagine working for a developer that gives employees such good deals on homes, the employees aren't allowed to rent an apartment. For any purpose.

Imagine working for a hospital that provides such quality services its employees are required to go there for treatment, and aren't allowed referrals to anywhere else.

Imagine working for a university that has such awesome research programs, it doesn't allow its students or faculty to study anywhere else.

This practice must be outlawed. Or employees need to start suing for back pay based on a 24/7 workweek retroactive to their date of hire.

But it looks like something to get all excited about, especially when you pretend someone is controlling your life. :eyes:

In this case, employees can buy other vehicles, but they are required to WALK FURTHER ACROSS A PARKING LOT because they have *proudly* disparaged the product their company produces.

Every employee is a representative of their company at some level. The message the purchase of a non-GM product by a GM employee gives is this:

"I know a lot about our products, and I won't put my hard earned money into buying one no matter how good the incentives are."

The rule is intended to reward people who are loyal to the team, and it is intended to show a little public scorn for those who don't believe in the company, or the products it produces. As I said before, if you have that little respect for the company, everyone is probably better off if you go work for the other guy instead.

And I believe that motorcycles aren't included in the rule (at least my father got to park wherever he wanted when he drove his motorcycle a long time ago).

As for cars, you can buy whatever you want, wherever you want, but if you aren't going to display "loyalty" to the company that is putting food on your table, and a roof over your head, and doing the same for your fellow workers, then you get to walk a little bit. Yup, its a "punishment" for not being a "team" player, and if you are a rugged individualist, then you are undoubtedly prepared to accept the consequences for your behavior.

With *hundreds* of makes and models created over the years, I can't believe there isn't ONE vehicle that would work for you. And, if there isn't, then like I said, you probably should go work for the other guy, who you obviously have more respect for.

If it does, well yes, I would be willing to walk.

But the concept of punishing somebody for daring to choose another car besides GM is, how should I say it, rather small, petty and childish of GM. Makes me wonder if this sort of punishment is extended beyond the parking lot, say into the plant itself.

As far as loyalty, and being a team player goes, sorry, but for me that ends at the door. I do my best for my employer, and will not actively dis them on or off of company time. But making my decisions based on my employment can be rather foolish at times. Case in point, this little brouhaha with GM. Frankly, while GM used to make a fine product, their glory days disappeared thirty odd years ago, and quality has been sliding ever since. It is a not so inside secret that the best cars, the ones with the best quality for your money, aren't the Big Three, but their foreign counterparts, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc. etc. Hell, even upstart Hundyai is giving the Americans a serious run for their money.

I have bought a couple of GM products over the years, both of them pre-'75. But there is no way in hell, incentives or not, walking or not, that I would buy one now. My money, my decision. And if that means I have to walk, I would. But like I said, it is the sort of bad publicity that makes GM look small and petty, and Lord knows, GM doesn't need anymore bad publicity, they've had too much already.

They're, um, FAILED. Kept alive only by their lobbyists, corporate welfare, and what-not.

Due SPECIFICALLY to their awful robber-baron management.

jeez.

Why would you drive another kind of car anyways?

And cause less pollution than the vehicle I ride. Why should I be forced to pay more for gas, and put more pollution into the air, just because of who my employer is?

Besides, those nice employee discounts might, just might, make up for all of the costly repairs and maintenence that normally goes into a modern GM vehicle.

We've been driving GM products for over 20 years, with no costly repairs and maintenance. Trading in before they hit 50,000 might have something to do with it. I wouldn't have a truck if it wasn't a GM.

...I know. This just takes thier logic to it's ultimate, absurd conclusion, right-wing libertarianism is self refuting because it leads to corporate serfdom.

buy our cars and end up walking to work after a few years.

vehicles to motivate all their employees to buy GM, especially given the discount GM employees get.

Instead, they have to have policies which punish GM employees who go elsewhere for better quality and reliability.

What if they have employees with handicap stickers on their non-GM vehicles? Are they going to force them to park out in the back 40 as well? I see a lawsuit waiting to happen on this one...

as GM has a stake in that company.