Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

GM Works to Shed 'Government Motors' Image

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Tired of being mocked as "Government Motors," General Motors has ramped up public relations efforts to demonstrate it is on the right track.

As its own ads admit, many Americans, regardless of their political leanings, have a bad attitude toward the nation's largest automaker in the wake of taxpayer-financed bailouts. For GM, the danger is that this antipathy leads Americans to quietly boycott the company. As recently as last year, popular conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt wrote a column titled, "Just say no to Government Motors and Obamacars."

Concerns reached a high point last year when, after bailing out General Motors -- the largest industrial rescue in U.S. history -- President Barack Obama fired GM's chief executive, Richard Wagoner Jr. For free-market conservatives who oppose big government, this move confirmed their worst fears about the president.

Obama has gone out of his way to say he does not want to run auto companies, or any industry, but GM officials in particular have reason to echo this message. As Renee Rashid-Merem a GM spokesperson strongly assured me: The government is "not interested in running our business, they are interested in making sure our business is well run."

There is evidence to support this. Were the government looking to maintain control over GM, it is likely it would have installed a patsy to "run" the company. It most assuredly would not have brought on Ed Whitacre, a strong leader and former AT&T chief executive, who has vowed to turn the company around.

And a turnaround is exactly what is needed.

Fifty years ago, General Motors controlled half of the U.S. car market. Today it holds just 22 percent. And while much of the blame belongs to Wagoner's GM predecessors, it's also fair to say that organized labor and the government -- especially the Michigan state government -- helped create a situation that almost guaranteed problems for the company.

Thanks in large part to the union laws in Michigan, United Auto Workers' members were essentially immune from being fired. A union could shut down a plant at the drop of a hat. This not only drove up costs, it also contributed to bad cars. Workers in some plants intentionally vandalized vehicles and drank on the job. Absenteeism was rampant. Employees were frequently on strike, and spent more time filing frivolous grievances than building cars.

"The American political system -- and its catering and pandering to labor unions -- has caused this," said Brian M. Johnson, executive director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom, a project of Americans for Tax Reform.

The good news is that GM now has a much better deal with the unions -- a five-year labor agreement that includes "no strike" provisions that extend beyond five years. The labor agreement also allows more flexibility in terms of hiring skilled and non-skilled workers.

Many Americans still believe we would all be better off had GM been allowed to fail. But one major counterargument is that the auto industry is interdependent, meaning the same companies that supply GM also supply Ford and others. As such, a precipitous closing of GM would have impacted all suppliers and car companies.

As GM officials seeks to restore the company -- and repair its image -- it's also important to understand that the government bailout was actually a two-tier system. A direct loan of $8 billion was made, and that loan has been paid in full -- with interest. But that's only part of the story. Most of the taxpayer's funds are still tied up in government-owned equity. When the company goes public, the government will sell those shares and presumably recover that equity investment.There are strong indications that GM intends to file a public offering in August. This means it is likely the government could begin to divest itself of the business and, at the least, become a minority shareholder.

GM is working hard to stress it is now a new company with new leadership. Speaking at GM's Global Business Conference on June 29 of this year, Steve Girsky, vice chairman for corporate strategy and new business development and a GM board member noted: "About a third of the top 40 people are new to their jobs. This new team does things differently, they act differently."

It's clear that GM's culture has changed for the better. Whitacre, I've been told, occasionally shows up at company meetings unannounced. Another promising change was GM's decision to open a design studio in Southern California. This move comes from the realization that the best and brightest designers probably wouldn't want to live in Detroit. Ultimately, GM hopes that attracting top designers will allow it to produce cars aesthetically pleasing and functionally appealing to 21st century consumers.

Today, even GM critics are impressed. As Dan Neil of The Wall Street Journal wrote in May: "It gives me no joy to write this. I know it will upset a lot of readers, and that's never pleasant. So I might as well come right out and say it: The new Buick Regal is a really nice car."

But when it comes to one of GM's hottest new cars, some critics point to the fact that GM recently got a subsidy, which only applies to one car -- the Chevy Volt. In fact, this is a $7,5000 tax incentive that Congress passed.

Conservatives may oppose this market distortion, but it is not a special exemption for GM as much as it is a tax credit for Americans to buy plug-in cars. And there is plenty of buzz surrounding the Volt. According to Greg Martin, GM's director, of policy and Washington communications, "In terms of sex appeal, the Chevy Volt is like Megan Fox. But cars like the Chevy Malibu and Cruze are like Meryl Streep -- strong and steady performers in the high volume segments that will make a real difference the fastest on the company's bottom line."

GM also decided to focus on just four brands: Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and GMC. Resources formerly used to promote the other brands are now used to design and market the four brands.

And GM is also winning other accolades. For example, the Chevy Equinox was named the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick and Kelley Blue Book's named the 2010 Equinox one of the Top 10 Family Cars for 2010.

All this has helped GM sell cars internationally, too. As Bloomberg recently reported, "General Motors Co. expects sales in Brazil to grow by 68 percent to 1 million vehicles by 2014 as growth in Latin America's largest economy stokes demand for fancier cars, said the automaker's South America chief." Additionally, for the first time, GM is now selling more cars in China than in the United States.

It remains to be seen whether producing solid cars will convince skeptical Americans to give GM another look. Many Americans have deep philosophical reasons to oppose government bailouts. But, it is clear that GM is trying hard to shed the "Government Motors" image -- as well as begin building quality cars again.

"We want to succeed and win on the cars and trucks we build," says Greg Martin. "We've been given a second chance and have restructured our business to make money and provide jobs for Americans," and, he added, "to return the taxpayers' money."
Filed Under: Economy, Analysis

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

Wow. Everyone is entitled to the own opinions, but not their own facts. Even such bastions of liberal pro union thought as the Wall Street Journal have reported that the recent problems of the American auto industry had litle or nothing to do with American workers or their collective bargaining agreements. The untold story is the amazing job American autoworkers and management have done over 30 years of fierce competition from the Japanese. Until January of 2009, GM was still the largest automaker in the world. The world. How about a story about the decline of print media? It must be cause newspapermen are chain smoking alcoholics. I've seen it in the movies, it must be true.

July 08 2010 at 9:42 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply


July 08 2010 at 8:36 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Not so your facts before you assert that GM paid back the money! If you do want to know the facts than look them up! The administration under Tim Geitner gave GM the money to pay back.So in reality they were bailed out twice. This was a large scandal and only covered by a few, however it was covered so lets not spread any more fairy tales.

July 08 2010 at 2:12 PM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to nancyskr's comment

You are incorrect. GM paid back the cash loan. The article stated that. Anyway, why does it matter? The money was paid back because the company generated enough revenue and subsequently a profit to fund their own cash reserve. Therefore, they gave the government back their loan money.

July 08 2010 at 7:04 PM Report abuse -4 rate up rate down Reply

I watched my dad purchase junk from GM his entire life. Then he purchased a TOYOTA, that ran for almost 300,000 miles with out a problem. Sorry ...I do not like the company. My dad was not not a rich man who could afford to purchase junk then to trade three years later. I will not buy it either. SORRY! GM should have gone down the tubes just like any other company who make inferior products. Why should we reward theives, crooks, and companies who INTENTIONALLY build products to FAIL? Also, I could care less what GM did 60 or 70 years ago. The US Governemnt paid for every tank that the company built...they did NOTHING for free. Also what is the matter with a company who does not have the foresite to SAVE MONEY FOR A RAINY DAY?

July 08 2010 at 11:13 AM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Tom's comment

Are you kidding me , Toyota has had more than 20 major recalls in the last year. My wife got suckered into this lie and bought an 09 Camry that literally blew up the motor at 30k , and that was before all of the recalls. She is going back to Ford , the only American company that was able to stand on its own two feet.

July 08 2010 at 12:46 PM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply

No matter what they do they still owe the tax's payers money they got from the government. They are still opperating on a wing and a prayer. I want them to succeed but, they still have to make bigger changes and unions will have to share more of the burden.

July 08 2010 at 11:11 AM Report abuse +16 rate up rate down Reply

iraqwar...actually its govt loans that destroy capitalism!!! If businesses arent allowed to fail then those businesses have much less insentive to run things smart and efficiently. Therefore its only a matter of time before this happens again since these companies know the govt will just bail them out when they screw up!! its absolutely essential in a capitalist system that business is allowed to fail. otherwise its not really capitalism at all!

July 08 2010 at 9:24 AM Report abuse +15 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to silverado765's comment

In an uber-competitive globalized economy, a laizzez-faire approach to domestic economics, especially during times of crisis, does not guarantee the success of a national capitalist economy.

July 08 2010 at 10:43 AM Report abuse -11 rate up rate down Reply

I think they were being "quietly boycotted" long before Obama took them over. That's why our tax money had to be blown on it in the first place.

July 08 2010 at 9:23 AM Report abuse -10 rate up rate down Reply

Wasn't it GM's management who negotiated the contracts with the Unions? They are both to blame; both sides were greedy.

July 08 2010 at 9:05 AM Report abuse +13 rate up rate down Reply

I will never buy another GM product. I did for years but not anymore.

July 08 2010 at 12:03 AM Report abuse +23 rate up rate down Reply
Karl Petry

I was born and raised a GM fan, with my family and I always buying a Chevrolet or Pontiac, I finally got annoyed at the poor quality of the GM cars and trucks I was buying. I would have given them one more chance with a new car, but they decided to get rid of the Pontiac. So, being totally annoyed, I bought my first new Ford, a Mustang. The workmanship of the Ford is great The fit and finish is remarkable. Dollar for dollar a much better vehicle. I don't think I'll go back to GM. Remember, I wasn't born this way, I was made this way. I don't care who you get at CEO, even with the bailout and safeguards you are still making huge mistakes, like you'll keep GMC which is nothing more than a Chevrolet in drag, but get rid of Pontiac which has a reputation of forward styling, performance and reported high customer loyalty. With a management decision to drop Pontiac, GM is doomed.

July 07 2010 at 11:55 PM Report abuse +23 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>