The Price Of Human Life, According To General Motors

Corporate culture probably suits the social issues subforum the best.

The executives at GM knew for 13 years that their cars had a defective ignition switch that would, well, kill people. But they did a "cost-benefit analysis" and concluded that paying off the deceased's relatives was going to be cheaper than having to install a $10 part per car. They then covered up their findings and continued to let millions drive around with the defective part in their cars.Only now, under the newly-configured GM has the truth come out

Emotional, yet this paragraph sums it up well:

No, the cause of this tragedy is an economic system that places profit above everything else, including -- and especially -- human life. GM has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make the biggest profits that it can. And if their top people crunch the numbers and can show that they will save more money by NOT fixing or replacing the part, then that is what they are going to goddam well do. F*** you, f*** me, and f*** everybody they sent to their deaths. That pretty much sums up their "culture". They knew they wouldn't get caught, and if they did, no one would ever serve any time.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

It’s relatively cheap and easy to replace the flawed ignition switch that has been blamed for at least 13 deaths, including a fatal June 2013 crash in Quebec newly linked to the defect. Yet General Motors waited more than a decade before recalling 2.6 million Chevrolet Cobalts and other small cars.

Washington Post article:

Seriously, I need to stop reading news... which I probably do not, although it is sickening seeing such attitude from people. Who the f*** cares about shareholders or profit, when it comes to human lives. Every single one of the CEOs, top executives taking the decisions during that period should be prosecuted, facing serious prison time. Doing cost-benefit analysis when it comes to human lives is beyond immoral, beyond wrong.

Sorry for the rant, but seriously, that is simply too wrong. As an opponent of capital punishment, in this particular situation, I would see it totally justified and unfortunately I am quite sure they are not the only corporation taking such actions, they are just ones who got caught...

reply to post by Cabin


I just hope that taxpayers don't end up footing the bill for this fiasco.

Absolutely sickening!

This seems to be the attitude of most large corporations anymore though. Money over everything else!

I for one agree with the OP in saying all the people who had anything to do with this need prosecuted.

Prosecute hell!..............OFF WITH THER HEADS!

status quo - where the 'bottom line' reigns supreme.!?

the part may only cost about $10 ea. but to have them all replaced [labor costs and all] puts it in the realm of the actuaries and whatnot.

is it cost effective?

or

can we absorb the cost of lawsuits and still remain profitable



sucks..

but that's the way it is anymore.

the value of human life determined by how it impacts the replacement of a friggin $10 part to ensure the buyer's safety.



ugh...

yet it is what it is.

reply to post by Cabin


I wonder how cheap it will be when the lawsuits start pouring in from the families of those 13 deaths and/or even more that survived?

Probably not so cheap anymore.

Peace

just as insurance companies use numbers geniuses to determine their potential payout rates for a given age, lifestyle, etc.

don't for a second believe that these companies/manufacturers don't do the same.

if the numbers geniuses determine that it'll be cheaper to the company to absorb the cost/payout of lawsuits versus that of replacing the defective 'part'

what are they going to choose/do?

absorb the cost/payout(s)

at least until such time that the government oversight steps in and demands a recall.


they certainly aren't going to initiate the same out of 'being of a good-heart' and standing behind their product.

not if/when the cost to do so is surpassed by that of replacing the faulty part/mechanism.

the bottom line, folks.

the bottom line.

ugh..

I wonder if the picture being presented here is as simple as this makes it sound? Is or was this the culture at all of GM or was this a call made by one or two people that fell through the cracks until it caused a major issue and black eye?

I'm not apologizing for GM, but I have some idea of how things work in a corporation. They aren't exactly huge monoliths with one, unified voice. They can be as bureaucratic and layered as the government when they get large enough and something like this can fall through on the say so of a few voices making a play in an unscrupulous way.

But I don't know, and I don't know if anyone else does either.

It is true that GM has been feeling the financial bite for a long time between regulations and labor costs.

This kind of begs the question...why did this not come to light under the White House appointed CEO?

Edit to add:

Also, if the current CEO (Mary Barra) was so concerned about this issue...why didn't she bring it up previously? She has been with GM since the 80's, and has been high enough up the corporate chain to have been aware of this issue since it's inception.

You would think they could have at least spent some of the 10.5 billion dollars in tax payer bailout funds on the 10 buck part. And I wonder if installing a woman as CEO was simply a PR move to appear more gentle and caring and less like the ruthless, cold-hearted, bottom line corporatists they are?

R.I.P. GM...

reply to post by peck420


You'd be surprised at how well these things can be hidden, too. If this was something that a few were sitting on and hoping wouldn't become a major problem, the higher ups might have been oblivious until it got obviously out of control.

Really, you'd be surprised.

ketsuko
reply to post by peck420

 

You'd be surprised at how well these things can be hidden, too. If this was something that a few were sitting on and hoping wouldn't become a major problem, the higher ups might have been oblivious until it got obviously out of control.

Really, you'd be surprised.

It would have been impossible to hide this from the Vice President of Global Manufacturing Engineering. They have complete access to every pre-production report...they have to sign off on them. A position that Barra held from 2008-2009.

peck420

ketsuko
reply to post by peck420

 

You'd be surprised at how well these things can be hidden, too. If this was something that a few were sitting on and hoping wouldn't become a major problem, the higher ups might have been oblivious until it got obviously out of control.

Really, you'd be surprised.

It would have been impossible to hide this from the Vice President of Global Manufacturing Engineering. They have complete access to every pre-production report...they have to sign off on them. A position that Barra held from 2008-2009.

edit on 1-4-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)

Just because you sign off on something doesn't mean you always pay as much attention to it as you should.

Reminds me of that scene in Fight Club:

Narrator: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Criminals, the lot. May they choke on their worthless paper. Things have a way of coming 'round, you know...

feltsy
Reminds me of that scene in Fight Club:

Narrator: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Criminals, the lot. May they choke on their worthless paper. Things have a way of coming 'round, you know...

exactly. no politics involved. no true concern for human life/safety... merely

THAT bottom line!!!

if it balances out in their favor [to whatever percentage or degree of variance demed appreicable]

that's the route they're gonna take.





but that's what they're gonna do.


:smh:

[ETA]

for me?

the ANSWER is....


KARMA

no telling when 'she' might show up/pay a visit

ketsuko
Just because you sign off on something doesn't mean you always pay as much attention to it as you should.

It does to engineers.

As soon as their signature is on it, their career is on the line.

Everything in this country is for profit and nothing gets in the way of it. They rip us off at the gas pump they rip us off at the grocery store they rip you off when you buy a car. It's one big scam in this country and it's all about how to make money at your expense. Moral and capitalism don't belong in the same sentence.

ketsuko
I wonder if the picture being presented here is as simple as this makes it sound? Is or was this the culture at all of GM or was this a call made by one or two people that fell through the cracks until it caused a major issue and black eye?

I'm not apologizing for GM, but I have some idea of how things work in a corporation. They aren't exactly huge monoliths with one, unified voice. They can be as bureaucratic and layered as the government when they get large enough and something like this can fall through on the say so of a few voices making a play in an unscrupulous way.

But I don't know, and I don't know if anyone else does either.

It is true that GM has been feeling the financial bite for a long time between regulations and labor costs.

The elephant in the room here is the fact that GM is heavily unionized. It was already damn near "government motors" already before it was saved with a taxpayer buy-in/bailout, something that we should do for no company.

Am I to understand that management is not part of the union, that they have no responsibility for this?

You know, corporations want all the rights and privileges of person-hood for political purposes but not for ethical or moral purposes. This GM situation seems criminal to me and individuals should be held accountable. Not just some BS corporate monetary fine or settlement.

kosmicjack
You know, corporations want all the rights and privileges of person-hood for political purposes but not for ethical or moral purposes. This GM situation seems criminal to me and individuals should be held accountable. Not just some BS corporate monetary fine or settlement.

edit on 4/1/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

Yes, I will agree to that and any unions profiting from the corporation should be included in the prosecution to be sure there is no connection to the wrongdoing.