SPONSORED BY:

Saturn was Supposed To Save GM

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

GM in the early 1980s still ruled the global auto industry. But the company had been jolted by the recession of that era, and lost money for the first time in 60 years. The import market nearly doubled—from 13 percent to more than 24 percent—between 1970 and 1985. And the fledgling Japanese auto plants in America were building top-quality products with just half the workforce that GM factories needed.

To counter the Japanese invasion, GM launched a project named after the rocket that carried Americans to the moon during the space race with the Soviets. Smith was determined to blow up the corporate model and start over—employing novel techniques from the assembly line to the showroom. The United Auto Workers feared Smith's vision would translate into more robots and fewer workers. But Smith found an unlikely partner in Donald Ephlin, the portly and disheveled head of the UAW's GM department. Ephlin had traveled to Japan with Ford executives in the early 1980s to see the competition's management methods firsthand.

In July 1985 GM reached agreement with Ephlin on a "Memorandum of Understanding" just 28 pages long. Saturn would not be bound by the union's cumbersome standard contract—featuring nearly 200 job classifications at some GM factories, with rules prohibiting members of one group to perform work reserved for another. The new brand would have just a handful of classifications. The memorandum stated: "We believe that all people want to be involved in decisions that affect them, care about their jobs and each other … and want to share in the success of their efforts."

It was a remarkable, even revolutionary document, taking Saturn beyond the Japanese in establishing joint decision making. Workers would receive only 80 percent of the UAW master-contract wage, with the other 20 percent tied to quality and productivity. Instead of a traditional fixed-benefit pension, Saturn workers would get a profit-sharing plan akin to a 401(k). In return, GM pledged to devote at least 5 percent of each employee's annual working hours to skills training, and not to lay off more than 20 percent of the workforce under virtually any circumstances.

While the factory was being built, labor and management joined in team-building exercises at a nearby obstacle course. Employees and bosses alike scaled a 40-foot wall while roped together and took a "trust fall," flinging themselves backward off an elevated platform and into the arms of their colleagues.

Ann Fox remembers those years fondly. In her mid-20s then, she previously had worked at a GM components factory in Alabama, shoving a bootlike contraption onto a steering mechanism. "It was endless pain," she recalls. Saturn, in contrast, was "like heaven—a nice, clean, new plant," where her physical work was made easier by robots and other machinery. Workers had a voice in everything, even hiring decisions. "You felt more loyal because you were really part of it all," says Fox.

All the corporate cheerleading stirred resentments. Among the other brands—Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick—Saturn was viewed as the insufferable teacher's pet whom the other kids couldn't wait to beat up when the teacher wasn't looking. One GM engineer who had jumped at the chance to join Saturn recalls running into resistance when he tried to recruit others within the company. "People would shoot back: 'You Saturn guys are supposed to be the experts'," he recalls. " 'Why do you need our people?' "

The tensions extended to the executive suite. By 1987, with Saturn still in gestation, the company was falling behind arch-rival Ford in earnings, quality and every other measure. Executive vice president Elmer Johnson told the GM board that the company should fix its existing operations, and asked the board to pull the plug on Saturn. Smith, who had publicly staked GM's future on Saturn's success, wasn't about to lose this battle. Within months, Johnson, once regarded as Smith's most likely successor, resigned.

In the summer of 1989 Ephlin retired from the UAW, and a year later Smith also stepped down. But a few weeks before his departure, Smith drove the first Saturn car off the assembly line. Such events usually are public ceremonies. But GM's financial performance was lagging, and Smith had taken a shellacking from documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, who lampooned the executive in his hit satire "Roger & Me." So Saturn's publicists held the drive-off ceremony in private to avoid tainting their spanking-new brand with the bumbling image of their boss.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: reswob10 @ 04/27/2009 12:20:35 PM

    I just want to say, since I graduated college in 1993, I've had only Saturns. I've gotten a total of 400,000 miles from both, 190,000 from the first (1993 SL) and 210,000 from the second (1996 SL) and only spent about $10,000 total in maintenance. I'm still driving the second 150 miles a day and getting 35 - 40 MPG. Great car as long as it's not a 2000 or higher...

    Saturn was, at one time a great car and a great company... division of GM. I'm sorry to see the slide.

  • Posted By: rabagley @ 04/26/2009 1:28:34 PM

    It's fairly easy to explain why Saturn failed: low energy taxes. Why do (did) American consumers favor huge vehicles with horrible mileage? Why do europeans have so many fuel-efficient choices in their car market? Why do Americans continue to own homes 30-80 miles away from where they work? Why do European cities look so different? Why is public transit in Europe clean, convenient, and usable? Why are 90% of American cities so hostile to pedestrian, bicycle, and scooter/motorcycle traffic? Why are our current plans to increase CAFE mileage doomed to fail? Why are Americans in serious trouble once fuel prices head back up?

    One reason: a history of corrupt energy policy stretching back 30 to 50 years. Want to fix it? Call your congresscritters and ask for a 50% gas tax to be phased in 5%/year over the next ten years, with the proceeds going to public transit infrastructure. You think this year is bad, if we do nothing, just wait.

  • Posted By: tech010101x @ 04/26/2009 11:58:08 AM

    The concept of "Buy American" is ironically anti-American at its core. If, as an American, you hold dear the idea of limited government role for healthy private industry for a strong and healthy USA, then the idea of having artificial constraints like trade barriers and "Buy American" are the antithesis to those fundamental American core values. The only way "American made" would enter the consumer's decision making is because the product is somehow inferior - either price, quality, features, or something that makes it less than a competitor. Therefore, if a "buy American" factor kicks in, it is to prop up a non-competitive product (at least for that particular consumer). If enough consumers do this, then as a group, they are subsidizing the non-competitiveness of that American made product. Kick in enough of that... between government subsidies, tax breaks, and consumer forgiveness, this American made product and the company behind it is getting inducement to do less... not more - overall unhealthy for both the company and ultimately America.

    Americans bought way too many GM's, Ford, and Chrysler cars over the years - giving these companies a very wrong picture over exactly how well their products really competed in the marketplace. Look at the overseas marketshare's of GM, Ford and Chrysler (yes there are protectionist trade policy issues, but still...) Now take away the fact that "buy American" isn't really true anyways anymore... that Chrysler is probably Canadian and the rest are made in some combination of U.S., Canada, Mexico, and many other places. So now, not only are the products inferior, they're not even American, or no more so than many Honda's, Toyota's, BMW's, or Mercedes. The companies themselves are stock corporations with ownership that is completely spread throughout the world. The companies themselves are complacent... after all, Americans have been buying all sorts of truly awful cars coming from the Detroit automakers for years, why do they have to work that hard? So now they are "too big to fail" and we toss in billions in the hope that they will survive. But ultimately, if you believe in limited government and private enterprise, the weak must re-invent or perish. At this point, the Detroit automakers don't know how to get better. Leave Ford to be the last one standing... it will easily soak up the remaining market for mediocre products made by the historically "American" car company and focus on a new crop of innovative companies like Tesla. Focus on reducing the barriers to making a car company, like limited factory runs on out-sourced manufacturing plants so that Saturn dealers can have a contracted run made to their spec, rather than GM bosses dictating it. Let companies fail - build a system where failure doesn't mean the failure of the U.S. industry. This, in many ways, is the failure of big business - too big to fail means it isn't healthy for th

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 
The Greediest People of All Time
From Bernard Madoff to AIG, Wall Street has reinvented excess. But the Masters of the Universe didn't invent greed. A look at the despots, robber barons and others who made our shortlist.