EMD Sale Confirmed

If I recall correctly, the big determination on whether this buyout would happen was negotiations withe the UAW and CAW. Now here's my question - now that EMD is part of another company, why are these two unions still representing the workforce? It's obvious that, as part of GM, EMD's workforce would be grouped into C/UAW population, but now they're not a subsidiary of a car company, and they definitely don't produce cars. And there's got to be a union out there for workers who produce large industrial equipment, which would be a better representation of what the EMD employees do than a union for auto workers.

It requires an extensive process to change a union, including an NLRB vote by the affected employees, etc. Not something done overnight.

More to the point, many if not most, of the larger unions have expanded into crafts totally unrelated to their orgins. Specifically the UAW website says:

"UAW-represented workplaces range from multinational corporations, small manufacturers and state and local governments to colleges and universities, hospitals and private non-profit organizations."

See: http://www.uaw.org/about/uawmembership.html

for more info.

Nasadowsk wrote:<i>
Today, they're all the same - simply amazing. Unless you've seen them upclose and talked to the design guys, you have NO idea just how amazing the modern jet engine is.

Oh, I don't know. When they tell me that the (30 year old design!) General Electric C6 engine core can develop around 20,000 horsepower when configured as a shaft engine, I'm still impressed!

But you're right- today the progress is all very hidden- who can hit the highest temperature and pressure ratios, get the last ounce of efficiency, etc. without melting the blades off the turbine. And develop over 100,000 pounds of static thrust in an airliner engine.

<sacrilege follows...>

When you see where gas turbine engines are today, you start to wonder why in the heck ANYONE still fools around with crankshafts and pistons. :-/

What a difference 20 years makes...I remember when almost every train had a bunch of sd40-2s or a f40ph. EMD dominated.

Piston engines still exist because they're useful in ways gas turbines aren't. Gas turbines have developed into a very highly refined propulsion system for aircraft that works excellent in its intended application.

Reciprocating engines have advanced a lot, though. And realize, whenever anyone comes up with another great replacement for the automobile engine, what's the first big questions? Is it as cheap? Can it perform as well? In reality, it's an amazingly high bar to get over, and it gets higher every year.

Look at it this way - in 1970, nobody would have believed you if you told them that the Corvette in the year 2000 would have around 400HP, get 25+mpg on the highway, and yet be remarkably clean, maintenance free, more driveable, always start on the first try, and need few (if any) tuneups.

>>>Gas turbines have developed into a very highly refined propulsion system for aircraft that works excellent in its intended application. <<<

As well as for electric power generation.

Ahh, yes. Most electric generation ones are getting less and less like aircraft engines, too. The bigger GE ones are *huge*.

They love constant high loads, and thus are good for baseline generation. They start up fast and easy, so they're good for peak periods, too.

And they're quiet - there's 4 near where I live. You can't hear them. I can see the stacks of the steamer on the site from my living room window. The steamer I hear, the turbines? Nope.

The new ones are typically combined cycle, with the gas turbine exhaust making steam to turn a steam turbine for max efficiency. Maybe someday a railroad-sized design will be developed.

Boy, are we off the subject.

Since GM has a buyer, the UAW has to approve it and we are still waiting for it to happen.

Phil Hom
Northern Virgina somewhere

A union has to approve a sale? Are you certain? If true, that is extremely unusual.

From the GM Press release:

The proposed sale is contingent on completing negotiations with the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) and the subsequent ratification by its members. The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2005.

That is most interesting, that a takeover or sale provision would have been negotiated into a collective bargaining agreement. I presume that it was, or the approval would not be required. Makes one wonder if GM did not contemplate a sale at the time the union contract was negotiated.

It will also be interesting to see how the new owner of EMD fares in the competition for sales of locomotives, or if it introduces any new technologies.

Let's just hope that EMD starts making locos again. I can't believe that this company, once the dominant locomotive manufacturer, is now in danger of exiting the business entirely. In 1983, GE surpassed EMD in sales for the first time ever, and it never was the same after that. EMD fought back with the SD70mAC in 1993, but still GE outsold them. Can anyone tell me more about the revivalry of these 2 companies?

It didn't seem like much of a rivalry. It was more like EMD management shooting themselves in the foot (over and over and over and over).

Companies have there rise and downfalls, but seriously just wait a couple of years and see if the tables have turned just give it time, its slow for EMD but most railroads have gotten used to buying GE's which are far more disposable and a total write off. Hope EMD sells good with there new locomotives or there back to the drawing board, maybe they should bring back the SD40-2, or start looking into building locomotives with a better design and quality and reliability like the SD40-2 either way if that happens railways would be being GM locomotives like wildfire again.