So apparently GM ignition switches are so poorly made a key ring that’s too heavy causes them to fail? We aren’t talking about hanging a cinder block off your key chain. The statement they issued warned against having anything besides the key fob hanging from the ignition switch. At least they were quick to act on the problem. They’ve only known about it since 2001. 
Do you know what years/models the recall covers? The Mrs has more keys than a janitor, plus a wallet-thing dangling there from her Suburban for the past 110k mi…
Nevrmind. I found it: Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR, Saturn Sky and Ion and the Pontiac G5 and Solstice…vehicles from model years 2005 through 2007
Having a big heavy key ring is not good for any ignition switch. They have been known to cause problems with just about every make of vehicle, it’s not just a GM problem. Sooner or later using an overloaded key ring will most likely cause an ignition switch failure.
Randy Goodling
CCOA #95
I believe that is part of the issue. There is another issue in that the contacts in the switch use lithium grease. It dries out and causes the problem. The fix might be using silicone instead.
I saw this piece on the news last night. The fix for this issue would have cost GM $1.00 for each model sold. The cost for 12 people was their life. GM executives made a choice and decided not to tell consumers or the government via a recall. GM made a “fix” for the key, a plastic insert that changed the hole in the key from oblong to a small center hole for hanging on a key ring. Consumers had to ask for the “fix” at their dealer when they had an ignition problem. 65 plastic insert “fixes” were given out and the man that made the call on not issuing a recall is still on the job. So sad!
Steven
The latest reports indicate that there have been hundreds of deaths due to the ignition problems, not the dozen that GM reported. Makes you feel even better about bailing this company out doesn’t it.
Before we jump all over GM specifically, let’s recall that Ford made a similar decision not to spend $4.00 per Pinto to improve fuel tank safety. The problem isn’t GM or Ford, per se. It is quarterly-results-driven corporate cultures that prioritize short-term benefit over long-term thinking, doing the expedient thing versus the right thing.
I just read an article on the GM issue this morning that mentioned Guidant Corporation, a company that made heart defribillators. They didn’t reveal a potentially fatal defect to patients or doctors because the engineers were making decisions on safety instead of safety specialists. I can guess they rationalized the low likelihood of the problem surfacing against the certain discomfort of having to announce that they had a flawed design and the cost to fix it.
Companies have to be responsible for the culture they create and that means executives should have some skin in the game. Whoever knew about this decision and had the authority to override it should lose their job and be personally liable for that decision. It’s the only way that decisions will get made for the greater good, IMHO.
No we should jump all over GM specifically. Comparing this to events that happened forty years ago is not really relevant. We obviously can’t condone what happened in the past, but until we invent a time machine there is nothing we can do about it. However, we are supposed to have learned from it. Someone at GM made the decision not to correct a known defect and as a result many innocent people lost their lives. That is criminal. Is that a result of our modern society that’s driven by quarterly profits and immediate results? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t That doesn’t really have any bearing on whether it’s right or wrong. How many people would you kill to boost your bottom line this quarter and collect a big bonus? I’m guessing the answer for most would be none. Clearly the answer for GM was around a dozen. That was what they were willing to report, so I assume that was the acceptable range for them.
I had not heard anything about the issue with Guidant. But I will say if that story is true, then the same should apply to them.
And one more point. If I remember correctly the issue that Ford failed to correct was created as the result of a collision. The GM defect is the cause of the collisions. I’m not saying that makes what Ford did right, but it’s a big difference. And as long as we’re at it, Toyota should be thrown into the mix with the acceleration issue. Though it appears the justice dept is handling them. I doubt you will see the same with GM.
We’re probably in agreement on this issue overall. But after 30 years in the corporate world, I have seen the extent to which people can rationalize short-term decision-making. Most of the time it doesn’t have life or death implications, but I do know that people have an amazing capacity for downplaying risks to avoid making a decision that might require defending upward. I’ve also observed first-hand the extent to which people can rationalize doing something they should know is objectively wrong.
It’s no accident that we had to pass a law to protect whistleblowers. And we know people on Wall Street made decisions to promote investments they knew were toxic. They were more concerned with their careers and commissions than the people who might lose their retirement savings. The mentality is there; we just need to make sure it doesn’t extent to the point where people start losing their lives, but I’d be hard pressed to suggest it doesn’t. Human nature is human nature.
None of the above should be taken as a defense of GM. I still think somebody should be held personally accountable. I agree with your statement that we should learn from the past. But I’d like to see where human beings in general have ever seriously demonstrated that trait in the absence of facing severe consequences for failing to do so.
Well said Bill. I believe that this is the heart of the matter, the dollar is valued higher than anything else, including human life.
Randy Goodling
CCOA #95
Then you probably do not want to ask that question to the executives of big pharma, health insurance, Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, or obamacare. And there are probably countless others. Dollar first, people second.
Randy Goodling
CCOA #95
Don’t take what I’m saying as disagreeing with you Bill. From what I’ve seen you and I are most often in agreement and I don’t believe this to be an exception. It seemed like you were deflecting the blame from GM a bit by rationalizing what has happened. I’m sure you didn’t mean it to come across that way. I’m sure you find it every bit as appalling as most people would.
I do have to disagree with your last statement though. There’s still plenty of people that do the right thing simply because they have morals and integrity. I don’t believe our society has decayed to that point. Yet.
I can’t argue there Randy. Working in a profession like medicine to help sick people to me is one of the most admirable jobs there is. Being in business to profit from the misery of others is as disgusting as it gets. There are conspiracy theorists that claim there is already a cure for cancer. But there is too much money at stake to not just treat the disease rather than cure it. Do I believe that? No, not really. But it certainly makes you think.
In other news, the name of the company is not familiar to me, but just a couple days ago I read an article about a little kid with some rare disease that was pretty much at the end of the line. This poor kid had already survived cancer multiple times and now had some other affliction that was going to kill him. A company in North Carolina has an experimental drug for the potential treatment. They declined to administer it to the kid because they felt it might delay them bringing the drug to market. Now nothing is guaranteed, it may not help him. But what kind of a-hole can make a decision like that? They only back peddled and changed their decision because they realized what a PR nightmare it was going to be. Let the kid die, it might cost us a lot of money is probably not an ideal slogan.
In general, no, it hasn’t. But there seem to be fewer people like that than there once were. Maybe I’m just jaded because I work with a lot of sales types! 
LOL. You mean sales people aren’t honest? Who’d a thought? 
There have been multipule stories of treatment being denied. If I recall correctly the one with the young child and the new drug treatment was denied because the company said that the FDA had not yet approved the drug. That has all the sounds of the lawyers being involved. Once again it was a case of dollar first, people second. I bet that the parents would have been quite willing to sign a waiver.
Randy Goodling
CCOA #95
There are provisions for drugs to be administered before they are approved. There’s a special term for it that was quoted in the article. But since my memory sucks, I don’t remember what it is. Their exact reasoning was they were afraid it might delay them getting their drug to market. And that would cause it to not be available to more people who need it. Of course it was blatantly obvious the real reason was the amount of money the delay would cost them.
You said it Al, we are right back to money first.
Randy Goodling
CCOA #95
What does this say for us as Bill, Al, and myself are all involved in sales. HHMMMMMM
Randy Goodling
CCOA #95