# How Much is the UAW To Blame for the GM Meltdown? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912 "2010-09-07T13:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/21 "2010-09-07T17:50:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Even assuming that the UAW is ultimately responsible for build quality - a dubious proposition at best - I’m talking more about the shoddiness of the product design. Designing and building a quality product costs resources. You can’t afford to expend your resources on design and quality if you’re spending so much of them on salaries and benefits. > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Detroit’s main mistake was to build SUVs when other countries emphasized fuel efficiency. The labor unions were not to blame for that. Not directly, but indirectly. The Big 3 had a hard time trying to compete with the Japanese on price & quality, because of union control. So they had to focus on larger vehicles and SUVs because there was less foreign competition in this area. Once these vehicles fell out of favor, they were doomed. Had they not moved aggressively into the SUV area, they would have been doomed even sooner. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/22 "2010-09-07T17:55:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > Even assuming that the UAW is ultimately responsible for build quality - a dubious proposition at best - I’m talking more about the shoddiness of the product design. > > Designing and building a quality product costs resources. You can’t afford to expend your resources on design and quality if you’re spending so much of them on salaries and benefits. If you can produce a shred of evidence that US automakers didn’t spend as much on product design as the Japanese, this might be a valid argument. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/23 "2010-09-07T18:02:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > > Designing and building a quality product costs resources. You can’t afford to expend your resources on design and quality if you’re spending so much of them on salaries and benefits. > > If you can produce a shred of evidence that US automakers didn’t spend as much on product design as the Japanese, this might be a valid argument. Why, did you produce any evidence on your end? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/24 "2010-09-07T18:03:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > Even assuming that the UAW is ultimately responsible for build quality - a dubious proposition at best - I’m talking more about the shoddiness of the product design. > > Designing and building a quality product costs resources. You can’t afford to expend your resources on design and quality if you’re spending so much of them on salaries and benefits. > > > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > > > Detroit’s main mistake was to build SUVs when other countries emphasized fuel efficiency. The labor unions were not to blame for that. > > Not directly, but indirectly. > > The Big 3 had a hard time trying to compete with the Japanese on price & quality, because of union control. So they had to focus on larger vehicles and SUVs because there was less foreign competition in this area. Once these vehicles fell out of favor, they were doomed. Had they not moved aggressively into the SUV area, they would have been doomed even sooner. Why would the unions fight against a higher quality product. That makes no sense. Most workers are pissed off when a product is going downhill. Most auto workers were bitching because the big 3 didn’t plan on the cars of the future while SUvs were making tons of money. Even a lame program like the TV show where bosses go undercover, show that workers are invested in the company regardless of how little they make. They are trying to do a good job. There is no payoff doing poor workmanship. Union workers are pretty proud of the work they do. Most of them could tell you what is going wrong in the process, but in America we dismiss their input because they don’t have the prerequisite education to allow it. In Japan they respect the workers input far more than we do. They empower workers. [KAIZEN - Japanese strategy for continuous improvement, examples](http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/mgmt_kaizen_main.html) Kaisen ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/25 "2010-09-07T18:05:09Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > If you can produce a shred of evidence that US automakers didn’t spend as much on product design as the Japanese, this might be a valid argument. > > Why, did you produce any evidence on your end? You want me to prove that Detroit builds shitty cars? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/26 "2010-09-07T18:06:21Z")
Management was just plain dumb at times. A glance at auto history of the last several decades shows dozen of very high profile and expensive mistakes. Not recognizing the threat of foreign car makers sooner, producing some spectacularly shitty cars, very slow to learn any lessons from more efficient companies, a total disconnect from what their customers wanted at times, some of the dumbest PR moves I’ve ever seen (private jets to ask Congress for money being a recent example), etc. No doubt about it, GM and the others deserve to be bankrupt for how incompetent some of it’s leaders were. However the union is to blame also. Once management finally wised up that their business practices needed to be overhauled, the unions fought them every step of the way. They kept the cost of labor significantly higher than other car makers. They did everything they could to block efficiency upgrades since more efficient means less employees needed. They refused to take cuts in pay or benefits even when it was pretty vital to keeping the company alive. Unions pushed for long term benefits such as pensions and health care that just are not economically viable for a company to provide when their competition does not. In general, the UAW viewed management as an enemy to be destroyed instead of as a partner they had to co-operate with to ensure the company and it’s employees were successful. Which of the two is more to blame for the problems is open to debate. However, it’s pretty clear that both management and the UAW each have a large part in the bankruptcies. I’m cold hearted enough that I tend to think they shouldn’t have been bailed out. It’s not like the workers who would lose their jobs were blameless or that those were high skilled jobs that deserved the high pay/benefits provided. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/27 "2010-09-07T18:14:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > > Why, did you produce any evidence on your end? > > You want me to prove that Detroit builds shitty cars? :dubious: No, we agree about that. The question is whether they spent less money on design. I said they did, because they had less money available for this purpose, having such high labor costs. You seem to be saying that they spent the same resources on design as the Japanese, but were just stupider. Neither of us has produced any actual evidence, but for some reason you seem to think this is only a flaw in my argument. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/28 "2010-09-07T18:17:42Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > > Designing and building a quality product costs resources. You can’t afford to expend your resources on design and quality if you’re spending so much of them on salaries and benefits.Not directly, but indirectly. > > > > The Big 3 had a hard time trying to compete with the Japanese on price & quality, because of union control. So they had to focus on larger vehicles and SUVs because there was less foreign competition in this area. Once these vehicles fell out of favor, they were doomed. Had they not moved aggressively into the SUV area, they would have been doomed even sooner. > > Why would the unions fight against a higher quality product. That makes no sense. All else being equal, the unions would have been much happier if the Big 3 could have put out a higher quality product. Of course. But all else is not equal. There’s a tradeoff between money spent on quality and money spent on workers. And faced with this choice, the unions would much prefer workers. Makes a lot of sense. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/29 "2010-09-07T18:44:22Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > A lot. But not nearly as much as the shitty products GM turned out for thirty years. > > You do realize that the quality of the products are directly related to the quality of the workers building them? > > > [@ralph124c](#): > > > > Or take the Japanese transplants-the workers at Honda were paid comparable hourly wages, but it was expected that they would shift jobs, as demand changed. thus, when there was a line breakdown, everybody scrambled and worked to get things up and running, while at GM, you had to have meeting with the union stewards, and decide who could do what-while the line went idle. > > I think the Japanese have a very different attitude about work than most Americans. In Japan, workers seem to have a lot of dedication to the success of their company. Americans, in contrast, tent to be lazy and entitled. Are you referring to the Americans that work MINIMUM 40 hours per week at a barely living wage so that upper management makes a ton of money? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/30 "2010-09-07T18:49:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > You want me to prove that Detroit builds shitty cars? :dubious: > > No, we agree about that. > > The question is whether they spent less money on design. I said they did, because they had less money available for this purpose, having such high labor costs. You seem to be saying that they spent the same resources on design as the Japanese, but were just stupider. > > Neither of us has produced any actual evidence, but for some reason you seem to think this is only a flaw in my argument. Oh. Well, [the numbers were pretty much equal in 2007](http://www.autospies.com/news/Which-automaker-has-the-largest-R-D-budget-The-answer-may-surprise-you-21374/). How’s that? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/31 "2010-09-07T19:08:20Z")
OK, that’s fair evidence. 🙂 I would quibble that the US companies produce a much broader and diversified product line than the Japanese did, and their R&D per vehicle - and product line - was probably a lot lower. [Also, my vague recollection is that the US companies ramped up their R&D once the sky started falling, but I could be wrong.] ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/32 "2010-09-07T19:13:05Z")
Not so. The US automakers market a more diverse product line _in the US_ than the Japanese did/do, but not globally. If anything, the opposite is true; the Japanese even now design and build entire classes of passenger vehicles which the Big Three don’t bother with. The most obvious is the [K-car](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car), but there are others. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/33 "2010-09-07T19:18:19Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > What happened was a difference in philosophy in upper management. When the CAFE standards were enacted Japanese auto manufacturers went out and hired a bunch of engineers to meet the standards. US manufacturers went out and hired a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists to beat the standards. You can see how it all worked out. The early Japanese cars of the 70’s were nothing but rusty tin cans with tiny motors. The smallest motor Oldsmobile made was a 5.7 Liter V8. Japanese companies spent less on wages and did not have a retirement legacy pointed at them like a 16 gun from the deck of the Missouri. When the oil embargo hit the US the core of the automobile market was based on “family sized” cars that seated 6 passengers. Economy cars like the Ford Pinto were using European engines and cars like the Maverick were using straight 6 engines right out of the 50’s. All the engine development was in the V8 and all of that was focused on power. The other advantage Japanese companies had was a more modern infrastructure owing to war destruction. What started out as a huge advantage for the United States (no loss of facilities) turned into an anchor. Money that should have been reinvested was spent on wages and retirement packages. And that leaves us with bad legacy cars such as the Chevy Vega, Pontiac Fiero, and Oldsmobile diesel, which were huge engineering failures. Add in the Quad 4 engine which was actually advertised separately in magazines for it’s technological achievement. By the 1980’s the individual cars of GM had ceased completely. The individual engines of the various brands were gone. The company was nothing but a re-badging extravaganza which produced such cars as the Cadillac Cimarron and Oldsmobile Omega. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/34 "2010-09-07T19:55:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not so. The US automakers market a more diverse product line _in the US_ than the Japanese did/do, but not globally. That’s not my impression. There’s a very good [BusinessWeek article](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm) about GM’s predicament as of 2005, written in 2005. Worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. (Among other things, they say that GM’s R&D was spread too thinly, as I wrote above. But a good article in general.) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/35 "2010-09-07T20:33:01Z")
Isn’t Ford unionized, too? If the UAW were the death of GM, why didn’t they drag Ford down, too? It seems to me that a significant chunk of the blame has to fall on something GM did differently than Ford, and they both have the UAW to deal with, so that can’t be the only (or probably not even dominant) factor. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/36 "2010-09-07T20:37:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > Not so. The US automakers market a more diverse product line _in the US_ than the Japanese did/do, but not globally. > > That’s not my impression. > > There’s a very good [BusinessWeek article](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm) about GM’s predicament as of 2005, written in 2005. Worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. (Among other things, they say that GM’s R&D was spread too thinly, as I wrote above. But a good article in general.) Again, that article looks at US market numbers only. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/37 "2010-09-07T20:43:14Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > > [@msmith537](#): > > > > In Japan, workers seem to have a lot of dedication to the success of their company. > > At least part of that can be attributed to a cradle-to-grave social contract for the largest firms - i.e. the companies had a strong dedication to their employees as well in an almost quasi-feudal, paternalistic sense. Whether this will be sustainable ( on both sides ) in the long run seems to still be debated. From what I’ve read that’s already gone, on both sides. The companies that prospered from ultra-hard working workers who were relying on that “cradle-to-grave social contract” went ahead and fired large numbers of those workers despite their promises. And as a result large numbers of the upcoming generation have little interest in working any harder than they need to keep fed. Or they just stay home and live off their parents. [An interesting article about it](http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/careers/japans-economic-stagnation-is-creating-a-nation-of-lost-youths/19580780/). The interesting difference between America and Japan is that no matter how badly American workers are abused and exploited, most don’t seem to care. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/38 "2010-09-07T20:48:38Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Since there wasn’t much give in the UAW, the reaction of the US Auto Industry was to move a lot of manufacturing and the jobs that went with it, offshore. While the Japanese and Korean companies **onshored** and built non-unionized factories in the US South. Nissan’s Smyrna TN plant opened in 1980. You gotta listen to that NPR program on NUMMI. It’s amazing. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/39 "2010-09-07T20:52:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Isn’t Ford unionized, too? If the UAW were the death of GM, why didn’t they drag Ford down, too? It seems to me that a significant chunk of the blame has to fall on something GM did differently than Ford, and they both have the UAW to deal with, so that can’t be the only (or probably not even dominant) factor. Ford barely made it, and is not out of the woods yet either. The same paradigm that faced GM faced Ford (& Chrysler). No two companies are exactly the same, and if you take any three companies in the same industry one will be the strongest of the three. But it’s not as if there’s this huge difference between Ford and the others. To the contrary, your argument proves the opposite of what you suggested. The fact that all three companies in the industry ended up in the same straits implies that it was some common factor that faced all three, not that each individually happened to be run by morons. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > > > That’s not my impression. > > > > There’s a very good [BusinessWeek article](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm) about GM’s predicament as of 2005, written in 2005. Worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. (Among other things, they say that GM’s R&D was spread too thinly, as I wrote above. But a good article in general.) > > Again, that article looks at US market numbers only. Perhaps. But the authors of that article felt that GM salary/benefit costs robbed them of the ability to be competitive on R&D and produce quality cars. > [@](#): > > Increasingly, though, the solutions will slip from GM’s control. At some point the laws of physics take over and, like steelmakers and airlines, GM is at the mercy of global forces. It simply cannot compete in a global economy with the enormous burden it now carries in legacy costs. It certainly cannot meet those costs for long off a shrinking sales base and negative cash flow. And distracted by those woes, it can’t begin to make the investments necessary to match the Koreans on price, the Japanese on quality, and the Europeans on performance. > [@](#): > > Compare that with how the most successful car companies – Toyota, Nissan, and Honda (HMC ) – do things. They concentrate research dollars on fewer vehicles, pack them with the latest features and technologies, manufacture them in low-cost, nonunion U.S. factories, and update them relentlessly. Look at the numbers: GM execs doled out $7 billion for capital spending and research and development last year, vs. $15.3 billion for Toyota. > [@](#): > > GM’s Kowaleski […] adds that GM increased its capital spending to $8 billion this year and that the company’s plan includes taking vehicle platforms, engines, and parts from around the world and using them to quickly and cheaply hit growth segments. He says: “Would you like to have as much as Toyota spends? Yeah. Do we? No. So we have to be smarter.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912/40 "2010-09-07T20:59:42Z")
I think **Hello Again** ’s point is key here. The Japanese eliminated a major advantage for the US automakers by building their own US factories, and thus saving themselves the cost of shipping completed vehicles halfway around the world. This brings us back to why American automakers didn’t do the same thing - and the answer is because they didn’t build cars that could compete in the global market. That’s not a failing of research and development; that’s a failing of corporate planning. One of the reasons Ford isn’t in such dire straits is because it started building cars that people outside the Americas wanted to buy, and _selling them here too._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-is-the-uaw-to-blame-for-the-gm-meltdown/552912.md?page=3)