over the long term. If I were driving a GM car that was subject to the recall, I'd do a very simple thing that would ensure that the switch never got shut off. I'd use just the key in the ignition, without any dangly bits attached to it. That works. It's been in the stories about the switch problem. The switch moves too easily, due to a too short detent plunger. So, your knee hitting a long keychain or other keys can cause it to move to the accessory position. Use the car's key alone, and that won't happen. Problem solved until GM can get around to changing out your switch.

I used to have an old MG. In the owner's manual, it said that heavy keychains could interfere with proper action of the ignition switch. It was recommended to use only the key in the ignition. So, that's what I did.

The whole ignition thingy...switch??- became loose and would not make enough contact with the key to start the car.

Same solution was evident, I got into the habit of using a separate key for driving,

everyone and telling them what to do in the interim is part of the answer. Replacing an ignition switch isn't easy or cheap, so this is all going to cost GM a few billion bucks. Bummer for them, except that they should have fixed the problem years ago. Their penny-pinching sacrificing of quality is catching up to them.

It has to do with GM management's complete unconcern about the quality of the vehicles they make. Despite knowing that these switches have been defective in design and manufacture, they ignored the issue and just continued putting the same crap switches in their cars for years.

Had management acted as soon as the problem was identified and changed the switch design, their costs would have been far less in the long run. Instead, they acted to avoid spending far less money to correct the problem with a better switch design or a different manufacturer and buried the issue until people died as a result of their poor quality components.

It's not a labor issue, either. The assembly line workers installed the parts properly on the line. They're not responsible for engineering design or parts sourcing. It is purely a management issue.

GM's management is corrupt, incompetent, and has its eye too close to the immediate bottom line. That's why the paint peeled off GM cars built in the 1980s, not long after the cars were out of warranty. GM knew they were using lousy paint and application of that paint. But, they also knew that the paint wouldn't peel during the warranty period, so they didn't fix the issue.

And it's not just GM, either. It's not just U.S. Manufacturers. It's corporate industries in all areas and types. Short-sighted and not quality-oriented. That's why many of today's products are crap.

It's not NAFTA. The problem is much bigger than that.

the appropriate QC.

That, despite GM knowing they were poorly designed. GM could have made different choices. The switch design was defective. The detent plungers and springs were too short, and didn't properly hold the switch in the run position. That is a design issue, not a QC issue in manufacturing.

Change the design and build the switches anywhere and they would have been fine. Not a NAFTA issue. It's a design issue that was not corrected for years after it was discovered. GM management is at fault, not NAFTA. NAFTA is a problem, to be sure, but it's not the problem in this case.

disputing your recitation of the facts. The OP says the replacement switches came from Mexico. Per the OP --

into why the tabs were broken would be needed. Could be design, again. Could be poor materials used. Could be other things. I don't know. It sounds like they caught this problem early, and I expect that it will be corrected quickly. The switches will still end up being made in Mexico, though. That's where the factory that makes them is.

If GM waited until a new U.S. factory was created and tooling was created, it would be a long time before the original, poorly-designed switches would be replaced. Hobson's choice right now. And that's all because the original, poorly-designed switch remained in use for years after the design flaw was known. That is a management problem. This whole fiasco is a top-down issue.