15 Billion to Auto Industry

[BIG PIZZLE]

If the government is going to prop up the auto industry, that money has to go to making smart decisions. But that's not what is going to happen. People are going to get tons of money and they'll be fine for a few years doing the same shit and it's going to happen all over again. US automakers need to stop making shitty cars if they want to start making money.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_go_co/congress_autos


Congress, White House talking $15B auto bailout

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – Jolted by the loss of thousands of jobs, congressional Democrats and the White House reached for agreement Friday on about $15 billion in bailout loans for the beleaguered auto industry. President George W. Bush warned that at least one of the Big Three carmakers might not survive the current economic crisis.

Several officials in both parties said the breakthrough on a long-stalled bailout came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bowed to Bush's demand that the aid come from a fund set aside for the production of environmentally friendlier cars. The California Democrat spoke to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten during the day to signal her change in position, they added.

The developments came as desperate auto executives pleaded for a second day with lawmakers for loans to help them survive, and the government reported the worst single month's job loss in 34 years.
Pelosi's office issued a statement saying legislation would come to a vote in the House next week. The Senate is also scheduled to be in session to consider steps to aid Detroit's Big Three.

"Congress will insist that any legislation include rigorous and ongoing oversight to guarantee that taxpayers are protected and that resources are directed to ensure the long-term viability and competitiveness of the American automobile industry," Pelosi's statement said.

In a subsequent statement, she added that the billions originally ticketed for development of more environmentally friendly cars would be repaid "within a matter of weeks."

Officials in both parties also said the legislation would include creation of a trustee or group of industry overseers to make sure the bailout funds were used by General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC for their intended purpose. The funds are designed to last until March, giving the incoming Obama administration and the new Congress time to consider the issue anew.

At the White House, Bush declared the economy was in a recession, and he urged a gridlocked Congress to act quickly on a multibillion-dollar industry bailout — with taxpayer protections.

"We are going to have to have some give here," replied Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a senior House Democrat, expressing optimism that compromise might be possible. It wasn't clear whether he was prodding Bush or Pelosi with his comments, but Republicans said there had been no lessening in Bush's refusal to tap the $700 billion financial industry bailout fund to help the automakers.

There were also fresh calls during the day for the Federal Reserve to come to the rescue of the Big Three, possibly in the form of low-cost loans. And Frank said he had talked with Tim Geithner, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for treasury secretary, a possible sign of involvement by the incoming administration.

"I am concerned about the viability of the automobile companies," a somber Bush said as a fresh report showed that employers slashed 533,000 jobs in November.

The president added, "I'm concerned about those who work for the automobile companies and their families. And likewise, I am concerned about taxpayer money being provided to those companies that may not survive." Bush did not elaborate, but executives at both GM and Chrysler have warned that their storied corporations could collapse by year's end.

In addition to the November layoffs, GM announced it will cut shifts at factories in Lordstown, Ohio, Orion Township, Mich., and Oshawa, Ontario, in February as a result of slumping auto sales. About 2,000 jobs were involved, bringing the year's total to 11,000.

The chief executives of GM, Ford and Chrysler, testified for a second day before Congress in support of their plea for a $34 billion bailout in the form of loans. "We believe this is the least costly alternative," Chrysler LLC chief executive Bob Nardelli said.

For the day, at least, their appeals were overtaken by the severity of the job loss figures, the worst in 34 years.

Frank said repeatedly that the unemployment statistics had quieted talk of allowing one or more of the automakers to go bankrupt.

"I think it's fair to say that the jobs report today, this disastrous jobs report, has heightened the interest in doing something." With trademark wit, he added, "If we are lucky we will come out with a bill here that nobody likes, because any bill that any individual liked couldn't pass."

Bush renewed his call for Congress to rewrite an existing $25 billion program intended to help the industry make more fuel-efficient vehicles. But the president did not explicitly foreclose other options, and Republican aides said the White House might be open to some sort of compromise.

Congressional budget analysts have said tapping the fuel-efficiency program for a broader auto bailout would net only $7.5 billion in short-term cash but amended that to say adjustments were possible that could double that amount. Pelosi and environmentalists had opposed making use of those funds. Instead, they wanted the administration to take money from a $700 billion financial industry bailout that cleared Congress last fall.
Absent an agreement, the Senate appeared likely to convene next week for a series of votes on various alternatives, all of which would be doomed to failure. Any measure would require a 60-vote majority, an impossibility barring an agreement that involves both parties.

Nardelli, GM chief executive Rick Wagoner and Ford CEO Alan Mulally all drove to Washington this week with detailed plans describing how their companies would use loans to make their industry more competitive in the long run, material that congressional leaders had demanded as a condition for considering a bailout bill.
The hearing was drained of some of the drama that filled the room at a similar Senate session on Thursday, although Frank told the three that some lawmakers would find it difficult to support aid unless the companies abandoned lawsuits filed against several states seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[noahsdove]

The developments came as desperate auto executives pleaded for a second day with lawmakers for loans to help them survive, and the government reported the worst single month's job loss in 34 years.
Pelosi's office issued a statement saying legislation would come to a vote in the House next week. The Senate is also scheduled to be in session to consider steps to aid Detroit's Big Three.

I love how they make it sound like the execs have it so bad while the workers are scraping by on food stamps and forclosures.

[billy1980]

The workers were living big on Union benefits etc. But if the union wasnt there maybe they would have just spent the money on more jets and asian hookers. So who knows.

[mongo]

gay. let detroit (aside from willy) burn to the fucking ground!

[Claydon]

The workers were living big on Union benefits etc. But if the union wasnt there maybe they would have just spent the money on more jets and asian hookers. So who knows.

what is wrong with asian hookers.

[mongo]

what is wrong with asian hookers.

the out-of-control bush. that's what.

[Claydon]

until these guys can dump the unions they are fucked.


as for tim/mongo.......thai hookers are hairless.

[Satan]

until these guys can dump the unions they are fucked.


as for tim/mongo.......thai hookers are hairless.
no, they're trimmed. koreans on the other hand....

[mongo]

who wants to fuck a korean? might as well just fuck some pickled herring.

[Archangel]

as for tim/mongo.......thai hookers are hairless.

Because they are 11 year old boys, you sick fuck.

[Claydon]

Because they are 11 year old boys, you sick fuck.

oh really?


http://www.xvideos.com/video55090/Asian_Strip_Show

*credit to GTSCH for this link*

[Genius]

Yay! I probably get to keep my job!

[Infotainment]

I love how they make it sound like the execs have it so bad while the workers are scraping by on food stamps and forclosures.

The workers make $78 an hour including benefits. They are not struggling by any means.

[Claydon]

Yay! I probably get to keep my job!

If you are one of those UAW fuck ups, everything has suddenly become clear.

If however you are just a working guy that is with a supplier and not union...then god speed sir!

[Genius]

The workers make $78 an hour including benefits. They are not struggling by any means.
I don't. THINK ABOUT THE SUPPLIERS!!! WE'RE PEOPLE, TOO!!!

[Claydon]

I don't. THINK ABOUT THE SUPPLIERS!!! WE'RE PEOPLE, TOO!!!

what do you manufacture?

[Hanover Fist]

Unfortunately the trickle down effect has already become a tidal wave and an avalanche of plant closures and layoffs. Just about every manufacturer in my county is either closing or laying off significant numbers of its workforce including the plant I work at. These are all developments announced in the last 1-2 months, it's like the entire economy of Hillsdale county is collapsing with momentum. It is unreal how quickly everything is happening around here, and I am probably understating it at that. There could literally be 30% unemployment around here in less than 2 months. These aren't union jobs we are talking about either, the last union shop in our area closed about 3 years ago. We don't make anywhere near $30/hr, these are all people making $12-15/hr and in many cases both spouses work at the same plant so the layoffs are doubly bad. I'm not sure a $15b bailout would save all this or the auto companies, but if something isn't done soon I can't imagine how bad it will get within a month or two of the new administration.

[freegood]

I don't like the unions or even the cars coming out of Detroit, but our national workforce doesn't need to be penetrated out of every orifice at this point.

They can make the strings attached feel like chains but give them the damn money. Even if they come back begging in 6-8 months

[BIG PIZZLE]

The workers make $78 an hour including benefits. They are not struggling by any means.

Do you realize how much money $78 an hour is? There is no way a guy screwing bolts into a car makes 150k a year. I dont think that's true at all.

[Hanover Fist]

Do you realize how much money $78 an hour is? There is no way a guy screwing bolts into a car makes 150k a year. I dont think that's true at all.

It's not hourly wage, it's a combination of wages and benefits. The last number I saw was $73/hr average for big 3 union assembly line workers. I personally know a line worker that makes $31/hr.
The average non big 3 (Hyundai,Toyota, Mercedes,Honda etc) in America makes $43/hr wages and benefits.
The place I work is probably much less than that at about $30/hr wages and benefits. It may sound like a lot until you figure in all the costs of insurance and things that the company pays on each employee.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Why the fuck did I go to school for 100 years if I could just be a fat white dude with a pneumatic rivet gun?

[Aegis]

I'm so fucking pissed about this shit. It's about time we removed them assholes from congress.

[Infotainment]

Do you realize how much money $78 an hour is? There is no way a guy screwing bolts into a car makes 150k a year. I dont think that's true at all.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY9Bc32dA0t0&refer=home

The union agreed last year that new hires would have hourly pay and benefits reduced to about $26 from about $78 and wouldn’t be eligible for fixed-benefit pensions. The 2007 accords also call for creating the union-managed trusts that will take over retiree health-care obligations starting in 2010.

[Genius]

what do you manufacture?
Auto parts. For car companies. My job is probably safe without a bailout, but this would make me feel a little more secure.

[Genius]

I'm so fucking pissed about this shit. It's about time we removed them assholes from congress.
Please. 15 billion with significant strings attached is nothing. Now a 650 billion bailout to financial institutions, no questions asked? That's a little more than a drop in the bucket, and something worth getting worked up about.

[Infotainment]

Auto parts. For car companies. My job is probably safe without a bailout, but this would make me feel a little more secure.

Without a bailout, GM would have claimed bankruptcy and your company would have had to take pennys on the dollar for the parts that were already shipped under chapter 11. Bailouts are terrible because they don't fix the underlying problems with the company, all they do is allow the company to continue with the same shitty business model (in gm's case it's focusing too much on the US not focusing enough on international sales where their profit margin is much higher) for a couple of extra years.

[freegood]

Please. 15 billion with significant strings attached is nothing. Now a 650 billion bailout to financial institutions, no questions asked? That's a little more than a drop in the bucket, and something worth getting worked up about.

Plus a 7.7 trillion "loan". (http://recession.org/news/us-pledges-top-7-trillion-frozen-credit)

[Genius]

Without a bailout, GM would have claimed bankruptcy and your company would have had to take pennys on the dollar for the parts that were already shipped under chapter 11. Bailouts are terrible because they don't fix the underlying problems with the company, all they do is allow the company to continue with the same shitty business model (in gm's case it's focusing too much on the US not focusing enough on international sales where their profit margin is much higher) for a couple of extra years.
Yes. And if this was an alligator-skin shoemaker bailout, I might be inclined to agree with you. But it's an automotive industry bailout, and I happen to work in the automotive industry. They go bankrupt, my company downsizes locally and ships jobs off to Mexico, I join the unemployment parade. So I love the idea of a bailout, even if it is a stopgap.

[BIG PIZZLE]

If the government is serious about fixing america, they need to pull industy out of the 20th century. Cars would be a great place to start. They should make flying cars that run on farts. It would probably take less than $1 trillion to figure out how to do that.

[Aegis]

Yes. And if this was an alligator-skin shoemaker bailout, I might be inclined to agree with you. But it's an automotive industry bailout, and I happen to work in the automotive industry. They go bankrupt, my company downsizes locally and ships jobs off to Mexico, I join the unemployment parade. So I love the idea of a bailout, even if it is a stopgap.




I'm also tied to the auto industry and live in Michigan. I'm severely opposed to the "bailout" because as many have stated in one form or another it's a temporary fix to a problem that will eventually end in bankruptcy anyway.

The union needs to go and bankruptcy is the only way that can happen. Then and only them would I support a bailout.

If that were to happen the auto makers could reorganize as they need to and not have to fight at every turn with the union.

[Swurgen]

The discrepency between what the domestic automakers get from their workers vs what the foreign companies get from the workers in plants here isn't much different between all of the other trade imbalances our industries face abroad. If said workers were putting together cars that people were saying "Wow! This car is way better and more efficient than that Japanese car over there! Too bad it's just more expensive due to inflated labor prices" then I would blame the UAW more. I don't remember ever seeing or reading that.

[Claydon]

So i just found out that GM (and I am sure the others as well) dealerships pay yearly fees to the UAW pension/medical funds to support their useless workers and this is one of the reasons so many of these dealerships are going under. WHAT THE FUCK?! Furthermore, Rick Wagoner the CEO of GM was declaring that Saturn, a division that has not had 1 year of profitablity in its history is GMs way to success. Between the UAW, and this fuck stick GM is surely doomed.

[Archangel]

Actually, Saturn is now pretty much selling rebranded Opels/Vauxhalls, which are miles better than anything the parent company builds. So the man does have a point, fuck stick or not. Ford will probably do something similar.

[Debo]

Please. 15 billion with significant strings attached is nothing. Now a 650 billion bailout to financial institutions, no questions asked? That's a little more than a drop in the bucket, and something worth getting worked up about.

There is a huge difference between the collapse of the entire banking system and the collapse of part of an industry (A part that we don't need going forward either. If the Big 3 ceased to exist, we would still have cars to drive). I attempted to explain the difference between the two in this post (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=254258#post254258).

And $15bn is a stop gap. Shit, the UAW isn't going to give up enough to make any of these companies profitable again.

The consumer has spoken, they read the Big 3 their last rites 20 years ago. People don't want to buy their shitty cars anymore. Why should they continue to exist?

[Satan]

I should ask the government for a bailout. I could use a little more cash.

[Claydon]

Actually, Saturn is now pretty much selling rebranded Opels/Vauxhalls, which are miles better than anything the parent company builds. So the man does have a point, fuck stick or not. Ford will probably do something similar.

Yah, fab arch..... they have these products in the EU for years, and ford just said that it would not be possible to retool their plants in N. America to make the high mpg diesel focus that they make in the UK. Given the 30 year history of these guys fucking up I have zero faith.

[Claydon]

I should ask the government for a bailout. I could use a little more cash.


You fail.

You are not black, or on Wall St.

[Okie Medicvet]

Please. 15 billion with significant strings attached is nothing. Now a 650 billion bailout to financial institutions, no questions asked? That's a little more than a drop in the bucket, and something worth getting worked up about.

You got that right! Shit like that pisses me off!

[Genius]

There is a huge difference between the collapse of the entire banking system and the collapse of part of an industry (A part that we don't need going forward either. If the Big 3 ceased to exist, we would still have cars to drive). I attempted to explain the difference between the two in this post (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=254258#post254258).

And $15bn is a stop gap. Shit, the UAW isn't going to give up enough to make any of these companies profitable again.

The consumer has spoken, they read the Big 3 their last rites 20 years ago. People don't want to buy their shitty cars anymore. Why should they continue to exist?
I understand. Here is my (very personal) response to that.


Yes. And if this was an alligator-skin shoemaker bailout, I might be inclined to agree with you. But it's an automotive industry bailout, and I happen to work in the automotive industry. They go bankrupt, my company downsizes locally and ships jobs off to Mexico, I join the unemployment parade. So I love the idea of a bailout, even if it is a stopgap.
I know this isn't a good idea, and if I didn't have a vested interest in the outcome, I'd be the first on in line screaming to let them die. But the upper management at my company, for reasons only they know, recently shifted a bunch of business away from Japanese-owned companies to a specific American manufacturer, and right now, I don't have the luxury of jumping ship.

[Debo]

I understand. Here is my (very personal) response to that.


I know this isn't a good idea, and if I didn't have a vested interest in the outcome, I'd be the first on in line screaming to let them die. But the upper management at my company, for reasons only they know, recently shifted a bunch of business away from Japanese-owned companies to a specific American manufacturer, and right now, I don't have the luxury of jumping ship.

I know that it is a shitty situation and I feel bad for people. But what is going to be different in 6, 9 or 12 months?

GM said that they should be alright if annual new car sales are 15 million or more (We are at around 12.5mm now). We may or may not see 15mm in cars sales in the future. Right now, I would tend to go with the lower end of the projected range. If sales do end up on, or lower than, the low end of the range is GM going to jump back into its Volt and drive back to D.C. to beg for more money? At what point does it become obvious that they are dead men walking?

[Claydon]

GM is basically a bankrupt company, their market value is a stunning 3 billion at this time. The only reason they have not shut down operations is with the 'hope' of a goverment infusion.

With that in mind.......why not go bankrupt. At least they could finally break the back of the goddamn UAW, and perhaps then we could close the chapter on that book. Oh yah, and drag Wagoner around the walls of Troy.

[Okie Medicvet]

They need to just fuckin go bankrupt and let the govt get it back and one of Obama's job creation programs could be to take those factories and have them stop crankin out autos that no one will buy anymore and start retroffiting machines and start making wind turbines and solar panels. FDR did what had to be done to help the average American get back on their feet after the Great Depression, and we need to do the same now to prevent or mitigate one hopefully not as great depression.

[billy1980]

what is wrong with asian hookers.

Nothing, nothing at all

[noahsdove]

The workers make $78 an hour including benefits. They are not struggling by any means.

Speaking from a union standpoint. technically I make over 30 dollars an hour but most of that goes towards retirement, health care benefits, dental, unemployment insurance and what have you.

[freegood]

As long as we have months where workers lost half a million jobs, I think there'd be a decent amount of money to be used as a loan for car companies.

It aint gonna be pretty or even the right thing, but collapsing a American auto industry isn't what we need right now.

Shit, it pales in comparison to the money sink called AIG.

[Claydon]

Nothing, nothing at all

I know right?!

[Claydon]

something just occured to me...why hasn't the board of directors at GM ousted their moron ceo and cfo?

[Swurgen]

something just occured to me...why hasn't the board of directors at GM ousted their moron ceo and cfo?

Because of the UAW.

[Morfin]

something just occured to me...why hasn't the board of directors at GM ousted their moron ceo and cfo?

Maybe, just maybe, because Wagoner isn't the moron, but is the designated whipping boy for all of Congress' hypocritical "tough" stance after taking all sorts of blame about the financial companies' bail-out?

Maybe because Wagoner is the designated whipping boy for all of America's blame about the economic problems and the problems with the auto companies that have existed for more than 40 years?

I must have missed Congress telling Citigroup that it must replace their CEO and CFO before giving them money -- not loans like the Big 3 are requesting, but just money -- in amounts greater than the Big 3 are requesting.

This bloodlust for Wagoner's head, while understandable when it comes from the mob, is rather unbecoming from someone who presents himself as being somewhat informed.

Yes, I will take the Devil's Advocate position here and defend Rick Wagoner, who will be forced to step down as the sacrificial lamb, martyred for all the Big 3's past wrongs and poor strategic and financial decisions. I understand that his head has to roll, as a symbolic gesture.

But, Claydon, I expect more from you than just taking a position within the mob. Madame DeFarge is pleased and welcomes you.

[TylerDurden]

Maybe, just maybe, because Wagoner isn't the moron, but is the designated whipping boy for all of Congress' hypocritical "tough" stance after taking all sorts of blame about the financial companies' bail-out?

wut?

just found this over at cnn money (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0807/gallery.gm.fortune/7.html) in a feature on gm's greatest hits fuck-ups...

In early 2006, billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian buys almost 10% of GM's stock, becoming the company's largest individual shareholder. Kerkorian, although claiming to be a "passive investor," pressures chief executive officer Richard Wagoner to sell a 20% stake of the company to rivals Nissan and Renault, reduce the number of brands, cut costs, and improve product designs. Once alliance talks fail, Kerkorian sells his 56 million shares for little to no profit.

i know that hindsight is crystal clear, but this is akin to yahoo telling microsoft to fuck off. i recall hearing about this when it happened and thinking that wagoner was a fucking tool, but seeing it now puts things into much sharper perspective.

nope, looks like wagoner is the fucking tool that he's painted to be. if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, talks like a duck, and farts like a duck... it's a fucking duck.

[Morfin]

I will continue with my quixotic quest. Blaming Wagoner is blaming him because he could not turn the GM ship around fast enough. But that doesn't mean he wasn't trying. The auto industry, with its long development time and huge union contracts cannot just suddenly change course, there is too much inertia -- it takes time. My point is that the economy crashed and gas prices rose dramatically, creating the cliched "perfect storm" for which Wagoner must now be the sacrificial lamb.

Here is an article from Business Week in 2003, discussing Wagoner and his strategy and problems. Look at what he was planning and doing at that time.

Rick Wagoner's Game Plan
CEO Rick Wagoner has fixed many of GM's problems. But he still has to deal with 30 years of management mistakes

It's a chief executive's nightmare. The better you execute, the more improvements you make--the more your stock drops. That was the position G. Richard Wagoner Jr. found himself in last October. A day after General Motors Corp. (GM ) announced that it had lifted operating earnings 30% in a stagnant car market, Standard & Poor's downgraded the auto maker's debt with no warning. Surprised investors rushed to sell, and the stock dropped 8%. Credit analysts pointed to GM's $76 billion pension fund, which they estimated at the time to be underfunded by as much as $23 billion. GM will have to plow in billions of dollars for years to keep the fund flush, they said.

The earnings gain was no accounting fluke, either. GM finished the year just as strong, with an operating profit of $3.9 billion, nearly double what it earned in 2001, on 5% higher sales of $186.2 billion. GM clearly leads the rest of the U.S. Big Three car companies, reflecting real operational improvements that Wagoner, 49, helped make in the past decade, starting when he was chief financial officer and later as chief operating officer. After GM lost a staggering $30 billion during a single three-year stretch in the early '90s, Wagoner and Chairman John F. "Jack" Smith Jr. forced GM back to basics. They slashed costs, cut payroll, and overhauled aging plants. Once he took over the corner office in May, 2000, CEO Wagoner pulled the efficiency collar even tighter. Now, GM ranks close to Honda Motor Co. (HMC ) and Toyota Motor Corp. (TM ) in productivity and has made strides in quality. GM also recaptured leadership of the truck business from rival Ford Motor Co. (F ), a coup that made the company billions. Last year, GM even nudged up its share of the U.S. market, to 28.3% from 28.1%.

But as good as those moves are, they pale next to the problems of GM's weak car brands and gargantuan pension payments. In essence, Rick Wagoner is battling 30 years of management mistakes that have left him with immense burdens and very little room to maneuver. Chief executives from Frederic Donner to Roger Smith built up a bloated bureaucracy that cranked out boring, low-quality cars. Turf battles at headquarters sapped resources and diverted attention from a rising threat out of Asia and Europe. Those competitors drove away with the U.S. car market. Now they're aiming to do the same in sport-utility vehicles and trucks--the last bastion of U.S. dominance. GM's most profitable segment is also under attack by environmentalists and safety regulators, and more and more buyers are flocking to smaller crossover SUVs.

Even worse for GM was the buildup of lavish health and retirement benefits for workers that it agreed to in fatter days as a way to buy peace with the United Auto Workers. The company says the gap between its pension funding and future liabilities is now $19.3 billion. That means GM will have to pump as much as $4 billion into the fund over this year and next. Providing health care to former and current workers will drain an additional $5 billion per year. The pension costs alone will cut projected 2003 net income from $4.2 billion to $2.8 billion. Providing for retirees saddles each car rolling off a GM assembly line with a $1,350 penalty vs. a Japanese car built in a new, nonunion U.S. plant, says analyst Scott Hill of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. That's a daunting handicap in an industry that struggles to make an average operating profit of $800 per vehicle.

And thanks to an onerous deal it struck in 1990 with the UAW, GM has to pay furloughed workers about 70% of their salary for years after they're laid off. Says Wagoner: "We have a huge fixed-cost base. It's 30 years of downsizing and 30 years of increased health-care costs. It puts a premium on us running this business to generate cash.Our goal is to grow. We don't care who we take it from."

All that would make the outlook for GM pretty bleak, except for one thing: Eventually, those legacy costs start to diminish. Starting around 2008, the ranks of GM's elderly retirees will thin, relieving some of the burden. After that, more of the incremental gains Wagoner has been achieving will fall to the bottom line rather than to retirees. The results could be dramatic.

That makes Wagoner's imperative clear: He has to keep up cash flow to cover those costs until they start to shrink. At the same time, he must continue to rack up improvements in quality, efficiency, design, and brand appeal. If he can come anywhere close, he just might pull off an impressive turnaround.

It's a testament to Wagoner's ability to cut costs that GM managed nearly to double margins in North America last year, to 2.6% of sales. Thanks to efficiency gains, GM is now one of the leanest car builders, with variable costs--labor, parts, outsourced production, etc.--amounting to 62% of revenues, according to UBS Warburg. That puts it ahead of Ford and Chrysler (DCX ) at 68%, and it isn't far behind leaders Toyota and Honda at 60%.

Wagoner has also streamlined GM's factories. GM is now the most productive domestic auto maker, having cut the time it takes to assemble a vehicle from an average of 32 hours in 1998 to 26 hours in 2001, according to Harbour & Associates. That compares with 27 for Ford, almost 31 at DaimlerChrysler, 22.5 at Toyota, and 17.9 at Nissan. A big factor was expanding parts shared across vehicles. The new Chevy Malibu, for instance, uses the same platform and many of the same parts as the Saab 9-3 sedan (table, page 54). GM's plants are also more flexible--each of seven full-size pickup and SUV plants can make any of the vehicles designed on that platform.

The cars rolling off GM's assembly lines today are undeniably better built than they used to be. Once ranked below the industry average, GM trails only Honda and Toyota in J.D. Power & Associates Inc.'s initial quality survey, which measures problems in the first 90 days of ownership. Some cars, such as the Chevrolet Impala, even beat the likes of the Toyota Camry. Last year, Consumer Reports recommended 13 GM vehicles--representing 41% of its sales volume--up from 5 last year. But one of GM's most stubborn woes is that many buyers still perceive the Chevy, Pontiac, and Buick brands as musty and second-rate. GM needs incentives averaging $3,800 a vehicle--more than twice what Toyota spends.Link (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_06/b3819001.htm)

The point is that turning an auto company around takes a tremendous amount of time. This article, admittedly almost 6 years-old, shows what Wagoner was achieving and changing. It also points out what he is/was up against in terms of what they call "legacy costs."

Don't forget that he already got major concessions from the UAW last year. While he could not get concessions for current workers, new auto workers are getting paid much less than before, which will cut costs. Unfortunately for him -- and what the article discusses -- is that he is not going to have enough time.

Wagoner is no idiot. But, he is going to have to take the fall for prior idiots.

[Phil Theehor]

I could use something explained: Why is bankruptcy seen as such a bad option? Wouldn't it get them out from under the union contract?

[TylerDurden]

I will continue with my quixotic quest. Blaming Wagoner is blaming him because he could not turn the GM ship around fast enough.

he couldn't turn it around fast enough or he didn't do what was necessary to turn it around at all? retooling your factories to make shit vehicles in a more efficient manner isn't turning anything around; you're still turning out shit vehicles.

I could use something explained: Why is bankruptcy seen as such a bad option? Wouldn't it get them out from under the union contract?

it would but it would also do irreparable damage to the gm brand. damage that would take many years to heal.

[Morfin]

he couldn't turn it around fast enough or he didn't do what was necessary to turn it around at all? retooling your factories to make shit vehicles in a more efficient manner isn't turning anything around; you're still turning out shit vehicles.


Yeah, but... But....

Oh, hell. I can't do it any more. I tried, but I fail at Devil's Advocacy. Wagoner's got to go. No bail-out, no more loans. The only way these guys are going to change is if they crash.

(It still pisses me off that the banks got all that money with no strings attached.)

[Archangel]

Be happy that there are some vestiges of decency left in your soul, then.

[Phil Theehor]

he couldn't turn it around fast enough or he didn't do what was necessary to turn it around at all? retooling your factories to make shit vehicles in a more efficient manner isn't turning anything around; you're still turning out shit vehicles.



it would but it would also do irreparable damage to the gm brand. damage that would take many years to heal.

Thanks, Ty. I've heard that, too, but I don't see it.

I would argue the opposite. Standing in front of Congress with one hand out and one hand on your dick is, to me, much worse than bankruptcy.

How could a bankruptcy damage your brand more than this?

At least with bankruptcy, they would re-organize and come out in a better financial position. As it stands now, We The Taxpayer, are going to be carrying their dumb asses for years to come.

Plus, bankruptcy among the Big 3 would pretty much spell the end of the UAW, which would be an incredible silver lining to this whole mess.

As an aside, I have a GM vehicle (Trailblazer) that I love. Best car I ever owned. As an owner (and future buyer), GM going tits up would not scare me off. There are millions of Trailblazers on the road. Companies will still make parts for them. Am I the only person who can separate the product from the company *spits*?

[Morfin]

Be happy that there are some vestiges of decency left in your soul, then.

I wouldn't go that far. I am an attorney, after all.

[Swurgen]

http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/12/04/general-motors-volt-biz-manufacturing-cz_jf_1205flint.html

Another misunderstanding is that the high price of labor is the company's greatest problem. Yes, labor costs are high, but that $75 an hour includes benefits, such as Social Security and health care. Base pay rates in the non-union auto plants are quite similar to the union rates, but older, higher seniority workers get more. The foreigners also do not have any pension costs--yet.

[TylerDurden]

At least with bankruptcy, they would re-organize and come out in a better financial position. As it stands now, We The Taxpayer, are going to be carrying their dumb asses for years to come.

it's the stigma that the whole thing could have been avoided had they stopped making cars with horrible build quality (engine gap tolerances are the length of a fucking football field on most of gm's shit), low gas mileage, and absolutely no appeal outside of this country.

[Claydon]

But, Claydon, I expect more from you than just taking a position within the mob. Madame DeFarge is pleased and welcomes you.

I was asking a question, nothing more.

[Debo]

Maybe, just maybe, because Wagoner isn't the moron, but is the designated whipping boy for all of Congress' hypocritical "tough" stance after taking all sorts of blame about the financial companies' bail-out?

Maybe because Wagoner is the designated whipping boy for all of America's blame about the economic problems and the problems with the auto companies that have existed for more than 40 years?

I must have missed Congress telling Citigroup that it must replace their CEO and CFO before giving them money -- not loans like the Big 3 are requesting, but just money -- in amounts greater than the Big 3 are requesting.

This bloodlust for Wagoner's head, while understandable when it comes from the mob, is rather unbecoming from someone who presents himself as being somewhat informed.

Yes, I will take the Devil's Advocate position here and defend Rick Wagoner, who will be forced to step down as the sacrificial lamb, martyred for all the Big 3's past wrongs and poor strategic and financial decisions. I understand that his head has to roll, as a symbolic gesture.

But, Claydon, I expect more from you than just taking a position within the mob. Madame DeFarge is pleased and welcomes you.

The Feds didn't just give Citi money, they took preferred shares in the company and wiped out its dividend. They can also get BOD seats if Citi continues to suck ass.

[Claydon]

The Feds didn't just give Citi money, they took preferred shares in the company and wiped out its dividend. They can also get BOD seats if Citi continues to suck ass.

so they got preferred shares of a nearly bankrupt bank?

[Debo]

so they got preferred shares of a nearly bankrupt bank?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20081123a1.pdf

[}{arlequin]

http://www.boingboing.net/images/x_2008/youwouldntbuyour.jpg

[Genius]

Yes! Taxpayers will soon be indirectly paying my salary! Yes!

[Debo]

Detroit is going to be a thing of the past soon.

AP
Auto bailout stalled, GOP seeks UAW concessions
Thursday December 11, 4:58 pm ET
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and David Espo, Associated Press Writers
Auto bailout stalled, Republicans seek upfront autoworker concessions as price for support
WASHINGTON (AP) -- With time growing short, the $14 billion auto industry bailout bill stalled in the Senate on Thursday as Republicans demanded upfront concessions from the United Auto Workers as the price for their support.

UAW and auto industry officials were in talks with key Republicans and Democrats at the Capitol, although it wasn't clear what, if any, givebacks the union was willing to discuss.

The developments unfolded after Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined other GOP lawmakers in announcing his opposition to a White House-backed bill that was approved by the House on Wednesday. He called for an alternative that would reduce the wages and benefits of the Big Three automakers to bring them in line with those paid by Japanese carmakers Nissan, Toyota and Honda.


Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the sponsor of that proposal, was in closed-door meetings with UAW officials and Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the Banking Committee chairman, to see if it could be modified to win the support of Democrats, who count labor unions among their strongest political allies.


Auto industry officials also were in on the high-stakes talks, which unfolded against a backdrop of stunning job losses and continuing economic turmoil. New claims for unemployment benefits rose by more than a half-million for the week ending last Saturday.


A growing number of Republicans and Democrats were turning against the House-passed bill -- itself the product of hard-fought negotiations between the Bush White House and congressional Democrats -- despite urgent entreaties from both President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama for quick action to spare the economy the added pain of a potential automaker collapse.


The rescue plan would speed emergency short-term loans to cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Ford Motor Co. would be eligible as well but has said it has enough cash to survive without federal help.
It would create a Bush-appointed overseer -- a kind of "car czar" -- to dole out the money but also with authority to yank it back if the carmakers didn't cut quick deals with their unions and creditors, among others, to restructure and submit a plan outlining the steps by next spring.


McConnell said that measure "isn't nearly tough enough."
Pushing to convert skeptics in both parties, Democrats agreed to drop at least one unrelated provision that threatened to sink the measure, a congressional official said. They were eliminating a pay raise for federal judges after Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who represents an automobile manufacturing state, announced she would oppose the carmaker aid unless that provision was removed.


Supporters had an uphill battle pressing the rescue package on a bailout-fatigued Congress -- particularly a measure designed to span the administrations of a lame-duck president and his successor. Forced together by growing economic turmoil, the incoming and outgoing presidents were united in pressing hard for swift approval.


In Chicago, Obama told reporters that an industry shutdown would have a "devastating ripple effect" on the already ragged economy.
Earlier, just after the Labor Department reported new applications for jobless benefits were at their highest level in 26 years, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the country couldn't afford an auto industry meltdown.


On Capitol Hill, patience was wearing thin as the clock ticked down on the current Congress. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader, called for swift separate votes Thursday on compromise legislation backed by Democrats and the White House as well as the GOP proposal. If not, he promised a test vote Friday morning to force a final up-or-down decision within days."We have danced this tune long enough," Reid declared.
But many Republicans remained staunchly opposed to the rescue, and some Democrats were ill or absent from the emergency, postelection congressional session. Supporters of the bailout acknowledged that in this scenario, getting the needed 60 votes to pass it would be very difficult.
Republicans were directly challenging Bush, arguing that any support for the domestic auto industry should carry significant, specific concessions from autoworkers and creditors. They are also bitterly opposed to tougher environmental rules carmakers would have to meet as part of the House-passed version of the rescue package -- something that also faces some Democratic opposition.


A Senate version of the bill omits the environmental provision.
The House approved its plan late Wednesday on a vote of 237-170. Supporters cited dire warnings from GM and Chrysler executives, who have said they could run out of cash within weeks.
A pair of polls released Thursday indicated that the public is dubious about the rescue plan.


Just 39 percent said it would be right to spend billions in loans to keep GM, Ford and Chrysler in business, according to a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 45 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans supported the idea.
In a separate Marist College poll, 48 percent said they oppose federal loans for the struggling automakers while 41 percent approved.

[Claydon]

so they want the UAW to get in line with the rest of the industry.

i can get behind that.

[Da Raider]

Dear Big 3,

File for Chapter 11, trim costs, come back lean and mean.

Or

Shut the fuck up.

Sincerely,

American Taxpayers

[Morfin]

Detroit is collectively shitting its pants. Without the 60 vote majority to break a filibuster, it's going to be a tough haul. White collar workers are nervous and the blue collar workers are screwed both ways -- either lay-offs or big wage cuts.

[Claydon]

Detroit is collectively shitting its pants. Without the 60 vote majority to break a filibuster, it's going to be a tough haul. White collar workers are nervous and the blue collar workers are screwed both ways -- either lay-offs or big wage cuts.

Fuck them all, honda, toyota, nissan all have operations here. none of them union, and those cars are more american made than the shit ford and GM are assembling in the midwest and mexico and then trucking into the US calling it "american made". I saw a big flashing sign at a ford dealership last night saying "buy american", which is laughable since the majority of ford's electronics come from s. korea, the bulk of their vehicles are assembled in mexico, and a lot of their parts are made in mexico.

[Mustard]

Hmm, so my understanding is that w/o a relief package, (such as this auto bailout) GM is going bankrupt within 3 months, with Ford and Chrysler soon to follow. Sound right, or am I missing something?

So, what are the pros and cons of the big 3 staying in business, versus the big 3 going bankrupt? Which way to the pros and cons lean toward, meaning, would it be better for the economy of the US to let the big 3 fail or stay in business in both the short and long term?

[Debo]

Fuck them all, honda, toyota, nissan all have operations here. none of them union, and those cars are more american made than the shit ford and GM are assembling in the midwest and mexico and then trucking into the US calling it "american made". I saw a big flashing sign at a ford dealership last night saying "buy american", which is laughable since the majority of ford's electronics come from s. korea, the bulk of their vehicles are assembled in mexico, and a lot of their parts are made in mexico.

Toyota does have some contracts with the UAW. They just aren't as costly as the master contract with the Big 3 is.

Hmm, so my understanding is that w/o a relief package, (such as this auto bailout) GM is going bankrupt within 3 months, with Ford and Chrysler soon to follow. Sound right, or am I missing something?

So, what are the pros and cons of the big 3 staying in business, versus the big 3 going bankrupt? Which way to the pros and cons lean toward, meaning, would it be better for the economy of the US to let the big 3 fail or stay in business in both the short and long term?

If they cannot operate profitably, why should we keep them around? Businesses fail, people die, shit happens.

If we give them more money, they are going to be the Terri Schiavo of the business world.

[Claydon]

Toyota does have some contracts with the UAW. They just aren't as costly as the master contract with the Big 3 is.

Sounds like Toyota knows how to do business.

[Mustard]

If they cannot operate profitably, why should we keep them around? Businesses fail, people die, shit happens.

If we give them more money, they are going to be the Terri Schiavo of the business world.
You make a simple and compelling argument. My answer to your question is, we shouldn't. Businesses fail every day in this country, so why should the big 3 receive special treatment, like the financial sector has? It does not appear to be a fair shake being given to the big 3, but hey, who ever said life was fair, right?

Especially in a capitalist economy.

For disclosure purposes, I was 100% for the financial sector bailout. I was also led to believe that the monies provided for that bailout were to be used in specific manners, but apparently those monies have been used for almost every conceivable reason, EXCEPT the reasons mentioned necessary. Hahahahaha, it is so sad that it is laughable. Thats why, just on the face of it, this bailout for the big 3 is a tougher sell for me, because even if they do get the money, I'm not confident they will use it in the wisest manner possible, so it would be akin to just burning that money. Same difference.

[freegood]

I was against the terms of the 700 billion bailout, but I would support this one.

[Mustard]

I was against the terms of the 700 billion bailout, but I would support this one.
You're a weirdo.

[Claydon]

how do we know that htis money won't just go into the union coffers to pay for, oh i don't know, their 1 week off due to a hang nail.

[Mustard]

how do we know that htis money won't just go into the union coffers to pay for, oh i don't know, their 1 week off due to a hang nail.
That is a ridiculous claim.

[Debo]

You make a simple and compelling argument. My answer to your question is, we shouldn't. Businesses fail every day in this country, so why should the big 3 receive special treatment, like the financial sector has? It does not appear to be a fair shake being given to the big 3, but hey, who ever said life was fair, right?

Especially in a capitalist economy.

For disclosure purposes, I was 100% for the financial sector bailout. I was also led to believe that the monies provided for that bailout were to be used in specific manners, but apparently those monies have been used for almost every conceivable reason, EXCEPT the reasons mentioned necessary. Hahahahaha, it is so sad that it is laughable. Thats why, just on the face of it, this bailout for the big 3 is a tougher sell for me, because even if they do get the money, I'm not confident they will use it in the wisest manner possible, so it would be akin to just burning that money. Same difference.

I have tried to explain the difference between keeping the banking sector alive (It is crucial to the economy) and why letting Detroit fail (It is not crucial to the overall economy, we can import plenty of cars without a problem) isn't a problem. I can dig up my post on it if you want me to.

Another problem is that the Big 3 have been losing market share for decades. Their problems are not new, they are just coming to fruition right now.

Fuck em.

[Claydon]

That is a ridiculous claim.

you are aware of the Job Banks yes?

[Mustard]

I have tried to explain the difference between keeping the banking sector alive (It is crucial to the economy) and why letting Detroit fail (It is not crucial to the overall economy, we can import plenty of cars without a problem) isn't a problem. I can dig up my post on it if you want me to.

Another problem is that the Big 3 have been losing market share for decades. Their problems are not new, they are just coming to fruition right now.

Fuck em.
Naw, you don't have to explain the differences to me, I understand just fine.

The loss of market share is also a compelling reason as to why the big 3 are failing right now, and even with a strong economy, one would eventually have to fail, unless the big 3 were to somehow make in-roads on their lost market share, which is highly unlikely given their inept management.

But I want to play the devil's advocate about the notion that the big 3 are "too big to fail". If that happens to be the case, then it would seem as if the government would be almost obligated to bail them out, but then that would be (in my opinion) the final death blow to free market capitalism in the US. So, is the big 3 too big to fail? I feel personally they aren't, but if they did go bankrupt, our economy would suffer, perhaps tremendously.

This is the dilema we are faced with, as I see it.

[Mustard]

you are aware of the Job Banks yes?
The topic of the UAW is minor at best, and therefore merits little to no conversation in my opinion.

[Claydon]

The topic of the UAW is minor at best, and therefore merits little to no conversation in my opinion.

How can you possibly say that, when 50% of the problem of the US auto industry IS the UAW.

[Mustard]

How can you possibly say that, when 50% of the problem of the US auto industry IS the UAW.
I can say that because its my opinion, just like you saying that the UAW is half the problem.

[Claydon]

I can say that because its my opinion, just like you saying that the UAW is half the problem.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/idexx/picard-headesk.jpg

[Swurgen]

http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/...1205flint.html (http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/12/04/general-motors-volt-biz-manufacturing-cz_jf_1205flint.html)



Another misunderstanding is that the high price of labor is the company's greatest problem. Yes, labor costs are high, but that $75 an hour includes benefits, such as Social Security and health care. Base pay rates in the non-union auto plants are quite similar to the union rates, but older, higher seniority workers get more. The foreigners also do not have any pension costs--yet.

[Mustard]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/idexx/picard-headesk.jpg
Do you get a group rate discount for using that picture or something?

[TylerDurden]

so the consensus that using the uaw for labor adds approximately $2500 to every vehicle is false?

i appreciate that the union had a use at one point in time, but i don't believe this to be the case anymore. furthermore, has anyone read anything that the uaw head (ratzinfucker or whatever his name is) has said? what a fucking faggot. i hope he chokes on an aids-infested cock.

[Debo]

From the WSJ:

America's Other Auto Industry

There is such a thing as a profitable car maker in this country.

The men from Detroit will jet into Washington tomorrow -- presumably going commercial this time -- to make another pitch for a taxpayer rescue. Meanwhile, in the other American auto industry you rarely read about, car makers are gaining market share and adjusting amid the sales slump, without seeking a cent from the government.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CT180_oj_1ca_E_20081130212651.jpg APSome car makers in America still have reason to celebrate.



These are the 12 "foreign," or so-called transplant, producers making cars across America's South and Midwest. Toyota, BMW, Kia and others now make 54% of the cars Americans buy. The internationals also employ some 113,000 Americans, compared with 239,000 at U.S.-owned carmakers, and several times that number indirectly.


The international car makers aren't cheering for Detroit's collapse. Their own production would be hit if such large suppliers as the automotive interior maker Lear were to go down with a GM or Chrysler. They fear, as well, a protectionist backlash. But by the same token, a government lifeline for Detroit punishes these other companies and their American employees for making better business decisions.


The root of this other industry's success is no secret. In fact, Detroit has already adopted some of its efficiency and employment strategies, though not yet enough. To put it concisely, the transplants operate under conditions imposed by the free market. Detroit lives on Fantasy Island.
Consider labor costs. Take-home wages at the U.S. car makers average $28.42 an hour, according to the Center for Automotive Research. That's on par with $26 at Toyota, $24 at Honda and $21 at Hyundai. But include benefits, and the picture changes. Hourly labor costs are $44.20 on average for the non-Detroit producers, in line with most manufacturing jobs, but are $73.21 for Detroit.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI623_1cars_NS_20081130205615.gif




This $29 cost gap reflects the way Big Three management and unions have conspired to make themselves uncompetitive -- increasingly so as their market share has collapsed (see the nearby chart). Over the decades the United Auto Workers won pension and health-care benefits far more generous than in almost any other American industry. As a result, for every UAW member working at a U.S. car maker today, three retirees collect benefits; at GM, the ratio is 4.6 to one.


The international producers' relatively recent arrival has spared them these legacy burdens. But they also made sure not to get saddled with them in the first place. One way was to locate in investment-friendly states. The South proved especially attractive, offering tax breaks and a low-cost, nonunion labor pool. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina -- which accounted for a quarter of U.S. car production last year -- are "right-to-work" states where employees can't be forced to join a union.

The absence of the UAW also gives car producers the flexibility to deploy employees as needed. Work rules vary across company and plant, but foreign rules are generally less restrictive. At Detroit's plants, electricians or mechanics tend to perform certain narrow tasks and often sit idle. That rarely happens outside Michigan. In the nonunionized plants, temporary workers can also be hired, and let go, as market conditions dictate.

All the same, Mitsubishi Eclipses and Toyota Corollas are made by UAW workers at plants in Illinois and California. In each case, unions have made concessions to ensure the jobs stay put. Honda makes the Civic and Accord in two plants in Ohio, which isn't a right-to-work state. But attempts to unionize foreign-owned factories have generally been unsuccessful, most recently at Nissan; their workers know too well what that has meant for their UAW peers. Since 1992, the Big Three's labor force declined 4.5% on average every year; the international grew 4.3%. According to the Center for Automotive Research, for every job created by the transplant producers, Detroit shed 6.1 jobs in the U.S., 2.8 of them in Michigan.

Another transplant advantage: Their factories are newer and production process simpler. As a result, they can switch their assembly lines to different models in minutes. In response to the economic downturn, Hyundai decided to make more fuel-efficient Sonata sedans and fewer of the larger Santa Fe model at its Montgomery, Alabama plant, sparing steeper production cuts. Such a change would take weeks at UAW plants.

It's true that at the foreign companies, strategic decisions are taken and much of the value-added design and engineering is done back home. But both U.S. and the Japanese and European companies have tended to move operations closer to large markets. The expansion of manufacturing in the U.S. has brought research and development. Honda stands out for designing some cars from the ground up in the U.S. The foreigners account for a small but growing chunk of the $18 billion in yearly development spending. And while headquartered overseas, the companies have millions of American shareholders -- either directly or through pension funds. Is Honda a Japanese or an American company nowadays? It really is both.

As GM CEO Rick Wagoner recently wrote on these pages (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122705733362939557.html), the Detroit companies have finally begun to adapt to this real economic world. Last year Detroit struck a deal with the unions to unload retiree health obligations by 2010 to a trust fund set up by the UAW. The trio's productivity has improved as well. In 1995, a GM car took 46 hours to make, Chrysler 43 and Toyota 29.4. By 2006, according to Harbour Consulting, GM had moved it to 32.4 hours per vehicle and Chrysler 32.9. Toyota stayed at 29.9.

Yet these moves born of desperation have come so late that the companies are still in jeopardy. Both management and unions chose to sign contracts that let them live better and work less efficiently in the short-term while condemning the companies to their current pass over time. It is deeply unfair for government now to ask taxpayers who have never earned such wages or benefits to shield the UAW and Detroit from the consequences of those contracts.

There's no natural law that America must have a Detroit automotive industry, any more than steel had to be made for all time in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania or textiles in New England. Britain sold off all its car plants to foreigners and was no less an advanced economy as a result, though it was a healthier one. Detroit may yet adjust to avoid destruction in the best spirit of American capitalism. The other American car industry is a model for how to do it.

[wonderllama]

15 Billion...seriously, why doesn't the US Government just buy everyone a car who needs a car, it would be cheaper!

How many people buy cars in a year?

[Mustard]

Oh-kay people... I can see that the specter of the UAW lording as the supreme reason the big 3 are failing isn't just a 'minor problem' to you. Well, thats fine if you think that, but that rationale doesn't look far enough to ascertan the actual and legit reason here; big 3 upper management.

Quick question: What is the goal of businesses? If your answer isn't "to make a profit", then leave this thread immediately. So, if the goal of the big 3 is to make profits, then it is the job of the upper management to ensure that the goals are met. If the big 3 upper management would have done its homework and realized that the combination of losing market share and paying their employees more money via union contracts was a sure way to fail in the goal of making profits, then they should have done more to retain market share, and should have done more to collectibvely bargain with the UAW in a more fiscally responsible manner. These problems start and stop with the upper management of the big 3, because it is their responsiblity and job to ensure that the business is profitable. The buck, in this case, stops with upper management.

Now, should the big 3 go bankrupt and liquidate their assets to pay their creditors and shareholders, then what the UAW does then really don't mean shit to a tree, because there will be no jobs to be had. So can you really think that it is in the best interest of the UAW to kill the person that feeds them, in a manner of speaking? Not a chance in hell.

So I'll say it again, because I have now proven that I am right: The UAW is a minor issue here, and now just as before, warrants little to no conversation in the matter of the big 3 bailout.

[Debo]

Oh-kay people... I can see that the specter of the UAW lording as the supreme reason the big 3 are failing isn't just a 'minor problem' to you. Well, thats fine if you think that, but that rationale doesn't look far enough to ascertan the actual and legit reason here; big 3 upper management.

Quick question: What is the goal of businesses? If your answer isn't "to make a profit", then leave this thread immediately. So, if the goal of the big 3 is to make profits, then it is the job of the upper management to ensure that the goals are met. If the big 3 upper management would have done its homework and realized that the combination of losing market share and paying their employees more money via union contracts was a sure way to fail in the goal of making profits, then they should have done more to retain market share, and should have done more to collectibvely bargain with the UAW in a more fiscally responsible manner. These problems start and stop with the upper management of the big 3, because it is their responsiblity and job to ensure that the business is profitable. The buck, in this case, stops with upper management.

Now, should the big 3 go bankrupt and liquidate their assets to pay their creditors and shareholders, then what the UAW does then really don't mean shit to a tree, because there will be no jobs to be had. So can you really think that it is in the best interest of the UAW to kill the person that feeds them, in a manner of speaking? Not a chance in hell.

So I'll say it again, because I have now proven that I am right: The UAW is a minor issue here, and now just as before, warrants little to no conversation in the matter of the big 3 bailout.

The Big 3 are fine as long as gas is cheap. They can sell enough big cars and SUVs to make money. Their decline was slow and steady, but they are always one big innovation away from turning the corner. Management gave us what we wanted at the time. What they didn't do was build a product line that was diverse enough to survive a period of high gas prices.

Your quick question is the root of the problem: The UAW sees GM's profits as their profits. They want to milk the Big 3 for all that they can get. You say that they don't want to bite off the hand that feeds them, but even now they refuse to kill the jobs bank (They only agreed to cut it in half).

Both management and the UAW deserve their own share of the blame. But to completely blow off the union's role in the collapse of Detroit is not an accurate representation of the root of the Detroit's problems.

Here is another part of the problem. From Forbes:

Detroit's Brand Killer

In addition to its other mistakes, Detroit's addiction to fleet sales, particularly of rental cars, was a killer. This strategy helped destroy the brand value of its sedans. Follow my logic:
Detroit was once an innovation hotbed in the world. During the first half of 20th century Detroit mattered to the U.S. and global economies in the way that Silicon Valley matters now. This obviously is no longer the case. Does anyone wait breathlessly for the introduction of next year's Big Three car models? We have stopped caring. Investors have stopped caring, too: GM's market value of $2 billion is a blip in the scheme of things.


It is never easy to face one's decline and loss of status. France, for example, could never imagine that French would cease to be the international language of diplomacy and business. Facing decline, France enacted silly laws to prop up the mother tongue, such as requiring the use of French in the public square, in advertising, etc.


Detroit, central to the good guys' efforts to win World War II, never imagined that it would cede its leadership to World War II's bad guys and losers. When evidence of its decline began pouring in, Detroit employed tricks to prop up its sales. Such as fleet sales.


Back in the 1980s and 1990s, buyers began to prefer the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry over the Ford Taurus. More a matter of pride than sound business thinking, Ford propped up the Taurus with massive discounts to fleet buyers. Ford simply would not let the Camry and Accord outsell the Taurus. Ford mistakenly thought people cared about sales rankings. But only Detroit insiders cared. Customers and investors didn't give a fig whether the Taurus was No. 1.
In my opinion, Detroit's fleet sales strategy was a marketing disaster. For many people who had switched their personal allegiance to German or Japanese brands in the 1980s and 1990s, renting an American car was the one chance to see what Detroit was up to. Stop and think about this. When was the last time you were impressed with a rental car? A rental car, usually an American nameplate, almost always a no-frills model, often reeking of cigarette smoke, makes the worst kind of branding statement.


I am in Colorado today, where I rented a Ford Escape, a crossover (SUV body on a car platform), to drive from Durango, Colo., to southeastern Utah. The Escape is similar to my own Lexus 350RX crossover, so here is a chance to compare Detroit's offering to my own wheels. OK this is not a perfect comparison, because the Escape costs quite a bit less than my Lexus. Not perfect apples-to-apples, but close enough.


The Escape is a nice enough vehicle. It is solidly built, handles well, and sports a tight fit and finish. But because it is a rental car, it comes with an underpowered engine and no cruise control. A puny engine and no cruise control is no fun in the high plains and mountains of southern Colorado and Utah. Lots of lurching--the automatic transmission never quite knows what to do.


What is my verdict on the Ford Escape so far? It is, hmmm, OK, no better. I suppose the Ford Escape with a stronger engine and cruise control would offer a pleasant driving experience. But I never had the chance to find out, did I?


This is a huge branding mistake, one also made by General Motors. You don't see Toyota stripping out most options for fleet sales. I recently rented a Toyota Highlander. Though it lacked adjustable seat options of a top-frills model, the engine was powerful and it had cruise control. I will seriously consider the Toyota Highlander as my next vehicle.

[freegood]

You're a weirdo.

Unfreezing the money and credit markets is one thing. Putting in sweeping and unparalleled powers for the Sec. Treasury without any form of accountability is another.

As for the Big 3, we lost half a million jobs last month and a total of a million for the past 3 months. The service sector is contracting and exports are declining. "Value added" goods and services won't dig us out of this recession. Keep the manufacturing base we have for now. Let Uncle Same rip them up and rape every possible orifice he wants. 15 billions with strings attached doesn't seem big in the current grand scheme of things.

If this happen 4-5 years down the line, then we'll talk.

[Swurgen]

The Big 3 are fine as long as gas is cheap. They can sell enough big cars and SUVs to make money. Their decline was slow and steady, but they are always one big innovation away from turning the corner. Management gave us what we wanted at the time. What they didn't do was build a product line that was diverse enough to survive a period of high gas prices.


Back in the 1980s and 1990s, buyers began to prefer the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry over the Ford Taurus. More a matter of pride than sound business thinking, Ford propped up the Taurus with massive discounts to fleet buyers.

Sound like piss poor management decisions. Good thing those CEO's and upper mgmt types make only $75/HR including benefits. Oh wait - they make millions. Shit.

I agree UAW carries blame before and now for being pig headed but like I said before...it's not like Detroit's cars are great but just too pricey to accommodate the UAW costs. That's by far not their only problem.

[Debo]

Sound like piss poor management decisions. Good thing those CEO's and upper mgmt types make only $75/HR including benefits. Oh wait - they make millions. Shit.

I agree UAW carries blame before and now for being pig headed but like I said before...it's not like Detroit's cars are great but just too pricey to accommodate the UAW costs. That's by far not their only problem.

Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? Perhaps your union contract only allows you to read one paragraph at a time. I said that both management and the unions deserve their fair share of the blame.

Let me break it down for you:
- Americans like big gas guzzling cars when gas is cheap so GM sold them to us.

- GM never imagined that gas would go to $150 a barrel in under a year. Did you?

- The Big 3 were always one car away from turning the corner: This is true, but it was also mocking them because they always have something coming out that is going to save their ass (e.g., Minivan, SUV, and now the Volt).

Now explain to me how the jobs bank isn't a drain on their P/L.

Explain to me how paying inflated wages leaves them money to invest in R&D to make the alternative cars that you mock them for not producing.

Explain to me how never being able to fire anyone is a good thing.

[Mustard]

The Big 3 are fine as long as gas is cheap. They can sell enough big cars and SUVs to make money. Their decline was slow and steady, but they are always one big innovation away from turning the corner. Management gave us what we wanted at the time. What they didn't do was build a product line that was diverse enough to survive a period of high gas prices.

Your quick question is the root of the problem: The UAW sees GM's profits as their profits. They want to milk the Big 3 for all that they can get. You say that they don't want to bite off the hand that feeds them, but even now they refuse to kill the jobs bank (They only agreed to cut it in half).

Both management and the UAW deserve their own share of the blame. But to completely blow off the union's role in the collapse of Detroit is not an accurate representation of the root of the Detroit's problems.
Well now, first off I said that the UAW doesn't want to kill the person that feeds them, not just merely biting off their hand (which it would seem that the big 3 has been complicit in allowing to happen for decades). So why the outrage about the UAW now? I think it all comes down to trying to shift blame to a scapegoat, instead of laying the full blame on the upper mgmt of the big 3.

On top of that, GOP senators now are poised to kill this bailout. I say meh, but I have to wonder aloud about their complicitness in allowing the money pit that is the Iraq war to continue unabated for years from 2003 to 2006 (when they were in control of both houses and the WH) while this bailout for the big 3 represents roughly 2-3% of what has been spent on the Iraq war so far. I get the impression that when it comes to funding war, the GOP is more than willing to lend a helping hand, (along with a half-trillion dollars) but when it comes to the manufacturing base of the US, and everything that is tied in with it that will inevitably put our economy into a depression, the GOP throws up two middle fingers. As a non-GOPer, can somebody please explain these dynamics to me?

With that said, I'm sure we both can see the bottom line here. If the big 3 goes under, then what the UAW does or becomes will be the least of the worries of 99% of everybody. If the big 3 goes under, then the end of American manufacturing dominance will be made a stark reality, even though its been on a decline since the emergence of cheap labor in China, Mexic, etc. If the big 3 goes under, then our economy won't just be in a recession, I don't think it is a leap of faith to suggest our economy will be plunged into a full blown depression.

[Morfin]

Sink: Part of your problem is that you are looking for consistency and you will not find it. Congress cannot honestly justify the $700 billion bail-out with no grilling of the executives, and then grill the Big 3 executives over a $34 billion loan to an industry that affects 1 out 10 jobs in the U.S. Further, justifying the $1 trillion plus in the Iraq war and yet harassing the Big 3 is absurd.

I have been against both the $700 bailout and the $34 billion auto loan, but irritated by Congress' grandstanding and scapegoating of the Big 3 CEOs.

[Mustard]

Yeah, you're right Mr. Morfin. My naivete is showing; expecting consistency from Congress is a fool's errand.

[Claydon]

LEAVE THE BIG 3 AUTOMAKERS ALONE!


SOB!

[Debo]

Well now, first off I said that the UAW doesn't want to kill the person that feeds them, not just merely biting off their hand (which it would seem that the big 3 has been complicit in allowing to happen for decades). So why the outrage about the UAW now? I think it all comes down to trying to shift blame to a scapegoat, instead of laying the full blame on the upper mgmt of the big 3.

On top of that, GOP senators now are poised to kill this bailout. I say meh, but I have to wonder aloud about their complicitness in allowing the money pit that is the Iraq war to continue unabated for years from 2003 to 2006 (when they were in control of both houses and the WH) while this bailout for the big 3 represents roughly 2-3% of what has been spent on the Iraq war so far. I get the impression that when it comes to funding war, the GOP is more than willing to lend a helping hand, (along with a half-trillion dollars) but when it comes to the manufacturing base of the US, and everything that is tied in with it that will inevitably put our economy into a depression, the GOP throws up two middle fingers. As a non-GOPer, can somebody please explain these dynamics to me?

With that said, I'm sure we both can see the bottom line here. If the big 3 goes under, then what the UAW does or becomes will be the least of the worries of 99% of everybody. If the big 3 goes under, then the end of American manufacturing dominance will be made a stark reality, even though its been on a decline since the emergence of cheap labor in China, Mexic, etc. If the big 3 goes under, then our economy won't just be in a recession, I don't think it is a leap of faith to suggest our economy will be plunged into a full blown depression.

Umm, I am going to bed so I will find the data for you later but I am pretty sure that US manufacturing output is trending upwards. What is not trending upwards is the amount of labor involved in manufacturing because of advancements in technology. If we banned advancements in technology, then Joe the assembly line worker wouldn't be out of a job right now (Remind me never to name my kid Joe).

I love how people still find a way to bitch about the War in Iraq, but never seem to mention the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs - both of which have consumed trillions, yes trillions of tax dollars and neither of which are winnable.

Next to the trial bar, the unions are the largest campaign contributors to the DNC in the world. For their loyal voting blocs and their C.R.E.A.M. the Dems provide them with political cover. The business community hates unions and workers hate unions (Notice that union enrollment has been declining for decades) so the outrage towards them is nothing new.

Hell, the first ever anti-trust case was brought against the unions since they violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. But [gasp] the 1935 Wagner Act provides them an exemption from the Sherman Act so now we are stuck with them through the good times and the bad times.

Will manufacturing be dead in this country when all of the foreign, non-union companies are still building cars here? I think not. We will just have more efficient, non-union workers doing the job instead of the clowns in the UAW.

[freegood]

Republicans and their damn double standards...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-12-11-bailout-talks-collapse_N.htm

Hope dims for deal to rescue carmakers as talks collapse
By Ken Dilanian and Sharon Silke Carty, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — There will be no congressional lifeline for the American auto industry this year.

The Senate on Thursday night failed to compromise on a $14 billion bailout for General Motors and Chrysler, after Republicans objected to a House bill passed Wednesday with White House backing.

"It's over with," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor.

General Motors (GM) and Chrysler have said they don't have enough money to get through the end of the year. Ford (F) has asked for no immediate money but says bankruptcy by the others could pull it down.

If all three were to go under, up to 2.6 million jobs — about 1.9% of the U.S. workforce — could be lost, estimates Moody's Economy.com chief economist Mark Zandi. That includes more than 255,000 people directly tied to the three companies and an additional 2.3 million whose jobs are indirectly dependent, from people who work in the steel, glass, fabric, tire and electronics industries.

After hours of closed-doors talks, which separately included company, creditor and worker representatives, the impasse came when the United Auto Workers would not agree to align their labor costs with those of workers foreign-owned U.S. plants by the end of 2009, said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and others.

"We were about three words away from a deal," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the lead negotiator for Republicans. The question now: What next?

A GM official wasn't ready to give up hope. "We'll see what tomorrow brings," said spokesman Greg Martin. "Let's wait and see."

GM and Chrysler have said they needed at least $4 billion each by the end of the year to stay afloat and have maintained bankruptcy filing to restructure is not a viable option. Both have said they fear filing would cause their sales to dry up instantly on shoppers' fears over warranties and parts.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson could provide aid from the $700 billion financial rescue program, but he has said that money must be reserved to protect the financial system.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday that doing nothing could mean the end of U.S. automakers. "If we don't act, we could wake up and not have any domestic auto industry."

GM and Chrysler could conserve cash by shutting down operations between now and Jan. 20 — in hopes of quick aid when President-elect Obama is inaugurated and a new Congress is in place. Obama supports help for the industry with conditions. GM has already said it's shutting down for two weeks over Christmas.

"It behooves them to hang on, if they can," said Aaron Bragman, an analyst for IHS Global Insight. "You do that by basically shutting everything down and trying to take out as much costs as possible."

Shutting down would be a high-stakes risk: The automakers would have no revenue during that time even if cars sell, because they book revenue when vehicles are shipped to dealers.

Shutting operations that long also could devastate suppliers. Because they supply domestic and foreign-owned plants, the impact would ripple through the industry. "It could take out the supply base," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research. "It's the ultimate in idiocy."

Silke Carty reported from Detroit.

Sink: Part of your problem is that you are looking for consistency and you will not find it. Congress cannot honestly justify the $700 billion bail-out with no grilling of the executives, and then grill the Big 3 executives over a $34 billion loan to an industry that affects 1 out 10 jobs in the U.S. Further, justifying the $1 trillion plus in the Iraq war and yet harassing the Big 3 is absurd.

I have been against both the $700 bailout and the $34 billion auto loan, but irritated by Congress' grandstanding and scapegoating of the Big 3 CEOs.

The Fed and Treasury have committed 4 trillion in loans that Congress doesn't need to approve.

Seems like Bernanke and Paulson learned their lesson...

[URFloorMatt]

I'd be curious to know how the Republican senators who got kicked out of office voted on the bailout. Did they bow to their constituents and vote their will or did they take one last opportunity to fuck 'em over?

[Claydon]

I'd be curious to know how the Republican senators who got kicked out of office voted on the bailout. Did they bow to their constituents and vote their will or did they take one last opportunity to fuck 'em over?

fuck em over?

you mean but not voting for this bullshit?

[Rover]

Whoever said the way that Congress is treating the Big 3 is stupid is right. Congress couldn't fucking wait to start up the printing press to bankroll the finance companies and AIG and everything. Yet, Detroit wants less than 2% of the money that Congress has spent/will spend/might spend and they have to go to multiple hearings and get trashed in the press.

AIG sends its execs on a spa vacation and gets 4 times the money Detroit wants. But I'm sure that AIG is much too important to the economy to fail.

I'd be curious to know how the Republican senators who got kicked out of office voted on the bailout. Did they bow to their constituents and vote their will or did they take one last opportunity to fuck 'em over?Funny you should ask. Both Detroit papers currently have some variation of this story on their front page.

They failed repeatedly to organize the foreign-owned auto plants proliferating down South, even now.
Their political action committee pumped millions -- $1,918,450 this election cycle alone, to be exact -- into the congressional campaigns of Democrats and only $12,500 into Republicans, according to opensecrets.org. In their 1999 contract, they won Election Day off and used it to back their (generally Democratic) candidates, a source of recurring irritation among the southern GOP stalwarts.
They ignored the Republicans, even auto state Republicans, who represent the so-called "New American Manufacturers" in places such as Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama.
Those are the same states whose senators stood astride the $14 billion auto bailout bill Thursday saying, "No" -- imperiling life as generations of United Auto Workers have known it.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081212/OPINION03/812120397

Basically, the Republicans are using this opportunity to not support the UAW, which hasn't ever supported the Republicans. You shouldn't always be assholes to groups of people that you might have to depend on someday for a $34 billion bailout.

Maybe if the UAW ever claws it's way back to relevance they'll reconsider their political spending.

[URFloorMatt]

Channeling Rod Blagojevich much? Give me money or I'll fuck you up the ass?

[Whiffleball]

Will manufacturing be dead in this country when all of the foreign, non-union companies are still building cars here? I think not. We will just have more efficient, non-union workers doing the job instead of the clowns in the UAW.

So we should just turn ourselves into the sweatshop of the world with no unions standing up for the rights of workers, to bargain for a better deal on their end? I won't dispute that managements hates organized labor but I would like to know what you are smoking when you say workers hate unions. Workers only hate unions when the union is corrupt or when management makes it so punitive for workers to be part of a union that they'd rather be exploited as long as their kids get braces and the rent is paid on time.

It's funny because I don't remember Republicans forging a united front to micromanage the Wall Street bailout, forcing any wage cuts over that. We're still hearing about bonuses... Er, "retention awards" for those jokers, but when it comes to average, hardworking Americans, THEY have to their income cut to pieces. They just can't resist the opportunity to bust a union even if it means an economic meltdown.

I can't wait until we are completely like Japanese industry, where the individual will of the worker is stifled for the sake of the success of the corporation!

Well, at least we'll have universal health care.

Basically, the Republicans are using this opportunity to not support the UAW, which hasn't ever supported the Republicans. You shouldn't always be assholes to groups of people that you might have to depend on someday for a $34 billion bailout.

Maybe if the UAW ever claws it's way back to relevance they'll reconsider their political spending.

Organizations give money to parties whose ideologies represent their own agenda. Therefore the hardcore market liberals of the Republican Party are supported by big businesses; the pro-regulation, pro-organized labor Democrats are supported by the unions.

I know it's easy to be cynical and believe that there is no such thing as true ideology anymore, but I'd like to think that people are Republicans or Democrats because they actually believe in something...

[Archangel]

Thje individual will of the UAW worker turned out the worst manufactured vehicles in the world for 25 years. Seriously, Malaysian Protons are far better built, and Czech Skodas use far better materials than 95% of the crap Detroit builds. Have you ever heard of a Toyota or a BMW with tuna sandwiches left in the door panels and Coke tins in the fuel tanks? because I haven't. How come the greatest industrialised nation the world has ever seen turns out a significant industrial product which is, I'm sorry to say, the laughing-stock of the world?

So honestly, fuck the workers. If they cannot build a car without panel gaps big enough to put a grown man's hand through, maybe their free will is overrated. How come the same American worker can build an excellent BMW in Spartanburg? Let me see, what's the main difference...

Germany, Japan and Korea are salivating at the vacuum they are going to fill, by the way.

[Limp]

Germany, Japan and Korea are salivating at the vacuum they are going to fill, by the way.
That's the point I made to my wife when I was talking to her the other night.

If the big 3 close their doors tomorrow, the imports will need to make more cars to support the demand. If they need to build more cars they will need more people and will be hiring.

[Desperado]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081212/pl_politico/16515


Cheney: It's 'Herbert Hoover' time


Senate Republicans’ dramatic revolt against a White House-backed auto industry rescue plan is fraught with political risk.
While the high-stakes gambit places them squarely within the mainstream of anti-bailout public sentiment, at the same time it exposes the party to potentially devastating criticism that its failure to compromise doomed the Big Three automakers and deepened the economic recession.
Republicans argue that their rejection Thursday evening of a $14 billion loan package came in response to the concerns of angry taxpayers who are unwilling to pay for an auto industry bailout on the heels of October’s $700-billion financial bailout package.
"I think it would appear that the people who voted against this are carrying out the will of the voters as expressed through the phone calls to our offices," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
But that sentiment betrays the deep rifts the issue has revealed within the party, pitting Rust Belt and auto-state senators who joined Democrats in a plea for federal aid against their Southern colleagues who represent states where foreign-owned automakers constitute a significant economic presence. All of this takes place against the backdrop of an intraparty debate over whether the GOP has lost its core value of limited government.
“I’m not even thinking about the politics of it, I’m talking about the substantive part of it, the people who are losing their jobs, the suppliers and the automobile dealers,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who faces re-election in 2010 and was one of just 10 Republicans who voted to advance the bill Thursday night.
By opposing the automaker bailout, Republicans now find themselves vulnerable to charges that they are insensitive to ailing American auto companies and the millions of workers reliant on the domestic auto industry, a problem compounded by their inability to rally around a clear alternative to the $14 billion package of loans that had been backed by Democrats and the White House.
“Clearly, it’ll be on their heads,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “It passed the House, and Democrats in the Senate and the White House are on the same page. They’re the odd person out here. It will be on their shoulders if it doesn’t go forward.”
Republicans furious at the government’s intervention to prop up the economy say the vote against the bailout marks the beginning of the party’s return to its small government roots. But even those members acknowledged the downside risk.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a fierce critic of the bailout, said the failure of the bill could hurt his auto-state colleagues, but noted, “politically, I think Republicans can show a real difference [with Democrats] here.”
The bigger risk, he said, was pumping more money into companies whose problems were bound to get worse and would likely return to Congress asking for more money.
“I think the public is going to turn on all of us as we go through a deeper recession over the next few months because they are going to see all of this money being thrown at this thing and more and more people realize that the foundations of the recession were based on bad government policy,” DeMint said.
Some strategists say rejection of the package could prove costly to Republicans in the industrial parts of the Midwest.
“The big question is what happens next, if the auto companies are still in business in January or March, whenever it happens to be, [there won’t be] much fallout,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Politico. “But if something dire occurs, if one of the companies or more face bankruptcy or layoffs and that has a dramatic negative impact on communities, families or the economy, then I think there are some questions to be answered to think whether this might have been enough to keep them in business and help them survive.”
Administration officials have been warning for weeks that failure to pass the bill could lead to an even deeper recession.
That was the message Vice President Dick Cheney brought to a closed-door Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, reportedly warning that it’ll be “Herbert Hoover” time if aid to the industry was rejected, according to a senator familiar with the remarks. A Cheney spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the vice president’s remarks.
The White House could still use its authority under the financial bailout law known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program to provide aid to the industry, but the Bush administration has strongly resisted that approach. Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that he could not be relied on as a backstop if additional loans were needed for the first quarter of next year.
That means the White House could take the blame both for spending money and failing to stabilize the auto sector.
Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist, predicted “neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to get the blame because the White House will use TARP money.”

The Bush administration’s resistance to release the money has put the onus on Congress. But Senate Republicans stayed away from negotiating a bailout, allowing the White House to broker a deal with Democrats, which the House approved Wednesday night with 32 Republicans, mostly from auto-producing states, joining 205 Democrats in voting for the measure.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has auto plants in his state, has been torn between the warring factions of his party. He had waited until Thursday to announce his opposition to the bill, then later embraced a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to beef up the administration bill by setting out specific steps for bondholders and labor to take to slash General Motors’ debt and operating costs by the end of March or see the company go into bankruptcy.
Republicans had hoped to use the Corker proposal to deflect blame that they had no viable alternative.
“If we’re viewed as being proactive and trying to solve this problem with a good solution … I’m not sure they can argue we weren’t trying to fix the problem,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).
But Republicans failed to rally around the Corker plan until late Thursday, preventing them from properly explaining it to the public. McConnell dispatched Corker to find a bipartisan solution with Democrats, but the talks stretched through the night, and Corker ultimately failed to sell a revised plan to the GOP caucus.
Republicans will now have to convince the public that they sought a middle ground, but ultimately decided to side with the taxpayer. Otherwise, “they look like they’re in disarray,” said one top GOP strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because one of his auto clients backed the $14 billion in loans.

[Hanover Fist]

Well the axe fell in my plant Thursday and they laid off 50% of the workforce effective next Friday. I was included in the bloodbath and will be unemployed once again right before Christmas for the 3rd time.
http://www.hillsdale.net/local_news/x596342458/Nyloncraft-cuts-110-jobs

The irony is that Honda decided to move all their contracts to Japanese owned plants. Since all suppliers are struggling they have decided to help out the Japanese owned suppliers first. All our tools went to 2 places, one 30 minutes away in Ohio and the other 1 hour away in Windsor Ontario.

They also announced the closing of the DOW plant here in Hillsdale, which makes like the 6th major employer so far this month to just flat out shut the doors here.

The odds are that I will end up leaving the state to live with a relative in order to try and find work and be separated from my family but I'm not sure I have an alternative with the way the job market is here and the near impossibility of me being able to sell my house. My life pretty much sucks right now.

[flyingmonkeys]

Well the axe fell in my plant Thursday and they laid off 50% of the workforce effective next Friday. I was included in the bloodbath and will be unemployed once again right before Christmas for the 3rd time.

Sorry to hear about that; hope you won't be out of work for long.

[Archangel]

Indeed. Chin up, mate.

[freegood]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081212/pl_politico/16515

You know what? All this inconsistent bullshit interference by Republicans are making it easier to lay public anger for the 2000 ton pile of festering feces on Bush and his party.

They're really setting up for even larger government involvement through New Deal style programs.

[Morfin]

I am pretty sure that US manufacturing output is trending upwards. What is not trending upwards is the amount of labor involved in manufacturing because of advancements in technology. If we banned advancements in technology, then Joe the assembly line worker wouldn't be out of a job right now (Remind me never to name my kid Joe).


This is a point that has been somewhat overlooked in the analysis. Technology, in the form of robotics and computers, have dramatically decreased the number of human hands that are needed to build a car. This is why the job bank was originally conceived, to help shuffle workers who were no longer needed to other areas or to help train them. (Of course, this valid purpose quickly twisted into the perversion it is now.)

The unions have had a difficult time facing this issue, especially since, even in good times, those jobs did not come back, because the robots could do them cheaper and better.

So we should just turn ourselves into the sweatshop of the world with no unions standing up for the rights of workers, to bargain for a better deal on their end? I won't dispute that managements hates organized labor but I would like to know what you are smoking when you say workers hate unions. Workers only hate unions when the union is corrupt or when management makes it so punitive for workers to be part of a union that they'd rather be exploited as long as their kids get braces and the rent is paid on time.

I disagree with you here. Workers like unions because they are able to get great benefits, but much of the disillusionment (and decreased membership) has come from the fact that the days of the sweatshop are long gone (except illegally) in the U.S. OSHA and the government took care of that. Also, Prevailing Wage legislation prevented many public projects from being contracted out for less than the union rate. Therefore, if the workers can get the union rate (or as the foreign car manufacturers showed in the U.S. -- good wages and benefits) without having to pay union dues, why join the unions?

In addition, many workers hate paying union dues because they go to lining the pockets of the union hierarchy and go for political purposes -- often at odds with their individual leanings. Many blue collar workers are Republicans, and it pisses them off that part of their union dues don't go to helping the workers at their plant, but to the national union who donates all that money to Democratic candidates.

[Morfin]

Corker: UAW didn’t ‘release’ Dems

Sen. Bob Corker, who emerged as a central player in the auto-bailout debate, insisted Friday that the package that collapsed in the Senate could be revived and easily clear Congress if the United Auto Workers agreed to wage concessions.

In negotiations that stretched through the night Thursday, the Tennessee Republican said he had reached agreement with Democrats, executives of the Big Three auto companies and the United Auto Workers on several key issues, including slashing debt and on an overhaul of employees’ benefits.

But he said what ultimately derailed the deal was the UAW’s refusal to agree to set a date in 2009 to lower wages of its members so they could be in line with the rates of workers at foreign automakers’ plants based in the U.S.

“My prediction is that had we agreed on a date that last night it would have passed the Senate by 90 votes,” Corker, a member of the Banking Committee, told reporters.

The bill instead collapsed by a 52-35 vote, and 60 were needed to advance it.

Corker said he told Ron Gettelfinger, the head of the union, in a phone call Friday morning that “we are so close,” but that the labor chief “is of the belief that there really is no reason to re-enter these conversations” because the White House seems likely to dig into its $700 billion financial rescue package for loans to the industry.Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Corker_UAW_didnt_release_Dems.html)

Interesting comment at the end. It appears that the UAW's position is that they aren't going to cut wages since "We're getting the money." Fuck them. Let 'em fail. Then the UAW can be the UUAW: United Unemployed Auto Workers.

[Phil Theehor]

Link (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Corker_UAW_didnt_release_Dems.html)

Interesting comment at the end. It appears that the UAW's position is that they aren't going to cut wages since "We're getting the money." Fuck them. Let 'em fail. Then the UAW can be the UUAW: United Unemployed Auto Workers.

And that's what's holding this up-- the UAW. This is literally their survival on the line. Congress wants the UAW to accept compensation for its members on par with what is paid to workers by non-unionized (read: solvent) auto makers.

Now, if the UAW member is earning wages commensurate with non-union workers, yet still has to pay for the service of union representation, the UAW no longer serves any purpose. Shortly thereafter, it ceases to exist(disclosure: I got wood typing that last sentence).

Now, I hate them worse than Hitler (if he also killed puppies and canceled the world series), but I see why they aren't playing ball. Were the deal to go through, it spells the end of the UAW (sorry for the redundancy, I just get charged up typing that).

[Debo]

This (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/02/we_dont_make_an.html) site has the manufacturing charts that I was looking for last night.

I also found a quiz (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/09/the-state-of-ma.html) about manufacturing on the same site.

I will try to find more later.

[Phil Theehor]

Germany, Japan and Korea are salivating at the vacuum they are going to fill, by the way.


And you know what? If they get to do it, it's because they fucking deserve it.

Staying business is not a right. It's something you need to earn every day by being a little faster than the other cheetahs. If auto business goes to German and Asian countries, it's because they fucking earned it by doing a better job of making cars. It's because they served the consumer better.

EDIT: Yes, trade policies, state corporatism in Japan, etc. You can pile on any excuse you want, but bottom line does not change.

[Claydon]

Well the axe fell in my plant Thursday and they laid off 50% of the workforce effective next Friday. I was included in the bloodbath and will be unemployed once again right before Christmas for the 3rd time.
http://www.hillsdale.net/local_news/x596342458/Nyloncraft-cuts-110-jobs

The irony is that Honda decided to move all their contracts to Japanese owned plants. Since all suppliers are struggling they have decided to help out the Japanese owned suppliers first. All our tools went to 2 places, one 30 minutes away in Ohio and the other 1 hour away in Windsor Ontario.

They also announced the closing of the DOW plant here in Hillsdale, which makes like the 6th major employer so far this month to just flat out shut the doors here.

The odds are that I will end up leaving the state to live with a relative in order to try and find work and be separated from my family but I'm not sure I have an alternative with the way the job market is here and the near impossibility of me being able to sell my house. My life pretty much sucks right now.


That is awful HF, just awful! Palm Springs has a lot of elderly people that need handymen if that even remotely helps you out at all.

[Whiffleball]

Thje individual will of the UAW worker turned out the worst manufactured vehicles in the world for 25 years. Seriously, Malaysian Protons are far better built, and Czech Skodas use far better materials than 95% of the crap Detroit builds. Have you ever heard of a Toyota or a BMW with tuna sandwiches left in the door panels and Coke tins in the fuel tanks? because I haven't. How come the greatest industrialised nation the world has ever seen turns out a significant industrial product which is, I'm sorry to say, the laughing-stock of the world?

Could you please provide a source on some of those examples? I did a Google search on "UAW Coke cans in fuel tanks" and literally your post was the sixth or seventh result; all the rest were unrelated to the UAW and the Big 3.

Even if those examples are true, human error is only natural. If you want to talk about the actual quality of the cars being designed and put out there on the marketplace, it's wrong to put the entire problem on the workers. The UAW has no control over the quality of the products the execs give them to build.

Improving the quality of the cars is a job that falls wholly on management. Taking risks, innovating and looking to the future is wholly the management's field. That's why they got paid the big bucks and are in charge of all the actual decision-making.

The UAW's job is protecting their workers and the retirees who gave their lifetime's worth of work to the Big 3. It isn't the fault of the UAW that America lacks a strong social security net for retired workers like most other modern countries, nor is it the UAW's fault that America lacks universal health care, but it *is* the UAWs job to protect its workers, which it has done admirably.

I disagree with you here. Workers like unions because they are able to get great benefits, but much of the disillusionment (and decreased membership) has come from the fact that the days of the sweatshop are long gone (except illegally) in the U.S. OSHA and the government took care of that. Also, Prevailing Wage legislation prevented many public projects from being contracted out for less than the union rate. Therefore, if the workers can get the union rate (or as the foreign car manufacturers showed in the U.S. -- good wages and benefits) without having to pay union dues, why join the unions?

Yes, the government and agencies like OSHA have eliminated sweatshop conditions, but unions are still necessary to fight for benefits such as health plans and retirement pensions. Social Security helps people retire but all too often it alone isn't enough and obviously the government doesn't subsidize health care.

The foreign automakers aren't going to rush to build lots of factories here precisely because their overhead is going to increase because, in their home countries, retirees and benefits are subsidized by the state instead of falling entirely on the company as it is in the United States. The only way to entice them here is to bust the groups that fight for these things for workers -- the unions -- which is why the union-busting is being championed by Senators whose bread is buttered by the Germans, Japanese and Koreans.
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/13/bailout/)
I can understand workers being upset with where their dues are going, but that's largely an internal matter that can be sorted out via reform. Although I hardly find it all that outrageous that the unions are siding with the party that, for the most part, is fighting for them rather than their extinction.

And that's what's holding this up-- the UAW. This is literally their survival on the line. Congress wants the UAW to accept compensation for its members on par with what is paid to workers by non-unionized (read: solvent) auto makers.

Now, if the UAW member is earning wages commensurate with non-union workers, yet still has to pay for the service of union representation, the UAW no longer serves any purpose. Shortly thereafter, it ceases to exist(disclosure: I got wood typing that last sentence).

Now, I hate them worse than Hitler (if he also killed puppies and canceled the world series), but I see why they aren't playing ball. Were the deal to go through, it spells the end of the UAW (sorry for the redundancy, I just get charged up typing that).

UAW last year signed a deal with the Big 3 that will cause UAW workers to take a paycut and have diminished health care paid for by a trust fund the Big 3 are paying in to. It will relieve the Big 3 of a lot of their legacy costs at a cost to the UAW workers, but was a concession to keep the Big 3 around, considering that if they collapse the UAW is out of a job as well. Getting the 3 through the crisis and to the point where the new contract kicks in will help considerably, but it'll still be up to management at the companies to start coming up with decent cars.

Staying business is not a right. It's something you need to earn every day by being a little faster than the other cheetahs. If auto business goes to German and Asian countries, it's because they fucking earned it by doing a better job of making cars. It's because they served the consumer better.

Or so the hardcore free market argument goes. And if there wasn't anything hinging on the survival of our domestic auto industry, it'd be fine to take this cavalier attitude of survival of the fittest. But there remains the fact that there are the auto workers, the suppliers, entire communities dependent upon there being an American auto industry... If the Big 3 is just allowed to collapse, it does not do so in a bubble. There's no guarantee that the foreign companies will just jump in, and even if they do so, it may not be fast enough to stave off the resulting economic meltdown. As this thread has already demonstrated, there are real human beings who are going to suffer because of all this, so I see the whole "let the chips fall where they may" attitude a bit callous.

By no means do I think we should merely subsidize incompetence. There have to be strings attached in order for the Big 3 to restructure and innovate so they don't keep making the same errors that have led them to where they are now. But to just say "do nothing and let the market take its course" is like letting a fire consume someone's house, saying they should have made sure the batteries in their smoke detector was working.

Given the seriousness of the situation, it was always in the figures that the White House would have had to step in if Congress couldn't have got it done. It would have been ideal if our elected representatives in the supreme legislature could have acted like grown-ups and ironed out a viable compromise instead of tossing the hot potato to the White House, which itself is not exactly known for its competence.

[freegood]

Or maybe the UAW is being set up by Republicans playing politics with people's lives and welfare at stake.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.

From:

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:12 AM

To:

Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout

Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:

1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.

2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.



Auto bailout's death seen as a Republican blow at unions

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gopunions13-2008dec13,0,3166641,print.story

For some Senate Republicans, a vote against the bailout was a vote against the United Auto Workers, and against organized labor in general.
By Jim Puzzanghera

December 13, 2008

Reporting from Washington — The congressional push to help U.S. automakers was generally cast in terms of protecting the reeling national economy from another body blow -- the collapse of one or more of Detroit's Big Three.

But in killing the stopgap rescue plan worked out by President Bush and congressional Democrats, conservative Republicans -- many from right-to-work states across the South -- struck at an old enemy: organized labor.

"If the [United Auto Workers], which is perceived as one of the strongest unions in the country, can be put under control, that may send a message across the whole country," said Michigan State University professor Richard Block, a labor relations expert.

Such antipathy to unions was an undercurrent through the weeks of negotiations leading up to Thursday's Senate vote rejecting the plan.

Handing a defeat to labor and its Democratic allies in Congress was also seen as a preemptive strike in what is expected to be a major battle for the new Congress in January: the unions' bid for a so-called card check law that would make it easier for them to organize workers, potentially reversing decades of declining power. The measure is strongly opposed by business groups.

"This is the Democrats' first opportunity to pay off organized labor after the election," read an e-mail circulated Wednesday among Senate Republicans. "This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."

One of the leading opponents of the auto bailout, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), said: "Year after year, union bosses have put their interests ahead of the workers they claim to represent. Congress never should have given these unions this much power, and now is the time to fix it."

Of course, for Democrats' part, they were fighting for one of their most loyal supporters in backing the $14-billion bailout.

The UAW, which represents about 150,000 employees of the Big Three, delivered campaign contributions and foot soldiers to help elect Barack Obama president, especially in crucial states such as Michigan and Ohio.

What lent a bipartisan gloss to Senate Democrats' effort was the fact that party leaders had negotiated for days with the White House and made a string of concessions that toughened the bill and won active support from the Bush White House.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a strong auto industry supporter, acknowledged that some of his colleagues simply did not want to help the UAW.

"We have many senators from right-to-work states, and I quite frankly think they have no use for labor," he said. "Labor usually supports very heavily Democrats and I think that some of the lack of enthusiasm for this [bailout] was that some of them didn't want to do anything for the United Auto Workers."

One major car dealer said conservatives let political ideology get in the way of protecting the country's interests.

"Being a Republican myself, I feel very betrayed by the Republican Party right now," said Beau Boeckmann, vice president of Galpin Motors Inc. in North Hills. Galpin has the nation's largest Ford dealership as well as lots where it sells eight other foreign and domestic brands.

The anti-union sentiment rose to the surface in the final desperate hours of negotiations. Republicans insisted that the UAW agree to cut its wages to be competitive with foreign companies such as Honda, Toyota and BMW by a set date.

UAW officials and their Democratic allies balked, saying the autoworkers were being told to make sacrifices that had not been demanded of other industries receiving government bailouts.

"We could not accept the effort by the Senate GOP caucus to single out workers and retirees for different treatment and to make them shoulder the entire burden of any restructuring," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said, arguing the union had gone further than any other stakeholder in making concessions to help the companies avoid bankruptcy.

But DeMint argued that the unions had helped create Detroit's plight.

"It is no coincidence that the healthy automakers in the United States are located in 'right-to-work' states and are not unionized by the UAW," he said. "Right-to-work" states bar agreements between trade unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or "fees" a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a labor ally, said Friday that Republican senators who opposed the bailout might have "wanted to crush a longtime political rival, the United Auto Workers," without concern for the economic consequences.

Democrats lauded the UAW as a hero in the bailout process for agreeing to new concessions on top of major ones given in 2005 and 2007. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) called the union "courageous" just before the House approved the bailout Wednesday.

But some Republicans framed the UAW as the villain, criticizing what they called lavish wages and benefits that they said had driven General Motors, Chrysler and, to a lesser extent, Ford to their knees.

"I'm sure that I'm going to be asked, 'Congressman, I work at Honda' or 'I work at Mercedes. I get $40 an hour. Why are you going to take my tax dollars and pay it to a company that's paying their employees $75 an hour?' " Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said last month.

That wage figure -- widely used by opponents of the auto industry bailout -- is not in fact the wage paid to current workers. It is an approximation of the costs of salaries and benefits for current and retired workers. After wage concessions in recent contracts, the UAW says its workers at GM, Ford and Chrysler plants range from $33 an hour for skilled trades to $14 an hour for new hires.

Precise wages and extrapolated benefits costs for U.S. workers at nonunionized foreign companies, such as Honda and Toyota, are difficult to ascertain, but Block estimated salaries for current workers are approximately the same.

The Big Three automakers have higher labor costs primarily because they have operated factories in the U.S. much longer than their foreign counterparts, so have many more retirees receiving pension and healthcare payments, Block said.

Even if UAW workers at GM took a 20% pay cut, it would only save the company about $1.1 billion annually because the company's unionized workforce in the United States has decreased dramatically in recent years, to 55,000, he said.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) characterized the GOP opposition as "class-warfare assault by the Republicans."

"They never ask about banker salaries. . . . They never asked they give money back," he said.

When Congress convenes in January, the expanded Democratic majorities are expected to push for an Employee Free Choice Act, also known as the "card check," under which companies would recognize unions if a majority of workers signed cards saying they favored a union. That would replace the traditional method of a secret ballot among workers.

Block and other analysts believe the looming fight added to the political maneuvering over the bailout.

"The opposition might be as strong, but it might not be as urgent," Block said.

"If the public could be convinced the problem with the auto industry is the UAW . . . then it will be easier than otherwise to marshal public support against unions and their legislative agenda."

Puzzanghera is a writer in our Washington bureau.

jim.puzzanghera@ latimes.com



If one were to read the terms of the Citicorp bailout and the "concessions" shareholders and board members made (not many), you could see that the same standards for punishment do not apply. Citi will rot until they rid themselves of toxic default swaps and MBS. It's ridiculous to assume that it's all the big bad UAW's fault.

The dirty South strikes again!

[Claydon]

Perhaps the UAW forgot to pay their bag money.


Fuck them, the UAW is disgusting, and I wish them nothing but poverty.

[Swurgen]

Did you stop reading after the first paragraph? Perhaps your union contract only allows you to read one paragraph at a time. I said that both management and the unions deserve their fair share of the blame.

Let me break it down for you:
- Americans like big gas guzzling cars when gas is cheap so GM sold them to us.

- GM never imagined that gas would go to $150 a barrel in under a year. Did you?

- The Big 3 were always one car away from turning the corner: This is true, but it was also mocking them because they always have something coming out that is going to save their ass (e.g., Minivan, SUV, and now the Volt).

Now explain to me how the jobs bank isn't a drain on their P/L.

Explain to me how paying inflated wages leaves them money to invest in R&D to make the alternative cars that you mock them for not producing.

Explain to me how never being able to fire anyone is a good thing.

Guess you're in the same union since you quoted the same statement from me (both UAW and mgmt are to blame) as you form your rebuttal around. I have no sympathy for the gas crisis because they used that excuse once back in the 80's and there's no reason for domestic cars to still be worse than foreign cars in mpg after getting caught so badly with their pants down the first time which allowed the foreign cars to get a foothold here in the first place.

Inflated wages like those earned by the CEO of a company that has been driven into bankruptcy?

Of course you should be able to fire shitty employees. That goes for union workers and mgmt workers. Upper mgmt has failed far more spectacularly than the UAW is for them to be where they are today. The workers would have to turn a camaro into a jungle gym in order for their failure to be as bad. Not being able to fire a union worker for shitty work is no different than a ceo having a 7 figure (or more) golden parachute in the event of their ineveitable fuckup.



Perhaps the UAW forgot to pay their bag money.


Fuck them, the UAW is disgusting, and I wish them nothing but poverty.


And on their behalf, I wish you would contract aids on your next trip to the bathhouse and your boyfriend consequently leaves you for an even more effeminate guy. If one could be found.

[Debo]

Guess you're in the same union since you quoted the same statement from me (both UAW and mgmt are to blame) as you form your rebuttal around. I have no sympathy for the gas crisis because they used that excuse once back in the 80's and there's no reason for domestic cars to still be worse than foreign cars in mpg after getting caught so badly with their pants down the first time which allowed the foreign cars to get a foothold here in the first place.

Inflated wages like those earned by the CEO of a company that has been driven into bankruptcy?

Of course you should be able to fire shitty employees. That goes for union workers and mgmt workers. Upper mgmt has failed far more spectacularly than the UAW is for them to be where they are today. The workers would have to turn a camaro into a jungle gym in order for their failure to be as bad. Not being able to fire a union worker for shitty work is no different than a ceo having a 7 figure (or more) golden parachute in the event of their ineveitable fuckup.

I blame management and the union because that is the right answer. Neither on of them is innocent, so why should only blame one of them?

You must admit that union made goods produced by the Big 3 have declined significantly in quality over the past several decades. In my life I have owned two Chevys, two Hondas and one Audi. The Audi was the best of the bunch and the Chevys were the worst (The Hondas never gave me a problem, it is just that my Audi was a nicer car and it never gave me a problem either so it gets the top spot). This isn't management's fault because the union has set up the labor rules and the company has to abide by them.

I have a strong dislike for the unions because I view them as corporate cancer. They whine, scream like little children and throw a tantrum (or a strike) when they don't milk a company for every nickle that it turns in profit. They think that they should be entitled to all of a companies profit just because they screw a bolt onto a car. This leaves less and less for the actual owners of the company (The equity holders whose money they are taking via inflated wages) or reinvestment into the company (To develop the electric car that they claim will save the company) and it puts the company in a less favorable competitive position.

Also, if a bunch of oil companies got together and said that we refuse to sell oil for less than $150 a barrel, the feds would bust them up via the Sherman Anti-trust act. Yet, when a group of line workers at GM get together and say that we refuse to work for less than $75 an hour (This includes benefits) people talk about their right to organize, etc. I have never heard anyone say that us, the consumer, is the one that ends up getting stuck paying more than we should for goods because the union drives up the price of doing business. I try to buy as much non-union goods and services as I can (And why I love Wal-Mart). Why should I pay more so some high school graduate can receive an inflated wage?

[Swurgen]

I agree that both are to blame and many unions have by far outgrown their usefulness. I'm in a union now that literally does nothing. I was in this union at my last job and nobody knew who they were but we knew they did nothing for that money we gave them out of each check. At this job I'm at now, we at least have met the rep from the union and what happens is our guys negotiate contracts with the powers that be every few years and then the union rep waddles in and says "ok" and for that, they collect thousands of dollars per year from our place. I've never been pro-union and I'm not pro-union now other than in the way our guys have banded together on our own (since well before I got here) to get better conditions for us over the years and I'm hoping that bond will also help me not get laid off next Wednesday.

You really don't think that corporations aren't all colluding? You really don't think that one of the big gas companies could cut their profit margin and sell shit cheaper if they wanted to? How many oil companies are in the top 10 in PROFITS every year? You don't think Coke and Pepsi have a tacit agreement to charge the same amount for what amounts to $.04 worth of cola?

From what I heard on the radio yesterday, the UAW is willing to give back more than they have but supposedly mgmt isn't coming to the table.

As for why UAW made cars are so much shittier than non-union, that could have something to do with the attention to detail of the engineers who design everything and the acceptable tolerances put forth by mgmt. I'm not on the line so I don't know for sure, but I would think a lot of these things that the UAW guys do are either ON or OFF. Not sure if they can be put on crooked and still fit. If every car off the line has the same problems with fit and finish, some of that has to be linked to the engineering. I had a Mustang and shit just didn't fit together as well as it could have. I can't see how that's a worker problem and not a design flaw or at least a lazy design. Maybe the design is there to cover for a shitty worker. I don't know but I at least have to assign a good chunk of the blame to the white collars.

As for the Audi, it probably cost double what your other cars cost which helps. Not to say an equivalent American car would have been as nice because I know it wouldn't but just throwing that out there.

[Claydon]

And on their behalf, I wish you would contract aids on your next trip to the bathhouse and your boyfriend consequently leaves you for an even more effeminate guy. If one could be found.


charming, and yet so typical of the child that you really are.

I have been Union free all my life, that means I am highly competitive, mobile and can do many things in the human and animal medical industries whereby I am far more competitive in these two industries and can maintain employment even during the downturns. It disgusts me to no end that these fuck sticks get several weeks off with full pay while the factories retool. They should either NOT be paid or made to come in and clean the fucking toliets. The UAW was useful 40 years ago....now they are as useless as tits on a turtle.

[Phil Theehor]

UAW last year signed a deal with the Big 3 that will cause UAW workers to take a paycut and have diminished health care paid for by a trust fund the Big 3 are paying in to. It will relieve the Big 3 of a lot of their legacy costs at a cost to the UAW workers, but was a concession to keep the Big 3 around, considering that if they collapse the UAW is out of a job as well. Getting the 3 through the crisis and to the point where the new contract kicks in will help considerably, but it'll still be up to management at the companies to start coming up with decent cars.

Or so the hardcore free market argument goes. And if there wasn't anything hinging on the survival of our domestic auto industry, it'd be fine to take this cavalier attitude of survival of the fittest. But there remains the fact that there are the auto workers, the suppliers, entire communities dependent upon there being an American auto industry... If the Big 3 is just allowed to collapse, it does not do so in a bubble. There's no guarantee that the foreign companies will just jump in, and even if they do so, it may not be fast enough to stave off the resulting economic meltdown. As this thread has already demonstrated, there are real human beings who are going to suffer because of all this, so I see the whole "let the chips fall where they may" attitude a bit callous.

By no means do I think we should merely subsidize incompetence. There have to be strings attached in order for the Big 3 to restructure and innovate so they don't keep making the same errors that have led them to where they are now. But to just say "do nothing and let the market take its course" is like letting a fire consume someone's house, saying they should have made sure the batteries in their smoke detector was working.

Given the seriousness of the situation, it was always in the figures that the White House would have had to step in if Congress couldn't have got it done. It would have been ideal if our elected representatives in the supreme legislature could have acted like grown-ups and ironed out a viable compromise instead of tossing the hot potato to the White House, which itself is not exactly known for its competence.

You make a fair, well-reasoned and compassionate argument. The human cost to this is real and tragic. When I discuss economics, I will often times focus on theory and ignore the many people who will be affected by this (perhaps all of us, if it precipitates Credit Crisis II).

Management is not blameless either. I don't give them a pass, here. In a fair world, Wagoner and his buddies would be living in dumpsters right next to UAW bosses and also subsisting by sucking dicks in exchange for day-old doughnuts.

And in that fair world, all of the auto workers find jobs tomorrow with Honda and will adjust to working without a union both protecting them from performance standards and lining up entitlements for them. Most probably would learn to operate in the same fair market as their competition.

That said, it took 40 years for the U.S. Auto industry to decay this badly. I don't see it clearing up overnight and I don't want the U.S. treasury (read: me, you) to have to carry their dumb asses while they slowly figure it out. Writing them checks that allow them to survive through charity instead of by earning it is asinine.

You had mentioned bailing them out with concessions. I'd agree to give it a try (what can I say, I'm sentimental) if the union agreed that its members work for a cost competitive with those at solvent companies. That's a fair demand by the people who are supposed to be protecting our pockebooks. And, it's not that I want less money in the workers pockets, but I honestly think it will kill the UAW and start the Big 3 on the road to competitiveness. That's something for which I'll throw in a couple of shekels.

[Phil Theehor]

http://thumbnails9.imagebam.com/2096/83cf9220957405.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/83cf9220957405)

[Debo]

Who Is at Fault for the Decline of the Big Three?

December 15, 2008 04:04 PM ET | Michael Barone (http://www.usnews.com/Topics/tag/Author/m/michael_barone/index.html) | Permanent Link (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/12/15/who-is-at-fault-for-the-decline-of-the-big-three.html) | Print (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/12/15/who-is-at-fault-for-the-decline-of-the-big-three_print.htm)

By Michael Barone (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/index.html), Thomas Jefferson Street (http://www.usnews.com/sections/opinion/index.html) blog
Mickey (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2008/12/12/where-do-unproductive-work-rules-come-from.aspx) Kaus (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2008/12/14/who-said-unions-aren-t-productive.aspx), pretty much alone among the commentators I've been reading, indicts "Wagner Act unionism" for the decline and fall of the U.S. auto industry. The problem, he argues, is not just the high level of benefits that the United Auto Workers has secured for its members but the work rules—some 5,000 pages of them—it has imposed on the automakers. As Kaus points out, unionism as established by the Wagner Act is inherently adversarial. The union once certified as bargaining agent has a duty not only to negotiate wages and fringe benefits but also to negotiate work rules and to represent workers in constant disputes about work procedures.
The plight of the Detroit Three auto companies raises the question of why people ever thought this was a good idea. The answer, I think, is that unionism was seen as the necessary antidote to Taylorism. That's not a familiar term today, but it was when the Wagner Act was passed in 1935. Frederick Winslow Taylor was a Philadelphia businessman who pioneered time and motion studies. As Robert Kanigal sets out in The One Best Way, (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Robert+Kanigal%2C+The+One+Best+Way&x=14&y=20) his biography of Taylor, he believed that there was "one best way" to do every job. Industrial workers, he believed, should be required to do their job in this one best way, over and over again. He believed workers should be treated like dumb animals and should be allowed no initiative whatever, lest they perform with less than perfect efficiency.

Taylor's work was regarded as gospel by many industrial managers in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, a time when many factory workers were recent immigrants, often with a less than perfect command of English. Auto assembly lines were organized on Taylorite principles to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of low-skill workers. And squeeze some more. If you ask UAW defenders why they have so many work rules, they will tell you horror stories of the "speedup" dating back to the 1930s. Workers who were required to do some operation 20 times an hour were told to do it 30 times an hour, and so forth. Wagnerism was a response to Taylorism.

Workers hated these jobs. But in the 1930s, with unemployment ranging over 10 percent, they were happy to have them: At least they got a paycheck and there were thousands of others who would be happy to take their jobs if they told their bosses to shove it. Flash forward to 1970, when the UAW was negotiating its contract with General Motors, a story told by William Serrin in The Company and the Union (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=William+Serrin%2C+The+Company+and+the+Uni on&x=11&y=21). Taylorism was still the reigning philosophy of management, and workers really hated their jobs. I remember hearing a UAW political operative tell me, with horror in his voice, that a colleague who deviated from UAW discipline "was sent back to the line." So the big UAW demand that year was "30 and out"—assembly line workers could retire after 30 years on the job. This in turn led the union to demand generous retiree benefits. A worker who retired at 51 wouldn't be eligible for Medicare for 14 years, and therefore the UAW negotiated incredibly generous medical benefits—elective dental work with no copayment is one that sticks in my mind.

The UAW also created a constituency within itself of retirees who have voting rights in union elections just as actual workers do, and there are now something like three times as many GM retirees as GM employees as voting members of the UAW. Retiree benefits account for the lion's share of the difference between GM's labor costs and the labor costs of foreign automakers in the United States.

General Motors in 1970 thought it could afford this. Didn't it "control" half the U.S. auto market? Couldn't it generate any level of demand it wanted through advertising? That's what as learned a sage as John Kenneth Galbraith (http://www.amazon.com/Industrial-State-John-Kenneth-Galbraith/dp/B000HIIZHA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229359794&sr=1-4) had argued in his bestselling The New Industrial State, published in 1967. GM in 1970 didn't fear competition; its greatest fear was that the Justice Department would bring an antitrust case to break it up.

But of course it turned out that GM and Ford and Chrysler were in 1970 just on the verge of getting serious competition from foreign automakers. And in particular from Japanese automakers who managed their plants not according to Taylorism but by giving their workers more autonomy and more responsibility—by treating them like sentient human beings and not like dumb animals as Frederick Taylor taught. The Detroit Three by all accounts I have seen were slow to learn from this—and were even slower to apply the lessons the Japanese taught—because of Wagnerism. Japanese management required cooperation between managers and workers. Wagnerism insisted that all interaction between managers and workers be conducted on an adversarial basis. The 5,000 pages of work rules mean that GM can't manage the way Toyota does.

The UAW rejected Sen. Bob Corker's plan to impose something like Chapter 11 bankruptcy conditions on a government loan to GM, and it's not clear whether the Bush administration will impose similar conditions in its handout of TARP money to GM. Clearly the Democrats are poised to hand out money to GM (and perhaps Chrysler and, if necessary, Ford) after January 20 without requiring any significant changes in the union contracts. Yes, the UAW made important concessions to GM in its September 2007 contract, notably by agreeing to take over retiree health benefits, but obviously not big enough concessions to prevent the company from being now on the verge of bankruptcy. Clearly GM is not going to be able to come up with the $30 billion it promised to give the UAW to take over the retiree health benefits (unless the government ponies up the money), and without that it seems unlikely that the level of retiree health benefits can be maintained (the UAW might decide that it's not oppressive to require copays for elective dental work). But can General Motors ever make money if it continues to be subjected to Wagnerism? Taylorism is pretty much dead in our society; no automaker free to make a choice chooses it as a way to manage its workforce. But its antidote, Wagnerism, remains. "Look at General Motors," Mickey Kaus writes, "and tell me that strong unions are good for the economy." But the Democratic Party is determined to shell out money to maintain Wagnerism in the U.S. auto companies and is committed to promoting Wagnerism by passing the card check bill, which will abolish secret-ballot unionization elections. They want to impose adversarial labor-management relations in large swathes of the private-sector economy that are, currently, in healthier condition than the Detroit Three. Does that sound like a good idea?
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/12/15/who-is-at-fault-for-the-decline-of-the-big-three.html

[SimpleSean]

I agree that unions nowadays need to adjust their operations. They aren't as desperately needed as they were in the early 20th century and as indicated in this situation sometimes they just bloat costs and reduce efficiency.

That said, Taylorism isn't quite dead in spirit. Some jobs nowadays are taking advantage of technology to keep tabs on their workers, to include time spent on a certain job/task, time on break (including restroom), etc. This happens in warehouses with workers pulling orders and an example that everyone sees is at fast food restaurants where the screens are ticking away the time it takes to process every order going through the drive thru from order to payment to delivery of food.

Unions can still piss me off, though. I've worked at places without unions that work just fine, and I've worked at places with unions where it's ridiculously obvious the union isn't doing anything but taking a bite out of your paycheck.

There's got to be a better way, and if it takes the BIG THREE going down it'll hurt and hurt bad, but taking the long view it might be dose of medicine it takes to progress.

After the Second Great Depression.

[freegood]

You make a fair, well-reasoned and compassionate argument. The human cost to this is real and tragic. When I discuss economics, I will often times focus on theory and ignore the many people who will be affected by this (perhaps all of us, if it precipitates Credit Crisis II).

Management is not blameless either. I don't give them a pass, here. In a fair world, Wagoner and his buddies would be living in dumpsters right next to UAW bosses and also subsisting by sucking dicks in exchange for day-old doughnuts.

And in that fair world, all of the auto workers find jobs tomorrow with Honda and will adjust to working without a union both protecting them from performance standards and lining up entitlements for them. Most probably would learn to operate in the same fair market as their competition.

That said, it took 40 years for the U.S. Auto industry to decay this badly. I don't see it clearing up overnight and I don't want the U.S. treasury (read: me, you) to have to carry their dumb asses while they slowly figure it out. Writing them checks that allow them to survive through charity instead of by earning it is asinine.

You had mentioned bailing them out with concessions. I'd agree to give it a try (what can I say, I'm sentimental) if the union agreed that its members work for a cost competitive with those at solvent companies. That's a fair demand by the people who are supposed to be protecting our pockebooks. And, it's not that I want less money in the workers pockets, but I honestly think it will kill the UAW and start the Big 3 on the road to competitiveness. That's something for which I'll throw in a couple of shekels.

The current bailout isn't a charity. It's a giant loan.

[Whiffleball]

Taylor's work was regarded as gospel by many industrial managers in the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, a time when many factory workers were recent immigrants, often with a less than perfect command of English. Auto assembly lines were organized on Taylorite principles to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of low-skill workers. And squeeze some more. If you ask UAW defenders why they have so many work rules, they will tell you horror stories of the "speedup" dating back to the 1930s. Workers who were required to do some operation 20 times an hour were told to do it 30 times an hour, and so forth. Wagnerism was a response to Taylorism.

Workers hated these jobs.

In the past, you had specially trained artisans who would spend a lifetime perfecting their craft. Because it was one person putting all their time and labor into making the product, they charged a lot. Moreover, since the artisan was doing it, it was difficult to produce enough of the good to be cheaply bought on the market.

The assembly line changed all that. You took an unskilled worker, taught him how to do a specific task and put him on the line to produce large numbers of the product. Labor becomes cheap (because the workers can easily be replaced), thus saving costs on wages; the product itself becomes cheap because you're able to produce so many.

Yeah, it sucks that you don't get to exercise creative expression on an assembly line, but if you're an unskilled worker who needs a job to feed his family, are you going to starve because you don't get to stamp your personal signature on a car engine? Are you really going to dismiss the unprecedented prosperity brought on by the manufacturing boom because people weren't allowed to "do their own thing" making sprockets?

I'm on the far left but even I don't believe workers should have to love their work. If everyone got pick the job they wanted to do, we'd have a surplus of astronauts and male porn stars and a heavy deficiency of janitors and security guards.

The UAW also created a constituency within itself of retirees who have voting rights in union elections just as actual workers do, and there are now something like three times as many GM retirees as GM employees as voting members of the UAW. Retiree benefits account for the lion's share of the difference between GM's labor costs and the labor costs of foreign automakers in the United States.First of all, retiree benefits do not cost as much for foreign automakers as they do for the Big 3 yet because the Big 3 have been operating in the United States for longer and on a larger scale, obviously. If the Big 3 were to go away and be replaced by the foreign car companies, in a matter of years you would have the same situation, assuming we don't return to slave labor. One of the reasons these foreign companies have been so successful is because state benefits in their countries are strong and well-funded and they have universal health care.

And I don't see what is wrong with retirees having a vote when their interests are at stake. If they didn't have a stake in the union, they'd essentially be at the mercy of management and the UAW in cutting up the benefits that they need. We had a little revolution over colonial Americans not having a say in how their interests were being handled, remember?

Oh, and never mind the fact that altering health benefits for retirees is exactly what the UAW and the Big 3 have been doing as of late, (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ndm261005.html) much to the anger of said retirees.

But of course it turned out that GM and Ford and Chrysler were in 1970 just on the verge of getting serious competition from foreign automakers. And in particular from Japanese automakers who managed their plants not according to Taylorism but by giving their workers more autonomy and more responsibility—by treating them like sentient human beings and not like dumb animals as Frederick Taylor taught. The Detroit Three by all accounts I have seen were slow to learn from this—and were even slower to apply the lessons the Japanese taught—because of Wagnerism.Oh, yes, Japan is the workers' paradise! Hardly. In the early half of the 20th century, Japan was a right-wing imperialist country. We weren't too keen on them massacring the Chinese and taking over Asia, but when we eventually nuked them and took them over, we made sure they retained their paternal autocratic government with its intense loathing for everything left-wing.

Japan is a country where people make less pay than before they were promoted (http://www.asiaone.com/Business/Office/Learn/Career%2BBuilding/Story/A1Story20080609-69748.html), where the failures of capitalism are actually driving young people to become communists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3218944/Japans-young-turn-to-Communist-Party-as-they-decide-capitalism-has-let-them-down.html), where notorious office hours are literally killing people. (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=117&art_id=nw20070517081239240C435666) Japan also does something unthinkable here in the West by subsidizing their industry, keeping the yen artificially low (http://www.autoyensubsidy.org/).

The UAW rejected Sen. Bob Corker's plan to impose something like Chapter 11 bankruptcy conditions on a government loan to GM, and it's not clear whether the Bush administration will impose similar conditions in its handout of TARP money to GM. Clearly the Democrats are poised to hand out money to GM (and perhaps Chrysler and, if necessary, Ford) after January 20 without requiring any significant changes in the union contracts. Yes, the UAW made important concessions to GM in its September 2007 contract, notably by agreeing to take over retiree health benefits, but obviously not big enough concessions to prevent the company from being now on the verge of bankruptcy.So it's all well and dandy for the UAW to make more and more concessions... But where does the burden fall on the management? Why does the union need to be busted? Why do workers and retirees need to be left out in the cold when it's the management who are telling the workers to make shitty cars no one wants to buy? The Big 3 need to change from the top down, not the other way around.

And Corker's bankruptcy plan is simply not viable. The results of bankruptcy itself would be disastrous on it's own for the country, even if GM eventually gets back on it's feet after bankruptcy. 750,000 pensions to be recovered, tons of warranties that are no longer held and broken fleet contracts. These are significant consequences. You can't just tell GM "Yeah, you can file bankruptcy but don't stop doing all those things" because the express purpose of bankruptcy is to alleviate economic burdens to give you a chance to recover. That would be a completely unfunded mandate and as we've seen during Bush's adminastration, that's a horrible way to act.

The current bailout isn't a charity. It's a giant loan.

Exactly. And it's entirely reasonable that before you give out a loan to save a business, you see some sort of change where the business is going to be profitable again. No one wants a blank check given to these guys. The Big 3 need to change their ways, and that requires restructuring and actually building cars that are affordable and attractive to buyers.

[Phil Theehor]

The current bailout isn't a charity. It's a giant loan.

Right, but it's only a loan if you pay it back. If you don't pay it back, it's charity.

And to pay it back, they would have to earn profit.

And to earn a profit, they need to unfuck themselves.

And using our largesse to operate will not force them to unfuck themselves.

Folks who scream about bailing out the banks but not the auto industry don't understand the basic difference between the two 'investments'. AIG, et al, have traditionally been money-making machines. They're all fucked up right now because of some horrible decision-making (don't get me wrong, I'd like to see anyone involved with exotic instruments thrown out as well), but are ultimately competitive, profitable, viable businesses. This is not the case with GM.

The bank bailout (about which I have very mixed feelings, btw) could ultimately prove a great investment for the US Treasury. An 'investment' in GM, as it is presently constituted, is merely throwing our good money after bad.

[Morfin]

"Unfuck themselves"? Is that something like de-fuckifying themselves?

[Archangel]

Yeah, it sucks that you don't get to exercise creative expression on an assembly line, but if you're an unskilled worker who needs a job to feed his family, are you going to starve because you don't get to stamp your personal signature on a car engine?

Ahem.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ZixrQi-gzyM/R_cvYGGP7_I/AAAAAAAAAm8/pWp5ZzNA0Rg/SL65_Motor.JPG

http://p3.focus.de/img/gen/A/B/HBABA7kaqG3_Pxgen_r_400xA.jpg

[Phil Theehor]

"Unfuck themselves"? Is that something like de-fuckifying themselves?

Exactly. It's business jargon.

[conkling]

The amount of money that the UAW workers gets only comes into consideration AFTER the car is sold-- truth be told, they had nothing to do with Detroit making horrible huge gas guzzlers. That was their decision.

I don't think the big three should go down cause it'll cascade-- dealers, repair shops, after market, plastics-- millions out of work.

I also love how AIG the insurance company gets 250 billion without a second glance but the auto companies get nothing. Talk about class warfare.

[Phil Theehor]

The amount of money that the UAW workers gets only comes into consideration AFTER the car is sold-- truth be told, they had nothing to do with Detroit making horrible huge gas guzzlers. That was their decision.

I don't think the big three should go down cause it'll cascade-- dealers, repair shops, after market, plastics-- millions out of work.

I also love how AIG the insurance company gets 250 billion without a second glance but the auto companies get nothing. Talk about class warfare.

Not class warfare, chief. One was a systemic threat, one was not. The fear was that if the big banks went down, the flow of money would cease (in your terms, it would be like somebody permanently carbing your bong). There was a real fear that ATM's would stop spitting out cash. That's why we pulled those douches out of the fire-- as distateful as it is-- to stave of the risk of an economic doomsday.

The automakers present a real economic problem, but one that the market can fix.

EDIT: I stated it five pages ago, but it bears repeating. I drive a GM vehicle that I absolutely love. I am rooting for them to stay in business (by earning the right). If they can pull it off, I'll never buy anything but a newer model of the car I have.

[freegood]

The bank bailout (about which I have very mixed feelings, btw) could ultimately prove a great investment for the US Treasury. An 'investment' in GM, as it is presently constituted, is merely throwing our good money after bad.

The "investment" in GM are jobs we definitely have now versus the potential job losses the government will ultimately be forced to replace.

No amount of consumer stimulus will be instant or immediate. Layoffs and plant closures are.

[Claydon]

Why do i get the feeling that the bulk of this money will go to pay off union work rules/contracts and is merely a bridge to an organized bankruptcy rather than a sudden shut down/bankruptcy scaring the shit out of everyone.

[Morfin]

I liked this opinion piece from today's NY Times.

Pan Am Dies, America Lives

By ROGER COHEN
Published: December 17, 2008

I used to live in Miami and fly Pan Am to South America to cover this and that: the fall of Pinochet, uprisings in Argentina, one gazillion percent inflation in Brazil. Lest we forget, things really have gotten better in the Americas.

But it’s Pan Am, rather than the state of the Western Hemisphere, that’s been on my mind. ... In the light of the good times on Pan Am, I cannot claim to be objective about the airline or its fate. I liked its flights. I liked the big Pan Am sign above Park Avenue. I’ve never gotten used to Met Life’s usurpation of that spot.

Still, facts are facts. Pan Am, which had been a leading U.S. international airline since the 1930s, collapsed in 1991. Like other great U.S. companies, it died in the marketplace because it blundered. Churn — of people and businesses — has always defined America. Nobody subsidized U.S. Steel or the automaker Packard in the belief that the world without them was unthinkable.

Coming to the United States from Europe, I found this constant reinvention bracing. Look at the top 40 companies by market capitalization in Europe and most have been there for decades. Not in the United States, land of Google and eBay. Churn requires death as well as birth. The artificial preservation of the inert dampens the quest for the new.

America let Pan Am die. Italy keeps Alitalia going although the airline’s been a dead man walking for years. There you have it: two continents, two business cultures. At least until recently, when the sheer extent of the U.S. financial collapse led the Treasury to discover forms of life-support that refuse to utter a taboo word — socialism — but resemble it nonetheless.

Let’s face it, the American International Group has no right to be around, if risk, markets, transparency, accountability and other foundations of American capitalism mean anything.

Which brings us to Grand Theft Auto, not the video game, but the ongoing drama starring General Motors and Chrysler in a desperate quest for billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that they say is essential to their survival. (Ford has said it does not need federal money now to survive; it’s in somewhat better shape.)

I know, hundreds of thousands of jobs are directly at stake, hundreds of thousands more indirectly. This is not an economy that’s creating new jobs for those lost. Why should autoworkers get worse treatment than bankers?

These are agonizing questions. But it’s equally agonizing to contemplate the United States becoming the land of Alitalia-style life-support rather than Pan Am-style churn. If the Big Three, their heads in the sand, have made the wrong models with the wrong technologies for years, while their competitors adapted to a changing world, at least one must pay the price.

Barack Obama, who favors a stringent bailout, has himself observed: “We don’t want government to run companies. Generally, government historically has not done that very well.”

That’s right. Bankruptcy is not the same as liquidation. In the airline business, United Airlines, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2002 and emerged in 2006, is an example. If it came to that after bankruptcy proceedings, the United States could live with two auto companies rather than three.

The whole financial crisis is about the death of responsibility: the buck stopped nowhere. Everyone profited from toxic paper. Bernard Madoff, he of the alleged multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, is only the latest example.

Irresponsibility has also characterized Detroit. I don’t see how you restore responsibility with a bailout. Obama has a deeper task than changing the economy; he has to change the culture.

Rather than adopting European subsidies, put billions toward more inspiring European examples: a high-speed railroad network or universal health care.

Americans have always lived at the new frontier, at least in their imaginations. It’s taken the death of the likes of the wonderful Pan Am to keep them contemplating the horizon rather than their navels. The risk of saving the moribund is the demise of the vital — and the long-term cost of that is incalculable. Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/opinion/18Cohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

[Morfin]

Sell, S&P repeats to GM stockholders

By KATIE MERX • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • December 18, 2008

“Based on further deterioration we see in automotive demand, we are cutting our '09 sales forecast for GM and more than doubling our projected loss per share to $23.17 from $10.12,” S&P auto analyst Efraim Levy wrote in a report. “We expect sharply lower production will crush operating margins, especially in first half.”

In addition, Levy said, S&P expects any immediate government funding to be followed by further requests. Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20081218/BUSINESS01/81218067)

Due to the economy, people are not buying cars. Those that are buying cars, are not buying American cars. A bail-out is not going to change this mindset. The bail-out would just be throwing good money (our, my money) after bad.

[Archangel]

That's a good article, but what it fails to consider is that even in a united Europe, certain national symbols are still points of pride, in this case national carriers. Italy does not have the multitude of airlines the US has: There's Alitalia, and that's it. They don't prop it up out of sappy sentiment for any old company, although such sentiments are alive in a place where "self made man" is more of an insult than anything; it's the pride that a nation has in its first and more or less only airline.

Oh, and by the way, many of our state-run businesses do very well: lest we forget, Renault, which is principally owned by the French government, took over Nissan, and both are building solid cars and look set to weather this storm with little damage.

[Phil Theehor]

The "investment" in GM are jobs we definitely have now versus the potential job losses the government will ultimately be forced to replace.

No amount of consumer stimulus will be instant or immediate. Layoffs and plant closures are.

That's a fair point. And how you feel about this will ultimately depend on your economic philosophy.

I say the government isn't forced to replace anything. Yes, we want a government that promotes an environment where companies can thrive, grow and provide jobs, but there is no eleventh point on the Bill of Rights that says "The Federal Government of The United States is responsible for propping up a non-competitive company (by stealing from Freegood & Phil) to ensure that you, UAW member, has a job.

Freegood & Phil are responsible for finding and performing their own jobs with companies that earn a profit by supplying things that people want at a competitive cost-- not for supporting a company that, as presently constituted, cannot perform the most basic function necessary to stay in business.

Look, I support their dumbasses by buying GM vehicles because I really love GM. However, GM Management + UAW fucking killed the company. I want no part of throwing them a lifeline as along as current management or the union are involved going forward.

(As an aside: At least management is trying. The union blocked a deal last week that would have killed the union, but would have ultimately saved the jobs of all of the union members. What they said, by doing that, is this: "Our anti-competitive, corrupt, politician-buying bureaucracy is far more important than the workers that we are supposed to protect."

As much of a broke dick as Wagoner is, I have a feeling that if it were proven that he would save GM by resigning, he would do it.)

[Archangel]

Between our IG Metall and your UAW, I really wonder who's worse.

[Satan]

Detroit really needs to invest in researching ways to make a fart powered car

[Archangel]

Look, I support their dumbasses by buying GM vehicles because I really love GM.

And to think I had respect for you.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Detroit really needs to invest in researching ways to make a fart powered car

If the government is serious about fixing america, they need to pull industy out of the 20th century. Cars would be a great place to start. They should make flying cars that run on farts. It would probably take less than $1 trillion to figure out how to do that.

[Phil Theehor]

And to think I had respect for you.

I have owned three cars from Sweden, one from Germany (fine it was a VW, doesn't count) and three from Japan and yet my Trailblazer is far and away my favorite.

[freegood]

That's a fair point. And how you feel about this will ultimately depend on your economic philosophy.

I say the government isn't forced to replace anything. Yes, we want a government that promotes an environment where companies can thrive, grow and provide jobs, but there is no eleventh point on the Bill of Rights that says "The Federal Government of The United States is responsible for propping up a non-competitive company (by stealing from Freegood & Phil) to ensure that you, UAW member, has a job.

Freegood & Phil are responsible for finding and performing their own jobs with companies that earn a profit by supplying things that people want at a competitive cost-- not for supporting a company that, as presently constituted, cannot perform the most basic function necessary to stay in business.

Look, I support their dumbasses by buying GM vehicles because I really love GM. However, GM Management + UAW fucking killed the company. I want no part of throwing them a lifeline as along as current management or the union are involved going forward.

(As an aside: At least management is trying. The union blocked a deal last week that would have killed the union, but would have ultimately saved the jobs of all of the union members. What they said, by doing that, is this: "Our anti-competitive, corrupt, politician-buying bureaucracy is far more important than the workers that we are supposed to protect."

As much of a broke dick as Wagoner is, I have a feeling that if it were proven that he would save GM by resigning, he would do it.)

Wagoner hasn't done shit. He hasn't even made the highly conditioned plea of cutting his salary down to a dollar like Mullally did.

I never supported the dumbasses at GM. Hell, if it were 10 years ago, I would want GM to crash and burn and take the UAW with them. But this isn't 10 years ago, and while there is "bailout fatigue", the current circumstances still warrant a too big to fail right now condition.

Yes, one can legitimately ask, "Where the moral hazard ends?" but this isn't an easy "failed business" scenario as one WSJ writer try to sloppily compare with a typewriter company.

IIRC, even under chapter 11 restructuring, the car companies are still legally bound to honor UAW contracts. The car execs do have bigger bargaining power to renegotiate in that event, but it's not as easy as some pundits are crying out.

With or without bankruptcy, it's going to cost billions in government money.

You want to know how much we have spent or committed in loans or bailouts for the financial industry? (http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2008/11/26/39-trillion-was-a-drop-in-the-bucket.aspx)

~Eight trillion, five hundred ninety five billion, one hundred million dollars.

They're putting that much to save the system. Unfortunately for us, GM and Chrysler is part of the system.

(Though letting Chrysler fall or get sucked up by a foreign company could ultimately be a good thing)

[Debo]

IIRC, even under chapter 11 restructuring, the car companies are still legally bound to honor UAW contracts. The car execs do have bigger bargaining power to renegotiate in that event, but it's not as easy as some pundits are crying out.

I believe that a bankruptcy judge has the power to void any contract that he wants to.

If GM files, the UAW is fucked.

[Claydon]

I believe that a bankruptcy judge has the power to void any contract that he wants to.

If GM files, the UAW is fucked.

could we be so lucky?

[Swurgen]

could we be so lucky?

Could you give up cock for a whole week?

[Claydon]

Could you give up cock for a whole week?

yes i can, as I am not union.

[Swurgen]

yes i can, as I am not union.

I don't think you could. You might be able to go a few days but by about Wednesday, you'd be looking to abduct a 9 year old boy.

[Claydon]

I don't think you could. You might be able to go a few days but by about Wednesday, you'd be looking to abduct a 9 year old boy.

SCAB SCAB SCAB!

I hope each of you mother fuckers are warming your hands at a trash barrel in a few months. Jesus christ, even the pilots/flight attendant unions made HUGE concessions to keep united, delta, and american in business.

What does the UAW do? cut down the numbers at the job bank (which they should voluntarily eliminate). don't give me this 2 tiered shit, because it is just that...shit, so you are still screwing the stock holders and the company as a whole for decades of piss poor work and benefits no person should get that just pounds windshields into a frame.

[Claydon]

you'd be looking to abduct a 9 year old boy.

very 2005 of you.

typical of the union....thinking like it is the past.

[Aegis]

Tomorrow GM stock goes to shit, sell early if you can.

[Debo]

Tomorrow GM stock goes to shit, sell early if you can.

Buy the rumor, sell the news?

[Stax]

And Bush just announced he was, with Congress' failure to pass a bill, independently (the "Executive branch" as he put it) was granting $13.4 billion in immediate loans and another $4 billion in February. Numerous provisions according to ABC including the union wage issue (at least according to them, though he made no mention of it) and requiring loan payback if they cannot prove viability by March.

Also according to ABC the Obama folk at least didn't object to anything in the bill, so I won't complain about the success or failure of this plan occuring in the first couple months of his presidency.

[TylerDurden]

And Bush just announced he was, with Congress' failure to pass a bill, independently (the "Executive branch" as he put it) was granting $13.4 billion in immediate loans and another $4 billion in February. Numerous provisions according to ABC including the union wage issue (at least according to them, though he made no mention of it) and requiring loan payback if they cannot prove viability by March.

Also according to ABC the Obama folk at least didn't object to anything in the bill, so I won't complain about the success or failure of this plan occuring in the first couple months of his presidency.

and it was only directed to gm and chrysler, the two that need it most. ford was not named as a beneficiary of the money, and it was pulled from TARP as opposed to the incentive money for the automakers in making cars more efficient, as congress would have used.

interesting.

[Stax]

The precedent of "Congress didn't act? Oh ok, lemme just go ahead and do it anyways" is a bit troublesome to me, but *shrug*.

[Red Machine D]

Made a thread about this in Politics.

I'm gonna keep my own opinions out of it, except to say "weren't the GOP against bailouts?"

[TylerDurden]

The precedent of "Congress didn't act? Oh ok, lemme just go ahead and do it anyways" is a bit troublesome to me, but *shrug*.

i actually somewhat agree with bush's decision here. it's shocking, even to me, but i see the need for it. it's essentially to buy everyone time. everything is in transition right now, so it's not going to be as easy to get done what needs getting done in a firm and efficient manner. this essentially just buys time until the new administration takes office and can properly handle the situation.

[Stax]

i actually somewhat agree with bush's decision here. it's shocking, even to me, but i see the need for it. it's essentially to buy everyone time. everything is in transition right now, so it's not going to be as easy to get done what needs getting done in a firm and efficient manner. this essentially just buys time until the new administration takes office and can properly handle the situation.

What I don't understand about the buyout, to this day, is the logic of giving billions to a business that has for more than a decade refused to bend to what the market wants on the whim that they will learn to bend to what the market wants. There was a story a little while ago that you could buy up all of GM's stock for far less than they were asking for in bailouts. Why not pull a Reagan and just flatout buy them, restructure them within the government, and sell it back?

[noahsdove]

The precedent of "Congress didn't act? Oh ok, lemme just go ahead and do it anyways" is a bit troublesome to me, but *shrug*.
Why not? We started the Iraq war without the approval of congress.

[Stax]

Why not? We started the Iraq war without the approval of congress.

No.. We didn't... The Authorization for Use of Military Force was definitely passed by Congress... It might have been Gulf of Tonkin Resolution-style approval, but still...

[Morfin]

Why not? We started the Iraq war without the approval of congress.

Don't you recall the whole "Hillary voted for the war" debate during the Democratic primaries? Don't you recall Congress saying that the Bush administration hoodwinked them with faulty intelligence?

[TylerDurden]

What I don't understand about the buyout, to this day, is the logic of giving billions to a business that has for more than a decade refused to bend to what the market wants on the whim that they will learn to bend to what the market wants. There was a story a little while ago that you could buy up all of GM's stock for far less than they were asking for in bailouts. Why not pull a Reagan and just flatout buy them, restructure them within the government, and sell it back?

i understand what you're saying. but i'd rather measure twice and cut once than guess, cut once and find out we've decapitated ourselves. this money buys three months. given the choice of a) no money, and an entire industry collapsing on itself immediately, or b) floating a small (in the grand scheme of things) chunk of money to the companies as a way of saying, "we're not in a position to properly deal with this right now; we're going to properly handle this when things are properly settled in march" i'd say the responsible choice was made.

giving nothing to the companies would have immediately fucked this economy deeper and harder than what it already is. the domino effect would have been insane. and during the holiday season? people need a little hope during this time of year, and getting a pink slip on christmas eve is hardly that.

this small investment essentially ensures that the presidential transition goes successfully, and there's time to properly analyze and craft a proper solution instead of just hand-jamming everything through.

i fucking hate gee-dub with a passion. i think he's fucked this country for eight solid years, and with a sandpaper-wrapped condom. but this was a good move, whether he realizes it or not.

[BIG PIZZLE]

3 months is not a lot of time at all. How can you rearrange an entire industry in 3 months? You cant. It took a month for them to just get the money. All this will do is prevent bankruptcy for 3 months. This loan has to be immediatly repaid if demanded.

So here's what's going to happen. The car companies are going to get their money, they are going to do the same shit for 3 months. Then the government, if it has balls, will recall the loan. They auto industry will file CH 11. The only difference is that it will be on Obama's head for recalling the loan.

Or, they can choose not to recall the loan, and we will be in the exact same position next October.

[Da Raider]

*pounds head against wall*

[Morfin]

This is from CNN's story(Link (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121909)):

The loans are for three years but the money will have to be repaid in full within 30 days if the firms do not show themselves to be viable by March 31.

Or what? This article doesn't say. The NY Times merely says that if they can't prove they are viable, then they have to repay the money and declare bankruptcy. What if they just declare bankruptcy? I assume there are some provisions that these loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I want my money -- foolishly being lent out here -- back.

[TylerDurden]

This is from CNN's story(Link (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121909)):



Or what? This article doesn't say. The NY Times merely says that if they can't prove they are viable, then they have to repay the money and declare bankruptcy. What if they just declare bankruptcy? I assume there are some provisions that these loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I want my money -- foolishly being lent out here -- back.

3 months is not a lot of time at all. How can you rearrange an entire industry in 3 months? You cant. It took a month for them to just get the money. All this will do is prevent bankruptcy for 3 months. This loan has to be immediatly repaid if demanded.

So here's what's going to happen. The car companies are going to get their money, they are going to do the same shit for 3 months. Then the government, if it has balls, will recall the loan. They auto industry will file CH 11. The only difference is that it will be on Obama's head for recalling the loan.

Or, they can choose not to recall the loan, and we will be in the exact same position next October.

so what's the alternative here?

[freegood]

Sell everything to the Chinese

[Morfin]

so what's the alternative here?

Not bail them out; force them to re-organize. By giving them the bail-out, the gun has just been taken away from their head, there will be less motivation for a seismic shift, less motivation for the union to make concessions -- all because they now know that the government will help them.

Plus, it bothers me even more than they are helping Chrysler, a privately-owned company.

[Da Raider]

Sell everything to the Chinese

done and DONE!

[TylerDurden]

Not bail them out; force them to re-organize. By giving them the bail-out, the gun has just been taken away from their head, there will be less motivation for a seismic shift, less motivation for the union to make concessions -- all because they now know that the government will help them.

Plus, it bothers me even more than they are helping Chrysler, a privately-owned company.

i completely agree with forcing bankruptcy, a re-org, and paying the price for running the companies into the fucking ground for decades... but what would doing that right now accomplish? hundreds of thousands without a job. entire towns reduced to dust. there has to be a better way of doing this than completely cluster-fucking this economy further at the absolute worst possible time.

[Morfin]

It's gotta happen at some time. I have zero confidence that it is going to happen now, without some cataclysmic event. You're right that major fuckage is going to happen to a lot of people. In my mind, it's going to happen anyway, might as well get going and deal with it now, rather than just forestall the inevitable for a few months. There ain't gonna be no miracles between now and March 31st.

[TylerDurden]

It's gotta happen at some time. I have zero confidence that it is going to happen now, without some cataclysmic event. You're right that major fuckage is going to happen to a lot of people. In my mind, it's going to happen anyway, might as well get going and deal with it now, rather than just forestall the inevitable for a few months. There ain't gonna be no miracles between now and March 31st.

i concur that it is inevitable, but a lot can happen for those people in three months. it's much easier to provide for one's self and family with sufficient forewarning. if this were to be considered the forewarning no one can look back in march when it all collapses and say, "jesus, i just didn't see it coming and thus didn't prepare for it."

[Debo]

This is from CNN's story(Link (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121909)):



Or what? This article doesn't say. The NY Times merely says that if they can't prove they are viable, then they have to repay the money and declare bankruptcy. What if they just declare bankruptcy? I assume there are some provisions that these loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I want my money -- foolishly being lent out here -- back.

This is almost like a pre-pack Chp. 11 filing with the Gov providing the DIP financing.

I am assuming that they are going to structure the loan so that it trumps the rest of the cap. struc. and that it cannot be wiped out in the event of a Chp. 11 filing.

[Morfin]

Analyst: Game over for GM stockholders

By KATIE MERX • FREE PRESS BUSINESS • December 22, 2008

The game is over for holders of General Motors Corp.’s existing stocks and bonds, Credit Suisse auto analyst Chris Ceraso wrote in a note to investors today.
Advertisement

Ceraso downgraded its rating of GM from neutral to underperform and dropped its target price for the stock to $1 from $2.

“Over the next two months, as bondholders, union representatives and company management meet to hammer out concessions, we think it will become increasingly clear that the enormous sacrifice of value on the part of the union (upwards of $10 billion) and bondholders (about $24 billion) will require the complete or near-complete elimination of the existing GM equity.”

In addition, he writes, investors should remember that the Federal Government will claim up to 20% of the equity value in exchange for $13.4 billion in loans.

“We think existing equity holders will be largely, if not entirely, wiped out in the process,” Ceraso writes. Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20081222/BUSINESS01/81222018)

Still can't stop thinking of all those GM retirees with their retirement funds containing GM stock. 16 months ago: $39.00/share. Soon: $1.00, if anything.

[Phil Theehor]

Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20081222/BUSINESS01/81222018)

Still can't stop thinking of all those GM retirees with their retirement funds containing GM stock. 16 months ago: $39.00/share. Soon: $1.00, if anything.

Ironic.

[Morfin]

Hey, Ron. You sound like a drowning man with sharks circling around him. Just keep shouting, maybe someone will save you and your union.

Gettelfinger: UAW not included in negotiations with Bush

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who now faces the prospect of renegotiating a new labor contract with Detroit’s automakers, today told Fox Business Network’s “Money for Breakfast” that the union was shut out of discussions for federal assistance between the Bush administration and the automakers — a slight he called “unbelievable” given the sacrifices the union is being pushed to make.

Gettelfinger said that “it doesn’t make sense” for the government to keep pushing the union to sacrifice.

“Look, our research department put pen to paper and come up and said, look, if we work for nothing, nothing, that’s not going to fix the problem,” Gettelfinger said. “Other stakeholders have to step in here. The management, the suppliers, the dealers, the creditors, everybody’s going to have to step up. You can’t wring it all out of the working men and women.”Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20081222/BUSINESS01/81222022)

Face it. You're done and your union's done. Thanks for playing.

[Swurgen]

“Look, our research department put pen to paper and come up and said, look, if we work for nothing, nothing, that’s not going to fix the problem,” Gettelfinger said.

Is this true? Could it be that mgmt has steered the ship poorly a few times over the last few decades?

[Claydon]

Is this true? Could it be that mgmt has steered the ship poorly a few times over the last few decades?

That is 50% of the problem, but management can be brow beaten into changing, whereas the union still thinks this is a gravy train they can squeeze. Fuck the UAW, if my tax dollars are going to GM, then I want you lazy fucks to work 12 hour shifts, and have to pay half for your health insurance like the rest of us.

[Nosebuckle]

That is 50% of the problem, but management can be brow beaten into changing, whereas the union still thinks this is a gravy train they can squeeze. Fuck the UAW, if my tax dollars are going to GM, then I want you lazy fucks to work 12 hour shifts, and have to pay half for your health insurance like the rest of us.

I don't know if you've worked in a manufacturing plant, but I wouldn't characterize auto workers as lazy.

[Phil Theehor]

I don't know if you've worked in a manufacturing plant, but I wouldn't characterize auto workers as lazy.

I haven't worked on an assembly line, but I'll guess that it is no fun at all. I would guess that it still takes a fair amount of work ethic to get out of bed every day and slog away on an assembly line.

The problem with the UAW (beyond making the Big 3 non-competitive) is two-fold.

First, for its own survival, it needs to create and maintain an adverserial relationship between worker and management.

Second, by negotiating a worker's duties down to such a fine point, it creates a culture of "just good enough".

And both of these things are poisonous to a company. I don't think any of us are giving management a pass here (they suck, too), but the simple truth is that in the long run a UAW company can't compete with a non-UAW company (all other things being equal).

[Swurgen]

That is 50% of the problem, but management can be brow beaten into changing, whereas the union still thinks this is a gravy train they can squeeze. Fuck the UAW, if my tax dollars are going to GM, then I want you lazy fucks to work 12 hour shifts, and have to pay half for your health insurance like the rest of us.

If you're working 12 hour days and paying for half of your insurance then it sounds like you shouldn't be critiquing anybody else's career choices.

[FarEastFornicator]

i think this bullshit, don't they have other parts of the corporation overseas in Japan and Europe that are not even taken into account with all this?

[Claydon]

I don't know if you've worked in a manufacturing plant, but I wouldn't characterize auto workers as lazy.

With things such as but limited to jobs banks program, and being paid 3/4 pay while the plants are idled for retooling i would call that a lazy union. Those workers should scrape their gum out of the parking lot while the plants are being retooled. As a child i remember that you wanted to avoid so called monday cars from the big 3 because the workers were hung over as all fuck, and you wanted to avoid friday cars because the workers were not paying attention thinking about what they were going to do all weekend.

In my youth group as a teenager we use to work with a catering company for the UAW picnic for the GM plant in Van Nuys back in the 80s. What struck me was 1. hardly any of them actually drove what they built (camaros, and various other 4 door sedans) and 2. ive never seen a bigger group of fat slobs who wore american flag tshirts and 'I am the UAW' shirts. They were all demanding, unruly and clearly could not figure out how to use the porta johns, or put their trash in the cans that were all over the park.

I have owned 1 american car, a pontiac, and I have never driven such a worthless piece of shit in my life. My god, I have driven a fucking french piece of shit called a Renault Encore, and that thing was twice the car anything GM or Ford puts out. The workers are useless because of the culture of gimmie that the UAW has created, the cars are useless because of what the dipshits in managements have authorized for manufacter. I hope to christ they go into chapter 11, perhaps then the UAW can be a footnote in a history book, management can be purged, and perhaps just ONE FUCKING TIME IN MY LIFE AN AMERICAN CAR COMPANY CAN PUT OUT SOMETHING WORTH A DAMN.

[Pox]

God damn, Tater takes a lot of shit, but you are surely the biggest whiney cunt in this section

[Claydon]

God damn, Tater takes a lot of shit, but you are surely the biggest whiney cunt in this section


So by stating the truth (ie american cars suck, the UAW is fucked) I am whining?

What do you do for an encore? Denistry?

[Swurgen]

With things such as but limited to jobs banks program, and being paid 3/4 pay while the plants are idled for retooling i would call that a lazy union. Those workers should scrape their gum out of the parking lot while the plants are being retooled. As a child i remember that you wanted to avoid so called monday cars from the big 3 because the workers were hung over as all fuck, and you wanted to avoid friday cars because the workers were not paying attention thinking about what they were going to do all weekend.

In my youth group as a teenager we use to work with a catering company for the UAW picnic for the GM plant in Van Nuys back in the 80s. What struck me was 1. hardly any of them actually drove what they built (camaros, and various other 4 door sedans) and 2. ive never seen a bigger group of fat slobs who wore american flag tshirts and 'I am the UAW' shirts. They were all demanding, unruly and clearly could not figure out how to use the porta johns, or put their trash in the cans that were all over the park.

I have owned 1 american car, a pontiac, and I have never driven such a worthless piece of shit in my life. My god, I have driven a fucking french piece of shit called a Renault Encore, and that thing was twice the car anything GM or Ford puts out. The workers are useless because of the culture of gimmie that the UAW has created, the cars are useless because of what the dipshits in managements have authorized for manufacter. I hope to christ they go into chapter 11, perhaps then the UAW can be a footnote in a history book, management can be purged, and perhaps just ONE FUCKING TIME IN MY LIFE AN AMERICAN CAR COMPANY CAN PUT OUT SOMETHING WORTH A DAMN.

Getting the most you can for your constituents is lazy? I'm sure you're just a bastion of over achievement at your job being on GMF all the time. Are you paid still when you're on GMF on company time?

It's all becoming more clear now. You were a whiny cunt when you were young so you had to join a 'youth group' in order to make 'friends'. Then one time at this UAW picnic, one of the drunken members started to get a little grabby with your bits and pieces and your affection starved brain confused lust with love and went along for the ride. Now you blame him for turning you into the cock chugging homosexual you so clearly are today when in fact, that little cockchugger was always inside of you just waiting for permission to emerge.

[Claydon]

One time, I worked at that annual picnic for 6 years, as for the rest of the post, I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying due to your deep throating your Union Foreman.

[Swurgen]

Rubber, glue, yadda yadda yadda we get it.

[Claydon]

yada yada yada, and why was the the GM Plant in van nuys shut down? Why, because everything they produced for 15 years was complete and total shit. It told me a lot when I saw "I am the UAW" crowd driving up in their Toyota mini vans, and honda civics.

[Hoser]

I don't know if you've worked in a manufacturing plant, but I wouldn't characterize auto workers as lazy.

I would. I have a bunch of friends who worked at GM. My girlfriends cousin is a some sort of manager the GM.

My one buddy had the job of putting doors on the trucks. He would use a machine to pick it up, he would turn around put it in place drop in some pins and do a couple wires up. Well he got an ergonomical break every 45 minutes along with his other breaks, he was almost on break as much as he was working.

I have heard so many stories of how lazy many of them really are, and on night shifts when the "white shirts" weren't around it would be a shit show.

[Morfin]

Hoser, I think you are wrong. Swurgen got it right:Getting the most you can for your constituents is lazy? I'm sure you're just a bastion of over achievement at your job being on GMF all the time. Are you paid still when you're on GMF on company time?


There is a difference between lazy and doing the job in the way that the union and managment negotiated.

Lazy was the time when GM couldn't figure out why this piece of door trim kept falling off. They looked at how it was snapped into place and the snaps appeared to be engineered appropriately, but still the pieces on some cars from that one plant were falling off. The analysts then went down on the line and found out the problem: The woman who was to snap the pieces into place was pressing the pieces in place with her hip, rather than her hand. You see, she explained, it she pressed them in with her hand, she would break her long fingernails, so she used her hip. True story. That is lazy. Negotiated ergonomic breaks is not the worker's laziness, it is the union getting the most that it can.

[Hanover Fist]

I've worked in 4 different manufacturing plants, 1 union and 3 non-union. Auto workers on the whole are no lazier or harder working than any other type of worker it just depends on what sort of supervisors and management they have. An efficient plant depends first and foremost on what type of leadership they have.
Union rules make it much more difficult to have effective leadership, but it can still be done. The people who claim that all autoworkers are lazy are mostly people that have never stepped foot in a manufacturing facility and couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

[Nosebuckle]

yada yada yada, and why was the the GM Plant in van nuys shut down? Why, because everything they produced for 15 years was complete and total shit. It told me a lot when I saw "I am the UAW" crowd driving up in their Toyota mini vans, and honda civics.

I agree that job banks are bullshit, but union workers themselves aren't the lazy fucks you make them out to be. I worked 3 summers in a Honda plant (non-union) and got to know many workers who did work at union shops, like for GM. The work I did was hardly pounding a windshield into place; (machines actually do that) you had to pay attention to what you were doing. It's fine to characterize union leadership as trying to make it as easy as possible for the members, but the workers themselves, hardly models of laziness.

[Swurgen]

yada yada yada, and why was the the GM Plant in van nuys shut down? Why, because everything they produced for 15 years was complete and total shit. It told me a lot when I saw "I am the UAW" crowd driving up in their Toyota mini vans, and honda civics.

So much like Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, the UAW guys invaded the drawing boards of all the engineers and whatnot and changed the specs, designs, allowable tolerances and all that shit...right? You fucking idiot. Once you get to the assembly line, you can't turn a Fiat into a Ferrari by paying extra attention to what you're doing and hustling a little bit.

[Morfin]

Finally, a government with some stones.

S Korea asks SAIC to help with auto bailout

SAIC Motor, China’s largest automaker, has come under pressure to rescue Ssangyong Motor, the South Korean sport utility maker it took control of in 2004.

The South Korean government Friday said it would not aid Ssangyong, which has idled its main production line for three weeks and delayed payment of salaries, unless SAIC put in more capital first.

Ssangyong has emerged as a test both of how far Seoul will go to protect large manufacturers hit by the global downturn and of how willing Chinese companies that bulked up on overseas acquisitions will be to defend their assets through the global economic downturn. SAIC, which bought up assets in the collapse of MG Rover, began production of the MG TF sportscar earlier this year in Birmingham. Its purchase of Ssangyong was the first overseas buyout by a Chinese carmaker.

State-run Korea Development Bank said Friday it had asked SAIC, which holds a 51 per cent stake, to provide a total of Won320bn ($247m) to help save Ssangyong. The funds represent Won120bn in cash for technology transferred to SAIC from Ssangyong and Won200bn to guarantee loans from Chinese banks to Ssangyong.

If those conditions were met, KDB would then lend money to Ssangyong, maker of sports utility vehicles such as Kyron and Actyon. The company is burning through cash and has idled its main production line at Pyongtaek from December 17 to January 5. It has also postponed the payment of salaries.

The company is 51 per cent owned by the SAIC. Over recent days, shares have been rattled by intermittent speculation that SAIC will not move to save its Korean unit.

The question of whether SAIC will help Ssangyong hinges on the fractious relations between the Chinese management and the Korean carmaker’s union. Lee Chang-geun, head of the union’s planning department, told the Financial Times SAIC was demanding that the union restructure to avoid making good on investment promises.Link (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ab7fbd0-d317-11dd-989e-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1)

[Hoser]

UAW Losing Millions On Michigan Golf Course Retreat

While congress made a huge stink about auto execs and their private jets, they didn’t do their research on the UAW’s $6.4 million golf course retreat in Michigan.

While the Carpocalypse looms over the heads of many in the Detroit area and beyond, the UAW apparently isn’t feeling the same kind of heat. While companies are struggling to survive and cutting costs wherever possible, the UAW is spending millions to maintain their golf resort in Black Lake, Michigan.

The $6.4 million golf course is merely a small piece of the larger $33 million retreat center that is costing the UAW millions of dollars every year, totaling $23 million in the last five years. According to the UAW, the Reuther Family Education Center hosts important seminars and classes on leadership and political action, but we’re guessing they’re spending a lot of time on that finely trimmed grass on the 5th tee.

According to Justin Wilson of the Center for Union Facts, a union "watchdog group" (we're not entirely certain where funding for such a group comes from, but we're assuming it's from some sort of biased source):
“It’s their members’ money that they’re spending on this thing. The union has bigger issues at hand than managing a golf course.”
The attached golf course at the Reuther Family Education Center was designed in 2000 by famous course architect Rees Jones for a paltry $6 million. UAW members receive a 20% discount off of the normal green fee of $85, though we don’t think many of them will have the money to play golf in the upcoming season.
http://jalopnik.com/5120621/uaw-losing-millions-on-michigan-golf-course-retreat
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/2008/12/custom_1230651689412_hole_6b_title.jpg

This is going to make a lot of people real happy...

[Claydon]

yah i just read this i think yesterday.


once again FUCK THE UAW. cocksucking faggots!

[Hanover Fist]

On WJR just now they reported that GM announced that they had awarded the contract for building all the batteries for their new electric vehicles.....to a plant in South Korea.
So here we are bailing them out with billions and our economy in shambles and GM outsources a major new component of their new line of electric and hybrid cars. I am stunned that GM would even contemplate a move in this day and age much less actually go through with it. I currently own 2 GM vehicles right now but I surely never plan on purchasing another one after this move. Michigan is pushing a 10%+ unemployment rate (11.5% in my county) and they do this, unbelievable. Fuck GM I hope they go bankrupt as soon as possible and their electric cars fail.

[satandole666]

So you want them to build competitively price cars with comparable quality to foreign automakers but fault them for giving a contract to what I'm sure is one of the lowest bidders?

Or maybe they should have given this contract to a union plant in Michigan and operated with even less of a profit margin on these things?

[Hanover Fist]

So you want them to build competitively price cars with comparable quality to foreign automakers but fault them for giving a contract to what I'm sure is one of the lowest bidders?

Or maybe they should have given this contract to a union plant in Michigan and operated with even less of a profit margin on these things?

There are hundreds of non-union plants that could have built these in the states. One of the major problems with the Big 3 is that they have cut the legs from their consumer base by outsourcing everything. I live in Michigan and have worked in the auto industry for the last 14 years, and yes I would think they would feel some obligation after taking several billion from the taxpayers to continue their operations to maybe give something back by actually making them in this country and employing Americans.

[Grieves]

Fuck GM I hope they go bankrupt as soon as possible and their electric cars fail.If the government gets the fuck out of the way, I'm pretty sure you'll get your wish.

[satandole666]

There are hundreds of non-union plants that could have built these in the states. One of the major problems with the Big 3 is that they have cut the legs from their consumer base by outsourcing everything. I live in Michigan and have worked in the auto industry for the last 14 years, and yes I would think they would feel some obligation after taking several billion from the taxpayers to continue their operations to maybe give something back by actually making them in this country and employing Americans.

While you cause is noble, it isn't good business.

These companies are on the brink of bankruptcy...we all know that. We also know it is, in general, much cheaper to operate overseas. There are many reasons for that, unions are one...taxes another, or even the cost of labor...but it is all irrelevant.

If we "save" them from bankruptcy then turn around and chastise them for maximizing their profits (or minimizing their loses)...what was the point of bailing them out?

I'm not trying to be insensitive to the unemployed in Michigan...I'm not that far away and I just got laid off last week myself, but I haven't lost my objectivity. As a taxpayer who contributed my tax dollars to their bailout, they better damn well do what is in their best interests or I'll be pissed my money was wasted.

[Hanover Fist]

Unemployed people don't buy cars, no matter how cheap you make them.

[satandole666]

Unemployed people don't buy cars, no matter how cheap you make them.

You're right...maybe they should focus on selling cheap, quality cars to people with jobs?

[Morfin]

While you cause is noble, it isn't good business.

These companies are on the brink of bankruptcy...we all know that. We also know it is, in general, much cheaper to operate overseas. There are many reasons for that, unions are one...taxes another, or even the cost of labor...but it is all irrelevant.

If we "save" them from bankruptcy then turn around and chastise them for maximizing their profits (or minimizing their loses)...what was the point of bailing them out?

I'm not trying to be insensitive to the unemployed in Michigan...I'm not that far away and I just got laid off last week myself, but I haven't lost my objectivity. As a taxpayer who contributed my tax dollars to their bailout, they better damn well do what is in their best interests or I'll be pissed my money was wasted.

Let me preface this comment with two things. First, I was and am against the bail-out; second, absent the bail-out, I agree with you.

However, now that the bail-out has been given, it is inconceivable to me that the business/jobs are being sent overseas. The purpose of the bail-out was not just to help GM -- it was also to help the suppliers and other businesses that would benefit from GM continuing to exist. In my mind, that includes investment in American businesses by using the money to help other American businesses. Yes, the bail-out saved GM's jobs, but if GM spends $1 million on a contract to an American company, that is $1 million that goes to pay American taxes and employ other Americans.

Like I said at the beginning, I agree that GM, absent the hand-out, needs to increase efficiency and reduce costs. However, now that they have been given taxpayer money, WTF are they sending it to Korea for?

[satandole666]

Let me preface this comment with two things. First, I was and am against the bail-out; second, absent the bail-out, I agree with you.

However, now that the bail-out has been given, it is inconceivable to me that the business/jobs are being sent overseas. The purpose of the bail-out was not just to help GM -- it was also to help the suppliers and other businesses that would benefit from GM continuing to exist. In my mind, that includes investment in American businesses by using the money to help other American businesses. Yes, the bail-out saved GM's jobs, but if GM spends $1 million on a contract to an American company, that is $1 million that goes to pay American taxes and employ other Americans.

Like I said at the beginning, I agree that GM, absent the hand-out, needs to increase efficiency and reduce costs. However, now that they have been given taxpayer money, WTF are they sending it to Korea for?

I was against the bailout too. As far as I know, the vast majority of people I know were against it as well...

Anyway, I understand the issue you guys are bringing up. It lacks a certain sense of...well...I don't know a good word for it. Morality? Duty? Patriotism? Who knows, maybe one of you has a better vocabulary that I do.

The fact that we gave them Billions and South Korea gets some portion of that money sucks. But as far as I know, Congress didn't set any guidelines saying they could not spend the money in this fashion. I agree that it would be great for them to spend the money here, but Congress did not stipulate they do that. Because of this...it becomes the moral issue I spoke of above...not good business practice.

It sucks, but if we wanted them to spend the money in the US on the US labor market than we should've stipulated that. Since we didn't they are only doing what is in their best interests...as any investor (read: us) would expect of a company we invested in.

[Morfin]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I for one need to read before I react. It isn't as bad as it sounds. Here is the Detroit Free Press article.


General Motors Corp. Chairman Rick Wagoner announced today that GM will manufacture lithium-ion battery packs in Michigan for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, and will also open a 31,000-square-foot battery research lab in the state.

But that’s just the start, Michigan economic development officials believe.

Of the $1.8 billion in federal loan guarantees that battery-maker A123 is requesting, Michigan officials hope the bulk of that will be invested in battery production facilities. Only some powder coating operations, which require a different climate, must locate elsewhere.

In all, Michigan officials estimate the size of the worldwide market for advanced automotive batteries at $50 billion by 2020.

In GM’s announcement today, LG Chem, of South Korea, was identified as the supplier of battery cells for the Volt. Currently, the cells for lithium ion batteries are all manufactured overseas, but $100 million of the new $335-million Michigan incentive package for battery makers – which Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign into law Wednesday at Cobo Center – is dedicated to locating a battery cell plant in the state.Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20090112/BUSINESS03/90112035/Michigan+enters+Battery+Age)

[Phil Theehor]

I have to agree with Mephisto here. I believe that the bailout was simply throwing good money after bad. But, if we're going to do this, Detroit needs to get lean in every way it can in order to compete. Artificial constraints attached to our largesse would only hamstring them.

Step #1 in recovery is making good business decisions. If the Korean plant earned the business by delivering the best product for the price, then the only good decision is to give them the business.

EDIT: Jen Granholm blows teamsters.

[satandole666]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I for one need to read before I react. It isn't as bad as it sounds. Here is the Detroit Free Press article.

Link (http://www.freep.com/article/20090112/BUSINESS03/90112035/Michigan+enters+Battery+Age)

Good deal. I love it when middle-grounds are reached.

I really don't care one way or the other on this matter...I was just trying to demonstrate that moral issues typically lose in favor of good economic practices. Especially when the company's back is against the wall.

[Hoser]

HAHAHA

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/12/2009/01/494x_Post_Protest.jpg

[TylerDurden]

i figured that with less than a week (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/11/news/companies/obama_autos.reut/index.htm) before they're to reappear before congress we might bump this bitch back to the top for some fresh discussion.

i'm attending the chicago auto show next weekend, and from the teasers thus far the only american manufacturer that is impressing me is ford.

meanwhile it would appear that this chrysler/fiat thing is really taking shape (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/12/business/NA-US-Auto-Show-Chrysler.php), though it appears it in itself hinges on the gov't bailout.

it feels to me that ford and chrysler are doing their homework while gm is trying to railroad a metric fuck-ton of money out of the gov't.

[Trident]

The US car industry is a strange thing. For all of the excellence in aviation and space technology etc, it seems so frustrating that by now you Americans could have been travelling around in the most technologically advanced, most fuel-efficient and cost-effective cars on the planet and not to mention that being used elsewhere in the world supporting the costs. Instead the world scoffs at most of your home-grown products.

It's even more strange when GM has brands like Vauxhall and Opel that have good sales in Europe, Ford has umm Ford Europe who make superb cars like the Mondeo, Fiesta and Focus yet they have not realised the long-term benefits of this.

From what I've read here the UAW has a lot to answer for in some respects, but then again so does the consumer who with low fuel prices have been obsessed with engine size rather than performance and economy and of course the government who should have been introducing new performance regulations a long, long time ago.

[TylerDurden]

The US car industry is a strange thing. For all of the excellence in aviation and space technology etc, it seems so frustrating that by now you Americans could have been travelling around in the most technologically advanced, most fuel-efficient and cost-effective cars on the planet and not to mention that being used elsewhere in the world supporting the costs. Instead the world scoffs at most of your home-grown products.

not sure if you've been keeping up, but there are those amongst us who have been scoffing at the home-grown products for quite some time.

It's even more strange when GM has brands like Vauxhall and Opel that have good sales in Europe, Ford has umm Ford Europe who make superb cars like the Mondeo, Fiesta and Focus yet they have not realised the long-term benefits of this.

i guess the word "strange" is applicable when you're on the outside looking in, but from here the correct word is "frustrating". so long as the trend you've outlined continues gm, chrysler, and (to a lesser extent) ford will continue to see decreased sales, and more vocal/increased demands for that which they're already producing en masse in the global market.

From what I've read here the UAW has a lot to answer for in some respects, but then again so does the consumer who with low fuel prices have been obsessed with engine size rather than performance and economy and of course the government who should have been introducing new performance regulations a long, long time ago.

fucking truth.

[Trident]

not sure if you've been keeping up, but there are those amongst us who have been scoffing at the home-grown products for quite some time.

Oh, I know there are - but your voices have been heftily drowned out by the rest; until now.

In way, and this might seem strange, but the whole issue with bailing the car makers out has fallen fortuitously for the Democrats. Now they can tell them what to do, they now have to make greener cars and by waving huge amounts of money in front of them they are now sitting up and begging and doing whatever they're told.

I only hope the resolve shown thus far in trying to reorganise the US car industry stays the same. I have no problem buying American cars if they beat European makers, especially as the cost of developing the technology has been borne by the US tax payer.

[Archangel]

Ford America, the past 15 years.

http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/FordExpedition/Images2007/RightFront.jpg


Ford Europe

http://blog.cochesalaventa.com/_fotos/Ford-Mondeo-Titanium-X-Sport_-Mondeo-gets-a-little-mean_14710_2.jpg


Nuff said.

[Archangel]

You also have to look at the markets. The Mondeo competes against the Mercedes C-Class. Most US vehicles compete against covered wagons.

[TylerDurden]

You also have to look at the markets. The Mondeo competes against the Mercedes C-Class. Most US vehicles compete against covered wagons walking.

corrected.

during a discussion with an old friend of my gf's the other day i was told that i should buy american simply because it's the right thing to do for the economy. it's been quite some time (read: hours prior) since i last laughed in someone's fucking face for quite so long. it simply reaffirmed my strong belief that there will always be those fucking idiots out there who perpetuate the very situation we're in right now by bending over and grabbing their ankles without even questioning why that dick has a sandpaper condom on it.

[Morfin]

Best bumpersticker I've seen in my 20-some years in Detroit: Real Americans Buy What They Want.

[TylerDurden]

Best bumpersticker I've seen in my 20-some years in Detroit: Real Americans Buy What They Want.

it's simple: why would you spend money on something you don't want?

it could be worse, and i could simply issue a stifling blanket statement that i will never buy a gm product based solely on the fact that they're gm. i actually know people who are that committed to an auto manufacturer, and oddly enough the shittier the company the more devoted they are (read: it's directly related to how often they have to defend their fucking views in this regard).

for the rest of us, it's quite simple. competition breeds innovation, and vice versa. if i were to simply give money to gm for a car that i genuinely didn't feel was worth the money what kind of message is that sending to gm? it lets them know that i will continue to choke down the subpar garbage that they manufacture.

if, for some reason, my bavarian auto were to die tomorrow i won't lie: i'm going straight to the bmw dealership first thing simply because they've always treated me right. but in the interest of options i'll also check out the other dealerships in the area, regardless of country of origin or manufacturer. if there's genuinely a car that, in my opinion, could offer me more for my money then that's what i'm buying. in the end it does three things: 1) it satisfies me, the consumer, 2) it satisfies the manufacturer and gives them a pat on the back; they've just gained a new customer beyond the initial purchase (maintenance, warranty, etc.), and 3) it lets bmw know that they need to try harder next time.

it's the natural process. fucking relying on the "buy american" mentality. it's horseshit. if a company can't hang because they're too busy resting on their laurels then fuck 'em.

[Claydon]

the whole buy american rhetoric is laughable seeing how the majority of the electronics in Ford and GMs comes from china, japan, and s. korea, GM gets transmissions from china, and most of there shit is put together in mexico.

[Hoser]

the whole buy american rhetoric is laughable seeing how the majority of the electronics in Ford and GMs comes from china, japan, and s. korea, GM gets transmissions from china, and most of there shit is put together in mexicoCanada.

But yeah I hate those stickers, they are so stupid and people who put them on their cars are even stupider.

[Claydon]

But yeah I hate those stickers, they are so stupid and people who put them on their cars are even stupider.

yes, some of it is slapped together in canada, but a huge portion comes from mexico.

[Hoser]

There are 12 in Canada, including the Largest in Oshawa and only 3 in Mexico.

[Claydon]

There are 12 in Canada, including the Largest in Oshawa and only 3 in Mexico.

in so. cal if you purchase a ford or gm product (cars not the trucks) chances are it came from mexico.


cheaper to slap em together and put them on a train to california than to build them in the great white north and ship them south.

[Hoser]

Ok, but that still doesn't change the fact that Canada builds more then Mexico.

Also it will depend on which vehicle you buy. All Camaros will come from Canada, along with a few others.

My friends dads truck came from the US, even though we have the truck plants here.

[Claydon]

union labor in canada?

[Claydon]

oh and as for the presentation of detroit's plans to reinvent themselves, the concept of barney frank and friends even contemplating the idea that they know what is best for the auto industry is laughable.

[Hoser]

union labor in canada?

Sure is. CAW (http://www.caw.ca/en/index.htm)

[Claydon]

Sure is. CAW (http://www.caw.ca/en/index.htm)

are they lazy dbags like their UAW brothers?

[Hoser]

Sure are. I have many friends who worked at GM for the summer or as TPT and the stories I have heard are ridiculous, night shifts were the worst.

[Claydon]

Sure are. I have many friends who worked at GM for the summer or as TPT and the stories I have heard are ridiculous, night shifts were the worst.

proof.... auto workers unions are teh suck!

[Yelram]

union labor in canada?

GM Mexico Imports:



Cadillac -- Seville STS, DeVille, Catera
Pontiac -- Firebird Trans Am, Grand Prix, Grand AM
Chevrolet -- Chevy Station Wagon, Impala, Tracker 2 & 4 drs., S-10 Pickup, Blazer, Camero Z28, C-15 Pickup, C-20, P-30, Express Van, Cargo Van, LUV & LUV Crew Cab, C-15 Extended Cab 3 drs., Malibu, Venture, Tahoe 4 drs., Corvette, C-35 H.H.

GM Mexico Exports:



United States -- Cavalier, Sunfire, Silverado, Suburban, Aztek (CY2000)
Canada -- Cavalier, Sunfire, Silverado, Suburban
IPC - Cavalier, Sunfire, Silverado, Suburban, Suburban RHD
Argentina – Cavalier
Chile - Cavalier, Suburban
Ecuador – Cavalier
Peru – Cavalier
Central America and Caribbean - Cavalier, Sunfire, Chevy, Chevy RHD Silverado, Suburban, Kodiak

Facilities



Ramos Arizpe (http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/mexi_ramos.jsp)
Silao (http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/mexi_silao.jsp)
Toluca (http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/mexi_toluca.jsp)
Toluca GM SPO Mexico (http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/mexi_toluca_spo.jsp)


Models currently made in Canada



Buick Allure and Buick LaCrosse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_LaCrosse)
Chevrolet Camaro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro)
Chevrolet Equinox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Equinox)
Chevrolet Impala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Impala)
Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado)
Pontiac Grand Prix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Grand_Prix)
Pontiac Torrent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Torrent)


It seems the trend is
-Shut down expensive Canadian/US plants.
-Create new plants everywhere else.

[Claydon]

Union Si in mexico!


Consideración de Trabajadores de Mexico

[Hoser]

Most of the cars in the first two lists are no longer made and some haven't been for a while.

[Claydon]

did you all know there are very rabid, dedicated aztek owners clubs.



YUCK....i mean.... wtf?!

[Hoser]

Pretty much every car has those.

[Yelram]

Most of the cars in the first two lists are no longer made and some haven't been for a while.

Yeah I realized that after I posted it, apparently the information on their mexico vehicle production hasnt been updated.

_________________
Volume III
Lessons From The Future HIGHEST QUALITY CAR PLANT? IN MEXICO

It's time North American auto workers and their managers devote less time to complaining about low Mexican wages and spend more effort attempting to match high quality Mexican labor. A car plant in Ramos Arizpe, 200 miles south of the U.S. border in Mexico, maintains the highest production-quality standards in the entire empire of General Motors, fading, but still the world's largest car manufacturer.
California research group, J.D. Power & Associates, in their annual report on such developments rated Ramos Arizpe Numero Uno among G.M. plants, which averages 86 glitches per 100 cars. The current industry average in the entire U.S. auto industry is 140 glitches, down dramatically from a few years ago. The Ramos Arizpe plant produces Buick Centurys and Chevrolet Cavaliers. Not just for Mexico. These cars are now sold in the U.S. and Canada -- 234,895 last year to be exact. Buyers of these models are the luckiest of all General Motors buyers, because their vehicles were made in Mexico. Fewer than eight percent of all U.S. buyers of these models had any claims against the warranties! The brutal fact is that either of these Mexican-made models is a better buy than an identical car made in Ste. Therese, Quebec or in Oklahoma City.
How did this happen? Attitude. The new, young (average age 22) Mexican workers, are where North American auto workers were in the 1950s. Today's Mexican auto workers have those demanding jobs they wanted. The pay, US$3 per hour, by local contemporary standards is miraculous, worker self-esteem and public admiration is high. This makes them work their butts off. Production keeps climbing, defects continue to diminish and salaries keep going up. Today this happens in Mexico, not Oshawa, Windsor or Detroit.
For years we heard how Detroit and Oshawa maligned Japanese workers claiming "what can they make out of old American beer cans?" Apparently General Motors finally learned that lesson well. They didn't say that about Mexicans. The old-age belief that unskilled workers in developing countries could not match educated, skilled union workers in a developed country obviously isn't true. It's been done in Mexico and very quickly. New untrained workers, in many cases not educated anywhere near as well as the rest of North Americans, receive more paid training -- seven weeks vs. four in the U.S. They were willing to learn new ways. This plant didn't even have to spend zillions on expensive automation. The Ramos Arizpe, factory has only one robot. Probably so they won't be accused of racism. These younger, untrained workers have a better attitude, accept new processes quicker and do not suffer from "the old ways are better ways" attitude associated with American and Canadian militant union workers. These Mexicans have learned the importance of quality is in a globalized world. Not only G.M. has seen this writing on the computer screen. All Volkswagan production for North America is now in Mexico. Nissan, the only Japanese manufacturer so far in Mexico, is rolling the dice for big bucks and are building a massive billion dollar plant at Aguascalientes, 150 miles north of Guadalajara. The plant will only be half as automated as those in Japan, but within a year they will, be exporting more than 60,000 Sentra cars annually from Mexico -- to quality conscious Japanese!
At this stage in such a revelation, most discussions fall back on the idea that better American or Canadian management has produced this wonder. But only three of the 121 managers in all G.M.'s Mexican operations are Americans, no Canadians!
At one time, Detroit, Windsor and Oshawa used to stand for quality and high production auto manufacturing. That title passed to Japan and South Korea. Now Mexico, once known for jumping beans and fritos, is starting to appear on world auto production charts - at the top. A great place to start.
Late flash: The best Ford is now also made in Mexico. At the Ford plant in Hermosillo.






This is in vehicles per year, and it doesnt have any specific company attached to it.
Country cars commercial Total Total change

Mexico 2,045,518
22,4%
Canada 2,572,292
-4,3%

It appears they have a small advantage right now, but they have had plants there (for GM atleast) since 1918, and nothing was put in Mexico until 1935, and that was prior to NAFTA obviously. After that, the climate for building vehicles is certainly better in Mexico (and I dont mean the weather)

[TylerDurden]

did you all know there are very rabid, dedicated aztek owners clubs.



YUCK....i mean.... wtf?!

there's a direct relation between how ugly a vehicle is and its owner's mental capacity.

[Hoser]

I believe it is Plant 1 in Oshawa has gotten some award for highest quality for like 3 or 4 years in a row now

edit: here is the info on the awards
The plant won the JD Power Gold Award for initial quality in 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002; as well a numerous other individual awards for the specific models it produces. In 2007, the plant won silver for initial quality, and a Gold Best in Segment award for the Pontiac Grand Prix, and Bronze Best in Segment for the Monte Carlo.

Also some info on the plant itself
The factory is one of the largest car plants in the world and has won a number of awards. The plant is part of the larger GM Autoplex, which includes Oshawa Truck Assembly. It is often referred to as Oshawa Assembly Plant #1 and #2. The Oshawa Plant # 1 is being converted to a state of the art Flexible Manufacturing facility in early 2008 for the production of the new Chevrolet Camaro, which will begin there in late 2008.
The facility has over 10 million square feet (930,000 m²) of factory floor. There are approximately 5,400 hourly employees and 400 salaried employees.

[Claydon]

I believe it is Plant 1 in Oshawa has gotten some award for highest quality for like 3 or 4 years in a row now

edit: here is the info on the awards


Also some info on the plant itself

so what you are saying is, they are polishing shit?

[Hoser]

I was just showing that they do produce a lot of cars and trucks here and of all the crap that is built by GM the highest quality comes from here, not Mexico. So yeah, polishing shit.

Oh and that we have one fuck huge plant and if it shut down the city would die.

[Yelram]

I believe it is Plant 1 in Oshawa has gotten some award for highest quality for like 3 or 4 years in a row now

edit: here is the info on the awards


Also some info on the plant itself

If thats the case, it must have been 12 years ago.

Wait, I just figured it out, its a plant rating that isnt mutually exclusive, just because someone got a gold rating, does not keep other plants from getting the same rating.

[Claydon]

I was just showing that they do produce a lot of cars and trucks here and of all the crap that is built by GM the highest quality comes from here, not Mexico. So yeah, polishing shit.

Oh and that we have one fuck huge plant and if it shut down the city would die.

those are some brilliant city planner relying on 1 industry/business to maintain it. Did they go to the Flint Michigan school of city management?