This goes right along with my post. I understand the role unions played in getting workers their rights and safe work conditions etc. but, do they play an important and reasonable role in today's work environment?Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
This goes right along with my post. I understand the role unions played in getting workers their rights and safe work conditions etc. but, do they play an important and reasonable role in today's work environment?
I think most of you are saying the same thing with different words.
1) We all agree that the unions are hurting the big 3.
2) The big 3 need to restructure, most likely through bankruptcy
3) American jobs will be lost either way, but I believe more through bankruptcy
4) The automakers have a huge impact on the economy and they are hurting now, which is bad and if they go under it will be worse
5) The economy is terrible right now
There are other points being made, but these support what I want to say.
I believe that since the economy is bad right now, maybe we sure be doing a bit better before we take the punch from the automakers falling into bankruptcy to allow them to restructure. Can we take the hit now? Or is it worse to hurt us on the upswing because of the hurt on the moral?(Point by redGT) I believe that we do not have the safety net right now to hit the economy that much harder! The economy is fragile right now and our country is at the same time. What effect might there be outside of the economy?
Above supported by red text.
NIKON Squad | D90
Seems even Paulson doesn't want them to get it.
WASHINGTON – Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Tuesday that the administration remains firmly opposed to dipping into the government's $700 billion financial bailout fund for a $25 billion rescue package for Detroit's Big Three automakers, no matter how badly they need the help.
"There are other ways" to help them, Paulson told the House Financial Services Committee as the bailout bill clung to life support on Capitol Hill.
Committee members grilled Paulson on the administration's stance that the $25 billion must come from separate legislation passed in September that Congress designed specifically to help auto manufacturers retool their factories so they can make more fuel-efficient vehicles.
The $700 billion bailout plan enacted by Congress in October and signed into law by President George W. Bush did not envision that the program would be used to help rescue nonfinancial companies, Paulson said. "I believe the auto companies fall outside of that purpose."
At the same time, he testified, "I think it would be not a good thing, it would be something to be avoided, having one of the auto companies fail, particularly during this period of time."
Paulson said that solving the financial problems of the automakers should be done in a way "that leads to long-term sustainable viability" for the industry.
Auto executives, backed by leading Democrats, insist they need another $25 billion in emergency bridge loans — on top of the $25 billion already approved and being administered by the Energy Department — to avert a collapse of one or more of their companies. That would bring the total federal help for the industry to $50 billion this year.
Paulson cited this Energy Department program several times. "I urge you to modify that" to help automakers, he said.
But Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., told Paulson, "It seems to me when you're treating a disease, you don't decide where the disease came from. You decide when is the prognosis, the likely prognosis. And then you take action."
Kanjorski said there was "a lack of confidence both in this body and in the general population" over the government's handling of the crisis. "They want some idea, do we have a plan? Where are we going? To say turning a corner, really, is not terribly significant."
The auto executives, along with the head of the United Auto Workers union, were making their case at a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee as auto bailout backers hunted the votes necessary to pass the plan in a postelection session. Aides in both parties and lobbyists tracking the plan privately acknowledge they are far short.
Karen Majewski, mayor of Hamtramck, Mich., said police, fire and public works departments would face major cuts if they lost tax revenues from GM and American Axle plants in her city. "We're talking about the lifeblood of our city," she said.
She was among local officials from cities with auto plants making the rounds on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, lobbying for the $25 billion in auto-industry bridge loans.
The debate comes as the financial situation for General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC grows more precarious.
General Motors, Chrysler and Tesla Motors Inc. have already applied for loans under the existing $25 billion Energy Department program and Ford CEO Alan Mulally said the automaker plans to apply on Tuesday. GM, Chrysler and Ford have not disclosed the amount of aid they're seeking or for what purposes. Tesla said it was seeking about $400 million in loans for two projects.
Cash-strapped GM said it will delay reimbursing its dealers for rebates and other sales incentives and that it could run out of cash by year's end without government aid.
Mulally argued Tuesday in advance of the hearing that his company already been laboring to "transform our business" into a more profitable one that meets 21st century demands for fuel-efficient vehicles.
Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," Mulally denied that automakers resisted restructuring their companies or that it has been badly managed.
Sen. Carl M. Levin, D-Mich., an architect of the auto bailout, said that auto executives need to address the perception by some lawmakers "that there's still some quality issues with the Big Three, and they haven't begun to do the necessary restructuring — because they have."
Levin's bill would provide loans with initial interest rates of 5 percent to the U.S. automakers and suppliers in exchange for a federal stake in the companies or warrants that would let the government profit from future gains. Loan applicants would have to give the government a plan for "long-term financial viability."
But it stops short of giving the government a say over the firms' operations through an oversight board or hard limits on executive compensation. While taking advantage of the program, the companies could not pay dividends, award bonuses to executives making more than $250,000 a year, or give golden parachute payments to top people departing from the firms.
A vote on the measure — which includes an extension of jobless benefits — could come as early as Thursday. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also laid the groundwork for a straight up-or-down vote on the more widely supported unemployment measure, which is probably all that can pass this week.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
Here something Ford Austrialia is doing that is winning on all sides.
Autoblog...
"No, thanks," says Ford of Australia to the Duratec V6. Instead, Ford of Oz will invest $21 million to upgrade its homegrown inline six-cylinder and keep the invading powerplant out. The ongoing commitment to its own engine saves jobs at Ford's Geelong plant, as well as keeps local Australian suppliers healthy. It doesn't make any sense for gaskets, castings, bearings and other various parts to come from some other continent, so it's a piece of good news for the economy in Victoria. The engine will be freshened to meet Euro IV emissions standards and will keep thundering away down under with exemplary second-order vibration characteristics. The Falcon, Falcon Ute, and Territory will continue to be homegrown products with homegrown hearts, that we still badly want here in he States. C'mon Ford, if Pontiac can do it, you can, too.
That means that
1. Ford has decided to build on an engine that is already very successful and not risk on a power plant that is not proven. That way, it is a much smarter investment on their part. (Last time they tried an American Ford Taurus in OZ, it failed miserably)
2. Workers keep their jobs.
3. Because the I6 comes turbocharged, it is also a great base for FPV and other Ford performance vehicles alongside their 5.4L DOHC V8.
They simply need to make better products. Period. Disregarding all the above statements about money and pensions. If a company wants to work and survive in a very competitive market they should have looked to the future not for the money right now. Of all the full size cars Honda/Toyota make, they are very reliable, get at the very least 30mpg, work great, look great. They have stayed focused on getting the best possible out of what they have for the class of car out.
I mean, the civic is no longer a compact car, its almost a full size itself. And as yall know, its mpg is great. They seem to be focused on one goal. I believe thats getting the best out of what is put into it. Purpose built cars
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
i pretty much agree with everyone else that their business models need some serious attention. i took a quick glance at just GM's fiscal calendar(s) (over the past 5yrs) and october & november seem to be their slow points...that coupled with this recent reduction in consumer lending (or people un-willing to take on new debts) pretty much sums up as to WHY they're seeking this "emergency" money.
as i was searching, i ran across some pretty FAIR ideas that i believe the big 3 & fellow union(s) need to take into serious consideration. they're both pretty long, so i'll post the link to the first one, and copy/paste another idea that should be added to it.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/...m-friends.html
it seems that there may be at least a partial solution to the challenges faced by the US automakers that has not been fully explored.
Arguably the greatest challenge that US automakers have historically faced is related to the labor force / labor unions. Critics point to product related problems and other debatable historical management decisions by auto industry executives. However, in my opinion, some of the demands of the labor unions, and the acquiescence of management under the threat of strike, have been, and continue to be the greatest hindrances to the competitiveness of US automakers.
Therefore, given the current turmoil which provides an opportunity for unprecedented, creative action to "save" the US auto industry, I would propose the following idea:
Establish 5 to 6 new, independent entities - "Labor Service Cos" - which would take on the entire blue-collar workforces of all participating automakers and provide flexible, contract-based, automotive assembly labor services to the participating automakers (and other manufacturers in need of skilled labor for their US facilities).
In the simplest terms, I am proposing a massive automotive manufacturing service outsourcing deal similar to the large IT outsourcing deals that IT services providers such as IBM Global Services form with large corporations.
The "Labor Service Cos" (hereafter: "LSCs") should receive their initial capital from at least three sources:
1) The participating automakers. The automakers would "give away" their blue collar workforces along with cash (and the workers' current retirement benefit reserves) in a deal somewhat similar to the Siemens-BenQ deal for Siemens' mobile phone unit
2) The government of the state of Michigan. Michigan would extend low interest loans, and provide other economic incentives to the LSCs to keep them based in Michigan
3) The US federal government. The US government would extend low interest loans to the LSCs to facilitate the deal and to ensure a return to US taxpayers
The LSCs should then renegotiate adequately flexible, productivity / quality based labor outsourcing contracts with the participating automakers. The LSCs' management teams would then be responsible for the training, compensation, welfare, allocation and performance management of the workers along with the long-term profitable management of the LSCs (e.g., the LSCs should pursue growth and diversification opportunities by providing skilled manufacturing labor services to other clients).
This deal, if properly structured and executed, should have several positive benefits including:
1) Significant cost savings, increased flexibility, and bankruptcy avoidance for the participating automakers
2) Introduction of more competition, easier performance management and more market driven behavior / decisionmaking into the automotive manufacturing labor service market
3) Increased focus of automakers' management resources on more valuable activities
4) Elimination of conflict between auto labor unions and automakers
5) Provision of attractive upside for LSC employees (e.g., stock in LSCs, more flexible work opportunities, service-oriented corporate culture, etc.)
6) Retention of jobs and skilled, flexible workforce in Michigan
7) Increased automobile assembly quality due to competition among LSCs for service contracts
All arguments aside, this thing isn't going to make through the 110th Congress. Like that's a non-starter. Doesn't really matter what the Dems say, they don't have control for real until Jan 3. By that time, GM will probably go under anyways. What's more is that the Big Three going under will be decently good for the South. All the foreign automakers have their plants down here. THe Big Three go under and the foreign plants expand and employ more people. Besides the Big Three are being sucked dry by the UAW. The unionized Big Three pay employees on average $73 an hour compared to the non-unionized South where employees make on average $48 an hour making them much more competitive. Makes you wonder why Ford and GM shut down plants in Ga. Perhaps if they wanted the votes of the two Senators from Ga, they shouldn't have closed shop and left 4k people in our great state High and Dry while Kia is building a $1.5 Billion factory in west GA. Sucks to be them!
Who do I need to talk to about getting bailed out? I mean, I'm not wanting billions, I just want an even million, and I'll be happy. I wonder if President Elect Obama can help me out with that?
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
Hell, I will take $50k!
Bail me out!
If GM goes under - just think about it - stop your bias and contemplate the consequences.
GM has stake in every single part of the world, Europe, Asia, Africa, Mexico. Employs over 75,000 employees stateside, not including the GM dealerships. Think about the suppliers that supplies parts (Delphi, Bosch) that will have job losses, cash flow lost, profits. The vendors that rely on GM to stay in business. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars...gone.
Do I agree in a bailout...yes and no. Yes, because if they go under it'd be worse than a bailout (the global finances will come to a halt). No, because they -DID- make crap products. I'm -Asian- and all I drive is GM. I see it from both sides of the fence. GM's new products are just as good as the import counter parts. Ford is getting better. Chrysler, well they have always been subpar...but getting better. Keep in mind that the next Dodge RAM is the under pinnings for the next Titan. Ford has stake in Mazda and Volvo. More than ever, Domestics and Imports are working to
Stop the UAW from their crazy requirements. Stop the taxing death. Stop bashing the three.
When was the last time anyone who hates em sat in one...
It would be prudent to keep the three alive.
Obama! = Change!
LOL. Bias?Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhtt tttt.. Businesses fail everyday in this country and you don't see them getting bailed out. This notion that some companies are simply too big to fail is ludicrous.
This county has turned into a bunch of mediocrity and failure rewarding weinies and its sickening. The Big 3 (GM more so than the rest) FUCKED UP BIG TIME. They mad the same car at least 3 times rebadged as something else and didn't even make that great of a product. Think about it. All of GM's recent good products were all made somewhere else by someone else. They had to outsource just to get something good because they weren't doing it over here. So we give OUR money to a bunch of companies that tried to make a quick buck with no future outlook.
Yea and btw. I drove an 80K H2 last week. For 80K I expect a lot less plastic.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
80K H2? Where'd you drive a $80,000 Hummer H2 at? They aren't even priced in that range.LOL. Bias?Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhtt tttt.
This county has turned into a bunch of mediocrity and failure rewarding weinies and its sickening. The Big 3 (GM more so than the rest) FUCKED UP BIG TIME. They mad the same car at least 3 times rebadged as something else and didn't even make that great of a product. Think about it. All of GM's recent good products were all made somewhere else by someone else. They had to outsource just to get something good because they weren't doing it over here. So we give OUR money to a bunch of companies that tried to make a quick buck with no future outlook
Yea and btw. I drove an 80K H2 last week. For 80K I expect a lot less plastic.
I'm not saying that GM didn't mess up...they did! I openly admit it, I own a f-body, one of the worse fit and finish vehicles ever made but I still have 270K on the clock. So did Ford with their weak products and Chrysler, always been subpar even with Mits' help or lack thereof. As I was saying before, to let them go under would be watching the financial world go under with them...at least with GM.
and I can promise you - when they put out cars and trucks that competes with imports - people still won't buy because majority of American's don't support America anymore...why do I know this, becuase they are putting out cars and trucks better than the competition and people still don't buy.
I'm a Shop Manager and I sit and road test every single car under the sun.
I just bought and Saturn Vue, cross shopping the CRV, RAV4.
The CRV and Rav4 has acres of hard plastic - on the door panels, dash, everything! The Saturn has leather wrapped panels and soft touch dash etc in the base version. GM trucks has and will always be better than imports - check out the current motor trend.
What I end up with was a Vue with a 3.6 DOHC 260 hp engine and 6 speed tranny with better accomodations, fit and finish, performance for less than a 4 banger CRV or RAV4. 5/100K warranty, onstar, XM. I got a base interior Vue with the works in drivestrain for thousands less than the competition.
I've been into cars since I was able to play with hotwheels, while the kids were playing, I was reading R&T, C&D, MT...I shopped and shopped before making my decision.
This generation of GM products are as good if not better than the competitve import. At this point, no one will give them a chance because their paradigm is of the GM of yesteryear...and they are unwilling to make that shift. GM could give stuff away and people will still look the other way...
$80K h2!? The H2 is priced under the H3 (chassis of the last gen Tahoe). the H2 shares heavily with Isuzu also...
GM makes great products now, it might be too late, but they made the change...too bad the consumer won't.
as much as i don't want to give them the money it has to happen... if it doesn't we will have one of the hardest blows to our economy since 911
i think there is a projection of 1.5 million jobs that will be lost due to collapse of auto manufacture
Thats actually not true. A few of the foreign automakers are asking for money from their respective governments the same as the Big 3 are asking for it from our government. Also, there are more than three companies after the money from the bailout, not just Detroit. What happens when the Big 3 do go bankrupt? Between the three of them they employ approximatly 3.5 million Americans. If each were to cut their workforce by a third (which is likely if faced with bankruptcy) thats about 1 million people out of work in one blow. Then when production and R&D is cut, what happens to their steel, or glass, or other suppliers? They have to lay people off to make up for the loss in revenue. If the Big 3 to go down, the rest of the contry will go with them.
Actually it is
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/19/news...inese_auto.ap/
The chinese are the only ones going to their government for help. The Germans, Britts, Etc. haven't reached that point yet.
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
Actually its not.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/1...ant-a-bailout/
You're still wrong. That's not a bailout. That's a retooling handout. The big 3 here got something like that. And personally I agree with it. If the government is going to impose stricter emissions laws and MPG standards then they should also have to pay for it. Your confusing two completely seperate issues. The foreign automakers(Other than the chinese that I showed) are no where near bankruptcy the way the big 3 are.
BTW NOW THEY WANT $34 Billion? WTF?
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
I read a while back that if the Big 3 were to go under it would cost more than 10 million jobs in the US over about a 5 year span. That includes the actual corporations, their suppliers, then the last to go will be the dealerships and mechanics.
Thats what the original $50B was supposed to be for, before all of the hearings started. Now a part of the total amounts that the automakers are asking for would still be used for that, with the remainder being used to "keep the lights on" so to speak. I don't think it should be the governments responsibility to fix the problems of a non-government entity, however if the loan is not approved there is a good chance that there will no longer be an American automaker for the Germans, or the Japanese, or anyone else to compete with. I do, however, think that if the loan is approved it should have stipulations that require current upper managment to be replaced. I think its about time for Bob, Rick, and Al to let someone with half a brain give it a shot.
I say go for it. It's only $34 billion. Thats like 4% of what the gov't shelled out to "save" wallstreet...
Land Rover LR3 HSE
It was my understanding. That $25 Billion was the original number that congress had already apropriated to the big 3 for retooling. NOT the bailout. The $34 Billion is the actual bailout. And as far as the foreign automakers not having anyone to compete with if the big 3 go under. That's simply false.
Look Chrysler got a bailout in the 80's or whatever and yes we made money great BUT, here we are and they are back wanting more. Chrysler had a partnership with probably one of the greatest auto manufacturers in the world (MB) and nothing came of it. If you can't come up with new products with access to a company like that. Chrysler for sure needs to go under. I think that if Ford starts bringing over more and more of the vehicles and technology from Europe and Australia which they are currently doing, then they will be fine. GM on the other hand IDK
Epic Foxbody Thread Crew Member #10
GM is already doing this also. The G8, and the G8 ST are both Holden (Aussi GM brand) vehicles that have been updated to American safety and emissions standards.
x2
Shift_Clean
The executive staff are each riding around seperate in private jets. They should all get in one plane and ride coach!
I am sick of all the of all these motherfucker sgetting what they want when they fuck up! Screw em! Let them go under.......america will deal with it and everyone will find a job! I wish someone would bail me out if I was in debt! If they get bailed out I want teh gov. to pay off my credit card
well yeah....plant employees, dealers, salesmen, parts sales, it would all crumble...you also got to remember our military is supplied w/ american vehicles...parts and so forth. You name it and everyone gets hit when they go under but hey thats life man. Shit happens thats why they made the t shirts that say SHIT HAPPENS......cause it always does
I wonder if they go under can I get an american car for really cheap?????
let them go bankrupt!!
Peek-a-boo mofucka what now?!
Guys, I think you're mistaking something. If GM goes under, GM won't disappear. Look, honda, toyota, nissan has like 30% total market share. The other big 3 goes down, they won't disappear. The demand is still there and foreign competitors can't just fill that huge void. What will happen is that they will restructure. Cut a couple plants. They will continue to make cars, and especially trucks. Toyota is not big enough to supply the US with enough trucks etc etc. The demand is still there, albeit falling now. So while lots of jobs will be lost, its not as bad as the 10 million or whatever exaggeration. GM will still be around as long as there is demand.
I am sure they will simply cut jobs and such, but that isnt what is killing the Big 3. It is the gaudy retirement plans that the UAW forced them into.
No question, restructuring is in order. However if you do this through bankruptcy, that takes time. Time we absolutely do not have right now. We are buying our time. We are about to hand over $8 billion+ to get the automakers through for 90days. We have to act now and we have to support the automakers in the fullest intent. We have to support them through restructuring. America needs domestic automaker(s). We have to fulfill their monetary loan needs in order to maintain the industry. Who hands over the money and who oversees the restructuring to what extend must be decided. That worries me if the gov't attempts to control that process.
NIKON Squad | D90
Someone needs to help them spend their bailout money wisely and not on all of their executives flying seperatly on private jets and staying at High dollar resorts. They should all be forced to ride commercial flights in coach and should stay in a Holiday Inn express. These Big companies need to learn how to spend their money or the money that the gov. and Tax payers are bailing them out with. The gov. should assign them a finacial advisor along with the bailout package and it should be part of the agreement. If they want the money the Finacial advisor is part of the deal so they won't get into this mess again. They also need to quit paying all their workers so damn much money!
We do need domestic automakers but we need them to spend their money wisely. How can you feel right about flying in a private jet and staying in the nicest resorts when you know your company is going under ?!?!?!
They deserve the worst but we need em.
Agree 100%
i heard that, but part of you wants to say fuckem because its like damn, how can a company like those be in such bad shape, it has to be because of business mistakes and what not on there behalf. maybe not budgeting properly, mishandling of funds, you never know
The last three posts I agree with. Simply put this will have to be part of restructuring.
NIKON Squad | D90
unions + healthcare cost = disaster
from ia friends and i discussed this this weekend. these are two crucial issues w/ big 3. the problem w/ this country is lawyers/lobbiest.
Yeah, it doesn't help that Congress is gonna sit on their a$$ and try to talk the issue to death either.
NIKON Squad | D90
$50B was the amount that was originally asked for but Congress only approved $25B to begin with. They explained it in a little more detail in the last hearing. None of it has actually been paid yet or officially been approved for that matter. I agree about Chrysler but you still have to think about the jobs that will be lost. From what I've heard Jeep will probably get sold off and continue on as a brand, but under another company, if Chrysler does go under. Ford has already said that by 2014, I think, they will no longer sell certain cars to certain markets but will sell the same cars in all markets, and we may get the Ka even before that. As for GM, I think they will be fine once the rest of the economy bounces back. They're slowly learning from their mistakes and finally offering some decent modelsIt was my understanding. That $25 Billion was the original number that congress had already apropriated to the big 3 for retooling. NOT the bailout. The $34 Billion is the actual bailout. And as far as the foreign automakers not having anyone to compete with if the big 3 go under. That's simply false.
Look Chrysler got a bailout in the 80's or whatever and yes we made money great BUT, here we are and they are back wanting more. Chrysler had a partnership with probably one of the greatest auto manufacturers in the world (MB) and nothing came of it. If you can't come up with new products with access to a company like that
I truely hope this bailout fails now. They are tucking a pay raise for judges into a completely unrelated bill because Pelosi doesnt want the average American to know that they are planning to give judges a raise.
For the record, I am all for the raise for the judges. What I am against is hiding the raise into an unrelated bill. If a bill is worth passing at it, it should be able to pass on its own, not as a stipulation in another bill.
Nuff said.
02 WRX Sport Wagon
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
