GM news...Wagoner outed

[RLJ676]

It seems to me that there was something fundamentally wrong in the way GM was run in the past ten years. Ford is in better shape than the other two because it has been on a serious cost cutting program for years.

My guess is that Wagoner offered up more of the "same old, same old" instead of the brutal cost cutting that is needed.

It's going to be very interesting to see who gets the job, that's if they can find someone that wants it.

The ONLY real reason Ford is in better shape right now is they mortgaged every single asset they could in 06, which created a sizable reserve.

Their cash burn rate has been worse than GM's for the past month's, despite being the smaller company. Structure and cost wise they are ahead in some areas, but behind in others (I have first hand experience with both companies). If they hadn't borrowed every penny they could when they did, they'd be in the same boat right now. Similarly, had GM or Chrysler done the same, they would most likely be lasting much longer right now as well.

 

[sledge]

Ummm, not really. The original TARP deal was set with almost no restrictions. Many banks either didn't want to participate or didn't need to. The Treasury needed them to participate so that the program would not simply highlight bad bank and cause a run.

Subsequently, Congress added provisions for executive pay and such that have repulsed the strong banks. Those companies are all vying to return the money now that the rules have been changed. They were not seized by the government. Huge difference. Again, check the definition of socialism.

So what wiktionary definition suits the scenario where government forces a company to "participate", changes the rules midstream, and then refuses to let participants give the money back? Perhaps you should follow your own advice and read what Wiki has to say on Socialism. There's a difference between socialism and nationalization. The gov't isn't nationalizing, but it sure borders on socializing.

 

[sledge]

Ok so all they have to do is just get out of union contracts and they will be strong, isn't life so simple
...
...
...

A bit of hypocrisy here. The UAW won't allow the hiring of new workers at lower wages so how can automakers reduce their costs? The jobs bank "saved jobs" but if the workers aren't doing anything, how can automakers reduce their costs? When an automaker wants to shut down an un-profitable product line or factory, the union always wants some continued concession. How can the automakers reduce their costs?

Labor unions have always been contentious bullies with an entitlement mindset. The only concession offered by the UAW so far has been "ok, so you can delay by a year the $10 BILLION cash payment for our retired workers." They don't want lower wage workers entering the system because that means less money to pay for the retirees (see Social Security funding problems). They don't want to reduce their workforce because that means less workers contributing to pay for the retirees.

You're absolutely right that today's immediate issue is the lack of sales. What do most companies do when sales are down? They reduce costs, including labor. But automakers can't easily or quickly reduce their labor costs. And they're still on the hook for all the non-producing retirees. So they're between a rock and a hard place. And the union still refuses to bend.

I wonder how Saturn would've worked if the UAW wasn't involved.

UAW Ousts Saturn Union Leader known for cooperative approach
...(Bennett) ...was swept from office, ... by opponents who favor a more traditional and more confrontational approach with management.

 

[LaughingCat]

So what wiktionary definition suits the scenario where government forces a company to "participate", changes the rules midstream, and then refuses to let participants give the money back? Perhaps you should follow your own advice and read what Wiki has to say on Socialism. There's a difference between socialism and nationalization. The gov't isn't nationalizing, but it sure borders on socializing.

I'm not sure. Will have to ask Bush and Paulson what they were thinking. Must be listed under the PretendingToBeConservativeButReallyaNazi-pedia.

 

[Ms PatriYacht]

A bit of hypocrisy here. The UAW won't allow the hiring of new workers at lower wages so how can automakers reduce their costs?

Hire new workers, why would they need to do that since they keep laying people off or talking them into early retirement, and the few new workers that have been hired have been hired at a lower wage and benefit scale, I am surprised you don't know that.


The jobs bank "saved jobs" but if the workers aren't doing anything, how can automakers reduce their costs? When an automaker wants to shut down an un-profitable product line or factory, the union always wants some continued concession. How can the automakers reduce their costs? There are 1,000's of ways to reduce cost and many of them have been done, and there are lots of options, labor is not the only cost they have.

Labor unions have always been contentious bullies with an entitlement mindset. The only concession offered by the UAW so far has been "ok, so you can delay by a year the $10 BILLION cash payment for our retired workers." Completely untrue, they have gone over 3 years with out pay increases, except for the COLA ,which was just taken back, and health benefits have been reduced and like I have said over and over, new hires get a differnt package.

They don't want lower wage workers entering the system because that means less money to pay for the retirees (see Social Security funding problems). See above They don't want to reduce their workforce because that means less workers contributing to pay for the retirees.

You're absolutely right that today's immediate issue is the lack of sales. What do most companies do when sales are down? They reduce costs, including labor. But automakers can't easily or quickly reduce their labor costs. And they're still on the hook for all the non-producing retirees. So they're between a rock and a hard place. And the union still refuses to bend.

I wonder how Saturn would've worked if the UAW wasn't involved.

Did they even need Saturn in the first place

 

[Von Bongo]

Ummm, not really. The original TARP deal was set with almost no restrictions. Many banks either didn't want to participate or didn't need to. The Treasury needed them to participate so that the program would not simply highlight bad bank and cause a run.

Subsequently, Congress added provisions for executive pay and such that have repulsed the strong banks. Those companies are all vying to return the money now that the rules have been changed. They were not seized by the government. Huge difference. Again, check the definition of socialism.

Ahh..but there's the rub, first no restrictions, now there are and the treasury wont let them return the money. One component of Socialism is the " fair or egalitarian method of compensation"

Well the government is sure setting some compensation levels at the top and telling the companies, no jets, no parties, no fun of any kind, yes you are profitable and don't need or want our money but yet we're going to tell you what you can and can't do and you are going to pay us a dividend that is 5 times or more what you pay your common stock holders.

Call it what you want but it's bull**** that the government is involved. The changes with TARP insured that no one on the private side is going to want to be part of TALF for fear that the govenment will change the rules.

Obama and his minions have assured a long and deep recession. Why do you think the market tumbles EVERY time he or Geitner speaks?

 

[LaughingCat]

Debating policy and economic issues on this board is like challenging to a cockfight and everyone is holding boners with pants at their ankles.

 

[Ratickle]

Debating policy and economic issues on this board is like challenging to a cockfight and everyone is holding boners with pants at their ankles.

Not sure that's the way I would have worded it......:sifone:

 

[Wrinkleface]

A bit of hypocrisy here. The UAW won't allow the hiring of new workers at lower wages so how can automakers reduce their costs? The jobs bank "saved jobs" but if the workers aren't doing anything, how can automakers reduce their costs? When an automaker wants to shut down an un-profitable product line or factory, the union always wants some continued concession. How can the automakers reduce their costs?

Labor unions have always been contentious bullies with an entitlement mindset. The only concession offered by the UAW so far has been "ok, so you can delay by a year the $10 BILLION cash payment for our retired workers." They don't want lower wage workers entering the system because that means less money to pay for the retirees (see Social Security funding problems). They don't want to reduce their workforce because that means less workers contributing to pay for the retirees.

You're absolutely right that today's immediate issue is the lack of sales. What do most companies do when sales are down? They reduce costs, including labor. But automakers can't easily or quickly reduce their labor costs. And they're still on the hook for all the non-producing retirees. So they're between a rock and a hard place. And the union still refuses to bend.

I wonder how Saturn would've worked if the UAW wasn't involved.

A couple personal stories about the jobs bank!! Up close & in my face!!
#1..1 of by best friends grow'n up that I bowled w/ 4 years, partied w/ etc etc!! Got a job in Flint at Buick, & I believe got into a skilled trades position. He worked 4 can't remember how many years w/ ?able work ethics, in late, out early, at the pu during work hours, etc, by his own admission! Entered the JB & was in it 4 years! All that was asked of him was 2 do some community service, he did Jack chit, he just would not go, then he was in my office once tell'n me he got called 2 go move vehicles from 1 plant 2 another or something like that, he went 1 day & never went back again!! 2 the best I know all this X he was get'n something like 90 plus % of his normal wages & full bennys!! 4 DOING NOTHING 4 YEARS!!! Then he faded off into some ?able work comp/retirement thing & as far as I know he will B get'n paid the rest of his life!! He is about 50! Now don't get me wrong, I am glad because he had dental ins. during all that & currently & still comes 2 C me every 6 months! But on the other hand if he wasn't/ isn't drink'n a 5th or more of booze a day, he could pay 4 some dental work even if he didn't have ins!!!!

#2...1 of my absolute current best friends/next door neighbor, 2nd name on my will!!! He worked 4 a plant in Lansing & about 3-4 years ago entered the JB!! All that was asked of him was 2 go 2 some "place" where he checked in 4 supposedly 8 hours! He could sleep, watch tv, play cards, play w/ himself, play w/ his friends, ETC!!! That is all that was required of him 2 make I believe 90 plus % of his normal wages & full bennys!! In other words, DO NOTHING!! Let the games begin!! He & some of his buds would sign in & bug out & go fish'n, golf'n, 2 the pub, etc!!! 1 day their supervisor sez U better take it easy & stay around cuz somebody that apparently was play'n by the rules complained about these people that were not!! My buddy sez he & his friends Were gunna find out who did this 2 them & deal w/'m or something like that!! R U kidding me?? His own wife would tell him 2 shut up when he would start piss'n bout this situation cuz she knew how FK'n bad it was!! He cruised thru this period right into retirement at mid 50's!! Do I want 2 C people loose there jobs, NO, it does affect me heavely just south of Flint when people loose insurance, do I think a company can pay somebody 70-100k plus bennys 4 do'n NOTHING, NO!! Especially when alot treat the system like I just explained!! Just the Facts, Jack!!

 

[Ratickle]

Along those same lines, I have a friend who clocks in early by 15 minutes every day so he gets third shift premium for working first. The entire shift.......

 

[Sea-Dated]

I have a couple family members that either worked for unions or are currently working for unions and they say the same thing I do. Unions do not work any more. But of course they have good work ethics and believe in a days pay for a days work.

One of them was actually told by his union boss to work slower, he ws getting too much done and it was pizzing off the rest of the slackers and making them look bad. Desides the union said only so much work can be done in an hour and that is all he was allowed to do.

 

[Ms PatriYacht]

Tracy who cares what they do while they are in the job bank, the reason they are there is because the company choose to send work someplace cheaper, the fact is most would rather be at a job rather than a job bank, maybe they are pissed. Yes I know everyone feels that the companies should be competitive so to achieve that most of the jobs should be sent out of MI, I doubt that will help you practice. Now that there are no job banks don't be surprised if less and less of the people in your community are still working.

Paul where does your friend work, I know at the GM facilities that the only way you can clock in early and even get paid for that early time is if you are asked by your supervisor to do so. Also where Ian works if you are .10 of an hour late, you are forced to take a half vacation day.

We all know slack offs, union or non union. Heck my girlfriends father was a big wig at American Motors back in the day, he was steeling and cheating the company and they fired him but he could have been prosecuted if they wished. For every union slack off story I can tell you a management slack off story. In fact there are many members of chat style web sites that make as many as 100 posts in a single work day while on the payroll of a company they don't own, I wonder how many unproductive hours that adds up to. In the defense of the guys stuck in the job bank all day, they were put there, they did not choose to be unproductive. I would venture to say that if this or other boards relied on union workers to post during the day there would be very little activity

 

[Tommy Gun]

shhhhhhhh... listen carefully...can you hear the golden parachute ruffling in the breeze??

I heard $22mm this a.m.

 

[Ratickle]

Tracy who cares what they do while they are in the job bank, the reason they are there is because the company choose to send work someplace cheaper, the fact is most would rather be at a job rather than a job bank, maybe they are pissed. Yes I know everyone feel that the companies should be competitive to achieve that most of the jobs should be sent out of MI then, I doubt that will help you practice. Now that there are no job banks don't be surprised if less and less of the people in your community are still working.

Paul where does your friend work, I know at the GM facilities that the only way you can clock in early and even get paid for that time is if you are asked by your supervisor to do so. Also where Ian works if you are .10 of an hour late, you are forced to take a half vacation day.

And for every union slack off story I can tell you a management slack off story. In fact there are many members of chat style web sites that make as many as 100 posts in a single work day while on the payroll of a company they don't own, I wonder how many unproductive hours that adds up to. I would venture to say that if this or other boards relied on union workers to post during the day there would be very little activity

He is a set-up guy and therefore kinda gets to do what he wants...

 

[Ratickle]

I heard $22mm this a.m.

Is that all.

I still say he should have been gone a long time ago.

 

[Sunsation96]

If Obama calls the office,I'am not going to answer the phone.I would hate to loss my job.

Good call on that one:rofl:

 

[Wrinkleface]

Tracy who cares what they do while they are in the job bank, the reason they are there is because the company choose to send work someplace cheaper, the fact is most would rather be at a job rather than a job bank, maybe they are pissed. Yes I know everyone feels that the companies should be competitive so to achieve that most of the jobs should be sent out of MI, I doubt that will help you practice. Now that there are no job banks don't be surprised if less and less of the people in your community are still working.

Paul where does your friend work, I know at the GM facilities that the only way you can clock in early and even get paid for that early time is if you are asked by your supervisor to do so. Also where Ian works if you are .10 of an hour late, you are forced to take a half vacation day.

We all know slack offs, union or non union. Heck my girlfriends father was a big wig at American Motors back in the day, he was steeling and cheating the company and they fired him but he could have been prosecuted if they wished. For every union slack off story I can tell you a management slack off story. In fact there are many members of chat style web sites that make as many as 100 posts in a single work day while on the payroll of a company they don't own, I wonder how many unproductive hours that adds up to. In the defense of the guys stuck in the job bank all day, they were put there, they did not choose to be unproductive. I would venture to say that if this or other boards relied on union workers to post during the day there would be very little activity

Donna, my point was all that was asked of these people, my dog could, they could not follow simple rules or requests & get upset when confronted w /that issue!! All while making great money & bennys while B'n requested 2 do basically nothing!! Clear & simple!!

 

[Ratickle]

The main point is these Union Contracts were okay when there wes no competition. Now there is competition, like it or not. I have 4 Chevy's and four chevy motors in my boats. I am a Chevy guy, will not own an import.

When the competition started to erode the sales of USA vehicles, and the Unions refused to give concessions, even demanded more and that's when job banks were created because they were losing their jobs to imports, the union started losing jobs and the US auto makers started losing money. Union payrolls are down over 70% and they still don't get it.

GM has lost money on every car sold in the last 6 years. They have only made money on SUV's and pickups. In 2006 they had record sales and lost around $2 billion .

GM Reports 2006 Financial Results

* Record revenue of $207 billion in 2006
* 2006 reported net loss of $2.0 billion - improvement of $8.4 billion

Don't tell me the only issue is too few of sales. The year before, the loss was over $10 billion. Third highest revenue year ever.

Since the Unions, and management, didn't get it, they only have one way out now, file Chapter 11 under a pre-determined set of basic rules and start fresh.

Here's 2007, just in case you're wondering, (compared to Toyota).

2007 Profit/Loss GM vs. Toyota: Same # Cars

GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles

GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)


And 2008 Prelims, With a snide comment.....

GM announced a preliminary statement of loss for the fourth quarter of 2008: $9.6 billion dollars, adjusted to a net loss of $5.9 billion. That brings the year's figures to a reported net loss of $30.9 billion

If you think that tossing another 10 or 20 billion dollars on this fire is going to put out the flames, you are in line for a seat on the GM Board of Directors.

The added cost of benefits and pensions plus benefits per GM vehicle is currently about $3800 PER VEHICLE more than Toyota's. Still not a profit, but gettin closer.

My entire point is, they can't make it without the $3800 per vehicle going away, or, making imports illegal or cost prohibitive. That's not the only thing they need to do, but it's one of them.


And, Donna, I have nothing against the hard workers at GM or anywhere else. But, you cannot tell me that Ian hasn't seen the Union protect the lazy and commented on it. I have a very good friend who may lose his job in Saginaw, but if they don't do something to change NOW, it will all be gone.

 

[Wrinkleface]

Maybe not an exact analogy, but if I loose a family of patients, 4 whatever reason, they move, they don't like my Cologne, whatever, am I gauranteed I will fill those spots, NO! Sure I post during the day while waiting 4 x-rays or gaps between patients, or no show patients, etc!! Not only do I not make $ if my hands R not wet & in somebodys mouth but I am actually go'n backwards fast, multiple girls on the clock, mal practice ins, office ins., work comp, utilities, lab bills, prop taxes & on & on!! Nobody pays me 2 do nothing! Nobody wants people 2 B work'n w/ dental ins. anymore than me!

 

[Von Bongo]

What do you call the House Voting today giving Gietner the ability to limit the pay of 500 bank CEOs & Management 99% of which are profitable? Before it was only the banks that took $5 billion or more, now it applies to all the banks.

Getting hard to defend isn't it. thank god our founding fathers had two houses, at least the senate is doing what it's supposed to do, at least to this point.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/01/house.bonus.bill/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to give the Treasury Department the power to ban future "unreasonable and excessive" compensation at companies receiving federal bailout money.


The bill would give Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner greater say on executive compensation.

The Pay for Performance Act of 2009, which passed by a vote of 237-171, would empower Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to define what constitutes reasonable compensation, as well as to ban bonuses not based on performance standards. Geithner's guidelines would apply to companies receiving assistance from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.