Counting down the days until the end of General Motors

[AFireInside]

A lot of people here disliking unions is silly to me. Sure the auto companies may have a bad union deal, but they had a hand in making that deal.

I think unions can be good and bad, but for myself the good outweighs the bad. I know some people personally, who have been screwed by big companies letting them go near retirement just so they don't get full pension. I know an older guy I used to work with, worked at a company for close to 30 years, was getting near retirement when his company was purchased by another large company, and he lost his pension, and was not able to retire. Far as I know he is nearing 70, and will never be able to retire.

These situations drive me nuts, and unions prevent these scenarios from happening. Sure there are bad deals, sometimes it breeds laziness, but I think those stories are GREATLY exaggerated.

Someone made a comment about working more than 8 hours and not getting O.T. sounds like someone is jealous. Why shouldn't someone get paid OT if they are working more than 8 hours a day 5 days a week? These rules prevent companies from taking advantage of their workers and forcing them to work too much without proper compensation.

Why does anyone even care? Good deal for them, it really won't affect you, don't buy the product if you have such a problem with the union, go buy a car from a company with no union, I don't see their vehicles with a much lower price tag, so in the end, no impact on you.

I find the blue collar comments disgusting. For the record I have a very white collar job. Also for the record, I DO NOT agree with giving these companies billions of dollars.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

I'm not entirely what upset me today about this thread, although I can say GTF's post really bugged me. I just have a general sense that people don't think the work skilled labor does is as valuable, and their jobs aren't as important as our white collar brethren.

You misinterpret that supply = value. The reason the autoworkers are heavily unionized is because they know they can be easily replaced without it. Have you ever heard of a unionized lawyer or doctor? They don't need it because the qualifications to achieve those professions are a lot more difficult to achieve and thus, a smaller supply available.

Just because lots of people have the innate ability to do a job does not mean a job is not valuable. It just means that an employee in that job does not have a lot of bargaining power with their employer.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

A lot of people here disliking unions is silly to me. Sure the auto companies may have a bad union deal, but they had a hand in making that deal.

I think unions can be good and bad, but for myself the good outweighs the bad. I know some people personally, who have been screwed by big companies letting them go near retirement just so they don't get full pension. I know an older guy I used to work with, worked at a company for close to 30 years, was getting near retirement when his company was purchased by another large company, and he lost his pension, and was not able to retire. Far as I know he is nearing 70, and will never be able to retire.

These situations drive me nuts, and unions prevent these scenarios from happening. Sure there are bad deals, sometimes it breeds laziness, but I think those stories are GREATLY exaggerated.

Someone made a comment about working more than 8 hours and not getting O.T. sounds like someone is jealous. Why shouldn't someone get paid OT if they are working more than 8 hours a day 5 days a week? These rules prevent companies from taking advantage of their workers and forcing them to work too much without proper compensation.

Why does anyone even care? Good deal for them, it really won't affect you, don't buy the product if you have such a problem with the union, go buy a car from a company with no union, I don't see their vehicles with a much lower price tag, so in the end, no impact on you.

I find the blue collar comments disgusting. For the record I have a very white collar job. Also for the record, I DO NOT agree with giving these companies billions of dollars.

I have no problem getting OT after 40 hrs in a week. Hell I work construction and I will get 40 hrs in by wed.

We have a big company here in the town I live in that makes all kinds of things from corn. They have locked out the union and have been in contract talks since september. Personally I think its funny because these idiots want $20 more an hour in raises in 3 years! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!? These people make more money than most people in this town. They start around $40/hr and want another 20 in raises of 3 years? hahah now they sit on the picket line while people that worked at hon building deskes for AIG and other big banks that cut the production so much that alot of them have been laid off. So they go down to GPC and take the job at wages that these union guys think is just down right horrible (18/HR) plus they get a $200 bonus for not being late all week. These same people were making $15/HR at HON and been there for 15-20 years or what not.

This union crap is a joke. I like I stated work construction (drive dump truck) I'm about 45 mins south of the qc area and found some work up in the qc but the local union striked the job site last summer because I'm not a union driver. Hell I asked about joining the union and I would have to pay them $200 a month just for the right to work! that is absurd to me. Why should I have to pay someone for the right to work when The state of Iowa is a right to work state.

I dislike unions because they breed lazy workers that just want more. God forbid people work more than 8 hours a day to get the job done.

A local VET is building a 24 hour emergency vet clinic and used a local contractor to build it. Well the same union thats on lock out down here went and pickited his place of business because he was using "scabs" to build his new vet clinic. Thats a load of crap!

Unions had their place just not any more.

[browna]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

You think it's all people buying those vehicles? GM sells a lot of fleet vehicles to rental car agencies and police departments.

http://horisly.blogspot.com/2009/03/...plunge-53.html

General Motors dealers in the United States delivered 127,296 vehicles in February, down 52.9 percent compared with a year ago, driven by a 75 percent reduction in fleet sales.

I'm aware of the fleet component, but the above article, where I pulled the orginal numbers, seems to suggest that those fleet sales are down even more of percentage than the overall drop than regular sales, meaning they make up less of a percentage than they have of overall sales.

And that makes sense...like everyone else, institutional/fleet sales are as affected. With uncertaintly, it makes business sense to hold onto current vehicles instead of the usual life cycle in service for those fleet buyers.

On the trip we just returned from, the car we had rented had 43K KM's...never rented a car that had that many km's, I am guessing the rental agencies are holding onto cars an extra 6 months or year or longer.
Also, the rental agency we used had numerous foriegn models to choose from, Hyundi's and Toyota Corrolla's and Camry's...its not just a big 3 market anymore.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I have no problem getting OT after 40 hrs in a week. Hell I work construction and I will get 40 hrs in by wed.

We have a big company here in the town I live in that makes all kinds of things from corn. They have locked out the union and have been in contract talks since september. Personally I think its funny because these idiots want $20 more an hour in raises in 3 years! ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!? These people make more money than most people in this town. They start around $40/hr and want another 20 in raises of 3 years? hahah now they sit on the picket line while people that worked at hon building deskes for AIG and other big banks that cut the production so much that alot of them have been laid off. So they go down to GPC and take the job at wages that these union guys think is just down right horrible (18/HR) plus they get a $200 bonus for not being late all week. These same people were making $15/HR at HON and been there for 15-20 years or what not.

This union crap is a joke. I like I stated work construction (drive dump truck) I'm about 45 mins south of the qc area and found some work up in the qc but the local union striked the job site last summer because I'm not a union driver. Hell I asked about joining the union and I would have to pay them $200 a month just for the right to work! that is absurd to me. Why should I have to pay someone for the right to work when The state of Iowa is a right to work state.

I dislike unions because they breed lazy workers that just want more. God forbid people work more than 8 hours a day to get the job done.

A local VET is building a 24 hour emergency vet clinic and used a local contractor to build it. Well the same union thats on lock out down here went and pickited his place of business because he was using "scabs" to build his new vet clinic. Thats a load of crap!

Unions had their place just not any more.

Well I guess thats an example of part of the problem. I still believe now more than ever that unions have their place. Clearly the example you are describing is one of the problems with a union. I however have seen the good side of unions, and based on what I've seen there is no one that can change my mind that a union is pure evil.

Like I stated previously, working 8 hours a day is not a problem, working more than that is not a problem. Being compensated fairly for that is important.

I am apart of a union at my job, I still get screwed on my hours now and again, even with the union, I've seen managers basically demand that people come in on the weekend. Sure thats fine, if I'm being compensated for what is supposed to be my time off I'll be there, if you try and pay me regular wage, I personally don't find my 1 or 2 days off a week worth giving up for that, at least not on a regular basis. I should be able to choose if I want to give up my spare time to work.

Its like anything else, there are good unions, and there are bad unions. There are good workers and there are lazy workers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Extension of the deadline to submit business plans for loans.

File this under "This business plan was written on a napkin at a strip club"

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/story.html?id=1444409

[Azure]

Interesting...the GM plan....and what Obama and his team doesn't like.

"The GM plan, in its current form, is not viable and will need to be restructured substantially," a senior administration official says.
How so?

• Some of the restructuring initiatives aren't set to be finished until 2014;
• The assumptions in GM’s business plan are too optimistic -- the company has been losing 0.7 percent of the market share every year for the last 30 years, and yet GM's projections assume a decline of only 0.3 percent;
• President Obama's auto task force believes GM's plan retains too many dud nameplates (Hummer, Saturn, Saab, Pontiac) that tarnish the GM brand, "distract the focus of its management team, demand increasingly scarce marketing dollars and are a lingering drag on consumer perception, market share and margin";
• GM's plan doesn't close enough unprofitable/underperforming car dealers quickly enough, in the Obama administration's view;
• GM's plan relies too much on the high-margin trucks and SUVs that are "vulnerable to energy cost-driven shifts in consumer demand";
• GM lags significantly on green R&D;
• even with all its optimistic assessments, the plan assumes too much debt.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...agoner-sa.html

Can we just let them go bankrupt?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting...the GM plan....and what Obama and his team doesn't like.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...agoner-sa.html

Can we just let them go bankrupt?

Its rather interesting that the guy considers Pontiac, Saab and Saturn to be dud brands, seeing as they tend to be some of the better brands. Saturn and Saab being bridges for European designed cars, and Pontiac being the better built/designed versions of Chevrolet. Hummer has to go for sure, but I'm quite surprised that GM doesn't axe the Chevy, Cadillac and Buick lines in favor of Pontiac, GMC, Saturn and Saab. GM does not belong in any price brackets above 55k. Its rather laughable to see 100k Cadillacs next to BMW/Lexus/Mercedes-Benz etc.

However, I feel its in GM's best interest to declare bankruptcy protection, toss the UAW/CAW, slash its divisions down and start fresh with a new CEO. (at least they have the last part right).

[GreenTeaFrapp]

It's not about the quality of the cars, it's about the quality of the brands. It's easy to figure out who Chevy, Buick and Cadillac are targeting but who do those other brands target? Saturn was originally supposed to be a whole new car company within GM that was All-American with a new way of doing things. Now it's just rebranding the cars they sell overseas.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

It's not about the quality of the cars, it's about the quality of the brands. It's easy to figure out who Chevy, Buick and Cadillac are targeting but who do those other brands target? Saturn was originally supposed to be a whole new car company within GM that was All-American with a new way of doing things. Now it's just rebranding the cars they sell overseas.

I've always felt that Chevy/Pontiac and Chevy Truck/GMC were interchangeable, except for the fact that Pontiac/GMC were typically the deluxe models with better features (and in many cases, better production material). One can even say Buick/Cadillac are interchangeable too, except Buick is the cheaper version. In light of the way things are, you would think they'd toss out the "lower class" brand, for the "premium" brand. As for Cadillac, I wouldn't be so confident their market even exists anymore. I don't think people with $75k burning a hole in their wallets are thinking Caddies anymore. Save for rappers, who wants a $100k Escalade?

You have a good point about Saab, Saturn and Hummer though. They don't really fit in the GM dynamic. However, I think aside from Hummer, they are too good of brands to kill off. At least if you kill half of the traditional GM brands, they don't really lose anything. I do think they could find a buyer for Saturn and Saab though.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting...the GM plan....and what Obama and his team doesn't like.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...agoner-sa.html

Can we just let them go bankrupt?

A structured bankruptcy - essentially all the details negotiated and known beforehand - has always been the only viable option to avoid economic turbulence if not chaos.

It's possible to make money on automobiles in North American factories. Just ask all the workers at those new plants in Georgia.

Current demand is also well below sustainable levels. I read somewhere recently that current demand would equate to the average North American replacing their vehicle every 25 years, as an example. That's not going to last. Pent up demand will re-emerge at some point.

Government is finally getting around to the option it should have taken in September or before.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

At this point wouldn't it be far less expensive for the U.S. taxpayer if they padlocked the gates stopped production and sent all but a few workers home for a year?

Its not like they need to fill a demand right now, there are plenty of completed cars sitting in shipping yards weighting to be sold.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At this point wouldn't it be far less expensive for the U.S. taxpayer if they padlocked the gates stopped production and sent all but a few workers home for a year?

Its not like they need to fill a demand right now, there are plenty of completed cars sitting in shipping yards weighting to be sold.

You're not just sending GM workers home. You're sending all the supplier workers home. You're sending all the Subway and 7-11 workers home too.

It's probably out of date, but there used to be a mantra that for every single factory job, there were three other jobs dependent upon it.

Structured bankruptcy, most details known and negotiated ahead of time, would avoid a lot of chaos if its unnecessary.

Cowperson

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I've always felt that Chevy/Pontiac and Chevy Truck/GMC were interchangeable, except for the fact that Pontiac/GMC were typically the deluxe models with better features (and in many cases, better production material). One can even say Buick/Cadillac are interchangeable too, except Buick is the cheaper version. In light of the way things are, you would think they'd toss out the "lower class" brand, for the "premium" brand. As for Cadillac, I wouldn't be so confident their market even exists anymore. I don't think people with $75k burning a hole in their wallets are thinking Caddies anymore. Save for rappers, who wants a $100k Escalade?

You have a good point about Saab, Saturn and Hummer though. They don't really fit in the GM dynamic. However, I think aside from Hummer, they are too good of brands to kill off. At least if you kill half of the traditional GM brands, they don't really lose anything. I do think they could find a buyer for Saturn and Saab though.

Actually, Saturn cars (Opel in Europe) are far from being duds. Insignia was voted 2009 Car of the year so to me it looks like the designers and engineers did their job, while GMs management...well did not.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You're not just sending GM workers home. You're sending all the supplier workers home.

Not sure about that. Automotive suppliers usually do not supply to just one manufacturer. GM goes down, Toyota, Ford, Honda etc sales go up, so their demand for supply parts goes up and makes up for the loss of GM. Not 100% of course, but I think we're at the point where past car sales are simply not sustainable anymore. Turns out not even Americans are rich enough to buy a new car every Christmas.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Actually, Saturn cars (Opel in Europe) are far from being duds. Insignia was voted 2009 Car of the year so to me it looks like the designers and engineers did their job, while GMs management...well did not.

That's just it. Saturn (Opel N.A.) actually makes very good cars at affordable prices. Why would GM want to get rid of it? If it were up to me, I'd delete the Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and Hummer lines, and go with this:

Saturn (Full Line), Pontiac (G6, G8, Chev Camaro, Chev Corvette, rebranded Chevy Volt), GMC (Everything under 65k), Saab (9 line)

GM can't be everything to everyone anymore. They need to get rid of their high end, cause it can't compete, and get rid of the internal competition at the low end. Really, right now, GM is competing with itself, and frankly, hurting itself. Saturn =/= Pontiac =/= Chevrolet. But one bad Chev performance, and the other two are eliminated as "bad GM".

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

That's just it. Saturn (Opel N.A.) actually makes very good cars at affordable prices. Why would GM want to get rid of it?

Because the brand itself sucks. People know Chevrolet. Far fewer know Saturn.

If it were up to me, I'd delete the Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and Hummer lines, and go with this:

Saturn (Full Line), Pontiac (G6, G8, rebranded Chev Camaro, rebranded Chevy Volt), GMC (Everything under 65k), Saab (9 line)

So basically get rid of the best known brands and keep the ones that are marketed towards niche markets? Get rid of the iconic Corvette?

GM can't be everything to everyone anymore. They need to get rid of their high end, cause it can't compete, and get rid of the internal competition at the low end. Really, right now, GM is competing with itself, and frankly, hurting itself. Saturn =/= Pontiac =/= Chevrolet. But one bad Chev performance, and the other two are eliminated as "bad GM".

The high end is where the big money is. If they can come up with a product the public wants those brands still have value.

Chevy needs to be the mainstream brand and it can sell the Opel products that make sense to sell, like Ford does with its European products. Ditch Pontiac and Saturn.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Because the brand itself sucks. People know Chevrolet. Far fewer know Saturn.



So basically get rid of the best known brands and keep the ones that are marketed towards niche markets? Get rid of the iconic Corvette?



The high end is where the big money is. If they can come up with a product the public wants those brands still have value.

Chevy needs to be the mainstream brand and it can sell the Opel products that make sense to sell, like Ford does with its European products. Ditch Pontiac and Saturn.

Chevy may be the better known brand, but its known as being junk, aside from a few icons, like the Corvette and Camaro. (I actually forgot about the Vette, I'd keep it around too). What Ford did right, is kept the Mercury as the inferior versions of the Ford models. Thus, when they ditched Mercury (in Canada), they weren't as tainted. GM did the opposite, and kept the sportier/more luxurious versions as Pontiac, rather than Chevrolet. People who know GM, know that Pontiac and GMC are the better brands. They're likely to think this will continue, except without the choice to upgrade.

I guess it really depends how ambitious they want to be in the rebuild. The "niche" brands are churning out better cars. Even if you renamed the Saturn Astra to Chevrolet Astra, the stigma continues that Chevy = Junk. As for replacing Pontiac, if they can convince people the Chevs are now the old Pontiacs but at increased price, go for it. They'd have to come out with yet another all-new line.

As for the high end = big money... this is true, if you have something that caters to the market and can compete. Right now, once they cross the 60k threshold, they are competing with vehicles that are frankly, outright superior. BMW X5 or Chevy Tahoe? Porsche Cayenne or Cadillac Escalade? Mercedes CLK or Corvette? Maybe the last one on sentimental value, but thats it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You're not just sending GM workers home. You're sending all the supplier workers home. You're sending all the Subway and 7-11 workers home too.

It's probably out of date, but there used to be a mantra that for every single factory job, there were three other jobs dependent upon it.

Structured bankruptcy, most details known and negotiated ahead of time, would avoid a lot of chaos if its unnecessary.

Cowperson

True, but whats going to be more destructive, a long term bankruptsy where the car manufacturer goes down the toilet for years. Or a controlled short term shutdown?

[Phanuthier]

Even GM's CEO thinks GM should file for bankrupcy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...k&refer=canada