How would you fix the auto industry? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tully Mars · 04-20-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

I watched a guy on TV today who worked at a GM plant in Southern Ontario, his job on the line was to put in 10 screws on the firewall to attach the console, you want to tell me that isn't Ikea? Brainless labour, it may not all be like that, but too many people are making more money for doing mindless unskilled labour than they should be.

No my complaint is that saying 'they have a dangerous job' to justify their pay is funny to me, plenty of other people have more dangerous jobs and make far less, so the argument it's dangerous makes no sense. Ummmm raising my pay when I was a miner would have caused me to no longer be employed as a miner, so it wouldn't have helped me out in the least, may help out the autoworkers, though I have no clue how. Raising peoples pay doesn't always make things better, sometimes it means the job you have goes up in fuckin smoke.
No shit $28 isn't a whole lot of money, but for putting 10 screws into 10 holes it sure as fuck is.

Let see if I can address a couple of your points. If your job goes up in fucking smoke there's not much you can fucking do about it but find a new fucking job.

Everything is relative. 10 screws in 10 holes doesn't sound too bad. But how many times an hour is he scheduled to fucking do that? When I was a kid I worked on farms a lot in the summer for extra cash and $ for school clothes. Picking berries was easy enough. All you had to do was pick it off the vine and put it in a bucket or flat. But to make any money you had to fucking do that about 5,000 times a day, give or take. I also did something called "picking chickens," no it had nothing to do with jacking off. All you had to do there was take two live chickens out of a cage and put them in a larger cage. If you did that at least 800 times a day you got paid $15. You also got covered in fucking chicken shit.

I know jack about working in a mine, a furniture factory or a auto plant. But I have a feeling when you say it's just 10 fucking screws there's a good chance you're down playing the amount of fucking work involved.

But I don't really fucking know.

silent_jay · 04-20-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Let see if I can address a couple of your points. If your job goes up in fucking smoke there's not much you can fucking do about it but find a new fucking job.

No fuckin shit, you've got to be joking me, if I lose my job I can go out and find a new job, wow than you for this nugget of wisdom, I would have never figured out that's how it works.

Quote:

10 screws in 10 holes doesn't sound too bad. But how many times an hour is he scheduled to fucking do that?

Who cares, it's 10 screws, if he can't handle the stress of it, time to learn to say 'welcome to Tim Horton's how may I help you'.

Tully Mars · 04-20-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

No fuckin shit, you've got to be joking me, if I lose my job I can go out and find a new job, wow than you for this nugget of wisdom, I would have never figured out that's how it works.

Just trying to fucking help you out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Who cares, it's 10 screws, if he can't handle the stress of it, time to learn to say 'welcome to Tim Horton's how may I help you'.

All I'm saying is if it's 10 screws every 30 sec all day long it might be more work then it sounds like.

silent_jay · 04-20-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Just trying to fucking help you out.

All I'm saying is if it's 10 screws every 30 sec all day long it might be more work then it sounds like.

i do appreciate the help Tully, merci beaucoup.....

10 screws every 30 seconds would be a dream to me, being 3600ft or more underground and breathing that shitty air and all the dust and other shit diesel fumes, moist air, fuck 10 screws every 30 seconds would be a dream.

Tully Mars · 04-20-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

i do appreciate the help Tully, merci beaucoup.....

10 screws every 30 seconds would be a dream to me, being 3600ft or more underground and breathing that shitty air and all the dust and other shit diesel fumes, moist air, fuck 10 screws every 30 seconds would be a dream.

I don't know. I think it could get old. Especially if you have run back and forth grabbing screws or spend all day bent over in some odd position to do it. I can think of a ton of ways 10 screws could make me wish I never saw another screw.

And yes, breathing crappy air at 3600ft underground doesn't sound like fun either.

But I wouldn't be too quick to judge another persons job without having done it myself.

silent_jay · 04-20-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

But I wouldn't be too quick to judge another persons job without having done it myself.

very true, I shouldn't have judged the job as easy, I've never done it, wouldn't really want to do it either, especially with the way layoff notices fly about.

Quote:

I don't know. I think it could get old. Especially if you have run back and forth grabbing screws or spend all day bent over in some odd position to do it. I can think of a ton of ways 10 screws could make me wish I never saw another screw.

One night we had to run extension cords from one of our drifts with electricity and a drill to one that had no drill or power at it so we could do our tests on the borehole. Sounds easy enough weave the cord in and out of the fencing so it doesn't drop into the sludgy water that runs alongside the rail tracks, and get it to the new drift we were working on. We must have walked about 20 kilometers underground that night making sure nothing hit the sludge mixture so as to short out our shit. I never wanted to see another extension cord again in my life, so I do see your point to no matter if it seems easy it may make you want to claw your eyes out it gets so monotonous.

ASU2003 · 04-22-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It occurs to me that our broke government is in a similar situation with the millions of government workers who have benefits and job security that are envied by most of those in the private sector. Perhaps our politicians and government workers should also have their remuneration and benefits reduced to that of the average taxpayer.

It sounds to me like there is a problem with the private sector not giving workers enough time off, not enough job security, and not enough share in the profits of their work. The public sector doesn't have a problem, bring the private sector up to the quality of jobs that exist in the public sector.

flstf · 04-23-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

It sounds to me like there is a problem with the private sector not giving workers enough time off, not enough job security, and not enough share in the profits of their work. The public sector doesn't have a problem, bring the private sector up to the quality of jobs that exist in the public sector.

That might work if the private sector also had a money printing press... or perhaps more government bailouts.

QuasiMondo · 04-23-2009, 02:28 PM

Being a government employee, I can assure you that we don't always have it better than the private sector. Compared to my previous private sector job, my medical benefits were better (company paid all premiums, and the deductible and copays were a lot lower), retirement benefits were better (gov't doesn't offer up stock options that would automatically vest after a fixed period), and the paycheck was better. About the only advantage my government job has is job security, but even that's not a guarantee.

With that said, there's a general assumption here that if if the UAW made significant concessions then GM and Chrysler would be profitable again. That is simply not true. UAW workers could offer to work for free and GM/Chrysler would still be in the same financial bind. Their problem isn't the UAW, their problem is that the Cobalt isn't a car worth considering against the Civic or Corolla, much less the Focus. Their problem is that they didn't direct their engineering talents that brought them the Silverado and Surburban over to the Impala. Their problem is that they turned Saturn from the best idea GM could've ever came up with into just another ho-hum brand (they don't even build Saturns at their Spring Hill, TN plant anymore). Their problem is that when Chrysler was acquired by Daimler, they forced out the team of designers and engineers who brought forth the Neon and Avenger---cars that were rough around the edges to be sure, but were as distinctive to the automotive landscape back then as the Taurus was back in 1986. The problem is that Chrysler replaced them with unattractive and uninspiring cars like the Caliber, Avenger, and Crossfire. The problem is that somebody thought it was a good idea to make a Jeep that is incapable of travelling off road (Compass). The problem is that they failed to follow up on the rare success that the 300C/Charger had become. 3/4th of their problem stems from a flawed culture and an inept corporate governance that fostered it. Now it's obvious that the UAW's aggresssion in negotiation tactics has come back to bite them, but to pin their woes on the UAW is to find a scapegoat and miss the real troubles of what ails GM and Chrysler.

william · 05-02-2009, 04:18 AM

I just have a couple of points that I would like to question:
1) Why is the union brought to the board , and not management? Doesn't mgm't oversee ops? The workers just do the job they are paid to do.
I hate that Pontiac will no longer be around - I owned 2 Firebirds, and my wife owns a GrandAm. Which leads to -
2) WTF w/U.S. technology - my wife has a 1999 GrandAm, 59,000 miles and the AC needs to be replaced ($900). I have a 1998 Toyota Corolla, 101,000+ mile - the AC runs great.

Yakk · 05-03-2009, 07:15 PM

To be fair, QM, I think if Ford/Chrysler had free labor, and didn't have to pay for health benefits, and didn't have to pay for retired workers, they would be "in the black".

FuglyStick · 05-03-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

I know this is an old post I'm quoting, but seriously you're going to play the 'it's a dangerous job card'? I worked in a nickel mine which is a fuck of a lot more dangerous than making cars and made no where near $28 an hour or whatever it is they make in their auto factory. Also worked in a factory that made office furniture had to operate punches, presses, brakes and all the other fun shit to make the furniture that can take an arm off, or take your life, and made o where near $28 an hour.

So them having a cunt hair of risk in their job and making a stupid amount of money for what is basically unskilled labour trying to justify it by saying 'they have a dangerous job' is well funny shit to me.

Hey, that's fucking funny.

My father has been in a wheelchair for nearly thirty years as a result of an injury he sustained working at a strip mine. Although industrial safety standards are improving all the time, accidents do happen, and when you work in an environment of heavy machinery, those accidents generally have greater consequences than a paper cut.

Didn't make more than $28 an hour? Should've joined a union, or your union negotiator sucked.

And "unskilled labor?" Without unskilled labor you would have nothing, zero, nada, unless you're growing your own food, making your own clothes, refining your own gas, etc., etc. "Unskilled labor" is essential for you being able to live like you do today. But they're just peons, right? Fuck 'em. Fuck the selfish bastards for trying to make a living. You can get by without them. Just wave a magic fucking wand, and all your basic needs will be provided for, and those crybaby peons can take a flying leap.

Deltona Couple · 05-04-2009, 06:51 AM

I think it is amazing some of the different viewpoints we are seeing here. From who has a harder job, to who makes a crappy car/truck, and the unions at fault/not at fault for the labour force problems. For every person who says they have an American designed car that breaks all the time, and a foreign car that is perfect, I can show you a person who has a foreign car that breaks all the time, but their American designed car has no problems. It all depends on who you ask. Also for those who think that the designs suck, or are ugly, if everyone liked the same thing, we would only HAVE one manufacturer. Not everyone likes the same thing everyone else does. Personally I think Ford trucks are ugly in design, inside and out, while I have a friend that says they are the best looking truck he has ever seen. So trying to base a company's failure based on what a car LOOKS like, is heading in the wrong direction.

Jobs vary a lot in their risk and payout. When someone says their job is high risk, I figure if there are moving parts and machinery, then yea, it is a risk job. Also unless things have changed a lot, these workers at the assembly plants rotate out the jobs that they do on a regular basis. He/She may be running 10 screws into 10 holes this week, and then next week they may be lowering the bodies onto the frames. ANYONE can sit outside and say that someone else's job is "low skilled" or "not dangerous", but until one actually WORKS in that field, one shouldn't be quick to judge. While I do agree that the unions in many cases could concede a bit more, I don't think that the labourers should be forced to take TOO big of a pay cut. I get people all the time saying that MY job is easy, and they can't believe how I could make the money I do, but then I ask them, can YOU sit there in front of a car and figure out exactly why your turns signals flash right when you turn them on left? or why their engine runs slightly off? It is all a matter of perspective.

QuasiMondo · 05-04-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william

I just have a couple of points that I would like to question:
1) Why is the union brought to the board , and not management? Doesn't mgm't oversee ops? The workers just do the job they are paid to do.
I hate that Pontiac will no longer be around - I owned 2 Firebirds, and my wife owns a GrandAm. Which leads to -
2) WTF w/U.S. technology - my wife has a 1999 GrandAm, 59,000 miles and the AC needs to be replaced ($900). I have a 1998 Toyota Corolla, 101,000+ mile - the AC runs great.

Dunno, but I had a 96 Mustang that my sister tried her hardest to kill, but it just wouldn't die.

Baraka_Guru · 05-24-2009, 12:31 PM

I haven't commented on this thread yet, but it keeps coming back to me in my head.

There is clearly a number of problems in the North American industry that aren't just a result of the recession.

You want my opinion? To fix the North American industry, you'd have to overhaul the business operations on all levels (but basically on operations levels). If you compare the manufacturing process of, say, Japanese cars to North American cars, you'd see a big difference even in one aspect: defaults. If they find a fault in the manufacturing line, many in the Japanese operations shut the whole line down until the process is fixed. Most of the workers have the power to shut down the line at anytime. Comparatively, North American practices will find the default and pull it out for analysis while the line keeps running....yes, they quite possibly keep running the same default...until they know what to do to fix it. They place production over perfection. (Recalls anyone?)

Several North American operators have sent people to Japanese operations to learn from them, and yet they haven't seemed to learn much. Now they're paying the price.

It's not just what you make; it's also how you make it. This is a hard lesson Harley Davidson learned years ago back when it nearly dropped off the face of the earth from the onslaught of the better-made Japanese brands. You either learn lessons from your more successful competitors, or you die. Take your pick.

In other news, see all those dealerships they're closing? Ouch.

Latenter · 05-29-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

Hey, that's fucking funny.

My father has been in a wheelchair for nearly thirty years as a result of an injury he sustained working at a strip mine. Although industrial safety standards are improving all the time, accidents do happen, and when you work in an environment of heavy machinery, those accidents generally have greater consequences than a paper cut.

Didn't make more than $28 an hour? Should've joined a union, or your union negotiator sucked.

And "unskilled labor?" Without unskilled labor you would have nothing, zero, nada, unless you're growing your own food, making your own clothes, refining your own gas, etc., etc. "Unskilled labor" is essential for you being able to live like you do today. But they're just peons, right? Fuck 'em. Fuck the selfish bastards for trying to make a living. You can get by without them. Just wave a magic fucking wand, and all your basic needs will be provided for, and those crybaby peons can take a flying leap.

Sorry to hear about your father.

I don't think anyone is advocating slave labour. The issue is the amount of control that unions exert, and the extent that they push just because they can. You might not think $28/hour is a lot, but that's $58K/year - much higher than average. I'm a skilled worker as a programmer (not to be arrogant) with an education I (mostly) payed for, and I only make about $8k more than that. I rarely do the same thing twice.

Yes risk should be rewarded, and on-the-job injuries should be paid for by the companies that led to them, but does Joe-highschool-dropout deserve to earn as much as someone who earned a masters and has rare/diverse skills to use, just because he works with heavy machinery around instead of the local Taco Bell? In many cases, the same person could do either.

ObieX · 05-29-2009, 01:55 PM

I would let the companies die. If a business operates so deep in the red it SHOULD go under. People will still want cars so they'll get them from someplace else.

If people are upset about losing their jobs then they can go knock on the doors of the private jets of the rich executives and ask them where all the money went.

Who says this will be a bad thing? Without these big car companies lobbying against different technology and alternate forms of transportation we may actually see some progress in these areas. Perhaps these companies can make use of some of the patents they've got stored up like cars that run on water and some such stuff like that there. All of the things that would exist today if the oil and car companies hadn't suppressed them.

roachboy · 06-02-2009, 06:07 AM

well, it's been a few months since i posted anything to this thread and it's kinda interesting to have a look through it again.

i think that most of the arguments i mustered earlier are correct, but the situation's evolved so now things look a bit more--um---clear, if not coherent.

momento mori: a snapshot of the state of things the day after gm's bankruptcy was announced (tailored for american domestic consumption version):

Quote:

U.S. Bets Billions on GM's Resurgence
Obama Unveils Plan for Brief Bankruptcy, Nationalization

By Peter Whoriskey, Tomoeh Murakami Tse and Kendra Marr
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 2, 2009

President Obama laid out his case yesterday for committing billions of dollars more to the rescue of General Motors, arguing that the nationalization of the industrial giant was necessary to bolster the foundering U.S. economy.

The former corporate icon filed for bankruptcy protection in the morning, on a historic day when another major American company, Chrysler, won permission to be merged with the Italian automaker Fiat.

During the GM bankruptcy, the United States aims to raise its investment in the company to $50 billion, take a majority stake in it and name most of its directors, giving the government unprecedented control over one of the nation's largest manufacturers.

The government has needed to take ownership stakes in private enterprises during the economic crisis, Obama said yesterday, "for the simple and compelling reason that their survival and the success of our overall economy depend on it."

Nevertheless, the plan poses significant political risks for his administration. Obama is gambling billions that GM can rise again after years of decline.

The success or failure of that investment will be easily measurable based on the company's eventual share price. The United States is slated to own 60 percent of the stock.

Meanwhile, some in Congress question not only the cost of the rescue but also the principles underlying it.

"We are helping the auto industry today. Who is it tomorrow? Is it the truckers? Is it the airline industry?" asked Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), one of the five members of the committee overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program. "The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers."

At the same time, the restructuring plan is drawing criticism from some members of Obama's own party, particularly those representing industrial swing states, as GM makes significant reductions in its vast U.S. operations.

The government aims to make the automaker lean enough to turn a profit once U.S. auto sales return to 10 million vehicles a year. The sales rate is running below that. It topped 16 million during the credit boom.

Debate over the plan rippled across the nation yesterday as communities protested proposals to close or idle 17 GM plants and warehouses. About 2,000 dealerships will be shut down, as well. U.S. employment at the company is slated to shrink by 25,000, from about 88,000 to 63,000 next year.

In a letter to GM chief executive Fritz Henderson, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) criticized a proposal to shutter the Willow Run Transmission Plant in Ypsilanti Township, Mich. "As you well know, this plant was once known as the 'Arsenal of Democracy' for having built the famous B-24 bomber that helped the U.S. and its allies win the Second World War," Dingell wrote. "Its closure would have a catastrophic effect on the community in which it is located."

Steven Rattner, chief of the administration's autos task force, said the government played no role in choosing which plants to close and sought to quell concerns that it will make decisions better left to the company. "No plant decisions. No job decisions. No colors-of-car decisions," he said.

The administration also will dispatch eight Cabinet secretaries and other top officials to Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin this week to "discuss immediate ways the federal government is cutting through red tape to bring relief to auto communities and achieve long term economic revitalization," according to a White House statement.

All four states are considered presidential swing states, and the White House emissaries plan to discuss the administration's efforts to restructure the auto industry and to implement the $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

Addressing the workers directly, Obama said there would be pain ahead but added that their sacrifices will ensure the future of the manufacturing base so that "all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things, that still builds cars, that still strives for a better future."

Despite the complaints, the administration was buoyed yesterday by the news that a federal bankruptcy court had approved plans to create a new Chrysler run by Fiat, free of much of its debt and other crippling obligations.

"Keep in mind, many experts said that a quick, surgical bankruptcy was impossible. They were wrong," Obama said yesterday.

In its new Fiat alliance, Chrysler will expand its footprint with Fiat's Latin American and European distribution networks. Its gas-guzzling product line will add Fiat's smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the global auto industry, analysts noted, is littered with failed joint ventures and mergers -- BMW and Rover, Fiat and GM, Ford and Jaguar and Land Rover, to name a few. Closer to home, Chrysler just finished extricating itself from another ill-fated union, with Daimler.

One of the main reasons for the trouble, auto executives and analysts said, is the clash of management between distinct corporate cultures.

Gerald C. Meyers, former chief executive of American Motors Corp., said he searched for a global partner 30 years ago in much the same way Chrysler had sought out Fiat. He found a willing partner in Renault, a French automaker.

"It was supposed to be a marriage made in heaven -- that's the same term that was used to describe DaimlerChrysler," Meyers said in a recent interview. "But they had no feeling for the heredity of the Jeep. People want to buy them and go off road with them and go fish, and the French had no idea what that was about, and they didn't care."

Renault eventually sold AMC to Chrysler.

The Obama administration has cautioned that the GM bankruptcy case will take longer than Chrysler's because it is a larger and more global company. But if the first day of court proceedings is any indication, GM's stay in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Lower Manhattan will be a relatively short one, as well.

Judge Robert Gerber whipped through the agenda, giving approval to all 24 requests made by the automaker during a late afternoon hearing that lasted less than two hours.

Most significantly, Gerber gave GM the go-ahead to tap $15 billion of the $33 billion in financing from the U.S. and Canadian governments to finance operations while the automaker is in bankruptcy proceedings.

"We're confident, but we're not cocky," said Ron Bloom, a senior adviser to the president's autos task force, about the prospects in bankruptcy court. The revival of GM is a long-term project, the administration acknowledged.

"These are important steps on the long road to overcoming a problem that didn't happen overnight and will not be solved overnight," Obama said. "I recognize that today's news carries a particular importance because it's not just any company we're talking about. It's GM."

washingtonpost.com

basically, unless something changes in the overall approach to this from the obama administration, the scenario asu outlined above on this page seems to me the likely outcome. hemmed in by the reactionary and counter-productive economic metaphysics of the right, unwilling or unable to take on nationalization as a serious, sustained matter the goal of which is to balance a the gm as a corporate entity in profit-generating terms against the social costs of allowing it to fail--not to mention the symbolic costs....

people act as though nationalization of a major automobile manufacturer is some new step. france nationalized renault directly after world war 2 basically as punishment for louis renault's excessive enthusiasm for the german occupation...renault has operated as a pretty profitable company since, undergoing a series of mutations (merging with volvo, the deterritorialization of production from a nation-state viewpoint, symbolized by the shutter of the main renault factory in boulonge-billancourt--which still sits there, apparently, as the state can't quite figure out which type of amusement complex to put there--and so it goes, the papering over the the past. americans have no monopoly)...

there's all kind of absurd notions about of the types of interaction between state and company in this context. the press continues to filter opinion through the outmoded and dysfunctional lens of neoliberalism, still takes seriously the ridiculous objections of the right that "the state shouldn't interfere in the process of Natural Selection".....

i maintain that this factor, the way infotainment is filtered, plays into a political climate in which the right still matters, and that this climate is in fact debilitating. but obama is no social-democrat, sadly---so i do not have a sense of what will follow from this move to partially nationalize general motors.

meanwhile, notice how the american press is down playing what this means historically.
what do you think it means?
how important a symbolic moment are we passing through?

cyncial aside:

remember the centrality of panic management. if you think we're not still in a tightly controlled press environment, you're dreaming. that the dominant rhetoric has changed doesn't mean that the systems of infotainment management have. that you might like the rhetoric doesn't mean that therefore the context is suddenly free of top-down constraints. don't be chumped the way conservatives were under cowboy george.

Baraka_Guru · 06-02-2009, 06:13 AM

And a bit about Canada's role (Feds and Ontario gov't...well, Canadian taxpayers as shareholders):

Quote:

Most of GM loan won't be repaid, Harper says
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, left, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper answer questions at a news conference in Toronto June 1, 2009.

Federal and Ontario governments provide $9.5-billion to auto maker in bankruptcy protection; taxpayers to hold 12 per cent of company

Karen Howlett

TORONTO — Globe and Mail Update, Monday, Jun. 01, 2009 05:46PM EDT

The federal and Ontario governments do not expect General Motors Corp. (GM-N0.75----%) to repay the bulk of the $9.5-billion (U.S.) in Canadian loans the auto maker is receiving as part of Monday's bankruptcy filing, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

He added that he does not see taxpayers being long-term owners of the failed car maker.

“We don't intend to run automobile companies,” Mr. Harper said at a news conference. “We are not seeking to be equity holders in the long term.”

GM will emerge from bankruptcy protection much diminished, with production in North America falling to three million vehicles a year in 2010 from a peak of 5.4 million in 2003 during its heyday.

The Canadian governments could not just stand “idly by” and do nothing, Mr. Harper said, after the former Bush administration in the United States decided late last year to rescue the auto sector.

The federal and Ontario governments have agreed to lend GM about 16 per cent of the total $59-billion rescue package.

In return, Canada will retain 16 per cent of GM's North American vehicle production until 2016, get one seat on a new 13-member board of directors and 11.7 per cent of the company's common shares.

The accord between the Canadian and U.S. governments and GM follows non-stop negotiations over the past week, and is much more complicated than an earlier agreement with Chrysler LLC.

“It's quite a different deal than the Chrysler deal,” said a senior federal government official at a technical briefing on Monday.

GM will use $4-billion of the Canadian loans to address the shortfall in its pension plans. In addition, the company will inject $200-million into the pension plans over the next five years, making them fully solvent.

Canadian taxpayers could end up owning equity in GM until 2018, depending on how long it takes the governments to sell off the shares. They plan to begin selling 5 per cent of their shares a year in 2010 and hope to have 65 per cent of their equity sold by the end of 2016.

“Without Canadian money in the game, we would be out of the game,” added Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. While he said the loans are “extraordinary,” he said the alternative would have dealt a “devastating blow” to Ontario families.

GM has also agreed to invest $2.2-billion in Canada over the next seven years, including introducing a new engine module at its plant in St. Catharines, Ont.

However, the deal does not include a commitment on how many employees GM will retain in Canada.

The governments will try to recoup their money by divesting shares over eight years, hoping the stock price is high enough to provide a return. The auto maker doesn't have to pay back any more than the $1.3-billion loan.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1163443/

roachboy · 06-02-2009, 06:54 AM

FT.com / Companies / Automobiles - Interactive: GM?s fall from grace

this takes you to an interactive timeline that accounts in general terms for the collapse of GM.
you may have to subscribe to see it: there's a free option (a restricted number of articles every 30 days)...but maybe it's a free feature. hard to say.

loquitur · 06-08-2009, 04:01 PM

Just figured I'd post this:

Quote:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put a temporary hold Monday on the deal to sell Chrysler to save it from collapse. Her order, however, simply gives her or the full Court more time to ponder whether to postpone the sale further, or allow it to go forward. The order can be found here.

It would have taken the votes of five members of the Court to grant a full postponement. Ginsburg’s brief, unexplained order said only that the bankruptcy court’s decisions approving the sale were “stayed pending further order” by her or the Court.

I didn't quote the whole thing even though it's not very long; if you want a full explanation of what the short order means (actually, what it doesn't mean), click through to read it.

This seemed noteworthy to me because it's the first speed bump the govt has hit in the Chrysler Chapter 11. I don't know what SCOTUS will do, obviously. I just thought it interesting that Ginsburg didn't think this one was easy; if she did, she wouldn't have granted the interim stay.

Baraka_Guru · 11-16-2009, 06:26 AM

GM to repay US$1.2-billion government loans

Some contrasts here to the "Old GM" and the "New GM." Read the article for some performance and balance sheet numbers.

GM's market share is up, and its debt level is a fraction of what it was before bankruptcy protection. And this includes the government loans from both the U.S. and Canada, which it plans to start repaying with a billion-dollar payment next month. It's already repaid some cash to the German government regarding Opel, and it hopes to pay the balance of that US$1.3-billion-dollar debt by the end of the month.

GM's red ink is letting up it appears.

04-23-2009, 02:28 PM	#129 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	Being a government employee, I can assure you that we don't always have it better than the private sector. Compared to my previous private sector job, my medical benefits were better (company paid all premiums, and the deductible and copays were a lot lower), retirement benefits were better (gov't doesn't offer up stock options that would automatically vest after a fixed period), and the paycheck was better. About the only advantage my government job has is job security, but even that's not a guarantee. With that said, there's a general assumption here that if if the UAW made significant concessions then GM and Chrysler would be profitable again. That is simply not true. UAW workers could offer to work for free and GM/Chrysler would still be in the same financial bind. Their problem isn't the UAW, their problem is that the Cobalt isn't a car worth considering against the Civic or Corolla, much less the Focus. Their problem is that they didn't direct their engineering talents that brought them the Silverado and Surburban over to the Impala. Their problem is that they turned Saturn from the best idea GM could've ever came up with into just another ho-hum brand (they don't even build Saturns at their Spring Hill, TN plant anymore). Their problem is that when Chrysler was acquired by Daimler, they forced out the team of designers and engineers who brought forth the Neon and Avenger---cars that were rough around the edges to be sure, but were as distinctive to the automotive landscape back then as the Taurus was back in 1986. The problem is that Chrysler replaced them with unattractive and uninspiring cars like the Caliber, Avenger, and Crossfire. The problem is that somebody thought it was a good idea to make a Jeep that is incapable of travelling off road (Compass). The problem is that they failed to follow up on the rare success that the 300C/Charger had become. 3/4th of their problem stems from a flawed culture and an inept corporate governance that fostered it. Now it's obvious that the UAW's aggresssion in negotiation tactics has come back to bite them, but to pin their woes on the UAW is to find a scapegoat and miss the real troubles of what ails GM and Chrysler. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

05-03-2009, 07:15 PM	#131 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	To be fair, QM, I think if Ford/Chrysler had free labor, and didn't have to pay for health benefits, and didn't have to pay for retired workers, they would be "in the black". __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

05-04-2009, 06:51 AM	#133 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I think it is amazing some of the different viewpoints we are seeing here. From who has a harder job, to who makes a crappy car/truck, and the unions at fault/not at fault for the labour force problems. For every person who says they have an American designed car that breaks all the time, and a foreign car that is perfect, I can show you a person who has a foreign car that breaks all the time, but their American designed car has no problems. It all depends on who you ask. Also for those who think that the designs suck, or are ugly, if everyone liked the same thing, we would only HAVE one manufacturer. Not everyone likes the same thing everyone else does. Personally I think Ford trucks are ugly in design, inside and out, while I have a friend that says they are the best looking truck he has ever seen. So trying to base a company's failure based on what a car LOOKS like, is heading in the wrong direction. Jobs vary a lot in their risk and payout. When someone says their job is high risk, I figure if there are moving parts and machinery, then yea, it is a risk job. Also unless things have changed a lot, these workers at the assembly plants rotate out the jobs that they do on a regular basis. He/She may be running 10 screws into 10 holes this week, and then next week they may be lowering the bodies onto the frames. ANYONE can sit outside and say that someone else's job is "low skilled" or "not dangerous", but until one actually WORKS in that field, one shouldn't be quick to judge. While I do agree that the unions in many cases could concede a bit more, I don't think that the labourers should be forced to take TOO big of a pay cut. I get people all the time saying that MY job is easy, and they can't believe how I could make the money I do, but then I ask them, can YOU sit there in front of a car and figure out exactly why your turns signals flash right when you turn them on left? or why their engine runs slightly off? It is all a matter of perspective. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

05-24-2009, 12:31 PM	#135 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I haven't commented on this thread yet, but it keeps coming back to me in my head. There is clearly a number of problems in the North American industry that aren't just a result of the recession. You want my opinion? To fix the North American industry, you'd have to overhaul the business operations on all levels (but basically on operations levels). If you compare the manufacturing process of, say, Japanese cars to North American cars, you'd see a big difference even in one aspect: defaults. If they find a fault in the manufacturing line, many in the Japanese operations shut the whole line down until the process is fixed. Most of the workers have the power to shut down the line at anytime. Comparatively, North American practices will find the default and pull it out for analysis while the line keeps running....yes, they quite possibly keep running the same default...until they know what to do to fix it. They place production over perfection. (Recalls anyone?) Several North American operators have sent people to Japanese operations to learn from them, and yet they haven't seemed to learn much. Now they're paying the price. It's not just what you make; it's also how you make it. This is a hard lesson Harley Davidson learned years ago back when it nearly dropped off the face of the earth from the onslaught of the better-made Japanese brands. You either learn lessons from your more successful competitors, or you die. Take your pick. In other news, see all those dealerships they're closing? Ouch. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 05-24-2009 at 12:33 PM..

05-29-2009, 01:55 PM	#137 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I would let the companies die. If a business operates so deep in the red it SHOULD go under. People will still want cars so they'll get them from someplace else. If people are upset about losing their jobs then they can go knock on the doors of the private jets of the rich executives and ask them where all the money went. Who says this will be a bad thing? Without these big car companies lobbying against different technology and alternate forms of transportation we may actually see some progress in these areas. Perhaps these companies can make use of some of the patents they've got stored up like cars that run on water and some such stuff like that there. All of the things that would exist today if the oil and car companies hadn't suppressed them. __________________ We Must Dissent.

05-02-2009, 04:18 AM	#130 (permalink)
william Psycho	I just have a couple of points that I would like to question: 1) Why is the union brought to the board , and not management? Doesn't mgm't oversee ops? The workers just do the job they are paid to do. I hate that Pontiac will no longer be around - I owned 2 Firebirds, and my wife owns a GrandAm. Which leads to - 2) WTF w/U.S. technology - my wife has a 1999 GrandAm, 59,000 miles and the AC needs to be replaced ($900). I have a 1998 Toyota Corolla, 101,000+ mile - the AC runs great.

06-02-2009, 06:54 AM	#140 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	FT.com / Companies / Automobiles - Interactive: GM?s fall from grace this takes you to an interactive timeline that accounts in general terms for the collapse of GM. you may have to subscribe to see it: there's a free option (a restricted number of articles every 30 days)...but maybe it's a free feature. hard to say. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-16-2009, 06:26 AM	#142 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	GM to repay US$1.2-billion government loans Some contrasts here to the "Old GM" and the "New GM." Read the article for some performance and balance sheet numbers. GM's market share is up, and its debt level is a fraction of what it was before bankruptcy protection. And this includes the government loans from both the U.S. and Canada, which it plans to start repaying with a billion-dollar payment next month. It's already repaid some cash to the German government regarding Opel, and it hopes to pay the balance of that US$1.3-billion-dollar debt by the end of the month. GM's red ink is letting up it appears. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot