ellives

At least you can't say I don't speak my mind. Management certainly has some culpability however they're dealing with the hand they've been given. The UAW has been a complete failure at unionizing the transplants. This is, at the core, why the UAW is at fault. Any other position is indefensible.

So in the end, the UAW puts the final nail in the coffin. It would be a fitting final chapter for GM who apparently will never be able to rid itself of the albatross. I suppose a dying animal will do anything to survive, including kill another. It is, however, the one consolation from this whole morass, which is the final demise of the UAW which will finally be gone no matter what the outcome of this attempt at legislation. Good riddance. *** Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the sticking point was the United Auto Workers' refusal to set a "date certain" to put employees at U.S. auto manufacturers at "parity pay" with U.S. employees at foreign automakers in the United States. *** Link to Article CNN) -- Senate Democrats and the White House failed to find 60 votes to end debate on a $14 billion auto bailout bill and bring it to a vote Thursday night, killing the measure for the year. The 52-35 vote followed the collapse of negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans seeking a compromise. "We have worked and worked and we can spend all night tonight, tomorrow, Saturday, and Sunday, and we're not going to get to the finish line," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor before the vote. "That's just the way it is. There's too much difference between the two sides." Reid acknowledged the bill would not survive the procedural vote. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the sticking point was the United Auto Workers' refusal to set a "date certain" to put employees at U.S. auto manufacturers at "parity pay" with U.S. employees at foreign automakers in the United States. Currently, analysts estimate the union workers at U.S. automakers make about $3 to $4 per hour more than the non-union U.S. employees of foreign automakers like Toyota and Honda, according to the Center for Automotive Research. Watch the market ramifications of the bailout failure » The House easily passed the bailout bill earlier this week, but it quickly ran into trouble in the Senate, where Republicans objected to several provisions. Negotiations Thursday involved a compromise proposal put forward by Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, but the senators could not reach agreement. The collapse of negotiations could possibly doom General Motors to a bankruptcy and closure in the coming weeks, with Chrysler potentially following close behind. While Ford Motor has more cash on hand to avoid an immediate crisis, its production could be disrupted by problems in the supplier base, as could the production of overseas automakers with U.S. plants such as Toyota Motor and Honda Motor. Watch how the automakers crisis has a ripple effect on Asia » The struggling automakers may get some money anyway. As part of their effort to urge skeptical Republicans to back the deal, Bush officials made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the sources familiar with the conversations. One of the sources said that a White House official made it clear to a GOP senator that would be the worst option, because the loan could go to the auto companies with few or no requirements along with it. The sources asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of private conversations. Democrats pressed the White House from the start to help Detroit by using some of the $700 billion for the financial sector, but the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused. "I would only hope that the president, who has worked so well with us for the past several weeks, would now consider using the TARP money," Reid said after Thursday night's vote. CNN's Dana Bash and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

Who's blaming Toyota? They make a quality product and simply took advantage of opportunities along the way. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the UAW. The mistakes GM made were centered on not having the balls to be willing to let the company go down 20 years ago when there WAS a GM to fight for. They should have killed the UAW years ago or gone down fighting. Instead they took the approach of sleeping with the enemy while the house burned down. Now it's a former shadow of itself with a mere fraction of its market share being crushed by debt and obligations so enormous there's really no legitimate chance of survival. And now the ultimate humiliation to be begging to taxpayers for cash to survive a few months more. Oh what a wonderful thing the union has wrought.

I suggest everyone from C&G open that CBS News link and post their comments to CBS. (I did.) I've said before, Friedman is an idiot (journalist) who has no clue what it takes to actually do or build anything. He's the epitome of a Monday morning quarterback.

Probably the best we could hope for at this late hour in the process. The congress needs to come around to the idea of the following: Taking ownership of the big 3's legacy pension and healthcare liabilities so the playing field is evened up. Killing the UAW (I wouldn't give them a penny unless this happened.) Without these two, they'll continue to suffer the "death of a thousand cuts" and might as well just file now.

Also depends on which generation of CTS we're talking about. The current product is world class in almost every respect.

When is the UAW going to $h! that turd out? I suppose he'll just go down with the ship. I love the last comment in the article: "“We’ve helped them before, but it seems like they always come back to us,” said Shane Colvard, chairman of Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Ky., where G.M. builds the Chevrolet Corvette sports car." This is precisely the mentality that got Detroit where they are. I hope you starve Mr. Colvard. If GM can't even get their own employee base in line, they're doomed. You see, in the "real world" Mr. Colvard would be escorted out for a comment like that to the media. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/business...?pagewanted=all December 4, 2008 U.A.W. Makes Concessions in Bid to Help Automakers By BILL VLASIC and NICK BUNKLEYWASHINGTON — The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that it would make major concessions in its contracts with the three Detroit auto companies to help them lobby Congress for $34 billion in federal aid. The surprising move by the U.A.W. could be a critical factor in the automakers’ bid not only to get government assistance, but also to become competitive with the cost structure of nonunion plants operated by foreign automakers in the United States. At a news conference in Detroit, the U.A.W.’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said that his members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care to keep the two most troubled car companies of the Big Three, General Motors and Chrysler, out of bankruptcy. “Concessions, I used to cringe at that word,” Mr. Gettelfinger said. “But now, why hide it? That’s what we did.” Labor experts said the ground given by the union underscored the precarious condition of the Detroit companies, as the U.A.W.’s own prospects for survival are also in doubt. “It is an historic and awfully difficult moment for the U.A.W.,” said Harley Shaiken, professor of labor studies at the University of California, Berkeley. The union’s willingness to modify its 2007 contract came a day after G.M., Chrysler and the Ford Motor Company submitted business plans to Congress in support of their loan requests. Those efforts won praise from President-elect Barack Obama, who said the automakers had offered “a more serious set of plans” to save the industry. G.M. and Chrysler have both said they are dangerously close to running out of cash to run their operations by the end of the year. Ford is somewhat healthier, but is also seeking government loans. The chief executives of the Big Three, along with Mr. Gettelfinger, are to appear before Congress on Thursday and Friday in hopes of building support for emergency assistance. Democratic Congressional leaders have said that they want to help the automakers and that they were heartened by the gesture of contrition that the executives made by driving to Washington — rather than flying on corporate jets, as they did two weeks ago — and by the more comprehensive plans submitted by the companies. But the political climate on Capitol Hill is still doubtful for the automakers, and only seemed to worsen on Wednesday with a new CNN poll showing a majority of Americans opposing a taxpayer rescue. As a result, there is growing concern among the Democratic leadership that they will simply not be able to drum up enough votes to pass an aid package next week, and that to do so will require a major lobbying effort by President Bush and Mr. Obama. “We don’t have a good sense from our members that this is something they want to do,” a senior House Democratic aide said. “It’s going to take Bush and Obama calling people.” Many conservative Republicans remain staunchly opposed to any further corporate bailouts by the government, and some are openly calling for Congress to let one or more of the automakers go into bankruptcy. “Not only should bankruptcy be an option for domestic automakers, but it is considered by most experts to be the best option,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said in a statement on Wednesday. Many lawmakers are reluctant to approve another large expenditure of taxpayer money to prop up private corporations, especially given the mounting criticism of the Treasury’s $700 billion stabilization program for the financial system. On Wednesday, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said there did not seem to be enough support in Congress to use that fund to help the auto companies. “I just don’t think we have the votes to do that now,” he told The Associated Press. Two weeks ago, the Detroit executives left Washington empty-handed after skeptical lawmakers refused to approve federal aid until they heard detailed plans on how the companies could be viable in the long term. Other lawmakers were withholding judgment on the plans until after hearings by the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday and the House Financial Services Committee on Friday. But the automakers’ hopes for aid were buoyed by the positive comments on Wednesday from Mr. Obama. At a news conference on his latest cabinet appointment, Mr. Obama said the new plans were an indication that the Detroit companies were responsive to earlier concerns raised by lawmakers. “I’m glad that they recognize the expectations of Congress, certainly my expectations, that we should maintain a viable auto industry,” Mr. Obama said. “But that we should also make sure that any government assistance that’s provided is designed for and is based on realistic assessments of what the auto market is going to be and a realistic plan for how we’re going to make these companies viable over the long term.” The new plans were also being studied by officials in the Bush administration, which has yet to come to an agreement with lawmakers on how to finance a loan package for Detroit. In its plan to Congress, G.M. said it would significantly reduce jobs, factories, brands and executive compensation in a broad effort to become more competitive with American plants operated by Toyota, Honda and other foreign auto companies. But G.M.’s president, Frederick Henderson, said it was also important for the company to get help from the U.A.W. to close the gap with its foreign competition. Currently, the average U.A.W. member costs G.M. about $74 an hour in a combination of wages, health care and the value of future benefits, like pensions. Toyota, by comparison, spends the equivalent of about $45 an hour for each of its employees in the United States. Base wages between the Big Three and the foreign companies are roughly comparable, with a veteran U.A.W. member earning $28 an hour at the Big Three compared to about $25 an hour at Toyota’s plant in Georgetown, Ky. (Toyota pays less at its other American factories.) But the gap in labor costs becomes larger when health care, particularly for thousands of retirees and surviving spouses, and job security provisions are considered. Mr. Gettelfinger said Wednesday that the union would suspend the much-criticized “jobs bank” program, which allows laid-off workers to continue drawing nearly full wages. He also said the union would agree to delay the multibillion-dollar payments to a new retiree health care fund that the automakers were scheduled to start making next year. Beyond those two concessions, Mr. Gettelfinger said the U.A.W. would be open to modifying other terms of its contracts. Changes could include reductions in wages, health care or other benefits, and would require approval from union members. Suspending the jobs bank program, which supports about 3,600 workers, removes one of the most politically sensitive union perks from the discussions in Washington. “The jobs bank has become a sound bite that people use to beat us up,” said Mr. Gettelfinger. In the last five years, the U.A.W.’s membership at G.M., Ford and Chrysler has declined to 139,000 workers, from 305,000, because of plant closings and a series of buyout and early-retirement programs. Both G.M. and Chrysler have said they are not considering bankruptcy as an option to restructure their businesses because of the damage a Chapter 11 filing would do to their reputations with consumers. Mr. Henderson said that G.M.’s restructuring plan included cutting up to 30,000 more jobs in the next few years, as well as closing another nine factories in North America. He stressed that cooperation from the union would be crucial in the company’s overall efforts to match Toyota in labor costs by 2012. A G.M. spokesman, Tony Cervone, said Wednesday that the U.A.W.’s offer to make modifications in its contract would help the automaker survive its current financial crisis. “Clearly the U.A.W. and Ron Gettelfinger have shown a willingness to work with the industry to restructure and make it fully competitive going forward,” Mr. Cervone said. Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, said in an interview Wednesday that Detroit needed the union’s help to speed its transformation, particularly in replacing current workers with entry-level employees who will be making $14 an hour in wages under the terms of the 2007 labor agreement. He said that suspending the jobs bank program was also important for cutting costs. “That would contribute to us closing the gap,” Mr. Mulally said. The Detroit companies will remove billions of dollars in financial obligations from their books when the U.A.W. health care trust takes over responsibility for the medical bills of retirees in 2010. But delaying payments to the trust by the companies is a more pressing concern for the automakers. G.M., for example, is scheduled to make a payment of $7 billion to the health care trust before the end of next year. The U.A.W.’s offer to delay that payment will significantly help G.M.’s cash flow as it tries to recover. “Taking retiree health care off the books will save the companies billions and billions of dollars,” said Mr. Shaiken. “By not paying into the trust next year, it won’t postpone the trust, but it will save G.M. and the others a lot of money for now.” At the U.A.W. meeting in Detroit, union officials described their members as extremely anxious about the prospect of more concessions but at the same time afraid of what would happen if the union did not aid the automakers. “We’ve helped them before, but it seems like they always come back to us,” said Shane Colvard, chairman of Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Ky., where G.M. builds the Chevrolet Corvette sports car. Bill Vlasic reported from Washington and Nick Bunkley from Detroit. Reporting was contributed by David Herszenhorn, Peter Baker, Mary M. Chapman and David Stout.

I think if anybody cares any more about the US auto industry, you better get on the phone to your congressional representatives and make your feelings known. Clearly there is a great deal of apathy out there at the moment.

The CEO you're referring to is the one who wanted to avoid a crippling strike at any cost. The UAW is completely to blame. Make no mistake about it. Why do you think the transplants work so hard at preventing union infiltration?

I think you mean "can't make money"

I was just listening to some of Gettlefinger's testimony in front of congress. He took the same old tired position of how much the UAW "gave up" for the benefit of the automakers. I'd like for him to tell us how they actually contribute to the success of their employers. Just showing up at work every day doesn't cut it. After listening to his crap, I'm even more steadfast about one of the requirements for the $25M loan being the elimination of the UAW at these companies. Without this requirement I'd let these companies fend for themselves. Mulally's testimony is the only one who gives me confidence he has a plan for his company. Nardelli seems like he is uncomfortable in his position. He reads only from a prepared script and doesn't speak well... almost like he's reading someone else's words. He did highlight an interesting statistic which was the drop in sales (37%) when Chrysler was sold by Daimler and buyers were skeptical about buying from a shaky car builder. Doesn't bode well for a bankruptcy if GM were to choose this option. Rick Wagoner's testimony painted a bleak picture of demands on their revenue. About 100k employes and about 500K retirees depending on them. I don't know how they survive with a 5 to 1 ratio of retirees to current workers. He mentioned the CTS and Malibu and a number of the other highlights of the company. The real solution where the government can help is to take over the retirement obligations. He does speak well and has a natural thought flow during his prepared comments. Peter Morici is quite clear about why the bailout shouldn't happen as a $25B loan but he's clueless about the impact of a chapter 11 filing. Typical academic. "Those who can... do... those who can't teach/talk about it."

Will be interesting to see if there's anything to this rumor. We'll know Monday. Full thread Here's the first post from the 19th: Just came back from a meeting with a few other creditors and we were speaking about the auto parts suppliers. We obviously went on the GM subject and the few people I was talking said the filing is already signed and sitting on the desk. Without an immediate bailout, the filing will take place Monday Morning. This is a new source from me, but was mentioned by 3 people at my meeting. Just laying out there.

Hell ya. Half the population of the US still things the big 3 quality sucks. I hear it spouted all the time. Campbell Brown said it again on CNN last week. Even as it is, if they survive, after 5 years go by people will still be saying "I thought GM went bankrupt."

Oh how far the mighty have fallen. I have my doubt the congress will actually get anything done on a bailout. I just don't think they're smart enough as a collective body to really understand the impact of losing the US auto industry. We as a country deserve what we get.

"..... let the trade deficits begin..... (to double....) " How long will it be before the only manufacturing industry we have in the US is the military contractors?

This is really part of the problem, the fact that most people throwing their opinion around have not ever actually worked a day in their miserable lives. I couldn't even listen to Chris Dodd. He's one of the biggest buffoons in Congress. Between him and Barney Frank, they don't set a good example for the Dems. I'm hopeful they'll come up with a plan that salvages the US auto industry and then turn their "fix it" mental on the Congress itself.

I'm surprised he didn't make the suggestion to shoot every car buyer as soon as they sign a sales contract for any vehicle that gets under 50 mpg. Shame on those stupid customers who want to spend their money on something they WANT to buy!

I presume you meant "ridding" and not "riding." There have been plenty of people riding for a very long time. I understand and appreciate your thoughts about unions and employer abuses. It can and will happen. Remember the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Problem is the UAW has had plenty of time to unionize the transplants and they have failed. I was listening to CSPAN on my way home tonight and the speaker was asked a question about whether to bail the automakers out and he commented about an article in the Free Press publishing the absentee rates of UAW members as 12% vs. something like 2% for the transplants. Those numbers say it all.

We can only hope the malaise currently going on will do it. I know I will never buy another Detroit automobile as long as the UAW continues to exist.

Interesting this guy makes the assessment 25 years later that Roger Smith was a genius. Back 25 years ago, Roger Smith was ridiculed for what he was doing. So I suppose if I use the author's logic to this, presuming he'd consider his ideas of what to do with GM today as brilliant, then conversely in 25 years he'd be seen as an idiot. Do I have this thinking right?

Before I reply to this I wanted to comment (to the point of this thread) Friedman was on Meet The Press and I must say he is a waste of oxygen. He was doing his Chicken Little drama routine for Tom Brokaw. I really wish they'd avoid having him on the show at all. He adds nothing to it. I really miss Tim Russert as in this case he wouldn't put up with Friedman's garbage before he'd shut down the conversation. Brokaw's best days are behind him. Back to my reply, I loved your comment "Toyota sells cars on reputation anyway." The is more truth there than is apparent on the surface. In fact *much* of what they sell is on reputation alone where upon closer inspection there is no legitimate justification whatsoever. It really shows you how so many people are as dumb as rocks and deserve what they get. We live in interesting times and it's an interesting challenge we face as to what should be done.

Rick should stay. The UAW should go and the legacy costs should be taken over by the government. Remember: "Those who can... do. Those who can't (presumably because they lack the ability or intelligence) write about it." Peter Robison and Jeff Green at Bloomberg I'd put in the latter category.

"Stop reading Toyota's press clippings." We don't actually have to be able to read. We'll see it on TV over and over again ad nauseum. Again, a function of pure profitability. Toyota can afford to spend billions on advertising and so they do. All the Detroit 3 can advertise is the giveaways on the hoods of their trucks to get them off the lots. If you don't think money has anything to do with it, just look at what happened to the McCain campaign. When you're outspent 3 (10?) to 1 on advertising, you're bound to win the battle (all the rest of political philosophy aside.) When you're profitable, you have all kinds of options. When you're not, the fear and self-preservation that ensues cause all kinds of irrational decisions. Rarely do company managements sit their key people down and lay out from start to finish, covering the period of their planning horizon, a plan that gets them profitable. They look at the bottom line and start cutting. Well no company EVER cut themselves to profitability. It just doesn't happen. The term "death of a thousand cuts" gives you the idea. My recent past employer is a perfect example. Things went bad and almost every top manager left the company, one by one over the course of 6 months. Now, there are virtually no strategic thinkers left so the company is left with nothing but "caretakers" presiding over what's left and having absolutely no clue about how to turn the ship around. They've started throwing bodies out the window in the hopes of somehow stemming the flow of what will invariably be red ink at the end of the current quarter. Unfortunately the company sins were committed long ago with very little chance of changing the ultimate outcome which will be acquisition. Someone made an interesting observation to me a while back and it stuck with me because it is so true: "Companies make their biggest mistakes when things are going well." How true this is. My company spent money like they would always have plenty of it and now that they don't it's too late because they're committed to spending at a rate they would only have when things are good. Sound familiar?

Again an over-simplification of a complex situation. You must work in a service industry. You seem to imply GM doesn't WANT to innvoate which I'm quite sure is not the case. The real issue is they can't AFFORD to innovate in the way you allude. Development of a new transmission costs billions of dollars which is why they cooperated with Ford to develop the 6 speed GM is currently putting in most of their product (a very good transmission from all accounts and I can attest to personally.) I thought the effort to work with Ford was innovative and quite successful. Keep in mind the 3800/4A combo "survived" because both the engine and transmission are VERY good and stable components. The very fact they were able to continue to use them is a testament to how good they are/were. The only point you're right about is that GM will definitely burn through money and lots of it. From my perspective, their only crime is not shedding the legacy pension and healthcare costs fast enough. This would be the solution I'd push with the US government... take over our pension and retiree healthcare costs and we'll be able to compete everywhere. If they can't deal with this challenge somehow they might as well just declare bankrupcy now. Any other approach is just delaying the inevitable. The UAW is the primary source of the current situation with the Detroit 3 and it should be killed along with any bankrupcy of these once great companies, if it were to ever come to pass. The UAW should be killed no matter what happens and I've made my representatives in congress aware of my ongoing feelings on this so hopefully they're listening. If they want a bailout, the UAW must disappear.

Unfortunately Moore's law doesn't and never did apply to cars or any other mechanical device. This was another idiotic statement. If he wanted to make a comparison he should have compared power consumption on a PC to fuel consumption on a car. When you use this comparison, PC's haven't improved much if at all since they were first developed. They all use a minimum of 300 watts and the high end stuff uses 500-600 watts and I've even seen 1000 watt powe supplies used. When you use that comparison, the whole PC industry fails.