GM bankruptcy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If they went bankrupt, other parties would have probably bought the viable parts of the companies, thus conserving a significant part of the jobs. Now they are rewarded for their incompetence. If the government deems a certain industry too important to fail, then they either should not have allowed the mergers that made them so big, or they should have ...[text shortened]... ized them before. This half-a**ed approach takes the worst of both private and public ownership.

There were no buyers. Keep in mind it was the mdidle of the financial crisis when banks were NOT lending money to anyone. No company had the cash on hand to complete a buyout. A sale was just not in the cards.

Originally posted by uzless
There were no buyers. Keep in mind it was the mdidle of the financial crisis when banks were NOT lending money to anyone. No company had the cash on hand to complete a buyout. A sale was just not in the cards.

Maybe.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Something like a hundred billion to bail them out and they go bankrupt anyway. Government just flushed all that money down the toilet.

exceptional measures for exceptional times?

Originally posted by uzless
Garbage.

GM/Chrysler are bankrupt because people (americans) stopped by their vehicles.

A company that loses market share does not automatically go bankrupt. They cut back. GM could not do so effectively as they were held hostage by their union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02uaw.html?_r=1

Originally posted by spruce112358
A company that loses market share does not automatically go bankrupt. They cut back. GM could not do so effectively as they were held hostage by their union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02uaw.html?_r=1

Couldn't cut back? Held Hostage? Um, no. Don't blame the union for management agreeing to contracts. Management were only in it for themselves. Get the workers back to work so your performance management contract terms can be met and your bonuses paid out. Long term planning was a joke by management.

Besides, how many employees has GM cut over the years? Take a look at how many people were employeed at GM in the 90's and look at where they were prior to this year. Thousands cuts.


Blame the workers? You sound like generalissimo and DSR.

Put it this way. If GM/Chrysler/Ford still had 70% of the US market, there would be NO BANKRUPTCY.

Originally posted by uzless
Couldn't cut back? Held Hostage? Um, no. Don't blame the union for management agreeing to contracts. Management were only in it for themselves. Get the workers back to work so your performance management contract terms can be met and your bonuses paid out. Long term planning was a joke by management.

Besides, how many employees has GM cut over the y ...[text shortened]... this way. If GM/Chrysler/Ford still had 70% of the US market, there would be NO BANKRUPTCY.

I do blame the union, although not entirely. Management should have been guiding the company in the face of external threats. Instead they spent valuable time and energy worrying about internal threats.

A union that takes no interest in the success of the company that provides their jobs deserves to go down with the ship.

Originally posted by uzless
Couldn't cut back? Held Hostage? Um, no. Don't blame the union for management agreeing to contracts. Management were only in it for themselves. Get the workers back to work so your performance management contract terms can be met and your bonuses paid out. Long term planning was a joke by management.

Besides, how many employees has GM cut over the y this way. If GM/Chrysler/Ford still had 70% of the US market, there would be NO BANKRUPTCY.

I don't blame the unions for extracting as much as they can from management. That's their job. they represent the best interests of the workers. Fine. But then they shouldn't complain that they suffer after they've helped slay the goose that laid the golden egg.

Of course if GM had the same market share they used to have, they'd be fine. But that's not the way business works. Even assuming GM didn't have reputation problems that they do, foreign automakers (specifically Toyota and Honda) have done a brilliant job of manufacturing good quality fuel efficient vehicles and marketing them. Even if GM did everything perfectly, they were still going to lose some market share to these and other up-and-comers. In addition, the union concessions that GM did make did hurt their ability to stay competitive with the Japanese companies in terms of price.

I don't "blame" the unions for GM going bankrupt. But I won't feel bad for them if they get clobbered in the bankruptcy settlement process. You reap what you sow.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't blame the unions for extracting as much as they can from management. That's their job. they represent the best interests of the workers. Fine. But then they shouldn't complain that they suffer after they've helped slay the goose that laid the golden egg.

Of course if GM had the same market share they used to have, they'd be fine. But that's not the w ...[text shortened]... em if they get clobbered in the bankruptcy settlement process. You reap what you sow.

Oh boo hoo, it's the unions again. Unions in the US have little power. GM just has to provide some sort of "social security" to its employees because the government won't and they need to attract enough skilled workers. The reason GM is not competitive is corporate bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by spruce112358
A company that loses market share does not automatically go bankrupt. They cut back. GM could not do so effectively as they were held hostage by their union.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02uaw.html?_r=1

I'll say it till I go blue in the face BLOATED DEALERSHIPS WITH SWEETHEART DEALS broke GM's back. That and having no vision for an automotive future that incorporated energy efficiency an/or adoption of non-fossil based fuels.

Originally posted by kmax87
That and having no vision for an automotive future that incorporated energy efficiency an/or adoption of non-fossil based fuels.

According to the documentary "Who killed the electric car", government policy combined with Automakers desire to cheat the system was partly responsible for that bad move by US automakers. The government demanded more fuel efficient vehicles and zero emission vehicles and the automakers decided that the best solution was to claim that buyers didn't want them - so they promptly started marketing gas guzzlers - and killed the electric car.
If the documentary was wrong, I would be interested in alternative views.

Originally posted by uzless
Again, an immediate bankruptcy would have ruined the economy. You guys appear to have no idea how integrated the auto industry is within the US economy. It's not just the workers in the factory of GM/Chrysler. It's the dealership, the autoparts makers, the trucking industry, the rail industry etc etc, that would have also collapsed if they shut down immedi ...[text shortened]... ou all forget what you were told???? Perhaps, you never understood it in the first place....?

Not just the US economy but the Canadian one as well.

Originally posted by uzless
GM and Chrysler have shrunk. Plants closed, workers laid off. Both companies are fractions of their former size. In short, the excess capacity that was causing them to lose money has been eliminated. Workers wages have been reduced.

With all these changes, what makes you think the company will STILL not make money?

I can't believe you would actually suggest elimination of the auto industry was the best option

Exactly. With good management going forward GM could come out of this as a viable and more stable company, albeit a smaller one.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Oh boo hoo, it's the unions again. Unions in the US have little power. GM just has to provide some sort of "social security" to its employees because the government won't and they need to attract enough skilled workers. The reason GM is not competitive is corporate bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you think concessions to the unions had nothing to do with GM's problems, you're simply mistaken. Sure management is also to blame; and one manner in which management is to blame is that they gave benefits to the unions that assumed they'd always have the same enormous market share as they did in the 50s and 60s. They didn't envision having to compete with the Toyotas of the World while having to pay enormous retirement benefits.

In any case, the government DOES pay social security. Maybe not as much as you'd like; but between that and the normal savings in IRAs (which are encouraged through tremendous tax benefits), most of the American work force does just fine even though the vast majority of American workers do not get pensions and healthcare for life from their employers after they're retired.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Oh boo hoo, it's the unions again. Unions in the US have little power. GM just has to provide some sort of "social security" to its employees because the government won't and they need to attract enough skilled workers. The reason GM is not competitive is corporate bureaucracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, I've heard the system in Germany works much better, the unions there are more powerful, and so is the government by the the way.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Yeah, I've heard the system in Germany works much better, the unions there are more powerful.

It's not a question of more or less power. It's whether a union that makes unresonable demands that leave a company less competitive is a union working in the best interests of the workers. The German unions are looking to the long-term, not for short term 'gotchas'.