GM - Bankruptcy?

[bigvegan]

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/02/14/general-motors-may-file-for-bankruptcy-form-new-company/

General Motors May File For Bankruptcy, Form New Company

Posted by Samuel R. Avro (http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/author/admin/) on Saturday, February 14, 2009

Amidst an ongoing financing struggle, and facing a Tuesday deadline to present a restructuring plan, General Motors Corp. is seriously considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and forming a new company, according to a report in today’s Wall Street Journal.
“GM will offer the government two costly alternatives: commit billions more in bailout money to fund the company’s operations, or provide financial backing as part of a bankruptcy filing, said people familiar with GM’s thinking,” the paper said.
The company is going through unprecedented financial struggles and will have to lean on the federal government for support.
Last week, GM announced plans to cut 14 percent of its workforce –10,000 jobs– as well as other measures intended to keep the company afloat.
Chrysler LLC also faces the Tuesday deadline along with GM to prove the viability of their companies in exchange for receiving $17.4 billion in federal loans.
The “plan includes a Chapter 11 filing that would assemble all of GM’s viable assets, including some U.S. brands and international operations, into a new company,” the article reads. “The undesirable assets would be liquidated or sold under protection of a bankruptcy court. Contracts with bondholders, unions, dealers and suppliers would also be reworked.”
The U.S. government has already committed $13.4 billion from its federal coffers to save the company.
According to the company website, GM employs 252,000 people in every major region of the world, and sells and services vehicles in some 140 countries.
GM is also attempting to sell its Hummer SUV and Swedish Saab brands.
General Motors declined to comment on the Wall Street Journal article, according to the newspaper.

[Steve1968LS2]

They should since the unions don't want to give anything to help GM stay alive.

It seems the UAW would rather have 100% of nothing than 90% of something.

It sucks for those retired from GM, but you can't get blood from a turnip and if I were them I would rather get a little less than chance getting nothing if GM goes chapter 7 (or in this case chapt 11).

[Van B]

It seems the UAW would rather have 100% of nothing than 90% of something.

Simply brilliant.

[chicane67]

I say... give the Unions 100% of nothing. That is what they deserve... after all, they did this to themselves.

Ditch the Unions, start out with and train a new workforce. Hell... I bet there are a bunch of people out of jobs right now that would work for the same money that the other US factories are getting paid. It's funny how they don't have the issues that the big three have concerning operational costs/overhead.

Yes it sucks to be a legacy employee... but it is the Unions that have screwed them. Maybe if they weren't so... "What can you do for me now"... and actually weren't as self centric... the people that made the money for them would be taken care of.

Cant get blood from a turnip...

Cant pad something when it's down to the bone...

...It's time that the Union's practice a little common sense and logic... and find a little consensus. But now we are back to getting blood from a turnip.

[wicked68]

they should be forced to do what they need to do without federal assistance.

I think it is unfair and actually imoral for the govt to pick what companies it will give money to help out for them running it crappy and then turn around and take that money from me and if I dont agree and decide not to give it to them they will come with guns and arrest me and if I dont agree to be arrested they will kill me?

That is armed robbery if you ask me - its funny how they passed a constitutional amendment to force states to comply with equal protection thought processes yet the conveniently left this off when it comes to self application.

We have arrived at socialism I am afraid.

Now on top of it all I hear they are tyring to pay peoples mortgages that are not making the payments for WHATEVER reason - so I see now that I am living well below my means I get to pay for the asshats living beyond their means. NICE.......

[shmoov69]

The current govt will bail them out AGAIN just to "save" the unions IMO.
Check out the employee free choice act (or something like that) that I'm sure will get passed now since there is no people with a clue in the current govt. Don't like unions? It's getting ready to be shoved up all our arses. And I don't know what "we the people" can do about it. The govt clearly doesn't care!

[andrewb70]

they should be forced to do what they need to do without federal assistance.

I think it is unfair and actually imoral for the govt to pick what companies it will give money to help out for them running it crappy and then turn around and take that money from me and if I dont agree and decide not to give it to them they will come with guns and arrest me and if I dont agree to be arrested they will kill me?

That is armed robbery if you ask me - its funny how they passed a constitutional amendment to force states to comply with equal protection thought processes yet the conveniently left this off when it comes to self application.

We have arrived at socialism I am afraid.

Now on top of it all I hear they are tyring to pay peoples mortgages that are not making the payments for WHATEVER reason - so I see now that I am living well below my means I get to pay for the asshats living beyond their means. NICE.......

I totally agree.

Andrew

[gman]

why don't you like unions? just wondering.

[Nicks67GTO]

Im a UAW Electrician for John Deere. My company profited over 2 billion dollars last year and set record profits 5 years running. Everyone at John Deere makes good money. From Skilled Trades to the line worker to the stock room boy. The salary guy, to the CEO, and share holders have been very happy as a whole too. So why does eveyone hate the union? Mine seems to work well with our company. Everyone is happy. We have a good work enviornment, its safe, its efficient, everyone is very well trained and the production workers have an incentive plan {the more product they put out the more they get paid}. What seems to be the problem? I think theres alot more to GM's woes than just the unions.....

[Bad69RSSS]

The way I see it the union is a necessary evil most of the time.

In the case of GM the compnay owns most of the responsiblility for destroying itself. After all, didn't it agree to the terms of the UAW contracts in the first place? Didn't managment fly around in private jets because first class wasn't good enough? This ship was sinking WAY before the current economic downturn and GM has done little to correct course and speed.

On the union side, what does the highest paid labor in the industry get you? It surely isn't quality anymore!

I say this and my household is exclusively Chevrolet consumers...

:machine:GM/UAW management

[bigvegan]

"I think theres alot more to GM's woes than just the unions....."

You mean like making cars the public as a whole didn't want for the better part of 3 decades?

Yeah, that might be part of it too.

[ProTouring442]

"I think theres alot more to GM's woes than just the unions....."

You mean like making cars the public as a whole didn't want for the better part of 3 decades?

Yeah, that might be part of it too.

They sure sold an awful lot of those cars nobody wanted. Even today GM is still the second largest producer of automobiles in the world, and, if given access to the Japanese market, they probably still would be.

in 1965 GM domestically sold 4,551,399 cars that people presumably wanted

in 1970 GM domestically sold 3,681,484 cars that people presumably wanted

in 1975 GM domestically sold 3,665,990 cars that now, according to your calculations,nobody wanted

in the boom year of 1980 GM domestically sold 5,053,190 of those cars nobody wanted

in 1985 GM domestically sold 4,490,883 of those cars nobody wanted

in 1990 GM domestically sold 3,307,102 of those cars nobody wanted

in 1995 GM domestically sold 2,930,619 of those cars nobody wanted

And these figures do NOT include SUV sales!

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[ProTouring442]

The way I see it the union is a necessary evil most of the time.

In the case of GM the compnay owns most of the responsiblility for destroying itself. After all, didn't it agree to the terms of the UAW contracts in the first place? Didn't managment fly around in private jets because first class wasn't good enough? This ship was sinking WAY before the current economic downturn and GM has done little to correct course and speed.

On the union side, what does the highest paid labor in the industry get you? It surely isn't quality anymore!

I say this and my household is exclusively Chevrolet consumers...

:machine:GM/UAW management

Yes, GM agreed to those contracts, and in most cases they did so while under the extreme duress of a strike or pending strike, at a time when they would be loosing millions of dollars a day due to the lost production.

As for GM correcting its course, remember that a company of this size does not change course easily. It's a bit like reversing the props on the Queen Mary.

One of the things that actually hurt GM in the long run was the boom years of the late 70s through the mid 80s. While these times created a lot of profit, they caused GM to expand beyond what,in retrospect, seems reasonable, and scaling back to a more reasonable size is not an easy thing for any company to do. This is especially true when you still have to pay your employees despite the fact that you have relieved them of their jobs! There are a lot of factors that all car companies helped to create, of which they might not have seen the consequences.

Cars last a LOT longer today as compared to the "glory days." Thus, people tend to keep them longer, and when they keep them longer, they don't buy new cars. The SUV craze helped mask this factor however as people were purchasing SUVs when they otherwise would have held on to their car.

We also have the fact that the competition from imports really started to come online in the 80s, their quality and ability to produce cars Americans would buy finally came into its own. Prior to the 80s, Japanese imports were small, had few options, and were a bit too utilitarian when compared to those produced by the "Big Three."

Add into this mix the fact that the US Government saddled the domestics with crash and safety standards that, because of the "gas crisis" of the early and late 70s, they allowed the smaller imports to skirt.

Nonetheless, GM has most definitely made some huge mistakes, a fact that the US news media LOVES to point out. Realistically, the bias against GM, Ford, and Chrysler by the US Media is incredible. As an anecdote, I once saw a spot on "quality" where they showed a man reach under a Cadillac and grab the urethane bumper cover and give it a pull. The cover, doing what it was supposed to do, flexed, to which the reporter replied, "you would never see poor quality like this on a Toyota."

Chapter 11 reorganization is probably the best thing for GM, though their doing so will cost me a bit of money when they cancel their common stock. They will be able to cut a lot of deadwood much more quickly then they can in their current situation.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[wicked68]

Im a UAW Electrician for John Deere. My company profited over 2 billion dollars last year and set record profits 5 years running. Everyone at John Deere makes good money. From Skilled Trades to the line worker to the stock room boy. The salary guy, to the CEO, and share holders have been very happy as a whole too. So why does eveyone hate the union? Mine seems to work well with our company. Everyone is happy. We have a good work enviornment, its safe, its efficient, everyone is very well trained and the production workers have an incentive plan {the more product they put out the more they get paid}. What seems to be the problem? I think theres alot more to GM's woes than just the unions.....


I dont think any one hates unions per se.

I use union electrical workers at my building for all our big electrical installations - and its fine - I use a third party company to do this and they all like working here in our environment - so they sit down with us and negotiate a price that works for us and if we dont like a worker we send them packing and they give us someone else and we are not tied to them - so it all works very well. they are all well trained and midful of their work. But I am not tied to them if they are horrible - I can make a change and I have before.

What I am angry about is that I am being forced at gunpoint to give money to a group that is private enterprise and was free to make their decisions. I blame management for bad decisions on the direction of their cars and I blame unions on being too greedy and inflexible on their work as a whole - they both made horrible decisions and should suffer for it. Instead they are making me suffer for it by taxing me to fix their screw ups. This is horribly unfair and at its essence is undeniably un American. Its like they took a trip to communist USSR and said - hey we got some great ideas - lets do it guys.

What if my business started going bad because I paid myself an unrealistic salary and went out and made bad prodcut decisions etc ? Because I am small I would simply go out of business. If bankruptcy were a state court and state law issue I would have the ability to go and file a federal lawsuit on the grounds of the bailout violating my 14th amendment rights to equal protection under the law but since these idiots did not apply it to federal actions they canbe discriminatory in their application of federal law but then turn around and chastise the states for their unequal application.

Its shameful and I can say its embarrasing where our country is going.

what happened to everyone standing up and saying we can compete - we are the best - we are flexible and we will do whatever it takes to make it work - bring it on world!

Its been replaced with crybabies and rattles screaming about who took their toy and how mommy should get them for kicking sand in their face. What a bunch of pus.......es we have become.


something else - the fear mongering that obama is putting out there is disgusting. Did he never take a history course? To say that we might go into a depression and it might become PERMANENT? are you kidding me - you mean that we would NEVER get out of it - not even in 200 years. Come on people . the sad thing is that there are people that believe this crap. I have a guy that works for me that is all bought in that if we dont spend a trillion dollars on govt spending that we very well might go into a permanent depression that we would always have 25% unemployment. SAD SAD SAD. This guy is a graduate of Georgia Tech also so I guess you cant say that a college education makes you smart.

Did you all know that there was no federal income tax before the early 20th century and we did just fine???? The federal income tax was never meant to be permanent. Since we have enacted the federal income tax and allow the fed to spend with debt - we have emptied out treasury and in fact if you go in the treasury now all you will see is iou's posted all over the walls?

Ddi you know that the current federal debt means that every worker in the US also has a federal debt mortgage of 66K right now? if someone told you that you had a credit card bill of 66K what would you do? Well you have just been informed because you are the guarantor of the federal debt - its yours - not the govt. Eveyone thinks "the govt" is this thing that sits in this continuum somewhere that does not affect them - look at the constitution - the ability to spend and raise debt as "backed by the full faith of the people of the US". Its your debt - own it. What if someone told you that they were taking your personal credit card and going to europe and then china to spend money on vacation and all kinds of stuff and they were going to max it out and you had to pay for it? would you be pissed off? well why are you not now?

Why is it ok for the fed govt to run up debt and its not for states or for you personally? where and when did they get this ticket and pass to run out spend wildly with no end in site? Its a basic violation of financial principles that is ruining us. Wait till they hit hyper inlfation or rates get jacked up again and the fed cant stop them because to continue to borrow will require a high rate - because foreigners wont invest in US tbills as they see them risky. This will mean that when we get into a rough patch again we wont be able to manipulate money flow by the fed dropping interest rates - it will simply mean our currency will rapidaly devalue on the open market and we will get hit with hyper inflation on all the goods from overseas we try to buy.

I think its going to be ugly because if this were my personal finances - I would feel like I was in a hole I could not get out of without radical help.

[Mathius]

I'm sure the unions are making their money but I think a lot of people are overlooking the fact that our government is so f*cked that you have to charge ridiculous amounts per hour to cover medical and whatnot.

I mean seriously, I don't know what the average union worker is making but he's probably making around $30/hour TAKE HOME. To me, that's decent money, not fantastic. When we're living in an economy where a 14oz jar of peanut butter costs $5, I think you HAVE to make $30/hour if you want to support a family, particularly and not have your wife work.

But two points on this..

#1, we've just taken for granted that this things are how they are, and every household now has two people working for a living, we're not raising our kids properly and society as a whole is going to hell.

But the way I see it one parent SHOULD be staying home with the kids, and the union jobs are the only ones that actually stayed on scale with the cost of everything else going up.

I don't blame the unions for this, I blame companies like Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, etc. that are paying their employees peanuts for a full time job. The idea that you can't live on a starting wage at one of these places working full time is disgusting.

Not to mention the union jobs are about the only ones these days where you can still get a pension, and one big enough to actually retire on. Doesn't every working man deserve that?

#2 the point I started to talk about when I began this responses, is a union tinner for example in my area makes $33.50/hour. But the union scale, the price the employee pays is $45 something/hour. Now I'm sure the union is pocketing some of that money, but a hell of a lot of that is health insurance and benefits as well. Then you factor in unemployment, social security, etc. which is all part of that...

Are the unions really being so inflexible based on that?

Mathius

[Mathius]

They sure sold an awful lot of those cars nobody wanted. Even today GM is still the second largest producer of automobiles in the world, and, if given access to the Japanese market, they probably still would be.

To me, that's a very HUGE if. I mean who else are they competing with.

Another point... just because people are buying vehicles doesn't mean GM wouldn't sell more if they were selling what people wanted. You have to have a car to drive to work.

You can't even walk into a used car lot (in my area) and find more than a handful of cars older than 2000.

I don't know about you, but except for the F-Bodies, maybe a Monte, a CTS perhaps, or a bare handful of pickup truck types, there isn't too many cars later than 2000 that I even like the look of, let alone want to drive. But I have to get to work, so I buy the best that's available, or I buy some older project vehicle and fix it up like I did with my '92 Camaro, my '89 Ranger, and my '76 Chevelle, all of which were daily drivers at one point or another.

Mathius

[parsonsj]

You mean like making cars the public as a whole didn't want for the better part of 3 decades?That's just ignorant.

BV, sometimes I think you're here only to stir up trouble. Care to share your project plans with us?

How about a name? We've asked all members to put their name in their signature.

jp

[wmhjr]

Mathius,

Yes - the unions are being totally inflexible - because they (and others) have failed to recognize the reality of today. To put it bluntly, the issue is that times have changed as a result of increased competition, incredibly improved technology, and an inability to comprehend thta standards of living are all relative.

I've said this before, but will keep saying this until people start to recognize the truth - because nothing short of that will allow any possibility whatsoever for our country to get back on track without becoming totally socialist (which frankly I think we are unfortunately going to do). People are basing what they think are "fair" wages on their own experience, and frankly the history of the 50s and 60s. During that time period, labor in the US had a tremendous advantage domestically, because overseas labor could not compete due to extrordinarily high financial barriers resulting from the vast distances of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Of equal significance is the pure fact that even logistics (importing) was very much more expensive due to the very inefficient supply chain operations making importation costs so much higher. As a result, US companies had a captive market, and so did US labor.

However, since then there has been an incredibly rapid (and still increasing) improvement in technology and engineering which have all but eliminated such physical barriers from being a concern. Supply chain operations are incredibly efficient. Robotics, CAD design, and frankly the fact that the PC I'm typing this post on has more computing power than all computers on the planet combined in the 60s - have all created increased competition.

Now add to this that people have always - and always will - want value. Translation? Better quality at a lower price. Don't forget one REALLY important thing. These "evil" corporations everyone wants to hate? Well, somebody owns them. People. 401K retirement accounts. Mutual funds. Frankly, you and I. And other people invest in them taking great financial risk - which is what sustains the company. Yet other people took HUGE risk and started the company. Not you, not me, and certainly not the 40% of Americans who don't pay a darned cent in taxes every year.

Think about something else. Everyone wants the June Cleaver home. Nice non-stressful jobs, house, a couple cars, vacation, maybe some hobbies - all protected. But remember what I said about relative? I'm guessing that back in the early 1800s people didn't have that, right? Or in the early 1900s.

The point is that we need to wake up and smell the coffee. People simply CANNOT expect that they're going to be able to have an unskilled labor job, own their own house, have a couple cars, etc. Just not gonna be the way in the future. I don't like it, but I understand it. Our "standard of living" will continue to "decline" (compared to what it was) while other "competitive" countries will see their standard of living improve. Maybe some day there will be parity. I don't like "globalization" but I can understand that bitching about it won't stop it. Doing so is simply a refusal to acknowledge reality - and we'd better start realizing this fast.

That's because the only other alternative is a completely socialistic society - something that our current crop of criminals that some people just put in power are already doing. Remember that 40% of Americans who pay zero tax? Who exactly do you think they voted for? Of course, many of them (as of Tuesday) will now get a "credit" - meaning they're going to get money EVEN THOUGH THEY PAID NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH! This country has NEVER had more than 20% of our GDP be devoted to "social spending". As of Tuesday, that number jumps to just under 40%. Guess what the common accepted % of GDP spending for social programs in a Socialist nation is?

47%. We're almost there with one stroke of a Democratic pen.

Oh, and before I forget to mention it - some people will claim that FDR successfully did this in the 30s. Absolutely untrue.

When FDR increased social spending in the mid 30s, it resulted in a sharp increase in recessionary economic results in '36 - '38. A 1938 Gallup poll showed that 75% of Americans felt that FDRs policies were stifling the economy. The only thing that saved FDR was WWII. Fact - not fiction.

[Steve1968LS2]

why don't you like unions? just wondering.

Nobody hates unions.. we just hate the one-sided way they view economics.

They would rather drive GM into the dirt rather than give up anything. They see no problem in someone being paid $75 and hour to bolt in seats and it's unfair to pay that person $74 an hour even if it means that GM will go BK.

Unions use to be about collective bargaining but now it's more about collective extortion.

Union contracts are the main reason GM is in this bind but they don't seem to care at all about that.

[wmhjr]

Also, a couple other things.

1) No, every man does not "deserve a pension". They deserve to be fairly paid. They need like everyone else to save money. That's what things like IRAs and 401Ks are for. The world has changed. Sorry, but true. There are a few places where a "pension" makes sense. Like the military and government service - where the government controls exactly how much you can be paid. And where (for the military) you're taking a risk with your life. Not just because you put plastic part A into plastic slot B. Thinking that deserves a "pension" is an entitlement mentality.

2) Medical. Sure we have issues there, but let's not confuse the issue. Non-union shops also pay medical. It is what it is - mostly because of ridiculous legal action which makes medical care (due to malpractice) so friggin expensive. And from somebody who in the military had government health care, I can tell you first hand that you SURE don't want that. We paid for full family medical coverage from my wife's employer even though I was active duty military because our care (first CHAMPUS and then TRICARE) was so incredibly poor.

[Twentyover]

Add into this mix the fact that the US Government saddled the domestics with crash and safety standards that, because of the "gas crisis" of the early and late 70s, they allowed the smaller imports to skirt.

Bill


Please provide a source for this claim. What constitutes a "smaller import?" Phusical size or production volume?

[wicked68]

what do you deserve?

I think that has been set out already pretty clearly - read the bill of rights - life liberty and the pursuit of happieness.

That did not say a 3000 sq foot home with central heating and 3 cars that are of a certain level and a flat screen tv in every room.

You have your life if you are reading this, you have your liberty (at least for now), and you are clearly still able to pursue happieness.

Happieness is what you make of it. if you look at houses and cars and all that back 50 years ago - it was not the current standards we have now. Go back another 50 years from then - its even less.

People need to quit griping and live as such:
no one owes me anything. I am where I am because of me. If I want something I am the one who has to get it and I will only get what I have money in the bank to get after I have no debt / I have paid all my bills / saved for retirement / given some to charity. The amount left over is what you can go buy with. We as a country have become whiners and spoiled brats. We are owed nothing.

What happened to being happy that you survived the day? What happened to entertaining yourself by just going outside and throwing a ball (how expensive is a ball???? ) ?

The fed govt is here to regulate interstate and international commerce and to provide for the defense and security of our country. That is all. What happened? Its now an insurance company, a wealth redistribution company, a redistribution mechanism for education funding / roads/ etc. Its a big redistribution machine and it takes a huge cut to do this.

Its mantra is that the people are all morons and if we dont wipe their ass they wont do it themselves. Is this true? If so we are doomed.

Investment - someone mentioned that these companies being bailed out are owned by someone. yes they are - they are all public companies. Guess what? no one is forcing us to invest in them - at least not for now - wait till the govt trys to nationalize your 401k holdings. But no one is forcing you to invest in them and guess what the smart money is and has pulled out of them. its going to go over seas. I can put my money in a far east fund right now in fact and it wont touch us investments and since its in overseas securitys as the dollar falls it will go up even more. You know this is going to happen.

Then the cost of capital becomes more expensive for us companies because to atrtract the investment back they have to give away more and guarantee higher returns. its an ugly cycle.

I have a lot more of this - but I figure its too nasty to take in long rambling diatribes.

[Steve1968LS2]

The feeling that "owning a home is a right, not a privilage" is what got us into this stupid mess.

Govt dictated that people that couldn't afford a house be given loans for them. This caused a false supply shortage and inflated prices. Then the people that did ZERO down loans just walked away from houses they should have never qualified for.

[Damn True]

"I think theres alot more to GM's woes than just the unions....."

You mean like making cars the public as a whole didn't want for the better part of 3 decades?

Yeah, that might be part of it too.


Complete fallacy and I really wish you'd quit trotting it out. GM sold more cars IN THE US than any other automaker until about the middle of last year. You dont sell more than anyone else if you are making stuff nobody wants. Because YOU didn't want one does not mean that the rest of the populace didn't. When you get out of CA GM and Ford cars vastly outnumber imports on the roads.

[parsonsj]

Let's bring this back to GM please. Otherwise we'll close it down as a political thread.

jp

[Damn True]

why don't you like unions? just wondering.

Tell us about which industries are currently thriving with a majority of Union Labor.

[Nicks67GTO]

"I think theres alot more to GM's woes than just the unions....."

You mean like making cars the public as a whole didn't want for the better part of 3 decades?

Yeah, that might be part of it too.


Bingo

[Nicks67GTO]

They sure sold an awful lot of those cars nobody wanted. Even today GM is still the second largest producer of automobiles in the world, and, if given access to the Japanese market, they probably still would be.

in 1965 GM domestically sold 4,551,399 cars that people presumably wanted

in 1970 GM domestically sold 3,681,484 cars that people presumably wanted

in 1975 GM domestically sold 3,665,990 cars that now, according to your calculations,nobody wanted

in the boom year of 1980 GM domestically sold 5,053,190 of those cars nobody wanted

in 1985 GM domestically sold 4,490,883 of those cars nobody wanted

in 1990 GM domestically sold 3,307,102 of those cars nobody wanted

in 1995 GM domestically sold 2,930,619 of those cars nobody wanted

And these figures do NOT include SUV sales!

Shiny Side Up!
Bill


Now I dont have hard numbers for you here, but if im not mistaken between 1965 and 1995 the population in America about doubled didnt it? That would then make their sales in 1995 alot less impressive.

[Nicks67GTO]

I mean seriously, I don't know what the average union worker is making but he's probably making around $30/hour TAKE HOME. To me, that's decent money, not fantastic.


At John Deere unskilled workers make far less than that.

[bigvegan]

Complete fallacy and I really wish you'd quit trotting it out.

Really?

So GM HASN'T gone from a 60% market share to less than 25% of the market over the last 35 years?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/01/gm-market-share-oped-cz_jf_0102flint.html

[Damn True]

You know what they say about statistics.

Yes, the marketplace has become fragmented which ultimately is good for the consumer but the bottom line, as I stated earlier that until mid last year GM sold more cars per year than any other automaker. Period.

That does not equate to "cars people don't want".

[parsonsj]

BV, your market share numbers are about right.

But you said:
You mean like making cars the public as a whole didn't want for the better part of 3 decades?Let me repeat: that's an ignorant statement.

GM's dropping market share is due to many complex circumstances, and simply saying it's because they made cars Americans didn't want is ludicrous.

Please stop with the one note song.

jp

[Damn True]

BV, your market share numbers are about right.

But you said:Let me repeat: that's an ignorant statement.

GM's dropping market share is due to many complex circumstances, and simply saying it's because they made cars Americans didn't want is ludicrous.

Please stop with the one note song.

jp

Paraphrasing:

Well, the trouble with our friend is not that he is ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so

[chicane67]

Nobody hates unions.. we just hate the one-sided way they view economics.

They would rather drive GM into the dirt rather than give up anything. They see no problem in someone being paid $75 and hour to bolt in seats and it's unfair to pay that person $74 an hour even if it means that GM will go BK.

Unions use to be about collective bargaining but now it's more about collective extortion.

Union contracts are the main reason GM is in this bind but they don't seem to care at all about that.

Ding ding ding. WINNER.

It cannot be stated better than this. The only exception to this is the number... as the Union actually charges $175/hr for this labor and the fact that they wont budge from it will not only cost the Manufacturer it's stake in the free economy... it will cost thousands their jobs because of it. Gee... $75 to the one who does he work... and another $100 for the fatass and his soapbox. No wonder GM is having so many problems...



Tell us about which industries are currently thriving with a majority of Union Labor.

Uhm... I certainly can't think of one. And I dont wonder why for some reason.

[SDMAN]

It was inevitable. GM has alienated such a large portion of their customer base its amazing this hasnt happened a decade sooner. I got so sick and tired of the crappy cars and horrendous dealer practices that I havent bought a new GM vehicle since 1979. And have no plans to alter my vehicle purchase habits.

I see this as getting it going ahead of the curve. GM has been betting the farm on the Volt. And its going to be a complete stinker. Even for GM.

[bigvegan]

GM's dropping market share is due to many complex circumstances, and simply saying it's because they made cars Americans didn't want is ludicrous.

Not so much. The factors are pretty simple, really.

Market share drops when people prefer the competitors' products to those of a given company.

In this case, GM has gone from having 60% of the market to less than 25%.

So, 75% of the American car-buying population prefers to buy non-GM cars and DON'T WANT GM cars.

You can blame the unions all you want, but the fault here is GM's management and a bloated dealership structure that has left them with an unsustainable number of brands.

If GM was just Chevy and Cadillac and got to pick the best products from the rest of the GM lineup, and had 1500 dealerships like Toyota, instead of 4500 like they do now, they'd have a fighting chance.

But no, they're going to blame the unions instead of standing up to the dealerships, while asking for GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS themselves, fail to see the writing on the wall, and probably go bankrupt in the process.

Socialism is bad. Lemon socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism) is worse.

[ProTouring442]

Please provide a source for this claim. What constitutes a "smaller import?" Phusical size or production volume?

For a quick start, I'll relay that I was a technician in a Maryland authorized emissions repair facility, and there were two sets of standards. One was for GM, Ford, Chrysler, and another was for Toyota, Datsun, and Honda, etc. I'll have to do a bit of research, but I distinctly remember the reasoning was that the imports were smaller and therefore more efficient.

Please note that I may be incorrect in my assertions here as I cannot find any evidence of this online though I distinctly remember the differing standards.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[ProTouring442]

Now I dont have hard numbers for you here, but if im not mistaken between 1965 and 1995 the population in America about doubled didnt it? That would then make their sales in 1995 alot less impressive.

Not when you consider the huge increase in competition. There was no way that GM could have forced the Japanese and German imports from the shores.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[ProTouring442]

It was inevitable. GM has alienated such a large portion of their customer base its amazing this hasnt happened a decade sooner. I got so sick and tired of the crappy cars and horrendous dealer practices that I havent bought a new GM vehicle since 1979. And have no plans to alter my vehicle purchase habits.

I see this as getting it going ahead of the curve. GM has been betting the farm on the Volt. And its going to be a complete stinker. Even for GM.

I don't know, my 1993 Bonneville went over 200K with no major problems, and I sold my wife's Miata at 130K due to its needing new too much work.

My wife's Mercedes SLK230 has an interior made from cheap cardboard, with the dye peeling off the dash, its gone through 2 security modules (at $700 plus labor) and all this at only 50K.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[ProTouring442]

There are also good and defensible reasons as to why the major car companies should be assisted through the approval of loans for the purpose of helping them survive a serious economic crisis. Of course their is the incredible impact that the loss of GM or Ford would have on the US economy due to the large number of people employed either with or through them. While the so-called "Big Three" directly employ around 335,000 people, their jobs would not be the only ones affected by the failure of the US auto industry. It is estimated that nearly 1 out of every 10 people employed in the US is employed by a company or in a service related to the US auto industry. Even if we could somehow contain the job losses to the 335,000 directly employed by the industry, the collateral effect such an increase in the number of people suddenly jobless would have on the economy is likely to be more than our economy can handle and will plunge the US, and most likely the world, into a depression likely to be much larger than the one experienced in the 1930s. History also shows that the major auto manufacturers played a vital role in the defense of the US during WWII and Korea. During WWII the former president of GM, William Knudsen, headed the effort that lead the US auto industry to produce some $29 billion dollars worth of vital war materiel. Thus it can be truthfully stated that the US citizenry has a vested interest in the survival of the US auto industry due not only to the impact their closure would have on the economy, but also as to the role they would play in any future major conflict in which the US was involved.

As for the supposed lack of quality in the domestic vehicles, I can say that my company car, a 2007 Chevrolet Equinox AWD, is a very nice car. It gets very good fuel mileage, is quite, rides smooth, and handles better that any car-truck has the right to do. My parents own a 2008 Buick Lucerne, and it is a fantastic automobile. On their recent trip for the holidays their Lucerne averaged 30mpg, and has to be the quietest car I've ever ridden in. Everything about this car performs flawlessly, a statement I cannot say about my wife's current car, a 1999 Mercedes Benz SLK230. The SLK's interior sheds parts faster than a long haired dog sheds hair in the spring, and the seats are really comfortable for at least the first 30 minutes! Her former car, a Mazda Miata was the worst though. The engine was noisier than a 40 year old sewing machine, and the interior was made by the same people who bring you those molded plastic cafeteria chairs!

My last GM car was a 1996 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi which pushed 30mpg on the highway, and had more than enough pep to be quite a fun car to drive. Before the '96 was a '93 that we sold when it turned past 200K miles, needing only a VATS module and an alternator during its stay in my family.

Yes, GM in particular and the US Auto Industry in general need to revamp their operations, but you cannot change a company as large as GM overnight. Especially one that is required to pay the employees it lays off for an additional four years! GM pioneered the air bag, brought us the successful front wheel drive car, designed (and I believe still builds) the crash-test dummy, etc, etc. GM has been turning its ship around for some time now, though the recent economic downturn hit them while they were still down, and much like the Queen Mary, this ship will need a bit of room if it is to avoid a fatal collision.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[parsonsj]

If GM was just Chevy and Cadillac and got to pick the best products from the rest of the GM lineup, and had 1500 dealerships like Toyota, instead of 4500 like they do now, they'd have a fighting chance.Maybe. I think that argument has some merit; certainly more than the very broad brush you've been using, which discounts the product price. In fact, the variety of GM brands is exactly counter to your original argument: GM was working hard to find niche markets to get consumers the vehicles they wanted. It was that very ability of the world's largest automaker to have such a wide variety of brands and vehicle types that seems to have gotten it in trouble.

As far as the union blame, the UAW must share in this debacle. People don't buy product purely on features. Most folks use some sort of value method, where cost enters their purchasing decision. At the traditional cost of new cars, it becomes crucial.

GM has lost market share for a variety of reasons, the least of which is making cars "the public as a whole doesn't want". Up until the credit markets dried up GM was doing fine. Cost, dealership structure, wide brand variety, new competitors in our market without reciprocation, the credit crunch, the myth of low quality, etc.

Those are some valid reasons why GM is in a world of hurt.

jp

[ProTouring442]

Well, it seems I may have been incorrect. Though I am certain concerning my recollection that there were 2 different standards on early pollution controlled vehicles, I cannot find proof and thus will retract my assertion. However, I will say that the intent of the Congress was certainly to "scold" the domestic auto makers as the quote below shows.

The 1970 CAA Amendments represent a congressional shift in auto pollution law from flexibility to stringency. Senator Muskie opened the debate stating, "Detroit has told the nation that Americans cannot live without the automobile. This legislation would tell Detroit that if this is the case, they can make an automobile with which Americans can live" (source: http://www.answers.com/topic/national-emissions-standards-act-1965)

Worse, the timing of the implementation of both safety and emissions standards, and the near simultaneous occurrence of the various oil crisis most definitely uniquely hurt the domestic manufacturers.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[MonzaRacer]

Ok in the 60s you had GM, Ford,AMC,Chrysler not including foreign makers (which made up less than 2% of all other imported vehicles then)Noe we have toyota,honda,kia,lexus,infinity,subaru,hyundai, oh hey have I forgot any, a lot those do not use UAW workers, and take away some of the market share.
And I am sure I have forget a few.

when a 4 maker market opens up, the stakes get bigger, when the company tried to trim costs so they didnt end up like International Harvester, the NEED of the cars/trucks and the market demand kept them making cars and paying ridiculously overpriced wages/benefits.
An IH tractor in an industry costs $50,000-$80,000 when they went under(I know this as my grandfather bought one right after Case bought the tractor end)At that time you could by a Truck for about $10,000 or less and they sold thousands literally hundreds of thousands.

I have afriend who works in Michigan for a US auto manufacturer, his house was valued at $500,000, he brought home $85,000 a year, his wife $50,000 same employer but no union contract, she just had a big college degree. Same house in Indiana would go for $90,000-$100,000 and he would bring home $35,000-$40,000 and his wife $25,000-$30,000.

The jobs are not high skill jobs for the most part, some are.

Oh and the local job is same job he is doing in MI but without the union.

I have personally built cars that will run clean at the tail pipe, make good power and just plain dont need half crap tacked on them.
Also extending UAW control to the sub producers of parts was just ridiculous, and caused way to many local small factories to close due to cost and thus throw jobs over seas, over borders, etc. Now with his benefits he brought home about $125,000+ and hers was probably close to $70,000 (separate because both worked there before getting hitched).

One reason John Deere is solvent is is because of larger heavy equipment still selling,and being a more world placed entity.
Some unions are useful and not so top heavy/greedy as UAW. But a lot are simply the strong arm types of old.
If the government and others would actually take them to task, and remember if GM goes down a LOT of jobs disappear from USA, never to be replaced. Chrysler has been trimmed down by 2 sales and Ford has taken different steps so far. But still if one falls how much farther can the rest be?
The big "bail out" was to let the companies operate as their own credit partners, rather than ask banks for short term loans they make them them selves.
As for me I want to see Citi get gutted and sold off, they were the first to break the law and get away with it, and that led to a lot of the Wall street issues, that and Investment Banking firms trying to be the Corner bank.

When big money people fail to remember what they should have had drilled into their heads when they started their jobs, then they ran down the slippery slope to failure, but had big contracts paying them in win or loss situations.

Best hope GM doesnt have to file, if they do then a lot of people and industry will fail and as well a lot of retirements too. then look out.

[Steve1968LS2]

It was inevitable. GM has alienated such a large portion of their customer base its amazing this hasnt happened a decade sooner. I got so sick and tired of the crappy cars and horrendous dealer practices that I havent bought a new GM vehicle since 1979. And have no plans to alter my vehicle purchase habits.

I see this as getting it going ahead of the curve. GM has been betting the farm on the Volt. And its going to be a complete stinker. Even for GM.

lol.. are you serious? You might want to consider looking at sales numbers and how many cars GM actually sells.

It's not thier volume, it's their operating costs which, because of union contracts, is through the roof.

The "crappy cars" comment sounds like someone still stuck in 1979... ;)

[Steve1968LS2]

Best hope GM doesnt have to file, if they do then a lot of people and industry will fail and as well a lot of retirements too. then look out.

Keep in mind that if GM files it will be chapter 11 and NOT chapter 7. GM will still exist but they will be able to void and renegotiate contracts.

Remember.. Chapter 11 is reorganization.. Chapter 7 is "bye bye"

[MonzaRacer]

Keep in mind that if GM files it will be chapter 11 and NOT chapter 7. GM will still exist but they will be able to void and renegotiate contracts.

Remember.. Chapter 11 is reorganization.. Chapter 7 is "bye bye"


Dont forget though it may restructure BUT a lot of people will get put out and hurt, figures are on one of the sites I found stated that closer to 45 percent of GM and 30-40 percent of the second and third tier vendors would disappear, over night. Think of it as this if there was 10 GM vendors in your town 3 to 4 of them closing overnight with no help for anyone. Id rather see UAW smacked back down to a more manageable level.

[parsonsj]

It was inevitable. GM has alienated such a large portion of their customer base its amazing this hasnt happened a decade sooner. I got so sick and tired of the crappy cars and horrendous dealer practices that I havent bought a new GM vehicle since 1979. And have no plans to alter my vehicle purchase habits.[emphasis added] I love fact-based decisions. I figure any decision made in 1979 ought to still be good now. :)

jp

[Twentyover]

Now I dont have hard numbers for you here, but if im not mistaken between 1965 and 1995 the population in America about doubled didnt it? That would then make their sales in 1995 alot less impressive.

1965 approximately 185 million
1995 approximately 270 million

Approximately 50% increase in population

[Nicks67GTO]

1965 approximately 185 million
1995 approximately 270 million

Approximately 50% increase in population

Thanks!

[Nicks67GTO]

I have afriend who works in Michigan for a US auto manufacturer, his house was valued at $500,000, he brought home $85,000 a year, his wife $50,000 same employer but no union contract, she just had a big college degree. Same house in Indiana would go for $90,000-$100,000 and he would bring home $35,000-$40,000 and his wife $25,000-$30,000.

The jobs are not high skill jobs for the most part, some are.

Oh and the local job is same job he is doing in MI but without the union.


So i guess im not seeing your point. It seems like youre trying to complain about the union wage but if i read correctly....
-He owns a house in michigan that is roughly 500K.
-If he lived where you do, it would be worth 100K.
-He works for a big auto manufacturer.
-He makes about 85K/year.
-If he lived where you do, that exact same job would be 40K/year.
-So a comprable house is 5 times more expensive in Michigan than it would be if he lived where you do, yet hes only making roughly 2 times more than he would if he lived where you do. So whats the gripe again?

BTW id like to see how many hours were worked to attain that 85K....If a guy worked 40 hours a week screwing cars together and made 85K well thats a high wage. If he worked 68 hours a week to make 85K well thats more realistic and he earned every bit of it.....

[Steve1968LS2]

Dont forget though it may restructure BUT a lot of people will get put out and hurt, figures are on one of the sites I found stated that closer to 45 percent of GM and 30-40 percent of the second and third tier vendors would disappear, over night. Think of it as this if there was 10 GM vendors in your town 3 to 4 of them closing overnight with no help for anyone. Id rather see UAW smacked back down to a more manageable level.

Well then, I guess those losses would be on the UAW since they are unwilling to give in any.

If GM goes Chapter 7 then 100% of the employees and vendors would be finished.

[Steve1968LS2]

Now I dont have hard numbers for you here, but if im not mistaken between 1965 and 1995 the population in America about doubled didnt it? That would then make their sales in 1995 alot less impressive.

But remember that today there's MUCH more competition..

Who were the US auto makers competing agaist in '65? Well, besides each other.

Sales is not the problem.. overhead and production costs are.

[Damn True]

Not so much. The factors are pretty simple, really.

Market share drops when people prefer the competitors' products to those of a given company.

In this case, GM has gone from having 60% of the market to less than 25%.

So, 75% of the American car-buying population prefers to buy non-GM cars and DON'T WANT GM cars.

You can blame the unions all you want, but the fault here is GM's management and a bloated dealership structure that has left them with an unsustainable number of brands.

If GM was just Chevy and Cadillac and got to pick the best products from the rest of the GM lineup, and had 1500 dealerships like Toyota, instead of 4500 like they do now, they'd have a fighting chance.

But no, they're going to blame the unions instead of standing up to the dealerships, while asking for GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS themselves, fail to see the writing on the wall, and probably go bankrupt in the process.

Socialism is bad. Lemon socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism) is worse.


BZZZZT! Again, more stuff that you "know" that just isn't so. If it were simple you'd be right. It isn't and you aren't.

Market share drops when the consumer has more good stuff to choose from.

25% market share in a market split among well over 20 quality manufacturers is doing pretty damn well.

By comparison, McDonalds holds roughly a 20% market share in the fast food industry. Down from close to 45% 20 or so years ago. Would you say they are poorly run or offering stuff nobody wants? Of course not. Their market, like GM's has become increasingly fragmented. There are more choices. People still go to McDonalds. A lot. But they also go to Burger King, Chipotle, Panera and Subway when they are feeling guilty about the size of their arse.

[wmhjr]

60% of the market to less than 25%.

So, 75% of the American car-buying population prefers to buy non-GM cars and DON'T WANT GM cars.

You can blame the unions all you want, but the fault here is GM's management and a bloated dealership structure that has left them with an unsustainable number of brands.



Actually not quite true. It's a mixed bag, for sure. But think about this for a minute....

We all know that there are acceptable price points for different kinds of vehicles. I mean, maybe somebody would pay $25K for a G6, but they wouldn't pay $30k. Chief among other factors, which drives market value for a particular vehicle type is the competitive landscape. In other words, you can't charge an extra $5K for a vehicle that your competitor sells for $25K.

So now lets look at labor costs in the big 3. The higher labor costs (including the legacy costs demanded by the unions) make the COGS (cost of good sold) much higher for a comparable product.

But they know they can't get that higher price, right? So, what do they do? They reduce cost. How? Well, they can't reduce the cost of labor - Unions prevent that. So, they reduce the cost and complexity of materials. That's code for lower quality and use cheaper stuff.

GM - and the Big 3 in general - are in rough shape. Anyone who didn't see this coming even after they got that initial bailout was wearing rose colored glasses. It's gonna get worse. They need bankruptcy to get out of this mess.

[wmhjr]

I don't know, my 1993 Bonneville went over 200K with no major problems, and I sold my wife's Miata at 130K due to its needing new too much work.

My wife's Mercedes SLK230 has an interior made from cheap cardboard, with the dye peeling off the dash, its gone through 2 security modules (at $700 plus labor) and all this at only 50K.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

Hmmmm....

Neighbors Bonny? Junk. He's on his 3rd motor in 150k miles. Also just replaced (again) all tranny lines - they rusted out. He hates that car. See how individual experiences are? Meaningless. It's in the aggragate that you see trends.

For example, I've had tons of new GM vehicles. I'd say that in the last 20 years, they were at best "OK". '90 Lumina? Junk. '90 GMC Sierra? Good, but rusted out. '96 Chevy 1500? Good truck. '00 Chevy silverado? Absolute trash. Rusted frame, body rusted out, brakes shot - at 50k miles. You want it? I'll sell it at salvage prices. I even have pics.

'98, '99, '00 BMW M3's, Z3 and M-Roadster? Absolutely perfect except for the '99 Z had a wire that chafed at the trunk lid joint. Each of them were sold at over 75k miles. '94 Miata? Great little runner. Had a little rust, but FAR lower than either my '90 GMC or my '00 Chevy. 172k miles. '00 Mercedes CLK320? Perfect except had to replace fuel tank sensors once. Just under 80k miles. BTW, interior was perfect the day I sold it.

Anybody wants living proof as to GM lack of quality can ask me - I'll send you the pics of the rust 2000 Silverado LT frame that I've spent all winter repairing. The one with 50k miles. Yeah, Toyota had a frame rust problem. Difference is that they supported their customers. Not GM. I should also be clear - my vehicles are WELL maintained. When I sell a vehicle, I typically get good money because they are very well maintained and don't show wear. So, when I'm saying that the GM vehicles have been bad, remember that they've been cared for EXACTLY like the other vehicles. The only difference is the product, and it shows.

Like somebody else said here, I'll never make the mistake of buying another GM vehicle. And my decisions are not based on 1979. My most recent purchase is a $40k 2000 Silverado Extended Cab 4wd LT (leather, all available options) that is now a piece of junk sitting in the garage still while I repair the rusty frame, rusty cab, replace every single brake element (all backing plates, all lines, even the ABS module), all u-joints, fuel lines - the list can go on and on. Though this is only the most recent failure on GMs part for me, it's the last. I couldn't even sell the truck for $4500 right now - and it has only 50k miles on it. It is junk. I'm that guy that GM alienated. The one that never bought anything EXCEPT GM up until the late 90's. It's on them.

[toxicz28]

It's not thier volume, it's their operating costs which, because of union contracts, is through the roof.

The "crappy cars" comment sounds like someone still stuck in 1979... ;)
To blame it on union contracts, is as bad as the "crappy cars" comment, or "cars nobody wants" comment.
The UAW has been making concessions to GM at least as far back as Oct. 2005, (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/17/news/fortune500/gm_wagoner/ (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/17/news/fortune500/gm_wagoner/))
gave more concessions in Sept. 2007,
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20978036/)
and are currently in talks for more concessions(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3Xse72PYkbkP9YlLlG_uZsRi6jQD96C5H880 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h3Xse72PYkbkP9YlLlG_uZsRi6jQD96C5H880)).
Let me give an (extreme) example whether you're union, non-union, or just a schlep trying to live somewhat comfortably. Almost everyone should be able to relate to this.
You haven't recieved a pay raise in 3+ years, the cost of everything (food, energy, health insurance, etc.) has gone up to the point that you're barely scraping by. And now, the company you work for wants to cut your pay by 10-20%.
How eager would you be to do that?
And, how much more would you be willing to give up before you said enough is enough?

Let's also not forget GM's unwise spending practices (union contracts aside, because I'm sure their executive, management, and other non-union positions only make minimum wage :smoke:) .
Like recieving and spending $140 million to renovate /retrofit a plant only to close it in less than a decade. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DD143FF937A35750C0A9649582 60)



If GM was just Chevy and Cadillac and got to pick the best products from the rest of the GM lineup, and had 1500 dealerships like Toyota, instead of 4500 like they do now, they'd have a fighting chance.

:secret: FYI, GM doesn't own all of the dealerships, and the ones they do, they are closing. The others are privately owned and at a risk of closing as well.
If people can't, or aren't buying cars, I don't think it would matter how many dealerships are selling a brand of car. They are all in jeopardy.
http://www.lohud.com/article/2008812310361
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090214/BUSINESS/902140326
http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2008/09/22/daily19.html

[trapin]

I've recently decided to stay out of Big 3 discussion on this board because I feel my employment at GM fosters a conflict of interest. But I will throw in this little observation about the UAW. With all apologies to any UAW members here.

I am a member of the only salaried union here at GM; we are part of the UAW. There is one major thing wrong with the UAW that absolutely must be dealt with; it’s called seniority. Unfortunately, seniority is considered to be the bedrock of the UAW and it would be near impossible to negotiate out of a contract. The reason for that is the Union would lose a good number of people. It needs to go because it is solely responsible for placing an unfair stigma on the UAW as a whole by protecting people who either bend or break the rules. And it’s those people who wind up on the 5 o’clock news or in the press. For every bad seed in the UAW there are 30 good ones who don’t deserve having their faces pushed in the mud. There are a ton of hard working/good people in the UAW that you never hear about because they never do anything stupid to get their faces on TV. That’s too bad. You get rid of seniority and you can finally flush out these bad seeds and give the hard working men and women in it's the ranks the recognition that they have long deserved.

That is all. Thanks.

[Mathius]

Let's bring this back to GM please. Otherwise we'll close it down as a political thread.

jp

I think the problems ARE political, especially since you have guys on here talking about how 401k is adequate for retirement, and that it's ok that in most homes both parents have to work. That's why America is on the decline in the first place.

I worked retail for 9 years and only earned 7k between company contributed 401k, MY contributed 401k, profit sharing, and stock holding. In the end of all that it came out to not even a thousand dollars a year. How the hell are you supposed to retire on less than $1000.00 per year?

I've worked both ends of it, and yeah, maybe the auto workers aren't a "skilled trade" like the tinners or plumbers, etc. and maybe they shouldn't make as much, but people quoting $75/hour are not talking about take home pay.

But I'll keep my mouth shut so you don't have to close the thread and I'll go elsewhere.

Mathius

[Jim Nilsen]

Until we all take time off from our personal lives to stand on the doorstep of the people in charge of everything that is wrong, it won't change.

Until we all realize that the people who are in charge will not stop doing what they do until we physically stop them it will continue.

Has GM, Chrysler, or any other entity had anyone on the very top get fired yet? Have the stockholders done anything?

What is going on is as close to a party that is illegal with police protection at the door. Your not invited and you will be expected to pay for complaining.

Each and everyone of us is the government as a whole and we can't get a simple understanding that any one person won't argue about. So we are divided and losing.

It's like treating cancer. They say they don't know the cause and they say there is no cure yet we keep it alive? Why do we keep it alive?

All of the car companies and our representatives know about the FORD plant in Brazil, All of them know how to make a fuel efficient car that we want. So why do they fail?
US. It's our fault and we condoned it by not doing anything to stop it. Bill by Bill we let them pass laws that ruin cars and the ability to make them what they need to be. We have protected everyone hurting us with a law somewhere.

This country isn't broke financially as much as it is socially. We all got stupid and lazy and uncaring. We foresake ourselves and play the blame game. We bought bad cars no matter what and we also bought bigger trucklike vehicles when they tried to force small cars down our throats, but that was US that did it.

Phone calls don't mean crap anymore and threads like this don't either.They just get to realize that we don't see what they are doing so they can keep it going. When we look our repesentatives in the eye and they finally get scared for there lives and at the same time feel protected by us to do the right thing, all of the people in charge are going to fear for their lives from the people who have been dictating what goes on by greed and power.

We all get duped when a man says we have to have these corporations and banks to survive and do nothing to stop them because of it. You don't get rid of the company or bank you just get rid of the people in charge. We are all being led to believe that you can't do that these days yet we just got a new president and we still have a country.

Crooks are crooks and we need to show up with a great big CITIZENS ARREST.

If the people that have the most to lose don't start to smell the truth yet, we will all be told that we must like it that way or somebody would have done something.

The companies know what they are doing and we are getting suckered all the way to giving them what is left for pennies on the dollar and that is how they will all come out better on the other side and why they are still throwing the parties. They will win more when everything is lost. They will foresake you and your family to do it while saying it is good for you and the only thing they can do.

Come face to face with your problems and you stand a chance to see them for WHO they really are.

Were being sold out by our own complacent selves.

I'm doing my part how about you?

[shmoov69]

So i guess im not seeing your point. It seems like youre trying to complain about the union wage but if i read correctly....
-He owns a house in michigan that is roughly 500K.
-If he lived where you do, it would be worth 100K.
-He works for a big auto manufacturer.
-He makes about 85K/year.
-If he lived where you do, that exact same job would be 40K/year.
-So a comprable house is 5 times more expensive in Michigan than it would be if he lived where you do, yet hes only making roughly 2 times more than he would if he lived where you do. So whats the gripe again?

BTW id like to see how many hours were worked to attain that 85K....If a guy worked 40 hours a week screwing cars together and made 85K well thats a high wage. If he worked 68 hours a week to make 85K well thats more realistic and he earned every bit of it.....
A couple points here,
First off, the guy was overpaid to start with. He is just now starting to come in line, but not there yet. Yes it sucks, but it is what it is.
Second, why do you think that everything is so freaking expensive?? Because of cheap labor? I don't think so! Things are more expensive there BECAUSE of the union. People make more money, so the cost of living goes up, simple logic here.

I have said before, I would not be so opposed of the union IF and ONLY IF you got a superior worker......ie, you get what you pay for. But that aint the case! you usually get "that aint my job" or the whole seniority thing. You also have basicly a legal mafia so to speak. You want to see a small riot? Bring in "scabs" to replace the "union" workers and see what kind of violence happens, from the "union" side. And usually nothing is done about it. Pretty crappy IMO

This whole thing is not just UAW's fault, nor is it just GM's fault, it is just a combination of bad decisions, for a long long time.

Bailout? No, shouldn't. But yes, will be.

[Nicks67GTO]

A couple points here,
First off, the guy was overpaid to start with. He is just now starting to come in line, but not there yet. Yes it sucks, but it is what it is.
Second, why do you think that everything is so freaking expensive?? Because of cheap labor? I don't think so! Things are more expensive there BECAUSE of the union. People make more money, so the cost of living goes up, simple logic here.

I have said before, I would not be so opposed of the union IF and ONLY IF you got a superior worker......ie, you get what you pay for. But that aint the case! you usually get "that aint my job" or the whole seniority thing. You also have basicly a legal mafia so to speak. You want to see a small riot? Bring in "scabs" to replace the "union" workers and see what kind of violence happens, from the "union" side. And usually nothing is done about it. Pretty crappy IMO

This whole thing is not just UAW's fault, nor is it just GM's fault, it is just a combination of bad decisions, for a long long time.

Bailout? No, shouldn't. But yes, will be.

Maybe everyone needs to look at it in a different light. Maybe part of the problem is that the consumer wants things as cheap as they can get them. They dont care about where its coming from. Maybe one of the biggest problems is that companies continue to ship jobs out of the US so they dont have to pay people a decent wage and benifits just so that more americans will buy cheap ****. We as a country are cheaping ourselves to death. Its a monster that cant be stopped though....because no one is willing to buy american products that cost alot more. Now as far as the explaination of cost of living goes, i have to say thats a little too basic. Youre trying to tell me that the recent housing boom and fall, the cost of oil, the price of gas, the cost of energy etc etc etc has not played into the cost of living? Come on man be serious, thats not the unions fault....

[Damn True]

Let me give an (extreme) example whether you're union, non-union, or just a schlep trying to live somewhat comfortably. Almost everyone should be able to relate to this.
You haven't recieved a pay raise in 3+ years, the cost of everything (food, energy, health insurance, etc.) has gone up to the point that you're barely scraping by. And now, the company you work for wants to cut your pay by 10-20%.
How eager would you be to do that?
And, how much more would you be willing to give up before you said enough is enough?



See there's a part of the problem that "the rest of us" have with the Unions. None of us are assured a job at all, let alone routine cost of living increases. I live in the Silicon Valley. I got laid off in 2002 on the tail end of the .com/post 9-11 bust. At the time I was making some pretty good coin. Jobs at that level of income for what I do simply went away. I still worked in my field, but did so at roughly 60% of what I was making before because that was the state of the market. Around this time last year I changed jobs and I am now back to the same income level that I was at 6 years ago.

People don't have a RIGHT to a job. They don't have a RIGHT to a given standard of living. And they sure as hell don't have the RIGHT to dictate to the rest of the American populace what ought to be done with their tax money to protect either.

[Damn True]

I think the problems ARE political, especially since you have guys on here talking about how 401k is adequate for retirement, and that it's ok that in most homes both parents have to work. That's why America is on the decline in the first place.

I worked retail for 9 years and only earned 7k between company contributed 401k, MY contributed 401k, profit sharing, and stock holding. In the end of all that it came out to not even a thousand dollars a year. How the hell are you supposed to retire on less than $1000.00 per year?

I've worked both ends of it, and yeah, maybe the auto workers aren't a "skilled trade" like the tinners or plumbers, etc. and maybe they shouldn't make as much, but people quoting $75/hour are not talking about take home pay.

But I'll keep my mouth shut so you don't have to close the thread and I'll go elsewhere.

Mathius

You are supposed to educate yourself, find more lucrative employment and earn more. Or work more than one job.

[EFI69Cam]

Well, it seems I may have been incorrect. Though I am certain concerning my recollection that there were 2 different standards on early pollution controlled vehicles, I cannot find proof and thus will retract my assertion. However, I will say that the intent of the Congress was certainly to "scold" the domestic auto makers as the quote below shows.

The 1970 CAA Amendments represent a congressional shift in auto pollution law from flexibility to stringency. Senator Muskie opened the debate stating, "Detroit has told the nation that Americans cannot live without the automobile. This legislation would tell Detroit that if this is the case, they can make an automobile with which Americans can live" (source: http://www.answers.com/topic/national-emissions-standards-act-1965)

Worse, the timing of the implementation of both safety and emissions standards, and the near simultaneous occurrence of the various oil crisis most definitely uniquely hurt the domestic manufacturers.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill


I seem to recall that domestic cars had mandated equipment whereas imports only needed to meet a standard. I have seen pleny of late 70s early 80s imports without EGR or smog pumps.

[chicane67]

Until we all take time off from our personal lives to stand on the doorstep of the people in charge of everything that is wrong, it won't change.

Until we all realize that the people who are charge will not stop doing what they do, until we physically stop them... it will continue.

Were being sold out by our own complacent selves.

Uhm... Jim Nilsen for President in 2012 !!

Facts are facts... and you cant argue with the God's honest truth when stated like that.

[Tony_SS]

You are supposed to educate yourself, find more lucrative employment and earn more. Or work more than one job.

No, you're not supposed to invest in the Ponzi scheme because when you go to cash in, after taxes, and the invisible INFLATION tax you net about .20 on your invested 1.00.

[toxicz28]

See there's a part of the problem that "the rest of us" have with the Unions. None of us are assured a job at all, let alone routine cost of living increases. I live in the Silicon Valley. I got laid off in 2002 on the tail end of the .com/post 9-11 bust. At the time I was making some pretty good coin. Jobs at that level of income for what I do simply went away. I still worked in my field, but did so at roughly 60% of what I was making before because that was the state of the market. Around this time last year I changed jobs and I am now back to the same income level that I was at 6 years ago.

People don't have a RIGHT to a job. They don't have a RIGHT to a given standard of living. And they sure as hell don't have the RIGHT to dictate to the rest of the American populace what ought to be done with their tax money to protect either.
I never said the example was a union thing, but a worker thing. I never said anything about a right to a job either. I gave an example. And since you were the first. Put yourself in that position and tell us. What would you do under those circumstances True?

[James OLC]

I'm not going to answer for True but if I were in that postion (and I have been) I would find a new job. I don't understand why that seems like a foreign idea to some - ultimately your earning potential is limited by no one but yourself.

With respect to the actual prospect of GM declaring bankruptcy - I think that it is probably time but unfortunately, based on the news today, I don't think that it is going to matter:

From CNN


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is creating a task force to oversee the restructuring of the auto industry, a senior administration official said Monday.

General Motors and Chrysler LLC face deadlines Tuesday for submitting plans to the administration detailing how they can turn themselves around.

The task force will include members from the Departments of Treasury, Labor, Transportation, Commerce, and Energy, the National Economic Council, the White House Office of Energy and Environment, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Environmental Protection Agency, the official said...

link: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/news/companies/obama_auto_task_force/index.htm?postversion=2009021611

"oversee the restructuring of the auto industry"... ummm... that sounds pretty broad... and maybe a little more aggressive concept than is neccessary...

Likewise, the makeup of the panel seems like there will be too many interests who will be competing to be heard, most probably to the detriment of the industry.

I guess that we'll see what happens tomorrow.

[Twentyover]

I seem to recall that domestic cars had mandated equipment whereas imports only needed to meet a standard. I have seen pleny of late 70s early 80s imports without EGR or smog pumps.


I belive that all cars needed to meet the same standards, but imports utilized different technology to achieve the same ends. For instance, Nissan utilized acoustic tuning in lieu of an air injection pump to get air into the exhaust manifold. Detroit embraces one technology, imports another, all achieving the same goal.

I don't believe that there is a rule or law that says "An engine built by a Detriot manufacturer needs an air pump." If so, where are the air pumps on 2.9 and 4.0L cologne V6 engines? If you truley believe this rule exists, I'd like to see it in thr Federal Register.

[Twentyover]

Going to go out on a limb here,and take a position no one else seems to get.

In the first and second quarter 2008, everything was fine. The wages weren't too high, the imports weren't smarter- the UAW had agreed with the Detroit automakers to start the VEBA program (reducing legacy costs)- all was on course to get at least GM and Ford profitable by 2011 or so.

Then, the implosion in the credit market occured in parallel w/ the evaporation in housing values. GM's problems were't it was paying it's hourlys too much, it's that they we building cars to stock and not selling anything.

IF this was a wage issue, WHY are Toyota, Nissan, and Honda bleeding red ink?

This is, IMO, strictly a sales issue. The banks screwed w/high risk securities, got themselves insolvent, stopped loaning money, so nobody can buy cars.

Meanwhile, the Detroit boys have huge payrolls and capital costs that need tobe met.

And that is why GM and Chrysler, and toa lesser extent Ford, are needed to kowtow to the Feds, who screwed up by not regulating the damn banking industry.

And why I'm sitting on my can looking for work now.



Probably off topic, and probably going toget myself talked to by the mods

[James OLC]

...all was on course to get at least GM and Ford profitable by 2011 or so...

Fundamental economic fact #1 - if your business is not going to be profitable for three years or so, and you are going to be bleeding cash at remarkable rate during that same time - everything is not fine.

[chicane67]

...The imports weren't smarter-

WHY are Toyota, Nissan, and Honda bleeding red ink?

Because in a sense... they actually are smarter.

[Twentyover]

deleted

[Damn True]

I never said the example was a union thing, but a worker thing. I never said anything about a right to a job either. I gave an example. And since you were the first. Put yourself in that position and tell us. What would you do under those circumstances True?

Uh....change line of work? Move? Get a second job tending bar? Go back to school?

Note: none of the above require help from a nanny state or socialistic union.


......to which you are likely to reply something in the vein of "easy to say, but what if you own a home or blah, blah, blah..."

To which I will pre-reply, "Too f-ing bad. You gotta do what you gotta do to take care of your family. It's your obligation not that of anyone else."

[shmoov69]

Maybe everyone needs to look at it in a different light. Maybe part of the problem is that the consumer wants things as cheap as they can get them. They dont care about where its coming from. Maybe one of the biggest problems is that companies continue to ship jobs out of the US so they dont have to pay people a decent wage and benifits just so that more americans will buy cheap ****. We as a country are cheaping ourselves to death. Its a monster that cant be stopped though....because no one is willing to buy american products that cost alot more. Now as far as the explaination of cost of living goes, i have to say thats a little too basic. Youre trying to tell me that the recent housing boom and fall, the cost of oil, the price of gas, the cost of energy etc etc etc has not played into the cost of living? Come on man be serious, thats not the unions fault....
You are absolutely correct on Americans cheaping ourselves to death. I have said for along time that WE (Americans) have sold ourselves out for the sake of "cheap". 100% true Who's fault first? I dunno, maybe the govts for letting the "fair trade" be......well........UNfair!

Now the cost of living "example", yes it is VERY basic. But I was comparing what you said about Detroit (I'm assuming) cost of living compared to Trey's (I think) cost of living, and how it was higher in MI. I STILL believe that the "difference" IS the unions fault. Go to almost any area that has a big union force and compare it to an area where there is not a strong union presence, the difference in cost of living is drastic. All the other things you mentioned raised the cost of living on EVERYONE, not just the unionized areas. But the "spread" is still there.
Don't know if that is any clearer to what I am trying to say. :)

[Damn True]

You are absolutely correct on Americans cheaping ourselves to death. I have said for along time that WE (Americans) have sold ourselves out for the sake of "cheap". 100% true Who's fault first? I dunno, maybe the govts for letting the "fair trade" be......well........UNfair!

Now the cost of living "example", yes it is VERY basic. But I was comparing what you said about Detroit (I'm assuming) cost of living compared to Trey's (I think) cost of living, and how it was higher in MI. I STILL believe that the "difference" IS the unions fault. Go to almost any area that has a big union force and compare it to an area where there is not a strong union presence, the difference in cost of living is drastic. All the other things you mentioned raised the cost of living on EVERYONE, not just the unionized areas. But the "spread" is still there.
Don't know if that is any clearer to what I am trying to say. :)

Remember that what a house costs is often not at all related to what it is worth. Houses more so than nearly any other thing cost what the market will bear. If incomes are high, so are home prices. Because if people have the money to buy them....they will. The problem in MI is that you have a lot of people who are earning double or more what they are worth. If the auto plant job goes away there is no f'ing way for them to get another job at the same pay. Because they are not worth that much money. They are under skilled and overpaid.

Thus those people absolutely NEED the union to continue to beat the automaker into submission. They are dependent on that teat because they build lifestyles around an income level that they cannot generate on their own. It's a classic tenet of the Marxist philosophy to make the worker dependent on the state. In this case the state is the Union. But if we don't collectively pull our heads out, before too long we'll have a majority of people dependent on "The State" that isn't a state sitting next to the Potomac.

[WS6]

I'm not going to answer for True but if I were in that postion (and I have been) I would find a new job. I don't understand why that seems like a foreign idea to some - ultimately your earning potential is limited by no one but yourself.

With respect to the actual prospect of GM declaring bankruptcy - I think that it is probably time but unfortunately, based on the news today, I don't think that it is going to matter:

From CNN


link: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/news/companies/obama_auto_task_force/index.htm?postversion=2009021611

"oversee the restructuring of the auto industry"... ummm... that sounds pretty broad... and maybe a little more aggressive concept than is neccessary...

Likewise, the makeup of the panel seems like there will be too many interests who will be competing to be heard, most probably to the detriment of the industry.

I guess that we'll see what happens tomorrow.

This is scary. Considering the changes Obama has already made to other industries ie banking and all Federal works projects it wouldn't surprise me to see them nationalize some part of the auto industry. Britain did it and it's a huge failure yet no one over here cares. Japan did a huge bailout of their economy in the 90s and it didn't work there either. We did it in the 30s and it didn't work yet FDR is heralded as having done something amazing. Seriously, as one of the younger people in this thread (28), I don't think most of you can understand how I was never told the truth of things. In school, I was taught FDR and his programs saved the country. In school, I was never told blacks owned slaves. Just last week I learned the first person in this country to sue over the ownership of another human being was a black man. A black man was the first slave owner in this country. How does this have anything to do with this post? We ignore the truth because it's too hard to handle. We go down the road others have gone before ignoring their warnings or not caring what happened to them as if it will be different for us. How hard is it to see that many of the ideas that are being proposed to fix the problems we are having have been enacted in other countries and have failed miserably? I'm going to have ot agree 110% with what Jim has said. Very well put Jim.

The one thought that was put out during the first bailout talks that really scared me was the repeated line about the auto makers need to build cars that people want. Who is going to decide that? Will it be "the people" or will it be a group of people who convinced others to give them power yet have never shown that they desrve it or could earn it? What are these people qualifications to make such decisions?

We can talk about what got us here all we want. It's important to know so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. However, the more important thing to pay attention to is the response or responses that we will get for this "crisis". The future lies ahead and the ideas that are forming about it are not too pretty if you ask me.

[Nicks67GTO]

Then, the implosion in the credit market occured in parallel w/ the evaporation in housing values. GM's problems were't it was paying it's hourlys too much, it's that they we building cars to stock and not selling anything.


Great point! This exact same thing is what about killed John Deere in the early 80's when ag went to crap. They were running tractors off the line as if there was no problem and thinking they would be selling them soon.... then no one bought. Now we only make a tractor if its already sold. Maybe GM, Ford and Chrysler will have to do more of this type of thing somehow

[Damn True]

Great point! This exact same thing is what about killed John Deere in the early 80's when ag went to crap. They were running tractors off the line as if there was no problem and thinking they would be selling them soon.... then no one bought. Now we only make a tractor if its already sold. Maybe GM, Ford and Chrysler will have to do more of this type of thing somehow

Well that is an interesting point. I think a lot of people yearn for the days when they could order a car or truck with exactly the list of options they wanted. Mini does this right now, though you can buy off the lot as well. People didn't seem to mind the wait back then and Mini sure isn't having trouble with the model.

[Nicks67GTO]

Remember that what a house costs is often not at all related to what it is worth. Houses more so than nearly any other thing cost what the market will bear. If incomes are high, so are home prices. Because if people have the money to buy them....they will. The problem in MI is that you have a lot of people who are earning double or more what they are worth. If the auto plant job goes away there is no f'ing way for them to get another job at the same pay. Because they are not worth that much money. They are under skilled and overpaid.

Thus those people absolutely NEED the union to continue to beat the automaker into submission. They are dependent on that teat because they build lifestyles around an income level that they cannot generate on their own. It's a classic tenet of the Marxist philosophy to make the worker dependent on the state. In this case the state is the Union. But if we don't collectively pull our heads out, before too long we'll have a majority of people dependent on "The State" that isn't a state sitting next to the Potomac.

I guess I understand what you are saying about guys putting screws in cars being unskilled workers. They are "unskilled" in a worldly kind of way, i mean they havent gone to college right? And that in itself automatically makes you a skilled worker right? Well if you ask anyone thats been to college the answer is "yes." The most entitled a-holes ive ever seen are kids right out of college that think they have the world by the sack because they got a degree. You talk about people that feel entitled? College grads are right up there.....

[Nicks67GTO]

Well that is an interesting point. I think a lot of people yearn for the days when they could order a car or truck with exactly the list of options they wanted. Mini does this right now, though you can buy off the lot as well. People didn't seem to mind the wait back then and Mini sure isn't having trouble with the model.

It would be great and I would be willing to wait. If this was the case i would order a V-8 4wd F-150 crew cab with ac, ps, pb and carpet. Thats it. I dont think I can do this anymore and I think its BS. As soon as you order one thing you have to order the entire package that jacks the price up big time....I want a cheap truck that is going to take an absolute beating and get me around. I do not want a "luxary truck" wich is almost a requirement for a crew cab truck....i think this may fall under the category of people not wanting what Detroit is selling

[Damn True]

Well for the record you can't get that from the import brands either.

[D_Presley916]

I just gotta put in my .02. I work for the railroad as a Union freight car mechanic, so I am biased towards Unions, so I will start by discussing two non-union companies. Wal-Mart more specifically Sams Club vs. Costco, both sell very similar items at very similar prices, Sams starting wage is minimum wage guaranteed, Costcos starting wage $13.00 an hour, yet both companies are profiting and doing very well. How is it that Costco can pay more to employees and stay competitive, simple they are not overly greedy and they believe in making a fair profit. Just a little side note, Wal-Mart bought two Wal-Mart style companies in Germany, they were both Union, they are still Union, proof that Wal-Mart can sustain higher wages and still make a profit.

Now back to G.M. some of you have an issue with the fact that employees who are laid off, will continue to be paid. Can that not be compared to a severance package given to most upper management. Remember the guy from Wamu that only worked there for about a week or a day, I dont remember exactly how long it was but he was given an enormous severance package because it was in his contract, did he deserve it just because he went to college? Absolutely not. I dont think that was smart business or fair, but I'm sure the CEO didnt go up to him and say gee whiz I know we have a contractual agreement but we did not forsee this happening, would you consider taking $500 and a handshake instead. A Union agreement is the same thing, but all the sudden things get rough and they expect the Union to bow down and give back everything they fought for, what should happen is they should start from the top and start making pay cuts, maybe sell a few jets, before the Union even considers giving anything back.

My last point (only because I keep losing my train of thought) is on seniority, I used to be a Union Tinner, so that will be my example. lets start with the non union journeyman, lets say he has been with the company 10 years and has earned the company several millions of dollars, now lets say a young kid right out of High School gets hired on as an apprentice, the 10 year journeyman is tasked with training him, the Journeyman really loves what he does and the kid really seems interested in the work so the Journeyman takes his time with the kid and really does a great job training him. Now in 1 year the kid knows enough to run jobs on his own and makes 1/3 of what the journeyman makes, the company decides to cut back a little and lay a guy off, the journeyman makes a lot more than the apprentice but he is now more than capable of handling the work, so the journeyman gets laid off to save a few more dollars. The Journeyman receives nothing more than a thank you if hes lucky.
So what actually ends up happening is the Journeyman holds back a ton of information and training just in case times get tough and someone gets laid off, so he can keep his job, everyone suffers
On the Union side of things, the Journeyman is not scared of losing his job to apprentices because the companies were not aloud to hire more than 3 apprentices to every 1 Journeyman, which meant if you had 3 journeyman and 9 apprentices you had to lay off 3 apprentices before any journeyman could go. Now a little side note on how to become a journeyman, first you get hired as a pre apprentice and if the company likes you they sponsor you and you can go to the Union apprenticeship school which is a 5 year program accredited by American River College, so once you graduate from the program you are a college graduate and a Union member, so is that skilled or non skilled labor?

Sorry if I rambled my thoughts were all over the place.

[ProTouring442]

Neighbors Bonny? Junk. He's on his 3rd motor in 150k miles.

3rd motor? maybe he needs to stop buying junkyard engines. If all 3 have been new, he needs to learn how to spell o-i-l c-h-a-n-g-e


Also just replaced (again) all tranny lines - they rusted out.

And since GM doesn't sell replacement cooler lines (they are considered "standard parts") what exactly does this prove, other than the fact that you live in an area that heavily salts its roads?


He hates that car. See how individual experiences are? Meaningless. It's in the aggragate that you see trends.

Ok, we can go back to 1965...

My parents and other family members have owned, and had little trouble with:

1965 Oldsmobile Cutlass(parent's car): traveled over 100K-no problems

1972 Oldsmobile Custom Cruizer Wagon(parent's car): 250K-no major problems

1976 Oldsmobile Cultass(Grand parent's):180K, then Gramps hit a curb HARD

1969 Cutlass 4-door(Oldest uncle's): over 300K. Needed a trany rebuild early one. Other than that, only normal maintenance. I got the front disc brakes off of it for my '66 Chevelle after it was totaled by a drunk.

1986 Pontiac 6000STE(Grand Parent's): 200K-Normal Maintenance

1983 Pontiac Trans Am(Youngest uncle's): At first this one did have a few electronic difficulties, until we convinced my uncle to stop washing the engine every time he washed the car. 200K

1980 Oldsmobile Toronado(Mom's): 150K. In that time it did need 3 intake manifold gaskets. Modern gasket technology would have solved this.

1986 Pontiac Grand Prix(Mine): 200K-no problems

1987 Monte Carlo(Ex GF's): 150K-died when it hit a tree

1979 Oldsmobile Cutlass(Dad's): 200K-no major problems, sold at a profit (purchased at 100K)

1981 Oldsmobile Custom Cruizer(Dad's): 200K

1979 Oldsmobile Custom Cruizer(Dad's): Still made 150K, even after I damned near killed it hitting a tree around the 125K mark

1985 Buick Wagon: 250K

199? (can't rmemeber) Chevrolet Caprice Wagon: Currently over 150K: No Problems

Oh, and there was a '71 or '72 Olds Cutlass 4-door in there somewhere... I know it went to at least 100K as my dad purchased it wholesale to use as a commuter somewhere near the 100K mark... I'll have to call dad back...

Maybe GM only sells junk in Pennsylvania?

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[wmhjr]

Going to go out on a limb here,and take a position no one else seems to get.

In the first and second quarter 2008, everything was fine. The wages weren't too high, the imports weren't smarter- the UAW had agreed with the Detroit automakers to start the VEBA program (reducing legacy costs)- all was on course to get at least GM and Ford profitable by 2011 or so.

Then, the implosion in the credit market occured in parallel w/ the evaporation in housing values. GM's problems were't it was paying it's hourlys too much, it's that they we building cars to stock and not selling anything.

IF this was a wage issue, WHY are Toyota, Nissan, and Honda bleeding red ink?

This is, IMO, strictly a sales issue. The banks screwed w/high risk securities, got themselves insolvent, stopped loaning money, so nobody can buy cars.

Meanwhile, the Detroit boys have huge payrolls and capital costs that need tobe met.

And that is why GM and Chrysler, and toa lesser extent Ford, are needed to kowtow to the Feds, who screwed up by not regulating the damn banking industry.

And why I'm sitting on my can looking for work now.



Probably off topic, and probably going toget myself talked to by the mods

So let's clear up a couple things right now. I'm tired of hearing people claim that the reason Detroit is in trouble is because "the Feds screwed up the banking..."

NOT TRUE - PERIOD!

Take a look at Chrysler for example. Do you know the main reason why Mercedes took a quality beating between 2003-2005? Because of the Daimler Chrysler fiasco. The actual financial situation of Chrysler BEFORE 2003 was SO bad that they were bleeding like crazy. Mercedes (Daimler Chrysler) had to siphon SO much money away from their core product that it cased massive quality issues on the MB side. Don't believe me? Believe the WSJ. The NYT. The Washington Post. Business Week. Take your pick. The business week quote in 2005 was "Far from being the perfect hedge, Chrysler proved to be a massive rescue job that sucked up billions and absorbed German management for years.".

Come ON people! Wake UP! PLEASE don't make stuff up about how the federal government failing to regulate the banking industry is responsible for this. IT IS NOT. And frankly, the federal government that got us into this mess to begin with. To be very honest, it was trying to use our economy as a social experiment without regard for credit risk that sent us down this path. It was trying to push how every man, woman and child in this country has a "right" to home ownership.

There are a number of vehicles that GM makes that it lost money on every unit sold. Frankly, this is nothing new for GM. A senior management representative back in the late 70s made the comment "for every Chevette we sell, we're putting $600 in every trunk. That's how much we lose on every one we sell".

[wmhjr]

3rd motor? maybe he needs to stop buying junkyard engines. If all 3 have been new, he needs to learn how to spell o-i-l c-h-a-n-g-e



And since GM doesn't sell replacement cooler lines (they are considered "standard parts") what exactly does this prove, other than the fact that you live in an area that heavily salts its roads?

Maybe GM only sells junk in Pennsylvania?

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

Maybe you missed the first part of my comment, where I said individual experiences really don't mean anything, but it's the aggragate that counts? I was simply proving my point - but you missed it. The point is that on "average" the imports are frankly of superior quality according to service records, longevity, and resale value.

But, to respond to your other comments....

You also apparently missed the entire part about how the Silverado for example is maintained and used EXACTLY LIKE ALL MY OTHER VEHICLES. That it is the ONLY ONE with any rust issues whatsoever. So, unless there is some magic pixie dust that Honda, Mazda, BMW and Mercedes use to prevent such rust, the only other explanation is that the GM product uses substandard materials. Like on those minor components called frames.

If you really think that somebody with a 18 year old Bonny should buy a new engine, while it's rusting out......

For every person who has a bad story, there is somebody who has a contradictory comment about it. That's fine.

But here is one thing that cannot be overlooked. GM does not stand behind their product. When Toyota had a truck frame rust issue, what did they do? They offered to buy back every single one of them at a premium. Now, what did GM do?

Nothing. Pics are available. GM got them. They just said "sorry".

[andrewb70]

.....

There are a number of vehicles that GM makes that it lost money on every unit sold......

It's OK. They make it up in volume...:hammer:

Andrew

[parsonsj]

But here is one thing that cannot be overlooked. GM does not stand behind their product. When Toyota had a truck frame rust issue, what did they do? They offered to buy back every single one of them at a premium. Now, what did GM do?If the the two problems were of the same magnitude, I would expect that the solutions offered by the two companies to be similar, and if they weren't, one could make a judgement.

But the Tacoma frame rust problem is a clear manufacturing defect, and Toyota got lit up all over the country. They screwed up big time, and they have no choice but to admit it and make it right. Toyota is buying the trucks back at current value retail pricing. It's not enough to go buy another new one. The funny thing is that it probably isn't enough to buy a used Chevy or GMC, or Ford... since they hold their value so much better. And anybody who bought a Tacoma with the intention of keeping it for 10 years or more is out of luck. They'll be better off buying a domestic truck if they want something with a track record of value over time.

When one goes looking for a similar GM story with their Chevy trucks and frame rust, you find very little. There is no systemic rust problem, and there is no clear manufacturing defect. One would assume the company response would be different. I'm sorry that your truck seems to have had its share of problems with rust, but at least GM didn't screw up the drain holes on it.

If you want some alternative data (that doesn't support your basic argument...), do some googling on Rav4 rust issues. You'll find that Toyota is not doing the same thing there.

As a matter of fact, your argument seems a little turned around to me: you are giving kudos to the company that messed up big time, and taking credit away from the company with a good track record of making quality trucks at good value.

jp

[wmhjr]

If the the two problems were of the same magnitude, I would expect that the solutions offered by the two companies to be similar, and if they weren't, one could make a judgement.

But the Tacoma frame rust problem is a clear manufacturing defect, and Toyota got lit up all over the country. They screwed up big time, and they have no choice but to admit it and make it right. Toyota is buying the trucks back at current value retail pricing. It's not enough to go buy another new one. The funny thing is that it probably isn't enough to buy a used Chevy or GMC, or Ford... since they hold their value so much better. And anybody who bought a Tacoma with the intention of keeping it for 10 years or more is out of luck. They'll be better off buying a domestic truck if they want something with a track record of value over time.

When one goes looking for a similar GM story with their Chevy trucks and frame rust, you find very little. There is no systemic rust problem, and there is no clear manufacturing defect. One would assume the company response would be different. I'm sorry that your truck seems to have had its share of problems with rust, but at least GM didn't screw up the drain holes on it.

If you want some alternative data (that doesn't support your basic argument...), do some googling on Rav4 rust issues. You'll find that Toyota is not doing the same thing there.

As a matter of fact, your argument seems a little turned around to me: you are giving kudos to the company that messed up big time, and taking credit away from the company with a good track record of making quality trucks at good value.

jp

Actually not true whatsoever. I can provide you with the names at the GM Executive office that fully admitted the rust issues associated with the '00 and '01 Silverado line. They freely admitted that there was a significant quality issue.

This would be somewhat similar to the horrendous rear disc brake issues with the early 90's Luminas. They were defective on the showroom floor, and were never truly fixed nor supported. Actually, the GM solution was to put rear drums back on the car in the mid 90's - but customers who purchased the previous vehicles were out of luck.

The measure of a company is not simply in how good a quality product they produce, but also how they honestly and openly deal with issues. Again, I've stated that every experience may be different, but in the aggragate the story is told. And in those averages, GM unfortunately is extremely poor.

My father is a retired UAW employee. I was raised on GM products. However, at this point my father will not purchase a new GM product, and strongly recommended buying a Honda minivan for my wife. That's a strong statement.

[parsonsj]

Actually not true whatsoever. I can provide you with the names at the GM Executive office that fully admitted the rust issues associated with the '00 and '01 Silverado line. They freely admitted that there was a significant quality issue.Very intriguing. Did that admission make the news? Got a link?

jp

[wmhjr]

Very intriguing. Did that admission make the news? Got a link?

jp

Nope. No link. And no it hasn't made the news - at least to my knowledge. Did the 90's lumina rear brake issue make the news? No. Was it real? Any mechanic on this planet who ever touched a '90-'93 Lumina, Regal, etc can vouch for the poor rear brake caliper design that resulted in virtually every single car having non-functioning rear brakes the majority of the time.

I am not making this up. As I said, I have direct evidence, and written correspondence - as well as a junk truck sitting (so far) for about a year that I'm having to rebuild as a result of GM poor quality and non-existant support. If you're truly interested let me know. We can talk. It's very real. I was an ardent supporter of GM for many many years. I bought nothing BUT GM. I will never again buy one - except for a classic or older muscle car. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (or 3, 4, or 5 times) - shame on me.

[Damn True]

Virtually every car had a rear brake failure and there wasn't a recall?

Where do we keep the BS flag?

[surlyjoe]

The rear brake problem was real. The caliper would seize up on the pins. It was more a matter of maintenance. Every rear disk vehicle that is driven in extremes like salty winter will have this issue from time to time. Those cars may have been worse than most. As far as your vehicles and rust I think your environment isn't helping. Also do you ever wash the salt off during the winter?

[parsonsj]

I am not making this up. As I said, I have direct evidence, and written correspondence.I believe you believe this. But I'm skeptical that a "significant quality issue" that spanned two model years on one of the highest selling vehicles on the road did not make the news. If you have written evidence, let's see it.

If you have direct written evidence, why haven't you made it public before now?

I gotta say that I'm starting to think your location has a lot to do with both of these situations. I know how much salt Pennsylvania road crews put on the road.

jp

[wmhjr]

Virtually every car had a rear brake failure and there wasn't a recall?

Where do we keep the BS flag?

Are you familiar with it? Didn't think so. Just do a quick search why don't you...

http://www.autosafety.org/chevrolet-lumina

Or maybe just ask yourself why the Lumina went back to rear drum brakes in '95?

The sliders on the rear brake calipers consistently corroded. The only way you knew was that when you had the vehicle inspected you would see that the pads had no wear - because they were not working. The only repair was a "repair kit" from GM that essentially included a couple seals and some lube. It generally worked for less than a year. Then you did it again. And again. And again.

Put the BS flag away. Not necessary.

[wmhjr]

The rear brake problem was real. The caliper would seize up on the pins. It was more a matter of maintenance. Every rear disk vehicle that is driven in extremes like salty winter will have this issue from time to time. Those cars may have been worse than most. As far as your vehicles and rust I think your environment isn't helping. Also do you ever wash the salt off during the winter?

First of all, remember that the rear discs on this model were eliminated in '95. They went back to drum brakes. On this car. Because of the issue.

Maybe you missed the part where I stated that the vehicles are well maintained. That all vehicles I own are maintained well - and identically. They are washed. None of my other vehicles exhibit this. Frankly, the '66 Pontiac frame that was essentially sitting out in the field for the last umpteen years had a frame that was in far superior condition than the '00 Silverado w/50K miles.

[wmhjr]

I believe you believe this. But I'm skeptical that a "significant quality issue" that spanned two model years on one of the highest selling vehicles on the road did not make the news. If you have written evidence, let's see it.

If you have direct written evidence, why haven't you made it public before now?

I gotta say that I'm starting to think your location has a lot to do with both of these situations. I know how much salt Pennsylvania road crews put on the road.

jp

OK, you're right. I'm imagining everything. The discussions I had with the GM Executive office at (313) 667-7153 were just my imagination. The discussions I had with Lee Mundy, VP of Engineering, never took place. The '00 Silverado truck sitting in my garage that I removed state registration and insurance on, that has 50k miles, that I bought brand new, is a figment of my imagination. The fact that none of my other vehicles have this issue, including my daily driver car which is driven in every single snowstorm, ice, salt, etc, have any rust is due to the magic pixie dust. All vehicles in Pennsylvania have rusted out frames.

OK, yeah.

I guess today I'll pretend that I've driven that truck sometime in the past year. I'll pretend that I never got those letters from GM. BTW, I HAVE made some of that documentation public, and frankly I pushed GM pretty hard. I don't need to publish every document or conversation I have to justify my position that GM frankly failed. I honestly don't feel the need. If people want to give them more money, fine. But not me, and I've got VERY good reason.

You know, if we were talking about a machine job that screwed up boring a block and failed to make it right, people here would be fine with taking them to task. But the problem here is that people have blind loyalty in some cases and can't see when things don't go their way. I was like that. Maybe that's why I'm adamant that I'll never give GM another dime. I supported them - pretty much without question - and paid the price. No more.

[wmhjr]

Since there are so many non-believers..... Here's a pic. This was taken last year after I removed the bed in order to start getting at things. The vehicle was only moved to where it is in this picture in order to have room to lift the bed and put it somewhere else. Prior to this - and since - it has been garaged.

The frame is rusty. The interesting thing is that it rusted from the inside out. In other words, there is a rubbery coating from the factory on the frame, and the metal rusted through finally breaking the coating. The crossmembers have pinholes all the way around them near the joints to the frame rails. The body is rusty all along the rockers from the back of the cab to the front. In particular on the frame, you can see where the rust exists UNDER the coating. Unlike what you normally see for rust, where exposed metal starts to rust and then flakes off, in this case it really seems as though whatever coating GM put on (from the factory) trapped some sort of moisture or corrosive, causing the underlying metal to begin rusting. I have never seen anything like this before. The guy doing the interior on my '66 has a son who owns an '01 Silverado. His is exactly the same. The GM Executive office and a Senior VP of Engineering admitted to abnormal rust issues specific to the first 2.5 yrs of this model run.

The truck was well maintained, and lightly used. Honestly, it rarely saw action in the winter but was kept clean. My car is AWD. In 8 (going on 9) years it (the truck) barely has 50k miles on it. All of my vehicles are VERY well maintained. They generally look - and run - like new when I sell them used (with a couple exceptions, including the '90 Lumina).

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[parsonsj]

But the problem here is that people have blind loyalty in some cases and can't see when things don't go their way. I was like that. Maybe that's why I'm adamant that I'll never give GM another dime. I supported them - pretty much without question - and paid the price. No more.Don't include me in this description. I am no apologist for GM. They are like a hundred other large American corporations, soulless, and without any real ethical values other than that which is driven by profit and fear of lawsuit.

I'm just questioning your equating the Tacoma truck deal with your own Chevy truck. I don't see the equality, and you've provided no evidence other than your own truck. I remain unconvinced. That's not a personal judgement about you, so don't take it personally.

jp

[wmhjr]

Don't include me in this description I hope. I am no apologist for GM. They are like a hundred other large American corporations, soulless, and without any real ethical values other than that which is driven by profit and fear of lawsuit.

I'm just questioning your equating the Tacoma truck deal with your own Chevy truck. I don't see the equality, and you've provided no evidence other than your own truck. I remain unconvinced. That's not a personal judgement about you, so don't take it personally.

jp

And the fact that you question whether GM actually admitted to quality issues when I posted it IS a personal judgement. I've told you which office, and now even a name. I've now shown a picture which graphically shows clearly unacceptable results. I fail to understand exactly what more I need to "prove". There's a truck with a rusted frame - that has holes in it. GM's efforts were half hearted at best. I STILL have a voicemail saved on my cell phone from GM's Executive office that once every month or so I have to listen to (it prompts me that it's going to delete it if I don't save it) reminds me of their poor customer service.

I take heavy issue with people who point to Toyota and say, "well, they have RECALLS! That's TERRIBLE!". No, it isn't. I have no problem with a company issuing a recall and taking care of their customer. Owning up to a problem is FAR better than ignoring it. Take a look at the URL for the Lumina rear brakes. THOUSANDS of reported claims. GM refused a recall. They abandoned their customers - then eliminated the very design that was poor to begin with. There are degrees of failure, and GM has reached my tolerance.

[Twentyover]

So let's clear up a couple things right now. I'm tired of hearing people claim that the reason Detroit is in trouble is because "the Feds screwed up the banking..."

NOT TRUE - PERIOD!

Take a look at Chrysler for example. Do you know the main reason why Mercedes took a quality beating between 2003-2005? Because of the Daimler Chrysler fiasco. The actual financial situation of Chrysler BEFORE 2003 was SO bad that they were bleeding like crazy. Mercedes (Daimler Chrysler) had to siphon SO much money away from their core product that it cased massive quality issues on the MB side. Don't believe me? Believe the WSJ. The NYT. The Washington Post. Business Week. Take your pick. The business week quote in 2005 was "Far from being the perfect hedge, Chrysler proved to be a massive rescue job that sucked up billions and absorbed German management for years.".

Come ON people! Wake UP! PLEASE don't make stuff up about how the federal government failing to regulate the banking industry is responsible for this. IT IS NOT. And frankly, the federal government that got us into this mess to begin with. To be very honest, it was trying to use our economy as a social experiment without regard for credit risk that sent us down this path. It was trying to push how every man, woman and child in this country has a "right" to home ownership.

There are a number of vehicles that GM makes that it lost money on every unit sold. Frankly, this is nothing new for GM. A senior management representative back in the late 70s made the comment "for every Chevette we sell, we're putting $600 in every trunk. That's how much we lose on every one we sell".


While I don't agree on point that the Feds didn't under-regulate the banking industry, that's not the thrust of this argument; that is, that the fundamental cause of the current situation was not union wages, but sales tanking.

The implosion in housing values, which has pushed a number of banks to the edge of insolvency, has caused a large number of them to modify lending practices, resulting in a lack of credit and sales. This is being felt by all manufacturer's- note that Toyota's sales loss was IIRC the same as Ford's. If I'm incorrect,it was the same GM's- I haven't seen the graphic in a couple weeks.

The legislatures' experiment in social engineering, by perverting the Community Redevelopment Act, forcing banks to loan money to those who have no possible method to repay, and the fraud that the mortgage and banking industries the resulted, are a seperate issue, and are where I fault the federal regulation.

[Mr.VENGEANCE]

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2009/02/momovi-1.jpg

[wmhjr]

While I don't agree on point that the Feds didn't under-regulate the banking industry, that's not the thrust of this argument; that is, that the fundamental cause of the current situation was not union wages, but sales tanking.

The implosion in housing values, which has pushed a number of banks to the edge of insolvency, has caused a large number of them to modify lending practices, resulting in a lack of credit and sales. This is being felt by all manufacturer's- note that Toyota's sales loss was IIRC the same as Ford's. If I'm incorrect,it was the same GM's- I haven't seen the graphic in a couple weeks.



You're making a big mistake. The issue is NOT the sales volume. Yes, Toyota saw a huge drop in sales volume. It's PROFITABILITY!!!!! Yes, they are being impacted by a reduction in sales. But this is NOT what is causing problems at the Big 3. It is a lack of margin resulting from extraordinarily high expense creating huge operating losses. Take a look at the Toyota EPS - TODAY. Or last month. Last quarter. Compare that to GM. Toyota might have a slight loss of share value (about 2.6 or so) for ONE quarter - which is a first - and that's only share value. Now look at GM EPS.

That's what people are just not understanding. The credit crunch has certainly made matters worse for GM. But it did NOT CAUSE the problem. Just like Chrysler. Mercedes abandoned Chrysler after sinking billions of dollars into them. That was WAY before this current mess.

You can't focus on gross sales figures. You've got to look at profitability.

[parsonsj]

Amidst an ongoing financing struggle, and facing a Tuesday deadline to present a restructuring plan, General Motors Corp. is seriously considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and forming a new company, according to a report in today’s Wall Street Journal.So... to get us all back on track, what happened? Got an update?

jp

[parsonsj]

I'll answer my own question:
When all is said and done,GM (GM, Fortune 500) said that by 2011 it could need a total of $30 billion, which includes the $13.4 billion in Treasury loans it has already received. In the near term, GM will most certainly need $9.1 billion in additional loans and could require another $7.5 billion in the next two years if auto sales don't improve.

Here's (http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/auto_plans/index.htm?postversion=2009021716) the whole story.

jp

[WS6]

I say Chapter 11. The government needs to stop making loans by taking from me and you to do so.

[shmoov69]

Sadly it ain't gonna happen Trey, and even sadder is that it is only gonna get worse! I would hope that it will be for only 3-4 more years, but I am quite affraid it will be starting from here on out the way the sheeple are starting to believe......that the government IS their savior.

[Damn True]

I say Chapter 11. The government needs to stop making loans by taking from me and you to do so.


I agree. But, the UAW played a big part in the results of the recent election at both the legislative and executive level. Thus, those who took fat checks from the UAW are not about to let GM and Mopar (Ford I think might make it on their own) go BK and crush the UAW. Therefore you and I will be made to pay for the bridge loan/bailout/handout or whatever they plan to call this one. Any way you spell it, it's my freakin money going to people who did not earn it.

[wicked68]

I agree. But, the UAW played a big part in the results of the recent election at both the legislative and executive level. Thus, those who took fat checks from the UAW are not about to let GM and Mopar (Ford I think might make it on their own) go BK and crush the UAW. Therefore you and I will be made to pay for the bridge loan/bailout/handout or whatever they plan to call this one. Any way you spell it, it's my freakin money going to people who did not earn it.


welcome to the USSA - united socialist states of america

:scared:

[wmhjr]

I agree. But, the UAW played a big part in the results of the recent election at both the legislative and executive level. Thus, those who took fat checks from the UAW are not about to let GM and Mopar (Ford I think might make it on their own) go BK and crush the UAW. Therefore you and I will be made to pay for the bridge loan/bailout/handout or whatever they plan to call this one. Any way you spell it, it's my freakin money going to people who did not earn it.

What's even worse is Chrysler! They're owned by a Private Equity Group that has cash, but will not invest it in Chrysler. They instead want the taxpayers to bail them out.

This is criminal.

[Jim Nilsen]

Since there are so many non-believers..... Here's a pic. This was taken last year after I removed the bed in order to start getting at things. The vehicle was only moved to where it is in this picture in order to have room to lift the bed and put it somewhere else. Prior to this - and since - it has been garaged.

The frame is rusty. The interesting thing is that it rusted from the inside out. In other words, there is a rubbery coating from the factory on the frame, and the metal rusted through finally breaking the coating. The crossmembers have pinholes all the way around them near the joints to the frame rails. The body is rusty all along the rockers from the back of the cab to the front. In particular on the frame, you can see where the rust exists UNDER the coating. Unlike what you normally see for rust, where exposed metal starts to rust and then flakes off, in this case it really seems as though whatever coating GM put on (from the factory) trapped some sort of moisture or corrosive, causing the underlying metal to begin rusting. I have never seen anything like this before. The guy doing the interior on my '66 has a son who owns an '01 Silverado. His is exactly the same. The GM Executive office and a Senior VP of Engineering admitted to abnormal rust issues specific to the first 2.5 yrs of this model run.

The truck was well maintained, and lightly used. Honestly, it rarely saw action in the winter but was kept clean. My car is AWD. In 8 (going on 9) years it (the truck) barely has 50k miles on it. All of my vehicles are VERY well maintained. They generally look - and run - like new when I sell them used (with a couple exceptions, including the '90 Lumina).

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

My 1977 pickup frame looks better than that.wow.

[Nicks67GTO]

I agree. But, the UAW played a big part in the results of the recent election at both the legislative and executive level. Thus, those who took fat checks from the UAW are not about to let GM and Mopar (Ford I think might make it on their own) go BK and crush the UAW. Therefore you and I will be made to pay for the bridge loan/bailout/handout or whatever they plan to call this one. Any way you spell it, it's my freakin money going to people who did not earn it.

Ive got somthing to think about here, it may be a bit philisophical but....You know the sad truth is that you do this every day and every paycheck. There are millions of a-bags out there that get there own little individual "bailout" every month because they made bad decisions or what ever. This bailout is called welfare and you and I both pay it down every single month. I would actually be curious as to how much the entire welfare program in America costs annually. Does it compare to the bailout packages? I made the connections because the bailout is kind of like welfare on a huge scale. Does anyone have this information? I have a good feeling that theres alot more people abusing welfare than there are UAW members....at least the UAW's are going to work, let it be for what you call too much money or not. Like you said above "any way you spell it, its my freakin money going to people who did not earn it."

[wmhjr]

Ive got somthing to think about here, it may be a bit philisophical but....You know the sad truth is that you do this every day and every paycheck. There are millions of a-bags out there that get there own little individual "bailout" every month because they made bad decisions or what ever. This bailout is called welfare and you and I both pay it down every single month. I would actually be curious as to how much the entire welfare program in America costs annually. Does it compare to the bailout packages? I made the connections because the bailout is kind of like welfare on a huge scale. Does anyone have this information? I have a good feeling that theres alot more people abusing welfare than there are UAW members....at least the UAW's are going to work, let it be for what you call too much money or not. Like you said above "any way you spell it, its my freakin money going to people who did not earn it."

Well, not all of the UAW DOES go to work. Job banks?

But you're right - and I for one am no happier about it and never was. This just makes it far worse on a grander scale. And when we start rationalizing that we should give the free money to these folks because we gave it to some others, that is socialism. If we accept this as being OK, then we've put the stamp of approval of turning the US into a Socialist state.

[wmhjr]

My 1977 pickup frame looks better than that.wow.

Like I said. It is the worst vehicle I've ever owned. It is pure junk. I took this photo the day we pulled the bed off the truck. Since then, we've done the following:

Used a pneumatic scaler to remove as much rust as possible. Also used a slag hammer.
Used a wire brush a LOT
Cleaned everything a big more, then,
Used POR15 everywhere I could.
Replaced rear brake backing plates, emergency brake components (shoe assembly retainers inside the drums that rusted off)
Replaced ALL brake lines - front to rear
Replaced ALL fuel lines
Replaced ABS module because local dealer (when working on brakes previously) deformed one port causing it to leak
Replaced front and rear calipers
Replaced top fuel tank plate (that retains sending unit/pump inside tank) - it was rusted
Replaced rear shocks
Replaced front and rear u-joints on front drivesahft
Scaled front driveshaft and repainted to try and prevent future rust
Replaced front and rear rotors

What is still left to do?
Repair transmission cable that the end snapped off of (rust)
Repair or replace rear bumper - it's real rusty under where the black plastic is.
Blast and repaint trailer hitch
Wire brush bottom or rockers on body, and then POR15 to try and prevent the bottom from just falling off
Drill out one broken body mount bolt on bed, chase or rethread
Mount bed back on frame
Determine if "squealing sound" from engine compartment is water pump failing, belt tensioner, or bearings in compressor, alternator or PS pump

This truck has not been driven on a road for over a year now. I work on it as I have time and energy. I hate the truck so it's always the last thing I work on. Trouble is, it's worth nothing to sell or trade. I'm hoping to get it at least solid that it's somewhat usable for another few years. I'm guessing it'll be in a salvage yard within 3 years.

[WS6]

I believe the job banks have been closed as part of concessions made by the UAW to help the companies. How long did they go on though?

<too political>

I'm moving to Canada. James, if you're reading this can I come live with you for a bit and be on your pit crew for the One Lap camaro? Pretty please?

[Damn True]

What's even worse is Chrysler! They're owned by a Private Equity Group that has cash, but will not invest it in Chrysler. They instead want the taxpayers to bail them out.

This is criminal.

Fiat is buying into ChryCo as well.

[paul67]

And james gets free health care.

[James OLC]

Yeah... life in Canada is cheap and easy... lol.

My door is always open for anyone who wants to explore the great white north for a while... and I can always use a hand with the OLC or the other '67 that is sitting gathering dust... hmmm.. maybe you should send resume's before stopping by....

that being said, the OLC won't be here for much longer...

[Vegas69]

Can the US file Chapter 7?:1st: This whole deal kind of reminds me how we got in this mess. Loaning people money that had no business with it. If my business was losing money every year the bank would laugh at me. They should be forced to file chap 11. They aren't making any money anytime soon and that's a guarantee. Everybody else is doing it. We have two of our largest Casino owners doing it now. All they are doing is preparing for the future. Gaming was down 10% but they expect worse. Really disgusting.

[WS6]

Don't tempt me too much James. I'm actually going to be working on my resume soon in preperation for graduation this time next year. I hate to say this but I may start considering looking into working for an oil company or other international engineering firm so I can work over seas somewhere. I'd love to work at DSE I bet but I'm starting to have a hard time justifying staying in this country any more than I have to. Yeah, I know taxes are high for people that do this(I can't think of the term for them right now) but the high taxes don't start until you get to a good pay scale.

Todd, I think you have the best idea yet.

[derekf]

Trey, I think the word you're looking for is "expatriate".. or at least that's what my employer refers to them as.

[WS6]

That's the word. Thanks Derek

[shmoov69]

Like I said. It is the worst vehicle I've ever owned. It is pure junk. I took this photo the day we pulled the bed off the truck. Since then, we've done the following:

Used a pneumatic scaler to remove as much rust as possible. Also used a slag hammer.
Used a wire brush a LOT
Cleaned everything a big more, then,
Used POR15 everywhere I could.
Replaced rear brake backing plates, emergency brake components (shoe assembly retainers inside the drums that rusted off)
Replaced ALL brake lines - front to rear
Replaced ALL fuel lines
Replaced ABS module because local dealer (when working on brakes previously) deformed one port causing it to leak
Replaced front and rear calipers
Replaced top fuel tank plate (that retains sending unit/pump inside tank) - it was rusted
Replaced rear shocks
Replaced front and rear u-joints on front drivesahft
Scaled front driveshaft and repainted to try and prevent future rust
Replaced front and rear rotors

What is still left to do?
Repair transmission cable that the end snapped off of (rust)
Repair or replace rear bumper - it's real rusty under where the black plastic is.
Blast and repaint trailer hitch
Wire brush bottom or rockers on body, and then POR15 to try and prevent the bottom from just falling off
Drill out one broken body mount bolt on bed, chase or rethread
Mount bed back on frame
Determine if "squealing sound" from engine compartment is water pump failing, belt tensioner, or bearings in compressor, alternator or PS pump

This truck has not been driven on a road for over a year now. I work on it as I have time and energy. I hate the truck so it's always the last thing I work on. Trouble is, it's worth nothing to sell or trade. I'm hoping to get it at least solid that it's somewhat usable for another few years. I'm guessing it'll be in a salvage yard within 3 years.
I'm not going to argue that the truck is a total POS, but there is too many seperate "issues" of rust that can be blamed completely on the manufacturer. I mean really, some of those items don't "just rust" under normal circumstances. A brake backing plate and hardware or the fuel tank plate or trans cable rusting out?? I just can't buy that it is a "normal" manufacturing problem, and I don't care who the manu is. GM has produced some junk and some lemons, just like all the others for sure. But your truck ain't normal "Junk". If you next door neighbors truck looked like that, then I would buy it, but you just got a lemon, either from GM or from the dealer........could have been prior damaged in transit or something.
I does suck for you tho! And I do understand how you feel the way you do. You got a pile of crap truck that you paid for but can't use.

[wmhjr]

I'm not going to argue that the truck is a total POS, but there is too many seperate "issues" of rust that can be blamed completely on the manufacturer. I mean really, some of those items don't "just rust" under normal circumstances. A brake backing plate and hardware or the fuel tank plate or trans cable rusting out?? I just can't buy that it is a "normal" manufacturing problem, and I don't care who the manu is. GM has produced some junk and some lemons, just like all the others for sure. But your truck ain't normal "Junk". If you next door neighbors truck looked like that, then I would buy it, but you just got a lemon, either from GM or from the dealer........could have been prior damaged in transit or something.
I does suck for you tho! And I do understand how you feel the way you do. You got a pile of crap truck that you paid for but can't use.

Sorry, but I disagree. There are 3 of these in the same condition within 5 miles of my home. They are a '99, an '00 and an '01. If it were simply exterior components that were rusting, I would certainly consider that argument. But when the coated frame rusts FROM THE INSIDE OUT, when local body shops all complain about the '99-01 Chevy trucks rusting out, and when the VP of Engineering in Detroit states that there was a rust issue...

Well, me thinks there's an issue.

Please consider that I would question how many people have even seen the steel locking plate on their '99-01 fuel tank. It's only exposed after removing the bed. Also please consider that were the frame not rusted out, I wouldn't have stripped everything off the truck. Obviously some of these things I'm replacing because the truck is ripped apart and I'm seeing a bunch of rust. Otherwise, I may not have replaced them.

If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But so far I've got:

1) A rusted out truck
2) A GM VP who stated there were rust issues on that run of vehicles.
3) A wide number of body shops all stating their experience that these model years have higher than normal rust issues.
4) Insurance adjuster/appraisers who are also claiming that the vehicle model/year is abnormally rusty
5) Other similar vehicle exhibiting similar rust conditions
6) Other DIFFERENT vehicles NOT experiencing those rust conditions whatsoever even when used in more extreme conditions.
7) No recourse whatsoever from GM other than an offer of a "good discount" on a new vehicle.

[Jim Nilsen]

Sorry, but I disagree. There are 3 of these in the same condition within 5 miles of my home. They are a '99, an '00 and an '01. If it were simply exterior components that were rusting, I would certainly consider that argument. But when the coated frame rusts FROM THE INSIDE OUT, when local body shops all complain about the '99-01 Chevy trucks rusting out, and when the VP of Engineering in Detroit states that there was a rust issue...

Well, me thinks there's an issue.

Please consider that I would question how many people have even seen the steel locking plate on their '99-01 fuel tank. It's only exposed after removing the bed. Also please consider that were the frame not rusted out, I wouldn't have stripped everything off the truck. Obviously some of these things I'm replacing because the truck is ripped apart and I'm seeing a bunch of rust. Otherwise, I may not have replaced them.

If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But so far I've got:

1) A rusted out truck
2) A GM VP who stated there were rust issues on that run of vehicles.
3) A wide number of body shops all stating their experience that these model years have higher than normal rust issues.
4) Insurance adjuster/appraisers who are also claiming that the vehicle model/year is abnormally rusty
5) Other similar vehicle exhibiting similar rust conditions
6) Other DIFFERENT vehicles NOT experiencing those rust conditions whatsoever even when used in more extreme conditions.
7) No recourse whatsoever from GM other than an offer of a "good discount" on a new vehicle.

My 77 C10 has literally rusted out the body twice in it's life and the frame still does not look as bad as yours.
That is some bad steel that was full of impurities when made hands down.

[shmoov69]

Sorry, but I disagree. There are 3 of these in the same condition within 5 miles of my home. They are a '99, an '00 and an '01. If it were simply exterior components that were rusting, I would certainly consider that argument. But when the coated frame rusts FROM THE INSIDE OUT, when local body shops all complain about the '99-01 Chevy trucks rusting out, and when the VP of Engineering in Detroit states that there was a rust issue...

Well, me thinks there's an issue.

Please consider that I would question how many people have even seen the steel locking plate on their '99-01 fuel tank. It's only exposed after removing the bed. Also please consider that were the frame not rusted out, I wouldn't have stripped everything off the truck. Obviously some of these things I'm replacing because the truck is ripped apart and I'm seeing a bunch of rust. Otherwise, I may not have replaced them.

If you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But so far I've got:

1) A rusted out truck
2) A GM VP who stated there were rust issues on that run of vehicles.
3) A wide number of body shops all stating their experience that these model years have higher than normal rust issues.
4) Insurance adjuster/appraisers who are also claiming that the vehicle model/year is abnormally rusty
5) Other similar vehicle exhibiting similar rust conditions
6) Other DIFFERENT vehicles NOT experiencing those rust conditions whatsoever even when used in more extreme conditions.
7) No recourse whatsoever from GM other than an offer of a "good discount" on a new vehicle.

Well since there others with the same probs, then it may be. But some of the things rusting don't normally get much "rust protection" anyway. That is why I thought it couldve been a problem between the factory and the dealer. Which STILL sucks since you bought it new.
Sorry for ya dude!

[vintageracer]

I find GM management to be VERY entertaining. They say that nobody will buy a car from GM if they are in bankruptcy so that is not an option. Why does management THINK anyone would buy anything from a company so poorly managed????

With the bailout GM has already received and the brass balls to go ask for another $30 Billion, there is no way in hell that I would buy anything from a company this poorly managed and operated. Since MANAGEMENT directly sets the direction for engineering, design, manufacturing and quality why should I have ANY confidence in ANYTHING GM manufactures? I have lost any and all confidence in ANY newly designed, engineered and manufactured vehicle offered by General Motors!!!!

This organization is bankrupt. The only people who have not realized this are management and the employees!

[Twentyover]

Mildly curious-

How many of you have pulled all your money out of banks? After all, since they were already given $350 billion, and the brass balls to ask for another $350 billion, without any accountability, there should be no way in hell you would bank with companies that poorly managed.

Since management set direction on lending, why would you have any confidence in any banking transaction? Hopefully, you have lost all confidence in banks and are stuffing your money in your mattress. And please give me you address and times no one is at home.

And let's not start on stocks.

[Twentyover]

You're making a big mistake. The issue is NOT the sales volume. Yes, Toyota saw a huge drop in sales volume. It's PROFITABILITY!!!!! Yes, they are being impacted by a reduction in sales. But this is NOT what is causing problems at the Big 3. It is a lack of margin resulting from extraordinarily high expense creating huge operating losses. Take a look at the Toyota EPS - TODAY. Or last month. Last quarter. Compare that to GM. Toyota might have a slight loss of share value (about 2.6 or so) for ONE quarter - which is a first - and that's only share value. Now look at GM EPS.

That's what people are just not understanding. The credit crunch has certainly made matters worse for GM. But it did NOT CAUSE the problem. Just like Chrysler. Mercedes abandoned Chrysler after sinking billions of dollars into them. That was WAY before this current mess.

You can't focus on gross sales figures. You've got to look at profitability.

So are you suggesting if times were good, and GM was selling LOTS of cars, they would have gone to the wall sooner? They're higher expenses would have exacerbated the non-profitability condition. If the cars are/were not profitable, high volume would result in greater loss.

[WS6]

Mildly curious-

How many of you have pulled all your money out of banks? After all, since they were already given $350 billion, and the brass balls to ask for another $350 billion, without any accountability, there should be no way in hell you would bank with companies that poorly managed.

Since management set direction on lending, why would you have any confidence in any banking transaction? Hopefully, you have lost all confidence in banks and are stuffing your money in your mattress. And please give me you address and times no one is at home.

And let's not start on stocks.


Well Greg, for myself, I will never deal with Bank of America. Once I get out of college and more settled I will start dealing with local community banks in that area instead of Wachovia. I do have my business with a community bank but my personal stuff is not. My Roth account is with Vangard and my MMA is with ELoan two pillars of how a bank/investment company should be operated.

Your anology is akin to saying everyone should stop buying Toyotas and Hondas because GM is sucking ie you anology is wrong. You do bring up a good point about we the consumer having more power than we realize. We on our own should be deciding who should get our business. If a company does not get our business for whatever reason, we should not be forced to support it by having our money taken from us through taxes and given to the failing company. In a capitalist economy, the consumer has the ultimate power. Unfortunately, we have forgotten that and voted our powers away to the government to decide for us. We need to take our power back.

[vintageracer]

Dateline: February 20th, Sweden.

Saab files for bankruptcy in Sweden after Swedish government denies General Motors request for a bailout package from the Swedish government.

[bigvegan]

You know things have gone awry when Sweden is letting companies fail and America is spending billions to keep failing companies from bankruptcy.

I can respect people from all sides of the political spectrum, as long as they exercise some semblance of common sense. How did common sense become so unpopular?

[wmhjr]

So are you suggesting if times were good, and GM was selling LOTS of cars, they would have gone to the wall sooner? They're higher expenses would have exacerbated the non-profitability condition. If the cars are/were not profitable, high volume would result in greater loss.

Not all the cars were unprofitable. They made money on trucks and SUVs. That is what carred GM for the past 10 years - along with GMAC. To answer your question, if times had stayed good, money was plentiful, and people were still buying trucks, then GM would have limped along. Change any of those 3 and they were in trouble. Take a look at GM performance. The huge issues didn't start when the sub-prime. It started in earnest when fuel prices skyrocketed and truck sales dropped. Also, take a look at GM's market cap. It's a joke. This huge corporation has a smaller market cap than my company (that was just purchased last year for about $6B in total). Of course, we're profitable. Now take a look at Toyota's cap as an example. Very interesting reading for those that want to truly understand the situation that GM is in. At this point, GM has already gotten more than 15 times their market cap in bailout funding.

[Twentyover]

ELoan is owned by Banco Popular. Banco Populars stock closed today at 3.9 Euros, down from a range of high value rane of 14-16 Euros in 2007. According to Banco Popular’s 2007 Annual report (last one I easily found), the final 2007 close was about 10.60 Euros. To mitigate continued losses (including “$231.9 million in restructuring and impairment charges at E-LOAN.”), Banco Popular “Popular Financial Holdings (PFH), our mainland United States sub-prime lending operation, we reduced the size of the business and took measures to lessen our exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market.“

On or about November 20, 2008, Popular received $935 million tarp money. On January 23, 2009, Popular reported “…The $935 million TARP funds provided us with solid regulatory capital ratios, which will permit us to manage through what we expect to be another extremely challenging year.”
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:eAaYo3z3oecJ:www.caribbeannetnews.c om/news-13705--14-14--.html+banco+popular+tarp+funds&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:eAaYo3z3oecJ:www.caribbeannetnews.c om/news-13705--14-14--.html+banco+popular+tarp+funds&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us)

From this I surmise that Banco Popular was involved in the subprime and most probably similiar practices as the evil. BoA and Citi. If not, should they not have been solvent and not required funding from TARP?

With all due respect to being “…pillars of how a bank/investment company should be operated”, I have trouble distinguishing how a subsidiary of a bank getting TARP funds distinguishes itself as being morally superior to another bank getting TARP funds.

I elected to not look into Vanguard, as I feel anything I say will have little impact on people’s opinions. Let me know when you close the Money Market w/ ELoan in response to it’s evil parent Banco Popular.

http://www.propublica.org/special/show-me-the-tarp-money

Feel free to review the list above, and not bank with any of those who took TARP money

[Jim Nilsen]

You know things have gone awry when Sweden is letting companies fail and America is spending billions to keep failing companies from bankruptcy.

I can respect people from all sides of the political spectrum, as long as they exercise some semblance of common sense. How did common sense become so unpopular?

Brainwashing with misinformation has been used to hide it all and we have heard it enough we believe it.

When someone says we can't do anything about this stuff that is happening I wonder if they have ever heard of jail and police that put people there for doing crimes?

We are to blame and until we demand that something is done and people are held accountable for the losses/theft they will continue.

Common sense isn't unpopular, it's doing thier job's and putting the right people away that is not too popular with the ones in charge. They truly are afraid to do what is right because they don't fear us as much as the ones paying them under the table! Common sense has always been to cover your own ass and that has created fraud.

[wmhjr]

Jim, you're right but let's take this a step further just to make sure we're really addressing the problem of today.

The financial mess we're in today is not because of the "fat cats" everyone wants to hang from the nearest tree. Yes, they are bad people and should be held accountable. They should be prosecuted.

But, the real problem that we as a country MUST recognize is this.

We no longer have accountability at a personal level. People have grown accustomed to far to easy credit (personally - not from a business aspect). This mess started because people were issued loans when they had no business getting them. <politics removed> You may ask why this is the basis? Because the over abundance of unjustified credit allowed housing markets to then become a speculation market, creating higher than reality market prices. This then caused pricing to increase to the extent that mortgages were issued for homes which are far higher than the "true" value of the home in a "normal" credit market. Only the hyper-increase of market values resulting from this unsecured credit allowed these loans to be treated as "traded investments". Then, when the economy started to slow (as it always does in cycles) the entire house of cards starts to come apart (<politic politic>).

Then, let's add in the fact that from a labor perspective, we are simply no longer competitive in many areas. This is no longer the 50s or 60s. We now have technology which effective eliminates oceans and distances as barriers to trade. "Free Trade Agreements" are not what increased international trade. Engineering and technology making it easier for "anyone" to do many kinds of work regardless of their locatoin is what increased international trade, and a movement to offshore development.

<snip: more political commentary>

After all, think about this. We all know that much higher taxes are coming. There is no other way to pay for all this crap that going on - including bailing out GM. Last estimate was $30k per family SO FAR. But that's not real, because 40% of those families PAY NO TAXES TO BEGIN WITH. And those are not the "wealthy" 40%. So, the rest of us pay their share PLUS everyone elses. So as more and more burden is placed on me for example, what happens when I can no longer pay MY bills because I'm having to pay for everyone elses? I'm spending less TODAY because I know I'm going to be hammered with higher taxes. Stimulus?

These are the reasons that GM needs to declare bankruptcy. Let them get their house in order and position them to build, sell, and service vehicles efficiently. Until they do that, we are simply throwing good money after bad - time and time again.

[derekf]

Folks, again, let me remind you of the rule prohibiting political discussion.

It's fine to say - for example - that you anticipate taxes going up, or that GM should or shouldn't declare, or whatever; but as soon as you start saying that it's Bush's, or Obama's, or Clinton's or Reagan's or Nixon's fault, or saying anything is because the left done this or the right done that, that ain't accepted here.

Please try to stay on-topic. I think this is a good thread and would hate to have to close it.

[WS6]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/hey-gm-can-i-retire-at-48-too.aspx?page=1

[Damn True]

Excellent article. Thanks for sharing that.

[monza]

Regarding that article, does anyone know what a average person would receive from GM for a pension after the 30 yr plan? Pensions not really a part of my real life world being a small business owner.

[wmhjr]

http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg05.cfm

I know exactly what it is for a tool & die tradesman with 40 years, but the above is what the UAW says an "average" 30 year plan includes. Obviously, your mileage may vary.

Of course, I guess it shouldn't bother me that the pension plan is more than our military retirement plans. I'm not questioning the obligation to people who stayed at GM and already qualify for this, but moving forward?