GM Files for bankruptcy

jlew24asu

sad day for one of America's oldest companies. IMO, Unions are what brought them down. along with horrible decisions to not keep up with competitors and banking on SUVs for too long.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/01/news/co ... 2009060108

GM files for bankruptcy
It's an end of an era for GM as the troubled automaker is forced into bankruptcy. GM is set to close nearly a dozen plants and cut more than 20,000 jobs.

Commy

Union's didn't bring them down. unions made them billions of dollars over the years. management brought them down. they are still shoving giant gas hogs at us on commercials, when most people are looking at more efficient cars and suvs. and smaller.


GM went bigger, other companies decided to go smarter. it was poor management. they offered a product no one wanted.




market principles actually played out for a change. instead of buying what the commercials told us to buy, we did our research, and went with smarter, more efficient, smaller vehicles.

Unions built GM, but they didn't bring it down.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

Union's didn't bring them down. unions made them billions of dollars over the years. management brought them down. they are still shoving giant gas hogs at us on commercials, when most people are looking at more efficient cars and suvs. and smaller.

GM went bigger, other companies decided to go smarter. it was poor management. they offered a product no one wanted.

market principles actually played out for a change. instead of buying what the commercials told us to buy, we did our research, and went with smarter, more efficient, smaller vehicles.

Unions built GM, but they didn't bring it down.

I agree mgmt sucked as well. but mgmt's hands with tied because of the Unions. paying the unsustainable benefits of Union workers is what ultimately brought this company down. bankruptcy is going to void those contracts which is the greatest thing that can happen to this company.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

Union's didn't bring them down. unions made them billions of dollars over the years. management brought them down. they are still shoving giant gas hogs at us on commercials, when most people are looking at more efficient cars and suvs. and smaller.

GM went bigger, other companies decided to go smarter. it was poor management. they offered a product no one wanted.

market principles actually played out for a change. instead of buying what the commercials told us to buy, we did our research, and went with smarter, more efficient, smaller vehicles.

Unions built GM, but they didn't bring it down.

I agree mgmt sucked as well. but mgmt's hands with tied because of the Unions. paying the unsustainable benefits of Union workers is what ultimately brought this company down. bankruptcy is going to void those contracts which is the greatest thing that can happen to this company.

None of the big three did anything right is the problem. Shit products, shit management, willful indifference to the market and reality, and, yes, unions had a part too.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

None of the big three did anything right is the problem. Shit products, shit management, willful indifference to the market and reality, and, yes, unions had a part too.

um yea. thats what I said. the company could have survived however, if the Union contracts were torn up or renegotiated. but the Union would have no part of it.

norm

my grandfather was the head of the Cadillac engines line from he 40's through the early 60's....every engine that left the line he personally inspected...he loved working for Cadillac...he is spinning in his grave today... :evil:

Kel Varnsen

jlew24asu wrote:

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

Union's didn't bring them down. unions made them billions of dollars over the years. management brought them down. they are still shoving giant gas hogs at us on commercials, when most people are looking at more efficient cars and suvs. and smaller.

GM went bigger, other companies decided to go smarter. it was poor management. they offered a product no one wanted.

market principles actually played out for a change. instead of buying what the commercials told us to buy, we did our research, and went with smarter, more efficient, smaller vehicles.

Unions built GM, but they didn't bring it down.

I agree mgmt sucked as well. but mgmt's hands with tied because of the Unions. paying the unsustainable benefits of Union workers is what ultimately brought this company down. bankruptcy is going to void those contracts which is the greatest thing that can happen to this company.

That's exactly how I feel. There is more than enough blame to go around, but unions like the UAW are basically government sanctioned extortion rackets. I mean if one company controlled the US supply of tire rubber and told GM they would stop supplying GM with tires unless GM paid them much higher than the fair market value they would cut off supplies and kill GM production, there would be a ton of outcry about illegal monopolies and unfair business practices. Yet the UAW, has a monopoly on workers and basically does the exact same thing (pay us higher than market wages for employees or we will strike and kill your production) and they are some how a champion of workers rights.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

None of the big three did anything right is the problem. Shit products, shit management, willful indifference to the market and reality, and, yes, unions had a part too.

um yea. thats what I said. the company could have survived however, if the Union contracts were torn up or renegotiated. but the Union would have no part of it.

Yeah, I meant for that post to sound more agreeable than it did.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

None of the big three did anything right is the problem. Shit products, shit management, willful indifference to the market and reality, and, yes, unions had a part too.

um yea. thats what I said. the company could have survived however, if the Union contracts were torn up or renegotiated. but the Union would have no part of it.

Yeah, I meant for that post to sound more agreeable than it did.

thats ok. I can argue even when we agree.

polaris_x

this is the best case scenario ... some private investment company will buy a large stake - regardless of what they'll pay - they will operate it at a more sustainable manner ...

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

um yea. thats what I said. the company could have survived however, if the Union contracts were torn up or renegotiated. but the Union would have no part of it.

Yeah, I meant for that post to sound more agreeable than it did.

thats ok. I can argue even when we agree.

You used the wrong smiley there. Goddamn conservatives!

Drowned Out

Kel Varnsen wrote:

That's exactly how I feel. There is more than enough blame to go around, but unions like the UAW are basically government sanctioned extortion rackets. I mean if one company controlled the US supply of tire rubber and told GM they would stop supplying GM with tires unless GM paid them much higher than the fair market value they would cut off supplies and kill GM production, there would be a ton of outcry about illegal monopolies and unfair business practices. Yet the UAW, has a monopoly on workers and basically does the exact same thing (pay us higher than market wages for employees or we will strike and kill your production) and they are some how a champion of workers rights.

You're comparing people to.....rubber?
A supplier to....the work force?
Apples n oranges...
I'm not that up to speed on how negotiations between the UAW and the big three went over the years, and believe me, I've had a LOT more negative influence in regards to unions - I'm management in a blue collar, heavily unionized industry; everyone around me HATES unions - but....who signed these agreements?
All I ever hear about is how the unions screwed the auto makers....Are these not NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS????? why would these companies EVER sign a labour agreement that would eventually break their company? Or did the unions just say 'this is the deal' and everyone went back to work? Somehow, don't think so...
not only shit management and shit product....shit representation in negotiations, apparently.

know1

jlew24asu wrote:

sad day for one of America's oldest companies. IMO, Unions are what brought them down. along with horrible decisions to not keep up with competitors and banking on SUVs for too long.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/01/news/co ... 2009060108

GM files for bankruptcy
It's an end of an era for GM as the troubled automaker is forced into bankruptcy. GM is set to close nearly a dozen plants and cut more than 20,000 jobs.

I concur that unions and poor management brought them down. They both played a large part.

Unions are a detriment to their own members at this point in our history. They are only hastening the removal of jobs to places where people are willing to work for a living.

The real shame in all of this was the bailout money our ignorant government gave them just months before they filed.

Drowned Out

know1 wrote:

Unions are a detriment to their own members at this point in our history. They are only hastening the removal of jobs to places where people are willing to work for a living.

What's your solution to this? Someone making $35/hr should take a pay cut to....oh, $30/month in order to compete, and everything's cool?
Hastening? maybe...but does it make a difference, really?

Kel Varnsen

Drowned Out wrote:

I'm management in a blue collar, heavily unionized industry; everyone around me HATES unions - but....who signed these agreements?
All I ever hear about is how the unions screwed the auto makers....Are these not NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS????? why would these companies EVER sign a labour agreement that would eventually break their company? Or did the unions just say 'this is the deal' and everyone went back to work? Somehow, don't think so...
not only shit management and shit product....shit representation in negotiations, apparently.

I agree that there was shit management and shit production, but when one side in a negotiation can say pay us what we want or we walk off the job, and you can't make any more cars and you will lose money, that sounds a lot more like extortion than negotiation. Especially when the union officials have made sure the law is on their side so they literally have a monopoly when it comes to supplying workers (although back in the old days they just gave a beatdown to any non-union workers trying for their jobs and used intimidation to keep other people away).

I think it is exactly like materials suppliers. The UAW supplies workers to the auto companies, and in turn the UAW receives payment for supplying those workers.

Drowned Out

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I'm management in a blue collar, heavily unionized industry; everyone around me HATES unions - but....who signed these agreements?
All I ever hear about is how the unions screwed the auto makers....Are these not NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS????? why would these companies EVER sign a labour agreement that would eventually break their company? Or did the unions just say 'this is the deal' and everyone went back to work? Somehow, don't think so...
not only shit management and shit product....shit representation in negotiations, apparently.

I agree that there was shit management and shit production, but when one side in a negotiation can say pay us what we want or we walk off the job, and you can't make any more cars and you will lose money, that sounds a lot more like extortion than negotiation. Especially when the union officials have made sure the law is on their side so they literally have a monopoly when it comes to supplying workers (although back in the old days they just gave a beatdown to any non-union workers trying for their jobs and used intimidation to keep other people away).

I think it is exactly like materials suppliers. The UAW supplies workers to the auto companies, and in turn the UAW receives payment for supplying those workers.

Can't you just flip that around? "this is what we're paying you or you lose your job"
?


(if you respond by saying 'no - they can't fire them'.....then you've found the purpose of unions, and why they're still relevant )

Kel Varnsen

Drowned Out wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I'm management in a blue collar, heavily unionized industry; everyone around me HATES unions - but....who signed these agreements?
All I ever hear about is how the unions screwed the auto makers....Are these not NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS????? why would these companies EVER sign a labour agreement that would eventually break their company? Or did the unions just say 'this is the deal' and everyone went back to work? Somehow, don't think so...
not only shit management and shit product....shit representation in negotiations, apparently.

I agree that there was shit management and shit production, but when one side in a negotiation can say pay us what we want or we walk off the job, and you can't make any more cars and you will lose money, that sounds a lot more like extortion than negotiation. Especially when the union officials have made sure the law is on their side so they literally have a monopoly when it comes to supplying workers (although back in the old days they just gave a beatdown to any non-union workers trying for their jobs and used intimidation to keep other people away).

I think it is exactly like materials suppliers. The UAW supplies workers to the auto companies, and in turn the UAW receives payment for supplying those workers.

Can't you just flip that around? "this is what we're paying you or you lose your job"
?


(if you respond by saying 'no - they can't fire them'.....then you've found the purpose of unions, and why they're still relevant )

The difference with flipping it around is the real option is "this is what we're paying you, or you have to find a job somewhere else". The UAW doesn't give you the option of "this is what you pay us, or you have to find other workers". Union members are allowed to find other jobs, the companies aren't allowed to find other workers, which is why the UAW has a monopoly.

mrvedderson

did anyone get in on their cheap cheap stock? 27 cents, my funds were unavailable so i had to sit and watch and be pissed. anyone who got in on this will be rich in about ten years

chromiam

mrvedderson wrote:

did anyone get in on their cheap cheap stock? 27 cents, my funds were unavailable so i had to sit and watch and be pissed. anyone who got in on this will be rich in about ten years

Why?? as a taxpayer I already own most of GM now.

mrvedderson

chromiam wrote:

mrvedderson wrote:

did anyone get in on their cheap cheap stock? 27 cents, my funds were unavailable so i had to sit and watch and be pissed. anyone who got in on this will be rich in about ten years

Why?? as a taxpayer I already own most of GM now.

but u cant sell any of that

know1

Drowned Out wrote:

know1 wrote:

Unions are a detriment to their own members at this point in our history. They are only hastening the removal of jobs to places where people are willing to work for a living.

What's your solution to this? Someone making $35/hr should take a pay cut to....oh, $30/month in order to compete, and everything's cool?
Hastening? maybe...but does it make a difference, really?

My solution is grin and bear it because it's going to happen anyway. But the least you can do is try to slow it down.

In this day and age of a global economy, the jobs will generally and eventually go to where people are willing to do them cheaper.

And you know what, I don't have a problem with someone in some disadvantaged country getting a job that they desperately need to survive.