General Motors

[Paradoxium]

You know...Unions today are frankly out of touch.

AT&T workers are about to start striking....
Why....AT&T wants to have the employees pay 25% of their medical insurance, instead of 0%

Ya know...I pay like 25% to 35% for my medical insurance, I told the guy with AT&T to shut the **** up and accept paying a little in medical insurance you spoiled little ****

I asked him, how many people in the US have employers pay all their insurance?

They are hellbent on on being unemployed. That's the only logical explanation.

 

[SuBe]

They are hellbent on on being unemployed. That's the only logical explanation.

Well, they do want to get paid for the least amount of work possible, so, what better way than to ensure a layoff, then collect unemployment?

 

[Franklin Richards]

Somewhere the former CEO of American Motors is going,


"WTF?!!!"

 

[chaseter]

Ugh...this is never going to end. The democrats are just going to keep passing out cash to businesses that are failing now because of corrupt management.

 

[Heretic]

Ugh...this is never going to end. The democrats are just going to keep passing out cash to businesses that are failing now because of corrupt management.

the republicans started it...

and the market bail out has proven to be a complete sham and the money we're funneling itno those companies is being used for the complete opposite of what it was intended. If we bail out the auto industry then that too will screw us...and then they'll come back for more.

 

[chaseter]

the republicans started it...

and the market bail out has proven to be a complete sham and the money we're funneling itno those companies is being used for the complete opposite of what it was intended. If we bail out the auto industry then that too will screw us...and then they'll come back for more.

I don't care who started out...it is how it is finished. And the bailout is a complete sham and it isn't doing ****. It is just making other companies hold out their hands for free cash.

 

[Heretic]

I don't care who started out...it is how it is finished. And the bailout is a complete sham and it isn't doing ****. It is just making other companies hold out their hands for free cash.

My point is that you can hold off on blaming democrats for this, since it was the democrats who held out in an attempt to protect the taxpayers. The republicans tried to give the CEOs even more freedom to screw us over.

Yes, this has only just begun. Yes, every company we bail out will use the money to line their pockets and screw us. Yes, the democrats will share in the blame. But try to be a little fair when placing blame. The opening salvo of wrong was Bush's fault.

 

[Backdrifter]

This goes much deeper than "its the left's fault" or "it's the right's fault." The entire issue is much more complex and involved individuals from both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[chaseter]

My point is that you can hold off on blaming democrats for this, since it was the democrats who held out in an attempt to protect the taxpayers. The republicans tried to give the CEOs even more freedom to screw us over.

Yes, this has only just begun. Yes, every company we bail out will use the money to line their pockets and screw us. Yes, the democrats will share in the blame. But try to be a little fair when placing blame. The opening salvo of wrong was Bush's fault.

I am not blaming anyone for what has happened. I once again don't care about who got us here...I care about how we get out of it and am speculating on things to come from the party in power in how they will work around this. The democrats have been in power for 2 years and now control all three branches. They will give money to these companies and it will just keep happening because they fear the middle class will loose jobs from these employers along with union interests. This bailout will be a business Red Cross unless someone stops the green bleeding and I don't think that will happen.

There were many facets that got us to where we are today but that doesn't matter and playing the blame game gets nobody anywhere.

 

[dnno1]

Your trying to twist my words to suit your arguments. They contributed to it along with inept management. And it is not a right, but a privilege. You abuse a privilege you lose it. If it was a right Toyota would have unionized a long time ago.

They had a chance two years ago when the auto market was flourishing, they could not even make a dent. Now the market is asking for reparations whether you or I like it or not.

Monthly Brent Spot (Crude Oil) Prices Over the Last 20 years

I think you are trying to lay the blame on the wrong people. The reason why GM is in this mess it partly because of external factors and not necessarily because they sell bad cars, which they don't. Prior to the rise of gasoline from 2003 to 2008, GM was making profits. The rise in the price of gas made consumers not only change their driving habits, but also their buying habits as well. Consumers began to opt for more fuel efficient vehicles instead of gas guzzling luxury vehicles and SUV's. Even if GM could recover by issuing a more fuel efficient car, the normal design cycle of 3 years would have prevented that from happening until sometime last year (which is the case). Toyota was in a better position since they had their alternative, the Prius -- their first hybrid vehicle -- released to the world wide market in 2001. Its sales began to pick up sometime after 2003. This is key because it occured after its second design cycle. GM, on the other hand introduced its electric vehicle, the EV1 in 1997 and had discontiued it by 2003 after 2 design cycles due to poor sales. Had they introduced the car to the market in 2001 like Toyota did, it may have been a different story. This was all a matter of timing and you really can't blame the execs nor the workers at GM for that. They all regret the fact that they couldn't keep the EV1 since it would have led to an earlier release of the Chevy Volt. Then again, I don't think anyone would have predicted the trend of crude oil to go beyond $60/barrel in 2003.

 

[dnno1]

Most any place (my job included) hiring these days has a very strict anti-Union policy....they even have you sign an agreement prior to your employment

I will be honest with you, but that may be a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (also known and the Warner Act). An employer can not force anyone to not join a union. I have heard of an employee being required to sign an arbitration waiver agreement (which is not related), but an anti-union policy dose not sound legitimate.

 

[dnno1]

You know...Unions today are frankly out of touch.

AT&T workers are about to start striking....
Why....AT&T wants to have the employees pay 25% of their medical insurance, instead of 0%

Ya know...I pay like 25% to 35% for my medical insurance, I told the guy with AT&T to shut the **** up and accept paying a little in medical insurance you spoiled little ****

I asked him, how many people in the US have employers pay all their insurance?

You realize that it costs about $12,000/year on average to insure a family don't you? Asking for the employee to pay for a quarter of that is about $3,000/year. That is about 2 weeks pay for some people. In times like these where the cost of living is going up you don't give working people a pay cut (which is in essence what they are doing), you give them a cost of living adjustment -- especially when your company is showing an increse in profits from the previous year. Standing up for that is not being out of touch it is fighting for what is right.

 

[BlackLantern]

I will be honest with you, but that may be a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (also known and the Warner Act). An employer can not force anyone to not join a union. I have heard of an employee being required to sign an arbitration waiver agreement (which is not related), but an anti-union policy dose not sound legitimate.

I'm guessing it's creative wording but the 2 corporations I worked for (Blockbuster, Gamestop) and the Dot.com I work for now all had very specific non-union workplace agreements

 

[dnno1]

I'm guessing it's creative wording but the 2 corporations I worked for (Blockbuster, Gamestop) and the Dot.com I work for now all had very specific non-union workplace agreements

I do know that Blockbuster owns Auto Nation which is unionized, so I don't think they can stop their employees from organizing. I do not know how that works with part time employees, though (which might be prevalent in the video and game stores).

 

[BlackLantern]

I do know that Blockbuster owns Auto Nation which is unionized, so I don't think they can stop their employees from organizing. I do not know how that works with part time employees, though (which might be prevalent in the video and game stores).

I'm very anti-union anyway, so I don't much care....I think they have that there to keep the pro-union types away

 

[Malice]

You realize that it costs about $12,000/year on average to insure a family don't you? Asking for the employee to pay for a quarter of that is about $3,000/year. That is about 2 weeks pay for some people. In times like these where the cost of living is going up you don't give working people a pay cut (which is in essence what they are doing), you give them a cost of living adjustment -- especially when your company is showing an increse in profits from the previous year. Standing up for that is not being out of touch it is fighting for what is right.

come on....
the telecommunications industry is a b***h.
They are using leverage to basically give the finger to the company, because they dont want to pay a little in their insurance.

These guys freaking make 70 grand or more...are you going to tell me that that 70 grand makes them poor?

Pull the blinders off...any company hampered by a union in the future is at a disadvantage....in the future, they will start to die off

 

[SuBe]

You realize that it costs about $12,000/year on average to insure a family don't you? Asking for the employee to pay for a quarter of that is about $3,000/year. That is about 2 weeks pay for some people. In times like these where the cost of living is going up you don't give working people a pay cut (which is in essence what they are doing), you give them a cost of living adjustment -- especially when your company is showing an increse in profits from the previous year. Standing up for that is not being out of touch it is fighting for what is right.

God forbid someone has to take a little responsibility for their own life. How is asking someone to pay $3000 a year for his families Life asking too much? Are you saying that $8 a day is too much to ask for a healthy family?

 

[Malice]

Imagine me organizing an IT union....and WE strike...

MUAHAHAHAHA the entire infrastructure could tank.

 

[SuBe]

Imagine me organizing an IT union....and WE strike...

MUAHAHAHAHA the entire infrastructure could tank.

You might be able to stage some bail out later, hurry!

 

[Paradoxium]

Monthly Brent Spot (Crude Oil) Prices Over the Last 20 years

I think you are trying to lay the blame on the wrong people. The reason why GM is in this mess it partly because of external factors and not necessarily because they sell bad cars, which they don't. Prior to the rise of gasoline from 2003 to 2008, GM was making profits. The rise in the price of gas made consumers not only change their driving habits, but also their buying habits as well. Consumers began to opt for more fuel efficient vehicles instead of gas guzzling luxury vehicles and SUV's. Even if GM could recover by issuing a more fuel efficient car, the normal design cycle of 3 years would have prevented that from happening until sometime last year (which is the case). Toyota was in a better position since they had their alternative, the Prius -- their first hybrid vehicle -- released to the world wide market in 2001. Its sales began to pick up sometime after 2003. This is key because it occured after its second design cycle. GM, on the other hand introduced its electric vehicle, the EV1 in 1997 and had discontiued it by 2003 after 2 design cycles due to poor sales. Had they introduced the car to the market in 2001 like Toyota did, it may have been a different story. This was all a matter of timing and you really can't blame the execs nor the workers at GM for that. They all regret the fact that they couldn't keep the EV1 since it would have led to an earlier release of the Chevy Volt. Then again, I don't think anyone would have predicted the trend of crude oil to go beyond $60/barrel in 2003.

Now you are blaming it on the market and poor timing. It's always the market fault when you make bad decisions.

I love how you leave out the cost difference of a EV1 to Prius, because the difference there apparently did not play a role in the post-2000 cycles. What was it again 20-30k'ish to a 80-90k'ish difference -- inflation not accounted for? The overhead most likely had a role in this big difference but the Union is totally not at fault there right

Let's pretend they cost the same, you also neglect the material and component used by Toyota which are superior in most circumstances. In general (I am sure there are exceptions) they were more reliable and fuel efficient when it came to your average American car. Maybe the consumers didn't care for this right?

Now you are trying to get into a chicken and egg argument of whether the consumers bought more gas guzzlers therefore GM calibrated to their tastes or GM made more gas guzzlers and consumers went with the selection. Forget this chicken and egg argument and notice how Toyota and Honda were doing pretty well despite not having a large selection of gas guzzlers (they had some) compared to their American counterpart. Guess who is doing better now, guess who isn't asking for a bailout?

Please dnno1, it's abundantly clear you think the big three are nearly faultless and their current circumstances compared to the plethora of Japanese and European car companies were all flukish luck. By all means you can keep thinking that way, but most if not all your arguments are not very persuasive. I didn't become a fiscal conservative overnight.

 

[BlackLantern]

European and Asian car makers had the foresight to start developing more efficient cars way ahead of the curve...It's the American manufacturers that are behind

 

[Paradoxium]

European and Asian car makers had the foresight to start developing more efficient cars way ahead of the curve...It's the American manufacturers that are behind

More importantly they were willing to take risks, the market rewards those who takes risks. Not all risks payoff, but that is the nature of it.

Now we are suppose to reward GM for defecating on the living room with a bailout.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Where was the bailouts for American Motors and that Tucker guy? I love Gremlins and Pintos.

 

[BlackLantern]

Where was the bailouts for American Motors and that Tucker guy? I love Gremlins and Pintos.

I so want a car with 3 headlights

 

[The Senator]

I've been thinking about what the government should do about the failing automobile industry since a bailout plan was first proposed a week or so ago. I have decided that I am opposed to any government bailout of the United States automobile industry.

I am frankly tired of people in this country complaining about there being a lack of American-made goods and services available nationwide. Well, the automobile industry-- specifically, Ford, GM, Chrysler-- has been a staple of American-made innovation for over a century now. It has been through many economic ups and downs since then, from the Great Depression to World War II to the oil crisis of the 1970s to today's economic crisis. Yet, for all its triumphs, it has never been able to adapt to change. Hybrid vehicles were being produced by Toyota and Honda eight years ago, and where were the American automobile companies? Too busy focusing on how much they can milk from the general public by offering more Dodge Durangos and Chevy Tahoes than affordable, fuel-efficient sedans and compact cars. Toyota and Honda began producing fuel efficient SUVs and crossover vehicles, and where were the American automobile companies? Too busy worrying about the government raising CAFE standards and trying to work around them instead of releasing innovative vehicles people WANTED to buy.

Such is the case with most sectors of our economy... American producers are too busy stuck in the past, while foreign producers have been offering affordable, top-of-the-line products for some time now...

If we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the automobile industry, how can we possibly expect these trends to automatically reverse? How can we as taxpayers expect American automobile manufacturers to start offering better products when they have frequently stalled in the past? No amount of money can make up for failed policies and lackluster innovation; all it does is buy American car manufacturers more time to fail, instead of forcing them to face reality now.