General Motors

[dnno1]

You're not being disrespected, it's for the good of the company or at least it's supposed to be.....the job market sucks right now and if you're going to go off because of a tiny pay cut, you can get in line with the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lost jobs this year.....my dad always said be grateful for what you get....

No, that's my call. I would feel disrespected. I work hard (a lot harder that most of my peers) and it would feel like a slap in the face to get a pay cut. Like I said before, if that were to happen I would look elsewhere for a job at better pay.

 

[BlackLantern]

No, that's my call. I would feel disrespected. I work hard (a lot harder that most of my peers) and it would feel like a slap in the face to get a pay cut. Like I said before, it that were to happen I would look elsewhere for a job at better pay.

...and if you don't find a comparable wage elsewhere? do you stay put or not? I'm genuinely curious

 

[XpunkRocker]

But this is not an issue of a failure to perform. You are speaking of hyperbole. The reason why these company's are in trouble is because the banks are not giving out loans and people aren't buying enough cars. I don't see how that is the fault of anyone at GM, Ford, or Chrysler.

how do you explain their problems in 2000? in 2000 banks WERE giving loans out to people to buy cars. people chose to buy their cars from elsewhere.

so how do you explain the problems in 2000? i don't know how many times i have to tell you. This has been a problem for 10 YEARS! the banks gave out plenty of loans before this crisis. they gave out too many actually. so your argument only last for like the past year, maybe 2. what about the ohter 8 or 9 years? it is FAILURE by the company.

 

[Kelly]

Was it that you got a pay cut or that you didn't get a raise? There is a difference (no negative increase in pay with a zero raise).

Was it called a pay cut? probably not.

But, my salary for 3 years was 4% less each year than it would have been on a normal basis.......did I understand why? sure.....we weren't getting money from the state like we would have normally....


Damn dude, you truly don't get any points anyone is making here do you? I'm just going to call it stubborness on your part, because I don't want to disrespect you by calling it something else....

 

[XpunkRocker]

not to mention if your states income tax goes up and your job doesn't give you a raise, that is pretty much a pay cut right there.... glad i don't live in ny anymore.

but companies cut peoples pay all the time. especially their bonuses, that corperate workers depend on.

 

[dnno1]

how do you explain their problems in 2000? in 2000 banks WERE giving loans out to people to buy cars. people chose to buy their cars from elsewhere.

so how do you explain the problems in 2000? i don't know how many times i have to tell you. This has been a problem for 10 YEARS! the banks gave out plenty of loans before this crisis. they gave out too many actually. so your argument only last for like the past year, maybe 2. what about the ohter 8 or 9 years? it is FAILURE by the company.

GM was making a profit in 2000. So was Ford and Chrysler. What are you talking about?

 

[XpunkRocker]

well, if you want to get techical, 2001. they had to shut down a lot of their production because they weren't selling cars. but it started in 2000, hence the problems in 2001.

 

[dnno1]

...and if you don't find a comparable wage elsewhere? do you stay put or not? I'm genuinely curious

That hasn't happened to me (in 25 years) and there is always contract labor (working for yourself). The pay is a little better and there are opportunities to make more in income, but you would have pay for your own benefits and it is easier to be let go. You also should be willing to move out of the area to make a living.

 

[dnno1]

well, if you want to get techical, 2001. they had to shut down a lot of their production because they weren't selling cars. but it started in 2000, hence the problems in 2001.

Um... they made profits in 2001 as well. Like I said before, what are you talking about?

 

[XpunkRocker]

they made profits because they dumped and sold their plants and laid off people.... your company doesn't lay people off when it is doing good....

but now they have no more room to get rid of people and they can't close any more plants down to get $$$.

 

[XpunkRocker]

actually,

 

[dnno1]

they made profits because they dumped and sold their plants and laid off people.... your company doesn't lay people off when it is doing good....

but now they have no more room to get rid of people and they can't close any more plants down to get $$$.

That's part of the business. They didn't have to go to the Feds for a bailout either. By 2001 we were in a recession, so it is understandable as to why they might have done those things. Today, they could still close plants, but they know that this downturn is only temporary. Their long range goal is to expand into other markets like China, India, and Russia.

 

[XpunkRocker]

2001 wasn't a real receseccion. it was a crisis we pulled out of quite quickly. ask any economist, they will tell you we were not in a recession since 2001. they will tell you the recession started dec 07

 

[Paradoxium]

UAW Objects to GM, Chrysler Plan as Deadline Nears

If GM and Chrysler can’t persuade the UAW and bondholders to agree to new terms, the government could force the automakers to return the loans or convert them into funding for a government-backed bankruptcy. GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner told Congress in November that Chapter 11 would lead to liquidation because shoppers won’t buy from a bankrupt automaker.

 

[Malice]

LINK

I am paraphrasing below key points.​

GM is asking for $16.6 billion in new loans
Chrysler is asking for $5 billion

GM and Chrysler met a deadline yesterday to report progress in revamping operations with $17.4 billion in loans granted so far and got a boost from tentative accords with the United Auto Workers to cut labor costs. Now, they must show the U.S. by March 31 that they can return to profit in order to keep the money.

 

[BlackLantern]

this might be a tipping point between American auto companies and the UAW

 

[BlackLantern]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/business/18brands.html?em

GM is starting to clean house....RIP Saturn

 

[The Senator]

GM didn't deserve the first loan it received. It certainly doesn't deserve a second.

 

[BlackLantern]

and now they are chopping brands....we are seeing the death throes.....

 

[Malice]

Well, if they get the second loan, I don't think GM is not going under....its the theory of in for a penny, in for a pound....too much invested to stop now.

Unfortunately they should have taken a stance of PURE Profit to Expenses....and they didn't do that

 

[Backdrifter]

Good, Saturns are ugly and so are Pontiacs. Trim the fat.

I say no more bailout money though.

 

[Paradoxium]

Bankruptcy Funding Solicited for Car Makers

**** them.

 

[dnno1]

Obama denies bailout funds for automakers

GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request


He sure did.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I pity Wagoner. If it weren't for the economic climate and the stubborn UAW he could have been a competent leader for GM. It's a shame that Obama and the Democrats saw him as nothing but a corporate fatcat.

 

[Addendum]

GM stocks were already falling long before the current economy, so it's not like he was doing well before this all began. Plus, he was the one in charge when GM ceased their production of their electric car, recalled them all and destroyed them, while hybrid and electric cars began to gain the interest of the consumer.

What's there to pity