|
Bridge loan to nowhere..
JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:43:59 -0500, Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he can't be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. We're in dire straits in this country. Everyone has to sacrifice, and if that means nulling and voiding contracts, let's also cut the pension and healthcare benefits of civilian and military retirees. Right? You thinking Obama's going to run the government out of business? Arnold's done it to California. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:16:06 -0500, JohnH
wrote: jobs bank,,, http://tinyurl.com/cbksn When I was UAW the layoffs were few and far between. And didn't last long either. The crossword puzzle bit reminded me of being in that position. I was hired to the bench by CGA as a computer analyst - in '88. Spent at least two months doing crossword puzzles on the bench before they got me on a contract. They wanted me, and they got their money back easy. But those were good times in the business. When times got bad there was no bench. You were out. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Wall street brokerage house and bankers... Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of all management, and then blow up their buildings. No golden parachutes. Oh...and in all publicly traded corporations, no executive earnings to exceed 10 times the earnings of the average employee. Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah... By the way, when is the UAW going to fire it's Executives for getting them in this mess to begin with? UAW members elect their leadership. Stupid is as stupid does. Maybe they should have hired professional managers. You mean, like the guys who ruin, er, run, corporate america's banks and brokerage houses? |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Don White wrote:
wrote in message t... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. ............... and assuming that the assembly line workers are being paid twice what they are worth (according to some here), that means only 5% of the overall costs could be saved by attacking union workers and cutting their renumeration by half. I wonder what advertising cost the Big Three? It must be expensive hiring agencys to make up new bull**** every year. It doesn't matter how many you make or how much it costs you to make them if nobody knows you have them. My company is over paying for a lease on a building that faces a major interstate highway, our name is on top of the building. 250 thousand people in government, government contracting and private industry see our building and our sign everyday on their way to work and on their way home from work. It is great advertising. Besides the people we have working in the build have to work somewhere. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Eisboch wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 7:17 am, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in messagenews:s3ukj4dksrfj18mrb6l047d3a90lniqpk0@4ax .com... On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:25:24 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in messagenews:b2rkj4hrnvj4m6p6prft2vp4s3bv7jvpms@4ax .com... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...?mod=rss_opini... Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Ford doesn't want them. They are trying to downsize themselves. They've sold their stakes in Saab, Jaguar, most of Mazda and are thinking of dumping Volvo. That's probably true, but Chrysler does have a few products lines that would merge very nicely with the overall Ford product line - I'm thinking Jeep in particular if there was only one. And their design team could do a lot for upgrading Ford's design group which has been stuck in neutral for a long time. When was the last time they upgraded the Crown Vic for example - that design has been around since 1999/2000 I think. The Crown Vic is no longer available to the public. (as of 2008) Ford still makes them for fleet sales only ... police and taxie cabs. The Mercury version is still available to the public, but not for long. Ford will end up with about three global car platforms and trucks. Eisboch All this started when they quit the Taurus. Actually, the Taurus is back. I believe it's a replacement for the Ford "Five Hundred" which never caught on. The new Taurus is based largely on a colaborative effort by Ford and Volvo and incorporates many Volvo designs. The marketing idiots at Ford decided that all cars in the Ford line needed to have their names start with "F" and all SUV's needed to start with "E". So when they redesigned the Taurus the named it Five-Hundred when nobody bought it the renamed it back to Taurus. The Five-Hundred/Taurus could be based on a Volvo platform. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Dec 6, 10:35*am, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:04:57 -0500, Boater wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message news:2NydnaVa9s9PG6fUnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@posted. gtinet... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. *If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs to review and determine that. What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year but you only sold 10 million last year? Eisboch Then you have massive layoffs, of course., UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now. When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff. 95% pay for fishing. *I think they got unemployment comp then the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once. That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about. I don't think I ever heard a straight answer. But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a condition of a taxpayer loan. The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot. --Vic The UAW already has proposed massive givebacks. Congress acknowledged that. Some liberal folks in Congress acknowledged the UAW's attempts to help? Hee, hee!! You're coming up with some good stuff today. Actually, it was a couple of Republicans. You're really back to your old style of being a horse's ass, Herring.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, Republicans... which ones? Could they be as republican as Lieberman or Miller are Democrats? You seem to cherry pick, but of course intellectual honesty is not really your strong suit... |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote: Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Wall street brokerage house and bankers... Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of all management, and then blow up their buildings. No golden parachutes. Oh...and in all publicly traded corporations, no executive earnings to exceed 10 times the earnings of the average employee. Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah... By the way, when is the UAW going to fire it's Executives for getting them in this mess to begin with? UAW members elect their leadership. Stupid is as stupid does. Maybe they should have hired professional managers. You mean, like the guys who ruin, er, run, corporate america's banks and brokerage houses? No, like the guys who run IBM, Lockheed Martin, .... |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:35:14 -0500, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:04:57 -0500, Boater wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message t... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs to review and determine that. What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year but you only sold 10 million last year? Eisboch Then you have massive layoffs, of course., UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now. When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff. 95% pay for fishing. I think they got unemployment comp then the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once. That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about. I don't think I ever heard a straight answer. But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a condition of a taxpayer loan. The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot. --Vic The UAW already has proposed massive givebacks. Congress acknowledged that. Some liberal folks in Congress acknowledged the UAW's attempts to help? Hee, hee!! You're coming up with some good stuff today. Actually, it was a couple of Republicans. You're really back to your old style of being a horse's ass, Herring. More personal insults, Harry? -- John H. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message t... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs to review and determine that. What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year but you only sold 10 million last year? Eisboch Then you have massive layoffs, of course., UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now. When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff. 95% pay for fishing. I think they got unemployment comp then the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once. That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about. I don't think I ever heard a straight answer. But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a condition of a taxpayer loan. The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot. --Vic The UAW already has proposed massive givebacks. Congress acknowledged that. If you notice, every House or Senate member goes out of their way to acknowledge and commend the UAW president for the concessions they have made. And they have. But, the *major* concession was the recent willingness to eliminate the 95% pay for staying home because there's no work deal. At first it was to be temporary, then, sensing the wind, it was changed to "will consider making it permanent". For non-union workers, that isn't really a concession, it's reality. Both sides, management and the UAW president are being very careful about what they say and what they are willing to do to get some money. In the case of Chrysler, I think he sees the handwriting on the wall. I suspect we are witnessing the last gasps of breath for that company. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:42:48 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message If you notice, every House or Senate member goes out of their way to acknowledge and commend the UAW president for the concessions they have made. And they have. But, the *major* concession was the recent willingness to eliminate the 95% pay for staying home because there's no work deal. At first it was to be temporary, then, sensing the wind, it was changed to "will consider making it permanent". "will consider making it permanent" won't work. Those opposed to the loan can rightly say that taxpayers are paying autoworkers to do crossword puzzles at 95% of their wages. Of course just because I say that's unacceptable doesn't mean that Nancy and Barney will agree with me. --Vic |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts, vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these. Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court. It works. I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper. Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend to prefer Frank's bill. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:17:18 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:25:24 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Ford doesn't want them. They are trying to downsize themselves. They've sold their stakes in Saab, Jaguar, most of Mazda and are thinking of dumping Volvo. That's probably true, but Chrysler does have a few products lines that would merge very nicely with the overall Ford product line - I'm thinking Jeep in particular if there was only one. And their design team could do a lot for upgrading Ford's design group which has been stuck in neutral for a long time. When was the last time they upgraded the Crown Vic for example - that design has been around since 1999/2000 I think. The Crown Vic is no longer available to the public. (as of 2008) Ford still makes them for fleet sales only ... police and taxie cabs. The Mercury version is still available to the public, but not for long. Grand Marquis - Crown Vic with a snobby attitude. I had forgotten about that actually - they did cease production on them. I think the Taurus/Sable too if I'm not mistaken. Ford will end up with about three global car platforms and trucks. Probably, but I still think that some of the Chrysler platforms would make for a great addition to Ford and help rebrand Ford as a more modern, up-to-date manufacturer. -- "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." Theodore Roosevelt. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. Most of the members of Congress now realize that in their rush to do something, they really screwed up the TARP bailout. They won't make that mistake again. The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts, vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these. Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court. Exactly. Perfectly phrased. -- "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:30:32 -0500, Boater
wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Wall street brokerage house and bankers... Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of all management, and then blow up their buildings. No golden parachutes. Oh...and in all publicly traded corporations, no executive earnings to exceed 10 times the earnings of the average employee. Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah... By the way, when is the UAW going to fire it's Executives for getting them in this mess to begin with? UAW members elect their leadership. I'll ask that again - when is the UAW going to fire their Executives? -- Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is That ****es Liberals Off. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Dec 6, 7:43*am, Boater wrote:
D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. *Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. * Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. *They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. *He is so out of touch with reality that he can't *be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy *(ex-Boeing) *seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. *He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford *or GM. You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. We're in dire straits in this country. Everyone has to sacrifice, and if that means nulling and voiding contracts, let's also cut the pension and healthcare benefits of civilian and military retirees. Right? "Cut" I don't know, but a lot of things can be put into a more fair perspective. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Dec 6, 8:06*am, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. *If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Well, but shaving off some of that 10% could help. i know this is a 2005 doc. but it still goes on. i can't understand this type of reasoning: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503982/posts |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Dec 6, 9:16*am, JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:56:28 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message inet... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. *If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs to review and determine that. What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year but you only sold 10 million last year? Eisboch Then you have massive layoffs, of course., UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now. When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff. 95% pay for fishing. *I think they got unemployment comp then the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once. That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about. I don't think I ever heard a straight answer. But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a condition of a taxpayer loan. The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot. --Vic jobs bank,,,http://tinyurl.com/cbksn -- John H. you beat me to it John, I didn't know you'd already posted it. crazy, ain't it? |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Dec 6, 7:37*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. *Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. * Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. *They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. *He is so out of touch with reality that he can't *be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy *(ex-Boeing) *seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. *He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford *or GM. http://www.mattbors.com/strips/250.gif then http://www.mattbors.com/strips/251.gif |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken Well put. Those idiots and their boards need to be so fired. I can't believe they even get the time of day in DC. _ /'_/) ,/_ / / / /'_'/' '/'__'7, /'/ / / /" /_\ ('( ' /' ') For the GM & UAW \ / '\' _.7' \ ( \ \ |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:22:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Wall street brokerage house and bankers... Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of all management, and then blow up their buildings. No golden parachutes. Oh...and in all publicly traded corporations, no executive earnings to exceed 10 times the earnings of the average employee. Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah... By the way, when is the UAW going to fire it's Executives for getting them in this mess to begin with? UAW members elect their leadership. They could take out personal loans and bail GM out themselves. And at $2.5 billion market cap, heck, buy them out. No need for main street to put them on welfare. Besides, if GM goes down outright, Ford and Chysler ar bound to do better and lay off less people as they will benefit by getting more "Detroit" customers than if GM became Government Motors. I am a capitalist, while free money for companies sounds good, so does a deal with the devil. But I avoid such deals as it means the company is poision to everything it touches. GM needs chapter 11 to clean up what is wrong with it. And starting with the board and CEO, they need a firing real bad. It also sends a message to the UAW, yes, your idiot demands can screw you out of work. Americans should be insulted that they even suggest a handout. But that is the problem with socialism, once one gets it they all want it. It does not take long before every mismanaged company is lined up like thieves. And when no one is working to pay the taxes it collapses. I do agree with bailing out banks, but the terms are that shareholders, bond holders and management walks away without a cent. They become government owned and issured for above board regular depositors only. No bail outs of share holders, preferred shares, bond holders or management. The government does have to back the currency. That way share holders will be more careful in picking a good board and good executive managment next time. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Wall street brokerage house and bankers... Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of all management, and then blow up their buildings. No golden parachutes. Oh...and in all publicly traded corporations, no executive earnings to exceed 10 times the earnings of the average employee. I'd vote for that. I can't believe the compensation some of those CEOs get while the companies they run are into the dirt. If a company had a decent board of directors it would already have such policies. But I too always vote for it when I see it. One other thing I like is locked in performance bonuses that mature years later and they can't sell. I do watch insider trading. Problem is, the board of directors are often an "old boys" butt kiss club in many cases. So one hand payolas the others in non-obvious relationships. I always research the board and CEO history before buying a stock. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:38:35 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:16*am, JohnH wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:56:28 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message inet... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. *If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs to review and determine that. What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year but you only sold 10 million last year? Eisboch Then you have massive layoffs, of course., UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now. When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff. 95% pay for fishing. *I think they got unemployment comp then the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once. That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about. I don't think I ever heard a straight answer. But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a condition of a taxpayer loan. The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot. --Vic jobs bank,,,http://tinyurl.com/cbksn -- John H. you beat me to it John, I didn't know you'd already posted it. crazy, ain't it? As we used to say in Korea, "No sweatida." -- John H. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Agreed. Cerberus had this in mind for Chrysler all along. Buy Chrysler, strip out some good parts, cash and package a turkey for the market. They have been desperate to unload this turkey for awhile now. Surprises some senator or congress person does not bring this up. Or maybe they have some private equity in Cerberus. LOL. There was a board member they had a few years back, everything he sat on turned to trash including NorTel. Needles to say I didn't buy in. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he can't be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Funny, I would bet on Ford too. In fact, picked some up cheap the other day, short term play. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he can't be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. Are you going to bail out small business too? I ask as most of the 500,000 people suffering in November, and maybe a million in December are mostly non-union, non-auto. Who is bailing out the little guy? Might as well put the whole nation on welfare. The only sane solution is to cut waste and get more competative with less debt. If you can't do that like 300 million other people, you are screwed. Letting Detroit into the public purse, a bad mistake for everyone in the end. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he can't be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. We're in dire straits in this country. Everyone has to sacrifice, and if that means nulling and voiding contracts, let's also cut the pension and healthcare benefits of civilian and military retirees. Right? Don't worry, I think you will eventually see exactly that. Keep in mind government revenues are going down in this, further increasing debt. Since the government is quite litterly putting this on printing money credit, it is debt on the currency, at some point this will crash the dollar and breed hyper-inflation. Government has yet to realize you can't pay debt with more debt to get out of a hole. That practice means a deaper hole. I think government actually wants inflation thinking if a home inflates faster than deflation pressures that somehow the banks will not collapse further. But I think they are on a fools errand. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:43:59 -0500, Boater wrote: D.Duck wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he can't be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. We're in dire straits in this country. Everyone has to sacrifice, and if that means nulling and voiding contracts, let's also cut the pension and healthcare benefits of civilian and military retirees. Right? You thinking Obama's going to run the government out of business? -- John H. I do. Literally and figuratively. Obama may try bail out and free money, but it will fail. Government is ignoring some pretty obvious problems and solutions, because no one wants to hear it. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Boater" wrote in message ... Vic Smith wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:39:04 -0500, Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: wrote in message t... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Someone outside and disconnected from management and the labor unions needs to review and determine that. What if your fixed labor costs are based on selling 18 million cars a year but you only sold 10 million last year? Eisboch Then you have massive layoffs, of course., UAW has sub-pay, or whatever they're calling it now. When I was UAW at IH the senior guys went first on a layoff. 95% pay for fishing. I think they got unemployment comp then the company made up the rest. Never saw a layoff, but heard what happens when we got close once. That's one of the things Corker was hammering the union guy about. I don't think I ever heard a straight answer. But that's one of the contract provisions that should have to go as a condition of a taxpayer loan. The only way to make it work is the UAW gives up a lot. --Vic The UAW already has proposed massive givebacks. Congress acknowledged that. Let the details be told then. My guess a token amount. But I think local market and not union rates is more appropriate. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 8:06 am, wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:38:52 -0500, D.Duck wrote: You just want to see what some bankruptcy judge would do to union contracts. Direct labor costs are only @10% of the cost of building a car. If you want to cut costs, labor isn't the place to start. Well, but shaving off some of that 10% could help. i know this is a 2005 doc. but it still goes on. i can't understand this type of reasoning: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503982/posts ----- That statistic is bogus any way. 10% is just for assembing it. There is more in the supply chain and management as well. Magna (CAW) and JCI (UAW) are union for example. In fact, you could go right back into steel production and transportation unions. Finding 30% should be trivial if you are earnest about it. This is why the CAW and UAW are treating this like Custers Last Stand because if chapter 11 happens, their pay and benefits for nothing contracts disappear and will signal a turn in the whole industry. You should see what the NDP (backed predominantly by union) in Canada is up to with the Liberals who want government payola for screwing up. My sediments on it: _ /'_/) ,/_ / / / /'_'/' '/'__'7, /'/ / / /" /_\ ('( ' /' ') \ / For GM, CAW, UAW and their supporters '\' _.7' \ ( \ \ For which I will nevery buy a product again that has your mark. I don't want you in my wallet against my will. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
wrote in message t... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote: The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts, vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these. Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court. It works. I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper. Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend to prefer Frank's bill. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml That is because they all have the same problem. Slack incompetant management and union. Detroit has already spun off divisions and business in a complex non-value added web. But they are related to the issues. These contracts and management "buddy" relationships need to become more competative. They are correct this is an industry issue, and to let GM go into chapter 11 is really a necessity to send the shot out that it isn't going to pay to beg on the public purse. It is now a mater of principle and GM has screwed itself too far into the ground. Tehy should ditto this to banks, if they can't make it work then it should be no different. Hands in my pocket and they are not mine. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. Most of the members of Congress now realize that in their rush to do something, they really screwed up the TARP bailout. They won't make that mistake again. The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts, vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these. Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court. Exactly. Perfectly phrased. But he did decribe chapter 11 as it is. Chapter 7 is out of business. Chapter 11 is where a judge gets union, management and creditors together and orders a pan. If a plan fails, then on to chapter 11. But if they work out a real plan, no BS kind of plan, then they continue operations and work out of chapter 11. Chapter 11 is NOT the end of GM, it is however the end of GM-UAW BS. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I still say that this is a great opportunity for some capital investment firm to step in and build a new car company from scratch designed to compete with Honda/Toyota, etc. I'd be willing to bet that it could be done, start to manufacturing and distribution, in less than five years. Chapter 11 would allow that to proceed. I wouldn't even doubt some billionaires' private equity cash is sitting and waiting and watching. But they know, to get the meaningful change needed to make GM viable, means they need chapter 11. There is also a mater of equity here. GM's market cap is what, $2.5 billion? GM is asking for $25 billion? WTF. In my books that makes their debt to equity obscenly stupid. No wonder that can't borrow a dime. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Wagoner and Nardelli sure have their glum faces on in that picture. I wonder if they practiced in front of a mirror. ;-) Could be the look of a narcisist that just realized they are not going to get a free dip into the tax payers wallet. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:54:26 -0400, "Don White" wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...s_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. On some newscast, I heard that a US Congressman or Senator made the comment to the 'Big 3' that maybe they were making their vehicles 'too good" and therefore repeat/replacement sales are slow. If this is true, what a sad commentary on those in power. Liberal mentality. -- John H. Agreed. For what I paid for my truck I expect it to be the best, low maintenace and high quality. If I wanted cheap crap, I would get a 4x4 truck from China, under $10K. Or a Nano from India for $2500. And at $2500 if it lasted 3-4 years and the transmission died like my last GM did in 6 months, I would just buy a new one. But my guess is China and India are getting quality in. At one point Japanese was low quality, but they improved at a long but steady rate to become the better quality choice. These countries will do the same. Like TVs, computers and other stuff. Probalby too late to fix GM unless you like spending $10 to save $1. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:57:57 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:14:20 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1228...28184421.html? mod=rss_opinion_main Bankrupt them, downsize them, get rid of the onerous contracts and merge Chrysler with Ford. No bail out. Personally, I can't see Chrysler surviving. Ford, yes, and a much smaller and different GM. Exactly. Chrysler hired an outside bankruptcy law firm yesterday. They are preparing for the inevitable. GM needs to replace Wagoner. He is so out of touch with reality that he can't be in charge of reorganizing. The Ford guy (ex-Boeing) seems to be a little more pro-active and may be ok. He's only been there for two years and has already made some serious changes to Ford's overall business structure. Eisboch Sorry, but if we can bail out the useless pushers of paper on wall street and get absolutely nothing in return, we can help the millions of real working Americans whose jobs depend on the domestic auto industry. I don't buy into the concept that bankruptcy reorganization will work for Chrysler, Ford or GM. Are you going to bail out small business too? I ask as most of the 500,000 people suffering in November, and maybe a million in December are mostly non-union, non-auto. Who is bailing out the little guy? Might as well put the whole nation on welfare. The only sane solution is to cut waste and get more competative with less debt. If you can't do that like 300 million other people, you are screwed. Letting Detroit into the public purse, a bad mistake for everyone in the end. Saving the financial sector was important - saving the automakers isn't. The financial sector affects 100% of the economy, the auto industry is lucky if it affects 10% of the economy. Let 'em sink and the UAW with them. Once GM and Chrysler are gone, Ford can survive and deserves to - Ford is at least doing something about saving itself right here, right now. -- Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is That ****es Liberals Off. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:48:45 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I still say that this is a great opportunity for some capital investment firm to step in and build a new car company from scratch designed to compete with Honda/Toyota, etc. I'd be willing to bet that it could be done, start to manufacturing and distribution, in less than five years. Chapter 11 would allow that to proceed. I wouldn't even doubt some billionaires' private equity cash is sitting and waiting and watching. But they know, to get the meaningful change needed to make GM viable, means they need chapter 11. There is also a mater of equity here. GM's market cap is what, $2.5 billion? I just looked again - all three are worth less than 6 billion total in equity. GM is asking for $25 billion? Uh huh. Amazing ain't it? WTF. In my books that makes their debt to equity obscenly stupid. No wonder that can't borrow a dime. Let 'em die - that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :) -- Happy Holidays and Merry Whatever It Is That ****es Liberals Off. |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
wrote in message t... On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:42:35 -0500, Eisboch wrote: The fairest and most efficient means to save the auto industry is through a government (taxpayer) supported, pre-packaged Chapter 11 filing. They don't go immediately out of business. Current workers continue working. But, a federal judge will arbitrate new contracts, vendor payments, and the negotiations required to accomplish these. Government (taxpayer) financial support can be given subject to specific uses for the money, as overseen by the bankrupcy court. It works. I'm not sure bankruptcy court would work in this case. Bankruptcy court is good for getting people to do the same things, only cheaper. Detroit's supply chain, is already working on very thin margins, as evidenced by the number of in-bankruptcy companies, e.g., Delphi. It seems to me, a more innovative approach is needed for long term viability. Bankruptcy courts are not known for being innovative. I tend to prefer Frank's bill. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss111708.shtml A Chapter 11 filing does not, in itself, reorganize a company and certainly is *not* a means for "getting people to do the same things, only cheaper". All it does is protects the company from involuntary bankrupcy by putting the vendor bill collectors, banks and lawsuits at bay while an effort is made to reorganize and satisfy current finanical obligations via negotiation. While protected in Chapter 11 a plan is developed to reorganize, refinance, and re-negotiate existing (and in GM's case - obsolete) contracts. Overseen by a bankruptcy court, the plan, agreed to by all concerned parties is generated and when implimentated, the company emerges from Chapter 11. If a plan cannot be produced that is approved by all concerned parties, the company usually goes belly up in Chapter 7. Barney Frank's bill limits the ability to truly reorganize the auto companies. It's simply throwing money into the same sink hole. Six-eight months from now they'll be back, needing more survival money. The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to me. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
"Canuck57" wrote in message ... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I still say that this is a great opportunity for some capital investment firm to step in and build a new car company from scratch designed to compete with Honda/Toyota, etc. I'd be willing to bet that it could be done, start to manufacturing and distribution, in less than five years. Chapter 11 would allow that to proceed. I wouldn't even doubt some billionaires' private equity cash is sitting and waiting and watching. But they know, to get the meaningful change needed to make GM viable, means they need chapter 11. There is also a mater of equity here. GM's market cap is what, $2.5 billion? GM is asking for $25 billion? WTF. In my books that makes their debt to equity obscenly stupid. No wonder that can't borrow a dime. One of the financial experts interviewed on CNN commented on this. He said that even if GM received the full requested government bailout ... *plus* an additional 50-75 billion that he figured will be necessary in the future, GM will still be an insolvent, bankrupt company. It makes absolutely no sense to pour money into it without stepping back and completely reorganizing it's business base. It will be painful for sure. Jobs will be lost. Benefits will be cut back. Dealerships will close. But reality *has* to be faced and the sooner it is done, the better chance it has of surviving. IMO, anyone who thinks that simply dumping billions of dollars into a company like GM is going to benefit anyone in the long run has lost touch with reality. Eisboch |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 00:08:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: "Canuck57" wrote in message ... "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... I still say that this is a great opportunity for some capital investment firm to step in and build a new car company from scratch designed to compete with Honda/Toyota, etc. I'd be willing to bet that it could be done, start to manufacturing and distribution, in less than five years. Chapter 11 would allow that to proceed. I wouldn't even doubt some billionaires' private equity cash is sitting and waiting and watching. But they know, to get the meaningful change needed to make GM viable, means they need chapter 11. There is also a mater of equity here. GM's market cap is what, $2.5 billion? GM is asking for $25 billion? WTF. In my books that makes their debt to equity obscenly stupid. No wonder that can't borrow a dime. One of the financial experts interviewed on CNN commented on this. He said that even if GM received the full requested government bailout ... *plus* an additional 50-75 billion that he figured will be necessary in the future, GM will still be an insolvent, bankrupt company. It makes absolutely no sense to pour money into it without stepping back and completely reorganizing it's business base. It will be painful for sure. Jobs will be lost. Benefits will be cut back. Dealerships will close. But reality *has* to be faced and the sooner it is done, the better chance it has of surviving. IMO, anyone who thinks that simply dumping billions of dollars into a company like GM is going to benefit anyone in the long run has lost touch with reality. Rick Wagoner is so out of touch with reality, it's scary that a guy like him could actually be running a major manufacturing firm. GM is a UAW benefits company who just happens to make cars as a side line. Until they get rid of the UAW contracts plus the umpteen zillion dealerships they aren't going to survive and no amount of taxpayer money is going to save them. It's money down the UAW rat hole. TANSTAAFL and GM/UAW leadership is trying to hang on to the free lunch as long as possible. -- "An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." H.L. Mencken |
Bridge loan to nowhere..
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:59:58 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote: The auto industry's contracts and historical ways of doing business need a complete overhauling in order to be a viable, competitive entity in today's global markets. Chapter 11 reorganization, prepackaged with a government bridge loan to keep the beast breathing during the process, makes sense to me. While I understand the idea, I don't want money going to GM. Ford doesn't want the money, just a backup which is one hell of a lot less expensive. Let GM sink. If they can't get through Chapter 11, tough. Let them go Chapter 7 and disappear. Ford, Toyota, Honda and others will take up the slack. Survival of the fittest. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com