Environmental principles don't necessarily equate bad business principles. Wouldn't you agree that American auto makers have stalled far too long in bringing more efficient and alternative fuel choices to the American market? Heck, they're the innovaters of the SUV and Hummer! They were all about excess. Oil dependency seems to not be an issue to many these days. We're all innured to the price of gas that so outraged us a mere few years ago. But becoming used to something doesn't make it the right path. There's nothing at all "bad" about applying sound environmental principles in future planning.

 

 

Did you not read this?

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=180061

I sure you will not like the source, Rush said the of the top money makers for GM 11 of the models were SUVs and trucks. This is what the public wants. If the public wants those 'green' cars, why are they piling up like cordwood on the dealers lots?

 

And I know it is getting old for the socialists who will not admit to what they are, but forcing the car makers to make unpopular cars is another form of socialism. It telling both businesses and consumers what they have to do vs the freedom of choice.

 

 

The top sellers for them clearly were not enough however. They failed to adapt to a market trend, and for what it's worth I think it would have been better for them to have contracted, restructured and faced the market more efficiently.

Did you not read this?

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=180061

 

 

No...I hadn't. Still haven't done more than scan it. Time issues. But, I'll delve into it. But, if in a nutshell you're asking me to believe that we have no need to try and take care of the world responsibly, it's a wasted effort. Not trying to be snotty, but I feel about this as strongly as I feel about abortion, the death penalty, education....etc.

No...I hadn't. Still haven't done more than scan it. Time issues. But, I'll delve into it. But, if in a nutshell you're asking me to believe that we have no need to try and take care of the world responsibly, it's a wasted effort. Not trying to be snotty, but I feel about this as strongly as I feel about abortion, the death penalty, education....etc.

 

I advise you read it fully before taking a stance on it, to make sure you get a full understanding before throwing it under the bus as telling you not to want to take care of the word.

Labor Union to Obama: Fire Bank of America CEO

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

 

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama forced the ouster of the General Motors chairman, and now he must fire the Bank of America CEO, a labor union insists.

 

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is circulating an online petition, telling Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to get rid of Ken Lewis.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=45951

The top sellers for them clearly were not enough however. They failed to adapt to a market trend, and for what it's worth I think it would have been better for them to have contracted, restructured and faced the market more efficiently.

 

They were major sellers, it is what the pubilc wants, as to what the problem is I am not. One thing that is mentioned is the cost of paying for retirees. I am sure that is not the only reason they are having problems.

The problem isn't that GM can not sell cars. The Chevrolet Silverado out-sold the Honda Accord last month, the Chevy Malibu was also a top seller. (The Ford F-series pickup was the top selling auto in the US last month period!) Of the top 20 selling autos last month, 11 were made by either GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Selling cars is not the problem. Selling cars at a profit is.

 

GM's overhead cost are simply too high. The have two many white collar workers, they pay their union workers too much, their health and retirement benefits are too high, they have too many dealerships, and they make too many types of cars. The way out of this mess for GM is not pleasant but it is clear. They need to size their business to the size of the market and they need to reduce cost. The answer is to layoff thousands of white collar workers, close numerous plants, reduce wages, reduce benefits, close dealerships, and only make cars that they can sell at a profit. That's not a very appealing road to travel but if they have the fortitude to make the journey GM will emerge a healthy, profitable business.

The problem isn't that GM can not sell cars. The Chevrolet Silverado out-sold the Honda Accord last month, the Chevy Malibu was also a top seller. (The Ford F-series pickup was the top selling auto in the US last month period!) Of the top 20 selling autos last month, 11 were made by either GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Selling cars is not the problem. Selling cars at a profit is.

 

GM's overhead cost are simply too high. The have two many white collar workers, they pay their union workers too much, their health and retirement benefits are too high, they have too many dealerships, and they make too many types of cars. The way out of this mess for GM is not pleasant but it is clear. They need to size their business to the size of the market and they need to reduce cost. The answer is to layoff thousands of white collar workers, close numerous plants, reduce wages, reduce benefits, close dealerships, and only make cars that they can sell at a profit. That's not a very appealing road to travel but if they have the fortitude to make the journey GM will emerge a healthy, profitable business.

They are running at about 3 retirees for every active worker now? That's about 70-75% of their health care costs right there. Not to mention pensions, as well. That's not going to go away. In fact, it's going to get worse in the short term. They can't get lean and mean enough to cover that. So how do you trim that? Shoot the retirees? Short of the government taking control of the health care, I don't see GM making it.

They are running at about 3 retirees for every active worker now? That's about 70-75% of their health care costs right there. Not to mention pensions, as well. That's not going to go away. In fact, it's going to get worse in the short term. They can't get lean and mean enough to cover that. So how do you trim that? Shoot the retirees? Short of the government taking control of the health care, I don't see GM making it.

 

In a word: bankruptcy.

In a word: bankruptcy.

Yeah. You basically need to be able to create a new company by purchasing the assets of the old company from the bankruptcy court trustee. That way, you leave all the liabilities behind.

My point. No more GM and my primary job for the last 26 years goes with it. :irked:

 

The company that would emerge from bankruptcy would almost certainly still be called "GM". Also, your job may or may not go depending upon how productive and profitable that particular plant is.

The company that would emerge from bankruptcy would almost certainly still be called "GM". Also, your job may or may not go depending upon how productive and profitable that particular plant is.

I work for a supplier and we may very well survive, but Ford has restructured the way our end of the business works, cancelling us out. To survive, a new GM has to follow suit. A lot of business will hurt, even with a restructured GM.

Here is where we are headed, ....