# Saving the Big Three



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

So it's well known that the Big Three could disappear in a matter of years if they're not bailed out and while at first I was totally against bailing them out I mean their failure to evolve from dinosaurs to the fine, modern, fuel efficient cars North Americans have come to expect is completely their fault. On the other hand, millions of jobs around North America are on the line, and Ontario is set to lose big time as a result. Sure they're asking for a loan but if they continue on their merry ways of building muscle cars that only cater to the motor enthusiasts and big pick up trucks that can't be sold because of the influx of used trucks available from contractors who are out of work. On the flip side the low gas prices might stave off the SUV failure for now.

I think one thing Transport Canada can do is ease their safety regulations to allow the smaller cars that Ford and GM sells overseas to be sold in Canada such as the Chevy Cruze and Ford Ka (although that'll also open the gates for all the small cars all the Japanese companies have). Perhaps we can issue loans only to the companies who can come up with a sound business plan that makes sense and offer incentives/grants for increasing their average MPG by so and so % or releasing a car that gets better than 60 MPG combined city/hwy on a gasoline engine. I believe that the domestic car companies can compete against the foreign car companies but I believe it's time for government intervention to almost force them to do so.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

<sigh>

I've been thinking about putting up a similar poll, too. Thx for forging ahead, dona83.

I've been trying to follow both sides of the argument for about a week now and I'm still sitting on the fence.

My gut response is not a chance. You idiots got yourselves into this mess, now get out of it. As a small business owner, if I'm not smart enough to recognize market trends & respond to them, can I go to the feds looking for a handout to "fix" my stupidity? Not bloody likely...

OTOH, yes, I can see that millions of people will be negatively affected, either directly or indirectly, by the closure of the big 3.

I ran across another article online today (sorry can't find it...), wherein the comments an observation was made that the money they were asking for ($25 billion?) was more than you could buy the big 3 for (~$8 billion). I have seen nothing to back these numbers up, but if true, I'm even more against it.

_If_ the Feds decide to give a handout, I am vehemently against the CAW having any part of the negotiations. In addition, absolutely none of the cash must end up in executive pockets or executive perks.

There would be other conditions as well, but I think the above would be a good starting point, _if_ someone could convince me that bailout money is a good thing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This money would be used to prop up bad decisions and excessive contracts that the company stupidly agreed to. How is this money supposed to save them? Time for them to go under or merge.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Giving them money is just prolonging a slow death. Let them fail or find angels to save them. Either option would (should) clear the companies out. It will be painful but they will emerge stronger and fitter. Now is the time to green transportation. Letting the big three die and be reborn 'may' (!?!) allow them the chance to be the leaders in this new world instead of followers.

One of these days l'd like to point to something designed in North America (other then Apple) and be proud to say it was designed and built here. Most of the cool, well made products, come from Asia or Europe. (I suspect a lot of people will hate me for such a blanket statement and point out products that are made here that are world beaters - the statement comes from my love of cameras, audio etc.) 

Oh, I've just thought of an exception other then Apple - bicycles! North America makes great bicycles!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

No Bail Out PERIOD. I would favour conditional loans.

The conditions:
1. Maximum salary including per diems, travel expenses, bonuses, overtime and everything else not to exceed $250,000/year until loan is paid back.
2. Top 3 execs with each company get $1/year until loan is repaid.
3. Jobs need to be kept in Canada.
4. They agree to produce in Canada an affordable (less than $15,000) 4 passenger car that gets a minimum of 50 miles per US Gallon in real city driving. This needs to be done within 3 years and needs to carry at least a 5 year warranty.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

They should borrow their money from the big oil companies,
Why should the consumer always be the one to pay and pay and pay and...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The problem with loans is that if they do end up going bankrupt anyway, that's $25 billion lost because they'll have burned through that $25 billion. Incentives work best... give their best engineers the one year they have to survive to build a 50mpg city car. Lay off workers and hire them again when it's time to churn the new cars through. Shouldn't be hard for GM and Ford since they both have small cars already overseas they can work with. Chrysler... will likely be gone in 2 years tops.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

****, I spent the money I earned from work on DVD's.... will the government bail me out?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Screw the idea of having them build a super economy car for the money. There's no guarantee anyone would buy it anyway. Let them crash, and have smarter car makers like Toyota pick up the slack. It's not as though these are home-grown Canadian companies in danger. 

The market has delivered its judgment on these scoundrels. Who is the government to over-ride that judgment?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

no way.
let them go under.
But do put HUGEEEEEEE incentives to any company that is willing to make the car of the future. this will help create new jobs for those people that get laid off, but at responsable wages.

It's time to clean the house!!!!!! I want a cheap electric vehicle and i want it now!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I've had a hard time deciding what should be done because it's absolutely true that they've created the mess their in. When California mandated zero emissions from future cars, and GM was given the money and technology for a zero emission electric car, GM did everything in it's power to cancel the program - just do a google on EV1. I'm sure Ford and Chrysler have had similar fiasco's. Unfortunately, just because they created the mess their in, they won't be the only ones paying for it, just like the financial mess. In the end alot of people pay for it, directly and indirectly. 

I definitely think there have to be conditions/restrictions - (perfect time for some environmental restrictions maybe?). As well, maybe some of that money should go to the *Canadian* smaller companies trying to create better vehicles and better technologies. Like htat Quebec company creating electric cars?

Maybe we should have a Big 1 or 2 - ie. Chrysler or GM buys out the other and we have Chrysler/GM and Ford - and as I said, we help one or 2 Canadian smaller startup companies who are creating environment friendlier vehicles. But these vehicles have to be able to go at least 90 km/h - not this stupid 50 km/h restriction.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I picked "Other" because there was no ABSOLUTELY *NOT*!! option.

These companies and their co-conspirators the unions have put themselves in this position through consistent mismanagement, unreasonable wage rates, persistent failure to predict their market, obsessive adherence to outdated norms and ridiculous pricing/interest rate/instant cash offers just to "get units off the lot" regardless of cost and offers only marginally different from sub-prime mortgaging in an essentially financially unregulated industry. 

It is simply beyond me why the taxpayers should bail these guys out. 

If Honda and Toyota and others can profit in this market then why can GM/Ford/Chrysler not manage it? They have obsessively failed to do their home work. The jobs which we allegedly are going to save aren't going to last unless they stop cranking out antiquated garbage anyway.

So we get a stake in the company. The company will be worth nothing.

Capitalism died (as surely as the Berlin Wall fell and communism died in its turn) when Bush gave dime one to the banks. That was socialism pure and simple. Socialism won that round.

The free markets have come crawling to the people for help!!! 

It'd be 'sweet' (in the good way) if it wasn't going to be so nasty (in the bad way) until the fan stops and all the crap has been wiped off all the walls, to be figurative.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I actually have some sympathy with that view especially regarding Chrysler but there are simply too many jobs and pensions at stake not to manage the process.

What that management consists of I have no idea.

There is an over capacity that has to be squeezed out.

Tax payers will end up on the hook for pension shortfalls and to a degree loss of tax payer base.

If you look at Algoma the gov bridge worked out well tho it took a while.

This is a much knottier problem.



> McGuinty sees smaller auto industry despite aid
> Article Video Comments (98)
> MURRAY CAMPBELL
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


reportonbusiness.com: McGuinty sees smaller auto industry despite aid


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc, why would taxpayers have to bail out the pension funds of auto workers if they go under?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The "Big Three" are getting what they deserve. They have built too many examples of defective junk to be redeemed. If they go bust, it is because they have not been able to adapt to the realities of the post 1972 gas crisis world.

Ford makes excellent cars for the money - but they do not bring them to North America. For example, the Focus is an excellent car, in Europe, but here, it's all about having wheels fly off, and placing impotent but gas thirty engines into them.

GM makes garbage-mobiles, their glory age long past. They are still reliant on their giant V-8's designed in the early 60's, though they may have multiport fuel injection what, fifteen years after every other manufacturer left multiport and went to sequential fuel injection systems.

Chrysler, well, at least their cars look cool - but they are an owners disaster and best friend of many a mechanic. Without Chrysler, half the service shops would disappear.

Mergers are not a solution - look at the Daimler-Benz Chrysler merger. Instead of using "expertise" and "engineering" to make a better Chrysler, they ended up making a far more inferior Benz. The PT Cruiser, instead of being a trend setting and advanced implementation of the Toyota Production System techniques, became a reskinned lump of garbage based on the Neon (which was garbage from day 1).

No money should be forked over to these losing companies, it's time to let the Laws of Darwin see these dinosaurs go extinct. Chrysler was bailed out already - and yet the hat is out for handouts. Ford should have learned a lesson about quality, considering the garbage they made in the 70's. And all three of them had billions of dollars plowed into them in the PNGV program - a program that saw ZERO "New Generation" cars ever built. No alternative fuels, no efficient engines, no technology - ZERO. They had their chance, it's time for them to either get with the program or to close their doors.

It would be better for the Government to simply give the $25 Billion to the employees, in retraining, or early retirement - and skip the whole part where the executives will skim off a few billion for themselves in "bonuses". And when the Big Three are gone, the Japanese and Koreans will soon set up their shops, and more workers will have access to decent jobs in safer workplaces and be treated with way more respect.

And collectors will reap the benefits, as the products of the Big Three will soon become rare, and hence, more valuable...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Yea I change my mind too, don't bail out the auto sector. We probably have a good $25 billion in former urban rail lines around the country that can be resurrected after 60 years of hibernation. In Vancouver there's a push to bring back around 200km in former Interurban lines we want to bring back. Has anyone watched the Changeling? The streetcars around Los Angeles wer a beauty to behold.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> MacDoc, why would taxpayers have to bail out the pension funds of auto workers if they go under?


 it's the law - have hunt around but there is some guarantee of pensions.

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation financial definition of Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation finance term by the Free Online Dictionary.



> Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
> A federal agency that insures the vested benefits of pension plan participants (established in 1974 by the ERISA legislation).
> 
> Copyright © 2004, Campbell R. Harvey. All Rights Reserved.
> ...


To put some scale on this 3 million jobs in North America ( not counting Mexico ) that depend on the Big Three.

Operating bankruptcy is likely the best bet as that allows companies to shelter from cash flow issues while they reorganize.

3 million people losing jobs over say 6 months would put the continent in a death dive when it's already in a tail spin.

Out of that quite a number of jobs are relatively high paying . UE will get hammered, welfare for the lower income refugees from it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I thought you meant Canada. O know the PBGC but it is hideously underfunded. It will just go bankrupt, though I suspct Obama might be inclined to bail that out as well, considering he is talking nice about bailing out the automakers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> p-Ed Contributor
> Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
> 
> By MITT ROMNEY
> ...


more here Op-Ed Contributor - Let Detroit Go Bankrupt - NYTimes.com

••••

That same guarantee is offered by Ontario

Revised PBGF Allocation Process - Financial Services Commission of Ontario


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I held my nose (this stinks)
I closed my eyes (just like Government)
I voted with some restrictions.

Too many ancillary jobs would be lost. 

And their pension funds would fail.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

good analysis here with implications...



> *GM in Crisis—5 Reasons Why America's Largest Car Company Teeters on the Edge*
> 
> Strapped for cash, GM is on the brink of bankruptcy. It's a dramatic shift for a car company that had begun to right itself after decades of trouble. So what happened? We turned to PM Advisory Board Member and Chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, David Cole, for his take. Ironically, GM's perfect storm of troubles hit just as the company seemed to be making progress on a number of fronts: The company is producing its most competitive cars and trucks in decades, and the upcoming 2011 Chevy Volt has generated more excitement for GM than any product in recent memory. On the cost side, the market slowdown has closed factories, which has removed most if not all of the industry's overcapacity of cars and trucks. And when a new labor agreement kicks in, GM's cost to produce a car will fall to a point where it can once again be profitable. That's the good news. The question is, will GM be around to benefit once the economy improves? The troubles at GM are vast and complex, but Cole summarized what he sees as the immediate and long-range factors that have brought the once dominant automaker to its knees.
> By Larry Webster
> Published on: November 18, 2008


5 points here

GM in Crisisâ€”5 Reasons Why America's Largest Car Company Teeters on the Edge - Popular Mechanics


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Here is my take on this whole issue. My vote was for NO WAY! No bail out, and I think this should go to a vote right across the country and not our governments decision. That's they way it should be as this is EVERYONE'S money that is being used in this country.

Everyone keeps talking about the BIG 3? What about the rest of the industry that imports their vehicles? Or in fact owns and operates two plants soon in Ontario? I don't see them asking for a bail out? OH WAIT they're not unionized forgot.

If you look at the line up of foreign cars the majority have done their R&D years back. Why do you think Toyota is the leader in manufacturing Hybrid and going to the next step? Who knows what Toyota has up their sleeve, maybe they too will go electric. All I know is, that the "others" are feeling the pain of the economic down turn, but the auto industry globally is not responsible for this down turn in the global economy. The media plays heavily on this, and I don't believe it for one second. 

How do we know what the BIG 3 will do with the bail out? That's something I don't hear about in the media. What are their plans? What will they do in the next 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Still producing large ass pick up trucks? Suvs and V8 engines for all to drive? I mean lets see some business plans out there if we as a country are going to bail their asses out, I want to see solid business plans and future goals. Give them one year to make massive changes over night. I don't care how, tell those $300,000 plus CEO's to get their crap in gear and lets be serious here. 

I want this bail out decision to go to a democratic vote across Canada. I want to see the BIG 3 produce their business plans for the next 3,5 and 10 years. Based on that, we vote! If they can't come to those terms, then start packing up. This is my country and I live here, I will be damned if I let some unions and the government decide on what close to a billion dollars is going to go, when it could be used more effectively.

Just to edit: MSN.ca did a similar vote and it was an outstanding NO of majority for a bail out. That speaks volumes, living in Ontario that is.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Japanese car companies have very strong unions. Try and keep up. 

JAW

That they may not be present in certain jurisdictions is immaterial.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Heard a funny line on the radio today that went something like this: "Would you wear mink... if you went begging?"

Apparently the big3 execs went flying around in multi million dollar private jets to beg for that bailout. Enough is enough. No way, no how, no bailout until they clean house and the union halls as well.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

out of the job!!!
no pension!!!!

been there, done that, i even got kicked out of my country into this frozen hell (irony folks) called Canada, with no friends, no job, no family, no canadian work experience. And I'm still alive and kicking. I hope Obama doesn't bail them out, although i could agree if the U.S. government buys them over and puts a shrewd manager to turn them around, but definitely getting rid of all the baggage.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *A Sea of Unwanted Imports*
> Jamie Rector for The New York Times
> 
> Imports stranded on the dock.
> ...


more here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business/economy/19ports.html


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

I don't like the idea of bailouts either, but the collapse of the industry would be a far worse scenario.

The bigger outrage for me is the bailout for the financial industry. Those guys were simply gambling with funny money, and not producing anything.

Love it, or hate it, the auto industry has been the backbone of our life, culture, and wealth, since the first model T's came off the assembly line. Let's not forget these are real products, that have real value and importance to everyone in the western world.

The auto industry is also the top of the industrial food chain here. When the top is in bad shape, the bottom is even worse. We are losing our manufacturing sector at an exponentially rising pace.

Much of it has already left for China, and whole industries have been wiped out, never to return. Look at clothing, shoes, appliances, computers, you name it. What used to be high end jobs like toolmaking and mouldmaking, have also been wiped out. We can't compete with dollar a day wages in a controlled society that may take decades for wages to rise to balance out with the rest of the world.

The collapse of the big three will lead to an immediate domino effect throughout all industries, and will destroy the middle class. Sure, you could say that Toyota and Honda will pick up the slack, but who's going to have money to buy cars when you're out of a job, and you don't know how you're going to pay your rent or mortgage.

Looks like the commies have won in the end.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

bleh... XX) 

nevermind... losers


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

If GM dies then the entire North American (including Mexico) economy dies. From cardboard boxes, to foam inserts, to plastic molding, metal stamping, bearings, glass, radio manufacturers and the list goes on forever and then all the suppliers for them. The auto industry is what drives this economy 99%. If they die then everything dies.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I truly don't know the answer to this question. I hope there are people who know better than me that can make the right decision.

The first thing I would note is that this question will be decided in the US, not Canada and from what I read the tendency is to do a bail out of some kind. If they do that, then Canada has to get in on it. Canada's response will have to be tailored to whatever the US decides. Hopefully Harper is smart enough to know that and to already have people in Washington representing that.

On one hand I have no love for the big US automakers. They have dragged their feet on safety, environmental issues and innovation at every turn. While the Japanese makers are going to suffer in this recession/depression also, they believe they can survive it because of their past decisions being more sound. I tend to agree with many who express the "too bad, karma's a bitch" view.

On the other hand, just how devastating would be the result if they were left to their own resources? Could they merge into a single company that could be made more competitive? Would they all just go bankrupt? And if so, would this mean the world's economy would be in for more trouble than it is already looking at? Are we looking at the 25-30% unemployment levels of the 1930s if major manufacturers like this go under? So are they really "too big to fail"?

I really don't know the answer to these questions and I get the feeling that even most of the experts don't either. One thing I think is true is that we are entering truly uncharted waters here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More on pensions...



> GM pension woes also hang over Ontario
> 
> Updated: Wed Nov. 19 2008 6:57:24 PM
> 
> ...


CTV Toronto- GM pension woes also hang over Ontario - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Remember the Ford Pinto? It would burst into flames. Instead of fixing them through recall they decided that it was cheaper to pay a few lawsuits. They didn't care if their customers died.


The Pinto was one thing - how about all of the Fords that would "pop" into Reverse and crash into whatever.

There used to be a car lot in Hamilton that sold two kinds of used cars, Ford Pintos and Chevy Vegas. The dude would ask the customers "do you want a car that explodes, or one that just goes on fire?"...

And those cars represented the Big Three response to the gas crisis, and when they were failures, the Big Three went limp wristed. Well, GM attempted to go front wheel drive, and their efforts were pretty pathetic. Cars like the Cadillac Cimmaron, the Ciera, the Somerset Regal - all pretty terrible cars. Chrysler "saved" themselves by bringing out the K-Car, which proved that Chrysler can build something that was actually worse than GM's offerings. By the time the mid-80's came along, Detroit needed "protection" from the evil Japanese, who somehow were bulding much better cars at competitive prices...

The Big Three never saw the real competition, and fooled themselves into thinking that they couldn't possibly build disasters like the Pinto and Vega, but they were wrong - they managed to build the Fuego, the Fiero, the Saturn, and all of the Fords that suffered from the electric fuel pump staying on and pumping the entire tank of gas into the engine compartment (that's why most Fords have the rip cord in the trunk...). Too many disasters to name.



> After they die, hopefully rail and transit will multiply and be a better replacement employer.


But there will always be the Toronto Transit Commission to carry on with the high level of corporate malfeasance and abuse of workers that the Big Three were experts at...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The president of GM U.S. says that if they get their bail-out they might last until next year. 

hooray....


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

-60 years ago, GM (and a few other companies) were responsible for slaughtering the massive, efficient transit systems we had in the early 20th century and they expect us to bail them out.

-All the Big Three have seen their stocks plummet around 95% since 2000 while their CEOs continue to pat themselves on the back and pay themselves $300,000 each. The stockholders should be absolutely furious. GM was at $60 around 2000, they were at $6 about a month ago... and if you think things couldn't get worse, they're at less than $3 now! At least they have the Volt coming but if it weren't for the imports, there would've been absolutely no incentive for GM to build such a car.


----------



## HAL 9000 (Jun 30, 2008)

I wondering why wouldn't the autoworkers union offer to bail out the auto industry, I'm sure they're flush with cash, with decades of collecting union dues, if the north american auto workers unions cares so much about saving jobs, and the industry, here's there chance.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> If GM dies then the entire North American (including Mexico) economy dies. From cardboard boxes, to foam inserts, to plastic molding, metal stamping, bearings, glass, radio manufacturers and the list goes on forever and then all the suppliers for them. The auto industry is what drives this economy 99%. If they die then everything dies.


You "get" it. I don't think many folks understand the depth of this situation. If it were simply a matter of letting GM alone sink I wouldn't mind. The truth is, the consequences are mind boggling in scope.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> All the Big Three have seen their stocks plummet around 95% since 2000 while their CEOs continue to pat themselves on the back and pay themselves $300,000 each.


That's their base "salary", then add on bonuses, incentives, and stock options and they are raking in more cash than you can imagine. They even get bonuses when some scheme of theirs fails, because the board of directors votes for it. And that is the sad thing, since in the "old days", the company was run by management, and the Directors were overseers - but these days, it's all incest, with the Directors being some "Chief Executive" whatever, and getting involved i nthe day to day things and ruining the company.



> The stockholders should be absolutely furious. GM was at $60 around 2000, they were at $6 about a month ago... and if you think things couldn't get worse, they're at less than $3 now!


GM has long been a Junk Bond, and even the vulture funds are not interested. GM got into too many crazy money loosing ventures at great costs, like OnStar, which is proprietary, costly, and fairly useless. Oh, they can phone you if the transmission falls out of your car and lights up the Service Engine Soon light.

My big beef with GM has been with their "tradition" of Vapourmobiles - those cars that are rumoured, or are seen at shows, but never make the light of day. In the day, I wanted to buy a Buick Grand National - but what I really wanted was one with twin turbo, or even with a rootes blower - all of which were unavailable at any price from GM. So people that want a speed machine end up going somewhere else, since Ford would sell a Thunderbird with either a supercharger or turbocharger, and Chrysler, well, they know how to put some speed on the road at great cost.

GM bought out SAAB and turned it from the nutter-mobile that had an avid niche audience, into a barely different from a Saturn yawnmobile with few redeeming qualities. 

GM never made fundamental improvements either, clinging onto the venerable 3.8L V-6 which was a good engine, but leaked oil like all get out, and was for many years strangled by the tiny DuoJet, and they were twenty years too late with fuel injection. GM also never came out with an LEV or ULEV engine - and has become dependent upon rebadging the competitions vehicles. GMs problems are HUGE, and it is not just because they sell Hummers or Tahoes - but because in every sector, you can buy from other marqs, who are happy to have new customers. GM makes nothing, nothing that can be compared to say, the Mazda Miata - and if you want a fast Miata, there is MazdaSpeed. What does GM have? Mr. Goodwrench? Yeah, and with a GM, you are going to have a fairly intimate relationship with Mr. Goodwrench.

They do try things, like the Pontiac Solstice, which looks cool enough, but really, it is a mechanical wretch that given the choice, I'd probably opt for a PT Cruiser because at least I know about the disasters of the Neon engine and drivetrain.



> At least they have the Volt coming but if it weren't for the imports, there would've been absolutely no incentive for GM to build such a car.


The Volt, according to their commercials, if you read the fine print, is destined to be a vapourmobile. "May be available as early as 2011". It will end up being like the pickup truck they were flaunting a few years ago, the SST or something, which looked cool but was not available at a dealer near you. So then Ford scooped up that business with the SVT Lightning, which didn't look as cool - but was available at Ford dealers. The Volt will end up with as much marketshare as the GM EV1 has now.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

the writing is on the wall (article below)....and I drive Honda's. I have to say good bye to the POS GM, Chrysler and Ford have put out over the last 30 years. I have been driving now for 19 years and all the big 3 still produce the same garbage now as they did back then...

Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and maybe some not ford produced Mazda's have improved over time.

No need for bailout, say diners near thriving car plant - CNN.com

I actually think Hyundai produces better cars than the big three and they have been around since 1984!!


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

Only GM deserves to be saved, since they make the best product of all of them. I would not shed a tear if Ford and Chrysler slipped into oblivion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

adagio said:


> You "get" it. I don't think many folks understand the depth of this situation. If it were simply a matter of letting GM alone sink I wouldn't mind. The truth is, the consequences are mind boggling in scope.


This is too dire a prediction, even for a veteran pessimist and gloomster like _moi_. Too, there is absolutely zero guarantee that a government bailout of any or all of the big three would restore them and our economy to fiscal health... we could very well be throwing more good money at an irreparable problem.

I can't shake the feeling that a bailout would reward mighty GM and co. for all their arrogance and stupidity; their executives would snicker at their parachute packages and the lowly assembly line grunts would have a few months to a year before they'd receive their pink slips. It's too late to save these companies and all of the 3rd party suppliers. We should have been busy diversifying all along, rather than keep all our eggs in one basket.

Better to pave the way for smaller, nimbler companies to supply us with micro-cars and for multi-level government efforts to forge an effective, comprehensive mass transit strategy (I wish).

The era of North American car production is swiftly drawing to a close and we can't afford to get sentimental about it. Not now. We might have even bigger economic problems to grapple with in the coming months.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Let them go bankrupt and fend for themselves. A better product/company may grow from the ashes. Most importantly, it will also give them a chance to get rid of the primary issue - the huge cost of labour and ridiculous benefits. Skill for skill, your regular factory auto worker is the most overpaid blue collar I can think of.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good one, MacDoc! Sad but funny all the same.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yes there would be a huge backlash if they closed over night, but that will never happen.

First they'd file Chapter 11 (in the US) and hopefully downsize and restructure. That should keep them operating for several years.

Many of you are concerned over the repercussions in the 3rd party supply channel. Well, let me tell you that a great number of them are in Mexico and in overseas countries such as China. Perhaps Mexico and China should pitch in for the bailout.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

imactheknife said:


> I actually think Hyundai produces better cars than the big three and they have been around since 1984!!


Hyundai Motor company was established in 1967 and there 1st car was a Ford Cortina clone released in 1968, and yes some of Hyundai's cars are better than most of what the NA manufacturers produce now albeit some of there models are on the bland side of design they are all over engineered machines that hold up rather well in our environment.

Laterz


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The U.S. bail-out will occur on some level as a payback by the Democrats to Big Labor for its support of Obama. This will keep all of the pensions and benefits alive for a year or so. 

Bankruptcy and restructuring makes sense on so many levels that there is no reason to bail these companies out, excpet to preserve labour contracts.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Maybe the big three should combine companies and become G.F.C.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

To Max,

Adagio and I are in agreement on this. And, it is not that I disagree with you in that they have run their companies irresponsibly. However, it is simply not a feasible option to let them reduce their production down to a 'nimbler' scale. That would spiral the North American economy (incl. Mexico) towards a trend of _de_industrialisation. Almost every company at some point supplies an automaker, a tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 or a service supplier to any of those levels. For example, the last little while I have been following the paper industry (cardboard boxes) for it is such a massive, high capital-asset investment and technologically intensive production system and since it is a more basic commodity it tends to ride through tough times a lot easier. In past rough times such as the 96'/97' economic slow down they kept production-sales volumes relatively stable while the rest of the economy started to slide. However, even with the latest slow downs in production from North American auto makers we are seeing very large paper board companies filing for chapter 11. Eg., Grupo Durango filed about 3.5 weeks ago, Temple-Inland should be filing fairly soon, International Paper has dropped in stock prices as well as sales volumes significantly. Perhaps the only 'healthy' paperboard manufacturers are Weyerhauser and Georgia Pacific. The rule of thumb is for me. When the paper industry starts hurting the economy is in bad trouble.

The gravity of the situation and its ramifications for the entire economy is beyond grandeur. I cannot even fathom the collapse of of one, or all three, of the US automakers. They consume everything from cardboard boxes, to glass, radios, car alarms. Just like at Visteon Corporation. Massive company and all they make are car alarms for Ford.

If they go under, our economy goes under and it will be unlike anything we have witnessed before. To try and jump start the economies the governments will start exploiting our primary resources even more - but that is a game of continuos fiscal depression and trade deficits. So they will try and entice industry from China, Brazi, Mexico, Europe and Japan to set up shop and produce there. However, that will only succeed in a artificial reduction in wages and regulation. At this point the Canadian and American economies will effectively enter the 'developing' economy status (I argue that Canada is not a 'developed' economy but that is a different debate). We will try and borrow money from the IMF to dig ourselves out of the hole and provide fiscal certainty. Perhaps the only thing that might make the experience any different from that of Bolivia or what Pakistan will face is that the US controls the IMF.

If the big three are left to die. The joint US-American economies will deindustrialise and will not be able to afford to reindustrialise.

To MasterBlaster,

You are running the assumption that the US and Canada are developed because they reside in North America and they have always been so. That is a naive statement in totality. The US and Canada may have been _un_developed but they were never _under_developed. There is a difference.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

The auto industry makes up 12% of the GDP. It's HUGE!!

I read the other day that both Honda and Toyota are nervous about the situation too. They are concerned about their suppliers if GM and Ford should collapse. If the supply chain goes down then production at the Japanese car plants go down as well. 

Like I said before this isn't about just GM closing shop. It affects the part suppliers that directly feed GM. Then there are those who supply to those suppliers and so on. 

Having said all the above, the Big Three certainly aren't doing much to save their bacon. I'm totally disgusted they have no immediate plans to smarten up. Neither do the unions. Until they come up with a viable plan I can well understand the reluctance of both the US and Canadian governments to give them a red cent. I would hope that they don't without some massive concessions.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

To sum up what Adrian has said:

We give the BIG 3 billions of dollars to help them out and magically we get out of this recession over night for all of North America. We save both countries Canada and the US from going under completely. It is the BIG 3's fault that the entire worlds economy has gone down the tubes including the economies here in North America.

Wow!

Well then, if saving the BIG 3 will increase the gas prices at the pumps again, bring back those jobs lost in the automotive industry and fix this recession mess world wide, by all means lets hand out the billions to fix it ASAP. What are we waiting for? (sarcasm) :lmao: 

How many of you here watch The Agenda? They did a live program the other night down in Windsor on this very topic. The most outspoken individuals were of course the Unions. One young student approached the microphone and was asked what his goals were after graduation? Apparently he is not into working for Chrysler at the plant in Windsor. His answer was, since Windsor is a heavily industrialized city and it wasn't his cup of tea, he was moving out of Windsor to get a better career. Now after that was said, the question was asked how many more young people are looking to do the same?

Then the topic was about Kitchener/Waterloo how these cities lost industrialized plants and workforce. Hate to burst the bubble, but both cities are still alive and they actually turned around and created a whole new workforce and economy in place of the industrialized that was lost. This area is still growing like crazy with thousands of people moving here each year. 

It was an interesting show as the entire weeks topics were on this issue above. 

In the end, what I gather from those above is, we save the BIG 3 yet again from their screw ups, the economy magically improves overnight and the rest of the world is back on their feet as well. The world economy once again goes back to normal and we live happily ever after


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The combined share value of the Big 3 is circa $5 billion and they want $25 billion in LOANS!!!!! 

MM has some points....

YouTube - Michael Moore: What We're Seeing is the End of Capitalism

Seems to me a size large control on the board is in order......


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Respectfully Adrian, I remain unconvinced by your argument. There is no guarantee that a bailout would work. It seems to me that conditions are ripe to reward bad decisions on the part of the Big 3 with public money in a harrowing new era in which horrendous fiscal decisions will have particularly grave consequences. If I could be persuaded that this is anything but a massive gamble with public money I might be hopeful that we do this thing.

Seems we are damned either way. My argument is that GM and co. carelessly sowed the seeds of their own destruction long ago; the recent economic tragedy only precipitated its death throes. Why must we prop them up, and what guarantees do we have that they won't squander what new money we give them?

What we really need to be concerned about is staying calm and not encourage panic and runs on the banks. Because that's when things could get really intense.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> The combined share value of the Big 3 is circa $5 billion and they want $25 billion in LOANS!!!!!


The platinum shower curtains and diamond encrusted gold toilets the executives need are not inexpensive items - and I think $25 Billion is barely a drop in the bucket when it comes to executive opulence. beejacon

Of course, the money paid to executives is well worth it - just look at the cars that they are making that no one wants - they are thinking green!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Interesting interview with Moore, MD, although breezy arguments like this always irk me - the end of capitalism, is it? This bold declaration reminds me of that 90s dude Francis Fukayama who grandly told the world that it was indeed the end of history. Turns out he was merely surfing a heady wave of neoconservatism in its strident infancy, blissfully before everything began to unravel. And happened to Fukayama, anyway? Perhaps _he's_ history?

Anyway, Moore's best point is the absurdity of entrusting billions of dollars to corpulent auto execs whose epic mismanagement drove us into this corner in the first place. He's right... the 'leadership,' if you can call it that, is a huge part of the problem.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The fat fellow is, as usual, way off base. We don't entrust this money to auto execs--we exchange the money for cars and it then becomes THERE'S.

We do however, entrust our money to government who takes it whether or not we agree. They wisely invest it in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ensure they spend no more than they take in.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> However, it is simply not a feasible option to let them reduce their production down to a 'nimbler' scale.


So you are saying that we should preserve these dinosaurs because they entirely failed to get with the program? Toyota can build 9 Million vehicles a year and be entirely nimble - while good old GM is still cranking out their trucks that they designed in what, the 1960's?



> That would spiral the North American economy (incl. Mexico) towards a trend of _de_industrialisation.


So closing GM would see a return of millions of people to farming and cottage industries? That is entirely silly. GM (or whoever) going bust would mean little in the long term, as other companies would soon step into the breech and take up all of the slack, and as a benefit, would bring innovative technologies into the scene.

Car companies have been going bust for over a hundred years, and no one has yet returned to the farm. Studebaker went under in the mid 60's, no one returned to the farm, and no one returned to the farm when the Stutz, the Auburn, the Graham-Page, the Winton, the Brush, the Franklin or the Pierce-Arrow went under. Germans weren't sent to the farm either, when Zundapp or NSU concerns closed their doors, and the English weren't sent packing to the farms when British-Leyland collapsed, and the Lea-Francis disappeared.

I think GM is the biggest basket case, since they have no cards up their sleeves at all, next to their vapourware Volt car that will never see the light of day. GM has lost so much, having spent the past decade in continual downsizing moves that have utterly failed. Once the talent is gone, it is hard to get back - and considering that companies like Hyundai have scooped up all of the talent, it's not coming back.

At least Ford has their other divisions to draw from - and Ford has consistently been profitably in every other market except North America. Once they figure out that people will buy a real Ford Focus with a proper engine and sans defects - and start doing that here, they will be in fine shape. I am not sure if their Flex, which looks like a coffin on wheels, will go far - though perhaps with a few tweaks, Ford can become America's Favourite Hearse.

And Chrysler does have the capability to score a comeback - they are champions at it - so long as they can put the Neon and K-Car and all of those nasty parts behind them. They do make some of the coolest looking cars going, though really, they need to put some of that cool into a small car that people can afford to drive.

All of this talk may be for naught, since gas is as low as 75 cents a litre, and if it stays there, it will be SUV mania once again.

So I do not really see your point - except for the short term when there will be ripples, because historically speaking, life didn't end when the dinosaurs became extinct - in fact, life became much more entertaining...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

*How to Save GM*

1st: Sell Hummer Saab and Saturn

2nd: Let Chevrolet produce the high volume cars within the 10 thousand to 25 thousand range.

3rd: Let Buick become the middle of the pack seller with cars from 25 thousand to 50 thousand.

4th: Let Cadillac sell luxury and high end cars from 50 thousand to whatever else the rich are interested in.

5th: GMC is to only build SUVs/Trucks and heavy duty machinery.

6th: Turn Corvette into a performance division concentrating on low volume production like a NA Ferrari.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> So you are saying that we should preserve these dinosaurs because they entirely failed to get with the program? Toyota can build 9 Million vehicles a year and be entirely nimble - while good old GM is still cranking out their trucks that they designed in what, the 1960's?


Sorry but not even Toyota is immune to current market conditions in October they're sales dropped 23% in the US and Honda's dropped 24.6%. In Canada the picture might be a bit rosier but the US market is the one that matters.

Laterz


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

K_OS said:


> 1st: Sell Hummer Saab and Saturn


Who in their right mind would want to buy Hummer and Saab? I would keep Saturn if anything as that's the only branch that has released decent looking and affordable cars lately. 



K_OS said:


> 2nd: Let Chevrolet produce the high volume cars within the 10 thousand to 25 thousand range.


Because they are not doing this already? and failing at it. 



K_OS said:


> 3rd: Let Buick become the middle of the pack seller with cars from 25 thousand to 50 thousand.


Rrrright. This should be the first brand discontinued. Even senior citizens are realizing that their hard earned savings and retirement funds are better invested in other brands. 



K_OS said:


> 4th: Let Cadillac sell luxury and high end cars from 50 thousand to whatever else the rich are interested in.


Again, this is different from today how?



K_OS said:


> 5th: GMC is to only build SUVs/Trucks and heavy duty machinery.


One more time, this is different from today how?



K_OS said:


> 6th: Turn Corvette into a performance division concentrating on low volume production like a NA Ferrari.


AGAIN! This is different from today how?

Merge. With gov't backed legislation - restructure labour force, compensation and benefits. Downsize branding to two (1. Affordable/economy/green line 2. Premium line with limited production) and start over. If not, become extinct.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> Respectfully Adrian, I remain unconvinced by your argument. There is no guarantee that a bailout would work. It seems to me that conditions are ripe to reward bad decisions on the part of the Big 3 with public money in a harrowing new era in which horrendous fiscal decisions will have particularly grave consequences. If I could be persuaded that this is anything but a massive gamble with public money I might be hopeful that we do this thing.
> 
> Seems we are damned either way. My argument is that GM and co. carelessly sowed the seeds of their own destruction long ago; the recent economic tragedy only precipitated its death throes. Why must we prop them up, and what guarantees do we have that they won't squander what new money we give them?
> 
> What we really need to be concerned about is staying calm and not encourage panic and runs on the banks. Because that's when things could get really intense.


I agree totally Max. I do not have any reservations that if we give them money unconditionally they will continue their own, although prolonged, path to destruction. I think the government should BUY, yes nationalise, the companies and direct them. 

I say that it is imperative to save them. To save this economy.

The argument concerning K-W region is a special microcosm. To start with, it is a small region that is supported by the wealth of the rest of Canada, or at least Ontario, through such an industrial base. Secondly, K-W region has an extremely highly educated workforce. Consider the universities in the area: Wilfrid Laurier, UofW and UofG - and Toronto and Hamilton are just down the road. That is an extremely weak argument. 

MacDoc,

The value of the economy on the index is irrelevant. GM, and the other two, owe their index value three times over: once to the unions, once to the government and once to investors and banks. Chrysler and Ford have both been downgraded to junk status a long time ago. Banks will not touch junk markets. Angels must come from the sky to save them...or the government.

What is relevant is the internal economy of the company. The amount of capital that it moves is what is significant. $5 billion dollar companies go out of business all the time and they would not deliver the ramifications that GM would. I do have the exact numbers on me, but I do not know that GM's internal economy is in the top 20 in the world (including national economies). GM and General Electric are larger than most national economies in the world. If they went bankrupt it would have such enormous ramifications, I cannot even fathom the consequences.

I will try and get back to you with the exact value of the internal economy of GM. It is well above the $200 billion/year mark though - I am sure.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

GM is the 23rd largest economy in the world at $176,558.00, Wal Mart is 25th at $166,809.00 Exxon Mobil is 26th at $163,881.00, Ford Motor is 27th at $162,558.00 and Daimler Chrysler (formerly) is 28th at $159,985.70.

Take all that money out of the world economy and tell me the economy will be fine. Noperz! 

Also consider that those figures are only the sales of the companies. That does not count purchases, expenses etc that are counted in country GDPs. Consider that and we are well higher than the above figures.



compiled by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the of the Institute for Policy Studies in their Report on the Top 200 corporations released in December 2000

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries (2000)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Take all that money out of the world economy and tell me the economy will be fine. Noperz!


The money will not be taken out of the economy. It will just go to other more successful companies.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The money will not be taken out of the economy. It will just go to other more successful companies.


You own a company that cleans a Magna International plant. Magna must close the plant because that plant made axles for Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado pick up trucks. Times that by I don't know, fifty companies per plant and another five to all those fifty times 3 levels of suppliers plus direct service providers to GM, Ford and Chrysler... 

You argument lingers in my mind grasping at ropes titled 'reasonable'. It is failing...

Drive down to Windsor and tell me the money goes to more 'successful' companies. Who...Bacardi and Smirnoff?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your idea is flawed Adrian.

The market can support only so many automobiles. The Big Three aren't selling the cars they're making now. You can hand them a few billion dollars so they can build a few more cars nobody will buy. Ultimately, they will go under and someone else will pick up the supply contracts and all of the spin-off business will commence with different players.

The way you're talking, you may as well just have GM build the cars, then send them around back to be disassembled--so they can be assembled again! Who cares if the cars sell, because we need the spin-off business.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Your idea is flawed Adrian.
> 
> The market can support only so many automobiles. The Big Three aren't selling the cars they're making now. You can hand them a few billion dollars so they can build a few more cars nobody will buy. Ultimately, they will go under and someone else will pick up the supply contracts and all of the spin-off business will commence with different players.
> 
> The way you're talking, you may as well just have GM build the cars, then send them around back to be disassembled--so they can be assembled again! Who cares if the cars sell, because we need the spin-off business.


Indeed Macfury, indeed. Have a recycling plant there too for some extra jobs.

They HAVE to file chapter 11 so they can get the unions off of their backs. They still move cars! Lots of them. The problem is, Detroit hasn't turned a profit on standard family sedans since the mid 80s. They make their money on cadillacs and trucks. What no one is buying these days. 

Take the Chevy Cobalt. They lose about $1,300 per standard car they sale. The only way they make money is on the leather, the sun roof, the spoilers etc. 

They have to be restructured. They need to be socially responsible through government intervention and directorship. But to claim that they can let to die and the economy will keep on chugging is, in all respects, a complete reduction of reality.

The UNIONS GOTTA GO! 

How in the hell can joe blow make $40/ hour screwing the same bolt all day?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Best wishes of the Season 












> *GM bankruptcy likely imminent, expert warns*
> 
> Catastrophic cash crunch before January would put thousands of Canadians out of work, analysts say
> 
> ...


Wheels.ca - GM bankruptcy likely imminent, expert warns - Canada's Most Trusted Auto Resource


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Other profitable industries can easily be diversified into.
> 
> cannabisnews.com: Forbes Hails B.C.'s Marijuana Economy
> 
> ...


That is logically fallacious MB.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MACinist said:


> restructure labour force, compensation and benefits. Downsize branding to two (1. Affordable/economy/green line 2. Premium line with limited production) and start over. If not, become extinct.


see you just said everything I did except a bit simpler.

Laterz


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> As is bailing out the US Auto industry.


No, I'm, sorry MB but you are incorrect.

Your attempt of rebuttal towards my argument was a logically fallacious conjecture.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> How much should they be making? How do you determine your criteria to scale wages and benefits?


Operating capitol is based off profit (supply and demand). Within that operating capital, skills, education, level of position and seniority may dictate the pay scale. Most large companies also research wages amongst it's competitors or other industries for the same positions to determine competitive wages and benefits to attract desirable employees. My company does this to stay within average. Taking all of this into account, the skill set of an auto plant worker is grossly overpaid versus the average hourly paid factory worker with the same skills and education. The autoworkers union is probably one of the most notorious and aggressive in history to slow down or halt a company's' need to reduce operating capital during market changes. I'm not saying that the Union is to blame for all of their problems but cost of labor and benefits is one of the top ongoing expenses that magnifies the bleeding during economic downturns.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> You own a company that cleans a Magna International plant. Magna must close the plant because that plant made axles for Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado pick up trucks. Times that by I don't know, fifty companies per plant and another five to all those fifty times 3 levels of suppliers plus direct service providers to GM, Ford and Chrysler...
> 
> You argument lingers in my mind grasping at ropes titled 'reasonable'. It is failing...
> 
> Drive down to Windsor and tell me the money goes to more 'successful' companies. Who...Bacardi and Smirnoff?


The big 3 killed Windsor long, long before the current situation. Collins & Aikman has been closing plants long before this. Others too. 

The truck plant in Oshawa was slated for closure long ago. The new Camaro is not in full production there but they're ramping up. I was there twice this week delivering Mexican parts for the Camaro. The employees seem in good spirits. I think the 2nd car plant was slated for closure as well (made Buicks?).

All three will file for bancrupcy protection, renegotiate contracts, downsize, eliminate useless models and restructure. Perhaps a merger too.

I have no doubt they will receive some government assistance, on both sides of the border, but I hope it comes with many conditions. Otherwise we're pi**ing the money away.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I bet they'd be a lot better off if they never canned the electric car 3 decades ago. The one filing for Chapter 11 or a Bail out would be oil co's... who knows maybe by now we'd be using Geothermal... the amount of energy in our planet right now can supply enough juice for 4000 years... and it renews itself.

I still say NO bail out. Taxpayers bailing out a company that made poor (even incredibly, horribly, stupid and retarded) business decisions? That's ridiculous... Preposterous even...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

The total pay (including various benefits) for Detroit auto workers are more than 2.5 times higher than that for the average American worker ($73 per hour versus $28) and more than 1.5 times ($73 per hour versus $48) higher than the total pay of those that work in Toyota factories in America.










CARPE DIEM: Detroit Auto Makers Need More Than a Bailout


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

MACinist said:


> The total pay (including various benefits) for Detroit auto workers are more than 2.5 times higher than that for the average American worker ($73 per hour versus $28) and more than 1.5 times ($73 per hour versus $48) higher than the total pay of those that work in Toyota factories in America.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No wonder cars are WAY over priced


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Well here is an update from both countries as of the 6PM news yesterday.

Both governments want to see solid business plans before they even decide to bail out the BIG 3. When that happens and the business plans look good and are agreed to a bail out, the US government is said to hand out $25 billion in the US. In Canada, the same applies, the BIG 3 need to produce a solid business plan before the government decides how much is needed to bail out, a figure was not given from the Canadian government. The bail outs will not happen until well into January of next year or later, it is now up to the BIG 3 to get those business plans cracking.

On a side note the government should look at what each BIG 3 lost per quarter in the (millions) billions in sales for the last year and the year before. I don't have any figures except for the ones posted here, but if you take those losses into account, subtract them from the bail out money in the US, what is left over to actually bail them out?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I just watched the Addendum to Zeitgeist... and I'm stumped.

Do we bail them out and have the monetary system totally collapse to make way for the new wave? That sounds enticing but a bumpy ride for us all.

Do we say no, and prolong this economic collapse and hope the next few generations have the open minds and balls to get the ball rolling?

Either way, it's inevitable. Just which generation gets to start anew?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Another quote from that there "Carpe Diem" article:



> For decades, the United Auto Workers union stoutly defended gold-plated medical benefits that virtually no one else had (reflected in the $73.20 average hourly compensation for UAW workers in the graph above, data here). UAW workers and retirees had no deductibles, copays or other facts of life in these United States.


Is it the Union's fault? It sure as hell isn't!! 
First of all I don't believe a Canadian Auto Worker (CAW) is/was making $73.20 average hourly compensation as is their US counterpart, simply because a Canadian company would never, ever be paying those kind of medical benefits. Want to blame someone? Blame the a$$-backward no medicare system in the US. Don't forget the CEO's of the big 3 and their something like 8 figure bonuses for 2007, private jets and perks.

As for the Union... the UAW... well I'd say it's done better than most over the years of protecting it's membership from lost benefits... not an unimportant thing as that is what one pays them for, expects from them and heaven knows a comprehensive medical care plan is something to be grateful for in the US... and in Canada... a pension plan is nothing to blow off either.

My opinion, honestly... let the companies go under... salvage whatever can be in cash and buy outs and make sure the employees and retirees affected are covered as best possible for pensions, buy out packages, retraining... placement elsewhere... help the people who made the companies in other words... screw the CEO's. No sympathy here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dreambird said:


> My opinion, honestly... let the companies go under... salvage whatever can be in cash and buy outs and make sure the employees and retirees affected are covered as best possible for pensions, buy out packages, retraining... placement elsewhere... help the people who made the companies in other words... screw the CEO's. No sympathy here.


Sorry, but you have to think this one through better than that. 

If government follows your advice, the demise of the big three would take one in seven Canadians jobs with them. That an instant increase in the jobless rate of nearly 15% on top of what it is now, so roughly one in five Canadians would be out of work.

Is that what you really want?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, whether or not the car companies are bailed out by public money (on both sides of the border or not, for that matter), the economy is in free fall and we are facing serious job losses, possibly with a painful recovery that spans a decade or more. This proposed cash injection is a gamble, nothing more. A gamble with our money. I am not terribly certain the odds are in our favour.

I say let the bloodletting begin. What will emerge from this carnage is one or two leaner, far more efficient carmakers. That is better than throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for a system that is broke, attempting to flog cars to a populace in a cash-poor, economic lock-down mode.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but you have to think this one through better than that.
> 
> If government follows your advice, the demise of the big three would take one in seven Canadians jobs with them. That an instant increase in the jobless rate of nearly 15% on top of what it is now, so roughly one in five Canadians would be out of work.
> 
> Is that what you really want?


Want, no. However, I still do not think bailing out the automakers is the best use of that money--I think it's a temporary solution to a more permanent problem. 

Now, if instead of bailing out the Big Three, someone was proposing to use the same money towards job retraining, job creation and otherwise supporting those who were laid off by the fall of the auto industry....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sinc, whether or not the car companies are bailed out by public money (on both sides of the border or not, for that matter), the economy is in free fall and we are facing serious job losses, possibly with a painful recovery that spans a decade or more. This proposed cash injection is a gamble, nothing more. A gamble with our money. I am not terribly certain the odds are in our favour.
> 
> I say let the bloodletting begin. What will emerge from this carnage is one or two leaner, far more efficient carmakers. That is better than throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars for a system that is broke, attempting to flog cars to a populace in a cash-poor, economic lock-down mode.


Doing nothing is not an option. We have to try and come up with innovative ways to work through the issue. I am in no way advocating a bail out. A loan with very strict conditions that would reduce vehicle prices and better the environment by enforcing the building of high efficiency hybrid vehicles and junking monster units might be plausible.



Sonal said:


> Want, no. However, I still do not think bailing out the automakers is the best use of that money--I think it's a temporary solution to a more permanent problem.
> 
> Now, if instead of bailing out the Big Three, someone was proposing to use the same money towards job retraining, job creation and otherwise supporting those who were laid off by the fall of the auto industry....


A fine idea, but job training to do what? With no jobs available, that seems an unlikely fix. Again I am not a fan of a bail out, but perhaps auto workers would be better off building hybrids for say, 75% of their former salaries than being unemployed?

You can't retrain people to do jobs that don't exist and when one in seven Canadians lose their jobs, how much money will it take to train them to do nothing?

It's a huge issue and we won't solve it here, but doing nothing is not the answer.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Doing nothing is not an option. We have to try and come up with innovative ways to work through the issue. I am in no way advocating a bail out. A loan with very strict conditions that would reduce vehicle prices and better the environment by enforcing the building of high efficiency hybrid vehicles and junking monster units might be plausible." I am in total agreement with Sinc on this point. To merely sit back and "do nothing" is not a viable option for all concerned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I find all of these conditions for loans amusing. If they wanted to build hybrids they would have done it years ago. If they wanted to build electric cars, cheaper cars, or cars with better mileage they couldn't bring themselves to do it, even facing almost certain bankruptcy. Now they have a deathbed conversion that requires public money to enact??

Have the workers cut their pay by 25%? They could have done that years ago, but the workers wouldn't allow that--even knowing that the company faced certain bankruptcy. 

Now, all of a sudden, we need public money to do what both management and labour could have done years ago??? Forget it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> Now they have a deathbed conversion that requires public money to enact??


LOL, best line yet.

But you know MF, they're going to get it.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Sonal
> A fine idea, but job training to do what? With no jobs available, that seems an unlikely fix. Again I am not a fan of a bail out, but perhaps auto workers would be better off building hybrids for say, 75% of their former salaries than being unemployed?
> 
> ...



Indeed Sinc, the repercussions for them going under is phenomenal. It would completely undermine Canada's industrial base. The US will fare much better than Canada as it has a broader industrial base. Canada has none as such. Our most significant industrial base is the auto industry in Ontario - and most of it exports back to the US. Canada is NOT a developed economy and this will become ever more apparent in the coming years. We are far too resource intensive. Canada is strongest in wheat, aluminum (Alcan), lumber, paper & pulp (Quebecor), oil and perhaps fish. That accounts for more than half of the Canadian workforce right there. 

The only two things that qualify the Canadian economy as developed is our robust financial system and the quality of life - which are both directly linked our population size and age. 

Developing economies are much more resilient than the US and especially the Canadian economy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Indeed Sinc, the repercussions for them going under is phenomenal. It would completely undermine Canada's industrial base.


Since when is an industrial base the measure of a country's wealth? That's so 20th century. 

Besides, the Big Three are ALREADY GONE, folks. The government is not negotiating with real companies--they're talking to their ghosts. This isn't a series of high level talks, it's a seance!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I am not advocating that we do nothing. I am saying a bailout is a bailout - strict preconditions notwithstanding. There is absolutely zero assurance that this public money will amount to anything but a forestalling gesture - an all too temporary treatment of a symptom rather than a cure for the disease itself.

The auto industry's troubles are self-inflicted. Everyone from the highest corporate ranks to the people on the assembly lines is responsible for what this has all has finally come down to. It's time to let things take their course, not merely prop up the massive hulks of dead companies from yesterday's era. If we are to continue to make cars on this continent, they had best not be made by the management whose failures of leadership and vision helped bring us to this calamity. We need new blood and new commitment. Throwing money at the old guard and lamely attempting to force them to make good cars again will simply not work. Time to wake up and find new things to do, new products to create and sell!

GM and co. telling us the sky is falling, when they themselves brought it down years ago... that's rich.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kps, I agree with your assessment - they are going to get their bailout. The momentum behind it is phenomenal. It'll be for all the wrong reasons and will fail to address root issues with North America's industrial base and the ravaging effects of global commerce. It will amount to a pathetic face-saving gesture.

Yes, for the time being at any rate, it will put food on the table for many a family in Oshawa and Windsor. But the money will run out... and what then? Nor am I at all convinced that the people who make the decisions at the top of the food chain will suddenly find the wisdom to make effective and smart decisions for the sake of these companies, their workers and their customers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Exactly, Max.

If the US government bails out any or all of the big3, Canada can kiss the Auto Pact good buy and that'll be the end of the auto industry in Canada as we know it. You can bet that a $25B bailout will have strict conditions to save US jobs and not Canadian.

All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ontario should be courting Toyota and Honda who already have plants here....and successful ones at that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good point... I heard talk of that on the radio the other day. The Auto Pact will be toast and the Americans will be concerned with keeping production Stateside. We can expect them to shut down Canadian plants first. Which means our bailout money here would be well and truly wasted.

Sadly, I am confident things are going to get much worse before they get much better. The auto industry's woes are but one domino among many.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

I have read this entire thread, and I voted "Yes, with conditions/restrictions."

Most of the arguments against a bail strike me as more ideological or emotional than pragmatic. I agree with most of Adrian's arguments.

It's worth remembering that when the US government bailed out Chrysler in the late '70s the taxpayers actually *made* money on the deal.

While a lot of the problems the big three face are of their own making, they are not the only ones who have seriously misjudged market conditions at times. Many have held up the Japanese companies as examples of well run automakers, but many of the major Japanese firms have had near death experiences over the years. In the late '90s Nissan was bought out by Renault - which itself has a long history of producing low quality, uncompetitive cars subsidized by the French taxpayer.

I believe that one of the reasons that the Detroit automakers have kept doing what they have been doing for the last 40 years has been the fact that until recently it has worked very well. At the turn of the century Ford was the most profitable automaker on the planet, while many of the Japanese firms were fighting for their survival. This current near death experience *might* be just the thing to scare some sense into Detroit.

Getting viable long term business plans together is key, as is appropriate oversight to ensure that they don't steer into the ditch again.

I believe that Ford is the farthest along this path with their "way forward". They also have products, such as the Fiesta / Euro Focus / Mondeo that compare favorably with the Yaris / Civic / Camcord.

I believe that GM has been in denial until recently, and is only now starting to grasp the enormity of the situation.

I doubt that Chrysler has any plan at all, as I suspect that Cerberus had no plans to run Chrysler as a car company, but merely wanted to strip and flip whatever was left after the Germans gutted the company.

If the big three hit the wall, I expect the Chinese will stop by to pick up the pieces - much as they did with MG-Rover in 2005. This would give them bargain priced access to technology, markets, and brands they don't have today - and would likely be the end of high volume mainstream auto manufacturing on this continent.

If the big three fail I don't believe that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, et. al. will stick around to offer the displaced workers jobs.

I believe that the main reason the transplants set up shop on these shores was to avoid protectionist policies aimed at protecting the Domestic industry. Once the domestic industry no longer exists, these pressures will go away and the transplants will have no reason to stick around. There is excess automotive production capacity world wide - if you were Toyota, would you rather cut production in Toyota City Japan, or Cambridge Ontario?

Some have suggested that the government buy stock in the troubled automakers as part of the bailout. This could end up being profitable for the taxpayers if the was sold after a successful turnaround, and would also keep the Chinese from gaining control of the industry. If this was done it would be vitally important to install competent management to avoid creating an "American Leyland".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Some have suggested that the government buy stock in the troubled automakers as part of the bailout. This could end up being profitable for the taxpayers if the was sold after a successful turnaround, and would also keep the Chinese from gaining control of the industry. If this was done it would be vitally important to install competent management to avoid creating an "American Leyland".


I went downtown yesterday to a joint called The Red Room. Met an old pal from uni days in Guelph. Another of his friends dropped by. Among the many things we talked about over beers and Pho was just that notion you floated. My two companions seemed to think it was an excellent idea - public ownership, majority share perhaps even. I'm not certain it could work but you made an excellent point that the Big 3's problems only developed relatively recently and their greater history is replete with amazing successes. Alas, what's facing them now is a real beastly set of conditions.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

While we don't need an "American Leyland" - there are already enough bad US remakes of original UK shows - something like this might work: GM: Buyout Better than Bailout - Seeking Alpha


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I believe that GM has been in denial until recently, and is only now starting to grasp the enormity of the situation.


I generally agree with your post with the exception of the above. GM certainly has spent far more than any other company on alternative vehicles and the underlying technology which is why the Volt is a far more "complete" package that can address broad PHEV uptake than any other vehicle as well as being a platform for a variety of power sources.

So they had a plan badly interrupted that is impacting them and their rivals.

GM bet the company awhile back on flex vehicles......they got badly sidewiped by a financial meltdown the scale of which is astounding.

They ARE looking for loans not handouts.
When a new plant gets built they look for handouts.

That said all parties including the union need to work together .


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"That said all parties including the union need to work together." That should make for interesting negotiations.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's the way it works elsewhere - workers in Germany have seats on the board.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the incredible events in Europe with Porche taking over VW ( VW is the largest car maker in the world ).


*VW Briefly Surpasses Exxon as World's Biggest Company
VW briefly became the world's largest company by market capitalization today when its stock shot up to over 1,000 euros in intra-day trading on the Frankfurt stock market.*

VW Briefly Surpasses Exxon as World's Biggest Company - worldcarfans

It was kept secret and when Porche pulled it off the vulture funds had bet the wrong way on VW stock and Porche made almost 8 billion EU off the short sellers.....serves them right.

My sense for GM and Ford is someone is in the wings waiting to pick up all or part of the core assets.

Chrysler I think is history unless Tata wants a North American stake. Who has Chrysler partnered with for their small cars??? Nissan??


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Since when is an industrial base the measure of a country's wealth? That's so 20th century.
> 
> Besides, the Big Three are ALREADY GONE, folks. The government is not negotiating with real companies--they're talking to their ghosts. This isn't a series of high level talks, it's a seance!


ok mf...ok....


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Just a tidbit....
If everyone in the country (US) paid back all the loans, so individual debt was gone, there would be absolutely ZERO money in circulation (or electronic) to cover the Interest owed.
Even though money is created out of thin air based on an IOU from the Government (US).


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

kps said:


> If the US government bails out any or all of the big3, Canada can kiss the Auto Pact good buy and that'll be the end of the auto industry in Canada as we know it. You can bet that a $25B bailout will have strict conditions to save US jobs and not Canadian.


Of all the information that I've read in this thread and online news, this speaks loudest to me. I think you're bang on.

I'm still on the fence. However, before I was leaning a bit towards "hand up". Now, I think I'm swaying towards "why bother, the money will just be wasted while the US shores up their corner of the industry".

Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Of all the information that I've read in this thread and online news, this speaks loudest to me. I think you're bang on.
> 
> I'm still on the fence. However, before I was leaning a bit towards "hand up". Now, I think I'm swaying towards "why bother, the money will just be wasted while the US shores up their corner of the industry".
> 
> Things that make you go hmmm...


The US can keep the POS (Domestic) cars they make....pity that the job loss will be great here. Maybe Honda and Toyota will move all thier factories from the US to Canada and we will still have some good jobs. Honda and Toyota do well here in Canada.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Someone made a similar comparison to the airline industry when it was having problems years ago. No bail-out and no "millions of jobs lost" either.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> Maybe Honda and Toyota will move all thier factories from the US to Canada and we will still have some good jobs.


Not a chance.

If and when the big 3 go down Toyonda et. al. will slowly start packing up and moving home, or move plants to "Cost to Market" regions such as Mexico.

Everyone has excess capacity these days - so why would they want to keep plants in Canada going?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> GM certainly has spent far more than any other company on alternative vehicles and the underlying technology which is why the Volt is a far more "complete" package that can address broad PHEV uptake than any other vehicle as well as being a platform for a variety of power sources.


The ability of GM (and Ford and Mopar) to develop innovative new products and technology has never been in question - they are certainly more innovative than the Japanese in this regard.

The problem is they never stick with it, and fully develop these innovations. Instead they fall back to their old ways and build big, dumbed down vehicles that have historically appealed to mainstream North American buyers.

You can understand the temptation to do this when they can take a simple pick up truck, enclose the box, slap in heated leather seats and climate control, and make $10k profit per unit with limited development effort or technical risk.

Where I think GM was in denial, until recently, was that they didn't seem to grasp the fact that the world has changed and it is unlikely that their old business model will ever work again.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> That said all parties including the union need to work together .


Agreed.

I don't know what the current leadership of the UAW / CAW is like, but I hope for everyone's sake they are pragmatic rather than ideological.

If we are to avoid creating an "American Leyland" the last thing we need is a North American "Red Robbo" (Derek Robinson (spokesman)) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

PenguinBoy said:


> Everyone has excess capacity these days - so why would they want to keep plants in Canada going?


Duh. More demand from former Big 3 owners???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Front line....



> *Crisis on Dealers' Row*
> 
> Car dealers are fighting for survival, and maybe an upper hand, as business turns cold.
> 
> ...


Crisis on Dealers' Row - The freeze (1) - CNNMoney.com

on the other hand



> Motorcycle business booming
> 
> By Sandy Rojas (Contact)
> Sunday, October 26, 2008
> ...


Motorcycle business booming : Local : gosanangelo.com


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yes, well, there'll be many more sob stories to come. We're not out of the water yet, but sinking deeper. 

For many in this country, personal transportation is a necessity and not a luxury. People aren't buying because of the uncertainty in the financial sector as well as the instability in oil prices... and it's not just cars that they won't be buying.

Hopefully when it's all over, we'll come out of it for the better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes we are entering a "make do" period on many levels.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

iJohnHenry said:


> Duh. More demand from former Big 3 owners???


I can see how there might be more demand from former Big 3 owners - but I don't see why it follows that toyonda would continue manufacturing here. 

With no "domestic" competition there wouldn't be any serious political pressure for transplants to continue manufacturing in Canada.

With high labour costs and a big gaping hole in the Canadian automotive supply chain I expect that toyonda would shutter their plants in Cambridge and Alliston and move down to Mexico where they could enjoy the benefits of lower costs and continued access to the Canadian market via NAFTA. This wouldn't happen overnight of course - I expect they would start out by issuing a statement saying how committed they were to manufacturing in Canada - but they would be gone within a few years.

Besides, just because toyonda are successful in Canada today who's to say they could compete with a GM that was now made in China by a division of "Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation", especially since the new company would enjoy the benefits of very cheap labour, artificially cheap capital, and a whole bunch of technology that they don't need to pay to develop as it was developed before GM hit the wall?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The $73.20 per hour is the total labour costs. The actual wage is around $28 per hour plus benefits. http://chryslerlabortalks07.com/Economic_Data.rtf
> 
> I used to be a CAW member. If the wage for assemblers was $73 per hour I would have packed my bags and moved to Ontario and gotten myself one of those jobs. If I were making $73 per hour, I would be in favor of a huge bailout to keep myself employed. *Steady work at $73 per hour with benefits is serious coin. *
> <snip>


Why are you yelling at me? Go back and read my whole post and tell me where I claimed that $73.20 was not inclusive of wages + benefits?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Read it properly!



Dreambird said:


> Another quote from that there "Carpe Diem" article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Sure it clearly says $73.20 per hour compensation.


Read _carefully_...

"First of all I don't believe a Canadian Auto Worker (CAW) is/was making $73.20 average hourly compensation as is their US counterpart,"


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Dear Adrian:

There *would* naturally be a large difference between the compensation of a UAW worker and a CAW worker because of the medical benefits a UAW worker receives that a CAW does not receive. Got it?

Most Canadian medical benefits from a workplace are ancillary to what everyone already receives from our government system and covers things like prescriptions, dental, optical and other items not covered by the government plan. I would estimate you could probably chop approx. $30 - hourly compensation off the the top of that $73.20 for a CAW worker here in Canada. 

That's just my estimation, going by another individual's CAW contract I'm familiar with, but it's not an auto worker... something else they cover.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Dear Dreambird:

I am aware of the difference in context between the American and the Canadian experience. No need to be impudent. I was interjecting into a separate debate since MB was not appreciating the argument of the other. 

Nonetheless, $40 +- is an absolutely ludicrous amount of money to somebody screwing the same bolt in repeatedly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember the summer I spent working at General Motors doing inventory. I have never seen a lazier lot in my life. It was absolutely frightening to watch grown men and women fidgeting their life away, postpoing work by five minutes here and 10 minutes there to make sure that it would be too late to accomplish anything before their break. Washing their hands for 5 minutes at a time during the day to ensure that their hands were not washed on break time. Warning me constantly that if I worked too hard that there would be fewer jobs for students next summer.

Made me absolutely sick.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I remember the summer I spent working at General Motors doing inventory. I have never seen a lazier lot in my life. It was absolutely frightening to watch grown men and women fidgeting their life away, postpoing work by five minutes here and 10 minutes there to make sure that it would be too late to accomplish anything before their break. Washing their hands for 5 minutes at a time during the day to ensure that their hands were not washed on break time. Warning me constantly that if I worked too hard that there would be fewer jobs for students next summer.
> 
> Made me absolutely sick.


I loaded trailers at the Docks of GM as well. It was the most pathetic sight to behold. And they ALL knew just how "good" they had it made.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *GM shutdown moved up*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MazterCBlazter... apologies for the "holler" on my part, not sure it was called for...  

I'm finding this whole situation quite frustrating and infuriating... 

The situation worsens in the US so GM reacts by closing a Canadian plant sooner than slated. I suppose that would be normal procedure, but it also makes me wonder what these guys really have in mind for a survival plan... all 3 have stated that their Canadian operations are more cost efficient than the State-side ones due to lower labour related costs. Canada is attractive with it's government health care system. 

I was quite amazed to hear that the American union... the UAW had been able to defend and hold onto that level of benefits for their workers in the US. Unions just generally aren't that strong anymore, I am not sure by my feeling is the the Canadian counterpart... the CAW is not as strong. 

I make no secret of it... I am a labour activist and union supporter, I've just been much quieter about it of late because the incessant arguing gets me no where...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I remember the summer I spent working at General Motors doing inventory. I have never seen a lazier lot in my life.


I have, at the Ford Plant in Oakville. 

I've been going to the Oshawa plant almost every day the past few weeks and those that I deal with are 150% better than those useless zombies at Ford.

I had an expedited shipment of one skid, some prototype parts for the Ford plant. After a long time at the gatehouse, they sent me to general stores. Once there, the receiver said that it doesn't come here and sent me to some other dock at the plant where I experienced the most disgusting performance of my life.

There's a guy sitting on his forklift head down, he raises his head, looks around and drives into a trailer. Picks up a skid, drives out and drops it about 30ft away for the putaway guy. He then returns to his original spot and just sits there and stares at the open trailer. After about 4 or 5 minutes he drives in, grabs another skid and does the same thing as before. He repeats this for as long as I'm there to watch. None of the other zombies would make eye contact with me or the other drivers waiting. Goofy looking supervisors were the same and would avoid any contact with those of us waiting.

Anyway, after 2 hours of waiting I didn't even had a dock and there were others waiting for the same door who were in front of me. At this point I gave up and gave them the one finger salute as I left.

I've never seen anything like this at GM Oshawa and every experience I had there was as reasonable as one can expect for a large plant like that.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacDoc,

There are three plants at the Oshawa complex. The truck plant was slated to close a while ago, they're just pushing up the date. Many of those employees will end up in plant 1 which is ramping up for the Camaro.

But I also believe that plant 2 is also slated for closure. Who knows how long it'll be before they move the Camaro state side and the whole place will be shut down.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I have been in unions, it seems that they are only necessary due to the many crappy employers out there. Unions have improved standards and conditions for most all workers out there.
> 
> In an ideal world, we wouldn't need unions, money or businesses.


These are not the 30's, Unions are not required for large, publicly traded companies or private sector jobs in North America. There are enough labour protection laws, and options for one to protect their labour rights. These companies have new age HR departments and in most cases try to avoid negative press about it's treatment of it's workforce to compete. Unions are necessary for all these little, privately owned manual labour jobs instead. These are the places where workers need to be protected as I had experience and still hear of many labour rights infractions. Unions need to be banned from large companies crucial to the economy. Government labour ministry just needs to keep a closer eye on them. Unions need to also be regulated and stripped of certain abilities - can't be blackmailing with strike or seeking above average compensation when it endangers the public or risks putting a major economy into a downturn.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

In Canada Unions are the human reaction to Capitalism. In a free and democratic society people always need the right to determine the value of their labour and the conditions of their work and the right to associate. But for another view from Australia is here. *Warning some strong language.*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I also firmly believe that "people always need the right to determine the value of their labour and the conditions of their work and the right to associate." I also believe that companies employing these people need the right to determine the value of the striking employees and replace them as needed.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> Sorry but not even Toyota is immune to current market conditions in October they're sales dropped 23% in the US and Honda's dropped 24.6%. In Canada the picture might be a bit rosier but the US market is the one that matters.
> 
> Laterz


However, TPS allows Toyota to alter their production on the fly, thus keeping down inventory, etc. Toyota (and Honda) are entirely able to reap profits from production runs as low as 50,000, while the production methods of the Big 3 have breakeven points in the 500,000 range. The big 3 just can't come out with the niche cars and make money, while the Japanese are more than able to provide niche vehicles like the Element.

Flexible manufacturing allows Toyota and Honda to change their production accordingly, without having to resort to plant shutdowns and massive layoffs that afflict the Big 3. Coupled with the fact that the backbone of Toyota and Honda production centers around popular models like the Corolla/Camry and the Civic/Accord, and they rake in profits from these models; while the Big 3 do not really have any kind of models that fit into the niche, and the models they do have are money losers, and they are utterly reliant on scoring profits on giant trucks and SUVs that have huge markups. The Japanese are simply more able to roll with the punches than the Americans.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Nice summation. :clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Take the Chevy Cobalt. They lose about $1,300 per standard car they sale... The UNIONS GOTTA GO!


And that is the crux of the problem - the Chevy Cobalt is a poor reheat of ancient designs that produced such junk as the Citation, the Corsica, and myriads of other inferior vehicles. The Unions have no say in whether the vehicles are garbage or not - that is entirely on the lap of the company management who selectes what is and what isn't to be built and marketed.

So if GM is losing on the Cobalt, it is their fault for making an unmarketable piece of garbage that is entirely uncompetitive when compared to what is produced by other comapnies. It's survival of the fittest, and thirty years of GM producing inferior, gas guzzling, technically retrograde garbage has come back to destroy them.

Don't blame the "Unions" for such things - no country in the world is more unionized than Germany, where the workers sit on the board of managment itself - and yet, even with their high rates of pay, significantly better pension plans and more generous vacations - the Germans in fact build a car that is vastly more superior than that of GM - and they make fat profits doing it.

For years, GM has peddled garbage, and all of the "Oh, I am a Chevy man" or "Oh, I am a Buick man" kinds of folks are now driving around in Toyotas and Hondas. Even my uncle, the most die hard Buick man around, is driving a luxed out Camry because his last Buick was, in his words "a turd".

I don't think the Unions went on strike and demanded to make garbage cars out of inferior designs that would lose money...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, the unions are only one big piece of a money losing puzzle. Perhaps German unionists aren't such lazy asses.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kps said:


> If the US government bails out any or all of the big3, Canada can kiss the Auto Pact good buy and that'll be the end of the auto industry in Canada as we know it.


The Auto Pact died many years ago, made obsolete by NAFTA.



> All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Ontario should be courting Toyota and Honda who already have plants here....and successful ones at that.


And we should have had all of the companies here - since they all courted Canada, but found that negotiating with the various bagmen and glad handlers of the various levels of Government to be too distasteful. It is a very big issue in Hamilton, where industry has entirely collapsed, but still, the City refuses to sell land to any Japanese or Korean company, claiming that all of the empty, decrepit buildings are in full use - including the Studebaker plant which is still empty and waiting for some purpose...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> No one likes to go on strike. They would rather have successful negotiations.


Labour Union bosses do. It's their raison d'etre.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MACinist said:


> Unions need to be banned from large companies crucial to the economy. Government labour ministry just needs to keep a closer eye on them. Unions need to also be regulated and stripped of certain abilities - can't be blackmailing with strike or seeking above average compensation when it endangers the public or risks putting a major economy into a downturn.


Good idea, let's start with banning all the government unions.  

In other words, that'll never happen.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

*Unions*

A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. 

When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, "Is this a union house?" 

"No," she replied, "I'm sorry it isn't." 

"Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?" 

"The house gets $80 and the girls get $20," she answered. 

Offended at such unfair dealings, the union man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop.

His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded, "Why yes sir, this is a union house. We observe all union rules." 

The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?" 

"The girls get $80 and the house gets $20." 

"That's more like it!" the union man said. 

He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room, and pointed to a stunningly attractive blonde. "I'd like her," he said. 

"I'm sure you would, sir," said the Madam. Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and according to union rules, she's next."


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

iJohnHenry said:


> . Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and according to union rules, she's next."


Don't you think that Ethel should have been retired by now with a full union pension? Or at the very least, working at union headquarters ?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

For a good take on this check out Daryl Cagle's collection of editorial cartons on the bailout.

Inspiring isn't it!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Unions sit on the board by law in Germany and work closely with management in Japan.
And Germany has terrific benefits and 6 week vacations.

It is a complex issue and I suspect executive compensation plays a role - both Germany and Japan have better GINI scores while the big three in the uS are burdened not only with very high executive compensation but also healthcare funding for not only the execs and workers but for pensioners as well.

The US healthcare system is particularly inefficient at delivery - as a result GM runs the biggest hospital system in Michigan just to save some money.

In other nations the efficiency is better ( Taiwan only has 2% adiministration costs while the US has 25% on a much high base cost.).

When workers see exec perks then they go after their own.



> Toyota’s 32 top executives received just over $12 million in salaries in the 12 months ended March. Lets see Toyota made something like $13,000,000,000 in profits. With the top 32 executives getting about $20,000,000 that is .15% of earnings. Even if there are some other benefits not included in the total that .15% figure for the top 32 executives doesn’t really compare to ludicrous pay of many CEOs in the USA. They are in a different paradigm than the others. I think their paradigm is much more effective (and the pay is the symptom of that system). I’ll take the executives of Toyota over the overpaid executives any time.


Let's compare that to Ford ONE executive with MORE than the pay packet of the TOP 32 of Toyota.



> DEARBORN, Michigan — Annual reports are usually yawners, but Ford's release of its 2007 annual report on Friday provided a glimpse into the hefty compensation paid to its top executives. Alan Mulally, Ford president and CEO, earned $2 million in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $7 million. *His total 2007 compensation was $21,670,674, Ford reported. *
> 
> Don Leclair, Ford executive vice president and CFO, reaped $1,005,633 in salary and received incentive bonus awards of $3 million. Ford said his 2007 compensation amounted to $11,703,127.


GM - GM Ceo's 2007 compensation worth $15.7M -

So one executive at the big three gets as much as 32 execs at Toyota.










Last time I checked it was less than 40 to 1 for Japanese CEOs against workers and in addition Toyota plants often run on comparatively few staff... some 60 per shift.

The unions know this ridiculous compensation gap - do you blame the workers for ??
a) wanting a slice
b) dogging it


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, read the proposed bailout plan that the Big Three execs brought to Congress. There is a new profits sharing plan with a downgraded "parachute" plan, from platinum to golden. That is a big hit for execs who are used to multi-million dollar packages.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

BigDL said:


> In Canada Unions are the human reaction to Capitalism. In a free and democratic society people always need the right to determine the value of their labour and the conditions of their work and the right to associate. But for another view from Australia is here. *Warning some strong language.*


And since when is a union the only way of determining the value of labour if that's what you are insisting?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Love the cinder block table and the lawn chair in that cartoon. :lmao:


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> I don't think the Unions went on strike and demanded to make garbage cars out of inferior designs that would lose money...


I may be sounding off on unions in the past couple posts but in no way am I trying to say that's the only problem but rather one of the key issues. 



MazterCBlazter said:


> Those laws would never be in place without the existence of unions. they helped these laws get passed for the benefits of all workers, not just unionized workers.


Agreed, but like I said, it's not the 30's anymore. Humans, labour laws and it's enforcement have evolved in North America (thanks in part to the unions of the past) where they are not necessary in most cases. 



MazterCBlazter said:


> In large companies I have worked in the union was absolutely necessary. In particular Vancouver's public transit system where workers are treated abysmally and abusively by the backwards management.


That happens at thousands of other large non-unionized companies such as mine, and we get by. There are rules and procedures in place to deal with such abuses that does not require a union, and it's lawyers and putting a whole transit system on strike that results in inconveniencing tax paying citizens without a transit system. 



MazterCBlazter said:


> It is totally unrealistic to expect government labour ministry to keep an eye on them.


How so? Nothing is unrealistic with funding. Obviously the Ministry of Labour would need more funding (equivalent to union dues) but it's definitely not unrealistic. Will it happen though, no. 




MazterCBlazter said:


> They would rather have successful negotiations.


Couldn't disagree more. Successful for who? The union. The threat of a strike can also cause the corporation to give in to the unrealistic demands of a union. It's easier for a company to deal with higher wages and benefits then to cripple itself in a strike of it's workforce. 

Unions have been a catalyst in getting us here. I'm not denying credit. And in some industries, I do agree with a union (like construction) where it's mostly a bunch of independent small contractors. Will unions be disbanded overnight: no. Is this the only problem of the big 3: no. If unions truly care for the autoworker, they will see that days are numbered and a major restructuring has to happen and be accepted. Otherwise, there will be no workforce to unionize.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> No, the unions are only one big piece of a money losing puzzle. Perhaps German unionists aren't such lazy asses.


Union militancy, with endless grievances and calls for strikes, occur when the worker is treated with no respect, and management is of low quality. If the Big 3 are afflicted with the Unions, it is because they ended up deserving what they received.

If the worker was treated with respect, and had a chance to do multiple jobs, like the workers at Toyota and Honda have - there would be little need for Unions and grievances and all that. A person at Ford or GM can pretty much lose their job if they stop the line because of some problem - while stopping the line is virtually mandatory at Toyota.

It is the corporate culture - while GM and Ford are committed to making money for their investors; Toyota and Honda are committed to making a product that people want with high levels of quality in an environment where workers are respected. If sales go down, the Japanese get the workers to do other jobs as much as possible, thus retaining skilled workers; while the Big 3 lay people off and close plants, thus losing anyone that happens to have skills.

In Germany, the Unions are part of the Company, and thus, work towards the common goal of producing a product. But again, the Unions are not the problem, not even a small factor in the failure of the Big 3, even if the executives complain about the high costs of labour.

The failures stem from a lack of product that people would want to buy. If one wants a two seater sports car that is tricked out: you can buy one from Porsche, VW, Mazda, etc. but not from the Big 3. The Big 3 have peddled a lot of vapour, and only Chrysler has actually marketed anything that is "cool", albiet with their ancient gas guzzling engines or retro-Neon made by the lowest cost and most prone to premature failure parts suppliers.

So GM, the saddest sack of them all, does not even have an LEV or ULEV engine, and thus, is at least ten years behind all of the other makes that comply with advanced emission standards. They are also retrograde because they still do not have sequential multiport fuel injection - which is common technology elsewhere. And they refuse to address this situation, and have refused for at least the past thirty years.

It is like the corporates haven't heard about the 1972 Oil Embargo, let alone all of the other Energy Crises that have gone on. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the Unions - it's all about the corporate malfeasance in Detroit. At least Ford can draw on their superior European made cars, and has been profitable everywhere else - if only they'd bring those cars here.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Mr. EvanTeamsterPitts, so you are saying that it was the lack of respect by management to their employees at GM, Ford and Chrysler that entitles their workforce to make 1.5 more than the most profiting car company in North America (Toyota)? I'm all for unions fighting for an employees right to have a job without being disrespected but at a relevant wage to the companies success and industry average. I know a handful working at Ford and Chrysler, none of which ever complained about being "disrespected" at work. And all of whom think they hit the lottery ticket being there. So let's not deny an obvious fact that the cost of workforce (current and retired), which can be credited to the unions presence, has no relevance to a rapid demise of any of these companies. Yes, they made bad acquisitions and bad product which was the cause and can be blamed on the overpaid executives but now that the freefall started, the cost of workforce, is accelerating this so much that it's almost impossible to recover without bankruptcy and taxpayers bailout. If they didn't carry this heavy burden, the death may be a bit slower and easier on the economy with more time/opportunity to change for recovery.

With numbers like these to support for the rest of their lives, it is not hard to believe why it happened so fast: Wages and labor costs - UAW 2003 Bargaining for America

Love how they say that the congress should impose tough limits on executive compensation, but no mention of their own overpaid union: Save Auto Jobs: Talking Points


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Not EvanPitts here, but wait... someone pick me up off of the floor, he's said many things I agree with in the last several pages...  
I am quite familiar with Germany's practices and Oh! how I wish it were similar here!

Anyway... I have to say again I'm quite amazed at the power of the UAW in retaining those benefits for their employees over the years. Lack of respect? Probably not, however the management of said companies are not IMO entitled to the bonuses and pay they rake in either.
I suspect there will have to be changes on both sides... big time. I'm betting the management side will have a harder time with accepting that. Just my opinion.



> Mr. EvanTeamsterPitts, so you are saying that it was the lack of respect by management to their employees at GM, Ford and Chrysler that entitles their workforce to make 1.5 more than the most profiting car company in North America (Toyota)?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

kps said:


> Don't you think that Ethel should have been retired by now with a full union pension? Or at the very least, working at union headquarters ?


Not really.

If Ethel was a male, his wife would want him to keep working until he croaks. She doesn't want him underfoot at home, ALL DAY.

That's why we have 40+ years GM union guys still working.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

No country should bail out these companies. There are other resources, they are only siffering for their inability to sell the right products and their inflexibility in their production.

Chrysler is the most likely to go under, they have very little R&D and are quite behind the times.

Ford and GM are in the same boat, they are always talking about global products and design platforms, but lack the will power and ability to actually perform on a global level.

Throwing money at these companies will change nothing. The companies' problems are not a result of a down turn, yes that has had a huge impact on them, but it was rather an inability to analyze trends and sell products people want, even if it changes quickly (ex gas price change). If money is thrown at them, its likely just going to help with short term expenses, and not keep any plants going or jobs. It will create the envitable take the money and run, as the real problem is in the middle management and up.

If nothing is changes at the product dvelopment levels and up, then the same thing will keep happening, and nothing will be done. The money is better off going to the workers, or for somekind of training and support for them, because the big three can't help them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems to me there is a lot of emphasis on unionized workers overpaid by 50% and very little condemnation of management overpaid by 1000 % 

If you were a union worker and knew your bosses were getting absurd pay packages would you not perhaps go after the biggest cut you can get as well.

Good for the goose, good fro the goslings.

Seems to me a toxic culture in need of extinction. *Did anybody actually understand that the CEO of GM was paid $21 million last year when the SUM Of the top 32 Toyota execs was less.*

and you're nattering about hourly wages???? 



> GM-UAW 2007 LOWLIGHTS
> 
> [The “white book” or new contract is available for your review in your union hall or Work Center.]
> 
> ...


now where are the pay cuts for the executives.......same place where the bonus cuts for prima donna bankers..or Harper's minions.....nowhere to be seen. 

So you still think union wages are the problem?????


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Now lets take a look at a real manager, a real company president. Not a corporate fat cat president from the one of the US big three! Here is a interview with the president of Japan Airlines. His salary maybe comparable to many on this forum!

The video is only a a couple of minutes long.

To start, note that he takes the bus to work....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's pretty typical for Japanese senior management...the ratios of their pay to workers are nowhere near the obscenity that prevails in the US.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

When I was working in Japan I was making more then the President of JAL! I once saw the pay spreadsheet of the company I worked for. My manager was making about $15,000 U.S. more then me and the president was making another $20,000 more then that. From top to bottom the pay range was a factor somewhere between 3 and 4!

The big three should be in the same range, maybe a bit wider because of the company size, but I suspect it shouldn't be any larger then a factor of 10X. That $200 million pay that the company president gets could keep a lot of secretaries and line workers very happy! Or possibly spend $199 million of that on R&D; you might just be able to make something that competes with the Asian product!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MacDoc... this is exactly why my first reaction to this mess was to let the big 3 go under and see to the care of the employees on the way out... case closed.

The UAW has done an unbelievable job on the employees parts, they were bound to lose ground sometime. The use of temporaries and new hires is a typical way of doing the "damage". 

I still think the treatment of these 3 companies and their execs. should swift and harsh... let them go under... don't pass go, don't collect your pay. Use their assests, cash anything that comes out of the bankruptcies to take care of the employees. Provide continued pensions for the already retired, and then handle the the rest according to their age and time served. Buy outs and/or retraining in anything reasonable, provide them a pension appropriate to their time served, in the US do not immediately remove all health care plans, unless you want to see a bunch of people die quickly from the stress. 

But no, all everyone wants to do is demonize the union and ignore what the real BOSSES have been getting away with. I for one have never said that if you find a lazy assed employee not working and carrying his/her weight that there shouldn't be a way to deal with him/her. I know how the trade unions accomplish this here... if someone comes back to the hiring hall after being fired from a job... they are watched carefully. After the 3rd time they if there it is clearly the fault of the employee they are told not to come back to the hall for hiring... they will probably then go to some lucky non-union outfit and get a job. 



MacDoc said:


> Seems to me there is a lot of emphasis on unionized workers overpaid by 50% and very little condemnation of management overpaid by 1000 %
> 
> If you were a union worker and knew your bosses were getting absurd pay packages would you not perhaps go after the biggest cut you can get as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Seems to me there is a lot of emphasis on unionized workers overpaid by 50% and very little condemnation of management overpaid by 1000 %


No argument on the obvious, hence no emphasis on it either. 

BTW: from an impact perspective, 50 executives overpaid by 1000% versus the 409,810 members of the union for GM alone (as of 2003) overpaid and dependent on GM for the rest of their lives. The executives are the 1st and obvious cutback. Almost half a million workers is the emphasis in re-structuring compensation and benefits. (as harsh as it may seem). 

In the union's defense, they did what they are there to do. But I think there are ways of being pro-worker and having some foresight into your actions. Take a piece of that PIE that the executives are gorging on but even if it's detrimental to the future your job? I don't know, tough call. Somebody had to be the better person but no one was.

That's my last bit on the union as I don't want to seem like I'm "emphasizing" and "demonizing" it without blame to anything else.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good article



> INNOVATION NATION
> Why Detroit Can't Keep Up


washingtonpost.com


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Well hopefully they have some home runs in their previously discarded prototypes that never made it to production. As trying to hit a home run in the next couple years with a design from scratch is highly unlikely in the auto industry. On these forums and in person, I have bashed domestic cars for quite some time for shotty quality and innovation, wondering how they are even in business. ConsumerReports.org survey's have been saying the same thing for as long as I have been a subscriber. This was staring them in the face for almost 20 years of import dominance and market gain. It's surprising how it takes a (probably historic) economic downturn to bring something so obvious to surface. 

They should of taken lesson from Micheal Keaton in Gung Ho back in 86'


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MACinist... I just want to give you a personal "thank-you" from a sometimes way to hard cynic... ME!  

You see both sides... as do I really. This is maybe the biggest problem around here... "ain't no one gonna be the first to give!" and it's too bad, it really is. As others have already said I myself have seen management and union work so well together in other parts of the world... mutual respect etc. 




MACinist said:


> No argument on the obvious, hence no emphasis on it either.
> 
> BTW: from an impact perspective, 50 executives overpaid by 1000% versus the 409,810 members of the union for GM alone (as of 2003) overpaid and dependent on GM for the rest of their lives. The executives are the 1st and obvious cutback. Almost half a million workers is the emphasis in re-structuring compensation and benefits. (as harsh as it may seem).
> 
> ...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Agreed on this one as well. I don't know what they do with "discarded" prototypes... I hope they are in one piece somewhere in storage. I've had the opportunity to see some good ones in the late 80's and 90's. Had the brochures and all the hype... alas it went out the door with the ex... 



MACinist said:


> Well hopefully they have some home runs in their previously discarded prototypes that never made it to production. As trying to hit a home run in the next couple years with a design from scratch is highly unlikely in the auto industry. On these forums and in person, I have bashed domestic cars for quite some time for shotty quality and innovation, wondering how they are even in business. ConsumerReports.org survey's have been saying the same thing for as long as I have been a subscriber. This was staring them in the face for almost 20 years of import dominance and market gain. It's surprising how it takes a (probably historic) economic downturn to bring something so obvious to surface.
> 
> They should of taken lesson from Micheal Keaton in Gung Ho back in 86'


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Mr. EvanTeamsterPitts, so you are saying that it was the lack of respect by management to their employees at GM, Ford and Chrysler that entitles their workforce to make 1.5 more than the most profiting car company in North America (Toyota)?


I never said entitled to, nor do I think it is wise to overpay a staff so much. But the companies brought it upon themselves, through bad management practices, shoddy and arbitraty treatment of employees, etc. that brought in the "need" for Union organization. And the Union has managed to obtain a high standard of living for their workers.

Of course, the workers at Toyota and Honda make less money on a per hour basis, but why do they not organize, go on strike and obtain the same cash? There is a similar parallel in Hamilton, where management at Stelco was entirely contemptable and hence, they ended up with a local of the United Steelworkers that was fairly militant (and usually headed by a Communist or Marxist) - while across the street, Dofasco had managment that was somewhat better, so the workers never saw the need of organizing, even if they weren't making as much as those at Stelco.

At Toyota, one is not chained to one specific mindless task for years on end - in fact, the worker is expected to learn how to assemble the entire vehicle, and is rotated a number of times per shift within their team. Promotions arer based on merit, rather than seniority or the spoils system.

Another key is management. At the Big 3, being a foreman or a team leader means being able to sit in some office reading novels all day, no matter what's actually happening. At Toyota or Honda, management actually has to work hard, and the higher one goes, the harder they work. And that is a key difference, in the Big 3 corporate environment, the higher ups spend most of their time cramming steak dinners down their throat while cashing in on large bonuses and stock options - while their counterparts at Toyota and Honda are putting in 12 hour days (or more) making the system work.

When management works hard, the worker sees that effort, and is more likely to bury themselves in their own work. When managment is about being as lazy as possible, then the motivation is absent, as well as any shred of morale. When morale bottoms out, then the workers gravitate towards the Union. Workers end up going on strike out of anger - even if the strike will cost them economically. They do it to "give it to the man", and propelled by that kind of anger, the Union will seek anything outrageous.

The Union is a symptom, not the problem. Lazy management that makes poor decisions, cashes in large and scored cash beyond all belief for doing little or nothing at all - that's the root of the Big 3's problems.

Executive compensation - paid even if those executives practive grievous malfeasance, is a huge problem - because it makes those companies entirely uncompetitive in nature when compared to the foreign juggernauts that have far better management practices and far better motivation to succeed.

The cost of "health care" is mostly brought upon themselves, by operating obsolete assembly lines without rotating workers, engaging in unsafe practices and the need to meet arbitrary quotas. If the worker is not empowered to stop the assembly line, without retribution, when something is going wrong - then you have one of the reasons why the Big 3 are failing.

As for workers not complaining - sure, they are making large cash - but would they buy the product they assemble if they weren't going to get the unit at factory cost?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Amen Mr. Pitts!

There are millions of americans that would work those jobs for a THIRD of the pay.... with NO Union! And I guarantee you they would be working 10 times harder. Cheaper cars in the end, AND better quality.

If you do your work, you have amazing Job security. If you work hard, you have leverage for a pay raise. It's really quite simple.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

The hourly wage is $30 per hour. So you think there are millions who would do that crappy job for $10 per hour?

I don't think so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

$10 plus benefits. I think so.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Macfury said:


> $10 plus benefits. I think so.


I do too. Take a drive down the many warehouse zones in GTA during a Job Fair and see the line ups. Back breaking jobs with less benefits making less interesting products.

We had to hire security at my work to manage the lines during a job fair for some warehouse positions. And it was only for temporary work at 1/3rd the pay and no benefits.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

adagio said:


> The hourly wage is $30 per hour. So you think there are millions who would do that crappy job for $10 per hour?
> 
> I don't think so.


EASILY. It's a no brainer.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Agreed. I am sorry but they are factory workers. In any other factory management makes $30+/hour. It is simply not sustainable to pay every worker $30 dollars an hour unless you can move sufficient amounts or are turning dirt into gold.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

I agree. Misinformed patriotism is what sustained the few sales they had outside of truck sales. 



> *Detroit: Wait until after next year
> Congress wants the Big Three to give it a plan for profitability before approving a bailout. This could be within reach...but not until 2010.*
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A profitable U.S. auto industry just around the corner? Given the crisis hitting the industry, it sounds about as realistic as flying cars.
> ...


Detroit's tough road to recovery - Nov. 24, 2008


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I have come across several people telling me that the only reason they buy American vehicles is because they believe that it keeps the cash in the North American economy.
> 
> Many of them hate the products and have had lots of mechanical and build quality problems with them. They also had many negative experiences with the dealers.
> 
> Many are getting fed up and say they will strongly consider getting something imported next time. "My neighbor with the Toyota doesn't have any of these headaches."


Toyota has 10 plants in Canada and the U.S....


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My father worked for GM for 20 years and bought GM about one-third of the time, cycling through Fords and Chryslers as well.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

SNL Covers The Detroit Bailout Hearings | The Truth About Cars


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

adagio said:


> The hourly wage is $30 per hour. So you think there are millions who would do that crappy job for $10 per hour?
> 
> I don't think so.


It happens all the time - since $10 per hour is much better than a $ Zero per hour.

Magna has been pretty big into slicing pay while raking in the moolah. And they play hard ball, and when workers at one plant refused to make drastic concessions, Stronach shut it down, putting everyone out of work.

Now, I do not agree with such tactics, especially when the workers struggle to make ends meet in his filthy, disgusting, unsafe plants - while he and his family live one of the most opulent lifestyles imaginable. But without a strong Union, and strong links to other Unions - the workers have little chance. They either accept drastic pay cuts in order to retain their jobs, (so they the Stronach family can pay for more high quality blow from Colombia) or they are out the door.

Of course, this reflects upon the Big 3, since they buy a myriad of parts from Magna, parts that frankly, the workers care not one iota about. So these shoddy parts, produced by unmotivated workers that are scraping by under the threat of losing their jobs, are put into the products of the Big 3, guaranteeing that the resultant product is as shoddy and retrograde as possible.

Without the worker and management working in harmony - all that is made is garbage. Funny thing is, this same thing was heraled in the 1927 movie Metropolis by Fritz Lang.

The ruin of the Big 3 has nothing to do with competition, nor of Unions - but of themselves. Greed, corruption, degenerate management practices, bad business decision making, constant restructuring, endless layoffs, the bloodletting of skilled workers, retrograde designs from the 60's, lack of vehicles that people want, a shoddy product that dealers can only move if customers are given crazy incentives, large inventories that allow customers to buy brant new cars that are two or three model years old, etc... Detroit is in it's death throes - it's all about the countdown until these clowns are gone.

I also can not see, considering what had been happening, why any executive in Detroit is worthy of any kind of bonus at all. If a regular worker dorked around as much as these executives - the worker would be fired and there would be no Union that would bother defending such sad cases of malfeasance.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I have come across several people telling me that the only reason they buy American vehicles is because they believe that it keeps the cash in the North American economy.
> 
> Many of them hate the products and have had lots of mechanical and build quality problems with them. They also had many negative experiences with the dealers.
> 
> Many are getting fed up and say they will strongly consider getting something imported next time. "My neighbor with the Toyota doesn't have any of these headaches."


Unfortunately, much of it is a misnomer - since many "Domestic" products are actually made overseas, or assembled here out of foreign made parts - while many "Foreign" products are actually made right here.

Toyota and Honda are both made in Ontario, while other models are made in various plants around the US. Nissan, Mazda and Hyundai have plants in the US (and Hyundai very nearly built a plant in Quebec, until the PQ government of the day interfered and insisted on a French only policy...) Same with parts suppliers, with notable companies like Denso (in Guelph), amongst others. And not just automakers, but heavy equipment makers like Kubota have located plants here - while the "Domestics" like John Deere have shipped their plants to Mexico.

It is not patriotic to stand up and say "oh, we have to give cash to the Big 3 because they are failing because of the thousands of mistakes they have made, and their refusal to be progressive minded." Sure, closing GM will cause some displacements - but that slack will soon be made up by companies that really want to get down to doing some business. The Big 3 are dinosaurs, obsolete in all regards, and it is time to let them pass, if they can not succeed on their own.

Buying domestic to be "patriotic" is much less patriotic than buying something that is both superior and actually build right here.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I told them that there is a good chance their neighbors Toyota was made in North America.
> 
> Then I get a stunned look. They were buying domestic and they honestly didn't know Toyota did manufacturing here.


It's amazing how long this has been going on.

I remember going on a day trip to Banff in my roommate's friend's then brand new '87 Honda Accord back in the Summer of 1987. My roommate's friend was all chuffed about his new car, and was going on about how lazy and unmotivated North American workers could *never* build a car like that - this was back in the days when the quality gap was *much* bigger than it is today. I pointed out that since it was a North American market Accord it was probably built in Ohio. When we stopped he looked at the sticker and was surprised to see that it was indeed built in Ohio. It was still a nice car though, even if the VIN didn't start with a "J"...


Adrian. said:


> Toyota has 10 plants in Canada and the U.S....


It will be interesting to see how many are left if the "big 3" hit the wall.

With no fear of protectionist policies aimed at protecting the "Domestic" industry, and a big gaping hole in the side of the North American supply chain, there will be no incentive for the transplants to stay here...


EvanPitts said:


> Of course, this reflects upon the Big 3, since they buy a myriad of parts from Magna, parts that frankly, the workers care not one iota about. So these shoddy parts, produced by unmotivated workers that are scraping by under the threat of losing their jobs, are put into the products of the Big 3, guaranteeing that the resultant product is as shoddy and retrograde as possible.


Where do you think the "Japanese" makers get their parts?

I'm pretty sure the rearview mirror in my Subaru (assembled in Lafayette, Indiana USA) comes from Magna - and I'm pretty sure that if I started to pull the car a part and look closely at the pieces I'm sure I'd find a whole bunch of Magna parts.

A quick look at Magna's website (Products and Technology - Customer Awards - Magna International Inc.) shows that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, and Mitsubishi are all Magna customers...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Just because you brought up Frank Stronach... I find it amazing this creep gets employees to work for him let any kind of respect for the job.

He also owns the Austrian Magna operation, Magna Steyr. Austria is one of those European countries that utilizes "work councils" but not Magna and Stronach... 



> In 1998, Magna took over Steyr Daimler Puch. In the newly merged company Magna Steyr, he successfully prevented the establishment of works councils, in violation of Austrian labor law by reprimanding workers who were cooperating with unions. In 2003, Stronach also planned to take over VOEST, but this project failed.


Works council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I don't know how on earth you would go about getting management and workers to come together at a place like that.

This is far from another union rant on my part... I envy the European system. It works well for all concerned as everything is in the open with worker council reps. actually sitting on most company board of directors. 

Is it just too much to ask for fair compensation for fair work done? Can any of you live on $10/hr, no benefits? I really doubt it, unless you're into cramming 10 people into one flat. 

FWIW... I would consider the people working for companies like Toyota fairly compensated and if they are happy with their jobs as well, then that's bonus.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

PB, you forgot to mention Magna employees make a lot more than $10/hr. They have good benefits and also participate in company profit sharing.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*sigh**

Stronach is not a nice guy. He's been compared to Conrad Black, ethically. He has the option of being anti-union with his employees here in North America, in Austria it was against labour laws not to allow the formation of a worker council in his plants. 

Frank Stronach - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Stronach's blunt response was to tell unhappy investors "if they don't like the restaurant, then don't eat there"



... and the blind shall follow the blind... XX)


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

adagio said:


> PB, you forgot to mention Magna employees make a lot more than $10/hr. They have good benefits and also participate in company profit sharing.


I don't know how much Magna employees make, or what it is like to work there.

I just wanted to point out that all mainstream automakers buy parts from the same suppliers after Evan Pitts suggested that Magna was a big three (only) supplier.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dreambird said:


> *sigh** ... and the blind shall follow the blind... XX)


Not many people support unions any longer.

Although this report is now 10 years old, I suspect it is more true today than it was then:



> *Union Membership Drops Worldwide, U.N. Reports*
> 
> Labor union membership has dropped in most industrial countries between 1985 and 1995, pushed down by the shift away from manufacturing and the loss of many unionized jobs, but unions have not lost their influence, especially in Europe, the International Labor Organization said yesterday in its annual report.
> 
> ...


Union Membership Drops Worldwide, U.N. Reports - New York Times


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not many people support unions any longer.
> 
> Although this report is now 10 years old, I suspect it is more true today than it was then:
> 
> Union Membership Drops Worldwide, U.N. Reports - New York Times


I wonder why union membership has dropped? Is it because workers are beginning to be treated fairly and equitably? Is it because health and safety standards are upheld and worker's welfare comes forefront? 

I doubt it. It's more likely that these jobs have gone away to places where workers are routinely exploited.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Sinc, Indeed, that's true.

However, I would prefer to see evolution in the labour world and unionism... toward something like the work councils I linked above or co-determination which still seems to work best in Germany and maybe Sweden:

Co-determination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's good for the company and it's good for the worker... not perfect but what is. Would or could something like this ever even happen over here... I doubt it. Each side is too busy kicking the other in the teeth...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All this idealism is fine, but until "closed shops" are outlawed and joining a union is a matter of free choice, unions are doomed in today's society.

Forcing union membership on an individual by virtue of acceptance of employment is wrong and always has been.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Old guard Soviets must be killing themselves laughing....

 



> *Nationalize Volvo and Saab': professor*
> 
> Published: 24 Nov 08 16:39 CET
> Online: 'Nationalize Volvo and Saab': professor - The Local
> ...


'Nationalize Volvo and Saab': professor - The Local


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well, yes but I submit that once the closed shop is outlawed and all unions are dead... I think I can make a pretty good guess that no one will really want those jobs so much anymore. The pay will be gone as will the benefits and any protection there was against the management getting "lawless" so to speak. 

I suggest it would be better to transition from what there is now to a better system. Dug in heel stubborness prevents it on both sides.

In any case, in Alberta you may NOT force anyone to join a union in this province as a condition of employment. I know there is the issue of closed shops as some shops fall out of Alberta jurisdiction, for example CP Rail has shops here that are closed shop, unionized. (CAW) However if you feel so strongly you have the right to direct your union dues be directed elsewhere... a charity... whatever. Alberta is as close as we get...
So how about we start here then?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Saabs have become absolute garbage in recent years. Volvos are still nice but they haven't done much in the way of alternative fuels.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Saab's designs suck. At least they were distinctive some years ago.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Saab's designs suck. At least they were distinctive some years ago.


They are pontiac G6s with some trim and leather...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Old guard Soviets must be killing themselves laughing....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*What* pool of knowledge? Most current Volvos are based on Ford platforms, although Volvo did have ~some~ influence on their design:
Ford C1 platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ford EUCD platform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I doubt that Volvo could have come up with modern platforms such as these on their own.

That said, the professor's point is a good one - Sweden will have to do something if they want to have a Swedish car industry, and partially nationalizing Volvo might make sense *IF* they can install competent management and avoid creating a "Swedish Leyland". If they can pull this off, the Swedish taxpayers might even make a few Krona on the deal - I'll bet Ford would let Volvo go cheap these days, and they could probably even work out a deal to keep sharing platforms and technology...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> They are pontiac G6s with some trim and leather...


And a Holden V6...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> *What* pool of knowledge?


Agreed. That one cracked me up. They need only hire fired Ford engineers to keep this unique knowledge in Sweden.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, those Volfords ain't what they used to be, are they?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> With no fear of protectionist policies aimed at protecting the "Domestic" industry, and a big gaping hole in the side of the North American supply chain, there will be no incentive for the transplants to stay here...


Protectionist policies resulted in the Big 3 peddling retrograde garbage of inferior design and frankly, stuff that was not very exciting at all. As I had mentioned before, if you want performance, don't go to GM because it is unavailable there. If you want fuel efficiency and a 1.8L engine, or a clean burning LEV or ULEV, again, it is unavailable from GM.



> Where do you think the "Japanese" makers get their parts?


Either in house, or from parts suppliers, notably Nippon Denso. They may use Magna parts, however, the Japanese manufacturers refuse delivery of defective parts, and will not put them into their cars, unlike the Big 3. It's all about inspection, and the Japanese will send back a thousand parts if they find one bad one. And if Magna, or anyone else wants to score cash from the Japanese, they play by the Japanese rules. (And quite often, part suppliers will adopt TPS as part of the program.)



> A quick look at Magna's website (Products and Technology - Customer Awards - Magna International Inc.) shows that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, and Mitsubishi are all Magna customers...


Does anywhere on their web site shows what happened to all of the workers in Oakville they unilaterally fired because the workers went on strike, refusing to take massive pay cuts? Does anywhere on their website explain why Belinda was earning $40,000 per week and living in crazy opulence - while it was company policy that the worker should be forced to labour for minimum wage, with no job security and no benefits at all?

"Customer Awards" can easily be purchased for advertising and propaganda purposes, things like J.D. Powers & Associates who, for some reason, gave awards for "quality" to Chrysler - despite the fact that half the cars being towed off the QEW are in fact, Chrylsers that broke down.

Just like "Customer Awards", you will not find a Corporate Website that admits to the various foibles and acts of malfeasance that a company commits. It comes down to the treatment of the worker, and when a company sees fit to boot two hundred workers out on the street because the refuse to do twice the work for half the pay, just so the daughter of the boss can shop at Holt-Renfrew - that is the real measure of a company.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Saab's designs suck. At least they were distinctive some years ago.


They were cool when they had a two-cycle engine!

Since then, they were a nutter-mobile with their crazy turbo that could be wound up beyond all reasonability. Then GM took over and they became reheats of Saturns/Vauxhalls...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yeah, those Volfords ain't what they used to be, are they?


You got it, Pontiac. beejacon

Volvos were cool in the 70's - much like all kinds of things, like computers, that were cool in the 70's. I don't think Volvo is quite the car that it was, and I am uncertain that they can be kept on the road for 20 years like in the old days. (In the old days, you didn't need to replace the car for 20 years, since the new model looked much the same as the old model...)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I fear that the Canadian banks will be the next in line for bailouts. BMO make "only" $560 million in the 4th quarter, and RBC will report a profit of "only" $1.1 billion in Q4. They will need this money to help them get over the lean times ahead.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> As I had mentioned before, if you want performance, don't go to GM because it is unavailable there.


How do you define performance? Most would consider this adequate: Chevrolet | 2009 Corvette - Sports Car Convertible


EvanPitts said:


> If you want fuel efficiency and a 1.8L engine, or a clean burning LEV or ULEV, again, it is unavailable from GM.


How about the Toyota Matrix, available at GM dealers coast to coast: 2009 Pontiac Vibe overview page on gm.ca


EvanPitts said:


> (And quite often, part suppliers will adopt TPS as part of the program.)


Pretty much everyone is doing Lean (aka Toyota Production System) these days. To their credit, Toyota has stuck with it and institutionalized Lean principles - I always think of Lean as one of those things that's easy to understand and hard to do, although there is some evidence that this might be ~starting~ to slip as evidenced by the great increase in Toyota recalls over the past couple of years...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> All this idealism is fine, but until "closed shops" are outlawed and joining a union is a matter of free choice, unions are doomed in today's society.
> 
> Forcing union membership on an individual by virtue of acceptance of employment is wrong and always has been.


Outlawing closed shops is _what will doom_ unions. A closed shop is the 'union'. 

Unions don't exist to screw people. They exist to protect the worker. Absolutely there are some bad apples but where aren't there bad apples? Are you prepared to tear down ALL systems along with the unions you so revile?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

adagio said:


> The hourly wage is $30 per hour. So you think there are millions who would do that crappy job for $10 per hour?
> 
> I don't think so.


$30.00 per hour for a skilled tradesperson is reasonable. Any thought that it isn't seriously devalues labour.

This equals roughly $60,000 a year. Hmm, not that special when you consider the skills required and what management is raking in. We are talking skilled labour here.

$10.00 an hour? $20,000 a year? That's a joke. I would like to see that labour force. Also, what happens when all the good ones get good? Will they continue to work for $10.00 an hour or will they form a union?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Outlawing closed shops is _what will doom_ unions. A closed shop is the 'union'.
> 
> Unions don't exist to screw people. They exist to protect the worker. Absolutely there are some bad apples but where aren't there bad apples? Are you prepared to tear down ALL systems along with the unions you so revile?


Fact remains that closed shops are in violation of a worker's basic right to choose.

And no one, not even you can deny a person's right to choose. Why should a union be able to withhold a person's right to choose? It is just plain wrong.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> How do you define performance? Most would consider this adequate: Chevrolet | 2009 Corvette - Sports Car Convertible


Sure, if you have a hundred large - but what about regular vehicles? GM is notably absent when it comes to providing the real thing, and they have resisted providing the real thing for years - giving it all of the market to the competition. Of course, even with the example you give - the real thing is unavailable to the public, only a detuned, low performace version, again, just like GM has done for years.

Instead of providing the real thing when it comes to performace, GM insisted on gluing plastic dohickeys onto their regular vehicles. Of course, one could spend a ton of cash on aftermarket parts, but then, one could cross the road to a local Ford or Chrysler dealership and purchase all of the performance one would want.



> How about the Toyota Matrix, available at GM dealers coast to coast: 2009 Pontiac Vibe overview page on gm.ca


First, it is a Toyota; second, you can't buy the Pontiac version with a VVTi 1.8L engine (only with the weak 2.4L Pontiac style engine).



> Pretty much everyone is doing Lean (aka Toyota Production System) these days.


Wrong, none of the Big 3 has ever gone to TPS, though they are fixated on scams like ISO9001 and Six Sigma - which do absolutely nothing when it comes to issues of quality.

Toyota did have a problem with bearings and handled it - unlike the Big 3 that usually have to undergo the embarrasment of being dragged into government mandated safety recalls. Every production process will develop problems, but the difference is that the Japanese have systems in place to catch these problems and to be proactive about fixing them, including empowering the worker to stop the line until the problem is fixed; while the Big 3 will build a half million vehicles until they are bullied into doing something about the problem because of a class action lawsuit.

As for a "great increase" - sure, after having absolutely no recalls for fifteen years, recalling 1,500 cars is a pretty big deal. The Big 3, on the other hand, normally have five to ten major safety recalls on any given model, and when a recall is issued, their dealers will give the customer the hassle just to make it worse.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fact remains that closed shops are in violation of a worker's basic right to choose.
> 
> And no one, not even you can deny a person's right to choose. Why should a union be able to withhold a person's right to choose? It is just plain wrong.


Ahh, the old ehMac merry-go-round.

Why should the rights of an individual having to join a union as a condition of employment trump the rights of the other workers to free association and the 'closed shop' that they belong to?

Don't like it? Work at Wal Mart.

If you don't think joining a union as a condition of employment is fair, then perhaps then a 'union shop' is more to your liking. As long as a collective agreement that represents all workers is in place then I have no problems whatsoever. 

An open shop is not a union. It has no bargaining ability. That's why unions exist.

Here's a little tidbit from Wiki:



> The open shop was the slogan adopted by United States employers in the first decade of the twentieth century in their attempt to drive unions out of the construction industry. Construction craft unions, then and now, rely on controlling the supply of labor in particular trades and geographical areas as a means of maintaining union standards and establishing collective bargaining relations with the employers in that field. In order to do that, construction unions—and to a lesser extent unions representing musicians, longshore workers, restaurant employees and others who work on a transitory and relatively brief basis—must require that employers hire only their members. By refusing to hire exclusively union members, construction employers effectively undercut many of the conditions, such as the eight hour day, that unions had achieved over the past several decades.
> 
> The open shop was also a key component of the American Plan introduced in the 1920s, when employers attempted to reverse the gains made by unions during World War I. In that era the open shop was not only directed at construction unions, but also unions in mass production industries; the open shop represented not only the right to discriminate against union members in employment but also a steadfast opposition to collective bargaining of any sort.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy: the article is slanted in that it considers the right to choose to hire non-union labour as "discrimination." Sure, they're discriminating between high-priced labour and low-priced labour offering the same service.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Not that I'm in favour of any kind of unrestricted bailout, but I find it noteworthy that while the commentary in the media around a Big Three bailout tends to be negative and tends to lay the blame at the feet of the unions or "lazy workers", they handed over a blank cheque to Citibank over the weekend for a similar amount with nary a peep and certainly no blame towards their greedy workers and management.

A double standard maybe?

A quote I heard on a news show: "If your job requires you to shower before work, you're too big to fail, here's your cheque. If your job means you need to shower when you're done work for the day, you're a freeloader and we might just let your company fail."

Why is the stupidity of the Big 3 automakers somehow worse than the stupidity of Wall Street firms and major banks? Why is it just unimaginable that those firms could be allowed to fail, yet it's not in the case of the automakers? 

Just askin'. 

Maybe if GM, Ford and Chrysler had the foresight to have one of their CEOs installed as head of a major US regulatory agency, like Paulson and Bernacke, the treatment might have been different.

But maybe instead of handing out free money to all these corporate losers, be they bank or manufacturer, the US government should have just passed all that money straight to homeowners. They could have refinanced sub-prime mortgages at low interest or no-interest rates and to be fair and to not only reward those who ignorantly got in over their heads, offered similar deals to other mortgage holders as well as those who were saving up for homes. The bailout amounts would probably be in the same range, yet instead of waiting for their own money to possibly (if they're lucky) trickle back down to them from the hands of major corporations, they could directly benefit from it right away. 

I know, I know, that's damn SOCIALIST THINKING. 

It's interesting that Obama's idea of spending some major amounts on vital infrastructure projects is being criticized as a "make-work project", yet the big difference is that those who get paid in those jobs will have to have actually worked for that money and built something of value, as opposed to most of the Wall Street bailout money going to subsidize the lifestyles of wealthy shareholders with nothing asked in return.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The chief executive officer of beleaguered insurance firm American International Group Inc. will get only $1 US in salary this year, the company said Tuesday." CBC.com

Edward Liddy, who joined the company in September, will also only receive one buck in 2009. His only compensation will come in the form of stock grants, the firm said.

AIG's seven top executives will not get bonuses this year and won't see any pay increases through 2009. There will also be no salary increases through 2009 for the 50 next-highest executives, in addition to restrictions on bonus, severance and retention awards.

AIG has faced pressure to limit the compensation of its top executives. The New York-based company was asked by New York Attorney General Mario Cuomo earlier this month for full disclosure on its compensation for this year.

Battered by the credit crunch, AIG has received about $150 million US in bailout money from the U.S. government so far."

Bailouts do work ............ for the executives.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I'm thinking that possibly for younger people the whole concept of exactly what is meant by a "closed shop" in this country has been lost somewhat unless they are students of labour history... 

"Compulsory check off" for union dues was actually part of an arbitration decision ending the Ford Strike of 1945 in Windsor, Ontario. By The Honourable Justice Ivan Rand... hence it is called The Rand Formula.

Short story... but you'll miss a lot... 

Rand formula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interested in the finer details?

http://www.labourwatch.com/pdfs/decisions/LWDecision_rand_ford_1946_2007.pdf

The strikes and labour unrest before that landmark decision were tearing the country apart... we could return to that if it is preferable.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> $30.00 per hour for a skilled tradesperson is reasonable. Any thought that it isn't seriously devalues labour.


Since when is an autoworker on the assembly line a skilled tradesperson? The lack of skill and requirements involved is what's causing the stink about being overpaid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not that I'm in favour of any kind of unrestricted bailout, but I find it noteworthy that while the commentary in the media around a Big Three bailout tends to be negative and tends to lay the blame at the feet of the unions or "lazy workers", they handed over a blank cheque to Citibank over the weekend for a similar amount with nary a peep and certainly no blame towards their greedy workers and management.


Well, you'll hear a peep from me anyway. all of these dinosaurs need their asses kicked. I think the difference between CITIbank and other financial services giants is that there is no readily accessible comparison of worker wages and productivity from company to company, or between unionized and non-unionized firms. 

The understanding that the Big Three have been hobbled by stupid contracts they entered into with labour is well known to all. The well-known success of non-union automakers--granted, with smarter managers--provides an object lesson unavailable for the financial services industry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACinist said:


> Since when is an autoworker on the assembly line a skilled tradesperson? The lack of skill and requirements involved is what's causing the stink about being overpaid.


I always liked the Ayn Rand question of what happens when you take such a "highly skilled" employee out of an environment created and capitalized by investors at great expense to leverage such a very limited talent. Move the guy one foot away from where he stands and he has become obsolete.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Move the guy one foot away from where he stands and he has become obsolete.


 



EvanPitts said:


> Sure, if you have a hundred large - but what about regular vehicles? GM is notably absent when it comes to providing the real thing, and they have resisted providing the real thing for years - giving it all of the market to the competition. Of course, even with the example you give - the real thing is unavailable to the public, only a detuned, low performace version, again, just like GM has done for years..


2010 Camaro.

Impala SS

Cadillac's come to mind as well on GM side. 




EvanPitts said:


> First, it is a Toyota; second, you can't buy the Pontiac version with a VVTi 1.8L engine (only with the weak 2.4L Pontiac style engine).


Same Corolla engine on both sides in 2009. 1.8Litre I4 DOHC, 16valves @ 132HP/6000rpm and 2.4Litre I4 DOHC, 16valves @ 158HP/6000rpm. 

With all else being pretty much the same, Matrix and Vibe only exhibit unique bodywork that employs their respective brand's styling motifs. 

Matrix prices check in at a bit more than equivalent Vibe models, with minor differences in standard equipment. 

CanadianDriver's New Car Buyer's Guide: Toyota Matrix

CanadianDriver's New Car Buyer's Guide: Pontiac Vibe

And yes, because it’s a Toyota, it is one of Pontiac’s best sellers and probably one of the only cars I would buy from them today aside from a Corvette or a Cadillac STS (if I stuck it rich). I used to have a Matrix XRS back in 04. Liked it a lot but if I knew everything was the same underneath, I probably would of opted for the Vibe as their financing was better and pricing as well.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MACinist said:


> Since when is an autoworker on the assembly line a skilled tradesperson? The lack of skill and requirements involved is what's causing the stink about being overpaid.


Same thing I was wondering...

Don't have any issue w/ someone getting paid a fair wage who has gone through a 2, 3 or 4 year apprenticeship program to become a journeyman (skilled worker).

Is there anything that the autoworkers do that someone off the street couldn't pick up in a couple of days or weeks?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Same thing I was wondering...
> 
> Don't have any issue w/ someone getting paid a fair wage who has gone through a 2, 3 or 4 year apprenticeship program to become a journeyman (skilled worker).
> 
> Is there anything that the autoworkers do that someone off the street couldn't pick up in a couple of days or weeks?


Sorry, I wasn't following the rants, leaps of logic and intolerance in this thread close enough. I was referring to skilled tradespeople within the CAW/ UAW. Machinists, electricians, welders etc.

By no means though do I consider the line worker to unworthy of a decent wage. They are skilled within the context of the plant and are a necessary part of the process. Why should they toil for substandard wages while so many dullards above them are raking it in. Perhaps those of you who are so disdainful of labour see no merit in the work these people perform. Maybe you see them as being undeserving because they haven't had the luxury of training or an education.

Blaming labour for the present state of the big three is laughable. Gross mismanagement, lack of vision and greed on the executive level have brought these pirates to their knees. Pathetic cap in hand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Maybe you see them as being undeserving because they haven't had the luxury of training or an education.


Bingo! Their lack of education and training makes them less valuable.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Bingo! Their lack of education and training makes them less valuable.


BS. They still perform necessary and essential tasks.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But their lack of training and education quite often translates to narrower possibilities for switching jobs/departments within the same company. That's why people go in for post-secondary education - to avoid ending up a one-trick pony.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> They perform necessary and essential tasks.


They perform necessary and essential tasks that any clod could perform--and there are 10 more of his ilk waiting outside to replace him if he swoons.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> But their lack of training and education quite often translates to narrower possibilities for switching jobs/departments within the same company. That's why people go in for post-secondary education - to avoid ending up a one-trick pony.


Of course I realize this. It still doesn't mean they don't deserve a decent wage. Good for them if they can get it.

My comments have only to do with reacting to an underlying mistrust and dislike if not outright hatred of 'workers' and unions in this thread and on this board.

I think much of it is simply masking other issues for these fine folks.

Ahh well. The merry-go-round continues.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> They perform necessary and essential tasks that any clod could perform--and there are 10 more of his ilk waiting outside to replace him if he swoons.


... and there are 10 more management types and ten more executives and and and.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So it does!

Problem begins when you try to establish what "a decent wage" actually translates to. Good luck achieving consensus on that one! People will more readily agree to the essential nobility or humanity of the shop floor worker than they will accept a hard number for an hourly rate.

Anti-union sentiments are as old as the hills. Everyone needs a bogeyman, it seems, and today's climate offers plenty of opportunities for people to point the finger. I see why unions ever came into being and I grasp why they're still necessary. I try to ignore all the fervent (albeit stale) propaganda which holds that unions are the source of evil, _blah blah._

That said, I see that, in the automotive industry both here and Stateside, it's the car companies based on union labour which are in danger of disintegration. Fatcat executive payouts are another factor, of course; but the labour force has to take some of the blame here.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> So it does!
> 
> Problem begins when you try to establish what "a decent wage" actually translates to. Good luck achieving consensus on that one! People will more readily agree to the essential nobility or humanity of the shop floor worker than they will accept a hard number for an hourly rate.
> 
> ...


A decent wage could simply be a wage that procludes them from being one of the working poor.

I honestly don't believe that unionized auto workers and their union bosses' intentions ever were to price themselves out of a job. Leadership comes from the top. If salaries and bonuses were being cut at the top and sacrifices were being made, I'm sure they would answer in kind.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> ... and there are 10 more management types and ten more executives and and and.


Yes... but what Macfury MEANT to say: there are about 4 Billion (minus the elderly and sub 18 yrs of age) in the world that can do the job.  

You are misinterpreting why the comments are being made. The point of the thread is to share opinion on bailing out the big 3. ONE of the underlying issues is an overpaid workforce that needs to be re-structured. THat's it. No one wants to burn union reps on a stake or blame the downfall on that unskilled overpaid position. All good things come to an end (in the private sector more so), especially when other peoples tax contributions have to bail them out. 

Do I think it's fair that an electrician or a mechanic or a plumber that went through years of apprenticeship training gets paid the same or less then an unskilled assembly line worker for a failing company? YES! Does that mean I have hatred for anyone that is able to get this type of work? hellz no, good for them. I work in the Corporate world, and I realize that my education or lack of will for the most part limit my advancement and earning potential. What's so hard to understand about that logic. It's the basic principles of higher education and why they have been telling you all your life to - "stay in school". I don't think anyone here was referring to skilled positions at the Big3. 

The "merry go-round" you are referring to, is the point of a forum encouraging opinion from it's community. If you want to state your opinion without any rebuttal, I suggest you rent some web space and start a blog.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACinist said:


> The "merry go-round" you are referring to, is the point of a forum encouraging opinion from it's community. If you want to state your opinion without any rebuttal, I suggest you rent some web space and start a blog.


He's on to you too, mrjimmy. :clap:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I had to go on a bit of a hunt for this... back on post #167:



> Quote:
> 
> 
> GM-UAW 2007 LOWLIGHTS
> ...


Alas... at this point in time changes are not only needed I think they should be welcomed. This union (UAW) is clearly losing it's footing in one area that "I" always thought important in these kind of settings... the ability to provide for an employee to start in a low position (on the line) and work his/her way up to something better. (by not allowing them to exercise their seniority to bid for a position off the line). "Unless" they are willing to work for less... not much of a promotion, huh? But then what happens from there? May they continue to better themselves? 
Any good union offers incentives to better oneself, courses etc. It's generally part of the package. 

I just await to see how much the top management is willing to swallow in "downgrades"...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

LOL, turning into a funny thread.

IMHO all the BAs and MAs out there are worth as much, if not less, than what the auto workers are getting and lets not forget that all the big execs and CEOs of the big three probably have MBAs. Yes, all that education and training got them begging in congress.

Some of you sound pathetically jealous and snobbish.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> LOL, turning into a funny thread.
> 
> IMHO all the BAs and MAs out there are worth as much, if not less, than what the auto workers are getting and lets not forget that all the big execs and CEOs of the big three probably have MBAs. Yes, all that education and training got them begging in congress.
> 
> Some of you sound pathetically jealous and snobbish.


My point exactly. Throw in misanthropic and mean spirited for spice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> My point exactly. Throw in misanthropic and mean spirited for spice.


Good thing there are not any CAW production line workers reading this thread, given all the big words and all (misanthropic).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kps, point made about snobbery (and hypocrisy, yes?). I stand corrected. Guess it comes down to the individual, doesn't it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Guess it comes down to the individual, doesn't it.


Yes.

Max, I don't like people placing value on other peoples work when they have never done the work themselves.

I had a friend who was a union sheet metal worker prior to getting a job at GM on the assembly line. He quit very soon after, couldn't hack the repetitive nature of the job. Told me they earn every penny they get.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MACinist said:


> The "merry go-round" you are referring to, is the point of a forum encouraging opinion from it's community. If you want to state your opinion without any rebuttal, I suggest you rent some web space and start a blog.


The merry-go-round _I'm referring to_ is in reference to the same old arguments from the same old members about the same old topics (slightly reframed). This includes me. No one is listening. No one is learning. You jump on, get nowhere and jump off. It's fun _sometimes._

Please in future refrain from feeling the need to explain to me the rules. It's just your ego getting restless.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Good thing there are not any CAW production line workers reading this thread, given all the big words and all (misanthropic).


Are you perhaps just speaking for yourself here? Otherwise you have devolved this thread down to a grade school level.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Yes.
> 
> Max, I don't like people placing value on other peoples work when they have never done the work themselves.
> 
> I had a friend who was a union sheet metal worker prior to getting a job at GM on the assembly line. He quit very soon after, couldn't hack the repetitive nature of the job. Told me they earn every penny they get.


For lack of a better sentiment: :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you perhaps just speaking for yourself here? Otherwise you have devolved this thread down to a grade school level.


That was the whole idea, to make it legible to those highly skilled line workers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> That was the whole idea, to make it legible to those highly skilled line workers.


Ha!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> That was the whole idea, to make it legible to those highly skilled line workers.


The merry-go-round...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> That was the whole idea, to make it legible to those highly skilled line workers.


:lmao: Oh man.

You can be such a prick.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> The merry-go-round _I'm referring to_ is in reference to the same old arguments from the same old members about the same old topics (slightly reframed). This includes me. No one is listening. No one is learning. You jump on, get nowhere and jump off. It's fun _sometimes._
> 
> Please in future refrain from feeling the need to explain to me the rules. It's just your ego getting restless.


 I put my "ego" in the toaster every morning and pour some maple syrup over it. But your attempt to make this a personal thing is a valiant effort. :clap: Is this the "fun" that you sometime refer to? Or the "merry-go-round"? Or both? :baby: 

Footnote: this is the first thread I ever talked about the Big3 in financial trouble, unions, overpaid labour, merry-go-rounds, my ego.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

This has quickly turned into a labor dispute over wages and education. Before it's gets spun into another speech. My point is:

Big3 in trouble? yes.
Should we pay for their mistakes? no.
Why? no vision, mis-management, horrible product, and too much operating expenses (which was explained and turned into something I don't even follow anymore).

The UAW seems to realize the above average cost of labor as well..



> The UAW, realizing that the companies were in trouble, agreed to a landmark new contract last year that nearly eliminated the labor cost difference between the Detroit Three and the Japanese, shifting retiree health care costs to a union-administered trust fund.


Automakers struggle to survive past mistakes - Yahoo! News


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I remember when I did commercial fishing. I was crewman on an offshore Black Cod boat. Made 20 grand in a month. Many people that had cushy office jobs and advanced University and technical degrees took great offense that uneducated workers were making much more than they were. They considered themselves above the uneducated.


You deserved every penny. It's a hard, labor intensive, and dangerous job. I did the crappiest job in construction - forming and the lowest man on the crew so I did all the heavy lifting. Believe me, $28 an hour did not make it any better to get through the day. And it was the worst summer job I ever had. Some people can't handle sitting at a desk either. Education doesn't entitle you to a wage, it is the bit on your resume to get you an interview or it is a requirement for certain fields for obvious reasons. Your application of your education to the real world and performance thereafter is what dictates your wages and what truly matters. I was lucky enough to get to my current position with limited higher education (unfinished due to "luck of the draw" circumstances). But wish every day to go back and finish for self fulfillment and because my potential is limited in the workforce. There are a ton of talented people out there with self determination, street smarts and uncanny instinct, but those people typcially do not settle for unionized jobs. They make their own millions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> While I used to take hours of endless monotonous tough work, I did not enjoy it, not everyone can do it. Even working on an easy assembly line doing similar tasks endlessly is not within the ability of all people.


Some would refuse, but many, many, many would welcome it. You can't ignore supply and demand.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

kps said:


> Yes.
> 
> Max, I don't like people placing value on other peoples work when they have never done the work themselves.
> 
> I had a friend who was a union sheet metal worker prior to getting a job at GM on the assembly line. He quit very soon after, *couldn't hack the repetitive nature of the job.* Told me they earn every penny they get.


I pretty much figured that might be the case about assembly line work, which is why I pointed out that the newest contract would be a punishment for anyone trying to get off that duty.

And yes, I do have some inkling of what it might be like as I used to work at Canada Post's Calgary sorting facility doing repetitive, boring assembly line-type work. It drove me crazy and in spite of the union wages and benefits I couldn't hack that one either and left after a lengthy period of trying of get a letter carrier's position and failing. FWIW, I think workers in the sorting facility are worth every penny they get as well. However I really haven't much good to say about the union at the plant I worked at either... the place was difficult to take. I try to look at the sum of things and the lesser of two evils when it comes to the "whole".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ouch


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> :lmao: Oh man.
> 
> You can be such a prick.


SINC was just being direct and honest. Why camouflage intolerance? Just let 'er rip!


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks MacDoc! Great cartoon.

MrJimmy, I appreciate that. I just think Sinc is a bitter old man (at least he rubs me that way)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Thanks MacDoc! Great cartoon.
> 
> MrJimmy, I appreciate that. I just think Sinc is a bitter old man (at least he rubs me that way)


I guess a little humour is beyond you, is it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A very informative ( long story ) about GM.



> Special Report Detroit's downfall
> 
> *GM: Death of an American dream*
> 
> General Motors was the Great American Company. But by clinging to the attributes that made it an icon, GM drove itself to ruin.


Where GM went wrong: Let me count the ways - Nov. 24, 2008

Guess i know why I never bought a GM product...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess a little humour is beyond you, is it?


Adrian, silly us! SINC wasn't being intolerant or bitter, he was just being humourous! Boy is my face red.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

The timeline re-iterates the same but a shorter read:

GM's downward spiral: A timeline - Roger Smith's reorganization (1) - FORTUNE


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Adrian, silly us! SINC wasn't being intolerant or bitter, he was just being humourous! Boy is my face red.


Oh, how coy.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Democrats Set to Offer Loans for Carmakers*
> Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
> 
> Published: December 5, 2008
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1228550802-pzKWMqTjFoUQMFCGZbM0SA


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1228550802-pzKWMqTjFoUQMFCGZbM0SA


Link requires membership and password.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Well, the Big3 Automakers have met the deadline set by Ottawa and Ontario, and presented their needs, or wants, or demands (depending on your perspective).

GM, Canada's largest automaker, is asking for an immediate $800 million loan and a total of $2.4 Billion in loans in total.

Chrysler, Canada's second largest automaker, and the company that embraced the Auto Pact more wholeheartedly than any other automaker, and who has wholly embraced Canada as an auto manufacturing nation, has not specified a figure, but hints at $1.6 Billion in loans, based on it's Canadian manufacturing capacity in relation to it's total North American capacity.

Ford, who has always remained firmly entrenched in Dearborn and follows the letter, but not the intent, of the Auto Pact by making the minimal amount of cars in Canada to be compliant and therefore enjoy duty-free cross border shipments of cars and parts, wants a $2 Billion in credit.

First of all, a brief look at the auto industry and what these three mean to Canada as an auto manufacturing nation.

GM has always been supportive of car manufacturing in Canada, dating back to the turn of the last century. Oshawa owes every auto job it's every had to GM, Will Durant, Machlachlain, and Buick. They started it all. About every fifth GM vehicle sold in North America is made here. So, GM's Canadian division is an export leader, contributes to the balance of trade, and makes twice as many cars and trucks here than they "need to" in order to comply with the Auto Pact.

Chrysler, especially beginning in the 1980's and to this day, has aggressively moved to establish capacity in Canada. Although GM is bigger, roughly every second car Chrysler sells is made in Canada. They are, without much exaggeration, as much a Canadian automaker as a Detroit one, contribute vast sums to Canada's trade surplus, and in the end mean that almost half of all US Chrysler owners drive a car made in this country, not the USA.

Ford, for their part, basically treats Canada as a nuisance that it tolerates because it's profitable to do so. Under the Auto Pact, in order to enjoy duty-free status, you must make one vehicle in Canada for every vehicle you sell in Canada. Ford just barely manages to do that; they basically hire Americans and American contractors to make as many cars as possible in the US.

The margin is so narrow that Ford was suing and revoking franchises of Canadian dealers who sold to US customers back in the mid 90's when, with the exchange rate, it was cheaper to buy the same car in Canada than in the US. Ford's reaction was because the sales of even a few thousand cars were threatening to cause Ford to be in violation of the Auto Pact's terms, guaranteeing one car made here for every one sold here in exchange for what amounted to an industry-specific Free Trade Zone.

We owe most of our current prosperity to the Auto Pact, without which the Canada-US Free Trade Pact would never had been proposed, let alone came to be. Almost everywhere in Canada, we owe much of our prosperity during the 1990's and the 21st Century to the CUSFTA signed by George Bush Sr and later NAFTA which replaced it.

So, I don't feel we should be turning our backs on the auto industry. Those who know me here will agree that I'm no booster of Ontario and I see the advantages that Ontario enjoyed over a century for what they are worth, and how that contributed to it's present position as the commercial capital of the nation's wealth.

It's much the same with the auto manufacturers. It's inconceivable that manufacturing in Ontario and to a lesser extent elsewhere would be as prosperous without the auto makers; it's far more conceivable that it would not exist at all.

ehMac is, let's face it, a Toronto community. That a creative community in Toronto exists is due to a century of centralization; dollars move from the rest of Canada to Ontario and stay there, providing jobs to designers, print media, television, broadcasting, advertising, banking, real estate, and a host of other support industries, like, say, Mac dealers.

In much the same way, dollars move from the rest of North America to Ontario in it's auto manufacturing sector; much, much more than the other way around. A trade surplus is in some respects nothing more than a ledger that details the flow and where it stops.

Mark my words ... this is not about cars. As a westerner who knows how the money moves and how the jobs follow, I urge you to take the blinders off and see what it is you are really advocating, when you see this as being all about whether you want to buy a Malibu or a Camry.

Saskatchewan charter bank savings accounts hold 6x the amount of cash in deposits, than are lent in the province to borrowers public, corporate and private, and this is a very old and consistent state of affairs going back 50 years. It is by no means a situation unique to that province, and for the most part, whether it's Newfoundland or New Brunswick, or one of the other provinces in the same situation (Alberta included, prior to the 1980's) Ontario is where that money ends up, ready to be lent.

If you know how banking works, that's a staggering transfer of capital to be made available to Ontario businesses, and to think that only employees of RBC and CIBC get to play with that money is the epitome of naivety. That money pays some of your mortgage, no matter what your occupation, if you live in Hog-Town.

It is much the same with the auto industry, and the manufacturing capacity and support industries built around it, that account for the reason there is a Toyota plant in Canada in the first place. Make no mistake, without GM in Oshawa there would be no Honda factory in Alliston.

Money comes from buyers in Kenosee and Columbus and Billings and Denver, and ends up in the hands of ad designers in Toronto and Mac resellers in Mississauga via the car that some "spoiled UAW worker" helped put together.

Remember, it was problems at just one Investment Bank that started the current mess we're in. Do you think it wise to stand back and watch one of the largest industrial firms in our nation or the US go under?

Trust me ... that $6 Billion (assuming they get that ... I would argue it should be less, especially with regard to Ford, but that's another topic) won't even come close to covering the losses.

If the outcome is anything like any other bailouts to automakers in the past, actual cost to taxpayers will be zero. Zilch. Nada. Previous Industry-wide bailouts by the US Federal Government during the 1980's resulted in profits, not losses, to taxpayers.

Chrysler obtained loan guarantees from Canada in the early 80's and never drew a dime (they did use guarantees in the US, and paid the loans back at zero cost to the taxpayer). Harley-Davidson obtained an import tariff, the money from which went to general revenue and actually lowered the burden on the US taxpayer, and emerged much stronger than before.

In many ways, Harley is the best analogy to this crisis ... management said later they were 7 days away from not meeting payroll and being forced into bankruptcy. Today they make 10 times more motorcycles than their previous peak capacity.

I'm personally quite mystified why Ontario residents, who stand to benefit the most, seem determined to starve themselves instead, when at least some of the money will come from places like Atlin and Come By Chance and Gimley; places where they do know what it's like to be on the other end of the flow of cash.

One day on ehMac I read whining that Ontario wasn't getting it's "fair share" of Federal Revenue, and seemingly the very next day I see you get an opportunity to benefit from the collective wealth of the taxpayers from Victoria to St John's, to benefit mostly you, your families and your community, and you go off in a rant about lazy auto workers and crappy Crown Victorias.

Get a grip, people.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An interesting perspective on the industry gordguide. thanks for taking the time to research and post the info. I learned something today.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> An interesting perspective on the industry gordguide. thanks for taking the time to research and post the info. I learned something today.


Did you look over what I posted numerous times at the beginning SINC? Don't write me off so easily...

PS. It is not a perspective. It is reality. It is Canada's main industrial base. If we lose that we might as well throw up the Banana Republic flag, grow coffee, hold coup d'etats every winter (check!), watch primary resource price index depression and go begging to the IMF for money which they will lend only if we sell all of our water rights to the US.


CANADA IS NOT A DEVELOPED ECONOMY BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. WAKE UP PEOPLE THIS IS ECONOMICS 101 HERE.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GordGuide's posting is chuck full of information, but there are a few details to be had.

Chrysler did not build any additional plants in Canada - they came to be part of Chrysler after they merged with American Motors. The devalued dollar in Canada made it attractive to reconstruct these plants with modern machinery and production methods. Until the merger of Chrysler with Daimler-Benz, Chrysler was a very real threat to Toyota and Honda because of the large number of engineers that Chrysler managed to assemble, engineers that were schooled in the Toyota Production System. Daimler-Chrysler, in a short sighted move, rid themselves of this entire team of engineers (in a nick of time for Toyota and Honda), because Chrysler soon fell back into their old ways of building shoddy cars.

Old Sam would have barfed if he saw the shoddy, retrograde goods being produced in his plants.

Ford of Canada is in the peculiar position of being "in charge" of all Ford markets outside of the United States and "the British Empire" - all markets that are expanding like crazy. So despite the number of plants here, or lack of them, everything that comes out of Dearborn for the non US, non Commonwealth markets is run through Oakville, even if Oakville is a puppet government. (That's the way Henry did things in the old days. Too bad we couldn't get Henry back and bring out some technical innovation that would save the company and put it on the map again.)

"Saving" these companies is yet another ball of wax - since these companies have had all kinds of public funding. I recall GM receiving $60 million for "research" which was supposed to result in some kind of "better engine". This engine never came to light, and the $60 million was entirely lost, probably spent on booze for the executive jets. How can anyone justify giving these companies any money, since they are struggling out of their own malfeasance. They can blame "labour costs" all they want, it still comes down to the fact that the Big 3 are still producing gas guzzling giant V-8's that can't meet modern emission standards (though they can meet the slack standards that we had in the early 70's), and are building lemons that no one wants.

Things may be different if the Big 3 were actually attempting to come up with something, rather than being a clearing house for their obsolete 1960's designs or just rebadging superior quality products from their competition. They make a weak case, and will only be "saved" if gas drops back down to 40 cents a litre. 

EhMac users are from all over the place, and for those in far flung places, like those who live south of Trafalgar Road in Oakville - it is an important link to other Mac users, since there are so very few in places like Hamilton.

Mac users tend to be clustered in Toronto, not only because of the "artistic community" that has long used them, but out of a very serious lack of real dealerships outside of Toronto. At least K-W has Carbon, and London has a few places - while there is nothing in Hamilton (though the Reserve is only a half hour away). But then, Hamilton hasn't had a computer dealer of any sort, next to a handful of swindlers, in more than a decade.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good Post GG.

My sense is that there IS over capacity in the auto industry worldwide and that downsizing OR lateral expansion ( EV, PHEV ) is critical.

The auto industry knows this, they are asking for LOANS, not handouts which some people seem to confuse.

The only possible beneficial aspect of bankruptcy is the breathing space to reorganize and renegotiate contracts.

But in my view that is going on anyways and ALL manufacturers had battle plans that included that - NO ONE had battle plans that envisioned the kind of rapid meltdown occurring now.

Even knowing something nasty was sure happen and battening the hatches for the past couple of years in my tiny corner of industry I got sideswiped from a totally unexpected direction that wiped out a couple months profits.
And I'm in a sector on a roll thanks to Apple.

I can't imagine trying to steer any large organization through this mess with anything like a rational plan.

I mean hell, as with me the auto industry in Ontario got slammed with a totally uncalled for 20% currency swing in a few weeks and is likely to get to see that in the opposite direction within a few months. 

How do you PLAN a path through that.....there are no ownership manuals to consult for conditions this unstable.

So the companies are asking for some LOANS to give them room to cope.

Unlike the "completely living in fantasy land" financial industry - auto makers do build wealth ( tho sometimes of a not ideally beneficial nature ) and as GG said provide an underpinning for much of the nation.

Oddly, Quebec, like France understands national champions and the need to support them.
Quebec extracts that support from politicians.

Ontario has not yet framed the auto industry the way Quebec has with Bombardier.
It's overdue.

This could surely also be a path to ensure that rising US protectionism does not adversely affect us.

Working in tandem with the US auto program opens doors that are much needed.

That said, the loans should not be a carte blanche on either side of the border but come with provisions just as if I walked into a bank and asked for money in hard time- it would come with stipulations.

The CEO pay has been addressed by the CEOs themselves. ( long overdue ) The unions also need to step up - it's their existence at stake as well. Some strong companies like GE are actually helping their key suppliers to stay afloat.

This is not a time for ideology but for hard headed common sense and some bridge financing with conditions to give some breathing room. There is no "business as usual" for the next few years.
It's going to take a lot of cooperation, give and take and compromise to navigate this hangover of financial collapse of the shadow banking and housing bubble.

There IS a real economy underneath that needs cars and trucks and new more efficient vehicles of all sizes and we have an auto industry read to supply that real economy......rather than the "bling" inefficient nonsense of the past few years.

Canada is well positioned financially compared to say California. Helping the auto sector retool for a different set of conditions is the least we can do.

It's that or huge social costs. Better the loans in my view.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Some more good posts on this page. I agree with most of what has been written by GordGuide and MacDoc here.



MacDoc said:


> NO ONE had battle plans that envisioned the kind of rapid meltdown occurring now.


I read somewhere that the size of the US auto market went from 17M -> 10 M units per year basically over night.* Even Honda and Toyota are struggling in this environment. Given that about half of the domestic market won't even consider a domestic car because their 1989 Corsica was such a POS that means the (formerly) big three need to survive with a home market of about 5M units per year.

As for the "Crappy Retrograde Designs" - the public gets what the public wants. In North America this has meant a lot of big trucks and SUVs which are used to drive to the store to buy milk. The mistake that the domestic automakers made was to neglect their small and midsize cars while they made big profits on trucks. While this proved to be short sighted, you can see how they would do it - most companies try to "skate to where the money is". Even Toyota was heading down this path with offerings like the Tundra and Sequoia.

Ford and GM have plenty of decent, modern small and midsized cars in Europe. Even in rental car trim these would compare favourably with the best from Toyonda.

I agree that Chrysler was starting to do some innovative stuff with design in the early '90s. Unfortunately when Daimler took over they seemed more interested in driving the creative types away, than in working with them to fix their quality problems. Cerberus seems to be intent on stripping and flipping the company. It might be too late for Chrysler after being gutted by the Germans and the Bankers.
______________________
*Sorry, can't remember the source - and too lazy to use Google...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Easy credit played a role as well as low oil prices.

If you could get a luxurious large vehicle for $399 a month versus a gas sipper for $299 - well $3 a day for prestige seemed okay and that difference is the margin on the vehicle for the the auto makers.

NOW tho - all of a sudden with high gasoline prices the vehicle difference means $200-300 difference a month in operating costs ( and often another $50-100 in insurance costs ) and in some places even a premium on vehicle renewals.

Now add in no credit available and you have a perfect storm for consumers AND auto makers.

Europe already had high prices and small vehicles and likely disincentives for larger luxury vehicles.

Lowering fuel costs temporarily have given consumers a breathing space....BUT it's temporary - smart govs would put a surcharge to pay for renewed vehicle programs and keep prices around $1 a litre and funnel it to the automakers.
This would be very effective in the US but too hard to implement tho Obama might pull it off with a national sales tax ( something that has been talked about ).

This is going to be a long process and certainly will cause dislocations. Keeping those dislocations from becoming catastrophic is critical.
No easy task. 

On a larger scale - the money flowing out of the US - some $10 billion a day for oil alone MUST be have a sizeable portion diverted to different transportation methods.

It will hurt the oil sands in the long run but "made at home energy" security will reduce world tensions and dislocations. It ain't gonna happen overnight but a Manhattan Project effort by the US COULD see it in a decade.

The auto industry has a big play in this as they are the heart of the transport industry.

Shifting to high efficiency and EV/PHEV vehicles is just one part of it. Europe, Toyota and Honda are well ahead.

There may well need to be some trade barriers back in place to keep the automotive industry alive here.

Certainly the barriers in other nations to the North American industry were in place long enough 



> ith imports representing a mere four percent of Korea’s auto market, Korea is identified as having one of the most closed markets in the industrialized world. Currently, 750,000 South Korean automobiles have been sold in America annually while South Korea has used high tariffs and other trade barriers to limit the number of American cars they import annually to merely 6,300.


at one time Made in America was a "good thing".

Gonna take a turn around to be that again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A large number of Americans love big cars when they feel they can afford them. Even now, the GM CEO says their biggest movers are the large trucks. Americans aren't like the Europeans in this respect, who have downsized their lives and expectations. Americans live life larger than that.

Perhaps the auto makers could go to the banks for their loans. Perhaps the government should simply force the banks to lend to them, as they forced them to make risky loans to homeowners.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If you could get a luxurious large vehicle for $399 a month versus a gas sipper for $299 - well $3 a day for prestige seemed okay and that difference is the margin on the vehicle for the the auto makers.


One difference between the North American market and Europe is that over here only the large vehicles are luxurious. In North America it seems that the automakers assume that anyone buying a small car either can't afford a big one, or is a frugal type who only wants sensible economical transportation.

In Europe you see quite a few compact cars with things like heated leather seats and climate control - I wonder if we will start to see more of these around here? Seems like a good solution to allow the automakers to sell some high margin vehicles, as well as meet the needs of customers who don't want to drive around in something with an interior that looks like the Rubbermaid display at Walmart. There should be no reason for people downsizing from their gas guzzling SUVs to give up their creature comforts just to achieve lower running costs and reduced environmental impact...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> In Europe you see quite a few compact cars with things like heated leather seats and climate control - I wonder if we will start to see more of these around here? Seems like a good solution to allow the automakers to sell some high margin vehicles, as well as meet the needs of customers who don't want to drive around in something with an interior that looks like the Rubbermaid display at Walmart.


Hear, hear! Well said, PenguinBoy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Agreed, sir Penguin!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's right - the eco-boxes in North America were likely even MADE unattractive to bump buyers up to the palace class.

With fuel at low prices and bubble producing interest rates luxury barges were status symbols as were big over valued houses.

Times change.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Right on PenguinBoy!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Huzzah for PenguinBoy!

[Just wanted to riff on with the good vibes]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GM clearly targeted the Malibu against the Camry and Accord but is it really any sort of a game changer the way the Volt might be?

"Me too" hardly qualifies as progress 

Are there any decent small vehicles actually MADE by the Big 3??

Maybe they should just be marketers the way GE transformed. Not that it would be good for the industrial sector.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Huzzah for PenguinBoy!
> 
> [Just wanted to riff on with the good vibes]



Headline: *Penguin Boy given keys to city!!! All eyes on Penguin Boy!*


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

_PenguinBoy saves damsel in distress!_

OK, that was fun. Back to the thread. With is post, GG has given me much to consider. I was all for the big three dig themselves out on thier own. In any case, it's still no good until the Obama administration commits to their own plan. As the good doctor would say, "we shall see."


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max, did you paint yourself blue?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's just how I feel, Adrian.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> it's still no good until the Obama administration commits to their own plan


I believe that they have worked out a deal already for voting on this week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/business/06auto.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=auto deal&st=cse


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> Hear, hear! Well said, PenguinBoy.





Macfury said:


> Agreed, sir Penguin!





SINC said:


> Right on PenguinBoy!





Max said:


> Huzzah for PenguinBoy!
> 
> [Just wanted to riff on with the good vibes]





Macfury said:


> Headline: *Penguin Boy given keys to city!!! All eyes on Penguin Boy!*





Max said:


> LOL
> _PenguinBoy saves damsel in distress!_


Aw, shucks...:love2:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So it's finally happening, MacDoc. Be interested to fast-forward five years from now and have a gander at the state of auto manufacture in North America.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> In North America it seems that the automakers assume that anyone buying a small car either can't afford a big one, or is a frugal type who only wants sensible economical transportation.


Not only that, but the North American makers seem to believe that a car that doesn't fall apart within 90 days is some kind of achievement that they should advertise. They also assume that customers are eager to receive regular recall notices, and that the customer, when faced with a fairly large service bill, love it when the mechanic says that such and such a problem happens on all Ford/GM/Chryslers.

They also think that having tires explode because even though practically all tires use 32PSI, that customers are retards when they didn't examine the little sticker on the door that instructs them to use some oddball pressure, even if the owner's manual specifies some other oddball pressure setting.

They also think that customers really do like vehicles with exploding gas tanks, engine fires, faulty fuel pumps (which are fixed by including a special rip cord in the trunk to shut them off!), alternators that last two years, transmissions that fall out on the highway, warranties that don't cover anything that actually breaks, shoddy interior finishes that shred or turn to dust because of sunlight...

It's not only the size of car, because many luxury buyers that in a previous generation would have been staunch Cadillac or Lincoln buyers - are more prone to buy a Lexus/Mercedes/BMW simply because it isn't a piece of unholy, demonically possessed crud.

To me, luxury is excellent road handling, comfort, high grades of fittings, and rare trips into the mechanic - rather than the garbage road yacht style handling, heated seats that burst into flames, and plastic fittings painted with some cruddy pseudo-chrome stuff pimped into the Cadillac that should have remained in the Chevy, and the need for a second car because the first car is the constant companion of the mechanic (and is the font of his household income).

Pumping some cash or loans their way will be very short term help - they'd be better off watching the US Army training video that Mr. Toyoda (and all of the other founders of the various Japanese and German industrial juggernauts) watched in the late 40's on how to get down to business and make things the way Detroit did when they were the "Arsenal of Democracy".


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Interesting video with the mayor of Lansing MI.

Not to Blame?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is another video that should be required viewing for anyone posting in this thread.

It certainly demonstrates in 3:30 minutes why the UAW/CAW mentality has doomed the industry in the US and Canada.

Check it out.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

You want Calvin and Hobbes opinion on this matter...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: a bit hard to read but worth it.

ah found a larger one

http://culturekitchen.com/files/CalvinEconomics.jpg


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good article in the Economist










America's carmakers look set to get a bail-out, and other news | The week ahead | The Economist

main article about the big 3

America's carmakers return to Washington | Back again | The Economist


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MD, I'm about to turn in so I'm going to pass on reading that article right now - but that photo of the old truck rocks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If they put that truck into production, their sales would go through the roof!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Don't think they did do very well with it.










Post Modern American Muscle Roundup


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That design stinks. It's watered-down version of the truly beautiful truck design in the previous photo.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some do cling to outmoded ideas  

••

Meanwhile in the real world.



> December 8, 2008
> 
> *Detroit Bailout Is Set to Bring on More U.S. Oversight*
> 
> ...


more here
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/washington/08autos.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

This could be the a case of the blind leading the foolish and blind..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Meanwhile, in the real world....the Big Three are so desperate for cash that they will allow the U.S. federal government to oversee their operations--a group of such legendary incompetence that the automakers are sure to be doomed.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Not only that, but the North American makers seem to believe that a car that doesn't fall apart within 90 days is some kind of achievement that they should advertise. They also assume that customers are eager to receive regular recall notices, and that the customer, when faced with a fairly large service bill, love it when the mechanic says that such and such a problem happens on all Ford/GM/Chryslers.


I would rather know when they are actually doing work on my car that I want them to instead of being given a secret recall, the secret recall not only happened on my Honda but on my Hyundai as well.



> They also think that customers really do like vehicles with exploding gas tanks, engine fires, faulty fuel pumps (which are fixed by including a special rip cord in the trunk to shut them off!), alternators that last two years, transmissions that fall out on the highway, warranties that don't cover anything that actually breaks, shoddy interior finishes that shred or turn to dust because of sunlight...


you mean like the crappy transmission that my friend had on his Nissan X-Trail and Nissan refused to fix it because my friend actually took the truck off road into and out of the trail that he must use to get to his cottage that never happened on his Jeep Cherokee. Another well documented occurrence of Nissan not standing by there warranty's is on the new GTR where a couple of them have had there tranny's shredded by there state of the art engine and now Nissan NA doesn't want to pony up the 20g's to repair them.

As much as the NA manufacturers have made allot of mistakes in the past some of there products are starting to look interesting especially a couple from Ford and at least one on the horizon from GM.

Laterz


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mea culpa writ large....



> GM admits it disappointed, betrayed consumers
> Article Video Comments (137)
> Reuters
> December 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM EST
> ...


reportonbusiness.com: GM admits it disappointed, betrayed consumers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> December 7, 2008Pulpit
> 
> *Insanely Great: What if Steve Jobs ran one of the Big Three auto companies?*


I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Insanely Great | PBS


----------



## Admant (Jun 9, 2003)

Any bailout will only be a short term solution. The industry has reached a saturation point and a slow economy.

Joe business owner who mismanages his business and goes bankrupt, he does not get a bail out so why should we make an exception for them.

Also if every Big three exec gave back %30 of their salary to help, I wonder how much that would be.

Bottom line we need consumers to start buying again, and we need the media to stop the hype.

I'm sorry for people who lose or have lost jobs, but the writing is on the wall.


----------



## Sitting Bull (Feb 4, 2008)

How about if GM and the others sold off all the car manufacturers they own, Volvo,Mazda etc... and concentrated on just there own products.That might help.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That advertisement will be the final nail in their coffin. If they'd admitted it 10 years ago and done something about their cars it might have helped.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> That design stinks. It's watered-down version of the truly beautiful truck design in the previous photo.


That is one of the biggest problems that the Big 3 have had over the years. They have shown off a lot of cars that people would buy - but the makers have not bothered to produce for any number of lame excuses.

Ford did bring out the Thunderbird fora while, then cancelled it because it wasn't selling. Well, people liked the look and people would have bought it if it wasn't twice the price of a Miata. Too many toys and too costly for what the market wanted. And no discussion is complete without mentioning the utter failure of the Lincoln Blackwood, with the dorky two foot long "cargo box" in the back.

The Chevy SSR is another example. They touted the truck, and people wanted it - but it was not available at a dealership anywhere. By the time they brought it out, and of course, minus those things that people wanted that were in the ones they were showing for years - it was a dead product.

Of course, Chrysler brought out a potential winner - the PT Cruiser - which sold, but they would have sold way more if they hadn't cheapened it out to the max by stuffing a crummy Neon powertrain in it.

But this is not a new phenomenon, witness such classic disasters as the Oldsmobile Diesel, the Cadillac 8-6-4 engine, the Cadillac Cimmaron and the Catera, the Asuna - and such missed opportunities as the Fiero, which they discontinued after they fixed the myriad of problems and crammed a V-6 into it (and tons of people wanted one), and the GNX which was discontinued before anyone could buy one. And what car was uglier than the Cutlass Salon - which looked like something that would have come out of AMC but without AMC style?

I don't know what the Executives have been up to in Detroit, but I hope they didn't pay too much for all of those lines of blow...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not to be taken lightly coming from a Nobel prize winner in Economics



> Krugman: Concentration Of US Auto Industry Will Probably Disappear


Krugman: Concentration Of US Auto Industry Will Probably Disappear


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Sitting Bull said:


> How about if GM and the others sold off all the car manufacturers they own, Volvo,Mazda etc... and concentrated on just there own products.That might help.


That might work in the long term but in the short term it wouldn't especially in the examples that you have chosen. Ford owns or owned both Mazda and Volvo and in the time that they have been owned by Ford there has been allot of platform sharing between all of them including Jaguar a formerly owned Ford company as well. As an example I will give you the Mazda3 it's chassis underpins the Volvo C30, the Euro Focus, the Mazda5, and Ford C-Max and probably others that I might not be aware of.

Laterz


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

K_OS said:


> That might work in the long term but in the short term it wouldn't especially in the examples that you have chosen. Ford owns or owned both Mazda and Volvo and in the time that they have been owned by Ford there has been allot of platform sharing between all of them including Jaguar a formerly owned Ford company as well. As an example I will give you the Mazda3 it's chassis underpins the Volvo C30, the Euro Focus, the Mazda5, and Ford C-Max and probably others that I might not be aware of.
> 
> Laterz


Add the Mazda CX 7 and the Ford Edge to that list!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Not to be taken lightly coming from a Nobel prize winner in Economics


Just one more example of so-called "experts" being wrong. (Cue global warming.) 

I doubt the entire industry will disappear any time soon. Change yes, collapse, no.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm economics is not a science IMNSHO but HE is qualified to comment as a recognized expert in economics.

It IS however an opinion.

Climatology IS a science and AGW is an established fact whether you like it or not 
That's NOT opinion.

suggested fellow travellers 

The Flat Earth Society -- Home.....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> AGW is an established fact whether you like it or not
> That's NOT opinion.


FACT... AGW is a hypothesis.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... everything that comes out of Dearborn for the non US, non Commonwealth markets is run through Oakville, even if Oakville is a puppet government. (That's the way Henry did things in the old days. ..."

You make it sound like some kind of benevolent gift the Ford Motor Company bestows upon the secretaries and accountants of Oakville. The truth is somewhat darker ... foreign income is treated differently for tax purposes than domestic US income. By "differently" we mean "tax free".

It's a common subject or rulings and complaints at the WTO. Stashing the files in Oakville makes the whole scheme run a little smoother, being away from the grips of US regulators should the US be forced to submit to the WTO and change it's tax laws. It's common in corporate America. McDonalds does the same thing ... all it's foreign restaurants are managed through Canada as well; there are many other firms who segregate and organise non-US income the same way.

" ... Mac users tend to be clustered in Toronto, not only because of the "artistic community" that has long used them, but out of a very serious lack of real dealerships outside of Toronto. At least K-W has Carbon, and London has a few places - while there is nothing in Hamilton (though the Reserve is only a half hour away). But then, Hamilton hasn't had a computer dealer of any sort, next to a handful of swindlers, in more than a decade. ..."

I realize that people in Ontario are keenly aware whether they live in Toronto or elsewhere in the Great Lakes area, but to the rest of Canada, it's just one big metropolis. We just assume you live in one of those towns with streets lined with the brick houses that we see on every TV ad. The kind that don't exist elsewhere in the nation.

If you do, and cheer for the leafs, that's Tronna enough for us.

Toronto is roughly the same distance to me as North America's largest inland port, at Nogales Mexico on the US border at Arizona.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The Ford Motor Company announced Monday evening that it would not seek short-term federal aid, denying that it faced the same “near-term liquidity issue” as G.M. and Chrysler.


Latest from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09auto.html?hp


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good for Ford--partnering with the feds will ruin the others.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ford doesn't give a rats ass about your approval or not or the nonsense underlying it....they'll borrow or not as they need from whoever offers the best deal, 

I suspect it has far more to do with their stock price.

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

••••••

LA Times survey of cars for a recession - I don't think a single one of them is made in the US tho some are marketed.

The bottom 10: Cheapest new cars - Hyundai Accent - Los Angeles Times


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Better times.....GM circa 1916 from the Economist archives....

General Motors' stock price soars | General Motors' Spectacular Rise | The Economist


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Unfortunately I don't know who the credit for this, but here it is:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Ford doesn't give a rats ass about your approval...


No, they're waiting on the squire of Mississauga to make some lofty pronouncement.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> And what car was uglier than the Cutlass Salon


That was crown was singlehandedly grabbed by the Pontiac Aztek. Someone didn't learn their lesson from the Simpsons when Homer was allowed to design a car for the average American.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Ford Futura was possibly the ugliest American car I recall. Edit: The one I was thinking of was the one also called the Fairmont, circa 1980.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The Ford Futura was possibly the ugliest American car I recall.


How soon we forget the '50 Studebaker:


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

I agree with the Aztek as one of the ugliest cars. But the list is huge. Also comes to mind: Plymouth Reliant (k-car), AMC (Chrysler) Pacer, Matador and Gremlin, Ford Edsel, Pinto, Aerostar, Scropio, Fiesta and Maverick. Chevy Citation, Chevette and Caprice (80's).


----------



## Admant (Jun 9, 2003)

MACinist said:


> I agree with the Aztek as one of the ugliest cars. But the list is huge. Also comes to mind: Plymouth Reliant (k-car), AMC (Chrysler) Pacer, Matador and Gremlin, Ford Edsel, Pinto, Aerostar, Scropio, Fiesta and Maverick. Chevy Citation, Chevette and Caprice (80's).


The Asstek, Ha Ha.

I did a big project for that car, GM spent several hundred thousand on it and then it was never used, just sits in a building in the old U.S. of A. The list goes on, I worked on the account for 8 years at a major advertising agency. I have seen things that would blow your mind. They get no sympathy from me.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> That was crown was singlehandedly grabbed by the Pontiac Aztek. Someone didn't learn their lesson from the Simpsons when Homer was allowed to design a car for the average American.


However, the Aztek filled the market niche for people that wanted to drive a large rhombus around town. And it was ugly, but not as ugly as the Cutlass Salon. I'll have to dig a picture of one up...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

That it Evan?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Who could forget the ugly '61 Plymouth?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The only good thing about that car was the bubble back that eventually migrated into the 1964-1966 Cudas:


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Market niches don't get your the sales volume required to keep your company running profitably. People like to own cool second cars but generally need reliable, economical, somewhat stylish appliances on wheels to get them to and from work. They wonder why their companies are going downhill fast.



SINC said:


> How soon we forget the '50 Studebaker:


Um, which side of the car is the front of the car?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dona83 said:


> Um, which side of the car is the front of the car?


Yep, exactly.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Shows you how tastes differ. I love both the Studebaker and the Plymouth. At least they had verve and character... those other boxy suckers look uptight and dull.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yep. I'd take the chrome monsters you don't like any day, SINC.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Henry Ford lessons.....good read

reportonbusiness.com: Henry Ford's lessons forsaken, a sector crumples


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Henry Ford lessons.....good


Article says Ford would have cut the hell out of wages!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the 61 was ugly, the 62 was butt ugly:


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Another one I like!

I dig all the references to the shining confidence of the atomic age and rocketry... subtle and otherwise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Scores for me too.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks like the Big Three bail-out might be filibustered in the Senate! Bueno!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> That it Evan?


Yes, one of the most curiously ugly cars ever - and especially shocking because if it wasn't for the ugly rear half of the car, it was a pretty good looking car as a sedan...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Article says Ford would have cut the hell out of wages!


Everyone forgets that even Henry Ford went tango-uniform twice before getting it right with the Tin Lizzie. He then had to rescue himself from the successes of the Tin Lizzy twenty years later, when people were becoming tired of retrograde vehicles that were quite obsolete.

Unlike the Detroit of today - Henry was smart enough to score large with the Model A, and then the V-8.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Some follow up info:

GM, Chrysler Loans Uncertain in Senate



> "I understand people's anger and frustration at the situation our auto companies find themselves in today," Obama said. "I raised concerns about the health of our auto industry a year and a half ago, when I spoke to industry leaders in Detroit. I urged them to act quickly to adopt new technologies and a new business approach that would help them stay competitive in these changing times."


Wonder what effect this will have on the prospect of Canadian support. If the US package is overturned, I see no reason why a Canadian cash injection should be applied. 

If I were holding the reins to this package, I think I'd need a solid strategy placed in front of me by the carmakers before anything happened.

Still sitting on the fence...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Ha, oops!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> *$6,000,000,000 divided by 33,390,141 (population of Canada) = $180*


Corrected... 

I say $6 billion to restore rail lines and build a transcanada high speed rail line. Start planning now and as soon as workers from the big three get laid off from their jobs, immediately hire them to start building the rail lines. As the rail lines get built, they can work on running, maintaining etc. the rail lines. They get to keep their jobs and we get a sustainable mode of transportation.


----------



## JTTech (Dec 11, 2008)

Since I'm in the U.S. now, I have to say that I wouldn't have given that kind of money to the little-three.

While I have great sympathy for those workers on the lines, it is not natural (nor good for the economy) for the gov't to "prop up" a business that is naturally failing.

On a side note, my parents own one GM car, and it's insanely expensive to repair (and it needs repairs all the time!)


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

JTTech said:


> Since I'm in the U.S. now, I have to say that I wouldn't have given that kind of money to the little-three.
> 
> While I have great sympathy for those workers on the lines, it is not natural (nor good for the economy) for the gov't to "prop up" a business that is naturally failing.
> 
> On a side note, my parents own one GM car, and it's insanely expensive to repair (and it needs repairs all the time!)


You shouldn't have sympathy for the workers, you should have sympathy for the suppliers and share holders. The auto workers have been making INSANE amounts of money. The Unions and the Workers are the reason these companies are dead. 

You try doing jumping jacks with 50 pound sand bags hanging off of each arm. Tell me how it goes...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> You try doing jumping jacks with 50 pound sand bags hanging off of each arm. Tell me how it goes...


:lmao: 

May not be the only reason, but a contributing factor. Let's not take managment off the hook for making bad decisions and showing little forsythe, and let's not remove blame from the board of directors that supported that jurassic mangement thinking. 

My hand is still red for being slapped for commenting about the negative impact of the UAW/CAW earlier.beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Corrected...
> 
> I say $6 billion to restore rail lines and build a transcanada high speed rail line. Start planning now and as soon as workers from the big three get laid off from their jobs, immediately hire them to start building the rail lines. As the rail lines get built, they can work on running, maintaining etc. the rail lines. They get to keep their jobs and we get a sustainable mode of transportation.


At least, as a bare minimum, get a train going between Hamilton and Toronto. And the sad thing is that they poured millions and millions of dollars into fancy new train tracks into Hamilton - but we still do not have any chance at a regularly scheduled train...

And instead of wasting cash on AdScam and that "federalist" garbage - get some money in to fix all of those bridges in Quebec that seem to collapse onto the busy highways at inopportune times (like when cars are on the highway and are crushed when the do go down).

And looking at the offerings GM has on their lots these days - it's time to free them of the misery of a world where their cars are irrelevant, and can only be sold if they give away cash back rebates and zero percent financing. And sure, the Vibe is OK - but it is a Matrix, and Toyota is already selling them...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bye bye??

ABC News: Bid to Save GM, Chrysler Loans Dies in Senate


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Bye bye??
> 
> ABC News: Bid to Save GM, Chrysler Loans Dies in Senate


There's no sense in any sort of Canadian bailout plan until there is a viable plan in the US - it would just be throwing good money after bad if the parent companies go down.

Too bad, as car making is (was?) such an important part of the Canadian economy.

At least it seems to be on an upswing in Mexico...
reportonbusiness.com: Mexico bumps Canada to No. 3 car maker


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Sure bash the Union workers. Sure they make good money.


Really? $28/hour is considered good money up here?? I mean, it's not bad, but I don't think I've made $28/hour in a couple of decades.

(I'm not bragging here, like most freelancers I feast one month, famine the next. But when I *am* working, $28/hour isn't even enough to get me out of bed.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That senate vote is going to have one bad effect on the markets today.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Those who blame the workers feel superior to them. They are easy targets and yes, to some degree they are jealous. They turn a blind eye to management who point the finger on one hand and scoop up insane salaries and bonuses with the other.

We should be thanking the UAW for not allowing another industry to be rewarded with our money for insanely bad management practises. Time to turn the critical eye in that direction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> We should be thanking the UAW for not allowing another industry to be rewarded with our money for insanely bad management practises. Time to turn the critical eye in that direction.


Did I miss something? Did the UAW oppose the bail-out?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

If Ford plays it's cards right and makes all the correct moves it stands to come out of this a big winner. Of the three, Ford seems to have it's act together and be ahead of the curve. I wish them well.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Did I miss something? Did the UAW oppose the bail-out?


No, they opposed steep wage cuts which 'scuttled' the bail out. If they were bluffing, they lost.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Those who blame the workers feel superior to them. They are easy targets and yes, to some degree they are jealous. They turn a blind eye to management who point the finger on one hand and scoop up insane salaries and bonuses with the other.


I agree that bad management and a ridiculously large pay scale was allotted to top executives, but they, in the grand scheme of things cannot be targeted for the entire company failing as a result of a $5 million dollar bonus every year.

Let's say that the board room picked up $30 million a year in salary and bonus. Yes that is an extravagant amount of money but it does not even compare to the expenditure that UAW worker salaries are to the company. They have artificially maintained wages that are unrealistic and unfeasible in the Canadian or American economy for factory workers. Unfortunately globalisation has brought the undermining of industrial production, unless highly specialised, in the expensive labour markets and has favoured the cheaper labour markets. Wage expenses which are astronomical along with health benefits and the the implications are fantastic. 

The Big Three owe the value of their companies three times over: Once to the bank, once to the Union in health benefits and once again to angel (venture) investors. I am not even scratching the surface of the services that auto workers get apart from health benefits such as free lawyering and so on. In this regard, the Big Three are more of a welfare provider where the US government has failed people than profit producing corporations.

The last point of my argument, although it has been a scattered one, is that the Unions have caused the automakers to remain tremendously inefficient. *The last calculation I saw in the Automotive Industry Review had rendered Ford as operating at 73% capacity* yikes: ) They are running at 73% capacity because they cannot release those Unionised workers and must keep them producing something in the plants. Ford could close and liquidate 27% of its assets and obviously cut expenses tremendously - but alas they cannot for they must continue employing Union workers. For anyone who runs a business they can easily relate to the pain it would cause to have 27% of your operation remain idle because you had to employ so many people over so many production sites. It would be the equivalent to having 2.5 offices too many, but you cannot get rid of them. 


I do agree that management and their ridiculous pay grids are a major problem in this context but they are not the _fatal_ one. Perhaps the fatal decision made by management was to sign such long Union contracts. Chapter 11 will get them out of this mess. 

Over and out.

Good morning all, I am off to work now.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> I do agree that management and their ridiculous pay grids are a major problem in this context but they are not the _fatal_ one. Perhaps the fatal decision made by management was to sign such long Union contracts. Chapter 11 will get them out of this mess.


Perhaps management should have led by example. Why make concessions when no one else is? They are after all '_the boss_'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought management had already agreed to massive pay cuts, no bonuses, etc?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I thought management had already agreed to massive pay cuts, no bonuses, etc?


Something like $1/annum I believe, until the companies turn profitable at least.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Red Robbo must have emigrated to America.
Derek Robinson ("Red Robbo" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I wonder if the next step is "direct foreign investment" from the Chinese?
Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is starting to look like another US remake of a UK show...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since the bail-out loan totals would have exceeded the value of all of the companies put together, there is no way on Earth those loans would be secure.

The idea of creating a Democrat "Car Czar" to help run the auto industry as a consition of the loans was ludicrous to begin with. Better just go bankrupt and restructure. How can one "Czar" help three companies to compete against each other?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I suspect it's one of those things where they bowed down more to the dictates of appearances rather than addressing the thorny, fractious substantials.


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

Unless the big 3 finally get rid of the North American muscle car mentality, and start building cars that compete with Civics, Corolla's, the Hyundai/Kia brands then a loan/bailout will not help. They also need the unions to come on board and be part of the solution, which could be pay/benefit renegotiation, reduced work weeks, and other measures that I am sure they have open. It is better to have a job and take a pay cut than to not have a job at all, and be fighting with all the other unemployed people for the 10 dollar an hour temp jobs.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

rodneyjb said:


> Unless the big 3 finally get rid of the North American muscle car mentality, and start building cars that compete with Civics, Corolla's, the Hyundai/Kia brands then a loan/bailout will not help. They also need the unions to come on board and be part of the solution, which could be pay/benefit renegotiation, reduced work weeks, and other measures that I am sure they have open. It is better to have a job and take a pay cut than to not have a job at all, and be fighting with all the other unemployed people for the 10 dollar an hour temp jobs.


Yep.

The epitome of this is Chrylser's reliance on your choosing the SRT 4,6,8 or 10 model to make any profit. 










Who needs a $50,000 family sedan with 400BHP? Talk about niche markets.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I couldn't advise the Big Three. I buy the muscle cars every time. They're beautiful to me. I can't stand picayune vehicles.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I blame all parties involved in this mess from the board room who pressed for big inefficient cars to be produced, to the worker on the assembly line who is overpaid and produces crap and really doesn't care because he will only hide behind the union anyways, and lastly the dealers who have to sell us that crap and give us the worst service experience this side of a McDonalds.

Laterz


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I just cut to the chase and blame everyone.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

rodneyjb said:


> Unless the big 3 finally get rid of the North American muscle car mentality, and start building cars that compete with Civics, Corolla's, the Hyundai/Kia brands then a loan/bailout will not help. They also need the unions to come on board and be part of the solution, which could be pay/benefit renegotiation, reduced work weeks, and other measures that I am sure they have open. It is better to have a job and take a pay cut than to not have a job at all, and be fighting with all the other unemployed people for the 10 dollar an hour temp jobs.


Niche markets are nice when there is money to be made look at McLaren, Lotus, Morgan in the UK they're domestic car manufacturers are all but dead(except MG which is on life support due to being owned by a Chinese company) but there are small independent car makers that have managed to stay alive, and this brings me back to one of my earlier responses in this thread that stated that Corvette could stay alive as an independent niche market car maker that could thrive and give some of the small Euro sport cars a run for there money.

Laterz


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I blame everyone, but I include myself and Max, thus trumping Max's blame.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't merely say I blame anyone - talk is cheap! - I _actively_ blame them all in my quotidian life, and in so doing trump all of MF's subsequent trump attempts. In so doing I consider myself most deeply mired in blame; but hey, that's OK because I'm aware of it.

And I'm working on it!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

rodneyjb said:


> Unless the big 3 finally get rid of the North American muscle car mentality, and start building cars that compete with Civics, Corolla's, the Hyundai/Kia brands then a loan/bailout will not help.


I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.

Muscle cars are a niche product that will never sell in high volumes, but that doesn't mean they need to quit making them, just augment them with well built practical transportation appliances for mainstream buyers. Not only is there more volume in mainstream cars, they also get replaced more regularly. I'm sure many people have an old muscle car that has been in the family for years, but is seldom driven - while they replace their daily drivers every few years.

Mainstream transportation appliances don't need to appeal to enthusiasts to be successful - for example, when the Corolla and Camry both got 2/5 stars* on 
"The Truth About Cars", someone commented while these vehicles only rated two stars, for many buyers they were the *RIGHT* two stars.
_____________________________
*2009 Toyota Corolla Review | The Truth About Cars
Comparison Test: Fourth Place 2009 Toyota Camry | The Truth About Cars


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I would normally be the sort of person who is VERY VERY against bailing out the auto industry, BUT if you are going to give the banks a no-questions-asked, we-don't-even-know-where-the-money-went giveaway, when all the auto companies are asking for is LOANS, I think the US gov't set themselves up and now have to be fair.

The reluctance to spend a pittance (by comparison) on the auto industry is a pretty transparent union-busting attempt, and thus the anti-bailout effort ought to be fought.

Normally I am very much of the "live by capitalism, die by capitalism" school, and frankly if I were the head of GM I would hold a press conference, announce the 90-day (required) closing of all plants, tell the dealers to shut down, and hand the workers, dealers and staff a pink slip with the address of their nearest Republican congressman's home and office on it.

A couple of days of having hundreds of VERY unhappy auto workers staging "sit-ins on their lawns or union thugs stalking their every move will send those moral cowards back to Washington on the express train with a "brainstorm" on how to save the auto industry ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The bank bail-out was a joke as is the auto bail-out. But by your logic, chas, since the banks got a free ride, who else is entitled to that same largesse? THe construction industry? The steel industry? The auto company loan totals exceed the book values of the companies themselves. 

Let's also remember that the Democrats stuffed the bail-out bill with pork, including raises for federal judges.

Looks like Bush will try to over-ride the Senate on this one, business lackey that he is. Thank goodness the lackey-elect supports him in this endeavour.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Macfury said:


> ... since the banks got a free ride, who else is entitled to that same largesse?


Independent Apple support companies.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mississauga said:


> Independent Apple support companies.


Apple_ is _struggling for greater market share...why not!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tipping point???



> *Suppliers demand cash from troubled Chrysler*
> 
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> December 12, 2008 at 8:39 PM EST
> ...


reportonbusiness.com: Suppliers demand cash from troubled Chrysler


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

No... tipping point!

Senators to UAW: It's payback time | detnews.com | The Detroit News

... now say "thank you" that the Canadian government has no right-to-work provinces to smack labour down with...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Oh... btw... I am NOT saying that concessions from everyone means the UAW is exempt... of course I agree there needs to be compromise and lowering of expectations. But the right-to-work states are a whole 'nother world... a country within a country if you will.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope we get "right to work" here as well. Probably will take a little longer.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

So this is how GM plans to save themselves?


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

If the current Star article correctly shows the average GM worker, GM should be immediately put to sleep!!! Does Canada import those folks?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Of course, examples abound of the dysfunction of the North American Big 3:

Sympatico / MSN Autos (EN): Madness! Ford's 300 hp Focus RS

And look at the paragraph near the bottom of the article, where it states: "Regrettably, Ford will not be selling the new Focus RS here, but, there’s good news: We’re getting the next-generation European Ford Focus starting model year 2011. While that means we’ll be missing out on this blue devil, know that Ford recently announced that it would be developing all future performance vehicles globally, making the next generation Focus RS is a distinct possibility for us."

Yeah, so Ford has a car that would sell, and would be a money maker - but for some reason, North America is not worthy of such muscle. Of course, in the future, we may receive a fractional shadow of what is available in Europe.

If one wants a cool sports car - it's all about buying foreign because the impotent makers here can't seem to get the big picture. And it's not like Ford would have to crank out a design - it's already there in Europe, all they have to do is stuff some on a boat and send them over. Without it, they are just surrendering a market segment to products like the RX-8 Renesis...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> So this is how GM plans to save themselves?


It's all about building a vehicle that can go out on the roads and crush the swarms of Corollas, Civics and Golfs. Of course, the Smart would survive, being able to drive into nooks and crannies that the H3 can not fit into...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My head is starting to hurt...



> *Meet the GOP's wrecking crew*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


long read

Meet the GOP's wrecking crew | Salon News


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Interesting article... even more interesting was a link I followed from within the article that does a really, really good job of explaining how "they" "whoever" arrived at the rather skewed figure of $73.20/hr compensation for a UAW worker. This breaks it down so it makes sense and how it makes sense in comparison to the foreign auto brands. There's really not as huge a stretch between the two as some would like to have us ignorant public believe... shame, shame... not nice!



> That figure — repeated on television and in newspapers as the average pay of a Big Three autoworker — has become a big symbol in the fight over what should happen to Detroit. To critics, it is a neat encapsulation of everything that’s wrong with bloated car companies and their entitled workers.
> 
> To the Big Three’s defenders, meanwhile, the number has become proof positive that autoworkers are being unfairly blamed for Detroit’s decline. “We’ve heard this garbage about 73 bucks an hour,” Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said last week. “It’s a total lie. I think some people have perpetrated that deliberately, in a calculated way, to mislead the American people about what we’re doing here.”
> 
> So what is the reality behind the number? Detroit’s defenders are right that the number is basically wrong. Big Three workers aren’t making anything close to $73 an hour (which would translate to about $150,000 a year).


The whole story:

"$73 an Hour: Adding It Up"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html


The whole raison d'être of the right-to-work movement is to bust unions whether is makes sense or not. After reading that article above and understanding it... it makes little sense to me. I believe they could negotiate with the UAW rather than stomp on them... but they'd rather stomp.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good article from the Globe



> AUTO-INDUSTRY CRISIS
> Canada should do more than its share
> 
> December 13, 2008
> ...


continues

globeandmail.com: Canada should do more than its share

Here is the part that caught my eye...

_Canadian governments can do much to preserve and enhance the automotive-manufacturing capacity of this country.

A salient example is the need of the Canadian Armed Forces for new trucks. About 60 per cent of the Forces' fleet is as old as the people who drive them, in the mid-twenties. A contracting process, for work worth $1-billion in making about 2,500 trucks, has been going on for three years; the federal cabinet ought to make a decision soon. Meanwhile, the Forces sometimes have to resort to school buses._

We also need coast guard cutters and their is a ship building industry languishing ( maybe it's gone from neglect ) - where the government policy makers to make this happen NOW?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Now that makes a lot of sense. Rather than bailing them out, give them a lucrative contract to fill our military's real needs. A win-win situation if I ever saw one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's one aspect of the US GM situation I don't understand - GM makes tons of vehicles for the military.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where was THIS during the campaign, from Flaherty????.......geez pushed into a corner to come up with the obvious...



> Feds eye shipbuilding as economic stimulus
> 
> Dec 14, 2008 04:55 PM
> Comments on this story (1)
> ...


more here...TheStar.com | Canada | Feds eye shipbuilding as economic stimulus


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Mix a heavy dose of R&D in environmental technology and we may have a few world beaters for when the economy starts expanding again. The ideas mentioned above are sound investments for the present and the future. A simple bail out, as proposed by the U.S. Government isn't!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

See that's the error of frontier economics.

We don't need expansion - better instead of more.

There are hundreds of initiatives that do not require "expansion".

Take one example.

There are hundreds of apartment buildings in Toronto that need retrofitting to be energy efficient.

This program self finances over a rather short period.

Siemens actually a offers this to building owners ( condos etc ).

A $750,000 retrofit saves the building $150,000 a year in energy cost or Siemens makes up the difference.

THe results were that the building saved $162,000 in the first year and of course went up from there.

That's making it better, not building more.

The irony in the US is that the move to green tech is self funding as they are already putting out $10 billion a day ( less now of course ) in fuel purchases.

It's the bridging to put these programs in place is where the gov roles comes in.

Start with every single public building in Canada. The energy savings fund the programs and put thousands of trades people to work when the building boom is over.

It requires a mind shift to sustainable "make it better" refinement of existing infrastructure.

We don't need another ridiculous asset bubble.

How many potholes do we need filled?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exept retrofitting jobs are less labour intensive and will tie up government capital that only makes it cheaper for landlords to rent to tenants.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes, but MD... did you read and understand the article you posted yourself? The one about the "GOP Wrecking Crew"? 

I'm not poking fun at you... just pointing out a difference between Canada and the US... Down there they have these right-to-work states which mostly have Republican senators who don't want to make deals with anyone involved with the UAW including GM. Even if they are building needed military trucks. *All they want is to bust the union!* This is why any sort of deal keeps getting stalled down there and Canada's gov. won't act until, obviously something happens down there. 

I agree with Sinc... it's a perfectly equitable deal to have these people work on the vehicles we need right now and possibly save some decent jobs. Canada is not the tripping point here right now... it's those good 'ole down south boys in the US. Can only hope it changes when Obama gets in... he's mentioned something about making all this easier... no matter where it is in the US. 




MacDoc said:


> That's one aspect of the US GM situation I don't understand - GM makes tons of vehicles for the military.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Personally I see nothing wrong with putting people to work on fixing the infrastructure of the country that needs it either... it needs to be done one way or the other. Produce the needed jobs now then and the work at home for our people... another page out of Obama's book I've read somewhere. 

Heck, why can't we just have an Obama!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Having "blind faith" that Obama is the answer to America's woes is risky business at best.

While he is lifting the spirits of the average US citizen, he is largely unproven as are his ideas and policies.

It could still be a major disappointment. As I have noted before, he is only one man. I hope I am wrong, but time will tell the tale.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Mississauga said:


> If the current Star article correctly shows the average GM worker, GM should be immediately put to sleep!!! Does Canada import those folks?


That's exactly the way they look... 

All the young'ns have been laid off long ago.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I had a chance to ride in a Flex today and I must admit it was a sight better than the previous family hauler versions. 35 mpg HWY solid and quiet....much smaller motor with 6 speed tranny.
I need a big vehicle and it was a pleasant surprise to see the progress - I can see why they had high hopes for it but it LOOKS like a gas guzzler and is an odd shape for many.

We'll see a couple years out if one comes around cheap when the Freestar retires tho that is a ways out and hopefully a sizeable PHEV will be available.

But damn the Flex was stable, quiet and smooth.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

kps said:


> That's exactly the way they look...
> 
> All the young'ns have been laid off long ago.


Wow... I'd fit right in!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> And just what was George Bush?


The only word that comes to mind is "idiot".


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I had a chance to ride in a Flex today and I must admit it was a sight better than the previous family hauler versions. 35 mpg HWY solid and quiet....much smaller motor with 6 speed tranny.
> I need a big vehicle and it was a pleasant surprise to see the progress - I can see why they had high hopes for it but it LOOKS like a gas guzzler and is an odd shape for many.
> 
> We'll see a couple years out if one comes around cheap when the Freestar retires tho that is a ways out and hopefully a sizeable PHEV will be available.
> ...


Too bad people also buy for looks, and the Flex should be renamed the Fugly. It is like the fugly sister of the Honda Element, which is also fugly, but not so much as the Flex.

Speaking of design, what were they thinking with the Focus? That reversed Mustang swoosh just doesn't work. Why wouldn't they have gone with the same design as the European Focus? Much nicer design IMO.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Speaking of design, what were they thinking with the Focus? That reversed Mustang swoosh just doesn't work. Why wouldn't they have gone with the same design as the European Focus? Much nicer design IMO.


Agreed the new focus might have sold well but its still a fugly car when you compare it to the MKII Euro only Focus. At least Ford's new CEO is online with thinking that the next Focus platform should come over to NA as unchanged as possible for the MKIII models, he also has gotten Ford to bring over the Fiesta which I think will turn out to be a top seller.

Laterz


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Why can't GM sell the Chevy (Opel, Holden) Astra Sedan here for under $20,000 off the lot?










In Europe, Mexico (and South America as far as I know), Australia, New Zealand, Japan and so on have this car (above for below $20 grand off the lot. 

How come in Canada and the US we get this thing for under $20 grand off the lot? 










I have no sympathy. They just want to force big trucks onto us.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

I don't' think they were forcing them on to customers. Demand was there. In the US at least, the big trucks and SUV's were the only profitable segment they had. Honda and Toyota's SUV and Truck segments are hurting maybe even more so right now, but they have a versatile product portfolio and have always banked on smaller more efficient cars to lead them through. 

Europe got the smaller cars because the demand wasn't there for the larger ones. Gas has always been more expensive in Europe. And small cars have always been the preferred choice because of this.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not merely because of that, though. They tend to have smaller, narrower roads in Europe - especially in the cities. Everyone driving big cars, North American stylie, would be asking for trouble.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

That's a very "narrow" minded perception of Europe  Unless you live in an old city, Paris, Venice, Rome, etc... that may have some weight, but the majority of Europe is covered at least by single lane roads which are not narrower at all. It takes only one of these lanes to drive an SUV comfortably. I was born there and have been all over Europe over the past 30 years. 

Steeper petrol pricing, a more advanced and refined consumer attitude and most of all, a perception that SUV's are the roads' biggest pollutants are key factors why they are not popular there. 

SUV's are considered unnecessary and people frown upon SUV drivers. And even when SUV's were gaining some popularity (peaking earlier in the year), it was only from the better engineered and refined trucks from Japan and Porsche, Merecedes, VW, BMW. North American suv's from the Big3 are over-sized pollutants with plastic interiors. The European solution to poor fuel economy in SUVs and other heavy vehicles is the diesel engine. Diesel fuel still generally costs less than gasoline in Europe--here, it's about the same price as premium unleaded. Diesels are popular in Europe because the EU's fuel-economy measurement gives more weight to highway mileage, where the engines gain much of their fuel-economy advantage. A lot of American SUV's tend to be unleaded only versions. 

At one point Paris wanted to ban them: 4x4s into Paris won't go - if SUV ban works | World news | The Guardian


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I stand corrected then, MACInsit.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I kinda meant that with "tongue in cheek"... 

Not that I don't think it's possible he will do some good for the place but unfortunately let's just say he turned out to be some kind of "savior", with the mess the US is in it will take more than 8 years to set straight... more time than he has. So if the next fellow doesn't carry on it wouldn't matter anyway. 




SINC said:


> Having "blind faith" that Obama is the answer to America's woes is risky business at best.
> 
> While he is lifting the spirits of the average US citizen, he is largely unproven as are his ideas and policies.
> 
> It could still be a major disappointment. As I have noted before, he is only one man. I hope I am wrong, but time will tell the tale.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> Why can't GM sell the Chevy (Opel, Holden) Astra Sedan here for under $20,000 off the lot?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Euro cars are also a bit more luxurious then there NA counterparts and as such cost more as well, the other thing over in Europe is the amount of customizing that is allowed over there at the dealer level where us in NA are allowed packages and having ac might mean that we also have to buy the moonroof which probably would add allot more money to the car.

Example a base Focus in Portugal costs 18,760.00 Euros which translates into roughly 31,693.87 Canadian but the NA Focus despite being a fugly POS of it's former self starts at 14,999.00 Canadian.

Laterz


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

MACinist said:


> That's a very "narrow" minded perception of Europe  Unless you live in an old city, Paris, Venice, Rome, etc... that may have some weight, but the majority of Europe is covered at least by single lane roads which are not narrower at all. It takes only one of these lanes to drive an SUV comfortably. I was born there and have been all over Europe over the past 30 years.
> 
> Steeper petrol pricing, a more advanced and refined consumer attitude and most of all, a perception that SUV's are the roads' biggest pollutants are key factors why they are not popular there.
> 
> ...


Sure the autoroutes are plenty wide enough but parking is also a consideration. I lived in the south of France and anything larger than my Renault 5 Turbo would have been a nightmare to park and in the smaller towns and villages I would have had problems navigating in the narrow streets.

Some of the roads up to a friends place in Switzerland would have been exciting in my Explorer but I've only driven Paris south to Provence and then the Riv down to Spain.

But you are 100% bang on about diesels. I keep having a hankerin for one of them Ford Excursion diesels.

Kevin


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Even mighty Toyota is starting to stumble now:
reportonbusiness.com: Toyota to cut sales goal, outline cost-cutting steps
Import carmakers leasing acres of coast to store unwanted vehicles - Autoblog
By the Numbers - November 2008: Brother, Can You Spare a Dime Edition - Autoblog

This isn't about whether someone prefers a Camry to a Malibu - the entire car market has dried up thanks to the credit crunch - so there's obviously more to this story than the (formerly) big three producing "crappy retrograde product". 

This struck me as a good analysis: globeandmail.com: Driving it Home - Politicians should do their part

I don't think we should throw good money after bad - but if we value our domestic car industry we should consider making credit available to companies that have a viable business plan.

As pointed out by others, Ford and GM have many decent small and medium sized cars available in Europe that could be brought over here now that the market has shifted away from full sized cars and trucks.

I'm not sure what can be done for Chrysler though, as they don't have many competitive small vehicles - and I doubt they can develop them after being gutted by the Germans and Cerberus...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think it is far more than the credit market freeze up.

The bubble economy was some 40% or above the real economy and it WILL deflate to closer to reality values - it's all part of the same "party's over.

The over capacity in the auto sector reflects that and the North American export market is marginal at best.

The real emerging markets are in China and India and the Big Three cannot compete.

Their only hope is move to greentech and hope they can compete on that basis as the fleets get replaced.

If oil stays down for a couple years it will be difficult but I cannot see more than two years of low prices if that before it skyrockets.

This is a breathing space for an over inflated economy that has been bingeing for years on fake prosperity that is all unwinding now.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> I think it is far more than the credit market freeze up.
> 
> The bubble economy was some 40% or above the real economy and it WILL deflate to closer to reality values - it's all part of the same "party's over.
> 
> ...


Exactly MacDoc. Well put.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oil will only skyrocket with demand. If prices rebound in two years it will also mean the economy has recovered. One won't happen without the other.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it will mean the declining supplies have come down to meet lowered demand.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)




----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The Flex looks like a large coffin on wheels - it would make a good hearse...

With the name Flex - it should actually have to Flex in some way, like if it was articulated or made out of gutta percha.

The European Focus entirely rules, and given the right situation, I'd buy a Focus RS if it was ever to be available here. But it's yet another vapour product for Ford to flaunt and say "oh, we have cool cars - but you'll have to either move to Europe or buy our much lower grade models that we sell here". Ford has made more cool cars than anyone else - but has never managed to bring any of them to the market...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Niteshooter said:


> Sure the autoroutes are plenty wide enough but parking is also a consideration. I lived in the south of France and anything larger than my Renault 5 Turbo would have been a nightmare to park and in the smaller towns and villages I would have had problems navigating in the narrow streets.
> 
> Some of the roads up to a friends place in Switzerland would have been exciting in my Explorer but I've only driven Paris south to Provence and then the Riv down to Spain.
> 
> ...


it's the same in Lisbon especially in the old quarters where anything bigger than a classic Mini will not get trough and the roads in the countryside are likewise narrow and winding so anything big that doesn't handle well will just make for a very boring drive.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The European Focus entirely rules, and given the right situation, I'd buy a Focus RS if it was ever to be available here. But it's yet another vapour product for Ford to flaunt and say "oh, we have cool cars - but you'll have to either move to Europe or buy our much lower grade models that we sell here". Ford has made more cool cars than anyone else - but has never managed to bring any of them to the market...


you just might get your wish Mullaly wants Ford to bring over the next version of the Focus RS as well as the Fiesta ST to NA.

Laterz


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Am I the only one here who likes the Ford Flex? It's the coolest looking minivan on the planet.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

dona83 said:


> Am I the only one here who likes the Ford Flex? It's the coolest looking minivan on the planet.


I actually like it as well but I also like the Honda Element (SC version). It's a boxy look that's more an acquired taste I guess. Many people didn't/don't like the RangeRover look but it still had/has a cult following.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Count me as one who likes the look of the Element too. Don't know what the Flex looks like... will have to dig that up.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I like the Element, and think the Flex is cool and has some neato appeal to it, kind of future retro without trying a bit too hard (to wit the PT Cruiser etc.)... but _yowza_ I was surprised at how *large* it is.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

K_OS said:


> you just might get your wish Mullaly wants Ford to bring over the next version of the Focus RS as well as the Fiesta ST to NA.
> 
> Laterz


Hopefully he does it before the place folds (and when I have cash for a sports car).

I did miss out on the Buick Grand National - which I wanted but because I was young, I couldn't afford the crazy insurance. My cars have been rather pedestrian of late, great for commuting, but without the fun of the MG Midget, the Renault 10, or my friend's crazy Nissan Fairlady-Z with the Red Badge engine.

"Sports cars" over here have tended to be of the giant engine stuffed into a sedan type - with little or no refinements, and so unlike the real sports cars of Europe. So hopefully, Ford will do the right thing and bring over the real Focus, rather than making some pseudo-Focus with detachable wheels and weak engines like they have in the past.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I desperately want to put my name on the waiting list for this one. I _could_ afford it, but so many other non financial reasons tell me no. I'm torn...:-( '


More power and performance than a 911 turbo at half the price and with the legendary GTR badge.

Wowza!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Am I the only one here who likes the Ford Flex? It's the coolest looking minivan on the planet.


Yes!

It's a minivan?

Hopefully it isn't as pathetic as the Freestar - a van so bad that Ford decided to can it because it was so bad - and that's saying something because Ford took ten years to decide to can the Pinto. But really, I think the Flex is better than the Lincoln Blackwood...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

They call the Flex a "crossover" but come on... that thing screams minivan. I like the retro style though... It's really cool without being overdone.

Adrian. did you hear about the GT-R "Launch Control" controversy? The story is that Nissan has been advertising this car as a 3.7 second car from day one... but only if you void warranty by going into Launch Control. (Hear about the many people who are stuck with $20,000 transmission repairs?) Now they're taking off Launch Control and they're going to advertise it as a 4.5 second car.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Dona,

No I hadn't heard about this. The Launch Control held the car at something like 5000 RPM until you popped it into first did it not? I have seen a Top Gear video where that was done. I am not 100% sure how it works. Nissan has always been on the forefront of transmission technology, what with the CVT technology and all. 

So the Launch Control hat allowed the car the 3.7 time has wrecked the tranny? 

That is really lame.

I was planning to wait a year or two anyway. At least before I get hitched...  

My dad always said, "buy all the toys you want before you get married. Go into as much debt as necessary. You're going to go into debt regardless, so at least go into debt for your toys and then have an excuse of why you can't buy a $25,000 kitchen..."

Wowza! hehehe


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> You will be able to view the Ford Flex in your mechanics garage soon enough with all the other Ford, GM, and Chrysler products.


:clap: :clap: 

Oh yes, many mechanics have said they would not be in business without Detroit cars coming in. 

Their spin off business is HUGE, I am telling you!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The buggy whip manufacturers are struggling too. Not as much call for domestic horse whips as there once was, but this is a temporary setback. Malaysian buggy whips will replace domestic buggy whips if we don't act soon with a bail-out package.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm on 9thgencorolla and there is a good bunch of people who've supercharged their Corollas and driven them hard and now need to rebuild their 60k mile motors as a result so there'll still be a demand for mechanics... I guess the difference is they understand that their driving habits will kill the motor...

And I'm guessing when the Big Three fail, people will want to hang on to their cars for nostalgic purposes so they need to keep their vehicles in good running shape. Perhaps a good business to get into is auto restoration.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

dona83 said:


> And I'm guessing when the Big Three fail, people will want to hang on to their cars for nostalgic purposes so they need to keep their vehicles in good running shape. Perhaps a good business to get into is auto restoration.


Ha! That reminds me of Cuba.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Ha! That reminds me of Cuba.


Keep that 2001 Lumina running, even if it means throwing in some Russian commy engines in there!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> I desperately want to put my name on the waiting list for this one. I _could_ afford it, but so many other non financial reasons tell me no. I'm torn...:-( '
> 
> 
> More power and performance than a 911 turbo at half the price and with the legendary GTR badge.
> ...



A bit off topic but still car related.

if you want a Skyline there are a couple of places in Canada that sell 2nd hand ones for a little as 20g's and they are very low mileage examples as cars in Japan don't get driven as much as they do here.

Laterz


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

K_OS said:


> A bit off topic but still car related.
> 
> if you want a Skyline there are a couple of places in Canada that sell 2nd hand ones for a little as 20g's and they are very low mileage examples as cars in Japan don't get driven as much as they do here.
> 
> Laterz


I had a Skyline GTR R34 when I was 25 or so, I suppose. I don't know that much about engines, or at least how to tune them. I bought it for about $30 grand and it had nearly 600 BHP. It was twin turbo'd at 13 PSI each. It moved well. 










I was living in Mexico at that point with my parents. I have never seen an R34 on the road in Canada. So I don't know if you were able to import them to Canada or not. 

PS. the above was NOT mine. But that is an R34.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I went to GM Oshawa today to deliver some parts they flew in from China for the new Camaro. On the way out I spotted one heading out the gate with dealer plates on...Strange considering production won't start until February, but never-the-less here are some iPhone captures.

This will surely save GM from eminent demise.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

KPS, thanks for those pictures. The new Camaro is definitely a nice automobile. I doubt it will do much to save them from failing, however. 

Nonetheless, very cool.

I am surprised at how good quality of pictures the iPhone takes.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> I doubt it will do much to save them from failing, however.


That was tongue in cheek... 

But, I was surprised they're using Chinese made parts which they'll have to fly or steamship over to North America. In any case, this'll keep at least one of the three Oshawa plants working.



> I am surprised at how good quality of pictures the iPhone takes.


Imagine these without the dirty windshield and glare...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ford Family Values: Why the Automaker Wants to Go It Alone
> By Joseph R. Szczesny / Detroit Monday, Dec. 15, 2008
> Bill Ford


Ford Family Values: Why the Automaker Wants to Go It Alone - TIME

excerpt - good article

_Ford asked for a backup line of credit that could be used if the economic downturn continues for an extended period. "We are more balanced. We are more efficient. We are more global, and we are more focused. In short, we are on the right path to become a profitable, growing company,_


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Another good, entertaining and downright funny read:

Time Magazine's 50 worst cars of all time. The big three aren't the only ones with lemons. I'll start you off at the beginning.

1899 Horsey Horseless - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time - TIME


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Only looked at the 90's to present and I disagree with a lot. Not the best of vehicles but I could think of many other worse engineering and design failures during that time.

EV1: not sure I understand their reasoning. EV1 was the first commercial success of an electric vehicle. Even with it's limitations and putting aside GM's murder of it's own product. If anything, it proved that there was a strong need for it and that if production costs can be lowered, it could be a huge success. 
Plymouth Prowler: probably one of my fave Chrysler vehicles of all time. I would still buy one if I could afford a single rear tire. 250hp is nothing to frown on in 1997. That's close to the same HP as the Acura NSX. 
Jag X-Type: not that bad.
2002 BMW 7 series:??
2004 Chevy SSR: not that bad.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A quick scan tells me the guy who wrote that article has his head you-know-where. There are many other worse vehicles. Yugo and Lada come to mind.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

SINC said:


> A quick scan tells me the guy who wrote that article has his head you-know-where. There are many other worse vehicles. Yugo and Lada come to mind.


The Yugo is listed, BTW.

I did say it was entertaining...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Told you it was a quick scan.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I could see you in this Master:











I know SINC likes campers...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> I know SINC likes campers...


Actually I prefer our motor home over campers, shown here in Jasper last Jul.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Oh come on SINC, what's the difference?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Fuel economy - the VW is a gas miser...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Actually I prefer our motor home over campers, shown here in Jasper last Jul.


Motorhomes, campers, it's all the same --- 10km/h under the speed limit. tptptptp


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dona83 said:


> Motorhomes, campers, it's all the same --- 10km/h under the speed limit. tptptptp


My motor home will easily top 130 kph. I choose to run 95-100 kph. If you knew anything about them, you would realize it's the responsible way to drive something that weighs 11 tons and is 54 feet in length.

Oddly enough, I do it for more for the safety of impatient guys like you, not me. I see guys who are pissed that I am running 10 under take horrible chances with their lives and the lives of their families over a lousy 10 kph by passing me when unsafe to do so.

I pull over and let traffic by every 10 km or whenever a lineup builds behind me. It's called courtesy. Maybe try using a little yourself when you're behind an RV.

One day you will realize that speed is not everything.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> My motor home will easily top 130 kph. I choose to run 95-100 kph. If you knew anything about them, you would realize it's the responsible way to drive something that weighs 11 tons and is 54 feet in length.
> 
> Oddly enough, I do it for more for the safety of impatient guys like you, not me. I see guys who are pissed that I am running 10 under take horrible chances with their lives and the lives of their families over a lousy 10 kph by passing me when unsafe to do so.
> 
> ...


He is a self proclaimed speed nut SINC.  

So am I. I am dying in my 4 banger Civic. I want my Audi back...wahh wahhh

I was that jerk who would fly by you at 150. I know I'm a really bad person.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Hey I drive slow when I have time... I drove 95km/h from Edmonton to Hinton, the speed limit in the 2-lane section to Kamloops, then 95km/h the rest of the way to Vancouver. Did the trip in under 50L of gas.

But then there was that one time I had to get from Vancouver to Kamloops in 3 hours...


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

*Very* nice "home", SINC! I believe I had a brief look at the inside a while back, eh?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Mississauga said:


> *Very* nice "home", SINC! I believe I had a brief look at the inside a while back, eh?


 A little road side lovin'? 
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mississauga said:


> *Very* nice "home", SINC! I believe I had a brief look at the inside a while back, eh?


Indeed you did, and thanks again for the "how to use .Mac video" assist that day.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

*GM Puts Volt Plant on Hold*



> General Motors is suspending work on the $370 million factory slated to build engines for the Chevrolet Volt, but says the plug-in hybrid will appear in showrooms by the end of 2010 as promised.
> The decision comes as GM frantically slashes costs in a desperate bid to survive while the White House dithers on a bailout. GM and Chrysler have said they could be out of money by the end of the year, but Congress failed to approve $14 billion in short-term loans to the Big Three and the Bush administration appears to be in no hurry to act.
> With cash dwindling fast, GM says it has no choice but to postpone work on the the factory in Flint, Michigan, where 300 people would build the 1.4-liter turbocharged engines slated for the Volt hybrid and Chevrolet Cruze compact.
> "It's temporarily on hold as we assess our cash situation," GM spokeswoman Sharon Basel told the Detroit Free Press. "I don't think it's any surprise that we're studying and reviewing everything, given the position we're in."
> ...


GM Puts the Volt's Engine Factory On Hold | Autopia from Wired.com

You know what bothers me? To know that GM is already building the equivalent of the Volt in Europe! 

_*GM already builds the same engine at a plant in Austria and so could ship them over if need be.*_

So why aren't you selling the car that has those engines in it here?!?!?

I don't understand how these companies work. This just boggles my mind. Why are we waiting 2 years for this car when they make the engine needed in Austria? By the end of 2010 Toyota will have a fully electric car out and Honda is nearly ready to begin production of the FCX Clarity Hydrogen. They have to establish infrastructure more than anything. 

My goodness my friends, my goodness.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> GM Puts the Volt's Engine Factory On Hold | Autopia from Wired.com
> 
> You know what bothers me? To know that GM is already building the equivalent of the Volt in Europe!
> 
> ...


They are not waiting on the engines themselves but the battery and recharging system had to be adequately tested to see if they can make the promised life cycle of the Volt. Also the 1.4l engine that is mentioned is destined to be used in the Chevy Cruze the replacement for the Chevy Cobalt, the Chevy Cruze is already being sold in Korea and will be sold in Europe early next year hence the reason why they are already building the engine in Austria. The Chevy Volt will be using the Cruze platform as well hence the reason the Volt mule that Wagoner drove to the Congressional hearings last week was actually a production Cruze with the Volt's internals.

Laterz


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19auto.html?hp


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Move over big three...Let ZENN have a go for awhile.

We don't need the EV1 (AKA EVil one)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It's no surprise that GM canned the Chevy Volt - they even put that fact into their television ads - in the fine print at the very end of the commercial. It was nothing more than a publicity stunt to con people into buying some of their current garbage, like the Malipoo.

GM is waiting for the salvation of 50 cent a litre gas - so they can get on selling their giant SUVs and stuff.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> It's no surprise that GM canned the Chevy Volt - they even put that fact into their television ads - in the fine print at the very end of the commercial. It was nothing more than a publicity stunt to con people into buying some of their current garbage, like the Malipoo.
> 
> GM is waiting for the salvation of 50 cent a litre gas - so they can get on selling their giant SUVs and stuff.


Go over to the gas thread I just started...:lmao:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Things are tight all over:
The Unthinkable Happens: Toyota Will Post Loss | The Truth About Cars


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That may be the most telling sign to date on the global economy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No - if Apple posts a loss...then run for cover....



> *U.S. gives automakers $17.4B*
> 
> Dec 19, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Sinc, 

Toyota has a couple billion sitting around. They will be fine. I could see KIA or Suzuki dissappearing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Suzuki is diversified like Honda.

KIA is state funded I think.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I sure hope Suzuki sticks around. My Grande Vitara Limited 4 x 4 has been bulletproof since I got it new in 2001. (Not even a tune up, brakes or even a battery in nearly eight years now. If I ever buy another vehicle, it will be a Suzuki for that reason.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> Toyota has a couple billion sitting around. They will be fine.


Agreed.

It's still interesting that even Toyota is burning money at this point and that they have shuttered their brand new Prius plant, after many have held them up as an example of an automaker that can do no wrong.


Adrian. said:


> I could see KIA or Suzuki dissappearing.


Agreed.

Or any number of small, second tier players for that matter. Some estimates suggest that when the dust settles the world will have about 30% more automobile production capacity than it needs. That's a pretty big correction and is sure to take out some of the weaker players - which are not limited to Detroit.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> KIA is state funded I think.


Kia is a division of Hyundai these days. I'm not sure there is a whole lot of sense in keeping both Kia and Hyundai around in a shrinking market, when there is so much overlap between their products.

I believe that Korea protects its home market which helps its Domestic automakers.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Suzuki is diversified like Honda.


I don't know if I would call Suzuki and Honda diversified - motorbikes are just another form of motor vehicle. If the car business goes seriously pear shaped I can't see the motorbike business being enough to prop them up.

GM is even more diversified than Suzuki and Honda, and look at the pickle they're in these days...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Um Honda in particular has a huge diversity of products and many of them profitable.

Honda Worldwide | Power Products

Cars are only one aspect both Companies



> onda cuts earnings, sees 'no prospect for recovery'
> 
> * Story Highlights
> * Honda CEO Takeo Fukui says sales "declined rapidly" starting in the fall
> ...


Both are poised for growth in small engine tech and Suzuki is very global to third world nations.

Global News News.2008 | Global Suzuki



> Announcement on the sale of Suzuki shares by General Motors Corp.
> 
> Suzuki Motor Corporation made an announcement today concerning the sale of Suzuki shares by General Motors Corporation with a mutual agreement to continue the implementation and expansion of the business relationship between the companies.
> 
> ...


Scooters and motorcycles are a very strong category and profitable.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Scooters and motorcycles are a very strong category and profitable.


Too bad they don't make any "cents" for me living in the suburbs in this climate as I will need a car anyways. Won't be saving much having both and paying insurance for both all year round. Never mind the added danger of riding a motorcycle and ignorant drivers on the road in the GTA.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Kia is a division of Hyundai these days. I'm not sure there is a whole lot of sense in keeping both Kia and Hyundai around in a shrinking market, when there is so much overlap between their products.
> 
> I believe that Korea protects its home market which helps its Domestic automakers.


 Bang on my friend. 

The smaller brands will be crushed out. Detroit will probably see Chrysler go to sleep. Ford has much more financing than Chrysler has behind it and Venture capital is a risky business for Chrysler. They will throw Chrysler on the chopping block faster than your neighbourhood butcher. So I will bet a 95% chance of seeing a revised Ford and GM Detroit skyline. 

They will do what has to be done to bring this economy around. Lots of cheap and efficient cars. They have the capacity and infrastructure to make cars 100% cheaper than Kia or Suzuki ever could, or even Hyundai for that matter. Besides, those brands are sort of 'fringe' brands. People don't really know a lot about them and their loyalty market has not yet fully developed.

The bottom line is, there are far too many brands out there. Ford has been told by the feds to cut Mercury and GM will probably cut Buick, Saturn, Hummer and Saab. Cadillac, Chevy and Pontiac I can see staying.

The market will shrink. What needs to happen is fast and quick production to keep the suppliers turning out product. $65,000 SUVs are no longer wanted and won't move fast enough to create that production demand for suppliers. 

But, we shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You think any of the big three could undercut S Korea ??? - you're dreaming in techicolour.

Honda is a major brand and Suziki is a speciality player.

I suspect Chrysler brand will get snapped up by a big foreign player - maybe even Kia/Hyundai or Tata.

GM playing pacman with it tho has some traction....it immediately reduces over capacity in dealerships and and factories - GM can pick and choose what to keep and what to close.

Hyundai has the vehicle for the time and market...












> For its North American debut, Hyundai added a turbocharged 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine with state-of-the-art Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) that improves efficiency and reduces emissions. The HED-5 i-Mode concept and the new powerplant, called the Theta Turbo GDI, have been green lighted for the U.S. market. Variants of the engine will appear in various Hyundai models. Timing and specifications for a production version of a family crossover similar to HED-5 i-Mode are currently in development.
> 
> HED-5 "i-Mode" Concept Highlights
> 
> ...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You think any of the big three could undercut S Korea ??? - you're dreaming in techicolour.


Agreed - none of the first world countries can win a race to the bottom with Korea or China.


MacDoc said:


> Honda is a major brand and Suziki is a speciality player.


That isn't enough to guarantee survival these days...


MacDoc said:


> I suspect Chrysler brand will get snapped up by a big foreign player - maybe even Kia/Hyundai or Tata.


Can't see Hyundai, I could see Tata or a Chinese or Russian firm.

There have been some rumours of an alliance with Renault/Nissan - that might make some sense as Chrysler could source small cars from Renault/Nissan and Chrysler could supply large vehicles to Renault/Nissan.

The new Ram would be a nice upgrade on the aging Titan. Although full sized pickups are a shrinking market there will continue to be some demand for them in the foreseeable future.


MacDoc said:


> Hyundai has the vehicle for the time and market...


At this point the issue isn't so much having "the right vehicles" - plenty of manufacturers have those - but rather over capacity.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MacDoc,

What is that car idling at to produce 285 HP out of 4 cyl. Lots of tuners can produce that...but the engines last 50,000 KMs before they blow.

Heck, there are 6 cyl. with 1000HP...

Sexy design though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Race to the bottom??!!! - I don't think so - you don't put on 100k miles! warranty without having a vehicle to back it and Honda and Toyota are excellent quality.

Just because value for money goes up does not mean inferior - welcome to MY world. More for less every year.

Now when that reaches the housing market we'll be getting somewhere. 

and bankers will have to work for a living..

Once the mindset gets to....I can get a better vehicle, that is more efficient for less money - the planet will be on track again instead of the stupid ponzi scheme we've been in for a 1/2 decade.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Just because value for money goes up does not mean inferior


Sometimes value goes up, sometimes quality goes down, sometimes there's a bit of both...



MacDoc said:


> welcome to MY world. More for less every year.


Mine too!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> I suspect Chrysler brand will get snapped up by a big foreign player - maybe even Kia/Hyundai or Tata.


Hyundai was thought to be interested in Chrysler but they came out about a month ago and denied it in a press release.



> Hyundai has the vehicle for the time and market...


As nice as that car is note that none of the HED concepts from Hyundai have ever made it to production, the only component that might make it to production from that HED concept is the engine and other drive-train components. Hyundai has in the past shown off 4cyl motors capable of hitting upwards of 400hp but none have ever made it to production the most I can see that engine make in a Hyundai production model is around 200hp. Ford as gone the same route as that Hyundai engine with it's new lineup of Ecoboost engines and will be in cars either in 2009 or 2010 they will be introducing the new Ecoboost turbo 4's and 6's in the 2010 Ford Fusion and even on the next gen Explorer.

Laterz


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> No Bail Out PERIOD. I would favour conditional loans.
> 
> The conditions:
> 1. Maximum salary including per diems, travel expenses, bonuses, overtime and everything else not to exceed $250,000/year until loan is paid back.
> ...


great points and i agree with all.

at first, i had the 'screw them' mentality b/c if my business fails, can someone bail me out?! I could go on about not listening to consumers or producing crappy vehicles (i mean, why would someone want to pay higher $$$ for toyota and Honda -oh..that's right - b/c they're built properly and just work whereas the others..... anyhoo...i digress)

BUT, the jobs. tons of jobs to be lost which would affect the economy in a huge way.

i'm not a huge michael moore fan, but he raised a few good points on a cnn.com interview. bail them out, but make it so the govt controls them to make fuel efficient vehicles at a good cost and have x amount of time to pay the loans back. 

interesting times we're in...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I wonder how the government will twist this entire scenario to reinforce the integrity and stability of neoliberalism...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Re: Chrysler,

The only thing going for it is the Jeep brand, the mini-vans and their cop car and taxi packages. They should do a major downsize and concentrate on the above ---scrap everything else and they may survive.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> They will do what has to be done to bring this economy around. Lots of cheap and efficient cars. They have the capacity and infrastructure to make cars 100% cheaper than Kia or Suzuki ever could, or even Hyundai for that matter. Besides, those brands are sort of 'fringe' brands. People don't really know a lot about them and their loyalty market has not yet fully developed.


I wouldn't call Hyundai a fringe manufacturer they are the 5th largest manufacturer of automobiles in the world, Fringe I would call Morgan, Spyker, Koenigsegg, Gumpert, Ascari, Caparo, Pagani.

Top 8 Manufacturers for 2007
1:Toyota
2:GM
3:Volkswagen
4:Ford
5:Hyundai / Kia
6:Honda
7:Nissan
8:Chrysler

Laterz


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

KOS

I stand to be corrected it appears. Nonetheless, many brands will die.

I see you are a fan of Spykers. Gorgeous vehicles.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Adrian. said:


> KOS
> 
> I stand to be corrected it appears. Nonetheless, many brands will die.
> 
> I see you are a fan of Spykers. Gorgeous vehicles.


I love Spyker's they are beautiful on the outside but they're strength lies in an interior that just blows the mind in craftsmanship from the exposed gear linkage to the beautifully crafted leather you can't get any better than that.

http://images.europeancarweb.com/features/0608_EC_09Z+Spyker_C8_Spyder+Interior_Dash.jpg

Laterz


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The shifter with theexposed bar that runs right into the tranny behind you is fabulous. 

I must brag. I have driven a spyker c8 la violet (sp?) before .... It's my bosses...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Things are tight all over, part II:
Honda Threatens to Leave Japan | The Truth About Cars


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Jeremy Clarkson has a solution to the problems in Iraq, and the auto industry:


> The cost to the American government since the conflict began is put by some observers at £100 billion. And they could have given everyone in Iraq a small car for less than that. Actually, with an order of that size, I suspect discounts might well have been available, so it could have been a large car or even an SUV.
> 
> This is bribery, of course, but what’s wrong with that? It would have saved 25,000 lives, made everyone over there happy, removed the motive for the London bombings and thus saved Britain £3 billion. Furthermore, it would have provided a much-needed boost for the beleaguered American motor industry. Make cars, not war. That’s what I say.


source: Jeremy Clarkson Volkswagen Passat review | Driving - Times Online


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

All these amateur prescriptions for the Big 3 are pretty amusing. They'd have been out of business long ago if they listened to even half of it!


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Macfury said:


> All these amateur prescriptions for the Big 3 are pretty amusing. They'd have been out of business long ago if they listened to even half of it!


I'll go as far as to ask what's to save? The "big 3" are dinosaurs that have miraculously escaped extinction.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Mississauga said:


> I'll go as far as to ask what's to save? The "big 3" are dinosaurs that have miraculously escaped extinction.


High paying union jobs.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Looks like it's official: reportonbusiness.com: Toyota forecasts its first operating loss

Surely these problems must be entirely of their own making.

This sorry situation must be due to shortsighted management and lazy workers taking their eyes off the quality ball (http://wardsauto.com/ar/toyota_consumer_reports/), while churning out gas guzzling trucks and SUVs that nobody wants anymore.

If they could figure out how to make some interesting, fun to drive cars that people actually *want* instead of soulless transportation appliances with interiors that look as though they were purchased at a tupperware party they wouldn't be in this mess...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Here's the best description of the root cause of the mess in the Auto industry that I've seen yet: Why the Auto Bailout's a Dead End

I believe that mainstream high volume cars are more or less fungible these days. The differences between an Accord/Fusion/Camry/Malibu are pretty much inconsequential in most cases.

The real problem is people buying things they don't need, with money they don't have - the exact same thing that caused the real estate meltdown.

It will be interesting to see how big the auto market is when the dust settles. Even a [email protected] car can be expected to last for 10 years or 200,000 km with proper maintenance, so people that used to trade in their vehicle every two years or so until they got burned in the credit crunch can go a long time without buying a new car...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Until oil goes back up in a short while then the new vehicle is self funding as it came very close to this last spike.

When you are spending up to $800 a month on fuel as some commuters were, $249- $349 lease for a miser looks very good.
and that's where the TDi diesels are.

The car companies will offer the financing to replace the gas guzzler fleet - they can do math too.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Did anyone notice that it was the price of oil and ultimately gasoline that was the precursor of the current economic mess? The day those gas station signs were altered to reflect prices over a dollar a litre was the beginning of the end. Oil companies knew far, far in advance they would be gouging the public and changed the signs in anticipation of an economic windfall. They now see that while they made short term gains, it pretty much killed the goose that laid the golden egg for them.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

*With gas falling, trucks come back*

Truck and SUV sales rising as gas prices drop - Dec. 22, 2008

Maybe there is hope for the Big3 after all if the prices stay down. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some people just never learn.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep


Next shoe poised to drop.....



> *Shadowed by $200 oil*
> By LOREN STEFFY Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
> Dec. 20, 2008, 3:45AM
> 
> ...


Shadowed by $200 oil | Business: Loren Steffy | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

It will be interested if people will simply abandon their big SUVs like they have their houses. When your credit rating is already dead from your sub prime mortgage, you can't make your lease payment and the gas to fill it up is starting to encroach on the food/rent budget...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> It will be interested if people will simply abandon their big SUVs like they have their houses. When your credit rating is already dead from your sub prime mortgage, you can't make your lease payment and the gas to fill it up is starting to encroach on the food/rent budget...


People walk away from their financed vehicles on a regular basis - but I do not think that people will really give up on their SUVs. There are just too many people that have too many reasons for driving an oversized vehicle, like the people who: drive a truck so they can see further ahead in traffic, or have a van so they can drive their one child to soccer around the corner, or because they want "ample" power to pass on the highway (we all know you need many horsepower to pass someone going 150 on the 400).

Many people are just too far overextended in their credit, and really, a few people I know go to work simply to pay the interest on what they borrowed. It is quite sad, because I even know a guy that couldn't finance a newer car because his credit ratio is over 95%, meaning that if he takes a day off, he has no "spare" money for things like food, heat or gasoline. It's all about spending what you don't have in this day and age.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

I think this sums it all up rather nicely...


----------



## Jim (Jan 31, 2003)

Beautiful!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bgw said:


> I think this sums it all up rather nicely...


That was great! :clap:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I enjoyed that as well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Necessity and invention comes to mind. Maybe we need an Avro Arrow program - teach the Yanks how to do it 



> *Magna, Ford partner on battery powered car*
> 
> GREG KEENAN
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


more

reportonbusiness.com: Magna, Ford partner on battery powered car


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Good on Magna for taking some intiative. Maybe people will want to buy these.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Magna can make complete vehicles?
> 
> If true why not build and compete against the three dinomakers?
> 
> Then we could buy Canadian Magnas...


They just refurbed a Focus with an electric drivetrain.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> It says:


I stand corrected MCB.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I heard about Magna about 6 months back I think, they were converting Ford pickups to electric vehicles for use with commercial fleet vehicles. Perhaps it shows that it takes initiatives from independent sources to prod the major manufacturers to act. Look at the companies developing plug-in and electric-only-mode retrofits for Toyota hybrids finally getting Toyota to develop their own plug-in system (soon) and electric-only mode (available in the Highlander and a few others).


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Magna can make complete vehicles?


Magna has been building complete vehicles for a while. For example, BMW and Chrysler:
BW Online | December 1, 2003 | Look Who's Building Bimmers
Chrysler Group Adds Jeep® Commander to Graz-built Lineup at Magna Steyr | Auto Spectator


MazterCBlazter said:


> If true why not build and compete against the three dinomakers?
> 
> Then we could buy Canadian Magnas...


Easier said then done - there are all kinds of things beyond just manufacturing to be considered. For example, design, marketing, distribution, dealer network, building a brand, financing, etc.

It would be a tall order at the best of times, doubly so now with so much excess capacity in the auto industry...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How about the Canadian Arrow II.  as a moniker. 

I noticed in the Canadian papers Magna's initiative is revealed - in the US it's all about Ford 

Even go with the orginal logo sans the print








........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> How about the Canadian Arrow II.  as a moniker.
> 
> I noticed in the Canadian papers Magna's initiative is revealed - in the US it's all about Ford
> 
> Even go with the orginal logo sans the print


Sorry, but Chrysler's Plymouth division beat you to it way back in 1975 when they introduced the Plymouth Arrow line:


----------



## rodneyjb (Apr 9, 2006)

Cool pics Sinc...you always do your homework.  


I will believe the big three and there promise to "restructure" when I see it. At CES this week, Ford was still trying to push their SYNC technology. At a time when governments are trying to ban distractions in the car, Ford wants more distractions.

Ford learning to 'think like an electronics company,' Mulally tells CES crowd

Even though Ford is in better shape then the other 2, they still need to focus on building CARS the people want.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No problem - Magna bid for Chrysler before - bet it's cheaper now


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lot of confidence there.....



> *Ford does not need U.S. government loans: CEO*
> 
> SOYOUNG KIM
> 
> ...


Appears somebody read the tea leaves back in 2006


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Lot of confidence there.....
> 
> Appears somebody read the tea leaves back in 2006


Not only tea leaves but Mulally was in charge of Ford Europe before he became CEO and one of his 1st acts as CEO was to fast tract most of the Ford Models to NA 1st of which will be the 2010 Fiesta, next are the Focus and C Max Mini van.

Laterz


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

*Making some progress...*



> General Motors and the United Auto Workers union have agreed to eliminate a controversial program that kept workers at near full pay even when there was no work for them, the company confirmed Wednesday.
> 
> The agreement will eliminate the so-called "jobs bank" as of Monday, Feb. 2. The jobs bank program now provides about 85% of normal pay to about 1,600 UAW members at GM (GM, Fortune 500). Spokesmen for the UAW were not immediately available for comment on the deal.
> 
> ...


GM, union reach cost-cutting deal to eliminate jobs bank - Jan. 28, 2009


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *500 Canadian dealerships to close, says analyst*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


comes the contraction....more here

Wheels.ca - 500 Canadian dealerships to close, says analyst - Canada's Most Trusted Auto Resource


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This is something that has needed correction for many years. While it won't be good for the economy, it was inevitable regardless of the times. There were just too many dealers out there.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> This is something that has needed correction for many years. While it won't be good for the economy, it was inevitable regardless of the times. There were just too many dealers out there.


I agree SINC. Auto Dealerships were like Tim Hortons...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good way to "cook the books" too......leave the unsold vehicles on the dealer lots instead of manufacturer inventory.  - .....more dealers....more burners to cook on.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> I agree SINC. Auto Dealerships were like Tim Hortons...


Even some Tim Horton's are running into hard times. The one in my neighbourhood has been defunct for a few months now, and the one at the other end of the street has been gone for a few years. I even noticed that the double drive through Horton's in Chatham has vapourized...

The auto companies do have too many dealerships, all congregated in certain areas. How many Ford dealerships does a city block need, anyways? Along Upper James, there are two large GM dealerships plus a Saturn outlet, two Ford dealerships, and two Chrysler dealerships - all within a two mile stretch of road.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

In perspective, I don't think the dealerships are much of a burden to the manufacturers. I think the burden falls on the franchise owner of that dealership that puts up most of the cash to run it. Same goes for Tim's.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Good way to "cook the books" too......leave the unsold vehicles on the dealer lots instead of manufacturer inventory.  - .....more dealers....more burners to cook on.


I don't know how GM or Chrysler deal with inventory but I have it on good authority that Ford dealers buy there units from Ford probably one more reason why Ford is in better shape than there domestic counterparts.

Laterz


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Canadian Auto Workers to Reopen Talks

Sorry, I don't like to post whole articles but it's from the NY Times and you may not wish to register. I know I don't.



> OTTAWA — The Canadian Auto Workers union, which has long resisted offering concessions, said Thursday that it would begin special contract talks with the automakers based in Detroit.
> 
> The union’s change of heart is related to the Canadian government’s offer of bailout money to those companies’ subsidiaries in Canada. Tony Clement, the minister of industry, has said the government would give money only if Canadian wages and benefits matched those paid by Honda and Toyota in Canada.
> 
> ...


Interesting change of heart...

This makes me smile:



> “Labor costs clearly did not cause this worldwide crisis in the auto industry, and labor concessions cannot possibly solve that crisis,” Ken Lewenza, the union’s president, said in a statement.


Clearly... beejacon 

At the same time, the kind of idiots that kps posted about in this same thread couldn't possibly be part of the problem, either.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CAW eyes labour cost cut



> The Canadian Auto Workers union would have to reduce wage, benefit and pension costs by more than $500-million annually at General Motors of Canada Ltd. to match labour costs at the highest-paying Japanese assembly plant in the United States.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just goes to show how much "fat" the unions have negotiated into their contracts.

Now comes time to pay the piper and reduce that fat to the level of Japanese workers. It's either that or layoffs, so it appears they have little choice.


----------

