All GM has to do is..

uscitizen said:
Yeah I saw a bigger is better commercial for GM's Yukon yesterday.
Click to expand...

I drive a Yukon and I love it. But then, I have need of a full sized vehicle.

If you need a work truck with muscle, the GM Sierra (1500, 2500, or 3500) are excellent choices.

But you cannot survive in todays market without a better lower end vehicle.
 
Solitary said:
I drive a Yukon and I love it. But then, I have need of a full sized vehicle.

If you need a work truck with muscle, the GM Sierra (1500, 2500, or 3500) are excellent choices.

But you cannot survive in todays market without a better lower end vehicle.
Click to expand...

Of xcourse the larger trucks and such have their place. But not as a status symbol vehicle only. which was what the ad I saw said.
 
Southern Man said:
I don't know the details of the contract and I'm not sure that you do either. Regardless, implied is that the employees will produce quality and that the company will therefore grow. Neither happened, and those are facts. Also a fact is that a bankruptcy negates past obligations.

The correct term for the auto bailout is the union bailout.
Click to expand...

So the bailout would not help the mgmt people? They would keep their big money jobs and bonuses as well.

Most companies do not pay bonuses when the company isn't doing well. But the Big 3 did.

And by bailing out these monsters you help BOTH the unions and the mgmt. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.
 
Southern Man said:
Declaring bankruptcy is the only way they can break the union stranglehold.
Click to expand...
They can lock them out as well, use some of the bailout cash to make new sites in other states, use some to move it to one of the other nations in Meximericanada...
 
Solitary said:
So the bailout would not help the mgmt people? They would keep their big money jobs and bonuses as well.

Most companies do not pay bonuses when the company isn't doing well. But the Big 3 did.

And by bailing out these monsters you help BOTH the unions and the mgmt. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.
Click to expand...
I say bail out neither.
 
Damocles said:
They can lock them out as well, use some of the bailout cash to make new sites in other states, use some to move it to one of the other nations in Meximericanada...
Click to expand...
A lock out would put management in jail, and a move would eliminate production (and income) for years.
 
Damocles said:
They have an equal right to the lockout that the union does to strike. The lockout would not send management to jail.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. I suppose that they could lock out the union but would still have to pay them. Not paying would land them in jail. again I'm not familiar with the details of the contracts but that's just common sense. The union has them by the balls and that's that.
 
Just like shutting down production for a couple of months. They pay some of them, they laid off others. They can just extend it without the pay, but first they have to announce plans to do that.
 
Damocles said:
Just like shutting down production for a couple of months. They pay some of them, they laid off others. They can just extend it without the pay, but first they have to announce plans to do that.
Click to expand...
a shutdown means no production, meaning no sales or income. Yeah that's a much better plan. :rolleyes:
 
Southern Man said:
a shutdown means no production, meaning no sales or income. Yeah that's a much better plan. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So does a strike. It is better not to produce if production means you will be guaranteed to lose money. It will do no good to just continue doing the same thing you have been and expecting a different result. There must be some action towards the goal of viability if you maintain that a company should be viable rather than simply owned and operated by the Congress.
 
Damocles said:
So does a strike. It is better not to produce if production means you will be guaranteed to lose money. It will do no good to just continue doing the same thing you have been and expecting a different result. There must be some action towards the goal of viability if you maintain that a company should be viable rather than simply owned and operated by the Congress.
Click to expand...
I believe that bankruptcy is the best thing for GM. Granted I'm not up on the details. A government owned car company ain't going to go anywhere with competition from Europe and Japan manufacturers. That may have worked in postwar Germany or eastern bloc countries but not here in the US of A.

Its a pretty screwed up situation any way you look at it. If they don't produce and don't pay the non-workers then the still have capitalization costs, and those will bury them much quicker than what their present situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top