|
|
  
 
Subject:
Re: Obama now owns GM
From: "CardsFan" <me(at)here.com>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:37:55 -0400
Lines: 72
NNTP-Posting-Host: cfs98-112.cfs.purdue.edu
Bytes: 4483
________________________________________________
"WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...
> Speaker of the Truth wrote:
>> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"
>>
>>
> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered
> (slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &
> negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed
> changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an
> outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.
The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely new
agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the good old
days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does not adapt,
GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer help, so Mr.
Wagoner was out of a job either way.
> When Obama gave Wagoner the choice of resigning or foregoing bailout
> money, he knew full well Wagoner would acquiesce, because Wagoner wouldn`t
> sign GM`s death warrant by refusing. In my opinion the wrong guy was
> fired... it should have been Gettlefinger, who openly refused to negotiate
> any concessions at all. If the changes begun by GM speed up now, it`ll be
> because Obama screws the union and local politicians, something that
> Wagoner could not do without dooming GM.
No, GM was doomed without those changes. Mr. Wagoner didn`t have the
stomach for it. I can`t blame him for that; these changes are radical and
seemingly merciless, but in not reshaping GM over the course of his tenure
he and his board brought it to where it is.
> More likely, GM will now quickly go out of business or become a
> federal-run experiment in building expensive "green cars" which will
> require heavy subsidies by the taxpayer in order to sell to greenies.
>
> It`s always seemed to be an axiom that republicans tend to buy GM cars,
> while democrats prefer Fords and Chryslers (if they didn`t switch to
> Volkswagens or riceburners), so I`m not surprised that Obama went after
> GM.
This is ludicrous. My dad was as Democrat as you can get and he drove
Chevys and Buicks all his life. If Ford were in the same financial boat as
GM it would have gotten the same treatement, or worse, a la Chrysler.
> The fact that GM has lately been advertising heavily on the Limbaugh,
> Hannity, and Miller programs probably sealed Wagoners fate.
Ridiculous. GM is advertising heavily practically everywhere.
> Question is, what will Obama do to mollify the UAW as GM goes under?
> Or will the workers be so overjoyed at seeing management get screwed that
> they`ll forget that they screwed themselves?
Both white and blue collar have to sacrifice. So do retirees. There`s no
other way.
> GM was my first & favorite auto maker, I was never disappointed by one of
> their products (I owned at least 7 over my lifetime, including 4
> Corvettes, plus another half-dozen cars powered by Chevy small blocks);
> how sad that it`s come to this.
Because of loyalty inherited from dad, I owned three Buicks, all of which
had quite numerous mechanical, electrical, and body problems. I gave up on
GM back in 1987 except, of course, for the `Vette, which is a lifelong
reclamation project, a labor of love both now and, fate and finances
willing, in retirement.
AJM
`93 40th Anniversary coupe, 6 sp (both tops)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:11:23 -0700
From: WayneC <WayneC(at)linkline.moc>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 32
Bytes: 3040
________________________________________________
JimH wrote:
> I worked for IBM in the 90`s when they were bleeding red ink and it
> looked like they were on the verge of collapse. John Akers, a long time
> IBM employee and executive was at the helm. He had to step down in order
> to bring about the change in the company necessary for survival. Like
> Wagoner, he was not just a part of the good old boy network in the
> company, he was the core of it. IBM brought in an outsider, and turned
> the company around.
>
I, too, worked for IBM at the time... I was among the 100k employees who
were "downsized", depriving me of the 5 most lucrative years that
determine retirement income.
> I remember reading an article at least 10-15
> years ago that forecast this exact set of events for GM. I didn`t or
> more probably couldn`t believe it at the time.
I worked with a very astute senior IBM salesman in the early 70`s who
went to an extended seminar in Japan on quality issues; while there he
toured the auto companies since he serviced the American auto industry.
He was more than impressed by what he saw, he was alarmed! When he
returned, he put together a lengthy presentation warning the American
car companies of what was coming, telling them they needed to get their
act together or go the way of the consumer electronics industry. He
began a crusade to wake the industry to the coming threat, and gave
numerous presentations to a spectrum of Detroit auto execs in the Big 3.
I found his message compelling and his sincerity refreshing. He said his
message was mostly met with a yawn; he finally got frustrated and left
IBM to start his own computer leasing company. That was 35 years ago.
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:59:50 -0700
From: WayneC <WayneC(at)linkline.moc>
Subject: Re: Obama now owns GM
Lines: 46
Bytes: 3993
________________________________________________
CardsFan wrote:
> "WayneC" <WayneC(at)linkline.moc> wrote in message
> news:ReCdnesQTdMLxk_UnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(at)linkline.com...
>> Speaker of the Truth wrote:
>>> Ever hear the song "too much too little too late"
>>>
>>>
>> I`d argue that Wagoner was steadily doing the right things, but hampered
>> (slowed & blocked) by pesky little things like union contracts &
>> negotiations, local politics in every town affected by his proposed
>> changes, green laws, etc, etc. The guy was a 31-year employee, not an
>> outsider emotionally unaffected by the changes he attempted to make.
>
> The whole point is the corporation has to have someone with an entirely new
> agenda to survive, not someone who`s sitting around pining for the good old
> days. The automotive world has radically changed and if it does not adapt,
> GM is dead. It would have been dead already without taxpayer help, so Mr.
> Wagoner was out of a job either way.
>
My point is that Obama isn`t hampered by contractual legal agreements,
he proved that with the AIG bonuses.... Wagoner had to honor those
legalities. Obama can wheedle the democratic mayors (and the union
bosses) and promise them largesse from the US treasury to smooth over
the changes he`d like to make in the auto industry... Wagoner could not.
Obama could have done the wheedling and still leave Wagoner in charge of
the change, but he needed a boogeyman for us peons to blame.
I still think Wagoner did as much, and went as fast in bringing change,
as he was able to do, I do not think he was in the same arrogant mold as
the prior bean counters who ruined GM for so many years. I think he got
hit by a world-wide economic credit crunch at precisely the wrong time,
when company coffers were low (partly from the costs of changes he`d
been making), and before his changes began to pay off. You`ll note that
the governor of Michigan called Wagoner a "sacrificial lamb", noting the
many changes he`d already made and the much-improved products just going
into production, while still retaining the good will of the politicians
and union.
I would rather see a "car guy" in charge of GM, but as I recall, they
did have one of those in the late 80`s and he wasn`t up to the rest of
the job... to paraphrase what one TV commentator said, GM today is a
retirement and health benefits company that operates a car-making
business on the side to help defray the costs of it`s public service
obligations. I just happen to think Wagoner was closer to a "car guy"
than the string of financial guys that preceded him, and that he did
push change.
NEXT POSTS:
| | |
