# Bail-0ut the Auto Industry?



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Should the US and Canadian governments bail out what's left of the North American auto industry? I have mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand I feel for all the workers involved. Not only those that work directly for GM, Ford or Chrysler but for the hundreds of thousands that supply them. 

On the other hand it is through total mis-management that they are in this situation today. Arrogance, greed and stupidity have gotten them to where they are and now they need to be bailed out.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I voted yes ..but ONLY when they can show that they have a PLAN that appears to be sound from a business perspective. (I have the same mixed feelings...so I'm siding with retaining employment)

Hopefully, part of the plan will be how they intend to pay back the what is given to them in a bail out.

Dave


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

greco said:


> I voted yes ..but ONLY when they can show that they have a PLAN that appears to be sound from a business perspective. (I have the same mixed feelings...so I'm siding with retaining employment)
> 
> Hopefully, part of the plan will be how they intend to pay back the what is given to them in a bail out.
> 
> Dave


I also voted yes for the same reasons and with the same expectations of a solid plan on where that money will go and plans for the future. I know nothing is certain but they have to shift from greed to what makes sense for the future of the company. This has to include the development of alternative fuel vehicles.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

I dont think these bailouts work *unless* there is a sound plan to turn the business around and compete with the import makers who have been stealing their lunch. What I've heard so far just sounds like a band-aid to let them struggle on for a few more years and postpone the inevitable.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The Japanese and Korean makers have handed the Detroit Three thair a$$es simply by making better cars and now the tax payers are supposed to bail them out.


It will ultimately happen, but I voted no.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

I voted no. Yeah it will hurt but let's face it they won't bail out any business that I would have. 

Been to a car dealer lately ? Never a pleasant experience. We have a Saturn that actually has amazed me for it's ability to keep on going with little input. 

But after owning GM's for decades and having time and time again run into poorly designed or designed by somebody that has nothing to do with fixing it. I say they deserve it. 

They had plenty of warning in the 70's about small cars. They actually responded to that quite well. Then they started creating the huge monsters that rule the roads these days. 

A Hybred Caddy ... Wtf ? They have been sucking at our wallets with a surgeons precision. I am sure their accounting department has the same skill. Where has the money gone that they have made? Decades of it. 

A dealer in everytown ? We all have good dealer and bad dealer stories. That should change. 

Sorry but I have no sympathy for them . The big guys up top have been making all the decisions. Maybe it's time they spent some time on the line.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I would have liked to vote yes but I didn't. The "Big Three" should have seen it coming. If they get a bailout what about Honda and Toyota ? They employee our people also. Honda and Toyota have concentrated on there flagships the Civic and Corolla making them a efficient and economical vehicle, while the big three followed up nostolgia with the re issue of muscle cars. The big three have the technology and engineering but a little too late. I don't think hybrids are the way to go but maybe for the interm.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

My brother is a third generation autoworker. So was my cousin, but he is retired now (lucky bastard). I agree with need for a PLAN. But it will be too devastating if the industry fails,... unless the Japanese and Koreans take 'em over. Bailout is likely the wrong term, but I voted yes.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> My brother is a third generation autoworker. So was my cousin, but he is retired now (lucky bastard). I agree with need for a PLAN. But it will be too devastating if the industry fails,... unless the Japanese and Koreans take 'em over. Bailout is likely the wrong term, but I voted yes.


If they do go down we are still on the hook for their pension plans. Oh and what about the 800 mill recently ?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

shoretyus said:


> If they do go down we are still on the hook for their pension plans. Oh and what about the 800 mill recently ?


My brother is a year short of qualifying for pension. If the industry goes down, he goes down.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

My understanding is that this is a loan that they have to repay, and not simply cash thrown at them to burn if they choose.

Anyway, if I understand the situation correctly, the problem they have is that the market meltdown and following credit clampdown has killed their asset base and made it difficult for them to borrow money through normal channels.

I'm not really down with bailouts... it's basically rewarding failure. But I have no problem with governments giving loans to prop an important business up while it sorts itself out.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

screamingdaisy said:


> My understanding is that this is a loan that they have to repay, and not simply cash thrown at them to burn if they choose.
> 
> Anyway, if I understand the situation correctly, the problem they have is that the market meltdown and following credit clampdown has killed their asset base and made it difficult for them to borrow money through normal channels.
> 
> I'm not really down with bailouts... it's basically rewarding failure. But I have no problem with governments giving loans to prop an important business up while it sorts itself out.


That is a correct statement, for the most part. where the issue is for a lot of people, including those that have to make the decisions on whether to give them the money is.... will they be back in 6 months looking for more?

For those of us that were, or are close to the auto biz. Myself working for and then selling to General Motors for about 24 years. We have seen first hand the extent of the mis-management. The total arrogance and waste. From the 60's right through to the 90's. 

The unions have to take some share in the mess as well. The demands that were made through-out the 70's and 80's were in many cases outrageous. They were granted by the big three because profits were good, very good and they wanted no part of any work stoppage that would hinder those profits in anyway.

I remember going into GM headquarters back in the late 90's and all the management were wearing pins that said 35 on them. I asked what that was all about. It was another one of their bogus and useless campaigns. It was the new target of 35% market share. I think at the time they were in the high 20's

Unrealalistic expectations, no plan to get there. Just wasting time. They should have been re-structuring that company to be a 25% market share company back in the late 80's. The competition was there. Signs that Korea and Japan were going to continue gaining were there. They were not going to vanish as some had hoped. China was on the radar as far back as 1991. They did nothing until it was too late.

So in terms of helping out the management? I say fire every one of them. Help out the company? Yes


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I have very strong mixed feelings.

On the one hand, it will throw hundreds of thousands into unemployment in the short term. Many suppliers will be affected, not just the direct big3 employees.

On the other hand, there will be a North American auto industry, albeit probably on a reduced scale, if there is a massive failure and many - but not all - of those people will end up back in the industry. Probably with reduced benefits and wages, and many (as noted above) will lose their pensions.

By the way, how are we all on the hook for the pensions? Are there government guarantees on them?

On the one hand, it will cause more massive devastation to the stock markets. Obviously, those near or in retirement will be badly hurt.

On the other hand, I'm a strong believer in capitalism and free markets and letting the chips fall where they may without this kind of intervention. And I believe that the markets will ultimately recover. I'm far enough away from retirement to be still buying mutuals with every paycheque and believe I am getting good deals right now.

On the one hand, as daisy says, it's loans not gifts.

On the other hand, there is much precedence for these sorts of loans to ultimately be written off, whether through tax breaks or just plain lack of ability to repay - or political shenanigans. And 25 billion is very short term cash flow for the big3 - I strongly believe that in LESS THAN 6 months from now, they will be back at the table begging for more even if they get all they want right now.

Ultimately, I vote 'no' but believe they will get their money from government.

There's a good political cartoon on the subject in today's Edmonton Journal. Wish I could find it online, but I can't. Mayes is normally a terrible editorial cartoonist but every so often (once every month or 2) he hits one out of the ballpark. I miss my days in Regina when we were very blessed to have CAM (now in Ottawa) every day.


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Edited for space.


I agree, but I don't feel that most institutions are very good at proactive change. When change comes everyone within the organization fights tooth and nail for it to stay the same. It isn't until the hammer comes down and everyone is forced into line that anything actually happens, and due to labour contracts and laws protecting labour most change is nothing but a reorganization of management.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

greco said:


> I voted yes ..but *ONLY when they can show that they have a PLAN that appears to be sound from a business perspective.* (I have the same mixed feelings...so I'm siding with retaining employment)
> 
> Hopefully, part of the plan will be how they intend to pay back the what is given to them in a bail out.
> 
> Dave


So....that should be counted as a "no" then 
if the free market is such a panacea, then let t do its job. If there's a market for a N. American auto industy and these asshats have mismanaged themselves into bankruptcy, then thatshould create a space for new players with better management right? That's what we keep hearing from people who read the first few chapters of the cliffs notes for Wealth of Nations and the the Art of War.


----------



## zinga (Apr 22, 2007)

let them all die and the unions to....


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

zinga said:


> let them all die and the unions to....


that's "unions too" and an ellipsis is three periods (...) not four (....) :sport-smiley-002:


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

keto said:


> By the way, how are we all on the hook for the pensions? Are there government guarantees on them?


That is what they were saying on CBC's The point the other day.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Estimates are that the Canadian portion would be somewhere in the area of 3.8 billion.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Well, the Volvo grader plant is closing here and the work (not necessarily the jobs) will go out of country. It's heartbreaking, but foreseeable. I really feel for my friends and community right now.

I like the idea of the oil companies bailing out the car companies. I like the notion that the banks (who had obscene profits just recently) should be accountable to me as their lord and master. I (like many others) predicted that all this was headed down the crapper but was just as powerless to do anything about it besides put my money under my mattress and pray. There's so much collusion between banks, governments, big oil, and auto industry they don't even know they collude. It's that systemic. 

Chrysler paid their loans back how many years ago and are now just as inflated and top heavy and sinking as ever. Wtf is that all about? Once bitten and all that. Screw them all. If I operated my personal and small business finances that way the banks and Revenue Canada would have little sympathy. 

Bitter? Yup. Disgusted? Yup again. Do I have solutions? None that anyone would accept. It's another result of the expanding economy. Expanding economies don't work for a healthy society any more than the very similar cancer cell works for a healthy body. 

But what do I know? I'm just a tax paying small businessman/musician who wants to live his life unthreatened by what governments pretend to protect me from.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Mooh said:


> But what do I know? I'm just a tax paying small businessman/musician who wants to live his life unthreatened by what governments pretend to protect me from.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Quote of the day for sure.

Gee the 1001 post how did that happen?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> Gee the 1001 post how did that happen?


You were typing, not picking. Same affliction I got. No cure.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Mooh said:


> You were typing, not picking. Same affliction I got. No cure.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


I pick lots. What I am doing is waiting for glue to dry. Then the top gets glued on an .. Les Pat... she's a build weekend:rockon2:


----------



## AGP1 (Jun 18, 2008)

Robert1950 said:


> that's "unions too" and an ellipsis is three periods (...) not four (....) :sport-smiley-002:


The grammar and punctuation in the rebuttal also leave something to be desired, if we are all going to get picky!


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

And another thing (that I forgot in my previous post :frown: Why the hell should the auto sector get a bailout from the Govt. What about all the other industries which are struggling right now? How about the hi-tech sector? They've been laying off (and offshoring) thousands of jobs for years now and not a whimper about a govt bailout? What about fishing? or forestry?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> And another thing (that I forgot in my previous post :frown: Why the hell should the auto sector get a bailout from the Govt. What about all the other industries which are struggling right now? How about the hi-tech sector? They've been laying off (and offshoring) thousands of jobs for years now and not a whimper about a govt bailout? What about fishing? or forestry?


What about arts in the classroom? Oh, never mind, I know the answer.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I voted yes. Like it or not (_ don't)_ It has to happen, theres too much at stake. My hope is that there is some restructuring. I don't think we've seen the worst of it yet folks....


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Starbuck said:


> I voted yes. Like it or not (_ don't)_ It has to happen, theres too much at stake. My hope is that there is some restructuring. I don't think we've seen the worst of it yet folks....


I would agree 100% that we have not yet seen the worst of it. There is more to come. Even the offshore's announced yesterday that they would be extending days out at Christmas. The whole thing is slowing down.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Whenever a professional sports team finds itself in trouble, I hear the same tune being played as with the big 3. People will make a big stink about exorbitant player salaries, mismanaged teams, high ticket prices, etc. etc, and balk at providing any sort of financial relief for the team. But then folks start to mention all the restaurant staff that depend on customers on the day of the game, the people who sell beer and hot dogs, the folks whose livelihood depends on the parking, the people who make sport t-shirts or sell sports gear with logos. The list goes on and on of folks who are not part of the franchise per se, but whose very livelihood depends on there being a viable sports team.

So, ultimately, the concern is never with the sports team as such, but rather with protecting the livelihoods of a lot of people who depend on the sports team being there.

The same, I think, is true of the auto-makers. Should the auto-makers be "bailed out"? Nah. Who gives a rat's ass about them. Manufacturers of any product come and go. On the other hand, should active attempts be made to *protect the employment* of the tens of thousands of people who would otherwise be filling out E.I. cards? You bet your sweet ass. The ripple effects of NOT doing so are immense. Just imagine what it would cost to support Oshawa, Windsor and Oakville if the auto plants there picked up and left town. It's not just the people working in the plants. It's the convenience store or shoe store owner whose customers ARE those people. Hell, it evens boils down to the bands that depend on folks with steady paychecks coming to hear the gig and buying enough beer that the bar owner doesn't mind hiring bands, and decides to pay them too. I harken back to the collapse of the telecomm sector some 6 or 7 years ago, and the effect it had on the entertainment industry in the Ottawa area when the folks with with Nortel and JDS paychecks stopped getting them.

In some respects, the most direct route to doing all of that is to assure the long-term viability of the source of their employment: the auto-makers. On the other hand: a) money spent on protecting auto-related jobs could be spent on creating or protecting other sorts of employment, and b) that sort of money can only really be spent once, so it better damn well assure the long-term, I said, I said *loooooooonnnnnnng*-term <_insert Foghorn Leghorn voice here_> sustainability of those jobs. So, folks have to figure out what would cement the sustainability of those jobs, both the ones resulting from direct employment by the car-makers and those that provide collateral employment via the automotive industry. It may involve a shift in attitude, a shift in products, a shift in labour relations and the pricing of the labour involved, a shift in management (and certainly management salaries and expectations), and shifts in other things we haven't started discussing yet. And, it may involve redirecting that employment to a sector other than the automotive sector.

Whatever it involves, it has to be planful, and can't simply be throwing money at things. It has to permit growth and the flexibility to change with the times. At the very least, if you conceive of it as rich automakers crawling on their hands and knees with hat in hand, the odds are pretty good you won't be able to fix it properly. You need to think bigger.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

I'm for helping these companies out "IF" they can show some change in their direction of how they operate so they are not going to continue to bleed to death , otherwise any bail out is going to waste and the inevitable will happen . At the meetings this week they came with little to offer except promises and the like . I think the CEO's had better come up with a solid plan to restructure and the UAW/CAW as well . The head of the CAW bantering that they " will make no more consessions " in light of the current situation is nailing the final nails in the coffin . This is going to take a huge effort and sacrifice of both management and common worker to get through this . 

We shall see......


----------



## keithb7 (Dec 28, 2006)

I voted no, however I think we need to keep as many jobs in Canada and the USA as possible. We have lost our auto industry to the Asians where labour cost are a fraction of ours here in North America. Cheap labour equates to low cost manufacturing. I own 2 Ford, 1 Dodge and one Nissan automobile. The Nissan is the oldest, a 1993 with 210,00 KM on it and is proving to be the most reliable. I voted no because the big 3 need to flush out and clean up their companies. Maybe we just need one North American auto maker? The benefits and pensions that these companies have to pay out is scary. This needs to be stopped. A new unified auto maker with a fresh new start. Slap way more import tax on the Asian automobiles. Make them even more expensive to own, with the extra taxes going to the one north american automobile maker to be used solely for new research and development. Create a massive campaign to support out auto industry. We need new innovative cars and trucks to compete head to head with the Asian products. What the NA automobile market needs is the same thing google did to the internet. Fresh new ideas that work.

I know that several Asian automobiles are assembled here in North America. I understand that Toyota pumps many trucks per day from a factory in Texas. Make no mistake, the profits made are going back to Japan. 

Should the Govt bail out the Auto industry? No. I don't think so. Get a 3 way merger going and start with cars that surpass the Asians in reliabilty and quality.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

keithb7 said:


> Get a 3 way merger going and start with cars that surpass the Asians in reliabilty and quality.


That will never happen, at least not with import duties. What we do need for that to happen is a $5/litre fuel. THAT will bring about change.

We're talking about mentality and is the reason I said no.

Asia makes great cars because they have to and want to innovate to remain competitive. Europe makes great cars because they have to and want to be the best engineers to remain marketable. WE make gas guzzling muscled dinosaurs because "Bigga is betta, boy!" and drive off spinning tires in the Humvee or overpowered something or other they've pushed for decades too long.

Cheers!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

As many have said in this thread, that they have seen this coming. Why didn't the North American car makers? Perhaps it's true that greed blinds people.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Geek said:


> Asia makes great cars because they have to and want to innovate to remain competitive. Europe makes great cars because they have to and want to be the best engineers to remain marketable. WE make gas guzzling muscled dinosaurs because "Bigga is betta, boy!" and drive off spinning tires in the Humvee or overpowered something or other they've pushed for decades too long.
> 
> Cheers!


I am a younger dude, and this is the perspective I share. It's not that I want Canadians to lose jobs, it's just that it's hard for me to see past that the industry dug it's own grave. 

They had an article on the front page of the Star the other day that had a photo of the owners of the big 3 sitting beside each other and their salaries listed. The amount of money the make is absurd. And they receive INSANE bonuses. What are they getting bonuses for when their companies are going down the toilet?

Being younger, I haven't got the 'only buy North American" bias that my parents and their parents had. I research and buy what is the best product for me and my budget. And my first 2 new cars have been a Honda and a Hyundai. No domestic car I looked at could come close to the value and features of these cars.

It's a whole industry that I guess I just 'don't get'.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

torndownunit said:


> Being younger, I haven't got the 'only buy North American" bias that my parents and their parents had. I research and buy what is the best product for me and my budget. And my first 2 new cars have been a Honda and a Hyundai. No domestic car I looked at could come close to the value and features of these cars.
> 
> It's a whole industry that I guess I just 'don't get'.


You have hit on something very important to this whole story. The younger generation. By that I mean the car buyer starting in about 1990. Brand loyalty was one of the biggest factors that GM, Ford and Chrysler counted on for continued sales for generations, and it worked for generations. They used a platform of levels based on your income etc. Your first car may have been a Chevy. Then as you made more money and got a little older you moved into a Buick or Olds. Then eventually you hit the top with Cadillac. Same with Ford etc. This formula worked for many years. But that all started to change with imports and declining wages. Budgets were getting tighter and after years and years of being in North America, names such as Honda and Toyota did not sound so foreign any more. 

There are some, even on here that would tell you that Honda is as American as apple pie. All this was ignored by Detroit. They kept going on the way they always have and in the meantime were losing buyer after buyer. At the same time the designs were terrible. Nobody was excited about anything Detroit put out in the 90's.

So to be successful today you need to concentrate solely on the product. Forget about the fact of where it is made. There is no such thing as brand loyalty, or any other kind of loyalty for that matter. It comes down to price and wow factor. Does this vehicle turn me on? Does it do all that I ask of it in terms of fuel consumption, features etc. You build that car and people will buy it, regardless of where the hell it is made. That is where they went wrong in my opinion.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Ya I bought my first new car, a Honda Civic, in 2000. Around that time especially, the domestic car makers were not offering ANYTHING worthwhile to compete with 'foreign' made cars. And they were especially lacking in good warranties at that time. Bad prices, bad warranties, and at the time fairly poorly reviewed models. So they basically lost a generation of buyers right then. My 2 new cars have been a Honda and a Hyundai as mentioned. I'd have to say it would take some pretty spectacular to come around for me not to buy another Hyundai. I love the car. My girlfriend bought one as well in fact. So I guess I do have some brand loyalty, but a kind that developed in a different generation. I buy products from the companies that do right by ME not by my parents. It's really only in the last few years that the big 3 started putting out cars to compete with the cars I drive anyway. They are WAY behind the ball.

Again it's hard to feel sympathy for these companies. And with their horrible business practices, it's hard for me personally to believe the money will even do anything to help in the long run. I keep reading in the papers references to earlier bailouts and how they helped. Well as mentioned in the previous post, this is a completely different time. I definitely feel sympathy for the workers and their jobs, but not for the companies.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I cannot disagree with what you are saying. I also cannot blame you at all for going out and buying the best product available, at the best price. Cars are expensive and are a major purchase. You have to do what is best for you and your family. We are talking about transportation here. I remember when i first started at GM back in 1983 and right around that time my wife and I were looking at buying a new car. There was a Nissan that we really loved. I brought the brochure into work one night and was almost throttled by about 10 of the old timers. They were vicious. We ended up buying a Chevy and I have never driven anything but GM and Ford since. 

Thats not to say that every bad thing that has been said about Detoit is not true, it is. It is also true that many of the offshore cars were and are a better value. I guess I am just one of those that does not beleive in shipping money to another country. It is very sad that our auto industry cannot compete at this stage. It is also very sad that there is a strong possibility that two of the most profitable and biggest companies on earth (at one time) may fade into memory. I really hope they can change it around. 

But they need to get buyers like you, torn, to get excited about their products. I am positive that if they offered you what you wanted, you would buy from them without question. People want value for their money, its as simple as that.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Some interesting comments about the evolution of the market itself. I think GuitarsCanada makes a very cogent point when noting that the North American market was essentially divided up between Ford, GM and Chrysler for the longest time (with brief incursions from folks like American Motors, Studebaker, et al, and tolerable "foreign presence" from Volkswagon, Volvo, Citroen, Leyland, etc), and one's automotive allegiance was like one's political or religious allegiance; "My dad voted/worshipped/bought Liberal/Anglican/Ford, and *I* will vote/worship/buy Liberal/Anglican/Ford" (or some other combination just like your dad). As the market became more and more diluted by cars from companies we had never heard of before, Honda, Hyundai, Datsun, Toyota, Accura, Suzuki, Infinity, Lexus, etc, etc, especially when that occurred at the same time as a discernible gap in quality from North American builders, brand loyalty, at least to the Big 3, dropped. One started to see the emergence of attitudes like "I'll never buy another North American car again". This, despite the manufacture of so-called "foreign" cares on North American soil.

What I want to know is "How the hell did foreign manufacturers end up in the position where they received all sorts of tax incentives to establish manufacturing facilities in North America?". I'm not trying to pit the US against Japan or Korea, but when provincial and state governments have bent over backwards to lure foreign-owned manufacturing facilities to North America (in order to provide high-paying jobs), thereby reducing shipping costs and price differentials between domestic and "foreign" cars, and reducing the competitiveness of Big 3 cars, it becomes hard to lay all blame at the feet of the auto-makers.

When you lay out all the different auto-makers, domestic and foreign, in front of you like a deck of cards, and when you realize what sort of investment is required to develop the facilities that produce those cars, it starts to seem like the market is basically glutted by too much product from too many producers for them all to survive. Something may need to be trimmed back. The problem that remains, however, is that people have to have something to make a living at, and all those auto-makers are connected to people who need them for jobs. People bumped from employment CAN be assisted by government until they find that something else, but that very assistance requires others to have secure employment and pay the taxes that support that assistance. In other words, as much as "tough love" comes to us as our first instinct, it's like turning to a father of 5 and saying "You got yourself into this mess. You get yourself out of it." So, um, who takes care of the 5 innocent kids while dad is busy trying to get himself out of the mess? We certainly can't blame _them_ for hitching their wagon to that particular father. Similarly, as much as we'd like the market to take care of itself, there are a LOT of other people whose welfare depends on the vitality of the domestic industry in those locales where it is concentrated. As problems-to-be-solved go, it's certainly easier to allow market forces to take effect, but as a national-stewardship challenge market forces are too destructive in the grand scheme to be the only factor in play.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

bagpipe said:


> And another thing (that I forgot in my previous post :frown: Why the hell should the auto sector get a bailout from the Govt. What about all the other industries which are struggling right now? How about the hi-tech sector? They've been laying off (and offshoring) thousands of jobs for years now and not a whimper about a govt bailout? What about fishing? or forestry?


Yup = I got creamed in 2001 and have never recovered - I make 1/3rd of what I once did. No parachute - no pension..... no bailout.

I don't even know where to begin with the auto industry. It's as bloated and corrupt as any government or investment firm and the sense of immediacy, selfishness and complete lack of concern for the future makes me sick.

There is nothing that will save the industry in Canada - when was the last time GM hired anyone? The best any bailout will do is keep the fortunate few (workers and management) at the trough for a little longer. At least in the States they have a tiered hiring system that has resulted in new generations being hired. Whatever happens, GM is pulling out of Canada and with a bailout may make it to 2010 where they will see the UAW take over pension responsibility and they can sell a few million Volts (yeah - right).

There is a pervasive sense of entitlement in this country (s) that just makes me weep for the human race. Don't get me started on the teachers, firefighters, Hydro One folks, etc...........


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats not to say that every bad thing that has been said about Detoit is not true, it is. It is also true that many of the offshore cars were and are a better value. I guess I am just one of those that does not beleive in shipping money to another country. It is very sad that our auto industry cannot compete at this stage.


Last time I looked, the BIG Three were US manufacturors and therefore as foreign to Canada as Honda or Toyota. Although we have an extremely tight bond with our southern neighbours, to them we are no different than Mexico when they start looking at saving jobs and the American Way. Currently, GM has a deal with the UAW that allows a 4-tiered hiring approach - and they are hiring new employees in the States - the CAW has told them to jump in the lake - I believe Hargrove siad something like "We will not allow our sons and daughters to live as 2nd class citizens". GM in Canada hasn't hired anybody's "sons and daughters" in Canada in over 20 years. Here in Niagara, after the next early retirement round I think we will be left with about 900 GM employees (down from a high of about 12,000).

How much writing - on how many walls do we need?


----------



## screamingdaisy (Oct 14, 2008)

This is why I think unions do atleast as much harm as good.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> Last time I looked, the BIG Three were US manufacturors and therefore as foreign to Canada as Honda or Toyota. Although we have an extremely tight bond with our southern neighbours, to them we are no different than Mexico when they start looking at saving jobs and the American Way. Currently, GM has a deal with the UAW that allows a 4-tiered hiring approach - and they are hiring new employees in the States - the CAW has told them to jump in the lake - I believe Hargrove siad something like "We will not allow our sons and daughters to live as 2nd class citizens". GM in Canada hasn't hired anybody's "sons and daughters" in Canada in over 20 years. Here in Niagara, after the next early retirement round I think we will be left with about 900 GM employees (down from a high of about 12,000).
> 
> How much writing - on how many walls do we need?


I think 1988 was the last hiring at GM in St Catharines. As mentioned, I was hired in 1983. Those that were hired with me are at the end of the seniority list. Anyone that came in after 1983 are long gone. In terms of the US vs Canada thing. GM and Ford go way, way back in Canada and have provided a living for several generations of Canadians. When I speak of the auto industry I usually speak in terms of North America. Make no mistake. All the plants (the ones that are left) south of the border are in just as much trouble as the ones here. My Father worked on Ontario street for over 40 years. Started back when it was Mckinnon Industries. Certainly, the CAW has been an issue here in Canada. The 199 has always been militant and reluctant to make any kind of concession. I think there are a few of them still running around with the "Save The Foundry" campaign.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> But they need to get buyers like you, torn, to get excited about their products. I am positive that if they offered you what you wanted, you would buy from them without question. People want value for their money, its as simple as that.


Ya for someone like me just looking for a product, that is the bottom line. But they also have to get over a huge hurdle when it comes to someone my age. For most of my early car buying years, these companies weren't offering us anything. So at this point I just got used to them not even being part of my decision process. They have really done some damage to themselves and it's going to be REALLY tough for them to get past that. 

And now what do we see.....they are asking the government for a bailout. That is definitely not going to improve anyone's perception of them. It was said best in previous posts, how many of us could expect a bailout at our current jobs?

I just don't see how a bailout could be any real solution to the problem.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

GM loses over $1000 for every small car it sells. Their (previously succesful) business plan was based entirely on establishing customer loyalty by taking a loss selling to the first time buyer and then making it up subsequently on the bigger and much more profitable vehicles (somehow this plan would take them back to 35% market share). Meanwhile, the Asian makers played in the entry-level market (which the big 3 didn't really care about) and through lower wages, zero legacy costs, and modern factories (which require less employees) they operated at a profit and learned and slowly increased their market share. 

It's probably impossible, under current conditions, for GM to compete in the small vehicle market - they lose money on each unit sold while the Asians make money on each unit sold - which, in turn, is partly returned to R&D to ensure that they stay ahead of the competition.

How does GM make that happen when they have a cost-per-worker of $71 per hour when the average manufacturor is paying $28? 

GM needs a complete restructuring with all the fat, lazy cats from the top to the bottom shown the door. They need the room to maneuver and reinvent themselves for the new market with employees who want to make a decent wage by making decent cars. 

In the meantime, if you're looking for an automotive manufacturing future in Canada, best look to Honda and Toyota and their like. Even if GM survives, I fear that they'll do it by taking all of their labour home or offshore.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> How does GM make that happen when they have a cost-per-worker of $71 per hour when the average manufacturor is paying $28?
> 
> GM needs a complete restructuring with all the fat, lazy cats from the top to the bottom shown the door. They need the room to maneuver and reinvent themselves for the new market with employees who want to make a decent wage by making decent cars.
> 
> .


Good points. The business case for that would be Delphi. They were at $77.00 per hour I believe, when they went bankrupt. It has now been re-structured and is up and operating again. I think the wages were slashed down to about $30 or so per employee. These number include all benefits etc.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> GM loses over $1000 for every small car it sells. Their (previously succesful) business plan was based entirely on establishing customer loyalty by taking a loss selling to the first time buyer and then making it up subsequently on the bigger and much more profitable vehicles (somehow this plan would take them back to 35% market share). *Meanwhile, the Asian makers played in the entry-level market (which the big 3 didn't really care about) and through lower wages, zero legacy costs, and modern factories (which require less employees) they operated at a profit and learned and slowly increased their market share. *
> It's probably impossible, under current conditions, for GM to compete in the small vehicle market - they lose money on each unit sold while the Asians make money on each unit sold - which, in turn, is partly returned to R&D to ensure that they stay ahead of the competition.
> 
> 
> > Not true. The average salary of autoworkers in Japan and South Korea is about the same as in North America and they have similar retirement packages (you think North American unions are strong? They are downright militant in South Korea). Japan and Korea, however, have 'universal healthcare', or at least affrodable healthcare insurance (I live in Korea...It costs me 30$ per month for my whole family, my employer pays the other half).


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> How much writing - on how many walls do we need?



Lots.... so when you are layed of and start your new band you have a wall to stand in front of for the promo shot :smile:


comic relief 

carry on


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

> Not true. The average salary of autoworkers in Japan and South Korea is about the same as in North America and they have similar retirement packages (you think North American unions are strong? They are downright militant in South Korea). Japan and Korea, however, have 'universal healthcare', or at least affrodable healthcare insurance (I live in Korea...It costs me 30$ per month for my whole family, my employer pays the other half).


The fact that they have similar packages should serve as an indicator as to where their industry will end up in 30 years. Under the current early-retirement package, GM will pay a one-time amount of close to $100k, a new car (voucher for 35k), up to four years of "bridging" at 85% wages, to get the employee to a 38k per year retirement package. Slice that however you like but the're paying that guy many hundreds of thousands of dollars *not to work *. That is included in the number, as well as the cost of providing for four times as many non-working employees as are on the floor.

The source I used that quoted the $71/hour cost also showed Toyota's (North American) number at $48. The fact that GM has not hired in Canada in over 20 years is due to offloading contracts to the small guys (who pay the $28/hour) and making as many components offshore as possible. Can you blame them?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> What is the $$ rate at any auto repair facility? Dealers tend to be more, but most are $65.00 and up for a flat rate shop hour.
> 
> A haircut costs me $18.00 and takes 15 minutes.
> 
> ...


C'mon ...... You know you can't compare the retail cost of a labour-centric business to an earned wage.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> The fact that they have similar packages should serve as an indicator as to where their industry will end up in 30 years. Under the current early-retirement package, GM will pay a one-time amount of close to $100k, a new car (voucher for 35k), up to four years of "bridging" at 85% wages, to get the employee to a 38k per year retirement package. Slice that however you like but the're paying that guy many hundreds of thousands of dollars *not to work *. That is included in the number, as well as the cost of providing for four times as many non-working employees as are on the floor.
> 
> The source I used that quoted the $71/hour cost also showed Toyota's (North American) number at $48. The fact that GM has not hired in Canada in over 20 years is due to offloading contracts to the small guys (who pay the $28/hour) and making as many components offshore as possible. Can you blame them?


The out-sourcing of components started a long time ago. There was a time that GM made almost all of its own components in house. This was another model taken from the Japanese. The difference between them was that in Japan a lot of the suppliers were partly owned and controlled by the car company. They also offered them life-time contracts and had a lot to say in how the parts were to be priced. Over here, when they did that they ended up getting charged the same or sometimes more for the same component they made themselves. They closed some plant, got rid of some people but in the end all the suppliers were still raping them. So now they have attacked the supplier so badly on price that they have managed to run a lot of them out of business, especially in NA. So where do most of the components now come from? China. With all of these cost savings they are still losing money.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

That is something I REALLY don't understand. I am not trying to demean anyone or there job in ANY way here. But how can wages be so high for line work? And how can an industry expect to survive paying wages like that for line work?

This might open a can of worms, and again I am only asking because I am curious to learn more about the issue. Why don't the unions come up with a plan to reduce wages in order to help save the companies they work for? I assume with the unions, the employer can't just lower wages on their own? I'd have to assume that if a few thousand works took a cut in their wage it would help. Maybe it wouldn't for all I know, but why has no one even offered? Why should it be the rest of Canada's responsibility before theirs? It's their jobs.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

One other thing I forgot to add. Having been burnt by shitty Ford products in the past (I was an owner of the infamous 95 Ford Windstar!), I dont car how much they are bailed out - I will never buy another Ford. They can tell me as often as they like that they have improved their quality, have refined their process etc - I dont care. Shitty products that I will avoid for ever. I'm picking on Ford but I'm sure similar arguments could be made for other North American vehicles.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> That is something I REALLY don't understand. I am not trying to demean anyone or there job in ANY way here. But how can wages be so high for line work? And how can an industry expect to survive paying wages like that for line work?


I Personally know someone in the service industry (conferance Center Gov't owned = Union) who serves coffee and tea from a beverage cart who makes $70,000 per + benefits... HELLOOO!!!!! Not that I'm union bashing, but where is the common sense?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

torndownunit said:


> That is something I REALLY don't understand. I am not trying to demean anyone or there job in ANY way here. But how can wages be so high for line work? And how can an industry expect to survive paying wages like that for line work?
> 
> This might open a can of worms, and again I am only asking because I am curious to learn more about the issue. Why don't the unions come up with a plan to reduce wages in order to help save the companies they work for? I assume with the unions, the employer can't just lower wages on their own? I'd have to assume that if a few thousand works took a cut in their wage it would help. Maybe it wouldn't for all I know, but why has no one even offered? Why should it be the rest of Canada's responsibility before theirs? It's their jobs.


The UAW made some moves in that direction in the last contract negotiations. They agreed to a 3 tier wage system that will pay the workers far less than current. They have also outsorced a lot of the duties such as janitorial, stores etc. Believe it or not, if you were a janitor at GM you made those kind of wages. The UWA has done a lot more than the CAW. So far the CAW has not budged a lot. They did agree to get rid of the janitors etc if they got the new transmission line. But nothing on wages at all.

Also, there needs to be changes made in the benefits. If some of you knew what they are covered for you would puke. There is no need for it in this day and age. Even all my friends that still work there would be more than happy to give up a lot of those benefits to keep their jobs.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> I'm not sure I understand your sentence, and I acknowledge my analogies are not 100% on point.....but a per hour charge of $70.00-ish per employee isn't not that far out of the ordinary. WHY it is that high is another question and answer.....there is a lot of blame/credit to go around for that.


GM isn't selling anyone's labour - they're selling a product. Your analogies all pertain primarily to the selling of time as a product - you really can't compare the two as the former is part of the cost of goods sold (a car) and the latter is the retail price of the goods sold (time).

A garage may charge you $65/hour to work on your car but that doesn't mean the mechanic's gross pay is $2600.00/week ($65 x 40 hours). In this example, all of the costs of operating the business plus a reasonable profit must be built into that charge. The $71 from the GM example are not exactly the workers hourly wage either but represent ony the human resource cost per hour - not the lights/rent/profit/....

.......but then I think you know that and you're just having a bit of fun :food-smiley-004:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Paul said:


> Numbers like $70.00+ per hour with little context don't do much except emotionalize a debate. Contained in that $70.00+ is the ongoing cost of the lack of universal health care in the US.


You'd be suprised how high the number can actually be when overtime is factored in. GM, as well as many, many other entities would rather pay huge overtime to an existing workforce than add a new hire to the union. You'd be shocked at how many people earn well in excess of six figures doing pretty pedestrain jobs. That raw $28/hour wage can easily grow to $42/hour, or even $70/hour pretty quickly.

Here's one for you: I know union employees who collude to manipulate sick days - guy one calls in sick (gets his sick day pay) guy two gets called in to cover guy one (and gets overtime at 1.5 times). Next week they switch. Overall they're working the same number of hours but a couple days/month they get time and a half for one or two days.

In spite of it all, the sad irony is that I know GM guys taking the latest package who have to sell their houses because they have never had to budget or save a single day in their lives and are in horrible financial shape.


----------



## rockinbluesfan (Mar 3, 2008)

There is one issue that has been discussed where I work and alot of people don't like it- the caw members pay into a sub fund that tops up their ei in case of lay off. If the non caw person gets any extra money that amount is deducted from your entitlement, yet theirs is topped up! This is public money and sounds like discrimination to me! Correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Well from the public perspective it didn't help when the CEO's of the big 3 arrived hat in hand on their private jets.. (Security measures my foot) Then when asked if they would sell their planes to fly back commercial no one offered.... Sympathy they won't get.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Well from the public perspective it didn't help when the CEO's of the big 3 arrived hat in hand on their private jets.. (Security measures my foot) Then when asked if they would sell their planes to fly back commercial no one offered.... Sympathy they won't get.


Much like the perception offered up by AIG post-bailout with their executive conferences and such. It may just be business as usual but it's seen as kinda thumbing their noses at the taxpayer and leaves a bad taste.

I'm no fan of trickledown Reagonomics so I get tired of how bailing out the Big Three will help so many other people as the money is flung far to supposrting industries. 

It's my opinion that instead of giving billions directly to the car makers, the government should give you and me the money with the caveat that we must use it towards a car purchase ............ and let the automakers make their money the way they *supposedly know best *- by selling cars to people.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> Much like the perception offered up by AIG post-bailout with their executive conferences and such. It may just be business as usual but it's seen as kinda thumbing their noses at the taxpayer and leaves a bad taste.
> 
> I'm no fan of trickledown Reagonomics so I get tired of how bailing out the Big Three will help so many other people as the money is flung far to supposrting industries.
> 
> It's my opinion that instead of giving billions directly to the car makers, the government should give you and me the money with the caveat that we must use it towards a car purchase ............ and let the automakers make their money the way they *supposedly know best *- by selling cars to people.


But then everyone would just buy a Toyota or Honda etc and Detroit will still go down. :banana:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> But then everyone would just buy a Toyota or Honda etc and Detroit will still go down. :banana:


That I suppose is what us capitalists refer to as survival of the fittest. At least Honda and Toyota have hired young Canadians in the past decade.

I'm not happy about this - I've done my part - there's a Cavalier and a Jimmy in the driveway, I worked as a salesman (not such a good one I might add) at a GM dealership for almost 3 years, and have never owned an Asian car - had a horrid Rabbit and still have my MG (but she doesn't count as she's part of the Commonwealth).

I cheer for the Big Three just as I hope that one day Microsoft will build a better operating system than Apple.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Thanks to everyone who posted info. I have enjoyed learning more about the issue. My views have changed on some things, but not on one. I still don't see anything that convinces me that a bail-out will do anything to help in the long run. I just can't see how. Again a lot of my perspective comes from being younger, and knowing the damage these companies have done with my generation already.

I think a huge problem with this issue is that people are uneducated about it and make no effort to learn. They have a knee-jerk reaction for either side of the issue. There was an editorial in my local paper where they asked people what they think. Johnson Controls (makes seats I think) is located in my town, so everyone answered that we should bail them out for the sake of the jobs in this town. I don't think people look at the big picture.

If the industry IS bailed out, isn't there a good chance that the jobs in this town will be exported to somewhere else as a cost cutting measure anyway? If the bailout happens, isn't there still a good chance that things could go downhill again in a couple of years, and their jobs will still be gone? They seem to think this bailout would provide some kind of job security, and from everything I have read, there is no guarantee of that whatsoever. In fact, most info leads to the opposite conclusion.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

just a thought....me and my buds try to save money and do most of our own auto repairs.......I wonder what we're going to do for parts in the future...some parts you can't get aftermarket....yet...perhaps never???


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

I voted yes - with the thought that a bailout should be just the start of it. North America needs manufacturing for jobs - yes - but we also need to be able to provide for ourselves.....having to rely on foreign countries for automobiles would be a precarious position to be in. I also would hope to see a net new business plan in place - seeing the big 3 follow the foreign auto maker's lead.....stick our product into the conscience of the foreign buyer - put a factory in their small towns - employe their workers too - invade their job base as Toyota and Honda and Nissan have invaded ours......change how easy it is for foreign manufacturers to setup shop and / or send their wares here.....and lastly - hire an all new marketing and design crew - start building stuff people want....people obviously like the foreign vehicles....copy what's good - toss out what's bad....innovate new things. I drive a GM Silverado.....it's not innovative, it has no exceptionally redeeming qualities when compared to a toyota.....this has to change.....the bailout is necessary - but should have several strings attached. In the end - we trusted our government and our institutions to keep the system intact....we as consumers have been doing our part - working hard and spending every disposable dime we have on consumer products.....our governments and institutions have failed us......but at the end of the day - there really isn't much of a choice - if we are to sustain the lifestyle we have become accustomed to

of course the above is IMHO


and I know - hippocracy is rampant.....my gear list below is ridden with foreign made stuff.....but wadda ya gonna do


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Paul said:


> There is no longer a tender fruit processing facility in the Niagara region. It's cheaper to create peach juice in China and ship it to Canada than it is to create peach juice in Niagara. I didn't say better, just cheaper.
> 
> The question is.....with all we know about tainted foods in and from China, how long will we be willing to consume the tainted foods we don't know about?


Unfortunately, as long as its cheaper, it will continue to be consumed here.

At least, until someone dies. Thats what it usually takes to force any change which increases cost.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

When you can move a can from China for $1500 compared to say $4000 from Texas or California..... Has anyone forgotten the lead in the toys? North America has to wake the heck up! BUT it's frustrating trying to find things made in North America, let alone Canada (belive me I try)


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

I think that one of the things we need to consider with any bailout/loan to the automakers is that very quickly oil and cars/trucks are no longer the cornerstone of North American economies that they were years ago.
With oil inevitably going up, maybe it is low now but it will climb back up, people stopped or severely curtailed their travel and started doing something else.
Perhaps we are seeing a fundamental shift in what drives our economies and perhaps we need to see this play out?? Sooner rather than later??
As far as loans and bailouts go - the executives will some way or another retain their huge salaries and private jet perks with little or no regard and understanding of what the average person has to contend with - employment?? Maybe. Medical expense coverage?? Maybe - depends on where you are and what illness you have, etc. Highly paid executives don't even think like the average person. If you told them that living on an average workers salay would mean that you could only eat steak once a month - and not particularly good cuts at that, they would truly not understand that that meant that you did not have enough money to by the steak. They wopuld think it was a personal choice.
Now with all of this misery going around, how much are politicians going to reward themselves this year?? Have fun with that!!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It would seem our polling results so far, favour no support from the gov.


----------



## SG-Rocker (Dec 30, 2007)

Here's my take...

I worked for Chrysler dealerships in this area for 12'ish years as a tech. 6 years ago I took myself and my Interprovincial ticket to the local recruiting center to the tune of a $20,000 signing bonus and a starting salary of $55,000 per year. Not to mention 25 days off a year, free dental, medical, uniforms, even stuff like Tylenol.

My reason for leaving was that I was fed up working for a$$hole car salesmen. Also Daimler and Chrysler had merged recently and I saw the writing on the wall. 

My reason for enlisting was job security for my family. 

*Why should the government bail out the auto industry? They shouldn't.*

I place a fair amount of the blame on the unions and for good reason...
When you take into consideration the obscene wages paid, it becomes obvious that building a low cost yet profitable small car becomes impossible.


Years of bloated wages and gangster tactics have netted the unions exactly what they deserve... unemployment.

Then again I also find it extremely disturbing that a hockey player makes 5 million a year yet a brain surgeon only makes $200,000

Realistically, what is the actual worth of the bozo who puts the batteries in the cars on the line ????

They make a shite load more that the mechanic who has to PDI the car to make sure it was done right. 

I once met a union rep during my tenure with Chrysler and he was pushing propaganda about the excellent quality of work the CAW produces. I asked why I had to double check the cars (PDI) for $15/hr if the CAW bozos are sooo good. He got very angry.

FWIW I also disagree with the bank bailout as well... I do not believe that public tax dollars should be used to benefit a private corporation. Rest assured the mom and pop music store down the road would never get a red cent.











Heck, the army is always looking.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It would seem our polling results so far, favour no support from the gov.



On the grand economic scale there really can't be a "bailout" - we can just buy some time. Even so, the government doesn't have the cash - they can only give money to the industry by printing more (which is inflationary) or by borrowing it and increasing the national debt (not to be confused with the deficit). As we know from the credit crunch in the States, money is short so where do we go to borrow it? Right - China and Saudi Arabia - which puts us further in the hole with those folks and every dollar we give to them is used to buy another piece of our country. What do you suppose happens if they call in the loan?

Regardless, before I'd agree to add further to my unborn grandchildren's debts I'd like some small assurance that we're possibly buying them a future - not just buying the current hogs a little more time to suck at the trough.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> On the grand economic scale there really can't be a "bailout" - we can just buy some time. Even so, the government doesn't have the cash - they can only give money to the industry by printing more (which is inflationary) or by borrowing it and increasing the national debt (not to be confused with the deficit). As we know from the credit crunch in the States, money is short so where do we go to borrow it? Right - China and Saudi Arabia - which puts us further in the hole with those folks and every dollar we give to them is used to buy another piece of our country. What do you suppose happens if they call in the loan?
> 
> Regardless, before I'd agree to add further to my unborn grandchildren's debts I'd like some small assurance that we're possibly buying them a future - not just buying the current hogs a little more time to suck at the trough.


That's really the big unknown here. I think, given the right amount of time and the right leadership that they could turn it around. I have no faith in the current same old, same old though. It would require significant change in philosophy alone. Biggest gamble of the century, is it worth it?


----------



## Perkinsfan (Oct 17, 2007)

I don't think the gov. should loan the auto companies any money.
The auto manufacturers put themselves into this mess, they should have to get out of it themselves.
I totally agree with everyone who has already said that other companies have had similar financial problems and the gov. was nowhere to be seen.
Lots of local industry's have gone under in my neighbourhood and the government seemed to have crawled under a rock with no help to offer.
The most recent is John Deere's Welland works.
Alot of my friends work(ed) there and they just up and decide to close the plant because of cheaper labour in Mexico.
Where was the government assistance when this decision was being made?
But the bottom line with me is simply this:
Why should the government bail out the domestic auto makers when they can't even make a vehicle that anyone wants to buy?


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

SG-Rocker said:


> They make a shite load more that the mechanic who has to PDI the car to make sure it was done right.
> 
> Heck, the army is always looking.


Been there too as a Ford and GM tech for many years and I too saw some poor assembly line workmanship when doing PDI's ( pre delivery inspections ) :sport-smiley-002: . I never understood why the mechanic was paid so poorly compared to the untrained auto worker yet the dealerships charge so much for repairs and up keep to the vehicals . The other thing that was unfair was the fact that the average mechanic could have upwards of $25K invested in tools but not $1 of it was deductable for income tax yet it was tools of the trade . I was one of the unfortunate ones who was pulling wrenches when we switched to metric in the 70's BTW , I think we were allowed $1K twards the metric tools we needed to buy .

I don't want to see any of the auto makers go under but they need to come up with a solid plan real fast .

I should have joined up too , I was an army brat for the first 13 years of my life . Both my sons are in the military , it was a good choice . :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

nope - let them die. and then we eliminate all the other idiotic union jobs. then the rest of us can earn a living. ive been in places where illiterates are earning $30 an hour- im fixing thier machinery, trying to explain it to them unsuccessfully, for like $12 an hour. yes its great that a guy who cant read or write can own 2 homes and drive a brand new car- a guy who supervises machinery all day who has no idea what a solenoid or even a c- clamp is can make good- great. he just stands there and feeds the machine. lol. what about the rest of us? 
theres too much bloat, i cant afford to keep other folks employed thru my tax money- they can come work at my job, fukk em. anybody who wants to disagree can borrow a pair of my greasy coveralls and climb underneath a 40 yr old piece of machinery and try to make it work again, or dangle 360 ft above the ground hugging a 50 ib wrench all night for $25000 a year with no benefits. thats real life, all these fancy high paid jobs will be gone, so theres your future. what the hell kinda job allows you to cruise guitar forums and get paid for it anyway? thats another part of the problem. if you are reading this at work, then your job means nothing, you do nothing, and some other country will take your job someday. if indeed your job is necessary- they may replace 6 of you with 1 guy lol. 1 guy who works all day.


----------



## Stratocaster (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm still undecided on this...On one hand, I'm glad that they're getting they're asses handed to them by the Japanese. Honda/Toyota/Nissan deserve it...They make excellent fuel efficient and reliable cars. The big three can't compete with them, with their 5.5 litre V6 engines or whatever they are.. 

I *don't* want the government to bail them out because the piss poor management needs some tough love. I heard when they went to beg for money from the white house, each of the CEO's arrived in their own private jet....Nor ro mention giving Tiger Woods some $10,000,000? And overpaying their workers much more then Toyota/Honda/Nissan workers make?

But on the other hand, I *do *want them to bail them out, because I do care about all the workers involved, and I understand it's not easy to get another job like that in the field...Most of the workers are innocent in all of this. If I was working for an auto company, I sure wouldn't want to lose my job because of some poor management.

Undecided still...I'll keep watching the news as this unfolds.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

fraser said:


> nope - let them die. and then we eliminate all the other idiotic union jobs. then the rest of us can earn a living. ive been in places where illiterates are earning $30 an hour- im fixing thier machinery, trying to explain it to them unsuccessfully, for like $12 an hour. yes its great that a guy who cant read or write can own 2 homes and drive a brand new car- a guy who supervises machinery all day who has no idea what a solenoid or even a c- clamp is can make good- great. he just stands there and feeds the machine. lol. what about the rest of us?
> theres too much bloat, i cant afford to keep other folks employed thru my tax money- they can come work at my job, fukk em. anybody who wants to disagree can borrow a pair of my greasy coveralls and climb underneath a 40 yr old piece of machinery and try to make it work again, or dangle 360 ft above the ground hugging a 50 ib wrench all night for $25000 a year with no benefits. thats real life, all these fancy high paid jobs will be gone, so theres your future. what the hell kinda job allows you to cruise guitar forums and get paid for it anyway? thats another part of the problem. if you are reading this at work, then your job means nothing, you do nothing, and some other country will take your job someday. if indeed your job is necessary- they may replace 6 of you with 1 guy lol. 1 guy who works all day.


Brutal assessment, but you are certainly entitled to express it. The day is coming, in fact it is already here that a job paying $15.00 an hour is considered choice employment. Thats big money today.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Brutal assessment, but you are certainly entitled to express it. The day is coming, in fact it is already here that a job paying $15.00 an hour is considered choice employment. Thats big money today.


Hey you know his assessment is not untoward and I'm one of those folk who is "Reading this at work" I work in an industry that has peaks and valley and right now it's slow (scarily slow in fact) When we're busy I just about pull my hair out. I don't complain much and feel satisfied with my salary. I don't take breaks or lunchs so I don't much feel guilty for popping in here randomly to see what's the what. I do agree that Unions have gone WAY WAY too far. If the auto industry wants to repair their problems then so be it. However i have the feeling that like the US Bank Bail outs the fat cat will just get fatter.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

If anyone has never heard of Peter Schiff before, he's well worth listening to. 2 years ago he was laughed at by his peers - unfortunately he was bang on - and his peers now sound like idiots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

Check out some of his other stuff if you want to know what he thinks our economic future holds. You won't want to hear it any more than you like to take Buckleys - you'll recognise it as fundamentally true nonetheless.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Paul said:


> Tell me how our current ecomomic climate is a Union caused problem? I think I can answer that....it isn't. It's a systemic problem, or as Warren Buffet called it, an Ecomomic Pearl Harbour. When executives make 10's of million$, it is harder not to justify generous compensation for hourly workers.
> 
> *All *stakeholders have a portion of the blame, and *all* stakeholders have an obligation to help solve the problem. Like it or not, the gov't is a stake holder, in that the gov't represents our collective best interests, and a collapse of the auto industry is bad for everybody.


Hey I'm not stating that the Unions strictly speaking,are to blame. I understand that the loan _has_to happen. However, I used to work for one of our Rail companies and the union BS drove me out. I was one of those contract workers that made much, much less than my union counterparts, yet still made a good wage. When I was offered a union position I turned it down. I simply can't stand the "it's not my job" mentality.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Greed, Greed, Greed. The CEOs take the cash, the union heads take the cash, the government takes the cash, and the worker is left screwed at the bottom of the pile with no cash. Just remember from the LTCM bailout, the same guys who are taking the cash, will be still taken care of. The shareholders, the workers and the taxpayers will use thier cash to ensure they arent hard done by and dont loose their train of cash.........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Paul said:


> LTCM???? Sorry, I can't break the acronym code.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-052es.html
I guess people forget things really fast........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Paul said:


> That was 10 years ago. I forget what I had for breakfast this morning.:smile:


I think thats how the theives work. Try a score. Wait for you to forget. Go for the score. Happens all the time, and the public never catches on, that its just the same old story...........


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

fraser said:


> nope - let them die. and then we eliminate all the other idiotic union jobs. then the rest of us can earn a living...if indeed your job is necessary- they may replace 6 of you with 1 guy lol. 1 guy who works all day.


I think someone needs a hug...


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

I have the solution. They enter into a deal, where Toyota, and Honda offer up senior managerment on contract to help with restructuring. They have a five year window to reach solvency. The plan will be devised between the Japanese management, and the govt. If they don't like that deal, they don't get the money.
If they just blindly give them $$$ with no feasable plan, they might as well just let them die, as nothing will change. Unions must go, as well as the manegement that exisits now.

CT.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

I think this is a better solution: http://www.salon.com/comics/knig/2008/11/26/knig/

Here's the punchline


----------



## snoglobe (Jun 20, 2007)

I already did my bit by purchasing an overpriced underbuilt new car last year.


----------



## lyric girl (Sep 4, 2008)

Absolutely not!

First off, I am driving a Honda after years of driving GM products, because I was absolutely hosed around by the dealership when it was time to trade in my latest of two leased cars from the same dealer. I almost ended up with a Saturn, but Honda got my business. Honda will likely have my business in the future too.

Now, I am ducking from all the projectiles that will likely be coming my way for this, but I don't feel sorry for any of the workers that will be out of work. I have been downsized out of more companies than I want to count and was there a Union watching my back...NOT a chance. I am so sick of hearing about these people who make tons of money and have a union backing them. And, I come from a union family and I know my father would not be happy to hear me talk like this, and is likely rolling over in his grave, but as I said I just can't feel sorry for people who didn't figure out that the NA automobile industry was not the place to be for the future!


----------



## CocoTone (Jan 22, 2006)

I am a sales manager in a Honda store east of Toronto,,,I'll give any board member a deal on any new Honda product. We are a Power Store, so bikes, cars, you name it. PM me.:wave:

CT.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

There are some really great arguments here for both sides, but arguing about unions is somewhat like religion and politics it's completely personal. Like Lyric girls My Dad was Pro union, Being a Steeleworker and Coal miner, the unions were the saving grace of his generation. I belive there is still a place for unions, corps like Wal Mart for example could stand to be unionised. However, People have gotten sick of seing things like this in the news:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-chacon-grievance-example-of-unions-gone-wild 

Man, he should just have been fired, common sense right? 

Or this:

http://genxfinance.com/2007/09/24/the-uaw-goes-on-strike-at-general-motors/

Or this one:
Grievance from union for lowereing flag of dead soldier

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The simple act of honoring soldiers who've been killed fighting in Afghanistan was turned into a full-fledged national flap this week when a small Canadian town's municipal union filed a grievance against a councilman who lowered the town's flag to half-staff. 


Last month, when news arrived that an Edmonton-based medic had been killed south of Kandahar in a suicide attack, Councilor Lynn Philip Hodgson lowered the community's flag to honor the fallen soldier. 

Hodgson had introduced the motion to lower the flag earlier this year, following an increase in war casualties, and the council for Port Perry in Scugog Township, Ontario, passed it. 

The task was even written into the town's contract with its unionized municipal workers, represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. According to the agreement, unionized employees who lower the flag on the weekend or on a holiday must be paid overtime. 

And that's what turned a simple act of respect into the filing of a union grievance, national shock and scrutiny and, finally, retreat by the union. 
Hodgson, the union grievance charged, had violated the town's contract with the union when he lowered the flag at Port Perry's closed offices on a Saturday. 

"It only takes two minutes to lower a flag," Hodgson told Mark Bonokoski, a columnist for the Toronto Sun. 

The union's action drew attention locally and nationally. 

"The union tells me that this is not about money," said Scugog Standard editor Rik Davie. "But if it is not about money, what is it about? 
"Is it about the $120 in overtime, or whatever it is, for lowering the Canadian flag on a weekend? Or is it about honoring the sacrifice of a Canadian soldier?" he asked. "If it is about honoring a soldier, then why the grievance?"


Local CUPE president Liz Drebit insisted earlier this week that the issue wasn't money but procedure. 
"When the collective agreement has been violated, the correct procedure is that a grievance be filed to resolve the issue at hand and hopefully to prevent any future oversights," she said. "(While) I do not feel it is appropriate to air these matters in the press, the fact that this has been brought to the attention of the press has caused a great deal of emotional reactions from a number of parties, including the members I represent and our local Legion." 


I think the writers strike this past summer was a good example of fighting for what's right. The writers should certainly have had a bigger pice of those multimillion dolalr deals. But where do the lines get drawn? Where does common sense end and corruption start? I'm sure it's a never ending argument.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Paul said:


> Starbuck,
> 
> The baseball and flag lowering stories are the unpleasant side of defending a contract. The main purpose of a union is to defend and protect the interests of the membership. As soon as you let one portion of the agreement slide, then it becomes much tougher to defend the rest of the agreement.
> 
> ...


Hey, I am well aware of that, but unfortunately, those kinds of things don't make BIG headlines. Just the ridiculous greivances. $120 to lower a flag??? Yikes! 

The damage in a lot of cases has been done. It's lead to outsourcing and temp agencies, the decline in customer service and alot of standards in general cause temps are not stakeholders in the businesses, but companies are disinclined to deal with unions these days. It's a never ending cycle. 

I am aware of what unions are _supposed_ to do and I'm sure in most cases that's what happens. It just seems like the Auto Industry has dug it's own hole. If the bigwigs would follow Iacocca's example after this loan people may feel different about it.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

We come dangerously close to painting all unions with the same brush. 

There are hundreds of small bargaining units which struggle to maintain livable wages, working conditions, and benefits, often in very dangerous and nearly illegal conditions. Groups of employees which are under-represented, fearful of termination without cause, but strive to make their situations safe, dignified, and respected. Auto unions are not the norm and should not be seen as representative of the union standard of today. They have done well for themselves but abolishing them or all unions will not help the auto industry and it certainly will hurt many other groups of employees.

Unions have been on the forefront of historical societal advances that are reflected in legislation and working conditions which all Canadians enjoy. Unions have fought for and won wages, benefits, hours of work, overtime, health and safety and protective equipment, representation, vacations, statutory holidays, leaves (sick, bereavement, jury duty, etc), insurance, medical protection, severance, among other things. Many of these things have trickled down to non-union workplaces as employers learn to accept a respectful and dignified workplace. Unions continue to lobby for minimum wage increases, education, health and safety advances, and other causes. 

Where some unions have failed, in my opinion, is in maintaining strong international organization, and a strong national labour party. Transnational corporations, which seem to enjoy freedom from national borders and laws, could be better regulated when it comes to moving and eliminating jobs across political borders. They could also influence other international concerns like environmental issues. International unions could have some political influence in these areas.

What is happening now is a severe adjustment in what could be described as fair market rates, by an (mismanaged) expanding economy. An ever growing economy works much like a cancer cell. Workers have no real control over this. Employers' ability to pay is affected and the upshot may well be that a general deflation of wages is coming to some sectors. I'm not convinced that we can buy our way out of this by dumping cash into the economy, whether it's a bailout, or loans. No matter what, there will be many dependent industries affected, not just the auto or bank or insurance industries. Some of us feel that there's no choice but to bailout failing industries in the hopes of saving communities and sectors of the economy which depend on small buyers. Others feel it's unfair to bail out the auto sector when other sectors (fishing, forestry, municipalities) get little help. Truth is, there's nothing fair about any of this. Life isn't fair. Looking for fairness here is fruitless. 

"What's a poor boy to do?" 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

What I don't like though is that the big wigs, and the few people I know in my personal life who work for these companies seem to feel that they are almost 'entitled' to the bail-out. It's hard to feel any sympathy. 

And I appreciate your posts about unions, but during my lifetime (I am 32) I haven't seen them do a whole lot of good. Only cause a lot of problems. I appreciate the history of them, but I think they have strayed far from their cause in a lot of cases.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Paul said:


> This flag pole thing was preventable. The city could have approached the bargaining unit ahead of time and negotiated an exemption. I'm sure something could have been agreed to in advance. Apparently that didn't happen. A Councillor, (who is well paid, a portion of which is tax free), took it upon himself to unilaterally violate a contract. That will get grieved each and every time. I hope that the rest of council repremands him in open session.


Agreed.

I made my living for years as a "union boss" and we (the union) made it our priority not to appear as public assholes by doing this sort of thing. This was the sort of exemption which made us huge brownie points with everybody, gained us tremendous good will with the public and at the bargaining table, and resulted in better workplace union/management relations. Often I'd get a courtesy call from an employer and we'd arrange a solution. Sometimes there'd be a trade-off of some sort, and sometimes one or the other party would grit its teeth and find a real cause to support. There's a rough estimation that over 95% of strikes are averted, and my estimation is that the same percentage of grievances are (or can be) settled amicably. I've certainly seen stupid and indefensible grievances from both sides of the agreement.

(Aside: Never expect an elected official to have the slightest idea what to do with organized or unorganized workers. They should all be given a directive upon being elected to ask their human resources or professional management before they step outside their elected jobs. I've seen some genuine numbskulls elected or appointed to municipal, hospital, shelter, school, and nursing home boards, however well-meaning. Mind you, they did create some degree of job security for the likes of me, whether I liked it or not.)

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> What I don't like though is that the big wigs, and the few people I know in my personal life who work for these companies seem to feel that they are almost 'entitled' to the bail-out. It's hard to feel any sympathy.


Agreed. Entitlement is a huge issue in our modern world. From kids who think they deserve something for nothing, to bosses who think they are lords, to corporations which exist beyond the law, to workers who won't work for their pay. 

(Aside: If our government falls again, as the news suggested this evening, there's going to be a lot of MPs suddenly dis-entitled, a pissed off electorate entitled to better, and it'll start to feel like the revolving door of the Italian government. You can't beat fun for a good time.)

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Re: Unions

Unions are a bit like the army and firefighters: You don't need them all the time, but when you need them, you REALLY need them. The problem that leaves you with is what to do in between those times when you really need them. In the case of firefighters, that's easy. They inspect and maintain the equipment, do preventative work in the community, pose for beefcake calendars and make chili (apologies to all firefighters for the unabashed overgeneralization). 

In the case of unions, sometimes it seems like they spend a lot of time fighting to justify their existence in between those times and places where their existence is easily justified. In my own experience, I have never really gotten anything out of a union that I could not have easily gotten for myself. Those things they have provided me with also include things I am not interested in or have no use for.

All of that is not a reason to go thumbs down on unions, though, because there are people who do go to bat for the downtrodden, and my own dealings with public sector unions in working groups and committees has always involved people I enjoyed working with and who made solid contributions. In the case of the recent finaglings in Quebec Wal-Marts, where Wal-Mart has made clear attempts to bust unions (despite what their lawyers and communications weasels say), I fall squarely on the side of those who seek unionization.

But there is an aspect to union-management relations that is unpleasant. I hate the way that contemporary unions do not rely on the withdrawal of services to make a point during a strike, but rather seek to prevent others from being able to do their jobs. Whenever PSAC has a strike, our building is always picketed (we're in the same tower as Treasury Board), and no one is permitted to enter the building, unless they work in one of the retail concessions inside. The pressure applied is not one of "All PSAC members will withdraw their services, and we'll see how you get along without us", but rather "We're not going to let ANYONE do their job, whether they are PSAC members or not". In my books, that's dirty pool, It also suggests that the jobs of the striking workers are not all that critical if mere withdrawal of those services is unlikely to have a major impact. At that point, one starts to lose sympathy for unions and the folks whose jobs they are supposedly protecting.

My experience has also been that one's bargaining power, as a union, is a function of the extent to which people would notice your absence immediately. And that can be separate from importance. Is a university professor less valuable than a kindergarten teacher? Probably not, given their respective salaries, but you can bet your bottom dollar that people will pressure for a resolution to an elementary teachers' strike faster than they will to a university faculty strike, simply because you don't have to make emergency child-care arrangements for your 20 year-old. Bus and garbage strikes are often settled faster than others because people notice the absence of bus service or garbage pickup pretty quickly.

A relative who worked on the government side of labour talks once expressed her dismay to me, noting that in her experience unions would basically settle for what they were offered in the first place, but would never let the membership know that. Around here, I can generally predict how long the strike will last by looking at the gap between what management is offering and labour is demanding (let's say 5% vs 3% as an illustration), and then calculating how many days the government would have to go without paying those employees over the period of the contract in order to afford that gap. So, in our example above, with a 2% gap, if the contract is for a 2-year period, you just figure out how many working days that adds up to over 2yrs, and that is pretty much how long you can expect the strike to last. Management looks like they "caved", and labour gets to wave that flag high, but essentially all they have done is shifted the burden of payment to strike pay for as long as it takes to pay for the wage gap. Hard not to be cynical in those circumstances.


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> If anyone has never heard of Peter Schiff before, he's well worth listening to. 2 years ago he was laughed at by his peers - unfortunately he was bang on - and his peers now sound like idiots.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o
> 
> Check out some of his other stuff if you want to know what he thinks our economic future holds. You won't want to hear it any more than you like to take Buckleys - you'll recognise it as fundamentally true nonetheless.


Yes, I've been following Schiff and others who predicted this crisis years ago. I'm against a Big 3 bailout for the simple reason that it's futile when you look at it in context of what is happening worldwide. This isn't just an ailing industry in an otherwise healthy economic environment, it is only one of many in a world financial system which is in peril.

You also have to consider the 2nd and 3rd tier companies who produce parts for the big 3. They're struggling for survival right now. If they go down the big 3 can't build a single vehicle. Honda and Toyota also depend on those companies for parts. If you bail out one you have to be prepared bail out all. 

At the rate they are burning through cash the big 3 could be gone in 2 months. With a $25 billion bailout they might last another 6 or 8 months. They'll never make it through a 2 year recession. Banks aren't lending, consumers aren't spending, and they make products that depend on a dwindling resource (oil) which will become more expensive as demand increases and production decreases. It's a black hole, the government knows this and they are doing all they can just to keep the banks (the de facto government) from tanking. Rough sailing ahead, mates.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Was reading an article in Macleans just now. They interviewed 5 top financial guru's about how bad they think things will get. They do say that the goverments of Canada and the US have so far done a good job in reacting and trying to lesson the impact of this whole thing. Consensus is that if things go right we could start to come out of this by mid 2009. They do say though, that we have not yet hit bottom. There will more job loss and hard times before it starts to turn. Total recovery is estimated anywhere from 2-5 years.

Also, they say Canada is in a better position than the States to muddle our way through it. They estimate much greater job loss and trouble in the states. Car sales in Canada were actually up this month. So it appears, and this is backed up by the experts that here at home we have still not seen the effects of the storm currently passing over the USA.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Was reading an article in Macleans just now. They interviewed 5 top financial guru's about how bad they think things will get. They do say that the goverments of Canada and the US have so far done a good job in reacting and trying to lesson the impact of this whole thing. Consensus is that if things go right we could start to come out of this by mid 2009. They do say though, that we have not yet hit bottom. There will more job loss and hard times before it starts to turn. Total recovery is estimated anywhere from 2-5 years.


The words, "could", "not yet", "estimated" and "anywhere from 2-5 years" is very faith inspiring. They could have been more honest by not making us read between the lines and just said: "We really have no idea".


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Was reading an article in Macleans just now. They interviewed 5 top financial guru's about how bad they think things will get. They do say that the goverments of Canada and the US have so far done a good job in reacting and trying to lesson the impact of this whole thing. Consensus is that if things go right we could start to come out of this by mid 2009. They do say though, that we have not yet hit bottom. There will more job loss and hard times before it starts to turn. Total recovery is estimated anywhere from 2-5 years.


Cue the Mission Impossible theme.

And another top 5 financial gurus will disagree. MacLeans is not the font of all wisdom, sometimes getting it right and other times not. Funny how I half-heartedly agree with half of what they say, half the time. 

Still, I keep going back for more. What's with that behavior?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

All true. I remember reading that several "experts" guaranteed oil would hit $200 a barrel before the end of the year. That seemed to have imploded as well. I guess we just have to hunker down and see where things go.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Paul said:


> Half baked? Half witted? Half cocked? Half assed?????:sport-smiley-002:
> 
> Just kiddin'!


Half in the bag? Lol!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The Detroit three are due to report back to the US government on Tuesday on their plan to use the money etc. The Canadian gov has given them until Friday to submit a plan that explains what plans they would have for the Canadian operations should a loan be granted.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The Unions are starting to admit their demands have really ****ed over the companies.....

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/01/uaw-considers-dropping-job-bank-for-idled-workers/


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

My wife was telling me today that GM was paying workers (all?) $70.00 per hour while Toyota was paying $38.00 per hour. If that's true, no wonder they are having a hard time competing.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Im surprised we havent had one particular member here chime in about unions. He has always told me that every job should be unionized and the minimum salary in Canada should be $50,000. I wonder why he hasnt posted in this thread at all and explained union economics yet. I'm always fascinated to hear these things........

Oh and yes, the problem isnt just the unions but they are a big part of it, as are management, and the cars they make.......


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Paul said:


> Is Wall Street unionized? They got SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION in public money. The Detroit 3 are seeking loan support of less than 4% of what has already been committed to Wall Street.


Mommy, mommy, that boy got one, so I should too......Just because they were stoopid enough to give money to those assholes doesnt mean they should give it to another group of assholes. They should have never bailed out either group..........


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Paul said:


> Is Wall Street unionized? They got SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION in public money. The Detroit 3 are seeking loan support of less than 4% of what has already been committed to Wall Street.
> 
> I've heard that the UAW and CAW are willing to negotiate concessions, on the condition that management make equal concessions. I haven't followed the news closely enough to hear if management has responded.


Why did it take till now for unions to give concessions though? The problem started a LONG time ago. It's only when things are down to the wire that the unions suddenly decide to be flexible.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Interesting that the Ford CEO drives a Lexus.

What a slap in the face to every Ford worker!


lofu


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Interesting that the Ford CEO drives a Lexus.
> 
> What a slap in the face to every Ford worker!
> 
> ...





> “I think we learned a lot from that experience,” Ford CEO Alan Mulally said.
> 
> He, as well as GM CEO Rick Wagoner and Chrysler chief Bob Nardelli, are all road-tripping the 520 miles from Detroit to Washington in fuel-efficient hybrid cars for hearings on Thursday and Friday.


Taken from today's Toronto Sun.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Paul said:


> There have been many UAW concessions over the years. There have not been as many on the white collar side. It's only now that the CEO's of the Detroit 3 have agreed to work for $1.00/year. No word if they still have stock options.
> 
> This is more than an auto industry problem, this is more than a union problem. It is going to take effort from all sides using both public and private resources to pull us out. The gov't should act in the best interest of everyone. Allowing a collapse of all or part of the automotive manufacturing sector is not good for anyone. Standing on the sidelines while the rest of the G8 make concrete efforts to support major portions of the economy is not much of an economic plan. So far, that's all our current gov't has offered.


And yet the auto companies in other countries outside of North America are booming. I wonder if VW, Brilliance, or Tata would show these guys how to run a company, and how to build cars. They certainly pay an aweful lot for such unskilled labour............


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

That article doesnt disclose that CAFE also affects any car company importing cars to the US. The foreign companies had no problem complying and those that didnt paid the fine to the US government. Maybe the author can put a bias note at the top...........


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Interesting that the Ford CEO drives a Lexus.
> 
> What a slap in the face to every Ford worker!
> 
> ...


I won't say I know this is a fact in this case, but it IS a fact that other auto executives drive their competitors' cars to see what they can learn about them and their driving experience.

Slap in the face to the workers, hehehe. You have never driven by a plant and seen how many cars are in the parking lot NOT built by the manufacturer whose parking lot they are parked in. When I worked for Ford, people would show up with new imports on a regular basis, and occasionally a non-Ford domestic. Ford still had the majority but it wasn't overwhelming by any means.

It always offended the hell out of me, along the lines of 'don't shit where you eat', but there's nothing to be done or said about it these days.


----------



## Jaggery (Mar 12, 2006)

Interesting thread.

I have one related question and sorry if I have missed it.

Have any of you or someone you know who has been laid off in Ontario going to use the Ontario Govt Second Career program to upgrade their skills?

Not sure if other provinces have this kind of a program.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/tcu/secondcareer/


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

keto said:


> I won't say I know this is a fact in this case, but it IS a fact that other auto executives drive their competitors' cars to see what they can learn about them and their driving experience.
> 
> Slap in the face to the workers, hehehe. You have never driven by a plant and seen how many cars are in the parking lot NOT built by the manufacturer whose parking lot they are parked in.


Sorry, but your assumption is wrong. I visit car plants pretty much every week all over North America and occasionally on other continents.

It's a little different for the factory workers to drive other makes than for the CEO.

It's a matter of leading by example in my opinion. A CEO is supposed to inspire. If his own products are not good enough for him what does that say?

Take a look in the garages of the Japanese CEOs. I have.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

According to a study reported in the Star yesterday, the loss of the auto biz would cost Ontario 517,000 jobs in Ontario alone. Nationally a 100% elimination would cost 582,000 jobs. Even a 50% scenario (loss) would cost Ontario 269,000 jobs for a national total of 296,000

Effects would be devastating. I think for this reason, the Gov in the US and Canada will make sure it does not happen.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Sorry, but your assumption is wrong. I visit car plants pretty much every week all over North America and occasionally on other continents.
> 
> It's a little different for the factory workers to drive other makes than for the CEO.
> 
> ...


Pretty strong statement. So what link have you got that says the Ford CEO drives a Lexus by choice and not for evaluation?

Of course I agree with the lead by example statement. When I worked for Ford Credit (all of the '90's) the management (about 12 out of 100) all drove Fords. But every other week some nub would drive up in a new VW, Honda, Chrysler, Chev, whatever. I wasn't allowed to make issue of it but it sure made my blood boil. Kinda the old 'don't sh1t where you eat' thing.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

Thought I would revive this thread now that the bailout looks to be approved in the US. I'm assuming Canada will follow suit. Some pretty staggering numbers in this article. Check out this highlight:

"If sales don't come back, though, Chrysler's financial problems will persist. The company says it needs *$7 billion every 45 days *to pay parts suppliers"

Yikes! No wonder they're in such deep shit!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqAI7cNoNFrhLrhC7FCCJbTh8tawD9563C3G1


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

yep, we're in for $4 Billion.

Whether you think it's right or wrong to do this, we couldn't let the industry fall, it's way too big, and if we aren't in then the US would drag all the jobs to the US and shut down the Canadian industry anyway.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

dwagar said:


> yep, we're in for $4 Billion.
> 
> Whether you think it's right or wrong to do this, we couldn't let the industry fall, it's way too big, and if we aren't in then the US would drag all the jobs to the US and shut down the Canadian industry anyway.


I agree. It had to be done. Now let's just hope that a) they can get it together and b) this economic situation corrects itself as soon as possible.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

*Toyota Too*

Toyota reported today that it projects it's first operating loss since 1938 as a result of the ongoing decline in sales.


----------

