Constructive gadfly
Published on November 22, 2008 By stevendedalus In Politics

 

It’s a good thing that the Democrats did not get saccharine over the auto industry’s tin cup presentation lacking hard core specifics, and instead are requiring that the Big 3 return with realistic restructuring. The foremost embarrassment is the $24 an hour labor discrepancy between the UAW and the union free foreign manufacturers. This is easily solved by the government takeover of the pensions with perhaps some modest adjustments more in line with other company pensions; in addition, if Obama is really serious, he should offer the union to opt for federal employee health insurance placing more of the burden on the workers rather than the auto industry. Other structural items should be:

1) The Big Three to share one private jet and sell off the other two.

2) Until the bridge loan is paid off the CEOs are to work for a dollar a year rate, after which their total salaries are based on 0.01% of annual profits with no stock options.

3) Limit production of big luxury cars/SUVs to 15% and non-commercial and non-agricultural light pickup trucks to 10%.

4) Eliminate the Hummer and other truck chassis vehicles unless proven for commercial use.

5) Upgrade all vehicles to no-nonsense 100,000 mile warranties.

6) Work toward merging brand separate dealerships under parental roof.

The government should counteroffer:

1) A more realistic $50bl bridge loan extracted from Wall Street bailout fund.

2) 1% VAT tax on non-commercial V8 engines—foreign and domestic—.05% on V6 engines.

3) 35 mile CAFE on passenger or non-commercial fleets by 2012.

4) No more plant closings and layoffs.

5) $10bl proportionated cash infusion to the Big Three credit companies.

6) UAW monthly productivity report to the Dept of Labor.

7) Wage adjustments in return for government healthcare and pensions.

8) Quarterly company accountant reports to Congress

9) Quarterly research and expenditure progress report on the “green” original loan.

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 22, 2008

1) share? They are separate companies!

2) So you're looking for a volunteer worker to run a company? That's sure to help turn them around, likely getting someone in who won't have a clue about how to manage a large company or about the car industry. If you want someone who can run/manage the company well, it won't come for free.

3) Why? What if big luxury cars are really profitable and can sell, why impose an arbitrary limit on them? What possible reason is there? You want the company to produce a range of products that maximises their profits (and hence repays your loan should you be giving them one), not conforming to some bizarre limit that hurts profit.

4) Why would a company want to use them if they're not going to be profitable?

5) Again, why? The company should be maximising their profits, and if lots of people don't care about a 100,000 warranty, yet it costs the company a lot of money, it's a great way to increase their losses/decrease profit (i.e. say it's worth just 5% of the car price to many buyers, yet costs the company an extra 10%)

6) just to check, are you talking about merging separate brands, or something else? Anyway if it'd be more profitable then great, otherwise why?

on Nov 22, 2008

The Big Three to share one private jet and sell off the other two.

On eBay.

Until the bridge loan is paid off the CEOs are to work for a dollar a year rate

Talk about your bridge to nowhere...

on Nov 23, 2008

Why would a company want to use them if they're not going to be profitable?
Because as years it's been used as a ploy to cut labor costs; the UAW was in conspiracy of the old tact of raising wages but reducing them overall by forced attrition. 

So you're looking for a volunteer worker to run a company?
No, but I'm not averse to a new Czar, but I'm referring to the existing CEOs.

1) share? They are separate companies!
True, but they came to D.C. hand in hand to share the bailout.

 

on Nov 23, 2008

On eBay.
Right on.

Talk about your bridge to nowhere...
Perhaps but it worked during WWII.

on Nov 23, 2008

Perhaps but it worked during WWII.

Awwrriight!!  Bring on WWIII.

on Nov 24, 2008

Richard you can be as nostalgic as you like for the FDR, WWII days all you like, but it can never be like that again. The people "like those you support) are composed of appeasers, war protesters, entitlement grubbing handout king/queens. You can't have FDR programs when the people expect something for nothing. Pining for the old days won't change the me me people of today. Back then people put their hands over their hearts during the national anthem (even president elects and senators), those days appear to be over.

on Nov 24, 2008

YOu have a recipe for disaster. It is bad enough that between the unions and the government, the Big 3 have not been building for the customer, but once they totally lose that capacity, they might as well be the old USSR model.  WHat they build has to be dictated by demand, not government.  Or it is just a waste of time and money.

ANd buying out the pensions and health care plans?  Ok, so Kruscheve was right, just off by 40 years and one empire!

Sorry, this is a recipe for nightmares not salvation.  And sad to say they will probably get something close to it.  Thanks to Comrade Pelosi and Reid.

Tvarish, Comrade.

on Nov 25, 2008

Bring on WWIII
This crisis is comparable.

on Nov 25, 2008

Sorry, this is a recipe for nightmares not salvation. And sad to say they will probably get something close to it. Thanks to Comrade Pelosi and Reid.
Flippancy does not erase the seriousness of losing the last line of defense in saving an industrial base.

on Nov 25, 2008

Flippancy does not erase the seriousness of losing the last line of defense in saving an industrial base.

The loss is coming with any bailout.  Flippancy is just a resignation of it happening.  You do not save a patient by grafting skin over a tumor.  If you want to save him, you have to cut it out, and that is going to hurt.

Every 10-20 years we do through the same thing with the AUto industry.  Until such time as they are allowed to fail (and the pieces - the good ones - molded into a more efficient and worthy company), they are just going to be a cancer on America, not a salvation.

on Nov 25, 2008

Flippancy does not erase the seriousness of losing the last line of defense in saving an industrial base.

So lose it. If it turns out in the future that circumstances change and it's needed, if you've made sure the market doesn't have any artificial barriers to entry then you'll see companies springing up again. No point throwing money down a drain just so you can say 'hey look - we produce cars!'. Better to focus on the industries you're best at than make all of those worse off by taxing them just so you can prop up an industry you're poor at.

on Nov 26, 2008

Every 10-20 years we do through the same thing with the AUto industry.
  Not so. Actually the Big Three was so competitive that it killed American Motors, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Deusenberg, Terreplane, etc. much to my chagrin. If we follow your thinking, you would rather one company Toyota.

So lose it.
You must be of a tender age. A sure sign of the fall of a civilization is to lose an industrial base. I won't be saved by the keyboard.

on Nov 26, 2008

They should just file for bankruptcy. Let people who know what they're doing run them.

And I live in the Detroit area.

on Nov 26, 2008

Draginol
They should just file for bankruptcy. Let people who know what they're doing run them.

And I live in the Detroit area.

 

thats what needs to happen. As much as i feel for anyone loosing a job, if they really want to work they will go back. Heck I would move if i was promised a job there lol

on Nov 27, 2008

thats what needs to happen. As much as i feel for anyone loosing a job, if they really want to work they will go back. Heck I would move if i was promised a job there lol
PAYBACK TIME: STHU, scab.

2 Pages1 2