Results 1 to 7 of 7
Discuss President Barack Obama "neither company is viable" at the Politics & Religion within the Wrestling Talk Forums; Obama denies bailout funds for automakers White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable ...
  1. #1
    Olympic Champ RYou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,376
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    Obama denies bailout funds for automakers
    White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans
    Video

    updated 12:34 a.m. ET, Mon., March. 30, 2009
    WASHINGTON - The White House says neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more bailout money, setting the stage for a crisis in Detroit and putting in motion what could be the final two months of two American auto giants.

    President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever.
    Life's not the breaths you take, the breathing in and out that gets you through the day ain't what it's all about. It's the moments that take your breath away.

  2. #2
    Web Host Schlottke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    5,735
    Blog Entries
    42

    Default Re: President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    What a story to wake up to.

    How many jobs are likely to be lost here?

    Dow is down about 300 right now on the news.

  3. #3
    Web Host Schlottke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    5,735
    Blog Entries
    42

    Default Re: President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...tos/index.html

    Looks like they still have an opportunity to get a loan?

  4. #4
    Redshirt mrawlik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mount Pleasant, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    116

    Default Re: President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    But Citi and AIG are viable? I call BS.

  5. #5
    National Finalist leglace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tampa Florida
    Posts
    992

    Default Re: President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    I am actually behind Obama on this. AIG did not tank because of a union system that no longer is viable. Our auto industry is drowning in the pool of high overhead created by overnegotiated union contracts. I hate to see the retired get autoworker get screwed, but its not the government screwing them here. Their debt will only grow as more people retire. Unions benefits are very short sighted as far as financial viability is concerned.

    Let them claim bankruptcy, tear up the contracts, and rid the labor unions. They can hopefully negotiate small buyouts for retired union members. But the boat was already sinking before Obama gave them the cold shoulder. They can make it back to a competitive company with regular free market labor and finally compete with the Toyota's.

  6. #6
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    Quote Originally Posted by leglace View Post
    Our auto industry is drowning in the pool of high overhead created by overnegotiated union contracts.
    Does this mean the unions (a monolith) somehow had more bargaining power--that the companies were unfairly taken advantage of? The co's trouble wouldn't have anything to do with their business practices, would it?

    Quote Originally Posted by leglace View Post
    I hate to see the retired get autoworker get screwed, but its not the government screwing them here.
    Who is screwing them then? When you have a contract, and one party breaks that contract, who is screwing whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by leglace View Post
    Their debt will only grow as more people retire. Unions benefits are very short sighted as far as financial viability is concerned.
    I'm not sure what the second sentence means--I suppose that cos. would be better off without unions.

    Quote Originally Posted by leglace View Post
    Let them claim bankruptcy, tear up the contracts, and rid the labor unions. They can hopefully negotiate small buyouts for retired union members.
    I guess your sympathy for the retired autoworker extends only so far, and for the current worker, maybe not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by leglace View Post
    But the boat was already sinking before Obama gave them the cold shoulder. They can make it back to a competitive company with regular free market labor and finally compete with the Toyota's.
    Is regular free market labor synonymous with Wal-Mart labor? Of course, if we had some system of national health care, employers wouldn't face the type of burden some of them are facing now.

  7. #7
    National Finalist leglace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tampa Florida
    Posts
    992

    Default Re: President Barack Obama "neither company is viable"

    somehow had more bargaining power--that the companies were unfairly taken advantage of? The co's trouble wouldn't have anything to do with their business practices, would it?

    The fact that they did not do a good enough job renegotiating with the labor unions is their own fault. The fact is the position for bargaining should be sink or swim. They need to sharpen their pencils and let the labor unions know that these contracts and labor agreements will bankrupt the company.



    Who is screwing them then? When you have a contract, and one party breaks that contract, who is screwing whom?

    The company is failing, correct. The government is well aware that they are not competing with their domestic built foreign competition. At this point, their contract is meaningless without a company. Renegotiating a contract is not breaking a contract, its a second chance in this case. They have failed for many reasons, and most of it has to do with quality and costs driven by unions.



    I'm not sure what the second sentence means--I suppose that cos. would be better off without unions.

    Yes. Take a look what few successes we are having with our unions. Our education system is failing and so have our automotive system. The mentality of the unions of today is no longer to benefit the company (if it ever was at all). It is not set up to maximize man power in order to compete. Rather instead, work is about their small paradimn of responsibility only. In a free market, workers are held more accountable to the success of their company. They are tied to its success. At least they should be.



    I guess your sympathy for the retired autoworker extends only so far, and for the current worker, maybe not at all.

    My sympathy extends far enough to desire that they have jobs. To be honest, if they play their cards wrong, they may have nothing. I am just expecting them to accept taking off their fur coats and wear a leather jacket. As for the retired autoworker, I feel the most sympathy. They were promised something, and they routed their retirement plans based on that promise. However, without intervention, they may lose everything.


    Is regular free market labor synonymous with Wal-Mart labor? Of course, if we had some system of national health care, employers wouldn't face the type of burden some of them are facing now.

    National healthcare is another argument for another time. That too would be a failure. Anyhow, free market labor includes just having free market success based on the merits of their own work. Toyota, and Honda have had greater success without lucrative union labor contracts. If Honda is paying too little, but having success, employees may leave for Toyota. And if they are again not being taken care of, Nissan may take their labor. Workers are and should be a comodity based on skill and specialty. The rule is that the worker and the product are both paramount. You can not have one without the other. Walmart is a bad example of course. They have lacked competition. Give Target some more time. We have plenty of large companies that are thriving on a free market system without the need of Labor Unions. Remember that its now a global market. We need to compete.
    Last edited by leglace; 04-01-2009 at 05:35 PM.

user tags

Nobody landed on this page from a search engine, yet!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •