Chapter 11 Is the Right Road for US Carmakers

Users who are viewing this thread

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Hoffa said:
What is happening now is not because we have more retired than Toyota USA , or that U.S. cars are overpriced due to Union ---- its bigger than that . The world financial recession, the market is one part .
The other ? the U.S. auto makers need to restructure operations to reflect demand ,as is happening with foreign makers, and OFFER THE CONSUMERS WHAT THEY DESIRE .
People buy Hondas because they like them ! . They won't buy a little Chevy because its a little cheaper .
At any rate , you need to see what is happening around the world . Govts are positioning their manufactures to be competitive -- after this is all over.
The unions are part to blame and I disagree if you do not think the retirement package they bargained for has any impact on the Big 3. In hind sight the Big 3 should have seen this coming and taken the heat years ago and let the plants go idle to nip it in the bud rather than to get a contract last year that did not have some of it take effect until 2010.

The Big 3 did offer what people wanted. People drooled over the SUV's until the gas cost got out of hand. so gas prices were another component.

Then the banks collapse was the last straw.

I also disagree about US quality. That was true in the past but there is a reason that Ford still has the #1 small truck sales in the F-150

The Unions should have accepted a date certain. There was no excuse. Tell me I am wrong if they could not have scheduled a vote by the end of the month by membership to accept the terms given by congress. I find it hard to believe they could not do that in two weeks let alone 2 days given how they approved contracts in the past. The Union should have said to congress we will go to the membership and see what they say and let the chips fall. If Union leadership is that incompetent to make the case of what was at stake then they would deserve the result if voted down.
 
  • 34
    Replies
  • 608
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
The UAW must have infected the whole world , even the Financial markets ! :jk
I have to drive home right about now, but remind me later to calculate exactly how much those pension and other extraordinary benefits imposed by the unions are costing these automakers. I bet you'd be surprised...
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
Chrysler closing all 30 plants for a month

December 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM | Comments (10)

DETROIT -- Chrysler says it will close all 30 of its manufacturing plants for a month starting Friday.
The company needs to match production to slowing demand and conserve cash.


Tighter credit markets are keeping would-be buyers away from their showrooms, Chrysler says. Dealers are unable to close sales for buyers due to a lack of financing, and estimate that 20 to 25 percent of their volume has been lost due to the credit situation.
Chrysler claims it is nearing the minimum level of cash it needs to run the company and will have trouble paying bills after the first of the year.
Operations at the 30 plants will be idled at the end of shift on Friday, Dec. 19, and will not come back online until Jan. 19, 2009, or later.
--Associated Press
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Let me point out that GM has been running a net loss since 2005 (and possibly before, but their current financial statements do not go back any further). That means they were not doing well as a company BEFORE gas prices went up and consumers changed what they wanted to buy and BEFORE the credit crunch/economic downturn. In my opinion, this is enough proof to me that they do not deserve a loan from the taxpayers.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/DisplayFiling.aspx?dcn=0000950124-08-000921
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
What they been doing since 2005. Any other company will axe workers and streamline operations unless unions pointing a gun at your head.
 

Hoffa

New Member
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
What they been doing since 2005. Any other company will axe workers and streamline operations unless unions pointing a gun at your head.
Union contracts can not prevent a company from laying off. They only spell out how they are to be done .
I have never read the UAW contract , but have read , and helped write hundreds of them , and NEVER have seen , or even heard of a contract that prevents layoffs ,closings , or downsizing . News to me .
Those things are usually spelled out { in spite of being obvious } in the first few pages of a contract.
They are called "management rights" , and are standard articles in every contract I have ever seen.
>f
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
George Will wrote a column about Ford's CEO. This one statement has changed my mind about the bailout:

Mulally says bankruptcy, which has become almost routine for airlines, would be fatal for a car company: Passengers will fly on an airline undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy because their tickets are short-term transactions, whereas customers cannot be confident that a car company in bankruptcy will be around to honor its warranties years hence.
washingtonpost.com
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
George Will wrote a column about Ford's CEO. This one statement has changed my mind about the bailout:

Mulally says bankruptcy, which has become almost routine for airlines, would be fatal for a car company: Passengers will fly on an airline undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy because their tickets are short-term transactions, whereas customers cannot be confident that a car company in bankruptcy will be around to honor its warranties years hence.
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

I've read that the big 3 are the number one users of steel, glass, and electronics. If they go under it will have far reaching implications for the economy in general. True or false? I don't know.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Union contracts can not prevent a company from laying off. They only spell out how they are to be done .
I have never read the UAW contract , but have read , and helped write hundreds of them , and NEVER have seen , or even heard of a contract that prevents layoffs ,closings , or downsizing . News to me .
Those things are usually spelled out { in spite of being obvious } in the first few pages of a contract.
They are called "management rights" , and are standard articles in every contract I have ever seen.
>f
Yeah, but you have to pay severance packages and retirement regardless of whether you lay them off or not. Not to mention that some (or all?) go to the job pool.

George Will wrote a column about Ford's CEO. This one statement has changed my mind about the bailout:

Mulally says bankruptcy, which has become almost routine for airlines, would be fatal for a car company: Passengers will fly on an airline undergoing reorganization in bankruptcy because their tickets are short-term transactions, whereas customers cannot be confident that a car company in bankruptcy will be around to honor its warranties years hence.
washingtonpost.com
There may be some truth to that, but just like the airlines, going chapter 11 bankrupt does not mean the company will not be around to service warranties or continue manufacturing cars. They just have to restructure. A few would probably be nervous about buying cars from them after something like that happened, but those people are probably already nervous about those companies just because they are on the verge of chapter 11 anyhow, bailout or not. I think those companies going through bankruptcy would actually HELP their image in the public eye, as people would realize that the restructuring would mean a more solid company for the future.

I've read that the big 3 are the number one users of steel, glass, and electronics. If they go under it will have far reaching implications for the economy in general. True or false? I don't know.
True. But, they aren't going under, even if they file chapter 11. There is no way those companies will disappear for good.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
True. But, they aren't going under, even if they file chapter 11. There is no way those companies will disappear for good.
what is the logic behind this?? some other company might start up and fill the void but in the meantime you have chaos for the supply industry if even one company folds.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
what is the logic behind this?? some other company might start up and fill the void but in the meantime you have chaos for the supply industry if even one company folds.
Look at the airlines. Did airplanes ever stop flying people from point a to point b while the airlines went through bankruptcy? Did things ever really change for the airlines, besides some (much needed) downsizing and merging?

Filing for chapter 11 does not mean you must cease operations - in fact, it is encouraged that you do!

And the supply companies, well, yes, there may be some chaos, but there's always a chance for chaos in any industry. Government regulation and aid is NOT the answer to chaos in the free market. Chaos is bound to happen - supposed to happen. It's only natural. It will correct itself and people will move on. Besides, any company whose well-being is based entirely on another company is bound to fail when the company they are based on fails. There's no way around that, and if they didn't diversify enough by supplying more than one company, they deserve to fail as much as the automakers do. It's just bad business to put all your eggs in one basket like that.
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
Associated Press

Bush considering "orderly" auto bankruptcy

Associated Press, 12.18.08, 11:23 AM EST

The Bush administration is seriously considering "orderly" bankruptcy as a way of dealing with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday, "There's an orderly way to do bankruptcies that provides for more of a soft landing. I think that's what we would be talking about."
President George W. Bush, asked about an auto rescue plan during an appearance before a private group, said he hadn't decided what he would do.
But he, like Perino, spoke of the idea of bankruptcies organized by the federal government as a possible way to go.
"Under normal circumstances, no question bankruptcy court is the best way to work through credit and debt and restructuring," he said. "These aren't normal circumstances. That's the problem."
At the White House, Perino said, "The president is not going to allow a disorderly collapse of the companies. A disorderly collapse would be something very chaotic that is a shock to the system."
She said the White House was close to a decision and emphasized there were still several possible approaches to assisting the automakers, such as short-term loans out of a $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund. Bush has resisted this approach before, and it is adamantly opposed by many Republicans.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
what is the logic behind this?? some other company might start up and fill the void but in the meantime you have chaos for the supply industry if even one company folds.

I've read that if they go bankrupt in Europe they will have serious part supply problems as part companies over there will have a difficult time getting insurance for parts that they have delivered to the Big 3. This could kill the automakers. True of false? I don't know.
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
GM and Chrysler Will Get $13.4 Billion in U.S. Loans

Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC will get $13.4 billion in emergency government loans in exchange for substantially restructuring their businesses, President George W. Bush announced.
Another $4 billion will be available to GM in February provided Congress releases the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program fund originally set up to bail out financial institutions. The automakers have until March 31 to meet the conditions of the loans, including demonstrating they have a plan to become profitable, or be forced to repay.
Winning the assistance is a reprieve for GM, the biggest U.S. automaker, and No. 3 Chrysler after they said they would run out of operating funds as soon as this month. Bush is stepping in after Senate Republicans’ refusal last week to take up a House- approved rescue raised the prospect that the companies would fail, costing millions of jobs.
“These are not ordinary circumstances,” Bush said at the White House today. “In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action.”
The cost of letting automakers fail would lead to a 1 percent reduction in the growth of the U.S. economy and mean about 1.1 million workers would lose their jobs, including those in the auto supply business and among dealers, the White House said in a fact sheet.
‘Necessary Step’
President-elect Barack Obama endorsed the plan, calling it in a statement a “necessary step” to avoid a major blow to the economy.
“I do want to emphasize to the Big Three automakers and their executives that the American people’s patience is running out,” Obama said later at a news conference. “They’re going to have to make some hard choices.”
The United Auto Workers are “disappointed” that Bush added “unfair conditions singling out workers,” the union’s president, Ronald Gettelfinger, said in a statement.
“We will work with the Obama administration and the new Congress to ensure that these unfair conditions are removed,” Gettelfinger said.
GM is reeling from almost $73 billion in losses since 2004 and a 22 percent slump in U.S. sales this year, while the drop at Auburn Hills, Michigan-based Chrysler is 28 percent, the steepest among the major automakers.
The package is intended for GM and Chrysler initially. Ford Motor Co., the second-biggest U.S. automaker, has said it can continue operating without aid for now.
 

kelvin070

Active Member
Messages
3,854
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.13z
Loan Term
The loan term is three years. GM would get $4 billion by Dec. 29 and $5.4 billion by Jan. 16. Chrysler would get $4 billion by Dec. 29. GM would get another $4 billion by Feb. 17, provided Congress releases the TARP funds.
Under the terms of the plan, the government’s debt would have priority over any other creditors. The automakers also must provide warrants for non-voting stock, accept limits on executive pay, and give the government access to financial records.
No dividends may be issued until the loans are repaid. In addition, the automakers must cut their debt by two-thirds in an equity exchange.
For workers, GM and Chrysler would be required to make half of the payments to a union retirement fund in equity and eliminate a program that pays union workers when they don’t have work. Unions and management would have to negotiate a plan to have compensation and work rules in place by Dec. 31, 2009, that will make the U.S. companies competitive with foreign automakers. The requirements could be modified by negotiations with the union and debt holders.
5 Percent
GM and Chrysler will pay at least 5 percent on the loans, and would pay 3 percentage points over the London interbank offered rate should Libor exceed 2 percent.
The average cost of loans to high-risk, high-yield companies in dollars is a premium of 10.5 percentage points more than Libor, according to Standard & Poor’s Leveraged Commentary and Data unit.
GM shares rose 83 cents, or 22.7 percent, to close at $4.49 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Ford rose 11 cents, or 3.9 percent, to $2.95. Before today, the companies’ shares had tumbled 85 percent and 58 percent this year.
Cerberus Capital Management LP, the New York-based buyout firm that owns Chrysler, said today it will hand over equity in the company’s automotive operations to labor and creditors as part of the loan agreement. “Concessions by all relevant constituencies” are needed to restructure Chrysler, Cerberus said in an e-mailed statement.
Plan Criticisms
The plan “unfortunately singles out workers and clearly puts them at a disadvantage before negotiations have even begun,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in a statement.
Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, his party’s presidential nominee this year, said he regretted that the president decided to “give away” $17 billion to the automakers “while failing to receive any serious concessions from the industry.”
Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said the agreement is “open to interpretation” and that he hopes the Obama administration “has the will to enforce tough concessions.” He added in a statement, “The best solution would have been definite terms.”
The conditions are largely those set out in the legislation passed by the House and blocked in the Senate.
Foreign Companies
Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who helped craft the House plan, said in an interview that “it’s outrageous to be giving foreign companies the right to set wages for American workers.”
The plan otherwise was mostly what was negotiated in the House, Frank said.
Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said the plan “gives the industry breathing room.” In a conference call with reporters, he said Bush was wise to set the automakers’ restructuring targets “as non-binding goals which are subject to negotiations.”
“We’ve got a huge amount of work to do over the next 90 days and beyond,” GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said at a Detroit news conference.
“Chrysler is committed to meeting these requirements,” the company’s chief executive officer, Bob Nardelli, said in a statement.
The government rejected letting the companies go bankrupt, as had been urged by some lawmakers opposed to a bailout.
‘Weak Job Market’
Bankruptcy would “worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis,” Bush said. “It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession.”
The terms of the loans represent a major challenge for the automakers, Maryann Keller, an independent auto analyst and consultant in Greenwich, Connecticut, said in a Bloomberg Television interview.
“The restructuring they’re going to have to go through will be huge,” Keller said. “I can’t see a way for GM to operate properly with the capital structure they have.”
Joel Kaplan, Bush’s deputy chief of staff, said representatives of Obama, who takes office Jan. 20, have been kept informed of the administration’s actions.
The Treasury secretary would in effect be a “car czar,” making sure the automakers meet deadlines and having the authority to revoke the loans, Kaplan said. The Bush administration didn’t want to designate an independent overseer with a month left in office.
Kaplan, asked whether Chrysler should merge with GM, sidestepped the question.
“We are not going to tell the manufacturers what the right structure is for them to be viable; we’re just going to tell them that if you want taxpayers’ assistance, you’re going to have to make those decisions, and you’re going to have to prove it,” he said.
Treasury will need to go to Congress to get the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds released, including the $4 billion in additional loans to the automakers, Kaplan said. That may be left for Obama’s administration, he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net; John Hughes in Washington at Jhughes5@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 19, 2008 17:21 EST
 
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top