Without a chapter 11 and a complete reorganization (get rid of management who failed repeatedly & handcuff the UAW),any tax monies given will be misspent. The airlines filed chapter 11 and reorganized and came out stronger. That can't happen with the UAW and present GM management without a chapter 11.
GM, Chrysler goin' under.....(maybe).....
- Thread starter addyguy
- Start date
- Status
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Why are executive salaries and bonuses never mentioned?
Because that point is irrelevant. If a CEO makes $50 million and the company does well, who cares? It's not up to you to decide who makes what!
If this was a government entity where it was tax payer funded, I would agree with you, but it's not, it's (still) private industry not bound by dictates of who makes what.
You're not making sense. The senate is forced to care because the company is sinking. It's FAR from doing well. You're FOR them scrutizing UAW wages but executive wages are none of their business? Wages are wages regardless of whos pocket their going into. They're a cost that needs to be reduced across the board, not just at a labor level.
The union sucks billions out of a company, CEO's don't, only 'millions'. However, if a company is doing OK, why should CEO's salaries be a thing of concern for those not involved (you & me)? It's a private business, they can make as much as they want. I don't get why people worry about what CEO's make. That's all part of the class-envy stuff I refuse to buy into. "He shouldn't be making that amount of money". It's none of your business to worry about a CEO making money or not. Unless he stole it, which isn't the case here at exhibit A, GM.
Now, if they filed for bankruptcy, things would change enough to put EVERYONE'S salary in the company in the spotlight.
The unions are more closely examined by yours truly as the benefits package they are entitled to worked in 1975, but not now. The extremely high cost of business that these contracts have caused are killing/have killed the company.
2007:
Toyota & GM both sold 9.37 cars/trucks
Toyota made $17.7 Billion
GM lost $38 billion.
CEO salaries are a rounding error in such huge numbers thus don't mean anything. Yet the bullseye is painted on their back ONLY BECAUSE they are a CEO. CEO's are villains nowadays, sadly.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Why are executive salaries and bonuses never mentioned?
Because that point is irrelevant. If a CEO makes $50 million and the company does well, who cares? It's not up to you to decide who makes what!
If this was a government entity where it was tax payer funded, I would agree with you, but it's not, it's (still) private industry not bound by dictates of who makes what.
You're not making sense. The senate is forced to care because the company is sinking. It's FAR from doing well. You're FOR them scrutizing UAW wages but executive wages are none of their business? Wages are wages regardless of whos pocket their going into. They're a cost that needs to be reduced across the board, not just at a labor level.
The union sucks billions out of a company, CEO's don't, only 'millions'. However, if a company is doing OK, why should CEO's salaries be a thing of concern for those not involved (you & me)? It's a private business, they can make as much as they want. I don't get why people worry about what CEO's make. That's all part of the class-envy stuff I refuse to buy into. "He shouldn't be making that amount of money". It's none of your business to worry about a CEO making money or not. Unless he stole it, which isn't the case here at exhibit A, GM.
Now, if they filed for bankruptcy, things would change enough to put EVERYONE'S salary in the company in the spotlight.
The unions are more closely examined by yours truly as the benefits package they are entitled to worked in 1975, but not now. The extremely high cost of business that these contracts have caused are killing/have killed the company.
2007:
Toyota & GM both sold 9.37 cars/trucks
Toyota made $17.7 Billion
GM lost $38 billion.
CEO salaries are a rounding error in such huge numbers thus don't mean anything. Yet the bullseye is painted on their back ONLY BECAUSE they are a CEO. CEO's are villains nowadays, sadly.
Don't worry, it's only money and they'll be back for lots more.
Their business model is broken and this money won't last them long.
We can debate solutions until we turn blue. jsharp is correct the money won't last long. Greed will ultimately win, unless you clear the slate and start over with new management, and no UAW.
JMO,
Frank D
JMO,
Frank D
"CEO's are villains nowadays, sadly."
A pilot is in charge of everything that goes on inside an airplane while the airplane is generating revenue for the company. If there is ANY incident, the pilot is questioned at the very least, even if he was sitting in his seat flying the plane while the incident takes place at the back of the plane.
CEO's applied for the job they have and they need to accept responsibility fo their failures in the same way that they bask in their successes.
My CEO ran my last employer into the ground and hundreds of jobs were lost due to his inept management of the business. He stopped at nothing to borrow as much money as he could without even considering the possible consequences, and bankrupty and a buyout ensued. Those decisions were his, as he announced at the last all-hands meeting we ever had.
Don't try to make CEOs into martyrs...they're paid handsomely for the responsibility they shoulder and 99% of the time walk away from the carnage with a bag full of money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC0qcf0kzE
A pilot is in charge of everything that goes on inside an airplane while the airplane is generating revenue for the company. If there is ANY incident, the pilot is questioned at the very least, even if he was sitting in his seat flying the plane while the incident takes place at the back of the plane.
CEO's applied for the job they have and they need to accept responsibility fo their failures in the same way that they bask in their successes.
My CEO ran my last employer into the ground and hundreds of jobs were lost due to his inept management of the business. He stopped at nothing to borrow as much money as he could without even considering the possible consequences, and bankrupty and a buyout ensued. Those decisions were his, as he announced at the last all-hands meeting we ever had.
Don't try to make CEOs into martyrs...they're paid handsomely for the responsibility they shoulder and 99% of the time walk away from the carnage with a bag full of money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC0qcf0kzE
If I'm hired as a CEO to keep a company from going under tomorrow, and I keep the business running for several years longer than anyone else could have, but it still eventually goes under, I deserve to be compensated fairly for keeping the business going as long as it did. Just because a company fails, does not mean the CEO caused it, or that the CEO should not be paid well.
He was paid well for the years that our stock price was at $145, and 18 months later when it reached $0, he escaped with a huge severance. You can't possibly tell me you think that's fair.
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
He was paid well for the years that our stock price was at $145, and 18 months later when it reached $0, he escaped with a huge severance. You can't possibly tell me you think that's fair.
Show me how anything I wrote makes you think that I believe that is fair. My point is that the CEO is not always "evil", even when it may appear so.
He was paid well for the years that our stock price was at $145, and 18 months later when it reached $0, he escaped with a huge severance. You can't possibly tell me you think that's fair.
Show me how anything I wrote makes you think that I believe that is fair. My point is that the CEO is not always "evil", even when it may appear so.
Evil? Perhaps not. But until they're given a real reason to care about the condition of the company they control (when it has an actual, detrimental affect on THEIR bottom line), situations like this will continue.
When economic downturns occur all business must have the ability to adapt. That is, downsize and reduce costs. If the 3 American automakers do not acquire this ability, they are doomed. The only question remaining is when.
You know, a tiny part of me would love to see GM's CEO come out at noon today and say "you know what, Congress is right and GM deserves to fail. We're done as of EOB today, closing up shop, no reorganization, no bankruptcy protection, we're done. PBGB can take over our pension liabilites, and Medicare can handle our legacy health costs. Have a nice life."
The stench from 435 reps and 100 senators soiling themselves would almost make the financial implosion worthwhile.
This is probably why I'm not a CEO.
The stench from 435 reps and 100 senators soiling themselves would almost make the financial implosion worthwhile.
This is probably why I'm not a CEO.
The board would just have him institutionalized and the begging would continue in D.C.
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
The last thing an industry should do is listen to their fickle, feckless customers in a time like this. These companies need solid leaders with strong vision and a passion for the product.
If industry followed your advice, Steve Jobs would have never launched the iPod or the iPhone. Everyone said a computer company has no business selling music devices or cell phones, but Apple did it anyway, did it their way instead of listening to what consumers wanted RIGHT NOW, and look how successful they've been.
As for Lutz, first off he's 70 yrs old, too old to run a corporation for long. Also, he doesn't listen to what consumer want either. In fact, he wrote a book a few years ago where he stated the customer ISN'T always right. You really need to learn about someone if you're going to use them as an example.
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
The last thing an industry should do is listen to their fickle, feckless customers in a time like this. These companies need solid leaders with strong vision and a passion for the product.
If industry followed your advice, Steve Jobs would have never launched the iPod or the iPhone. Everyone said a computer company has no business selling music devices or cell phones, but Apple did it anyway, did it their way instead of listening to what consumers wanted RIGHT NOW, and look how successful they've been.
As for Lutz, first off he's 70 yrs old, too old to run a corporation for long. Also, he doesn't listen to what consumer want either. In fact, he wrote a book a few years ago where he stated the customer ISN'T always right. You really need to learn about someone if you're going to use them as an example.
Quote:
The board would just have him institutionalized and the begging would continue in D.C.
But not before the market took that one in.....
The board would just have him institutionalized and the begging would continue in D.C.
But not before the market took that one in.....
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
The last thing an industry should do is listen to their fickle, feckless customers in a time like this. These companies need solid leaders with strong vision and a passion for the product.
If industry followed your advice, Steve Jobs would have never launched the iPod or the iPhone. Everyone said a computer company has no business selling music devices or cell phones, but Apple did it anyway, did it their way instead of listening to what consumers wanted RIGHT NOW, and look how successful they've been.
As for Lutz, first off he's 70 yrs old, too old to run a corporation for long. Also, he doesn't listen to what consumer want either. In fact, he wrote a book a few years ago where he stated the customer ISN'T always right. You really need to learn about someone if you're going to use them as an example.
Not to mention that it's been the consumer that demanded SUV's and Hummers all these years, then whined that Detroit didn't have any fuels-sippers on the line when gas shot up....
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
The last thing an industry should do is listen to their fickle, feckless customers in a time like this. These companies need solid leaders with strong vision and a passion for the product.
If industry followed your advice, Steve Jobs would have never launched the iPod or the iPhone. Everyone said a computer company has no business selling music devices or cell phones, but Apple did it anyway, did it their way instead of listening to what consumers wanted RIGHT NOW, and look how successful they've been.
As for Lutz, first off he's 70 yrs old, too old to run a corporation for long. Also, he doesn't listen to what consumer want either. In fact, he wrote a book a few years ago where he stated the customer ISN'T always right. You really need to learn about someone if you're going to use them as an example.
Not to mention that it's been the consumer that demanded SUV's and Hummers all these years, then whined that Detroit didn't have any fuels-sippers on the line when gas shot up....
Originally Posted By: addyguy
If Chrysler stays in business, the 300 would make a good official vehicle...all black, tinted windows, Hemi engine...
G-Men driving the poor pimp's Bentley?
If Chrysler stays in business, the 300 would make a good official vehicle...all black, tinted windows, Hemi engine...
G-Men driving the poor pimp's Bentley?
The bottom line is bailout or no bailout, the workers need to accept cuts and the retirees need to accept cuts to remain competitive with foreign manufacturers. Once the bailout happens, management needs to give up ANY bonuses until the loans are paid back.
Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
The last thing an industry should do is listen to their fickle, feckless customers in a time like this. These companies need solid leaders with strong vision and a passion for the product.
If industry followed your advice, Steve Jobs would have never launched the iPod or the iPhone. Everyone said a computer company has no business selling music devices or cell phones, but Apple did it anyway, did it their way instead of listening to what consumers wanted RIGHT NOW, and look how successful they've been.
As for Lutz, first off he's 70 yrs old, too old to run a corporation for long. Also, he doesn't listen to what consumer want either. In fact, he wrote a book a few years ago where he stated the customer ISN'T always right. You really need to learn about someone if you're going to use them as an example.
Not to mention that it's been the consumer that demanded SUV's and Hummers all these years, then whined that Detroit didn't have any fuels-sippers on the line when gas shot up....
Reread what Bret said. The CEO's job isn't to follow the herd. His job is to position the company for future success, The auto CEOs have failed at that, largely because they responded to immediate demand rather than positioning their companies for long term success.
Of the 3, only the Ford CEO has shown some competence.
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
One major change they need to make is to get a CEO in there that has a passion for the business. Wagoner, IMO, is passionate about his paycheck.
Lutz is closer to the type of person that needs to be in charge, but he needs a closer connection to the U.S. consumer. He's passionate about the automotive industry, but I don't think he's in touch with what consumers want RIGHT NOW.
The last thing an industry should do is listen to their fickle, feckless customers in a time like this. These companies need solid leaders with strong vision and a passion for the product.
If industry followed your advice, Steve Jobs would have never launched the iPod or the iPhone. Everyone said a computer company has no business selling music devices or cell phones, but Apple did it anyway, did it their way instead of listening to what consumers wanted RIGHT NOW, and look how successful they've been.
As for Lutz, first off he's 70 yrs old, too old to run a corporation for long. Also, he doesn't listen to what consumer want either. In fact, he wrote a book a few years ago where he stated the customer ISN'T always right. You really need to learn about someone if you're going to use them as an example.
Not to mention that it's been the consumer that demanded SUV's and Hummers all these years, then whined that Detroit didn't have any fuels-sippers on the line when gas shot up....
Reread what Bret said. The CEO's job isn't to follow the herd. His job is to position the company for future success, The auto CEOs have failed at that, largely because they responded to immediate demand rather than positioning their companies for long term success.
Of the 3, only the Ford CEO has shown some competence.
- Status
Similar threads
