GM "Recovery" Strategy: Close Plants, Lay Off Workers

http://www.thenation.com/blog/gm-recove ... ay-workers

The company has used its massive federal bailout to begin a process of shuttering more than a dozen factories, to lay off tens of thousands of auto workers, to eliminate more than one thousand car dealerships and to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs at those facilities across the country.

Even as the bailout was being arranged, GM was busy shuttering plants in communities such as Janesville, Wisconsin, leaving thousands of workers for the company and its suppliers jobless. Since the bailout, the rate of factory and warehouse closings has actually accelerated as the company has used federal dollars to pay to padlock facilities in the U.S. and to open plants in Mexico and China.

The raw numbers are staggering. In June, GM announced that 14 plants and three warehouses would be closed, at a cost of up to 20,000 jobs in communities across states such as Michigan and Ohio, as well as a number of other states.

Around the same time, the company announced that it was pulling the plug on 1,100 dealerships, at the expense of 100,000 additional jobs.

So dont' let Obama blow smoke up your arse. This is just another bailout that failed!

Under this "bailout" plan, GM is remaking itself as a corporate entity that employs fewer Americans, produces fewer cars in the U.S. and sustains fewer communities – effectively undermining the core arguments that were made in the first place for providing bailout funds to the company.

Instead of building itself back up as a great American manufacturer – with new approaches and better ideas for reconfiguring U.S. plants and retraining U.S. workers – GM has used the federal money to offshore its manufacturing operations and downsize its U.S. distribution network by pulling out of inner cities and small towns.

In other words, the taxpayers of the United States have paid for plant closings, layoffs, dislocation and downsizing of what was once a major employer. In return, they may get some of their money back.

Even now, as Henderson and other GM officials talk of repaying some of the federal money they took, the Times notes the inconvenient truth that: "The money it is returning to the government is simply part of the loan that the company does not need."

In other words, GM is using borrowed money to pay back borrowed money.


So bottom line is that Ford, whose Unions did some negotiating to make things work are thriving without a bailout from our tax dollars, but GM and Chrysler whose unions refused to bend enough to make sure thier companies will make a profit and survive, took our billions to be able to shut down dealerships and warehouses and are using the money to move jobs overseas. Great concept guys!!

Is this how those unions protect their employees?

They should have done that 10 years ago. You can't have it every way. You claim it was a union scheme then just a pork barrel. The actions were well overdue. What would you have done? Go bankrupt and they all lose their jobs.
It would be refreshing instead of just hit and run criticism, state your proposed solution. Sometimes the choice left to us is the lesser of 2 evils.
Pick your poison Viking and tell us your solution.
Same criticism of how some on the left treated the last administration.

JMC wrote: They should have done that 10 years ago. You can't have it every way. You claim it was a union scheme then just a pork barrel. The actions were well overdue. What would you have done? Go bankrupt and they all lose their jobs.
It would be refreshing instead of just hit and run criticism, state your proposed solution. Sometimes the choice left to us is the lesser of 2 evils.
Pick your poison Viking and tell us your solution.
Same criticism of how some on the left treated the last administration.

I just showed you the solution. Do it like Ford did it. They made a better product for less and they negotiated down some of the pay and retirement. It was a tough call but it worked and they are now making great profits and people are still employed.

The option of the left is not right!! You cannot just say that 'we are not going to change and make any sacrifices and you have to give us money'. You can't just say that 'I know we are losing about $2000 per vehicle but we will not change anything'. 'That is tough and you better give us money or we will lose a lot more jobs'. Bullsh**!! They could have made this work had they compromised at all. Now there are another 120,000 families that will be out of work just so they can prove a point that they don't have to bend. What kind of economic logic is that?

The left keep saying that they are tired of the offshoring of jobs but yet they won't compromise to keep them here. They would rather keep their pride and lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. They are so backwards. That is why I will only buy Ford right now. I have for decades.

JMC wrote: They should have done that 10 years ago. You can't have it every way.

Exactly! The unions and GM and Chryler can't have it every way. They can't provide an inferior product that loses money for every vehicle they make and then refuse to compromise on the pay and ritirement packages. They can't say we would rather shut down companies and move jobs offshore rather than have people give up a little and at least keep their jobs and then complain about why they can't make it and why doesn't America want to give us more of their tax dollars.

You are right. They can't have it both ways.

Perfect example!!

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/02/16/u ... otiations/

When the Auto Bailout was approved by Congress one of the stipulations was that the automakers had to get concessions from the unions.

So, in an attempt to abide by Congress’ demands, GM has been in negotiations with the United Auto Workers to make the requisite deals. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if the UAW is in the mood for making any deals, at least if it involves any cuts for them. Consequently the UAW has decided to walk out on further negotiations.

Sadly, instead of trying to arrive at a fair package with General Motors, the UAW would rather stubbornly fight them at a time when everyone is being asked to trim expectations in this faltering economy.

At issue is the UAW administered retiree health care fund. This fund is one of the biggest reasons that GM workers see a total per-employee labor cost of $69 per hour while its competition, such as Toyota, only is saddled with hourly costs of $53. This higher cost makes the U.S. automakers less competitive.

It appears the unions won’t bend even if the whole company goes down the tubes. I expect they imagine that with their guy in the White House they don’t have to make the same sort of sacrifices the rest of the country has to make?

The Viking wrote: So dont' let Obama blow smoke up your arse. This is just another bailout that failed!

Under this "bailout" plan, GM is remaking itself as a corporate entity that employs fewer Americans, produces fewer cars in the U.S. and sustains fewer communities – effectively undermining the core arguments that were made in the first place for providing bailout funds to the company.

Instead of building itself back up as a great American manufacturer – with new approaches and better ideas for reconfiguring U.S. plants and retraining U.S. workers – GM has used the federal money to offshore its manufacturing operations and downsize its U.S. distribution network by pulling out of inner cities and small towns.

In other words, the taxpayers of the United States have paid for plant closings, layoffs, dislocation and downsizing of what was once a major employer. In return, they may get some of their money back.

You failed to mention that BUSH was the one who did the auto bailout, and started the "bailout ball" rolling. Government needs to stay out of business. He should have let GM fail.

ExtremeModerate wrote:

The Viking wrote: So dont' let Obama blow smoke up your arse. This is just another bailout that failed!

Under this "bailout" plan, GM is remaking itself as a corporate entity that employs fewer Americans, produces fewer cars in the U.S. and sustains fewer communities – effectively undermining the core arguments that were made in the first place for providing bailout funds to the company.

Instead of building itself back up as a great American manufacturer – with new approaches and better ideas for reconfiguring U.S. plants and retraining U.S. workers – GM has used the federal money to offshore its manufacturing operations and downsize its U.S. distribution network by pulling out of inner cities and small towns.

In other words, the taxpayers of the United States have paid for plant closings, layoffs, dislocation and downsizing of what was once a major employer. In return, they may get some of their money back.

You failed to mention that BUSH was the one who did the auto bailout, and started the "bailout ball" rolling. Government needs to stay out of business. He should have let GM fail.

Oh I agree. Bush signed all of those Democratic bailouts in 2008. Remember the Dems controlled both the house and Senate in 2007 and 2008. And Bush was wrong to sign those bailouts. That is when he realy went downhill in my book. But Bush's auto bailout was about $17.4 billion and I think Obama (who promised change) grew it to over $83 billion. (I guess that is a change. Just the wrong direction)

http://www.time.com/time/business/artic ... 21,00.html