| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Roedy Green
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
 |
|
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Canuck57
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Roedy Green" <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
|
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
Canuck57 wrote:
| Quote: |
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
|
Lard assed unions? How about the upper management who earn hundreds of
times more than the union members. And for what? .... to produce gas
guzzling cars? Those guys get millions of dollars in bonuses while
their companies are losing millions.
| Quote: |
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway.
|
Yes, it is better for all of us when the money is in the hands of the
middle class. Those unionized workers are the middle class, and their
hefty paychecks pay a lot of income tax and sales taxes which are levied
on the goods and services they buy in the community, unlike the millions
and millions of dollars the top management stash in tax havens or invest
in overseas businesses. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Canuck57
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:492072a7$0$5541$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
| Quote: | Canuck57 wrote:
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Lard assed unions? How about the upper management who earn hundreds of
times more than the union members. And for what? .... to produce gas
guzzling cars? Those guys get millions of dollars in bonuses while their
companies are losing millions.
|
Hey, I don't arge that a bit. I look at it that GM going down takes car of
a lot of problems.
- unions get fired for lack of productivity and company extortion
- management gets fired for incompetance for losing money
- board memebrs get fired for not replacing managmeent sooner
- the industry has excess capacity, let others have more so more survive
Four birds, one stone.
| Quote: | Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway.
Yes, it is better for all of us when the money is in the hands of the
middle class. Those unionized workers are the middle class, and their
hefty paychecks pay a lot of income tax and sales taxes which are levied
on the goods and services they buy in the community, unlike the millions
and millions of dollars the top management stash in tax havens or invest
in overseas businesses.
|
You miss the point. So what if GM stays alive and produces cars no one can
afford or wants to buy! All they do is put deflation into the marketplace
with in essence, subsidized vehicles. This harms the competition. Next
will be Chrysler, then Ford, then,.... and it will not end.
If the market only needs 1 million cars, why make 1.4 million? Just to rust
and lose more money?
If the CAW lard union wants to keep there jobs, the CAW has a lot of union
members, have them all take out a $200,000 mortgage and give GM the money.
At least then the union will have a vested interest in making GM work.
It is the same think they want average Canadians to do, just that the
government will take out the loan and tax us all for it. But a trucker in
BC isn't going to see any benefit in GM staying alive in Ontario.
Greedy CAW... always remember to check if CAW/UAW is involved in a company
before you invest. Even Teachers will not touch them and they have the
cash. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
Canuck57 wrote:
| Quote: | "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:492072a7$0$5541$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
Canuck57 wrote:
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Lard assed unions? How about the upper management who earn hundreds of
times more than the union members. And for what? .... to produce gas
guzzling cars? Those guys get millions of dollars in bonuses while their
companies are losing millions.
Hey, I don't arge that a bit. I look at it that GM going down takes car of
a lot of problems.
- unions get fired for lack of productivity and company extortion
|
Lack of productivity on the part of the unions members? The union
members have nothing to say about the company continuing to produce gas
guzzling cars while we are faced with fuel shortages. They have no say
in the NA practise of rolling out new models every year instead of
improving design flaws in the previous year's models.
| Quote: | - management gets fired for incompetance for losing money
|
DO you mean the management who were unable to effectively supervise
unionized workers.
| Quote: | - board memebrs get fired for not replacing managmeent sooner
|
Those guys are busy feathering their own nests.
| Quote: | - the industry has excess capacity, let othres have more so more survive
|
They also have the capacity to to produce small, fuel efficient cars
that last, like the Japanese and German competition, but they don't.
| Quote: | Yes, it is better for all of us when the money is in the hands of the
middle class. Those unionized workers are the middle class, and their
hefty paychecks pay a lot of income tax and sales taxes which are levied
on the goods and services they buy in the community, unlike the millions
and millions of dollars the top management stash in tax havens or invest
in overseas businesses.
You miss the point. So what if GM stays alive and produces cars no one can
afford or wants to buy! All they do is put deflation into the marketplace
with in essence, subsidized vehicles. This harms the competition. Next
will be Chrysler, then Ford, then,.... and it will not end.
|
People were able to afford those cars for many years. The unionized
workers made good money and spent it in the community. It was good for
everyone. Then fuel prices spiked and people stopped buying gas
guzzlers. They started buying Japanese cars because they got better
mileage, and then they realized that they are better built than the Big
3 cars. While the Big 3 are losing billions of dollars and shutting down
facilities, the Japanese are opening up new plants in North America. It
is not the entire industry that is losing money, just the big three
North American companies.
| Quote: | If the market only needs 1 million cars, why make 1.4 million? Just to rust
and lose more money?
|
I think you will find that they stop production when they start
accumulating a stock of unsold cars.
| Quote: | If the CAW lard union wants to keep there jobs, the CAW has a lot of union
members, have them all take out a $200,000 mortgage and give GM the money.
At least then the union will have a vested interest in making GM work.
|
You could also base management bonus programs on increased profits.
Those guys are making millions of dollars in bonuses while their
companies are going down the tubes. In most cases employees are expected
to show exceptional performance in order to get a bonus. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sid9
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Canuck57" <dave-nospam@notspam.net> wrote in
message news:dM2Uk.9150$Dw1.8812@newsfe09.iad...
| Quote: |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote
in message
news:492072a7$0$5541$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
Canuck57 wrote:
Why should folk scratching to get by have to
pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Lard assed unions? How about the upper
management who earn hundreds of times more than
the union members. And for what? .... to
produce gas guzzling cars? Those guys get
millions of dollars in bonuses while their
companies are losing millions.
Hey, I don't arge that a bit. I look at it that
GM going down takes car of a lot of problems.
- unions get fired for lack of productivity and
company extortion
- management gets fired for incompetance for
losing money
- board memebrs get fired for not replacing
managmeent sooner
- the industry has excess capacity, let others
have more so more survive
Four birds, one stone.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The
money is better in the middle class workers
pockets anyway.
Yes, it is better for all of us when the money
is in the hands of the middle class. Those
unionized workers are the middle class, and
their hefty paychecks pay a lot of income tax
and sales taxes which are levied on the goods
and services they buy in the community, unlike
the millions and millions of dollars the top
management stash in tax havens or invest in
overseas businesses.
You miss the point. So what if GM stays alive
and produces cars no one can afford or wants to
buy! All they do is put deflation into the
marketplace with in essence, subsidized
vehicles. This harms the competition. Next
will be Chrysler, then Ford, then,.... and it
will not end.
If the market only needs 1 million cars, why
make 1.4 million? Just to rust and lose more
money?
If the CAW lard union wants to keep there jobs,
the CAW has a lot of union members, have them
all take out a $200,000 mortgage and give GM the
money. At least then the union will have a
vested interest in making GM work.
It is the same think they want average Canadians
to do, just that the government will take out
the loan and tax us all for it. But a trucker
in BC isn't going to see any benefit in GM
staying alive in Ontario.
Greedy CAW... always remember to check if
CAW/UAW is involved in a company before you
invest. Even Teachers will not touch them and
they have the cash.
|
GM management failed in their negotiations with
their unions.
This mess is managements fault.
They saw Toyota making superior products...they
seemed to make little effort to equal or surpass
Toyota...even straight copying would have been
better than they did.
Union workers don't control design and marketing |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
| Quote: |
"Roedy Green" <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway.
|
well... if the unions are lard assed for not forcing management to make good
decisions, then perhaps they should be granted the authority to be able to
provide direction to management in the first place by giving all employees
ownership stake in the company... iow, part of their compensation packages
should include stock in the company... at least that way, your complaint may
have some merit.... and employees would become more motivated to tell
management that they're making bad business decisions by designing gas
guzzlers in a shrinking market for gas guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard assed" union members give the
boot to some of those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent management boobs
for a change... and it would also be nice to see that the people who are
working hard to make a product that succeeds in the marketplace reap some
rewards for their efforts by getting dividend cheques....  |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sid9
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
| Quote: |
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in
message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that
they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the
money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various
creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the
beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to
pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money
is better in the middle class workers pockets
anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not
forcing management to make good decisions, then
perhaps they should be granted the authority to
be able to provide direction to management in
the first place by giving all employees
ownership stake in the company... iow, part of
their compensation packages should include stock
in the company... at least that way, your
complaint may have some merit.... and employees
would become more motivated to tell management
that they're making bad business decisions by
designing gas guzzlers in a shrinking market for
gas guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard
assed" union members give the boot to some of
those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent
management boobs for a change... and it would
also be nice to see that the people who are
working hard to make a product that succeeds in
the marketplace reap some rewards for their
efforts by getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
|
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's poor
performance?
Fool.
It's the management's job to control the unions
and consider the company's long term stability.
They failed dealing with their unions.
They failed to take note that Toyota as producing
better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while Toyota
designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Geo
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:55 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Nov 17, 6:08 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:2XkUk.364$%O2.104@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
messagenews:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@nospam.net> wrote
in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is
that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting
the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that
the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have
to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The
money is better in the middle class workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not
forcing management to make good decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted the
authority to be able to provide direction to
management in the first place by giving all
employees ownership stake in the company...
iow, part of their compensation packages
should include stock in the company... at
least that way, your complaint may have some
merit.... and employees would become more
motivated to tell management that they're
making bad business decisions by designing
gas guzzlers in a shrinking market for gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard
assed" union members give the boot to some
of those greedy, short-sighted and
incompetent management boobs for a change...
and it would also be nice to see that the
people who are working hard to make a
product that succeeds in the marketplace
reap some rewards for their efforts by
getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's
poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was
responding to the fool who blamed the unions
for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control the
unions and consider the company's long term
stability.
actually... it's management's job to negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are with
ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent
benefits and some form of protection from
exploitative and corrupt management... unions
(should and) do consider the company's long
term stability because it is in their and
their members' best interests to have
employment in the first place... management
does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in dealing
with unions is by adopting militant and
anti-union policies and practices... and many
companies have done this... like walmart has
aggressively prevented unionization... imo,
there should be some sort of government
intervention which disallows this sort of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as
producing better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while
Toyota designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays
squarely on management's shoulders... no one
else...
also... the part you missed in my post is that
employees who get some form of ownership in
the company are more prone to not only being
productive, but to also be more proactive in
addressing poor decisions by management... and
they also would be eligible to receive perks
which are currently given to those who sit
around board room tables or at screens
watching their stock performance while being
completely disconnected from the implications
of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the
company's future, then they will be less prone
to just simply doing what their told and will
be more likely to contribute on levels which
not only ensure the company's success, but to
work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some time
now and if workers, who have inside knowledge
of this fact are aware of such poor
performance, they would more likely respond
sooner to do something to rectify the
situation before it gets out of hand...
I'm well aware of a company's relationship with
a union.
well, that's good to know... and thanks for
letting me know that you responded in error to
my previous post... it's always nice to know
when someone admits to their misperception...
it's a rarity on usenut when people take
responsibility for their mistakes... kind of
like what's been happening throughout this
multi-faceted economic nightmare... ;-)
I was chief negotiator in my company's contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly without
giving away the keys to the front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position leaving
their messes for someone else to cover up.
A long term view of company issues did not fit
their personal ambitions. This is a sickness in
many American corporations.
I agree that a greed-driven short-term focus is
what's at the heart of all of our economic
woes... long-term views have been long-ago
abandoned in favour of the quick buck... this is
a sickness that permeates our society... right
from the ground up throughout the top levels of
government and business... and the suffering
we're seeing now will pale in comparison to the
suffering that's around the corner if we don't
do something about the destruction we're
currently visiting on our environment...
and so... since you do have experience in the
area of union negotiations and representation
for workers... how about a comment on the
suggestion I made twice now, with respect to
including an ownership stake in a company at the
bargaining table...?...
If I'm not mistaken the UAW had a seat on the GM
board.....it needs more than that.
It needs legal (government) intervention to
prevent abuses and protect stockholders.
Stockholders influence on publically traded
companies is nearly nil.
|
Oh God, more govt intervention...that's all we need. In your world is
there anything the govt shouldn't do? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
LauraM
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:06 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Nov 16, 11:41 am, "Canuck57" <dave-no_s...@nospam.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Roedy Green" <see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway.
|
Double-agreed. Unions are the death of american business. I once
asked a union secretary to laminate a phone list for me and she told
me it wasn't her job according to the union. GIVE ME A BREAK. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green" <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the middle
class workers pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not forcing management to make
good decisions, then perhaps they should be granted the authority to be
able to provide direction to management in the first place by giving all
employees ownership stake in the company... iow, part of their
compensation packages should include stock in the company... at least
that way, your complaint may have some merit.... and employees would
become more motivated to tell management that they're making bad business
decisions by designing gas guzzlers in a shrinking market for gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard assed" union members give the
boot to some of those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent management
boobs for a change... and it would also be nice to see that the people
who are working hard to make a product that succeeds in the marketplace
reap some rewards for their efforts by getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's poor performance?
Fool.
|
actually... you misread my post... I was responding to the fool who blamed
the unions for management's poor decisions...
| Quote: | It's the management's job to control the unions and consider the company's
long term stability.
|
actually... it's management's job to negotiate with unions... unions'
concerns are with ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent benefits and some
form of protection from exploitative and corrupt management... unions
(should and) do consider the company's long term stability because it is in
their and their members' best interests to have employment in the first
place... management does not "control" unions...
| Quote: | They failed dealing with their unions.
|
the only way management can "fail" in dealing with unions is by adopting
militant and anti-union policies and practices... and many companies have
done this... like walmart has aggressively prevented unionization... imo,
there should be some sort of government intervention which disallows this
sort of despicable behaviour...
| Quote: | They failed to take note that Toyota as producing better, more desirable
autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while Toyota designed and marketed the
Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
|
I agree... the fault for this mess lays squarely on management's
shoulders... no one else...
also... the part you missed in my post is that employees who get some form
of ownership in the company are more prone to not only being productive, but
to also be more proactive in addressing poor decisions by management... and
they also would be eligible to receive perks which are currently given to
those who sit around board room tables or at screens watching their stock
performance while being completely disconnected from the implications of
managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the company's future, then they will be
less prone to just simply doing what their told and will be more likely to
contribute on levels which not only ensure the company's success, but to
work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some time now and if workers, who have
inside knowledge of this fact are aware of such poor performance, they would
more likely respond sooner to do something to rectify the situation before
it gets out of hand... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sid9
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
| Quote: |
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in
message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that
they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the
money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the
beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to
pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The
money is better in the middle class workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not
forcing management to make good decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted the
authority to be able to provide direction to
management in the first place by giving all
employees ownership stake in the company...
iow, part of their compensation packages
should include stock in the company... at
least that way, your complaint may have some
merit.... and employees would become more
motivated to tell management that they're
making bad business decisions by designing gas
guzzlers in a shrinking market for gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard
assed" union members give the boot to some of
those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent
management boobs for a change... and it would
also be nice to see that the people who are
working hard to make a product that succeeds
in the marketplace reap some rewards for their
efforts by getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's poor
performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was
responding to the fool who blamed the unions for
management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control the unions
and consider the company's long term stability.
actually... it's management's job to negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are with
ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent
benefits and some form of protection from
exploitative and corrupt management... unions
(should and) do consider the company's long term
stability because it is in their and their
members' best interests to have employment in
the first place... management does not "control"
unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in dealing
with unions is by adopting militant and
anti-union policies and practices... and many
companies have done this... like walmart has
aggressively prevented unionization... imo,
there should be some sort of government
intervention which disallows this sort of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as
producing better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while Toyota
designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays squarely
on management's shoulders... no one else...
also... the part you missed in my post is that
employees who get some form of ownership in the
company are more prone to not only being
productive, but to also be more proactive in
addressing poor decisions by management... and
they also would be eligible to receive perks
which are currently given to those who sit
around board room tables or at screens watching
their stock performance while being completely
disconnected from the implications of
managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the company's
future, then they will be less prone to just
simply doing what their told and will be more
likely to contribute on levels which not only
ensure the company's success, but to work toward
averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some time now
and if workers, who have inside knowledge of
this fact are aware of such poor performance,
they would more likely respond sooner to do
something to rectify the situation before it
gets out of hand...
|
I'm well aware of a company's relationship with a
union.
I was chief negotiator in my company's contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly without giving
away the keys to the front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position leaving
their messes for someone else to cover up.
A long term view of company issues did not fit
their personal ambitions. This is a sickness in
many American corporations. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
E. Barry Bruyea
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:05:17 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in
message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that
they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the
money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the
beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to
pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The
money is better in the middle class workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not
forcing management to make good decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted the
authority to be able to provide direction to
management in the first place by giving all
employees ownership stake in the company...
iow, part of their compensation packages
should include stock in the company... at
least that way, your complaint may have some
merit.... and employees would become more
motivated to tell management that they're
making bad business decisions by designing gas
guzzlers in a shrinking market for gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard
assed" union members give the boot to some of
those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent
management boobs for a change... and it would
also be nice to see that the people who are
working hard to make a product that succeeds
in the marketplace reap some rewards for their
efforts by getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's poor
performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was
responding to the fool who blamed the unions for
management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control the unions
and consider the company's long term stability.
actually... it's management's job to negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are with
ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent
benefits and some form of protection from
exploitative and corrupt management... unions
(should and) do consider the company's long term
stability because it is in their and their
members' best interests to have employment in
the first place... management does not "control"
unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in dealing
with unions is by adopting militant and
anti-union policies and practices... and many
companies have done this... like walmart has
aggressively prevented unionization... imo,
there should be some sort of government
intervention which disallows this sort of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as
producing better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while Toyota
designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays squarely
on management's shoulders... no one else...
also... the part you missed in my post is that
employees who get some form of ownership in the
company are more prone to not only being
productive, but to also be more proactive in
addressing poor decisions by management... and
they also would be eligible to receive perks
which are currently given to those who sit
around board room tables or at screens watching
their stock performance while being completely
disconnected from the implications of
managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the company's
future, then they will be less prone to just
simply doing what their told and will be more
likely to contribute on levels which not only
ensure the company's success, but to work toward
averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some time now
and if workers, who have inside knowledge of
this fact are aware of such poor performance,
they would more likely respond sooner to do
something to rectify the situation before it
gets out of hand...
I'm well aware of a company's relationship with a
union.
I was chief negotiator in my company's contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly without giving
away the keys to the front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position leaving
their messes for someone else to cover up.
A long term view of company issues did not fit
their personal ambitions. This is a sickness in
many American corporations.
|
Over the last couple of decades, the granting of stock options has
accelerated in corporations and this, IMHO has created the need for
executives to create what I refer to as 'Window Dressing' of a
companies performance in regards to erroneous performance figures to
drive up the value of those 'Stock Options', thus enabling executives
to 'cash in' and to hell with the reality. I was involved with
several start-up companies over the years and saw this first hand and
have no reason to believe that larger, established companies didn't
suffer from the same thing and one of the best examples is Nortel,
formerly one of Canada's best companies, but as you all know, it has
been circling the drain for some time, initiated by some not so
creative bookkeeping for the sole benefit of its executives. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:N2kUk.63371$bx1.37142@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green" <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to return some of the money
to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The money is better in the
middle class workers pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not forcing management to make
good decisions, then perhaps they should be granted the authority to be
able to provide direction to management in the first place by giving
all employees ownership stake in the company... iow, part of their
compensation packages should include stock in the company... at least
that way, your complaint may have some merit.... and employees would
become more motivated to tell management that they're making bad
business decisions by designing gas guzzlers in a shrinking market for
gas guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard assed" union members give
the boot to some of those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent
management boobs for a change... and it would also be nice to see that
the people who are working hard to make a product that succeeds in the
marketplace reap some rewards for their efforts by getting dividend
cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's poor performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was responding to the fool who
blamed the unions for management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control the unions and consider the
company's long term stability.
actually... it's management's job to negotiate with unions... unions'
concerns are with ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent benefits and
some form of protection from exploitative and corrupt management...
unions (should and) do consider the company's long term stability because
it is in their and their members' best interests to have employment in
the first place... management does not "control" unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in dealing with unions is by adopting
militant and anti-union policies and practices... and many companies have
done this... like walmart has aggressively prevented unionization... imo,
there should be some sort of government intervention which disallows this
sort of despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as producing better, more desirable
autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while Toyota designed and marketed
the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays squarely on management's
shoulders... no one else...
also... the part you missed in my post is that employees who get some
form of ownership in the company are more prone to not only being
productive, but to also be more proactive in addressing poor decisions by
management... and they also would be eligible to receive perks which are
currently given to those who sit around board room tables or at screens
watching their stock performance while being completely disconnected from
the implications of managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the company's future, then they will
be less prone to just simply doing what their told and will be more
likely to contribute on levels which not only ensure the company's
success, but to work toward averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some time now and if workers, who have
inside knowledge of this fact are aware of such poor performance, they
would more likely respond sooner to do something to rectify the situation
before it gets out of hand...
I'm well aware of a company's relationship with a union.
|
well, that's good to know... and thanks for letting me know that you
responded in error to my previous post... it's always nice to know when
someone admits to their misperception... it's a rarity on usenut when people
take responsibility for their mistakes... kind of like what's been happening
throughout this multi-faceted economic nightmare... ;-)
| Quote: | I was chief negotiator in my company's contract negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly without giving away the keys to the
front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the unions health, welfare, and
retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the last quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position leaving their messes for someone
else to cover up.
A long term view of company issues did not fit their personal ambitions.
This is a sickness in many American corporations.
|
I agree that a greed-driven short-term focus is what's at the heart of all
of our economic woes... long-term views have been long-ago abandoned in
favour of the quick buck... this is a sickness that permeates our society...
right from the ground up throughout the top levels of government and
business... and the suffering we're seeing now will pale in comparison to
the suffering that's around the corner if we don't do something about the
destruction we're currently visiting on our environment...
and so... since you do have experience in the area of union negotiations and
representation for workers... how about a comment on the suggestion I made
twice now, with respect to including an ownership stake in a company at the
bargaining table...?... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klunk
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Another way to look at a GM baliout |
|
|
"E. Barry Bruyea" <lobbyists@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:v8k3i4h1g83basnfrh47h89loqp7pnap1d@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:05:17 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:OPjUk.362$%O2.40@newsfe20.iad...
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GIfUk.63266$bx1.3869@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"klunk" <klunk@theothershoo.org> wrote in
message news:11cUk.2343$oJ2.143@newsfe25.iad...
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in
message
news:%H_Tk.21083$us4.6955@newsfe14.iad...
"Roedy Green"
see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote in
message
news:s2n0i49ncadgccbml0i8n27doq0jjl6mb3@4ax.com...
Another way to look at GM's troubles is that
they improperly gave
dividends too large, rather than setting the
money aside to do things
like develop high mileage cars and pay off
retiree pensions.
It is incompetence perhaps elevated to the
level of fraud. You could
look on it as a crime to defraud GM's
various creditors.
What if congress decided to insist that the
beneficiaries of this
crime (namely the GM shareholders) have to
return some of the money to
bail out GM?
Why should folk scratching to get by have to
pay for a crime to
benefit fat cat GM shareholders?
And the lard assed unions.
Agreed. Save our money. Let gm go. The
money is better in the middle class workers
pockets anyway.
well... if the unions are lard assed for not
forcing management to make good decisions,
then perhaps they should be granted the
authority to be able to provide direction to
management in the first place by giving all
employees ownership stake in the company...
iow, part of their compensation packages
should include stock in the company... at
least that way, your complaint may have some
merit.... and employees would become more
motivated to tell management that they're
making bad business decisions by designing gas
guzzlers in a shrinking market for gas
guzzlers....
it would be nice to see some of those "lard
assed" union members give the boot to some of
those greedy, short-sighted and incompetent
management boobs for a change... and it would
also be nice to see that the people who are
working hard to make a product that succeeds
in the marketplace reap some rewards for their
efforts by getting dividend cheques.... ;-)
That's really twisted.
It's the unions fault for the management's poor
performance?
Fool.
actually... you misread my post... I was
responding to the fool who blamed the unions for
management's poor decisions...
It's the management's job to control the unions
and consider the company's long term stability.
actually... it's management's job to negotiate
with unions... unions' concerns are with
ensuring workers get a fair wage, decent
benefits and some form of protection from
exploitative and corrupt management... unions
(should and) do consider the company's long term
stability because it is in their and their
members' best interests to have employment in
the first place... management does not "control"
unions...
They failed dealing with their unions.
the only way management can "fail" in dealing
with unions is by adopting militant and
anti-union policies and practices... and many
companies have done this... like walmart has
aggressively prevented unionization... imo,
there should be some sort of government
intervention which disallows this sort of
despicable behaviour...
They failed to take note that Toyota as
producing better, more desirable autos.
They failed to learn from Toyota.
They put resources into the Hummer while Toyota
designed and marketed the Prius.
GM's management did very little right.
I agree... the fault for this mess lays squarely
on management's shoulders... no one else...
also... the part you missed in my post is that
employees who get some form of ownership in the
company are more prone to not only being
productive, but to also be more proactive in
addressing poor decisions by management... and
they also would be eligible to receive perks
which are currently given to those who sit
around board room tables or at screens watching
their stock performance while being completely
disconnected from the implications of
managements' decisions...
if workers have an active stake in the company's
future, then they will be less prone to just
simply doing what their told and will be more
likely to contribute on levels which not only
ensure the company's success, but to work toward
averting such problems...
gm has been performing poorly for some time now
and if workers, who have inside knowledge of
this fact are aware of such poor performance,
they would more likely respond sooner to do
something to rectify the situation before it
gets out of hand...
I'm well aware of a company's relationship with a
union.
I was chief negotiator in my company's contract
negotiations.
You can treat your employees fairly without giving
away the keys to the front door.
I was also an employer trustee for the unions
health, welfare, and retirement fund.
GM executives were only interested in the last
quarter's performance.
They soon moved on to another position leaving
their messes for someone else to cover up.
A long term view of company issues did not fit
their personal ambitions. This is a sickness in
many American corporations.
Over the last couple of decades, the granting of stock options has
accelerated in corporations and this, IMHO has created the need for
executives to create what I refer to as 'Window Dressing' of a
companies performance in regards to erroneous performance figures to
drive up the value of those 'Stock Options', thus enabling executives
to 'cash in' and to hell with the reality. I was involved with
several start-up companies over the years and saw this first hand and
have no reason to believe that larger, established companies didn't
suffer from the same thing and one of the best examples is Nortel,
formerly one of Canada's best companies, but as you all know, it has
been circling the drain for some time, initiated by some not so
creative bookkeeping for the sole benefit of its executives.
|
smaller companies and particularly in the tech arena have been offering
stock options for years... but, that's a little different than what I was
referring to because the stock options they offer are nothing more than an
opportunity to buy non-voting shares in the company at a discount rate...
there is a HUGE difference between that and actually having an ownership
stake in a company where you can actually vote....
what you've described is nothing more than granting lip service to something
which ultimately provides little value... and is only a means for companies
to rake some additional investment money from their own employees... kind of
like paying them with one hand and taking from them with the other... the
employee still ends up being shit on without having a say in the matter... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
