A better bail out idea?

If we give the Detroit 3 a bail-out in the form of a big check we won’t be accomplishing anything good. I think we all agree on that. Giving them a loan for billions won’t accomplishing anything either since they will just continue to squander that money away. So I’d like to propose another strategy for your discussion: Get rid of the UAW first and foremost. I think you’d b hard-pressed to find anyone OUTSIDE the UAW to argue that point. Get rid of them today, cancel contract for current workers but continue to pay “legacy” payments. After all, why should those folks take a HUGE hit because of the mistakes of others. They upheld their end of the contract. Secondly, what to do with the billions that they want?? Well, instead of giving each company, on average, 10 BILLION dollars each the gub’ment should give them each purchase orders for 5 billion dollars worth of plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles. Make about 3 billion of that ear-marked for fully-electric vehicles. This way, the money can’t get squandered and it’ll put people to work. The side effect is that they big three will actually have a product we are looking for right now, not one we WERE looking for a decade ago. I see this as a win-win situation. I could be wrong though. Heck, I was wrong once, back in ’87 I thought I made a mistake but I didn’t ;)

Discuss……………….

who the berkeley is the "we" in your statement "the big three will actually have a product we are looking for right now"? i'm not retarded enough to believe that a plug-in EV makes less pollution than any other modern vehicle, only that it makes it in a remote location. this planet has one atmosphere, last time i checked. and hybrids? hybrids are a berkeleying joke. they wouldn't sell a thousand hybrids a year if not for the tax break ($7500 iirc) to the purchaser at the expense of every other taxpayer in this country. let it come to market when there's a solid business case for it.

who am i kidding? i'll never buy another new car so it doesn't really matter what i think.

DrBoost wrote: Get rid of the UAW first and foremost. I think you’d b hard-pressed to find anyone OUTSIDE the UAW to argue that point.

I'll argue it.

Now, let me start by saying that I'm not convinced the UAW is a good thing (or not). I do think they've done a lot to hamper the auto industry, but...

How do you propose getting rid of the UAW? Legislation?

That's a bad idea. You'd be legislating that auto workers should not have the right to organize and speak their minds. In short, saying that they can not peaceably assemble. That flies blatantly in the face of the First Amendment. I'd rather see the UAW drag Detroit into the ground, than have the government curtail freedoms for the sake of the economy.

If the Big 3 can find a way to operate without the UAW, more power to them. I'd be all for a market solution to this. But I don't see that happening right now.

I kind of thought the whole point of a union was that you CAN'T get rid of them. Unless you go bankrupt of course... hint, hint.

AngryCorvair wrote: i'm not retarded enough to believe that a plug-in EV makes less pollution than any other modern vehicle, only that it makes it in a remote location.

Moves it to a central location where it is greatly reduced, since energy can be more efficiently produced by one big turbine than an army of little engines, and where there's far better emissions control equipment than a platinum beehive in the exhaust pipe. Plus, when the anti-nukers die off, or a nuclear power plant is built against their will, clean energy goes into the cars (same for wind power or any other clean source). Plus the demand for gasoline is cut down and in the case of pure EVs, all the nasty byproducts of ICE maintenance are a non-issue. Dead batteries are relatively easy to recycle when the time comes.

I hear ya Dr. Boost. Why throw good money after bad? Why not make it a public works type buy-in? Low emissions vehicles are a good start.

I'm trying to think of another option that pertains to public works. We haven't invested in domestic policy in decades. Maybe leveraging our largest manufacturing sector to work on that might be a good idea.

DrBoost wrote: Get rid of the UAW first and foremost. I think you’d b hard-pressed to find anyone OUTSIDE the UAW to argue that point. Get rid of them today, cancel contract for current workers but continue to pay “legacy” payments. After all, why should those folks take a HUGE hit because of the mistakes of others. They upheld their end of the contract. Discuss……………….

I won't defend the current state of organized labor, but I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush here. The whole system needs to be reworked, getting rid of labor unions won't fix anything by itself.

ok I say reorginize all three into one automaker now would you call it GFC, CFG, FCG, FGC, GCF.... that would make some people go crazy :D

AngryCorvair wrote: i'm not retarded enough to believe that a plug-in EV makes less pollution than any other modern vehicle, only that it makes it in a remote location.

Geez I hope the thermo eff of a power plant is better than a crappy gasoline engine..

Whats the thermo eff on a gas turbine plant?

ignorant wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: i'm not retarded enough to believe that a plug-in EV makes less pollution than any other modern vehicle, only that it makes it in a remote location.

Geez I hope the thermo eff of a power plant is better than a crappy gasoline engine.. Whats the thermo eff on a gas turbine plant?

You still have to deal with power loss from the grid, charging system, battery storage and recovery of the electrical energy. I don't know if that is more or less thermally efficient than the gas engine in a car.

I like it, but I think it is over-simplified.

Chrysler is something like a $147 billion dolalr a year company. Ford is more like $172 billion. GM is bigger than that.

$5 billion is about 15 days operating budget.

I think they will use this money to pay current overdue debts.

If we are then mandating they start NEW work, they will only be generating new expenses, without the income generated from them for maybe 2 years.

The development of the entire new system of production, design, engineering, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sales doesn't even come close to fitting inside fo a $5 billion mandate.

How do you propose getting rid of the UAW?

I'll bite. You let GM die. At the press conference, let the GM execs. explain to duh American public that there are dip E36 M3s who barely graduated high school who make $70k a year, plus retirement, plus killer health care, plus pension, to stick part 'A' in slot 'B.' Let them explain that the only reason this happens is because of the UAW, and that if the sweaty fat berkeleys on the assembly line had taken a cut in salary or benefits, GM could have bailed THEMSELVES out.

Then let some enterprising young group of guys buy up the plants, announce that they're offering assembly line jobs starting at $10/hour plus reasonable health benefits (NO VIAGRA) after 90 days, and that they're not playing ball with the UAW. Start building 3 cylinder diesels or lightweight fuel efficient 4 cyls that get 45+ miles per gallon using technology we already have. Sell for under $10k new. Repeat.

That's how it works in my head anyway. Either way, the UAW needs to berkeleying die or be completely re-tooled. Ford shouldn't have to move their plants to South America to have an efficient operation:

http://info.detnews.com/video/index.cfm?id=1189

...And no one should get paid $60k a year + benefits to stare at a berkeleying wall:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/21/automakers-ask-bailout-paying-workers-sit/

poopshovel wrote:

How do you propose getting rid of the UAW?

I'll bite. You let GM die.

Yeah, I think that's the only way to do it. People seem to be calling to kick the UAW out, and I don't see a good way to do that. I don't see a way to just get rid of the UAW.

Salanis wrote:

ignorant wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: i'm not retarded enough to believe that a plug-in EV makes less pollution than any other modern vehicle, only that it makes it in a remote location.

Geez I hope the thermo eff of a power plant is better than a crappy gasoline engine.. Whats the thermo eff on a gas turbine plant?

You still have to deal with power loss from the grid, charging system, battery storage and recovery of the electrical energy. I don't know if that is more or less thermally efficient than the gas engine in a car.

I have no data but I'm guessing it is still better as gasoline engines are only around 30% eff ..... Maybe they have advanced alittle but....

Not to show my ignorance but i have more questions on this whole bail out topic.

Buicks sell well in China and i think they are manufactured there. Is GM asking China for any assistance? Should it?

In that same vein, all three companies produce multiple vehicles in Mexico - assistance from Mexico?

What about the operations in European countries and beyond?

It is not just GM of America, it is the whole damn thing.

Salanis wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

How do you propose getting rid of the UAW?

I'll bite. You let GM die.

Yeah, I think that's the only way to do it. People seem to be calling to kick the UAW out, and I don't see a good way to do that. I don't see a way to just get rid of the UAW.

Let the record show that at 2:51PM on December 4, 2008, Salanis and poopie agreed on something. :)

poopshovel wrote:

Salanis wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

How do you propose getting rid of the UAW?

I'll bite. You let GM die.

Yeah, I think that's the only way to do it. People seem to be calling to kick the UAW out, and I don't see a good way to do that. I don't see a way to just get rid of the UAW.

Let the record show that at 2:51PM on December 4, 2008, Salanis and poopie agreed on something. :)

And u and I agreed in another thread...

the apocalypse comes TONIGHT!

Hi Poopshovel,

I think you addressed many of the main points & you did so in a very concise manner…nice job.

Is it just me or does Congresses demand for business plans from the big three remind you of a Monty Python skit? “Oh, you want us to be profitable…we thought we were supposed to run the business into the ground…now that we know you want us to make money, we’ll start doing so right away.”

I think we all agree that the auto industry has priced themselves out of the market. We can lay that blame at the feet of the UAW, pension plans that are unsustainable, and arguably over-paid CEO's of all 3 manufacturers.

The CEO for Toyota makes 900k a year. The Ford CEO makes 21 mill. Link to data.

It's a problem that's a part of the domestic auto industry. Paying too d@mned much for everything. Cost cutting starts there. Esp if the tax payers are going to pony up the bucks for inflated salaries.

Course, they should've done the same with the banks. Bastards.

jrw1621 wrote: Not to show my ignorance but i have more questions on this whole bail out topic. Buicks sell well in China and i think they are manufactured there. Is GM asking China for any assistance? Should it? In that same vein, all three companies produce multiple vehicles in Mexico - assistance from Mexico? What about the operations in European countries and beyond? It is not just GM of America, it is the whole damn thing.

made by holden, same thing as the pontiac G8, iirc

Before a frickin' dime gets spent:

1) The heads of the UAW should be right there with the heads of the Big 3 to explain, IN WRITING AS IN A CONTRACT, what they will do to help out. This means pay and benefit cuts.

2) The UAW will have to take an IMMEDIATE 15% reduction in total workforce. Harsh, but necessary.

3) Immediately slash compensation to a max of $200K a year salary for ANY white collar worker other than someone at CEO level and cap CEOs at $500K. This includes all bennies like company cars, health plans, stock options etc.

4) Explain to the Big 3 (and all other companies selling cars in this country as well) that the CAFE standards will be raised 25% IMMEDIATELY, commencing with the 2010 model year and there will be NO negotiation on that point. Each year for the next 5 years after that a 5% increase will be mandatory, for a total 50% increase in CAFE. Doesn't matter whether they do it by improving product or cutting gas hogs from their lineups, just get it done.

5) Breaking any of the above mandates for ANY reason (other than a natural disaster or war, etc) means IMMEDIATE forfeiture of any and all monies loaned.

Getting rid of the UAW and cutting executive salaries might make the cars cheaper, but that won't do anything towards building cars people actually want to buy. People actually pay more money for cars they really want.

Government mandates for hybrid and electric cars while gas is dropping below $2 a gallon sounds like another reciepe for disaster. Do you really think people will buy what government wants the car companies to build?

Snowdoggie wrote: Getting rid of the UAW and cutting executive salaries might make the cars cheaper, but that won't do anything towards building cars people actually want to buy. People actually pay more money for cars they really want. Government mandates for hybrid and electric cars while gas is dropping below $2 a gallon sounds like another reciepe for disaster. Do you really think people will buy what government wants the car companies to build?

See my manifesto above. Also, CAFE restrictions haven't changed for almost twenty berkeleying years. I'm guessing Exxon, GM, Ford, etc., etc. have something to do with that. As a car guy and a libertarian, it's counterintuitive, but I believe the CAFE requirements should change. We can do better than 27.5 MPG.

Hey, the gubmint shoved airbags down the nation's collective throat. Why not some gas mileage? This sub- $2 gas won't last forever, either. The gubmint and the Big 3 got caught with their pants down AGAIN even after the lessons of the first oil crisis, I hope these idiots don't get caught napping yet AGAIN. It would be really crappy to bail them out this time just to have them come back around with their hands out the next time gas prices take a upwards leap. The technology exists to build fuel efficient cars and trucks with good performance, it just has to be applied. And no it's not possible to get 50 MPG out of an H2 with current technology, so vehicles like that will be relegated to oddity status.

As far as making cars that people want to buy, that's more a matter of overcoming deep seated perceptions and that means, as noted elsewhere, they have to do BETTER than their competition. Time to them to step up to the pump, as the saying goes.

I think people should be able to buy any car they please. That doesn't mean the manufacturers have to keep building gas hogs as a majority of their new car production. If someone wants a gas hog, let them buy something on the used market. Or they can get in line for the lowered number to be available new.

It's change or die time for the Big 3. Just having the government say 'aww we are so sorry that the nasty ol' gas prices changed and the credit market went in the toilet, here's a buncha money to keep you making the same mistakes you have all along' ain't gonna cut it.

poopshovel and I agree that less government intervention is better. In this case, the Big 3 want to borrow money from the gov't to stay afloat. They are like any other borrower: there are terms and conditions to any loan. You either agree to adhere to the terms of the loan or you don't get the loan.

I think we all agree the Big 3 have screwed things up royally on their own between poor product planning, excessive CEO and white collar compensation, letting the UAW dictate how they build cars and run their businesses and maybe this will bring them back to some semblance of intelligent operation. I'm willing to let the gov't smack them over the head, hell they couldn't screw it up any worse (yeah, I know, British Leyland).

I sure wish "they" would ask the opinions of the people on this board.

I think we could have it licked in a couple of hours worth of forum dialogue.