How come none of the execs in their testimony touched on..
11-20-2008, 04:24 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
How come none of the execs in their testimony touched on..
The real problems that they have like...
The fact that it is simply impossible to support the retirement benefits from when you had 50% market share with a 1/4 less employees today, and 20% market share. It's really the same problem Social Security has. Sure it can be argued that GM built crappy cars or whatever...but the simple fact that there are 10x the competitors in the market today than there were 40 years ago says that GM is gonna shrink. I mean we really are looking at the exact same thing that sunk companies Bethleham steel when steel production moved overseas.
Or how come they do not bring up that every survey shows GM's quality on par with it competitors, and company's like Toyota have heavily truck reliant product mixes also.
Lastly, they should ahve also mentioned that they are one of the few industries where inovation is legislated. There is no law that Boeing has to make more efficiant airplanes over the next 30 years. Now laws governing how many miles a gallon diesel locomotives must get and so forth.
I know it would not have gotten anywhere or made any friends..but it sure would have felt good. I am so tired of hearing GM has issues because they need to "Make better cars".
The fact that it is simply impossible to support the retirement benefits from when you had 50% market share with a 1/4 less employees today, and 20% market share. It's really the same problem Social Security has. Sure it can be argued that GM built crappy cars or whatever...but the simple fact that there are 10x the competitors in the market today than there were 40 years ago says that GM is gonna shrink. I mean we really are looking at the exact same thing that sunk companies Bethleham steel when steel production moved overseas.
Or how come they do not bring up that every survey shows GM's quality on par with it competitors, and company's like Toyota have heavily truck reliant product mixes also.
Lastly, they should ahve also mentioned that they are one of the few industries where inovation is legislated. There is no law that Boeing has to make more efficiant airplanes over the next 30 years. Now laws governing how many miles a gallon diesel locomotives must get and so forth.
I know it would not have gotten anywhere or made any friends..but it sure would have felt good. I am so tired of hearing GM has issues because they need to "Make better cars".
11-20-2008, 04:33 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 3,749
ohh you should hear what this guy is saying to support the fall of GM..yet he claims to be a domestic car guy.
there is a listen live tab at the home page to get an idea of what I am talking about! from 9AM to noon and sometimes 3-7PM. He is throwing much of what you said into the "who cares build better cars, the asians are doing it blah blah." and guess what. They are listening.
his bio page and the listen live tab are there. He might not change his mind but damn if he got a few hundred comments defending the equality that GM shares with these loones.
http://wtkk.com/Hosts/MichaelGraham/...6/Default.aspx
there is a listen live tab at the home page to get an idea of what I am talking about! from 9AM to noon and sometimes 3-7PM. He is throwing much of what you said into the "who cares build better cars, the asians are doing it blah blah." and guess what. They are listening.
his bio page and the listen live tab are there. He might not change his mind but damn if he got a few hundred comments defending the equality that GM shares with these loones.
http://wtkk.com/Hosts/MichaelGraham/...6/Default.aspx
11-20-2008, 04:39 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
Lastly, they should ahve also mentioned that they are one of the few industries where inovation is legislated. There is no law that Boeing has to make more efficiant airplanes over the next 30 years. Now laws governing how many miles a gallon diesel locomotives must get and so forth.
And to come at this from a different angle - many players in other industries (Caterpillar, GE, Boeing) manage to innovate in areas such as fuel consumption and emissions before being forced to do so by legislation.
I know it would not have gotten anywhere or made any friends..but it sure would have felt good. I am so tired of hearing GM has issues because they need to "Make better cars".
11-20-2008, 06:50 PM
#4
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
That's funny, because I heard this....
Rick Wagoner and Key Points to the Senate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Senate
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
Rick Wagoner
General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Washington, D.C.
• Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
• I’m Rick Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Motors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the future of America’s domestic auto industry.
• I’d like to acknowledge for the Committee the constituents that I represent:
• General Motors directly employs approximately 96,000 people in the United States.
• We have 6,500 dealers across the country, who employ another 340,000.
• Last year, we purchased more than $30 billion of goods and services from more than 2,000 suppliers in 46 states.
• Our pension program covers nearly 475,000 retirees and spouses, and our health benefits extend to about one million Americans.
• We have about one million registered stockholders.
• And 70 million of our vehicles are registered to U.S. citizens… 22 million of them purchased in the last 5 years.
* * * * * * *
• As recent news coverage has made abundantly clear, many people have a picture of GM that has not kept pace with our progress.
• In fact, GM has made tremendous progress transforming our business in recent years.
• Since 2005, we’ve reduced our annual structural costs in North America by 23 percent, or $9 billion… and expect to reduce them by about 35 percent, or $14-$15 billion, by 2011.
• Between 2003 and 2010, we'll reduce our U.S. hourly labor costs from $18 billion to $6 billion.
• We negotiated a landmark labor agreement with the UAW last year that will enable us to virtually erase our competitive gap.
• And we’ve addressed pension and retiree health care costs in the U.S., on which we spent $103 billion over the last 15 years.
• As a result of these and other actions, we are now matching – or beating – foreign automakers in terms of productivity, quality, and fuel economy. By 2010, we’ll match them on labor costs, as well.
• On the product side, we’re building vehicles that consumers want to buy… like Cadillac CTS, Motor Trend magazine’s 2008 Car of the Year… and Chevy Malibu, the 2008 North American Car of the Year.
• We’ve also made huge progress developing advanced propulsion technologies.
• In 2009, GM will offer 20 models in the U.S. that get at least 30 miles per gallon highway – twice our nearest competitor – and nine hybrids.
• We have more than three million flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S.
• We’ve established the world’s largest hydrogen fuel-cell test fleet here in the U.S.
• And we’re running all-out to get the Chevy Volt extended range electric vehicle to market as soon as possible.
* * * * * * *
• In short, we’ve moved aggressively in recent years to address competitive shortcomings and position GM for long-term success… and we were well on the road to turning our North American business around.
• Last October, following the negotiation of a new labor agreement with the UAW, our stock price climbed to almost $43 per-share… based on analysts’ views that we had finally overcome the cost-competitiveness gap with foreign automakers.
• Since then, our industry has been hit hard by the global financial markets crisis… and the recent plunge in vehicle sales threatens not only GM’s ongoing turnaround, but our very survival.
• In response, we have moved quickly to keep our company on track. Since June, we’ve taken steps to:
• reduce our North American manufacturing capacity;
• further shift production to cars and crossovers;
• sell off parts of the company;
• suspend dividend payments;
• reduce headcount;
• eliminate raises, discretionary bonuses, and 401(k) matches for salaried employees;
• and eliminate health-care coverage for U.S. salaried retirees after age 65.
• These and other actions are designed to improve GM’s liquidity by $20 billion by the end of 2009. They affect every employee, retiree, dealer, supplier, and investor in our company.
* * * * * * *
• Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with those who say we are not doing enough to position GM for success.
• What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our employees' ability to work hard, or our long-term strategy.
• What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis, which has severely restricted credit availability, and reduced industry sales to the lowest per-capita level since World War II.
• Our industry, which represents America’s real economy, needs a bridge to span the financial chasm that has opened before us.
• We’ll use this bridge to pay for essential operations… new vehicles and powertrains… parts from our suppliers… wages and benefits for our workers and retirees… and taxes for state and local governments that help deliver essential services to million of Americans.
• In the process, we’ll continue to reinvent the automobile, and improve the nation’s energy security, through development of advanced technologies like those in the Chevy Volt.
* * * * * * *
• And what would it mean if the domestic industry were allowed to fail?
• The societal costs would be catastrophic: three million jobs lost within the first year, U.S. personal income reduced by $150 billion, and a government tax loss of more than $156 billion over three years… not to mention the broader blow to consumer and business confidence.
• Such a level of economic devastation would far exceed the government support that our industry needs to weather the current crisis.
• That’s why this is about much more than just Detroit… it’s about saving the U.S. economy from a catastrophic collapse.
• In short, helping the auto industry bridge the current financial crisis will not only prevent massive economic dislocation now… it will also produce enormous benefits for our country later.
• We want to continue the vital role we’ve played for America for the past 100 years… but we can’t do it alone.
• You can help us through this crisis. In return, we will repay the taxpayer’s faith and support many times over, for many years to come.
• Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Senate
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
Rick Wagoner
General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Washington, D.C.
• Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
• I’m Rick Wagoner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Motors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the future of America’s domestic auto industry.
• I’d like to acknowledge for the Committee the constituents that I represent:
• General Motors directly employs approximately 96,000 people in the United States.
• We have 6,500 dealers across the country, who employ another 340,000.
• Last year, we purchased more than $30 billion of goods and services from more than 2,000 suppliers in 46 states.
• Our pension program covers nearly 475,000 retirees and spouses, and our health benefits extend to about one million Americans.
• We have about one million registered stockholders.
• And 70 million of our vehicles are registered to U.S. citizens… 22 million of them purchased in the last 5 years.
* * * * * * *
• As recent news coverage has made abundantly clear, many people have a picture of GM that has not kept pace with our progress.
• In fact, GM has made tremendous progress transforming our business in recent years.
• Since 2005, we’ve reduced our annual structural costs in North America by 23 percent, or $9 billion… and expect to reduce them by about 35 percent, or $14-$15 billion, by 2011.
• Between 2003 and 2010, we'll reduce our U.S. hourly labor costs from $18 billion to $6 billion.
• We negotiated a landmark labor agreement with the UAW last year that will enable us to virtually erase our competitive gap.
• And we’ve addressed pension and retiree health care costs in the U.S., on which we spent $103 billion over the last 15 years.
• As a result of these and other actions, we are now matching – or beating – foreign automakers in terms of productivity, quality, and fuel economy. By 2010, we’ll match them on labor costs, as well.
• On the product side, we’re building vehicles that consumers want to buy… like Cadillac CTS, Motor Trend magazine’s 2008 Car of the Year… and Chevy Malibu, the 2008 North American Car of the Year.
• We’ve also made huge progress developing advanced propulsion technologies.
• In 2009, GM will offer 20 models in the U.S. that get at least 30 miles per gallon highway – twice our nearest competitor – and nine hybrids.
• We have more than three million flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S.
• We’ve established the world’s largest hydrogen fuel-cell test fleet here in the U.S.
• And we’re running all-out to get the Chevy Volt extended range electric vehicle to market as soon as possible.
* * * * * * *
• In short, we’ve moved aggressively in recent years to address competitive shortcomings and position GM for long-term success… and we were well on the road to turning our North American business around.
• Last October, following the negotiation of a new labor agreement with the UAW, our stock price climbed to almost $43 per-share… based on analysts’ views that we had finally overcome the cost-competitiveness gap with foreign automakers.
• Since then, our industry has been hit hard by the global financial markets crisis… and the recent plunge in vehicle sales threatens not only GM’s ongoing turnaround, but our very survival.
• In response, we have moved quickly to keep our company on track. Since June, we’ve taken steps to:
• reduce our North American manufacturing capacity;
• further shift production to cars and crossovers;
• sell off parts of the company;
• suspend dividend payments;
• reduce headcount;
• eliminate raises, discretionary bonuses, and 401(k) matches for salaried employees;
• and eliminate health-care coverage for U.S. salaried retirees after age 65.
• These and other actions are designed to improve GM’s liquidity by $20 billion by the end of 2009. They affect every employee, retiree, dealer, supplier, and investor in our company.
* * * * * * *
• Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with those who say we are not doing enough to position GM for success.
• What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our employees' ability to work hard, or our long-term strategy.
• What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis, which has severely restricted credit availability, and reduced industry sales to the lowest per-capita level since World War II.
• Our industry, which represents America’s real economy, needs a bridge to span the financial chasm that has opened before us.
• We’ll use this bridge to pay for essential operations… new vehicles and powertrains… parts from our suppliers… wages and benefits for our workers and retirees… and taxes for state and local governments that help deliver essential services to million of Americans.
• In the process, we’ll continue to reinvent the automobile, and improve the nation’s energy security, through development of advanced technologies like those in the Chevy Volt.
* * * * * * *
• And what would it mean if the domestic industry were allowed to fail?
• The societal costs would be catastrophic: three million jobs lost within the first year, U.S. personal income reduced by $150 billion, and a government tax loss of more than $156 billion over three years… not to mention the broader blow to consumer and business confidence.
• Such a level of economic devastation would far exceed the government support that our industry needs to weather the current crisis.
• That’s why this is about much more than just Detroit… it’s about saving the U.S. economy from a catastrophic collapse.
• In short, helping the auto industry bridge the current financial crisis will not only prevent massive economic dislocation now… it will also produce enormous benefits for our country later.
• We want to continue the vital role we’ve played for America for the past 100 years… but we can’t do it alone.
• You can help us through this crisis. In return, we will repay the taxpayer’s faith and support many times over, for many years to come.
• Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
11-20-2008, 07:23 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
It's probably like a card game. You discussed certain issues behind closed doors before you reveal all the issues publicly. The pension benefits could be one of those important issues. My way of thinking is that this could be the major reason why Ford participated when they really didn't need to be there... as Mulally indicated.
Btw, if the auto industry isn't very regulated, it's because it doesn't need to be as it's very competitive. In comparison, the financial sector isn't regulated yet these institutions are effectively gambling with your money... and some are looting the system. Go figure!
Btw, if the auto industry isn't very regulated, it's because it doesn't need to be as it's very competitive. In comparison, the financial sector isn't regulated yet these institutions are effectively gambling with your money... and some are looting the system. Go figure!
11-20-2008, 11:31 PM
#7
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Detroit, MI USA
Posts: 2,301
Actually, most other industries are rather heavily regulated. The auto industry isn't somehow unique in this manner.
And to come at this from a different angle - many players in other industries (Caterpillar, GE, Boeing) manage to innovate in areas such as fuel consumption and emissions before being forced to do so by legislation.
Well, the whole testimony pretty much boiled down to "We make good cars, the economy sucks, we aren't prepared to show you any plans on how to fix this in the long term, and give us your money." Frankly, the collective testimony of those three wasn't good enough to convince me to hand over a weekly allowance of lunch money, much less $25B that's going to get burned through in the next six months.
And to come at this from a different angle - many players in other industries (Caterpillar, GE, Boeing) manage to innovate in areas such as fuel consumption and emissions before being forced to do so by legislation.
Well, the whole testimony pretty much boiled down to "We make good cars, the economy sucks, we aren't prepared to show you any plans on how to fix this in the long term, and give us your money." Frankly, the collective testimony of those three wasn't good enough to convince me to hand over a weekly allowance of lunch money, much less $25B that's going to get burned through in the next six months.
Methinks you were not listening.
11-20-2008, 11:45 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 1,042
In fact I only heard each Congressional Rep's ball busting points and that was it.
THANKS MEDIA!! So if any of the companies go bankrupt, at least I'll know I "heard it first from xxxx, douche news network"
11-21-2008, 07:33 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
I didn't hear any answers to the questions I posed in a previous post, so I'm not satisfied. And it would appear that I'm not the only one.
If I made a project proposal to my employer that was so vague and lacking in detail, I probably couldn't get enough money to buy lunch.
If I made a project proposal to my employer that was so vague and lacking in detail, I probably couldn't get enough money to buy lunch.
11-21-2008, 10:07 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: All around
Posts: 2,154
I knew he was talking to politicians (who are often not the brightest of the bunch) so you need to dumb it down a little - but while it was filled with the plight and facts of the industry to pluck at our heart strings, I was asking "whats the plan for the money?" the whole time and felt like there wasn't one, and I was really trying to find it in his words.
...Not to really criticize, but we here for the most part are GM faithful to a fault. We can be overly critical at times, but it really is because we care. When the vast majority of cz28.com is un-inspired and un-impressed with what GM has done right now - if GM can't convince its most faithful - maybe there is something wrong with what GM is saying!!
11-22-2008, 05:25 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I heard part of what happened yesterday after I left the auto show and went to have drinks with a friend "in the industry".
You may be a dyed in the wool GM guy. You may be the person who will go through hell and high water to protect GM against naysayers. You may even have a huge "GM" logo tattooed on your butt using a needle the same size as is used for stitching canvas. But even you have to wonder what plenet these guys were on or what types of mind altering drug they were collectively on by flying into Washington DC on multimillion dollar private corperate jets to ask the congress to sign over taxpayer money to them because their businesses weher on the verge of collective collaspe. I was flat out embarrassed by these bozos, and if I was sitting on a congressional comittee, I would have skined these non thinking a-holes alove as well.
Then the fact that these (especially GM and Chrysler's CEOs) guys offered no real plan on how they were going to fix their business to become solvent and successful again really blew my mind! Again, it was an utter and complete embarrassment.... and remember... I'm a supporter of fed back loans for the big 3!!!!
Either these guys have just ruined any chance to get government money (even after the new Congress takes over and Obama's sworn in) or they have just created a situation where they are going to be forced at gunpoint to make a better company.
And I really like that.
Cerberus will be FORCED to actually come up with a real plan for Chrysler instead of sitting on it hoping to either sell it at a small profit or chop it up in pieces and sell it off.
General Motors will be [color]FORCED[/color] to actually live up to the resources it's blessed with and the global reach it has and instead of the GM empire acting much like the Roman empire (far away lands had their resources sucked dry to support the center of the empire, Rome... or GM North America) it acts like a coherent company.
Ford although seemingly already on the road will see it's focus tightened.
Sure, Ric could have rattled off all the quality improvements and how GM vehicles stack up against the competition, but that would be utter garbage and stupidity on his part to do something like that. The issue isn't how much quality these cars have. It's the fact that these US companies have been anywhere from managed via nieve ideas to simple grossly mismanagement. Most all resources were piled into the simple and high profit large truck market while littled of nothing was placed into cars. That left them all venerable to changes in fuel prices and sudden economic problems. GM put itself in a position where it sold off it's in-house financial arm for money to tie them over till whatever they expected to kick in finally kicked in. And it never did.
And you wonder why congress is skeptical?
You may be a dyed in the wool GM guy. You may be the person who will go through hell and high water to protect GM against naysayers. You may even have a huge "GM" logo tattooed on your butt using a needle the same size as is used for stitching canvas. But even you have to wonder what plenet these guys were on or what types of mind altering drug they were collectively on by flying into Washington DC on multimillion dollar private corperate jets to ask the congress to sign over taxpayer money to them because their businesses weher on the verge of collective collaspe. I was flat out embarrassed by these bozos, and if I was sitting on a congressional comittee, I would have skined these non thinking a-holes alove as well.
Then the fact that these (especially GM and Chrysler's CEOs) guys offered no real plan on how they were going to fix their business to become solvent and successful again really blew my mind! Again, it was an utter and complete embarrassment.... and remember... I'm a supporter of fed back loans for the big 3!!!!
Either these guys have just ruined any chance to get government money (even after the new Congress takes over and Obama's sworn in) or they have just created a situation where they are going to be forced at gunpoint to make a better company.
And I really like that.
Cerberus will be FORCED to actually come up with a real plan for Chrysler instead of sitting on it hoping to either sell it at a small profit or chop it up in pieces and sell it off.
General Motors will be [color]FORCED[/color] to actually live up to the resources it's blessed with and the global reach it has and instead of the GM empire acting much like the Roman empire (far away lands had their resources sucked dry to support the center of the empire, Rome... or GM North America) it acts like a coherent company.
Ford although seemingly already on the road will see it's focus tightened.
Sure, Ric could have rattled off all the quality improvements and how GM vehicles stack up against the competition, but that would be utter garbage and stupidity on his part to do something like that. The issue isn't how much quality these cars have. It's the fact that these US companies have been anywhere from managed via nieve ideas to simple grossly mismanagement. Most all resources were piled into the simple and high profit large truck market while littled of nothing was placed into cars. That left them all venerable to changes in fuel prices and sudden economic problems. GM put itself in a position where it sold off it's in-house financial arm for money to tie them over till whatever they expected to kick in finally kicked in. And it never did.
And you wonder why congress is skeptical?
11-23-2008, 01:15 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 4,306
Outside of the stupid PR blunders such as the 3 private jets, I thought that Rick was the only one there that knew what was going on.
Nardelli was just a warm body, and Mullaly...well, he just looked happy to be alive.
I think that Chrysler should ahve sent Press, and Ford send Billy boy.
With's Press's experience with the darling Toyota, and Ford the head of a "family" company, that would have done better then the CEO's.
Id even like to see Lutz there rather then Rick.
Nardelli was just a warm body, and Mullaly...well, he just looked happy to be alive.
I think that Chrysler should ahve sent Press, and Ford send Billy boy.
With's Press's experience with the darling Toyota, and Ford the head of a "family" company, that would have done better then the CEO's.
Id even like to see Lutz there rather then Rick.
11-23-2008, 07:02 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 3,749
Outside of the stupid PR blunders such as the 3 private jets, I thought that Rick was the only one there that knew what was going on.
Nardelli was just a warm body, and Mullaly...well, he just looked happy to be alive.
I think that Chrysler should ahve sent Press, and Ford send Billy boy.
With's Press's experience with the darling Toyota, and Ford the head of a "family" company, that would have done better then the CEO's.
Id even like to see Lutz there rather then Rick.
Nardelli was just a warm body, and Mullaly...well, he just looked happy to be alive.
I think that Chrysler should ahve sent Press, and Ford send Billy boy.
With's Press's experience with the darling Toyota, and Ford the head of a "family" company, that would have done better then the CEO's.
Id even like to see Lutz there rather then Rick.
"Big three wants money but where are there leaders"
11-23-2008, 10:19 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 4,306
OR
You send in the Charismatic Marine that is in charge of ALL vehicles and has had decades of being at just about every automaker on the planet, the former president of darling Toyota North America, and the PRESIDENT of Ford and direct decendent of the man who STARTED it all!
Maybe you put Mullaly up there, maybe you put in Bill, whatever, but I bet that we would have had a better chance with them in there, the true "leaders" of the company.
