Now there is a can of worms.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-h..._b_144920.html

 

the huffingtonpost should NEVER be confused with as real and credible news source

 

I too am surprised that anyone would post anything out of the Huffington post.

However, if the Chinese want to buy the Big 3 that is the next logical step...virtually all the bailout money is coming from China anyway...were I them I'd rather have real assets than just IOUs.

China's current automakers seem to be about 5 years away from reaching the U.S. because they are having problems meeting safety/other regulations...owning any or all three of the Detroit nameplates would give them an instant and wide-opened door to North America.

 

Good point. The cash would be coming from treasury securities.

However, can you imagine the Chinese trying to deal with the UAW without being able to liquidate them.

 

I'm not an expert on the NLRB or Federal laws in that instance but I'm not sure that a new buyer (whether it be a Chinese company or any other) would automatically be bound to keeping any automaker/plant a union shop.

 

Yeah, I was kidding. We all know how the Chinese would behave toward a group of bitching workers.

 

The Toyota. But neither is as shameful as a supposed auto industry enthusiast not knowing how to spell the name of one of the longest-standing, best-selling car models in existence.

It's not about parts content. It's about where the profit goes. You buy a PT, the profit lands squarely in Detroit. You buy a Corolla, it lands in Japan.

 

Now this is where you are wrong. Whoever buys a union plant is bound by the contract to uphold the agreement. When Daimler bought Chrysler, they bought the union contracts. When Cerberus bought Chrysler, they bought the union contracts. When my former plant was sold, the new company had to buy the union contracts.

In my union book, Article 24 (successorship) is very clear about sales & transfers. It reads:

"This Agreement shall be binding upon the Employer's successors, assigns, purchasers, lessees, or transferees, whether such succession, assignment, or transfer effected voluntarily or by operation of law, and in the event of the Company's merger or consolidation with another Company or Companies, this Agreement shall be binding upon the merged or consolidated company."

 

So is it A ok for GM to outsource their labor to other countries? The profit, er, I mean proceeds go back to Detroit. Meanwhile Hyundai employs good ol' American blue collars to assemble cars down south and that is considered bad; because the profit goes to Korea? Not a lot of logic flying around out there.

GM is a company, thats it. It is not a slice of Apple pie or one of the stars on the flag. GM is owned by shareholders; investors who put up cash in order to have a return profit. It is not owned by the people or the government of America. The sooner you understand this concept the closer you will be at understanding why your argument is mute.

 

A) What profit?
B) Any hypothetical profits from Chrysler products do not land in Detroit, they land in the pockets of Cerberus' investors. Who could be anywhere in the world really.

The workers in Detroit are payroll, not profits. Basic concept.

 

Yeah; I'm sure know one else here as ever misspelled a car model name. By the way, is deriding someone for a spelling mistake something that moderators are supposed to do here?


There's a new argument.

And what profit is that exactly; is that the 2% LOSS that goes back to Detroit or the 98% of the rest of the funds spent in producing the vehicle that stay OUTSIDE of the U.S. (in the case of the PT Cruiser and any other "Domestic" vehicle produced and sourced outside of the U.S.)?

The profit, when there is one, is material only to the owners of the corporation because that's what provides them with a return on their investment but in terms of benefit to the economy, the "profits" have the absolute least impact overall.

 

You really think a promise made by a previous owner is impervious to challenge or can't be circumvented?

 

That is why Chapter 11 is the only answer.

 

I agree with the point that they need to share their working plan with experts outside GM to get the money. Possibly Govt experts to confirm the plan is viable for the loan. I dont think it should be general public info though do you? I mean what good are future comany secrets and product development if everyone knows them and might possibly beat you to market with your own design? Or how detrimental would it be if your competition can anticipate and counter your future plans? I certainly wouldnt want to invest in a company that had to show its competitors their playbook.