if they sell it for 10 Grand, I dont mind to take one.

actually, it could be possible. consider they're now "officially" bankrupt. most if not all would stay away from their dealerships altogether. yea yea yea who cares if government would back the warranty up blah blah blah. Why bother ?

There is a BMW/TOyota/whatever across the street !

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Chrysl...&asset=&ccode=

He earns 27.65, to do some **** job that even a monkey can do it(ok, maybe a human with high school diploma for 10 bux an hour)

He has the ***** to say Hedge fund caused them to go into Bankruptcy. Yeah ok.

 

Christ, I have two college degrees and I dont make anywhere near that much. This is exactly why people hate the UAW with a passion. Plus add on to that salary...paying next to nothing for health care, pension, etc...more perks 95% of the workers in this country dont get and if you eliminate gov't 99% of people dont get.

 

+1... I am a design engineer, and get paid less than a lot of the people that put together the stuff I design... they're union of course

 

lol that is bullshit. my dad used to pump concrete for brundage bone back in 90s and he was union and didn't get paid much more then that. He might have made $35-40 an hour. But the complexity of the job is sooo different. A simple metal stamping position should never yield that type of money. Screw UAW!

 

Now after that rant, I only have one problem with NOT having a union. Say the people making 25+ per hour plus benefits start getting paid $15 per hour and pay more for their health ins. etc. The company sells cars and because of reduced costs starts making a shitload of profit. Now the problem with that is you know these huge profits are going to go striaght into the pockets of the CEOs, CFO's, etc. and the hard workers that got them the profits will see none of it in the form of incresed wages, benefits, etc. Unfortunately in todays business climate, greed will rise above everything in these big companies. Thats what I think could happen if these unions were completely busted up and another problem I see is that union leadership has now almost become a political position where it shouldn't be So I guess I have an argument for both sides.

 

Hay! I use to do metal stamping when attending college.
Don't knock the pay!

 

You guys are getting hung up way too much on the notion of how MUCH people make in regards to the car companies. So what if they make $32 an hour? If the rates keep the company competitive in the automotive market then these people, and everyone else frankly, are free to earn whatever wage they want.

If someone gets paid $40 an hour to pick lettuce in the fields good for them! Where the situation becomes a problem is when the federal government is paying to keep these companies in business because now my tax dollars are paying wages instead of profits from sales.

Again, I have no issue with union workers. What I have issue with are union leaders who insist on pitching contracts where people do the same or less labor but continue to see increases in pay. I recall a great story about a local brick layer's union where they are required to lay X number of bricks per day.

Every time a contract came around the union leadership kept pushing to lower that number yet they demanded more pay, more benefits and more perks. That kind of business isn't sustainable in the long term.

Interestinly enough, a unique situation is going to arise out of Chrylser if/when they go back to production. The UAW will own (IIRC) over 50% stake in the company. Imagine a situation that resulted in a strike. The UAW would prevent their workers from striking (a tool of unions) because it would impact their investment in Chrysler. By having a major stake in the success/failure of the company, the UAW won't allow anyone to do anything that would upset that.

I might be off in my understanding of some of this, but the bottom line is congress and the White House flat out failed on their promise to not bankrupt this company. Instead of pumping billions in tax payer dollars and then pulling the plug they should have let the companies go bankrupt and let capitalism work itself out as it always does.

Now, some might argue "...but Flash, if the market is allowed to control everything then thousands of people will lose their jobs."

Oh rly?

GM To Cut 21,000 Hourly Jobs, Eliminate Pontiac Brand

So despite the rants that we need to save American jobs and these companies are "too big to fail" we see here where thousands of jobs will be lost at GM and probably thousands more at Chrysler when you factor in production AND dealership jobs.

So in the end, we lost thousands of jobs and wasted billions in tax payer dollars. I hope you all get used to it cause this is the "change" that's happening.

 

BRILLIANT! You finally figured why they stopped building the pyramids!

Your gonna get a scientific award for this.

 

funny that the bond holders that rejected the "offer" were the ones that aren't banks owned by the government through the TARP.

the bod holders were going to get total %10 of the company when the held twice as much debt as the union but the union was going to get 51%? thats not an offer thats a joke or an insult

 

Don't forget they were offered 15 cents on the dollar to forgive debt.

Ha! Bankruptcy will yield more than that.

 

Ah yes! Now you're starting to understand the complex nature of the chain of events since January.

Isn't it interesting how this bankruptcy occurs AFTER the government has managed to nationalize some of the banks. They managed to convince private bondholders to give in, then the same for banks which are now government owned.

It took government ownership to push these banks along. Without it, the UAW wouldn't be able to get the kind of deal they have now. This whole process was engineered.

 

Engineered re-distribution of the wealth?

 

And now Fiat are also looking for an Alliance with Opel (GM)!....

Something just does not sit right with ANY of this!..

So does Fiat want to take over the Auto World?

Are they "Automotive Vultures"

What concessions have the UAW really done, wasn't that long ago Fiat said it would not touch Chrysler as their salaries were too high.

Chrysler comes out of Bankruptcy much leaner but what happens to the COST of Production.

 

Oh yeah, what or who would stop Fiat pulling out of the "Deal" on Chrysler if they decided to, nothing has been set in concrete..

All I see is a lot of "talk"..

From where I am, Chrysler should remain closed.

 

Good question. Up until now Fiat would have been stupid to go against a merger because they held the better hand in the deal. When the federal government is saying "merge or else..." Fiat could leverage whatever nutcase deal they wanted because they know Chrysler has everything to lose.

Should the merger still occur, look out for the government forcing Chrysler to manufacture small fuel efficient cars by Fiat here in the US and sell the trucks and SUV's overseas.

 

didnt i tell you all to read Nickle and Dimed?

i swear i did. i think i told you it would give you a different perspective than that of living in your cushy homes with nice sports cars and well paying jobs.

in fact, I WILL SEND YOU A COPY. im not even joking. PM your address and i'll buy one on amazon and have it shipped to your house.

the lack of empathy for the working poor is astounding.

edit:

yes, it is walmarts fault. they do a lot of damage to the economy by shipping out billions of our dollars to china. they ruthlessly undercut local business and they treat their employees like absolute crap. for millions of americans, they cant get better jobs. you guys just dont understand. ****.

 

You never heard of Rome?

 

the bondholders can go f*** themselves. chrysler files bankruptcy, signs deal w/ fiat, alfa romeo comes back to the us. i'm happy

 

Oh don't we (I)...
What makes you think the US is special?

This has been happening (export of Jobs) all over the western world.
In the "world" of free (fair) trade "Cough" manufacturing has gone to the lowest bidder and cost, and the main cost of ANY manufacturing is Labor/Wages/Benefits/Entitlements.

Look at the UAW, they have priced themselves out of the market, how can a US or Australian car maker compete when it costs 10 times more to make a car locally than imports?.

Protectionism (Tariffs) have failed, the taxpayer subsidising their own, the US and in particular Europe, subsidize farmers to the hilt and then dump it on other countries.
Try getting Australian Steel or Beef into the US without high tariffs or a scream from stakeholders.
We can't even get a Holden Ute in because of the UAW.
And Australia is a country of only 21 million people, what is the US afraid of?

Capitalism fails again in the end, Bond and Shareholders (Mom and Dad investors) expect...no, demand a yearly return higher than growth, higher than deposit or bond rates, year after year, so we see Manufacturing going off shore to save money and increase company profits.

Then we get cries...why can't we buy American made or Australian made goods anymore...... because they cost too much, we don't buy them.

In the end it is the consumers, the same mom and dads and their children that buy the China made products because they are cheaper.
They say they care about American or Australian jobs, but the mighty dollar rules in the end.

The stupidity of it all, you even get EU farmers producing a crop they can't sell, or producing a crop they know the Government (taxpayers) will subsidize, they even get paid to produce no crops at all!

Utter madness.

 

Uhh huh.

So Its wrong for businesses to make money. a Business is here to give people jobs. Its wrong to lower the cost. and cashier working at McDonalds should receive the same benefits as the CEOs/CFOs/Higher ups.

I totally get your point.

Walmart can do it, because thats how business works.

I mean, you can try to do it "your" way. We all will wait and see how long you would last.

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ve-many-goals/

Before Chrysler can start building cars that more Americans want to buy, it will have to overcome considerable challenges, The New York Times’s David E. Sanger writes.

The biggest may be persuading its three principal new owners — the retiree benefit fund for the labor union that President Obama himself has identified as a contributor to the company’s decline; a government that insists it will keep its hands off day-to-day decisions; and a foreign car company, Fiat — to innovate in ways the carmaker has resisted for three decades.

There is reason for skepticism. For all the optimism expressed by the administration about a downsized, leaner Chrysler, the structure of the new Chrysler sets the stage for a conflict between current workers and retirees.

Chrysler’s workers, of course, are desperate to preserve their job security, their wages and their generous health care benefits, built up over years of negotiations. But it is Chrysler’s retirees who will hold a seat on the new company’s board, representing the interests of a dwindling — and expensive — retirement health plan.

“There’s a potential conflict there, absolutely,” one of Mr. Obama’s aides conceded Thursday, The Times said.

The innovative element of the new company is supposed to come from Fiat, the Italian automaker that managed a remarkable turnaround in the last five years. Fiat turns out fuel-efficient engines and sporty, economical small cars — exactly the image of the future American car industry that Mr. Obama talks glowingly about.

But when Chrysler was controlled by Daimler-Benz, one of Europe’s most successful luxury carmakers, everyone hailed the potential of great crossborder synergies. They simply never materialized.

Members of the team that negotiated the deal insisted on Thursday that they had explored all those risks as they revamped Chrysler and faced down a group of recalcitrant lenders who, on Wednesday night, balked at taking a deal that would give them about 28 cents for every dollar they had lent the company over the years, The Times said.

The United Automobile Workers will not be managing the company the way unions tried, and failed, to manage United Airlines, they said. Moreover, Fiat is not Daimler — it is geared toward small, midmarket cars, not fine driving machines with wood-burl dashboards, they added.

Mr. Obama is trying to portray the government’s role as more venture capitalist than manager.

“I’m not an auto engineer,” the president declared Wednesday evening during the news conference marking his 100th day in office. “But I know that if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same.”

In fact, in Chrysler’s case, he is relying on Italian technology — Fiat technology — to do what Chrysler has been unable to do itself. And while the White House doesn’t want to advertise that fact as Chrysler embarks on its latest last chance, the plan is for Chrysler to ultimately be a subsidiary of Fiat, in a turnabout of fortune like those in the early days of the auto industry, when giants were consumed by faster-moving competitors.

The plan announced Thursday creates incentives for Fiat to obtain a majority share of its troubled American partner, step by step. Fiat’s stake is supposed to rise in 5 percent increments, if it satisfies each of three milestones: It must expand Chrysler’s market beyond North America by putting Chrysler’s popular Jeeps on car lots in places like Brazil and Italy; it must begin to produce high-performance engines in old Chrysler factories; and it must produce a car that can get 40 miles to the gallon.

The entire venture will be overseen by a new board, including four directors appointed by the president — some of whom, it appears, have already been approached about the job.

Mr. Obama insists that beyond appointing those directors — mostly “experienced C.E.O.’s,” one administration official told The Times — Washington will keep its hands off. But he cautioned that “every dime of new taxpayer money will be repaid before Fiat can take a majority ownership stake.”

That “new money” amounts to about $8 billion in loans, including the cash to pay off Chrysler’s lenders. The federal government has already extended about $4 billion to keep the company afloat in recent months.

The plan faces another potential hitch: that 40-mile-a-gallon car, according to administration officials, probably will not be for sale in the United States until 2012. If the Secret Service can be persuaded, Mr. Obama could tool around in it as he campaigns for re-election.

That means the government, the unions and Fiat must find a way to keep Chrysler afloat for two and a half years, in the worst car market in memory and with offerings that Mr. Obama himself described Thursday at the White House as “less popular, less reliable and less fuel-efficient than foreign competitors’.” Presumably, they will keep that ringing endorsement out of the company’s advertisements.

At General Motors, the events about to unfold are even more complex. While the United States government will hold only about 7 percent of Chrysler’s shares, it will very likely end up with 55 percent of G.M., once the world’s largest carmaker.

And while Mr. Obama says he neither wants to dictate car models nor run the companies, their success or failure will be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as his success or failure as the auto executive he says he never wanted to be.

 

GM has an opportunity.

Chrysler? List their high MPG vehicles.... They got rid of the Neon.

They make gas gusslers so.........................

They need to be more efficent, and cut cost to survive.

There banking on rebadged Fiats will sell.

 

Pay & benefits at the big three should be in line with the industry standard. Most companies benchmark their plans to those of a similar sized company in the same industry. In this case the difference in pay and benefits b/w the the big three and foreign automakers is due to the UWA. The big three are essentially paying a premium on labor where it is definitely not warranted.

The big three exist to provide quality goods to it's customers, competitive pay to it's employees (not excessive pay & benefits), and increase profits for it's shareholders. I'm sorry but if laying people off means adding value for shareholders while keeping the company competitive then they should be able to do it. This whole deal of having to buy someone out of their contract, because union rules don't allow layoffs is ridiculous. I read that part of union rules is that they can't have workers replaced by new technologies without union approval. Are you kidding me? So while the foreign makers enact this new technology and reduce their OH the big three don't. This then leads to higher vehicle costs and lost market share. Sound familiar? The UAW did it to themselves, unions had their place in the world back when laws were not in place to protect workers, nowadays that's not the case anymore.

The percenatge of unionized workers has seen a dramatic decrease in the last decade and it will continue to do so. The reason being is that people don't see the value in them anymore.

 

The viability of an automaker has nothing to do with efficient production or making cars with high fuel mileage.

What does make them viable is producing products which Americans want to buy and if that means SUV's, trucks and sports cars then that's what Chrysler should make. What's going to happen is they are going to make econo-box cars which nobody wants and they won't sell.

Only reason people bought hybrids was cause of high fuel costs. As long as those costs remain low people won't buy stuff like that. Hence why Hybrid production has all but halted.

Cutting costs is absolutly vital but that means having to force the labor unions to compete with non-union shops. I gave previous examples of union contracts where there's always a push to do less and less work for more money. That kind of business isn't capable of surviving.

And now, the UAW retirees have 51% control of Chrysler. That dynamic will change everything because the UAW can no longer work against the direction of the company. Exploiting the company for workers means losing their investment so you'll see changes in contracts.

Either way, this kind of meddling from the federal government is beyond anything we've seen ever or at least for a very very long time. The President of the United States actually firing a CEO? Where the hell is THAT written in the constitution?

The President telling creditors and investors what they can expect to recoupe from a bankrupt company? These people who were owed BILLIONS by Chrysler must take 20 some odd cents on the dollar? Then the UAW with limited investment is given control?

This whole situation is out of control and sadly it's only the beginning. The next step is going to be setting the banks up for failure so the government can seize control of them as well.

Somehow when people thought "change" I doubt this is what they had in mind.