Comments on: Big 3 Face Stiff Challenge On Capitol Hill

Auto Execs Continue To Press Case For $25 Billion Loan To Resistant Lawmakers

[dzemog1]

I wonder how many that are posting today would be willing to take a 30% cut in pay starting next week.

Posted by rxzyu at 02:57 PM : Nov 19, 2008

-------------------------------------------

I already have, it''s closer to 40%, and if I hadn''t agreed to it, it would''ve been 100% because I would''ve lost my job.

[strangeworld]

"Actually, I own 3 businesses, that have nothing to do with the automotive business. 2 retail, 1 consulting."

That''s one of the problems in the US...consulting is not a business...it''s a made up BS deal that allows the manager of one company or government department to line the pockets of their friends legally. We''ve got entirely too much consulting, managing, coordinating, and "leading" and not enough working and doing. We used to laugh at companies that had "Too may chiefs and not enough indians"...now that''s the norm. The US today with all it''s BS emplyment opportunities is like the story of the Emperor''s New Clothes - Suddenly we''re finding out that the economy will not work when everyone refuses to do actual work and instead decides to consult, etc..

[strangeworld]

"Nor have I heard that the UAW would forgo any union benefits."

The workers in American industries, including those working at the auto manufacturers, ahve been making concessions and taking pay/benefit cuts or freezes since reagan took over in 1980 - at the same time, corporate management salaries and benefits have risen at an obscene rate. So where is the problem?...with the workers who want to make a decent wage, or with the management who crys about how labor costs are sinking the company while giving themselves huge pay increases. It doesn''t take much in the way of thinking to see that the problem has been caused by the rampant greed brought on by years of GOP economics and greed. We need to roll back the rules that allow corporations to be moved overseas or bilked by management and stockholders...it''s nothing more than greed.

[rickwar]

The banking industry''''s comments said it all.

All 3 automakers are such a high risk for failure, and no doubt will end up filing for bankruptcy, in the near future. The banks will not under any circumstances loan any funds to these automakers.

Posted by shelleyxjr22 at 02:53 PM : Nov 19, 2008


No, it does not say it all. It''s a risk because the banks do not have the deposits required to back the loans themselves, due to their own foolishness.

Ask youself this also, possible no votes coming from southern states, that have auto plants, what might motivate them to vote no? Self interest.

[rickwar]

Posted by rickwar at 02:39 PM : Nov 19, 2008

Quite obvious that you are a direct beneficiary of the overwhelming salaries/benefits associated with the auto industry. Therefore, your thoughts are severely skewed.
ANYONE knows that an average cost of $70/hr and a lack of foresight has killed the auto industry. It will not survive in any form until the salary issue is addressed. We CANNOT funnel money into it if it won''''t change appropriately. If you truly believe that we have to pay for either keeping them afloat or even if they close - THEN CLOSE, at least we know we have reached the bottom of the well and the big three won''''t be back sucking more money out of us to support their dinosaur of an organization.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by craigh9 at 02:45 PM : Nov 19, 2008

Actually, I own 3 businesses, that have nothing to do with the automotive business. 2 retail, 1 consulting.

However, I did work for 27 years (not in the last decade) in the auto business.

The money being asked for is a loan, not a handout. If you can''t figure out why a commercial bank can''t lend at the moment, well good luck to you.

As to the 70 per hour that''s benefits and retirement and required. That''s about 2.6 times basic wage. Do the math.

[mikezembill]

I wonder how many that are posting today would be willing to take a 30% cut in pay starting next week.

[shelleyxjr22]

The banking industry''s comments said it all.

All 3 automakers are such a high risk for failure, and no doubt will end up filing for bankruptcy, in the near future. The banks will not under any circumstances loan any funds to these automakers.

Now, why should the American tax payers, be put in a position of the same high risk. Or congress having to face the American people. If these automakers should fail.

I here these three CEO''s coming up with excuses. How ever, I don''t hear one of them coming up with a solid plan, insuring future success.

This bailout would be playing Russian Roulette with billions of tax payer dollars. To say the least.

[mikezembill]

Now i get it you are pis$ed off because of you job and getting the shaft well i hate this for you and maby just maby you can end up with a better job in the long run hope so.

[craigh9]

Posted by rickwar at 02:39 PM : Nov 19, 2008

Quite obvious that you are a direct beneficiary of the overwhelming salaries/benefits associated with the auto industry. Therefore, your thoughts are severely skewed.
ANYONE knows that an average cost of $70/hr and a lack of foresight has killed the auto industry. It will not survive in any form until the salary issue is addressed. We CANNOT funnel money into it if it won''t change appropriately. If you truly believe that we have to pay for either keeping them afloat or even if they close - THEN CLOSE, at least we know we have reached the bottom of the well and the big three won''t be back sucking more money out of us to support their dinosaur of an organization.

[dzemog1]

For those of you who favor the bailout, would you change your mind if you knew these guys with their hands held out for cash, took luxury private jets to the meeting in Washington? Or that they''ve been taking $20+ million in salary? Or that the execs not living in Detroit have as one of their perks, free private jet travel to/from their homes each week/weekend? Would knowing all of these are true even as they''ve laid off tens of thousands of hard-working and loyal employees, many of which had a long history of service with the company? Is it okay that they''ve put all of these people on the street and continued lining their own pockets? Is it okay that they''ve closed plants and caused thousands of people to lose their homes, while keeping their fleet of private luxury jets? (GM alone has 8 jets).

It''s not ok with me. I don''t want a dime of my taxes helping these guys until they''ve proven they''re willing to make some hard-core changes. Agree to max salary of $500K, sell the corporate fleet, and commit to reduce travel expenses by 75%. This is 2008 folks...you don''t need to fly to go to a meeting when video-conferencing technology today allows you to "meet" in a virtual room with anyone around the world. Responsible companies are already doing this, and they''re doing it because it saves money, time, AND the environment (which ironically should be a key factor for Detroit). They do all these things and still need help, we''ll talk. Until then, no deal.