Chrysler.........

[looking4alady]

Can someone give me the two cents (in straight talk) on what went on with Chrysler this week and the reasons behind it.

What I assume/know:
- 80% of their company was purchased by Cerebus Capital Management.

Now, was this due to them being "bankrupt", or were they in a position where they had an offer that they couldn't refuse. One person that I was talking to yesterday said that they were "bankrupt" and that's why Cerebus bought them. This person also said that Chrysler won't be making anymore cars in North America because the market is going towards imports (I can't argue that point, I haven't owned a domestic car since 2001). Is Chrysler going to be moving out of North America for better ground, or are they just going to be revamping their market offerings?

Do elaborate.........

 

[jjinvan]

I looked over the numbers briefly and Daimler is practically paying them to take on the liabilities that Chrysler has.

The unions went too far, the company doesn't make (AFAIK) any hybrids or itty bitty 3 cylinder cars, the pension and health plan obligations are more than the company is worth at this point.

It will be interesting to see what they do, my guess is that the company won't be around for many more years, they'll slowly sell off the assets and then the employees in the union will be out of luck.

Several big companies have been brought down by their own unions, this will just be the next one to go.

 

[sdw]

Can someone give me the two cents (in straight talk) on what went on with Chrysler this week and the reasons behind it.

What I assume/know:
- 80% of their company was purchased by Cerebus Capital Management.

Now, was this due to them being "bankrupt", or were they in a position where they had an offer that they couldn't refuse. One person that I was talking to yesterday said that they were "bankrupt" and that's why Cerebus bought them. This person also said that Chrysler won't be making anymore cars in North America because the market is going towards imports (I can't argue that point, I haven't owned a domestic car since 2001). Is Chrysler going to be moving out of North America for better ground, or are they just going to be revamping their market offerings?

Do elaborate.........

It all comes down to quality.

Mercedes is able to price it's product where it is because there is a perception by the consumer that the car is more comfortable, more reliable and better engineered than it's competition. The corporate culture is of innovative engineering, love of automobiles and a sense that a company is owed your best work.

Chrysler is a collection of failed automotive companies. It would take a while to list them all. The corporate culture is of entitlement for no effort, pretty is good enough to sell it and a sense that time spent at work is time wasted.

I really have no idea why Mercedes had any interest in Chrysler at all. The difference between the cultures should have been quite apparent.

The engineering and management types from Mercedes were in a state of shock when they discovered that people actually damaged cars on the assembly lines, that many employees were involved in schemes to defraud the company by theft, false claims of hours worked or false claims of compensated time off.

So Mercedes has run, not walked away and we get to watch somebody else learn that Chrysler has no value.

There are many that blame the worker for the problems that Chrysler, Ford and GM are having.

It's management that is to blame. If a manager signs a contract that gives uneconomically supportable rights to people, it's the manager's fault. If a manager finds it easier to continue to employ people than to fire them for incompetence, theft or fraud; it's the manager's fault. If you have to run advertising campaigns to try and convince the already burned consumer that you care about quality, it's the manager's fault when the wheels fall off.

When your partner can't run away fast enough, it's management's fault.

The problem is, many of the reasons things don't work for our automotive industry are structural issues built in by government. These same issues are going to bite anybody who builds or assembles cars in North America. Yes, Mazda, Honda, Toyota and others have assembly plants that have regulatory holidays in various locations. Eventually, the holiday is over.

Toyota and Honda are already making the needed adjustments in anticipation of the changed circumstances, they will end up with most of the North American automotive market as their competition fails.

 

[metoo113]

"Toyota and Honda are already making the needed adjustments in anticipation of the changed circumstances, they will end up with most of the North American automotive market as their competition fails."

And they deserve it, the quality of the domestic automakers has improved but is still no where near what you get from Honda or Toyota.

 

[jjinvan]

It's management that is to blame. If a manager signs a contract that gives uneconomically supportable rights to people, it's the manager's fault. If a manager finds it easier to continue to employ people than to fire them for incompetence, theft or fraud; it's the manager's fault. If you have to run advertising campaigns to try and convince the already burned consumer that you care about quality, it's the manager's fault when the wheels fall off.

When your partner can't run away fast enough, it's management's fault.

You seem to forget that the unions took away the managers' ability to fire employees ages ago, they also taught the workers that the way to get ahead was to go on strike and sign short term contracts so you only had to work for a short while before going on strike again.

Just look at the idiocy with BC ferries now, those two who were fucking on the charts table instead of steering the ship should have been thrown in jail but now the union is going to court to prevent them from being fired.

And that was after the union made it clear to the guy who caught them that if he cooperates with the RCMP investigation they'd get HIM fired by kicking him out of the union.

 

[metoo113]

You seem to forget that the unions took away the managers' ability to fire employees ages ago, they also taught the workers that the way to get ahead was to go on strike and sign short term contracts so you only had to work for a short while before going on strike again.

Just look at the idiocy with BC ferries now, those two who were fucking on the charts table instead of steering the ship should have been thrown in jail but now the union is going to court to prevent them from being fired.

And that was after the union made it clear to the guy who caught them that if he cooperates with the RCMP investigation they'd get HIM fired by kicking him out of the union.

You can always fire an employee for cause. No union contract takes away an employers right to fire someone. You just have to document the reasons, give warning and follow the proper procedures. If you have a clear case against an employee the union can grieve it but they will not win if the managers have done their job right.

 

[tao]

ijj, what a muddled and uninformed view of the world you have.

Just look at the idiocy with BC ferries now, those two who were fucking on the charts table instead of steering the ship should have been thrown in jail but now the union is going to court to prevent them from being fired.

the employees were fired, the union is grieving the firings. normally resolution of grievances is negotiated as part of a collective agreement and would not involve any court.

And that was after the union made it clear to the guy who caught them that if he cooperates with the RCMP investigation they'd get HIM fired by kicking him out of the union.

another unsubstantiated jj fantasy.

i feel sorry for your inability to comprehend information, since i am in a giving mood today, so i am going to help you out.

there were two investigations into the sinking of the queen of the north.

• bc ferry internal investigation
• transportation safety board (TSB) investigation

are you following along so far?

ok, it has been reported that the union did not cooperate with the internal investigation by the bc ferry corp.

now here is the tricky part for you. All crew are required by law to co-operate with the safety board.

have i lost you yet?

now see if you can understand this next sentence, this is key.

The TSB has confirmed on several occasions that all members of the crew, including the three with watchkeeping responsibilities, cooperated fully with its investigators.

ok, take a deep breath, try to understand what you just read.

alright, that wasn't too tough was it?

lastly, you mentioned an RCMP investigation. do you know what the RCMP is investigating?

i'm going to help you out here again.

The RCMP, charged with investigating the disappearance of Shirley Rosette and Gerald Foisy, the couple from 100 Mile House, B.C.

again, i know this probably very complicated for you, but see if you can understand this next sentence.

The union said it also co-operated with the RCMP.

i hope this helps!!!!!

 

[tao]

also, my apologies to looking4alady, for temporarily taking this thread off topic.

 

[jjinvan]

You can always fire an employee for cause. No union contract takes away an employers right to fire someone. You just have to document the reasons, give warning and follow the proper procedures. If you have a clear case against an employee the union can grieve it but they will not win if the managers have done their job right.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to many of the court cases over the last several years.

Go do some reading and see if you still think that the union won't win.

 

[jjinvan]

the employees were fired, the union is grieving the firings. normally resolution of grievances is negotiated as part of a collective agreement and would not involve any court.

ok, it has been reported that the union did not cooperate with the internal investigation by the bc ferry corp.

All crew are required by law to co-operate with the safety board.

The TSB has confirmed on several occasions that all members of the crew, including the three with watchkeeping responsibilities, cooperated fully with its investigators.

The RCMP, charged with investigating the disappearance of Shirley Rosette and Gerald Foisy, the couple from 100 Mile House, B.C.

The union said it also co-operated with the RCMP.

Interesting that the RCMP feels that the union did NOT co-operate fully. But I guess we have to take the union's word on that one, eh?

The TSB has also said that they received conflicting and contradictory explanations from the crew members. I guess if you call that cooperating fully?

And lastly, I will be quite happy to post an "I TOLD YOU SO" thread when the union gets the employees reinstated with full back pay. But I guess we'll have to wait for your explanation of that, I wonder what it will be.

Funny how in other countries when something similar happens those responsible wind up in jail.

 

[jjinvan]

And by the way, this is not particularly off topic, if you know the history of Chrysler and its unions.

There have been numerous instances of deliberate sabotage on the assembly lines, as a 'bargaining tactic' by the unions. In all cases, the employees refused to cooperate with police investigations and as per their instructions from their union employed lawyers.

 

[tao]

And lastly, I will be quite happy to post an "I TOLD YOU SO" thread when the union gets the employees reinstated with full back pay. But I guess we'll have to wait for your explanation of that, I wonder what it will be.

i'll give you my explanation now. if they are reinstated in the future it will not change the fact that they were fired.

your post said the union was going to court to prevent them from being fired, you have now used the word reinstated. nice backpedal.

i never gave an opinion on whether or not they would be reinstated.

Interesting that the RCMP feels that the union did NOT co-operate fully. But I guess we have to take the union's word on that one, eh?

but wait, i thought you claimed the "union" would kick members out of the union for cooperating with the RCMP investigation.

Funny how in other countries when something similar happens those responsible wind up in jail.

that may still happen here.

 

[tao]

And by the way, this is not particularly off topic, if you know the history of Chrysler and its unions.

There have been numerous instances of deliberate sabotage on the assembly lines, as a 'bargaining tactic' by the unions. In all cases, the employees refused to cooperate with police investigations and as per their instructions from their union employed lawyers.

i do not disagree that there are instances of the above, one of the worst instances was the Giant Mine explosion in yellowknife which killed 9 people (i believe).

however, i do not think that lawyers advising someone not to talk to investigators or otherwise give testimony is any more likely to happen just because a union is involved. i would think that if a professional (ie a doctor) was facing criminal or civil proceedings, their lawyer(s) would not be any less concerned with protecting their clients rights.

 

[jjinvan]

however, i do not think that lawyers advising someone not to talk to investigators or otherwise give testimony is any more likely to happen just because a union is involved. i would think that if a professional (ie a doctor) was facing criminal or civil proceedings, their lawyer(s) would not be any less concerned with protecting their clients rights.

Here's the difference:

In these cases, the lawyers (from the union) advised those WHO WERE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED OR CHARGED against co-operating in the investigation of other union members.

If a doctor is facing criminal or civil proceedings and another doctor who wasn't named in the case is called to testify as to what he saw or read or heard etc, the college would discipline him if he refused to talk about it because the CMA (or CMPA) didn't want him to get the other doctor in trouble and supplied him with a lawyer who was looking after their interests instead of his.

 

[jjinvan]

i'll give you my explanation now. if they are reinstated in the future it will not change the fact that they were fired.

your post said the union was going to court to prevent them from being fired, you have now used the word reinstated. nice backpedal.

i never gave an opinion on whether or not they would be reinstated.

If they are reinstated with full back pay and no loss of seniority, then they have retroactively prevented the firing from having taken effect.

In fact, if you've read the grievance procedures you'd know that the firing technically does not take effect if the union files a grievance until after the grievance has been resolved, so, technically, their firing has not yet taken effect. They are sort of in 'limbo'. The reason for this has to do with the way EI, CPP and things like health benefits and pensions work. If the union wins the case, it will be as if the firing never happened for all legal purposes.

So, in effect they will have prevented the firing from happening, for all legal purposes.

 

[jjinvan]

but wait, i thought you claimed the "union" would kick members out of the union for cooperating with the RCMP investigation.

Oh wow, you mean the union lied to the press? WOW that has NEVER happened before.

In all of history, no union has EVER lied to the press, we all know THAT!!!

If the union says they are cooperating and the RCMP says they aren't, I think I know who I want to believe.

 

[georgebushmoron]

I don't mean to go off topic here, but TAO, I want to ram fuck the girl in your sig in a really really bad way:

 

[looking4alady]

Yes..I do concur with George....

where did you find her???

 

[sdw]

You seem to forget that the unions took away the managers' ability to fire employees ages ago, they also taught the workers that the way to get ahead was to go on strike and sign short term contracts so you only had to work for a short while before going on strike again.

Just look at the idiocy with BC ferries now, those two who were fucking on the charts table instead of steering the ship should have been thrown in jail but now the union is going to court to prevent them from being fired.

And that was after the union made it clear to the guy who caught them that if he cooperates with the RCMP investigation they'd get HIM fired by kicking him out of the union.

I spent most of my life in a culture where there are clear lines of authority and responsibility.

Most new crew arrive at basic training without even the skills to clean themselves. The staff teaches them how to not stink, how to have their clothing not stink, how to store belongings so that they are not damaged or stolen, how to eat, how to sleep and how to avoid having their crewmates wanting to kill them. Ships tend to be cramped. Dirty, smelly, sloppy things are not appreciated.

Once we have addressed the problem of ensuring that the new crew will be allowed to remain, we must address the fact that their schooling was designed to make keeping them off the street not too boring. Schooling in North America is Sesame Street for adolescents, there is no intention to transmit skills or the ability to describe or solve problems. Every ship, base and facility runs schools to redress this situation.

We do this because part of being an officer is MANAGING THE RESOURCES PROVIDED.

Chrysler and many other companies have taken the easy road to managing. They granted too many rights, required too little performance and practiced the culture of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" believing that they could move on and leave their mess behind.

Unfortunately for the Auto Makers, it's pretty easy for the people to express their will through government and require vehicles to be manufactured in the market they're intended for.

They can't do what Wallmart did and offshore their entire supply. The politicians aren't allowed to permit major things like vehicles to enter without a tariff.

Now, the managers who run Chrysler, Ford and GM have to start changing the way they manage. They have to fire the thieves. They have to fire the incompetent. Instead of lobbying government on the amount of content that has to be built in North America, they should be lobbying for laws that permit them to demand performance from their employees.

We reap what we sow. If a parent is too lazy to parent, they inevitably get the pitying looks as their spawn "performs" in the aisle. If a manager is too lazy to manage, we get the labor situation we have now.

I don't go through life expecting puppies to not mess in the house. I train the puppy. If my house is full of feces, it's my fault, not the dogs'.

 

[tao]

I don't mean to go off topic here, but TAO, I want to ram fuck the girl in your sig in a really really bad way

ditto!!!

looking4alady]where did you find her???

i can't remember ... but some of the fella's on here identified her as ms. reon kadena.