North American Auto Industry Crisis news **Pontiac's Last Day (page 28)**

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-27-2009, 08:07 PM
  #561  
Pinky all stinky
 
phile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,665
Received 191 Likes on 118 Posts
you know, it's funny cause our office just started implementing similar tactics to lower cost. Every other light bulb in the rows and rows of fluorescent lights were removed.
Old 02-28-2009, 01:17 AM
  #562  
Race Director
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 14,376
Received 632 Likes on 508 Posts
Old 02-28-2009, 08:26 PM
  #563  
intelligentsia
 
SRK85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Land of cheap vodka, hot girls, and great nightlife
Age: 38
Posts: 4,376
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I like SAABS however GM messes them up their interiors are so basic and not appealing. When they re-did the 9-3 last year they should have totally overhauled the interior as well.
Old 02-28-2009, 09:06 PM
  #564  
Pinky all stinky
 
phile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,665
Received 191 Likes on 118 Posts
^ that's the one area that keeps me from liking Saab. The 9-3 is a gorgeous little sedan. But the interior is so tacky, so 1990's.
Old 02-28-2009, 09:55 PM
  #565  
an asshole from florida
 
invisiblewar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: GO GATORS!
Age: 35
Posts: 9,405
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
arent they incredibly unreliable too>>
Old 02-28-2009, 10:11 PM
  #566  
Fahrvergnügen'd
 
charliemike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Maryland
Age: 53
Posts: 13,494
Received 1,569 Likes on 986 Posts
Gah, don't sell Opel. That's the only thing they've got going for them right now other than Caddy and Buick (god it feels weird to say that).
Old 03-02-2009, 05:41 PM
  #567  
Burning Brakes
 
death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Age: 44
Posts: 881
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Could be a repost. but

General Motors 2008 losses.

Quarter: $9 billion.

Day: $85 million.

Hour: $3.5 million.

Minute: $58,333.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gener...ery-day-2009-2
Old 03-02-2009, 05:50 PM
  #568  
Pinky all stinky
 
phile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,665
Received 191 Likes on 118 Posts
they lose more in a minute than what I make in a year
Old 03-02-2009, 06:46 PM
  #569  
an asshole from florida
 
invisiblewar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: GO GATORS!
Age: 35
Posts: 9,405
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
so you think they could donate an hour of their money to me...?
Old 03-10-2009, 07:47 PM
  #570  
Drifting
 
afici0nad0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 905
Posts: 3,339
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
GM workers urged to fight back against criticisms

Mar 10, 2009


Tony Van Alphen and Ann Perry
Business Reporters

General Motors workers must unite to defend the middle class and fight a growing right-wing perception that auto industry wages are too high and they should take bigger pay cuts to save the company, union leaders say.

Ken Lewenza, national president of the Canadian Auto Workers, told members they will be under intense pressure from analysts and conservative politicians during the next few weeks to make even bigger concessions so GM can qualify for more than $6 billion in critical government aid.

"We got to change the mood," Lewenza said at the GM Centre in Oshawa. "Every single day we've been on the defence, defending our right to a good job."

Lewenza told more than 1,500 workers at a morning vote on a tentative contract for concessions that they need to become more active in combating any public attacks on their pay and benefit packages.

"Why is all the pressure on our workers," he added. "Our labour costs represent 7 per cent of production," he noted.

Earlier this week, Conservative MPs on a parliamentary committee ridiculed Lewenza and CAW economist Jim Stanford for the union's wages and suggested more concessions might be necessary at a hearing in Ottawa.

Chris Buckley, president of CAW Local 222 in Oshawa, said he was "absolutely disgusted" with the attitude of the Tory MPs that GM workers are overpaid and underworked.

But he said workers need to counter those attacks and the views of analysts such as prominent industry watcher Dennis DesRosiers by writing letters, sending e-mails and speaking out.

"We have to turn up the heat," Buckley said.

DesRosiers has indicated the concessions by GM workers in Canada are not enough to help the teetering Detroit-based auto giant survive the current crisis of plunging sales and tight credit in North America.

But federal Industry Minister Tony Clement said he did not want to pass judgment on whether the amount of concessions in this week's GM-union deal is sufficient.

"I'm here to say that in order for government money to flow, there has to be the ability to be competitive in the new marketplace," said Clement, who described the deal as "one piece of the puzzle."

"I'm not going to comment on what's satisfactory and what's unsatisfactory. We're going to make a decision based on the totality of it."

GM complimented the CAW for its leadership in reaching the agreement for concessions, which came after only four days of negotiations.

Under the tentative deal, production workers, who currently earn about $34 an hour, would not receive any wage increases or cost of living protection until 2012. Furthermore, they would lose a $1,700 annual bonus, a week of special holidays a year and contribute more for health care benefits.

Retirees face a freeze in pensions and cost of living protection and will also need to pay more for health care.

In his speech to workers before the morning vote, Lewenza stressed that the cuts will mean significant pain for workers and retirees but it's necessary to avoid a deeper recession in the Canadian and North American economies.

Accusing conservative politicians of attempting to destroy the middle class, Lewenza said good auto jobs and pay are major contributors to communities, the economy and the standard of living in Canada.

He noted auto workers in Canada are not responsible for a worldwide financial crisis created by speculators, hedge fund managers and lack of regulation.

Lewenza and Buckley also called once again for a national auto strategy in Canada to enhance investment, jobs and fair trade with other countries. They charged that auto imports continue to "pollute" the domestic market while Canadian-made vehicles can't get fair access to overseas countries.

Union negotiators are unanimously recommending acceptance of the contract concessions and expect strong support. The union held other membership meetings in Oshawa and Woodstock yesterday and St. Catharines and Windsor today. It will release resultsWednesday night.

Ratification will lead to bargaining for similar deals at struggling Chrysler, which is also seeking government aid, and Ford.
http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/517208
Old 03-10-2009, 08:00 PM
  #571  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
"We got to change the mood," Lewenza said at the GM Centre in Oshawa. "Every single day we've been on the defence, defending our right to a good job."

This is exactly the problem with unions. NOBODY has a right to a good job.
Old 03-10-2009, 08:43 PM
  #572  
Fahrvergnügen'd
 
charliemike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Maryland
Age: 53
Posts: 13,494
Received 1,569 Likes on 986 Posts
Originally Posted by sho_nuff1997
This is exactly the problem with unions. NOBODY has a right to a good job.
Exactly. What a distorted sense of entitlement.
Old 03-10-2009, 11:52 PM
  #573  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
But if a contract says you do have a right....

What is so difficult to understand? Do you not understand the basic principles of labor law and contracts?
Old 03-11-2009, 12:26 AM
  #574  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
But if a contract says you do have a right....

What is so difficult to understand? Do you not understand the basic principles of labor law and contracts?

That's my point. A job is not a right, it's a privilege. A contract does not automatically make you more qualified than somebody that is not under contract. You don't even have to earn more pay, you just union up and automatically get more pay. Of course people want to be in unions....hard work is not required and you can't get fired. How does that possibly help any business? No competition and nothing to work for = shitty, overpaid employees.
Old 03-11-2009, 01:12 AM
  #575  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
You are still confused. That's ok though.
Old 03-11-2009, 05:02 AM
  #576  
Race Director
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 14,376
Received 632 Likes on 508 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
But if a contract says you do have a right....
..until the contract changes - it's the rewriting of the contracts that the union is worried about. The union/workers are partially correct that their wages are not the big problem - legacy costs are. When the diff in the cost of producing cars comes down to that last few hundred bucks, hourly labor wages sure make a diff. And it's that last few hundred bucks that makes a diff between a company making or losing money.
Old 03-11-2009, 02:05 PM
  #577  
Fahrvergnügen'd
 
charliemike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Maryland
Age: 53
Posts: 13,494
Received 1,569 Likes on 986 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
But if a contract says you do have a right....

What is so difficult to understand? Do you not understand the basic principles of labor law and contracts?
It's funny that it seems that contracts only mean something when a union is involved.
Old 03-11-2009, 02:22 PM
  #578  
Racer
 
Steelers Wheels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: T.O.
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Saleen Warranties Dissolve as Saleen Inc. Ceases Operations




Posted March 9 2009 12:33 PM by Nate Martinez
Category: Tuners, Ford, Sports




MJ Acquisitions, the new owner of assets held by the former Saleen Inc., issued a letter to authorized dealers in which the company stated that it will not be responsible for warranties currently held by owners of Saleen vehicles, essentially invalidating every existing Saleen vehicle warranty -- even on vehicles still sitting on dealer lots.

Under the buyout terms, Saleen Inc. is responsible to adhere to warranty agreements issued before February 2, 2009. But with the former automaker having recently announced that it has ceased all operations and will be unable to honor warranty service, owners appear to be on their own should they require any in-warranty repairs to their Saleen vehicles. In addition to current owners not having a warranty, the remaining MY2008 and 2009 cars sitting on dealer lots are also subject to zero warranty coverage.

Under its buyout terms, MJ Acquisitions will sell dealers parts at a discount in order for them to continue servicing owners' vehicles. All parts purchased from them on or after February 2, 2009 will carry a 12 month, 12,000 mile warranty as well.

MJ Acquisitions finalized their takeover in late January and included Saleen's supercharger and street vehicle businesses, as well as sister brand Racecraft in their purchase. The S7 supercar, S5 Raptor and painting operations weren't included in the sale.

The warranty notification already has Saleen Owners and Enthusiasts Club forum users who own Saleen vehicles threatening class action lawsuits, so we expect that we haven't heard the end of this issue.

Source: Saleen Owners and Enthusiasts Club
Old 03-11-2009, 02:25 PM
  #579  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
You are still confused. That's ok though.

Do tell.
Old 03-11-2009, 02:50 PM
  #580  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Originally Posted by charliemike
It's funny that it seems that contracts only mean something when a union is involved.
So you've never contracted for a position on your own?
Old 03-11-2009, 02:53 PM
  #581  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Originally Posted by sho_nuff1997
Do tell.
The CBA is an agreement between the employer and the union. It doesn't automatically ensure that an employee will have a job. If the employer does not like any of the terms of the contract they can not agree to them, or offer attractive enough alternatives in order to get persuade the other party not to pursue a specific provision.

I haven't read enough of the initial quote you put up that I responded to to fully understand the context, but I'm sure it could possibly relate to the idea that there is no discharge unless there is just cause. That doesn't create a right to the job, it just requires the employer to not arbitrarily fire or discipline people. That seems like a pretty basic position.

There are tons of non-union jobs that operate under the same principle, especially in the public sector.
Old 03-11-2009, 02:55 PM
  #582  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Originally Posted by biker
..until the contract changes - it's the rewriting of the contracts that the union is worried about. The union/workers are partially correct that their wages are not the big problem - legacy costs are. When the diff in the cost of producing cars comes down to that last few hundred bucks, hourly labor wages sure make a diff. And it's that last few hundred bucks that makes a diff between a company making or losing money.
Right. I'm all for the employer taking a much more hard lined stance in future negotiations. I've always maintained that the UAW has put its original objective in the back seat and is no longer being totally rational about the statements it makes. If we had some of the guys heading it now that we did in the 80's shit would be a lot different and I don't think the union issue would be as big as it is now.
Old 03-11-2009, 02:56 PM
  #583  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
So you've never contracted for a position on your own?

A private contract != a union contract
Old 03-11-2009, 03:02 PM
  #584  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Originally Posted by sho_nuff1997
A private contract != a union contract
What does "!=" mean?
Old 03-11-2009, 03:13 PM
  #585  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
I haven't read enough of the initial quote you put up that I responded to to fully understand the context, but I'm sure it could possibly relate to the idea that there is no discharge unless there is just cause. That doesn't create a right to the job, it just requires the employer to not arbitrarily fire or discipline people. That seems like a pretty basic position.

I have zero problem with this. A CBA is not required to achieve these results. The US Labor Laws already prevent people from being fired unjustly. Like I said, my problem is with the unions thinking they have a right to a job.

A right to a job is like saying I have a right to some one else's money.
Old 03-11-2009, 03:15 PM
  #586  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Where in the labor code is there language that provides only for just cause termination? It is my understanding that everything is at will unless you can either show you contracted for something else or there were representations made that tend to indicate at will was not the intended relationship
Old 03-11-2009, 03:17 PM
  #587  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
What does "!=" mean?

does not equal

or

is not the same

or

=/=

It's just easier to type than
Old 03-11-2009, 03:20 PM
  #588  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Ahh, ok, just making sure.

There are a ton of similarities between the two. I wouldn't put too much of a distinction between them. And that doesn't ultimately help your point anyway.
Old 03-11-2009, 03:24 PM
  #589  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
Where in the labor code is there language that provides only for just cause termination? It is my understanding that everything is at will unless you can either show you contracted for something else or there were representations made that tend to indicate at will was not the intended relationship

Sorry, what I meant to say was illegally. Meaning the US Labor Laws are enough. There is no need for a contract that guarantees a job.
Old 03-11-2009, 03:26 PM
  #590  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Labor laws have very little teeth though. It is often beneficial for an employer to flagrantly violate them and they pretty much just get a slap on the wrist. There isn't as much protection as one would think.

I think the labor laws don't provide enough. I don't see us ever agreeing on that but it's fun to go back and forth.
Old 03-11-2009, 03:42 PM
  #591  
I disagree with unanimity
iTrader: (2)
 
sho_nuff1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WI
Age: 46
Posts: 14,035
Received 27 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
Labor laws have very little teeth though. It is often beneficial for an employer to flagrantly violate them and they pretty much just get a slap on the wrist. There isn't as much protection as one would think.

Why does there need to be protection? No job is guaranteed. Most people realize this, except those with a warped sense of entitlement. You have to prove you are a worthy employee, to stay employed.
Old 03-11-2009, 03:45 PM
  #592  
One on the right for me
 
subinf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 41
Posts: 27,913
Received 271 Likes on 173 Posts
Job entitlement has been recognized for a long time. The vast majority of jobs that are out there are at will. Just because there is a just cause provision in contract language does not mean that horrible employees keep their jobs. Employers are really, really bad at firing people. If they are going to agree to that language (union or not) they need to know how to discipline without violating the terms of the agreement. It isn't that hard yet they fuck up all the time.
Old 04-23-2009, 03:25 PM
  #593  
Oderint dum metuant.
 
chill_dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes on 446 Posts
Pontiac is Dead

It's almost official...

DETROIT — According to a source at General Motors, the company will announce next Monday its new "faster, deeper" reorganization plan, which will likely include a death sentence for the Pontiac brand.

Inside Line called Tom Wilkinson, news relations PR man for General Motors, who said: "There's nothing I can share with you at this time. Keep your eyes on our media site. Officially, nothing has changed with Pontiac's niche-brand status, until you hear differently."

The one-time "Excitement" division and creator of legends such as the GTO and Firebird was relegated to "niche" or "specialty" brand status by General Motors in its first viability plan in December of last year.

The company toyed with competing proposals to either turn the brand into GM's version of Scion or to make Pontiac a very focused purveyor of performance cars based around the critically well-received G8. But ultimately, Pontiac was chosen as the easiest to kill since it was cut from GM's self-defined herd of four "core brands," Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick. Most Pontiac franchises have already been combined with Buick and GMC.

If true, Pontiac will join Saab, Saturn and Hummer as brands that will not survive GM's current troubles — at least not as a component of General Motors.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=146706
Old 04-23-2009, 03:30 PM
  #594  
Missing My CL-S
iTrader: (1)
 
SG81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,376
Received 13 Likes on 12 Posts
kinda sad. Pontiac has had some nice cars
Old 04-23-2009, 03:34 PM
  #595  
Drifting
 
afici0nad0's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 905
Posts: 3,339
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
U.S. Is Said to Prepare Filing for Chrysler Bankruptcy

DETROIT — The Treasury Department is preparing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Chrysler that could come as soon as next week, people with direct knowledge of the action said Thursday.

The Treasury has an agreement in principle with the United Automobile Workers union, whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected as a condition of the bankruptcy filing, said these people, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

Moreover, Fiat of Italy would complete its alliance with Chrysler while the company is under bankruptcy protection.

The only major question that remains unresolved is what happens to Chrysler’s lenders, who hold $6.9 billion in company debt. The government’s most recent offer, presented Wednesday, would give the company’s lenders about 22 cents on the dollar, or $1.5 billion, and a 5 percent equity stake in a reorganized Chrysler. Earlier this week, a steering committee of the lenders proposed that they receive 65 cents on the dollar, or $4.5 billion, and a 40 percent equity stake.

If no agreement is reached, a nasty legal fight could emerge in bankruptcy. The creditors’ claims are backed by virtually all of the company’s collateral, including plants, brands and equipment, and the lenders will argue that they have first claim on those assets.

Officials at Chrysler and the Treasury were not immediately available for comment.

A bankruptcy filing by Chrysler would be the first among Detroit’s troubled automakers, who have been mired in a devastating sales slump since last fall. Treasury is also working with General Motors to prepare a possible bankruptcy case, and the terms of a Chrysler filing might offer a glimpse into the shape of G.M.’s own filing.

Some analysts questioned whether the Treasury’s steps to prepare a bankruptcy case were an effort to put more pressure on lenders, with which it has exchanged proposals meant to reduce Chrysler’s debt. Chrysler faces an April 30 deadline from the Treasury, while G.M. faces a June 1 deadline in its own efforts to draft a new restructuring plan.

Under the most likely assumptions, Treasury will provide the financing that Chrysler needs to operate while under bankruptcy protection. The Canadian government is also expected to participate in backing the company.

The Globe and Mail of Toronto reported the Canadian government’s role on Thursday.

Last month, the Obama administration told Chrysler it would provide up to $6 billion in financing if Chrysler and Fiat could complete a deal by the end of this month. Fiat originally agreed to take 35 percent of Chrysler, but the stake was subsequently reduced to 20 percent. The administration said it would provide up to $6 billion in financing if the two companies agreed, on top of $4 billion in federal assistance that Chrysler has already received.

Although the two companies have been holding discussions on an out-of-court agreement, a bankruptcy case would allow Fiat to more easily select the assets of Chrysler that it wants to preserve, such as dealerships, factories and the company’s product development operations, these people said. The approach, which relies upon Section 363 of the federal bankruptcy code, is somewhat similar to what the government is planning in the case of G,M..

Then, Chrysler could sell or jettison any assets it does not want to keep, and cancel franchise agreements with superfluous car dealers.

The U.A.W., Chrysler and Treasury have reached agreements in principle that would protect workers’ benefits, these people said, and a similar agreement is expected to be reached as soon as this weekend with the Canadian Auto Workers union.

Once Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy protection, it would largely be owned by Fiat, the U.A.W., the Treasury and its lenders, these people said. A bankruptcy filing would likely wipe out existing equity stakeholders, notably Cerberus Capital Management, which took over the carmaker from Daimler in 2007.

Ron Gettelfinger, the U.A.W.’s president, issued a statement on Wednesday saying that the union was “continuing to work toward an agreement that will be in the best interest of Chrysler workers, retirees and the communities where the company does business.”

People close to the talks said Wednesday that the U.A.W. had tentatively agreed to accept Chrysler stock to finance half of the company’s $10.6 billion obligation to the health care trust. The balance would be paid in cash over the next decade. That money presumably could come from either the Treasury, or from Chrysler’s profits, once it emerges from bankruptcy protection.

Chrysler has a $9.3 billion pension shortfall, or 34 percent of its total liability, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The agency said earlier this month that it would assume $2 billion of the shortfall in the event Chrysler terminates its pension plans.

If that happened, retirees would receive sharply lower benefits than they normally would expect. But Chrysler is not obligated to terminate its pension plans while in bankruptcy, particularly if it received federal assistance to fund them.

It was not clear Thursday where Chrysler would file its bankruptcy case. On Wednesday, Mike Cox, the attorney general of Michigan, urged General Motors and Chrysler to consider filing in the state, rather than Delaware or New York. He said a locally administered case would be more convenient for creditors in Michigan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/bu...mc=rss&src=igw
Old 04-23-2009, 03:38 PM
  #596  
The sizzle in the Steak
Thread Starter
 
Moog-Type-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71,436
Received 1,877 Likes on 1,297 Posts
We all knew it was coming.

Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac will remain.....GMC too....but GMC should be kicked to the curb too.
Old 04-23-2009, 03:39 PM
  #597  
Pinky all stinky
 
phile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,665
Received 191 Likes on 118 Posts
^but not enough to warrant its own existence as a separate brand from Chevy or Buick
Old 04-23-2009, 03:41 PM
  #598  
The sizzle in the Steak
Thread Starter
 
Moog-Type-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71,436
Received 1,877 Likes on 1,297 Posts
The Treasury has an agreement in principle with the United Automobile Workers union, whose members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits would be protected as a condition of the bankruptcy filing, said these people, who asked for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

The U.A.W., Chrysler and Treasury have reached agreements in principle that would protect workers’ benefits, these people said, and a similar agreement is expected to be reached as soon as this weekend with the Canadian Auto Workers union.

Ron Gettelfinger, the U.A.W.’s president, issued a statement on Wednesday saying that the union was “continuing to work toward an agreement that will be in the best interest of Chrysler workers, retirees and the communities where the company does business.”
Old 04-23-2009, 03:47 PM
  #599  
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
 
NSXNEXT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: where the weather suits my clothes
Age: 55
Posts: 27,921
Received 1,080 Likes on 661 Posts
Looks like the GXP is off my list. CTS-V ftw.
Old 04-23-2009, 03:48 PM
  #600  
dom
Senior Moderator
 
dom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 47
Posts: 47,710
Received 801 Likes on 662 Posts
My only question is....what happens to the G8?


Quick Reply: North American Auto Industry Crisis news **Pontiac's Last Day (page 28)**



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 PM.