News: GM's Rick Wagoner to step down ASAP

[DDLS3]

well said Patrick

 

[keebs]

So, you're the CEO of a major global auto company, you run it into the ground fastern' a cop driving a ZR1 to Dunkin' Donuts and what do you get?

A $23 Million severance package:crazy


Where do I sign up for a job like that?


And now, the gummint will print money to make GM and Chrysler warranties worth something.

I WANNA BE A DEMOCRAT:cry

The $23 million is not a severance package, that is his pension. While we can argue all day about who is at fault for GM's current state I would contend that Wagoner is mostly guilty of trying to grow the company out of its problems (Retirement benefits and Pensions for white and blue collar employees) instead of slashing and burning when it could still be done (5-6 years ago).

 

[Curious George]

At least Obama says (let's see what he'll do) that bankruptcy is an option for GM. That great former Leader Of The Western World, Dubbya, didn't have the guts to do that.

I wonder how GM would feel if their headquarters were moved to Guongdong Province? "More noodles, Mr. Henderson?"

The Chinese are great at copying and cloning things, at least in a physical sense... it may look like something you are familiar with, but it will not operate or feel like the "real" thing. They can't even get to the moon with stolen technology that is 40 years old!

CG

 

[Dad2BJO]

America has become a deceptive country. Too much fine print, too much corporate greed, too much arrogant elite-ness. If your looking for the truth, you won't find it in the US. While our goverment (past and present) preaches rightousness to the rest of the world, we screw over each in the name of profit, some make enough money for 100 life times and that's not illegal, but is immoral and unethical. There is no conscious, just greed. The greatest financial minds in the world have turned out to be basic thieves. I hope they get the Genie back in the bottle, but I feel it's bigger than any one man or group of men.......

You must also be talking about the leaders of the UAW correct? If you point fingers at GM's management then you also must point fingers at the UAW and thier leaders. GM became a benefits company that just so happend to build cars. I dont see any one at the UAW getting asked to leave.

My fear is that B.O will put so many restrictions on G.M and make them run at a loss, while giving the UAW everything they want just to keep all of them happy. (amtrack???) The loss will be supported by the taxpayers, and every 2 years a new "C.E O" will be put in charge to help turn it around. Meanwhile we are paying $70.00 per hour for some guy to place back seats in some econobox P.O.S that the GOV mandates OMC (Obama Motors Company) to make. The real solution is to get rid of the union while they are at it.

Oh, and the UAW supporters will say "but we are the ones that provide the workers that build the quality". Really? If so, then why do the Jap cars and the Germans et al all rank higher in quality than U.A.W built products?(ok, Buick is up there and so is the Vette so you get 2 out of how many????)

The real problem is the parasite that is the union, the only problem is that when the host dies, so does the parasite. However this parasite has Obama on thier side.

Now, I probably struck a nerve with a few people, but I am sick and tired of the UAW getting a free pass. The proof is, it is not the UAW that provides the quality people that build cars it is American Workers! Put down the UAW kool aid and while you are at it put down the B.O (or should I say BS) Kool aid as well! This is real scary what he is doing. ;helphnoes

 

[mike76c3]

Whether or not Wagoner's departure is a good thing for GM, I'm more than a little concerned about the precedent being set here: the occupant of the White House can dictate to a private company who gets to keep their job. Isn't this what a Board of Directors is for?

What was reported was that this was one condition of another loan from the government to GM. So, it's not really dictating, as GM could refuse to meet the condition or negotiate a modified condition for the loan. And, it's not really setting a precedent, as similar conditions were specified previously for loans made to AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

Mike

 

[GO_VETTE]

hot dog and politics.

 

[Patrick]

What was reported was that this was one condition of another loan from the government to GM. So, it's not really dictating, as GM could refuse to meet the condition or negotiate a modified condition for the loan. And, it's not really setting a precedent, as similar conditions were specified previously for loans made to AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

Mike

And none of this bothers you? Setting aside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprises), it doesn't bother you that vast sectors of the economy are in the process of being nationalized by the federal government? It certainly bothers me.


Edit to add: Larry Kudlow, of CNBC's Kudlow Report, has THIS to say about the Wagoner firing:

Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), probably the most knowledgeable man in Congress about the car bailout, and someone who argued months ago in favor of a pre-planned government-sponsored bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler, calls the Wagoner firing “a major power-grab by the White House on the heels of another power-grab from Secretary Geithner, who asked last week for the freedom to decide on his own which companies are ‘systemically’ important to our country and worthy of taxpayer investment, and which are not.” Corker calls this “a marked departure from the past,” “truly breathtaking,” and something that “should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise.”
* * *

As for Detroit, the carmakers should have been in bankruptcy months ago. And it is a bankruptcy court that should have fired GM’s Wagoner and his board. Along with some serious pain for bondholders, bankruptcy would have broken the high-cost labor contracts with the UAW as well as carmaker contracts with dealers across the country. That’s what bankruptcy courts are for. They’re part of the free-market capitalist system.

And why isn’t Obama’s special auto task force ordering a replacement for Ron Gettelfinger, the UAW’s president? Weren’t their oversized pay and benefit packages a big part of the problem? Well, that’s never gonna happen. The election power of the union is too strong. But this does reveal the political nature of these government bailout operations.

 

[killain]

You must also be talking about the leaders of the UAW correct? If you point fingers at GM's management then you also must point fingers at the UAW and thier leaders. GM became a benefits company that just so happend to build cars. I dont see any one at the UAW getting asked to leave.

My fear is that B.O will put so many restrictions on G.M and make them run at a loss, while giving the UAW everything they want just to keep all of them happy. (amtrack???) The loss will be supported by the taxpayers, and every 2 years a new "C.E O" will be put in charge to help turn it around. Meanwhile we are paying $70.00 per hour for some guy to place back seats in some econobox P.O.S that the GOV mandates OMC (Obama Motors Company) to make. The real solution is to get rid of the union while they are at it.

Oh, and the UAW supporters will say "but we are the ones that provide the workers that build the quality". Really? If so, then why do the Jap cars and the Germans et al all rank higher in quality than U.A.W built products?(ok, Buick is up there and so is the Vette so you get 2 out of how many????)

The real problem is the parasite that is the union, the only problem is that when the host dies, so does the parasite. However this parasite has Obama on thier side.

Now, I probably struck a nerve with a few people, but I am sick and tired of the UAW getting a free pass. The proof is, it is not the UAW that provides the quality people that build cars it is American Workers! Put down the UAW kool aid and while you are at it put down the B.O (or should I say BS) Kool aid as well! This is real scary what he is doing. ;helphnoes

I am not, nor ever professed to be a fan of the UAW, but here in 2009 the situation with GM is DEBT. It's sheer number is one that is impossible to sell yourself out of even if you were to stay in busines for the next 100 years. GM owns the UAW 20 Billion alone? To be logical, the only answer to GM regaining any sort of financial stability is to once and ever, remove the volume of debt. And the only person capable is a federal judge who can render all contracts Null and Void. Is it fair, I don't know, what I do know is mathamatics, and the math does not support a future for General Motors carrying this mountain of debt.

Some will obviously be upset by my statements, but at this point in time there is No way for there to be a happy ending to this story of Greed, Mismanagement and bad decisions. And, the american public CANNOT be held responcible for what happened two or twenty years ago. The american public has been forced to have the right to now decide if GM and the UAW have any legitimacy to continue.

 

[Kid_Again]

Wasn't it GM who went to the government for the bailout? GM could have walked away anytime they wanted to, and still can. The truth is that ineptitude and greed brought GM down. Don't blame Uncle Sam.

I dunno. First he nationalized some investment banks on a random basis and forced out some of their top management. "Too Big To Fail"

Now he randomly nationalizes GM and what's left of Chrysler (soon to be Fiat).

The government's answer to a problem is more government. I agree that GM went hat-in-hand to DC and this all started with Bush. I wonder whether Bush was a closet commie or he just ran out of wind (and poll ratings) at the end and rolled over to Chairman Obama.

The next step will be to nationalize the equities market. It's never been a free market but it will get worse. Just give it time.

 

[Yoda]

....at this point in time there is No way for there to be a happy ending to this story of Greed, Mismanagement and bad decisions. And, the american public CANNOT be held responcible for what happened two or twenty years ago. The american public has been forced to have the right to now decide if GM and the UAW have any legitimacy to continue.

In my world of Capitalism it NOT the governments responsibility (read voting Public) to entertain management or direct Private Corporations... Regulate ~ certain aspects e.g. Safety, Enviornmental, etc. not to determine the product development, product price and target markets ~

As we continue down this path I wonder where we will end up hnoes

For ANYONE in the Government to pressure PRIVATE INDUSTRY boarders on Mafia Protection and Control, only in this case it's OUR Government that is playing the role of the "Syndicate" :eek I think it is the owners/board members/share holders responsibility to direct and control the present and future of the Corporation.

Yes GM, Ford, Chrysler went to Congress with their plates empty and asked to cut inline to the front of the Buffet. Why did / does the Government feel it is their (read OUR, tax payers) obligation to BUY into it. Most of those in Congress don't have a clue about true management of a business let alone any idea of our Consitution and the pulse of our Nation as felt throughout our Country. These are the saviors hnoes Puleessse

Do I have the answers, probably not But then again in the Free Market System I can't think of too many Business's that stay the same throughout their existance... But I don't feel it's going the way our founding fathers had invisioned :eyerole

Bud Dougherty
Amarillo, Texas

 

[GO_VETTE]

if i have to pay for the hot dog, then you cannot have chili w/ mustard.

 

[killain]

I dunno. First he nationalized some investment banks on a random basis and forced out some of their top management. "Too Big To Fail"

Now he randomly nationalizes GM and what's left of Chrysler (soon to be Fiat).

The government's answer to a problem is more government. I agree that GM went hat-in-hand to DC and this all started with Bush. I wonder whether Bush was a closet commie or he just ran out of wind (and poll ratings) at the end and rolled over to Chairman Obama.

The next step will be to nationalize the equities market. It's never been a free market but it will get worse. Just give it time.

I have never subscribed to any of the 'Bailout' schemes put forth by this or any administration. And if it were up to me, ( as I have posted before) Mr. Gettlefinger would have left the spotlight quite a while ago. And while I have never been a fan of President Bush, He Had Nothing to do with the current situation, in fact in December when Persident Bush went on national TV stateing he was extending the last of the TARP funds, 17.6 billion, to the two cars compainies, he stated he was not very inclined to do this, but because he did not want this financial hurricane to hit Persident Obama on his first days as the incoming persident, he was going to give this money to GM and Chrysler.


And yes, Yoda, I believe as you do in the free enterprise system, And i've posted to that effect that companies have to manage and control themselves or go out of business, BUT what do you do with the many, many thousands of workers who would join the thousands already out of work and collecting unemmployment compensation ? Because that system is already staining to supply the funds that they are currently are, and the prospects of future employment for all these unemployed workers is dismal to non-existant. I realize many don't see the sense the government doing all these bailouts, but the prospect of doing nothing is much, much worse. Personally, I think once you start these "bailouts' you already start down a VERY slippery slope which will have absolutly very damaging effect on the very immediate future of this country. In very short order our whole system of government finance is spent, gone. And we couldn't sell a tresury note if we were giving them away. Anytime you start spending tomorrows dollars to finance todays activities, you in trouble. This whole situation is going to blow up and we'll be lucky to be able to fund any of the government operatios as all. ie: What would happen if this July, another hurricane Katrina hits the gulf coast ?

 

[Kid_Again]

If my company is on the brink of insolvency, are any of you going to come to my rescue with a bail out?

Of course, the economic impact of our insolvency is orders of magnitude different than GM but it's the same point. Why should government interfere in business to the point where it dictates its own terms? Doesn't Washington already have enough clout with the IRS?

I categorically deny the argument that we risk our manufacturing base with insolvency of GM and perhaps Chrysler. We have been essentially ASSEMBLERS for decades. I take the point about a knock-on effect of secondary suppliers/manufacturers disappearing and I regret that but it is a fact of life that when you enjoy the benefits, make sure that you have planned adequately for the risks. God forbid, sometimes the actual downside is so horrible that people need help to get them through or they are the victims of circumstances so devastating that they need the help of the government. THAT'S when the government should provide a safety net.

Neither GM Management or the UAW Management were/are competent. If they were, they would not find themselves in this mess. Fire their assses, just like Wagoner. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the politicians.

Another example of our own naivete comes from a government program from the New Deal - Social Security. It's clear that SS was meant to be one leg of a support system for retirement. Somewhere in the idealistic 60's it became the notion of existing on Social Security. Now we have to fund SS to the point where it becomes an absolute necessity - the very meaning of the word entitlement so the government prints more money so that we can pay for all these entitlement programs.

We seem to forget that government can do what we cannot - print money to cover up their mistakes. So, how can government ethically and practically run an ostensibly money-making commecial venture? It defies all reason.

If GM would have declared bankruptcy a year ago, they would have just been ahead of the worst of the financial crisis (with more to come).

Self-serving sycophant execuitves who just got their butts kicked by a Neighborhood Organizer from Chicago and a narcissistic Treasury Secretary/former Wall-Streeter.

I also found it interesting that we may think that the chicoms are not real good at innovation and putting engineering into practice. Yeah, I've seen a recent list of patents issued to GM. And the best we can do is the Silverado? Cut me a break.

 

[Achilles]

Hey, if someone asks me to bail them out of their mess, you can bet I'm going to hand out some ultimatums. If Wagoner refused to step down, he would risk taking down the whole ship because GM wouldn't get a red sent from Uncle Sam, which BTW is our money!

Wagoner did the right thing and so did Obama.

 

[Dad2BJO]

Hey, if someone asks me to bail them out of their mess, you can bet I'm going to hand out some ultimatums. If Wagoner refused to step down, he would risk taking down the whole ship because GM wouldn't get a red sent from Uncle Sam, which BTW is our money!

Wagoner did the right thing and so did Obama.

Wrong. Obama did not tell the head of the UAW to step down did he? I am all for Wagoner "stepping down" (if that is what you want to call it) but get rid of the UAW while you are at it. Both parties are guilty.

The parasite killed the host. The host was too stupid to seek treatment. I guess both should die.

I would like to see Union heads roll as well but Obama the labor friendly Pres. wont allow it.

 

[njlouc]

The boy will get ~$2million/year pension.
But the biggest issue is the way that the US govt pushed everyone aside and said this the way to do it (AKA our way or the highway). This is socially dangerous. If they were totally honest (never) it may be the way to go - NOT.ad

 

[Patrick]

Hey, if someone asks me to bail them out of their mess, you can bet I'm going to hand out some ultimatums. If Wagoner refused to step down, he would risk taking down the whole ship because GM wouldn't get a red sent from Uncle Sam, which BTW is our money!

Wagoner did the right thing and so did Obama.

Perhaps you could point out for me where in the US Constitution, a document specifically intended to LIMIT the power of the federal government by enumerating its powers, it says the President/Executive Branch has the power to dismiss the head of a private sector company. I seem to have missed it.

 

[ken mohr]

This has nothing to do about the constitution. The minute GM went to borrow money to survive they gave up their rights. Try going to your bank and telling them you are on the verge of bankruptcy, have very little income and you want to borrow $100,000 dollars from them then continue on with the same behavior. See what they tell you. Believe me if they give you the money they will tell you how you are going to change.

 

[Achilles]

This has nothing to do about the constitution. The minute GM went to borrow money to survive they gave up their rights. Try going to your bank and telling them you are on the verge of bankruptcy, have very little income and you want to borrow $100,000 dollars from them then continue on with the same behavior. See what they tell you. Believe me if they give you the money they will tell you how you are going to change.

Exactly my point.

 

[Patrick]

This has nothing to do about the constitution. The minute GM went to borrow money to survive they gave up their rights. Try going to your bank and telling them you are on the verge of bankruptcy, have very little income and you want to borrow $100,000 dollars from them then continue on with the same behavior. See what they tell you. Believe me if they give you the money they will tell you how you are going to change.

Exactly my point.

I see. So if you borrow money from a bank to (take your pick: start up a business, expand a business, consolidate debt, whatever), and after the initial loan package is written, if suddenly the bank decides it doesn't like your business model, or finds a flaw in your business plan, the bank can demand your removal from the business?

And don't go saying the difference is this was public money. The principal still stands that in this case, the lender decided on regime change at the business because the lender didn't like the business model.