PDA

View Full Version : Lawmakers butting into GM's day to day operations


GetAClue
10-29-2009, 01:12 PM
Who would have ever guessed that now congressmen are trying to "help" GM management make decisions? A group of people that have almost bankrupt this country are now going to "help" GM run it's buisness. That's like taking swimming lessons from a rock.

Politicians Butt In at Bailed-Out GM

By NEIL KING JR.
Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg was no fan of the $58 billion federal rescue of General Motors Co., saying he worried taxpayer money would be wasted and the restructuring process would be vulnerable to "political pressure." Now the lawmaker says it's his "patriotic duty" to wade into GM's affairs.

Along with Montana's two Democratic senators, the Republican congressman is battling to get GM to reinstate a contract with a Montana palladium mine nullified in bankruptcy court. "The simple fact is, when GM took federal dollars, they lost some of their autonomy," Mr. Rehberg says.

View Full Image

The Office of Senator Tester

Montana Sen. Jon Tester, at a Stillwater Mine in Nye, Mont., is trying to protect the mine's GM contract.
Federal support for companies such as GM, Chrysler Group LLC and Bank of America Corp. has come with baggage: Companies in hock to Washington now have the equivalent of 535 new board members -- 100 U.S. senators and 435 House members.

Since the financial crisis broke, Congress has been acting like the board of USA Inc., invoking the infusion of taxpayer money to get banks to modify loans to constituents and to give more help to those in danger of foreclosure. Members have berated CEOs for their business practices and pushed for caps on executive pay. They have also pushed GM and Chrysler to reverse core decisions designed to cut costs, such as closing facilities and shuttering dealerships.

Journal Communitydiscuss“ The 535 new board members is exactly the reason I will never buy a General, I mean Government Motors vehicle. ”
— Richard Cummings Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota persuaded GM to rescind a closure order for a large dealership in Bloomington, Minn. In Tucson, Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords did the same for Don Mackey, owner of a longstanding Cadillac dealership with 80 employees. Rep. Giffords argues it made sense, even for GM, to keep the Mackey dealership, which sold 750 cars last year. "All I did was to help get GM to focus on his case," she says.

Lawmakers say it's their obligation to guard the government's investments, ensure that bailed-out firms are working in the country's interests and protect their constituents.

Executives say congressional demands gobble up time and make a rocky business environment even more unpredictable. Bank chief executives say incessant calls from Capitol Hill, combined with threats of legislation, were among the main incentives for them to pay back money injected by the government and escape Washington's clutches.

Thomas Geisel, chief executive of New Jersey's Sun Bancorp Inc., says the bank paid back its federal money in June because of legislation that imposed limits on bankers' pay, among other areas. "Lawmakers let emotion and ego get in the way of making good business decisions," he says.

Probably no company has been more on the receiving end of congressional attention than GM, whose widely scattered factories, suppliers and dealership network put it in touch with nearly every U.S. congressional district. After committing $58 billion to keep the company afloat, the federal government took a 60% stake in the auto maker when the slimmed-down GM emerged from bankruptcy.

In May, even before the government's ownership became official, lawmakers erupted when GM disclosed it planned to produce a new subcompact car at its factories in China. Under congressional pressure, GM dropped those plans and promised instead to retool an existing U.S. facility in Michigan, Wisconsin or Tennessee for the new model.

Lawmakers from those states demanded and received high-level meetings in Washington to quiz GM on the criteria for site selection and to tout their states. GM in the end picked a site in Michigan.

That same month, GM dealer Pete Lopez in Spencer, W.Va., received notice that GM was giving him just over a year to shut down his Chevy, Pontiac and Buick dealership, which he'd acquired two years earlier. GM's move to shutter more than 1,300 dealerships -- about one-quarter of its network -- was central to its restructuring because it cleared out underperforming showrooms and brought the network more in line with its shrunken sales.

With an assist from his mayor, Mr. Lopez took his complaint straight to one of his state's senators, Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee.

Sen. Rockefeller sent a letter to GM headquarters on Mr. Lopez's behalf, according to a staff aide. He arranged for Mr. Lopez to come testify before a Senate panel in early June, alongside GM Chief Executive Frederick "Fritz" Henderson. The senator introduced the two men, giving Mr. Lopez a chance to make a personal pitch.

"He couldn't have been nicer," Mr. Lopez said of the GM CEO. "He said to me, 'We've made some quick decisions and now we're going to look it all over again.' "

The GM chief executive put Mr. Lopez in touch with Mark LaNeve, then the company's top official for North American sales. The dealer received a response on the last Saturday in June while fishing on a lake near his house.

"Mr. LaNeve called and said, 'I've got some good news for you. We're going to save your dealership,' " Mr. Lopez recalls. He says he owes it all to Sen. Rockefeller.

Similar rescues have played out across the country. Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Dan Maffei, both New York Democrats, helped save Crest Cadillac of Syracuse. "There would not have been a Cadillac dealership in all of central New York," says Mr. Maffei. "That would have been a problem." Mr. Maffei insists there was no "strong-arming here. We just asked GM to take a look at it."


GM apparently agreed with Rep. Maffei's logic. "The company contacted me and said they didn't want to leave Syracuse without a Cadillac dealership," says James Barr, Crest's general manager, adding that he is now "one of Congressman Maffei's biggest fans."

So far, GM has given reprieves to 70 dealerships nationwide. GM's Washington spokesman says congressional pressure helped "put a focus on an individual dealer's plight." Beyond that, he said, "decisions to save individual dealerships were made on the merits."

In addition to the dealership issue, lawmakers have jumped into a union fight that pits GM and Chrysler against two trucking companies that haul new cars around the country. The auto makers want to give some of the work to cheaper nonunion contractors. But that raised the ire of lawmakers who support the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Rep. Dale Kildee, a Democrat from Michigan, sent letters on Sept. 30 to the chief executives of both GM and Chrysler, demanding they explain their positions and advising them to stick with their unionized carriers. At least four other lawmakers sent similar letters.

Chrysler defended its plans in an Oct. 2 letter, saying it would save $31 million over three years by shifting some of the work to other carriers. GM, then in the middle of contract talks, replied in its own letter that it had "no plans to phase out unionized hauling companies" but added that it was pursuing new contracts that made the most sense for the company.

Meanwhile, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, is spearheading a push within the Senate to get GM to rejoin an environmental program that removes mercury from cars headed to the scrap heap. GM escaped its obligations under the program through the bankruptcy process. Some lawmakers, as well as state officials, are now trying to reverse that.

In Montana, the fight that broke out this summer was over a mining contract to supply palladium, which GM needs to produce catalytic converters. It's an arcane piece of the company's business that has absorbed a large amount of management attention.

GM for years was supplied by the Montana-based Stillwater Mining Co., which bills itself as the country's only supplier of the precious metal. In early July, Frank McAllister, the mine's chief executive, received news that GM, as part of its bankruptcy proceedings, planned to sever its ties with Stillwater in favor of cheaper suppliers in Russia or South Africa.

"I thought, for heaven's sake, this doesn't make any sense," says Mr. McAllister. "Taxpayer dollars are keeping GM alive, just so it can turn away from U.S. workers?"

Montana's two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, issued a sharper response. The two sent a letter July 22 to GM's Mr. Henderson, saying they found the decision to break the Stillwater contract "appalling," especially since "General Motors only exists today due to the direct assistance of American taxpayers."

The two senators -- Mr. Baucus is chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee -- asked GM to reverse its decision.

Life_Long_Dem!
10-29-2009, 01:17 PM
Who would have ever guessed that now congressmen are trying to "help" GM management make decisions? A group of people that have almost bankrupt this country are now going to "help" GM run it's buisness. That's like taking swimming lessons from a rock.
Link please!

GetAClue
10-29-2009, 01:25 PM
Link please!
Sorry, must have forgot it. Here it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125677552001414699.html

John Galt
10-29-2009, 02:51 PM
In May, even before the government's ownership became official, lawmakers erupted when GM disclosed it planned to produce a new subcompact car at its factories in China. Under congressional pressure, GM dropped those plans and promised instead to retool an existing U.S. facility in Michigan, Wisconsin or Tennessee for the new model

This is a bad thing?


GM for years was supplied by the Montana-based Stillwater Mining Co., which bills itself as the country's only supplier of the precious metal. In early July, Frank McAllister, the mine's chief executive, received news that GM, as part of its bankruptcy proceedings, planned to sever its ties with Stillwater in favor of cheaper suppliers in Russia or South Africa.
Have you ever had to replace a converter?

You would think there's gold inside....actually, there's platinum.

The only thing that outsourcing the mining does, is bolster executive bonuses. I thought we were trying to keep American jobs?







Consider the alternative...GM could be history. When you come begging, be prepared to make concessions.

GetAClue
10-29-2009, 03:11 PM
This is a bad thing?



Have you ever had to replace a converter?

You would think there's gold inside....actually, there's platinum.

The only thing that outsourcing the mining does, is bolster executive bonuses. I thought we were trying to keep American jobs?







Consider the alternative...GM could be history. When you come begging, be prepared to make concessions.
I agree, when you come begging, be prepared to make concessions. The management at GM is finding this out the hard way.

However, when the government gets involved in making the day to day decisions of a business, it is bad news for that business. The congressmen do NOT have the best interest of the company in mind with these decisions; they are simply trying to buy votes.

I happen to believe that GM should have NEVER been given government money. They should have been allowed to file for bankruptcy without ever receiving a dime from the government. If they had, the Union contracts would have been terminated and they would be able to run the company the way they need to, not the way some self serving politician wants them run.

My point in posting this article is to show what happens when you let the government become involved in business. Seeing this, who would want the government being a healthcare provider?

John Galt
10-29-2009, 04:09 PM
I agree, when you come begging, be prepared to make concessions. The management at GM is finding this out the hard way.

However, when the government gets involved in making the day to day decisions of a business, it is bad news for that business. The congressmen do NOT have the best interest of the company in mind with these decisions; they are simply trying to buy votes.

I happen to believe that GM should have NEVER been given government money. They should have been allowed to file for bankruptcy without ever receiving a dime from the government. If they had, the Union contracts would have been terminated and they would be able to run the company the way they need to, not the way some self serving politician wants them run.

My point in posting this article is to show what happens when you let the government become involved in business. Seeing this, who would want the government being a healthcare provider?
Although you and I agree about the specifics of this issue, we simply couldn't let that many auto workers lose jobs.

The industry is too wide reaching. The cash for clunkers was a bandaid, that put a little money into the industry.

These are unprecedented times...kind of. We're taking drastic measures.


Re. govt."run" healthcare...I don't believe for one second that it won't eventually fester into a huge cash eating machine, but there should be a way to take premiums from members, to help divert costs.


I still think it will be cheaper than what many have now, because you remove the huge profits/payoffs to congressmen from the bottom line.


Remember, a public option should be able to address the minor issues that our younger/healthier citzens have, as well as to act as a preventive measure, which may avoid much costlier problems in the future.

Smurf-Herder
10-29-2009, 05:57 PM
Looks like there are going to be layoffs at Montana-based Stillwater Mining Co.

And more money for overseas companies.

Looks like saving US jobs is nothing but a shell game.

GetAClue
10-30-2009, 10:00 AM
Although you and I agree about the specifics of this issue, we simply couldn't let that many auto workers lose jobs.

The industry is too wide reaching. The cash for clunkers was a bandaid, that put a little money into the industry.

These are unprecedented times...kind of. We're taking drastic measures.


Re. govt."run" healthcare...I don't believe for one second that it won't eventually fester into a huge cash eating machine, but there should be a way to take premiums from members, to help divert costs.


I still think it will be cheaper than what many have now, because you remove the huge profits/payoffs to congressmen from the bottom line.


Remember, a public option should be able to address the minor issues that our younger/healthier citzens have, as well as to act as a preventive measure, which may avoid much costlier problems in the future.
The problem with saving some amercian jobs with the auto bailouts is that you are taking money from other parts of the economy to do it. How many jobs did that cost elsewhere? Also, what about Ford that did NOT take bailout money. When you begin to favor one automaker over another, you give that one automaker an advantage. In this case it didn't work out because Americans became cynical about it and are now refusing to buy from GM.

Also the cash for clunkers did NOTHING but encourage people that would probably have bought a car a few months later, to step up an buy one a little earlier. The telling statistic in this case is the sharp drop off in auto sales after the program ended to levels that were lower than they were before the program. It just turned into a big government give away. Also, a majority of the cars purchased where foriegn made. Not much help for GM and Chrysler there.

Moby
10-30-2009, 11:49 AM
Looks like there are going to be layoffs at Montana-based Stillwater Mining Co.

And more money for overseas companies.

Looks like saving US jobs is nothing but a shell game.
Do you think that we should bail them out?

Do you think that America should start stock piling platinum?

I'm confused on your point?

Smurf-Herder
10-31-2009, 04:20 PM
Do you think that we should bail them out?

Do you think that America should start stock piling platinum?

I'm confused on your point?

If we're calling the shots, we should continue to buy from as many American suppliers of everything, as possible. The whole idea was GM was too big to fail - so we're calling the shots because we bailed them out, right? So wouldn't the correct course of action be to maintain as much of the present buying from American suppliers as possible, to maintain US capabilities in private industry, as well as to save US jobs?

The whole concept was to stabilize the US economy, in general. You can't ethically separate the two cases, from a governmental standpoint, IMO.