As recently as the late 1970’s General Motors controlled nearly half the American automobile market, it towered over the economy to such a degree that people used to say, “What’s good for General Motors, is good for America.” One has to ask what that says about the US economy of today, ’cause GM’s in trouble deep.
It has just announced that it is going to downsize 30,000 jobs and closing three US assembly plants alltogether.
GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said he expects another 7 percent of salaried workers in North America would also be cut by the end of 2006, though he gave no specific number of job cuts planned there. Seven percent would equal about 2,500 jobs in the United States and additional cuts in Canada as well.
The automaker said the plan is aimed at saving $7 billion a year by the end of 2006.
Wagoner said the cuts were what the troubled automaker needed to turn around its operations but he wasn’t ready to predict when GM will return to profitability. He also wouldn’t promise this would be the end of job cuts and plant closings.
“As we sit here today, it’s our best guess and well thought out analysis,” Wagoner said.. “If we’ve learned anything in the last five years, it’s that there’s no guarantees in this business or any other business.”
Not surprisingly, the leadership of the United Auto Workers union blasted the move as unfair.
“We have said consistently that General Motors cannot shrink itself to prosperity. In fact, shrinking General Motors only exacerbates its problems,” UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and Vice President Richard Shoemaker said in a joint statement. “Unfortunately, it is workers, their families and our communities that are being forced to suffer because of the failures of others,” they added.
Whether even such drastic measures will be enough to save the ailing auto maker in the long term is doubtful. Not only has the market, due to rising fuel costs, recently turned against the trucks and SUVs that are GM’s bread and butter, but even in more favourable market conditions GM was heading for the lamp post at considerable speed.
The dysfunctional private health care and social security system in the US, ironically advocated by the wealthy who make up the bulk of shareholders in companies like GM, has saddled old established firms with generations worth of health care and pensions costs. It’s become so bad that roughly $1,500 on each vehicle produced by GM goes towards covering these costs.
The company is losing money by the trunk full and carrying a frightening load of debt, by some estimates a staggering $276 billion, and back in may credit rating agencies downgraded the company’s credit rating, deeming it’s corporate debt bonds to deserve “junk” status. This means that GM now faces higher interest rates when it want to roll over or raise new loans.
Last week, shaken by the bankruptcy of its largest parts supplier and former sub-division, Delphi (spun off by GM in 1999), GM shares sank to a 14-year low of $21, making a total loss of 47% of their value so far this year, securing GM the position as the worst performing stock of the 30 in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Bankruptcy, or a variant thereof, might be in GM’s future too. It’s damn near become the trendy thing to do. Though the repercussions of such an act would be seismic, the company just can’t continue to bleed money like it has done lately, or it would in reality be caput in three years time anyway.
Chapter 11, a form of bankruptcy protection unique to the US, would provide protection from creditors and a couple of years in which to restructure, and not least to dump the lion’s share of their social security obligations on the government. The mere threat of doing so is in any case a good club to wield when negotiationg pay and benefits cuts with the United Auto Workers union. Foreign competitors will almost certainly cry foul over such a move, as it would allow GM to simply shrug off its past mistakes and carry on much as before. But chances are that the Bush administration would be loath to have a US corporate icon like GM being sent to the glue factory on their watch. The sheer psychological trauma to the American soul of something like that is hard to fathom.
It might seem strange then that plans are on the front burner for selling off the only consistently profitable part of the Company, GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corp), which has grown from simply being the division offering customers financing for their purchases of GM cars, to being one of the market’s biggest players, involved even in such un-automotive activities as mortgage financing. In fact it makes a lot of sense to look at the GM of today as a profitable bank, which happens to lose money making cars on the side.
If management and the big shareholder have come to the conclusion that conventional cost cutting measures, like downsizing the workforce, won’t cut it to lift the company back intot he black, they might well feel that slicing off the profitable GMAC and floating it or selling it off as an independent company is the best way to protect assets, which would otherwise risk getting pulled down by a giant SUV sized albatross about its neck.
A stripped down auto operation could then be chapter 11’nd and knocked into some sort of shape. In fact they might quit making cars alltogether. It’s not like it’s making them any money. Instead of losing a couple of thousand dollars on each vehicle sold, they could use their bulk, co-op style, to outsource the manufacture to low cost, efficient producers in Asia and simply try to become the uber-Dell of the automotive world.
Only one thing seems certain, that the American blue collar middle class will once again get it, right in the kaboose.
This article is also available at Bitsofnews.com.
Don’t believe a word of it–GM filing chapter 11. Same bs was said when Chrysler got its federal loan guarantees. All GM wants is contract concessions from the UAW and the employees to pay more of their health care costs.
Yes, I’m sure there’s that too, as I mentioned in the article.
But GM’s problems are so fundamental that I’m doubtful they could turn the ship around in a conventional way, no matter what concessions management managed to squeese out of the workers. There’s only so much blood you can get from a stone before you realise the blood’s coming from your bruised hands.
Would Wal-Mart style wages and benefits (ehhh bad choice of word maybe) do it? I’m not even sure that would do it at this point.
You got that right re: Wally World wages…Wondering now if GM is also going to be going for federal loan guanantees!
Since my reply below is embarrassingly long, I’ll repeat one thought —
Why not let GM fail?
Why not let Wall Street bail it out or divide it up?
GM managed themselves into this hole. Screwing the workers won’t fix it. Borrowing from taxpayers won’t fix it. I’m not sure what could fix GM. Let the ‘invisible hand’ find the answer.
(okay, the ‘invisible hand’ was snark. But letting GM walmartize its workforce just speeds the auto industry as a whole down that path. How many smaller auto companies could be carved out of the dead hulk of GM? As for the retirees… time for them to ask their congresscritters for universal healthcare, because bail out or not, their bene’s are endangered species if not extinct)
You got that right! Re: the Medicare “D” and rx’s that are not covered, many seniors/retirees are sticking w/the rx’s insurance coverage they have a/o electing to purchase rx’s themselves, as the rx plans are too complicated for a person to figure out. At this point, it appears that purchasing one’s own rx’s that are not covered appear to cost less, but who the hell knows how long it will stay that way?
Know what I mean?
It is possible that a technique can be found for funneling US Government money into the hands of GM’s CEO’s, but failing that, GM is to be milked and sacrificed. First the union will be undermined by bullying and conning them into taking reduced compensation. And then when bankruptcy finally comes, GM will blow off its underfunded retirement obligations.
This is the time for GM workers to find their courage and demand their full wages or strike. The company is going down anyway, and if they don’t hold out, they will just be accepting less money between now and lay-off time.
Bankruptcy is guaranteed for one simple reason: Since the United Airlines bankruptcy this is the one true and tested way of reneging on your retirement obligations. Despite signed contracts, GM has no intention whatever of paying on its pension plans.
I hope the union will fight, but so far it looks like they plan to roll over and play dead. Not a good time to be working for GM . . .
Sad, but true.
It behooves a union to act responsibly and not to serve up the golden goose with wine sauce, parsley, black pepper and sour cream (Hey! Who’s hungry all of a sudden?).
But as you say, the fix is in, and the pooch is probably already eh… romanced.
Wondering if GM will get another no-bid contract to [provide military vehicles to Iraq?
I was thinking about this situation as I drove home from work today.
I’m really tired of hearing the ‘our retirees health care is killing GM’ excuse.
This is coming from guys making MILLIONS in salary and bonuses supposedly running the GM Corporation. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be paid millions (that’s another discussion) — I’m just wondering why?
Why exactly have they been richly rewarded for putting GM in this precarious position?
“Its the economy”.
“9/11 hurt…”
“the spiraling cost of health care”
Excuses
I mean, we all knew these things were coming. Okay, not 9/11, but come on, how long can you milk that horse?
CEO’s and Executives are paid handsomely for their uncommon ability to position companies to be prosperous. The “top” such folks are supposedly very very rare, as to warrant such rich compensation. GM is big. Which GM board member wants to step up and say the CEOs they’ve hired weren’t the best available?
So…
How exactly did GM get in the habit of making business decisions that meant promising employees benefits that would be expensive throughout time, rather than pay them more in the short term to control long term costs?
Weren’t they paying attention to the sales issues? The over dependence on big SUVs? The well known and well documented problem of producing one car and selling it under 3-4 ‘brands’? The ‘cost accounting’ model that says saving $17 per car by making the plastic parts as cheap and thin and fragile as possible is worth the negative reputation for making ‘junk’ econocars?
Weren’t they positioning their companies to take advantage of market growth, while hedging their bets in case of a downturn? These folks generally have the best educations, of the top universities, right?
So why didn’t they seem to realize that the auto industry (as seemingly all industries) runs in business cycles? Is there a community college graduate with a single Economics 101 course who doesn’t know about cyclical business cycles?
Were the CEOs and Executives solely to blame? Hard to fault the 30,000 soon-to-be-laid-off workers who did exactly what they promised to when they signed their contracts, as they had done for decades. In an unpredictable economy, the labor side of the equation should have been the most predictable part of the business.
Who was responsible for setting the strategy for launching new products, investing in new technologies (hydrogen, hybrids)? Who was responsible for the marketing and sales initiatives? Who okayed the idiotic ‘rebates! rebates! rebates!’ model of increasing sales, as if screaming “our cars are normally overpriced, but this quarter we’ll be reasonable on prices” wouldn’t set a really bad precedent? Weren’t these folks paying attention to the failed e-commerce models of the Dot-com boom?
What about the board? Why did they retain such clearly inadequate leadership? Why did they settle for “managed adequately in a challenging economy” when they were paying for “forging ahead and eating the competition”?
Now there is talk of a Federal bailout? So… all that stuff about the “invisible hand”, “free markets”, and such is revealed to be so much crap propaganda to excuse irresponsible management — when the going gets tough, lets ask the taxpayers to assume the risk after we mismanaged the business and without any return on their investment. While its turned around, we’ll continue to pay the board and the CEO for ‘managing through a difficult turnaround’, and afterwards the shareholders can enjoy their profits.
Nah.
How about this time we just quote all their wonderful ‘free market’ crap back in their faces. Let the ‘invisible hand’ bail them out.
Its not that I don’t care for the workers or retirees. I do. But letting them take 20% cuts in pay and give up their medical while rewarding the management and Wall Street and paying for it with our collective taxes doesn’t seem the best move, either.
GM wants to stay in business? Wall Street wants to maintain ‘shareholder value’? Pension funds who own GM want to avoid losses? Well, they were ethically and legally the ones responsible for electing the board, and choosing the CEO, and setting the direction for the company. They failed. Not the US taxpayer.
Lets save GM. But lets let GM and Wall Street and the Unions figure out how to pull it off on their own. They’re the superqualified business geniuses.
They still sell close to 1/4 cars sold in America. If GM evaporated from the earth, someone would have to design and build those cars. This is the dirty secret of “supply side economics” — businesses run on demand, not supply. If there is a demand, they’ll invest. If there isn’t, they won’t. Sure, new markets need to be cultivated, but its a heck of a lot easier to let the small fish fight to establish a new market then snap up the winner than it is to risk being one of the hundreds of failed losers.
So those union workers? The existing car companies will need workers, and factories. Some of the jobs will move overseas (unless these former GM workers and their former suppliers demand Congress wake up). Many will stay here — if not in MI then in TN or elsewhere, where Toyota and Honda and the others have plants. Sell Saturn off to its employees. Surely some GM exec would love to run Mustang, Inc.
Or we can have a government backed bail out, decreased GM wages and benefits, and come next UAW negotiating season, the other automakers will demand similar concessions.
Excuse the length of this rant, but come on. First the airlines, now the automakers? Why exactly can’t we let the ‘free market’ see the downside to their irresponsibility? Maybe if we did the investors (small and institutional) would demand the Wall Street analysts and consultants would earn their keep, they’d install boards that took their responsibility seriously, who in turn would hire CEOs who knew how to actually run a business, not just milk ‘profits’ by selling out the companies very future…
Yes, people in position to do something about this should have done something ages ago, but….
The problems so apparent in GM today, while made infinitely worse by boneheaded management, are not isolated to this particular company. They are part and parsel of larger national problems (for example the health insurance ball and chain in the US) and international developments, such as the globalisation.
Let me just make an aside remark here. The problem is not globalisation per se. That is an unavoidable and largely benign consequence of technology, both in transport (my parents both worked in shipping, and the tankers and bulk carriers I remember from my childhood pale in comparison to the cheaper to run monsters cleaving the waves today) and infrastructure (the medium we’re using here amongst other things). The problem is globalisation combined with no holds barred laissez faire trade policy. Though technology magnified it, it’s a political problem at heart, and the same one that’s been raging since the mercantilists and free traders first duked it out hundreds of years ago.
For my own part I think, for good and ill, that the era of unfettered free trade is drawing to a close for now. The playing field is not level. Comparative advantage is beside the point when goods and services can flow at little or no cost from nations with no overhead at all in the form of regulations, above subsistence wages etc. to nations whose economies are based on a non-specialised middle class.
Complex old industrialised economies, let’s say France, or The United States, can not win such a race to the bottom, even if they wanted to. And the people will have put a stop to it long before we hit bedrock.
But to return to the matter at hand; another problem is that a lot of the decisions that has brought GM and others to this point, were, when seen isolated, in the current political and economic climate, sort of correct. Their main market, the US, wanted big, beefy, macho petrol-snarfers. Fuel was still cheap. If they didn’t supply them, somebody elese would. It’s like in your personal economy, you might very well know what you should do to in the long term, but more often than not that knowledge is trumped by the everyday paddling to keep your head above water. Short term considerations win out every time. And as Scarlett O’Hara said, “Tomorrow is another day.”
Which brings us to something that anyone who’s ever sat and talked with some of these people over a pint will know: The people running our economy, the “Masters of the Universe”, contrary to the image they cultivate to justify their obscene incomes, are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are, on the whole, greedy and well connected. Brilliant analysts of the trends of tomorrow, comes quite a long way down the list of personality traits.
And as someone once said, it’s hard to make someone understand something, when their wages depend on them not undestanding it. Their wages depend on not thinking long term. After all, tomorrow is another day.
The problem here is that none of the people making decisions wants to admit to making the wrong one, and there’s no-one with sufficient authority to force them to do so. It’s power without accountability. The board? Good luck – they value their board seats, and admitting that they picked a bad CEO would get them ousted. The CEO or executives? Hah! The shareholders that actually bother to vote? No way. They’re in the “ownership society”, man!
Golden parachutes just make it even worse. Even if you do have a board member willing to admit they made a hiring mistake… Good luck getting them to actually fire a CEO.
destroy the whole repub concept of “Personal Respobnsibility.” Like any one was really supposed to take that seriously!
Seems to me that the cost of healthcare is being used as an excuse to justify cutting budget cuts in everything.
That tells me that no one wants to admit to the possibility that something is wrong w/the health care system.
Anyone (besides me) wonder why?
Admit something is wrong with healthcare?
But, but…
If one industry admits another (healthcare/pharma) is making profits (legally) at the expense of other industries (auto), or the US taxpayer (Walmart’s healthcare) — it breaks the charade.
You know, the one where any legal means of making profit is good for everyone — the ‘invisible hand’, voodoo economics. (nevermind that anything can become legal with enough campaign money involved)
If they risk that, who’s to prevent another industry from turning around and doing it right back to them?
That said, I think pharma and big med are going to have to face the music — and not with a cushy no-bid govt medicare drug benefit style nonsense plan. There is just too much growing suspicion that pushing healthcare off on the govt will improve the bottom line of virtually every sector of the economy. Well, except one or two. But since when does the market care about that — I thought it was all about winners and losers.
In diary linked to earlier, my dr. bitched about the current health care system–said single payer health care system was needed. (edited out too much of his tirade, I think). Pharmacist is also having a fit re: medicare d/rx plan. Shit everyone is pissed about it. Believe this is something to capitalize on ASAP!
Know what I mean?
Oh yeah, I’m with you.
I saw your diary, and agreed with it too.
NPR last summer/fall ran an interview with a doctor who talked about universal healthcare back when Clinton made his big push. He came right out and said they all (as a profession) killed it because they were concerned it would impact their incomes.
The surprise part is that after seeing the promise of HMOs turn into more and more paperwork, they realized instead of working for the govt and the patients, they are now working for the healthcare insurance industry, spending obscene quantities of time processing paperwork ( I vaguely remember a number like 22-25% tossed out, wish I could find confirmation).
He ended his piece by saying that many doctors in retrospect regret tanking univ healthcare.
I told ya so’s don’t help anyone. But its encouraging to think that next time around, the doctors will decide a decrease in their rate of pay increases would be worth regaining 10-15% or more of their workday, to apply towards actual medicine (or simply more patients, for the less altruistic).
Some dr.’s just want to practice medicine, and not have to bother w/bullshit!
The auto industry has been consolidating and cutting back in Europe and Korea as well as the US. You can’t blame this on GM’s management.
Sometimes the market forces at work are such that everyone gets dragged along by the tide. There is worldwide over capacity in the auto industry. There is a pending worldwide squeeze on fuel. There is a saturation of the auto market in most developed countries which means that there is only a replacement market.
New economies like China and India will not be able to support the growth in auto that is now being projected. They don’t have the infrastructure, the personal wealth or the resources.
Add to this the normal cyclical nature of the auto industry and you have the makings of the current downturn. The right blames it on the Unions, the populists on the CEO’s salary, the greens on the greedy buyers of SUV’s (who apparently suddenly stop buying them) and the left on give away government policy. The truth of the matter is they are all probably a bit correct.
The question is what is to be done. Fixing the pension and health benefits would be a good thing, but doesn’t explain the situation at Fiat or Peugeot. Their troubles can’t be blamed on US government social policies.
I posted a proposal on European Tribune yesterday on how to influence buying patterns towards more efficient car purchases. You can read it here, if you are interested:
http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/11/20/154539/10
It won’t solve GM or Ford’s problems directly, but might lead to a more rational supply of vehicles in the future.
I am 45, and I remember the gas lines in the 70’s, I remember the rust belt on TV and the double digit unemployment
WHAT have the f***ing clowns running that company been doing for 30+ years?
shouldn’t all the managers from the last 3 decades be required to repay ALL the money they ripped off from the company by mismanaging it into the ground?
or, is it too unreasonable to hold accountable those with the most authority and the biggest rewards? given american history in the last 100 or so years, it is almost unamerican?
rmm.