America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by wheelrite. 87 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
UAW Gives Union Workers At GM $7K Bonus!
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrMaddVibe Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 2:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
UAW Gives Union Workers At GM $7K Bonus

GM books record annual profit; union workers due $7,000
February 16, 2012

DETROIT (AP) – General Motors earned its largest profit ever in 2011, two years after it nearly collapsed into financial ruin… The 103-year-old company made $7.6 billion in 2011, up 62% from 2010.

Mind you, since 27% of GM is still owned by the government, these figures are, in effect, coming from the Obama administration as well as the United Auto Workers. So they are probably as accurate as the current unemployment numbers.

GM also said Thursday that its 47,500 blue-collar workers in the U.S. will get $7,000 profit-sharing checks in March. The checks are based on North American performance and are a record for the company…

Meanwhile, as we have previously noted, the UAW is freezing the pay of its non-union workers, slashing their bonuses, and completely doing away with their pensions. The non-union workers don’t get to share in the profits.

This is social justice at work.

Strong sales in the U.S. and China helped the carmaker turn a record profit, beating its old record of $6.7 billion in 1997 during the pickup truck and SUV boom.

Clearly, we are in the middle of the ‘Chevy Volt boom.’

GM is a vastly different company than it was then. It’s smaller and has less debt, and its contract with the United Auto Workers is less costly…

Yes, the UAW’s pension fund was bailed out, and the union was given the company they destroyed, in exchange for a "less costly" contract. That is what is known as "fairness."

But it took a government bailout and a trip through bankruptcy protection in 2009 to cut its bloated costs. The restructured company wa [sic] able to make record profit last year, even though U.S. auto sales were near historic lows at 12.8 million cars and trucks…

Again, these profit reports are coming from the Obama administration. And who knows how much they have been ‘seasonally adjusted’ to give Obama something to crow about?

Also bear in mind that GM will not have to pay any federal taxes for the next ten years. (Which was another payback to the UAW for their loyal support of Obama and the Democrat party.)

So, even though General Motors has made the biggest profit in its history, it will pay less tax than Warren Buffet’s secretary. — Where is the outrage?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/uaw-gives-union-workers-at-gm-7k-bonus?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sweetness-light%2FsURR+%28Sweetness+%26+Light+-+Articles%29


Yeah...they needed a bailout! We wouldn't survive if we didn't give them the money.


You've been cheated!


Face the facts!
snowwolf777 Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 5:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
Since they still owe the tax payers on the bail out, just tax each of them $6,999 on their "profit sharing" and use it to reduce the amount owed.

d'oh!

They can each get a commemorative frame for the remaining dollar.
snowwolf777 Offline
#3 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 5:26 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
Or, they could get their $7,000 in "Obama Bux". Each one entitles you to another vote in the upcoming Presidential election.

Beer
Rclay Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 5:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-30-2006
Posts: 1,813
The Amero? any nibbles?
ZRX1200 Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
WINNING!
rfenst Offline
#6 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 5:59 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
just hink about how much those $7,000 checks will stimulate the economy when the money gets spent.
snowwolf777 Offline
#7 Posted: Sat, Feb 18 2012, 8:35 PM EST
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
rfenst wrote:
just hink about how much those $7,000 checks will stimulate the economy when the money gets spent.



Yes, it took 4 years, but the tax money spent to bail out the failing auto makers is finally moving into the "stimulus" category. I'm sure beer, cigarette and lottery ticket sales are sky rocketing in the "D". I'm just proud as hell to be a Wolverine right now.

Frying pan
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted: Sun, Feb 19 2012, 3:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
snowwolf777 wrote:
Yes, it took 4 years, but the tax money spent to bail out the failing auto makers is finally moving into the "stimulus" category. I'm sure beer, cigarette and lottery ticket sales are sky rocketing in the "D". I'm just proud as hell to be a Wolverine right now.

Frying pan


I am a Wolverine at heart too.

Don't know if there was a timeline for bailout repayment, but I would expect the profitable auto-companies to remain or be ahead of schedule. There is a silver lining to the bailout of any company that survives and not only pays its employees what they bargained for, but also the $$ owed the the federal government.
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#9 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 12:02 AM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
I wasn't for the bailout as it occurred however I did have grave concerns for the 70 or so thousand people who would have been directly affected by job loss(including suppliers) and all of the people with invalid warranties if GM was allowed to go teats up. That being said.......this story doesn't make any sense and it appears that a Twitter feed which co-mingles legitimate fact with hate mongering is the cited source.

Our local rag newspaper also published an Associated Press news item directly stating that the represented employees of GM would be receiving $1500 bonuses, not $7k bonuses, so who is telling the truth? The local rag printed the AP piece in it's apparent entirety, it looks like the author of the tweet interspersed his opinions and conjecture with material under an AP tagline?

Another point which makes me question the integrity of this tweet is that the UAW is not giving anyone a bonus, the bonus comes from GM. Undoubtedly the United Auto Workers union makes plenty of money from the rank and file union members, but they don't share their profits. Furthermore, the UAW doesn't control compensation of GM employees not represented by them as was alleged in the tweet, so what gives?

If you want to get really mad about details of the bailout, research where GM stands in the repayment plan and how those funds have been returned to use for the benefit of the American taxpayer. From what I've read, there is a special account that money is going into that is controlled by a few of Obama's Czars under the guise of economic development..........like Solindra.......but what's a half billion lost dollars in just one example, amongst friends?

BTW, I recall bigwigs at GM stating that although current and retiree benefits were onerous and challenging their ability to make a profit which would sustain good stock value, it was all the bad paper that GMAC held in subprime mortgages that nearly drove them under. Anyone else remember it like this?
ZRX1200 Offline
#10 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 12:27 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Yeah the benefits were fine.



(Toilet flush sarcasm emoticon)


Bond holders got



F


U


C


*


E


D.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 6:29 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
Pheloniousmunk wrote:
Our local rag newspaper also published an Associated Press news item directly stating that the represented employees of GM would be receiving $1500 bonuses, not $7k bonuses, so who is telling the truth? The local rag printed the AP piece in it's apparent entirety, it looks like the author of the tweet interspersed his opinions and conjecture with material under an AP tagline?



GM workers receive record bonuses
Updated: Friday, 17 Feb 2012, 12:24 PM EST
Published : Friday, 17 Feb 2012, 12:24 PM EST

TONAWANDA, N.Y. (WIVB) - Two years has made a huge difference for GM. The automaker is reporting a record profit for 2011.

Just two years after getting bailed out by the government, GM earned the highest profit in it's 103-year history and they're sharing their earnings with thousands of workers nationwide and locally at the Tonawanda engine plant.

GM earned a record $7.6 billion in 2011. Despite the record profit, critics say we shouldn't forget that just a couple of years ago about $50 billion of taxpayer money was spent to save GM from bankruptcy. Nearly half of the money has been recovered.

Thursday they announced, 47,500 blue collar workers, many who took pay cuts because of the bailout, would be getting a $7,000 profit sharing check.

Locally about 850 workers at the Tonawanda plant will receive the record bonus to share with their families.

“That has a tremendous impact on the economy. That turns into spending, that turns into additional purchases, that turns into people getting caught up on their bills,” said Tonawanda Engine Plant Manager Steve Finch.

Local 774 Chairman Bob Coleman said, “We've never expected to get this kind of money. The national parties put together a package and it shows this package really works and works for the economy. “

In the next few months the Tonawanda plant will also be reinstating 93 workers who had been laid off.

Copyright WIVB.com

http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/local/gm-workers-receive-record-bonuses


AND...


http://www.freep.com/article/20120216/BUSINESS0101/120216003/1205/business01/GM-made-record-7-6-billion-2011
JadeRose Offline
#12 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 9:49 AM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
So..one of the biggest employers in North America is making enough profit to reward it's workers instead of just upper management? Those workers will then pump that money back into our economy that will help keep other Americans working?






Bastards
Stinkdyr Offline
#13 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 9:56 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Your tax $$ at waste!

fog
JadeRose Offline
#14 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:01 AM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
Stinkdyr wrote:
Your tax $$ at waste!


fog



Well.....I would rather see my tax dollars going to support Americans than building roads in Afghanistan or rebuilding Iraq or propping up Israel, Pakistan, or most of Africa. I say we stop all THAT nonsense and use that money here at home to rebuild infrastructure and bring manufacturing back to the US.
Stinkdyr Offline
#15 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:14 AM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
^^ tru dat!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#16 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:14 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
JadeRose wrote:
I say we stop all THAT nonsense and use that money here at home to rebuild infrastructure and bring manufacturing back to the US.



Until we repeal NAFTA...THAT'S not going to happen!

Ever been in a GM shop?

That money is going to go right into the nearest "party store" to the plant for liquid lunches...blunts...and lotto.

This is criminal in my mind. GM can afford to "give" bonuses but cannot pay back the American taxpayer? Damn...why not just give every taxpayer in the US a discount on the car then and we'll call it even...matter of fact....GIVE us a car...we paid for it!

Then to go out and cry they made RECORD profits?

riiiight!


They're so epic that they're not giving salaried workers the same consideration that Joe Rivet gets. Think Joe Rivet could design the car he's building? If that's not bad enough...Salaried workers are getting the shaft with beneifts too! Yeah, I'm really proud we stepped up and GAVE them money to survive...oh, if we only had some sort of bankruptcy protection laws on the books that would save bond/shareholders...jobs...marketshare and enable them to get on their feet WITHOUT reprisal. We can dare to dream.
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#17 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:36 AM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
So if we accept that because of the record profit that GM made, the represented employees are getting $7k bonuses, why should we care and what can we do about that? The only reason I care is because ~ $50 billion taxpayers dollars saved the company and we haven't been fully paid back yet.

On the other hand, I will take a fairly certain guess that an enhanced profit sharing bonus was instrumental in negotiating lower wage and benefits packages for incumbent employees, hard costs regardless of productivity, the quality of the product, or revenue generated. Profit sharing gives the rank and file employee a more tangible sense of ownership in a company, and I'm for it. Some hardball negotiating and restructuring should have been mandated given the fact and magnitude of the government bailout of GM, but it doesn't appear those conditions were included in the check that our elected officials sent. I'm afraid that to be aware of every travesty commited by or caused by our government will drive a person mad.....just remember who was involved come election day.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
Pheloniousmunk wrote:
So if we accept that because of the record profit that GM made, the represented employees are getting $7k bonuses, why should we care and what can we do about that? The only reason I care is because ~ $50 billion taxpayers dollars saved the company and we haven't been fully paid back yet.

On the other hand, I will take a fairly certain guess that an enhanced profit sharing bonus was instrumental in negotiating lower wage and benefits packages for incumbent employees, hard costs regardless of productivity, the quality of the product, or revenue generated. Profit sharing gives the rank and file employee a more tangible sense of ownership in a company, and I'm for it. Some hardball negotiating and restructuring should have been mandated given the fact and magnitude of the government bailout of GM, but it doesn't appear those conditions were included in the check that our elected officials sent. I'm afraid that to be aware of every travesty commited by or caused by our government will drive a person mad.....just remember who was involved come election day.



If you have links...please share them.
FuzzNJ Offline
#19 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:44 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57381536/fact-check-artful-swerves-on-auto-bailout/
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:50 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
FuzzNJ wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57381536/fact-check-artful-swerves-on-auto-bailout/



Because YOU didn't pass 3rd grade math...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOaS2SymjQ4
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
ZRX1200 wrote:
Yeah the benefits were fine.



(Toilet flush sarcasm emoticon)


Bond holders got



F


U


C


*


E


D.


Tough crap. Institutional and highly educated investors. They knew they had unsecured interest and/or that the borrower could always default. They also knew if there was a default and the company went in to bankruptcy, whatever interest they had would be crammed down or stripped.

(I beg your pardon, i never promissed youa rose garden...)
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:57 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
rfenst wrote:
Tough crap. Institutional and highly educated investors. They knew they had unsecured interest and/or that the borrower could always default. They also knew if there was a default and the company went in to bankruptcy, whatever interest they had would be crammed down or stripped.

(I beg your pardon, i never promissed youa rose garden...)



So goes GM...so goes the US!!!!!

I'm sorry...can you please share with us where the US government wiped away bondholders before?

This picking winners and losers is a slippery slope. I didn't know our government was so bored to tears and conquered world peace and hunger that they could devote their time to dictating private sector manufacturing and sales. AWESOME!
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 10:59 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
Stinkdyr wrote:
Your tax $$ at waste!

fog


Way too early to tell. New jobs. Bonuses,which will lead to spending, which will lead to more new jobs. The time to jufge will be when the $$$ is paid back in ****ll or there is a default and liquidation. Then, even though there may not have been payment in full, the number ** could** still work out. Remember the Chrysler bailout a few decades ago? Was it a failure?
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 11:11 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
[quote=DrMaddVibe]

I'm sorry...can you please share with us where the US government wiped away bondholders before?

[quote]


Are you serious? It happens every day in Bankruptcy Court by Trustees overseeing reorganizations. Maybe not 1005, but sometimes so damn near there is no difference.

Also happens in Bankruptcy Court every day when businesses liquidate. All assets are sold-off. Old owners come back with new investors, buy back all the assets for pennies on the dollar, reorganize on their own, change their name (iften just slightly) and continue on with business.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 11:31 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
rfenst wrote:

Are you serious? It happens every day in Bankruptcy Court by Trustees overseeing reorganizations. Maybe not 1005, but sometimes so damn near there is no difference.

Also happens in Bankruptcy Court every day when businesses liquidate. All assets are sold-off. Old owners come back with new investors, buy back all the assets for pennies on the dollar, reorganize on their own, change their name (iften just slightly) and continue on with business.



Yeah, I was serious.

Being a bondholder up till the US government's intervention used to mean that if a company filed for bankruptcy there was an order that people would be paid out. In the simplest of terms they would've been able to recoup "some" money and would be at the top of the pile getting it because they paid a premium.

You didn't answer the question. Then because I'm going to guess you didn't know that there are several ways a company can file for bankruptcy. Depending on the filing they would be protected. It's not the US taxpayer's fault they couldn't manage an auto manufacturing company and turn RECORD PROFIT!
JadeRose Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 12:38 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
You DO understand ownership in a company, right? The Gubmint isn't sitting around waiting for GM to send them a check. Da gubmint has already recouped approximately half the money already and as the stock of GM rises in price, the gubmint will recoup the rest. From everything I've read, GM has cut costs, streamlined itself, and is doing ok. I just can't see how an American company posting record profits and sharing the wealth with it's American employees can be a bad thing. Is it because you aren't getting a check, DMV, that you have such a problem with it? Gaddam, bro...you are one of the bitterest, most pessimistic people I've ever been exposed to. The Dow is going to hit 13k today, and the sun is shining. Get yourself a beej, light a cigar and go outside.
ZRX1200 Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 12:51 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
The issue is the bond holders got the shaft in an unprecedented way while the union employees got bailed out and now they're getting bonuses.

By themselves the bonuses aren't something that bother me. Its what's led up to this that does. The bond holders rightfully should have gotten theirs first. Now UAW are rubbing it ib their faces.
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 1:16 PM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
ZRX1200 wrote:
The issue is the bond holders got the shaft in an unprecedented way while the union employees got bailed out and now they're getting bonuses.

By themselves the bonuses aren't something that bother me. Its what's led up to this that does. The bond holders rightfully should have gotten theirs first. Now UAW are rubbing it ib their faces.

Trust me, I'm not trying to justify what has happened with GM regarding the bailout but there is always risk with any type of investment, atleast some of the investors assets were protected while the complex federal labor laws by and large protect the rights of the organized employees. Yeah....on one hand the whole mess stinks, but on the other hand the ramifications of letting such a large corporation with so many directly and indirectly employed by them go belly up is a scenario that noone wants to live through.
ZRX1200 Offline
#29 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 1:49 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Then it shouldn't have been run into the ground. Actions have consequences.


Big middle finger for "too big to fail".
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 2:13 PM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
ZRX1200 wrote:
Then it shouldn't have been run into the ground. Actions have consequences.


Big middle finger for "too big to fail".

Who ran it into the ground ZRX? I agree that the unionized employees have incredible wages and benefits for manufacturing sector jobs, but they wouldn't have them if GM, Ford, and Chrysler didn't agree to give them that. I liken the auto industry that we used to know as The Big 3, to regulated utilities. It was too easy to pass along outrageous operating costs to the consumer rather than face a unified workforce, then all of the insanity became the status quo. Corporate mgmt., and the board of directors are just as guilty as the uneducated schlub on the production line with a wage and benefit package worth 80 bucks an hour. They're all complicit...but can we as a nation afford a complete failure of those companies? Our elected "leaders"(tongue firmly in cheek) acted as if we couldn't. You and I are left not to ponder that question, but to do what we apparently do best.......pay the bill.

Smaller government is the answer. Fewer safety nets and entitlements and a foreign policy not based on policing the world and sending vast sums of money.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 2:14 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
JadeRose wrote:
You DO understand ownership in a company, right? The Gubmint isn't sitting around waiting for GM to send them a check. Da gubmint has already recouped approximately half the money already and as the stock of GM rises in price, the gubmint will recoup the rest. From everything I've read, GM has cut costs, streamlined itself, and is doing ok. I just can't see how an American company posting record profits and sharing the wealth with it's American employees can be a bad thing. Is it because you aren't getting a check, DMV, that you have such a problem with it? Gaddam, bro...you are one of the bitterest, most pessimistic people I've ever been exposed to. The Dow is going to hit 13k today, and the sun is shining. Get yourself a beej, light a cigar and go outside.



No, I guess I don't. Consequences have no bearing. Responsibility has been abolished. Everything is turned upside down in front of your face and when I hold the mirror up I get accused of being bitter? Of course the govt. isn't sitting around waiting for a check...just like when the banks got their bailout...it was supposed to go out the door for lending and spur the machine back into gear...like them there were no "strings". There was no concrete contract, no agreement. They entitled these corporations to do whatever they wanted because, well you get back to me on that one. I cannot find where the government has ever stepped in front of a corporation facing bankruptcy and wiped out bond/shareholders equity and put the union in a position of more power at the Board of Directors. That is what I was asking, and was given a "Are you kidding?"...Like I didn't know the answer. This has nothing with being bitter or even pessimistic. It has everything to do with the letter of the law. In this instance we allowed the US government to overstep its authority. History has shown us that when you do that one time it now becomes precedent. Precedent becomes practice. Now, and in the future the govt. can and will seize anything, devoid the value of market price and declare who can and cannot sit in the Big Chairs at the top.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I do or don't get. What we have here is not Capitalism and you'd best recognize it now because your complacent attitude allowed it. When it comes to your sector perhaps you'd think differently about it, but as a nation predicated on laws we've done a disservice. Sorry, but if GM can now declare that they made RECORD PROFITS then why did they need the bailout? Seems like they could've done what Ford has been doing for over 10 years. Ford put a plan in place that wasn't popular. They knew the business model wasn't conducive to any kind of long term success. They sucked it up and took the pain on their terms and the fruits are paying off for them. There was and is a difference. A real shame you cannot see the difference.
Stinkdyr Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Pheloniousmunk wrote:
Trust me, ....on one hand the whole mess stinks, but on the other hand the ramifications of letting such a large corporation with so many directly and indirectly employed by them go belly up is a scenario that noone wants to live through.




Creative Destruction.........it's a GOOD thing.

fog
Humastronaut Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 07-26-2011
Posts: 231
whoa! Fuzz is back!?
ZRX1200 Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 2:39 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
I don't buy the company line that it would have been a financial disaster.


They would have restructured like any other company in bankruptcy. Instead the Kenyan King rides in on his half white horse to rescue organized labor and give them more power.
Pheloniousmunk Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 2:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-28-2011
Posts: 402
How was organized labor given more power? I do agree that the UAW represented probably would have had a much worse contract under a bankruptcy restructuring........but maybe they wouldn't have? We'll never know and there is no clear precedence to defer to. The bottom line is that the represented workforce did make some concessions, so I don't see where they were empowered in any way? I will agree with you if you were to say that Obama was pandering to a voting block with this bailout, but don't forget that the bailout was gaining momentum while Bush was still in office. The bottom line is that the politicians aren't working for us as they should, they ALL pander to special interests and self gratification.
rfenst Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:14 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Yeah, I was serious.

Being a bondholder up till the US government's intervention used to mean that if a company filed for bankruptcy there was an order that people would be paid out. In the simplest of terms they would've been able to recoup "some" money and would be at the top of the pile getting it because they paid a premium.

You didn't answer the question. Then because I'm going to guess you didn't know that there are several ways a company can file for bankruptcy. Depending on the filing they would be protected. It's not the US taxpayer's fault they couldn't manage an auto manufacturing company and turn RECORD PROFIT!


You have zero (0) idea how many bankruptcies I have been involved in and whether any of them were complex or sophisticated. You have no idea (0) which big-name corporations whose bankruptcies I have represented creditors in. You have no (0) idea that I have been retained by Bankruptcy Trustees and paid to pursuit the bankruptcy estate's interests. You have no (0) idea that my expert opinion has been relied upon by different entities and Trustees in bankruptcies. But, you are right, I don't know how bankruptcy works. (LMFAOAUFOTGHM!)

The answer to your question about how many times is: I don't know. And, I am not even going to try to find out if any ever have and, if so, then how many. The reason is that you have asked a question for which there very highly likely is no answer, the answer would requiring review of every corporate bankruptcy ever filed. Besides, the U.S. government doesn't wipe out bondholder interests. bankruptcy courts can and do all the time.

Here, GM's bond holders were offered a deal,albeit for pennies on the dollar in the form of the new corporations stock/a minor ownership interest, which only some of them took. Those unsecured bondholders who were too hard-headed to see the reality not only lost their money when GM went under, but refused to negotiate and as a result, got nothing at all.
They were among the lowest on the creditors' priority ladder- while at the same time being useless to GM's potential future success. Tough crap to them in terms of the way bankruptcy goes, the public policy/reasoning behind bankruptcy and for not seeing the writimg on the wall and getting out while the getting was good.
rfenst Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
JadeRose wrote:
You DO understand ownership in a company, right? The Gubmint isn't sitting around waiting for GM to send them a check. Da gubmint has already recouped approximately half the money already and as the stock of GM rises in price, the gubmint will recoup the rest. From everything I've read, GM has cut costs, streamlined itself, and is doing ok. I just can't see how an American company posting record profits and sharing the wealth with it's American employees can be a bad thing. Is it because you aren't getting a check, DMV, that you have such a problem with it? Gaddam, bro...you are one of the bitterest, most pessimistic people I've ever been exposed to. The Dow is going to hit 13k today, and the sun is shining. Get yourself a beej, light a cigar and go outside.


LOL!!!
rfenst Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
ZRX1200 wrote:
The issue is the bond holders got the shaft in an unprecedented way while the union employees got bailed out and now they're getting bonuses.

By themselves the bonuses aren't something that bother me. Its what's led up to this that does. The bond holders rightfully should have gotten theirs first. Now UAW are rubbing it ib their faces.


I don't think that I can agree with you to the extent that both the workers and their union(s) were indeed vital to GM's potential future success and bond-holders weren't. All the plants, machinery, designs and good will have zero value unless they can be used to manufacture cars. Without that, the company had zero value as an ongoing concern because rebuilding it from scratch would have been impossible.
rfenst Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:24 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
Pheloniousmunk wrote:
Who ran it into the ground ZRX?.


The stockholders (owners) who failed to supervise and get rid of the directors; and the creditors, particularly those with secured interests, all of whom failed to put GM into involuntary bankruptcy a hell of a lot sooner- in order to protect their interests.
rfenst Offline
#40 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
DrMaddVibe wrote:
No, I guess I don't. Consequences have no bearing. Responsibility has been abolished. Everything is turned upside down in front of your face and when I hold the mirror up I get accused of being bitter? Of course the govt. isn't sitting around waiting for a check...just like when the banks got their bailout...it was supposed to go out the door for lending and spur the machine back into gear...like them there were no "strings". There was no concrete contract, no agreement. They entitled these corporations to do whatever they wanted because, well you get back to me on that one. I cannot find where the government has ever stepped in front of a corporation facing bankruptcy and wiped out bond/shareholders equity and put the union in a position of more power at the Board of Directors. That is what I was asking, and was given a "Are you kidding?"...Like I didn't know the answer. This has nothing with being bitter or even pessimistic. It has everything to do with the letter of the law. In this instance we allowed the US government to overstep its authority. History has shown us that when you do that one time it now becomes precedent. Precedent becomes practice. Now, and in the future the govt. can and will seize anything, devoid the value of market price and declare who can and cannot sit in the Big Chairs at the top.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what I do or don't get. What we have here is not Capitalism and you'd best recognize it now because your complacent attitude allowed it. When it comes to your sector perhaps you'd think differently about it, but as a nation predicated on laws we've done a disservice. Sorry, but if GM can now declare that they made RECORD PROFITS then why did they need the bailout? Seems like they could've done what Ford has been doing for over 10 years. Ford put a plan in place that wasn't popular. They knew the business model wasn't conducive to any kind of long term success. They sucked it up and took the pain on their terms and the fruits are paying off for them. There was and is a difference. A real shame you cannot see the difference.


Ford did it on its own, which is commendable. GM didn't which is unforgivable to those who lost. Ford was able to do it without force of law. GM used the black letter law. Don't go thinking there is really any true distinction because Ford's creditors and employees had the threat of bankruptcy hanging over their heads the entire time.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#41 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
rfenst wrote:
You have zero (0) idea how many bankruptcies I have been involved in and whether any of them were complex or sophisticated. You have no idea (0) which big-name corporations whose bankruptcies I have represented creditors in. You have no (0) idea that I have been retained by Bankruptcy Trustees and paid to pursuit the bankruptcy estate's interests. You have no (0) idea that my expert opinion has been relied upon by different entities and Trustees in bankruptcies. But, you are right, I don't know how bankruptcy works. (LMFAOAUFOTGHM!)

The answer to your question about how many times is: I don't know. And, I am not even going to try to find out if any ever have and, if so, then how many. The reason is that you have asked a question for which there very highly likely is no answer, the answer would requiring review of every corporate bankruptcy ever filed. Besides, the U.S. government doesn't wipe out bondholder interests. bankruptcy courts can and do all the time.

Here, GM's bond holders were offered a deal,albeit for pennies on the dollar in the form of the new corporations stock/a minor ownership interest, which only some of them took. Those unsecured bondholders who were too hard-headed to see the reality not only lost their money when GM went under, but refused to negotiate and as a result, got nothing at all.
They were among the lowest on the creditors' priority ladder- while at the same time being useless to GM's potential future success. Tough crap to them in terms of the way bankruptcy goes, the public policy/reasoning behind bankruptcy and for not seeing the writimg on the wall and getting out while the getting was good.




I find your answer actually laughable.

You're taking something that's really easy to answer and adding about 200 words that don't need to be there. The mere mention that you want to claim you're an expert and provide no tangible information leads me to believe that you are in fact the last person I'd want to gather info from on this matter.

Deal? Right. More like a dissolution where the price was set by whom? Yeah.
rfenst Offline
#42 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:30 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
Stinkdyr wrote:
Creative Destruction.........it's a GOOD thing.

fog



Like when you have a cancerous tumor that is cut out, chemotherapeuticly bombarded or irradiated to death? No, that is NOT a good thing at all.
rfenst Offline
#43 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:33 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,431
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I find your answer actually laughable.

You're taking something that's really easy to answer and adding about 200 words that don't need to be there. The mere mention that you want to claim you're an expert and provide no tangible information leads me to believe that you are in fact the last person I'd want to gather info from on this matter.

Deal? Right. More like a dissolution where the price was set by whom? Yeah.


Oh, don't go throwing a bunch of crappy issues out at us then complain when we don't address one the way you like. That is a bunch of crap called a "straw-man". But, you have to have known that because you are the expert on that.
topper7788 Offline
#44 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 3:34 PM EST
Joined: 06-21-2006
Posts: 4,719
I'm not going to defend the bailout, but it worked and the results are proving it... believe what you want, but a "normal" BK of GM and Chrysler would have been a nightmare..

Guys, many seem to think Ford is some kind of hero company because it chose not to go BK... They did react sooner than the other companies to their credit...

But they did not go BK for ONE REASON... The Ford family would have lost the company.. Ford took early action once the FAMILY decided they where "all in" and wanted to keep the company... that's when things got in motion for them.. They raised cash, sold off all non core assets etc... They certainly deserve much credit, but not for the reason most believe...

BUT don't think for a second that the decision to NOT go the route of GM was any kind of noble action... It was done for ONE REASON only the Ford family interest and control of the Ford Motor Company....

Understand while the family only has a small % of the overall shares, but they control the important voting shares and thereby still control the company... The Ford's were pretty sharp, they raised all kinds of cash back in the day when they took it public but they way it was structured they kept control of the company... And again to their credit seem to want to continue to keep it "in the family" for many years to come.....
ZRX1200 Offline
#45 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 4:01 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
The stockholders (owners) who failed to supervise and get rid of the directors; and the creditors, particularly those with secured interests, all of whom failed to put GM into involuntary bankruptcy a hell of a lot sooner- in order to protect their interests.

Agreed.

#35 they were given a seat on the board.
ZRX1200 Offline
#46 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 4:03 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Here, GM's bond holders were offered a deal,albeit for pennies on the dollar in the form of the new corporations stock/a minor ownership interest, which only some of them took. Those unsecured bondholders who were too hard-headed to see the reality not only lost their money when GM went under, but refused to negotiate and as a result, got nothing at all.

Here I disagree. That wasn't a deal that was rape.

Offering a towel when they're done isn't a deal.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#47 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 4:08 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
rfenst wrote:
Oh, don't go throwing a bunch of crappy issues out at us then complain when we don't address one the way you like. That is a bunch of crap called a "straw-man". But, you have to have known that because you are the expert on that.



Sorry you feel that way. Wasn't a bunch either. Just one.

When has the US government wiped away bondholders before? This was unprecedented.

I would think that seeing as how you're a bankruptcy attorney that you'd at least be able to pull a case.
JadeRose Offline
#48 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 4:32 PM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
"It has absolutely nothing to do with what I do or don't get. What we have here is not Capitalism and you'd best recognize it now because your complacent attitude allowed it. When it comes to your sector perhaps you'd think differently about it, but as a nation predicated on laws we've done a disservice."


GADDAM....I didn't realize I had so much power. Yes Johann...I've obviously never had any adversity in my life. I've never watched my parents lose jobs due to plant closings nor have I PERSONALLY ever lost a job due to business failure. Oh....wait a minute......I did both of those things. I guess the difference between you and I is that I do not choose to be a paranoid, ranting ****** that is absolutely incapable of considering that my opinion may not be the best one. Frankly, you're a bore and the only reason I ever bothering reading your rants is because they amuse me.


Thanks for the laughs.
dubleuhb Offline
#49 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 4:36 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
topper7788 wrote:
I'm not going to defend the bailout, but it worked and the results are proving it... believe what you want, but a "normal" BK of GM and Chrysler would have been a nightmare..

Guys, many seem to think Ford is some kind of hero company because it chose not to go BK... They did react sooner than the other companies to their credit...

But they did not go BK for ONE REASON... The Ford family would have lost the company.. Ford took early action once the FAMILY decided they where "all in" and wanted to keep the company... that's when things got in motion for them.. They raised cash, sold off all non core assets etc... They certainly deserve much credit, but not for the reason most believe...

BUT don't think for a second that the decision to NOT go the route of GM was any kind of noble action... It was done for ONE REASON only the Ford family interest and control of the Ford Motor Company....

Understand while the family only has a small % of the overall shares, but they control the important voting shares and thereby still control the company... The Ford's were pretty sharp, they raised all kinds of cash back in the day when they took it public but they way it was structured they kept control of the company... And again to their credit seem to want to continue to keep it "in the family" for many years to come.....

So being pro-active is not commendable? Kicking the can down the road like GM and Chrysler and then letting the government come in to save you when it caught up to is good business ? The UAW had much to do with this, first by the demands in pay and benefit packages that are completely out of line for work performed. It took many years to slowly bring it here but even a pin hole in the bottom of the bucket will drain it. Then the refusal to take cuts to preserve their jobs was selfish on their ( the rank and file) part.
If the Ford family sole purpose was to keep control then so be it, but I doubt that was the entire reason. Who says that is bad business ? The steps they took kept the company afloat worked, and kept their employees working. Should it be more commendable than letting the government come in and get their hands in it ? In my mind absolutely!
I have never been a Ford guy, I live where GM factories are a big part of the economy, they are always in the news here and always need a tax break or grant of some kind to bribe them into adding more jobs. I work right up the road from the plant DMV noted earlier and know many people who work their. I have family that works in another plant and always get the GM discount but last May I bought my last GM vehicle. I will put my money with a company like Ford next time, at least they had the vision to see where they were headed and took steps to keep it working, even if it was just to keep control it worked.
When did it become wrong to want to keep control of a company that bears your family name ? It seems to me that they still have a vision for the company and would rather put their reputation on the line rather than to a bunch of shareholders whose intentions may not be the same.
FuzzNJ Offline
#50 Posted: Tue, Feb 21 2012, 4:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
In case anyone wants to know where these stupid ideas are coming from:



This $170 billion bailout hinged on squeezing last-minute concessions out of private holders of Greek debt. This is the same way Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler.

He went to private individuals who owned bonds as opposed to stock, and Obama told 'em: "Guess what, guys? You are eating the short end on this." The bondholders at first opposed, Obama called 'em greedy, said "everybody has to sacrifice," and the bondholders ended you up taking a bath. The UAW and Obama were the big winners. They had the company handed to them. Now, in Greece, $170 billion bailout hinged on squeezing last-minute concessions out of private holders, individuals of Greek debt. Banks and other investment funds are going to have to forgive $142 billion in debt. Banks and investment funds are just gonna have to write off $142 billion that people owe them.

And furthermore, they have been told that they must forgo profits on their remaining holdings. They've been wiped out! They essentially have been told to take a face-value loss of 53.5% on their bonds. They're gonna have to just forget $142 billion that people owe them and promise to forgo profits on what's left. Luckily, ladies and gentlemen, they're just banks and investment firms that are losing money. They're not really people! Well, isn't that what everybody thinks? Corporation, that's not people. A company isn't people. I've had sniveling little leftists call me here and very snarkily say, "I suppose you're gonna tell me a corporation's people."

Yeah, it is. Without people, there is no corporation.

"Yeah, yeah," and they just lose it.

Banks, investment firms? Ah, they're not really people. No widows or orphans have savings or any investments in banks or investment firms. There aren't any teacher pension funds invested there. No, no, no, they're not real people here! Now, you might think that it's banks and investment funds that are eating it, but who invests with them? Average, ordinary people. Banks and investment firms are people. And they've been told, with a smile, "Guess what? You're wiped out! We're gonna bail out the slothful losers in Greece so they continue to have to do nothing to get their pensions -- and, meanwhile, you're wiped out. You're the one that's gonna pay for it."

They're not really people. No widows or orphans are invested there. Besides, this gonna teach people to invest in Greece, right? You can't wait now! Why do you think the stock market jumped over 13,000 in this country? There aren't too many wise people with skin in the game that want to throw money into Europe right now. Look what happened to people who did! They were just told, "You're eating it, pal. You are gonna soak up $142 billion in debt. You're just gonna give it away, and you are not allowed any profit on the rest of your holdings." That's how it happened in Greece. It could happen here.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/21/if_obama_wins_we_re_greece
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top