Autoblog: Obama to announce Chrysler bankruptcy tomorrow

Just thought of something... isn't it a bit conflict of interest for a union to be running the company who's workers it represents? :confused:

Theoretically that would be a good thing. They then "would run the company in a way that would benefit the workers." Obviously we know thats BS as the union leaders will take just as much money out of the company as the highly paid managers/C*O's would.
 
Theoretically that would be a good thing. They then "would run the company in a way that would benefit the workers." Obviously we know thats BS as the union leaders will take just as much money out of the company as the highly paid managers/C*O's would.

They'd take more (just like they raid the pension funds) because they wouldn't have to answer to any shareholders - or anyone else.
 
Besides the fact that running any company on the basis of 'benefiting the employees' is an absurd notion. No company exists with the sole purpose being to employ people. They exist to make money for the owners.
 
Besides the fact that running any company on the basis of 'benefiting the employees' is an absurd notion. No company exists with the sole purpose being to employ people. They exist to make money for the owners.

Actually there are plenty of employee owned companies. Under the right conditions they can grow very fast, and keep corporate salaries and spending in check. After all it's in your best interest as an employee to do an effective job. They tend to work better on a small scale though.

We all know the UAW shouldn't even be allowed to buy the beer for the company picnic though.
 
Besides the fact that running any company on the basis of 'benefiting the employees' is an absurd notion. No company exists with the sole purpose being to employ people. They exist to make money for the owners.

And if the owners are the employees....
 
DETROIT (AP) ? Chrysler LLC plans to fire up to 800 of its 3,200 dealers on Thursday, a lawyer seeking to represent the dealers said on a conference call.
AP Source


Thank God, there is a higher power! :)
 
Yeah, it's called "bankruptcy", the only way that Chrysler *could* get rid of any significant number of dealers.

This is also why Chrysler should have declared last year instead of consuming billions of my tax dollars instead.
 
This is also why Chrysler should have declared last year instead of consuming billions of my tax dollars instead.

Wow, you're a billionaire?
 
No, but I own the tax dollars in conjunction with every other citizen in America. It's "our" tax dollars, part of which is technically mine, part of which is yours, etc., etc. And while I probably will never have to pay billions of dollars in tax, I will have to pay a couple million over my lifetime. You will probably have to as well. (Figure a lifespan of 80 years.)


And the government pissed billions of dollars down the Chrysler hole.
 
Last edited:
No, but I own the tax dollars in conjunction with every other citizen in America. It's "our" tax dollars, part of which is technically mine, part of which is yours, etc., etc.

But there's no way to know where your money's going. For all you know, your money might be going to the Department for Improved Senate Seat Cushions, but in all probability not very much of your money has been spent at all. Also remember how little money people like you and me actually give the government compared with some of the super rich out there.
 
Besides the fact that running any company on the basis of 'benefiting the employees' is an absurd notion. No company exists with the sole purpose being to employ people. They exist to make money for the owners.

Small side notion, I know its a different premise, but did you know that Robert Bosch GmbH (largest automotive supplier in the world) is a non-profit-organization? They invest all their earnings or spend it on social stuff.
 
I find that hard to believe, unless I saw a more detailed business model. You can't grow or sustain a company unless you make profits and retain earnings.
 
Co-ops. ....And make products that appeal to consumers - the problem with most Co-Ops is that they can not cut costs and they can not innovate, too many vested interests. The French seem to have a better model with Renault but I myself are not a fan of it - they are still going tho' long after BL went into the crapper.
 
I find that hard to believe, unless I saw a more detailed business model. You can't grow or sustain a company unless you make profits and retain earnings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bosch_GmbH


Robert Bosch GmbH, including its wholly owned subsidiaries such as Robert Bosch LLC in North America, is unusual in that it is an extremely large, privately owned corporation that is almost entirely (92%) owned by a charitable foundation. Thus while most of the profits are ploughed back into the corporation to build for the future and sustain growth, nearly all of the profits distributed to shareholders are devoted to humanitarian causes.
 
Saw this today. Wasn't sure if it belonged in this thread, or the "Obama Wants To Take Your Rights" thread....

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html
 
Just thought of something... isn't it a bit conflict of interest for a union to be running the company who's workers it represents? :confused:

The VEBA is going to be selling off Chrysler stock as soon as they can in order to fund the health care costs of retired workers so the UAW is not going to be running Chrysler.
 
I find that hard to believe, unless I saw a more detailed business model. You can't grow or sustain a company unless you make profits and retain earnings.

As long as they are covering whatever it costs to keep the company operating, they can spend the remaining profits on whatever they want. Another unrelated but similar example is Newman's Own, which was co-founded by Paul Newman. They donate all of their profits after taxes to various charities.
 
As long as they are covering whatever it costs to keep the company operating, they can spend the remaining profits on whatever they want. Another unrelated but similar example is Newman's Own, which was co-founded by Paul Newman. They donate all of their profits after taxes to various charities.

Yup and a lot of the Newman's Own stuff is great too. I am actually having some Newman's Own salsa right now.

Yummy.
 
I was reading Calvin & Hobbes today and thought this strip was rather poignant, although it was written long before the current situation.

49ed6fe3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top