GM profits this year 4.7 Billion/worth it?

[deziloooooo]

So it seems GM has had a nice reciovery..a American Icon saved..so many jobs saved...actually making a profit and giving a nice bonus to workers.

As Elliott Spitzed feels :
"http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/

"Posted by:
Eliot Spitzer
Today’s Number of the Day is 4.7 billion.

That’s how many dollar bills General Motors made in PROFIT last year.

Talk about turnarounds – this one’s real!

That ends the downward spiral of five years of losses during which the red ink on GM balance sheets reached more than $100 billion.

Sure it took a lot of tax dollar support, but we saved an American icon–along with thousands of jobs–restructured their balance sheet, and showed that shared sacrifice can work..

And now, we have a genuinely competitive car manufacturer, right here in the United States.

Amazingly. nearly 50,000 hourly workers at GM's factories in the U.S. will get profit-sharing bonuses averaging $4,300. Another good number.

A little tidbit of good news in a dark and somber world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In hindsite, how do you feel about the help/bail out of GM now

[handyman2]

When they do that 3 years in a row I will be impressed. Remember they sold or closed a lot of assets to reach that number. I will also be impressed when all the parts are made in America.

[deziloooooo]

Feb 24, 2011 21:56:56 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

When they do that 3 years in a row I will be impressed. Remember they sold or closed a lot of assets to reach that number. I will also be impressed when all the parts are made in America.

As far as the parts..I am afraid if that happens they get into problems again..I'll take them as they are now and wish they and the American workers who are employed well.

[Deleted]

So if you add all of their profit together for the last 3 years & subtract all of their losses. Then you divide by 3 to find out what they did on average........Nope I still wouldn't buy a GM car & would only use their stock certificates as toilet paper. GM's problem has always been that they don't get it & I'm not sure they get it now. In the past they built a crummy car & then when it wouldn't sell they would make it look nicer, faster, or whatever cosmetic change they thought would make it sell. Their cars appeared great but ran shitty. They were also the biggest & wallowed in that with about 40% more management than they needed. Until all of that changes GM isn't for me.

[deziloooooo]

Actually I have a Toyota and before that a Honda...but unlike you, I wish them well..in fact more then that. We have to few major manufacturing companies and to even think negative thoughts against one of our few who seems to be on the right track..any one who makes almost a 5 Billion doller profit, is able to give their workers a $4700 bonus this year...why wouldn't you think about it and have a smile on your face.

Me thinks you sound like a grumpy old fart ...not saying you are one, just that you sound like one..I am sure thats not true, just what one who is would sound like. Actually I am sure you are a happy go lucky type of guy who just got out of bed the wrong way today.

[rockon]

I happen to be one that is glad to see GM around today but also realize that others paid a huge price for their bail out, bankruptcy and restructuring.
While I would never suggest that there may not be a time when it may be appropriate for the government to use it's available resources to help an industry in trouble or help with the development of some new technology it should definitely be reserved and well planned out with very specific objectives and exit strategies in place. This bail out was intended to help them avoid bankruptcy, had no clear objectives that I am aware of and was forced through with little to no plan for an exit strategy. The fact that they were then advised to go through and immediate and expedited bankruptcy tells me the bail out was not effective and did not meet it's objective. It is much more likely that GM is profitable today because they were able to walk away from much of there debt then because the government gave them billions of our money. Wouldn't we all show a profit at the end of this year if someone erased all of our debt and gave us a boat load of money? Of course this is not even getting into the little details of how did they get into this trouble and is this now expected for any industry that is in trouble? Do we want businesses that are too big to fail?

[rovo]

Also consider the favorable tax treatment they are given whereas Ford was not given the same tax treatment. GM may do well at the expense of Ford.

[safeharbor37]

My observation is that GM has started making better cars; more appealing to consumers and of better quality. I really don't know why but suspect that union rules had tied management's hands in the past and, as long as the consumer went along, management lived with it.
If GM expects to survive and prosper in the future, I suspect they'd be wise to look at the Hyundai/KIA operations in the US. Notice that even Toyota [long the model manufacturer] is getting pushed aside. The big difference is unions or the lack thereof, plus, of course, employees [line and management] who know that their jobs depend on the success of their product. [It seems obvious, but unions tend to be incredibly stupid about economics/finances ~ believing that the goose that lays the golden eggs can't be exhausted.]
I suspect that this thread was started to glorify our lord and master BHObama and his generous "bail out" of what has become known as "Government Motors." I think that a bail out in the form of loan guarantees [like the classic case of Carter's bail out of Chrysler] was justified and if the government gets its money back with interest ~ no harm done. A lot of jobs were [are] at stake. On the other hand, increased government involvement in manufacturing may be the beginning of the end for "free enterprise" [or what's left of it in the US].
At one time the US was a capitalist island, a shining monument to the initiative and ingenuity of man. The light is getting awfully dim.

[rockon]

One of the statements that the administration used constantly while trying to convince the public that this was a good idea was that the domestic automakers were in trouble because they did not make the type of vehicle that the consumer wanted to buy. No one pointed out that the pick up trucks they have been making for years were the highest margin vehicles out there and the best selling vehicles every year. So for better or worse they were making vehicles the consumer wanted but still failed to be successful for reasons that were never clearly proven or maybe fixed yet.

[deziloooooo]

There was a blurb on CNN today..union workers are averaging 27 % higher wages then non union workers..granted there are other factors there..but all this talk here, if it is just a microcosm of what is happening in the hinterlands , as It it is all the union's faults that we are in such trouble and since we are rid of them for good, all will be fine with the world.

Truth is because of unions, when they were important in the scheme of things, membership in the 25/30% of the work force, they influenced the wages and benefits of the non union workers, in a positive way.
Naturally if you are a employer who is here, I really don't think there are so many, employers for the most part don't have time to waste on silly things like these boards, you might feel differently though knowing your fixed labor costs for a period of time and having all workers know what the rules, acceptable and unacceptable behavior and work rules are isn't all bad.

For all those who are so against the idea of unions , I am so glad for you that you are in such a position that you do not need the unions to protect your rights. That all here are gainfully employed and all are earning wages that you feel are more then adequate and know you will never need collective bargaining to help you gain what to you would be fair compensation for your time spent working. None ofn you have to worry about unfair layoffs, terminations, at the whim of your employer, for cause of not for cause, what ever, that will never happen, that is just great. If there is a disagreement with a employer, you are working with such fair and honest woman and men that there is no fair of a wrong decision toward you or a fellow worker would ever be done. Again so bessed are you to be in such a situation.

You are lucky individuals to have employers who are looking out for you all so well and are willing, in fact are anxious to share their gains in the businesses with you and your fellows fairly.

You are so blessed.

[Deleted]

Been buying Chevy p/u trucks for 38 years now with very little quality problems. That's all I care about when buying a vehicle, along with the price. I will be a continuing customer until something happens otherwise.

[workpublic]

Their cars appeared great but ran shitty.


in a nutshell. pontiac sunbird

[deziloooooo]

Feb 25, 2011 14:18:38 GMT -5 workpublic said:

Their cars appeared great but ran shitty.


in a nutshell. pontiac sunbird

How many years ago?

[rockon]

No problem with private sector unions from my perspective as an employer. I think they can serve a very useful purpose for the employee if representation is required and the employee prefers to pay for that service. They have without a doubt improved the work conditions for many if not all workers in this country. That is a completely separate issue from public servants negotiating for all sorts and types of benefits with elected officials who are heavily motivated to appease their constituents in exchange for their contributions and vote. I have served time on our local board of education and know first hand that almost everything is currently included in negotiations from the calender to the insurance carrier. In the case of our local school employees they had negotiated buying the insurance from the teachers union who was double dipping by collecting money from the teachers and profiting from the insurance sales. So just like everything else it can and does get abused and requires monitoring to insure that we don't get to from the center of the road as in the case today with many of our public union agreements that have been ratified for years by people who are no longer around or have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[safeharbor37]

Truth is because of unions, when they were important in the scheme of things, membership in the 25/30% of the work force, they influenced the wages and benefits of the non union workers, in a positive way.

For those who continually miss the point: Very few are opposed to the existence of labor unions. I'd say almost none except the nut fringe. So, when labor is asked to take some responsibility, some apologist will leap to the forefront and scream, "You hate unions! You want honest working people to starve!"
Labor unions are [imho] essential to prevent employer abuse of employees, but it isn't necessary for everyone to be a member. If employers abuse their employees, the unions will have no trouble "organizing" that employer. We do still need "secret ballots" to protect employees from predatory union organizers, but abused employees won't stand still for long. Unionization must be an option.
The problem with public employee labor unions is that they, in effect, sit on both sides of the bargaining table and, as a result, are now receiving salary and benefits in excess of those in the private sector and, let me remind you again, the private sector is where the money [taxes] come that pay their salaries and benefits. There is a conflict of interest here.
Taxpayers get no representation except at the ballot box and they have taken that opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo. This is an example of "taxation without representation," and is being addressed in a democratic way ~ at the ballot box.

[reasonfreedom]

Feb 25, 2011 15:30:38 GMT -5 rockon said:

No problem with private sector unions from my perspective as an employer. I think they can serve a very useful purpose for the employee if representation is required and the employee prefers to pay for that service. They have without a doubt improved the work conditions for many if not all workers in this country. That is a completely separate issue from public servants negotiating for all sorts and types of benefits with elected officials who are heavily motivated to appease their constituents in exchange for their contributions and vote. I have served time on our local board of education and know first hand that almost everything is currently included in negotiations from the calender to the insurance carrier. In the case of our local school employees they had negotiated buying the insurance from the teachers union who was double dipping by collecting money from the teachers and profiting from the insurance sales. So just like everything else it can and does get abused and requires monitoring to insure that we don't get to from the center of the road as in the case today with many of our public union agreements that have been ratified for years by people who are no longer around or have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Have you ever worked with UAW as an non-union vendor. I did for 5 years, one of the reasons I quit my job. I do have to say I like going out to lunch with them and watch them drink four or five beers before going back to work.

[reasonfreedom]

Personally I like buying a car that is efficient and reliable I don't really care who makes it.

[b2r]

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create.
Government workers, however, don’t generate profits.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Froomfordebate%2F2011%2F02%2F18%2Fthe-first-blow-against-public-employees%2Ffdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions&ei=2RhoTbXeCZD6swOtp8WmBA&usg=AFQjCNELT084ZrShgqUZ_dYLAKWJxdmK2w

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

What I would like to see is a tax payer union. A tax payer union would be right in with the negotiations, and would determine how much the tax payers would be forking over in taxes.
Then our elected officials would have to decide where these negotiated and agreed to taxes would go. This way, all affected and impacted parties have a say.

[rockon]

saviour, Second and karma that but we already have that right we just need to get organized.