Who Killed Chrysler?

[Thomas Rogers]

Les asked:

Who, besides AIG, thought they deserved the bonuses?

Please define "deserve" in this context?



If the bonuses were contracted and the executives met their contract obligations, then they would be "owed" the bonuses whether or not we think they are deserved.



It goes back to my comparision with factory workers that have lost or had their pensions cut. If we think they are getting a raw deal having their compensation cut because their companies have fallen on hard then then how does that differ from Wall St CEOs not getting bonuses they were contracted?



I submit that if one can get past the class bias that there is no difference. But alas, most can't get past that bias.



TJR

 

[Bill Barber]

Looks like Chrysler just went down (according to the net)

may not honor exsisting warrantys.

 

[Les]

If the bonuses were contracted and the executives met their contract obligations, then they would be "owed" the bonuses whether or not we think they are deserved.

If the American taxpayer hadn't stepped in (bail-out), their doors would have been closed. At this point, no one, regardless of an agreement, deserved or earned a bonus. That's like paying the Captain of the Titanic a bonus, even thought the ship sank.

 

[Les]

Bill,

Under bankruptcy, Chrysler would still sell cars and the government would back its auto warranties.

 

[Bill Barber]

We Shall See Les.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les said:

If the American taxpayer hadn't stepped in (bail-out), their doors would have been closed. At this point, no one, regardless of an agreement, deserved or earned a bonus.

That's naive.



If the American taxpayers hadn't stepped in them some of the Wall St firms would have gone under, and their executives would have made sure that they got their "cut" (read: their contracted bonuses) before the lights got turned off, even if that meant not paying creditors and those they owed money to.



May not have been right, but bail-out or not, if those in charge of handling the money are contractually due some money then they are going to get it. That's simple black and white. It may not "feel right", but it's what's going to happen.



"Earned" and "deserve" aren't the issue. Contractually obligated is the issue.



TJR

 

[Les]

Bonuses imply success...you haven't "earned" , nor do you "deserve", a contracted bonus if the business goes bankrupt or fails.



You telling me they earned their bonus for showing up for work ?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les said:

Bonuses imply success...you haven't "earned" , nor do you "deserve", a contracted bonus if the business goes bankrupt or fails.

Yes, bonus imply success. However, if a bonus is part of a contract then what is "implied" has little bearing. If a CEO has a contract and that contract stipulates a bonus, than you can be sure that the contract will define the terms at which a bonus should be received. If the CEO meets thos terms they should get that bonus. Might a CEO meet the terms and the company still be failing or in need of bailout? - Possibly. It all depends on the terms.



Les said:

You telling me they earned their bonus for showing up for work ?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they are "owed" their bonus if they met the terms of their contract (assuming their contract called for a bonus). I don't know what those terms might be. Do you?



So, the bottom-line continues to be if the bonuses were contracted and the CEOs met their contract obligations then they are owed the bonuses...whether you are I think they earned them or deserve them or not.



Remember, these contracts are typically drawn up by the board of directors, and the boards of these companies read like a list of old golf buddies.



I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying that we either agree that contracts and prior obligations that are met be upheld, or we do not. If we do not, which is what you are describing, then all pensions be damned. If you are a Chrysler retiree, then F-YOU...you get nothing...just like I have no warranty today on my 2 year old Chrysler.



So, do contracts mean something or not?



TJR

 

[Les]

If we do not, which is what you are describing, then all pensions be damned. If you are a Chrysler retiree, then F-YOU...you get nothing...just like I have no warranty today on my 2 year old Chrysler.

Go to this site, under "Press Release" you will find the dealers will remain open and all warranties will be honored. Also, go to FAQ and you will find that in the event a pension plan is terminated, it is protected by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which is an independent agency chartered under federal law.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



Thanks for the news link. Things are changing fast.



It's good to hear that our government and the failing car companies are guaranteeing pensions and contracted warranties. That's a good sign. It shows that even though a company fails past obligations are upheld. Or course, a contracted CEO pension is a past obligation as well, isn't it?



TJR

 

[Johnny O]

The UAW and their accomplices in the Democrat government will simply reduce competition.

I seriously doubt that the Democrat government will force the UAW to take a penny less in wages and benefits.



It's like this;

The govt owns (most of) GM and Chrysler.

The greenies in the Democrat govt are licking their chops at FINALLY having control of the automakers and building the cars that they want us to have.

Much of the country will not want said cars and/or said cars are not suitable for some parts of the country.

The govt doesn't like being told "No" so they will eliminate, either by force or taxation, all the vehicles that Obama and Pelosi don't want us to have.

The automakers will not be able to turn a profit that way (over half of the vehicle lines that actually turn a profit for GM are trucks and SUV's), so they will live on govt subsides forever.



You read it here first.