SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : American Automobile Industry: Can it survive? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (383)6/7/2011 11:17:04 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Respond to of 431
 
Hell must have frozen over. <gg>



To: stockman_scott who wrote (383)6/22/2011 7:49:17 AM
From: brazilo33  Respond to of 431
 
I suggest that Americans keep their low gas taxes because that is the only reaasons why the US has cheaper gas. European gas is to much higher because of taxes



To: stockman_scott who wrote (383)7/21/2011 10:04:56 PM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Respond to of 431
 
Fiat Acquires Majority Share of Chrysler

By JEFF BENNETT And JOSH MITCHELL
Wall Street Journal
JULY 22, 2011

Italian auto maker Fiat SpA officially became Chrysler Group LLC's majority owner on Thursday, clearing the way for a complete restructuring of Chrysler's board of directors and a further merger of the two companies' management.

Fiat on Thursday reached a deal to pay the Canadian government $140 million for its small stake in Chrysler, and completed a previously announced deal to purchase the U.S. government's larger stake in the auto maker. The two moves increased Fiat's holding in Chrysler to 53.5% from 46%.

Sergio Marchionne, who serves as chief executive of Fiat and Chrysler, is likely to move quickly to reorganize Chrysler's board and replace its five directors who were appointed by the two governments. The government appointees include Chairman C. Robert Kidder, Douglas Steenland, Robert Thompson and Scott Stuart, each appointed by the U.S.; and George F.J. Gosbee, who represents Canada's interests.

Chrysler's current nine-member board was appointed after the auto maker exited bankruptcy in 2009 by the then stakeholders in the company which included Fiat, the U.S. and Canadian governments and the United Auto Workers retiree health-care trust fund.

A Chrysler spokesman declined to comment.

Separately, Mr. Marchionne has already begun picking executives who will serve on a single management team as part of a bid to merge the two companies into a single, global auto maker. Currently, each auto maker has its own executive team that reports directly to Mr. Marchionne.

Details of the new management structure are likely to be outlined during Chrysler's quarterly conference call on Tuesday. Fiat has said it will consolidate Chrysler's earnings into its own finances and will report those when it releases results.

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the governments of Canada and Ontario will receive a total of $140 million, including $125 million for their combined 1.6% interests in Chrysler, and an additional $15 million as a portion of proceeds arising from the assignment to Fiat of a share-agreement between the U.S. Treasury and the UAW trust.

Ontario will get one-third of the proceeds. Provincial Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said the province will use the funds for deficit reduction.

The U.S. Treasury said Fiat paid $500 million for its 98,461 shares, or 6% fully diluted equity interest. The company also paid an additional $60 million for Treasury's rights to purchase the shares owned by the United Auto Workers health care trust fund. The stake sale was announced earlier this year.

The UAW retiree trust fund is the only remaining shareholder with a 44.7% stake or 41.5% on a fully diluted basis. Mr. Marchionne has talked about working a deal to buy the fund's shares, eliminating a need to take Chrysler public.

Write to Jeff Bennett at jeff.bennett@wsj.com and Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com

online.wsj.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (383)7/22/2011 9:01:05 PM
From: Glenn Petersen1 Recommendation  Respond to of 431
 
Wheeling and Dealing

By BILL VLASIC and NICK BUNKLEY
New York Times
July 20, 2011

DETROIT — American carmakers and the United Automobile Workers union open contract talks next week with a common task of preserving the comeback of an industry that was on the verge of collapse just two years ago.

But their cooperation will be put to the test as the sides square off over how to divide the profits of Detroit’s unexpectedly swift revival.

After a period of plunging sales, bankruptcies and government bailouts, the union is hoping to regain some of its lost jobs, reopen closed factories, and increase the pay of its 111,000 members, some of whom are being paid half as much for entry-level jobs as other workers under a two-tier wage arrangement.

But those goals run against the priorities of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, who want to hold the line on costs and further close the gap in productivity with foreign-owned factories in the United States, which employ much cheaper nonunion workers.

And while contract negotiations are always prickly, this round has a particularly prominent backdrop: the long shadow of the Obama administration, which bailed out both General Motors and Chrysler and shepherded the automakers through Chapter 11.

As part of the bailouts, the U.A.W. agreed to no-strike clauses at both companies and to submit to arbitration in the event that a contract could not be reached.

That leaves Ford, the most successful of the three, as the only possible strike target should the talks fall apart. But the U.A.W. benefited greatly from the federal intervention, and Ford has been hailed by consumers for surviving the recession without financial help from taxpayers.

For the union to strike Ford or enter a contentious arbitration process could reignite debate over the bailouts and prove politically embarrassing to President Obama as he readies next year’s re-election campaign.

Bob King, the union’s president, said in an interview that he was “morally and legally” bound to get the best deal possible for his membership, regardless of the political consequences. “But if we end up with a strike or arbitration,” he acknowledged, “I’d feel like I failed in many ways.”

The union’s four-year contracts with G.M., Ford and Chrysler expire in mid-September. Indications are that the U.A.W. will be aggressively seeking better profit-sharing, job guarantees, and wage increases for lower-paid, entry-level workers.

“Our members have sacrificed a lot,” Mr. King said. “We’re trying to figure out a path that gives members more income but doesn’t disadvantage the companies.”

All three automakers are making money and expanding sales. But they are loath to do anything that hurts their newfound competitiveness or adds costs to their streamlined manufacturing operations. The Big Three earned nearly $6 billion in combined profits during the first quarter of this year, and paid sizable profit-sharing checks this spring based on their 2010 results.

“We all know that there are things we can’t do to go back to how we were,” said Cathy Clegg, head of G.M. labor relations, during an appearance Monday at a truck plant in Flint, Mich. “We need to see a pretty healthy market recovery before we start turning factories back on.”

All three companies have drastically cut production and jobs in recent years to better match their smaller market shares. The U.A.W. currently has less than half the number of employees at G.M., Ford and Chrysler than just five years ago.

The pain of losing so many jobs is still fresh in the minds of the surviving workers, said Mr. King, who was elected president last year after previously running the U.A.W.’s Ford division.

“They want stability,” he said. “They want to know they’ll be working next week and next year, and that they will be able to send their kids to college.”

But while preserving jobs is paramount, Mr. King said that workers deserved a bigger share of the economic benefits of Detroit’s turnaround.

While Mr. King does not expect across-the-board wage increases, he said the automakers should improve their profit-sharing formulas, something some auto executives have indicated a willingness to consider. He added that new entry-level workers, who are paid about $15 an hour compared with $28 for regular U.A.W. members, deserve pay increases in the new contract.

“I don’t think you should be working in the auto industry at poverty-level wages when the companies are doing well,” he said.

In the last negotiations in 2007, the companies successfully removed retiree health care costs from their balance sheets by financing union-run trusts. However, in these talks Mr. King vowed to fight any efforts by the automakers to trim the medical coverage and other benefits of active workers.

“There is no justification for any concessions in this round of bargaining,” he said. “That is just not going to happen.”

Detroit will be looking for ways to shrink the cost gap between U.A.W. workers and nonunion employees of American plants owned by Toyota, Hyundai and other foreign car companies.

The disparity is less than in previous years. In 2010, the average hourly labor cost for a union worker ranged from $58 at Ford to $49 at Chrysler. That compares with about $55 at Toyota and $44 at Hyundai, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.


The automakers are not commenting publicly on how they expect to lower their costs. Industry experts say that the companies want more flexibility on work rules, job assignments and production schedules.

The companies will resist pressure from the union to reopen closed plants that do not have new products on the way.

“Right now the market won’t call for that,” said Art Schwartz, a former G.M. labor negotiator who is now president of the firm Labor and Economics Associates. “They are not going to open a plant up and lose money.”

The no-strike clauses and arbitration requirements at G.M. and Chrysler could complicate the negotiations. Ford could be vulnerable because it could agree to a deal with the U.A.W. that might not stand up to arbitration at one of the other companies.

The tough times in recent years do appear to have produced an ongoing constructive dialogue between the companies and their union. Mr. King and company executives speak proudly of their regular meetings to discuss topics like vehicle quality and broader issues like new fuel economy regulations.

“It’s more a problem-solving relationship rather than who is right and who is wrong,” he said. “You know, we’re not out of the woods yet.”

And although the automotive market has rebounded somewhat and Detroit is earning profits again, both the union and the car companies are painfully aware of how fragile their recovery is. “This is not the time to get greedy on either side,” Mr. Schwartz said.

nytimes.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (383)9/12/2011 2:45:28 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Respond to of 431
 
Detroit Sets Its Future on a Foundation of Two-Tier Wages

By BILL VLASIC
New York Times
September 12, 2011

DETROIT — They are a cornerstone of Chrysler’s unlikely comeback: 900 employees turning out a Jeep Grand Cherokee S.U.V. every 48 seconds of the working day at an assembly plant here.

Nothing distinguishes them from the other workers at the Jefferson North plant, except their paychecks.

The newest Chrysler workers earn about $14 an hour, compared with double that amount for longtime employees on the same shift. With the economy slumping and job creation once again a pressing issue in the White House and Congress, the advent of a two-tier wage system in Detroit is spiking employment for one of the country’s most important manufacturing industries.

For many, the opportunity for steady employment is welcome, even at a lower wage.

“Everybody is appreciative of a job and glad to be working,” said Derrick Chatman, who makes $14.65 an hour putting tires on Jeeps after being laid off at Home Depot, working odd construction jobs and collecting unemployment.

What was once seen as a desperate move to prop up the struggling auto industry is now considered an integral part of its future. The demand for $14-an-hour manufacturing jobs is providing Detroit’s Big Three automakers with a ready pool of eager new employees. Last year, Chrysler was flooded with inquiries about the jobs here, and it froze the list after receiving 10,000 applications.

The companies say the two-tier wages are paying off. Despite the disparity, there is no appreciable difference in the Grand Cherokees produced on the shift dominated since last fall by the lower-paid workers, the plant manager says. At General Motors, the savings from its two-tier workers are crucial to production that began last month of an inexpensive, subcompact car, the Chevrolet Sonic, in suburban Detroit.

Two-tier wage systems have been tried in the airline industry and others with spotty success. Usually the lower wages disappear rather quickly when the economy picks up. But the arrival of vastly different wage rates in auto factories is a seminal event in an industry long influenced by a powerful union devoted to equal pay regardless of seniority.

The new jobs, which are seen as long term, are being watched closely by economists, executives in other industries and Washington policy makers eager to increase employment in manufacturing and other areas.

“This is not going away,” said Kristin Dziczek, a labor analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., a research organization. “It has allowed the Big Three to reduce labor costs without cutting the pay of incumbent workers. Is it good for the health and competitiveness of the companies? Yes. And is that good for job security? Yes.”

Four years ago, the United Automobile Workers agreed to allow Chrysler, G.M. and Ford to pay lower wages to new hires to help close the cost gap with foreign carmakers. Now the two-tier arrangement is at the forefront of labor talks between the U.A.W. and the Detroit companies.

The union’s president, Bob King, has made an increase in entry-level wages a top priority in negotiations for a new national contract to replace the current agreement, which expires on Wednesday.

So far, about 12 percent of Chrysler’s 23,000 union workers earn the lower wage, and over all, 4,000 or so of the 112,000 U.A.W. members are second-tier hires. Those numbers are expected to grow — and in fact can increase significantly even under the current contract. The jobs are central to the contract talks now because they are viewed as a critical element of the industry’s continued recovery.

The benefits for the lower-tier workers are scaled back as well. They get a maximum of four weeks paid time off a year, versus five for the longtime workers. And instead of the guaranteed $3,100-a-month pension a full-paid worker receives after age 60, the new hires have to build their own “personal retirement plan” based on contributions from the company of less than $2,000 a year.

The gap in wages between regular and entry-level workers has created some dissent in the U.A.W.’s ranks. Some long-term employees have demonstrated against the two-tier system and called for it to be abolished. Mr. King, however, has focused on getting meaningful pay raises for the lower tier rather than eliminating it.

At the big Labor Day parade in Detroit, union activists chanted “equal pay for equal work,” and some full-paid workers said they were willing to forgo a wage increase in the new contract to help the lower-tier employees.

“In order to get those guys up, we’ll take a signing bonus or profit-sharing instead,” said Gary Wurtz, a line worker at G.M.’s plant in Orion Township, Mich., where 40 percent of the employees are lower tier.

There were some early problems with turnover among new hires who could not keep up with the intense pace of assembly-line work, according to Pat Walsh, the manager at Chrysler’s plant here. But the workers who stayed have performed well. “Our quality numbers have been very good,” Mr. Walsh said. “And our data doesn’t show any differences per shift or per workstation.”

Workers at Jefferson North said that the pay gap had not created visible tension. Rather, they say the older workers have encouraged the new hires to hang tough in hopes of achieving full-wage status down the road.

“They’re just telling us to hold out and that everything is going to get better,” said Mr. Chatman, the tire room worker.

Mr. Chatman, who is 44 and single, said the security of the job, which includes the union’s traditional medical benefits, is paramount to him. But he does not hide the fact that he expects one day to make as much money as his top-wage counterparts.

“I think they should get rid of the two tiers,” he said. “I hope it’s not here to stay. I hope it was just a steppingstone to get things back going again at Chrysler.”

There is no hard timetable for the lower-paid workers to move up to full-wage status, but it could take years. As part of the government’s bailout of G.M. and Chrysler, the union agreed that no second-tier worker can move up until 2015 at the earliest. At Ford, which did not receive federal aid, the current U.A.W. contract allows the company to fill 20 percent of its union jobs with lower-paid workers before it moves any into the top tier.

Experts on two-tier arrangements say that advancement opportunities are critical to the system’s success.

“If you know you’re going to get to the top wage eventually, the system can work,” said Peter Cappelli, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. “The big problem is when you think you’ll never get there.”

For now, employees like Mr. Chatman are exhilarated by their steady paychecks and the emotional reward of being part of Chrysler’s turnaround. He was recently promoted to be a team leader in the plant, which involves facilitating the efforts of 10 other employees, including two full-wage workers (no additional pay).

He can’t help smiling every time he sees each shiny new Grand Cherokee, one of Chrysler’s top-selling models, roll off the line. Still, it’s tough to accept that his entire annual salary of about $30,000 is not enough to afford the least expensive Jeep made at Jefferson North.

“It would be a shame to work at Chrysler,” he said, “and not be able to drive a Chrysler.”

Nick Bunkley contributed reporting.

nytimes.com