The Sad Reality facing General Motors

BY STEVE MAICH

by Steve Maich on Friday, December 12, 2008 10:16am - 38 Comments

The Sad Reality facing General Motors

The Congressional plan to bail out the Detroit auto industry died a swift death last night, but the White House may yet swoop in with a unilateral bailout of its own. Reports surfaced this morning to suggest that the Treasury Department, on the authority of the President (and presumably the U.S. Fed) would tap the $700 billion fund to bail out Wall Street in order to get enough cash to Detroit to keep the companies afloat until next year.

That, of course, would finally destroy any notion that the U.S. Government is actually operating with a coherent plan. I know, I know…nobody really believed that anymore anyway. But the Trouble Asset Recovery Plan (TARP) was first supposed to buy up bad mortgage assets, then got converted into a giant bank account to buy bank stocks, and now, apparently, it might also branch out into the car business. This, dear friends, is what’s known as making it up as you go along.

Unlike my friend Andrew Coyne, I’m a little more sympathetic to the idea that governments can lend a helping hand to industry in times of trouble. That said, these bailout plans are disasters in the making. The best explanation of why can be found here (a column from a month ago in the Wall Street Journal by Michael Levine.)

Here’s the gist: As much as management, the unions, the dealers and local governments pay lipservice to the need for GM to change, once you strip away their platitudes, it’s clear that deep down everybody wants to maintain the status quo, or at least as close to the status quo as possible. The UAW’s refusal to accept pay cuts last night was a dead giveaway. They say they understand the need for radical measures, and then they balk at the first sign of anything radical. It’s the old story – “when you said ‘radical changes’ were coming, I thought YOU were going to change, and I’d stay the same!”

Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, this is what has to happen at GM (and Chrysler, and yes, eventually, to a lesser extent even at Ford):
-Plants must close. GM used to have half the market, now they have 20% of the market. They have too much capacity, and too many workers. Thousands of those workers are being paid to sit and do nothing all day in a “jobs bank” waiting for the mythical recall to the production line, that is never coming.
-The big three employ 250,000 people, and another 100,000 at parts suppliers rely on the big three for their jobs. The necessary restructuring would certainly mean job losses running well over 100,000 in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
-For those who do not get fired, salaries and benefits, and yes maybe even retirement benefits are going to have to come down. GM simply doesn’t have the money or the size to support their current cost structure.
-GM has too many brands – eight in all. It should be maybe half that many.
-That means dealerships have to close. GM has 7,000 dealers in the U.S. Toyota has 1,500. Honda has 1,000. GM could shut half its dealerships and still have three for every Toyota store.
-That means thousands more car salesmen, mechanics, secretaries, accountants and support staff will lose their jobs.

For all that to happen, GM must enter into incredibly arduous, slow, complicated and expensive negotiations. Meanwhile, their business continues to deteriorate. Bankruptcy throws all those contracts the window and forces everybody to accept a cold, harsh reality. They can begin re-building a sustainable GM from the ground up.
A bailout does not “save” GM or Chrysler or anyone else. It puts the taxpayer on the hook for paying the bills while it sorts out the mess, and prolongs the fantasy that the Big Three can remain pretty much as they are.

What government should do is allow GM and Chrysler to enter Chapter 11, and THEN step up with financing to assist the restructuring and cusion the blow to the hundreds of thousands who will be affected.

Bookmark and Share
  • Jean Proulx

    This was a sobering and thoughtful blog.

  • Jenn

    This, I can more or less agree with. Although not a 180 degree shift from Andrew Coyne’s view, that little bit of a turn makes all the difference. Sort of like looking at the actual problem, not the idealogy book.

  • Sisyphus

    Glad you’re not in a celebratory mood.

    The argument against Chapter 11 has been the people will not buy the products of a company that has declared bankruptcy. I guess the idea being that the purchase of an auto is also a commitment to a longer term relationship involving service and resale that a buyer will not enter if there is a risk that the company will not be there to fulfill.

    In any case , it all leaves the Canadian auto industry in a more tenuous position, I think.

    I appreciate it’s very much counter to the spirit of the times but I’d be interested in a discussion among knowledgeable people – not just ideologues – about the possibility of a program of nationalize, rationalize, ( maybe down to one company ), and sell.

  • DianeG

    Help, should help arrive, should have lots of strngs attached. The whole huge mess cannot be resolved without cost and sacrifces.

    I’m extremely concerned about what will happen here in Ontario, but I can’t condone the way auto companies keep using, we’ll close this plant and that plant as a threat. It’s quite evident that some plants need to be closed. It’s also possible that the Americans will want to rewrite the auto pact to ensure that American’s have an even more advantageous deal.

    We need to start making serious investments in green techonology and retraining for workers who will inevitaably lose their jobs.

    No matter what, though, I’m afraid we will take a huge hit.

  • Charles

    @ Sisyphus

    You basically made the point I was going to make about how chapter 11 would hurt the image of GM and Chrysler so badly that they wouldn’t be able to recover. That said, there is no reason why Congress could not enact a legislative bankruptcy that had exactly the same effect of a traditional bankruptcy (transferring existing equity interests to creditors, replacing management, renegotiating contracts, etc.), but was done all at once legislatively. That way, you could avoid the prolonged period of uncertainty that could come from going through the bankruptcy process (which can take a few years for big companies like GM).

  • TobyornotToby

    What reputation? A drop from 50% market share to 20% means the GM family is no more. Sonny boy is driving a Toyota, and GM lifers Dad and Grampa think he made a pretty good decision on that reliable little car.

    GM can’t rely on tradition, and has to compete on price and quality, now. Chapter 11 would improve its reputation.

  • Bill Simpson

    Sis,
    The option to nationalize, rationalize and sell is superficially attractive, but all of the real work – the rationalization – will be an entirely political process. Which plants to close? Not in my riding/state/province/country etc.

    This was the mistaken path attempted in the UK in the 60′s when the British Leyland monster was created. Despite all the best intentions, it was a disaster. If you look at the other European examples (notably Renault and Citroen in France), they nationalized okay, but since then have just propped it up with more money and restrictive trade and working practices.

    Chapter 11 is a viable option, with the government standing by to help the afflicted communities if required.

  • Shawn in Montreal

    Yes, this is an excellent take on the issue, IMO.

    And I must say I’m beginning to doubt whether a government-assisted Chapter 11, as mentioned above, is really going to make things markedly worse for GM, which is already shedding market share at an accelerating pace.

  • Sisyphus

    Bill – I don’t disagree. But the current situation is also a political one. Can’t be otherwise.

    And I take your point about British Leyland. But they made generally terrible products ( actually owned MG years ago ). The Big ( rapidly shrinking ) 3 make pretty good products these days. Not the best but better than their lingering, and deserved, reputation from a few years ago.

    I’m not advocating nationalization but interested in hearing views. Again, it’s not an idea that’s in anyone’s frame of debate these days.

  • Steve Wart

    Sisyphus, when GM has a market value of $1.5B how can “loaning” them $15B (or in that ballpark) amount to anything other than nationalization?

    The Federal Reserve Board had the same problem when they moved to bailout the banks. Their inconsistent policy confused the hell out of everyone.

    Bernake made the unambiguous observation that industrial policy is not part of the Fed’s mandate, but he has been overruled by Bush. Confusion reigns supreme. The only way anyone knows what sort of treatment a troubled firm will get depends on how much a company spends on lobbying (aka bribery and subverting the will of the electorate).

    Bottom line is that this money has to come from somewhere. Either you’re a follower of the Richard “deficits don’t matter” Cheney school of economic policy, or you want to steal from other government programs to pay for this.

    We have an EI system. Instead of siphoning the surplus into general revenues maybe we should use it for what it was intended for. Let business sort out its own problems.

    To be fair, there is a problem with short-term funding for companies that need to restructure (“debtor in possession” financing). If anything the government should be looking at ways to ensure that part of the financial system is structurally sound.

    This is not the 1930s. We have a social safety net. This sort of thing should not be distracting policy makers.

  • scissorpaws

    Something’s rotten in the state of Detroit.

    I don’t get it. I can see how one US auto manufacturer could have dismal management, but how could they ALL manage it? I mean, going way back to the Studebaker. The Nash Rambler (there’s a retro-car that would likely work). It seems utterly hopeless when none of them had it in their minds that they could compete with the imports, offering small, fuel efficient, reliable cars. Volkswagen and Volvo and Renault and BMW and Saab and Fiat . . . . Lots of companies did it.

  • Bill Simpson

    scissorpaws,
    The problem is not what types of car they built, the problem is that they could not make a useful profit on the ones that they did sufficient to get them over these tough times.

    And Renault and FIAT are poor examples of success, having been on the government teat for years.

    The curious thing about British Leyland is that they actually had some good models, but stoutly managed to lose as much money on the good ones as the bad. The Mini – their largest seller – lost money throughout its life due to poor management and a bizarre pricing model. Their bus and truck divisions were profitable on their own, but were dragged down by the rest.

    BL also had the same kind of labor force as GM: heavily unionized, inflexible and paid above market rate.

  • John McGrath

    I am the owner of two Saturns, one a wagon 10 years old , the other a Vue about a year old. Solid cars, no problems at all. I hope that the Saturn plant survives. The older car makes almost 50 miles to the gallon, the newer, being larger about 40. I would recommend ( and have, to my daughter) Saturn to anyone and not worry about longterm service, as I needed none except regular maintainance, done by a local garage.

  • Paul

    If the big 3 auto makers had been allowed to produce and ship as many cars and trucks to Asia and other countries they would not need the kind of assistance that they are calling for.The trade imbalance that has been allowed to continue for so long must stop.The UAW has already agreed to many cost saving plans including new hire’s making half the current wages.My problem with all this is that allot of people seem to think that it is okay for people to work at jobs that barely give them enough money to live on.They seem to think it Ok for a baseball player to sign a 6 year contract for 100+ million to play a stupid game and yet these same people rant about someone making 50 grand a year to build cars.These people make money that in some way shape or form makes it’s way back into their own communities,thereby supporting a host of different things.As someone once said to me “give one person 1 million dollars to spend and they will buy one fridge one car etc.Give ten people 100 thousand and they will buy ten fridges and ten cars ect.You tell me which is better

  • nick kelly

    There is a problem no one is mentioning_ the Canadian big three co’s are branch co’s. It’s impossible for a made in Canada solution for plants that take orders from US. Look what happened with circuit city, the uS parent swooped in on Intertan (Candian )and just grabbed their cash. The judge was shocked but couldn’t do anything.
    PS- whenever the issue of wages comes up someone has to mention entertainment salaries. These have nothing to do with anything. Nobody forces people to pay hundreds of $ to hear a rock star or watch a hockey game. And by the way, 94 % of people who receive a paycheck to play baseball don’t make it to the major leagues.
    Nick

  • Grass Roots Protest in Decline

    We need the jobs.

  • Ron

    Amen to this blog: A bankrupcy will force a resolution to any and all of the issues facing GM.

  • don craig

    How about the Ontario Teachers Union bailing out their brothers they seem to have an excess of cash.

  • barry

    to all you negative people out there i am a g.m. worker and i didn,t create this mess we are hard working people that build the best cars occording to jd powers and the public , i suppose you are all waiting for a collapse and smirking well your family or relatives will be affected with job losses in one way or another through the auto industry as you will find out in january of 2009 when g.m. is shut down for the MONTH so you may laugh now but when you are in the unemployment line with the rest of us and you can,t find a job paying more than minimum wage make sure you keep laughing because you will be in the same boat as everyone else but oyeah you showed them didn,t you.

  • Jean Proulx

    barry – i am sorry that so many people lack empathy for auto workers and their families. i agree some of the geniuses here and in punditland in general are being very short-sighted and cavalier (to put it mildly). i hope there is a solution to this mess and that we can find a way to protect as many good jobs as possible.

  • Steve Wart

    Barry I’m sympathetic. If it’s any consolation I lost my job a year ago after the company I worked for lost $40 billion (seriously). It wasn’t my fault either.

    I moved my family into a smaller house and we are doing ok. I have been picking up some contract work and I am now enjoying life instead of fighting with office politics all day.

    Sometimes when things happen in life things work out in ways you don’t expect. I learned there is no such thing as a big safe company and I’m actually enjoying what I do for a change.

    Keep the faith man. Life is precious.

  • malcom

    I know bankruptcy may have a stigma attached to it but at least it is negotiations guided by people who understand the industry and the process of restructuring. Everyone involved last night saw that when politicians become directly involved in negotiations they bring along all of their baggage. They pretend to be protecting the taxpayers but it’s all about them; who gets the best sound bite.
    After getting a taste of the Dog & Pony Show that is Washington, that should be plenty of incentive for all to get a deal done without all of the political distractions.

  • Mike

    “… The UAW’s refusal to accept pay cuts last night was a dead giveaway. They say they understand the need for radical measures, and then they balk at the first sign of anything radical.”

    That was just a trick to shift the blame to the unions – the senators never wanted to approve the deal anyhow.
    Detroit had started to change before the crisis hit. They have charted their course pretty close to the cliff, because only that would give them enough leverage over the UAW and enough motivation to get their act together. It was Wall Street’s irresponsibility that’s putting Detroit over that cliff. Bankruptcy won’t work because no one is going to provide DIP funding. If the bailout doesn’t pass, it’s over. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

  • Derek

    What goes around …….

    For fourty years now the left wing in this country have elected federal governments which have done everything in their power to completely alienate and irritate the US. From Chretien’s famous “Moron” quote to Trudeau decimating the military at the height of the cold war we have seen liberal PMs for years doing everything in their power to isloate Canada diplomatically from the US (Remember the famous ‘third way’?).

    Now we have a crisis that largely effects Ontario’s financial and auto industries. Now more than ever we need good relations with the US, and of course now we have an isolationist and popular President-elect (who owes the US auto unions a great deal of political clout) who is about to do to our auto industry what the left wing has done to our military.

    Many people have compared O’bama to JFK, I beleive a better comparison would be to RFK who famously stated that Canada “would offer all assistant short of help.” Well I suspect that O’Bama will offer the Canadian auto industry all assistance short of help and may well rip up the auto pact and even NAFTA to rejuvenate the US indutrial base.

    The only real leverage we have is our committment in Afghanistan and our Oil. The problem here is that our committment ends in two years and O’Bama describes our oil as ‘dirty’.

    For years now the political left has wanted a Canada more detached and independent from the US, hence their irrational labelling of Harper as a US puppet. They may well get what they wanted in the form of an isolationist US focussed completely on its own interests and quite prepared to destroy the Canadian industrial sector to do it.

    We may ahve well see this ‘third way’ in the form of a third world economy.

    Derek

  • Grass Roots

    How will the bailout rejuvenate a collapsed market? It won’t. And if the market is slow to recover, the unionized auto giant will need another bailout. And perhaps another one. When the market finally recovers, how does the CAW and the UAW persuade consumers to purchase domestic vehicles? By using baseball bats on any Japanese or Korean made car parked on some side street? Unreal.

From Macleans