If the Merger Lives, Chrysler Dies; If the Merger Dies, Chrysler Dies
Automotive News [sub] has the latest in a stream of consultant reports on the on-again-off-again merger between Chrysler and GM. And things do not look good for Chrysler (duh). Remember back when we got all riled about the projected 70k job losses? The report from Grant Thornton LLP says we can actually expect between 100k and 200k job losses. Less tragically, the merger would also cut Chrysler’s entire lineup, except for “about seven core models.” And shockingly, the Sebring isn’t one of them! The report considers only the Ram, Caravan/T&C, Wrangler and Grand Cherokee safe in the event of a merger. Grant Thornton Principal Kimberly Rodriguez thinks that an agreement in principle between GM and Chrysler could be reached by election day, and damn the short-term bailout money that isn’t coming. “Despite the significant number of families that will be impacted, the benefits of combining the two companies are both structural and strategic,” figures Rodriguez. But long-term strategy will have a major short-term price. Much of the job loss from a merger will happen at suppliers, who are in bad shape already. “The suppliers have been hit by the financing crisis and the raw materials crisis and volumes falling off. This will be a final blow to many suppliers and that will be costly to all the OEMS, but in a controlled fashion, it’s something that the industry with access to financing should be able to weather,” says Rodriguez. Or not.
And this is a surprise to who?
So Cerberus did throw Chrysler to wolfs. I believe Chrysler employees would fare much better under Nissan/Renault. Probably only same 7 vehicles would survive, but Chrysler plants could manufacture Nissan and even Renault vehicles. If our workers are not more productive then French (which I doubt) we work 11% percent more without braking the law.
One of the better CEOs of VW (I believe it was Carl Hahn) once said: "The health of a company is reflected by the inverse of the number of their consultants."
"Despite the significant number of families that will be impacted, the benefits of combining the two companies are both structural and strategic" Can someone explain to me how a statement like this can possibly be substantiated?