What's Wrong With This Picture: Modern Liquidation Edition

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer
what s wrong with this picture modern liquidation edition

The Ssangyong Riot is not a new South Korean compact car. 500 fired workers and 33,000 liters of flammable fluids are creating an explosive mix in a Ssangyong factory in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea. The factory was raided by police commandos today, although the paint shop (a.k.a. structure fire waiting to happen) has not yet been stormed. “Creditors agreed that it is better to liquidate assets of Ssangyong before the company’s asset value falls further,” head of SSsangyong’s creditor suppliers Choi Byeong-whoon tells the WSJ. Union spokesfolk acknowledge that a raid on the paint shop is coming, saying “we will respond to it, bracing ourselves for death.” Death before Rodius production. How fitting.

Join the conversation
4 of 17 comments
  • Pacificpom2 Pacificpom2 on Aug 04, 2009

    Ahh SsangYong. One of five companies that a car finance company in Australia REFUSES to finance. That list also includes any Dodge, Kia, and a copule of specific models of cars. SsangYong, built on older Mercedes licenced technology (engines and drivetrains), everything else was copied from Mercedes or indigenous Korean design elements. These things even made Kia's look like well engineered ergonomic delights.

  • Lokkii Lokkii on Aug 05, 2009

    Back in the boom boom economy days it became de riguer for every Korean Chaebol to start its own car company. The Chaebol are a few huge Korean conglomerates that have hundreds of fingers in hundreds of pies. Hyundai builds ships as well as cars. Daweoo builds refrigerators (I have one in my office).... The Korean car industry was/is way overbuilt. Too many players, most of whom didn't have export channels even before the Chinese competition got rolling. A shakeout was inevitable. For the workers - it's hard to leave a job that's paying, even if you know the company is wobbly - you think about going and looking for a job, but you never do until the pay check actually stops. Then you have hundreds of your coworkers as competitors for each vacancy.

  • Njdave Njdave on Aug 05, 2009

    agenthex, A job may be just as important, but believing that you are ENTITLED to keep yours is delusional. And I say that as someone who was laid off for a year not so long ago. My company was losing money hand over fist, and they had to cut costs so I and many others got whacked. Of course I was upset and angry, but life goes on. I lived off my savings, made sure my skills were kept very up to date, kept in touch with contacts and waited for the post 9-11 hiring freezes to end. I got another job. To sue or threaten a company that had to lay me off because they were in dire financial straits due to a disaster like 9-11 makes absolutely no sense. Also, getting yourself labeled as a hostile employee virtually guarantees that you will not be hired again soon. Surely you are not suggesting that companies should not be allowed to lay people off until their staffing level matches their business level? Then you would end up like France, where it is extremely difficult to lay someone off so companies are extremely reluctant to hire any new staff. They are even less likely to hire someone who is young, since they have so many working years ahead of them. The result is unemployment among 20 to 30 year olds that is 3 times the average.

  • U mad scientist U mad scientist on Aug 05, 2009
    A job may be just as important, but believing that you are ENTITLED to keep yours is delusional. This rather assumes commercial interests are first and foremost. I'm not saying they are correct, but at least they're fighting for something that has a concrete connection to their (and fellow employee's) livelihoods. In any case, it's not clear whether or not they're willing to settle for a nicer package which would again be conflicting with the interests of other commercial interests (creditors in this case).