Grey Power: Former Chrysler Suits Sue Former Chrysler Owners

by Cammy Corrigan

Published: September 11th, 2010

grey power former chrysler suits sue former chrysler owners

A long time ago, I was told a little phrase which stuck with me: “Sometimes, you may be done with history, but history isn’t done with you.” It made a lot of sense to me. Just because you’ve finished with something doesn’t mean it’s over for the other party. Seems like Daimler and Cerberus are learning this the hard way.

Associated Press (via Google News) is reporting that more than 450 former Chrysler executives, including turnaround artiste Lee Iacocca, are suing Daimler and Cerberus. The suits say in the suit that they lost $100m in pensions in Chrysler’s bankruptcy. Sheldon Miller, one of the lawyers working on the case, said that supplemental pensions were not transferred to the new Chrysler during its bankruptcy and “as a result, each of the plaintiffs lost large percentages of their earned retirement pensions.” Hmmm, when rank and file members lose benefits, it’s collateral damage to help the company stay strong. When executives lose benefits, it’s lawsuit time.

$100m needs deep pockets, so the boys in Stuttgart, Daimler, were not forgotten in this affair. The lawsuit mentions that Daimler failed to protect the pensions properly. They could have, as posited in the suit, converted the pensions into annuities to protect them. Why does the suit say this? Because Daimler did do this in 2005 for active executives when Chrysler started showing failings.

However, this suit is retrospective. It is not being filed against “New” Chrysler. It’s filed againt Daimler and Cerberus. Suddenly, Mr Miller turned into a “bailout” cheerleader. “Everybody involved in this suit loves that company (“New Chrysler”) and like everybody else wants to see it succeed,” said Mr Miller, “The plaintiffs in our case are trying to assure that there won’t be similar hardships for Chrysler’s current employees, many of whom worked for and with the people involved in this suit.” OK, a couple of problems with this statement.

1. They’re only doing this lawsuit so there won’t be similar hardships for current Chrysler employees? So, it’s got nothing to do with the $100m they’re trying to claim back?

2. “The plaintiffs in our case are trying to assure that there won’t be similar hardships for Chrysler’s current employees…” “Similar hardships”? Does he think that a certain company may go bankrupt again? Nah, of course not! I’ve got to stop reading TTAC. I’m becoming too cynical…am I?

#CammyCorrigan #Cerberus #Chrysler #Daimler #Pension

Cammy Corrigan

More by Cammy Corrigan

Comments

Join the conversation

7 of 9 comments

Jimboy on Sep 11, 2010

I am glad that someone is going after these bast**ds. The absolutely shameful treatment of what was once a great company needs to be addressed, even if only in this small way. For years I have railed against the treatment Chrysler received from both Daimler and Cerberus, while they raped and pillaged their way through this enterprise, all without any real consequences, thanks to media silence on the subject, TTAC included. I'd like to see the workers who were screwed do exactly the same thing. Daimler and Cerberus should not be allowed to promulgate such shoddy business practice without some sort of penalty. I have ZERO sympathy for these greed merchants.

Like Reply
- See 4 previous
- BuzzDog on Sep 11, 2010
  For years I have railed against the treatment Chrysler received from both Daimler and Cerberus, while they raped and pillaged their way through this enterprise, all without any real consequences, thanks to media silence on the subject, TTAC included. I'd strongly encourage you to go back and read some of TTAC's articles regarding Cerberus (a/k/a, "Satan's three-headed dog") circa 2007 - 2008. Prior to that, there were a number of articles regarding a lack of leadership on the part of Daimler. Perhaps the mainstream media was silent, but TTAC? Hardly.
  
  Like
- Mhadi on Sep 11, 2010
  
  Your comment that Chrysler was "once a great company" is entirely a subjective statement. A company that makes about the shoddiest cars in the developed world; and that's before the merger with Daimler-Benz.
  
  Like
- Windswords on Sep 11, 2010
  
  Mhadi, Your comment that Chrysler "makes about the shoddiest cars in the developed world; and that’s before the merger with Daimler-Benz" is also subjective. Actually according to JD Powers IQS and VDS from the 90's, it's completely wrong. By every measure Chrysler was doing great in the 90's. Profit - check. Strong sales and market share - check. Well received designs by the public and the auto media - check. LARGE cash reserves (the real reason Daimler wanted Chrysler) - check. Great relations with suppliers and dealers - check. Now that Chrysler is out form under it's oppressors we are seeing glimmers of the old Chrysler. Ram, Challenger, Grand Cherokee and hopefully more to come.
  
  Like
- Jimboy on Sep 12, 2010
  
  @BuzzDog, thanks for the heads up on this, I wasn't a TTAC reader back then so was unaware of its articles. My ongoing anger at the shoddy treatment of Chrysler tends to overwhelm my good sense sometimes. (but I still want to get those sob's). @mhadi, you sound like a prius or tata owner, just another victim of media brainwashing. Do some real reading before you bless us with your (mostly) uninformed opinion.
  
  Like
- Rob Finfrock on Sep 12, 2010
  
  I worked at a Chrysler-Jeep store in the late-90s. All products on the lot were pre-Daimler. Chrysler had style then, and Chrysler had sales. With the exception of holdover '97 Eagles, there really wasn't a dog on the lot. Alas, initial quality was OK (and just OK) but durability was still a glaring weak point. It's only gotten worse in all respects since then.
  
  Like
Robert Schwartz on Sep 11, 2010

Won't fly. Execs must be at risk in a bankruptcy in their uninsured plan.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.