By on July 12, 2015

 

Car dealerships may be forced to pay some of their employees more under new overtime rules proposed by President Barack Obama, Automotive News is reporting.

The proposed overhaul for employees who make less than $50,000 a year could impact dealers who make a significant portion of their earnings from salary, rather than commission.

The suggested overtime rules would apply to roughly 40 percent of the American workforce, rather than the 8 percent the current rules apply to now. The Department of Labor estimates more than 5 million workers would be covered by the new rules.

Douglas Greenhaus, an attorney for the National Automobile Dealers Association, told Automotive News that the new rules would apply to mostly support workers in dealerships. Mechanics, service managers or sales staff likely wouldn’t be effected.

“This would impact those who get the majority of their pay from salary,” Greenhaus said.

The changes would raise the overtime threshold from $23,660 annually to $50,440. The federal poverty line for a family of four is $24,008.

Dealers may cut pay for workers who fall under the new guidelines, Greenhaus said. The NADA would analyze the new rules and lobby the administration based on what dealers may want.

“The important thing is to maintain as much as possible the flexibility for the employer and employee on how to compensate,” Greenhaus said.

The public comment period for the new overtime rules ends Sept. 4.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

89 Comments on “Obama’s New Overtime Rules May Hit Dealers Particularly Hard...”


  • avatar
    kvndoom

    That Dept. of Labor website is horrid, straight out of 1999 (at least it doesn’t use Flash…).

    Theoretical passage of this change will of course lead to loss of jobs or “creative” work schedules, just as the ACA did.

    Ewww, I said “change” didn’t I?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      …Theoretical passage of this change will of course lead to loss of jobs…

      Even the worst case scenario Shadow Stats site shows unemployment has gone down since ACA passed, if you want to dismiss BLS stats. According to the BLS U6 unemployment is close to 10% and U3 unemployment is close to 5% – both indicate healthy job markets. The individual states are also reporting improvements in the job markets, with many states, like Texas, reporting overheated “employee” markets with unemployment well below 5%.

      Or is the oil boom, tech boom, and increased auto manufacturing in the southeastern states all just a big illusion and lie by the major corporations reporting all of this hiring and productivity?

      http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        If we have full employment, why would we need Obama’s proposal?

        This is the same foolery we saw in 2007 when Dems raised min wage. All it did was thwart labor correction in 2008 and 2009. This will do the same. Thwart the market and exacerbate problems.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          The issue is people working for free who shouldn’t be working for free. The idea of working for free is distinctly un-American last time I checked.

          Why do you begrudge fair wages for honest work.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      How exactly will this lead to a loss of jobs? At most, it will send people home when they hit their straight time max.

  • avatar
    TomHend

    and while you are at it, get the dealership workers to train the less costly HB1 labor force that will soon be replacing them.

  • avatar
    dwford

    This will be a non issue at the dealerships. Pretty much the only staff working over 40 hours are the salesmen and managers- all commission based. Pretty easy for the dealers to keep everyone else at 40 hours or less

    • 0 avatar
      Zoom

      Aren’t mechanics also already considered blue collar workers?

    • 0 avatar
      Jezza819

      No, most parts & service departments are open from 7-6 or something like that. So that’s 55 hours a week right there.

      • 0 avatar
        Power6

        How does a mechanic on flat rate work? 1099 subcontractor?

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          I worked flatrate years ago, at a Mercedes/VW dealership. We were paid as W-2’s but with our gross computed on book times rather than wall times.

          Most of the mechanics would have struggled to try to compute and save the taxable portion of their checks. W-2’s with taxes withheld provided the safest and easiest route. Estimating withholding was a bit more tricky due to the inherent variability in the book hours, but most mechanics tended to over withhold, then use the refund to buy a boat, a project car, a motor for a stock car or demolition derby vehicle, or some other form of fine Florida hooliganism waged by youngish family men for the most part.

  • avatar

    1099 baby!

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The average work week in the USA is 47 hrs. I suspect that the hope is companies will chose to hire more people than pay OT.

    In some respects it can be viewed as a “win win” by government. There will be either more disposable income or 15% more workers contributing to the economy.

    Cutting pay to offset OT doesn’t make much sense.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      The problem for any employer is determining whether it is more cost effective to add staff or pay existing staff overtime. Any full time worker will require health insurance, and that is getting very expensive. A few hours at time and a half is probably going to be a lot cheaper than adding an employee.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        “Any full time worker will require health insurance, and that is getting very expensive.” ha ha ha ha ha – oh that wasn’t meant to be funny?

        Hmm – either you had corporate paid insurance or have never had insurance before.

        The increase in insurance rates is at it’s lowest in many many years (perhaps due to the requirement that insurance companies actually spend at least 80% of payments on – wait for ir—-medical care!!) (of course that 20% overhead is still massively less efficient than medicare’s 3% -but hey we’ll take what we can get.)

        Millions who could never have insurance – and that includes anyone paid as an independent contractor – now can get it. In that sense they’re paying more.

        It’s all just a google away – you ARE on the internet yes?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Yea…. Sure.

          http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/-Health-Insurance-Companies-Seek-Big-Rate-Increases-for-2016-311630751.html?device=phone&c=y

          “In financial statements filed with the government in the last two months, some insurers said that their claims payments totaled not just 80 percent, but more than 100 percent of premiums. And that, they said, is unsustainable.”

          Most of the companies with <100 employees have remedied the affects of ACA by parting up the company into sub-companies to keep from paying the outrageous costs of insurance.

  • avatar
    WhiskeyRiver

    Unintended consequences are the hallmark of the current administration.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      ACA has worked out pretty much as intended: millions have coverage for the first time and insurance rate increases have dropped dramatically.

      The intention here is that workers will get paid for the hours they work – I think that’ll work out fine.

      • 0 avatar
        Truckducken

        Keep saying it, maybe it’ll come true. My last three years of increases: 9%, 44%, 20%. But that’s just an ordinary private sector company, not anything relevant to the economy as a whole. It’s true that Medicare costs are not increasing at such rates, mainly because the government gets to decide how much it pays providers. Said providers appear to be making up the difference by sticking it to the few of us who still work for the private sector.

        • 0 avatar
          05lgt

          Truckducken; I was going to say that someone was a bad negotiator based on my place if employments flat to single digit increases in healthcare costs these last 3 years, but I realized a more likely scenario. My coverage already met the legal minimums, did the value of your coverage go up with the costs? Pre ACA lots of people had “coverage” that didn’t cover much of anything.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            ^ He has a good point here, likely your plan was brought into compliance. Same thing happened to my mom with her health plan at a public school system.

        • 0 avatar
          smartascii

          I don’t understand the right’s aversion to the ACA. It’s a Republican plan, and you can tell because it doesn’t involve giving money to the government, or a single payer dictating terms to the healthcare providers. Instead, it requires everyone who doesn’t already do so to give their money to a private enterprise whose sole detectable function is to take that money and then deny enough people enough treatment to ensure themselves a profit. The payments they do approve go to yet another private enterprise that charges you $12 for a Tylenol and continues to rake in record profits. The fact that your rates went up should make you mad, but maybe not at the ACA.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I see. So…they intended to increase the unemployment rate and continue the economic bleeding Obama inherited?

      Then, yes, what we’re seeing is unintended. Of course, it also would have meant Obama would have gotten his ass kicked in 2012. Right, Whiskey?

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        If I buy a $1M mansion with a $1M mortgage, have I accomplished anything? Borrowing $8T to stop the bleeding is not an accomplishment, especially considering how steeply labor force participation is falling.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    No no no no, dealerships/employers are not going to be forced to pay their employees more, they will figure out a way around this law or they will pass the expense on to their customers.

  • avatar
    Zoom

    How would the proposed overtime rules effect dealerships “particularly hard”? What percentage of employees in a dealership would this apply to? I’m not seeing specifics anywhere.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Ten years ago I expected the internet would revolutionize the way that both real estate and new autos were sold. Because there was so much transaction cost involved.

    So far it hasn’t happened.

    Apparently folks like to do their high cost transactions with a lot of human contact.

    • 0 avatar
      Zoom

      The auto dealer lobby is responsible for the way cars are sold. They’ll go down kicking and screaming, but I think their demise in the current form is inevitable.

      • 0 avatar
        hreardon

        Zoom –

        Quoting Twain: “The report of my death was an exaggeration”.

        While it’s true that the dealership lobby has a lot to do with blocking competition, and that frustrates me, the (sad?) reality is that dealerships who have tried the “no haggle pricing” model have failed pretty miserably.

        Why? Because at the end of the day, the percentage of people who value zero haggle over ‘getting a good deal’ are surprisingly small. Run a no-haggle dealership and you’re guaranteed to have two things happen:

        1. People will take your number to a competitor to save $100
        2. You lose out on margin that could be made on limited production, high demand vehicles

        I believe strongly that consumers should be allowed to legally order direct, but I suspect that in many ways we would end up with the automotive version of real estate transactions: sure, you can buy/sell on your own, but the percentage of people who actually do is incredibly small.

        • 0 avatar
          Jimal

          The same thing can be said about “transparency”. A laudable ideal, but ultimately there is no reward for the transparent dealer for being upfront and transparent.

          • 0 avatar
            hreardon

            Jimal,

            I think it’s getting harder for dealerships to be opaque due to the availability of information these days. Not that it doesn’t still happen, but the shady tricks of years past are becoming more infrequent.

            I’ve never had a dealership experience that wasn’t transparent, but I suppose there are those dealers out there.

        • 0 avatar
          Zoom

          hreardon,

          #1 and #2 happen only because all dealers aren’t forced to sell the same way. Consumers don’t like the current sales model. The only thing keeping it from changing is the business lobby and their deep pockets. See TrueCar et al.

          • 0 avatar
            hreardon

            Zoom –

            Again, talk to any dealership who has tried the no-haggle system: it doesn’t work because everyone wants a deal, they take your price and then take it elsewhere. Manufacturers are not allowed to set fixed prices, that’s why MSRP stands for “Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price” – the retailer sets the final, just like any department or grocery store.

            The big assumption being made is that if manufacturers were legally permitted to sell cars directly to the consumer that we would see large scale movement away from independent dealers to the direct model. Consumers should be allowed to choose, on this I agree.

  • avatar
    Kevin

    My first time back here in awhile and what do I see headlining the page? An anti-Obama article. Good to see that the right-wing slant is alive and well here at TTAC.

    Thanks for reminding me why it had been so long since I stopped by.

  • avatar
    probert

    A better headline would have been:

    Workers At Car Dealerships To Earn Living Wage!

    subtitle: car buyers less likely to get fleeced by desperate employees. With lower turnover more knowledgeable employees give informed answers to buyer questions….

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Employers are not responsible for paying a “living wage”. Living wage is perhaps the constitutional responsibility of government, yet they’ve been refusing to supplement wages for decades. They just wave their magic wand over the labor market and install a price floor, while pretending our main economic competitor is a Soviet dictatorship that would never sully itself with American jobs.

      The only thing dumber than a Republican is a Democrat. Republicans just throw their hands up and wait on a market correction that may or may not arrive. Democrats set about multiplying the magnitude of the problem. This president is the greatest problem multiplier in our lifetime.

      Race relations are worse. Minority economic plight is worse. Rich getting far richer thanks to the QE needed to save his mediocre planned economy. ISIS. Immense inequality between married and non-married. Naturally, he’s trying to help a tiny fraction of the population get married, not fix the source of inequality. I’m sure Obama has done a few things right, but I can’t think of any. Maybe fracking?

      • 0 avatar
        Exfordtech

        Not sure we can blame the democrat in the white house for ISIS. Eliminating the reprehensible dictator that stifled the fanatics in Iraq, force feeding democracy onto a culture that had no experience with it, while simultaneously searching for (as yet unfound) weapons of mass destruction to ensure our safety probably had a little bit of an effect. See foreign policy is hard, there are a multitude of unforeseen consequences of decisions made with the best of intentions.

        • 0 avatar
          VolandoBajo

          Actually, it was revealed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. He had a Christian General who he had known from childhood, and who he trusted because he was the only person who wold tell Hussein the truth.

          I believe the man’s name was Gen. George Saad, but not sure I have that part right. He wrote in his autobiography that Hussein played “hide the WMD’s” for years, by shuffling them around with the aid of Syria.

          Some of the evidence that was thought to indicate the existence of WMD’s might have been incorrect, but the fact was that they DID exist during Saddam Hussein’s reign, prior to the US invasion.

          But the liberal press chooses to dismiss the testimony of that one person, even though he is a direct first hand witness to their existence.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          @Exfordtech

          Yes we can.

      • 0 avatar
        ptschett

        I don’t see how Obama could rate any credit for fracking. I’ve been living and working in North Dakota since 2004, and I know for a fact that the Bakken upswing started well before the 2008 election. (I remember reading about the growth in the Bakken during my lunch breaks at a place where I last worked on the 1st Friday of October 2008… they no longer needed my services due to the subprime mortgage crisis and its effects on the customer base of the compact construction equipment I would have been designing. I was insulated a little bit because I was working at that place through an engineering consulting firm that was able to move me to another client that built larger machines, but it took till 2010 before my employment situation was reasonably stable again…)

      • 0 avatar
        RideHeight

        “This president is the greatest problem multiplier in our lifetime.”

        Weren’t around for LBJ?

        Don’t blame the oxpecker for the hippo.

  • avatar
    catachanninja

    Back when I worked at a diesel dealer this would have been amazing for me. I worked 50 hours on a down week. Sadly I’m not around to reap the benefits.

  • avatar
    carguy

    What is happening to the TTAC editorial management? First the non-story about Greece, the total off-topic BP editorial and now another post about a piece of administrative law that:

    1. Isn’t specific to the car industry

    2. Shows no evidence that it would disproportionally affect car dealers.

    3. Is basically just a single quote from a guy from a dealership lobby group complaining.

    If its a slow car news day at least write about economic events that matter. Maybe a few lines about the collapse of the Chinese stock market and how that may affect global car makers who have come to rely on big growth in this export market?

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    People should work hard at their job, but they should be compensated for the hours they work. Pretty simple.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Yup.

      It’s not hard to wrap one’s head around fair pay for fair work.

      It’s really fun to watch apologists and obstructionists try really hard to have a problem with this idea. LOL

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      Paying people by the hour IS simple, but not the best way to get the best work out of the best people. I don’t know how you do or have earned a living, but there is a distinct difference in the mindset and typical work day of someone who is hourly and someone who is salaried. I was hourly for a long time, and am currently salaried and would never go back. In exchange for doing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, without having to answer to a time clock I get:

      1) Flexibility
      2) Guaranteed weekly income
      3) Incentive bonuses that I have a part in determining through the quality of my work.
      4) A voice in how things are done.
      5) Equity in my company that equals an entire additional retirement plan.

      Our hourly employees make a good living, with excellent benefits, but they have none of these things I listed.

      That all being said, and I firmly come down on the side of 95% of the current system, the threshold DID need to be raised, because it does lessen the temptation for abuse among some employers. Raising it to say $30k and then indexing it to inflation would be a smart, logical way to do it, but that doesn’t score political points. Doubling it is a little much, and where I live, with our cost of living, it gets up into the lowest level of the “professional managerial” class.

      • 0 avatar
        SP

        I am glad that you get those nice perks with your salary.

        Unfortunately, in the corporations I have worked for, salary gets you this:
        1.) Flexibility – a little. You still have to show up at more or less the same time as everyone else. After all, how will upper management know that salaried middle management is actually managing the hourly workers unless they are there at the same time as the hourly workers?
        2A.) Guaranteed income – Ok, you get paid 40 hours per week … but you have to work as many hours as required. How many hours are required? Well, nobody knows. You just have to figure it out by balancing your needs for sleep and life outside of work against your fear of losing your job. Your manager may expect one thing, and another manager may expect something else. Ultimately, compensation across salaried employees is not fair.
        2B.) If times are slow and the company doesn’t have enough work for you, that’s ok. Except it’s not really ok. The company policy says they can’t force you to use your vacation time instead of doing non-billable work. Except when they put out a policy that temporarily contradicts the previous policy. So maybe it’s not really a policy at all. Anyway, you should redouble your sales efforts to capture more work for yourself. If things don’t improve, you will probably get fired.
        3.) Incentive bonuses? Hmm, maybe. See, the thing is, the company stock price didn’t do so great this year, and … well, maybe next year.
        4.) A voice in how things are done? … No, thanks, our multi-national leadership has a plan already made up. Thanks for your interest.
        5.) Equity in the company? Ok, sure, you can buy shares out of pocket if you want.

        From what I see, salary is pretty much a scam, in which the salaried employees get treated just like the hourly ones, except the company doesn’t pay them overtime. Shareholder jackpot!!!

  • avatar

    first time I have agreed with the Liar in Chief.

  • avatar
    jthorner

    IMO this is a good move. A salaried professional who is exempt from overtime should be in the relatively well paid ranks. $50k/year is roughly equal to $25/hour for a 40 hour work week. Anyone being paid less than that rate will now qualify for overtime pay if expected to put in more than 40 hours per week.

    All things considered, this is a rational change. I doubt it will create a hardship for auto dealerships.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      jthorner – exempt professionals tend to make good money to begin with. I know Physicians who work more than 60 hrs a week but they are making over a million a year. Hard to fee sorry for those guys.
      This will help the mid to lower end of the wage pool. (Or at least that is the theory).

      • 0 avatar
        VolandoBajo

        “at least that is the theory.”

        Theory is not practice.

        Do not confuse the map with the terrain.

        Virtually everything that this administration has helped the mid to lower end of the wage pool, according to theory.

        Excuse me for not conforming to that theory, no matter how hard I try.

        After all, remember that the “trickle down” theory was actually invented by Jimmy Carter’s brother.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Perhaps this will force the dealers to employ people who are worth the money… And, also, I am not sure whats wrong with paying people for the work they do and the hours they put in, over an above the normal working hours.
    Frankly I am surprised this is even a discussion…

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      It’s a discussion because:

      Places like Wal-Mart and CVS hire “managers,” and put them on a salary of $35,000, but expect them to work 65 hours a week. That’s why.

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        And we all “vote with our wallets”. The low prices (and concurrently, wages) tempt us to buy a bunch of stuff that we don’t need, disposable appliances and electronics, etc. The culture of consumerism has gone off the rails, and finally, we seem to be realizing that the middle class has disappeared because of it.
        The money funnels upwards, overseas, and into 401(k) plans.

        Those “managers” and “associates” are told to be proud of their crappy jobs, and to treat the customer well – I’m amazed at how nice these long-suffering souls are much of the time, I sure wouldn’t be.

        • 0 avatar
          Bp3dots

          My first salaried position was in a small store doing about 60 hours a week for about 35k.

          You stay nice because you still need that job to pay the bills.

          On the upside, I was able to be nice long enough to get myself into a better position, but it was rough going.

  • avatar

    May be current administration failed with ACA and other domestic issues but it succeeded greatly with new foreign policy like no other administration before it (except of may be Reagan administration who won Cold War).

    I wonder how blue collar workers may not get paid for overtime. And healthcare must be free for all not some screwed scheme like ACA which only enriches corporations. In all other countries healthcare is free.

  • avatar
    Kevin Jaeger

    You can be reasonably sure that the illegal immigrant who mows your lawn won’t be getting overtime pay no matter how many hours he works.

    Laws like this will drive ever more labor into that model – a contractor providing a service staffed by illegals working for cash.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheatridger

      KJ- Can you picture yourself buying a car for cash from an undocumented worker? Me neither. Let’s worry about more reasonable things instead.

      • 0 avatar
        Kevin Jaeger

        Can you picture a dealership that has employees doing a variety of dealership-related tasks other than sales? Washing cars, prepping cars, cleaning and maintenance of the building, security, running for parts and all of the other grunt work it takes to keep a dealership running? Did you ever work at a dealer or other type of service station?

        The dealer employs far more people than just the salesman, who is not affected by this law in any case. The other employees are certainly subject to being outsourced.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Kevin Jaeger – in my first post I mentioned that the average in the USA was 47 hrs/week. Expanding coverage of those eligible for OT (over 40 hrs/week)is just 15%. I can’t see that causing a ton of outsourcing.

          Most developed countries have lower hours of work than the USA. Canada’s average is 36.6 hrs/wk.

          We won’t see the population of Mexico moving to the USA to cover this overtime change.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      So fine and jail the contractor hiring illegals. Done.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    This is a good news story all around. No losers here, except a few folks who can’t stand to see anyone else getting ahead.

    Everyone should be paid overtime. It’s a practice that’s often abused. It can be destructive to family life, and it cuts a worker’s chances to take on a second job.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    If “the new rules would apply to mostly support workers in dealerships. Mechanics, service managers or sales staff likely wouldn’t be effected (sic)”, then how would “Obama’s new overtime rules (may) hit dealers especially hard”? I can’t see the logic here. Surely the vast majority of dealership personnel costs are paid to those three exempt groups mentioned. Who else is there? The receptionist, the bookkeeper, the lot boys… are there secretaries anymore? Auto dealers would seem better insulated against rising overtime costs than most retailers.

    • 0 avatar
      VolandoBajo

      The evolution/extinction of secretaries went like this:

      Secretary => Administrative Assistant => Administrator => Department Head

      The time span was about a third of a century, plus or minus.

      And the position went from being one that was supposed to support those who actually did the work, to one that balanced out the low percentage of women in upper management with a high percentage of women in lower/middle management.

      Meanwhile those who actually had to get the work done, found themselves answering to the same type of people who formerly had to provide support services for them.

      There is a Harvard Business Review article hiding in there, but I am too tired from having lived through that era to want to struggle to serve as the midwife for that depressing piece of productivity-killing news.

      The scenario might be a mutation of the above in dealerships, but that IS the scenario in many project oriented engineering and technical organizations.

      Your tax dollars at work in the administration of “equality” measurement.

      The big boys still have their country club/poker night sessions intact, and the real doers end up being cast as players in a Dilbert cartoon office, while people who would formerly have served as secretaries, now run the show, setting the hierarchy for all to conform to.

  • avatar
    Urlik

    I work for DoL enforcing the FLSA and have done investigations on car dealerships. I’ve never seen an employee at one that would be effected by the new rule. That being said, it’s very easy to change someone’s compensation so that the company is compliant with the new rule and the employee makes the same amount of money in the future.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    We’re living in a dictatorship.

  • avatar
    lot9

    Companies and managers now have the Employees where they want them, thanks to their favorite political party, out to do away with unions and the middle class or anything that the majority of this nations would be better off.
    Maybe, they would be happier it they had indentured servants or slaves.
    The wages have gone down and been stagnant for decades

    Productivity has gone up. All the while. they continue to fight paying taxes even at the low rate they are at now. They have so many loopholes that help them. Heck they are in the old middle class bracket, now.

    Look at companies like Boeing, doing great, CEO has great income and bonuses. But they do not want to share this with the people that worked to make it. They even did away with their pensions while management gets outrageous bonuses.

    The rich and corporations have as a political party for their greed, the minorities and LGBT and immigrants have a party for their interest.
    That leaves the middle class at the mercy of the greedy.

    We need a third party in these elections for this Nation’s and interest of middle class issues.
    The parties are not interested in doing things for this nation that would benefit ALL, instead of the special interests and lobbyists
    Corporations and the wealthy have benefit greatly with increase wealth. Then they move their money overseas.
    CEO now get the salary of sport players, yearly. NO SHAME HAVE THEY. TOO MUCH IS NEVER ENOUGH FOR THAT TYPE.

    If we had never had all those tax breaks, we could have better roads and benefits for the citizens of this nation. Time to raise the tax brackets and do alway with loopholes or put a income cap on them.
    Free Trade policies have continue to hurt this nation. We gave up our sovereignty when we signed NAFA and other trade pacts for all free trade with other nations.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • fazalmajid: The car makers need to provide more transparency because they’ve been lobbying the Federal government to...
  • dal20402: Yep, in the ’21+ the outer seat portions are exactly the same.
  • JonBoy470: It is of course illegal to operate non-compliant vehicles on public roads, but the law, as written, also...
  • JonBoy470: These speed shops are operating without even the merest whiff of plausible deniability that parts vendors...
  • Carlson Fan: “Start saving, spring 2024 will probably be your first real opportunity.” Yep I’d say...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber