General Motors Death Watch 55: My Kingdom for a Horse

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

As our GM Death Watch series gains traction, I've taken to scanning the skies for black helicopters, stashing Glocks around the house and avoiding the fine city of Detroit. But I would have loved to been at RenCen to see the look on Bob Lutz' face when his boss sliced the Car Czar's salary by 30%. If you recall, Turnaround Tycoon Jerry York originally suggested executive pay cuts as a way to send a clear message to workers throughout the world's largest automaker: WE'RE IN DEEP SHIT. At the time, Maximum Bob responded to the suggestion with characteristic bravado: "I gave at the office." I guess he's learned that bankruptcy is the gift that keeps on giving.

To be fair, Mr. Lutz had something of a point. Although his employment contract isn't a matter of public record, much of Bob's compensation package is tied to the company's performance, both directly (through incentives) and intimately (through stock options). As GM bleeds out, shedding value like a dot com bomb, Bob's lost theoretical millions. OK, it's more than partially his fault. But as an employee stockholder, Lutz has GOT to be worried. Yesterday, Deutsche Bank took a hard look at the state of GM's finances and issued a Lutzian pronouncement: "sell."

The recommendation came despite the fact that a newly independent Jerome P. York finally joined GM's Board of Bystanders. (An SEC 13D/A filing for Tracinda Corp states that Jerry won't share confidential info with his capo, GM stockholder Kirk Kerkorian. Yeah right.) What's more, The Bored of Defectives ordered GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner to bring Mr. York the head of Alfredo Garcia. And so he did, making across-the-board cuts in accordance with York's rescue plan: trimming white collar pay, pensions and health care; reducing GM's annual dividend by 50% and, get this, signing-off on a significant reduction in The Board of Bystanders $200k annual "retainer." Message received?

Not where it counts. Let's be clear about this: the cuts will not stanch GM's massive wounds. The General lost over eight billion dollars last year. The largest measure in this package– the dividend reduction– will save GM $566m. Add up all the rest of the bits and pieces, double it and it still doesn't cover GM's losses. Or its recent "charges against earnings." Or the cost of keeping idled GM workers in the "money for nothing and your checks for free" Jobs Bank. And then remember that GM is about to fork over multiple billions in blood money to keep bankrupt parts supplier Delphi's unionized workers working.

Again, Wall Street was suitably unimpressed with GM's black February. More importantly, so was United Auto Workers (UAW) President Big Ron Gettelfinger. Lest we forget, convincing the UAW to take one for the team was the whole point of the exercise, as Rabid Rick quickly pointed out: 'I think it's clear, now more than ever, that we very much have a shared fate." Indeed they do. Unless GM can lower its union labor costs, alter union practices and sell some product by, say, last May, it's all over bar the filing. And… According to the Detroit Free Press, "The union chief dismissed any suggestion that [the cuts] set the stage for GM to push the UAW for more concessions." So, that's that then.

Reporter Daniel Howes over at The Detroit News says Big Ron's stonewalling is nothing more than a bit of pre-election, pre-negotiation posturing. In yesterday's editorial, Mr. Howes said the union boss called for "shared sacrifice" and claimed that "Union folks are smart enough to know that tough times demand tough calls, including concessions they never expected to give." I guess Mr. Howes would also see UAW Vice President Richard Shoemaker's same day statement that Delphi's insistence on pay concessions "will surely lead to a long strike, and that is true whether it involves other corporations or does not involve other corporations" as more posturing.

If Rick Wagoner is a religious man, I bet he's praying that Daniel Howes is right: the union will see sense and do what needs to be done to save the corporate host upon which they feast. Judging from his bankruptcy-proof pension, Rabid Rick's not a betting man. Which is just as well, because unions don't posture. They threaten. If you don't capitulate to their demands, they make good on their threats, come what may. GM has paid billions to the unions. There's no way the union officials that would lead the rank and file into a strike are going to miss a meal because of an anti-Delphi or anti-GM union action, short or long term. They have nothing to lose. As far as they're concerned, you can pay us now, or you can pay us later. Only thing is, white collar cuts or no, GM can't afford either option.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
  • 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.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next