Poll Should car maker executives be fired?

[ar81]

If you do not do your job, you are likely to get fired.
If you make a mistake that costs losses to the company, you might be fired...

Do they deserve the same?

 

[Urwumpe]

There is no question: Sure. They have done not even just errors, they even don't realize yet how grave their errors are. They don't act like they have understood why their companies need tax payers money to survive.

 

[BHawthorne]

Let them sink or swim on thier own merits. If the US auto makers can't compete, it's purely a matter of thier lack of business sense. Companies fold all the time. Nothing makes US auto makers any more special than any other business. All this bailout nonsense is a load of crap.

 

[MeDiCS]

Sure, but why are you asking this?

 

[ar81]

"[We must] redirect the markets so that they serve the people, and not ruin them" - Angela Merkel, German Chancellor.

My question could be "who is 'we'?"

Sure, but why are you asking this?

Curiosity on what is the view of people on this.
And I wonder if the same rules that apply to common workers apply to them, or if there are two types of citizens in the current form of capitalism: first class and second class citizens.

If there are two classes, I wonder what makes the difference between both, and how you define if someone belongs to each class. If there are two classes, it means that there are two sets of rules too.

 

[landon2006]

Really, Executives should be fired for not doing their jobs. I work as a Store Manager for Walmart, and if I don't do my job right, I get fired. If my store under performs the rest in the market by any real margin, I get replaced, and probably demoted back to Assistant Manager.

Really, is it fair for executives to do as they please, while their companies fold around them? It also might help if they quite paying themselves $1,000,000 a year salary. about 75% of that could be given back to the company, and actually used! Hell, I only make $75,000 a year with my bonus... It's not fair in any way.

I say take the hint that Walmart did, fire your CEO before its too late!

 

[Urwumpe]

"[We must] redirect the markets so that they serve the people, and not ruin them" - Angela Merkel, German Chancellor.

My question could be "who is 'we'?"

In case of Merkel - she usually means the western civilization as whole. Her party at least hopes she does not mean them with doing all this stuff.

 

[ar81]

Really, is it fair for executives to do as they please, while their companies fold around them? It also might help if they quite paying themselves $1,000,000 a year salary. about 75% of that could be given back to the company, and actually used! Hell, I only make $75,000 a year with my bonus... It's not fair in any way.

I was not wondering if it is fair. It obviously it not.
I was wondering about the set of rules that prevail in US, the capital of capitalism.

 

[BHawthorne]

I was not wondering if it is fair. It obviously it not.
I was wondering about the set of rules that prevail in US, the capital of capitalism.

Really, it's not reasonable to expect them to take a pay cut. What they're paid is irrelevant to thier productivity. They could be making a $1mil a year and do crappy or they can make $1mil a year and run the best damned company ever. I have no issue with wages. I have issue with capability, productivity, constructive vision and the ability to pull it all off.

Competence should be at focus, not wages. Sure, it urks me people make more than I do, but you can say that about everyone. Bringing wages into the topic merely muttles the issue.

 

[landon2006]

Pretty much the problem with Executives is this: They don't really do much. They sit back all day in their posh offices, getting their feet kissed by hundreds of employee's who do all the REAL work.

I think the problem with the US Auto Industry is not with the Automakers themselves... This Automaker trouble did not start happening full force until the banks started threatening bankruptcy.. What it comes to is that people are just buying less cars, #1 because they can't afford them anymore, #2 because its so hard to apply for credit to get a new car, and every-day, people get into more debt.

Only way the car industry is going to survive is if they can sell more cars again. Really, it does not take any more money for that to happen. They need to just sit back and think for a minute why people are not buying cars... If they would make credit a little more attainable, or make the price of cars a tad bit cheaper, maybe they would sell more, and make more money.

Heck, even though I'm a manager at Walmart, make $75,000 a year and have worked steady for the last 5 years, I was not even able to get a new car loan... You know why? Because I had not built up enough credit for them yet! If they would have given me a chance, they would have sold a car, had it paid for and made killer interest off of it.

This what needs to change. Personally, I have no sympathy for them. Like any other business, the only reason they exist is to make money, and find new ways to cheat the public out of their money.

 

[BHawthorne]

Pretty much the problem with Executives is this: They don't really do much. They sit back all day in their posh offices, getting their feet kissed by hundreds of employee's who do all the REAL work.

I think the problem with the US Auto Industry is not with the Automakers themselves... This Automaker trouble did not start happening full force until the banks started threatening bankruptcy.. What it comes to is that people are just buying less cars, #1 because they can't afford them anymore, #2 because its so hard to apply for credit to get a new car, and every-day, people get into more debt.

Only way the car industry is going to survive is if they can sell more cars again. Really, it does not take any more money for that to happen. They need to just sit back and think for a minute why people are not buying cars... If they would make credit a little more attainable, or make the price of cars a tad bit cheaper, maybe they would sell more, and make more money.

Heck, even though I'm a manager at Walmart, make $75,000 a year and have worked steady for the last 5 years, I was not even able to get a new car loan... You know why? Because I had not built up enough credit for them yet! If they would have given me a chance, they would have sold a car, had it paid for and made killer interest off of it.

This what needs to change. Personally, I have no sympathy for them. Like any other business, the only reason they exist is to make money, and find new ways to cheat the public out of their money.

Actually, this issue has been creeping up on the auto industry for decades now. There are several facets to the problem though. Key being the corporate structure in place is so rigid that it can't easily adapt itself to be effective today. Health insurance liability, union's inflation of product production costs, warehousing of materials, transportation and shipping costs, exchange rate. All things that a proper run company should insolate themselves from to minimize issue and the car industry is is doing a horrendous job at.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Businesses that cannot capitalize in evolving markets fail, and should be allowed to fail. American automakers have been flatfooted and unresponsive to market trends for over 40 years. The Japanese did their market research, came to the US and cleaned up. The Big Three never understood what happened then, and I don't think they get it now, even after several generations of corporate leaders have come and gone. They just think what worked in the old days will work today.

The Big Three are in similar straights as the airlines. Airlines that did not aggressively modify their business models went to the curb. American automakers need to do some serious market research (global, vs. what they *think* Americans want) and build cars geared to the world market.
They need to accept that Big Three cars cannot be economically produced in the U.S. under current labor conditions, whether the UAW offers concessions or not. The UAW will never be able to concede enough to make their labor competitive with overseas manufacturers. Some of those jobs need to get outsourced.

Should the current CEOs get axed? Well, it depends on whether the boards have a Messiah vision for the next CEO, that the next guy will be able to walk on water, wave a magic wand and make everything fine by, say, 5PM tomorrow afternoon. If they understand that they need someone with a fresh long-term plan, and understand miracles will not happen overnight, then by all means they should axe their current leadership. Otherwise CEO firings are useless PR stunts intended to keep the shareholders at bay for a few days. If you move through 10 CEOs in 10 months, then the shareholders will *know* that there is something institutionally wrong with that company that is much deeper than the CEO.

 

[BHawthorne]

The Big Three never understood what happened then, and I don't think they get it now, even after several generations of corporate leaders have come and gone.

What happened...Shewhart a century ago...TPS half a century ago...lean 20 years ago...

US auto is still pushing Henry Ford's 1908 assemby line process...

Firing a CEO or bailing out the US auto industry won't fix the problem unless a major change in manufacturing mentality changes with it. You need to get rid of the system, not just the CEO. The system is entrenched like a cockroach infestation and I don't expect it's going to be that easy to deal with. I wouldn't expect unions would be too hot on the idea of an upheval in thier playground. You'll find most people involved have horse blinders on and are looking for the status-quo.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

The UAW really needs to understand the global marketplace, too. They think the assembly line is great and that fixed production quotas keep jobs. This is true, up to the point where the entire company goes belly up because it can't react in time to market changes, and is constantly bleeding money making cars that no one will buy with relatively expensive labor.

A global company needs flexibility to hire and fire as market conditions change, as production needs to increase or decrease. It sucks for the guy that gets the axe, but in the long term it means that the company will be able to weather changes, and so means it will (over the long term) grow and prosper and maintain a more stable workforce.

 

[BHawthorne]

The UAW really needs to understand the global marketplace, too. ... A global company needs flexibility to hire and fire as market conditions change, as production needs to increase or decrease.

What I find slightly humorous atm is that foreign investment is flowing into the US with the devalued dollar. It's a land grab for factory presence while they can get it at half price. Also manufacturers like Airbus are hurting because they sell thier aircraft in USD. Sorta dumb of them not to change over to Euros. I suppose they get what they deserve going 1:1 against Boeing on a weak dollar.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

There is such a thing as "making the best out of a hopeless situation."

Just because a company is headed to collapse, does not mean the person at the top is wholly responsible. Perhaps he's making an inevitable collapse softer than it otherwise would have been; perhaps there is no possible way anyone else could have performed any better than he did.

Remember this: ceteris paribus. All else being equal, is there another man who could have done better?

Now, I don't have the knowledge to be able to say whether or not this is the case with regards to Ford/GM/Chrysler. But we would all do well to keep in mind that, in the words of Bastiat, There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

What we see is what is happening with major US-based automobile manufacturers. What we don't see is what would happen with anyone else in charge--it could be better, but it could be worse. We need to consider that perhaps they're doing the absolute best that could be done in the situation they're in, and there's no one who could do better.

 

[Omhra]

yeah

If I run my company to the ground I would loose "my job" obviously and without option.
Unless I am bailed out by distributing my loses around, on the people and retaining no loss for my self.

 

[RichWall]

I was not wondering if it is fair. It obviously it not.
I was wondering about the set of rules that prevail in US, the capital of capitalism.

What does this have to do with the original poll?

Your original poll question asks;

"Should car maker executives be fired?"

All Execs? Worldwide? Any specific Companies? The Chairman or the entire Board? The ones in charge of Production? Design? HR and\or the Employee issues? Union Negotiators? Marketing, Distribution and Sales? Market Direction and Strategy?

Or just the ones in the US?

Sure, but why are you asking this?

Now, this is a good question.

 

[Urwumpe]

Just because a company is headed to collapse, does not mean the person at the top is wholly responsible. Perhaps he's making an inevitable collapse softer than it otherwise would have been; perhaps there is no possible way anyone else could have performed any better than he did.

Does not apply to the big US car manufacturers - it is a string of bad management decisions (like the models they built in the last decades), which led into their crisis, with the sub-prime crisis finally only making the effects of these decisions more clearly visible: Their cars became much more expensive on the first sight as the cheap loans for buying one of these battleships dropped away. Also, their bad cash flow in the last years became much worse, as cheap loans to keep the companies running also fall away.

Instead of solving these problems, they now hope for the tax payer to give them a chance to carry on. The offer of a GM/Chrysler fusion is just the inevitable - something like that will also happen when the government does not step in.

Take for example the exports of US cars. You see more corvettes here in Germany, than other US produced cars together (including Hummer). A very small number, kept by fans. The reason behind is pretty simple, the US cars are not useful outside the USA. They are too big, consume too much fuel and it is nearly impossible to find a workshop to repair them.

While European and Japanese car manufacturers already long ago started to make heavy use of external suppliers, the US companies produce most parts inside their own company. Even for Japanese cars, it is simple to buy a replacement part - their suppliers also sell here. Again, this is a management decision.

This is also one reason behind the technological disadvantages of the US cars: In Europe, a large part of the R&D is done by the suppliers, as the car manufacturers choose the best part for their production (in terms of price and capability) - and have the chance to switch suppliers quickly. Most of the R&D of car manufacturers is actually just system integration here.

The only way to change these deficiencies in the US car industry, would be no less than a revolution - for customers as well as for the management.

PS: If somebody mentions communism as the way to salvation in the current crisis... just look into China. The workers now protest (though illegally) against the government, because they are left alone by the glorious social network, when their companies just over night goes bankrupt. When workers in a socialist country have to demonstrate for a better social network... something is really upside down.

 

[Andy44]

PS: If somebody mentions communism as the way to salvation in the current crisis... just look into China. The workers now protest (though illegally) against the government, because they are left alone by the glorious social network, when their companies just over night goes bankrupt. When workers in a socialist country have to demonstrate for a better social network... something is really upside down.

True but the communist purists always have the excuse that "that's not real communism" and that "they just put the wrong people in charge". They always promise that this time there won't be millions killed, etc. It's like trying to prove a negative.

And it seems the purpose of this thread is to stir up some sort of class resentment, painting the auto execs as a class diferent from all the rest of us. I wonder if any corporate execs are Orbiter fans and what they think.