backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by rajelyas.. on Feb 8 at 9:27 AM


Chrysler 200C Concept

Chrysler's "THANK YOU AMERICA" ad was the subject of much mockery and criticism. Now Chrysler faces a new PR mess after censoring customers on its corporate blog by deleting a post on the topic which contained critical comments.  (Source: FoxNews)

Chysler CEO Bob Nardelli had no idea the public backlash his advertisement would cause against his company.  (Source: AP)
Chrysler practices a bit of censorship amid a PR disaster

Chrysler breathed a sigh of relief when the auto bailout granted it temporary loans on taxpayers' bill to sustain its business while it attempted to consolidate and turn around.  The funds were desperately needed as Chrysler teetered on the brink of disaster, already having gone bankrupt once and facing another potential Chapter 11 filing amid sinking sales.

Recently, Chrysler gained much press over its deal with Fiat to give the European automaker a large stake in the company in exchange for help and some new deals.  While the reaction to this was generally rather positive, Chrysler has also had its share of negative public relations of late.

Bob Nardelli, Chrysler CEO decided to take out a full-page ad in several major newspapers, spending over six figures.  The ad read "THANK YOU AMERICA" and then included a message thanking American taxpayers for "investing in -- America's Car Company".  The ads ran the week of Christmas in some of the country's biggest newspapers -- USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  However, the move backfired and by the end of December outrage was growing.

While this story is an old one to some, it now has a new twist. 

Many took their anger online, funneling their malice towards Chrysler's corporate blog, which featured a post on the topic.  After hundreds of negative comments, Chrysler exercised a bit of censorship, simply yanking it entirely last week. 

While the blog is gone, posts are still readable using Google's cache of the page.  Most are rather pointed.  Writes one reader:

Mr Nardelli, Fire your PR and advertising teams and execs immediately. We the People did not want to see any more ads and money wasted on ads, be it from Chrysler, et al, or from your own pocket. You should have put up a website thanking the people and just submitted it to various online news aggregators for free. Once again, I am pained to see you are demonstrating a lack of common sense and fiscal responsibility. We supported the bailout of the car companies, even in the face of the horrendously mismanaged and secretive bailout of banks, and you stlil throw money away in the name of your company. Time to wake up. Sincerely, Matt and the rest of the Internet.

While, the ads were obviously a PR disaster for Chrysler, censoring its corporate blogs could turn into a whole new mess.  Rather than issuing a carefully worded response it tried to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened, and in doing so tried to silence the voices of its customers.  However, as Chrysler discovered, such attempts rarely work in the internet world and now it has a new embarrassment to contend with.  Thus far Chrysler has not issued a statement on the ads or its censorship of its blog comments.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I agree...however
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 10:51:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
While, the ads were obviously a PR disaster for Chrysler, censoring its corporate blogs could turn into a whole new mess. Rather than issuing a carefully worded response it tried to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened, and in doing so tried to silence the voices of its customers. However, as Chrysler discovered, such attempts rarely work in the internet world
While I agree entirely with the above statement, the fact remains you're ascribing your own opinion as to the motivations of others. This is opinion and, as such, belongs in an op-ed piece rather than straight news.




RE: I agree...however
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: I agree...however
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 11:06:03 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with Michael - you've got quite a bit of opinion/bias in that last paragraph.

And I highly doubt that Chrysler is going to make a big fuss about this. They pulled the blog post since it drew too much ire - so who cares?

And classifying this as "censorship" - oh, please. I think a company has more than a reasonable right to decide what message it wants to send to its customers and the general public.


RE: I agree...however
By tallcool1 on 1/29/2009 12:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a public "Thank You" statement is OK with me. It is the least they could do.

Yea, posting it online instead of buying ads would have been less money.

Hopefully they can turn things around and we can all be better off.

I was not supportive of these loans/bailout, but since it went through, lets at least hope for the best at this point. This public hanging of them posting a simple and much appriciated "Thank You" is ridiculous.


RE: I agree...however
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 12:03:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No I'm repeating the opinions of blogger analysts
You're repeating them without attribution then, which ascribes them to your own point of view. It's a clear violation of journalistic ethics:

— Identify sources whenever feasible.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context


http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp


RE: I agree...however
By goz314 on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: I agree...however
By VoodooChicken on 1/29/2009 3:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
Who's got pot?? Black Kettle Pot? Not familiar with that strain, but I'll give it a try...


RE: I agree...however
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 3:09:16 PM , Rating: 3
You'll certainly find plenty of analysis and commentary in many of my blogs. That identifies them as op-ed pieces, though, and is therefore acceptable under journalist ethics.

Paraphrasing a blogger's opinion is kosher in your own blog, but not in a straight news report.


RE: I agree...however
By BigPeen on 1/29/2009 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 5
So the opinion of some jerk off blogger "analysts" is news now? Wow, get over yourself. You're not a reporter, you an "opinionator", stop trying to pretend otherwise. At least your not alone, news based on reporting facts has kinda gone out of style the last decade.


am i reading this wrong?
By kattanna on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: am i reading this wrong?
By MozeeToby on 1/29/2009 11:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
No, this whole thing started because a company we lent money to spent $100,000+ to say thank you. You're saying that doesn't piss you off just a little bit?


RE: am i reading this wrong?
By kattanna on 1/29/2009 11:54:24 AM , Rating: 1
assuming they only got $1 billion dollars, which im sure they got more.. that means that $100,000 is 1/10 of 1 percent of the money we LENT them to take the time to say thank you to the people.

unlike the banking industry which was given literally hundreds of billions and couldnt even be bothered to say thanks.

so yes, im completely fine with it and even happy they made the effort.


RE: am i reading this wrong?
By theapparition on 1/29/2009 12:49:41 PM , Rating: 3
If they spent that same amount of money on an add for the Dodge Caliber, for instance, would you still be upset?

Point is, brand marketing, as opposed to product marketing, can be just as effective. I have no issue with them spending thier advertising budget soundly.

This ad may not have been the best idea though.


RE: am i reading this wrong?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 1:22:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Point is, brand marketing, as opposed to product marketing, can be just as effective.
While I agree with your point in general, I don't think splashing a full page that essentially says, "thanks for staving off our bankruptcy" builds the sort of brand image that will help Chrysler in the long term.


RE: am i reading this wrong?
By theapparition on 1/30/2009 10:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well that's why I said I didn't think it was a good idea. Was just trying to debunk the idea that they shouldn't be spending money on advertising.


Censorship?
By Oregonian2 on 1/29/2009 11:02:31 AM , Rating: 2
btw - I don't believe their action meets the definition of "censorship". AFAIK the site where stuff was removed from was their site. IOW they edited that which is their publication. Most sites I've seen (not including this one) make reader-postings show up on the site only after review (and legit because it is their publication, not that of those submitting copy in attempt to be published).

Now, if it were a third-party site to which Chrysler somehow applied pressure to get something removed, then perhaps it's "censorship", but otherwise it's just "editing" which is the publisher's prerogative.




RE: Censorship?
By HotFoot on 1/29/2009 11:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is censorship. Actually I'm going to look up the definition of the word...

But in the meantime, just because it's censorship doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. All kinds of organisations do self-censorship - for example, keeping more radical members of a political party from flapping off at the mouth with racist or other damaging comments. That is censorship in my opinion, but the political party has ever right and the perrogative to do that.

I don't expect Chrysler to support comments against it on its own website, so I'm in no way saying it's wrong.

Any time an opinion is suppressed/deleted in any media form it's censorship. A stigma has been added to the word, but in many cases it's a completely natural and appropriate thing to do.

quote:
Censor: an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

quote:
to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor


RE: Censorship?
By Oregonian2 on 1/29/2009 12:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, your quoted definitions show that it's not censorship if the site was Chrysler's (not being done by an "official" -- which is a third party with power).

A newspaper has content heavily removed and suppressed every day. Even that newspaper that says that it publishes all news fit to print "censors" all that not fit to print. All other newspapers have only so-much space available that's ad supported, so they have to "censor" all that which doesn't fit. No, the word "censor" I used above (even if done by an "official" -- the newspaper's editor) is incorrectly used (on purpose).


RE: Censorship?
By HotFoot on 1/29/2009 1:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well I think we're just arguing over the definition of a word, which I would actually like to learn very clearly if my current understanding is wrong. I don't see why an official is necessarily a 3rd party rather than possibly a representative of one of the parties.

How is the term 'self-censorship' even plausible if censorship requires the action of a 3rd party? Is that phrase some kind of oxy-moron?


RE: Censorship?
By Oregonian2 on 1/30/2009 3:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
"Self Censoring" refers to one doing it "ahead of time" in the expectation that they'll "get it" from the censors.

Basically, "censoring" is what one does to somebody else (with the implication that it's not desired). I personally know of one government that censored mail that went into that country -- they opened mail and blacked out parts not acceptable the closed it back and the mail continued on. That's censorship.

If a newspaper decides not to run a story for whatever reason, they're not censoring because it's their choice as what stories to run. It's called editing, or perhaps just publisher's prerogative.

Let's say that on the last election day, the paper wrote two articles -- one had Obama winning, and the other had McCain winning. They wanted to be prepared for however it turned out. Okay, was the McCain article censored? Of course not. They chose to run the other one for obvious reasons -- but the reason does not have to be obvious. The publisher of the newspaper is free to publish what they want. What would have been censorship is if the government had to approve articles before publication.


Why the outrage over an ad
By Entropy42 on 1/29/2009 10:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand the outrage here. Chrysler buys ad space all the time, in many different media. Its not like they squandered $100,000+ on hookers and blow. They just spent part of their advertising budget on an ad framed as a thank you, with a list of things they are working on. Other than the lack of flashy graphics, this seems just like any other ad expenditure to me. Its important to their future bottom line to get the word out that they are making changes and improvements.




RE: Why the outrage over an ad
By Oregonian2 on 1/29/2009 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, they should just throw a party for themselves at a five star hotel somewhere like the financial guys do!


RE: Why the outrage over an ad
By MrBlastman on 1/29/2009 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
Nardelli has had his head up his behind ever since he began to ruin Home Depot. The guy is a tool.


RE: Why the outrage over an ad
By vapore0n on 1/29/2009 11:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
I would have preferred if they did gave some hookers and blow as an incentive to buy their cars.


By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 12:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
Set up their comments so they could be rated. Then ppl who live in a hole and refuse to accept that opposing opinions exist in the World could start rating down all the comments on Chrysler's blog and no one would ever see them (not easily).

And no, that was not a shot at the DT staff - it was at those of you partakers with CLOSED minds, where disagreeing is just a rate-down-click away.




By bldckstark on 1/29/2009 12:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
You may disagree with this.... It takes the same number of people who agree with your statement to rate it up to five, as it does to make it a -1 if they don't. Just because you have an opinion does not mean that it is intelligent or worthy of other people reading it.

If your opinion is not popular, then you will have to try harder to convince people that it is worth listening to. If you can't convince them after your best shot, then maybe you should either keep that opinion to yourself, or don't whine about being rated down when you don't.

Maybe it's just me though.


By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 1
You know some ppl could just reply instead of rating down. But that means actually having an opinion instead of just plain hatred.

If I tell you I hate you, but don't tell you why I hate you - then that accompishes nothing.


By bldckstark on 1/30/2009 12:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that I care if a person I have never met, and never will meet hates me. That's what I don't understand about people complaining about being modded down. Why do people care?


Anyone else?
By UppityMatt on 1/29/2009 11:24:27 AM , Rating: 3
Lately i have been jumping to the comments section of Jason's articles more often then reading the actual article first. I like to see what Masher finds wrong with it before i read it. Anyone else find similar trends?




RE: Anyone else?
By acase on 1/29/2009 1:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, totally agree. You know if Mick wrote it then Masher has found at least 3 things wrong with it. One of which is always that it is opinion based.


By hcetyliad on 1/29/2009 12:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
The corporate board room and your politicians are today's Maharajahs - blazenly working hand-in-hand above the law until the inevitable 'discovery'. The Satyam guy put it well, kinda - 'once you go corrupt you can't get off the train'. I would add - 'unless you are in America'.

Apparently, MBA actually stands for MBSA - the S in BS got dropped because it was too close to the truth. The MBSA has proved to be a qualification that results in a sustainable corporate position which survives any economic situation, corporate, country, or global - in contradiction to the law of natural selection - what religious types call 'intelligent choice'.




By flataffect on 1/29/2009 1:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Good PR would be to cancel all bonuses until further notice and to either renegotiate the Union work rules that prevent workers from moving from one area where they're not busy into others that need help. There should be one work designation: automobile builder. The UAW has maintained so long that management is evil and the enemy for so long, its officials may not be able to conceive of helping make the company more efficient and suggesting ways to cut costs. If that's the case, the company should file for bankruptcy and liquidate. Maybe those who buy the assets from a trustee will be able to run the brand competitively as a non-union shop.

And it's not just the Union. I think that corporations generally in this country suffer from the lack of democracy among shareholders and the tendency of management to pay themselves far too much money. It's the dirty secret of business, especially when the company is losing money, that executives keep getting bonuses come what may.

Go watch the old Judy Holliday film The Solid Gold Cadillac.




200C concept
By Fnoob on 1/31/2009 8:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
Looks pretty good. Might as well call it an 'ES 300' though. Perhaps they could spin off a high end brand and call it Licksus.

Gotta admit that the Daimler merger was a massive help to Chrysler in terms of improving style. Unfortunately, it made Daimler a laughing stock back home - I can understand why they bailed out. A cheaper, more affordable Benz kinda defeats the purpose of their status symbol logo. I geta kick out of driving through the nearby trailer park - nearly every one has a BMW, Mercedes, etc parked out front, rusting to the ground or burning oil if it starts. Priorities....




Since when?
By awilensky on 2/2/2009 3:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Since when was it the taxpayer's charge to bail out private equity? Revolt!




temporary jobs
By rajelyas on 2/8/2009 9:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
During the period of recession, many are losing their jobs and are even looking for temporary jobs for a replacement to get over the tide. You can visit the undermentioned site for the same.

Raj
http://www.temporaryjobsuk.com




Cry-sler
By AnnaT on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
Most Americans are ignorant...
By Beenthere on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Most Americans are ignorant...
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 1
I agree - I would like more Americans to start to get involved and educate themselves about what is going on around them. There are a lot of very important changes happening in our society right now, but most people don't understand them past the sound bites they hear on the news, if they even follow the news.

We have had 5-10 years of very ineffective government in Washington. Apart from the change with Obama - what have we Americans done to solve the problem? Really, nothing. And even with Obama, we've elected a very inexperienced candidate, and so realistically, there is a lot that can potentially go wrong there.

But really, the entire legislative branch should be summarily dismissed and replaced. The "do nothing Congress" should be held accountable, and the only way that could happen is if Americans understodd what was going on in Washington. If they did, they would/should be outraged.


RE: Most Americans are ignorant...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
By callmeroy on 1/29/2009 12:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. You know what I think about and sometimes laugh about when I do...hypocrosy (if that's spelled right). On one hand you have corporate america AND government sponsored programs telling you to watch your finances, or "here are the rules for maintaining good credit", etc. etc... THEN.....on the other hand.....corporate america and government ignore their own advice to the citizens and are in tremendous debt and they just keep on wasting money like someone is thinking "don't worry we'll just make more money" in the background cheering them on.


RE: Most Americans are ignorant...
By TomZ on 1/29/2009 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Eventually that debt will have to be paid back.
Why do you believe that? Did you ever take Econ 101?

In reality, there is no economic reason to pay off all the debt. I know it is counterintuitive, but it is the truth. You can't think of the government in the same terms as you think about your own money.

And besides we've had a public debt for many decades now, and it hasn't caused any economic harm to us. History is the proof.

All that said, we do also have to be careful about the level of debt. If it goes too high, then you are spending too much current revenue just for interest payments.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/29/2009 1:28:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In reality, there is no economic reason to pay off all the debt
We either pay it off, or we continually pay interest on it, at a ultimate cost which is far higher.

Currently, close to 20% of the entire federal budget is spent just paying the interest on the debt. That's a vast expense. It also doesn't include collateral costs such as the siphoning off of capital which could be used in other areas-- when investors are using their money to buy government bonds, they're not investing in other areas.

The GAO and the OMB have both said our current rate of debt increase is "unsustainable". Taking on vast amouns of new debt for questionable "stimulus" policies is most certainly something we need to question.


RE: Most Americans are ignorant...
By Screwballl on 1/29/2009 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 1
Compared to what? The Socialist Republic of Europe? Where the government voices say that global warming is real, is a fact and we must increase taxes on gasoline to force everyone to buy tiny unsafe euro-trash cars or not even own a car and rely on public transportation and exorbitant ticket prices?

It is Europeans that are the sheep that are being screwed by the Socialist EU leaders into believing everything is for the greater good of the public, and any single company that rises to the top by their own merit are shot down with massive fines (ie: EA and Microsoft). Europeans are told what to believe, and what is "the facts". Americans are leading the way by basing their action on proven facts, not by what the talking heads on TV or in the government tell them to. People in the US are becoming more proactive than ever before, rather than retroactive like the Europeans. Maybe that is why they hate Americans, because they actually act when something needs to be done rather than letting the government tell them what to do.

So do not tell me that Americans are ignorant when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The only one in denial here is you.


RE: Most Americans are ignorant...
By RugbyChix on 1/29/2009 12:16:55 PM , Rating: 1
If you measure the success of a society by it's quality of life and length of life for the average person, then the US is behind many places in the world.

We work 60 hour weeks that give us ulcers, only to serve CEOs that run off with our money while we have nothing left for retirement. Which is good because the generation Y folks are going to live shorter lives than their parents. And those lives are going to be hard as they work those 60 hour weeks with the effects of obesity: diabetes, heart disease and the always popular arthritis.

And that's the "middle class." Spend sometime in the worst sections of Northeast cities...they make Baghdad look like central park.


By grenableu on 1/29/2009 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
There are over twenty times as many Europeans immigrating to America as there are Americans emigrating to Europe. That says it all.

American lifespans are being shortened because we eat too much and we don't get enough exercise. Thats the fault of the people making the personal choice to do that, rather than the country itself.

Personally, I'm HAPPY to die at age 79 rather than 82, if it means I don't have to give up a life of cheeseburgers and ice cream, and spend my whole life walking instead of riding in comfort.

BTW, if you think Detroit is worse than Baghdad, then you haven't been to Iraq. My brother just got back, want me to send you pictures?


By Steve1981 on 1/29/2009 1:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you measure the success of a society by it's quality of life and length of life for the average person, then the US is behind many places in the world.


That is because as individuals, we tend to make stupid choices. That doesn't change the fact that the USA is, overall, a land of opportunity.

quote:
We work 60 hour weeks that give us ulcers, only to serve CEOs that run off with our money while we have nothing left for retirement.


What's this "we"? I work 40 hours a week. Nobody that I know of is forced to work more than 40 hours a week, although some make the personal decision to do so. I don't "serve" my CEO. I serve the company I work for, the same as the CEO. When I began service with my employer, I agreed to a compensation package. I get paid according to that. The CEO doesn't run off with any of my money. I also live well within the means that my abilities afford me, which allows me to save for a rainy day and retirement.


RE: Most Americans are ignorant...
By tarheelbf on 1/29/2009 11:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree about most americans not having accountability. The economic problems of the past few years started not with Bush, but with our own country. Our own people. People do not want to be held accountable for anything if something goes wrong but want to reap the benefits if it goes right. I am a republican and did not vote for Obama, but one for certain thing I agree on him with is about a comment he made in his inaugural address. People need to start actually working for themselves and not holding out their hands for freebies.


By killerb255 on 1/29/2009 2:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are people that dodge, deflect, or otherwise avoid accountability in every part of the world. (Alloplasticity)

However, there are also those that accept accountability for their actions in every part of the world as well. (Autoplasticity)


corporate restructuring
By Screwballl on 1/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: corporate restructuring
By Meinolf on 1/29/2009 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 4
Banks and Insurance need to follow this too. I love that we bailed these banks and AIG out and they gave million dollars bonuses to the top dogs with are tax money. So why don't we bring back public hangings?


RE: corporate restructuring
By Tsuwamono on 1/29/2009 1:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
our Government supervision(1) of banks since they can so easily topple an economy(2)

Reference: (1) Canada (2) USA


RE: corporate restructuring
By Spivonious on 1/29/2009 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 3
Daimler sold Chrysler last year.


RE: corporate restructuring
By joeindian1551 on 1/29/2009 12:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Daimler still retained 20% up until the Fiat deal.


RE: corporate restructuring
By BZDTemp on 1/30/2009 6:55:34 AM , Rating: 3
Still doesn't make it Daimler-Chrysler.


RE: corporate restructuring
By HotFoot on 1/29/2009 11:33:28 AM , Rating: 5
I have to say some of those ideas, esp with respect to such stringent salary caps, seems to run pretty counter to the 'American Way'. You argue so vehemently against the EU Socialism but what is a salary cap? Shouldn't the market/sharholders be completely free to decide how to run their business? I mean, show us the way, oh great one coming from a land that has never done any wrong and needs no lessons from anyone?


RE: corporate restructuring
By Steve1981 on 1/29/2009 11:49:50 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Shouldn't the market/sharholders be completely free to decide how to run their business?


Yup; and they should be completely free to fail and file for bankruptcy too.


RE: corporate restructuring
By goz314 on 1/29/2009 2:02:12 PM , Rating: 3
...And to continue with the same line of thought. The executives that assume the responsibility of their positions and therefore any bankruptcy and failure of said company should be held finacially liable commensurate with their salary and bonus structure above that of the company wide average.

In other words, if you want to make the big bucks you are most certainly free to do so. But, you had better take your added responsibility to the employees and stockholder's seriously. Screw anything up due to your own incompitence and you are shown the door. You will not get a golden parachute and you have a legal requirement to pay back the company for services and value not realized by the virtue of your poor performance.

Forcing more accountability on the part of leaders, be they in the business world or in government, is a great tool to separate the "wheat from the chaff." I would say that most people agree there is too much chaff in corporate america these days. These people ultimately end up being a drag on the economy and a negative force to forward progress in general.

And, let's face it. Some of the CEO's and chief executives out there are not providing a value add that is in line with their compensation. If they were singlehandedly curing cancer with their work, that would be one thing, but most of their outputs are decidely much lower brow than that.


RE: corporate restructuring
By Screwballl on 1/29/2009 12:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
These would be suggestions for inter-company policy, not a federal requirement, although since they are using our taxpayer money to restructure there should be a clause that limits upper management pay and unneeded expenditures (the whole private jet fiasco would be one) until they are out of the red...
They are free to pay what they want but they will not likely get anywhere if their upper management and CEO is taking home a majority of that money in his paycheck, not actually going towards the company restructuring.

I am/was vehemently against the bailouts for anyone except the taxpayers. Did they bailout DeLorean, Kaiser, Hudson, Studebaker or any past company? At one stage there was more than 1,800 automobile manufacturers in the United States, yet were any of them bailed out when they failed?

Let business happen as it happens, it doesn't matter if someone like Microsoft fails, there will always be startups and new businesses to fill in the gaps left by the failed company. If Chrysler goes down, that means more demand for other vehicles still available, which in turn means jobs to make the cars, it just shifts the production, jobs and tax base from one company that fails to one that is not failing.


RE: corporate restructuring
By Suntan on 1/29/2009 1:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
since they are using our taxpayer money to restructure there should be a clause that limits upper management pay


So then would you also mandate a clause in there that the current people doing those roles are not allowed to quite/leave? If they have a salary cap, and they can find positions elsewhere that are willing to pay them more money, they will leave. Now you have an untenable situation in which you are trying to fill a blank executive position, preferably with top talent that can actually turn things around, and can only offer them a fraction of what they can get elsewhere because the government mandates a cap on what the position pays.

Now getting back to the idea of mandating they can’t quite and go work elsewhere, now you have the same people that caused the mess, they can’t go anywhere else and they don’t have an opportunity to do better for themselves because of government imposed pay limits, sounds like a recipe for highly motivated workers to me.

-Suntan


RE: corporate restructuring
By HotFoot on 1/29/2009 1:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. Why prop up failing businesses?

On the other hand, if companies that were very healthy before the downturn need help getting credit because of the banking system failure, at that point I would agree with public backing of loans. I just think that it should be limited to companies that were otherwise healthy businesses. That's just my opinion.

I think we have to allow for companies to fail. Especially in the business world, it is survival of the fittest. That means hard times for those laid off, so maybe some temporary work-fare program needs to be in place where we basically hand out shovels and get some temporary infrastructure jobs out there. It's a big mobilisation, but whatever keeps people working keeps food on the table and consumers spending at least on necessities. If I were to be laid off in this recession, I'd rather be put to work through some program than be given employment insurance or welfare cheques.


RE: corporate restructuring
By MozeeToby on 1/29/2009 11:38:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Any position above shift supervisor cannot have more than 10% higher pay than the level below it. Pay at the highest level cannot exceed 200% of the lowest paid employee.


I'm all for limiting CEO pay but that is kind of crazy. I can't imagine a CEO getting paid 100k a year, there are engineers right now in those companies that make more than that.


RE: corporate restructuring
By afkrotch on 1/29/2009 2:35:39 PM , Rating: 4
200% of the lowest paid employee. What is the lowest paid employee for such a company? Security guards? Janitor? I don't think such a rule should apply, but I do think there should be a salary cap. Like no position can make over $500k a year, until government loans are repaid and the company stays profitable for another 2-4 years after repayment. No bonuses also until said time has been completed.


RE: corporate restructuring
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 12:08:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
1) Fire everyone above the position of shift supervisor.


Actually those below the position of shift supervisor are causing quite a bit of problems to with their ridiculous union pay.

quote:
3) Any position above shift supervisor cannot have more than 10% higher pay than the level below it. Pay at the highest level cannot exceed 200% of the lowest paid employee.


Dumbest thing I've ever heard. The lowest paid employee is probably someone making around $10/hr.


RE: corporate restructuring
By Screwballl on 1/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: corporate restructuring
By Suntan on 1/29/2009 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
high level employees can make a max of $120-200K per year


Sorry, but that just wouldn’t fly. I already make a large fraction of that and I sit at the computer talking on dumb internet forums like this most the day. I get in at 7, out by 4 and by the time I’ve reached my car I have completely forgotten about any problems I might face the next day.

There’s no way you would get me to take an upper level job like that (on the road more than I’m home with my family, 10 to 12 hour days the norm, constantly worrying about this or that because everyone expects the answers from you the next day; hassled and vilified by everyone from the media to fat smelly documentary filmmakers, etc.) for such little pay. Now try and get a qualified person to do it when they know full well that they can get 10x that much from any other company around the globe.

-Suntan


RE: corporate restructuring
By MaulBall789 on 1/29/2009 1:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
With nearly a quarter million layoffs of higher skilled people just this month alone, you think there wouldn't be demand for those $100-200k positions?

quote:
I already make a large fraction of that and I sit at the computer talking on dumb internet forums like this most the day. I get in at 7, out by 4 and by the time I’ve reached my car I have completely forgotten about any problems I might face the next day.


Hope your job is secure or you're self employed because that statement right there may be enough for your employer to show you the door. Bye-bye nice salary!


RE: corporate restructuring
By Steve1981 on 1/29/2009 2:30:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
With nearly a quarter million layoffs of higher skilled people just this month alone, you think there wouldn't be demand for those $100-200k positions?


Would you trust a company of Chrysler's size to some guy who got laid off, or would you prefer a guy who has a track record of running profitable companies? If the latter, its going to cost you.


RE: corporate restructuring
By omgwtf8888 on 1/29/2009 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
If these people were excellent managers deserving of their monstrous salaries there wouldn't be any need to bail out the companies. No, my friends what these people specialized in, was cooking books and creating paper profits. When NAFTA sold out the american autoworker, auto manufacturers made a huge profit from cheap mexican labor. They didn't reinvest in their companies or slice american car prices. No! They pocketed the money. Let them die I say. Toyota, Honda and the like will fill in the demand with increased production.


RE: corporate restructuring
By Steve1981 on 1/29/2009 3:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If these people were excellent managers deserving of their monstrous salaries there wouldn't be any need to bail out the companies.


Note: I never said that Chrysler had good management currently. I just say that good management isn't cheap.

quote:
Let them die I say.


You won't get an argument from me.


RE: corporate restructuring
By Suntan on 1/29/2009 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
With nearly a quarter million layoffs of higher skilled people just this month alone, you think there wouldn't be demand for those $100-200k positions?


Yeah, and I am sure I could get hundreds of carpenters to take the job too, doesn’t mean your going to get someone qualified for it at that price.

quote:
Hope your job is secure


Not a problem. I here the government freely gives money out to people that do poorly at their jobs...

-Suntan


RE: corporate restructuring
By IcePickFreak on 1/29/2009 11:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly you sound more like part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If you aren't happy making say $500k/year running whatever company, then you probably shouldn't be running it in the first place IMO. That's plenty to live in excess and also invest if you were so inclined, to make even more.

It would promote people to do what they like, which I think inherently makes things more productive and breeds innovation. You wouldn't be reading blogs instead of actually earning you're money like this guy here if you truly had a passion for what you do. There's many skilled labor trades that are built upon this - ie. you don't start up a car shop to make money if you don't like cars; with the caveat of franchises where they end up with a business guy who doesn't know how to check the oil on his own car because at that point it's not about cars anymore. Instead they promote someone from within who is truly there to accomplish something, excited to do so even, and is itching to take it to the next level. The guy who reads blogs all day instead has to go find an unskilled labor job at a live-able but not-so excessive wage or take a bare minimum 'food, shelter, clothing' check from welfare. Have a kid while on welfare? The kid goes into state custody because in the long run it'll cost the taxpayers less and be more beneficial to the kid than feeding the slug that bore them with bigger checks. Hell I'd be all for the government using tax dollars to sterilize said slugs after two of those incidents.

As to the actual article - at least somewhat anyway - I find it kind of ironic that in the information age companies still have to spend more and more money on advertising. I suppose that's a testament to the sheep mentality of the general populace. Of course advertising wouldn't cost so much if their avenues of advertising weren't so filled with over-paid work-hour blog readers. Sadly I think logic died the day an actor on TV got paid more for pretending to be say a doctor, than an actual doctor.


RE: corporate restructuring
By Suntan on 1/30/2009 1:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly you sound more like part of the problem rather than part of the solution.


So you are saying that dealing with reality is a problem for you…

quote:
If you aren't happy making say $500k/year running whatever company, then you probably shouldn't be running it in the first place IMO. That's plenty to live in excess and also invest if you were so inclined, to make even more.


Sorry, but the kind of people that excel in these positions are the type of people that are not satisfied with “just making this much and being happy with what they have.”

The world is littered with little companies where the person that started it is happy to just sit and enjoy his passion. Very few of them ever make it to be a truly global company, and none of them made it there based on the leader’s desires to just sit and “enjoy their jobs.”

-Suntan


RE: corporate restructuring
By Dribble on 1/29/2009 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Some tips for Daimler-Chrysler: 1) Fire everyone above the position of shift supervisor.


Well you can't fire anyone beneath the position of shift supervisor because of the unions ...


RE: corporate restructuring
By DFranch on 1/29/2009 12:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pay at the highest level cannot exceed 200% of the lowest paid employee.


If a janitor makes $30,000 a year then the CEO can only make $60,000. Good luck with that one. I like the rest of the rules you laid out though.


RE: corporate restructuring
By rudolphna on 1/29/2009 2:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
no it would be 120,000. A 100% increase would be twice, and that would make it 60. double it again for the other 100%, and you have 120,000.


RE: corporate restructuring
By sebewufu on 1/29/2009 3:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
...you're doing it wrong.

90K


RE: corporate restructuring
By Chaser on 1/29/2009 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that they are adjusting the bottom lines, instead of the corrupt top lines such as the CEOs, board members, advertising and PR.


I'm curious if any of the "top line" draw pay from the gen pool. That's pay given to thousands of UAW employees that don't go to work, often for months at a time, and draw a paycheck.


By inperfectdarkness on 1/29/2009 1:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
bob nardelli is the anti-christ.

after bilking home depot out of 1/2 BILLION dollars in 5 years...i would have though chrysler would be a little smarter.

chrysler deserves bankruptcy. the company should be torn apart and sold off in tiny pieces.

oh....and bob nardelli should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.


RE: corporate restructuring
By slashdotcomma on 1/29/2009 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
I like your idea number 2. That would start bringing accountability to the top of the company. It's sad that most corporations don't fight for the employees, they fight for their shareholders.

Idea 3 is interesting, but it would be interesting if there was merit pay past that (up to a certain amount... say, they get 5% of total profit (after accounting for everything i.e. additional taxes, giving out all employee bonuses below them, company picnics, etc...) and under $50 million).

Idea 4 is a must. Whenever there's a deal, both must be invested in a deal, so that it hurts both to pull out of it without at least putting some effort in first.

It's true, that they're adjusting bottom lines. Unfortunately, "the top lines" as you call it, call all the shots. That unfortunately means, one can't fire everyone above a certain pay grade/level. Anyways,there's got to be some good gems here and there, and those people will make things work. We just need to light fire under their a**. *evil grin*


RE: corporate restructuring
By ali 09 on 1/30/2009 2:23:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's sad that most corporations don't fight for the employees, they fight for their shareholders.


Well, the shareholders are the ones giving the company its value, its capital so it can keep running, and they generally are the people keeping the company running. It is as important to fight for the shareholders. The company execs are doing the people a favour by employing them - the shareholders are doing the company execs a favour by providing capital.

There will always be more employees. There will not always be more shareholders willing to invest in your company. BTW I am not saying the employees are unimportant, but the shareholders are more.

Let the companies run themselves, do not bail them out, and let the market decide whats gonna happen.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki