GM bankruptcy shields them from liability over faulty ignition deaths and losses

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-gm-ignition-bankruptcy-20150415-story.html

This is one of the more maddening things I've seen in 2015 (and that is saying a lot). The evidence is fairly clear that GM committed serious negligence and cover-up/fraud for years regarding their faulty ignition switches that were implicated in at least 84 deaths and who knows how many total accidents.

But since GM declared bankruptcy in 2009, a judge concluded that they can't be sued over this issue. This is because the post-bankruptcy "new GM" is a totally different entity than the one that was responsible for the fraud/deaths. I wonder if the bankruptcy was a calculated move then. Businesses probably are thinking, "Well if the shit gets bad, let's just press the reset button." The people you owe only get pennies on the dollar back, and you're not on the hook for any previous wrongdoing. Isn't that convenient. And let's not forget the billions in low-interest loans they got from the taxpayers.

GM has set up a fund to pay victims off in return for dropping civil lawsuits. But this whole debacle is the kind of thing you shut down companies over. Where is the trust, when GM has shown total disdain for the customer and government? Maybe Obama shouldn't brag that he saved Detroit.

Sacre bleu! Stop checking your Blackberry at night!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/10/301418591/mon-dieu-no-more-work-email-at-home-for-some-french-workers?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140410

 

Earlier The Guardian and BBC reported that France passed a law barring tech and consulting workers from using their work devices after hours (and for them, after hours means 6PM-9AM), affecting up to 1M employees. But it turns out the law only applies to hourly contractors (~200K workers) and amends a previous law that workers must have at least 11 hrs of free time per day, which is not exactly super generous.

This story was probably a Brit attempt to mock "the lazy, hedonistic frogs", but really - is it so admirable to be plugged into work almost 24-7 at the expense of your loved ones, personal interests, and health? Even if we love our job and want to work more (or are we just addicted, pressured, or socialized to think that?), you have to stop sometime! Even too much of a "good thing" is unhealthy; what happened to balance? Some managers have to force US workers to take vacation... that is kind of pathological right?

Well, despite having a 35-hour work week, at least 6 weeks of yearly vacation, and shall we say, "different" union laws, French worker productivity is similar to that of Germans AND Americans. So they are just a lot more efficient than us? Maybe knowing that you have under 9 hours a day to get your stuff done, it is motivating and clarifying? Instead in the US, it's always "let's see how much more we can pile on." But is that stuff really value-added? I think you would agree, but I have never read a brilliant late-night email and definitely don't do my best work late when I'm tired/distracted. If the late night stuff was so important, you would have worked on it at 10AM. Unless you need to respond to a 4-alarm fire at midnight, but in that case you may be hourly with a pension.

So, F-U GM and your macho, consumerist, Europe-mocking work ethic. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (don't make deadly ignition switches and don't beg for a gov't bailout). Sorry, but I think truly successful people would be ashamed to have a Caddy in their driveway these days. So you get the posers like that B-list blond actor you hired on the cheap. I'll take a Renault, and use the leftover cash to have a nice vacation... IN FRANCE (well, Tahiti and Martinique are still technically France right?).

The Chevy Volt: GM's "electric lemon"

"In truth, the first-generation Volt was as good as written off inside G.M., which decided to cut its 2011 production volume to a mere 10,000 units rather than the initial plan for 60,000."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/opinion/30neidermeyer.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=G.M.%27s%20electric%20lemon&st=cse

A dismal assessment of the car that is going to "save GM". The author brought up a good point about the Volt's ridiculous cost vs. all the huge government subsidies GM got to develop it. So probably the real cost of a Volt is $24K higher to the consumer/taxpayer (10,000 initial orders for vehicles vs. a 2009 $240M DOE grant to help fund the project, and that doesn't even include the billions of bailout funds given to GM). Plus GM decided to sell the Volt at cost, rather than take a loss as Toyota initially did with the Prius (even a whopping 40% loss in 1997), but are now reaping the rewards, recent safety concerns aside. They wanted to give consumers access and build up a loyal following for its 21st Century flagship vehicle (3rd most popular Toyota model in the US, and most popular in Japan), which GM won't be able to do for its "flagship". Another confounding factor is the government's involvement, since Uncle Sam and the UAW are majority owners of GM. Obama's task force has already concluded that the Volt won't be profitable, but maybe decided to not cut the price in order to make the company look financially healthier in preparation for its upcoming stock offering. Regardless, the first generation Volt is not the answer for America's green transportation needs, or Detroit's Renaissance. And since innovation comes so slowly for Big US Auto (if at all), even a good future Volt will have probably missed the boat vs. better EVs from foreign companies that hit the market faster.

--------

The author makes some good points, but he's also a well-known hater of domestic manufactures (sometimes deservedly, sometimes not). Whether the Volt was worth the government investment in the first place is a good question, but now that the investment is made, criticizing the pricing is a little ridiculous. There have been reports that dealers have been offered $10,000-$20,000 over list from eager buyers, suggesting that it's possible that GM has set the price too *low*. Toyota set the price low for the first generation of Prius because they weren't even sure that there was a market for green cars to begin with. Now that it's been well-established that having the latest, greatest green car gives you the largest car-peen in the neighborhood, there isn't as much need for that. What Chevrolet will need to do to make the Volt and follow-ons successful is not fiddling with the launch model price, but fundamentally making a car that doesn't suck. It's a tall order for GM, for sure, but I really don't think the car will be made or broken based on the pricing of the first 10,000 guinea-pig launch units.

And while the first iteration of the Volt has clearly been overhyped (it won't be the game-changer for GM that it's been touted, nor will likely the second generation be), the technology of the Volt will have to be the game changer if we ever hope to get off of our dependence on oil. For better or worse, electronic cars will probably always be a niche market until somebody deals with the fear auto owners (legitimately or not) have that they will be stranded if the battery ever runs down in the middle of nowhere. The fact that the Volt deals with this fear means it is the first serious attempt at making a true mass-market electronic car, with all the energy and climate impacts that entails. If the Volt fails, I really hope the technological effort expended on it survives on in future models, both at GM and elsewhere.

---------

The Volt was absolute not worth the government investment, especially
when you consider all the other assistance GM has received from
Washington over the years. If Tesla or Toyota got the same support, we
would have gotten much more bang for the buck. Criticizing the price
is not ridiculous. It is one of the most important factors that car
buyers consider (#3 according to Consumer Reports). Just because rich
morons are willing to overpay for Volts in order to be the first on
the block to have one (same thing happened with Tickle-Me Elmos and
Wiis) doesn't mean that car is a bargain or even fairly priced. After
all, many Americans terribly overpaid for real estate during the
housing bubble.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2010/01/2010-car-brand-perceptions-survey/most-important-factors/brand-perceptions-most-important-factors.htm?EXTKEY=AYAHFP01

Toyota took a loss on the 2nd generation Prius as well, and the
current cost of a new Prius is about the same as a gen. 1 Prius with
inflation adjusted. So they have really gone out of their way to make
the vehicle accessible and generously priced for people. Plus the
Prius is a quality vehicle, and most owners love them. When do you
think the first Volt mass recall will take place? What's the
over-under for May 2011? What tech gains have we enjoyed from the Volt
anyway? Briggs and Stratton have been making portable gas-electric
generators for decades. GM is still waiting on the DOE to invent a
better battery so they can lower the price and increase range for
drivers. And the whole EV market is still struggling with
infrastructure. Plugging in a fast-charging EV to your home may blow
out your local transformer. You will need to call your power company
for a retrofit. There aren't enough public charging stations. Yes
government hasn't been serious about making EVs possible, partly due
to resistance from Detroit, Big Oil, and affiliated
industries/politicians. But there are better solutions out there to
the EV range concern than the Volt's, such as Better Place, already in
a contract with Nissan-Renault in Israel:

http://www.betterplace.com/

Most urban drivers commute less than 40 miles one way, and plenty of
combustion vehicle drivers forget and run out of gas too. People think
SUVs are "safer", but they pollute 40% more (which leads to
respiratory problems) and they have a higher rollover risk. A lot of
the public's fears are unfounded or ignorant, but unfortunately EV
makers still must persuade them if they want their businesses to
succeed.