What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
135 Comments
- siszam, on 12/26/2008, -4/+62By "holding hostage" I wonder if they mean the company won't give GM parts that is has not paid for. I have a few friends with businesses. They are having a hard time getting people to pay their accounts. There was a time in the world when you paid for something when you bought it. In this economy more and more businesses will be denying credit and expecting immediate payment for goods. I'm very sure the mega businesses like GM aren't paying as they go while they beg for tax payer money. If they knew how to run a business properly they wouldn't be where they are now. I have no sympathy for them, contract or no contract.
- bixby1, on 12/27/2008, -7/+34The chevy camero never sounded so important.
- stutimandal, on 12/26/2008, -5/+32They can sue as in free market economy, but they want a bailout when their banks and car companies fail!
- ktarr, on 12/27/2008, -0/+23I'm guessing to have the privilege of supplying GM with parts Cadence signed an agreement that was probably along the lines of:
"I realize I am your b*tch, and will do whatever you want and agree to limit my right to recourse." - skinrock, on 12/28/2008, -1/+22I don't think it would make sense to have multiple companies make the same part, you could end up with minor discrepancies that could cause major issues down the line.
- pinchduck, on 12/28/2008, -0/+17And yet if they had multiple suppliers, you would be saying "how inefficient". It's very easy to run a company from your armchair.
- AnalogAssassin, on 12/28/2008, -4/+21I haven't seen Ford having trouble selling Mustangs. I don't see why GM would have trouble selling Camaros. Not everyone wants to drive a Prius.
- DarthPoo, on 12/28/2008, -6/+22GM doesn't realize they don't carry as much weight as they used to. They're going out of business yet they still think they can bully their suppliers into their meeting their demands. Only Walmart can still do that.
- oboshoe, on 12/28/2008, -4/+20The are probably in bankruptcy because GM isn't able to pay them.
As this GM things unwinds (bailout or no bailout), look for alot more of this. - palpacino, on 12/28/2008, -0/+13Well I worked for a software company up until two months ago that ONLY writes sequencing software for suppliers to the big auto makers. I've spent alot of time in Detroit and across the bridge in Canada with these good folks.
The big auto makers have what you might call and iron clad contract that says they can have access to all the machines and lines that make the parts they need if the supplier folds. With the JIT manufacturing they do, if they don't get some important, say a console or front bumper, etc... then the WHOLE plant shuts down and all the other suppliers sending them wheels or air bags have to shut down as well. Lots and Lots of OTHER people are out of work.
So, call it what you will I guess, but when people put it in a contract and those are the rules of the business, then I say let them abide by them. All the suppliers know that if they fold and they want to hang on to their equipment and let everything else in the bigger picture go to hell then the auto maker is going to legally step in and take their stuff over.
I know that I've heard of fines that, literally, go into like $20,000 or more every MINUTE (yes minute) that an auto-maker is shut down to the supplier that shuts them down and holds everyone up. I've been there with a few other programmers ***** my pants a time or two on some close calls! :) - Armagetto, on 12/28/2008, -3/+14It's a great idea until you consider that most green cars still lose money. Even Toyota's Prius is widely believed to lose money.
- Midtowner, on 12/28/2008, -2/+12You can't contract away your power to declare bankruptcy.
I haven't read the suit, but this seems like something of a Hail Mary on GM's part. - oboshoe, on 12/28/2008, -1/+11GM doesn't pay for anything ahead of time. They pay about 90 days after the parts are received.
Why? "Because we are GM and thats our policy" - Brasky, on 12/29/2008, -0/+10I work for a fairly large supplier to an automotive company. When companies are producing crucial products such as listed in the article, the customer (GM) pays for all of the tooling (dies, racks, returnable shipping containers, etc.) to make this product. They do this to limit the liability of a supplier going down, as is the case here. Now if the supplier is to ***** lazy to send the tooling to GM or a backup supplier, lawsuits are filed. GM needs its property to do business and apparently isn't getting it in a timely manner.
I have been in this sort of situation when my company takes over the production of a product and the old supplier isn't too helpful in transferring the tooling over to us. Usually the project is delayed (we are talking MONTHS to re-tool) and we end up having to make new tooling at the customers expense as it isn't our fault the old supplier sucks. But when the project is this high profile and has this much money wrapped up in it, court-ordered siesure of the customer-owned equipment is warranted. - Jlaugh, on 12/28/2008, -0/+10@Armagetto
He's not talking about making green cars he's talking about making wind, solar and tidal generators. Which I think is a really good idea considering that the car industry is in a slump why not switch to another product. - blue98camaro, on 12/28/2008, -4/+13It's CamAro.
- StreetPreacher, on 12/28/2008, -10/+19God forbid they delay the production of yet another big, heavy gas guzzler that few people will buy. I mean it's not like their hybrid battery supplier shut them out.
- akchrs, on 12/28/2008, -7/+16Cause I like doing burnouts. That's why.
- SilverBlade2k, on 12/28/2008, -4/+13I thought that no one could sue a company that is already in bankruptcy protection..
Unless they are re-writing the law, like they rewrite everything else these days. - drifter, on 12/28/2008, -5/+14Not one decent car in 20 years? Seriously you guys need to get off the bandwagon, considering Chevy has won countless satisfaction awards.
Also the new Camaro is sick and i already see people buying them. - dalewj, on 12/28/2008, -1/+9I dont work with the auto industry, but as a business owner, its only the big companies that arent paying there bills. Anyone medium to small sized understands the problem and is paying there bills on time, hoping nobody screws them. The big companies think they own the small business world and can screw you whenever they want.
If this is what is happening (I have no idea if it is) then screw GM, they probably screwed this company out of business - joegibes, on 12/28/2008, -0/+817/26-ish mpg ain't bad for 300hp on regular gas -- and it handles (or so I've heard).
THIS IS A MUSCLE CAR, not an econobox. And who says nobody's gonna buy this? Again, it is a MUSCLE CAR. This is not meant for your 60 mile commute to the daily grind, it is a reasonably priced powerhouse.
GM can't just make teeny tiny cars -- especially when that's not what people want (trucks were over 50% of american vehicle sales, november to november). - Racer20, on 12/29/2008, -0/+8GM owns the tools it is suing for. They paid for them, now they are trying to get them back so they can build cars.
- charlietuna, on 12/28/2008, -4/+12Hate to break it to you, but failing a requirement that all vehicles *must* meet a specific design criteria (as opposed to performance criteria)... not everyone will want to drive a Prius equivalent. Nor should people.
Anyone suggesting that is playing right into the worst caricatures of the so called liberal left. - kokoshka, on 12/28/2008, -10/+17A new Camaro? Are you ***** kidding me? My tax dollars are propping up a company that hasn't made a decent car in 20 years and they're going to fart out ANOTHER CAMARO?!
- inactive, on 12/28/2008, -1/+8Bitchen Camaro.
- inactive, on 12/28/2008, -1/+7They have already sold over 10,000 Camaros to date via pre-orders, and the car isn't due to hit the streets for another 3 months. The V6 will likely exceed 30 mpg with 300 HP in real driving conditions and the V8 will likely come close to 30 mpg with 422 HP. Way to know what you're talking about.
- richbleak, on 12/28/2008, -5/+10If they can launch it, the new Camaro is going to be extremely successful. There is incredible buzz are the car, gas prices are dropping, and the price is extremely competitive. I understand many would prefer this type of large-engine muscle car would just go away, but there are many more that want a powerful sports car. Give me a viable electric car that doesn't look like garbage and let me buy it for around 40k and you have yourself a deal; until then, I'm going to buy one of these new Camaros the moment it is available to me. I'll offset the fuel guzzling by continuing to become more energy efficient in every other area of my life.
- inactive, on 12/29/2008, -1/+6Yeah, do you see the word "estimated" before the number? The 2002 Camaro had an 18/25 rating with the LS1 V8, but it actually got 30+ MPG on the highway. The LS3 in the new Camaro is more efficient than the LS1. I know its hard for digg to understand the concept of a "niche" car being successful.
When in doubt, compare every car to a Prius. - Racer20, on 12/29/2008, -1/+6Wow, imagine that! Someone who actually knows what they're talking about!
- pinchduck, on 12/28/2008, -0/+5A supplier in bankruptcy is pretty much already crushed.
- oboshoe, on 12/28/2008, -0/+5They are just trying to get recognized as debtors in the bankruptcy case.
Right now they are listed as an accounts payable (on the Cadence books).
By filing suit, GM is basically trying to break even on what they owe Cadence. - cawpin, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4That is in a TESTING environment. I personally know people who got 30+mpg with the 6 speed manuals. They were well known for getting such mileage. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
- user500, on 12/28/2008, -0/+4if there suppliers didn't want to honor there contract, they shouldn't have signed it
- zacharytelschow, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4Joe hits it right on the head. GM is making cars people want; that isn't the problem. They can't produce the cars people want at a profit. The reasons are pretty simple: costs. legacy UAW contracts (health care and pension costs) as well as inability to close factories and dealerships. It has nothing to do with their car lineup, which is actually pretty good.
- RizzoFrank, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3Cadence is a ***** of a company, I have worked with them before and they don't have any clue what they are doing business wise.
- partysan, on 12/28/2008, -2/+5If you need a car to get laid, then maybe a Prius is the least of your problems.
- palpacino, on 12/28/2008, -1/+4bad. ass. I laughed even while disagreeing.
- CaptOblivious, on 12/28/2008, -1/+4If you need a fancy car to get pussy, you're doing it wrong.
dammit partysan! <lol> - user500, on 12/28/2008, -0/+3there is an anti lawsuit clause in the bankruptcy law? If there was every corporation in the country would be "bankrupt". DOW chemical operated for decades and may still be in bankruptcy so they dint have to pay out clams from lawsuits but that's another story
- user500, on 12/28/2008, -0/+3The company I'm working for were pulling out of all the small shops because if one other customer pulls out then were out of luck if they fold. Lots of the mall shops barely squeak by in the best of times and were used because nothing else was available
- theviceroy, on 12/28/2008, -12/+15Why doesn't GM worry about launching a car people will actually buy?
- oboshoe, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3Palpacino.
What you say is true, but the rules change quite a bit when a company goes into bankruptcy.
Once they file, all assets go under the control of the bankruptcy court and all contracts are subject to being modified or nullified.
In fact, it would be highly illegal for the company to just handover their equipment and parts to GM without getting approval from the bankruptcy judge.
Frankly the whole its quite cumbersome to do business with a company in bankruptcy.
This suit, is probably little more than a way for GM to raise their priority on radar of the court document, and get them listed as creditor instead of an accounts receivable. - Racer20, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Uh, nearly every part in every car is a "single-source supplier." Would it make more sense to spend double to develop and tool the part with separate suppliers, then have to pay a higher piece costs because you're cutting your volumes in half?
- cawpin, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2you mean the Cobalt that won best in class? Yeah.
- BoneStamp, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2That's why the EV1 only lasted a couple years on the market. There was no profitable term in sight.
- omgwtflawl, on 12/28/2008, -1/+3And this is after a massive tax break for all Prius owners, nonetheless.
- inactive, on 12/29/2008, -1/+3I can see why GM is not doing so well now.
- pinchduck, on 12/28/2008, -0/+2It depends on the parts. if it is for screws or zippers, you are correct. if it is for very hard and expensive to create items, as the article implies, then it makes more sense to go with one supplier. For example, I'll bet you have a spare pencil. Maybe an old computer that could be used as a spare. Do you have a spare car? How about a spare house? Most likely not, because they are expensive and difficult to acquire. The same philosophy applies here. Yeah, they got caught on the wrong side of a single-source supplier, but it is very possible that the lawsuit is still cheaper than multiple-sourcing expensive parts. A lawsuit like this won't cost millions of dollars, whereas the part very well could.
- thurows, on 12/29/2008, -1/+3GM, one hand out, another in everyone else's pocket.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is