? - K-Mart filled Chapter 7 and now owns Sears...

[macattak1]

Its not like I want Chry to file bankruptcy. A lot of people and companies will get very hurt by this. However, it seems that those that really truly need to file don't and those that don't do!

 

What is the reasoning behind Chrysler Not wanting to file for bankruptcy. Would they not just come back stronger and leaner? GM?

 

Peace and Blessings

[NickF1011]

A bankruptcy isn't as simple and glorious as it all sounds. It's not like you just wipe the books clean and start over right where you were before you filed, only without debt. The complexities involved such as brand shedding and other business decisions that the companies may not want someone else making for them. For every K-Mart, there's ten Delphis.

[Pioneer]

Chrysler might have to in the end. Seems Fiat might take over Opel. A better option then, IMO, would be for Fiat to purchase the Saturn brand. Then they could re-enter the American market without all the hassle of trying to pull Chrysler out of the gutter.

[RichardJensen]

K-Mart didn't file ch. 7, they filed ch. 11.

 

Furthermore, K-mart was, perhaps, ideally suited for ch. 11 restructuring. They had no major obstacles to a speedy recapitalization, and their merger with Sears, post filing (technically K-mart couldn't've bought Sears if they weren't going to own Sears after they bought it.... it was a welcomed LBO) was pretty well managed.

 

By contrast, GM & Chrysler have massive cost footprints (they're not in retail, they're in manufacturing), and a host of legacy obligations, making any ch. 11 filing much more involved than K-mart's.

[goingincirclez]

Yikes, this is hardly a shining example to use for a "good" bankruptcy. Have you even been to a Kmart lately? They suck as bad as ever! Really, I always thought Kmart buying Sears was like the tail wagging the dog. Sears has been on a slow death march ever since. They'll be selling the Craftsman and possibly Kenmore brands in bankruptcy court soon enough.

 

 

For more examples of "successful bankruptcies" and/or mergers (and I use the term with all the dripping sarcasm and irony that can possibly be conveyed), just pick any non-SWA airline...

[twintornados]

it will be more like the buyout and bankruptcy of Zenith by LG of South Korea. Bought out Zenith...then bankrupted that company to eliminate all the bad debts Zenith had built over the years.....Zenith name disappears from mainstream market place (still in hotel/motel/hospitals) and you see one or two pieces of Zenith, but nothing like the former company had...LG now dominates the marketplace and Zenith Radio Corp. (nee: Zenith Electronics Corp.) is reduced to Zenith Sales Corp..... and my Zenith stock?? Worthless.....

Edited April 30, 2009 by twintornados

[Critic]

After leaving Ford, Nasser became a senior partner in One Equity Partners, a subsidiary of Bank One. After the bankruptcy of Polaroid Corporation and its eventual acquisition by One Equity, Mr. Nasser served as Polaroid's non-executive chairman and oversaw its restructuring from 2002 to 2005. Three and a half years after filing for Chapter 11, Polaroid was sold to Petters Group Worldwide for $426 million. Chairman Nasser and CEO J. Michael Pocock walked away with $12.8 million and $8.5 million, respectively. More than 4,000 retirees, meanwhile, received one-time checks for $47, and lost their medical and life insurance benefits.

[ANTAUS]

I've always hated Kmart and Sears...to me it was a marriage made in hell just like Chrysler and Fiat. Combining the worst of 2 different shopping venues. I've been asking for this for awhile...

[Cougarpower]

the difference with Kmart and Sears was that both had the same majority stockowner Eddie Lampert

[HeavyAaron]

For more examples of "successful bankruptcies" and/or mergers (and I use the term with all the dripping sarcasm and irony that can possibly be conveyed), just pick any non-SWA airline...

 

Which is the equivalent of saying "any unionized airline". The unionized airlines have all declared bankruptcy at one time or another, but SWA, non-unionized, even managed a profit fourth quarter 2001 (hard to believe, but true... rest of the airlines had to beg for a Federal bailout... sound familiar?). K-Mart, bankrupt - unionized. Walmart, super profitable - non-unionized. Crysler - unionized, bankrupt.... profitable auto manufactures - non-unionized.

 

Hmmm... is there a disernable pattern?

[Critic]

Which is the equivalent of saying "any unionized airline". The unionized airlines have all declared bankruptcy at one time or another, but SWA, non-unionized, even managed a profit fourth quarter 2001 (hard to believe, but true... rest of the airlines had to beg for a Federal bailout... sound familiar?). K-Mart, bankrupt - unionized. Walmart, super profitable - non-unionized. Crysler - unionized, bankrupt.... profitable auto manufactures - non-unionized.

 

Hmmm... is there a disernable pattern?

Actually their might be a good thing to this. Since all pensions will be gone in 30 years or so, and everyone has to save for their old age. And if all the unions are gone, business can finally cut wages down to the bare minimum. People will not have too much time to enjoy life. They will have to work a lot harder. It might slow population growth also, no bed-room time and couldn't afford to have more than 1 child.

 

Home sales may never pick up because of all that, and you sure has heck didn't need all the McMansions. Could be a good thing, No money for anything, you'd have to move back into your mommies and daddies place and live back in the basement with your family, and everyone crowd around the boob-tube and fight over what to watch. Same as what porn to watch on the one PC also.

 

I'm liking it already.

[HeavyAaron]

Actually their might be a good thing to this. Since all pensions will be gone in 30 years or so, and everyone has to save for their old age. And if all the unions are gone, business can finally cut wages down to the bare minimum. People will not have too much time to enjoy life. They will have to work a lot harder. It might slow population growth also, no bed-room time and couldn't afford to have more than 1 child.

 

Home sales may never pick up because of all that, and you sure has heck didn't need all the McMansions. Could be a good thing, No money for anything, you'd have to move back into your mommies and daddies place and live back in the basement with your family, and everyone crowd around the boob-tube and fight over what to watch. Same as what porn to watch on the one PC also.

 

I'm liking it already.

 

*eye roll* Yeah, because unions are the only things keeping wages from "bare minimum." While employees underbid each other to compete for a position companies bid up wages to compete for employees. Where the bids match is the market clearing rate for wages. Or did you think that all of we non-union employees worked for minimum wage?

 

Have you not noticed that over the past two generations that real wages (incomes adjusted for inflation) have soared while union membership has plummetted? Or that Right-to-Work states have had greater economic growth year over year with lower unemployment http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8951?

 

Please... keep the melodramatic disutopian imaginations to yourself.

[Critic]

*eye roll* Yeah, because unions are the only things keeping wages from "bare minimum." While employees underbid each other to compete for a position companies bid up wages to compete for employees. Where the bids match is the market clearing rate for wages. Or did you think that all of we non-union employees worked for minimum wage?

 

Have you not noticed that over the past two generations that real wages (incomes adjusted for inflation) have soared while union membership has plummetted? Or that Right-to-Work states have had greater economic growth year over year with lower unemployment http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8951?

 

Please... keep the melodramatic disutopian imaginations to yourself.

 

Oh hey pal.. I see their is a great great demand for economists these days, I also know, you have no real idea what goes on in the world, but hey, you just keep believing it. Your one of the first the crowd would look for.

 

I want to borrow your rose coloured glasses for my next job interview.

 

Your trying to tell me what to write on here? Your actually censoring me Mr. university economist? one who's daddy paid for his education.. you should be very worried your kids and grand-kids aren't moving back in with you MR.

[Critic]

I'm gonna add this here,... I intend to upset some people with this.. Know what a good, no great, battle plan is, Divide and conquer. Strip people from banding together for a common good. Pit someone with something against someone without something and then see what happens. No the day might come when there are very very few unions left, but I'd be willing to say that when that day finally arrives people might smarten up and one guy looks at the other and says "I'm with you buddy" and then it just starts all over again.

 

Mr. economist wanted to bring politics into this again. Yes, everything is local and boils down to politics.

 

So far they have the middle class eating each other up, over unions, great strategy, but I've enough faith in people to think you can't pull the wool over their eyes forever.

 

HOW much you make Aaron? Where do you work? I think most university faculty is unionized. And if your in a big name brand economist house, you aren't too worried, because your backup plan would be to teach. Those who can, do. those who can't, teach. Volvo or Saab? Tough decision to make, I know.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Critic

[HeavyAaron]

Oh hey pal.. I see their is a great great (SIC) demand for economists these days, I also know, you have no real idea what goes on in the world, but hey, you just keep believing it. Your (SIC) one of the first the crowd would look for.

 

The fact that I command a sizable wage indicates that yes, in fact there is a great demand for my skill set, thank you. You can, after all have a higher wage by having in demand skills instead of using cartel union strong arm tactics. I know you have trouble believing that. And I understand "the real world" just fine. Thank you for your concern, but it is unwarrented.

 

I want to borrow your rose coloured glasses for my next job interview.

 

I've provided evidence... you've provided ramblings. I don't know what else you want.

 

Your (SIC) trying to tell me what to write on here? Your (SIC) actually censoring me Mr. university economist? one (SIC) who's (SIC) daddy paid for his education..

 

Not that it's any of your business... but no, my parents could not afford to send me to school. In fact I'm the first in the family line to earn degrees. My parents charged me rent as a teenager, actually, while I was attending high school. I saved up and bought a house at the age of 19 and paid my way through the first year of school until I got a better job that paid for the rest of my education. I did have a small physics scholarship as well. Now that you know that, what difference does it make?

 

you (SIC) should be very worried your kids and grand-kids aren't moving back in with you MR.

 

Again, not that it's any of your business, but I haven't yet been blessed with children. And why would I be worried that they are not moving back in? Had they existed wouldn't I be concerned if they needed to move back in?

 

This will be my last reply on this tangent. I only bothered posting in this thread in that all of the companies listed as having gone into bankruptcy or not in their respective industries were unionized when bankrupt and not unionized when solvent. As an economist I consider that an eventuality. The free market acts like biological evolution with profit as the fitness function. And unions add a cost to operations lowering the fitness function. Thus those companies will eventually be selected for extention. But that's less obvious to some people so if the oppertunity presents itself pointing it out becomes a possible learning oppertunity. Of course some folks will never learn. For those I hold no hope.

[calypsocoral]

Oh hey pal.. I see their is a great great demand for economists these days, I also know, you have no real idea what goes on in the world, but hey, you just keep believing it. Your one of the first the crowd would look for.

 

I want to borrow your rose coloured glasses for my next job interview.

 

Your trying to tell me what to write on here? Your actually censoring me Mr. university economist? one who's daddy paid for his education.. you should be very worried your kids and grand-kids aren't moving back in with you MR.

 

Okay, he just posted a solid, coherent argument, and you counter with this tripe?

 

Edit- HeavyAaron beat me to a reply, and his reply basically says most of what I wanted to say, only better.

Edited April 30, 2009 by calypsocoral

[Critic]

This will be my last reply on this tangent. I only bothered posting in this thread in that all of the companies listed as having gone into bankruptcy or not in their respective industries were unionized when bankrupt and not unionized when solvent. As an economist I consider that an eventuality. The free market acts like biological evolution with profit as the fitness function. And (SIC)unions add a cost to operations lowering the fitness function. Thus those companies will eventually be selected for (SIC)extention. But that's less obvious to some people so if the (SIC)oppertunity presents itself pointing it out becomes a possible learning (SIC)oppertunity. Of course some folks will never learn. For those I hold no hope.

Well Mr. only one problem you didn't think about. The Unions in the countries shipping the products to this one. It's just here that you hate Unions. REMEMBER LECH WALESA?

 

 

Okay, he just posted a solid, coherent argument, and you counter with this tripe?

 

Edit- HeavyAaron beat me to a reply, and his reply basically says most of what I wanted to say, only better.

 

The USA Auto Sector produces more GDP than the WHOLE country of France. I see that once I hit reply, you had already deleted your post, but from memory, You want to compare high tech jobs that employ a fraction of the number of people (pharmaceutical) to an industry like auto's. Drivel? I highly doubt it, I have to dumb some things down for some to get it, yet they won't. Here is the truth for you, you won't like this either, as long as Ford makes a car, whether here or Europe or S.A. or Asia, their WILL BE a union. so get over it.

[NickF1011]

Here is the truth for you, you won't like this either, as long as Ford makes a car, whether here or Europe or S.A. or Asia, their WILL BE a union. so get over it.

 

For the time being. I think it would be a bit naive to say that the unions will undoubtedly be around forever.

[aneekr]

Which is the equivalent of saying "any unionized airline". The unionized airlines have all declared bankruptcy at one time or another, but SWA, non-unionized, even managed a profit fourth quarter 2001 (hard to believe, but true... rest of the airlines had to beg for a Federal bailout... sound familiar?). K-Mart, bankrupt - unionized. Walmart, super profitable - non-unionized. Crysler - unionized, bankrupt.... profitable auto manufactures - non-unionized.

 

Hmmm... is there a disernable pattern?

Yeah, a pattern of assertions with dubious veracity in your post.

1.) SWA is the most heavily unionized airline in the U.S., with 85% of its employees covered under collective bargaining agreements.

2.) KMart emerged from bankruptcy nearly six years ago and has since become part of Sears Holdings Corporation based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Some employees of the company (such as technicians at 24 Sears service centers in the U.S.) are unionized, but most aren't.

3.) Wal-Mart isn't "super profitable." Its net profit and operating margins of 3.59% and 5.86% (5 yr mean) respectively are well below that of the S&P 500 overall, at 12.17% and 17.77%.

4.) All major automotive OEMs worldwide support unionized workforces at some facility or another.

 

Please... keep the melodramatic disutopian imaginations to yourself.

Heed your own advice, buddy.

[HeavyAaron]

Well Mr. only one problem you didn't think about. The Unions in the countries shipping the products to this one. It's just here that you hate Unions. REMEMBER LECH WALESA?

 

*sigh* I didn't want to continue on this thread, but then you had to slander me with a false assertion. I can't let that stand lest someone believe it to be true.

 

No, I don't just have a distain for domestic unions, or even unions in general. I very much dislike all cartels and monopolies because of the inherent inefficiencies they entail. That includes things like OPEC, DeBeers, domestic AND foreign unions, and even things like patents and copyrights. Domestic unions are actually a very minor piece to a much larger problem.

 

Now patents and copyrights I understand we presently need. But it's my lifelong ambition to invent an efficient replacement incentive for innovation for the patent and copyright system that does not include the odious inefficiencies of cartels and monopolies.

 

So perhaps you can see why I am pationate on the topic? And I'm not in the least bit centered on domestic unions.

 

Nor am I biased against US auto manufactures as a customer or in any other manner. I'm not even sure how you'd arrive at such a notion. I tend to purchase Ford products, not because I'm biased TOWARDS Ford, either, but that I happen to like their products.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I would like to point out that Delta Airlines was only partially unionized. Their pilots and flight attendants were unionized, but their mechanics were not. During my dad's 33 years there, it came up for a vote several times, but was handidly defeated each time. Delta paid their mechanics within a few % of what the unionized airlines paid theirs, which was enough to keep the vote from passing. My dad was never under the illusion that that's what Delta wanted to pay them. They paid it to keep them from unionizing. HAd there been no unions at the other airlines, I'm sure that they all would have been compensated less.

 

And, pointing out that SWA survived and claiming that their being non-union had any part in it is looking at a tiny fraction of the issue at hand. SWA had a HUGE advantage over the other larger airlines when the economy tanked and the 9/11 incident hit. SWA had a drastically lower cost structure due to flying only one type of plane, the Boeing 737. That brings big savings in crew training, maintenance and other factors in the equation. They also had no long range international flights. They traditionally have much higher seat-mile costs than short hop domestic flights, with a huge factor being fuel prices. As oil prices climbed over the last half decade, that really hammered the long haul carriers in profitability. Those are all things that SWA didn't have to face in the same degree that the big boys had to. You also get into the longevity of the different airlines. The big boys had years and years of pension overhead to deal with due to having operated as long as they did. That is something that SWA, being younger than many of them, didn't have. Union or not, SWA would have had to offer those pensions, much like Delta did for their mechanics. If they didn't, they would have had to compensate their employees in another way, increasing their upfront labor costs.

 

All in all, SWA survived like they did due to having low operating costs which came as a result of their low cost, no frills, regional commuter model of doing business. They survived due to having very high efficiency aircraft operating in their optimal roles. Being union or not had little impact on their survival.

 

I'm no huge fan of unions, but, I do believe that they have a place. Especially in large businesses that view employees as just being numbers and not valued members of their team. It keeps a certain amount of humanity to the way they treat employees because they know that there is punishment to be had when they don't. The companies that have unions that are the most successful, however, are the ones that work closely with their unions and who's unions understand the business and operational needs of the companies they work with. They can not stand there inflexibly demanding that they receive large portions of their paycheck when the company has no revenue coming in for those employees. This is something that the automotive unions have taken years to come to terms with. I applaud them for finally realising that the union and the company need to be partners and not adversaries.

[HeavyAaron]

Yeah, a pattern of assertions with dubious veracity in your post.

1.) SWA is the most heavily unionized airline in the U.S., with 85% of its employees covered under collective bargaining agreements.

 

I stand corrected. They are unionized. Thanks for the information. Their history looks to be a little different and the pilot's union is seperate from the other airlines, so I'll look into this further. I appreciate being corrected on this.

 

2.) KMart emerged from bankruptcy nearly six years ago and has since become part of Sears Holdings Corporation based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Some employees of the company (such as technicians at 24 Sears service centers in the U.S.) are unionized, but most aren't.

 

I made no claims about percentages or situation post bankruptcy, only that K-Mart had unions prior to the bankruptcy, which is so.

 

3.) Wal-Mart isn't "super profitable." Its net profit and operating margins of 3.59% and 5.86% (5 yr mean) respectively are well below that of the S&P 500 overall, at 12.17% and 17.77%.

 

You've chery picked your end point... severely... using a shorter OR longer period Walmart beats the S&P (at least in the way I think you are comparing). That's academically dishonest.

 

4.) All major automotive OEMs worldwide support unionized workforces at some facility or another.

 

To wildly differing degrees, which I'm willing to wager correlate with current profitability (i.e. lower unionization = higher current profitability / lower net losses). Or do you doubt that?

[Critic]

I stand corrected. They are unionized. Thanks for the information. Their history looks to be a little different and the pilot's union is seperate from the other airlines, so I'll look into this further. I appreciate being corrected on this.

 

I made no claims about percentages or situation post bankruptcy, only that K-Mart had unions prior to the bankruptcy, which is so.

 

You've chery picked your end point... severely... using a shorter OR longer period Walmart beats the S&P (at least in the way I think you are comparing). That's academically dishonest.

 

To wildly differing degrees, which I'm willing to wager correlate with current profitability (i.e. lower unionization = higher current profitability / lower net losses). Or do you doubt that?

Get off your anti-union kick. You can try to belittle me, because I might show a working man's point of view, but suddenly when your shown some numbers you swiftly try to retract and then at the end You want to disregard that the same companies that have unions overseas do what they can here to keep them out of their plants here, as a battle plan. Do you understand the world of people that actually WORK? Your the only one ENTITLED to how you say a Very well compensated living?

 

In other words: willing to wager with current bias-ability, you just don't like unions or the word union.

 

Hospitals UNION

 

Fire Stations UNION

 

Police UNION

 

Trains UNION

 

Airlines UNION

 

Schools UNION

 

Autos UNION

 

Hotels UNION

 

That's what gets me, You will clamor for someones wages to be cut that you know what they make, BUT you will not divulge anything of your own, because you could be picked apart by others, You've actually suggested your better than someone that does physical labor.

 

THOUGHT you were history in this thread, but you just don't want people to dislike you. Right? But you can show contempt for an autoworker. Guess what, only about 4 or 5 of them post here, the rest are non-autoworker and they hate the unions too.

[macattak1]

Well, to me it is clear that Chrysler can not continue under the same model it has been under. That is mostly managements problem and fault. They gave too much and had nothing prepared for the future. When they had good times they were not amazingly good times. Their bad times have clearly been really bad. I am not a huge proponent of Bankruptcy. But sometimes, when adding up all the negatives from declaring Bankruptcy and all the negatives from not declaring, declaring can start to make sense. I am not accountant or economist or brankruptcy lawyer, but Chrysler seems the best suited for it. They are worth almost nothing so no one wants to buy them for much of anything which to me leads to that same or more heart ache and costs then a buyer slash and burning 60% of the company.

 

GM less so, has a greater market share, more product they can actually shed. But they have a mentality there that just does not seem to understand or grasp the situation they have allowed themselves to fall into.

 

I still think Ford has no desire and was never leaning on the backup idea of a Gov bail out. I think GM thought that would be how they would actually right their ship! Chrysler just wants someone else to take them over and fix their problems.

 

Unions made such inroads because employers could be such monsters. There were no laws to protect the health or safety of workers, etc. Thanks in much part to Unions we all have that now. However, Unions today for newer industries are only created when mgmt goes back to treating the employees like garbage. Unions are less about protecting their members. They have in too many cases become as corrupt or as much a part of the problem as the mgmt of the company has. Fair wages for a union were never the hall mark of being union. It was more about safety, health, respect, equitable treatment, and protection from random mgmt nightmares.

 

Aaron, I see no where that you have attacked or shown that you hate unions. But merely talking about them can get some riled up.

 

The big airlines I believe were horrible employers and were notoriously strong armed, corrupt, and mean. They are a perfect example of a place that needs a union. Further, they have rarely ever been profitable considering all the Fed money they have received and the wages they paid. Historically, and since their inception I believe the airlines have received a lot of money from the govt. propping them up.

 

Implying that Walmart does not have a good business model when they are the top earner year after year and do it in a business of micro profits is one of the sillier things I have read this month.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

Critic, you throw out attacks, belittle, and slander non of which I see Aaron doing.

[twintornados]

*sigh* I didn't want to continue on this thread, but then you had to slander me with a false assertion. I can't let that stand lest someone believe it to be true.

 

No, I don't just have a distain for domestic unions, or even unions in general. I very much dislike all cartels and monopolies because of the inherent inefficiencies they entail. That includes things like OPEC, DeBeers, domestic AND foreign unions, and even things like patents and copyrights. Domestic unions are actually a very minor piece to a much larger problem.

 

Now patents and copyrights I understand we presently need. But it's my lifelong ambition to invent an efficient replacement incentive for innovation for the patent and copyright system that does not include the odious inefficiencies of cartels and monopolies.

 

So perhaps you can see why I am pationate on the topic? And I'm not in the least bit centered on domestic unions.

 

Nor am I biased against US auto manufactures as a customer or in any other manner. I'm not even sure how you'd arrive at such a notion. I tend to purchase Ford products, not because I'm biased TOWARDS Ford, either, but that I happen to like their products.

Dude...you better learn how to spell if you intend to try to dazzle us with brilliance, otherwise you are only baffling due to your BS