OBAMA Sacks Head GM America.

[csv8]

General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, administration officials said Sunday. The news comes as President Obama prepares to unveil additional restructuring efforts designed to save the domestic auto industry.

The officials asked not to be identified because details of the restructuring plan have not yet been made public. On Monday, Obama is to announce plans to restructure GM and Chrysler LLC in exchange for additional government loans. The companies have been living on $17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more.

Wagoner's departure indicates that more management changes may be part of the deal. Wagoner, 56, has repeatedly said he felt it was better for the company if he led it through the crisis, but he has faced sharp criticism on Capitol Hill for what many lawmakers regard as years of missteps, mistakes and arrogance by the Big Three automakers.

Wagoner joined GM in 1977, serving in several capacities in the U.S., Brazil and Europe. He became president and chief executive in 2000 and has served as chairman and CEO since May 2003.

Obama said Sunday that GM and Chrysler and all those with a stake in their survival need to take more hard steps to help the struggling automakers restructure for the future. In an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" broadcast Sunday, Obama said the companies must do more to receive additional financial aid from the government.

"They're not there yet," he said.

A person familiar with Obama's plans said last week they would go deeper than what the Bush administration demanded when it approved the initial loans last year.

Wagoner, in an interview with The Associated Press in December, had declined to speculate on suggestions from some members of Congress that GM's leadership team should step down as part of any rescue package.

"I'm doing what I do because it adds a lot of value to the company," Wagoner said in a Dec. 4 interview as GM sought federal aid from the Bush administration. "It's not clear to me that experience in this industry should be viewed as a negative but I'm going to do what's right for the company and I'll do it in consultation with the (GM) board (of directors)."

Wagoner has been credited by auto industry analysts with doing more to restructure the giant, bureaucratic automaker than any other executive. But given that he has been at GM's helm for so long, many of his critics say he moved far too slowly to take on the United Auto Workers and shrink the company as its market share tumbled.

While GM has improved its cars in the last two years, critics say the company relied for too long on sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles for its profits and was unprepared for a drastic market shift when gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon last year.

During the Congressional debate over whether to give GM and Chrysler loans last year, many lawmakers criticized Wagoner, including Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Banking Committee.

He accused automakers' top management of having a "head-in-the-sand" approach to problems and said Wagoner "has to move on" as part of a government-run restructuring that should be a condition of financial life support for the auto industry.

___

[Wretched]

GM and Chrysler do need a re structure but I don't think the Government should have any right to sack a CEO. That should be up to the board members and shareholders.

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by Wretched

GM and Chrysler do need a re structure but I don't think the Government should have any right to sack a CEO. That should be up to the board members and shareholders.

When the Government are the ones keeping these companies alive with their cash of course they have the right to sack the CEO's.

[imugli]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

When the Government are the ones keeping these companies alive with their cash of course they have the right to sack the CEO's.

Couldn't agree more.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

When the Government are the ones keeping these companies alive with their cash of course they have the right to sack the CEO's.

Does that set a precedence for the other companies asking for bailouts?
Rick should have went long time a go but I don't agree the President with little or no understanding of the industry should be able to do that.

Might GM become the new British Leyland?

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Does that set a precedence for the other companies asking for bailouts?
Rick should have went long time a go but I don't agree the President with little or no understanding of the industry should be able to do that.

Might GM become the new British Leyland?

The president doesn't make decisions, he rubber stamps them for the most part. Do you not think he has at least one adviser that may have industry knowlege? I am sure that the US government have done their homework and are making the right decision.

[chevypower]

Will it be 4 or 8 more years of socialism?

[DJR-351]

If he does go, i would be interested to see how much the "Golden Handshake" is worth....

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Cobra

The president doesn't make decisions, he rubber stamps them for the most part. Do you not think he has at least one adviser that may have industry knowlege? I am sure that the US government have done their homework and are making the right decision.

Let's just hope that this so called adviser has a good knowledge of the car industry and of business. Unlike the farce of Steve Bracks having been appointed to advise on the future of the Australian car industry.

[imugli]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Does that set a precedence for the other companies asking for bailouts?
Rick should have went long time a go but I don't agree the President with little or no understanding of the industry should be able to do that.

Might GM become the new British Leyland?

I hope it does.

I am against bailouts. Period. But if the government is going to be susidising these companies that would otherwise fail yes, they should call the shots and they should get rid of a lot more of the CEOs if they are the ones that presided over the actions that lead to this.

Only problem with this is that govts are notoriously BAD at running businesses, thus we have capitalism, thus I don't believe in the bailouts. Let them fall, I say.

[GT0132]

[QUOTE=Wretched]Does that set a precedence for the other companies asking for bailouts?
Rick should have went long time a go but I don't agree the President with little or no understanding of the industry should be able to do that.

QUOTE]

I think so.....If you owned a business, and were in the CEO/MD role and fell on hard times and came to me for financial support (otherwise failure imminent) I'd support you provided that (1) I saw your business had a promising future and (2) I had a 51% equity stake in your business including board voting rights.

If you stuffed up I'd exercise my voting rights to fire you and get a good manager in your place to protect my investment. Irrelevant whether I know the industry your business is in or not...My new manager will look after all that operational stuff for me once you're gone.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

When the Government are the ones keeping these companies alive with their cash of course they have the right to sack the CEO's.

What he said....

[Elks]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

When the Government are the ones keeping these companies alive with their cash of course they have the right to sack the CEO's.

He who pays the piper call the tune....

If Wagoner was so brilliant why after 6 years at the helm are they begging for money.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Wretched

GM and Chrysler do need a re structure but I don't think the Government should have any right to sack a CEO. That should be up to the board members and shareholders.

Actually this happens more often than you think; lenders such as banks and other large creditors do have the ability to force a change of management simply by refusing to re-new or lend a crucial loan in the first place.

[Bundy]

Originally Posted by Wretched

GM and Chrysler do need a re structure but I don't think the Government should have any right to sack a CEO. That should be up to the board members and shareholders.

I think at this stage "$17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more." makes the man in the white house and the rest of the US population, a pretty big shareholder.

Heads should roll, literary, in all their greedy institutions!

[JC]

Originally Posted by Wretched

GM and Chrysler do need a re structure but I don't think the Government should have any right to sack a CEO. That should be up to the board members and shareholders.

And the government tipping in $40 BILLION shouldn't have a say - you have to be kidding.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by JC

And the government tipping in $40 BILLION shouldn't have a say - you have to be kidding.

Bloody oath they should !

The government there MUST "invest" this "peoples" money only in the case where they are sure that the UTMOST is being done to make these businesses viable. Putting too much of this "good money" after bad just means the likes of GM will only be back for more time and again.

The people running GM and Chrysler haven't made the hardest decisions that need to be made, it's time that someone pushed them into doing just that.

I say good on the administration over there for doing something to save an American Icon, and also for trying to save the jobs of as many Americans in that industry as possible. The Wagoner incident underlines how serious they are - someone had to go so a statement could be made !

[Jason[98.EL]]

What sort of implications will this have on GMH here in aus

it doesn't sound to promising it could lead to the end of Holden here.

just my 2c worth

Jason

[Gaz]

They aren't 'sacking' him as such. They are offering a choice, continue as is - or - if you want money from us then get rid of that guy and we will give it to you.

The decision is made by GM and its board.

Fair enough call.

[scradley_6666]

The government lives off my taxes... can i sack Kevin??
Jokes, Obama doing the right thing again and not afraid to do the hard work...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by scradley_6666

The government lives off my taxes... can i sack Kevin??
Jokes, Obama doing the right thing again and not afraid to do the hard work...

Just need to be careful when 'doing the right thing' may force GM, Chrysler on getting rid of large capacity engines.

[Ghiadude]

Notice how ford isnt mentioned other than the implied "Big Three"

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by tx3dude

Notice how ford isnt mentioned other than the implied "Big Three"

The article isn't positive. I think it's good that Ford isn't explicitly stated.
It names Chrysler and GM and states how they're dependent on dole money from the government.

Public perception is everything in the automotive world.

To mention Ford in an article that basically alludes to the fact that the US' motor industry is up the creek without a paddle may potentially lead people further away from these companies.

It's known fact now that Ford is managing their own affairs, and not dependent on the US government to stay alive.

Just my observation anyhow.

[imugli]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

I think it's good that Ford isn't explicitly stated.

I think that's what he was implying.

[LeadFoot81]

Im glad Ford weren't mentioned (negatively) in the article, but it would've been nice to read that the company is manging its own affairs, rather than depending on the govt.

[snappy]

Glad you boys watch that doco to , Obama deception. When ever i hear the mans name spoken now just make me wonder . cant help to think is there a other motive behind this .

[GK]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Glad you boys watch that doco to , Obama deception. When ever i hear the mans name spoken now just make me wonder . cant help to think is there a other motive behind this .

It's rather naive to think that the free market economy is really free. It's also crazy to think that people, businesses, huge conglomerates etc, etc, will not try to exercise their power to get more and control as much as they can.

Our own leaders have to have some serious backing to get to the top. It's Interesting that Rudd is making the same noises as Obama, especially with the raft of taxes about to be imposed with the great charade of GW.

I guess the people have to be afraid before they will easily give up their freedoms and money. Frightened people are far more controllable. Nothing scares people like a global threat!

GK

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

When the Government are the ones keeping these companies alive with their cash of course they have the right to sack the CEO's.

The same government that kept the banks alive with the 10 trillion dollar bailout during the credit crisis, a bailout that was supposedly going to put an end to the credit crunch which everyone on earth was to be affected by?

What happened to the $10 trillion? And why isn't the US government now controlling these select few banks? The question is simple, and so is the answer.

Simply put, as Bent8 suggests, Obama is a puppet, just like the blokes before him. But I must disagree on one thing, Bent8; a slave is given more dignity.

[snappy]

you cant expect obama to get rid of the banks ceo's . Would not be very nice after they gave him his job.

[snappy]

It's Interesting that Rudd is making the same noises as Obama, especially with the raft of taxes about to be imposed with the great charade of GW.

Can you elaborate on this please. did not quite get what you meant.