Toronto Transit - "The Better Way"

[embalmer42]

Originally posted by Wezil


Nobody wanted to talk about drunken bus drivers. I thought Asher would at least bring up the training and skill involved for the job but he didn't.

Actually, my comment was directed at Asher, not yourself

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Jesus, Wezil, it's this simple: if the contract has a clause that allows GM to get out early, and GM gets out early per that clause, then GM didn't do anything wrong.

Okay, it seems you are interested in a rational discussion although I really am not the messiah...

There is a clause that allows a plant to close if sales don't warrant it staying open. The problem (as shown in a Globe article this morning) is that sales for the product made at this plant did not drop from the time the contract was signed until the contract was reneged on two weeks later.

[Kuciwalker]

That seems sneaky but within the rules, and basically the union's fault. I'll admit I'm biased, though, as I hate unions even more than I hate GM.

[Wezil]

How is it within the rules and how could it possibly be the unions fault (unless you feel they should presuppose GM will bargain in bad faith...)?

[Kuciwalker]

here is a clause that allows a plant to close if sales don't warrant it staying open.

It's entirely plausible that the sales didn't warrant it staying open at the time the contract was signed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

here is a clause that allows a plant to close if sales don't warrant it staying open.

It's entirely plausible that the sales didn't warrant it staying open at the time the contract was signed.

I think people tend to forget that in massive companies, not everyone knows everything. The guy negotiating the contract with a bunch of rednecks in Canada probably doesn't have all of the top-secret "sales suck" information upper brass has.

To me this is far more likely than GM intentionally promising this, knowing full well they'd cancel it later just to save a couple bucks per hour for the last year the plant is opened, and to the tune of paying $30M in fees...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

here is a clause that allows a plant to close if sales don't warrant it staying open.

It's entirely plausible that the sales didn't warrant it staying open at the time the contract was signed.

And that would be bad faith. Signing a contract you have no intention of following from the beginning.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


And that would be bad faith. Signing a contract you have no intention of following from the beginning.

Maybe the people who signed it in GM Canada had every intention of signing it, but the corporate overlords in the USA had no intention of producing trucks the market doesn't want?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
And that would be bad faith. Signing a contract you have no intention of following from the beginning.

1) Along Asher's lines, it's entirely possible that you had two competing factions in GM - one for keeping it open, which managed to get approval to do the contract, and one (which later won) for closing it.

2) They did follow the contract, assuming it didn't make sense to keep the plant open.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


1) Along Asher's lines, it's entirely possible that you had two competing factions in GM - one for keeping it open, which managed to get approval to do the contract, and one (which later won) for closing it.

Corporate law doesn't work that way. The corp is bound by what was signed by its officers. If some officers didn't know then that is their problem.

2) They did follow the contract, assuming it didn't make sense to keep the plant open.

How did they follow the contract? What new information appeared in the two weeks since signing that changed everything?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Corporate law doesn't work that way. The corp is bound by what was signed by its officers. If some officers didn't know then that is their problem.

This doesn't matter, there is a provision for terminating the contract early which is why GM is paying tens of millions of dollars in punishment fees.

How did they follow the contract? What new information appeared in the two weeks since signing that changed everything?

Are you accusing GM of intentionally signing the contract with the guaranteed employment clause, knowing full well in two weeks they'd break it off and pay tens of millions of dollars in fees and face a PR backlash all to save a 2% raise for its workers for the remaining year the plant is open?

Because this is what it is sounding like. And that is crazy.

Given what we know about GM, it is a bumbling incompetent company that can't make decisions to save its life (literally). Perhaps there was a power struggle internally. Perhaps the factions didn't know WTF each one was talking about. None of this matters, what happened happened and the union needs to take the punishment fees GM will pay and get over it. Forcing GM to keep the plant open making gas-guzzling trucks no one is buying helps no one in the end.

BTW, isn't it amazing that McGuinty just days ago was blasting other provinces for not caring about the environment, and here he is using taxpayer money to try to keep GM from making gas-guzzling trucks the market isn't even demanding?