GM and Chrysler Crumble

Chrysler and GM have filled bankruptcy.  These are two major employers, not just in North America but in the world.  This is why the government offer bailouts to these companies, so as to avoid a major layoff country wide.  I certainly don't want those people to lose their jobs, but why does the story seam to end here?  I hear in the news about how GM and Chrysler have both been able to get the auto unions to cut back wages, but what above the line cut backs?  If any other business, small or large, had run this many non profit years, what would happen.  Someone is loosing their job!  And not some factory worker or office intern somewhere.  Any other board of directors would have brought their General Manager or CEO into the boardroom and fired them a long time ago!  I'm sure they would have thrown in a nice severance package, more money then I'll make in a decade, but fired non the less.  But have we herd about any above the line layoffs?  Yes, General Motor did fire their CEO, Steve Wagoner, but they had to be told to do so by the US government as post of the bailout strategy.  Thats a good thing right?  The problem was the board of GM couldn't decided what was a fair severance package so they keep Wagoner on the payroll!  He was on the payroll for at least seven weeks, I don't know how long he was being paid for beyond that.  Can anyone think of a reason this company might be have financial troubles?  But even letting Wagoner go, is that enough?

Compare General Motors to a Hockey Franchise.  The way I understand it a hockey franchise yearly budgets are based on projected income for the season and breaking even at the end of the regular season.  So there is no profit unless the team makes it to the play offs.  General Managers and Coaches commonly get fired for not making the play offs after only one season.  The company is not in debt, it broke even for the year but people in charge are being fired.  At General Motors they run a deficit year after year, and nothing.

How could these major car manufacturers, the once kings of the industry, be in such trouble?  I think one major contributor is from over competing.  These companies have all evolved over the years, but I remember when I was a kid it seemed to me that each company had their own little corner of the automobile market.  For Chrysler it was the mini van.  They also had their Jeep line with the CJ and then the Wrangler.  Ford was trucks and mustangs.  Mazda was little sporty cars, Toyota was the small pickup, and so on and so forth.  General Motors was just that, general.  They had the Cadillac line, a strong Pick up, and the Blazer/Jimmy.  But then they all wanted a piece of each others pie.  Chrysler reinvented the Pickup truck with the new Rams.  Nissan and Toyota both make full sized pickups.  SUV, vans, compact, mid sized, small pick up, etc.  Everyone is making a little of everything and few are making anything good.  They had their markets, had they stayed at what they were good at, would they be in better shape now?  Maybe, but their products sure would.

Starbucks had done the same thing.  Starbucks had a corner of the coffee market all to themselves.  They had people who wanted expensive, specialty coffees fast and nobody could touch them.  Starbucks also made it impossible to go anywhere and NOT find an outlet.  But it wasn't good enough.  They had to take a step back and say, who else is selling coffee and how can we get some of their market too.  It started with McDonalds.  Studies showed that a large number of consumers stopped at McDonalds for a coffee and egg mcmuffin.  Starbucks wanted that crowd too and introduced the Breakfast sandwich.  They had to renovated millions of stores to make room for the new toasters.  Did they really need this market, no.  Did they get this market?  Probably not.  The people that go for McDonalds coffee are probably not willing to pay more for a different crappy breakfast sandwich.  Then Starbucks moved into Tim Horton's customer base by introducing Donuts.  Where did they end up.  Bankruptcy.  What did they do thought?  Fired the CEO.    

Returning to General Motors, another contributer to their financial downturn is how spread out they are.  How many divisions does GM have?  They have 8 brands under the GM heading in the United States and Canada.  According to the US website there are 102 different cars available and 52 on the Canada site.  Lets break down the Canada site a little bit.

SUV/Crossovers. 20.  The Chevrolet Equinox and Pontiac Torrent are almost identical.  Why does GM have to have two of the same car under two names.  Because one will appeal to the Chevy market and one will appeal to the Pontiac fans.  How much money does it cost to develop the changes of the second car.  Different grill, instrument panels, hub cabs, etc.  And do you think there is a Vice President of both Chevrolet and Pontiac?  What if you eliminated one?  Take the best selling and throw away the other.  They are likely make at the same factory, so there is no job loss.  Instead of making a million of each, make 2 million of one.  Less cost, same output.  What about the other 18 SUV/crossovers?  How many are close enough to the other that it could fall off the face of the earth and no one would be the wiser.  

What about research money?  How much research money goes into updated each model every year.  Every car has to be a little "better" then it was last year, and if we can find a way to build it cheaper, thats good to.  I say no more research and development into cars they already make.  Put 80% of the RnD budget into advancing technologies and stop holding onto the pass.  Lets not worry so much on how to make the suburban more aerodynamic, lets get the electric cars rolling, or Hydrogen technology.  Its time to make a newer better car, not remake an old crappy one.

GM plans to drop Hummer, Saab, Saturn, and Pontiac, closing plants and dealerships across the country.  Maybe some of these plants could have been saved by the development of newer better cars, hard to say.  But for me it still boils down to why are the below the line employees the only one being hit with job and wage losses?  How many jobs could be saved by eliminating 

one executive position?  The worst thing about these kinds of scenarios is while millions of people are loosing their jobs, the millionaires are still millionaires and they are still making millions.  The rich getting rich while the poor stay poor! 

Court forces Minnesota teen into Cancer Treatment

Please read this article.  

Initially I was outraged by this article.  I do not think that in most cases a court has any right to determine what a family or person should do with their medical or dietary options.  I will site other examples later.  But after reading into this a little more, my view on this case started to change.  The family says that they are rejecting conventional therapy for religious reasons.  My first thought was why did they go through with the first treatment if that was the case?  This feeling was confirmed by medical blogger, "Respectful Insolence," who's two part blog has a lot of very helpful information about the medical point of view behind this case.  I personally have seen this religious way of treating rip two sisters apart.  One insisted that whatever happen was Gods will, and the other that it didn't mean she couldn't seek some sort of treatment.  In the Hauser case though, I was at least encouraged that they were seeking other treatments.  But then there is the issue that this 13 year old boy claims to be not only a medicine man, but also an elder of an American Indian religion called Nemenheh.  At 13?  I realize that in the days before the european settlers, most Indian men when through a ritual of becoming men around the age 13, but I don't think they were appointed Medicine men or Elders quite so early.  Maybe I'm wrong.

So as I dug deeper into the case I started siding with Judge Rodenbergs decision, but I still say government intervention is a slipper slope.  At what age can a child be held accountable for his own decisions?  Ultimately the choice should be the child's and NOT the parents, but how can a child make this decision on his own?

There are bigger issues at play here though.  one of which is that the family should not be criticized for seeking alternative treatments.  "Respectful Insolence," will disagree with me here, but Science is not always right.  The conventional medical way is not the only way.  And frankly, medicine is more big business then it is about healing.  People like Brenda Cobb have overcome breast and cervical cancer without drugs or surgery but by using detoxification methods and nutrition.  You can read her story at The Living Foods Institute website, or which Brenda is Founder and Director.  The website has some other testimonials of people that have avoid drugs and surgery with diet.

"Respectful Insolence," writes about another case where a woman rejected conventional treatment for an alternative by a Dr Robert O. Young.  In the specific case the patient reported that Dr Young's treatment had cured her of breast cancer even though she can still feel the lump.  This is very irresponsible and she should be returning for further testing.  I have not followed Dr Young and don't know much about his practices.  According to his website cancer can be prevented and even cured with a pH balanced alkaline diet.  I have herd of this before and know that the medical community for the most part says this does not hold water.  

Dr Young is not the first to use this method.  Dr Otto Warburg has done great research in the area of cancer.  He discovered that the primary cause of cancer is weakening cell structure due to lack of oxygen at the cellular level.  The damaged cell respiration causes fermentation, which results in low pH.  When Dr. Warburg announced his finding how did his peers react?  By giving him the Noble Prize in 1931.  I have to admit, Dr Warburg's studies do lean toward prevention not treatment, and it could be easy to see how once cancer has taken a strong hold, dietary actions my be like putting a band-aid on a severed arm.  

As I was preparing to write a closing statement, I came across the news the Daniel and his mother Colleen Hauser have disappeared.  I guess having the States view pushed onto them was too overwhelming and they ran.  Probably not the best option!  Now once found, Colleen and husband Anthony will loose custody of their son and not even be able to support him in the tough times he has ahead of them.  

In the mean time, my heart goes out to the Hauser family.  May the find peace in whatever outcome they find.  Although that is unlikely now.

Response to Profitabiity vs social responsibility?

I recently read a Blog by Carbon Trader called Profitability vs. Social Responsibility?  This is my response.

I think it can be easier for a small or medium size business to be social responsible.  The Carbon Trader used an example of a large bank making billions of dollars in profits and investing 100 millions in Social Responsibility.  Thats all great, but I think the real issue of Social Responsibility in Big business isn't so much what it does with its profit, but what it does to make those profits.  

If Hypothetical Manufacturing Inc has been building gidgets for 50 years but hasn't updated its factories in almost as long, they should have a social responsibility to clean up their carbon footprint.  Their factory may have lived up to the standards of the day but times have changed.  What if they can save money by buying carbon credits, or even paying the fines, instead of updating their equipment.  Digging into their own pockets and making the changes even if it is not the best option finically speaking, IS Social Responsibility.  Cleaning up their act without being forced to by legislation is Social Responsibility.  

In the case of a smaller business, updating equipment or changes methods is a smaller job.  The big company has Millions maybe Billions of dollars in upgrades where as a small company only has thousands or 10s of thousands of dollars in upgrades.  Now the profit levels aren't as high, but neither is the priority level.  

For example Hypo Manufacturing may have a carbon footprint of 250,000 tons/day and Joe Blow Contacting might have a footprint of 250 tons/week.  Hypo spends $25,000,000 on replacing the filtering system reducing it footprint by 10% to 225,000 tons/day.  Joe Blow might lease a Smart Car for $160 per month for driving from job site to job site and to meeting etc and reduce his footprint by 10% to 225 tons/week.  Same percent outcome for much less strain on the bottom line.  

Smaller companies should have just as much commitment to Social Responsibilities.  Every little bit helps.  Rocky Mountain Flat Bread is a relatively small business with Two restaurants, one in Canmore, Alberta and the other in Vancouver, BC.  They have chosen a Social Responsible way of operating by Composting food waste, using bio-degradable packaging, low flush toilets, buying "Ocean Wise," seafood, using recycled products in the restaurant, using waste wood as fire wood, and buying organic and local as much as possible.  This is one small business making Social Responsible decisions.

Social Responsibility goes far beyond environment issues of course.  There is always the issue of foreign manufacturing and human rights that go along with it, be it child labour or safe work environments with fare pay.  Or the issue of responsible use of natural resources or the effect on natural habitat.  Is it Socially Responsible to produce Nuclear if using a nearby lake for cooling is heating up the lake and killing off the fish stock?  Or to use the limited drinking water in a third world country for manufacturing?  Or is it Ok to use slave labour to make clothing in order to keep the cost of the product down, or the profits up?  

Every company, big or small, is responsible for its actions and the effect they have on others around them.

Keep it Simple

Whenever I come across a blog or article that is environmental and controversial in some way, the comments become more interesting than the source.  More times then not a full blown war breaks out between the lefties and the righties.  Most of the time, I forget what the origins of the argument was in the first place.  One time in particular, and I don't remember the article, someone commented about the Left Wing propaganda machine backing the Climate Change Movement.  He went on to write that New York wasn't under water yet and polar bars weren't extinct.  People responded with, once New York was under water would be a good time to start worrying about the situation.  This evolved into a political debate and so on and so forth.  

The problem is for every person that gives evidence that climate change is a serious problem, someone else gives evidence that it is not.  So I have been putting together a few really simple scenarios, a super basic way to look at all kinds of different controversial opinions and some not so controversial.  Tell me what you think.

If you are locked inside your garage with a running car, what will happen?  Keeping it as simple as possible, you will die!  The car will kill you.  How could you prevent this?  Shut off the car.  If it is a good thing to shut off your car in a garage, how could it not be a good thing to shut that same car off whenever possible out in the rest of the world.  The gasses coming from the car will kill you.

If you had a glass of water and made a cocktail of pesticide, fertilizer and herbicide, then drank this cocktail, what would happen?  You would become very ill and possible die, especial if you had one of this drinks everyday.  How could you avoid this outcome?  Don't mix these chemicals into your water.  How could it not be a good thing to keep these chemicals away from our water sources?

If you threw all your trash into one garbage pail in your home, and never emptied that trash can, what would happen.  Your home would fill with garbage.  How can you stop or at least slow this down?  By not throwing so much stuff into the garbage pile.  You could make an effort to bring less packaging into your home in the first place, or recycle or reuse what you can.  We only have one home, earth, and all our garbage has to go somewhere.  How could it not be a good thing to reduce, however you do it, the amount of trash that we throw away.

If you had a tree in your yard, and you cut down that tree and turned it into paper products, once you used up your paper products where will you get more?  You could change this to your own oil well, water source, etc.  So how could it be a bad thing to limit your usage of these resources, recycle what you do us, and reuse whenever possible.

I know it's not as easy and straight forward as that, but those are my thoughts.

A new Blog

Everyone knows there is a lot of information out there, especially on the internet.  I have learned something since I started using twitter and that is, there is A LOT of information out there.  Every time I log on I find something new, and what's more, I have an opinion about it.  So I have created this new blog in hopes that you and others like you, might find what I have to say interesting.  Maybe not, and if thats the case you can not read it.  Lets give this a try and see how it goes.  Good luck to us both.