This is just an interesting note. GM cancelled several hundred dealerships in Canada as well as the US. My very limited understanding of this is that GM offered imideate termination or termination 18 months down the road. My Tahoe Hybrid come from a small town dealer in Canada they were on there third generation and had been a dealer for 80 years. They were responsible for there inventory and parts. They always paid there GM fees and were a cash business with no debt selling maybe 250 new vehicles a year. They were cancelled by GM. GM issued a letter to all new vehicle owners from the dealership that this was occuring and they issued letters to the remaining GM dealerships about the orphed owners. I have a great dealership that I work with and looks after our Hybrid. However I have noticed in larger cities that dealerships will move you to second string if you did not purchase the vehicle from them. To a degree I understand this as a large city may have several GM dealers, however what I do no like is those of us who are loyal GM owners that were orphed, GM should list those vehicles to dealers as this was not our decision. I just wanted to note this. Always GM at heart.

 

In the States, it wasn't just GM that caneclled franchises - they had instructions from the Imperial Federal Government on WHO to cancel. Is it a cooincidence that most of those cancelled contributed to the GOP and not to the Democrat Party?

There are markets where a manufacturer can be over-represented, and a dealership selling fewer than 300 units a year is marginal ---but you have to believe there was politics involved when the cancellations came out like they did.

 

I'd like to see some credible evidence of that claim, Red. Sound bogus to me, as someone who followed the process.
They had a list, and those that did not move 1,000 a year or were low on the CS ratings were likely on it. Then the did a lot of analysis of locations vs. other dealers with the understanding that there would be four core brands left standing and some "auto parks" would have too many dealers.
IMHO, saying the gov't had a say in the list is up there with the two-shooters, hiding UFOs and the US gov't planning the 9/11 attacks.

 

It is just not that simple. And either way it pisses you off. These are hard working Americans (Canadians) that built a business and were courted by GM. For any government to come in and tell you how to run your business is horrible. But they did. How they did it is pure spectulation and more political than I will participate in discussion wise. But, my dealer is still in business and it is small town. But...they have clout behind them, guarantee the clout is republican, but they sell about 80-90% pickups with a small mix of SUV's. So I don't believe the fixed 1000 units or the 300. It is a sliding scale and we don't know the inside scoop. It sux is the bottom line.

I would go to whatever dealer I was pawned off on with letter in hand and get to the owner/manager of that dealership. Not the service manager or sales manager, they main manager. I would introduce myself and make sure he knew I would be satisfied with nothing less than the VIP treatment that I had received previous. Let them know how you feel about GM and the product. Let them know you are a long time GM owner/advocate. And let them know that you aren't happy but you want to be. Make it his business to see to it that you are not put on the bottom of the list but instead, a loyal customer! Best you can do...

 

Well Said Mel !!
I would think that after selling the GM product for 80 yrs and three generations it would mean something. Its kind of like the GM ad in Canada last year that showed the ton trucks built for the military in WWII, We have been here a long time and built the most trucks.

 

Really? GM is given our hard earned tax dollars and we have no say on how those tax dollars are spent? That doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, if you run a business without taking my tax dollars, the government should not have any say on how you run that business, provided you pay your taxes and follow the laws and regulations.

The whole melt down happened because the lobbyists convinced the Bush government to remove many of the safeguards and regulations that ensured stable financial institutions. I suppose the government should not tell the banks how to run their businesses either? That's how it works in third world countries.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, it is not intended as a personal attack...just as fact...opinions are like a - - - - - - s...everbody has one. As I mentioned before, I am not discussing the political sides of any of this. Government as a whole, whether democrats or republicans have no business trying to run a company. Regulations are not up to the White House. In the United States, we have a 3 branches of government for the checks and balances that was set up by our forefathers. The executive branch does not legislate or judge. Period.
The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.
With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

The three branches of the U.S. Government are the legislative, executive, and judicial.
The White House doing all three is a breech and should not be allowed. But under executive emergency order, they get away with things they shouldn't.

You are right, it was our money and since the government is "the people", then the "people" are making the decision on how the money is spent. While I don't agree with the method, I go along with the majority because that is the form of government we have. I also support my President and his staff whether I agree or disagree, or whether he was my candidate or not...He is my President, the representative elected by the "people" (even if it was the electorate in some cases).

 

Hey Mel,

Well said.

I sometimes look for things to disagree with - the devil's advocate approach. It makes things more interesting. None of this personal.

Just good and healthy debate.

Now post something again I can disagree with...

 

Mel,
I agree with you there is no place for the President of the United states to fire the GM CEO. Where is he in the share holder list???? Besides what business experience does he have??? I like Obama but come on he is out of his league here and to some degree with military issues, even though he is commander and chief.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong, he is the MAN. But he is beyond the power of his office IMHO. I believe in our system of government and it is designed to have adequate checks and balances...that reeks however. Now, did he fire him or was it just an unwritten agreement? Who knows for sure. No offense taken Canuck, none at all. Feel free to disagree. I am quite capable of sticking my own foot in my mouth however! I don't need much help on that! I admit whole heartedly...I hate politics. Kind of like going to a wrestling match...sure somebody always gets hurt, but does that mean it isn't rigged?