Posted on 05/30/2009 1:34:43 PM PDT by Justaham
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Lee Iacocca, the car executive credited with saving Chrysler from bankruptcy in the 1980s, is to lose a big chunk of his pension and a guaranteed life-long company car due to the U.S. automaker's bankruptcy filing two decades later.
Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli told a U.S. bankruptcy court on Thursday that Iacocca's pension would be among the obligations Chrysler will no longer have to pay if it gets bankruptcy court approval to sell itself to a "New Chrysler" to be owned by its union, the U.S. and Canadian governments and Fiat SpA (FIA.MI).
(Excerpt) Read more at fe10.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com ...
Man, if I were Iacocca I would have demanded a FLEET of company cars every year, one of everything they made and a dozen of any of the really cool ones like the Viper. After what he did for Chrysler, they owe him bigtime.
Hey maybe they will again...
I sit at a red light every day infront of my local Chrysler dealership.
I haven’t seen one person looking at cars for a looong time.
sad whats happened.
that’s got nothing to do with it. The way I see it, the company is bankrupt. All pensions should be voided, including the union pensions. The shareholders are getting zip, and so should everyone else.
Poor Hildy she really should get out more. I have lots of Jewish friends. I love to take them to football games the just love to yell get that quarter back
Too true
This will be a full employment for attornies for years
Chrysler paid back Iacocca's bailout agreement with all interest
That's not even on the table under the current Obamanation
.
Chrysler should have been allowed to die in 1977. The bailout set a bad precedent, and it has really come back to bite us in the a$$.
Not a chance.
I doubt the loss of a car and pension will have any real impact on Iacocca. However, the way he was screwed over by the Ford family was very personal and vicious.
She has every right to call you a lot worse than that for this post.
I'm not sure what religion has to do with this thread, but Iacocca is a Catholic whose parents were Italian immigrants.
Also, the correct term is anti-Semite, not anti-Jew.
Kinda ironic how the architect of the first Chrysler bailout ran into this predicament.
She brought it up not me ask her
The gov loaned Chrysler and NY City money at roughly the same time. Iacocca bet Ed Koch that Chrysler would repay their loan first. Which they did.
Iacocca also worked for a $1 that first year. His appearance in the ad campaign was both a cost savings measure and a major ego stoke. He forced through the restart of the 10 year 100K mile warranty at a time when everyone thought it would sink the company. I think most of the 70's Chryslers fell apart before hitting either of those milestones.
Sure he's got a huge ego. You'd have to have one to tackle that kind of challenge. And yeah he was out to show Ford what a mistake they'd made in not making him president or CEO or whatever. But you can't deny that almost through sheer will he pulled Chrysler back from the bring.
I meant he brought it up
Actually, it WAS NOT a bailout. Congress guaranteed loans that Chrysler received from private sources and the loans were repaid early. And it should be noted that Chrysler’s financial problems stemmed from bad decisions that were made BEFORE he worked for them.
I realize that, I just copied you on the post.
no worries im just stiring the pot in a funny mood
The West Indians have wonderful saying that goes, “Roach don’t business in fowl fight.”
You don’t know what has previously come to pass, so keep out of it unless you want to be picked off and eaten by us fowls.
Regards.
Yes, it WAS a bailout, the government stepped in to avoid a bad company from going under.
It started the whole “Too Big to Fail” nonsense. Now the expectation was set that government would step in to avoid a big company from going under. And now here we are on the verge of fascism.
For the record, Hildy and I have a long and rocky history here on FR. We have both made posts to each other that were extremely nasty; however, they at least had something to do with the topic of thread.
As far as I know, jumping from thread to thread with a disagreement is still against the rules here.
Who is John Galt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.