Remington: partial summer shutdown at their plants

[chadbag]

Yes, it was the old Chrysler plant. They made electrical components there. Somewhere in 2002 to 2004 time frame Chrysler sold the plant to Siemens. They ran it for a while and ended up closing it and moving production to Mexico. During that same time Chrysler sold and/or closed a bunch of parts component plants.

NYH1.

Which makes sense, since Cerebus was involved with both Chrysler and Remington, so sale or transfer of facilities would be easily facilitated.

[Coal Dragger]

They need lean ownership & management.

More cutting their way to profits? Yeah that’s a great business model, worked so well up to this point.

Alternatively they could make quality products that don’t suck a bag of dicks. I realize that’s crazy talk though.

[titsonritz]

Well the good news is they won't be ****ing up any rifles for a little while.

[jsbhike]

More cutting their way to profits? Yeah that’s a great business model, worked so well up to this point.

Alternatively they could make quality products that don’t suck a bag of dicks. I realize that’s crazy talk though.

Lean ownership/management could be cutting their way to a better product versus how it is normally done in cutting quality so the top tier gets immediate rewards.

In the years preceding the 2008 bailouts, the top 8 US auto execs (vehicles not selling well, poor customer satisfaction) combined salaries were the equivalent of the top 27 or 28 Japanese auto executives which were selling autos well with good ratings.

[NYH1]

Which makes sense, since Cerebus was involved with both Chrysler and Remington, so sale or transfer of facilities would be easily facilitated.

Chrysler sold the Alabama plant to Siemens 3 or 4 years before Cerberus took over Chrysler. Cerberus was never involved with the Huntsville plant.

NYH1.

[NYH1]

Lean ownership/management could be cutting their way to a better product versus how it is normally done in cutting quality so the top tier gets immediate rewards.

In the years preceding the 2008 bailouts, the top 8 US auto execs (vehicles not selling well, poor customer satisfaction) combined salaries were the equivalent of the top 27 or 28 Japanese auto executives which were selling autos well with good ratings.

When Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler in 1998, the Chrysler CEO Robert Eaton was making about $11 million a year in base salary. The Daimler CEO Jurgen Schrempp was making about $1.5 million a year. Must of been pretty awkward in meetings seeing that Daimler owned 56% of the company.

NYH1.

[26 Inf]

When Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler in 1998, the Chrysler CEO Robert Eaton was making about $11 million a year in base salary. The Daimler CEO Jurgen Schrempp was making about $1.5 million a year. Must of been pretty awkward in meetings seeing that Daimler owned 56% of the company.

NYH1.

Maybe that level of compenation had something to do with Chrysler being on the market?

[NYH1]

Maybe that level of compenation had something to do with Chrysler being on the market?

In that time frame Chrysler, like the rest of the auto industry was doing great financially. The Daimler-Benz Chrysler deal was supposed to help both companies. They said, they were going to share platforms and drivetrains to streamline production making both companies more efficient. It never happened.

The amount CEO's are paid isn't an auto industry issue, it's a US issue. CEO's and upper management in the US are paid astronomically higher then most CEO's and upper management around the world in similar industries.

NYH1.

[Jsp10477]

Quit making s****y firearms they’d be fine. Old school 700’s and 870’s would keep them in business.

[26 Inf]

In that time frame Chrysler, like the rest of the auto industry was doing great financially. The Daimler-Benz Chrysler deal was supposed to help both companies. They said, they were going to share platforms and drivetrains to streamline production making both companies more efficient. It never happened.

The amount CEO's are paid isn't an auto industry issue, it's a US issue. CEO's and upper management in the US are paid astronomically higher then most CEO's and upper management around the world in similar industries.

NYH1.

Why? What are some differences?

I've always felt that the boards of most companies give out the salaries they do to CEO's because 1) it isn't their money and 2) dividends baby, dividends. Pretty simplistic. But, that is what I think. Long term health of the company or the work force are of little concern to these folks.

As I asked, different in Europe?