GM Bankruptcy & Test Track

[GrumpyFan]

The following is a snippet from a NY Times article this morning (06/01/09). It doesn't say specifically what will happen to Test Track, but it doesn't sound good.
The moment will reverberate beyond G.M.’s epicenter in Detroit, to factory towns in other parts of Michigan and in states like Indiana, Tennessee and Louisiana. It will even be felt on Fifth Avenue in New York, where it built its financial headquarters, and Epcot at Walt Disney World in Florida, where G.M. sponsors the Test Track Pavilion, a showcase of its latest cars.
More details will probably take some time before they're made know to the public.

[brownie]

The contract expires this year, so it may end up not being renewed by GM, although it does create a lot of visibility for GM. I don't think you'll see Test Track go away; I think it's too popular of an attraction.

[medic9016]

There was a thread about this before, that Toyota was interested after the GM contract expired. Test track is probably not going anywere.

[JabberJaws]

Yeah you definitely won't see the ride itself go away, but I imagine GMs sponsorship will end. This isn't uncommon at WDW though as sponsorships are usually contracted for a specific period of time (for example FedEx's sponsorship of SM, which I NEVER liked by the way b/c the postshow was basically one big long advert for FedEx!)

If, for example, Toyota picks up sponsorship of the ride, you will at least see changes to the postshow area (and removal of all references to GM in the ride itself). More than likely though you will eventually see changes, albeit probably minor, to the ride itself.

I am sure a company like Toyota would want to mold the actual ride to reflect their actual test procedures.

Regardless, IMO the ride could use a good update anyways, so this is probably a good thing!

[Goofster]

Probably depends on how much GM spends on it and whether its considered a marketing line item for them. Now that they have less brands to market, seems like they can afford to better market the ones they're keeping!

[1DisneyNut]

Test Track is just another ride like any of the other rides. They just sold sponsorship rights to GM and the contract expires this year. If Toyota or someone else picks it up they will replace the references to GM with Toyota and make a new video using Toyota vehicles. Its time to make a new video anyway, the GM cars in the video are from the 90's for crying out loud. Even if they don't get a new sponsor the ride will continue because it is one of the most popular at Epcot. They will just remove all sponsor references and make a new video. I'm not a big fan of the sponsorship of rides and using them as basically one big commercial to us while we are trying to have fun but that is corporate America these days. It was cool to come out of the ride and see a brand new Corvette sitting there sometimes though. :mickey:

[Child of EPCOT]

Boot GM and turn it back into World of Motion!

"World of Motion 2: We said it's fun to be free, dang it!" :mickey:

Oh well, I can dream... :cloud9:

[PETE FROM NYC]

Boot GM and turn it back into World of Motion!

"World of Motion 2: We said it's fun to be free, dang it!" :mickey:

Oh well, I can dream... :cloud9:

This one I agree with.I was never a big fan of Test Track.I think World of Motion was a much better attraction.I loved the animatronics. I am just not into thrill rides.

[Daddy Mouse]

Since the Government owns 60% of GM. The government gets its authority from the people. I am part of the people. Therefore, I own 60% of TT.:beer::beer::thumbsup:

[TheRustyScupper]

1) Would Toyota want a ride that breaks down so often?
2) Would that not reflect upon Toyota's renowned quality?

[Mickey'sGirl]

2) Would that not reflect upon Toyota's renowned quality?
Toyota's perceived quality you mean....

[big blue and hairy]

1) Would Toyota want a ride that breaks down so often?


I don't know, am I just that lucky, or are Test Track's breakdowns overstated somewhat. I've ridden that ride a lot, and only had a problem once, although I did see that it wasn't working one other time.

:sulley:

[pdrlkr]

I don't know, am I just that lucky, or are Test Track's breakdowns overstated somewhat. I've ridden that ride a lot, and only had a problem once, although I did see that it wasn't working one other time.

:sulley:

We have never experienced a problem on Test track either and we have probably riden it over 50 times. :thumbsup:

[marlaine]

I say, forget any sponsorship and change the cars to McQueen, Sally, Chick and Doc! They could rework it to be a great new ride!:crazy:

[BigRedDad]

I say, forget any sponsorship and change the cars to McQueen, Sally, Chick and Doc! They could rework it to be a great new ride!:crazy:

Now, that would be funny. If they had a Mater vehicle, that would make it that much more enjoyable.

[TheRustyScupper]

Now, that would be funny. If they had a Mater vehicle, that would make it that much more enjoyable.
. . . when it breaks down, out comes Mater


We have never experienced a problem on Test track either and we have probably riden it over 50 times. :thumbsup:
. . . maybe it is bad Car Ma (get it, Karma?)
. . . we have gotten over 10 Fast Passes due to breakdowns
. . . we have even had to walk out from inside the car paths

[Crow]

Mater might get lots of work
once i was on and it brokedown just before reentering the building...
luckily i had a newspaper w me to read.

[GothMickey]

I say, forget any sponsorship and change the cars to McQueen, Sally, Chick and Doc! They could rework it to be a great new ride!:crazy:

Please, no. Aweful idea. Dreadful even. Thankfully you meant this as a joke, right?

[Simba's Mom]

:funny::funny:
Since the Government owns 60% of GM. The government gets its authority from the people. I am part of the people. Therefore, I own 60% of TT.:beer::beer::thumbsup:

:funny::funny: Yeah, so can't we all use the VIP lounge at TT now?

[VolMickey]

I hope it remains open under someone's sponsorship. Maybe Ford? Toyota would be OK, as well. Of course...Ferrari would be the absolute most awesome sponsor EVER!!! :thumbsup:

[joonyer]

Since the Government owns 60% of GM. The government gets its authority from the people. I am part of the people. Therefore, I own 60% of TT.:beer::beer::thumbsup:


Lets see, 60% divided by 300,000,000 Americans equals . . . . . diddly squat. Drink up while you can. :laughing:

[MickeyandTink]

I hope it remains open under someone's sponsorship. Maybe Ford? Toyota would be OK, as well. Of course...Ferrari would be the absolute most awesome sponsor EVER!!! :thumbsup:

How about Porsche? There is no substitute!

[Ian]

Lets see, 60% divided by 300,000,000 Americans equals . . . . . diddly squat. Drink up while you can. :laughing:There aren't 300,000,000 taxpaying Americans, though.

Probably only like 1/4 of our population actually pay taxes.

[joonyer]

There aren't 300,000,000 taxpaying Americans, though.

Probably only like 1/4 of our population actually pay taxes.

Doesn't matter, what the taxpayers pay for, all citizens own. That's the new American way. Take from those who earn, give it to those who don't. But that a whole nother thread topic.

[disneyboundagain]

Doesn't matter, what the taxpayers pay for, all citizens own. That's the new American way. Take from those who earn, give it to those who don't. But that a whole nother thread topic.

I predict this thread will be locked within 8 hours after that comment! I'd voice my opinion, but I'm laughing to hard to type...

[GothMickey]

Doesn't matter, what the taxpayers pay for, all citizens own. That's the new American way. Take from those who earn, give it to those who don't. But that a whole nother thread topic.

Edit, edit, edit quickly before the lock is applied. LOL. :D

TT could go the way of WoL without a sponsor. The attraction could get very costly for Disney to operate without sponsorship money.

One thing about sponsorship money though. Is the money used all at once to get the attraction built and operational? Or is the money used to fix issues and break downs? Someone told me that Disney is actually paying for the finishing of SSE's descent scenes (at least while they were working on it, which, they stopped doing), and no money from Siemen's went in the descent upgrade. Is the same true for TT?

[Imagineer1981]

Personally, I'd prefer an American car company being the sponsor but what are ya gonna do. I personally think GM may renew the contract. Just because they went bankrupt doesn't mean they can't do advertising. Listen to the radio, there are still 4 or 5 GM commercials an hour along with sponsorship of radio segments

[Ian]

Personally, I'd prefer an American car company being the sponsor but what are ya gonna do. I personally think GM may renew the contract. Just because they went bankrupt doesn't mean they can't do advertising. Listen to the radio, there are still 4 or 5 GM commercials an hour along with sponsorship of radio segmentsI agree with you in principle, but it's all about public perception these days.

The average American (or politician, for that matter) hasn't got the foggiest idea what things cost, what it takes to promote and run a multinational corporation, but suddenly everyone's an expert.

They'll perceive any sponsorship deals as being "ego-driven" by "greedy CEO's" and "a huge waste of taxpayer money", so GM will be forced to end the deal.

No one will ever do any real analysis to find out if the deal is worth the money or not.

[JPL]

Considering GM announced that they will continue to sponsor the Olympics. I don't think the sponsorship with TT will be any different. Even though are restructuring through bankruptcy they still need to promote a positive image for the product line.

[GrumpyFan]

Considering GM announced that they will continue to sponsor the Olympics. I don't think the sponsorship with TT will be any different. Even though are restructuring through bankruptcy they still need to promote a positive image for the product line.

I don't know, that announcement came before they filed for bankruptcy, it could change. Once in bankruptcy they are at the mercy of the judge or government in this case. Earlier they cut their sponsorship of the upcoming Transformers movie, other sponsorships like this could be cut as well.

[JPL]

Actually the story I read said despite the bankruptcy GM will continue with their sponsorship of the Olympics.

Here is the catch 22 yes they filed for bankruptcy and they probably can't afford all the sponsorships and things like yet at the same time they need them to restore faith in the product in order to succeed. Most of the bankruptcy will deal with scaling back production and stopping production on less profitable lines and models. It will also refinace and eliminate some of the debt so the company can once again function and hopefully profit without being over burderned by the debt eating up operational income.As far as TT goes if you think about the number of people exposed to the product and money invested it's still a pretty good value plus the deal also includes Disney using GM cars and trucks.

[VolMickey]

GM may just turn the thing into a showcase for it's new little "green", wind-up cars that it will be building. Imagine flying around the track at 12mph!

Again... one word for the new sponsor, if needed:




Ferrari :cool:

[JabberJaws]

How about Porsche? There is no substitute!

DING DING DING We have a winner!

Just think about it, they could remodel the TT ride vehicles to look like Porsches, :cool::car::cool:

[Ian]

I realize that the Ferrari and Porsche suggestions are in jest, but the truth is a sponsorship like that would make no sense for companies with such a limited client base.

You don't pay $10 million or more a year to sponsor a ride on which only about 5% of the guests can actually afford to purchase your vehicles. Niche/high-end product lines do very focused advertising at events and through media outlets that have a high percentage of wealthy customers.

In regards to the bankruptcy ... people need to understand what it was that got GM to this point in the first place.

Yes ... they made cars that didn't necessarily have the broad appeal that they needed, but at the same time GM cars have stunning brand loyalty in certain market segments. Their sales, for the most part, have never really been the issue. At least not until the high gas prices and "green" backlash started working against their very popular SUV's.

The real issue with GM is and has been that they can't make cars profitably because of all their burdensome union contracts. There was a point not all that long ago where it was actually significantly cheaper for GM to produce cars and sell them at a loss as opposed to shuttering the plant making those cars!

[figgie]

I saw the first commercial for GM this morning since their filling for bankruptcy. It was a good commercial in that it reminds us, the public, the this isn't the end of GM as a company, but the begining of the restructuring of the company. They expect to come out of bankruptcy a stronger, greener and more efficient company. I don't think GM is actually going to "go away", it will remain and have to gain back the loyalty of it's customers. To that end, certain sponsorships will have to be continued to keep their name in the public eye and continue to sell cars. Which ones are questionable, but I, for one, hope they stay in the Disney family.

[Goofster]

The real issue with GM is and has been that they can't make cars profitably because of all their burdensome union contracts.

Oddly enough, Obama [through his auto task force] prohibited GM from dumping the 2007 union contract in bankruptcy! So GM is still stuck with the union contract when it emerges from Ch.11...a normal bankruptcy would have allowed GM to scrap it or redraft it.

[Stu29573]

Oddly enough, Obama [through his auto task force] prohibited GM from dumping the 2007 union contract in bankruptcy! So GM is still stuck with the union contract when it emerges from Ch.11...a normal bankruptcy would have allowed GM to scrap it or redraft it.

Nothing odd about it...just politics as usual.

[Ian]

Oddly enough, Obama [through his auto task force] prohibited GM from dumping the 2007 union contract in bankruptcy! So GM is still stuck with the union contract when it emerges from Ch.11...a normal bankruptcy would have allowed GM to scrap it or redraft it.Exactly why the government should never be allowed to interfere in private enterprise.

Obama got elected in no small part on the backs of the unions. He can't toss them out of GM or they'd go nuts! His interests run counter to those of the corporation. He's in no position to impartially decide how best to proceed with this bankruptcy. As Stu said ... it's pure politics.

And listen ... before anyone says anything ... this is not an anti-Obama position. G-Dub interfered before he left office, as well. I'm not espousing any particular political agenda. I'm merely expressing my opinion that the government should not meddle in the affairs of a privately held corporation.

[Goofster]

Exactly why the government should never be allowed to interfere in private enterprise.

Obama got elected in no small part on the backs of the unions. He can't toss them out of GM or they'd go nuts! His interests run counter to those of the corporation. He's in no position to impartially decide how best to proceed with this bankruptcy. As Stu said ... it's pure politics.

And listen ... before anyone says anything ... this is not an anti-Obama position. G-Dub interfered before he left office, as well. I'm not espousing any particular political agenda. I'm merely expressing my opinion that the government should not meddle in the affairs of a privately held corporation.

Ditto! I was going to say the exact same thing in my original post, but I didn't want to get the thread shut down...you've got more seniority than me...so it should be okay! :cool:

[Hammer]

My, this thread is getting pretty political...

GM created a lot of its own problems and now the government is bailing them out and I think the exact same thing would have happened regardless of who is in office. This is largely due to GM's poor leadership. I know how popular it is to blame the unions, but I ask you this question: Why do you not hear of any problems for Ford with negotiating union concessions? Ford worked with the UAW to have concessions which happened without so much as a whisper. I think it is just another example of how GM wants everyone else to pay for their mistakes.

Regarding Test Track, I think Ford will become the ride sponsor. Ford managed to dig itself out without bailout money, so people won't say it is a government sponsored attraction not to mentioned it would be cool to have some Mustangs to check out after going on the ride :car: !

[mjstaceyuofm]

My, this thread is getting pretty political...

GM created a lot of its own problems and now the government is bailing them out and I think the exact same thing would have happened regardless of who is in office. This is largely due to GM's poor leadership. I know how popular it is to blame the unions, but I ask you this question: Why do you not hear of any problems for Ford with negotiating union concessions? Ford worked with the UAW to have concessions which happened without so much as a whisper. I think it is just another example of how GM wants everyone else to pay for their mistakes.

Regarding Test Track, I think Ford will become the ride sponsor. Ford managed to dig itself out without bailout money, so people won't say it is a government sponsored attraction not to mentioned it would be cool to have some Mustangs to check out after going on the ride :car: ! Geez... you all need to spend some time in Detroit and get your facts straight...

Disclaimer: I'm a Republican and can't stand the unions.... That being said, the unions have actually agreed to quite a few concessions - a 2-tier wage structure, picking up their own healthcare costs via the VEBA, and relinquishing that ridiculous jobs bank...

When they agree to these concessions, they get carried over to pretty much all the car companies. Ford didn't do anything miraculous in negotiating with the unions. They got the same deal as GM, only GM had way more former and current employees than Ford...

GM is saddled with a boatload of "Legacy costs" that will eventually, over time, go away. What hurt GM was their own mis-management and the arrogance in the past to think they could afford those deals into the future.

Ford won't take over sponsorship either because Ford realized long ago that they were going to be a boutique car company - have their compact vehicles, a few mid-sized, a muscle car, and then sell fleet vehicles (vans and F-150s). They're managed too well to take on a burdensome deal like test track.

[VolMickey]

... I still think Ferrari would be AWESOME! :car:

[Boost]

I really, really hope that Ford picks up if GM drops their sponsorship...

[crltkcagle]

:thumbsup:


I say, forget any sponsorship and change the cars to McQueen, Sally, Chick and Doc! They could rework it to be a great new ride!:crazy:

[Goofster]

Geez... you all need to spend some time in Detroit and get your facts straight...

Disclaimer: I'm a Republican and can't stand the unions.... That being said, the unions have actually agreed to quite a few concessions - a 2-tier wage structure, picking up their own healthcare costs via the VEBA, and relinquishing that ridiculous jobs bank...

When they agree to these concessions, they get carried over to pretty much all the car companies. Ford didn't do anything miraculous in negotiating with the unions. They got the same deal as GM, only GM had way more former and current employees than Ford...

GM is saddled with a boatload of "Legacy costs" that will eventually, over time, go away. What hurt GM was their own mis-management and the arrogance in the past to think they could afford those deals into the future.

Ford won't take over sponsorship either because Ford realized long ago that they were going to be a boutique car company - have their compact vehicles, a few mid-sized, a muscle car, and then sell fleet vehicles (vans and F-150s). They're managed too well to take on a burdensome deal like test track.

Matt - While I agree with most of what you're saying, I do disagree with the Union concessions - they've given up very little. The 2007 contract remains in fulland that two tiered wage structure is a joke - its for future employees, not the current ones (and that was in the 2007 contract anyways). I don't think GM is really hiring any line workers right now considering they're closing plants and laying off workers. The VEBA was really the only "big" concession and that was back in 2007 too...the UAW has conceded nothing as of late to help GM in bankruptcy...and that's pretty much because Obama is watching out for them and prohibited GM and Chrysler to throw out their contract.

[wjdoc]

I think GM will retain the sponsorship. They aren't closing, bankruptcy is just a way to do some major restructuring. They are shedding Hummer, Saturn and Pontiac to cut some of the loss. Chevy, Cadillac and Buick have a real nice product line out there now, people just need to give them a fair look when shopping for a car and GM will be back in the game.

I am always baffled by everyone's view on this. This isn't like the bank bailouts that were solely based on executive greed. GM kept a lot of jobs in america while chrysler and ford built factories for all of their new models in mexico and canada. I can't honestly be mad at them because they didn't move out of the country and stayed loyal to their american workforce.

And do people really think that UAW assembly line workers are retiring to yachts and grand estates??? I myself don't want to see our retirees living in poverty. No american should live that way.

This thread depresses me, so i am done with it.

[GrumpyFan]

More speculation, but I saw an article yesterday from Mercury News stating that both Chrysler and GM were downsizing their NASCAR sponsorship. They didn't give any specifics on where the downsizing was occurring, only that it was indeed coming.

Again, no word on what this will mean for Disney and Test Track, but it can't be good. IF they do keep the sponsorship, it may be heavily negotiated, meaning we could see some operational changes in the ride. I'm speculating of course, but if GM somehow negotiates a smaller sponsorship package, Disney might choose to trim some of the operations budget.

[joonyer]

. . . And do people really think that UAW assembly line workers are retiring to yachts and grand estates??? I myself don't want to see our retirees living in poverty. No american should live that way.


I don't think retired autoworkers are retiring to big yachts and huge mansions. But I also know that they are not living in poverty either. The fact is, GM is paying more for pensions and health benefits to retired workers, than it pays to employees who are still producing cars. Retirement pensions and health benefits for those retirees are GM's largest expense.
That's good for retirees, but not good for GM's bottom line, since those retirees contribute nothing to production. That's why GM (and others) are in such dire straits.

[Scar]

I don't think retired autoworkers are retiring to big yachts and huge mansions. But I also know that they are not living in poverty either. The fact is, GM is paying more for pensions and health benefits to retired workers, than it pays to employees who are still producing cars. Retirement pensions and health benefits for those retirees are GM's largest expense.
That's good for retirees, but not good for GM's bottom line, since those retirees contribute nothing to production. That's why GM (and others) are in such dire straits.I personally know three retired UAW workers. All three retired at age 55, never to have to work again. Two of them do own nice boats (not yachts, just nice boats) and go fishing often.

[Ian]

Ummm ... the average salary for a UAW worker is $75 an hour. For those of you mathematically challenged, that comes to $156,000 a year if you're only working 40 hours a week. In addition, their union benefits are company paid to a level far in excess of the average worker, allowing them to keep more of their income as take-home pay.

Huge mansions? Perhaps not ... but they are certainly paid very, very handsomely.

[wjdoc]

The average uaw salary is 28 dollars, not 70. You are quoting "labor cost" which is not salary. The high price of health care drives that up because health insurance is so high now. It is a common problem for business throughout america.

This is a happy site, so i would suggest everyone abandon this thread or a moderator delete it...

[Ian]

The average uaw salary is 28 dollars, not 70. You are quoting "labor cost" which is not salary. The high price of health care drives that up because health insurance is so high now. It is a common problem for business throughout america.Yep. You're right. Further research (which, quite frankly, was so easy I'm a bit embarrassed I didn't do it before I posted that) shows that the actual salary is $40 an hour (not $28, though). The balance is made up of the benefit cost.

From the NY Times:


The auto industry has used the $73 an hour figure in discussions about its UAW negotiations ... this number includes three things that don't all belong together -- wages, overtime, and vacation pay ($40/hour), health care and pension benefits ($15/hour), and retiree pension benefits ($15).

However, I'd still like to point out that $40 an hour isn't exactly chump change and, in addition, the other companies you refer to experiencing higher health care costs can push some of those costs down to the employees. GM couldn't do that, because their union contracts wouldn't allow it.

However, I still apologize for falling into the easy trap of accepting things at face value and not digging a little bit. I should know better, as I'm always criticizing people for not having their facts straight.

[Stu29573]

The average wage is over 83,000 a year???? I work in public education and my morale just dipped a little lower. :(

[wjdoc]

I am not saying that the UAW shouldn't make concessions here, i just intended to show support to GM for not moving many of their factories out of the country like ford did...

28 is the real per hour average wage. The $40 number is a negotating number which includes per hour salary +overtime+vacation salary+ cost of living etc... Don't get me wrong, it a great salary, but remember this is the "average" salary. So this averages a 25 year employee with a 2 year employee and we all know that there have been way more job losses than hires in the american auto industry over the last 10-15 years. There aren't many 2-3 year employees in the assembly plants these days.

[Nascfan]

More speculation, but I saw an article yesterday from Mercury News stating that both Chrysler and GM were downsizing their NASCAR sponsorship. They didn't give any specifics on where the downsizing was occurring, only that it was indeed coming.

Again, no word on what this will mean for Disney and Test Track, but it can't be good. IF they do keep the sponsorship, it may be heavily negotiated, meaning we could see some operational changes in the ride. I'm speculating of course, but if GM somehow negotiates a smaller sponsorship package, Disney might choose to trim some of the operations budget.

Hey Grumpyfan, I just read on nascar dot com that GM is pulling its support from Nationwide and Truck series in Nascar. No word on Cup.....yet.

[Tekneek]

So, let me make sure I understand this. Union asks for something and management agrees. Then we blame the union for it. Why not blame management since THEY agreed to it?

Management should have been a little more careful about what they were agreeing to over the years. It is all a negotiation. If I get you to agree to a bunch of things I ask for in a contract, and you decide later that you don't like it, do you really get to blame me for it? When I bought my house, I put into the contract for the builder to add some extra things without raising my offer price. They agreed to these changes. Come to find out that the builder and his agent didn't read it too carefully and were grumpy at closing about it. Is that my fault?

[Stu29573]

So, let me make sure I understand this. Union asks for something and management agrees. Then we blame the union for it. Why not blame management since THEY agreed to it?

Management should have been a little more careful about what they were agreeing to over the years. It is all a negotiation. If I get you to agree to a bunch of things I ask for in a contract, and you decide later that you don't like it, do you really get to blame me for it? When I bought my house, I put into the contract for the builder to add some extra things without raising my offer price. They agreed to these changes. Come to find out that the builder and his agent didn't read it too carefully and were grumpy at closing about it. Is that my fault?

Actually no one comes off looking too brilliant in this issue.

[Tekneek]

Actually no one comes off looking too brilliant in this issue.

My house purchase, or the UAW/GM? Or both? :)

[Stu29573]

My house purchase, or the UAW/GM? Or both? :)

I was actually referring to UAW/GM, but the contractor on your house might fit as well... You don't really apply because you weren't trying to build a sustainable relationship with your contractor. Therefore, getting all you could for your money was just good business. However, if you had invested in your contractor and wanted him to do all the extras for every house he built so that he was opperating at a loss (or close to it) there might be an issue!

[Tekneek]

I was actually referring to UAW/GM, but the contractor on your house might fit as well... You don't really apply because you weren't trying to build a sustainable relationship with your contractor. Therefore, getting all you could for your money was just good business. However, if you had invested in your contractor and wanted him to do all the extras for every house he built so that he was opperating at a loss (or close to it) there might be an issue!

There is nothing that says a company has to agree to do anything in a labor contract. They could choose to just liquidate the business instead of negotiating, if they think it would destroy the business anyway. At best, management and union have an equal share of what is in an agreement since they both signed it. I don't see either as the "boogeyman", unlike many, because I know they both signed off on it and have to face the consequences for their decisions.

[Stu29573]

There is nothing that says a company has to agree to do anything in a labor contract. They could choose to just liquidate the business instead of negotiating, if they think it would destroy the business anyway. At best, management and union have an equal share of what is in an agreement since they both signed it. I don't see either as the "boogeyman", unlike many, because I know they both signed off on it and have to face the consequences for their decisions.

My point exactly! :thumbsup:

[Dixie Springs]

My prediction is that GM will remain the sponsor, and that the UAW will organize the Test Track workers ;)