billvon 3,107 #1 November 30, 2004 You may need it. ----------------------------- Bush names Carlos Gutierrez new commerce secretary Mon Nov 29,12:05 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) nominated 51-year-old Carlos Gutierrez, the Cuban-born head of cereals giant Kellogg Co., as his new commerce secretary. "He knows exactly what it takes to make American businesses grow and create jobs," Bush said. ---------------------------------- Kellogg Mulls Over Closing Southern Portion of Battle Creek Plant Food & Drink Weekly, June 21, 1999 In a move to cuts costs, Kellogg Company said it is considering the closure of the South Operations portion of its Battle Creek, Mich., cereal plant. The closure would eliminate up to 64 percent of the jobs at the facility. "Streamlining our operations and avoiding future costs would help keep our North American cereal business cost-competitive going into the 21st century," said Kellogg chief exec Carlos Gutierrez. ------------------------------- MSN Money Kellogg Company Announces Restructuring Charges August 15, 1999 Kellogg Company announced that it will realize restructuring charges of an unspecified amount in 2000 for streamlining initiatives in its European supply chain. The Company also announced plans to close the south operations of its Battle Creek cereal plant and eliminate approximately 550 jobs. The Company will recognize charges of $100 million to $150 million in the third quarter for asset removal and related costs, as well as charges of an undetermined amount in the fourth quarter for employee retirement and separation costs related to the closing of the Battle Creek plant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #2 November 30, 2004 Yep, he doesn't have a clue. We keep jobs with "stale offerings & Soggy Profits." QuoteINNOVATION SPECIAL The Man Who Fixed Kellogg Stale offerings. Soggy profits. Carlos Gutierrez inherited both when he got the top job at the cereal giant. But look at it now. And, increasingly, Carlos Gutierrez at Kellogg. Since becoming CEO of the cereal giant five years ago, the 50-year-old Cuba native has transformed a lumbering, insular, volume-obsessed company into an innovative, profit-focused powerhouse admired by Wall Street and Wal-Mart alike. http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ideas/articles/0%2C15114%2C685433%2C00.html -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 November 30, 2004 Ohhhhh, an endorsement from Wal-mart . . . there's something for the working man to be happy about (considering that Wal-mart is responsible for a lot of outsourcing of manufacturing jobs).quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #4 November 30, 2004 I'm sure he _does_ have a clue how to make businesses more profitable, which is one reason he was nominated. From what I've read of him so far, he is good at streamlining companies so they make more money. This means, in the case of Kellogg, laying people off. Hence the title of the thread. I don't feel sorry for Kellogg's executives or shareholders, but I do wish the people that will be laid off luck in finding new jobs. If he applies such a philosophy to other US companies, then those companies may improve their bottom line - but more people will be out of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #5 November 30, 2004 Do you eat cereal every morning? Do you have the time? Do you think most people do? What would you do when your product fell out of fashion? Close your doors like many businesses do when they run out of gas? Do you think the employees own stock in the company either directly or via retirement funds? Do they benefit from a languishing company? There's a lot more to his turn around of Kelloggs than his decision to close down a plant and cut 4% of its workforce, but that does not figure into a socialist policy of criticism. Innovation, marketing and strategic acquisition were required when we as a country stopped eating cereal every morning opting instead for a powerbar or nothing at all. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #6 November 30, 2004 >Do you think the employees own stock in the company either directly >or via retirement funds? I am sure some do! Being laid off is worse than losing 10% of your stock portfolio for most people; most people work for the money they need rather than live off their stock dividends. >Do they benefit from a languishing company? If they sold short - definitely. >Innovation, marketing and strategic acquisition were required when > we as a country stopped eating cereal every morning opting instead > for a powerbar or nothing at all. You must have missed my other posts in this thread. I am sure he will do good things for some companies. If his past actions are any indication of his future actions, then that will mean laying people off. And I wish the people who are laid off so others can prosper good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 November 30, 2004 Quote Do you think the employees own stock in the company either directly or via retirement funds? You're not suggesting that stock ownership in the company you work for is some sort of hedge against being laid off are you? I can assure you it is not. Neither does it make you feel any better if you do get laid off. In fact, quite the opposite. You feel fairly well betrayed. Well, at least I did.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #8 November 30, 2004 QuoteIf his past actions are any indication of his future actions, then that will mean laying people off. And I wish the people who are laid off so others can prosper good luck. Maybe we're looking at the same thing from different angles. While there are some lost jobs at Kellogg immediately, the company became more competitive. It seems that you value jobs in the present rather than a stronger company in the future. But, I'm not sure how that translates into his new position or why US factory workers as a whole need luck. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #9 November 30, 2004 QuoteDo you eat cereal every morning? Do you have the time? Do you think most people do? What would you do when your product fell out of fashion? Close your doors like many businesses do when they run out of gas? Do you think the employees own stock in the company either directly or via retirement funds? Do they benefit from a languishing company? There's a lot more to his turn around of Kelloggs than his decision to close down a plant and cut 4% of its workforce, but that does not figure into a socialist policy of criticism. Innovation, marketing and strategic acquisition were required when we as a country stopped eating cereal every morning opting instead for a powerbar or nothing at all. America has become more and more Fascist because of attitudes and gov/corp actions like this. I wonder what the gov/elite think the millions of out of work workers are going to do when there are no manuf jobs here, just enough service jobs to employ a small percentage of the people? Do they think we will go and dies quietly in the streets after liquidating our assets? This is exactly why I'm working on getting out of the US and have been for a while. Other than Mexican immigration I think you will see immigration from Europe and other countries steeply decline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #10 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf his past actions are any indication of his future actions, then that will mean laying people off. And I wish the people who are laid off so others can prosper good luck. Maybe we're looking at the same thing from different angles. While there are some lost jobs at Kellogg immediately, the company became more competitive. It seems that you value jobs in the present rather than a stronger company in the future. But, I'm not sure how that translates into his new position or why US factory workers as a whole need luck. This explains volumes: Location: North America/United States/Florida City: Palm Beach Gardens Occupation: lawyer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #11 November 30, 2004 Gee, I guess it would have been better for the company to go bankrupt and EVERYONE lose their jobs?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #12 November 30, 2004 The Commerce Secretary doesn't dictate to US companies how they do business. If the businesses are well run, then they will already be embracing lean concepts and streamlining their workforces as much as possible. Ron nailed it - if you don't streamline and minimize your costs, you go under in today's business environs. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #13 November 30, 2004 QuoteIn a move to cuts costs, Kellogg Company said it is considering the closure of the South Operations portion of its Battle Creek, Mich., cereal plant. The closure would eliminate up to 64 percent of the jobs at the facility. "Streamlining our operations and avoiding future costs would help keep our North American cereal business cost-competitive going into the 21st century," said Kellogg chief exec Carlos Gutierrez. It's a shame that some people will lose their jobs. It's good though that some will keep them. What's worse, Bill, 64% out of work, or 100% out of work when when Kellogg folds? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #14 November 30, 2004 Welcome to the global economy. We are now competing with the rest of the world for jobs. It is now very important what other contries are doing in their markets. With big revolutional changes, obsolete groups disappear. At this point, the gone jobs will never come back. Unemployment is only going to decrease with innovative new jobs being created. We have no choice but to follow._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #15 November 30, 2004 QuoteWelcome to the global economy. We are now competing with the rest of the world for jobs. It is now very important what other contries are doing in their markets. With big revolutional changes, obsolete groups disappear. At this point, the gone jobs will never come back. Unemployment is only going to decrease with innovative new jobs being created. We have no choice but to follow. Here's what the international financial community thinks of the US economy, in a nutshell: www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/graph120.html Blame Clinton, or Canada, or anyone but Bush. Edited to add another view: www.x-rates.com/d/JPY/USD/graph120.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #16 November 30, 2004 QuoteBlame Clinton, or Canada, or anyone but Bush I blame the internet personally. Those numbers show me that we have to play "catch up"_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #17 November 30, 2004 QuoteOhhhhh, an endorsement from Wal-mart . . . there's something for the working man to be happy about (considering that Wal-mart is responsible for a lot of outsourcing of manufacturing jobs). People do realize why that happens, right? Why these big box stores are bad for the economy in the end? The suppliers want to have their products carried by the largest retail outlets in the country (like Kenmore will want to be with the new Kmart/Sears) but the retailer wants to find a way to draw shoppers away from the competitors. These big box stores have so much leverage due to the amount of yearly sales, that they tell the supplier what they are going to pay per unit instead of the other way around. The supplier has two choices - either lower the price and margin or have their competitor get the contract. To make up for the significant loss in the margin (which makes shareholders panic), the supplier then moves their factory offshore to recoup their loss. Now that they can successfully offer lower cost per unit, their competitor is going to have to do the same to keep in competition and not go out of business. Therefore - while we are saving $20 on a dryer at WalMart, thousands of jobs are being loss and doing even more damage to the economy. These are jobs that can never be found again because they are gone for good. Personally speaking, I would rather spend $20 extra on a product then have the economy stay as low as it is. However, this process is not going to change. Why? The stock market was down yesterday because Wal Mart announced their sales were not as high this holiday weekend as expected. Now Wal Mart expectations are the guidline for the economy? 23 billion was spent over the weekend - I'm thinking more would have been spent if those unemployed manufacturer workers were still collecting paychecks. Thus, WalMart screwed itself and when they let their shareholders know they made less than expected even more people lose money in the market. Big Box stores may be convienent, but they are bad for the economy (I won't even get into their pay practices)._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 November 30, 2004 Ok, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too..Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #19 November 30, 2004 Id like to add: 1995 http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/hist1995.html http://www.x-rates.com/d/JPY/USD/hist1995.html 1996 http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/hist1996.html Why was it so bad in 95 and 96? Or was that Bush's fault? Seems to me it was climbing even after Bush was elected."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #20 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuote Do you think the employees own stock in the company either directly or via retirement funds? You're not suggesting that stock ownership in the company you work for is some sort of hedge against being laid off are you? I can assure you it is not. Neither does it make you feel any better if you do get laid off. In fact, quite the opposite. You feel fairly well betrayed. Well, at least I did. Once bitten, twice screwed. Tough to swallow, that. mh . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #21 November 30, 2004 QuoteThis explains volumes: Flying a Raven-M at 1.34 being used to 1.12. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #22 November 30, 2004 QuoteOk, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too.. No- that was due to the Reagan - Bush (41) deficit. Once we got in surplus it went up. Now we're in deficit it goes down again. Simple economics. This time even Greenspan's worried. money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/ Attachment colors have usual red/blue meaning... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #23 November 30, 2004 In a related story . . . http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/29/content_395728.htm That's 18 BILLION that didn't go into the pockets of American workers this year with projected increases of 20% each year. A totally unrealistic growth projection BTW. Screw Wal-Mart. This just in on the FutureCam™, look for a Wal-Mart crash sometime in the next 5 or so years. Not just a slight dip like we just had, but an all out crash.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteOk, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too.. No- that was due to the Reagan - Bush (41) deficit. Once we got in surplus it went up. Now we're in deficit it goes down again. Simple economics. This time even Greenspan's worried. money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/ Wow... so let me make sure I have this straight: A slump in the economy in the middle of Clinton's second term was the fault of the two preceeding Presidents.... ....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault? Ok, thanks for LE 101 (Liberal Economics) Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #25 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOk, so it's back down where it was in winter/spring..... I guess it was Bush's fault when the dollar was almost at parity with the German mark in 97-ish, too.. No- that was due to the Reagan - Bush (41) deficit. Once we got in surplus it went up. Now we're in deficit it goes down again. Simple economics. This time even Greenspan's worried. money.cnn.com/2004/11/19/news/economy/fed_greenspan/ Wow... so let me make sure I have this straight: A slump in the economy in the middle of Clinton's second term was the fault of the two preceeding Presidents.... ....but a slump that started before GW's FIRST term is all GW's fault? Ok, thanks for LE 101 (Liberal Economics) No slump in deficit reduction until Bush took over.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites