Quality.

Page 3 of 3  


David, I have nothing but respect for anyone who puts in over 40 years with one employer. I just visited your website and those pics you took of the big cats are excellent. I'll be watching out for your "Future Galleries".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The 40 years just sort of "happened". Reasonably decent working conditions, good pay & benefits, and most importantly, excellent people to work with. The next thing you know, 40 years goes by. Thanks for the kind words about the site. I'll try to get more pictures up soon.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

David, I couldn't agree with you more. Having excellent people to work with means the difference between looking forward to going to work and having to go to work. I was lucky enough to get a full retirement package after 35 years but I can actually say that I miss the job and the people. Like you, I have taken an interest in photography, but of the digital variety. Unlike you, so far I have been focused on small game shots. Last week it was a baby rabbit in the back yard and a baby robin that was old enough to fly, but it's mother (father?) was still getting worms for it. Today it was closeups of some bumble bees and a couple of humming birds in the back yard. I keep checking the back yard for big cats, but no luck so far!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jk wrote:

Yes they sure are and I bet you would take their pay and benefits-------- IF YOU COULD GET THEM! Sounds like you are in a low paying dead end job and just wish that GM would hire you to sweep floors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
that's why they are now a Company with junk bond status.
poor quailty products and over paid staff and workers.
a great recipe for bankruptcy...
On 14 May 2005 11:30:26 -0700, "No One You Know"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And your credentials consist of what? State the facts and then show where you got them from. Opinions are not in fact and need to be proven.
Move along TROLL!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I figure a year from now gm will be like Air CANADA, seeking chapter eleven...
it cannot afford it's present setup, it has to change or close it's doors.
calling someone a troll is just hiding your head in the sand. wake up and see the complete picture. surely you got to have some concerns about your job status.
On 14 May 2005 16:04:37 -0700, "No One You Know"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jk wrote:

Looks like your source is the washroom wall at your janitorial service.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

A filing for court-ordered bankruptcy protection in the United States comes under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code; hence the common expression of "filing for Chapter 11." There is no such thing in Canada. Canadian companies don't actually file for "bankruptcy protection." That's the informal term for a filing under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That's a federal law that basically gives a company time to try to work out its financial difficulties with those it owes money to. A company files under the CCAA for permission to file a restructuring or reorganization plan that would give it time (often 30 to 90 days) to try to arrange its affairs so that it can keep operating.
As long as a CCAA order remains in place, creditors are not allowed to take any action to collect money owed to them. They can't seize the company's property or petition it into bankruptcy.
Since a CCAA filing is made because a company is deeply in debt (under CCAA rules, a company must have more than $5 million in liabilities), the first order of business is to strike some kind of deal with the people or organizations it owes money to. That includes lenders, unpaid suppliers and bond-holders, to mention a few.
Negotiations among the company and its debtors can take weeks or even Months. Essentially, the sides are trying to find a compromise they can live with (for example, creditors might agree to accept 50 cents on each dollar of debt).
If a restructuring attempt is not successful, or if it's not approved by the courts, a company can be petitioned into receivership or bankruptcy. The main difference between a CCAA filing and the alternative is that receivership or bankruptcy means that the company is no longer a going concern.
Do not confuse court-ordered court protection from creditors, (commonly referred to as bankruptcy protection), with a bankruptcy filing. Under bankruptcy protection, the company is trying to continue operating. In a bankruptcy filing, an insolvent company is liquidated by a trustee.

We truly value your well-informed opinion.

You're right Jk. There is a world of difference between a troll and someone who is simply as dumb as a post. Your preoccupation with insolvency and bankruptcy gives rise to suspicion that you have either declared personal bankruptcy or are considering it. Don't be so angry with the world. I'm sure that there are better days ahead for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No One You Know wrote:

It is interesting that some unnamed person on the 'net who goes only by "No One You Know" tries to make his arguments with ad hominem attacks on anyone with different views.
Screaming Troll at people really does not impress anyone.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This post is a bit O.T., but it does apply to GM and to computers. Here's a cute joke that has been circulating for awhile:
To those who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3 . Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and re-open the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.
4. Occasionally, executing a manoeuvre such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to re-install the engine.
5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This has been around for quite a while, but still funny. Thanks for posting it! The sad part though is that #9 has actually come true (in part) since then!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
StingRay wrote:

This, though, does describe my old 84 Buick. Lol.

Given that 90% of the remaining roads are occupied by gamers... ;)

My 84 had this "feature" as well.

That would be my dad's 96 Park Ave. Sometimes the locks and keyfob have a mind of their own.

That would be a Pruis ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LMAO! Joseph, it would appear that there are some cars with character in your family!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

10-1 odds his mechanic is named Bill Gates!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.