Stellantis offering buyouts to many salaried Jeep employees

[Old Jeeper]

I feel like i've posted this same thing more than 10 times on this site but perhaps it's just different members reading it each time:

The EV push is going to hit a brick wall in the 5-8 year timeframe. There are so many hurdles, which at this time and in the near future (within the next 10-15 years) are insurmountable. The grid is a massive one, and that's a 30-year project, minimum. Resources to build enough batteries is another. The COST of batteries is also a problem. Then there's the recycling of batteries which right now pretty much doesn't exist. None of these technologies are advancing fast enough to get to the point where we need to be for any major automaker to have an all-EV lineup by 2035...at least if they want to remain profitable, that is. Earliest we are getting to a 50% EV country is 2050. No one reading this now will see ICE go away in their lifetime.

Seems like the popular rationalizer in this thread is "off peak charging". First problem with that is that "off-peak" is a concept that only exists in certain regions. Up here in the NE we don't have such a thing because of our wide range of possible weather. For instance, in the cold months, nighttime grid load is actually HIGHER...so that's a deal-breaker right there. But even for more temperate climates, "off-peak" is not a solution because you don't have enough "off-peak" time to charge two vehicles (many locales don't even have enough time to charge 1). Furthermore, regardless of where you are in the country, you have at best a 200A residential feed. That's enough for ONE level 2 charger. If you are willing to sleep in the dark with no AC or heat you can probably squeeze two in there (obviously this is assuming they are charging "off-peak" or what we in the NE call "overnight") but I doubt anyone who has the cash for a BEV is going to be willing to rough it like that on the regular. That doesn't even address those who are saddled with a 100A feed and can't even use level 2 chargers...so they'll be waiting 2+ days for their EVs to charge, one at a time. Incidentally, those also tend to be the lower-income folks who live and die by reliable personal transportation.

See? There are just too many major hurdles that have not even begun to be addressed...also note that none of these issues are being discussed at a level that's being picked up by the talking heads. Most of you have probably never heard of any of this stuff but you certainly have heard all the news about how California is going to be banning ICE vehicles and putting huge taxes on ICE vehicles...and how several major automakers plan to have all-EV lineups in 5-10 years. I think we can pretty easily see why that is.

I think you are being optimistic. Its NOT a wall they are going to hit, its a FUNNEL. The MOUTH of the funnel is far larger than the entrance is and what we have is not enough $$$, to do it all at one time along with timelines that have very little flexibility, like the GRID, manufacturing to replace 285 MILLION registered cars in America with EV.

Let's look at some of the players running to the finish line in 2035:

Civilian use and replacement of 285 Million Petrol with EV

US Federal GOVT

50 State, City, County and State GOVT replacement

US military from tanks to cars

Total registered cars and govt vehicles??? as much as 300 Million

1-3 TRILLION $$$$$ to upgrade the GRID from power plant to 'last mile' (home office etc) + time to do it across the US 25-35 years

What to do with 300 million units of vehicles, city dump???

The American people privately own 285 Million vehicles, where do they get the $$$ to replace the ICE if ICE has little or no value and there is no dealer that wants it? The average cost of a EV today is about $60k

Manufacturing requirement to produce and build 300 million units + replacement for worn-out and wrecked units

Then this: Who is paying the motor companies to make this massive conversion from ICE to EV. What backroom deal was cut? Motor companies do NOT have the cash to completely RETOOL...Tax incentives mean YOU and ME are paying for it. Tax incentives paid for by Taxpayers only go to those who can afford to buy the EV to begin with.

The Goal line is 2035, 23 years from now, and from here the funnel opening is HUGE, but it narrows down to a very small opening restrained by $$$$$, time, and manufacturing capacity just to name a few. The GOVT is trying to force 10 lbs of sugar into a 5 lb sack!!!!

The switch to EV will collapse the US economy and while we are paying for phony climate BS nothing will change climate-wise. Electric has to be generated to meet this new demand so how will that be accomplished??? More Nuke power plants? OR more natural gas, coal power plants. Solar and wind are only supplements. If you do not want to live in a country that has constant electric blackouts you must have a stable grid and wind/solar is not the answer at least not in the foreseeable future...

 

[TimmH]

You are overlooking a KEY element.

We are being FORCED out of the Petrol business. Diesel, was $5.49 a gallon yesterday.

I do not care where you are at this moment in time, but I ask you to look around 360. Show me something that did not depend upon a TRUCK to get it to you, your desk, your home, where ever. I drive a diesel, in fact on my 6th one. The cost of diesel has almost doubled, which means that every single thing those trucks haul cost double just in fuel alone.

I have a business trip coming up, I will drive about 2500 miles, I average 10.5 mpg with my diesel truck. If Walmart was selling Diesel yesterday way off the beaten path of major traffic and I now need fill up on the Interstate offerings I can figure I will pay $6-7 per gallon of diesel, well past the 2x cost.

So while your point number 1 above is correct it fails the makes sense test. You want to bring the economy of the US to its knees, then increase the cost of Petrol and especially Diesel!

We depend upon TRUCK and TRAINS to deliver our goods, and both run on DIESEL!

I don't disagree with you, I was more pointing to the current known facts, as these debates often move from what is actually proposed, to what someone read on facebook.

The ban's currently, and I stress the currently, does not include commercial vehicles.

The government is going to get what it wants. Whether they due it through direct legislation, or manipulation of resources.

 

[Old Jeeper]

I don't disagree with you, I was more pointing to the current known facts, as these debates often move from what is actually proposed, to what someone read on facebook.

The ban's currently, and I stress the currently, does not include commercial vehicles.

The government is going to get what it wants. Whether they due it through direct legislation, or manipulation of resources.

I fully understand. I only saw as trying to force it ALL thru a keyhole and that is what is being done. The BIG 3 are ending production of ICE, which is gonna make one helluva market for those who do not.

The way they are trying to force this on us is wrong. The GOVT does not tell me what car I drive or anything else.

Want EV. Great, then lets start at the TOP. The Feds have almost 1 Million vehicles, start there and be sure to call me when YOU get 100% EV.

Killing Petro is KILLING our economy. EVERY economy in the world runs off of energy and the cheaper it is the better the economy. The US exploded when we discovered OIL and it was just killed. This brought on our current inflation.

The govt kills Petro and asks me to buy a $60k EV to save the climate, which takes more PETRO to power the plants that give us Electric for our EV.. does this make sense to anyone?

 

[TheRaven]

The government is going to get what it wants. Whether they due it through direct legislation, or manipulation of resources.

Not sure why you would think this - the list of examples of the government promising something and then not being able to actually do it is longer than the list of things that the government has actually accomplished.

In this case, the government is up against physics...and they've got a terrible record when up against special interests, but physics is an opponent the government has never beaten. Look at the emissions legislation from the 20th century for a great example. You can't legislate technology into existence. It has to actually be developed.

I have no doubt that there will be endless "battles" where each party blames the other and calls for "action" and uses the "crisis" as marketing, spending trillions of our money in the process...but the end result will be the same. The hurdles are not something that will be overcome with any amount of money. Time is what is needed, and that's not something that's going to change. Sure, money can accelerate things and save time, but the 30-year timeframe for the grid is a best-case scenario...like if the president just said "get it done, whatever it takes", today, and threw essentially unlimited manpower and funds at it, we're looking at at least 30 years until the more populated areas of the country are ready.

There is a brick wall waiting for the EV push, and the harder we push, the sooner we are going to hit it.

 

[manapiko]

The thread is pretty funny.

 

[TimmH]

Not sure why you would think this - the list of examples of the government promising something and then not being able to actually do it is longer than the list of things that the government has actually accomplished.

In this case, the government is up against physics...and they've got a terrible record when up against special interests, but physics is an opponent the government has never beaten. Look at the emissions legislation from the 20th century for a great example. You can't legislate technology into existence. It has to actually be developed.

I have no doubt that there will be endless "battles" where each party blames the other and calls for "action" and uses the "crisis" as marketing, spending trillions of our money in the process...but the end result will be the same. The hurdles are not something that will be overcome with any amount of money. Time is what is needed, and that's not something that's going to change. Sure, money can accelerate things and save time, but the 30-year timeframe for the grid is a best-case scenario...like if the president just said "get it done, whatever it takes", today, and threw essentially unlimited manpower and funds at it, we're looking at at least 30 years until the more populated areas of the country are ready.

There is a brick wall waiting for the EV push, and the harder we push, the sooner we are going to hit it.

I didn't say they would do it instantly or even in a short timeframe. But IF they wanted a ban on ICE vehicles, they would find a way to make it happen.

They would convince the masses that mules are the way to travel if that's what it took.

 

[TheRaven]

I didn't say they would do it instantly or even in a short timeframe. But IF they wanted a ban on ICE vehicles, they would find a way to make it happen.

They would convince the masses that mules are the way to travel if that's what it took.

We agree that they would certainly succeed in creating a ban - they would put in place legislation with a penalty for ICE vehicle production (like a per-unit fine) which would effectively result in a massive price-hike for us to buy the vehicles we can actually use.

Basically the same thing that happens every time the government tries to take (what they see as ) positive legislative action - we end up paying more for something, or everything. We've already seen it countless times even on just the automotive front - emissions, efficiency, safety...the only thing they actually succeed in changng is the price tag.

In the end, automakers have to make what sells. EV's aren't going to sell (sufficiently) until all the infrastructure for a seamless transition is in place. So the government can create whatever legislation it wants...but that doesn't mean they're going to get the result they (claim) they want.

I brought this up because this is pretty darn likely to happen - the transition to EVs is going to slow to a crawl, and certain politicians cannot have that (because it's a massive piece of their platform) so they will be compelled to act in order to save face. Politicians cannot invent or innovate, they can only mandate. So mandate they will.

 

[Old Jeeper]

Not sure why you would think this - the list of examples of the government promising something and then not being able to actually do it is longer than the list of things that the government has actually accomplished.

In this case, the government is up against physics...and they've got a terrible record when up against special interests, but physics is an opponent the government has never beaten. Look at the emissions legislation from the 20th century for a great example. You can't legislate technology into existence. It has to actually be developed.

I have no doubt that there will be endless "battles" where each party blames the other and calls for "action" and uses the "crisis" as marketing, spending trillions of our money in the process...but the end result will be the same. The hurdles are not something that will be overcome with any amount of money. Time is what is needed, and that's not something that's going to change. Sure, money can accelerate things and save time, but the 30-year timeframe for the grid is a best-case scenario...like if the president just said "get it done, whatever it takes", today, and threw essentially unlimited manpower and funds at it, we're looking at at least 30 years until the more populated areas of the country are ready.

There is a brick wall waiting for the EV push, and the harder we push, the sooner we are going to hit it.

There is no WE in the we push, few folks want to go this route anytime soon.

Good friend just bought a Mustang EV. He wrote his Masters theis on alternative power and he thinks Solar/Wind will solve the world's problems. Well he he lives is a town S of Dallas, about 1:30 min drive to his Docs office.

He gets a Doc appt at 1, it will last an hour or less and he will do a turnaround like always. Leave at 10, grab some lunch, go see Doc, be home by 4 pm.

He has enough charge to so the turnaround...or so he thinks. Cold front came thru and it dropped temps like a rock. Had to run the heater which chewed up far more juice than he figured (this was his first real trip other than to the grocery store). But no problem, he can free charge over at the Ford dealer. Dallas has a lot of them, not all have chargers, Ooops. Dallas traffic is a bitch and he go to go further N into Dallas. Ford dealer has chargers, 'cept the line is long, real long. Time he gets there its the 110v charger, which takes 9 hrs on his 'stang and the stang has not drank enough juice to take him home and dealership is closing.

Well its late and he does not have the juice to head home. So a motel it is. He gets in the am and heads ove to Ford, well the Fast Charge line is long. He is told there is another dealer that has fast charge but its in Far N Dallas. He heads out and sure 'nuff that got fast charge and a long line since of the 3 stations they had for quick 2 are not working properly.

He keeps on chasing Quick charge and it ain't working in his favor. But he told at one of the dealers that there a Motel in N Dallas that has stations for the guests. He calls and yes and he heads over. Bad news they are 110v, so he checks in and leaves the 'stang in the charge corral.

Next morning, full charge and he heads home.

3 days for a one 45 min Docs appt about 2 hrs from the house + $200 in meals and room.

New Mustang EV For Sale was the result.

I asked why...he said as much as loved the concept, he realizes it just not ready for prime time, if you don't live in the city.

EV works and I hope a lot people buy into it, but damn better look before you leap, its not a solution for mass transit. About every 2 weeks from the ranch we drove down in to San Antonio. Tractor Supply, COSTCO, Lowes, HomeDept and a host of places where we shop. It an all day and I will knock down about 200 mi+/- round trip. And when I go to town I drive my F 450 truck, all 9800 lbs of it, the truck will be full, the back seat full the bed full, lumber, sheetrock, livestock feed and on and on, who knows what and whatever we need to keep things running.

What is GOVT doing? One Size Fits ALL!

 

[Whaler27]

For 20+ years I had had a LOT of people working for me, all engineers (IT), what I know about people is this: 10% are problems 100% of the time and they eat my day up. This 10% came in all races, colors, creeds, ages, you name it. Interesting, in that there was little to no correlation with the quality of work they produced. Some of my best people in terms of quality of work were also some of my worst dedbeats.

NOTE in all those years only fired 1 guy and that was to keep from pressing charges and sending him to jail. If I had someone who was not cutting it (usually I was the last guy to know since I was the boss). I would gather issues that applied to them. Call them into my office on Wed am. Go over it and then tell them take the rest of the week off and on Monday be here first thing and let me know YOUR decision to stay or go. If go, then I will write you a letter of recommendation and you can use me as a reference anytime, you will not leave with a stain! Often I would help them find a job if I knew a CEO that was hiring. I put one guy in a job after the could find one for several months. He was one of my best engineers but the overhead on him was to the point I gave him the choice of stay or go and wanted to go. He excelled in the position I found for him and had done great.

Some of my folks did not like the way I ran my org. I did not care if or when you came to work, how long of a lunch hour you took or anything else, we had FEW rules. My 1 overriding rule was RESULTS. Example: I would ask them how many lines of executable Lightspeed C can you write per day? Sir, 50 as they smiled. OK, sign here: I JimBob agree to write 250 lines of executable Lightspeed C per week. There has to be metrics on performance...

I lean the same way. Identify the goal, then apply the resource required to get it done.

That's the focus of elite military teams, of course, and the same is true of elite teams in other environments. Set the highest standards for team membership, and then use the appropriate person/tool to accomplish each objective.

By the age of four or five we all know that people differ from each other. The differences that matter have nothing to do with race or gender. Some kids just run faster, jump higher, sing better, or learn more quickly than others. Some think well in three dimensions, others, don't. Some have extraordinary grit and mental toughness. Others don't. We all have different aptitudes and characteristics. A sensible system recognizes those differences and becomes more effective because of them.

I supervise many people too. Most are great and I'm proud to work with them. Some are freakishly capable, disciplined, and focused. The most productive of them produce more than two times the useful activity of the least productive folks doing the same work -- and several of them manage that productivity while also maintaining a significantly lower error rate. Unfortunately, my state has "pay equity" rules and other legal and policy structure which prevent us from rewarding the most capable and effective people with faster promotion and better pay. Similarly, we're prohibited from stepping up to offer higher pay to a new prospect who has demonstrated extraordinary ability. In fact, in our new world, a weak employee with ten years of experience MUST be paid more than the most amazing employee with two years of experience, even if the two year person does everything better, faster, and with fewer complaints or errors -- because recognizing different levels of talent, commitment, and accomplishment simply isn't "equitable". Yes, we all know that nature and humanity work differently, but it's just not fair (apparently) that some folks are just more effective than others. Sadly, this works as a barrier to optimizing efficiency and productivity -- because it's a better bargain to pay one super-productive employee 30% more to get twice the result, than it is to pay two unproductive folks to achieve a result that's still not as good. That's the world we live in.

 

[Heimkehr]

"equitable"

My list of Four Letter Words has a few entries that have more than four letters. This is the most recent addition.

 

[Old Jeeper]

I lean the same way. Identify the goal, then apply the resource required to get it done.

That's the focus of elite military teams, of course, and the same is true of elite teams in other environments. Set the highest standards for team membership, and then use the appropriate person/tool to accomplish each objective.

By the age of four or five we all know that people differ from each other. The differences that matter have nothing to do with race or gender. Some kids just run faster, jump higher, sing better, or learn more quickly than others. Some think well in three dimensions, others, don't. Some have extraordinary grit and mental toughness. Others don't. We all have different aptitudes and characteristics. A sensible system recognizes those differences and becomes more effective because of them.

I supervise many people too. Most are great and I'm proud to work with them. Some are freakishly capable, disciplined, and focused. The most productive of them produce more than two times the useful activity of the least productive folks doing the same work -- and several of them manage that productivity while also maintaining a significantly lower error rate. Unfortunately, my state has "pay equity" rules and other legal and policy structure which prevent us from rewarding the most capable and effective people with faster promotion and better pay. Similarly, we're prohibited from stepping up to offer higher pay to a new prospect who has demonstrated extraordinary ability. In fact, in our new world, a weak employee with ten years of experience MUST be paid more than the most amazing employee with two years of experience, even if the two year person does everything better, faster, and with fewer complaints or errors -- because recognizing different levels of talent, commitment, and accomplishment simply isn't "equitable". Yes, we all know that nature and humanity work differently, but it's just not fair (apparently) that some folks are just more effective than others. Sadly, this works as a barrier to optimizing efficiency and productivity -- because it's a better bargain to pay one super-productive employee 30% more to get twice the result, than it is to pay two unproductive folks to achieve a result that's still not as good. That's the world we live in.

WTF, that is insane, were we not on this forum I would think I heard this from a guy in some communist country...that IS communism.

I still a company, but it is small, and that is how I want it. Flying below the radar. But have had a LOT of folks at times and could not conceive of being told what to do with my company.

You might mention to your folks that Texas is a REAL capitalist state with no State Income Tax, low taxes, less govt intervention, and a very high quality of life.

 

[Old Jeeper]

My list of Four Letter Words has a few entries that have more than four letters. This is the most recent addition.

Diversity, Inclusion, Equity are now on my list

 

[Whaler27]

WTF, that is insane, were we not on this forum I would think I heard this from a guy in some communist country...that IS communism.

I still a company, but it is small, and that is how I want it. Flying below the radar. But have had a LOT of folks at times and could not conceive of being told what to do with my company.

You might mention to your folks that Texas is a REAL capitalist state with no State Income Tax, low taxes, less govt intervention, and a very high quality of life.

Yes, it's insane, and only the least capable people benefit from it.

And there's nothing "equitable" about it for the guy or gal who is contributing twice as much per dollar earned, so their morale suffers. We often lose those employees (or we're unable to hire them in the first place).

It's bad news for our taxpayers and our nation's ability to compete on the world stage.

My world features the strangest possible contrast. I work for an organization with a very long tradition of selfless service, courage, and honor. Our team is fully committed and mission driven, but every year brings an added layer of impediments and incomprehensible idiocy from above. Pressure to lessen training intensity, pressure to change the appearance of the team, pressure to produce more useless data (which translates to more time at the computer typing and less time delivering service) -- much like the direction command staff got from above during Vietnam...

We do our best to improvise and overcome, but it's getting more difficult every year, and those challenges are reflected in the field. Now we need three people to do the fieldwork two used to do, because our folks are so encumbered by nonsense that has nothing to do with service delivery. Our unit's HR team, which was comprised of only six people eight years ago, now has a staff of twenty to manage the required process and ill-fitting software program that wasn't designed for the 24x7 operation.... It goes on and on. I couldn't design a more idiotic and production-killing system if I set my mind to it. In fact, if I hadn't watched the transformation over more than three decades I would never have imagined it was possible.

Perhaps Jeep was trending the same way and Stellantis decided to clean house and hit the reset button?

I've delayed retirement for several years due to love of the team and the mission, but I'm finally ready to pass the baton. More time to trail the jeep with the wife and grandkids.

 

[Old Jeeper]

Yes, it's insane, and only the least capable people benefit from it.

And there's nothing "equitable" about it for the guy or gal who is contributing twice as much per dollar earned, so their morale suffers. We often lose those employees (or we're unable to hire them in the first place).

It's bad news for our taxpayers and our nation's ability to compete on the world stage.

My world features the strangest possible contrast. I work for an organization with a very long tradition of selfless service, courage, and honor. Our team is fully committed and mission driven, but every year brings an added layer of impediments and incomprehensible idiocy from above. Pressure to lessen training intensity, pressure to change the appearance of the team, pressure to produce more useless data (which translates to more time at the computer typing and less time delivering service) -- much like the direction command staff got from above during Vietnam...

We do our best to improvise and overcome, but it's getting more difficult every year, and those challenges are reflected in the field. Now we need three people to do the fieldwork two used to do, because our folks are so encumbered by nonsense that has nothing to do with service delivery. Our unit's HR team, which was comprised of only six people eight years ago, now has a staff of twenty to manage the required process and ill-fitting software program that wasn't designed for the 24x7 operation.... It goes on and on. I couldn't design a more idiotic and production-killing system if I set my mind to it. In fact, if I hadn't watched the transformation over more than three decades I would never have imagined it was possible.

Perhaps Jeep was trending the same way and Stellantis decided to clean house and hit the reset button?

I've delayed retirement for several years due to love of the team and the mission, but I'm finally ready to pass the baton. More time to trail the jeep with the wife and grandkids.

Yes, the City, County, State and Fedeal GOVT are weighing heavy on any kind of progress. Everything requires paperwork. WIfe and I are both retired IT folks and the computer that was supposed to make our life easier had not done so.

Actually in 1986 I did a study on what was called Desktop Publishing. At that time it took 3-7 years to publish an Army manual. My contractor on the study was an IT company. We spent 6 mos looking at the impact of desktop computers on workload and productivity.

The results were 2 fold:
1). Yes the computer on your desk increases your productivity and can reduce your workload.

2) NO, in being more efficient, your workload increases, and the ability to interconnect across the org via e-mail and message traffic only increase your requirements to produce more work...

Everything I predicted in '86 has come to pass. The don't build software today as I did, my stuff worked and you did not need to go to school or courses to use the app.

Today Coders run the companies and I know them well, coders like to code, that is their life blood. So, even if the App is NOT broken, they rewrite it anyhow.

The LAST people I ever hired were coders.

 

[manapiko]

Diversity, Inclusion, Equity are now on my list

What a telling comment.

Sponsored