2014 Chrysler Town & Country Touring on 2040-cars

Auto blog

UAW chooses FCA as lead bargaining company

The United Auto Workers has chosen Fiat Chrysler Automobiles as its lead bargaining company as it seeks to finalize new contracts with the 140,000 or so workers represented by the union. That doesn't mean the UAW won't continue to talk with Ford and General Motors. "All three companies have been working with UAW bargaining teams toward a collective bargaining agreement and continue to do so," UAW President Dennis Williams said in a statement. It does mean, however, that any deal the UAW strikes with FCA will form the basis of bargaining talks with the other two American automakers. Contracts between the UAW and the Detroit Three automakers are set to expire tonight at midnight. If no deal is made, both parties may vote to extend the previous contract. Industry analysts polled by The Detroit News suggest that a deal with FCA might be the most difficult to reach, since it is the smallest and least profitable of the three US car companies, and because of its high percentage of second-tier workers. There's a super short statement on the matter from the UAW, and there's an equally concise confirmation from FCA. Feel free to read them below. Detroit – The UAW this afternoon announced that FCA US LLC will be the lead target in Big Three auto talks. "All three companies are working hard toward a collective bargaining agreement. At this time, the UAW has selected FCA US LLC to be the lead bargaining company," said Dennis Williams, President of the UAW. "All three companies have been working with UAW bargaining teams toward a collective bargaining agreement and continue to do so." -------- Statement regarding the Status of Contract Talks between FCA US LLC and the UAW FCA US LLC confirms that it has been selected as the company to set pattern on a collective bargaining agreement with the UAW. As negotiations are ongoing, the Company can offer no further comment at this time.

GM, FCA retain financial advisors amid merger rumors

Well, here we go again. Despite allegedly shutting down the idea of a merger, General Motors has retained financial advisors to, well, advise it on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' advances. GM brought in New York-based Goldman Sachs, while FCA is currently working with Switzerland's UBS. Another source told Reuters that GM was working with Morgan Stanley, as well. But what does all this mean? Well, as we know, FCA boss Sergio Marchionne still has his eyes set very much on merging his automaker to combat what he claims are the prohibitive costs that come from developing today's vehicles. And while GM has said "no thanks," to a merger, the FCA boss is still looking to shareholders of the world's third-largest automaker to force the issue. Rather than a sign of an impending merger, voluntary or otherwise, between the two automotive powers – analysts called a hostile move by FCA "beyond ambitious," after all – retaining financial advisors on both sides could be viewed as just good business. News Source: ReutersImage Credit: Paul Sancya / AP Chrysler Fiat GM Sergio Marchionne FCA

Move over Audi, now Chrysler has a beef with Tesla's claims

In the same week that Audi said "not so fast" to some claims from Tesla, Chrysler has responded to a new press release from the California-based EV-maker by saying "not exactly, Tesla." The statement, released through the company's blog, comes in response to Tesla claiming it was "the only American car company to have fully repaid the government." Chrysler notes that it, too, recently paid back Uncle Sam from its 2008 bailout. Similar to Audi's recent press release, which was eventually and mysteriously deleted from the German automaker's site, Chrysler is both right and wrong in its statement.
Tesla specifically said that it had paid back the Department of Energy loans that many automakers received - including Fisker and VPG Autos - while Chrysler's retort argues Tesla is "unmistakably incorrect" since it repaid the government in 2011 a full six years early. Technically, the statements from both automakers are correct, but Tesla's startup loan originated from the DoE, while Chrysler's loan came in bailout form from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Further, as The Detroit News notes, Chrysler's loan still cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars after all was said and done - those negative assets tied to "old Chrysler" in the bankruptcy did not require repayment.