GM Volt Production Halted: Too Many Volts in Inventory: 1300 Laid Off

Beginning March 13th, Government Motors will halt the production of Chevy Volts and the European Opel Ampera for five week – 1300 employees will be temporarily laid off.

Chevy Volt

The good news: Obama plans to buy a Volt when he leaves office. That’s another sale GM can count on in January 2012. GM spokesman Chris Lee said: “We’re going to build to market demand.” LOL Obviously should have thought about that earlier.

In January, the GM vice-chairman, Steve Girsky, said the company would wait until June to decide whether to cut back on production of the Volt if sales remained subdued. senior analyst Michelle Krebs had a more historical take on the car. “The Chevrolet Volt has had a very rocky go of it, from the very beginning of the launch when confusion emerged about what it was – an EV or a hybrid – to the latest episode with Volts catching fire after NHTSA testing,” he said.

“This period of high gas prices should have given sales of the Volt and other hybrids and electric cars a lift. Instead, there’s a wide selection of 30mpg and even 40mpg cars that don’t carry the hefty premium of vehicles like the Volt so the Volt, Nissan Leaf and others are up against stiff competition.”

The decision to cut Volt production is unlikely to dent GM’s overall US sales, which have been growing steadily since the firm emerged from bankruptcy in 2009. Source: The Guardian

GM still owes American taxpayers $25 BILLION in TARP Funds, so when Obama tells you they have paid back their debt to the people, he’s lying. While sales may be up, so are inventories at dealerships across the country. GM is up to their old tricks. How many thousands of shareholder lost everything they had with no chance of recovery? The answer is many. Their lives will never be the same. I can’t wait to see who GM donates to in this election cycle, and oh yes, they are back to donating.

  • Obama says he’s going to buy a Volt when he leaves office. Come November he needs to place his order for his January 2013 purchase.

  • Nobody wants a lemon, especially one that catches on fire. The Volt was a good idea badly executed.

  • Oh goody, it catches on fire so hopefully Obama’s daddy long legs are so crunched up in the Volt he’ll never get out. I can just see MO, BO, and those two tall drinks of water (what’s their name) kids along with the dumb dog all piled up in a Volt, with a trailer hooked on, taking loads of stuff from the WH. It will look like Sanford and daughters. LOL YEAH they’ll be movin’ on up to the East side, finally got a piece of the pie, on the American’s nickle. What a ponzi scheme!!!! By Obama and commie company!!

    • ljcarolyn and findalis, in all fairness, the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin has found no safety issues with the Volt, even deeming it as safe as any gasoline vehicle, giving it a top rating of 5 out of a possible 5.
      The burning Volt seemed to gain traction with GOP or right wing propaganda such as Americantradiotion blog calling it “Obama-mandated death traps” or Rush Limbaugh saying “GM was a “corporation that’s trying to kill its customers”.
      Ultimately, GM CEO Dan Akerson issued a statement; “We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become.”
      In short, the right wing attack machine went after the Volt from its onset. Now that the those on the right have succeeded, they are cheering at the demise of 1300 jobs. It’s as if they are no longer even trying to hide their intent to sabotage they economy in order to blame Obama.

      • Andy, please forgive me referring to you as ‘Larry,” I intended to say “Andy,” whatever the truth of the problems with the Volt, expect hostility when gas prices are kept artificially high, when our tax dollars are being given to green initiatives that haven’t a chance of being successful at this time, when coal plants are shutting down everywhere, and with the most anti-American-Industry President ever.

        When we want to buy Volts, the free market will work and manufacturers will manufacture because they see a market. Until then, no matter the virtues, we won’t be forced into this agenda.

        • From your 1st paragraph, why not add, expect anger when a president has every intentions of releasing rabid unicorns to gore our young children while pigmies overrun our homes”? Those scenarios and yours share about equal credence.

          I’d say that at the end of the day, no one was forcing anyone to buy a Volt, unless of course there’s some conspiracy that Obama was secretly undermining the Constitution in order to force us to buy them and of course, they’d be playing some subliminal pro Muslim music, that I didn’t know about.

          It’s an interesting concept that conservatives have a belief that the free market takes care of itself when not manipulated by outside disturbances, that if you simply leave it to its own devices, it will thrive. Yet, when it doesn’t suit your agenda, or perhaps when it’s politically advantageous for you, all of a sudden the rules change. Akerson’s statement ““We did not design the Volt to become a political punching bag and that’s what it’s become” has merit and that’s precisely what happened.

          • Andy, unicorns, pigmies and subliminal Muslim music have nothing to do with the free market. We have years of history to prove that the free market works. The Volt is a punching bag because of the President’s policies. We resent it. Spend your own money to manufacture, then manufacture and let us buy if we will.

            You have no idea how angry we are.

            • Maggie, I’m trying to follow your logic. My insinuation that pigmies and unicorn and such were relevant was sarcasm. I was using your “artificially high gas prices” and , most anti-American-Industry President ever” as satire. If my pigmy reference was a non sequitur, how do you rationalize your examples as having anything to do with the free market?

              But back to trying to follow your logic. If the free market works, and should work based on the principles set forth by those on the right, why is it suddenly fine to sabotage that free market “because of the President’s policies”? In other words, if you don’t agree with the president’s policies, attack a major player of the economy during an unstable economic era in order to do what? To encourage lay offs? To make the economy fail?
              Or is it to ensure Obama to be a 1 term president?

              • Andy, the dollar is devalued = gas at higher prices. No drilling and exploration = gas at higher prices. No expectation of drilling and exploration = gas at higher prices.

                When companies are irresponsible, yes there will be layoffs but the Government should not be coming to the rescue. GM should have handled its problems like everyone else, in bankruptcy court.

                There is a price to be paid for mismanagement and the tax payer shouldn’t be paying it.

                You don’t believe Obama is anti-Industry? I certainly do. I was not being sarcastic. He wants to punish success, with taxpayers paying for his pet projects – many of which didn’t have a chance for success in the first place.

                He has NO business instincts – which isn’t surprising since he has never been in business. Andy, his tax policies and energy policies are devastating and disaster follows in their wake.

                • It’s likely Maggie, that I’ll never understand your anger.

                  I mean, I’m just a guy of numbers and reality. I don’t base things on emotion or even a political agenda but rather on facts and numbers. This “drilling and exploration” in order to help “gas at higher prices” doesn’t match numbers or reality. The very fact that our consumption has lowered should prove that. Any additional oil we produce will go into the world market and will have no bearing on the price we pay at the pump.
                  Gasoline went up nearly 300% (about $1.60 when Bush took office to a peak of about $4.65) during the Bush years. When the economy crashed in 09, so did the gas market (I’m thinking you understand free market, right?). So now that the economy is improving (and I understand that fact conflicts with your emotions), the gas speculators are back, driving the world market up.

                  When Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, even effecting world economics (numbers and facts). Obama pushed for a major stimulus package that many credible economists credit for saving the economy. I understand that’s arguable.

                  But constructive argument, as Socrates explained, is a good thing. You state that “Obama is anti-Industry” but you come up short on examples (you know, facts and numbers). You claim he’s the “most anti-American-Industry President” but fail to elaborate on that. It’s as if I should just expectantly join in on your anger fest based on your say so. I don’t work that way.

                  Cheap jabs are a dime a dozen, or, cheap. Facts and numbers, they’re quite real. That’s just the way I’m wired.

                  In closing, I’m not here to bash your writings. If you feel I’m imposing or intruding, you don’t even have to ban me. I respect you as blog owner and on your say so, I’ll gladly show myself to the door.

                  • Andy, first – I don’t ban unless someone is crude or attacking someone I deem to be in an inappropriate manner.

                    As to examples, you want me to go through the government regulations? If I want to do that it will be in a post, not in comments. You can’t understand that the cost of regulations has caused doors to close or businesses to barely break even if that? Or that with no exploration utility costs are far too high, by design?

                    Cheap facts? I don’t think so, and no I don’t expect anything from you. You came here, remember?

                    • So, “regulations” are the weapons Obama’s using to drive his anti American/Anti Industry mission? There’s an argument from some Tea Partiers and hard right leaders that we should eliminate “regulations”. Eliminate the EPA, OSHA, Dept of Energy, Commerce, et al. That’s an interesting argument but when you apply reality to it, it rings hollow.
                      For starters, “regulations” can easily be defined or construed as “laws”. So when one advocates “end all regulations” pertaining to industry, they are advocating becoming a lawless nation for industry.
                      This isn’t a black or white/binary fix. To say that these departments need repairing or tweaked is within reason. To say they should be eliminated willy nilly is just plain asinine. And this seems to a problem in today’s political environment where politics have become so polarized, putting us at a Mexican standoff (if that’s still ethical, if not, no offense intended) on important issues.
                      I don’t believe the EPA should be an overburden on industry but I don’t think corporations should be able to dump raw toxins in our rivers.
                      I don’t think OSHA should crush business yet I think employees shouldn’t be unknowingly be exposed to radiation or that 13 year old should work 18 hour days in dangerous conditions.
                      I don’t necessarily buy into every aspect of global warming but I don’t think Mother Earth is begging for more fossil fuels either.
                      And I could go on but my point is people and corporations (they could be the same depending on who you ask) are by nature, products of greed and will continue to push the envelope. We need laws protecting workers, consumers, and the community.
                      From the tone of your post as well as many right wing outlets, you would think that Obama himself installed these departments since 2008 with a sole intent of ruining industry and promote some “anti-American” agenda. How can anyone of reasonable intellect give credence to such nonsense. The guy’s running for reelection. Why would he do that? People, particularly of that power, do things for a reason. How in the world is it advantageous for a sitting 1st term president to intentionally destroy the country? That makes no sense.
                      But getting back to facts, last Aug, the Obama admin pushed to eliminate regulation that cut government red tape and save businesses more than $10 billion over the next five years. It included about 500 changes to save businesses money by consolidating their IRS paperwork and simplifying hazard warnings.
                      But again, this really has nothing to do with seeing the demise of the Volt as some sort of victory. Once again, those that promote an oil dependency have managed to defeat an attempt to become oil independent. In short, the only winner in this is the oil companies, which apparently utilize PACs, talk show bigwigs, and partisan blogs to promote the lie that the Volt would burn you up.

                    • Andy, you are sounding like a troll. Go tell your sob story about regulations to the people in California’s Central Valley, who have no water due to regulations. The Breadbasket of American, and the area is now a dustbowl. Move on.