Ok, this government intervention in private business is really starting to become worrying.

Between this and the whole AIG fiasco things are getting quite strange.

@wgrune: It would be one thing if the automakers had been unwillingly taken over--that would be worrisome. They begged and pleaded for government intervention, and that intervention came with great reluctance on the part of the government.

I wasn't aware that the President could fire employees of non-governmental agencies. This is a dangerous precedent and a vast over-stepping of boundaries by the government.

How come the AIG executives got to stay on-board (and get bonuses) but someone who prepared a feasibility plan and presented goals gets the axe?

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my voters. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay your pink slip upon thee.

Just curious, where does the Constitution give anybody in the government the power to fire a private citizen?

I've no doubt this guy is a clown who didn't deserve to keep his job, but if GM had simply gone bankrupt like any other failed company, he'd have been canned along with the rest of the board and senior managers. And unless The Savior is ready to fire the UAW president as well, this is just more empty populist BS.

Is this even legal? I thought a company board had to decide when someone was fired, not the President.

@wgrune: I'm curious as to what triggers your worry. Minus any government intervention, there would no longer be a GM. I personally have no problem with that; however, now that we've committed to that course, I think the government gets a say in what the business does.

I understand the need to look like you are doing something, but I disapprove of this move.

The role of a stockholder is to elect board members that acts in its interest. The board members manage the organization's top leadership - including hiring/firing the CEO. This so called agreement to step down is crap.

Either Obama needs to resign as POTUS and be voted in as a board member or he needs to exercise his influence on the official named as the stockholder for government owned shares and have them lean on the current board members.

This violation of corporate management regulations is a simple example of why more regulation does nothing when current regulations are not enforced.

Long overdue. Things could not have continued as they were/are. By not stepping down and by repeating that "bankruptcy is not an option" over and over ,Wagoner was basically telling the taxpayers that they owed him, management and the battalions of unproductive, surly union workers a lavish lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. The fun's over for the big 3 and now they have to earn our business or go out of business. This is the tough love that they have needed for many ,many years.
Also, Chrysler's little game of taking enough taxpayer money to bail Cerberus out of its stupid investment appears to be about up. Cerberus counts some of the richest investors in the world among its clientele. Let THEM bail out THEIR company.
I hope that these arrogant dinosaurs like Wagoner and Robert Nardelli (CEO (for now) of Chryco),end up in textbooks as a cautionary tale for business students .

HEY KIDS! Let's play ScapeGoat(c)(tm)!!

I'm not getting all of these people who are complaining that the "government is interfering with a private business".

They're asking for money. The government says "fine, we're not giving you the money until you make some changes." If they don't want to make the changes, they refuse the money and take their lumps.

Wheter the government should be offering money or not is another question, but they are, and these are the conditions they put on it.

Hehe you guys voted him in, enjoy the ride.

He didn't "fire" the CEO per se. The article here is a little misleading, as Rick Wagoner resigned of his own will yesterday as part of a deal with the Obama administration to secure 60 more days of financing for restructuring in GM. Essentially, it was a trade that surmounted to someone taking responsibility for the failure that is GM right now, in exchange for just a little more time before they get owned by the recession.

Obama didn't "fire" anyone, lol.

@PriceIsWrong: Probably, considering the amount of money the government gave GM. It's no different than an investor buying enough of the company and imposing their specific rules.

It's really funny how most of the posters have said "how can he (Obama) fire someone from a private company blah blah blah..."

Obama isn't firing anyone...All the Gov't said was "if you want our help (which you have been begging and pleading for) you have to make some changes. If you don't want to make these changes, that's cool, have a nice life.

Obama firing someone would be more akin to the gov't taking over GM and THEN giving the CEO the boot.

@mergatroy6: Why should our President not have the same powers as other Presidents around the world? Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

@mergatroy6: They do it the same way they got Chase to break their contract and pay the penalty for the jet they were trying to purchase. "It'd be a shame if something were to happen to your business. Now if you do things our way, we could be persuaded to not pass this legislation/executive order/etc..."

@mergatroy6: He didn't. Read the article. The gov't is simply withholding funds until GM makes changes. One of those changes is the replacement of their CEO. They could've decided to forgo the gov't money, but no, every big business seems to be falling over itself to stick its hand in the pocket of the taxpayer. I, for one, am glad that it's not without strings attached.

@gtrgod01:

He didn't fire him. He forced him out. Not a whole lot different.

The fact that the gov't hasn't taken over GM and forced him out anyway is even scarier.

It's "asked to resign", not "fired". "Fires" was Consumerist's (justifiable) flair to the article. Read the fucking article. I'm sure we would've seen an interesting legal test of Obama's initiative in the courts, but Wagoner saw this coming a LONG time ago (in the first bailout) and acted in the best interest of the company's precarious position and resigned rather than drawing everything out into a sorrier melodrama than it already is.

I don't like Obama meddling in private/corporate affairs, but we have to remember these guys BEGGED Washington for money. Expect a little more bitch-slapping out of this Administration before it's over with.

@gtrgod01: This! As I understand it there was no explicit termination of Wagoner's employment. It was "suggested" that he resign in order to "faciliate" the government assistance. GTFO or no more dollars!

I'm holding my breath waiting for Obama to "fire" the head of the UAW.

@wgrune: What worries you exactly? The fact that somebody conditioned you to be scared of the big bad government? These companies screwed themselves and now the government has to fix what they effed up.

Here's the thing: It doesn't really matter if people drive American cars for any point national pride. What matters is that the huge number of people involved at all levels of making these cars keep their jobs. It would seriously screw up the economy if something happened to all of these jobs.

I highly doubt that the government wants to be involved in the production of crappy cars. They just want to keep the economy from stagnating. Hopefully all of these super awesome private businesses can learn a lesson or two from the fact that they were so royally screwed up that they all needed to be rescued. Their ineptitude sure says a lot about them.

This is a bit misleading. He didn't fire Wagner. GM has to show they have a viable plan to restructure to get more federal money. Obama and the White House essentially said they don't see any way that could happen under Wagner and therefore there would be not more federal moolah until he left.

A bit heavy handed but not illegal. GM could have said no and they wouldn't have gotten any new money but the gov wouldn't have been able to force him to leave.

Isn't it usually the case that when money is lent that there are conditions on the loan?

The Government is acting as a private investor who happens to be providing enough capital to have a say in how the company should operate. If you were a billionaire and GM begged for your infusion of money, I think you too would have a say so in how things should be run.

@JartMaster_GitEmSteveDave: Does his wallet say Bad Motherfucker on it?

Perfect example of the end not justify the means.

Does this mean we get to fire obama now because he has yet to present a detailed plan on how to recover from this recession?

@illtron: Wait wha? Did you even read wgrune's post? You're attacking things left and right for no reason. Not to mention bringing up points that we ALL know.

I tell you what worries me, people using blanket statements like "all these private businesses" like every big business out there is corrupt. I feel like we're gearing ourselves up for witch burnings.

@wgrune:

"Ok, this government intervention in private business is really starting to become worrying.

Between this and the whole AIG fiasco things are getting quite strange."

Ok, this telling your brother in law that you are not giving him any more money for liquor until he cleans up his act is starting to worry me. That's his behind-closed- doors private business.
Between this and funding your loser cousins meth addiction,things are getting quite strange.

See how "helping" the dysfunctional makes you an enabler ?

@JartMaster_GitEmSteveDave: In ancient times, corporation CEOs would be fired literally, with flaming chunks of falling brimstone.

@gtrgod01: Exactly. I don't get how this is a firing. It's not a firing. Wagoner left of his own accord because the money was contingent on making some structural changes - which included, apparently, stepping down as CEO.

@Rectilinear Propagation: Yes, and just because it's not written in the contract that you're supposed to be responsible with the money and your decisions, doesn't mean you shouldn't be. Wagoner wasn't responsible, plain and simple.

Here's an angle: As much as this stinks, perhaps some good will come out of it.

The clear message with the Obama administration is that if you come to the government for aid, you lose control of your company.

Perhaps that message gets business to solve its own problems, which is clearly better than having more government intervention. We'll see.

@rbb: We can politely request, but us pooling together our packets of gum and crumpled dollar bills doesn't really compare to his $390459049BBQ trillions.

I'm still not going to be buying a GM car ever again. Its all just ineffectual flailing.

@JartMaster_GitEmSteveDave: Apparently the US government is the Mafia.

Since when did Obama know how to run a car company?

@mergatroy6: Read the article rather than Consumerist's misleading headline. Obama didn't fire anyone. Wagoner resigned as a condition of this bailout of GM. He didn't have to accept the terms when he agreed to them.

@rbb: Your inability to pay attention does not equal a lack of a plan. If you want to see a lack of a plan, check out a budget without any numbers in it.

@mergatroy6: I don't believe he can? Rather, the article basically points out it's a "You want our bailout cash, you need to meet these conditions." GM is perfectly free not to fire their CEO just as they're perfectly free to reject the government bailout.

@hellinmyeyes: And how. Half of the previous posters hadn't even read the article.

Personally, I'd like to see GM and Chrysler taken off of the market. Give the investors their current value of the stock and reel the corps back in as privately-held. We've dumped 10X more money into these corps than they are worth on the market right now. Once they no longer need our loans, then they can have a new IPO.

Greedy stockholders are why workers have been fired every time in the American auto industry.

@rbb: Why don't you write your Congressperson and find out?

@Kostaki: Right, that's not a huge deal. However, a -lot- of companies have received more money than GM has, yet their leadership stays in place? Not ok.

Socialism, Yes We Can!

@pecan 3.14159265:

If you don't get how this is a firing then you are simply and idiot. Please stop voting. You are the kind of moron that has put these criminals in charge.

@Radi0logy: My thoughts exactly.

@PriceIsWrong: If the company is begging the president for money, and the president says "get rid of your CEO, and maybe we'll give you some money," and the board decides to sack the CEO ...

Well, there you have it.