Thursday, May 11, 2006

Department of Justice (DOJ) - Is Leadership "JUST" to the People or just to Shareholders (i.e., Cess, I mean Whirlpool)

qualityg asks … I often wonder if the Leadership at the Department of Justice (DOJ) is very “Just” in their decisions when it comes to Mergers & Acquisitions?

I wrote this post in the last week of March of this year (2006).

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division issued the following statement today after the Department announced the closing of its investigation of the proposed acquisition by Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) of Maytag Corporation (Maytag). Thousands of jobs to be lost.“ After thoroughly investigating Whirlpool’s proposed acquisition of Maytag, the Division determined that the proposed transaction is not likely to reduce competition substantially. The combination of strong rival suppliers with the ability to expand sales significantly and large cost savings and other efficiencies that Whirlpool appears likely to achieve indicates that this transaction is not likely to harm consumer welfare.

5/10/06 - HEADLINES

Whirl (Cess)pool to Eliminate 4,500 Jobs by Closing 3 Plants Following Its Acquisition of Rival Maytag

Federal antitrust regulators raised no objection to the combination.
The cuts represent about 5.6 percent of Whirlpool's current work force of about 80,000 employees. But Whirlpool said it will add about 1,500 jobs, many at two Ohio plants, reducing the net loss of jobs to 3,000 positions, or 3.8 percent of its work force.

The DOJ says The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice says sound antitrust enforcement is vital to America's economic health. American consumers benefit from the kind of free-market economy that antitrust enforcement engenders. Protecting against anticompetitive actions, including anticompetitive mergers, helps consumers obtain more innovative, high-quality goods and services at lower prices, and enhances the worldwide competitiveness of American businesses by promoting healthy rivalry, encouraging efficiency, and ensuring a full measure of opportunity for all competitors.

Our focus as antitrust enforcers in reviewing mergers is always on whether a particular merger will hurt consumers by raising prices, reducing quality or limiting innovation. While most mergers either are competitively neutral or beneficial for competition and consumers, there can be no doubt that there are some anticompetitive mergers proposed that would endanger choice, innovation and low prices, and these mergers should and must be prevented.

qualityg says … your focus also needs to include the “PEOPLE” and the “COMMUNITIES” affected by the M/A.

"The loss of jobs in this community will not be easy to swallow (Whirlpool/Maytag Merger), which is why we must begin acting right now to support this community and its workers during their difficult transition period," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said in a statement.

No sir, your job was to prevent this from ever happening and making sure if it did go through your people would be protected.

People who lose their jobs at places like Lucent, Maytag and AT&T (prior to them Ameritech, prior to Ameritech--> PacBell) no longer pay taxes; they draw unemployment (whoops I forgot those dollars get taxed too).

I’m not going to go into the rising crime rates and suffering that it causes families. I’m just going to say:

Department of Justice – "Please Wise-Up" until you look at the end-to-end system when it comes to your reasons for granting M/As, include dollars lost to families, educations, communities, unemployment, welfare, crime, etc... These costs are unknowlable which = Disaster in both short and long term health of our nation.

No comments: