Somehow though, it is not quite as funny when the Department of Justice abides by the same premise. In May 2009, the U.S. Justice Department looked at the economic effects of state franchise laws that ban on direct sales of vehicles by manufacturers to consumers. The author of the Justice Department report, economist Gerald Bodisch, used the example of a direct sales model, a GM program in Brazil, whereby a consumer could order a Chevrolet Celta online. He opined about how wonderful this program was.
There was only one problem with this report - the program ended in 2006 because it was too costly. That is a full three years before the report by the DoJ was filed. This earned the Department of Justice four Pinocchios from the Washington Post.
Silly me. I did not expect that it would be acceptable for the Justice Department to embellish. I wonder what kind of bourbon Mr. Bodisch drinks. It would appear that it's something in the 100-proof plus range! Cheers!
CFPB's Richard Cordray Takes Tough Questions From Congress
I don't know if you've seen this video of Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testifying before members of Congress who expressed serious concerns about the CFPB’s guidance on dealer-assisted financing. It is worth a couple minutes of your time to see that the CFPB's behavior has garnered bipartisan dismay. (Watch Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a car dealer, tell a story of what really happens in the showroom.)
Members on both sides of the aisle noted that the agency has overstepped its jurisdiction and continues to ignore an important Charles River Associates study that questions the CFPB’s testing methodology. The flawed methodology is being used in the CFPB’s overreaching guidance of auto loans, yet Cordray refused to discuss the CFPB’s reasoning in dismissing the study.
NADA Supports Efforts to Disapprove NLRB Ambush Rule
In December, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued the "ambush" election rule which shortens the time between when union organizers ask for a union election and when that election must take place. The rule forces companies to allow these elections to occur as soon as 11 days after they're notified. The rule's new timeframe limits an employer's ability to communicate with employees prior to the election. The rule also requires employers to provide, within two business days of an election direction, employees' personal telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.
NADA opposed this rulemaking in a number of ways, through filing multiple sets of comments and our involvement with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW). CDW filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to stop the implementation of this rule and coordinated multi-industry Senate and House letters in support of S.J. Res.8., which NADA signed. S.J. Res. 8 is a joint resolution nullifying this rule through the use of the Congressional Review Act. On March 4, the Senate approved S.J. Res. 8 by an almost party line vote of 53-46. The House is expected to take the measure up on March 18. The President's advisors announced on March 3 that they will recommend a veto of the resolution. Congress would need a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto.
NADA believes that the current election timeframe is reasonable and allows employees to hear from both the union and the employer before making a decision. The NLRB's rule upsets this balance by putting employers at a disadvantage. Contact NADA Legislative Affairs if you are interested in learning more about the upcoming vote in the House by sending an email to legislative@nada.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment