<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com</link>
<description>Autoblog</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[GM says 17,398 workers took buyout]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/20/gm-says-17-398-workers-took-buyout/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/20/gm-says-17-398-workers-took-buyout/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/20/gm-says-17-398-workers-took-buyout/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/plants-manufacturing/" rel="tag">Plants/Manufacturing</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/gm/" rel="tag">GM</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/earnings-financials/" rel="tag">Earnings/Financials</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/uaw-unions/" rel="tag">UAW/Unions</a></p><a href="http://www.autonews.com/article/20080619/ANA02/156727091/1176"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/06/gm_buyout_round.jpg" /></a>More than one-fourth of GM's 74,000 hourly employees are going to grab the loot and skedaddle. Earlier this year, UAW President <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/14/uaw-pres-expects-15-000-workers-to-take-gm-buyout/">Ron Gettlefinger estimated that 15,000</a> would put their hands out, but another couple thousand decided to hop on the General's money train. The workers are expected to finish their employment by July 1. GM's most recent deal with the UAW means it can replace those folks with lower wage workers and save itself a bundle on payroll. And that will make the job of saving itself that much easier.<br /><br />[Source: <a href="http://www.autonews.com/article/20080619/ANA02/156727091/1176">Automotive News</a>, sub req'd]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/20/gm-says-17-398-workers-took-buyout/">GM says 17,398 workers took buyout</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.autonews.com/article/20080619/ANA02/156727091/1176>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/20/gm-says-17-398-workers-took-buyout/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/1230913/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/20/gm-says-17-398-workers-took-buyout/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>buyouts</category><category>gm</category><category>labor</category><category>personnel</category><category>uaw</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:01:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[No tanks necessary: Russian luxury personnel carrier]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/gadgets/" rel="tag">Gadgets</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/etc/" rel="tag">Etc.</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/commercial-trucks/" rel="tag">Work</a></p><p><a href="http://www.luxist.com/2006/10/16/luxury-vehicle-for-war-zones/"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" id="vimage_1" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/11/military-vehicle_12.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>
<p>Is the armored Mercedes-Benz S600 Guard not enough? How about a luxury tank?</p>
<p>This amphibious Russian combat reconnaissance/patrol vehicle was purchased by a Russian oligarch and retrofitted with a host of luxury equipment including a full leather interior with wood trim, plus night-vision, hi-fi stereo system, sat-nav and television with DVD player. </p>
<p>Being an amphibious vehicle, it can go in the water too, and has a periscope mounted to the roof to help the driver see where he's going and sonar to see what lies beneath. Get stuck on land? It's got extra wheels hidden underneath that can be deployed as needed. The thing <strike>ways</strike> weighs a few tons, and is powered by a 5.5-liter V8 diesel.</p>
<p>And here you thought the Hummer and G-wagon were the ultimate in luxury paramilitary vehicles. Park it next to your Aston Martin and you've got your own little James Bond flick goin' on. </p>
<p><em>(Follow the jump for more images.)</em></p>
<p>[Source: <a href="http://englishrussia.com/?p=381">English Russia</a> via Luxist]</p><p><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>No tanks necessary: Russian luxury personnel carrier</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/">No tanks necessary: Russian luxury personnel carrier</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:29:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.luxist.com/2006/10/16/luxury-vehicle-for-war-zones/>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/694308/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/01/no-tanks-necessary-russian-luxury-personnel-carrier/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>amphibious</category><category>luxury</category><category>personnel</category><category>tank</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Noah Joseph]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:29:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>