Bailout Nation 2: General Motors

[barracuda]

Good riddance. There'll be cheaper cars.

The UAW may go to far with their demands, but I don't think eliminating them is the answer. There is still the need for the check and balance that they provide. I do think they need to concede the more excessive benefits, like paying out of work employees to do nothing.

[Jeebus]

The UAW may go to far with their demands, but I don't think eliminating them is the answer. There is still the need for the check and balance that they provide. I do think they need to concede the more excessive benefits, like paying out of work employees to do nothing.

Why? The "transplant" factories in the south have no UAW presence and you hear no complaints from their workers. Are they ALL being threatened to not talk about deplorable conditions, low pay, excessive work hours, etc, etc?

They're desperate and have low standards. Once they get going, they'll want to renegotiate their own worth. The article even implies that were Toyota's wages not "close enough" to union wages they might find it worth their while to unionize.

You misread the article. It says:

Brown says that Toyota's wages are so close to the union's, she doesn't see the advantage.

The threat of unionization has already made the lives of "transplant" employees better in the South. If the unions are destroyed then that leverage is gone.

It sounds more like the threat OF the threat of Unionization is what has motivated "transplant" factories in south the just pay the workers what they're worth, instead of risking their employees finding reasons to unionize.

In other words, the brain trust at Toyota is leading the way, and the big 3 in Detroit should pray for bankruptcy and a chance to rebuild in their image.

[barracuda]

'Cuda, you are not wrong, but maybe I can add a little perspective, having grown up in and lived in Brazoria County for most of my life. When I was a kid, there were no SUV's. There were a handful of small all-wheel-drive utility vehicles like the Bronco, the Scout, and the original Blazer. They were more or less competitors to Jeep, and were somewhat uncommon. But almost every family had a pickup truck in addition to a car. The pickup was "Dad's work truck" and was driven to work in a chemical plant, or to pull a trailer, or to buy building materials or lawn equipment. The car was "Mom's car" and was used to take kids to school or to get groceries. One big reason that my mom changed to a Blazer in the late 70's was that our streets would flood in heavy rains and she wanted a higher-riding car.

I hear you. I lived in Brazoria County for awhile, so I've experienced some of the flooding (same goes for Harris County), and I wouldn't consider a Blazer to be ostentatious like some of the huge SUVs I see. The big truck and SUV phenomenon was just something that was really noticeable. Out of town visitors often comment on how we tend to drive such big vehicles down here.

Somebody in town drives one of these to Memorial Park. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.

[TheNiche]

The UAW may go to far with their demands, but I don't think eliminating them is the answer. There is still the need for the check and balance that they provide. I do think they need to concede the more excessive benefits, like paying out of work employees to do nothing.

The checks and balances on what!?

[TJones]

UNBELIEVABLE, the Dems. insist on a swift timetable to pull troops out of Iraq, but not a swift timetable on UAW wages, to keep our auto industry from collapsing ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1229091337...wsj_gadgv1&

'Cuda, if Toyota and Nissan can turn a profit without the UAW's checks and balances(whatever that is) and build what Americans percieve as "better built cars", then why can't the Big 3 ?

[barracuda]

The checks and balances on what!?

On overreaching management that puts profits above employee rights and safety.

Why? The "transplant" factories in the south have no UAW presence and you hear no complaints from their workers. Are they ALL being threatened to not talk about deplorable conditions, low pay, excessive work hours, etc, etc?

How do you know, have you asked them? Maybe they would like better benefits but are afraid to ask.

That said, I would presume that even if the benefits are slightly less than that of the UAW workers, the lower cost of living probably makes up for that. There's also the fact that these are still decent jobs when the other opportunity is working at Walmart or McDonald's for minimum wage. So, I think you are less likely to see complaints when that is their only real option for a good job.

[marmer]

Somebody in town drives one of these to Memorial Park. I couldn't believe it when I saw it.

Heh. I heard that GM sold their big commercial heavy pickup to Navistar, but I've never seen one of those in the metal. I have seen these:

[TheNiche]

On overreaching management that puts profits above employee rights and safety.

Oh, you mean something completely duplicative of OSHA but that still charges hefty union dues back to the members that it claims to represent? If union members are parasites, then union organizers and management are a parasite of parasites.

[Jeebus]

On overreaching management that puts profits above employee rights and safety.

You mean the over reaching profits DEMANDED by the shareholders who are led blindly by the talking heads on the cable news networks?

Eliminate shareholders, then you can blame management.

How do you know, have you asked them? Maybe they would like better benefits but are afraid to ask.

That was the point of my statement. I shouldn't have to ask them. Of the thousands of workers at non-union automotive plants in the south not a single person is blowing the whistle on "transplant" automakers unfair labor practices? Did Toyota hire the teamsters to intimidate the non-union masses to keep their mouths shut?

That said, I would presume that even if the benefits are slightly less than that of the UAW workers, the lower cost of living probably makes up for that. There's also the fact that these are still decent jobs when the other opportunity is working at Walmart or McDonald's for minimum wage. So, I think you are less likely to see complaints when that is their only real option for a good job.

You're right, because in the areas surrounding the non-union automotive plants in the south are only Walmarts & McDonald's - with most of the McDonald's being inside the Walmart! When not at work at one of the three following employers, they probably sit at home clinging to their guns & religion!

Either way, you sound like a pro-union person that seems to believe that without the UAW, our society will collapse into some primordial realm reminiscent of the Jules Verne's Time Machine. The "transplant" automotive factories in the south, with their labor practices and happy employees seem to disprove your paranoia.

[TJones]

"Cuda, was your oldman a factory worker ? Steel, Auto.... ? This is the only reason I can figure why you would back a union that causes more damage than it has helped, it HAS to be sentimental.

[marmer]

"Cuda, was your oldman a factory worker ? Steel, Auto.... ? This is the only reason I can figure why you would back a union that causes more damage than it has helped, it HAS to be sentimental.

Mine was. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, for forty-plus years. If he were still alive to ask, he would tell you that he never regretted it for a moment. Of course, the IAM is no UAW, but I do have sort of an issue with Congress demanding the re-negotiation of a labor contract that was just signed and with everyone from Congress to the press to the man on the street sharpening their knives to cut wages and benefits from manufacturing workers right at a time when Detroit is getting their manufacturing act together.

[TheNiche]

Mine was. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, for forty-plus years. If he were still alive to ask, he would tell you that he never regretted it for a moment. Of course, the IAM is no UAW, but I do have sort of an issue with Congress demanding the re-negotiation of a labor contract that was just signed and with everyone from Congress to the press to the man on the street sharpening their knives to cut wages and benefits from manufacturing workers right at a time when Detroit is getting their manufacturing act together.

Oh, so when employers uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders make good on an organizational transformation, then it is OK for a labor union to bleed them!? Employees have a right to the profit of an organization when the organization doesn't need it, and the employees are the arbiter of 'need'.

This approach undermines a firm that is afflicted by a labor union completely and totally. It fosters a bleak long-term outlook on the part of shareholders, depressing the share price, thereby acting to distort the corporate capital structure. It encourages debt issuance rather than equity financing, in effect leveraging them up and ratcheting up their default risk during recessions. Lenders recognize this and become willing to lend only on less favorable terms. Ultimately, not only is the default risk (and consequently the odds of a government bailout) higher, but their weighted average cost of capital is much higher than competitiors within the same industry, preventing the host firm of a labor cartel from reinvesting in properly-marketed high-quality products to the same level as a parasite-free firm is able to.

[BryanS]

see below...

[BryanS]

Mine was. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, for forty-plus years. If he were still alive to ask, he would tell you that he never regretted it for a moment. Of course, the IAM is no UAW, but I do have sort of an issue with Congress demanding the re-negotiation of a labor contract that was just signed and with everyone from Congress to the press to the man on the street sharpening their knives to cut wages and benefits from manufacturing workers right at a time when Detroit is getting their manufacturing act together.

Me too.

Gettlefinger talked about this today. You see... there is all this pressure to oppress, eviscerate, and scapegoat the unionized working class... however... very little is said about the executives, and other parties, except meaningless fluff over whether or not they took private jet airplanes.

For instance, all the GOP ideologues want the UAW to adopt Alabama-style Toyota worker hour wages. OK. But in that comparison... of what the workers should make... where are the calls to disclose the upper management salaries at the transplant Toyota factories? Where are the calls to disclose the part supplier contract pricing? What about upper management? What about all these other parties, which collectively add to the total real cost of producing a vehicle?

Apparently, there were a couple of American Toyota workers who happened across the real plan that Toyota had... and they were fired.

Maybe those Toyota transplant engineers don't get paid as much as GM. Maybe those middle managers at the Nissan plant in Tennessee don't get paid as much as Ford. Where are the numbers? WHERE IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE?

You see... to be fair... you'd want EVERYONE to shoulder the burden - not just picking a base hourly rate that blue collar workers at GM must work to be "competitive." Why not also reduce everyone else

[RedScare]

Oh, so when employers uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders make good on an organizational transformation, then it is OK for a labor union to bleed them!? Employees have a right to the profit of an organization when the organization doesn't need it, and the employees are the arbiter of 'need'.

This approach undermines a firm that is afflicted by a labor union completely and totally. It fosters a bleak long-term outlook on the part of shareholders, depressing the share price, thereby acting to distort the corporate capital structure. It encourages debt issuance rather than equity financing, in effect leveraging them up and ratcheting up their default risk during recessions. Lenders recognize this and become willing to lend only on less favorable terms. Ultimately, not only is the default risk (and consequently the odds of a government bailout) higher, but their weighted average cost of capital is much higher than competitiors within the same industry, preventing the host firm of a labor cartel from reinvesting in properly-marketed high-quality products to the same level as a parasite-free firm is able to.

So, Niche's argument against 'labor cartel's' is that they limit the ability of money cartels (the corporations, partnerships aand hedge funds) to gouge the workers. Sorry, not buying it. The only fair way to limit the ability of workers to organize is to limit the ability of owners to organize as well. To claim otherwise is to claim that the rich have the unbridled right to step on the poor and working class. A corporation or partnership or a fund is merely a group of individuals pooling their resources to effect greater clout and greater economies of scale, therefore, greater power. A union is merely a group of individuals doing the same thing. The difference? The union members' resources are their labor.

No matter how you slice it, and no matter how many dire consequences are predicted, the union is no different than the corporation. To advocate disbanding one over the other is to favor the wealthy over the worker, for no other reason than that the wealthy can better profit over a divided workforce. The fact that some unions have been poorly run...UAW being one...is no more reason to outlaw unions than the fact that poorly run corporations...the airlines? GM?...is a reason to outlaw corporations. There are legal ways to get around oppressive union contracts, bankruptcy being one of them. But, frankly, the arguments against the UAW today are a red herring, as the UAW has renegotiated a lot of their bad contracts. Why should they agree to severe wage cuts when their wages are already at or below Toyota's? The big money is in the pensions, not the working stiffs.

[marmer]

"We are UAW, resistance is futile."

Or, as a fellow on another forum uses as his .sig:

Dyslexic Borg: "Your ass will be laminated!"

[barracuda]

"Cuda, was your oldman a factory worker ? Steel, Auto.... ? This is the only reason I can figure why you would back a union that causes more damage than it has helped, it HAS to be sentimental.

No, but I don't blindly jump on the GOP attack bandwagon either. Like I said, I concede that the UAW has overreached in its demand for certain benefits over the years. But that doesn't mean they should be disbanded. And it definitely doesn't deserve the bulk of the criticism regarding the condition of the automakers.

Where are the GOP parrots when it comes to replacing the CEOs and managers who've led their companies into this position? Is it really the UAW workers who are at fault? These workers make just a few dollars more than the non-union peers, and they've already agreed to lots of concessions. The GOP views organized labor as a big enemy, but I think it's largely misguided in this case. This problem has more to do with the recession and related credit problems, wherein people with FICO scores below 700 can't get a car loan. They are using this as an opportunity to drag the UAW through the trash in the hope of destroying the organization.

And how about investigating the hiring methods used by many of the foreign automakers, such as administering personality tests to identify candidates who are least likely to support union involvement?

[EDIT] Oh, and also, how about blaming the federal government for not providing universal healthcare? This is a far greater cost for Detroit that the foreign automakers receive in their home countries.

[barracuda]

What's also interesting is how the Senators most opposed to the auto bailout are the same ones who supported subsidizing the foreign automakers with factories in their states, like Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. So, they don't mind government subsidizing private industry as long as it helps their constituents. And yet, when millions of jobs in other states are on the line, they vote against any involvement.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/11/sen-sh...a-not-very.html

[RedScare]

[EDIT] Oh, and also, how about blaming the GOP for not providing universal healthcare? This is a far greater cost for Detroit that the foreign automakers receive in their home countries.

FIFY

[TheNiche]

For instance, all the GOP ideologues want the UAW to adopt Alabama-style Toyota worker hour wages. OK. But in that comparison... of what the workers should make...

Workers are not entitled to make anything. There is no amount that they should make other than what has been agreed to by individual employers and individual employees.

... where are the calls to disclose the upper management salaries at the transplant Toyota factories? Where are the calls to disclose the part supplier contract pricing? What about upper management?

Why would you care what a coworker makes? It is none of your business, nor is it your responsibility. And as for supplier contracts, those are trade secrets.

What about all these other parties, which collectively add to the total real cost of producing a vehicle?

What about them? Are any of those other instances acts of collusion? There clearly are going to be instances where there are poorly negotiated compensation packages and supplier contracts. There are also going to be instances where there are excellently negotiated compensation packages and supplier contracts. Statistically speaking, there are going to be extreme outlying cases among the data. There's a margin of error on that kind of thing. However, insofar as there is no conspiracy on the part of management to undermine shareholder value to their personal gain, and insofar as there is no conspiracy on the part of management to undermine free and competitive markets, then this is an issue altogether seperate from public policy regarding labor unions.

Let's take it to a higher level. Firms within the same industry tend to have similar operating costs. Those firms will vary around a mean. Some will perform better than others. If you understand even basic theories of probability, you will understand that some variation is essentially random. If five firms all have operating expense ratios within 50 basis points of one another, it doesn't matter how they are ranked; they are all performing within parameters within which it is statistically impossible to claim that one variable, the quality of top management, was responsible for the difference between expense ratios among firms. And even if the expense ratios are 1000 basis points different in one firm, that should come up as a red flag, but that doesn't mean that it can't necessarily be explained away by controllable or uncontrollable circumstances. One way or another, this is basically a matter between shareholders and management. Perhaps there does need to be tweaking of regulation to ensure that accountability exists so that shareholders have better assurances that management has upheld its fiduciary responsibilities to them. I'm not necessarily against that. However, that is a policy issue altogether unrelated to labor unions.

A unionized firm and an ununionized firm within the same industry are going to have different operating cost structures. (As I have established in an earlier post, this has all kinds of adverse consequences to the unionized firm which transcend merely labor costs.) If the two firms do not have different operating cost structures, then that means that union members at the unionized firm are paying a whole lot of dues to union management and not getting any kind of benefit from it. If that's the case then the labor union should be dissolved because it is costing members more money than the union is worth.

Apparently, there were a couple of American Toyota workers who happened across the real plan that Toyota had... and they were fired.

Maybe those Toyota transplant engineers don't get paid as much as GM. Maybe those middle managers at the Nissan plant in Tennessee don't get paid as much as Ford. Where are the numbers? WHERE IS THE FULL DISCLOSURE?

Full disclosure is not and should not be required of a firm and its employees that are not engaged in collusion or undermining free and competitive markets.

You see... to be fair... you'd want EVERYONE to shoulder the burden - not just picking a base hourly rate that blue collar workers at GM must work to be "competitive." Why not also reduce everyone else

[RedScare]

Workers are not entitled to make anything. There is no amount that they should make other than what has been agreed to by individual employers and individual employees.

And companies are not entitled to workers. There is no requirement that workers perform services for a company, other than what has been agreed to by the company's representative and the worker's representative. The shareholders (the company) are represented by the CEO. The workers are entitled to the same representation during negotiations.

[TJones]

This problem has more to do with the recession and related credit problems, wherein people with FICO scores below 700 can't get a car loan. They are using this as an opportunity to drag the UAW through the trash in the hope of destroying the organization.

WHAT ???

I just sold a car to a guy with a 580 beacon. Another one day before yesterday with a 630. Who told you this lie ? Quit listening to the drive by media suckheads, would you ? If someone has the proper amount down, and a stable job, and residence, I can get them into a car. You WILL however need a 700 beacon or better or at least 650 with HALF DOWN, to finance one of my GT-Rs.

[Jeebus]

For instance, all the GOP ideologues want the UAW to adopt Alabama-style Toyota worker hour wages. OK. But in that comparison... of what the workers should make... where are the calls to disclose the upper management salaries at the transplant Toyota factories? Where are the calls to disclose the part supplier contract pricing? What about upper management? What about all these other parties, which collectively add to the total real cost of producing a vehicle?

You see... to be fair... you'd want EVERYONE to shoulder the burden - not just picking a base hourly rate that blue collar workers at GM must work to be "competitive." Why not also reduce everyone else’s salary? - based on the real numbers? Because when you look at the real numbers... and you breakdown base, benefits, retirement obligations... you'll find that GM has a huge retirement obligation (read the NYT article)... but other than that… they're competitive, right down to the base wage, their workers, engineers, and products they build.

Is it really the UAW workers who are at fault? These workers make just a few dollars more than the non-union peers, and they've already agreed to lots of concessions.

Good for the UAW, but passing on one piece of pie after stuffing your face for 50 years is not going to eliminate your morbid obesity.

Where are the GOP parrots when it comes to replacing the CEOs and managers who've led their companies into this position?

Last time I check they are non-government owned companies. So why would any politicians get involved with trying to unseat and replace employees of said non-government owned company? We don't want to give them money, so why should we want to get involved?

The GOP views organized labor as a big enemy, but I think it's largely misguided in this case. This problem has more to do with the recession and related credit problems, wherein people with FICO scores below 700 can't get a car loan. They are using this as an opportunity to drag the UAW through the trash in the hope of destroying the organization.

So you're saying that had the economy not tanked then none of this would have ever happened? Give me a break. This has been brewing for years. The dam of the UAW's demands just finally broke.

And how about investigating the hiring methods used by many of the foreign automakers, such as administering personality tests to identify candidates who are least likely to support union involvement?

Lets see, I run a company and my job is to hire people that WANT to work there for the wage we offer, and not for the wage we could be BULLIED into. Yes, how about a little more bleeding as we expand affirmative action to cover union preference.

[EDIT] Oh, and also, how about blaming the federal government for not providing universal healthcare? This is a far greater cost for Detroit that the foreign automakers receive in their home countries.

I've read this statement at least a dozen times and it still doesn't make any sense.

What's also interesting is how the Senators most opposed to the auto bailout are the same ones who supported subsidizing the foreign automakers with factories in their states, like Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. So, they don't mind government subsidizing private industry as long as it helps their constituents. And yet, when millions of jobs in other states are on the line, they vote against any involvement.

Yes, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do - look out for the best interest of THEIR constituents! The people in Michigan have the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF SENATORS.

For the record, I am 100% in favor of OSHA and similar minded organizations whose goal is safety at the work place. Couple that with the federally set minimum wage and there should be no need for unions.

That's what we have civil court and an excess of ambulance chasing lawyers for.

And companies are not entitled to workers. There is no requirement that workers perform services for a company, other than what has been agreed to by the company's representative and the worker's representative. The shareholders (the company) are represented by the CEO. The workers are entitled to the same representation during negotiations.

What negotiations? It should be between the worker and his supervisor to determine wages, added benefits, etc etc. If the worker doesn't like it he/she should quit.

If enough workers quit, the business will fail, so I would imagine the business would be keen pay the worker what he is worth - you know, kinda like what the "transplant" manufacturers in the south seem to be doing?

The only time we have seen this theory fail is when the government allows businesses to hire and employ illegal immigrants (by not enforcing the laws on the books).

[TheNiche]

So, Niche's argument against 'labor cartel's' is that they limit the ability of money cartels (the corporations, partnerships aand hedge funds) to gouge the workers. Sorry, not buying it.

Seeing as how I do not recognize the validity of the concepts that you have introduced, it seems unlikely that this was my argument...and I don't blame you for not buying this fictitious argument which I did not make.

The only fair way to limit the ability of workers to organize is to limit the ability of owners to organize as well.

If a group of theives holds a meeting to plan to steal the Hope Diamond, the meeting is in and of itself a constitutionally-protected right. But that they plotted to commit a crime makes such a meeting a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not constitutionally protected.

Likewise, if there are three gas stations in a remote rural town with one stop light and they are all at different corners of the intersection, and the owners convene in order to set monopoly pricing, that is also a conspiracy. They have formed a cartel. And if memory serves, whatever the calculated damages are to society from them getting together and undermining free and competitive markets has to be paid back in fines three times over. I want to say that jail time is also possible.

If labor holds a meeting with the intention of collectively negotiating for higher wages under threat of strike and also persecuting scabs to try and place barriers to movement between different parts of a larger labor market, they are trying to build a monopoly power. It is an act of conspiracy and a violation of the spirit of anti-trust regulation.

To claim otherwise is to claim that the rich have the unbridled right to step on the poor and working class. A corporation or partnership or a fund is merely a group of individuals pooling their resources to effect greater clout and greater economies of scale, therefore, greater power. A union is merely a group of individuals doing the same thing. The difference? The union members' resources are their labor.

No matter how you slice it, and no matter how many dire consequences are predicted, the union is no different than the corporation.

Class warfare has nothing to do with this, per se.

Example: construction-related trade unions impose hardships upon small businesses such as general contractors in many states. The general contractors generally are contracted with by a fee developer, another small business which has arranged financing through large firms that are limited partners (if that) and that have little say in the operations of the partnership; that the larger firms were able to line up financing for the fee developer merely allows that small business to supply new real estate to consumers, among them the middle class.

If the effect of unions is that the replacement cost is higher than would otherwise be the case, then in order to justify the investment, the price will have to be higher. The upper- and middle-classes typically consume new real estate and will have to pay the higher prices directly, but if they are either unwilling or unable to pay those higher prices, then they won't demand new real estate. Instead of the lower-class having second-hand access to older real estate no longer demanded by the upper- and middle-classes, the lower-class ends up paying more for what they can get in order to effectively ration the shortage of real estate in that locality.

The used car market is similar. If new car prices went up then so would used car prices. Scarcity is resolved by crowding out the poorest people from the market entirely and by everybody still in the market paying higher prices.

If you're going to use class warfare arugments as a justification for labor unions, then perhaps my analogy of them to parasites is less useful than is an analogy to cannibals. They eat their own.

As for comparing corporations and partnerships to labor unions, from time to time there is good reason to do so. That's where anti-trust laws come into play, as well they should. However, the key difference between a partnership or joint venture and a cartel is monopoly power; if you are seeking monopoly power, you are a cartel. If you neither intend to or are able to undermine competitive market pricing, then it doesn't matter how many different entities participate--it is not the same thing.

A monopoly requires that the monopolistic entity be making available a good or service for which there are no close substitutes so that they are able to set the price, and also that they are able to enforce barriers to entry by new entities seeking to cash in on monopolistic pricing. Unions are capable of doing this. Car manufacturers, fee-based real estate developers, general contractors, etc., are not able to do this...except in a very few cases, and those cases are illegal and prosecuted fervently.

To advocate disbanding one over the other is to favor the wealthy over the worker, for no other reason than that the wealthy can better profit over a divided workforce. The fact that some unions have been poorly run...UAW being one...is no more reason to outlaw unions than the fact that poorly run corporations...the airlines? GM?...is a reason to outlaw corporations. There are legal ways to get around oppressive union contracts, bankruptcy being one of them. But, frankly, the arguments against the UAW today are a red herring, as the UAW has renegotiated a lot of their bad contracts. Why should they agree to severe wage cuts when their wages are already at or below Toyota's? The big money is in the pensions, not the working stiffs.

The UAW is an example not only of a cartel, but of a cartel that has failed its members yet still is extracting resources from them. There are a lot of crappy mismanaged unions out there and accountability to membership is lax. No doubt about that. Seems like just one more reason to outlaw them, so as that they don't directly take advantage of their ignorant blue-collar members (when even if they are effective they are indirectly taking advantage of them).

There just is not a compelling case to be made for labor unions. Not one way. Not the other.

[barracuda]

Good for the UAW, but passing on one piece of pie after stuffing your face for 50 years is not going to eliminate your morbid obesity.

Last time I check they are non-government owned companies. So why would any politicians get involved with trying to unseat and replace employees of said non-government owned company? We don't want to give them money, so why should we want to get involved?

But they do want to get involved in deciding benefits for UAW workers.

So you're saying that had the economy not tanked then none of this would have ever happened? Give me a break. This has been brewing for years. The dam of the UAW's demands just finally broke.

Not necessarily. GM and Ford have been restructuring to be profitable in a 17 million car a year market. If the bottom hadn't dropped out of the economy, then GM wouldn't be in need of government loans. I'm not so sure about Chrysler though.

I've read this statement at least a dozen times and it still doesn't make any sense.

Imported cars don't care the burden of healthcare costs. Domestically built cars do. Detroit also has huge legacy healthcare costs that are built-into the price of their vehicles. If we have universal healthcare, Detroit could eliminate a nice chunk of their cost structure and invest that in R&D and improved profitability

Yes, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do - look out for the best interest of THEIR constituents! The people in Michigan have the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF SENATORS.

They should be looking out for all Americans, not just residents of Alabama. I think it's hypocritical to support subsidies in your own state, but fight against loans affecting millions of workers in other states across the country.

For the record, I am 100% in favor of OSHA and similar minded organizations whose goal is safety at the work place. Couple that with the federally set minimum wage and there should be no need for unions.

That's what we have civil court and an excess of ambulance chasing lawyers for.

That would be ideal if it worked. I can understand wanting to lower your costs and be more efficient and effective without the baggage of labor unions. But I feel there will always be situations where corrupt management goes too far in mistreating employees. This is especially true today in factory chicken farming. http://www.southernstudies.org/2008/02/wor...t-again-in.html

[TheNiche]

And companies are not entitled to workers. There is no requirement that workers perform services for a company, other than what has been agreed to by the company's representative and the worker's representative. The shareholders (the company) are represented by the CEO. The workers are entitled to the same representation during negotiations.

IMO companies ought to be entitled to a free and competitive market for labor and capital just as households ought to be entitled to a free and competitive market for goods and services.

[Jeebus]

But they do want to get involved in deciding benefits for UAW workers.

But you just said that you wanted to know why the GOP parrots contingent isn't. So which is it? They do want to get involved or they don't?

Not necessarily. GM and Ford have been restructuring to be profitable in a 17 million car a year market. If the bottom hadn't dropped out of the economy, then GM wouldn't be in need of government loans. I'm not so sure about Chrysler though.

The key word here is "yet", as in: "Had the bottom of the economy not droppped out, then GM wouldn't be in need of government loans yet."

How convenient that just as a soon as a bailout line forms, the big 3 domestic automakers were second in line with their platinum plated cups & spoons using fear-mongers tactics like "if you don't bail us out, we will implode, thousands will go hungry and society will collapse."

Imported cars don't care the burden of healthcare costs. Domestically built cars do. Detroit also has huge legacy healthcare costs that are built-into the price of their vehicles. If we have universal healthcare, Detroit could eliminate a nice chunk of their cost structure and invest that in R&D and improved profitability

This is such a moot point. Imported cars have nothing to do with this argument. Thats comparing apples to oranges. Apples to apples are the big 3 versus the "transplant" imports in the south.

If anything, the big 3 could always CONTINUE to move out of the country to cover those healthcare costs. I'm sure Mexico offers great benefits to their well paid Big 3 plant workers.

They should be looking out for all Americans, not just residents of Alabama. I think it's hypocritical to support subsidies in your own state, but fight against loans affecting millions of workers in other states across the country.

You are right that they are to look out for the interests of ALL Americans, but when the fight is in THEIR backyard, THEIR constituents should come first. Otherwise, why in the hell would you elect someone if they didn't look out for your interests first???

But I feel there will always be situations where corrupt management goes too far in mistreating employees. This is especially true today in factory chicken farming. http://www.southernstudies.org/2008/02/wor...t-again-in.html

And again, this is why people can band together and file class-action lawsuits, or just quit.

[N Judah]

Government-sponsored bribes to attract businesses to Alabama good, union-friendly policies enjoying broad popular support in Michigan bad. Got it.

Union wages in Detroit cause for mass hysteria, upper management wages in Appalachia nobody's damn business. I think I'm finally coming around!

[RedScare]

If a group of theives holds a meeting to plan to steal the Hope Diamond, the meeting is in and of itself a constitutionally-protected right. But that they plotted to commit a crime makes such a meeting a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not constitutionally protected.

Likewise, if there are three gas stations in a remote rural town with one stop light and they are all at different corners of the intersection, and the owners convene in order to set monopoly pricing, that is also a conspiracy. They have formed a cartel. And if memory serves, whatever the calculated damages are to society from them getting together and undermining free and competitive markets has to be paid back in fines three times over. I want to say that jail time is also possible.

If labor holds a meeting with the intention of collectively negotiating for higher wages under threat of strike and also persecuting scabs to try and place barriers to movement between different parts of a larger labor market, they are trying to build a monopoly power. It is an act of conspiracy and a violation of the spirit of anti-trust regulation.

Likewise, when Walmart buyers gather for a meeting with suppliers and threaten them with no sales if they do not sell at a lower price, and they build new stores in rural areas and cut prices to put smaller stores out of business, they are also trying to build a monopoly. It is allowed for corporations, and until you are against them doing it, you shouldn't be against labor doing it.

Asking for a higher wage is not thievery, and asking as a group is not a conspiracy. It is because there are people with your mindset that unions exist, and why they are still needed. Every time you argue against wages and benefits for workers, every time you blast the minimum wage, every time you forgive theft by hedge funds and CEOs, yet rail against a line worker making $57,000, you make the need for unions greater. Unions were formed to level the playing field against people like you. It is no surprise why you advocate their destruction, and no surprise that the GOP tried to bury them yesterday.

If there were any doubts that the GOP is in favor of class warfare, their actions last night proved it. There is even a memo wherein they promoted it. The GOP senators would risk the implosion of the auto industry, just so they could attempt to punish the UAW. Herbert Hoover, say hello to the 2008 GOP.

[20thStDad]

Look, the big 3 make vehicles, and they sell tons of them. It's not like we're talking about a product with no demand here, there is a ton of demand. If they are too stupid or greedy to run their business in a profitable manner, then let them die and someone else will take over the reins. In the end they'll still make the same cars, production probably won't even stop.