Without revealing the author of the following, I received this email this morning:
Saving the Big 3 for You and Me
I drive an American car. It's a Chrysler. That's not an endorsement. It's more like a cry for pity. And now for a decades-old story, retold ad infinitum by tens of millions of Americans, a third of whom have had to desert their country to simply find a damn way to get to work in something that won't break down:
My Chrysler is four years old. I bought it because of its smooth and comfortable ride. Daimler-Benz owned the company then and had the good grace to place the Chrysler chassis on a Mercedes axle and, man, was that a sweet ride!
When it would start.
More than a dozen times in these years, the car has simply died. Batteries have been replaced, but that wasn't the problem. My dad drives the same model. His car has died many times, too. Just won't start, for no reason at all.
A few weeks ago, I took my Chrysler in to the Chrysler dealer here in northern Michigan -- and the latest fixes cost me $1,400. The next day, the vehicle wouldn't start. When I got it going, the brake warning light came on. And on and on.
You might assume from this that I couldn't give a rat's ass about these miserably inept crapmobile makers down the road in Detroit city. But I do care. I care about the millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on these car companies. I care about the security and defense of this country because the world is running out of oil -- and when it runs out, the calamity and collapse that will take place will make the current recession/depression look like a Tommy Tune musical.
And I care about what happens with the Big 3 because they are more responsible than almost anyone for the destruction of our fragile atmosphere and the daily melting of our polar ice caps.
Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.
And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist).
Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.
But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten.
For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.
Of course, the auto magnates used be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country.
What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.
Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.
So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:
1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.
2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)
3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.
This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.
This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.
In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?
These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.
What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots.
What's wrong with this proposal?
To begin, most people talk about "smaller government," a fear that the federal government will be too strong, or is too strong. Why? Really, I don't get it. I think it should be strong when it comes to corporations and banks and legislation to protect us from them. The federal government should be regulating those things, but leaving individuals alone. I don't fear big federal government unless they are taking my personal rights away. I don't understand how the religious right could have taken over the republican party, which is supposed to mean smaller government control, but actually has proved to mean lack of regulation with less individual rights. The federal government already has a stake in AIG, why not add the car corporations to it?
(Along with that rant, let me add something about health care. People seem to think that governmental healthcare is a horrible idea. I've been on Medicare from the time I was 14 until just a couple of months ago, and that is the only insurance I haven't had a problem with.)
Appointing the right people for certain jobs is not on the short list of things the government has done well. Who would get the jobs to head up all of this? Probably not the best people for the job. The government would be able to hire and fire, but would they?
Many people believe that everything done by the government is wasteful and a failure. Well, a lot of the time, it's true. There's too much red tape, and red tape is expensive.
The US sees the automobile industry as a tradition. Most won't admit that the banking, automobile, and many other corporate industries have failed through capitalism. It isn't capitalism's fault; it's greed and power to blame. (eye roll) The industrial revolution would not have gotten nearly this far had it not been for Ford and his mass production ideas spreading through the world. We say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," while the corporate world (and government) seems to believe, "If it's broke, just throw a bunch of money at it." Screw tradition.
I do have to say I think this may be our only smart option.
Have you heard the figures from the auto industry about how much they're pissing away every day? It's astounding. I can't find the exact amount, that I heard on NPR, but I'll add it if I find it. In a recession, few people can afford to buy a new car. I actually would if I had the credit score. Well, new to me at least. Why keep 3 auto giants in business doing the same thing that's caused them to lose this amount of money? It seems to just be delaying the inevitable.
On the Today show this morning, the president of GM, Fritz Henderson, spoke about the plans he will reveal to Congress. They plan to shrink or get rid of four brands- Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, and Saturn- then spend on new models and marketing for Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC trucks, and Buick. They want to rewrite a labor pact to reduce pay-offs for lay offs, in order to lay off a lot of people and rehire at a lower salary. There's plenty more in the 30-page document, but most isn't really defined. (See http://www.businessweek.com , Detroit's New Bill: $34 Billion) Why are so many brands needed? It costs a lot, and everyone in the industry has comparative vehicles with different brand names for the reason that the CEO of GM said: People are loyal to a certain brand. My first car was a Mercury Lynx. There was no difference between it and a Ford Escort except for the brand and title of the car. WTF? All American cars are made by one of 3 manufacturers. The "brand" will not make it a reliable car.
I couldn't find anywhere in my research a plan that would eliminate the gas guzzlers and focus on fuel efficiency. The $25 BILLION that Congress has already allocated to the auto industry was so with the idea of retooling the industry to make "greener" vehicles. And now they say $25B isn't even enough to keep them from going bankrupt.
It's frustrating. There is still no bailout for individuals losing their home or going bankrupt. It's too risky to just handover all that money to such a failed institution. I think we should own the American automobile industry. We can bring jobs back here. We can make vehicles that are needed to compete- green and reliable. We can use the industry to promote public transportation and make jobs available through public works. Since the government, and us by default, would own the industry, we really would get money out of the bailout. By the way, Michael Moore wrote the email I posted, so I'm sure you can see why I didn't post that above...




I agree and disagree with your post.
I agree that we should not give the bailout and I disagree with your plans for socialism and the vast expansion of the Federal Government.
We have a legal process for dealing with businesses that fail and it is called bankruptcy. It works very well. Often companies emerge and are again able to function as part of the economy. Sometimes they can't because their business model is no longer viable and is beyond salvage. Either way it is the best way to deal with companies that have failed. It has been working for many years.
How many US jobs will be lost with the auto industry going bankrupt? In all reality, this loss will make the economy worse. It isn't working for the people running it, but it could possibly work with total restructuring.
With the already agreed upon general economic bailout, the money is going to industries that messed up. We might as well try to salvage something out of this industry, modernize it, and get jobs out of it.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
As much as it sucks for the people going through it, it's actually part of the process of shifting from one type of economy to another. We as a country are shifting to a service-oriented economy. Even things that once sold "products" (such as software) are going more toward "services" ("software as a service"). Why do you think the salespeople at your local consumer electronics store offer service plans and other services?
It happened before, with the fall of the steel mills. Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, three of the main cities in the "Rust Belt" are still working to pull themselves out of that, but as they pull out, they are better for it.
Basically, the only way to make something of this scale more efficient is to rip out the infrastructure and start over. This can be done the "easy" way -- the company does it while it's still making money (aka - plan for the future) -- or the "hard" way -- it gets its infrastructure ripped out from under it as it falls into bankruptcy.
The fact of the matter is, none of the Big 3 are running long-term sustainable business models. This isn't the first time at least one of them has been in financial trouble. The problem now is the fact that the recession has made it so all three of them are having issues and they can't bail each other out (and yes, they do do that). Economy is a lot like evolution -- evolve or die. One look at GMs line (not to mention the Hummer line) will show that they haven't really evolved much -- at least, not until it was pretty much too late.
Let them go bankrupt, let them pull themselves out or let someone else take over. No lender in their right mind would give to an individual like the government is doing to these companies and the economy is going to hurt more in the long run if the government continues to bail all these companies out instead of letting economics run its course.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
The Big 3 have had their heads so far up their asses to keep building the same thing over and over, with the motto "If we build it, they will buy." I'm against the bailout, but I think the government could take advantage of the situation.
GM had gotten money during the Carter admin, and now they're back needing the most. They are also the makers of the Hummer. They claim they will be out of business by the end of the month without the bailout.
The Big 3 showed up at Capital Hill in fuel efficient vehicles not yet produced by the manufacturers. "We've learned our lesson, now give us money," seemed to be the entire visit. The plans they brought showed nothing of how they would pay back loans or anything.
It would probably be cheaper to buyout the Big 3 and restructure everything. It seems like a good time to start on making everything greener, and making more jobs.
Again, I'm mostly concerned about the employees of the Big 3. We already have such a huge number of people fighting over what few jobs are worthwhile. If we weren't in such a horrible place with unemployment and economy, I would say let them all suffer.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
The Employees are a big part of the problem. More specifically it is the United Auto Workers who have cut themselves such a fat hog that now the business models of the Big 3 are totally unsustainable.
I have ZERO confidence that the Obama Administration and a Democratic controlled Congress which are both HEAVILY BEHOLDEN to the LABOR UNIONS for getting them elected would be capable of undertaking the kind of restructuring you are talking about. They could not politically make the tough choices. I have ZERO confidence that a Republican government could do much better . Government is simply incompetent and they screw up EVERYTHING they try. The only thing our government does efficiently and well is collect taxes and waste them.
And if you are suggesting that the United Auto Workers should not be taking a severe and sharp pay cut you are going to need to explain this to me and the American people in terms of fundamental fairness. The UAW contract package costs the big 3 over $70 per hour. There are tens of thousands of auto workers across the South who are working for Toyota, Honda and several others who are earning much less. Their pay package ends up costing their employers around $40 per hour. Most Americans are working for less than either the Unionized workers of the Big 3 or the non-unionized workers of the other auto manufacturers.
Why should Honda and Toyota be taxed to give money to the Big 3 who are their direct competitors and who would love to run them out of business and would if they could? How is that fair? Why should non-unionized workers be taxed to subsidize higher wages for unionized workers elsewhere? It doesn't make sense to redistribute wealth from poorer workers to richer workers. How is that fair? And why should any American who is earning less than a UAW be taxed to subsidize fat UAW contracts that are clearly unsustainable? Again it is reverse wealth redistribution. There is nothing fair about it.
The government is not competent to run an auto industry. And it is uinfair to subsidize the current economically unviable compensation of UAW workers from taxpayers who earn less. These are issues that the bankruptcy courts have substantial experience sorting out.
Let's actually get into a little more detail about who gets paid "too much." What about corporate pay, bonuses, perks, and severance packages for executives? That adds up more than workers. At one point in time, workers and executives didn't have to large of a gap between incomes. Look at it now.
I would say the government has done a great thing with Medicare. Yes, I would trust the government to do a national health care plan. I'm not saying they should be in control of or have any power over what goes on in the business of making and selling cards. I'm sure they could find the right people to do the work.
Let me also add that Congress really fucked up when they left no strings on the money they gave to banks. Now, even if people want car loans, they can't get them, which was a big reason they got money.
$70 an hour for each employee is not a right number. Some are making that, but I've heard that from a lot of sources as the top paying jobs. I've also read that $35 is a closer average. Look at anyone that gets benefits. It's not all about how much someone works/hour. Should the workers be cut out of health insurance plans? NO. Should the workers lose retirement? NO. There are ways to keep things in check, maybe not as good as it was, but to keep things fair.
I don't know what your problems are with unions, but you seem to be in denial about what really happened. The workers have no say in what goes on. The executives, getting payed 200 times an average employee (last time I read the stat), made horrible decisions. The workers want to work. They shouldn't be the only ones to have their benefits and salaries cut.
Would you like to know more about unions? It seems you could use it. They have very little power anymore, and the numbers are shrinking constantly. The business models suck, and that is why they are unsustainable.
Hell, I would be fine if Honda or Toyota bought out the Big 3.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
First lets clarify the $70 per hour. It is not what the workers are getting paid. It is the total aggregate cost of labor when you add up wages PLUS all the other costs like funding pensions, ridiculously extravagant healthcare packages, job banks where people get paid for not working, etc. The Big 3 Union shops are incurring a total average labor cost of $70 per hour and their non-union competitors are incurring a cost of about $40 per hour. The average aggregate labor cost for non union workers in other manufacturing industries across America is about $25 which gives you a picture of how extravegantly the UAW is over-compensated. The Big 3 can't possibly compete with that type of disadvantage.
I agree that Executives are paid too much. But businesses exist to earn money for their shareholders. Their purpose is not to make jobs or products. Their purpose is to make profits. The shareholders put their money at risk and they own the business and it is their perogative and their perogative alone to determine how much Executives are paid. They are apparently willing to pay an Executive who can earn big profits a huge compensation and that is their decision alone to make. Personally, when I get the proxy statements for the companies in which I own stock, I always vote against the Executive Pay packages because I agree that they are overpaid.
Now I would agree that if a business becomes the ward of the state as a result of a bailout, then it does then become the Public's business as to how much the executives are paid. Personally, I think any executive who has run his business into the ground to the point where they are asking for public charity should find themselves in the unemployment line. There are quite a few bankers that I think deserve some Chinese style justice of the .45 cal variety.
The government did a terrible thing with medicare. Before the government started mucking around with it 40 years ago both insurance and medical care were cheap and readily available. Now the Government has put in place a horribly expensive, underfunded and unfundable ponzi scheme that is destined to fail in a spectacular way and land hard on the taxpayers of YOUR generation (I'll be sitting pretty on the golf course but you will be my tax slave). As a result of government screwing up the healthcare market, the cost of healthcare is now spiralling out of control and the government's answer is to muck around in the healthcare market even more and probably make it even worse of a fiasco. When the government starts doing a decent job of education in the public schools then perhaps I'll be more willing to give them another job. I'm not holding my breath because the government screws up whatever it touches.
I agree with you that I would be happy to see Honda or Toyota buy out the Big 3. That would be far better than a taxpayer bail-out. But WHY would they possibly want them with their unsustainable labor costs? That would be a stupid decision for them. The only way that would work is if the could trash-can the UAW.
The fact is, had the Big 3 been selling their products, there would be no problem. The business plans sucked. "If we build it, they will buy it" has been the motto of the Big 3 for decades. When gas prices skyrocketed, nobody could afford to buy, and if they could, they weren't about to buy something that had very little fuel economy. Not to mention, very few models came close to the safety, reliability, and efficiency standards of other car manufacturers.
Put the blame were it goes. The workers didn't get their say in what they built. The higher-ups had them build vehicles that wouldn't and didn't sell.
Labor costs in '06 were 8.4% of the cost of a new vehicle. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical autoworker produces value added worth $206 per worker per hour. This is far more than he or she earns in wages, even when benefits, statutory contributions and other costs are included.
(http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php)
From Executive Excess 2007:
*CEOs v. Workers*
THE PAY GAP
--CEOs of large U.S. companies last year made as much money from just one day on the job as average workers made over the entire year. These top executives averaged $10.8 million in total compensation, over 364 times the pay of the average American worker, a calculation based on data from an Associated Press survey of 386 Fortune 500 companies.
--The private equity boom has pushed the pay ceiling for American business leaders considerably further into the economic stratosphere. The top 20 private equity and hedge fund managers, Forbes magazine estimates, pocketed an average $657.5 million, or 22,255 times the pay of an average U.S. worker.
--Workers at the bottom rung of the U.S. economy have just received the first federal minimum wage increase in a decade. But the new minimum wage of $5.85 still stands 7 percent below where the minimum wage stood a decade ago in real terms. CEO pay, over that same decade, has increased by roughly 45 percent.
THE PENSION AND PERKS GAP
--CEOs at major American corporations enjoyed, on average, $1.3 million in pension gains last year. By contrast, only 58.5 percent of American households led by a 45-to-54-year old even had a retirement account in 2004, the most recent year with data. Between 2001 and 2004, the retirement accounts of these average households gained only $3,775 in value per year.
--CEOs of S&P 500 companies, according to Corporate Library data, retire with an average $10.1 million in their Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, just one type of special account large American companies routinely set up for their top executives. But most Americans now move into their retirement years with no pension protection whatsoever. In 2004, only 36.3 percent of American households headed by an individual 65 or older held any type of retirement account. The accounts that did exist, on a per household basis, averaged only $173,552 in value, a miniscule 1.7 percent of the dollars in the supplemental accounts set aside for America’s top CEOs.
--The top 386 CEOs took in perks worth an average $438,342 in 2006. These perks ranged from using private company jets for personal travel to reimbursements for country club fees, commuter expenses, and even the extra taxes due on bonus income. A minimum wage worker would need to work for 36 years to earn the equivalent of what CEOs averaged just in perks last year.
And from Executive Excess 2008:
CEO-WORKER DIVIDE: CEOs in the United States, despite our current hard
economic times, continue to pocket outlandishly large pay packages. S&P 500 CEOs
last year averaged $10.5 million, 344 times the pay of typical American workers.
Compensation levels for private investment fund managers soared even further out
into the pay stratosphere. Last year, the top 50 hedge and private equity fund manag-
ers averaged $588 million each, more than 19,000 times as much as typical U.S.
workers earned.
(both reports found at http://www.faireconomy.org/issues/ceo_pay)
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
There are different kinds of bankruptcy. I'm no expert on those laws but Chapter 11 is about "reorganization" and Chapter 7 is about "liquidation".
Everyone of our major airlines has been through Chapter 11 in recent years. Almost all of them have re-emerged and most of the jobs they provided, except the dead weight, are intact. The bankruptcy court determines what needs to be done to restructure them for them to re-emerge as viable companies. Or he sends them on to Chapter 7. Amount the things that occur in restructuring are renegotiation of labor contracts, relief from crushing and unsustainable or payable pension obligations, restructuring of debt to vendors and banks, etc.
It seems to me that the Big 3 are badly in need of the kind of restructuring that should happen in a Bankruptcy Court. One of the reasons they are failing is that their labor situation is unsustainable. Labor including all the costs of wages, pensions, paying people to be unemployed, etc is costing them over $70 an hour while their un-unionized competitors are paying about $40 for the same thing. That is unsustainable and that is the kind of thing that Bankrupty Courts are designed to fix.
..but even I can see that unions take advantage sometimes. I agree with the good insurance and pension, but mandatory raises are bullshit. Well, if they were JUST cost-of-living wage increases, I would totally support it.
Unions provide protection that may not otherwise be afforded them. It's a very fine line that has fallen back and forth from management and union to define fair. Unfair practices and unsafe working conditions should be taken seriously.
The UAW is willing to cooperate. I noticed that's the first thing that gets blamed for the current situation. How about the vehicles? They are nowhere near the quality and reliability of, say, Honda or Toyota. Had they not noticed it? Or had they just pushed the whole "buy American" bullshit and ignored the lack of quality and reliability?
So bankruptcy would, in essence, let them get out of any agreement they've ever made? All of the warranties would be void? The people who spent their lives in those factories to have a nice retirement just lose their pensions? NICE. Do we need all three corporations to make cars? I would say no. With bankruptcy, it sounds like they would all make cars still.
-Sonja :)
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" ~ Peter Finch as Howard Beale, 1976, "Network"
So bankruptcy would, in essence, let them get out of any agreement they've ever made? All of the warranties would be void? The people who spent their lives in those factories to have a nice retirement just lose their pensions? NICE. Do we need all three corporations to make cars? I would say no. With bankruptcy, it sounds like they would all make cars still.
Bankruptcy is essentially a petition to the courts for relief from debt. They can ask but it is up to a judge to determine what contracts get nullified or modified. The workers, the creditors, the bankers and the vendors all get a seat at the table. Everybody gets hurt because the whole point of bankruptcy is that there is not enough money to pay everybody what they are owed. But it is better to get 50 cents on the dollar then o cents on the dollar.
Airlines have gone through bankruptcy and the judges have forced them to honor the tickets they sold. I assume auto warranty obligrations would be handled in a similar manner. And realistically if the auto industries try to get out of their warranty obligations through bankruptcy they might as well proceed directly from chapter 11 reorganization to chapter 7 liquidation because the public will stop buying cars from them and they will be toast.
Airline union workers like the auto industry union workers had used the power of the strike to negotiate unrealistic pensions. What we saw happen in bankruptcy court was that the airlines were relieved of these obligations and they were shunted off to a government entity which is called something like the pension guarantee insurance fund. The workers will get a lot less and it will be paid for partly by taxpayers and partly by insurance premiums that are paid by companies that offer pensions. Not a great deal for the workers or the taxpayers. But here are a couple of questions to ponder. Would the workers get even a little bit of their pensions if the contracts were left unmodified an the business simply failed and was liquidated? Is a reduced pension better than no pension? Should taxpayers, most of whom don't have fat unsustainable pensions negotiated by unions through the extortion powers of the strike, be forced to pay the pension benefits of workers who do have these pensions? Is that fair?
My little brother is an airline pilot and he likes to spout the pro-union line. He told me once, "we don't want to kill the golden goose, we just want to grab it by the neck and squeeze it until it shits out every last golden egg". Well I guess they squeezed a little too hard because his airline along with just about every other airline is in bankruptcy. High fuel prices have been a big part of the problem. But unsustainable union contracts that were extorted using the power of the strike are even more to blame. Airlines were failing when they were carrying full loads even before fuel prices went up. He is not real high on the seniority list so he will be lucky if he ends up still having a job.
Like the airline industry, the autoworkers have all but killed the golden goose. With the host dead, the parasites don't have a lot of choices. They are at the mercy of the courts and/or the American people represented by Congress. The American people are not real enthusiastic about being taxed to pay pension benefits for this select group when they don't get these same benefits themselves. They rightly perceive it to be very unfair.
Well, if they were JUST cost-of-living wage increases, I would totally support it.
I just turned 50. I was in highschool and college during the 1970s and I particularly remember the miserable Jimmy Carter years when we had stagflation and where the words "misery index" were coined.
The economy is kind of bad right now and getting worse. But it is nothing like we had back then with double digit unemployment and double digit inflation at the same time. I hope I don't experience anything like it again but I fear that I am going to.
The bad economy was caused by several things. We had a hangover from irresponsible government spending and the Vietnam War (much like we have now). We had an incompetent President and an incompetent Congress (much like we have now). We had oil shocks (much like we had this summer only way worse). And we had a Fed that was badly handling our money supply and running the printing presses at full speed (much like we have now).
And we had Unions that were like parasites sucking their host businesses dry and causing them to fail and causing all of the vendors that depended on them to fail too (much like we are about to see now). Actually the UAW and the Teamsters are about the only unions that survived the 70's intact except for the various government unions.
The worst of what the unions did to us (and believe me they hurt everybody terribly) was cost of living adjustments. They were called COLAs and they played a big role in the persistent inflation and made it almost impossible to wring it out of the system. Prices went up so the COLAs caused wages to go up which caused prices to go up which caused the COLAs to go up ad nauseum. It was a vicious upwards spiral that because of the contractually mandated COLAs was unstoppable. . It looked like a good deal for the union workers though. And it was right up until they lost their jobs because they had killed their employer. It caused every American to suffer and believe me inflation is the cruelest sort of tax. Every morning when you wake up, you are poorer.
I'm decidely not pro-union. I think it is ridulous that unemployed auto workers are being paid to drink coffee. I think it is ridiculous that auto workers are being paid on the basis of seniority rather that on the basis of productivity and individual merit. I think it is ridiculous that unions cause inefficient production methods to be frozen in time to preserve jobs that should be eliminated by automation. I think it is ridiculous that certain workers are being paid far above a fair market wage which causes all of us to pay higher prices for a product that is crappier then the product produced in a non-union shop. And I am going to be furious if one dime of my tax money gets confiscated to sustain this crappy system.