What has Obama done so far to help crush the UAW?

[ContinentalOp]

I'll admit that I haven't been paying close attention so I must have missed some stuff.
I see that...

- He said "And so today I'm announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited additional period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional taxpayer dollars."


- and he said "Now, what we're asking for is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more."


- and "Now, let there be no doubt, it will take an unprecedented effort on all our parts -- from the halls of Congress to the boardroom, from the union hall to the factory floor -- to see the auto industry through these difficult times."

So yeah, that stuff is pretty horrible I guess. Anything else I missed? :shrug:

[amandabeech]

1. He's forcing more cuts on the UAW when all they've been doing for years is cut.

Google UAW and inform yourself.

[ContinentalOp]

8. What cuts has he "forced."

He made kind of a vague statement that everyone would have to make sacrifices. What actual cuts has he forced upon the UAW?

[amandabeech]

35. No more money unless you make more concessions. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. What is the alternative?

The auto companies can't make money under the current set-up. He could just let them go out of business, but where would the UAW be then?

[NYC_SKP]

2. It's not about what YOU are missing.

It's about what the detractors are chosing to be ignorant about.

I recommend this post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Well, the main issue...

is that he's black.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. .

:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

5. Where was that "tough love" when he talked about Wall Street giveaways?

I don't recall him saying anything about "hard choices" or "painful concessions" when the giveaways were 100 times greater than what th eauto industry needs and the recipients were his "free market" banking friends. Odd that, no?

[ContinentalOp]

11. So the fact that wall street and GM are getting a different treatment...

is a de facto blow to the union? Simply because he never used the exact words "hard choices" or "painful concessions"?

Here is some stuff he did say:
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?

In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury. And I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole. (Applause.) I want everybody to be clear that Secretary Geithner has been on the case. He’s working to resolve this matter with the new CEO, Edward Liddy — who, by the way, everybody needs to understand came on board after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year."

[leftofthedial]

14. After he said "justify this outrage," he continued with the plan to give them

more billions, maybe even hundreds of billions.

Rhetorically calling for the blocking of the bonuses of a few executives is one thing. Why isn't he demanding that banks lay off tens of thousands of employees until they can once again balance their books? Why isn't he in effect saying that bankruptcy is the only way to fix the banks (whose books are in FAR worse shape than the auto makers). The banks are in the hole for sums that dwarf our entire country's GDP.

[ContinentalOp]

16. That money was already allocated to TARP prior to Obama taking office.

Which troubled assets would you have preferred he spend the additional $30billion on?

More to the point, how have the hundreds of billions of TARP dollars contributed to crushing the UAW?

[leftofthedial]

21. but is now controlled by his Treasury Department.

I'd rather he didn't spend a penny on troubled assets. Those are the creation of and the problem of the "free market" which must either deal with them or fail on their own.

Those billions, which are utterly 100% wasted money when given to Wall Street, could have purchased the entire US auto industry, paid for the R&D and retooling needed for creation of new green transportation alternatives, kept every union worker employed, created millions of new jobs and funded the conversion of our health care system to a universal single-payer model.

For starters.

[ContinentalOp]

22. I agree, but it's the "Troubled Assets Relief Program"!

That's exactly what it's for. Is it even possible for the Obama administration to keep the money or give it to GM? I would imagine that they're required by law to spend that money on troubled assets, and since we own something like 80% of AIG, it seems like a good place to start.

[girl gone mad]

34. No, it wasn't allocated.

Obama threatened a veto when the Senate wanted to keep the banks from getting TARP II.

[FrenchieCat]

6. He saved them from a situation where the pain would not have been shared....

with UAW taking all of the hits!

One of the many reasons why Wagoner got the ax:

GM still hashing out a UAW deal
Rick Wagoner says the agreement between the United Auto Workers and Ford over healthcare won't work for his company.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A healthcare agreement struck between Ford Motor Co and the United Auto Workers would not work for General Motors Corp, GM's chief executive said Tuesday.

"It probably works for Ford. It does not work for us," Rick Wagoner said, without elaborating why. "So we need to do something different. We're working with the UAW on how we might do that."

As part of the $17.4 billion bailout extended to the two companies in December, GM (GM, Fortune 500) and Chrysler are required to bring wages and benefits of U.S. factory workers in line with those at Toyota Motor Corp (TM) and other Japanese automakers.

GM and Chrysler have reached tentative agreements on some issues, but have not released details.

Unlike Ford (F, Fortune 500), the two have yet to settle on a plan for restructuring a retiree healthcare trust in which the companies would offer a sizable amount of stock or equivalents to reduce their cash contributions.

Wagoner also told a meeting of newspaper reporters and editors that suppliers could see some help soon and restructuring without bankruptcy was still the best option for GM, which faces a March 31 deadline to prove to U.S. government that it can be viable and worthy of more bailout funds.

Wagoner again dismissed the idea of a court restructuring where concessions and other provisions are worked out up front, saying it was unproven for the industry and too risky overall. He said GM's research continues to show that consumers would not buy cars from a bankrupt automaker.

"It could work and it might not work, and if it doesn't work, it could mean a long period of bankruptcy, which I believe would result in the liquidation of the company," Wagoner told the meeting, sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

"It makes sense from everybody's perspective that we have to do this outside of court," Wagoner said.

He also expressed hope that GM and its bondholders could work out their differences on concessions without "government engagement."

Bondholders have balked at a proposal to reduce by two-thirds the roughly $27 billion they are owed through an exchange of new equity in a recapitalized company. Bondholders call that proposal unfair compared to payout terms being offered to the UAW and for remaining GM debt.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/17/news/companies/gm_wagoner.reut/

[rucky]

9. So really it's Wall Street that backing the deal into a corner.

If we take Wagoner's words at face-value

should've guessed.

[Kalyke]

19. I hope that bringing "wages and benefits of U.S. factory workers

in line with those at Toyota Motor Corp (TM) and other Japanese automakers" is calculated at cost-of-living rates.

The foreign car market has mostly taken over in my neck of the woods, where the cost of living is much less than in Michigan or other northern states.

If not, then this is fundamentally unfair. Believe me, $14 an hour in Tennessee isn't a low-wage job, but it would put a person from Michigan in the poor house.

[Oregone]

7. "It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do"

How about the government make a concession by setting up Universal Healthcare, to reduce labor/legacy costs of these companies?

[ContinentalOp]

12. I agree.

How does that help UAW employees keep their jobs though? If we fully funded the $20 billion that GM is supposed to pay into the UAW's retiree health care fund how would that help sell all of the cars that are sitting on lots and get production moving again?

More to the point, if the UAW is forced to take $10 billion in stock to fund the retiree health plan rather than $20 billion in cash, how exactly does that crush the union?

[readmoreoften]

18. What concessions has he demanded from the bankers? None. That is telling.

Geithner and Summers haven't even put a check on naked shorting and apparently have no intention of doing so. Bailout money is going to union-busting, anti-EFCA lobbying.

Breaking a union does not mean that there is one policy forced upon it that will destroy it. It means creating an atmosphere of blame around unions themselves. By saying workers need to make concessions, he is saying that workers have "asked too much" or "could take less." We're talking about a presidency that wavers about CEO bonuses and bank regulation and then turns around and tells workers that there is some vague "concession" that they need to make, when all they have left to concede are their pensions and their health care.

It's about the message and the message it sends to people about unions. The UAW is screwed. There's no denying that. But there is no need to debase the very concept of unionization along with it. I would have approved if Obama demanded strong banking regulatory change, put CEOs in jail, and said about workers "you are the very last who should ever have to make a concession in order to clean up the mess of the greedy and the negligent." We're not in this mess because auto workers made $45K a year.

Breaking the UAW will break the ability to unionize across the country. It holds the largest strike fund of all unions. It will dampen the power of non-unionized workers to fight back.

I don't expect Obama to fix the problem. I don't expect him to agree to bail out GM. But by telling union workers that they need to make more "painful concessions" while allowing bank CEOs use bailout money to lobby against unions is union-busting. This is the ONE TIME we need hot air and pretty speeches from Obama in support of workers. Not demands for "concessions" to fix a problem that union workers have nothing to do with.

[ContinentalOp]

24. What concessions has he demanded from the UAW?

I think suggesting that the UAW make further concessions is probably good advice. It's not necessarily what anybody wants to hear but it's probably the practical reality. What's the alternative?

"It's about the message and the message it sends to people about unions. The UAW is screwed. There's no denying that."

So you admit that the union is screwed in the long run anyway. Isn't it good advice for them to take some cuts and maybe hold on to a few more jobs for a little bit longer? Nothing Obama has said has "debased the very concept of unionization" as you say. Yet a lot of people are certainly out in full force trying to create a bunch of FUD and generate the impression that Obama is anti-union. Gee I wonder why?


"We're talking about a presidency that wavers about CEO bonuses and bank regulation...I would have approved if Obama demanded strong banking regulatory change, put CEOs in jail"

Wavers? He clearly said "I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

And "And what this situation also underscores is the need for overall financial regulatory reform, so we don’t find ourselves in this position again, and for some form of resolution mechanism in dealing with troubled financial institutions, so that we’ve got greater authority to protect American taxpayers and our financial system in cases such as this. Now, we already have resolution authority — excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here — (laughter) — we always — already have some of that resolution authority when it comes to a traditional bank. But when you start getting into AIGs and some of these other operations that have a whole bunch of different financial instruments, then we don’t have all the regulatory power that we need. And this is something that I expect to work with Congress to deal with in the weeks and months to come."

So he's clearly said that his administration is going to do what they can within their current authority but that the government doesn't HAVE enough authority to hold these people accountable and so we need new legislation and new regulations to fix the problem. I don't see any wavering there.

As far as "putting CEOs in jail", for what? You want him to just send people to gitmo without being charged of any crime?

[bvar22]

37. Bingo !

In addition to making American Manufacturing MORE competitive, it would also provide a great stimulus effect on the whole economy.

I'm waiting to hear:
"I would love to provide Non-Profit Public Health Care to Americans, but we just don't have the money."

[madrchsod]

10. when obama says he`ll work for a dollar i`ll listen

we used to be a nation who was`t afraid of anything that was placed in our way. as far as i am concerned we have become of frighten children who cower under the covers because someone dimmed the light.

[ContinentalOp]

13. So the fact that Obama makes a salary of $400,000 a year is helping crush the UAW?

I'm not following you there.

[madrchsod]

15. it would show a bit of solidarity to the union members

if he wants to lead set an example...

[ContinentalOp]

17. Possibly.

But how would that help protect their jobs? And how does not doing so help to crush their union? :shrug:

[nonconformist]

23. The Obama Administration is saying that GM bankruptcy is the "leading option" now

If GM goes bankrupt, the first thing they do is shred their union contracts.

Sounds pretty crushing to me.

[ContinentalOp]

25. That's what most people have been saying for quite some time now.

What's the other option? Giving them something like $25 billion a year for the next 8 years to delay their inevitable bankruptcy and make some other administration take the blame for busting the union?

[nonconformist]

26. Of course not. 25 billion a year for 8 years would be a ridiculous sum of money.

Remind me what AIG got again.

[ContinentalOp]

28. Well, sure, let's compare them to AIG.

We've given AIG about $170 billion so an equal amount would probably keep GM going for about 7 years. But AIG's total equity is $52 billion while GM's equity is negative $86 billion. So in reality if we loaned GM $170 billion they could pay off their debts and then keep operating for about 3 years only.

Plus we own 80% of AIG so we have an even greater interest in keeping them afloat. If GM goes bankrupt, they will probably reorganize, union contracts will be voided, lots of workers will get fired and the remaining ones will be working for lower wages and benefits. But the company should be able to move on and we'll still have auto manufacturing in the U.S. Many of the current GM workers will still have jobs.

If AIG had failed, the entire global financial system could have potentially collapsed. There's a chance that nobody would have been buying cars. GM, Ford and Chrysler all could have potentially gone out of business, along with many other companies. I guess we'll never know though.

[bvar22]

38. There are many other options.

My favorite:
Award the US Automotive Industry "cost plus" contracts to rebuild and upgrade the US Rail/ Mass Transit system using only components manufactured in the US.

Much cheaper than the Trickle Down Bailouts of Wall Street.
Americans would actually have something to show for their money,
and just dream about the Stimulus Effect on our economy.

[ColbertWatcher]

27. He "helps" the corporations ...

... by not refuting the lies they repeat that the unions are solely to blame for the corporations' failure.

Obama is not the union's biggest enemy, but neither is he their bestest friend right now.

It's kinda like that old saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." But, in this instance the evil is all the lies corporations are saying about unions and the good men who are doing nothing is Obama who is not correcting the lie.

His silence makes it look as though he agrees with it.

If Obama can respond to Limpballs, he can certainly respond to this union bashing.

[ContinentalOp]

29. Maybe you're right but that's a long way from "busting the union."

Maybe he misspoke, and should have said "this crisis is not the fault of the workers or the union but they are going to end up paying a serious price for management's blunders." That hardly makes him a right wing, pro-corporate union buster in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

[ColbertWatcher]

33. Yes, but like I said ...

... he didn't correct the lie.

There are far too many people will take that to mean he agrees.

It's not fair, but he's the president now; every thing he says (or doesn't say) will be under a microscope.

He has to know that.

[nichomachus]

30. Well, he didn't give the workers million dollar bonuses like he did to his Wall Street buddies

with the auto worker's tax dollars.

[ContinentalOp]

31. And which wall street buddies did Obama give million dollar bonuses to?

I must have missed that one. Nice talking point though.

The Wall Street people gave themselves bonuses from TARP money that was allocated BEFORE OBAMA WAS IN OFFICE. Obama has since denounced those bonuses but don't let that stand in the way of your fun little distortions.

[ContinentalOp]

32. Actually, forget what I said and let's step back for a moment.

Re-read the original post and please tell me:

A: How would Obama giving millions of dollars in bonuses to wall street execs help crush the UAW?

B: How would Obama giving million dollar bonuses to every UAW help save the union?

[Spike89]

36. Banking crisis partially to blame for auto crisis

Of course Obama is interested in keeping the financial industry propped up. If credit is hard to get, car sales plummet. Very few people pay cash for new cars. It would be totally counterproductive to throw money at GM and let the banking system melt down--GM simply can't recover if no one can get a car loan to buy their cars.

I'm not interested in which is more deserving, the Big 3 or the wall street jerks. Deserving has NOTHING to do with fixing the problems. You can't fix the banks long-term while they are hemmoraging. First, you need to get them on an IV, then when the econonomy starts to limp along a bit better, you start fixing the problems--reenact Glass-Steagal, put some harsh regulation on every aspect of that industry. They've proven they can't self-regulate. However, if you don't prop them up in the short term, every industry reliant on credit like autos, real estate, and other big ticket items will fail.