I got this in an e-mail but had to go and read it for myself mostly because at the same time I got this, someone else sent me a link to what states receive the most in Federal aide and those states that utilize the least. And not surprisingly, Republican Senators who receive the most in federal funding are also the senators who voted against a BRIDGE LOAN for Chrysler and GM. Oh and of course the Republicans from Alaska, too (receiving loads, but clearly want to screw Michigan and the rest of the midwest).



Take what Mitt Romney said on Meet the Press this morning, blaming a $2k "disadvantage" on labor, labor benefits and labor legacy (retired workers). Governor Granholm hit the nail on the head when she made sure that everyone knew that this "disadvantage" is about how other countries provide for their citizens. Here, we have companies that must, as in the Detroit Free Press editorial

December 12, 2008

Hey, Southerners: Detroit 3 helped you to survive

BY TOM WALSH
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

When Hurricane Katrina slammed into Louisiana and Alabama on Aug. 29, 2005, the automobile companies of Detroit did not harrumph that the gulf coast should have been better prepared.

They didn't sit back and wait for New Orleans to submit a detailed plan for future repair of the ruptured levees.

General Motors Corp., on Aug. 30, donated $400,000 to the American Red Cross 2005 Hurricane Relief Fund, pledged to match up to $250,000 more in employee contributions, and sent more than 150 vehicles to the stricken area for use in relief work.

Ford Motor Co. and the UAW quickly made a joint donation of $100,000 to the Red Cross. The Chrysler Group gave $150,000 to the Red Cross and $200,000 to local New Orleans charities. DaimlerChrysler Services chipped in $200,000 for the Red Cross and pledged to match employee donations up to $50,000.

The three Detroit auto companies together gave more than $18 million in cash and vehicles to the Katrina relief effort in the ensuing months. No strings attached.

The U.S. Senate's most adamant naysayers about whether Detroit deserves rescue loans should have thought about that before now. It might have made Thursday's futile wrangling over a compromise to get $14 billion in emergency rescue loans for GM and Chrysler a bit less tortuous.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., for one, might have dialed down his earlier rhetoric.

Vitter said Wednesday that he plans to vote against the rescue because, in his words, it is "ass-backwards" to give money to the distressed companies before Congress sees more detailed survival plans.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., should think about Hurricane Katrina, too. He has threatened a filibuster against the bill, calling it "a bridge loan to nowhere" and stating that Detroit's automakers should undergo a fundamental restructuring before they ask Congress for money.

None of the logical arguments made by, or on behalf of, Detroit's auto industry seem to resonate with certain congressional critics.

Not the fact that GM, Ford and Chrysler have slashed billions of dollars in costs. Not the fact that they have the nation's top-selling pickups and minivans. Not the fact that they have lots of high-mileage vehicles and more on the way. Not the fact an auto company bankruptcy would have a horrible ripple effect, wiping out scores of suppliers and making hundreds of thousands more U.S. workers jobless.

No, to the most adamant auto-rescue opponents in the Senate, Detroit doesn't make cars people want. It's a dinosaur not worth preserving.

Could the opinions of these senators be colored by the fact that the foreign-owned plants of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, Nissan and Volkswagen -- which compete with the Detroit Three -- are located in their states?

Nah, let's not even go there.

Let's just say that since logic hasn't worked, we should fall back on a simple moral argument.

If you see a fellow American is drowning, gasping for air, do you quiz him for a while about whether he's drunk or why he never learned to swim better? Or do you throw him a life buoy and ask questions later?

That, it seems to me, is where we are with America's car companies.

You have done nothing and failed them, senators.

So now it's up to President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to, hopefully, rush in with emergency aid from the $700-billion Troubled Assets Relief Program.

They could still hold the Detroit Three's feet to the fire afterward, empowering a strong auto czar to bring all stakeholders together to forge business models for these companies that can withstand future shocks.

Contact TOM WALSH at 313-223-4430 or twalsh@freepress.com.

Just one more time, Damn, Mitt Romney is an ass...ah, and a liar. Wow, glad he's not going to be president. Why are there always more Republicans on the Sunday talks than Democrats? Come on, the CEO of Wal-Mart? Please, focused on working people? Yeah, working them for as little as possible with the smallest wages as possible and then, with little or no benefits. Great model to compare to GM and Chrysler. Why would this joker even be on Meet the Press? Is this what we really want to expand as a model for growth or prosperity?

Read More...

I headed over to John Cole's Balloon Juice for some talk about Republican Union-Bashing and I found this nugget in the comments:

Exactly. But when it comes to union busting, there’s no lie too big. Romney said what he meant in that editorial, though:

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end.

The only way, from an executive’s perspective, to make that enmity stop is to bust the union and give all the power to management. As a union member, I respond with "Fuck you very much."

This comment was based on the posting about Republican union-bashing and their disdain for working Americans represented by a union. From Cole:

this is union busting on a grand scale. There have been dozens of signs over the past week what they really want, starting with the Mitt Romney editiorial in the NY Times:

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

When Mitt Romney says a “new direction” for unions, the new direction means planned obsolescence. It is important to remember what Mitt Romney does to make his money, and when he gives advice to what should happen to the auto industry, you need to understand that his vision for America is more of the same- in his worldview, everyone is working for $8 dollars an hour at Wal-Mart, getting their health care from medicare/medicaid, and barely making it.

On Monday last week, Todd Harris picked up the ball and ran with it:

Harris: Republicans are going to be looking-as we talk about concessions on the management side, we’re going to be looking, when you talk about bailing out Detroit, looking at reopening some of those ridiculous union contracts that have been huge, massive giveaways.
***
No, I don’t-I don’t think that this is class warfare. I mean, you talk about a company like AIG or a company like Citigroup, and there was bipartisan consensus that they were simply too big to allow to fail.

Now, you haven’t heard-at least I’m not aware of any Republicans saying, no, you have got to protect the AIG management, or you have got to protect the Citigroup management. If they need to be hung out to dry, then let them hang them out to dry. But, when you talk about some of these union contracts that are really crippling the Big Three, it’s not just that they made bad cars or that they made cars that used a lot of gas. They certainly did, although their cars are a lot better now. But, if you’re going to address fundamental reform in Detroit, you have got to have the union issue on the table.

And just so you are completely clear on what the real agenda is for the Republicans, the WSJ brings it home this morning:

Consider labor costs. Take-home wages at the U.S. car makers average $28.42 an hour, according to the Center for Automotive Research. That’s on par with $26 at Toyota, $24 at Honda and $21 at Hyundai. But include benefits, and the picture changes. Hourly labor costs are $44.20 on average for the non-Detroit producers, in line with most manufacturing jobs, but are $73.21 for Detroit.

This $29 cost gap reflects the way Big Three management and unions have conspired to make themselves uncompetitive—increasingly so as their market share has collapsed (see the nearby chart). Over the decades the United Auto Workers won pension and health-care benefits far more generous than in almost any other American industry. As a result, for every UAW member working at a U.S. car maker today, three retirees collect benefits; at GM, the ratio is 4.6 to one.

Highly recommend heading over and participating in the conversation if you get a chance. Don't want anyone missing comments like this:

Let’s see…professional athletes have strong labor unions, but the leagues are doing well. Service workers like janitors have unions but I don’t see the hospitality industry dying. And there were no unions in finance industries that were run into the ground. But it’s the unions’ fault. Always is.

It's nice to see folks willing to say what needs to be said, that Unions aren't at fault in the current mess. This mess if far more complex and it starts with the letter R, Recession. Funnily enough, that's also the letter that starts the party name that brought us this Recession. Amazing how that works.

Read More...