The video comes to us by way of the Dailybeast who gets it from MSNBC last week.

What I find interesting, is that Citi, AIG and others didn't really have to present any plans for their bailouts and AIG continues to pay out bonuses and has extravagant trips even after they get a bailout.

So, I'm a little confused how a company like Citi can say they went a little too far in lending and that got them into trouble, but the Auto Industry can't say hey, there's a serious market down turn caused by the mess from the financial sector and we need help. Hell, you can even hear what Citi thinks caused their mess, again, from the Dailybeast:



The current financial mess this country is in comes in part from lending to borrowers who couldn't pay, popular know by underwriters as Liar Loans. These are loans with no required documentation. So, we have a freeze in the credit markets, it's harder to get loans for houses and cars and this hurts companies like Citi (companies that actually helped cause the problems) and they get a bailout, but the Auto-Industry can't even get a loan? Somehow, I think this has more to do with Union-Bashing than anything and the comments from President-Elect Obama are very disappointing to me. Very, very disappointing.

Read More...

I've been watching the hearings, hearing the testimony and pulling for the bridge loan. Then there was this tidbit, reported by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:

So it was hard to feel sorry for the executives when Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), late in the hearing, reminded them again that "the symbolism of the private jet is difficult," and mischievously asked the witnesses whether, in another symbolic gesture, they would be willing to work for $1 a year, as Nardelli has offered to do.

"I don't have a position on that today," demurred Wagoner (2007 total compensation: $15.7 million).

"I understand the intent, but I think where we are is okay," said Mulally ($21.7 million).

"I'm asking about you," Roskam pressed.

"I think I'm okay where I am," Mulally said.

And don't even think about asking him to fly commercial.

CEO pay is a hot issue. AIG is goind out of its way to pay out for their "top managers" and then you have the big 3. The emphasis has been on the income of workers represented by the UAW (think Mitchells smarmy comments from Sunday's Meet the Press) and then there's reality:

Chrysler $29-$33:
More contract info by company here: http://uaw.org/contracts/index.php

TOYOTA
$30/hour

EXECS
Alan Mulally
Chief Executive Officer
Ford Motor Company
$22,750,385 in total 2007 compensation

G. Richard Wagoner
Chief Executive Officer
General Motors Corporation
$19,761,874 in total 2007 compensation.

Assuming a 40 hour work week, that's $9,615 an hour for Wagoner - 150% of the average CEO salary of $6,153/hour.

Chrysler isn't traded, but here's this article from the weekend about how Chrysler is paying about $30 million in retention bonuses to keep top executives while cutting thousands of jobs.

How much does the average AIG worker make? What's the median? How about the other "bailed out" organizations? Ones where they sent their IT operations off shore to India and elsewhere and canned all of their IT people like IndyMac (they weren't bailed out, just belly up)?

It's fine to get these numbers, but the issue isn't how much the average autoworker makes or the average Toyota or Honda worker, the message should be that these are American Workers who WORK. They produce American jobs, they contribute to their communities, they raise their kids, they vote and yeah, their represented by a union but they don't deserve anything less than what Wall Street has already gotten. That includes the Executives because not to do it means a destruction of local economies, not just detroit, we're talking Parma Ohio, Lordstown, St. Louis and this doesn't include the rolling effect on suppliers.

But let's take another look at AIG, again, from the Washington Post:

American International Group plans to pay out $503 million in deferred compensation to some of its top employees, saying it must tap the funds to keep valuable workers from exiting the troubled insurance giant.

News of the payments to top AIG talent comes as the federal government has just put more money into saving the company from bankruptcy, beefing up the total public commitment to $152 billion. Meanwhile, members of Congress are questioning the company's expenditures -- including lavish business trips to resorts -- during a time when taxpayers are on the hook for the bailout.
snip

Companies over the past 20 years have increasingly use deferred compensation as a way to attract and retain highly paid executives. Under these plans, top talent can postpone taking some of their large annual salaries for years -- often until a set date -- and can put off being taxed on it. Some wait to take the funds until they retire, when they would presumably be in a lower tax bracket.

Few executives seem to understand the correlation we common Americans make with failure and excess. I for one see their salaries and wonder, WTF?

But after watching what's been going on with AIG (and the scandalous behavior AFTER their bailout-not a loan), it's just incredible that these executives from the big three flew to DC on private corporate jets. But for Mullaly and Wagoner to say no to taking a massive ONE YEAR pay cut as Nardelli has said he'd do, well, damn, I wouldn't have given them a bridge loan either, because they aren't a good risk. Of course, that's me speaking as a former home loan underwriter. If I had a homebuyer with this kind of credit, this kind of debt load while arriving in a vehicle well beyond what should be their means, I'd have to really think long and hard about those combined factors and here and now, it'd be one tough call.

What's saddest of all, it seems only Nardelli really gets what's at stake in this financial melt down, survival.

Read More...

I tend to read the stupidity of folks like Gerson because, it's important to know who stupid and inane they are, makes for nice entertainment and laughter. Well, entertainment until I read today's slop:

The coming bailout will be a major challenge for Obama. If he caves in to the auto unions that helped elect him and merely shores up a failing industry, he will start his presidency on a note of weakness. If he insists on a serious restructuring that creates sustainable companies -- including large pay and benefit cuts, and massive downsizing -- he could gain a reputation for toughness similar to Ronald Reagan's after his early firing of striking air traffic controllers in 1981.

Okay, so I highlighted what I think you should see. This is the right wing talking point of folks like Brokaw and Mitchell and here Gerson does it, too. He's blaming the union.

Unions are not monolithic creatures.

Unions do not provide the work.

Unions are not out to kill industry.

Unions ARE made up of their membership: WORKERS.

Unions ARE responsive to their membership.

The UAW IS NOT THE VILLAIN.

In the case of the auto industry, these workers have given up things that someone at Wal-Mart has never had the option to ever have and things that Gerson can't begin to think about going without; from pension cut backs to two tiered hiring to health care. They've given up a lot including cutting hours, retraining to leave the big 3 or other routes to make it easier for the big 3 to survive and not only survive, but to prosper.

Consumerism wasn't fueled by GM and certainly not by the UAW. There is a major issue right now in the financial markets and it's meant a lot of people are out of work, fuel prices caused a lot of people to cut back, me included. GM has been doing cutting edge research that they have funded in terms of fuel cells (unfortunately would mean a retooling and supply of the energy industry and we aren't there yet even if GM were able to produce the fuel cell cars now enmasse) and I'm looking forward to the Chevy Volt in 2010 even with a possible $40k price tag.

Blaming workers and their union representation for the problems caused by Wall Street is not only ridiculous, it's dangerous.

Read More...

I have been surfing the tubes for more on the e-mail but only seem to find Wing nuts who keep calling this bridge loan a bailout (dudes, seriously, it's NOT a bailout). But in my wanderings, I came across this:

You made the right choice when you put your confidence in General Motors, and we appreciate your past support. I want to assure you that we are making our best vehicles ever, and we have exciting plans for the future. But we need your help now. Simply put, we need you to join us to let Congress know that a bridge loan to help U.S. automakers also helps strengthen the U.S. economy and preserve millions of American jobs.

Despite what you may be hearing, we are not asking Congress for a bailout but rather a loan that will be repaid.

The U.S. economy is at a crossroads due to the worldwide credit crisis, and all Americans are feeling the effects of the worst economic downturn in 75 years. Despite our successful efforts to restructure, reduce costs and enhance liquidity, U.S. auto sales rely on access to credit, which is all but frozen through traditional channels.

The consequences of the domestic auto industry collapsing would far exceed the $25 billion loan needed to bridge the current crisis. According to a recent study by the Center for Automotive Research:

• One in 10 American jobs depends on U.S. automakers
• Nearly 3 million jobs are at immediate risk
• U.S. personal income could be reduced by $150 billion
• The tax revenue lost over 3 years would be more than $156 billion

Discussions are now underway in Washington, D.C., concerning loans to support U.S. carmakers. I am asking for your support in this vital effort by contacting your state representatives.

Please take a few minutes to go to www.gmfactsandfiction.com, where we have made it easy for you to contact your U.S. senators and representatives. Just click on the "I'm a Concerned American" link under the "Mobilize Now" section, and enter your name and ZIP code to send a personalized e-mail stating your support for the U.S. automotive industry.

Let me assure you that General Motors has made dramatic improvements over the last 10 years. In fact, we are leading the industry with award-winning vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu, Cadillac CTS, Buick Enclave, Pontiac G8, GMC Acadia, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, Saturn AURA and more. We offer 18 models with an EPA estimated 30 MPG highway or better — more than Toyota or Honda. GM has 6 hybrids in market and 3 more by mid-2009. GM has closed the quality gap with the imports, and today we are putting our best quality vehicles on the road.

Please share this information with friends and family using the link on the site.

Thank you for helping keep our economy viable.

Sincerely,

Troy Clarke

Now, I'd link to it, but ugh, right wing sites and the comments made my eyes bleed. So, I decided to look a little further and pull in information that really needs to be out there, and that information is about the consequences of DOING NOTHING.

Should we taxpayers extend a loan to GM so that it can operate until the U.S. economy recovers? I say yes!

If you think a bridge loan to GM so that the lights can stay on through this economic tsunami is expensive, then think about the cost of a GM failure.

Let's be clear, the alternative for GM and the domestic industry is not a cake walk through the bankruptcy courts, resulting in a reorganization that some think would put dealers and the UAW in their place and ensure future success.

No, even if GM could get debtor-in-possession financing to keep the lights on (which is extremely unlikely in today's credit crisis environment), Chapter 11 means a collapse of sales and a downward spiral into a Chapter 7 liquidation.

snip

Do these "instant experts" who call for the implosion of the domestic industry have the faintest clue as to what it means if it were allowed to happen?

GM's 100,000 American jobs will die. Health care for a million Americans will be lost or at risk. Hundreds of GM's 1,300 suppliers will fail.

There are 14,000 domestic-oriented dealers in the U.S. that employ approximately 750,000 Americans with a payroll of around $35 billion. Blink — they are gone.

Take just Texas, for instance. GM builds vehicles, including Tahoes, in a plant in Arlington, just outside of Dallas. The company has a major parts distribution warehouse in Fort Worth. These 4,289 Texans would lose their jobs, the suppliers to these operations would fail, the communities would lose their tax bases, and the state would lose its tax revenues.

The effect of the collapse of the U.S. automobile industry would be devastating in ways in which these "experts" are not considering. Nearly 3 million jobs would be lost in the first year alone — with another 2.5 million to follow in the next two years. Personal income in the United States would drop by more than $150 billion in the first year. The cost to local, state and federal governments could top $156 billion over three years in lost taxes and unemployment and health care benefits. And, due to supplier bankruptcies, domestic automobile production would most likely fall to zero, even by international producers.

The United States is in an economic crisis. The entire U.S. automobile industry has been devastated and it's not just the domestic manufacturers that have been affected, as many have asserted.

The issues facing GM, Chrysler and Ford aren't because of just poor market reading (yeah, they didn't read the market well and produced gas guzzling SUVs for way too long) there are other factors at work here and those factors include everything that Mr. Clarke mentions and all the info mentioned By W. Carroll Smith (Smith is the owner of Monument Chevrolet in Pasadena, a past chairman of the Houston Automobile Dealers Association and a director of the National Automobile Dealers Association).

We have to decide now not tomorrow how we can help the auto industry, Hang'em all isn't a solution to these problems, we need to bridge this gap for them and take the opportunity to get them on a better foundation. We can't afford to have the ENTIRE US AUTO INDUSTRY FAIL.

Read More...

Blaming the union and its membership (um, I mean WORKERS here) is absolutely ridiculous.

Emptywheel has an excellent post up right now on this that deserves a closer look:

What the AP Left Out about the UAWBy: emptywheel Saturday November 15, 2008 1:42 pm

21diggs digg it

The AP has an article reporting that Ron Gettelfinger, head of the UAW, says the union will not make any more concessions to keep the Big Three in business. I guess the editor cut a big chunk--because the article obviously falls short of explaining why the UAW is taking this stand. Here's what the AP left in:

''The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract,'' Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

''We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that,'' he said.

Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control -- the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.
''We're here not because of what the auto industry has done,'' he said. ''We're here because of what has happened to the economy.''

And here's what the AP didn't report (I'm sure it was just an oversight, really).

In its contract last year, the UAW made painful concessions, adopting a two-tier wage structure, such that new employees make just $12 to $15 an hour. The move is projected to bring the American manufacturers in line with their Japanese rivals' non-union labor costs in the near future.

In addition, the union has taken responsibility for providing retiree healthcare, thereby eliminating one of the last remaining competitive disadvantages for the American manufacturers' unionized workforce as compared to their Japanese rivals.

With these agreements, the UAW has managed to save jobs, while still providing the superior labor force that leads most segments (big PDF, see page 10-11) in terms of the most efficient plants measured in hours per vehicle.

The UAW's workers have made deep concessions to ensure American-owned auto industry remains competitive with its foreign competitors. Now that the American-owned manufacturers have eliminated some of the structural disadvantages that gave foreign competitors a market advantage, it would be a terrible waste for its country not to do what's necessary to sustain American manufacturing though this tough financial period.

There. Now it tells a more complete story.

I actually discussed the Media's anti-union bias yesterday after watching Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw shilling for the right wing on Meet the Press. Here's what I had to say yesterday:

I don't normally watch the Sunday talk shows, they just end up being so damn insulting to my intelligence. But for some odd reason I started watching it this morning and no, I wasn't disappointed, it completely insulted my intelligence and that of everyone else who happened to have the misfortune of listening.

Andrea Mitchell decided on a whim to bring up the Employee Free Choice Act, but of course, she used the Right Wing Talking Points, only to be re-enforced in those wingnut talk points.

Mitchell: ...The labor unions will be asked to make some kind of concessions, and what the uaw leaders said in an unusual press conference only yesterday was we’ve made enough concessions. So, as you point out there is the clash, the ability to organize, card check is the short term for it.

Brokaw: Without a secret ballot

Mitchell: without a secret ballot, is a BIG concession to labor. and that is gonna be one of the the early fights in this congress. And Barack Obama is going to have to make a choice on all these things as to whether he can find ways around it. And can answer the economists question as to why Toyota is successful, which is producing American jobs it’s just that their not union jobs.

Okay, I can answer that for you Andrea and let me put it into a way that your little mind can understand:

Toyota competes with GM and Ford for labor, assembly line work and precision assembly workers. Because they compete in the same market as GM and Ford and Chrysler, they have to pay the same wages. However, their benefits are not as good as those of GM, Ford and Chrysler. In fact, Toyota doesn’t provide a pension, health care to retirees and a number of other incentives that the unions which you hate have secured for their membership over YEARS and YEARS of work. But if you want to toss that out the window and ask why doesn't GM just declare Bankruptcy and gut all of their retirees pensions, health care and agreements with their employees, then Andrea, you also need to ask yourself what happens to all of those people? What happens to the pensioner who has no income or health care?

Toyota and Honda do not play on equal footing with GM and Chrysler and Andrea and Brokaw should know that. See, I think they do, they just don't really care. It's not like the economy is hurting them or that NBC is just going to turn off their spigot.

And Tom, let me also explain something else to you, something that you obviously don’t understand.

The Employee Free Choice Act makes it possible for EMPLOYEES to CHOOSE an election or CHOOSE to sign their card and leave it to that. Right now, it’s up to the BOSS and NOT the EMPLOYEE. And there is no SECRECY in today’s standards because the Boss gets to know who the employees are that have signed their cards and want a union.

But what you and Andrea also ignored as a concept is that organizing a union isn’t nearly as important as having a way to get employers to the table to negotiate. The Employee Free Choice Act provides for stiff penalties for employers who ignore the bargaining rights of their employees. I think this is what really is the heart in this fight. It's not that employees can organize, it's that the employers who screw with the results face actual penalties. There are penalties now, but it takes forever and the results of the penalties take YEARS to be realized if ever.

Despite what the rightwing says or lies about in terms of workers and unions, it is still the policy of the United States of America to ENCOURAGE UNIONIZATION:

National Labor Relations Act

The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.

The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of commerce, and tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by preventing the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries.

Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

Experience has further demonstrated that certain practices by some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by preventing the free flow of goods in such commerce through strikes and other forms of industrial unrest or through concerted activities which impair the interest of the public in the free flow of such commerce. The elimination of such practices is a necessary condition to the assurance of the rights herein guaranteed.

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

So, Andrea and Tom, please understand that not only are you two shills for the anti-union anti-worker establishment fronted by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and McCain, but you two also don't seem to know your asses from a hole in the ground.

Employee Free Choice is Good For The Economy BECAUSE it is good for workers, unless of course you don't think workers are part of the economy or deserve to be represented by a union, a union of their own choosing.

Why does the Media hate workers so much? And worse, why are union production crews and writers continuing to spill out this garabage when in the end, they know it's garbage? If you're producing CBS, NBC, ABC or any other cable or network news and YOU are a union member, can you just think a minute before you write for a teleprompter anything that's anti-union and anti-worker garbage? Your brothers and sisters of the UAW would appreciate it.

Hell, I'd appreciate it.

Read More...