The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

What’s the UAW offering?

Mickey’s Assignment Desk: The United Autoworkers Union claims it is in confidential discussions with the “vast majority” of U.S. based auto manufacturers–including foreign “transplants”–about representing their non-unionized work forces. What, exactly, does the union have to offer that might benefit these businesses and get them to allow unionization? The UAW’s not going to lower the automakers’ labor costs, after all. You have to wonder if one thing UAW President Bob King tells them is this: if you let us in, you’ll have a friend in the Obama administration (when it comes to negotiating mileage standards, labor practices, environmental compliance, government loans, etc.). Someone should find out! … Of course, a promise of the Obama administration’s protection might not seem that valuable in December of 2012. In fact, it’s getting less valuable with each poll, these days. … It’s harder to sustain corporatism in a democracy. Just when big business gets cozy with Team A, the voters bring in Team B. …

  • Dredmalice

    Obviously, the ‘value’ (vulgar use) increases with the difference in cost versus ‘value’ (literal use). Professional wannabe contrarians such as yourself think it is less likely Obama will be re-elected. People who know better see an opportunity to pick up a bargain (or roll a mark, as it were) on a known ‘value’ (vulgar or literal? -ed) Take your pick!

  • ed

    When GM went to congress for the 25 billion in loans from
    the BUSH administration.

    My local democratic club asked me to read GM’s financial statements,
    before they endorsed the proposal to Jerry Nadler(congressman),
    who came to solicit support for the loans.

    I read the financial statements and saw in 3 hours of financial analysis
    in excel, that the books were cooked! GM had not paid up the pensions,
    the pensions and other funds were paid with GM Paper(worthless).
    (the company was insolvent)

    GM was misrepresenting its financial condition to congress to get the loans!!

    I told congressman Nadler that the loans would be a waste of taxpayer money,
    (25 billion dollars)GM could not avoid bankruptcy!!!

    And he said ” It does not matter, it’s got to be done” as he ran off
    to waste 25 billion in l!!

    The NEW GM had great promise and potential

    Post bankruptcy:

    1) No debt

    2) No pension cost

    3) no health care cost

    4) Mfg cost of 28% 

    With it’s new capital structure, the UAW had two choices:

    1) I t could maximize employment of UAW
    workers and give consumers low prices(high production financial model)
    (consumer surplus).

    2) Traditional(same old way), high prices, maximum profits per unit
    (low production financial model)

    The company(union owned by uaw and govt) could have converted to an
    employee owned business, they could have cut prices by %30
    and been extremely competitive with foreign auto makers.
    (maximum employment, high production  and low prices)

    They probably could have gained %70 of the usa auto market.
    (the cost of mfg a car is only 28% of the price).
    That would have maximized employment
    of uaw workers.!

    The UAW chose profits!!!

    The UAW chose to maximize profits tp promote the
    stock, so they could dump their stock at a high price!!!

    OBMA: Showing his lack of leadership, said I dont want to get involved!!
                  (after investing 60 billion taxpayer dollars in this venture)

    He could have articulated a policy to the board of GM of maximum
    employment. (HE CLAIMS CREDITS FOR SAVING GM JOBS),
    but at the crucial moment of determining GM’S mission,
    he was MIA (“I am not going to get involved in running GM”).

    anyone stupid enough to buy an auto stock deserves to lose his investment!!!
    it’s the same old game with the UAW, find some sucker investors and
    milk them dry, then demand a bailout.

    Next time their will be no bailout, so look to see gm and chrysler go out of
    business in 10 years!!!

  • Anonymous

    In light of the NLRB Boeing debacle, I can’t imagine why any company would allow a union to set foot in the door and open themselves up to a future labor action against them.  There’s certainly not enough popular support for unions to make it a net gain for the companies in terms of PR.

  • Pingback: Happy Hour: Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Let’s Conga! | Americas Review

  • Anonymous

    At some point, there has to be some discussion about getting the very public word out to corporations and individuals that BO won’t be around forever, and those companies (hi, GE! hi, companies accepting unions o/b/o their employees!) and individuals (hi, 80,000 new federal health care employees!) who are casting their lots with him need to understand that inertia isn’t going to keep them on the public teat once he’s out.

    One of our biggest weak points is the idea that fed programs never go away because they create their own constituencies.  We need to disavow that today, on a forward-looking basis so no one can claim entitlement when we start repealing.

  • gloogle gloogle

    ” It’s harder to sustain corporatism in a democracy. Just when big business gets cozy with Team A, the voters bring in Team B”.

    Oh, I dunno ’bout dat.  Seems like the “corporatists” did OK when we transitioned from Bush and Team Red to Teh Won and Team Blue…

  • gloogle gloogle

    ” It’s harder to sustain corporatism in a democracy. Just when big business gets cozy with Team A, the voters bring in Team B”.

    Oh, I dunno ’bout dat.  Seems like the “corporatists” did OK when we transitioned from Bush and Team Red to Teh Won and Team Blue…

    • Anonymous

      You betcha!  That is the real power of the Tea Party.  No more pandering.