At 11/06/2009 12:32 AM, Anonymous said…

Why is the UAW allowed to represent the workers at Ford? the UAW is now the de facto owner of GM and Chrysler, courtesy of the US taxpayer via the Obama administration. Representing Ford workers presents a clear conflict of interest, forcing Ford to negotiate for labor with it’s direct competitors.

It’s only a matter of time before the UAW labor cartel has completely destroyed the native American auto industry. The question is how much more of the taxpayers blood will they be allowed to suck?

Consider that Ford motor company declined to participate in the bailout process.  This has infuriated the Obama administration which is both beholding to, and pulls strings within the labor union ranks.  We have already seen the POTUS’ vindictive nature when it is not supported by the Fox news network.

The next negotiations between the UAW and FORD will reveal even more, as Obamas “Chicago method” will be all over it, confirming ever more we have the most corrupt administration the US has ever had.

The billions of dollars paid by the taxpayer for the short term survival of GM and Chrysler was a shell game by our government, and both administrations had their reasons for supporting it.  Bush, because the total collapse of the automotive sector on this watch would have been unacceptable, and the incoming Obama administration because they saw it as a means to an end; the nationalization of the largest sector of industry.  The movement of taxpayer funds into the companies with “first rights” or “preferred” status, was to reduce the influence of former stockholders who would have been better served with an immediate bankruptcy in the latter part of 2008.   The bleed losses the companies were expecting are essentially CONVERTING the ownership from stockholders to government and Union controlled pension obligation funds.

But THIS ownership by government is merely that of “control,” and perhaps not a total ownership which might be more classically used to demonstrate a fascist mission.   The Chrysler failure resulting in its bankruptcy will now apparently result in the ownership of the automaker by the very unions which have guided the company into a profitless state.  And as GM is soon to follow,  the unions, alongside the government will soon be the operational owners and management of at least two of the automakers.  Ford, wisely chose to remain independent of this scheme to defraud stockholders of their ownership stake by the government.

So as to not appear fascist, the Obama administration is going to cede operation control of these former giants of productivity to the very unions which destroyed them.  There will likely be further controls added by government to enhance their competitiveness  against Ford and other car makers.  And employees of the new Union-Government partnership will see a new boss..  same as the old boss.. And will have been fooled again.

But this time, it will be worse.  It will be worse because the employees will have no representation.  They will have the negotiating equivalent of a lawyer suing on a plaintiff’s behalf.. suing himself, with a judge who also as a defendant.  The dichotomy of representation against your representation arbitrated by an economically interested party is laughable, yet sorrowfully so. .

Isn’t it strange though, how the very set up in this situation so closely resembles the very problem we ALL face with an over reaching government?  Consider that the dues paying employees contributing dues,  a “tax” if you will, to have a voice in their representation, find themselves in opposition to those very same representatives who take the “tax” from them.  What we are witnessing is a  microcosm of government that lives so very completely in the unfolding developments, and theft of our voices.

So to the DUES PAYING MEMBERSHIP of the UAW here is a question:  How long will you pay dues to your OWN employer till you have your own “Tea Party?”

Don’t think it could happen?  Consider what the “CEO of the US” said last night..

“We’ll end the corporate tax breaks for companies shipping jobs overseas”

You can take it to the next government owned bank that he means what he says.  But what does it truly mean?  Considering the stranglehold the Unions through the force of government have on Detroit’s formerly largest automaker, one would wonder what choice does a large manufacturing firm trying its best to survive have?  Tax, environmental, and labor laws in many other countries are far more relaxed and conducive to the creation of jobs through a more profitable manufacturing environment.  SOME jobs will have to be kept in those locations to maintain the bottom line and remain profitable. (Which is the entire REASON for being in business)

So what happens when these companies are punished for maintaining a profitable enterprise elsewhere?

The Obama would argue that it would encourage them to develop more domestically and abandon foreign enterprise. This is unlikely, as anyone at the helm of a for-profit business must look at all the variables.  And those variables, as in the case of General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler, being the cost of moving certain operations to countries such as Mexico, Brazil or others is hardly based on a geographical desire, but rather in a general response to the high cost of an elite employment, and an overreaching environmental mandate.  A mandate made possible by an intrusive element of government into the affairs of free enterprise, and the employment control through extortion and regulatory measures.

Consider that GM itself has recently claimed profits in overseas operations. And consider also, that its presence with manufacturing overseas is likely to reap even more profits.  The choice of whether to increase domestic production while ending the otherwise profitable foreign pursuits, or ending a relationship with a country which spawned it for all the right reasons, but then punishes its minor successes might well result in an entire uplift and abandonment of ALL domestic endeavors.

Well played CEO Obama.. well played indeed..  your next move? Ridding us of Health care? or specialized craftsmen?.

An issue similar to those faced by Iacocca however, is the part played by government. But Chrysler was able to save 600 Million by asking for a 2 year moratorium on exhaust standards. Further, by creating an air of “crisis” and using it to compel the participation of all concerned (employees, management, unions, the public) that Chrysler’s future was their own, he was able to generate consensus to make it happen. Of course a $1.2 Billion loss in 1979 helped to persuade a great many that things were in dire need of attention.

In fact, one can find any number of similarities to the Chrysler problems in this fascinating piece by Dimitry Anastakis. However, this time it is far bigger a problem to solve. To begin to have a clue on how to deal with it we must understand the fundamental reasons for the current situation.

Government… There you have it. Government is the reason for the impending failure for the largest part of our manufacturing sector.

However, not for the reason given by one of the “talking heads” (Kirstin powers, a “democrat strategist”) on Fox news or elsewhere that “government should have mandated more innovation…” In fact that is the brilliant thinking which brings us to this point in the first place. Government cannot “mandate innovation.” If government could, wouldn’t we have already broken through all invention thresholds, and transcended into godhood?

Consider what would happen if Government “mandated“ all restaurants provide ZERO calories in their meals. Would it be unrealistic? To the uber quick minds of the token liberals at Fox, or the regular cast at CNN or MSNBC, sure! Why not? We have the technology, don’t we? Perhaps not. These business would FAIL, and because of the size and number of them, wouldn’t we be looking at a great big burger bail?  “Whopper Junior.. YOUR FIRED!”

Business responds to the natural needs of consumers. If people like to drive big SUVs, the companies will make them. There is usually a fairly decent time between need and delivery requests however, and this time the manufacturers which had heavily profitable units building and selling SUVs, trucks, and other gas guzzling autos were caught up in a perfect storm of environmental insanity, overreaching government regulations and a main manufacturing structure in Michigan which has been held prisoner to a government protected monopoly of (community) workforce organizers for decades.

As a business owner, I personally have a fierce objection to government meddling in the affairs and decisions I make to secure the best employees, and gain the best profit for my efforts. I take all the risks, spend the most time, and worry about my business more than any government desk jockey who at a moment’s notice can decide to make life unbearable with bureaucratic contrivances which could be culled only from the pits of hell. I force no one to work for me, and likewise prefer a similar respect.

GM, Ford, Chrysler… having a specific size fall under any number of strategies however, and must under penalty of law deal with an organizing element which is often unyielding, blind, or even worse, in a position of the rock and a hard place. The UAW organizers have a problem. If they allow the automakers to adjust the need for employee services, and likewise the compensation, if even to survive, then they admit the reality of their real power. Certainly for the employees to find that their union cannot protect them from impending doom short of serious concessions, merely raises the question of a need for the union in the first place. Why would you need a union to get to point B from point A if B is only going to assure the destruction of the enterprise in the first place?

This is not meant to completely bash on the unions, but rather to point out that if the business has a choice of who it employs, and the employee has a choice if he/she wishes to join the union, perhaps a smarter union would emerge… and without the need to MANDATE that it happen.

The second part of government interference relies more on looking at recent cause and effect cycles.

Somewhat the same problem we had in the 70s, gas guzzling cars stop selling when fuel costs go up, or shortages happen. Though there is plenty of fuel, there is less domestic production. The resulting prices become more out of control for us, and add to this the recent “mandates” on carbon emissions, which uses flawed climate science for modeling, drives different formulations for different regions of the country, and uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize consumption of food (corn) as a fuel, in turn driving household costs up.

All of a sudden… no one could afford gas, pay the mortgage, or buy cars…

My solution for the big three in the next post.

When asked last week if she and other UAW members should sacrifice more now to save GM from bankruptcy, she has a simple answer: No.

“I think we’ve given enough,” said O’Neill, 39, of Goodrich, an assembler at GM’s Lake Orion plant, where she builds the Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G6. “Everybody wants to come down hard on the workers. Nobody knows what we do inside there but the people who work there. It’s hard. It is not an easy job.”

You don’t even have to have a finance class to know that labor is *the* largest expense and organization has. Guess what toots, GM goes under and you don’t have a job.

Then there of course is Ron Just-got-fingered and his idiotic claim that the UAW doesn’t have anything to do with the downfall of GM.

Really? I have a feeling the UAW job banks might have something to do with extraneous costs for the automakers.

I think Dire Straits said it best: “Get your money for nothing and your chicks for free”