Share

No Commitment on Auto Bailout Despite Union Concessions

by: David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall  |  McClatchy Newspapers

photo
Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers, speaks at a press conference in Detroit. (Photo: Getty Images)

    Washington - On the eve of congressional hearings, union leaders agreed to concessions on Wednesday, removing a roadblock to a proposed rescue of the U.S. auto industry as Congress weighs whether to give carmakers $34 billion in emergency aid or allow them to face bankruptcy.

    At a Detroit news conference, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger announced that the union would allow automakers more time to meet funding obligations for retiree benefits and would suspend a program that allows laid off workers to receive most of their original salary.

    The concessions are designed to show wary lawmakers that labor is a willing partner in what amounts to a taxpayer-financed effort to help one or more of the Big Three avoid a bankruptcy that would send shockwaves across an economy already battered by recession.

    "Bottom line - the jury's still out," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who's on the Senate Banking Committee, which holds its hearing on the proposed bailout on Thursday.

    A Republican Senate leadership aide, who asked not to be identified in order to speak candidly, said the union moves were "a step in the right direction for some members," but it was unclear how many.

    Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration blame union contracts for many of U.S. carmakers' problems. On Wednesday, the White House remained non-committal about the bailout.

    "Let us take a look at the plans and let them have their testimony and see if we can help them," said spokeswoman Dana Perino. "We don't want anybody to be negatively affected by a bankruptcy, but sometimes companies do fail. That's just the way it is in our system."

    The UAW fears that a bankruptcy would hurt not only union employees at General Motors or Chrysler, but also unionized suppliers. Ford's position, though not great, is less imminently dire.

    Answering a question about serious union concessions in the last two contract negotiations, Gettelfinger suggested that future union members should expect fewer perks than their predecessors.

    "But the word concessions - I used to cringe at that word. But now why hide from it, that's what we did," he conceded, according to a transcript of his remarks, following an unusual emergency meeting that gathered union leaders from the shops of the Big Three.

    Specifically, Gettelfinger recommended Wednesday that UAW members allow the Big Three more time before they begin paying into a special health and welfare trust - called a voluntary employees' beneficiary association, or VEBA. Under last year's labor contract, carmakers were to begin paying into the union-administered VEBA on Jan. 1, 2010.

    In addition, the UAW will look at suspending the jobs bank, a controversial program that guarantees laid-off workers most of their salary. Gettelfinger said only 3,500 or so workers remain in this program, which once numbered more than 80,000.

    The union's legislative director, Alan Reuther, hoped lawmakers would see the union moves as a good-faith effort to share the pain.

    "I think this indicates that UAW members are willing to do their part in terms of sacrifices to help in any restructuring. Obviously, the other stakeholders have to be at the table too," he told McClatchy. "I would hope members would see this as positive, and as proof that a restructuring can succeed and lead to viable businesses in the future.

    Collectively, the Big Three presented viability plans to Congress on Tuesday that ask for $34 billion in direct loans and stand-by lines of credit. In exchange, they promised to cut costs, trim their dealership networks, curb executive pay and move more swiftly to build hybrid vehicles and cars with better fuel economy.

    That same day, they reported dismal November sales that amounted to the biggest collective monthly drop in a quarter century.

    Against that backdrop, Congress on Thursday begins two days of hearings on the bailout request.

    "The Big Three plans help," Tester said. "But there are still questions, like why was it $25 billion two weeks ago and $34 billion today?"

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on Wednesday that he isn't committed to bringing any aid plan to the full Senate and that he and key committee chairmen will determine "at the end of the week the best course to pursue," including "whether to move forward with legislation to provide emergency funds."

    Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who'll preside over Thursday's hearing, also was noncommittal. His first witness on Thursday will be Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who heads the Government Accountability Office.

    By putting Dodaro first, it assures that senators and the American public will hear from an objective source before carmakers testify. Dodaro will discuss alternative methods of government support to boost the struggling auto manufacturers.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The American way is to let

The American way is to let the ambitious and smart and careful reap the rewards or loses that they deserve. If the BIG 3 pass away, they will very soon be replaced by the BIG 2, Toyota and Honda. That would be a good thing. Let the ones who can build good vehicles do it, and those who can't or won't fall by the wayside. Who bailed out us stock holders when the stock market went down. No one. We took our lumps, and got on with our lives. No whining or crying. When Gates started Mirosoft, he kept enough money in reserve to carry the company through any future hard times. Thanks to the UAW the automakers did not. Too bad. Let Toyota and Honda pick their bones. The country will be just fine.

We're too broke to buy cars,

We're too broke to buy cars, so why bailout to make what no one can buy? My money is being spent for food and shelter. Nothing else. I have lots of clothes to cover my body and don't need to be in style. I've already done my consumer purchasing other years and what I have will last. I'd rather have the money put in Green Corps jobs like the CCC during Roosevelt.

Larry Milton merely repeats

Larry Milton merely repeats the conventional wisdom of anti-union commentators, failing to consider what discarding an entire American industry would mean to middle-class living standards, the ability of many communities to remain viable, national security, and the fate of African-American workers who are actively spurned by the low-wage Japanese firms operating in the US. 1. The best approach would be for the public to purchase the US auto industry --whose stock is worth about $3 billion--and place it under capable managers. 2. The Big 3--under a mixture of private and public management-- could produce both autos and mass transit vehicles, and be assured of a market in US cities' purchase of mass transit. We would also have an industry that could be converted to military use in an emergency like World War II. 3. Allowing the Big 3 to collapse--or develop a "survival" plan that involves further shrinking their production workforce--would be devastating to the American middle class. Our living standards have been raised by the decades of struggle by the United Auto Workers (whose average pay in the Big 3 is about $26 to $28 an hour in wages, not the preposterous $70 reported even in "liberal" media like the NY Times). At a moment when the richest 1% earns 22% of all annual income in the US--more than the bottom 150 million--we need more people in the middle class, not less. 4. Thus, the purpose of any public expenditure on the auto industry should should be aimed at expanding the number of family-supporting jobs in the US. This means bringing back jobs sent to China and Mexico--exploiting workers under repressive condition-- to produce cars for the US market. These jobs producing for the US market should be manufactured in the US, or any public outlay is pointless. While slashing 85% of its US production workforce since 1990, GM has tripled its auto production capacity in China over the past five years. Communities devastated by GM's abandonment of America--like Flint, Detroit, and countless others--would be revitalized if GM,, Ford and Chrysler were compelled, as a condition of public funding, to build most of their cars here. 5. While the Big 3 have been an important source of middle-class wages for the large numbers of African-Americans in the auto industry, the Japanese firms have at best a sordid record of equality in hiring. Honda in particular views African-Americans as too sympathetic to unions and has systematically located its plants in almost all-white areas (See my recent articles in Dollars & Sense and Multinational Monitor.) Moreover, the Japanese firms pay only $14 an hour, which serves to further drag down the earning standards for middle-class Americans. Yet they collect vast public subsidies for their new plants in the US. Surrendering the auto industry to the Japanese is thus no solution. 6. Finally, part of the auto industry's current crisis --part from the greed, arrogance, and atrocious strategies of the Big 3)--is the unwillingness of banks to extend loans to Americans. The bailout of banks has left credit frozen so cars cannot be sold; it is clearly time to impose stringent conditions on these financial institutions and claw back every public dime in their coffers.