I am anti-bailout in general as I believe the free market enterprising system of capitalism is the foundation of our country and it's freedoms however, saying that, we have other issues tied into the auto bailout that simply could not have had a worst timing. The fact that the economy is still sinking after the $700 bailout of the financials and layoffs are rising bringing unemployment up. We could lose 1 million to 3 million jobs with a loss in the American auto industry and this impact would guarentee a depression if not a financial collapse in America. Now, since the senate seems to be against a bailout for the auto industry, it would appear they have changed visions from yes we can manage the economic woes to hell, we are sinking regardless, we might as well not help them out and see what happens. If I was in a position of power like the Senate, I would take the following approach, I would make the bailout contingent on the following.
1.compensation and benefits would be on the table. no reason to fly private leer jets to washington to ask for a handout. Unions are crippling the ability to be competitive and refuse concessions.
2. I would ask that the three remain independent entities with one exception, they must unite under one name (all three) to share and combine resources in nateral gas, hydrogen, and electric cars to mass produce within 5 years.
3. The value of the bailout ($65 billion) be ownership of the companies by the taxpayers at market rate meaning, future profits are shared back to the taxpayers.

If these simple request could not be considered, I would vote against the bailout.

CG, the biggest problem for Honda in opening plants in the US is they cannot find skilled labor to work there...When Meridian, Mississippi, was being considered for a plant it lost out due to that fact alone. There was no labor force to run the place and there was no confidence they could find and train such a force, especially since they were not interested in hiring UAW members.

I'm not able to find a story about Honda not choosing Meridan, Mississippi for a new plant site because there is no skilled labor force there. Can you give a link to a story about this or something? Is this a common problem in the America that John McCain insisted had a good economy because it's workers are just the greatest?

I wouldn't be one to give you this power based on what you would do.


Most of those on the private jets we're not union. The pilots may have been ex-union that got laid of from a major and took a job driving the bus to get by but I would think, other than that, probably no one was a member of a union. What makes you think if they were they wouldn't make concessions like the pilots may have and the UAW certainly has?


Asking is really not going to get you much that they don't already do, would it? I think someone has been asking them for years but someone else has been heard. The Japanese companies are already doing this and paying wages close to union wages. I'd ask "How's that?".


This doesn't seem to be a free-market solution. Or would it just be one-time relaxation of free-market principals? A temporary socialist solution? Like the insurance companies saying they'll insure pre-existing conditions if the government makes everyone enter thier system with money they may not have. If they cash the check and then say, "Wow, we can't do this." and go banckrupt what do we do? How much is a share of a banckrupt company worth? Maybe I'll look closer at some yard sales if that paper is really worth something.



It's not that simple.

The following observation is true about 99% of the time:

If given their way, companies like GM would have workers working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for ten cents an hour, no benefits. "If you don't come in Sunday, don't come in Monday." (A famous notice to employees of a sweatshop in the early 1900's)

If given their way, Unions would work a ten hour week, be paid a thousand dollars an hour, have their medical and dental costs paid for, their mortgages paid and their children's education ensured by the company. Retirement benefits equal to highest salary earned.

Which is why regulation is needed to stem the excesses of both the companies and the unions.

In the early days of American labor, unions were necessary to stop the predatory practices of employers. Since then the unions have grown powerful and have become as predatory as the companies.

Somewhere in the middle is a solution that suits both labor and management.

I agree. At one time I had a job that required going to the docks in Seattle where the union was quite strong. I had to 'pretend' to be some type of management to even get to the barge we were working on (Only if it came up, which it didn't). I was pretty disgusted with the union rules supposedly meant to protect jobs but seemingly inefficient in practice. I was not pro-union.

I'm still not really pro-union but think labor is being squeezed too much in the other direction and don't see where the 'goodness' of corporate America can be depended on to provide for fairness. Right now, Toyota, for instance, is paying union comparable wages and Japan is covering the health benefits because the union exists. If not for the existence of the union Toyota might eventually have to pay it's workers $5 a day just so it has a market in America for it's products.

I'm not sure who's job it should be to insure some balance, corporate America, we the people or government. I'm just sure financial power can tend to tip the scales as people power weakens which could very well create the best situation for all.

What are you talking about? Honda opened a new plant in Indiana last week!

The cost of maintaining the salary of a union worker adds to the high cost of running an auto manufacturer's over head.... This is why they love places like Alabama, where they have a beautiful deal on Native American land... The cost is much lower for several reasons, one mainly...labor. The Native American's health care is provided for by the federal government. Likewise Detroit auto manufacturers have moved their own operations to Canada....taking advantage of the government health and welfare plans...as a result reducing their over head. This is the same with many other American industries...

One of the first issues Obama should tackle when he takes office is "health care". Industries might decide to come back...

Is it "health care" or "health care coverage" that shuld be addressed. I assume most of the "health care" benefits are due to "health care" premiums and not necessarily a constant need to be re-healthified but I could be wrong.

Native Americans have government paid for health care coverage...as so your Senators, and Congressmen...and the janitor working at city hall. These are all "government" paid for health care programs. While the Native American's isn't golden one compared to your Senator's...it is good. This should be an entire thread all it's own.

I just wanted to mention, the cost of health care coverage (thankyou ;)) for employees by a business...can break that business, or cause it to operate avoiding those costs.

I have had to deal with unions as well. Most of my experience has been positive, because they are excellent workers and in my opinion worth the cost of their salary. But I do take issue with some of the "rules" they demand... Many of these, I have encountered have gotten in the way of conducting commerce...and therefore adding more costs to businesses. For instance, try putting a container on a ship! Now there is an experience. It takes a crew of these guys...who are all capable to move a few crates.

I don't belive that GM should be bailed out, or GMAC..even with the finance arm selling loans that are bogus...and cars that no one wants...GM Market share has been declining for many years. GMAC was the only part of the biz that was making a profit..screw them...the US shouldn't invest 12-18 bilion in them. As a car biz
they screwed up..even worse than the finance biz.

Good Riddance to GM..