UAW Still Made No Sacrifices to Make General Motors Competitive 9 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
First of all I like Mitt Romney, despite the a relatively shallow campaign he ran in 2007 with lots of pandering. And as a general note, I thought it was pretty unfortunate he got hit in the GOP primary so hard because of his religious background. Perhaps that's why he pandered so much because he wanted to be "Accepted as one of US". ICK.
In any event, he was on the Sunday morning shows talking about the auto bailout. Mitt Romney and his father have big ties to Michigan and Detroit so his take on it was interesting. His big pitch--- the US and the UAW should distribute their shares to taxpayers and union members directly. His big concern is government influence
1) The government already influenced these companies to their core by having comparatively low fuel standards that left these companies naked at the beach when the tide went out. Who cares if we own 70% now, the UAW owns it really. 70% of nothing is still nothing.
2) I as an American citizen will not be checking my mail any time soon for my GM stock certificates. If I got them, I'd burn them for biomass fuel rather than hoping for any kind of big pay day. The biggest travesty is the UAW, which as usual, made no sacrifices to make these companies competitive other than some Viagra benefits.
3) Ron Gettelfinger laments the loss of auto jobs abroad on one hand but strangles these companies with ridiculous rules that pay them for not working, or give them unlimited health and retirement benefits that are wholly uncorrelated to the health of the company. This normally would have fixed itself with a bankruptcy but the the government has interjected itself to save the union with $50 billion in cash to let the UAW suck the life out of GM, for just a few more years.
Related Articles
|





















AT 74, my father, who for many years as an independent construction contractor purchased GM Suburbans regularly, bought a new car at the beginning of the year.
He bought a Honda Accord, as has his sister who is still in her 60s. I tried to get them to look at the Caddies, but with no luck.
No, you have the situation completely reversed--the companies told the government they wanted low fuel standards (particularly for SUVs)--and got them.
With our Celica, the service staff would go out of their way to make sure that either my wife or I were attended to promptly, well taken care of, and that nothing was done that wasn't required. The car was generally returned having been washed down, and having had a quick vacuum, if it was in for any major service.
On the other hand, when a local GM dealership got my parents Oldsmobile into an accident while servicing it under warranty, we had to fight with them to get a loaner vehicle, and not once did we get a formal apology.
That was the last American vehicle that anyone in our extended family has ever even considered purchasing or driving. We have all since moved on to Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, and have had no regrets.
The death of the American car manufacturer is at their own hands, nobody elses, for they made their own choices. I, for one, will shed no tears.
Japan, Europe, and EVEN CHINA require more mpg (or klicks per liter) than the US will require after Obama's standards kick in.
Safety requirements? They apply to foreign cars sold in the US. As that great capitalist Lombardi used to say, it rains on both sides of the football field.
Lemme tell you a story from the other side, since capitalists seem to prefer anecdotes to statistics.
In 1992, I tried to order a Ford Explorer with California emission controls.
The dealer would not take the order in Texas.
After many hissy fits on my part and threats to just not buy, Ford finally gave me a reason. They did not wish to sell California equipped vehicles outside of California because that would create the "false" impression that people were willing to pay more for cleaner cars. This they told the guy who was offering to pay more for a cleaner car....Sheesh.