Is failing to help automakers Unamerican?

When the Republican Senators from Tennessee,Alabama and South Carolina teamed up to stop the loan for the automakers, they forgot to mention one fact. Those states have granted billions of dollars in subsidies to Toyota, Honda,BMW,Mercedes and Nissan to lure assembly plants there. If any of our automakers go bankrupt, it will benefit those foreign owned operations. Does anyone else think that it is wrong for these Senators to actively oppose helping the Big Three in order to benefit foreign automakers?

We have the best Gov't. money can buy on both sides of the aisle.

this issue is very complicated and I don't believe a bailout or loan or whatever moniker one chooses will help much. the industry will have to re invent it self in order to sustain viability because no matter the amount of infused money with out the sale it won't matter.
To answer the question I don't trust any of them to do what is in the Countrys interest over thier own.

Sparks,

Toyota and Honda are just as American as the big 3, and some vehicles are actually more American made than the big 3

Some Honda vehicles are 75% US Made, while some Ford vehicles are only 50% US Made

The lines have been blurred asto what is American Made these days, and in some cases, Toyota and Honda are more American Made than the big 3

What pissed me off the most though, is that both Senators from Indiana support the bailout, yet they never bothered to send a response to my suggestion that as a condition to get a bailout, the big 3 must close foreign plants before American plants. I feel that if US tax dollars are going to be used to close plants, then they should be closing foreign plants and not US plants

The coworkers that I have talked to are all union members (IBEW, IAMAW, IBFO, ARSA) and they think that the UAW really screwed up by refusing to make concessions, and that the automakers should take their troubles to bankruptcy.
The current credit crunch is not the cause of the automakers troubles. Poor management and an excessively advisarial relationship with the unions is the biggest problem. And the union share some of the blame too.

Bill B wrote:

The coworkers that I have talked to are all union members (IBEW, IAMAW, IBFO, ARSA) and they think that the UAW really screwed up by refusing to make concessions, and that the automakers should take their troubles to bankruptcy.
The current credit crunch is not the cause of the automakers troubles. Poor management and an excessively advisarial relationship with the unions is the biggest problem. And the union share some of the blame too.

The UAW did offer to make concessions. What we are witnessing is an all out attack on unions by the Republicans.
These southern Senators want to destroy the UAW so badly,they are willing to let GM and Chrysler vanish.
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourmoney/personalfinance/articles/u_a_w__makes_concessions.html?CMP=KNC-360I-GOOGLE-BULL&HBX_OU=50&HBX_PK=uaw
Dec.4,2008WASHINGTON -- The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that it would make major concessions in its contracts with the three Detroit auto companies to help them lobby Congress for $34 billion in federal aid.

The surprising move by the U.A.W. could be a critical factor in the automakers’ bid not only to get government assistance, but also to become competitive with the cost structure of nonunion plants operated by foreign automakers in the United States.

At a news conference in Detroit, the U.A.W.’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said that his members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care to keep the two most troubled car companies of the Big Three, General Motors and Chrysler, out of bankruptcy.

Sparks, you forgot the key portion of those concessions, which is IN 2011 when the contract is up

They wanted to hold off on taking a wage cut until the contract is up, and sorry, but hard to feel sorry for them, when you read about the USW taking a paycut recently to help Mittal Steel.

And they even made sure to put clauses in forthe concessions, but the UAW didn't even want to listen to it, they wanted to keep their pay

When you have a company claiming they will not make it to the end of the year without a bailout, the union should be open to taking a cut in pay for a little bit


And it is hard for me to feel sorry for the big 3 when I read how some big 3 vehicles are only 50% US Made, and yet some toyota and Honda's are 70%+ US Made.

mike3775 wrote:

Sparks, you forgot the key portion of those concessions, which is IN 2011 when the contract is up

They wanted to hold off on taking a wage cut until the contract is up, and sorry, but hard to feel sorry for them, when you read about the USW taking a paycut recently to help Mittal Steel.

And they even made sure to put clauses in forthe concessions, but the UAW didn't even want to listen to it, they wanted to keep their pay

When you have a company claiming they will not make it to the end of the year without a bailout, the union should be open to taking a cut in pay for a little bit


And it is hard for me to feel sorry for the big 3 when I read how some big 3 vehicles are only 50% US Made, and yet some toyota and Honda's are 70%+ US Made.

Mike, if you read through the link I posted, you will see the UAW did offer to reopen the contract they signed in 2007. Here is another very good link by Ford which talks about their economic footprint on our economy.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8584781/Ford-Fact-Sheet-Economic-Footprint

But they refused to take a cut in pay

That right there pissed off a majority of americans sparks

Kind of hard to feel sorry for them if they refuse to take a cut in pay isn't it?

Guess what, there will still be jobs in the US if any of the big 3 goes under. Ford is in better shape than the other 2

Ford has already stated they do not really need a bailout right now, they just want a line of credit right now

Its Chrysler and GM who are in trouble, and honestly, just getting rid of the job bank does not make me more likely to support a bailout for them


I wish the govt had never bailed out the banks, then the big 3 would be in bankruptcy, which is exactly what they need right now

And if they do get $40 billion, who says they will notneed an additional $20+ billion in 2 months? How long should the govt allow them to be bailed out before enough is enough?

See here's the thing. The workers are arguably overpaid. The industry is suffering because few people have the means or at least the desire to buy cars. And ideally in a free market the government has no business giving taxpayer money to a private business, but especially when that money cannot reasonably guarantee a better outcome. All it does is keep the company going a little longer.

Some have suggested taking money that was supposed to go for environmental improvements on cars and letting them use that. But that still doesn't cut out the fat in operating expenses and if anything is a bit of a disincentive to buy a future new car to to those who are very environmentally concerned.

Some, like my family, buy our vehicles for long term use. And baring a loss have no immediate plans to be in the market short of a super opportunity situation. Others are making due with their current vehicles longer due to a decline in available income, but the auto industry is dependent on cars being replaced between 2 and 4 years and that's no longer happening.

And now with the extended shut downs, meaning a few less cars being produced, there appears to be little likelihood of a cut in the sales price, but a hefty cut in the sales price might be about the only thing that would draw the sales needed. Then again, if this means selling cars for less than it costs to produce them little has changed for the better.

It all comes down to cost. If the cost doesn't change it's just money down the drain.

The big 3 have been putting out a overpriced crappy product for years. It's their own fault they are in trouble. Let them go to bankruptcy.

I don't think the gov't should be "in business" to bail out other businesses. I agree that they should file for bankruptcy protection and reconstruct their companies. My hubby works hard for his money, why should the money he makes be taken away to bail out these companies who can't manage their businesses? If the company he works for goes down will the gov't bail them out? Probably not.

My hubby works hard for his money, why should the money he makes be taken away to bail out these companies who can't manage their businesses?

It shouldn't. The only reason we are even talking about a bailout is the number of jobs involved and politics. When has that ever been a good combination for taxpayers?

I do agree with Sparks in a way, they may not be hugely overpaid, but the total compensation is out of whack, whicjh is what is hurting the companies more

Getting rid of the job bank is one thing that has been needed to be done, but to say that the workers are now going to suffer because they will lose $2-$4/hr is bullshit

I know people who would love to make even $11/hr, or even $10/hr, and have been getting by on $9.65/hr and having an apartment and bills to pay. To say that they will suffer because they are only making $24/hr now does not help their cause at all