![]() |
3
2
2
View Ratings |
Rate It
By Stephen Lendman (about the author) Page 1 of 5 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Stephen Lendman - Writer
Voters expecting change keep getting rude reminders of what kind, none they can believe in reiterated again on March 30 in Obama's remarks to the auto giants. While stating "We cannot....must not (and) will not let (this) industry vanish," he laid down a clear marker. Labor, not business, is targeted. More on that below.
"We (won't) excuse poor decisions," he said. "We cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of taxpayer dollars." In rejecting their aid request, he added: "These companies - and this industry - must ultimately stand on their own, not as wards of the state....What we are asking is difficult. It will require hard choices by the companies. (Their plan doesn't go) far enough to warrant the substantial new investments these companies are requesting."
Imagine the hypocrisy - open-checkbook trillions for Wall Street criminals v. a thinly disguised war on organized labor by scolding the auto giants for not forcing their workers to make greater sacrifices.
They're needed, said Obama. Their "best chance for success" is a "surgical" bankruptcy lasting for as little as 30 days - meaning workers will lose everything while CEOs get seven-figure compensation for betraying them.
A March 31 New York Times Michael de la Merced/Johathan Glater article suggested that Washington may seek a "controlled" bankruptcy - somewhere between "prepackaged (and) court chaos by persuading creditors to agree" to divide GM in two pieces, sort of like a good and bad bank to create a healthier company, free of its troubled assets and liabilities.
Under the plan, GM would declare a prearranged bankruptcy. Then, the bankruptcy code's Section 363 would authorize selling off desirable assets to a new government-financed company. Details are being discussed so it looks like a done deal, either prepackaged or through a bankruptcy court, either way very worker-adverse with UAW bosses pressured to go along, take it or leave it.
The administration also decided Chrysler can't survive alone. It was given 30 days to ally with Fiat SpA or with another automaker if that fails, even though such a deal may combine two dogs into a bigger one with even greater problems than going it on their own.
Obama drew a line in the sand for "workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more" through additional restructuring sacrifices, including:
-- permanent job losses;
-- lower wages;
-- gutted work rules, including health and safety protection on the job;
-- forfeited security through lost benefits and pensions, including for retirees, on top of everything given up in fall 2007 negotiations when the UAW leadership surrendered to management, then muscled the rank and file to go along; and
-- more sacrifices the Bush $25 billion bailout demanded, unreported in the mainstream: banned GM and Chrysler strikes, meaning effectively on the big three; more wage and benefits cuts; ending the UAW's "jobs bank" that provided help to furloughed workers and more.
It's a dark age for US auto workers and a prelude for what's coming - compared to earlier times when they earned substantial wages, got cost of living and productivity increases, and had impressive benefits, including medical coverage with defined extras, employer-funded pensions, improved safety and health benefits, paid vacations, and supplemental unemployment insurance guaranteeing up to 95% of pay if laid off.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 13 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |