by John Richardson on December 14, 2008
Jim DeMint (S-SC), David Vitter (R-LA) and Mitch McConnell, along with a slew of other Republican senators have begun their pitched battle attacking American auto workers this week by opposing any bailout that doesn’t include slashing unionized autoworkers pay to that of non-union autoworkers in the south. Effectively killing a Congressional bailout of the Big Three automakers, they focused their invective on the high pay received by workers represented by the UAW.
Notwithstanding the question of whether the U.S. automakers should receive such help from Congress, attacking American workers as the root cause of the industry woes speaks volumes about what we already know about these Senators, who are hostile to the rights of working Americans while bedding with the worst elements of industry.
Extending the Senators’ logic a bit, should all American’s wages be reset to some other standard? Perhaps Congress should take it upon itself to set UPS worker wages to Fedex standards. Perhaps Toyota workers employed in Alabama receiving $40 an hour have their wages set to those workers at the VW assembly plant in Puebla, Mexico. The comparisons hare endless here but what is important is that, when it comes to screwing working people, these Republicans regulatory ambitions know no bounds.
On the other hand, if it is to become Congress’ role to regulate wages, then perhaps we can start to evaluate executive pay in a similar manner. Something modest is in order here. I like linking U.S. executives wages to that of similar executives in, say, Great Britain or France.
Breaking out of that fantasy, the reality here is that, as was noted in the LA Times and elsewhere, the Republicans’ primary aim is not to consider the merits of the financial bailout of the auto industry so much as to stick it to the UAW, sort of a counter punch to the upcoming effort by organized labor to enact the Employee Free Choice Act. In addition, any blow back that these Senators might receive from their fiscally conservative supporters (I’m speaking about their financial supporters not the electorate), is avoided by tossing this monkey wrench into the process. As we are seeing, President Bush is now talking about deferring funds from the financial industry bailout (TARP), allowing the Republican senators to spoil the deal while avoiding the consequences resulting from a catastrophic failure of the industry.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
by Rob Kellogg on December 5, 2008
Last week, my colleague John Richardson wrote an article titled “5 Reasons to Save the Big Three.” While I do not necessarily believe that a bailout in some form should be ruled out altogether by lawmakers, I do think there are a number of solid reasons to oppose government intervention at this time. So I thought I would offer a contrasting perspective.
Most Republicans are against any bailout based on their doctrinal “free-market” ideology (yes, the same philosophy that got us into this mess with the deregulation of Wall Street investment banks under Phil Gramm during the Clinton Administration). So we know we shouldn’t be looking to that side of the aisle for the moral high ground in this debate. The Democrats, under the leadership of Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate, are in a very precarious spot. On the one hand, the Democrats have been given a clear economic mandate by voters to clean up the mess caused by “eight failed years of Bush economic policies.” On the other, the Democrats have some very powerful interests to consider, namely the UAW and its thousands of blue collar voting members in Michigan and the Midwest. This balancing act has caused most Democrats, including Obama, to lean cautiously in favor of some type of federal intervention.
Following the first round of hearings, House Speaker Pelosi said: “Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money.” President-elect Obama also agreed that taxpayers can’t be expected to “pony up more money for an auto industry that has been resistant to change.” This week, the Big 3 are getting their second – and likely final – chance to convince lawmakers.
Bankruptcy or bailout? Here are 5 reasons why Congress should think twice before dolling out the money to the auto industry.
[click to continue...]
Popularity: 3% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
by Rob Kellogg on November 25, 2008
Executives of the U.S. auto industry – flanked by their cadre of lobbyists – are now busy begging lawmakers for handouts. So far, GM, Ford and Chrysler have failed to present a strong case for using taxpa
yer money in their resuscitation. We know that Wagoner (GM), Mulally (Ford) and Nardelli (on behalf of Cerberus Capital, owner of Chrysler ) will get one more chance to prove their case once Obama takes office, if not sooner. And regardless of whether the “big 3″ automakers end up filling their golden chalices with federal money, a mandate stipulating an increase in the production of plug-in electric cars will emerge. This much is sure.
So it seems that this is an opportune time to consider what the next era of America’s auto industry might usher in. Let’s start by taking a quick trip back to high school chemistry class since the future of the auto industry and the new fleet of next generation cars starts with the letters “Li” on the periodic table.
The element lithium is one of nature’s more flexible atoms. Lithium salts were used during the 19th century to treat various ailments and millions of people around the world today rely on it to treat psychosis and manic-depression. Lithium is also used as an industrial agent to kill algae and to filter carbon dioxide from the air in spaceships.
Lithium is the lightest metal and the least dense solid element and because of this it is very effective in heat transfer applications used in rechargeable and primary batteries because of its high electrochemical potential, light weight, and high current density. A lithium-ion battery is the “engine” (non-combustion of course) of today’s electric cars and will likely remain so in the foreseeable future.
[click to continue...]
Popularity: 5% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
by John Richardson on November 24, 2008
During the past week, the media has railed about the performance by the CEOs from Chrysler, General Motors and Ford. Like beggars in mink coats, Mssrs. Wagoner, Nardelli and Mulally marched to Washington DC last week to plead for $25 billion in financial aid from the government to an incredulous audience. Ill prepared for the onslaught by Congressional inquisitors, the Big Three CEOs looked like angry zebras ready to face down a brood of lions. What was obvious to everybody but the “zebras” was the fact that that the even angrier public and Congress have lost patience for these business leaders who expect financial aid, no questions asked. Lions 1, Zebras 0. [click to continue...]
Popularity: 5% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
by Erika Yost on July 30, 2008
According to Reuters, Chrysler is talking with India’s Tata Motors and Italy’s Fiat, as it seeks to raise cash and open doors to faster-growing markets outside the U.S. Chrysler has been in discussions with Tata about arrangements to sell its Jeep Wrangler SUV in India and possibly other Asian markets. In addition, Chrysler has been talking to Fiat about leasing Chrysler production capacity in North America and cooperating in retail distribution in the U.S. market. This scenario could allow Fiat to return to the world’s largest auto market, while allowing Chrysler to cut costs at a time when sales are down and it faces mounting pressure to shore up cash.
Gerry Meyers, a professor at the University of Michigan business school and chief executive of American Motors when it owned Jeep in the early 1980s, said it was clear that Chrysler needed international partners. "In my mind, they’re clearly under a financial strain. It may even be a liquidity strain. There are a lot of questions floating around about how much longer Chrysler can go on with problems like this," he said.
Chrysler lost $1.6 billion in 2007. On Tuesday Fitch Ratings downgraded Chrysler, warning that the automaker could run below the "minimum required levels" of cash to finance operations by the second half of 2009 if industry-wide sales remain flat or worsen.
Fiat and Tata already have a partnership. Fiat agreed this month to handle the financing in Europe for Tata’s Jaguar and Land Rover brands, while Tata said it was open to Fiat selling its Nano.
On the same day that the story above appeared in Reuters, BBC News reported that Tata has seen net profits fall 30% due to high material costs and losses from changes in foreign exchange rates.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
Jim DeMint (S-SC), David Vitter (R-LA) and Mitch McConnell, along with a slew of other Republican senators have begun their pitched battle attacking American auto workers this week by opposing any bailout that doesn’t include slashing unionized autoworkers pay to that of non-union autoworkers in the south. Effectively killing a Congressional bailout of the Big Three automakers, they focused their invective on the high pay received by workers represented by the UAW.
