George W. Bush is announcing his plan to bail out the auto industry, and it appears that the UAW will win.

Under the plan, the UAW will be required, by the end of 2009, to reset work rules and wages to be "competitive" with costs to foreign-owned auto companies manufacturing in the U.S. That doesn't mean total costs, just work rules and wages -- pension and legacy healthcare costs don't count. Also, it doesn't mean dollar-for-dollar parity, just "competitivenss." In addition, this agreement could be renegotiated with the Obama administration.

Other provisions: Loans will be made from the TARP. GM & Chrysler must develop viability plans by March 31, or repay the loans. In developing these plans, everyone involved in the auto industry (not just the UAW) must come to the table. The loans will take precedence over other debts.

Apparently, Bush's statement yesterday that he doesn't want to dump a crisis on the next administration isn't totally bunk. Yes, he's leaving with 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq, and tens of thousands in Afghanistan, and there's that pesky recession thingamajig, but at least the auto crisis is being dealt with.  read more »

(Note: Reprinted from my website.)

As speculation continues over whether, and how, the Bush administration will choose to tap the TARP for $14 billion to bail out two enormous, domestic-owned automobile manufacturers, little discussion is given to whether there is a better way. While people debate the wisdom of keeping alive companies that have made many terrible business decisions in the past, nobody is debating whether to switch from automobiles to some other form of transportation. We should.

Our blindness to transportation systems other than automobiles is nothing new, and is the result of decades of propaganda, as well as monopolist and other crooked business practices, in the auto industry and related businesses.  read more »

On The Albany Project, a blogger hight "Exile on Ericsson St." wonders if the fight to stop the auto bailout -- or at least to force the UAW to make enormous concessions -- may be just a skirmish in the larger battle over the "Employee Free Choice Act."

The Employee Free Choice Act would make it a lot easier to unionize, so many business owners oppose it. There are problems with the bill as it is, since it could swing the pendulum too far. Right now, management has an opportunity to strongarm people prior to a vote; if this bill took effect, management wouldn't have that opportunity, but union organizers would. We need something that moves the pendulum without going too far, but given a choice between the current system and the Employee Free Choice Act I'd make the change.  read more »

(Note: Reprinted from my website.)

Once again, Democratic "leadership" in Congress has failed to lead. If anything resembling a bailout of the domestic auto companies comes out of that bifurcated body, it will not resemble anything a truly progressive Democrat could support -- except on a direct plea from the fools who supposedly run things.

Once again, Democratic "leadership" in Congress has proven that negotiation is an art, and they don't know which end of the paintbrush to hold.

Let's review the bidding: President-elect Obama calls on Congress to do something. The CEOs of the "big three" domestic auto companies are summoned to Washington, where they are pilloried and sent home with orders to return. They return as ordered, are subjected to more horsewhipping in "hearings" that accomplish nothing (as hearings are wont to do).  read more »