Sorry, I guess just fear and outrage don't come through well in text.

 

All the same, we live in scary times.

 

I understand where you are coming from...But at this point, all of these scenarios are hypothetical. We don't know how all of this is going to shake out. So I rather discuss without fear and outrage...we all need to be vigilant, discuss and watch the events in order to take action we deem best to protect ourselves

I don't know that it's so much hypothetical as it is probable. I mean what is the logical conclusion to the hyperinflation our government seems determined to create? And who's gonna stop them from doing it?

I think the unions understand that the choice is between having a job or not having a job. It is in their best interest to make sure the company stays afloat and prosper.

 

 

Not necessarily true..depending on the work group supporting it, some unions would rather see the business burned to the ground then give concessions. (Eastern Airlines) UAW has been known to not give ground on much, they have watched as thousands have lost there jobs without giving an inch on there union contracts.

They also know that a lot of those jobs will be outsourced anyways, so why sacrifice labor contracts for what will happen anyways? That's why I think the perfect auto-industry bailout bill has to have a provision for minimum hiring, so that jobs stay in the US. What we're seeing is the natural decay of a trust (the trust being defined as the Big Three) that has gotten too big for its britches and fails to innovate in the face of global competition. Some genius at GM (and, unfortunately for me, that genius happens to be a Duke grad) thought this country could continue on gas-guzzlers and cut out the hybrid-engine program, letting Honda and Toyota jump from there. I don't like Rick Wagoner, I have never liked Rick Wagoner. I think the GM Board needs to can him and give him a lead parachute rather than a golden one.

They also know that a lot of those jobs will be outsourced anyways, so why sacrifice labor contracts for what will happen anyways? That's why I think the perfect auto-industry bailout bill has to have a provision for minimum hiring, so that jobs stay in the US. What we're seeing is the natural decay of a trust (the trust being defined as the Big Three) that has gotten too big for its britches and fails to innovate in the face of global competition. Some genius at GM (and, unfortunately for me, that genius happens to be a Duke grad) thought this country could continue on gas-guzzlers and cut out the hybrid-engine program, letting Honda and Toyota jump from there. I don't like Rick Wagoner, I have never liked Rick Wagoner. I think the GM Board needs to can him and give him a lead parachute rather than a golden one.

There is no such thing as a perfect bailout or even a good bailout. I'm gonna ignore the other points of your post that I disagree with and just focus on one that I do:

 

The "big three" have failed innovate and stay competetive in the global market. Now for most businesses, the consequences of that are that you go out of business. Why should it not be the case for the Auto-Industry? Giving them money doesn't force them to correct their busiess model to become profitable, it enables them to stay afloat while continuing the same bad practices that have gotten them here. The only thing that can force them to get things right and become viable is to allow them to fail.

 

An animal hunts because it needs to eat. Give it the food without the hunt, and it will stop doing that work. And it won't hunt again unless you stop giving it food.

They also know that a lot of those jobs will be outsourced anyways, so why sacrifice labor contracts for what will happen anyways? That's why I think the perfect auto-industry bailout bill has to have a provision for minimum hiring, so that jobs stay in the US. What we're seeing is the natural decay of a trust (the trust being defined as the Big Three) that has gotten too big for its britches and fails to innovate in the face of global competition. Some genius at GM (and, unfortunately for me, that genius happens to be a Duke grad) thought this country could continue on gas-guzzlers and cut out the hybrid-engine program, letting Honda and Toyota jump from there. I don't like Rick Wagoner, I have never liked Rick Wagoner. I think the GM Board needs to can him and give him a lead parachute rather than a golden one.

There is no such thing as a perfect bailout or even a good bailout. I'm gonna ignore the other points of your post that I disagree with and just focus on one that I do:

 

The "big three" have failed innovate and stay competetive in the global market. Now for most businesses, the consequences of that are that you go out of business. Why should it not be the case for the Auto-Industry? Giving them money doesn't force them to correct their busiess model to become profitable, it enables them to stay afloat while continuing the same bad practices that have gotten them here. The only thing that can force them to get things right and become viable is to allow them to fail.

 

An animal hunts because it needs to eat. Give it the food without the hunt, and it will stop doing that work. And it won't hunt again unless you stop giving it food.

 

 

Here's the problem with your argument of just letting the Big Three go under: if they do, who fills that big niche that becomes available? You'd have to have a large number of VC's willing to buy the old factories and old infrastructure, just so they don't lie dormant, and even then it may not be enough. For one, there is NO domestic competition, so it's pretty much impossible for an existing auto firm to take over. The only firm I can think of right now is Tesla Motors, and for now, they're a niche market until battery prices plunge and designs improve. Here's a list; try to find the operating companies that aren't occupying small niches at the moment. Here's a hint: THERE ARE ONLY THREE OF THEM! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Moto...e_United_States

 

Oh, and did I mention that for the small niche companies that want to expand, the global credit crunch is making that a little hard to do? I can't say I'm in favor of a bailout, but neither am I against it, either. Letting trusts drown will kill the economy. So, what should we do, get them back afloat just to split them up under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? It seems that's the only way to make sure innovation and competition can occur, because it's pretty clear that as an oligopoly, the Big Three were pretty content to let things stay stagnant until the 1-2 punch of the oil crisis and credit crunch hit. As broken-up companies, they might actually start to compete with each other for better mileage, better aerodynamics, more efficient engines, and better fuel sources. And if one of the newer companies goes belly-up, so what? Another one will just take its place in the market. That is what is woefully lacking today.

Here's the problem with your argument of just letting the Big Three go under: if they do, who fills that big niche that becomes available? You'd have to have a large number of VC's willing to buy the old factories and old infrastructure, just so they don't lie dormant, and even then it may not be enough. For one, there is NO domestic competition, so it's pretty much impossible for an existing auto firm to take over. The only firm I can think of right now is Tesla Motors, and for now, they're a niche market until battery prices plunge and designs improve. Here's a list; try to find the operating companies that aren't occupying small niches at the moment. Here's a hint: THERE ARE ONLY THREE OF THEM! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Moto...e_United_States

 

Oh, and did I mention that for the small niche companies that want to expand, the global credit crunch is making that a little hard to do? I can't say I'm in favor of a bailout, but neither am I against it, either. Letting trusts drown will kill the economy. So, what should we do, get them back afloat just to split them up under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? It seems that's the only way to make sure innovation and competition can occur, because it's pretty clear that as an oligopoly, the Big Three were pretty content to let things stay stagnant until the 1-2 punch of the oil crisis and credit crunch hit. As broken-up companies, they might actually start to compete with each other for better mileage, better aerodynamics, more efficient engines, and better fuel sources. And if one of the newer companies goes belly-up, so what? Another one will just take its place in the market. That is what is woefully lacking today.

Who ever has the money to buy up all their assets, including the factories, is who will takeover. I'm not sure why you feel it has to be an existing auto-maker who buys this company up when clearly none of the auto-makers know how to run a business to turn a profit.

 

Even in your worst case scenario, which I don't buy BTW, the fact is that these companies are going under because they aren't competetive. Giving them money hasn't changed that before and it won't change it now and there's no sense in deceiving the auto-workers into think they don't all need new jobs. The government cannot save the auto industry, only new management that is willing to correct their business model will, and the only way that the people in charge are gonna change and have motivation to fix their fundamental problems is if we let them fail.

 

But again, I think its a pretty safe bet that if these companies went under that other people (non auto-makers) would buy up their assets on the cheap and reorganize the companies so that they can turn a profit.

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/b.../chapter11.html

 

If the big 3 file chapter 11 bankruptcy ( since there corporations I assume they can , correct me if I'm wrong) that doesn't mean they'll be out of business. They would be forced to reorganize there business model and forced to renegotiate there labor contracts under the supervision of bankruptcy judges and must come up with a model that makes money. If they can't then Chapter 7 bankruptcy comes into play which is what most of you have been talking about.

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/b...s/chapter7.html

 

As far as I know, the big 3 would not "have" to file chapter 7 right away, which would be devastating. Chapter 11 bankruptcy if they file it is exactly what the big 3 need.

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation. All they had going through their heads was, "MORE SUV'S SO I CAN WATCH MADAGASCAR WHILE CHANGING LANES WITHOUT LOOKING!! YEAH, RUMSFELD!!!!"

 

In case you don't get that, http://www.spike.com/video/family-guy-drops-f/2774946

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation.

While I agree 100% that they are lacking in innovation, I have a few points:

#1 - I think you are being naive to think the labor contracts don't make a difference, and a number of the foreign automakers you mentioned have factories here in the US that do not have the ridiculous labor contract issues of the "big three".

#2 - You cannot force a company or a person to be innovative. They have to come up with the ideas and be motivated to make something work. A business that knows that it won't be allowed to fail has no motivation to innovate, or make any real changes to increase productivity.

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation. All they had going through their heads was, "MORE SUV'S SO I CAN WATCH MADAGASCAR WHILE CHANGING LANES WITHOUT LOOKING!! YEAH, RUMSFELD!!!!"

 

In case you don't get that, http://www.spike.com/video/family-guy-drops-f/2774946

 

 

http://www.ford.co.uk/ns7/fiesta/fiesta/fi..._introd/-/-/-/-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Corsa

 

Just to name two fuel economic cars that have been manufactured to high fuel efficiency standards but not sold in the U.S. The cost of producing them in the U.S and getting them to U.S. saftey and EPA standards while also paying the highest wages to non-skilled workers in the world have made them to expensive to sell in the United States. The maufacturers have looked into these cars in the U.S and trust me, if they could sell them and make a profit here, they would. I wish I had more time to find more links, but the best I can do right now is this opinion piece brings up the points.

 

also somthing else to consider

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130439

 

So gas just hit another miserable milestone. Unleaded regular is averaging a record $3.30 a gallon and seems likely to blast past $4 by Memorial Day. Wouldn't it be great if you could drive a car that gets 50 miles per gallon? Well, you can. Just hop on a plane and fly to Europe, where all new cars average 43mpg, or Japan, where the average hits 50mpg. Here in the United States, we're stuck at 25mpg in our considerably larger and more powerful cars, trucks and SUVs. So why can't we do better? Here's the dirty little secret: we can. "If you want better fuel economy, it's just a question of when auto companies want to do it and when consumers decide they want to buy it," says Don Hillebrand, a former Chrysler engineer who is now director of transportation research for Argonne National Labs. "Auto companies can deliver it within a year."

 

A 50mpg car would certainly put a tiger in the tank of the moribund U.S. auto industry. But don't get your checkbook out quite yet. The reality is that you won't see a car on a showroom floor in America with 50mpg on the window sticker for at least three years and maybe longer. Sure, all auto companies are focusing on jacking up fuel economy, especially since Congress just mandated that all new autos sold by 2020 must average 35mpg. The new mileage mantra also is motivated by the fact that car sales are weak, partially because of panic at the pump. But putting out a 50mpg car any time soon is daunting even to the maker of America's mileage champ, the 48mpg Toyota Prius. "We're close enough to spit at that now," says Bill Reinert, Toyota's national manager of advanced technologies. "It's not an incredible stretch, but it's an incredible stretch to do it on a mass-market basis."

 

It might seem ludicrous to you that there isn't a mass market right here and now for a 50mpg car. For crying out loud, we've entered the age of the $128 fill-up. (The cost of topping off a Chevy Suburban). But here's the problem: to get to 50mpg in the near future, consumers would have to trade off at least one of three very important things—cost, drive quality or safety. That's because the quickest way to make a car more fuel-efficient is to make it smaller, lighter and equip it with some high-tech (a.k.a. costly) propulsion system like a plug-in gas-electric system.

 

Consider the exercise Ford just went through. It ran a computer simulation on what would happen to the mileage of a Ford Focus small car if you built it entirely out of lightweight aluminum. Losing the steel allowed the Focus to drop 1,000 pounds—30 percent of its body weight. That enabled Ford to outfit it with a tiny one-liter engine, half the size of its old engine, but far more fuel efficient because of new technology. Best of all, the small motor goes just as fast as the big one because the car is so much lighter. The result: fuel economy on this fabulous Focus went from 35mpg to 50mpg. What's stopping Ford from moving this car from pixels to pavement? The cost of an all-aluminum car could top $50,000—not a sum the typical economy-car buyer is willing to pay. "What's going to be the cost acceptance for this much improvement in fuel economy?" asks Dan Kapp, director of Ford's advanced engines and transmissions. "We don't know yet."

 

Still, all the major automakers are putting their cars on a crash diet. Ford wants to drop 250 to 750 pounds in all its models by 2012. Toyota and Nissan want to cut the fat by 10 to 15 percent. But this slim-fast campaign is running into the drive for more safety features in automobiles. Back in the 1980s, the Honda CRX-HF and the Geo Metro each got more than 50mpg, but they didn't have airbags or steel beams in their doors to protect occupants in a crash. These days, cars are equipped with six air bags, steel safety cages and electronic stability control to prevent spinouts. That makes cars much safer—but a lot fatter. "We are working in two directions," says Toyota's Reinert. "One is to make cars as safe as possible, and that generally makes them heavier. And the other is to make cars as fuel efficient as possible."

 

Downsizing also has its drawbacks. For starters, U.S. highway statistics show the smallest cars have death rates 2.5 times higher than the biggest. What's more, wimpy engines often (under) power small cars and that's a drawback many Americans won't abide. I recently drove the diminutive Smart car for a week. While it's certainly cute, its puny 70-horsepower engine and slow-shifting transmissions made me feel like Fred Flintstone could outrun me. That might be enough power for twisty Old World roads, but here in America, we have a need for speed. "Going zero to 60 in 15 seconds doesn't fit the average American consumers idea of mobility today," says Reinert. "That's too doggy."

 

 

The most important factor in us getting into this mess and us getting out isn't the government,

IT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Until people tell ford and GM there willing to pay $ 10,000 more for a car. Until the American people want to give up high-powered cars, and until soccer moms get sick of driving there esclades through suburban neighbor hoods because they feel safe in there tank and while government regulation makes it to expensive to bring a small car up to American road standards the small efficient car will not be affordable to sell in the United States.

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation.

While I agree 100% that they are lacking in innovation, I have a few points:

#1 - I think you are being naive to think the labor contracts don't make a difference, and a number of the foreign automakers you mentioned have factories here in the US that do not have the ridiculous labor contract issues of the "big three".

#2 - You cannot force a company or a person to be innovative. They have to come up with the ideas and be motivated to make something work. A business that knows that it won't be allowed to fail has no motivation to innovate, or make any real changes to increase productivity.

You're correct. For example the average hourly cost of a GM, Ford and Chrysler employee is over 50% higher than that of an American Toyota employee.

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation.

While I agree 100% that they are lacking in innovation, I have a few points:

#1 - I think you are being naive to think the labor contracts don't make a difference, and a number of the foreign automakers you mentioned have factories here in the US that do not have the ridiculous labor contract issues of the "big three".

#2 - You cannot force a company or a person to be innovative. They have to come up with the ideas and be motivated to make something work. A business that knows that it won't be allowed to fail has no motivation to innovate, or make any real changes to increase productivity.

You're correct. For example the average hourly cost of a GM, Ford and Chrysler employee is over 50% higher than that of an American Toyota employee.

 

Interesting. Are there any differences in productivity?

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation.

While I agree 100% that they are lacking in innovation, I have a few points:

#1 - I think you are being naive to think the labor contracts don't make a difference, and a number of the foreign automakers you mentioned have factories here in the US that do not have the ridiculous labor contract issues of the "big three".

#2 - You cannot force a company or a person to be innovative. They have to come up with the ideas and be motivated to make something work. A business that knows that it won't be allowed to fail has no motivation to innovate, or make any real changes to increase productivity.

You're correct. For example the average hourly cost of a GM, Ford and Chrysler employee is over 50% higher than that of an American Toyota employee.

 

Interesting. Are there any differences in productivity?

I don't think the article I read discussed differences in productivity but I would bet the non-union American Toyota worker is more productive than the union big three worker.

Oh geez, here we go with the "blame it on the labor contracts" BS again. If they were so onerous, how come Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. aren't having as many problems? Do they not have similar labor contracts, even in their home countries of Japan, South Korea, and Germany? Or maybe they don't, because they have governments that offer some of the benefits that automakers in this country have to offer themselves, namely HEALTH CARE!!! Somebody seriously needs to tell me what the differences are between labor contracts with domestic companies and labor contracts with the foreign companies, because I smell a lot of BS. The Number 1 reason why the Big Three are failing is and has always been a complete lack of innovation.

While I agree 100% that they are lacking in innovation, I have a few points:

#1 - I think you are being naive to think the labor contracts don't make a difference, and a number of the foreign automakers you mentioned have factories here in the US that do not have the ridiculous labor contract issues of the "big three".

#2 - You cannot force a company or a person to be innovative. They have to come up with the ideas and be motivated to make something work. A business that knows that it won't be allowed to fail has no motivation to innovate, or make any real changes to increase productivity.

You're correct. For example the average hourly cost of a GM, Ford and Chrysler employee is over 50% higher than that of an American Toyota employee.

 

Interesting. Are there any differences in productivity?

I don't think the article I read discussed differences in productivity but I would bet the non-union American Toyota worker is more productive than the union big three worker.

Probably on account of the fact that they have less of their job security written into their contracts as opposed to being dependent on their performance.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

 

I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

 

I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best.

No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

 

I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best.

No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success.

I think on the average union employees are less efficient and make more money than non-union employees who do the same jobs so as a whole unions are a drag to our economy.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

 

I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best.

No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success.

 

I think Poloa does. Employees in unions may very well be less productive and efficient (I would be skeptical of this statement and would only believe it if I were to be shown some empirical evidence), but the point is that I believe in people's right to contract. If me and a bunch of my co-workers want to organize and negotiate together I should be able to do that. If my union negotiates a contract with an employer (who obviously agrees to the contract), then that contract should be honored.

 

I find it ironic how many of these "free marketers" pick and choose which parts of the free market to choose from. (I'm not referring to you).

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/b.../chapter11.html

 

If the big 3 file chapter 11 bankruptcy ( since there corporations I assume they can , correct me if I'm wrong) that doesn't mean they'll be out of business. They would be forced to reorganize there business model and forced to renegotiate there labor contracts under the supervision of bankruptcy judges and must come up with a model that makes money. If they can't then Chapter 7 bankruptcy comes into play which is what most of you have been talking about.

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/b...s/chapter7.html

 

As far as I know, the big 3 would not "have" to file chapter 7 right away, which would be devastating. Chapter 11 bankruptcy if they file it is exactly what the big 3 need.

 

 

There was an op-ed in the WSJ yesterday saying the same thing.

WSJ

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

 

I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best.

No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success.

 

I think Poloa does. Employees in unions may very well be less productive and efficient (I would be skeptical of this statement and would only believe it if I were to be shown some empirical evidence), but the point is that I believe in people's right to contract. If me and a bunch of my co-workers want to organize and negotiate together I should be able to do that. If my union negotiates a contract with an employer (who obviously agrees to the contract), then that contract should be honored.

 

I find it ironic how many of these "free marketers" pick and choose which parts of the free market to choose from. (I'm not referring to you).

If you're referring to me, nowhere did I say people should not be allowed to unionized. With that said, I think unions are a drag to our economy.

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/b.../chapter11.html

 

If the big 3 file chapter 11 bankruptcy ( since there corporations I assume they can , correct me if I'm wrong) that doesn't mean they'll be out of business. They would be forced to reorganize there business model and forced to renegotiate there labor contracts under the supervision of bankruptcy judges and must come up with a model that makes money. If they can't then Chapter 7 bankruptcy comes into play which is what most of you have been talking about.

 

http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycourts/b...s/chapter7.html

 

As far as I know, the big 3 would not "have" to file chapter 7 right away, which would be devastating. Chapter 11 bankruptcy if they file it is exactly what the big 3 need.

 

Bankruptcy (7 or 11) would be the end of a car company. Who would buy a car from a company that may not be around in a year? Parts, service, re-sale value would all be destroyed. If they file for bankruptcy, that's all she wrote.

I find it ironic how many of these "free marketers" pick and choose which parts of the free market to choose from. (I'm not referring to you).

:lol

 

Way to slander us. If you aren't referring to the board then I apologize but it certainly sounds like you are.

 

There is a difference between believing in whether or not individuals have a right to unionize and believing unions are examples of economic efficiency.

 

No, I wasn't. I was referring to Poala.

Also the adversarial relationship many union employees have towards their employers obviously leads to unproductivity.

 

I disagree. I think unions play an important role. It's freedom of contract at its best.

No one is saying unions in general are bad, only that the environment as it relates to the unions in the auto industry is so polarized that it's difficult for those of us outside the business to imagine union member/employees that get along well with their employers and actually wish them success.

 

I think Poloa does. Employees in unions may very well be less productive and efficient (I would be skeptical of this statement and would only believe it if I were to be shown some empirical evidence), but the point is that I believe in people's right to contract. If me and a bunch of my co-workers want to organize and negotiate together I should be able to do that. If my union negotiates a contract with an employer (who obviously agrees to the contract), then that contract should be honored.

 

I find it ironic how many of these "free marketers" pick and choose which parts of the free market to choose from. (I'm not referring to you).

I'm not quite sure what the last statement is supposed to mean, but I'm not sure anyone is saying that contracts should be violated or that any of us agree with the idea of government getting in the middle and altering contracts. If both parties involved choose to honor this contract, then they have to take it to its logical conclusion, which is the failure of the company, which is bad for both sides. I don't really care that it takes until then for them to come to their senses.

 

All that any of us are saying is that overall the impact of these particular union deals has been negative for that industry. And these companies, along with their respective unions, need to make things work or go out of business. The rest of America, which isn't a party to this contract, shouldn't be forced to bear the burden of the costs that these contracts have led to.

The problem is when the government, whether state of federal makes union membership compulsory, like in MA for certain jobs. There the union becomes quasi governmental, while still exercising a private function. Unions are good and workers should have the option of joining or not joining.