Posted on 12/13/2008 3:46:32 AM PST by reaganaut1
DETROIT For more than 70 years, the United Automobile Workers union has known who its adversaries were: company executives, foreign automakers and right-to-work advocates who fought its organizing drives.
Now it has another: Senator Robert Phillips Corker Jr.
On Thursday night, Senator Corker, a freshman Republican from Tennessee, pushed the U.A.W.s president, Ron Gettelfinger, to agree in principle to tough contract concessions before the Senate Republicans would agree to provide a lifeline to General Motors and Chrysler.
But Mr. Gettelfinger, after giving ground in recent years on health care, job security and pay issues, would not agree to let the concessions take effect next year. The impasse effectively killed the chances for a $14 billion bailout package from Congress.
While the deal was lost, both Mr. Gettelfinger and Senator Corker can claim a victory of sorts, perhaps setting the stage for future showdowns.
Mr. Gettelfingers tough stand risked pushing the companies into bankruptcy, which would abrogate the union contracts he was trying to protect.
But on Friday, President Bush and the Treasury said they would consider using money from the $700 billion financial bailout to help automakers.
Mr. Gettelfinger needed to show he was defending his unions members. Since he took office in 2002, the U.A.W. has given up health benefits and agreed to sweeping wage cuts, and for the bailout, it was prepared to abandon pay guarantees for workers who had lost their jobs.
Mr. Gettelfinger also appeared during Congressional hearings as more of an ally rather than usual sparring partner of the chief executives of Detroits auto companies, sitting next to them while the group endured hours of grilling.
Although his actions threatened any bailout, U.A.W. members applauded his refusal to budge further, even if it put the American auto industry at risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yes. And, further, expenditures from the TARP funds are limited, specifically, to financial institutions. Auto companies do not qualify.
“Side note: With the UAW refusing to give up anything, even to save their own jobs, does anyone think the stupid card-check bill will ever pass?”
It sure will. The congress is scared to death of the unions. Voters be damned. It will pass big time, with maybe a token dissent by a couple repubbies!
“Yes. And, further, expenditures from the TARP funds are limited, specifically, to financial institutions. Auto companies do not qualify.”
“When the President does it, it is NOT illegal!”
Famous RINO Saying!
>>The UAW said they might agree to suspend the jobs bank, but they refused to set a date for that, and refused to do away with it entirely.<<
I thought they had already agreed to do that, before the auto bailout debate. In either case they are not giving up anything.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/128885.php
....The New York Times on Monday examined how for about 100,000 General Motors "white-collar retirees, time is about to run out" on their "gold-plated medical benefits" as the company looks to "make deep cuts....UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said the union would not make additional concessions to automakers
Ford/UAW Contract, 2,215 pages, 22 Pounds of UAW Rules and Regulations
Laborpains.org | December 12th, 2008 | unknown
Posted on 12/13/2008 4:11:17 PM PST by Leisler
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148363/posts
Pinkerton On UAW: Not Just Wages — Work Rules
NewsBusters | Mark Finkelstein
Posted on 12/13/2008 5:20:55 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148386/posts
Rasmussen survey finds shoppers wouldn’t buy cars from bankrupt auto makers
Phoenix Business Journal | 13 Dec 2008 | Mike Sunnucks
Posted on 12/13/2008 10:08:33 AM PST by BGHater
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148240/posts
Maintaining or strengthening the unions will ultimately lead to a weaker business climate which in turn will result in a loss of jobs and make the remaining jobs less secure.
Bob Corker is one of the few Senators who understands this AND more importantly is willing to do something about it.
Well, here is what I know for a fact, aside from what I said before. This man is 78 years old now and has been covered under the GM health plan and will be until Jan 1 of 2009.
Perhaps i misunderstood him. He was in the white collar end of the business and worked in the accounting division.
Read the article that I attached. I think it will explain. GM just made the decision in July. Only NON union employees are affected. They have to go on Medicare. I guess it probably is effective on Jan. 1. But, the article does say that they will get a $300 bonus a month to cover the cost of Medicare and supplementals. If they are complaining about that, the company plan must be a doozy!
Perhaps the company is wanting to stop all medical benefits for retirees and give them the same $300.00 the non union retirees have to accept. It is really thyeno0nly answer the eventually7 the Unions will accept it since the alternative will be nothing. No pension OR healthy benefits for any of them.
The day of the Union has long passed and there numbers prove it. From a high of 1.5 million members (UAW) in the mid 1950’s they have declined to around 450 thousand. Only the uninformed and ignorant cannot see the long term destructive implications of an organization whose mission is to actually extract as much blood as it can from it’s victim (the corporation) short of killing it outright.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
Additional links at post # 26, thanks Civ!
Because we don’t have a George Soros. People like Rush. Sean, Savage and Levin (although I love listening to them) don’t put up a dime to help us out.
Some VERY rich lady bought Rush’s letter from Harry Reid.
Where is our George Soros?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.