AP's Auto Bailout Coverage Nearly Ignores Excessive Labor Costs, Omits UAW's Concessions Refusal

Photo of Tom Blumer.

Wednesday evening's dour Associated Press report by Tom Krisher and Ken Thomas on the proposed bailouts of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler acted as if their fates will determine the viability of the entire US auto industry, and waited until the 15th paragraph to name the primary reason why the companies are where they are financially. Beyond that, the AP report did not mention that United Auto Workers has flatly ruled out union contract concessions.

Here is how the AP's report began, followed by selected other paragraphs, including the one (of over 30) that mentioned labor costs (bolds after headline are mine):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Failure of auto industry could set off catastrophe
Advocates: Collapse of US auto industry could set off catastrophic chain reaction

Advocates for the nation's automakers are warning that the collapse of the Big Three -- or even just General Motors -- could set off a catastrophic chain reaction in the economy, eliminating up to 3 million jobs and depriving governments of more than $150 billion in tax revenue.

Industry supporters are offering such grim predictions as Congress weighs whether to bail out the nation's largest automakers, which are struggling to survive the steepest economic slide in decades.

"We've got to do this because the cost of inaction is so high to communities, to workers, to companies," said Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio.

..... Even if just GM collapsed, the failure could bring down the other two companies -- and even the U.S. operations of foreign automakers -- as parts suppliers run out of money and shut down.

..... Opponents of the idea say government money will just delay the inevitable demise of companies that are on death's doorstep because of years of mismanagement and labor costs that are far higher than their global competitors.

"How is this money going to make a positive difference in creating a new competitiveness?" asked Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican.

Sessions and others also fear that opening the treasury to automakers will invite more industries to plead for federal help.

..... Sessions and others say Chapter 11 might be a better option than government loans.

..... Automakers say they are poised to rebound because they have been restructuring for years -- shedding jobs, consolidating engineering and design, and making plants more efficient.

But they can't claim to have done much about labor costs, because they haven't.

Here are three key values in a chart shown Monday at Carpe Diem (HT Small Dead Animals):

Total Compensation Per Hour, 2007-2008 (includes wages and all benefits):
Big Three automakers — $73.08
Toyota — $48.00
All workers — $28.48

In 30-plus paragraphs, the AP reporters "somehow" failed to tell readers about UAW President Ron Gettelfinger's refusal last week to give an inch on labor costs, as reported by Dow Jones at CNNMoney.com:

The prospect of concessions from the union came up during a meeting involving executives of Detroit's Big Three auto makers and Democratic Congressional lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. But UAW President Ron Gettelfinger made clear that concessions were out of the question, union lobbyist Alan Reuther said in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires Friday.

"Workers and retirees have already made significant sacrifices," said Reuther, paraphrasing remarks that Gettelfinger made to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif., and others in the meeting, including renegotiated contracts. "We feel we've already stepped up."

Translation: Taxpayers are just supposed to accept the UAW-imposed cost structure as it exists, even though those being bailed out earn $44.60 an hour more in wages and benefits than other working families.

What an outrage. The AP's failure to mention the UAW's stand is journalistically negligent.

As an e-mailer said in a post at Michelle Malkin's blog earlier this morning:

The Big 3 has a cancer that needs to be removed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why they cannot compete profitability (sic). They have parity on supply costs, materials, and energy with Honda and Toyota. So why can’t they compete? It is clearly the cost of labor.

There are several other howlers in the AP report, the most obvious of which is that the whole industry will somehow collapse if the Big 3 fail. I don't want to minimize the difficulties posed by the dislocations within the industry and among its suppliers, but as long as consumers need and want cars, there will be companies who will make them -- and there are plenty of others who make very good ones.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Auto Czar

We are going to have more Czars that Russia ever did.

I believe that Democrats will drive this country rapidly into a depression by nationalizing anything that is in trouble.

What they should do is force all three companies into bankruptcy court and let a judge force in new and much more responsible management, determine what the unions will get (or fire them), and make sure that their vendors are taken care of. 

I do not want want to become a shareholder of any of those three companies via my tax dollars and the GOP had better find ways to aggressively fight this.

 

But

This will never be allowed by the DhimmicRats, they're all so deep in the unions' pockets they could never find their way out.

The auto companies would be alright if they didn't have to carry so many non-producers to the grave. A lot of people can plan for their own retirement, why can't auto workers?

First test

You want fairness? The fairness that Obama has been proclaiming as the cornerstone of his economic policy?

It goes both ways. You want a fair distribution of the wealth, then you take a fair distribution of the pain. Obama must push the unions (one of his core support groups) to share the pain. In any compromise, the unions have to be part of the deal. Otherwise, it'll simply be a case of Obama claiming fairness when all he really wanted was more pie.

Obama can't vote "present" on this one. Welcome to the presidency. Let's see how he does.

Note: if Obama does force the unions to compromise fairly, I'll praise him for it. We should give him credit if credit is due. But if he stiffs us, or tries to stay on the sidelines ... his credibility will be gone for good.

KC: Your post highlights

KC:

Your post highlights the precise reason I believe Obama "leaked" the details of his "private" meeting with Bush in the Oval Office.

Obama gambit was to either

  1. pressure Bush into taking all the hits for the bailout of the Detroit auto industry, either enraging the union by trying to negotiate worker cuts or angering the US population with billions more of our money thrown at an unchanged, money-draining problem, OR
  2. for Bush to not bailout the auto industry and be further vilified, resulting in an heightened public relations win for Obama when he does bail out the auto industry, with or without worker concessions.

I have to say, it is a masterful political move on Obama's part to game the system further in his favor.  Deceitful, manipulative and foreboding, but still masterful.

I have this feeling that Obama may prove to be the Democrat's Nixon.

Pelosi and Reid

You may be right, but I really don't think that Obama is that clever. After, the unions aren't Bush's constituency anyway. He couldn't care less about pissing off the unions.

What matters, though, is that any bailout deal is going to have to be signed off by Pelosi and Reid. Bush can't take the fall for them, even if he wanted to. And I'll bet money that Pelosi and Reid aren't going to take the hit but allow Obama to stay clean. Obama is going to have to make a decision, and he's going to have his name on it, either way.

Obama did not necessarily

Obama did not necessarily come up with the idea - he has many co-conspirators and underlings in his entourage capable of such twisted machinations.  Emmanuel, Axelrod, Schmucky Schumer and a number of others are all capable of (continually) weakening America for their base desires.

Given the absolute absurdity of the current bait and switch of the "mortgage" bailout, why should anyone expect these power-drunk stooges to perform better.  I pray they never get near healthcare.

America is beginning to look and sound like a Fellini movie or a French satire.  Or is it the selfish excesses that culminated in the implosion of the Roman Empire?

Regardless, we're moving closer to the sentiment contained in an old Soviet joke (?) punchline:

They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.

If that happens, where does America, the model society for the world, turn for guidance and inspiration?

The sad part

The sad part, stratman, is that I have no way to deny you. I mean, some part of me wants to say that what you suggest is impossible. But the reality until now says that nothing's beyond them. Nothing is too stupid for them.

We've lived for so long in a country that seemed invincible that we've just assumed that nothing could really hurt it. That's usually when the Greek tragedy starts to turn bad.

"I don't want to minimize

"I don't want to minimize the difficulties posed by the dislocations
within the industry and among its suppliers". Agreed Tom, but it's
almost like we're being held hostage in this issue.

Where does free market economics play into this. By that, natural
selection of business failure and / or success. We've reacted, rightly
or wrongly, to the mortgage and banking financial issues already
without much time to evaluate long term consequences. Now, not one, but
3 auto mfgs. and for how long? Not to mention other institutions that
may have aim at taxpayers dollars.

Government oversight? or failure? Really a unique scenerio.

Points taken

I just wanted to point out perhaps the obvious, which is that there would be a lot of pain in a transition from Big 3 bankruptcy to whatever follows. But it's preferable to a bailout. The airlines and the people affected got through it. What's left of the Big 3 can do it too.

The alternative is the govt. owning every industry that has a hiccup, which we're unfortunately heading towards. But it's got to stop. 

I agree it does have to

I agree it does have to stop regarding bailouts. It's not a time tested practice and I'm afraid taxpayers will be burdeoned with payment consequences long after Nancy is laid to rest.

 

The last thing we need is a

The last thing we need is a bail out of the Auto industry. Things are bad enough with the banks. AIG stock has not gone up, but down sense word of the money came through early this week. And the AIG insurance side was solvent. The UAW has squeezed all the blood out of Ford, GM and Chrysler they are going to get, I think. Let them go into chapter 11. If the UAW wants to cut their members out of work, so be it. But no more goverment intervention in these things. Or I want my million.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

"Workers and retirees have

"Workers and retirees have already made significant sacrifices." A $152,000/year package is a sacrifice?

If UAW concessions are "out of the question", then so should any bailouts. What balls! Compete or die - I could care less.

Ma Bell got too big and was split up

Why not a variation on that theme as a pre-condition to any bailout with taxpayer money?

GM, Chrysler and Ford all have to split up and spin off thier 'divisions'. So instead of three big auto companies we'll have:

Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadilac, Ford, Lincoln, Mecury. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep...

I would put it to them as either split up and get aide, or go Chapter 11. Maybe this will entice some of the other european makers into the market too?

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012

UAW sleeze

The problem here is the UAW 'union' - it isn't, nor are 99 percent of other 'unions' that once had leaders who were actual employees. Once the only concern of unions was the fair treatment of employees.  They had to demonstrate that to attract members.  Today we have forced membership, no 'union' leadership at the top that are actual employees, and a majority of employees who would gladly dump membership if right-to-work was a national policy.  Todays 'unions' spend most of the dues they collect on party-hearty and leftist political efforts while they ignore the plight of actual employees.

Killing the worthless breed of hard-core-leftist 'unions' we have today (that are quite in-bed with company management to feather the nest of the 'unions' at the expense of employees) would be a good thing.  What a large majority of today's 'represented' workers would like to see, simply because they are not represented in any way as they once were, is a return to real union representation by those who work shoulder-to-shoulder with them.  The 'professional union' of today is a dirty-joke that many workers would dump in a hot-second, if they could. (Note the success of major corporations and their employees keeping 'unions' at bay these days.)

So yes, there are many of us who would like to see these big  corrupt unions thrown out, and see some income parity with other industrial workers instituted in the auto industry.  But the best way to force all so-called 'unions' to return to actual member support would be a national right-to-work movement.

Today we have auto-workers at the big three that intentionally produce 'lemons' - to 'get even with the capitalists.' (I bought one.)  We see a lot less of that with products from non-union auto makers, and that's why people are buying more of them.  Allow the big three to hire non-union right-to-work employees, and force unions to return to having to actually attract members through real services, and we would quite likely see higher quality products return to the market - products that could compete far better in the market.

Other solutions, auto manufacturers could move to states that have right-to-work, conservative places like Kansas and Utah might help too.  But therein lies the other big problem, the hell or high water hard-left-bent manufacturers - that like their 'union' buddies.  They need to go.  They don't deserve bailouts.  But, I'll bet Pelosi and Pals will push to give them our money, that they in no way whatsoever deserve.

 

I couldn't agree more...

I couldn't agree more, RC. At one time the unions were necessary but no more, at least not in their present form.

I don't think a bailout of any industry is called for. All these companies are in trouble because of mismanagement and the CEOs don't care cause they got theirs. Multi-million dollar contracts with huge bonuses even though the company does poorly because of their mismanagement.

These people only need to be paid $500,000 (maybe $1 million, but I'm being generous here) plus a bonus (but only if the company shows a profit.) and the amount of the bonus would be based on the amount of profit. There are people who would be willing to do this.

Get rid of the unions. The dems won't like this but they would have to make a decision on which is more important jobs or no jobs. Of course this won't matter if the dems want a socialist country.

Establish a pay and benefits plan similar to the military. Use merit and/or performance as a means for determining promotions, pay increases, and bonuses and use COLAs. There are other things that would have to be considered to make it work, but these things could be the starting point.

Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free.

SD

I agree with most you say.Unions management is as bad as alot of these Corp.They are just in it for themselves.I liked working at a place that had profit sharing.Even thought you were a employee you have a investment in the buisness.If a employee was sliding other employees would get on his/her case.You always want buisness to do good but it nice to get a piece of the pie.

What no one is asking...

What no one is asking the auto makers is "What you are going to do with this money to make you more competivive?

As long as the unions are present, they are just going to take the money and spend it. Nothing will be done to make their more competitive against foreign companies.

They will soon spend it all and will be asking for more in less than 2 years.

This is just going to extend their suffering a little longer but it's not getting rid of the disease, which is called UAW.

 

LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL...

The UAW is the biggest reason I don't buy "Big 3" cars. Mitsubishi for me, thank you very much.

 

"...it's still We The People, Right?"  Megadeth 

buyers?

I think its telling no one is willing to buy up GM.  GM is a huge  company with a total market capitalization of only 1.75 billion.

To bail or not to bail

That is the question. I have a major problem with the picking and choosing of which companies to bail out. So is it a political decision? Foreign Policy decision? Financial decision? It could, if not already, become a very corrupt process with self serving dealmaking, kickbacks and bribes as the cost of doing business there are huge amounts of money involved in all this.

Why bail GM and not Circuit City or Lehman Bros. I don't think the Big 3 Automakers were part of the sub-prime disaster like the financial companies and will these bailouts work. If not it is just taxpayers money down the toilet. I say let the free market work and the pain probably will be very sharp but brief(er?). You can't have it both ways labor in this country has to make concessions because our goods cannot compete without protectionism and finally does this mean that the economy can never go into recession without companies and industries whining about their handouts er tax payer bailouts. If that becomes the norm then we have a state run economy. I think it would be less complicated and less expensive to pay the unemployment insurance until the economy rights itself. 

"...no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force." - Bernard Knox

Think more positively

This is not a Bail Out Fund or a Rescue Fund - what Democrats want to do is a Public Equity Fund since we are getting controlling shares in companies and industries in exchange for capital.

Of course another way of looking at this since it is the state taking over businesses is "Socialism."

I would give the unions one chance to reconsider renegotiating their contracts which will allow the workers to keep their jobs or they could decline and let a bankruptcy court judge tell them what their new contract is or lose thier jobs entirely.

But our government is doing what Hoover and FDR did which is keep throwing money good money after bad.

Gat... In this day and

Gat...

In this day and age, what they are doing will break the country so badly it may take up to 10 years for us to crawl out of the wreckage.

14 Year Old Proves Obama Intolerance

 

 

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

Ct... More than that with

Ct...

More than that with the judges they are going to be able to ram through.

I shudder.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt... I second your

bt...

I second your shudder!

14 Year Old Proves Obama Intolerance

 

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

Big Three MUST Be Allowed To Fail

Much has been made of the proposed financial bailout of the Big-Three automakers. Yet in all the discussion, a very real—unbelievably positive—aspect to allowing them to fail and reorganize under Chapter 11 bankruptcy seems to get overlooked; or at a minimum, is getting treated like some kind of “third-rail”. The moment an automaker’s bankruptcy paperwork is filed, every contract they have with the U.A.W. will—by law—be nullified!

 So why would this be a positive? Because beyond the over-the-top executive salaries and golden parachutes plaguing all the bailout proposals these days, the number one reason for the financial failure of these particular giants of American industry is the unrealistic, socialist-style, union contracts that have automakers clinging desperately to life support. When you pay someone $35 an hour, plus full benefits, to do nothing more than put hubcaps on a vehicle as it rolls by on the assembly line; when you are force fed a “jobs-for-life” caveat in all your labor agreements; when the concept of “it’s never enough” prevails within your workforce, no business interest, in any industry, can possibly survive.

As the Detroit Free Press and Wall Street Journal have documented, the General Motors Jobs Bank is costing the automaker over $800-Million dollars each year; needlessly adding $200-$300 to the cost of each vehicle made. And that is just GM; Ford and Chrysler have similar albatross’ hanging around their necks. What do the Big-Three get for over a billion dollars in combined “non-labor” labor expense? Not one thing. What was intended to be a short-term opportunity for displaced workers—to get paid while re-training for other positions or find work elsewhere—has turned into an unintended private-sector entitlement program. Thousands of “former” employees whose jobs were eliminated due to automation or plant closures gather in gymnasiums each day to read the newspaper, drink coffee and play cards, many collecting over $100,000 in salary and benefits each year—in a program established in 1984 (Orwell, anyone?)—having to do nothing more for this largess than making sure the U.A.W. gets their cut each month.

Ever wonder why certain members of Congress begin pounding their chests for higher minimum wages even before the dust settles over the last round of victories? Because of union lobbyists. U.A.W. (and many other union) contracts don’t dictate a specific dollar amount its members are to be paid per hour for the job function they perform. The contractual wage for their union members is actually a multiplier of the federal minimum wage; five times here, ten times there, with additional multipliers for things like holidays, shift work, and seniority. So with the swipe of the president’s pen, and as regular as the next increase, an employee who is barely shows up for work on time and who does the absolute minimum amount of work required, gets the same contractually triggered pay raise as someone who is motivated, hustles and strives to move up within the ranks—that is when he’s not being told to knock it off by the shop steward, because he’s making the slackers look bad. That, my friends, is the quintessential definition of socialism; already alive and well in America.

Behind closed doors, automaker executives have got to be quietly praying that Congress will back away from bailing them out. With their current union contracts lining the bottom of bird cages, and thousands of non-working individuals off their payrolls forever, the automakers can negotiate fiscally responsible contracts that allow them to build better cars and trucks for less money, and regain their competitive advantage in the U.S. marketplace.

Let’s face it; the U.A.W. has to know that all three automakers can set up shop in Mexico tomorrow, and effectively hang an “Out of Business” sign at the Michigan border, if they don’t play ball. It’s time to let the same market conditions that effect every other industry wrap its loving arms around the Big-Three, and allow the U.A.W. to rejoin the real world—or close its own doors.

Kevin D. Bakko