stockingfull wrote:But what Obama has done is brilliant. He's challenging labor -- not unlike in an ESOP -- to rise above the old "labor vs. mgmt" adversary system and actually buy into the success of the company for the sake of their own survival.
And why not? Mgmt had run it into the ground, leaving labor with the last major stake in its survival. And, as a public policy matter, why shouldn't labor have the opportunity to save their jobs and retirement benes? If it can't work, then it'll be time to pack it up. But (and I've been saying this since last fall) fixing healthcare and getting those numbers (current and legacy) off the board is an essential piece of the puzzle.
Sorry dude, Obama and his like-kind predecessors are idiots. In successful industries where the government didn't meddle with labor unions, there is no "adversary system". Pay matches performance. In the car industry, pay matched what the government allowed the unions to extort. There was no expectation of fairness. That thinking pervades management thought by coercion.
Management didn't complain enough about the extortion. That was their error. They allowed the property of their shareholders to be seized. Shareholders acquiesed. Now they all get the results they deserve. Government ran them over.
When the government is allowed control of a business entity, they can exercise their will. The strings attached to the loans represent government meddling. That is the public policy that is wrong. That is all that Obama is doing--political meddling. There is no expectation of fairness. Fairness, at this point, would be for the taxpayer not be involved and for the company to fail or reorganize on its own
according to law. There are two other car companies that will take up any slack upon failure. Labor would be justly rewarded as would the bond holders, stock holders, creditors and management.