UAW Boarding Party?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Talk of the UAW getting a seat on the board of General Motors in return for “concessions,” has Automotive News [sub] executive editor Edward Lapham thrilling at the idea of a UAW-run GM. Read only the title of his latest piece “UAW should get on board,” and you might assume it to be a call for more substantive UAW concessions to match the imminent bondholder haircut. You’d be wrong of course. “Nearly three decades ago, Doug Fraser, who was then president of the UAW, got a seat on the Chrysler board until the union recouped the wages and benefits it gave up so the automaker could get loan guarantees,” writes Lapham. “But this time, the union should do more.” Really? More? “Imagine what would happen if the UAW beat its sword into stock shares and invested its $1 billion strike fund in GM,” challenges Lapham. But there’s no need to imagine, because Lapham breaks it down for you. “It would effectively usher in an era of industrial peace and labor cooperation,” he figures. Not to mention the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. And with GM’s market cap treading water at $3b, the UAW could just snap up nearly a third of the company and get several seats on the board. Not only would this “send a loud, clear message to Congress and America that the UAW believes in GM’s chances to survive and thrive,” figures Lapham, “If you believe in the upside, it could be a spectacularly lucrative investment.” Or not. The relationship between the UAW and its employers has been defined by abuse, parasitism and disregard for the perogatives of competition. And it seems like even Lapham understands this, concluding his piece with the dire-but-fun-loving admonition to: “think of all the fun the UAW directors could have. Especially around contract time.” And you think GM is in bad shape now.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 18 comments
  • Theflyersfan Non-performance models, probably the Civic based on the fact the interior feels and looks better in the Honda. Both of them are going to drive like adequate appliances with small engines and CVTs and get decent mileage, so this is based on where my butt will rest and things my hands and fingers will touch.Toyota doesn't have an answer to the Civic Si so the Honda wins by default.CTR vs GR Corolla. One dealer by me is still tacking on $10,000 markups for the CTR and good luck with the GR Corolla and the "allocation" system. There's that one dealer in Missouri that I pasted their ad a while back wanting $125,000 for a mid-level GR. Nope. But cars.com is still showing markups. Both of these cars will have little depreciation for a while, so the markups equal instant loss. It looks like Cincinnati-area dealers are done with CTR markups. So this is a tough choice. I don't like the Corolla interior. It looks and feels inexpensive. I'm glad Honda toned down the exterior but the excessive wing still looks immature for such an expensive car that 20-somethings likely cannot afford. FWD vs AWD. With price being an object, and long-term maintenance a thing, I'd go with the Honda with a side eye at the Golf R as a mature choice. All with stick shifts.
  • ChristianWimmer Great first car for someone’s teenage daughter.
  • SCE to AUX Imagine the challenge of trying to sell the Ariya or the tired Leaf.
  • Offbeat Oddity I would have to test them out, but the Corolla might actually have a slight edge. I'd prefer the 2.0 in both cars, but to get one in a Civic with a decent amount of equipment, I'd be stuck with the Sport where the fuel economy suffers vs. the Corolla. If the Civic EX had a 2.0, it would be a much tougher decision.
  • User get rid of the four cylinders, technology is so advanced that a four litre V8 is possible.. and plausible.. cadillac had a serious problem detuning v8s in the past, now theyre over-revving the fours and it sounds horrible.. get rid of the bosses and put the engineers in the front seat..
Next