By on July 27, 2009

The Congressional Oversight Panel, tasked with monitoring TARP expenditures, is holding hearings on the auto bailout. Even as you read, Wayne State University is home to serious CYA action. In the blue corner: the post-Rattner head of the twenty-four (now) member Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) Ron Bloom. Big Ron II is expected to hew even more closely to its previous proclivity for a passive/aggressive approach to GM’s non-management management. “Given the emergence of the new GM and the new Chrysler, the involvement of the Auto Task Force with the companies will now change,” Bloom told the panel [via Market Watch]. Once again, Ron proclaims that only “core governance issues including the selection of a company’s board of directors and major corporate events or transactions” will be subject to PTFOA meddling going forward. (After all, they’ve got Advertising Czar Bob Lutz to handle the little things like “crapping on advertising.”) But even though the White House is on hand to show how easy putting your best platitude forward can be, the UAW won’t be joining the testimonial fun.

The Congressional Oversight Panel isn’t happy about the non-development. “The UAW came before Congress and pleaded for billions of taxpayer assistance,” GOP member Rep. Jeb Hensarling tells the Detroit News. “Their ownership stakes in Chrysler and GM look suspicious at best and like sweetheart deals at worst. It’s outrageous they would benefit from the taxpayers’ money and then refuse to testify about it.”

Outrageous, yes. But not entirely unexpected. Hensarling said it himself . . . “Without [the UAW], the panel cannot provide meaningful oversight for $80 billion of taxpayer support rewarded to Chrysler and GM.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

17 Comments on “UAW to TARP Oversight Panel: FOAD...”


  • avatar
    The Walking Eye

    I think it’s time for Congress to call for payback of the loans, maybe that’ll wake the UAW up. Nah, who am I kidding.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    It is none of the taxpayers’ business. Just let the UAW and the other managers run these companies to the best of their abilities.

    What could go wrong?

    Maybe the UAW just couldn’t spare any of their resources on sending someone to testify. They’re all so busy building all those class leading Chevys and Chryslers.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    That lady in the background is scary.

  • avatar
    Hippo

    US taxpayer to UAW <<<< FOAD

    no one should buy their shit, put them out of business and they might have to get an actual job. LOL

  • avatar
    Airhen

    ^^^ Ditto. Even as Jeep guy, I’ll never buy another one as long as their UAW built.

  • avatar
    mikey

    The mandate of the UAW is to obtain the best possible deal for the membership,and they did just that.

    @airhen The UAW is not in the buisness of buiding Jeeps.Chrysler employees,some of which are represented by the UAW build Jeeps. If you like Jeeps,by all means buy a Jeep.

  • avatar
    Wolven

    While I believe the rise in Fords sales compared to GM and Chryco are indicative of Americans viewpoints towards “publicprivate” companies, I’d like to encourage all Americans to consider whether they really want to support the destruction of private enterprise.

    Although we can’t stop the confiscation of these private businesses by the government via the “bailouts”, we CAN vote with our wallets and refrain from actively supporting them. This would do FAR more to discourage “nationalizing” private businesses than any other form of protest could possibly achieve.

  • avatar
    tparkit

    Mikey writes:
    The mandate of the UAW is to obtain the best possible deal for the membership,and they did just that.

    @airhen The UAW is not in the buisness of buiding Jeeps.Chrysler employees,some of which are represented by the UAW build Jeeps. If you like Jeeps,by all means buy a Jeep.

    Nice try, Mikey. The UAW owns (stole) 55% of Chrysler. I wouldn’t buy a Government Motors/UAW product if it was the last car on earth.

  • avatar
    johnthacker

    The mandate of the UAW is to obtain the best possible deal for the membership,and they did just that.

    However, the best possible deal also probably involves not having the company totally fail. Though I suppose they think that they can count on the government to bail them out forever, even if they refuse to show up to oversight meetings.

    The mandate of the GM and Chrysler executives is to obtain the best possible deal for themselves, but usually helping the company succeed helps themselves out a bit too.

  • avatar
    TexN

    You beat me to it, P71_CrownVic. Damn this job that distracts me from commenting on blogs.

  • avatar
    paris-dakar

    Why should the UAW show up to so-called ‘oversight’ meetings? The whole point of this Bail Out was precisely to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

    They haven’t hesitated in the past to shove both middle-fingers directly into the face of anyone who has questioned their soverign right to taxpayer’s $$$. Why should they start now?

  • avatar
    mikey

    At any of the contractual talks,that took place in the last 40 years,management could have drawn a line in the sand. However thier own ineptitude and greed prevented such action.

    Management made the lousy decisions. Management ignored the threat from Toyota, Honda,Datsun,and VW. Management approved the obscene executive compensation,while market share shrunk,and bonus money grew. Management allowed too many dealers which in turn systematically f—ked thousands of customers. Management allowed sub par quality control. Management destroyed the storied name plates,Pontiac,Oldsmobile,and Caddy. Management, and only management, bear the responsibility,for the position that these two former industrial giants find themselves today.

    I’ll stand by my earlier statement. The unions fought tooth and nail for the membership that elected them. We just wanted our piece of the pie,and we got it. Thirty six years of great wages and benifits. A sweet retirement package, and a comfortable monthly pension.[for now anyway]
    So you will have to excuse me if I don’t jump on the union bashing band wagon.

    I sense a little anti union sentiment here. I’m cool with that. Every body is entitled to an opinion, myself included.

  • avatar
    tparkit

    Mikey writes:The unions fought tooth and nail for the membership that elected them. We just wanted our piece of the pie,and we got it. Thirty six years of great wages and benifits. A sweet retirement package, and a comfortable monthly pension.Thanks for coming clean, Mikey. I’d offer you a piece of everyone else’s pie, too, but I see you are already eating it. Of course you are cool with that.

  • avatar
    paris-dakar

    I’ll stand by my earlier statement. The unions fought tooth and nail for the membership that elected them. We just wanted our piece of the pie,and we got it. Thirty six years of great wages and benifits. A sweet retirement package, and a comfortable monthly pension.

    You left out the part where the taxpayers are now on the hook for your ‘sweet package’.

  • avatar
    Aqua225

    Airhen,

    As a Jeep owner, and futhermore, a owner of two GM products, Up until the weekend before last, I was living that mantra: no Chrysler or GM product till the loans were a done deal, and they were once again viable.

    However, it all changed when I took my Jeep in for service. I realized that you and I, the consumer, will never make a GM/Chrysler member of management, or a UAW member, pay for their lack of everything necessary in the car industry.

    The UAW and bad management will get bail out after bail out, at least until both GM and Chrysler are so small, that when they bankrupt again, they just won’t matter to the economy.

    The people who will take the hit are the dealers. My local dealers, GM and Chrysler alike, work very hard to keep customers. I see their businesses flagging, because of the economy, and I haven’t been able to “stick to my guns”, because those guys won’t get bailed out. They are stuck in the game under that dealership franchise until either they can clear their lots or get closed by the gov’t at great personal expense.

    So in a nutshell, the people responsible will continue to be bailed out. The people out there representing the product, they are the ones that are suffering through this.

    I will buy my next car like I have always bought cars until today: I’ll buy the one I like (unless it comes out that UAW workers sacrifice children to their machines each day before the start of the next shift). This may or may not be to the GM/Chrysler dealer’s advantage, but it won’t necessarily be to their disadvantage either.

  • avatar
    WildBill

    Aqua makes a good point, don’t screw your local economy because you are mad at Detroit (and DC!). If the dealer is giving you a good deal and/or good service, continue to work with them by throwing your parts/repair/body shop/used vehicle business their way. Stay away from the bad ones. Lobby your representatives to get the gov. out of the auto business and quit favoring the UAW (as if!).

  • avatar
    GS650G

    Oversight? What? The UAW is entitled to all that money and more. Building cars is a sacred task that reflects national sovereignty and the American way.

    If it costs tens of billions to maintain the status quo then just shut up and pay it. You can thank the UAW later.

    I was actually considering an American made vehicle this year. Forget it. I’m going with their competition and driving another small nail into the box.

    Don’t tell us to be patriotic and buy American, we already gave at the office.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Corey Lewis: Funny the ILX right now is $26,5 and has 201hp. You think the Integra (its replacement) can rustle up...
  • ajla: The lighter-duty GM 3.0L is only $1K more than the 5.3L V8. And the diesel gets a better transmission. I still...
  • Steve Biro: Is it truly rev matching… or just obnoxious rev hanging due to emissions controls?
  • golden2husky: The problem with the intake gasket was widespread. The material was not compatible with the new OAT...
  • ToolGuy: In which Bob Lutz boasts of having added approximately $1,000 per vehicle to GM’s cost structure:...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber