DetN Bailout Report: White House Forced Rapid Bankruptcy, UAW Refused Hourly Pension Freeze

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

On October 13th of last year, when TTAC’s Bailout Watch clocked in at a mere 115 entries, GM’s then-CEO Rick Wagoner and board members Erskine Bowles and John Bryan approached the Treasury for a “temporary” bailout. Not that we knew it at the time. “In this period of continued uncertainty in the markets, you really can’t rule out anything,” said GM spokesfolks at the time. “Stand by for another big public investment in a failing firm,” warned TTAC. As subsequent events proved, the rush to bailout had already begun. Funny then, that we’re only now learning some of the most crucial details of the chaotic maneuvering of late 2008, thanks to a Detroit News investigation. Though the industry’s disastrous hearings before congress nearly derailed the deal, the initial strategy of approaching the White House would prove to be the key to the eventual bailout. In fact, President Bush was ready to provide $25b to GM, Chrysler, GMAC and Chry-Fi on December 19, only to have talks with the two finance firms break down. Instead, GM and Chrysler were given $9.4b and $4b respectively, with GMAC getting $7b 10 days later and Chrysler receiving $1.5b in January.

This staggered bailout, with multiple tranches soon came to symbolize the indecisiveness that would characterize the entire rescue effort. For example, the idea of a merger between GM and Chrysler was being discussed up to late October, when it was abandoned by GM, only to be brought back to the table early in 2009. Twice. The DetN explains:

Henderson rebuffed overtures from Chrysler in February, but two months later he raised with the task force the possibility of acquiring parts of Chrysler, if a deal with Fiat faltered. “If the Chrysler deal doesn’t go through, we’re interested in some pieces of Chrysler,” Henderson said, according to a person familiar with the situation. “We’re interested in Jeep. We’re interested in a couple of the powertrains.” GM was most interested in Chrysler’s jewels: the Jeep brand, Dodge trucks and minivans. “Fritz’s view on the Ram was, it’s a brand new Ram. You run it for five years for cash and not do a new one,” said a person involved in the talks. Also under consideration in GM’s corporate mind: eliminating Chrysler’s dealer network, and selling Chryslers at GM dealerships.

Several members of Obama’s auto team (including Steve Rattner) remained in favor of an American Leyland solution, until someone did the math and realized that a GM-Chrysler merger would be more of a Canadian Leyland affair. Most of the jobs that would have been saved in such a scenario would have been located in Canada, while it would only have saved about a quarter of Chrysler’s US jobs. The task force quickly came to see a GM-Chrysler merger as a worst-case scenario in the event of a failure of the Fiat option, even though it could have been a cheaper option.

As both companies began to move towards bankruptcy, the government task force took a firm hand in guiding the processes. Even though GM had foreseen a somewhat different bankruptcy experience than the government had planned.

GM planned to present a 300-page slide presentation at the first meeting. The Obama team wasn’t interested. Instead, they went through 15 major issues and assigned deadlines to specific people. With the efficiency of a drill sergeant, task force member and Wall Street vet Harry Wilson, went through each item and got a commitment of when it would be completed. GM filed for bankruptcy June 1. CFO Ray Young said that due to its complex accounting system, GM couldn’t exit by Aug. 31 or even Sept. 30, the end of a quarter. Wilson was incredulous: GM would lose at least $100 million a week during bankruptcy, and would be willing to incur as much as $1 billion in additional losses, because it couldn’t resolve accounting issues. “I can’t think of a problem in the world I can’t solve for a $1 billion,” Wilson said, according to participants.

The government task force also held secret talks to sell GM’s bankrupt supplier Delphi to financier Carl Icahn, which fell apart when Icahn held out for a better deal. The UAW was no better of a partner in the sacrifice-sharing department. GM had asked the UAW to freeze its hourly pension plan, a move that the union refused point-blank. Could the government have pushed the union to accept GM’s offer? Perhaps, but the will clearly wasn’t there. And UAW President Ron Gettelfinger was standing tough, even with the fate of the entire industry on the line: he actually walked out of one meeting with Fiat’s Sergio Marchionne.

None of these revelations carry the explosive power they would have had they been made public during the course of bailout deliberations. In retrospect, though, they provide a few more wrinkles to the bailout narrative. The battle over the bailout, as such, is over. The taxpayers will take a bath on the adventure, no matter what. But by studying the events of the last 15 months, we may yet learn valuable lessons about government support for an industry that could well end up needing more.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 11 comments
  • PrincipalDan PrincipalDan on Nov 24, 2009

    Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I wouldn't have minded a "Canadian Leyland" as this article called it, but I don't trust the incompetents at GM to run it. In fact (and yes I am a daily reader of this site and have seen Fiat's slide presentations) I would have trusted Fiat more to run the Leyland operation, taking over ALL of GM and Chrysler, with only the strong surviving, destroying Chrysler's dealer network. I know many predict Economic Apocalypse if such a thing were to happen but I am a firm believer that these should have been REAL bankruptcies with plants and product being auctioned off to the highest bidders. These two companies are still burning cash as if they were almost in their pre-bankruptcy state. They are engines of wealth destruction right now, not engines of wealth creation. Which is what companies are supposed to exist to do.

  • Jackc10 Jackc10 on Nov 24, 2009

    I spent many years in the minor league of local government. There is one truism I learned that applies at other levels, especially in this instance. "Nothing good happens to the public when the door is closed." The above article is a splendid example. We , hoi polloi, were kept in the dark. Imagine the outrage beyond Detroit metro and the UAW halls.

  • Honda1 Unions were needed back in the early days, not needed know. There are plenty of rules and regulations and government agencies that keep companies in line. It's just a money grad and nothing more. Fain is a punk!
  • 1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
  • Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
  • MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.
  • MaintenanceCosts I don't have an opinion on whether any one plant unionizing is the right answer, but the employees sure need to have the right to organize. Unions or the credible threat of unionization are the only thing, history has proven, that can keep employers honest. Without it, we've seen over and over, the employers have complete power over the workers and feel free to exploit the workers however they see fit. (And don't tell me "oh, the workers can just leave" - in an oligopolistic industry, working conditions quickly converge, and there's not another employer right around the corner.)
Next