Quote Originally Posted by maladroit
it was impossible in the deadline required to get republican approval of the bailout
It could have been made part of the agreement, to renegotiate...

i agree and so does mr gettelfinger who said last week: ??Concessions, I used to cringe at that word. But now, why hide it? That??s what we did.?...the squabblers were in the senate whose sense of fairness was unbalanced:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/bu...prod=permalink
Obviously not, otherwise the bailout would not have failed...

the foreign automakers were selling cars like it was 2004 for *years* after detroit saw their sales slide...
Who cares what they were doing.

detroit is begging for a bailout while the foreign automakers are not because detroit is poorly managed...nobody is selling as much cars now that the bush administration kickstarted a global economic crisis, but the foreign automakers will likely survive the downturn without passing their begging buckets for a whip-round
There have been multiple auto bailout happening around the world.

that's last year's news...the UAW made significant concessions since then
Such as? Dr. Morici wrote this piece in response to the last major modifications made to UAW compensation via GM. Ford and Chrysler soon followed. Yet you recall the bold red highlight, the pact only reduced new employee compensation liability on behalf of the big three. Existing employees were and are still "on the books". Anything but overall cost reduction can not be considered significant, as the alternative is bankruptcy where concessions will be made a reality.

They have been drawing up this bill for a few weeks. The UAW has been notified prior and decided not to agree to an immediate arbitration hearing which would renegotiate wages to an acceptable level.