The US government -- as a condition of extending loans to GM -- is prohibiting GM workers from striking. The US government has a financial mess on its hands. It's abusive, as a condition for a bailout, for workers to be barred from striking.

Comments at truthout.

Not all strikes or slowdowns are illegal. Non-GM workers are not (yet) expressly barred from taking to the streets, striking in support of the GM workers, and refusing to cooperate reckless US Congress which has turned a blind eye to the economy.

American workers have the leverage. Without economic activity, there is no revenue, and the US government would not have the financial leverage to deny other rights.

 

Striking is a basic right, especially when oppressive economic conditions can mask abusive practices. Congress needs to be held to account for its malfeasance. We not required to cooperate with those who refuse to meet their legal obligations, will not assert their oath, and have let this country slide into this spreading crisis.

The US Congress -- through these loans -- has no authority over workers who are not recieving bailout money. Non-GM workers are free to strike to oppose Congress, these loan provisions and support GM workers.

We can openly discuss new systems of oversight and governance for the US. Members of Congress have been reckless and irresponsibily managing the economy. They share responsibilility for the breakdown in oversight. The public must used the prospect of strikes as the needed leverage to hold Congress to account. We must be prepared to walk if Members of Congress refuse to take responsibility for the mess they helped create with their malfeasance.

It's arrogant for Members of Congress and their staff to agree to conditions that puts the responsibilty for the Member of Congress malfeasance on the backs of union workers with "no strike" provisions.

• Non-GM workers can go on strike to show their support
• Members of Congress who support these loan provisions can be confronted
• The tunnels across the US border can be clogged with excess traffic in a show of support
• Management and unions should reject future US government loans, and let these companies go into bankruptcy for the needed restructuring

American workers, international corporations and foreign unions should reject coercive US government loans which reward incompetence, and prohibit workers from holding management accountable.

Manufactured Problem A Pretext For Subsequent Abusive Standards

Notice the shell geam of abuse, similar to the abuses after 9-11. This bailout is rewarding management for incompetent management practices; and holding out the prospect of "bigger financial problems" unless the auto industry was bailed out.

Attached with that candy is a poison pill. This condition smacks of the same reckless clauses within the Patriot Act which opened the door to abusive, intrusive FBI NSLs, warrantless interrogation, rendition to Eastern Europe, FISA violations, and other war crimes against civilians.

Nobody should be threatened with "adverse economic consequences unless they cooperate with coercive assistance." That's extortion. The abuse is, despite the cooperation, the abusive loan provision removing, in effect, the needed worker leverage to challenge the management abuses. Unions are unions; they're not getting CEO bonuses for driving the company into the ground.

This unfair condition prohibits strikers from putting pressure on management to responsibly work within the existing US government loan terms. As the economy continues to deteriorate, the very conditions warranting a strike will increase, but workers will have less discretion to protest the oppressive management practices.

Public Support

The GM workers and other union members need our support. The GM workers may not be allowed to strike, but this does not prevent others -- not associated with GM or companies that have agreed to prohibit strikes -- from forming independent picket lines, striking in the place of oppressed workers, and taking the worker's grievances to the streets.

The public should remind Members of Congress that it is reckless for them to not let the auto companies go into bankruptcy, continue operations under court oversight, and permit union workers the right to strike. Bankruptcy would not shut down the parts industry, but put court pressure on the companies to restructure.

This loan provision removes the needed worker pressure on management which Congress will not impose. This "no strike" provision is proof Congress is not serious about conducting oversight, nor responsibly restructure the company, but abuse power as a smokescreen from Congressional malfeasance.

The public should openly discuss rejecting future US government bailouts; and forcing management to go into bankruptcy. Workers should not be required to live under the cloud created by an incompetent Congress and reckless management.

These loan conditions are unacceptable. Until Congress agrees to remove these clauses, all Americans should discuss whether the non-GM workers should create new picket lines, and bring the US Congress and incompetent US management to its knees.

Incompeten0t management and Members of Congress need to be lawfully replaced or removed. American citizens should not be surprised why citizens in other nations reject US government "assistance." It is not real help, but conditioned upon free people giving up their basic rights.

Response To Comments

Bankruptcy would not have necessarily restricted the workers from striking, as these loan covenants do [Emphasis added].

SECTION 9. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; TERMINATION EVENTS.

9.01 Events of Default. Subject to the amendments, restatements, supplements or other modifications in Section 9 of Appendix A, each of the following events shall constitute an event of default (an "Event of Default") hereunder:

. . .

(vi) any labor union or collective bargaining unit shall engage in a strike or other work stoppage

. . .

SECTION 9. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; TERMINATION EVENTS.

     9.01 Events of Default.

          (u) the failure of the Borrower to comply with any of the terms and provisions of the Warrant Agreement or the Warrant.

One argument behind the US government bailout was the company could avoid bankruptcy if they accept this bailout and work with Congress. However, the US government is using  bankruptcy-threats to induce concessions:

Abusive Leverage re Strike Provisions

• If you don't accept this loan, you'll go into bankruptcy;
• It's desirable to avoid bankruptcy, and this loan will do this
  
• You must accept this bailout to avoid bankruptcy
• If you go on strike, we'll force you into bankruptcy
• Unless you agree to these terms, a strike will force you into bankruptcy

This is the same as using speculative, future outcomes -- which may or may not happen tomorrow -- as an inducement to extract certain concessions today:

Unacceptable US Government, Management Agreement

• Dissuade workers from exercising their rights
• Inducing people to quickly agree to unacceptable restrictions
• Induce people that speedy action will avoid bad consequences; then turning around and saying because those agreements exist, we'll use the prospect of bad consequences to extract additional concessions

The Treasury and Congress have agreed to use the threat of bankruptcy to dissuade a needed worker challenge to the management: A strike. The illusions is that bankruptcy is something to be avoided. No, it's desirable because it would take Congress out of the picture, inject the courts into the oversight, and force management to restructure.

These are bridge loans, and there is insufficient time for the company to restructure -- outside bankruptcy -- to avoid another bailout. There is not enough time for these companies, with these bridge loans in the middle of the deteriorating economic conditions -- to restructure, generate cashflows, and continue as a going concern.

When Congress and management agree to these terms, non-GM workers should take notice: The time to exercise their rights is now. The prospect that the company might go into bankruptcy is no longer relevant: The fact that the management needs a bailout means the bankruptcy is all but certain. Management wants to use a leverage to extract additional concessions from workers.

This loan covenant puts a gun to the head of workers and says, "If you exercise your rights, you're going to force the company to suffer consequences we're hoping to avoid." This needed pressure is what the management needs, especially as the economic situation deteriorates with this looming deadline.

Missing the point: The article you've narrowly relied on doesn't capture the whole picture, and you've ignored the options which non-GM workers have the power, now, without any fear of retaliation through loan covenants, of exercising.

You misrepresented the result: A strike would not cause GM to default, the Treasury enforcement of the loan covenants would trigger the default. Congress and Treasury are hoping to put the burden on the workers for what is needed: Bankruptcy restructuring, outside Congress, and under the court review. If treasury is serious about affording protections to workers, then it should, if there is a strike, not enforce the loan covenant linked with a strike.

To suggest "the UAW has tremendous power over GM in that a strike would cause GM to default." contradicts the premise behind the Treasury loan covenant: Any work stoppage would mean Treasury could recall the loan. Whether GM has the ability to repay that loan is certain: It does not.

The issue is what can non-GM workers do to assist; and whether non-GM workers should or should not feel helpless. There is something GM workers can have confidence: They will have support, regardless the impact of not being able to strike.

As to the dubious claim that there is or isn't a "ban" from striking, the Marionstar is not the only article discussing the topic. This article expressly discredits your assertion that there is "nothing" saying the union members have been banned from striking:

"As condition of loan, UAW can't strike against GM"

If the union members go on strike, the GM workers are at risk of losing their livelihood:

"As part of the loan, the U.S. Treasury defined several conditions that would trigger a default, including that "any labor union or collective bargaining unit shall engage in a strike or other work stoppage." If the loans are in default, the Treasury has the power to call them back immediately and force GM into bankruptcy."

The question is whether union members -- before these loans are provided, with these terms -- should or should not agree with the bailouts; or use their power, now, while they still have the right to freely strike, to send a message: "We will not shoulder the burden of failed management."  That's not leverage, but a US government threat to punish the workers for exercising their rights: Without money to pay workers, the workers have no income.

Rather than management taking responsibility for its reckless management, the leadership and Congress seems poised to let Treasury put the consequences on the backs of workers. That is something non-GM workers should consider before they forgo their right to strike. The time to strike is now while management has not agreed to this limitation.