Bailout $70/hr Union Workers?

.... not exactly. Jon Cohn at TNR has been doing a great job of debunking that misleading number (here and here). There are reasons to be against the bailout, but $70/hr labor isn't one of them. Essentially, UAW workers get on average $28/hr (about $62K/yr) - as opposed to non-union transplant car companies (say in Kentucky or Mississippi or Alabama) that pay on average $25/hr. The $70 figure comes from adding up all the retiree benefits that the Big 3 owe due to the fact that they've been around for 100yrs and have a ton of retired employees to take care of. The transplant companies haven't even been around long enought to produce retirees! (And - because they're non-union they're benefits are most likely lower). Furthermore, the UAW and the Auto Makers came to an agreement in '02 (I think) where the UAW would pay for retiree health care and benefits through a union-run trust fund partially funded by the Big 3. When it takes full effect, around 2011, the Big 3 will have those costs off their books and will have competitive labor costs with the Transplant companies.

Now, none of this helps the fact that the Big 3 are selling cars that nobody wants to buy ... which is a whole 'nother problem.

Feel free to draw any conclusions on employee-based health care, or corporate responsibility or unions from this as you will ... but the situation seems to be at least partially the product of the Big 3 traditionally offering a good job with good benefits and taking care of their workers PLUS the companies' 100+yr success PLUS the fact that these obligations can't be met in a recession.