Sunday, November 23, 2008 Toronto

Shades of grey on auto bailout By SUN MEDIA Last Updated: 23rd November 2008

To hear our politicians on Parliament Hill and at Queen’s Park these days, you’d think the auto sector is the only industry in trouble in the face of the global recession.

In fact, hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs over the past few years, not just auto workers.

True, our economy, even while underperforming, will continue to generate other, new jobs -- which is why manufacturing losses can’t be looked at in complete isolation.

That said, the overall news is grim, with hundreds of thousands of job losses on the horizon.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty noted correctly last week that even if the Big Three automakers escape bankruptcy with government help, the auto sector is going to end up smaller than it was.

Given this reality, one big problem is that neither management nor labour sound as if they believe their own doomsday rhetoric.

How, for example, could auto industry CEOs in the U.S. have been so stupid as to fly into Washington last week on their private jets to testify before Congress for a bail-out?

Symbols are important, and what these CEOs did sent entirely the wrong "business as usual" message to the public.

In Canada, by contrast, GM v-p David Paterson made the company’s case in a letter to the Sun about GM’s efforts to improve its product lines, consistent with the demands of a leaner, greener economy. That, at least, was a relevant argument on whether GM should be bailed out.

That said, why is the auto industry in Canada running to taxpayers first for help, before doing its own due diligence?

Why aren’t union leaders, instead of shrilly insisting "no concessions" even if given a bailout, locked in round-the-clock meetings with management, looking for every possible savings and efficiency before coming to taxpayers for help?

Many Canadians who have lost their jobs, and who don’t have the salaries, benefits or severance protections of auto workers, must be asking themselves: "What about my job security? Why should I help workers who are better off than I am, even paying for their pensions if their companies go bankrupt?"

Simply insisting that the auto sector must survive because it’s too big to fail -- as the Big Three and too many politicians are doing -- isn’t convincing.

Not when almost everyone in the private sector is feeling the pain. (On that score, isn’t it time workers in the public sector started making some sacrifices, too?)

Management and labour need to stop acting as if they have a divine right to a bailout.

They don’t, and if they keep this up, voters may demand of politicians that the auto sector be allowed to die, so that a new one can be built on its ashes -- as devastating as the initial collapse would be for our economy.