Do all that and you would still have crappy management at the top.

If GM goes chapter 11, how many people will buy a car where the warrantee might not be backed, parts may not be available and resale value is in the toilet. They'll buy something else.

So now, define American made. Toyota makes almost a million cars a year here. Would they be eligible?

Next, put all the sins of the big three together and compare that to the debacle of the banking industry who caused the meltdown in the first place. We are giving them 30 times as much with a blank check.

The bailout is necessary, but on their terms. Huge concessions from management. No perks. Probably a shake up IN management. Specific guidelines on how the companies can move toward a more sensible salable product. Some concessions from the union too, but in return, all pensions must be fully funded. Any shortfall in funding, made good with company stock, voting shares. And, until the investment is paid back, the government retains an ownership stake in the companies and seats on the board.

While likely more important on the construction site, flexibility is important in any modern industry (in my opinion). I feel like this article from Time has been the best discussion of the auto industry problems in years. This is a little older, but I would argue even more applicable now that the big 3 are having problems.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004876-1,00.html

I just don't know that I buy into the misleading or fraudulent part when it comes to unions. My union experience is somewhat limited but I'll outline it here so that you can understand something about my perspective.

One summer in college working for the state of MN with union membership
A few in-law type relatives working for various union companies/governments
Relatively extensive training on how to deal with union organizers for managers

And from my seat I've watched the unions shoot themselves in the foot again and again. And I think the reason is simple. A union is a business whether or not anyone wants to acknowledge that. And most businesses have to deal with competing demands. Now in my case I deal with clients that want to pay X for their new home and suppliers and sub-contractors that want to get paid Y for the work involved and my job is to work with all parties involved to come out with an agreement that works for everybody. The toughest part is to find that balance that keeps everyone happy and progressing forward. In my opinion unions have stuck to the adversarial model of manager/employee relations far past the useful life of that model. And that is why unions are dying. Had they progressed with the industries they operate alongside I would argue they would be strong and ever growing. The employees aren't the only clients of the union, manufacturers are as well (though they may be secondary). I read an article the other day that discussed the strategy that many foreign manufacturers building in America have employed of locating specifically to minimize the chances of unionization. What if that wasn't the case? What if the unions were cultivating relationships with these companies and discussing the possibility of providing skilled and safe labor without the adversarial relationship AND WERE ABLE TO SELL THAT? People would line up to join the union and work for these manufacturers. Instead the union has alienated the secondary client and worked themselves right out of a job. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that unions should always roll over and give in, but at some point industries learn that they don't have to put up with the union crap.

A few years ago the state workers here in MN went on strike. The state got dozens of calls on the subject. Some number less than 20% were in support of the union. And some number along the lines of 10% were opposed to the union. And something like 70% wanted to know how to get the vacated state jobs. To me that's telling. If that was a private industry the leadership would look at that and say to themselves "damn, look at all this labor we can utilize for the same price we pay now, all we have to do is get rid of the union."

People keep jumping down my throat saying that I'm somehow against a worker making a decent living. That's not the case. I'm saying that the union needs to provide something that a manufacturer/industry can't get for significantly less cost with minimal pain in relocating (within the US) or retooling.