> So with the UAW about to control 55% of Chrylser, and the U.S. gov
> likely to take a majority interest in GM (with the UAW holding a large
> stake as well), this means the effective socialization, at least in
> potential and/or theory, of a large chunk of the U.S. auto sector.
> What does this mean? Does anyone know what to do with it? Or is this
> just lemon socialism on a very large scale? Has anyone thought about
> this?
There's been nothing in the coverage I've seen so far about the actual governance mechanisms. My understanding is that the pilots' union owned a majority of United Airlines after the buyout there, but the contract provided for a byzantine system for electing the board which ensured that the union could never have direct control. Generally in these deals, US unions haven't been interested in actually running the company, so I doubt the UAW fought for real control in this one. And from the broader political point of view, there's something unappealing about workers'/union control being associated with failing firms in declining industries, no? It would be one thing if they ended up controlling an entire industry, but one-and-a-half laggard companies in a hyper-competitive global car market? It's hard to see what's to be gained from control in this particular case. Though I'd like to be wrong and I'm interested to hear what Sam Gindin might say.
SA