As I observe the contrived struggle between the Democrat Congress and the CEOs of the Big 3 and the UAW, I shake my head in puzzlement as to why forced unionization still seems to make sense to so many people. Few in the mainstream media are discussing the incestuous relationship between the UAW and the Democrat Party, who are falling all over themselves to find a way to give this $25 billion to save the unions, all the while trying to appear to NOT be in the back pocket of this group who funneled over $1.3 million to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle. I watched part of the hearings the other day and was cheering “Bob Corker for President in 2012!!” when the Republican Senator from Tennessee asked the following piercing and forthright questions to the 3 CEOs and Ron Gettelfinger.

CORKER:
Yes, Mr. Nardelli had a representative in our office earlier today that was sharing that, even when they’re operating, even when they’re not making cars, when there’s not a demand for cars, in their plants, they have to operate at 80 percent regardless. And I’d like for you to acknowledge whether that’s true or not. And then I’d like to ask you, Mr. Gettelfinger, why that would be the case.
NARDELLI:
Senator, I’m not sure when you say operate at 80 percent, if you’re suggesting that we have to…
CORKER:
I understand you have agreements in place. Mr. Jim Press was in my office earlier today and explaining that — that, in fact, even when your plants are not needed, they have to operate. And there — there have to be some issues that still cause you to lose money unnecessarily.
NARDELLI:
Maybe what he was referring to, Senator, is that there is a contractual obligation that, when we have to idle a facility, that we do have to continue to pay wages at about 95 percent. I think Ron could be more specific than that.
CORKER:
That seems kind of problematic to me — I mean just on the surface. And it seems to me that you’re asking us for $25 billion to support a clause that in no other business in this country would be tolerated.
And I understand the good job Mr. Gettelfinger is doing on behalf of the employees that are not working but still being paid, but I find it very difficult that you’d be in here asking us for $25 billion, which we know is just the beginning, when you have an agreement in place like that that causes you to have to pay 95 percent of the workers that are not working.:
Yes, Mr. Nardelli had a representative in our office earlier today that was sharing that, even when they’re operating, even when they’re not making cars, when there’s not a demand for cars, in their plants, they have to operate at 80 percent regardless. And I’d like for you to acknowledge whether that’s true or not. And then I’d like to ask you, Mr. Gettelfinger, why that would be the case.
NARDELLI:
Senator, I’m not sure when you say operate at 80 percent, if you’re suggesting that we have to…
CORKER:
I understand you have agreements in place. Mr. Jim Press was in my office earlier today and explaining that — that, in fact, even when your plants are not needed, they have to operate. And there — there have to be some issues that still cause you to lose money unnecessarily.
NARDELLI:
Maybe what he was referring to, Senator, is that there is a contractual obligation that, when we have to idle a facility, that we do have to continue to pay wages at about 95 percent. I think Ron could be more specific than that.
CORKER:
That seems kind of problematic to me — I mean just on the surface. And it seems to me that you’re asking us for $25 billion to support a clause that in no other business in this country would be tolerated.
And I understand the good job Mr. Gettelfinger is doing on behalf of the employees that are not working but still being paid, but I find it very difficult that you’d be in here asking us for $25 billion, which we know is just the beginning, when you have an agreement in place like that that causes you to have to pay 95 percent of the workers that are not working.

Are you yelling “Bob Corker in 2012!” now, too?

Another general point about Michigan. Michigan is not a right-to-work state; in other words, it is a forced-unionization state. Companies opening new plants or factories are NOT opening them in the 28 forced unionization states. They are making a beeline to states like South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, and the 19 other states that are productive and successful. Have you noticed that the increasing number of governors that are crawling to Washington on hands and knees begging for bailouts of their own states are heads of forced unionization states? California, Michigan, Pennsylvania. You certainly don’t see Texas, Florida, Kansas, Tennessee, or Georgia governors with their hands out. There is a simple reason and it is completely wrapped in the issue of unionization.

I am not naïve enough to think that it will ever happen, but I dream about the day that the electorate in the forced unionization states would have the ability to change via the voting booth their states’ status in this regard and have the chance to make their states, companies, and citizens magnets for job creation, prosperity, freedom, and economic growth. Until then, people will have to vote with their feet, uprooting their families and moving to states where they are free to work where they please, associate with whom they please, and donate to the politicians and causes in which they believe. The impending demise of the secret union ballot will only increase economic bleeding – nay, hemorraghing – until loud voices of reason bring this danger to the forefront of the political discussion.