The unions are a red herring in this. Don't take your eye off the ball folks.
Nobody was complaining about union wages when GM was selling a shitload of Hummers and netting 10K apiece on them.
The $70/hour figure is overblown propaganda. That number includes all retiree benefits. The reason retiree benefits are paid out of today's profits is because GM didn't set aside enough money to cover those benefits years ago when things were rosy for them.
That isn't the retirees fault and they shouldn't be punished for GM's failures today.
Pensions and retiree health care are deferred compensation. The union could have taken higher wages back in the day, but instead took lower wages along with pensions and health care.
Look at it this way. Let's say I worked for IBM for 30 years, and during that time I saved 10% of my income in a 401(k) plan. Now that I'm retired that 401(k) is worth $1 million, and it's all of my money, my nest egg.
But now, 10 years after I retire, IBM is having trouble, so they come and seize half of my 401(k) money, using the argument that I was obviously overpaid when I worked for them, and they need to recoup that now to stay in business.
Asking retirees to take pension and health care cuts now is the exact same thing. They took lower wages in exchange for those benefits. The fact that GM didn't set aside enough money in the good times to cover those benefits isn't the union's fault.
Also, FWIW, the UAW has already agreed to major concessions in the last round of contract negotiations. The new contract, which will take effect in 2010, will put GM's labor costs per car within $250 of Toyota and Honda's.
The big 3 are basically saying they need a bridge loan to get them through until the new contracts take place. Asking the union to give up even more now isn't the way to go.
They've already taken their haircut, now it's time for the bond holders to take theirs.
