You'll notice the article you linked to has a heading of "OPINION"....you do that a lot. You don't care how much sense the opinion represents...as long as it agrees with yours.Do you have any "facts" as to why he was ousted? I am interpreting the events using logic. You DO know that Obama stood a hundred years of bankruptcy law on its head to protect the UAW, right?
Where did that money go? Mainly, it went to paying off debts owed by GM and Chrysler, and – in an historic distortion of our bankruptcy proceedings – to securing the pensions and livelihoods of UAW workers. It turns out the real debt was that of Mr. Obama to organized labor, which had ponied up some $400 million to help him defeat John McCain.
The Obama administration strong-armed the auto companies’ creditors into accepting undeniably unfair terms – terms that saw pensions obliterated for non-union workers but saved for those carrying a UAW card. Terms that saw non-UAW shops close but UAW factories stay open. Terms that doled out ownership in GM with political favoritism as a guiding principle.
These charges are not at issue. In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.
https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/17/Obamas-Auto-Bailout-Was-Really-a-Hefty-Union-Payoff
The alterenatives to what happened were that bond holders could collect their share of what money was made by parting out the company. A few thousand bond holders get some portion of their investment, but 1 million workers lose their jobs. The fact is that if those bond holders had held on to the equity shares they got in the transaction they'd have made out far better than the 25% of their investment they'd have gotten in a liquidation.
You still have not offered any evidence that Waggoner was forced out because of a demand from the UAW, so that is pure conjecture.
So what would a million workers have cost the federal government if they went on unemployment, food stamps and other forms of federal and state welfare?