Chances dwindle on bailout plan for automakers. So shrieks today's New York Times. Obstructionist Republican forces in Congress, even in this lame duck session, plan to sacrifice heavy manufacturing in the United States to make a point. Think of it as Republican tough love -- destroy manufacturing (and the village it sustains) to save it.
Those big, bad auto companies have only themselves to blame for their predicament, claims Senator Richard Shelby. If they hadn't bent to the demands of unions and the appetites of consumers things would be better for the industry. Shelby wraps it up neat and tidy in a statement, “The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem but their problem.” That is to say, you're on your own, suckers.
It may not be a national problem yet, but if one or all of them go down, it will most certainly become a national problem. Millions of jobs will be lost, devastating entire communities and hurting millions of families and children.
Even if you agree that bowing to consumer-driven SUVmania of the last ten years combined with decades of overly generous compensation for union members weakened automakers' current financial position, it is still lunacy to advocate letting the Big Three go down in flames. These aren't just companies who can't make it, companies with bad business models that deserve to take the consequences of bad decisions. These companies form the core of American manufacturing. The Big Three are in fact thousands of small companies (parts suppliers and related businesses) located across the country employing millions of people.
This manufacturing infrastructure -- the Big Three and the thousands of small companies that supply them located in nearly every state -- can become the foundation of a national green energy economy. And government incentives could move development forward. This could actually be a win-win situation -- a chance for redemption rather than eternal damnation. A critically-ill Big Three could be ready to trade planned obsolescense for sustainability, to see the error of their ways and move ahead into a green future.
But if you are stuck in a punitive paternalism, like the GOP's minions, the only option is total destruction. Sure, that'll teach 'em.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
God this pisses me off! I am in a union and I understand that they have their problems, but I am so sick of the tons of money getting dumped on executives at the expense of the people who actually make the freaking product. I hate this "be happy that you have a job" mindset that always ends up screwing the workers. If the execs and CEOs didn't get "golden parachutes", then okay I guess. But why in the hell are we blaming the unions when we should be questioning the wisdom of paying six or seven figures to the guys who sit in the offices all day. (Yeah, I know they make "big decisions", but still).
Good point, Teacher Patti: But why in the hell are we blaming the unions when we should be questioning the wisdom of paying six or seven figures to the guys who sit in the offices all day.
By the same token, why aren't we questioning the wisdom of paying six figure salaries with generous pensions and lifetime health care to the politicians who hold our livelihoods in their hands?
Really compelling headline. I hadn't made the connection between the strategy of union busting on a macro-level and Paulson's "f*ck you" to car makers.
Macro eff-you-nomics? Yep.
Patti, Your point about exec salaries being too high may be valid but when you compare it to the amount of money the union pension system is costing the car companies its barely a drop in the bucket. Trying to equate the failure of the automakers to salaries of executives is like trying to say Oprah will miss the dime she dropped on the street the other day. Its just not big enough to have an effect. As a teacher in the California Teachers Association I see the greed of the union everyday. 50 years of UAW forcing outrageous contracts on the companies has driven the industry to bankruptcy. Companies that dont have these union issues seem to be doing fine. Most liberals I know will blow off my oppinion and thats fine, but it wont change the fact that as long as the auto union is in its present form the big 3 auto companies will continue to bleed red ink. A bailout will only delay the death of these companies.
The union didn't force the auto companies to give generous pension and retirement benefits to non-union white collar workers. The union did set the precedent for employees to expect a retirement with dignity -- a livable pension and health care. In an attempt to right the ship, the Big Three have not only shed union labor and associated costs, but the white collar legacy costs as well. On the macro level we are looking at the question of caring for our elders. Some people will be able to save for retirement, others will not. What do we value as a society? Are some people more worthy of care in old age? Do we punish those who could barely scrape by and were unable to save for old age? Or do we collectively agree that society is responsible for honoring our elders regardless of their accomplishment as young people?
The Big Three cannot afford to care for all their elderly, but those agreements were made in a time when we collectively agreed that our elderly were valued and deserved dignity. Now, we seem to be heartlessly saying, "screw you and good luck."
This bespeaks a profound erosion of trust and common values in our culture. Are We in this together anymore or has it really devolved to "every man for himself?"
Good point Kathy! Hey--and I just remembered how, a few years ago, the MI legislature somehow didn't vote to give themselves a raise, but then a raise automatically kicked in. Do I have this right or am I, as a lame duck once said, misremembering? :)
Right on re: pensions and the elderly...we seem to have this "I got mine, now you get yours" attitude towards pensions and care for the elderly that I find quite disturbing.
Post a Comment